&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Industry Point Source Category
m
* ^
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
EPA-821-R-02-016
Washington, DC 20460
August 2002
-------
Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Industry Point Source Category
Christine T. Whitman
Administrator
G. Tracy Mehan, III
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Geoffrey H. Grubbs
Director, Office of Science and Technology
Sheila E. Frace
Director, Engineering and Analysis Division
Marvin Rubin
Chief, Environmental Engineering Branch
Jan Goodwin
Technical Coordinator
Marta Jordan
Project Manager
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
August 2002
-------
Acknowledgments and Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Engineering
and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology. This report was
prepared with the support of Tetra Tech, Inc., Eastern Research Group, Inc.,
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Westat, Inc., and
DynCorp I&ET, under the direction and review of the Office of Science and
Technology.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors,
subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied,
or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of, or the
results of such use of, any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed
in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe
on privately owned rights.
-------
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Legal Authority and Background 1-1
1.1 Legal Authority 1-1
1.2 Clean Water Act 1-1
1.2.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT)—Section 304(b)(l) of the CWA 1-2
1.2.2 Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants
(BCT)—Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA 1-2
1.2.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT)—Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA 1-3
1.2.4 New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA 1-3
1.2.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
(PSES)—Section 307(b) of the CWA 1-4
1.2.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(PSNS)—Section 307(c) of the CWA 1-4
1.3 Section 304 and Consent Decree 1-4
1.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act (REA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) 1-5
1.5 State, Regional, and Municipal Aquatic Animal Production Regulations 1-6
1.5.1 State Regulations 1-6
1.5.1.1 Regulations Dealing Directly with Effluents and Discharges 1-6
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits 1-7
Discharges 1-7
Pesticides 1-7
Waste Handling 1-8
Miscellaneous Permits and Regulations 1-8
1.5.1.2 Regulations Dealing Indirectly with Effluents and Discharges 1-9
Construction and Storm Water 1-9
Disease Control and Protection of Fish and Wildlife Health 1-9
Nonnative Species 1-10
Water Supply 1-10
Miscellaneous Permits and Regulations 1-10
1.5.1.3 Regulations Addressing All Other Types of Aquaculture-Related
Activities 1-12
Possession 1-12
Licensing and Permitting 1-12
Processing 1-12
Inspection 1-13
-------
Contents
Depuration 1-13
Leasing 1-13
Taxes 1-13
Miscellaneous Permits and Regulations 1-13
1.5.2 Federal Regulations 1-15
1.6 Regulatory History of the Concentrated Aquatic Animal
Production Industry 1-17
1.7 References 1-17
Chapter 2 Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation 2-1
2.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 2-1
2.2 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 2-2
2.2.1 Regulatory Implementation of Part 451 Through the NPDES
Permit Program and the National Pretreatment Program 2-2
2.2.1.1 NPDES Permit Program 2-3
2.2.1.2 New Source Performance Standards 2-3
2.2.1.3 Pollutants in Intake Water (Net Limitations) 2-3
2.2.1.4 National Pretreatment Standards 2-4
2.2.2 Applicability of the Proposed Rule 2-4
2.2.3 Summary of the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards 2-6
2.2.3.1 BPT 2-6
Flow-through Systems 2-6
Recirculating Systems 2-7
Net Pen Systems 2-7
2.2.3.2 BCT and BAT 2-7
Flow-through Systems 2-7
Recirculating Systems 2-8
Net Pen Systems 2-8
2.2.3.3 NSPS 2-8
2.3 References 2-14
Chapter 3 Data Collection Activities 3-1
3.1 Summary of Data Collection Activities 3-1
3.1.1 Literature Searches 3-1
3.1.2 Permitting Information 3-2
Permit Compliance System 3-2
Discharge Monitoring Reports 3-2
NPDES Permits 3-5
Summary of NPDES, PCS, and DMR Data 3-6
-------
Contents
3.2 Summary of Aquatic Animal Production Questionnaire Activity 3-7
3.2.1 Background 3-7
3.2.2 Screener Survey 3-8
3.2.2.1 Description of the Screener Survey 3-8
3.2.2.2 Development of Screener Survey Mailing List 3-8
3.2.2.3 Response to the Screener Survey 3-8
3.2.2.4 Preliminary Summary of Data from the Screener Survey 3-9
3.2.3 Detailed Survey 3-11
3.2.3.1 Description of the Detailed Survey 3-11
3.2.3.2 Sample Selection for the Detailed Survey 3-12
3.3 Summary of EPA's Site Visit and Wastewater Sampling Programs 3-12
3.3.1 Site Visits 3-12
3.3.1.1 Site Visit Summary 3-13
3.3.1.2 Comparison of Site Visit Data with 1998 Aquaculture Census 3-16
3.3.2 Wastewater Sampling 3-16
3.3.2.1 Pollutants Sampled 3-17
3.3.2.2 Analytical Methods 3-21
3.4 U.S. Department of Agriculture Data 3-22
3.4.1 1998 Census of Aquaculture 3-22
3.4.2 National Agricultural Statistics Service 3-23
3.4.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Veterinary Services
and the National Animal Health Monitoring System 3-23
3.4.4 Economic Research Service 3-24
3.5 Summary of Other Data Sources 3-24
3.5.1 Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture 3-24
3.5.2 BMP Guidance Documents Developed by Governmental and Other
Organizations 3-25
3.5.2.1 Alabama 3-25
3.5.2.2 Arizona 3-25
3.5.2.3 Arkansas 3-25
3.5.2.4 Florida 3-26
3.5.2.5 Hawaii 3-26
3.5.2.6 Idaho 3-26
3.5.2.7 Other BMP Guidance Documents 3-26
3.5.3 Other Industry-Supplied Data: Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel 3-27
3.5.4 Summary of Public Participation 3-28
3.6 References 3-28
-------
Contents
Chapter 4 Industry Profiles 4-1
4.1 Overview of the Industry 4-1
4.1.1 Development of Federal, State, and Local Hatchery Programs 4-2
4.1.2 Development of Commercial Aquatic Animal Production 4-3
4.2 System Types 4-4
4.2.1 Ponds Systems 4-4
4.2.1.1 Levee Ponds 4-4
4.2.1.2 Watershed Ponds 4-7
4.2.2 Flow-through Systems 4-9
4.2.3 Recirculating Systems 4-10
4.2.4 Net Pens and Cages 4-11
4.2.5 Floating and Bottom Culture Systems 4-12
4.2.6 Other Systems: Alligator Farming 4-13
4.3 Production Description by Species 4-13
4.3.1 Catfish 4-13
4.3.1.1 Production Systems 4-14
Levee Ponds 4-15
Watershed Ponds 4-15
4.3.1.2 Culture Practices 4-15
Feed Management 4-18
Health Management 4-19
4.3.1.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-20
Water Quality in the Production System 4-20
Effluent Characteristics 4-21
Current Industry Effluent Treatment Practices 4-24
4.3.2 Trout 4-25
4.3.2.1 Production Systems 4-26
4.3.2.2 Culture Practices 4-28
Feed Management 4-29
Health Management 4-30
4.3.2.3 Water Quality Management and Current Treatment Practices 4-31
Water Quality Management Practices 4-31
Sludge Treatment and Disposal 4-34
4.3.3 Salmon 4-35
4.3.3.1 Production Systems 4-36
4.3.3.2 Culture Practices 4-38
Production for Release 4-38
Production for Commercial Culture 4-38
Harvest Practices 4-39
Feed Management 4-39
Health Management 4-39
-------
Contents
4.3.3.3 Water Quality Management 4-40
Hatchery Water Quality Characteristics 4-40
Net Pen Water Quality 4-41
Current Treatment Practices in Net Pen Systems 4-43
4.3.4 Striped Bass 4-43
4.3.4.1 Production Systems 4-44
4.3.4.2 Culture Practices 4-45
Hatchery Phase 4-45
Phase I in Ponds 4-45
Phase II in Ponds 4-46
Phase III in Ponds 4-46
Other Systems Used to Culture Hybrid Striped Bass 4-46
Feed Management 4-47
Health Management 4-48
4.3.4.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-49
Pond Systems 4-49
Other Production Systems 4-50
4.3.5 Tilapia 4-50
4.3.5.1 Production Systems 4-51
4.3.5.2 Culture Practices 4-51
Feed Management 4-53
Health Management 4-53
4.3.5.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-53
Pond Systems 4-53
Flow-through Systems 4-54
Recirculating Systems 4-54
4.3.6 Other Finfish 4-55
4.3.6.1 Largemouth Bass 4-55
Production Systems 4-55
Culture Practices 4-56
4.3.6.2 Smallmouth Bass 4-56
4.3.6.3 Carp 4-56
Culture Practices 4-57
4.3.6.4 Flounder 4-57
Production Systems 4-57
Culture Practices 4-58
4.3.6.5 Paddlefish 4-58
Production Systems 4-59
Culture Practices 4-59
4.3.6.6 Sturgeon 4-60
Production Systems 4-60
Culture Practices 4-60
-------
Contents
4.3.6.7 Sunfish Family 4-61
Production Systems 4-62
Culture Practices 4-62
4.3.6.8 Walleye 4-63
Production Systems 4-63
Culture Practices 4-64
4.3.6.9 Yellow Perch 4-65
Production Systems 4-65
Culture Practices 4-65
4.3.7 Baitfish 4-65
4.3.7.1 Production Systems 4-66
4.3.7.2 Culture Practices 4-67
4.3.7.3 Water Quality Management Practices 4-68
4.3.8 Ornamental Fish 4-68
4.3.8.1 Production Systems 4-69
Pond Systems 4-70
Recirculating Systems 4-70
4.3.8.2 Culture Practices 4-70
Feed Management 4-71
Health Management 4-71
4.3.8.3 Water Management Practices 4-72
4.3.9 Shrimp 4-72
4.3.9.1 Production Systems 4-73
4.3.9.2 Culture Practices 4-73
Feed Management 4-74
Health Management 4-74
4.3.9.3 Water Quality Management 4-75
4.3.9.4 Effluent Characteristics and Treatment Practices 4-76
4.3.9.5 Freshwater Prawn 4-78
Production Systems 4-78
Culture Practices 4-79
Feed Management 4-79
Health Management 4-79
Water Characteristics and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-79
4.3.10 Crawfish 4-80
4.3.10.1 Production Systems 4-80
Permanent Ponds 4-80
Rotational Ponds 4-81
Health Management 4-82
4.3.10.2 Effluent Characteristics 4-82
4.3.10.3 Current Effluent Treatment Practices Within the Industry 4-83
VI
-------
Contents
4.3.11 Lobster 4-84
4.3.11.1 Production Systems 4-85
4.3.11.2 Culture Practices 4-85
Feed Management 4-85
Health Management 4-85
4.3.11.3 Water Quality Management Practices 4-86
4.3.12 Molluscan Shellfish 4-87
4.3.12.1 Production Systems 4-88
4.3.12.2 Culture Practices 4-89
Feed Management 4-90
Health Management 4-91
4.3.12.3 Water Quality Management Practices 4-91
4.3.13 Other Aquatic Animal Production (Alligators) 4-91
4.3.13.1 Production Systems 4-93
4.3.13.2 Culture Practices 4-93
Feed Management 4-96
Health Management 4-96
4.3.13.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-96
4.4 Trends in the Industry 4-97
4.5 Aquatic Animal Production Size Categories 4-98
4.6 Industry Definition 4-99
4.7 References 4-99
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards 5-1
5.1 Factor Analysis 5-1
5.1.1 System Type 5-2
5.1.1.1 Pond Systems 5-2
5.1.1.2 Flow-through Systems 5-3
5.1.1.3 Recirculating Systems 5-4
5.1.1.4 Net Pens 5-4
5.1.1.5 Floating and Bottom Culture 5-4
5.1.1.6 Other Facility Types 5-4
5.1.1.7 Summary 5-5
5.1.2 Species 5-5
5.1.3 Facility Age 5-6
5.1.4 Facility Location 5-6
5.1.5 Facility Size 5-6
5.1.6 Feed Type and Feeding Rate 5-6
5.1.7 Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts 5-7
5.1.8 Disproportionate Economic Impacts 5-7
Vll
-------
Contents
5.1.9 Summary of Initial Factor Analysis 5-7
5.2 Proposed Categories 5-7
5.2.1 Flow-through Systems 5-8
5.2.2 Recirculating Systems 5-8
5.2.3 Net Pen Systems 5-8
5.3 References 5-8
Chapter 6 Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern 6-1
6.1 Water Use by System Type 6-1
6.1.1 Pond Systems 6-1
6.1.2 Flow-through Systems 6-2
6.1.3 Recirculating Systems 6-3
6.1.4 Net Pen Systems 6-3
6.1.5 Other Production Systems: Alligators 6-3
6.2 Wastewater Characteristics 6-4
6.2.1 Pond Systems 6-4
6.2.1.1 Catfish 6-4
6.2.1.2 Hybrid Striped Bass 6-5
6.2.1.3 Penaeid Shrimp 6-6
6.2.1.4 Other Species 6-7
6.2.2 Flow-through Systems 6-8
6.2.3 Recirculating Systems 6-10
6.2.4 Net Pen Systems 6-10
6.2.5 Other Production Systems: Alligators 6-11
6.3 Water Conservation Measures 6-11
6.3.1 Pond Systems 6-11
6.3.2 Flow-through Systems 6-12
6.3.3 Recirculating Systems 6-12
6.3.4 Other Production Systems: Alligators 6-12
6.4 Pollutants of Concern 6-13
6.4.1 Characterization of Pollutants of Concern 6-13
6.4.2 Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants 6-14
6.5 Pollutants and Pollutant Loadings 6-14
6.5.1 Sediments and Solids 6-14
6.5.2 Nutrients 6-15
6.5.2.1 Nitrogen 6-16
6.5.2.2 Phosphorus 6-16
6.5.3 Organic Compounds and Biochemical Oxygen Demand 6-17
6.5.4 Metals 6-17
Vlll
-------
Contents
6.6 Special Pollutants 6-17
6.6.1 Pathogens 6-17
6.6.1.1 Human Health Concerns 6-17
6.6.1.2 Aquatic Animal Pathogens 6-18
6.6.2 Nonnative Species 6-20
6.6.2.1 General Impacts 6-20
6.6.2.2 Habitat Alteration 6-21
6.6.2.3 Trophic Alteration 6-21
6.6.2.4 Spatial Alteration 6-21
6.6.2.5 Gene Pool Deterioration 6-21
6.6.2.6 Introduction of Diseases 6-21
6.6.3 Nonnative Species Associated with CAAP Facilities 6-22
6.6.3.1 Atlantic Salmon 6-22
6.6.3.2 Grass Carp 6-23
6.6.3.3 Pacific White Shrimp 6-24
6.6.3.4 Tilapia 6-24
6.6.4 Drugs and Chemicals 6-25
6.6.4.1 FDA-Approved Animal Drugs 6-26
6.6.4.2 Drugs of Low Regulatory Priority 6-29
6.6.4.3 Investigational New Animal Drugs 6-33
6.6.4.4 Registered Pesticides 6-35
6.6.4.5 Summary of Potential Impacts 6-42
Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance 6-42
Biological Impairment 6-42
6.7 References 6-43
Chapter 7 Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry 7-1
7.1 Introduction 7-1
7.2 Best Management Practices 7-1
7.2.1 Feed Management 7-1
7.2.2 Best Management Practices Plan 7-2
7.2.3 Health Screening 7-3
7.2.4 Inventory Control 7-4
7.2.5 Mortality Removal 7-4
7.2.6 Net Cleaning 7-4
7.2.7 Pond Discharge Management 7-5
7.2.8 Rainwater Management 7-5
7.2.9 Siting 7-6
7.2.10 Secondary Containment (Escapement Control) 7-6
7.2.11 Solids Removal BMP Plan 7-7
7.2.12 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan 7-7
-------
Contents
7.3 Wastewater Treatment Technologies 7-7
7.3.1 Aeration 7-7
7.3.2 Biological Treatment 7-8
7.3.3 Constructed Wetlands 7-9
7.3.4 Injection Wells 7-10
7.3.5 Disinfection 7-10
7.3.6 Flocculation/Coagulation Tank 7-11
7.3.7 Filters 7-11
7.3.7.1 Microscreen Filters 7-11
7.3.7.2 Multimedia Filters 7-12
7.3.7.3 Sand Filters 7-12
7.3.8 Hydroponics 7-12
7.3.9 Infiltration/Percolation Pond 7-13
7.3.10 Oxidation Lagoons (Primary and Secondary) 7-14
7.3.11 Quiescent Zones 7-14
7.3.12 Sedimentation Basins 7-15
7.3.13 Vegetated Ditches 7-16
7.3.14 Manure Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 7-17
7.3.14.1 Dewatering 7-17
7.3.14.2 Composting 7-17
7.3.14.3 Land Application 7-17
7.3.14.4 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 7-17
7.2.14.5 Storage Tanks and Lagoons 7-18
7.3.15 Treatment Technologies Observed at EPA Site Visits 7-18
7.4 References 7-21
Chapter 8 Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation 8-1
8.1 Overview of Data Selection 8-1
8.2 Episode Selection for Each Subcategory and Option 8-2
8.2.1 Flow-through Subcategory 8-4
8.2.1.1 Option 1 8-4
8.2.1.2 Option3 8-7
8.2.1.3 Raceways 8-7
8.2.1.4 OLSBs 8-7
8.2.2 Recirculating Subcategory 8-7
8.3 Data Exclusions and Substitutions 8-8
8.4 Data Aggregation 8-9
8.4.1 Aggregation of Filtrate Samples 8-10
8.4.2 Aggregation of Field Duplicates 8-11
8.4.3 Aggregation of Grab Samples 8-12
8.4.4 Aggregation of Data Across Sample Points ("Flow-Weighting") 8-12
-------
Contents
8.5 Overview of Limitations 8-13
8.5.1 Objective 8-14
8.5.2 Selection of Percentiles 8-14
8.5.3 Compliance with Limitations 8-15
8.6 Estimation of the Proposed Limitations 8-17
8.6.1 Calculation of Option Long-Term Averages 8-17
8.6.2 Calculation of Option Variability Factors 8-19
8.6.3 Transfers of Option Variability Factors 8-21
8.6.4 Summary of Steps Used to Derive the Proposed Limitations 8-21
8.7 References 8-22
Chapter 9 Costing Methodology 9-1
9.1 Introduction 9-1
9.1.1 Regulatory Option Summary 9-1
9.1.2 Approach for Estimating Compliance Costs 9-3
9.1.3 Basic Model Assumptions 9-4
9.1.4 Organization of the Cost Chapter 9-5
9.2 Cost Model Structure 9-5
9.2.1 Model Facility Configuration 9-6
9.2.2 Unit Cost of Treatment Technologies or BMPs 9-7
9.2.2.1 Unit Cost Components 9-7
9.2.2.2 General Cost Assumptions 9-7
9.2.3 Frequency Factors 9-7
9.2.4 Output Data 9-8
9.3 Model Facility Configuration 9-8
9.3.1 Flow-through Systems 9-8
9.3.2 Alaska Flow-through Systems 9-11
9.3.3 Recirculating Systems 9-13
9.3.4 Net Pen Systems 9-14
9.4 Unit Cost of Treatment Technologies and BMPs 9-16
9.4.1 Quiescent Zones 9-16
9.4.1.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-16
9.4.1.2 Design 9-17
9.4.1.3 Capital Costs 9-17
9.4.1.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs 9-19
9.4.2 Sedimentation Basins (Gravity Separation) 9-19
9.4.2.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-20
9.4.2.2 Design 9-21
9.4.2.3 Capital Costs: Flow-through Systems 9-22
9.4.2.4 Capital Costs: Recirculating Systems 9-24
-------
Contents
9.4.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Flow-through and
Recirculating Systems 9-24
9.4.3 Solids Control BMP Plan 9-25
9.4.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-25
9.4.3.2 Capital Costs: All System Types 9-25
9.4.3.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: All System Types 9-26
9.4.4 Compliance Monitoring 9-26
9.4.4.1 Flow-through Facilities 9-26
9.4.4.2 Recirculating Systems 9-27
9.4.4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Recirculating Systems 9-27
9.4.5 Feed Management 9-27
9.4.5.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-28
9.4.5.2 Capital Costs: Net Pens 9-28
9.4.5.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Net Pens 9-28
9.4.6 Drug and Chemical Management 9-29
9.4.6.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-29
9.4.6.2 Capital Costs: All Systems 9-29
9.4.6.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: All Systems 9-30
9.4.7 Additional Solids Removal (Solids Polishing) 9-30
9.4.7.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-30
9.4.7.2 Design 9-30
9.4.7.3 Capital Costs: Flow-through and Recirculating Systems 9-31
9.4.7.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Flow-through and
Recirculating Systems 9-31
9.4.8 Active Feed Monitoring 9-32
9.4.8.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-32
9.4.8.2 Capital Costs 9-32
9.4.8.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs 9-32
9.5 Frequency Factors 9-33
9.5.1 Quiescent Zones 9-33
9.5.2 Sedimentation Basin 9-34
9.5.3 BMP Plans 9-34
9.5.4 Feed Management 9-35
9.5.5 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan 9-35
9.5.6 Solids Polishing 9-36
9.5.7 Compliance Monitoring 9-36
9.5.8 Net Pen Active Feed Monitoring 9-36
9.6 Output Data 9-37
9.7 Changes to Costing Methodology 9-37
9.7.1 Background 9-37
9.7.1.1 Pond Systems 9-38
-------
Contents
9.7.1.2 Lobster Pounds 9-38
9.7.1.3 Crawfish 9-38
9.7.1.4 Molluscan Shellfish Production in Open Waters 9-38
9.7.1.5 Aquariums 9-38
9.7.1.6 Alligators 9-39
9.7.2 Modifications to Model Facility Methodology 9-39
9.7.3 Pond Systems 9-40
9.7.4 Flow-through and Recirculating Systems 9-41
9.7.5 Net Pen Systems 9-42
9.8 References 9-43
Chapter 10 Pollutant Loading Methodology 10-1
10.1 Introduction 10-1
10.1.1 Regulatory Options 10-1
10.1.2 Approach for Estimating Loadings 10-2
10.1.3 Basic Model Assumptions 10-4
10.1.3.1 Feed Inputs 10-6
10.1.3.2 Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors 10-6
10.1.3.3 Production System Treatment Trains 10-7
10.2 Loading Model Structure 10-9
10.2.1 Model Facility Configuration 10-9
10.2.2 Unit Loading Modules 10-10
10.2.3 Frequency Factors 10-11
10.2.4 Output Data 10-11
10.3 Model Facility Configuration 10-11
10.3.1 Flow-through Systems 10-11
10.3.1.1 Annual Production 10-12
10.3.1.2 Number of Facilities 10-12
10.3.1.3 Total Flow Rate 10-12
10.3.1.4 Feed Conversion Ratio 10-13
10.3.1.5 Loading Density 10-13
10.3.1.6 Raceway Dimensions 10-13
10.3.1.7 Number of Raceways 10-13
10.3.1.8 Loadings from Raceways 10-14
10.3.2 Alaska Flow-through Systems 10-14
10.3.2.1 Annual Production 10-15
10.3.2.2 Number of Facilities 10-15
10.3.2.3 Total Flow Rate 10-15
10.3.2.4 Feed Conversion Ratio 10-16
10.3.2.5 Loading Density 10-16
10.3.2.6 Raceway Dimensions 10-16
-------
Contents
10.3.2.7 Number of Raceways 10-16
10.3.2.8 Loadings from Raceways 10-16
10.3.3 Recirculating Systems 10-17
10.3.3.1 Annual Production 10-17
10.3.3.2 Number of Facilities 10-18
10.3.3.3 Feed Conversion Ratio 10-18
10.3.3.4 Loading Density 10-18
10.3.3.5 System Volume 10-18
10.3.3.6 Daily Discharge Rate 10-18
10.3.3.7 Loadings from Recirculating Systems 10-19
10.3.4 Net Pen Systems 10-19
10.3.4.1 Annual Production 10-20
10.3.4.2 Number of Facilities 10-20
10.3.4.3 Feed Conversion Ratio 10-20
10.3.4.4 Loading Density 10-20
10.3.4.5 System Volume 10-20
10.3.4.6 Number of Net Pens 10-20
10.3.4.7 Loadings from Net Pen Systems 10-21
10.4 Unit Loading Modules 10-21
10.4.1 Quiescent Zones 10-21
10.4.1.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-21
10.4.1.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Flow-through Systems 10-22
10.4.2 Sedimentation Basins 10-22
10.4.2.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-23
10.4.2.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Flow-through Systems and
Recirculating Systems 10-23
10.4.3 Feed Management 10-24
10.4.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-24
10.4.3.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Net Pen Systems 10-24
10.4.4 BMP Plan 10-25
10.4.4.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-25
10.4.4.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies 10-25
10.4.5 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan 10-25
10.4.5.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-26
10.4.5.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies 10-26
10.4.6 Additional Solids Removal (Solids Polishing) 10-26
10.4.6.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-26
10.4.6.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies 10-26
10.4.7 Active Feed Monitoring 10-27
10.4.7.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-27
10.4.7.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Net Pen Systems 10-27
XIV
-------
Contents
10.5 Frequency Factors 10-27
10.5.1 Quiescent Zones 10-28
10.5.2 Sedimentation Basin 10-28
10.5.3 BMP Plans 10-29
10.5.4 Feed Management 10-30
10.5.5 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan 10-30
10.5.6 Solids Polishing 10-30
10.5.7 Net Pen Active Feed Monitoring 10-31
10.6 Loading Model Structure 10-31
10.6.1 Loading Removal Flow Chart 10-31
10.6.2 Loading Model Example 10-34
10.6.2.1 Estimation of Raw Loading 10-34
10.6.2.2 Frequency Factors 10-35
10.6.2.3 Baseline Removal 10-36
10.7 Loading Model Output 10-38
10.8 References 10-46
Chapter 11 Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts 11-1
11.1 Energy 11-1
11.1.1 Estimating Increased Energy Requirements 11-1
Option 1 11-1
Option 2 11-2
Option3 11-2
11.1.2 Energy Summary 11-3
11.2 Solid Waste 11-4
11.2.1 Sludge Characterization 11-4
11.2.2 Estimating Increased Sludge Collection 11-5
11.3 Air Emissions 11-6
11.3.1 Air Emissions from Primary Settling Operations 11-6
11.3.2 Air Emissions from Land Application Activities 11-7
11.3.2.1 Application Rate 11-7
11.3.2.2 Application Method 11-7
11.3.2.3 Quantity of Animal Waste 11-8
11.3.2.4 Calculation of Emissions 11-8
11.4 References 11-10
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Glossary
Appendix A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Appendix B Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
XV
-------
Contents
Appendix C Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Appendix D Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Appendix E Modified Delta-Log Normal Distribution
Appendix F Alternative Statistical Methods
Appendix G Unit Cost Model And Frequency Factor Results For Model Facilities
XVI
-------
Contents
FIGURES
Figure 4.3-1. Raceway Units in Series (a) on Flat Ground and (b) on
Sloping Ground 4-27
Figure 4.3-2. Raceway Units in Parallel 4-27
Figure 4.3-3. Combination Series and Parallel Raceway Units with
Water Recirculation 4-28
Figure 4.3-4. Offline Settling Ponds 4-33
Figure 4.3-5. Use of Full-Flow Settling Ponds to Treat 100% of the Flow
From the Fish Farm Before it is Discharged 4-34
Figure 4.3-6. Example of a Fish Farm and Various Pen Configurations 4-37
Figure 8.2-1. Schematic of Sampling Points and Facility for Episode 6297 8-5
Figure 8.2-2. Schematic of Sampling Points and Facility for Episode 6460 8-6
Figure 8.2-3. Schematic of Sampling Points and Facility for Episode 6439 8-8
Figure 9.2-1. Schematic of Cost Model Structure 9-6
Figure 9.4-1. Model Facility Quiescent Zone Configuration and Drain Layout 9-23
Figure 10.1-1. Flow-through Systems 10-8
Figure 10.1-2. Recirculating System 10-8
Figure 10.1-3. Net Pen System 10-9
Figure 10.2-1. Schematic of Loading Model Structure 10-10
Figure 10.6-1. Schematic of Flow-through System Pollutant Loading Model 10-32
Figure 10.6-2. Schematic of Recirculating System Pollutant Loading Model 10-32
Figure 10.6-3. Schematic of Net Pen System Pollutant Loading Model 10-32
Figure 10.6-4. Schematic of Option 1 for Flow-through Systems 10-34
xvtt
-------
Contents
TABLES
Table 2.2-1. Applicability of Proposed Rule to CAAP Subcategories 2-5
Table 2.2-2. Summary of Proposed BPT Requirements for CAAP Facilities 2-9
Table 3.1-1. Parameters in the PCS Database 3-3
Table 3.1-2. Parameters in the DMR Database 3-4
Table 3.1-3. Number of Permitted Facilities by State 3-5
Table 3.2-1. Facilities Producing Aquatic Animals by Region 3-9
Table 3.2-2. States Within Each USDA Region 3-10
Table 3.2-3. Production Systems 3-10
Table 3.3-1. Summary of System Type Visited by EPA for the Development of
Aquatic Animal Production Effluent Limitations Guidelines 3-13
Table 3.3-2. Summary of Species Visited by EPA for the Development of
Aquatic Animal Production Effluent Limitations Guidelines 3-13
Table 3.3-3. Regional Distribution of Sites Visited 3-13
Table 3.3-4. Aquatic Animal Production Site Visit Summary 3-14
Table 3.3-5. Sampling Analytes 3-18
Table 3.3-6. Metal Analytes 3-19
Table 3.3-7. Volatile Organic Analytes 3-19
Table 3.3-8. Semivolatile Organic Analytes 3-20
Table 4.3-1. Number of Years Between Drainings By Pond Type
and Operation Size 4-18
Table 4.3-2. Means and Ranges of Potential Effluents Parameters from 20
Commercial Channel Catfish Ponds in Northwest Mississippi from
Summer 1991 Through Spring 1993 4-22
Table 4.3-3. Means and Ranges of Potential Effluent Parameters from 25
Commercial Channel Catfish Ponds in Central and West-Central
Alabama from Winter 1991 Through Autumn 1992 4-23
Table 4.3-4. Site Characteristics of Trout Farms 4-32
Table 4.3-5. Water Quality Data 4-32
Table 4.3-6. Hatchery Effluent Quality During Cleaning and Drawdown Events ....4-41
Table 4.3-7. Effect of Five Fish Farms in an Embayment on the Nitrogen,
Phytoplankton, and Zooplankton Concentrations for Summer
and Winter Conditions Based on the Kieffer and Atkinson
Model (1988) 4-42
Table 4.3-8. Means and Ranges for Selected Water Quality Variables from
Hybrid Striped Bass Ponds in South Carolina 4-49
Table 4.3-9. Water Quality of Inlet Water and Various Water Exchanges (Mean
Values) of Shrimp Stocked at a Density of 4. I/ft2 4-76
xvttt
-------
Contents
Table 4.3-10. Composition of Discharge Waters from Ponds Stocked at Different
Densities of Penaeus Monodon 4-77
Table 4.3-11. Pollutant Concentrations in Alligator Raw Wastewater 4-97
Table 5.1-1. Comparison of Water Use, Frequency of Discharge, and Process for
Maintaining Water Quality for CAAP Systems 5-5
Table 6.2-1. Mass Discharge of TSS, BOD5, TN, and TP from Channel Catfish
Farms in Alabama 6-5
Table 6.2-2. Means and Ranges for Selected Water Quality Variables from
Hybrid Striped Bass Ponds in South Carolina 6-6
Table 6.2-3. Average Concentrations and Loads of BOD5 and TSS in a Typical
Shrimp Farming Pond with a Water Exchange of 2% per day 6-7
Table 6.2-4. Water Quality Data for Three Trout Farms in Virginia 6-9
Table 6.2-5. Flow-through Sampling Data Table 6-9
Table 6.2-6. Water Quality Characteristics of Effluent at Various Points in the
Waste Treatment System of Recirculating Aquaculture Systems at
the North Carolina State University Fish Barn 6-10
Table 6.2-7. Recirculating System Sampling Data 6-11
Table 6.2-8. Alligator Wastewater Characteristics 6-11
Table 6.6-1. FDA-Approved New Animal Drugs for Aquaculture 6-27
Table 6.6-2. LRP Drugs 6-30
Table 6.6-3. Investigational New Animal Drugs for Aquaculture 6-33
Table 6.6-4. Pesticides Registered for Aquaculture 6-36
Table 7.2-1. Aquatic Animal Production Site Visit Summary 7-18
Table 8.2-1. Summary of Episode and Sample Point Selection 8-3
Table 8.4-1. Aggregation of Field Duplicates 8-11
Table 8.4-2. Aggregation of Grab Samples 8-12
Table 8.4-3. Aggregation of Data Across Streams 8-13
Table 8.6-1. Episode Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors 8-18
Table 8.6-2. Option Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and Limitations 8-20
Table 8.6-3. Cases Where Option Variability Factors Could Not Be Calculated 8-21
Table 9.1-1. Treatment Technologies and BMPs for Proposed Regulatory
Options, by Subcategory 9-2
Table 9.1-2. Summary of TSS Numeric Limits for Flow-through and
Recirculating Systems 9-2
Table 9.1-3. Feed Conversion Ratios 9-4
Table 9.3-1. Model Facility Production Calculation: Trout-Stackers-Federal 9-9
Table 9.3-2. Model Facility Information 9-10
Table 9.3-3. Alaskan Salmon Producers 9-12
Table 9.3-4. Model Facility Production Calculation: Tilapia-Food-
size-Commercial 9-14
Table 9.3-5. Model Facility Information 9-14
XIX
-------
Contents
Table 9.3-6. Model Facility Production Calculation: Salmon-Food-size-
Commercial 9-15
Table 9.4-1. Installation Costs 9-31
Table 9.5-1. Quiescent Zone Frequency Factors 9-33
Table 9.5-2. Sedimentation Basin Frequency Factors 9-34
Table 9.5-3. BMP Plan Frequency Factors 9-35
Table 9.5-4. Feed Management Frequency Factor 9-35
Table 9.5-5. Solids Polishing Frequency Factors 9-36
Table 9.5-6. Active Feed Monitoring Frequency Factors 9-36
Table 10.1-1. Treatment Technologies and BMPs for Proposed Regulatory
Options, by Subcategory 10-2
Table 10.1-2. Feed Conversion Ratios 10-5
Table 10.1-3. Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors 10-6
Table 10.3-1. Model Facility Information 10-13
Table 10.3-2. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility) for Flow-through Facilities 10-14
Table 10.3-3. Alaska Salmon Producers 10-15
Table 10.3-4. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility) for Alaska
Flow-through Facilities 10-16
Table 10.3-5. Model Facility Information 10-18
Table 10.3-6. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility) for Recirculating
System Facilities 10-19
Table 10.3-7. Model Facility Information 10-20
Table 10.3-8. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility) for Net Pen Facilities 10-21
Table 10.4-1. Quiescent Zone Removal Efficiencies 10-22
Table 10.4-2. Sedimentation Basin Removal Efficiencies 10-23
Table 10.5-1. Quiescent Zone Frequency Factors 10-28
Table 10.5-2. Sedimentation Basin Frequency Factors 10-28
Table 10.5-3. BMP Plan Frequency Factors 10-29
Table 10.5-4. Feed Management Frequency Factor 10-30
Table 10.5-5. Solids Polishing Frequency Factors 10-30
Table 10.5-6. Active Feed Monitoring Frequency Factor 10-31
Table 10.6-1. Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stockers Model Facility Raw
Pollutant Loadings 10-35
Table 10.6-2. Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stockers Frequency Factors 10-36
Table 10.6-3. Summary of Quiescent Zone (QZ), Sedimentation Basin (SB),
and BMP Plan (BMP) Removal Information for the
Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stockers Model Facility 10-37
Table 10.6-4. Summary of Baseline Removals, Baseline Discharge Loading, and
Option 1 Removals for the Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stackers
Model Facility 10-38
Table 10.7-1. Estimated Current Discharge Loadings for the Model Facilities 10-39
-------
Contents
Table 10.7-2. Estimated Option 1 Total Pollutant Removals 10-40
Table 10.7-3. Estimated Option 2 Total Pollutant Removals 10-41
Table 10.7-4. Estimated Option 3 Total Pollutant Removals 10-42
Table 10.7-5. Estimated Current Discharge Loadings for the Alaska
Salmon Facilities 10-43
Table 10.7-6. Estimated Option 1 Total Pollutant Removals for Alaska
Salmon Facilities 10-44
Table 10.7-7. Estimated Option 2 Total Pollutant Removals for Alaska
Salmon Facilities 10-45
Table 10.7-8. Estimated Option 3 Total Pollutant Removals for Alaska
Salmon Facilities 10-46
Table 11.2-1. Characterization of CAAP Sludge 11-5
Table 11.2-2. Rainbow Trout Manure Compared to Beef, Poultry, and
Swine Manures (Presented as Ranges on a Dry Weight Basis) 11-5
Table 11.2-3. Estimated Solids Collection 11-6
Table 11.3-1. Percent of Nitrogen Volatilizing as Ammonia from Land
Application 11-8
Table 11.3-2. Baseline Ammonia Volatilization 11-9
Table 11.3-3. Incremental Increases in Ammonia Volatilization Under Option 1 11-9
Table 11.3-4. Incremental Increases in Ammonia Volatilization Under Option 3 11-9
XXI
-------
CHAPTER 1
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND
This section presents background information supporting the development of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the concentrated aquatic animal production
(CAAP) point source category. Section 1.1 presents the legal authority to regulate the
CAAP industry. Section 1.2 discusses the Clean Water Act; Section 1.3 discusses the
Clean Water Act Section 304(m) consent decree; and Section 1.4 discusses the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996). Section 1.5 discusses regional, state, and municipal regulation of
the industry. Section 1.6 discusses the regulatory history of the CAAP industry.
1.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY
EPA proposes these regulations under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318,
1342, and 1361.
1.2 CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress adopted the CWA to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters," (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To
achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters
except in compliance with the statute. The CWA establishes restrictions on the types and
amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and municipal
sources of wastewater.
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits; indirect dischargers must comply with
pretreatment standards. Effluent limitations in NPDES permits are derived on a case-by-
case basis using the technology-based standards of the CWA, or are defined from effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards promulgated by EPA, as
well as from water quality standards. The effluent limitations guidelines and standards
are established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and are based on the
degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control
technology.
Congress recognized that regulating only sources that discharge effluent directly into the
Nation's waters would not be sufficient to achieve the goals of the CWA. Consequently,
the CWA requires EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that
restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge wastewater indirectly through
sewers flowing to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), (Section 307(b) and (c), 33
U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National pretreatment standards are established for those
1-1
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers that might pass through, interfere with,
or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards
are designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are
subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local
treatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local
requirements, (40 CFR 403.5).
1.2.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)—Section
304(b)(l)oftheCWA
EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limits for conventional, toxic, and non-conventional
pollutants. Section 304(a)(4) designates the following pollutants as conventional
pollutants: 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS),
fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and any additional pollutants so defined by the
Administrator. The Administrator designated oil and grease as a conventional pollutant
on July 30, 1979, (44 FR 44501). The term "toxic pollutant" means those pollutants or
combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which after discharge and
upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any organism, either directly
from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of
information available to the Administrator, cause death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including
malfunctions in reproduction), or physical deformations, in such organisms or their
offspring, (Clean Water Act, Section 502). The USEPA currently lists a total of 128 toxic
pollutants or "priority pollutants" in 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix D. A non-conventional
pollutant is anything not included in the other two categories.
In specifying limits based on BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers
the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The
Agency also considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed,
engineering aspects of the control technologies, any required process changes, non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors as
the Administrator deems appropriate, (CWA 304(b)(l)(B)). Traditionally, EPA has
established BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of
facilities in the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes, or other
common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, however,
EPA may establish limitations based on higher levels of control than those currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology is available
in another category or subcategory and can be practically applied.
1.2.2 Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)—Sec. 304(b)(4)
of the CWA
The CWA requires EPA to identify additional levels of effluent reduction for
conventional pollutants associated with BCT technology for discharges from existing
industrial point sources. In addition to other factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the
CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after considering a two-part "cost-
reasonableness" test. EPA explained its methodology for the development of BCT
limitations in July 1986, (51 FR 24974). The first step in determining limits representing
applications of BCT is to establish that a BCT option is technologically feasible (defined
1-2
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
as providing conventional pollutant control beyond the level of control provided by the
application of BPT). If a BCT option is found to be technologically feasible, the Agency
applies a two-part BCT cost test to evaluate the "cost-reasonableness" of the BCT option.
The BCT cost test consists of a POTW test and an industry cost-effectiveness test. EPA
conducts the POTW test by first calculating the cost per pound of conventional pollutant
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT candidate
technology. EPA then compares this cost to the POTW benchmark, which is the cost per
pound ($0.65 per pound in 2000 dollars) for a POTW to upgrade from secondary to
advanced secondary treatment. EPA calculates the industry cost effectiveness test by
comparing the ratio of the cost per pound to go from BPT to BCT divided by the cost per
pound to go from raw wastewater to BPT for the industry to 1.29, which is a 29%
increase. The results of these tests, along with other industry-specific factors, are
evaluated to determine BCT.
1.2.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)—Section
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best economically
achievable performance of facilities in the industrial category or subcategory. The CWA
establishes BAT as a principal national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the
cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved,
the process employed, potential process changes, and non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements) and such other factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to
be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is
economic achievability. Generally, EPA determines economic achievability on the basis
of total costs to the industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall
industry and subcategory financial conditions. As with BPT, where existing performance
is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently
being achieved based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or category.
BAT may be based on process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies
are not common industry practice.
1.2.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA
New Source Performance Standards reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based
on the best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent controls
attainable through the application of the best available demonstrated control technology
for all pollutants (that is, conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy
requirements and to consider a "no discharge" option.
1-3
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
1.2.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)—Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources are designed to prevent the discharge of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of a POTW. Categorical pretreatment standards are technology-based and are
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework for the
implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are at 40 CFR Part 403. These
regulations establish pretreatment standards that apply to all nondomestic dischargers,
(52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14, 1987)).
1.2.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)—Section 307(c) of the
CWA
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for new
sources at the same time it promulgates NSPS. Such pretreatment standards must prevent
the discharge into a POTW of any pollutant that might interfere with, pass through, or
otherwise be incompatible with the POTW. EPA promulgates categorical pretreatment
standards for existing sources based principally on BAT for existing sources. EPA
promulgates pretreatment standards for new sources based on best available demonstrated
technology for new sources. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate
into their facilities the best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers
the same factors in promulgating PSNS that it considers in promulgating NSPS.
1.3 SECTION 304 AND CONSENT DECREE
Section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every 2 years that consists of three
elements. First, under section 304(m)(l)(A), EPA is required to establish a schedule for
the annual review and revision of existing effluent guidelines in accordance with Section
304(b). Section 304(b) applies to effluent limitations guidelines for direct dischargers and
requires EPA to revise such regulations as appropriate. Second, under Section
304(m)(l)(B), EPA must identify categories of sources discharging toxic or non-
conventional pollutants for which EPA has not published BAT effluent limitations
guidelines under 304(b)(2) or NSPS under Section 306. Finally, under 304(m)(l)(C),
EPA must establish a schedule for the promulgation of BAT and NSPS for the categories
identified under subparagraph (B) not later than 3 yr after being identified in the 304(m)
plan. Section 304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers,
which EPA promulgates pursuant to Sections 307(b) and 307(c) of the CWA.
On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc.,
filed an action against EPA in which they alleged, among other things, that EPA had
failed to comply with CWA Section 304(m). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a settlement of
that action in a Consent Decree entered on January 31, 1992. The Consent Decree, which
has been modified several times, established a schedule by which EPA is to propose and
take final action for four point source categories identified by name in the Consent
Decree and for eight other point source categories identified only as new or revised rules,
numbered 5 through 12. EPA selected the aquatic animal production (AAP) industry as
the subject for New or Revised Rule 12. Under the Decree as modified, the Administrator
1-4
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
was required to sign a proposed rale for the aquatic animal production industry by no
later than August 14, 2002, and to take final action on that proposal by no later than June
30, 2004.
1.4 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT (RFA) AS AMENDED BY THE SMALL
BUSINESS REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1996
(SBREFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purpose of assessing the impact of the CAAP effluent limitations guidelines rule
on small entities, a small entity is defined as (1) a small business based on full time
equivalents (FTEs) or annual revenues established by the Small Business Administration
(SB A); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000 people; and (3) a
small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field. The definitions of small business for the AAP
industry are provided in SBA's regulations under 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards
were updated effective February 22, 2002. SBA size standards for the AAP industry, for
NAICS codes 112511, 112512, and 112519, define a small business as one with a total
amount of revenue of less than $750,000. For the aquarium sector of the AAP industry
with NAICS code 712130, a "small business" is defined as one with a total amount of
revenue of less than $6 million.
Based on the special tabulation from the 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000)
revenue categories (less than $24,999; $25,000 to $49,000; $50,000 to $99,999; $100,000
to $499,999; $500,000 to $999,999; and more than $1 million), EPA identified
approximately 4,200 small commercial aquatic animal producers, which represents more
than 90% of the total AAP producers. Based on AAP Screener Survey data (Westat,
2002), EPA identified a total of 999 small entities (including 26 small Alaska flow-
through facilities that are nonprofits); a total of 344 small entities that met the definition
of a CAAP facility; and 48 small entities that are within the scope of the proposed rule
(31 flow-through, 12 Alaska, and 5 recirculating). That is, about 95% of the total small
entities or 86% of the small CAAP facilities identified in the screener data would not be
within the proposed scope. Of the 36 regulated small CAAP facilities that are
commercially owned, approximately 17 (which represents 5% of the total small CAAP
facilities or 47% of the regulated CAAP facilities) incur compliance costs greater than
1% of aquaculture revenue and 10 small commercial entities (which represent less than
3% of the total small CAAP facilities or 28% of the regulated CAAP facilities) incur
compliance costs greater than 3%.
For commercial facilities, EPA assumed that the facility is equivalent to the business, an
assumption that will be reexamined when detailed survey data are available. However,
because sufficient data are available to determine the parent nonprofit association (and its
revenues) for the small Alaska nonprofit facilities, EPA analyzed small entity impacts at
7-5
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
the level of the parent association. EPA determined that 12 small Alaska nonprofit
facilities within the scope of the proposed rule are owned by 8 small nonprofit
associations. Of the six small Alaska nonprofit associations for which EPA had data,
three associations incur compliance costs greater than 1% of revenues, and one
association incurs compliance costs greater than 3%.
EPA intends to make its final determination of the impact of the CAAP rulemaking on
small businesses based on analyses of the data after proposal.
1.5 STATE, REGIONAL, AND MUNICIPAL AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION
REGULATIONS
The Aquaculture Act of 1980 required that a list of regulations and permits affecting the
aquaculture industry be compiled. In 1993 the United States Department of Agriculture,
Cooperative States Research Service (through the Northeastern Regional Aquaculture
Center) contracted with the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) to accomplish
this task. The organized network of state aquaculture contacts, the National Association
of State Aquaculture Coordinators, was contacted for information regarding aquaculture
regulations in their states. The resulting information was compiled into a report,
State/Territory Permits and Regulations Impacting the Aquaculture Industry (Tetra Tech,
2001), which provides an overview of permits and regulations that affect the aquaculture
industry, by individual state or territory, during the time at which the report was prepared.
This report is available at www.aquanic.org/publicat/state/md/perml.htm (MDA, 1995).
EPA evaluated State/Territory Permits and Regulations Impacting the Aquaculture
Industry to analyze existing federal, state, and local effluent regulations related to the
CAAP industry. As a part of this evaluation for CAAP facilities, EPA updated the report
with readily available information, obtained primarily through Internet research. EPA
further delineated the state regulations as those directly related to effluents and discharges
(e.g., state NPDES permits); those related to water quality, but indirectly related to
discharges (e.g., control of nonnative species or pathogens); and those not related to
effluents or discharges (e.g., leasing or licensing).
1.5.1 State Regulations
EPA updated State/Territory Permits and Regulations Impacting the Aquaculture
Industry with information available on-line and through communications with industry
representatives (Tetra Tech, 2001). The updated information was compiled in several
tables and submitted as a separate memorandum (Tetra Tech, 2001).
1.5.1.1 Regulations Dealing Directly with Effluents and Discharges
EPA found permits and regulations that deal directly with effluents and discharges from
CAAP facilities, including NPDES permits; permits and regulations for discharges other
than NPDES (injection well, indirect discharge, POTW, sewer, etc.); pesticide
regulations; waste handling regulations (sludge application, waste hauling, etc.); and a
variety of miscellaneous types of regulations.
1-6
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
EPA, through its NPDES Program, has set the stage for action by state environmental
agencies to regulate effluent discharges from CAAP facilities. A concentrated aquatic
animal production facility is a hatchery, fish farm, or other facility that contains, grows,
or holds aquatic animals in either of the following categories, or that the Director
designates as such on a case-by-case basis, and must apply for an NPDES permit:
A. Coldwater fish species or other coldwater aquatic animals including, but not limited
to, the Salmonidae family offish (e.g., trout and salmon) in ponds, raceways, or other
similar structures that discharge at least 30 days per year but does not include:
1. Facilities that produce less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms
(approximately 20,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year; and
2. Facilities that feed less than 2,272 kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of
food during the calendar month of maximum feeding.
B. Warmwater fish species or other warmwater aquatic animals including, but not
limited to, the Ameiuridae, Cetrachidae, and the Cyprinidae families offish (e.g.,
respectively, catfish, sunfish, and minnows) in ponds, raceways, or similar structures
that discharge at least 30 days per year, but does not include:
1. Closed ponds that discharge only during periods of excess runoff; or
2. Facilities that produce less than 45,454 harvest weight kilograms
(approximately 100,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year.
EPA has authorized certain States to issue NPDES permits subject to minimum federal
requirements. States that have not received authorization to administer the NPDES
program are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico;
the remaining 44 States, as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands, have authorization to
implement the NPDES program.
Discharges
Eleven States and Territories were found to have regulations pertaining to discharges
other than NPDES. These are Arkansas, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington. Regulations addressing
discharges include city water and sewer municipal permits, industrial wastewater facility
permits, waste discharge requirements, and permits for discharging water into injection
wells, groundwater, rivers, lakes, or creeks.
Both Arizona and Massachusetts require facilities to obtain a permit before discharging
waters into the ground. Several States and Territories, including Guam, Hawaii, Iowa,
and Texas, require permits to discharge water into an injection well. In Washington any
discharger of pollutants causing below-standard water quality must apply for a
modification of the state's water quality standards.
Pesticides
A number of States and Territories were found to have regulations and permits regarding
pesticide use in aquaculture, including Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
1-7
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
Florida, Guam, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. These regulations address pesticide and include the
following issues: use and application; restrictions; record-keeping; waste collection;
storage; labeling requirements; and certification, licensing, and registration.
Waste Handling
Four States have regulations that address waste handling of solids generated from
aquaculture facilities: Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota. Waste handling
regulations in these States address land application of sludge, disposal of sewage and
solid waste, and waste hauling permits.
Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota all have regulations that specifically address land
application of sludge. These regulations require individuals to obtain a permit before
applying sludge to land. Standards for application vary by state. Maryland's water
supply, sewage disposal, and solid waste permit also addresses sewage sludge, including
the collection, handling, burning, storage, treatment, land application, and disposal or
transportation of solid waste. Sewage sludge is defined as raw sewage sludge, treated
sewage sludge, septage, or any product containing these materials that is either generated
or utilized in the state.
Illinois has design and maintenance criteria for runoff field application systems. These
criteria, which are not classified as a permit, must be met for any party planning to
discharge wastewater into a runoff field application, commonly called a vegetative filter
system in Illinois. A special waste hauling permit is also required in Illinois for those
individuals hauling processing wastes from aquaculture facilities or processing plants for
disposal in landfills.
Miscellaneous Permits and Regulations
The following four States have miscellaneous permits or regulations that are related to
effluents and discharges of the CAAP industry:
• Arizona has a regulation that addresses best management practices (BMPs) for
animal feeding operations, which include CAAP facilities. The regulation
specifically covers aquaculture facilities classified as feeding operations for the
purposes of regulating discharge water quality. Arizona defines BMPs as
practices that can be used to protect the quality of water discharged from
aquaculture facilities.
• Georgia has a regulation specifying agricultural BMPs for protecting water
quality. Although agriculture is exempted from the Georgia Erosion and
Sedimentation Act, this regulation requires agricultural enterprises, such as fish
farms, to conduct activities consistent with BMPs established by the Department
of Agriculture. In Georgia, BMPs are management strategies for the control and
abatement of nonpoint source pollution resulting from agriculture. If waters of the
State are impaired by agricultural activities and there appears to be no immediate
solution or mitigation, the Environmental Protection Division resolves the
problem as a water quality violation.
• Massachusetts requires a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for any activity in any saltwater area, or
1-8
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
any other area deemed significant (designated anti-degradation areas exist).
Submission of the ENF is the first step in the environmental review of a project
under the MEPA. The ENF requires the project proponent to answer specific
questions regarding the likely environmental impacts of the proposed project. The
ENF is submitted to the MEPA Office of the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA), which determines if the likely impacts require the
submission of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The public is encouraged
to provide written comments as part of this review process. The findings of the
Secretary of EOEA are written in the form of a certificate.
• Montana provides a short-term exemption from the State's surface water quality
standards (3A Authorization). This authorization, which must be obtained prior to
initiating a project, concerns any activity in any state water that will cause
unavoidable violations of water quality standards. Authorization may be obtained
from the Water Quality Bureau, or may be waived by the Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks during its review process. This authorization extends to
aquaculture facilities.
1.5.1.2 Regulations Dealing Indirectly with Effluents and Discharges
EPA found aquaculture regulations indirectly related to effluents and discharge. These
types of regulations include construction storm water permits, disease control and
protection of fish and wildlife health, nonnative species, water supply, and other types of
regulations.
Construction and Storm Water
Eleven States and Territories have regulations or permits that address construction and
storm water runoff controls: Alabama, Delaware, Guam, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
New Jersey, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington. Types of permits
and regulations addressed by these States and Territories include construction storm
water permits, erosion and sedimentation control permits, clearing and grading permits,
excavation permits, storm water management and sediment reduction permits, permits for
dam or pond construction or enlargement, approval for hydraulic projects, and
regulations regarding extraction of materials from the earth's crust. These types of
permits and regulations seek to limit environmental impacts caused by construction and
earthmoving activities, such as erosion, increased water turbidity, water temperature
effects, and negative impacts on aquatic life. The storm water permits and regulations are
intended to help reduce the water quantity and quality impacts associated with sites
during and after construction.
Disease Control and Protection of Fish and Wildlife Health
Sixteen States or Territories have regulations or permits related to disease control or
protection of fish and wildlife health: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut,
Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, South
Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Regulations or permits in this
category include those that address disease control, fish importation precautions,
inspection and certification of facilities and fish, and methods for proper handling,
processing, and transporting of fish. Connecticut has a regulation that sets standards for
1-9
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
shellfish depositing in tidal waters when the shellfish were imported from outside the
state.
Normative Species
EPA found 22 States and Territories that have reported having regulations or permits
dealing with importation or possession of nonnative species: Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Guam, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Types of permits and regulations dealing
with nonnative species include stocking licenses, general importation permits for aquatic
species and plants, and restrictions on possession, sale, importation, transportation, and
release of nonnative species. Some states have special importation permits regarding
specific species of aquatic animals such as grass carp (or white amur), crawfish, piranha,
and rudd.
Water Supply
Regulations and permits related to water supply address water diversion, water allocation
and appropriation, water well construction and drilling, water withdrawal and storage,
dam construction or alteration, and use of ground, stream, or surface waters. States and
Territories with these types of regulations and permits include Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
These regulations are important to the aquaculture industry because water supply is an
essential component for aquaculture facilities to be able to operate. Water supply is a
major concern in many parts of the United States, especially in arid regions.
Two notable water supply regulations are being used in Florida and Georgia. Florida's
environmental resource permit is a comprehensive regulatory program that covers any
activity that might alter surface water flows. The permit also involves an evaluation of
the effects the activity will have on flooding, storm water, and environmental factors such
as water quality, wildlife, and habitats of wetlands and water-dependent species.
Georgia's regulation regarding approval to impound or discharge in trout waters does not
allow any person to construct an impoundment on primary or secondary trout waters
without approval from the Environmental Protection Division. This regulation also
restricts temperature elevations that might be caused by impoundments in both primary
and secondary trout waters.
Miscellaneous Permits and Regulations
Twelve States and Territories have miscellaneous regulations and permits indirectly
related to effluents and discharge: California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
The regulations and permits in this category address several areas that are indirectly
related to effluents and discharge, and they include the following:
• California has a streambed alteration agreement that is used to avoid or mitigate
any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources caused by a project.
1-10
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
• Delaware requires an application for drainage of lands by tax ditches. This
application is needed for water management and flood prevention on lands subject
to overflow. Owners of land desiring drainage or protection from flooding may
petition for the formation of a tax ditch to the Superior Court of the county in
which all or a major portion of area to be drained or protected is located.
• Florida requires a general permit for the installation and maintenance of intake
and/or discharge pipes associated with marine bivalve facilities.
• In Hawaii, a conservation district use application is required prior to undertaking
any proposed use (aquafarming) of lands within the conservation district. The
conservation district encompasses large areas of mountain and shoreline lands,
areas necessary to protect watersheds, all submerged ocean lands, and most
ancient fish ponds. Hawaii also requires zone of mixing approval for aquaculture
effluent discharge into certain coastal waters. This application is made
concurrently with NPDES.
• Illinois requires a construction permit for anyone constructing a new, or
modifying an existing, emission source or installing any new air pollution control
equipment. Anyone operating an existing emission source or air pollution control
equipment must first obtain an operating permit.
• In Maryland, approval is required for all state and local agency-sponsored
activities or programs affecting the critical area (1,000 feet from the mean high
water line of tidal waters or the landward side of tidal wetlands).
• Minnesota requires a permit for all aeration systems installed and operated in
protected waters. A private fish farm or hatchery license may contain
authorization for the operation of aeration systems on protected waters without
public access if the licensee owns all riparian land or all of the possessory rights
to the riparian lands. A private hatchery or fish farm license application
requesting authorization for an aeration system operation is subject to the same
review as the aeration permit application.
• In Montana, the Flood Plain and Floodway Management Act addresses new
construction in floodplains. Montana also has a stream protection permit that
addresses any project, including the construction of new facilities or the
modification, operation, and maintenance of an existing facility, that might affect
the natural existing shape and form of any stream or its banks and tributaries.
Montana's streambed and land preservation permit addresses any activity that
physically alters or modifies the bed and banks of a stream.
• New York's State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act does not require
permits, but rather establishes a process to help the government and the public
protect and improve the environment by ensuring that environmental factors are
considered along with social and economic considerations in government
decision-making. SEQR applies to any state, regional, or local government
agency approving, undertaking, or funding a privately or publicly sponsored
action. Applicants seeking project approval or funding may be required to prepare
an environmental impact statement.
1-11
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
• Puerto Rico also requires environmental impact statements for projects that might
adversely affect the environment.
• In Rhode Island, a coastal resources assent or application is required for any
alteration or aquaculture use activities in coastal waterways. The application is
reviewed for approval, and application fees are required.
• In Wisconsin, barriers are required for the body of water used as a fish farm or
part of a fish farm to prevent the passage of fish between the farm and other
waters of the state.
1.5.1.3 Regulations Addressing All Other Types of Aquaculture-Related Activities
EPA found other types of aquaculture-related permits and regulations, including animal
possession, licensing and permitting of CAAP activities, processing, inspection,
depuration, leasing, taxes, and a number of miscellaneous regulations and permits.
Possession
Regulations and permits included in the possession category include stocking,
propagating, cultivating, transporting, transferring, harvesting, taking, trapping,
collecting, selling, trading, wet storage, and purchasing. Thirty States have regulations
and permits involving the possession of animals for aquaculture-related activities:
Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Licensing and Permitting
Forty States and Territories have several licensing and permitting regulations or permits
associated with aquaculture: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Regulations and permits included
in this category address the actual licensing and permitting of facilities for conducting
aquaculture activities. This category also contains fish and bait dealer licenses, general
permits, marketing permits, permits that cover all aquaculture-related activities, and
permits, certificates, or licenses for fee-fishing, boat use, registration of aquaculture
operations, and education and research institutional needs.
Processing
Fifteen States have aquaculture-related processing regulations: Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. Regulations or
permits included in the processing category specifically address requirements for
processing of aquatic animals and products, including licenses for purchasing, packing,
repacking, shipping, reshipping, shucking, culling, and selling.
1-12
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
Inspection
Arizona requires inspection and certification of aquaculture facilities. Facilities are
periodically inspected to ensure compliance with all laws related to aquaculture and to
ensure that facilities are disease-free.
Depuration
Two States have regulations or permits that specifically address depuration, which is the
purging of contaminants from shellfish. In Connecticut a shellfish depuration license is
required for the operation of a depuration plant and the sale of processed shellfish.
Florida requires a special activity license for depuration of oysters and clams in
controlled purification facilities.
Leasing
Thirteen States have regulations or permits regarding leasing of submerged public land:
Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina,
New Jersey, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Most of the leasing
regulations or permits address leasing of state or publicly owned tidal or subtidal ocean
water bottoms for shellfish or oyster operations. In North Carolina, a lease is required for
the use of an entire water column for the private production of shellfish.
Taxes
Three States have regulations or permits addressing aquaculture-related taxes. Alabama
and Arkansas both require a city privilege tax for businesses inside city limits. Some
cities even have specific permits for fish markets, which would otherwise be covered by a
general permit. Arkansas also requires a sales and use tax permit. Any business that
provides a service or merchandise must pay a deposit of $250 to receive a sales and use
tax permit. A refund is granted within 6 months if that business or its sales outlets do not
charge sales tax to its customers. Also included in the taxes category are Pennsylvania's
sales tax and capital stock franchise tax regulations.
Miscellaneous Permits and Regulations
Twenty-four States and Territories have miscellaneous regulations and permits that are
related to other CAAP activities: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, Puerto
Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Regulations and permits in this
category address a variety of subjects and include the following:
• In Alabama, regulations cover procedures and guidelines for dealing with
nuisance alligators.
• Arkansas requires a feed license for anyone who manufactures or distributes
commercial feed or has their name appear on the label as a commercial feed
guarantor.
• California's shellfish safety regulations cover requirements for the safe handling
of shellfish. California also requires a weighmaster license for weighing,
measuring, or counting any commodity and for issuing a statement used as the
basis for either the purchase or the sale of that commodity or charge for service.
1-13
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
• Colorado requires a private easement for erecting intake/discharge structures and
for dredging and filling on state-owned submerged lands.
• In Connecticut, shellfish safety regulations provide requirements for the safe
handling of shellfish. Connecticut also requires shellfish transplant licenses for
both the short and long term. These transplant licenses are required to relay
oysters from prohibited areas into private shellfish beds in approved areas.
• Delaware requires a subaqueous lands permit, which does not allow a person to
deposit material upon, extract material from, construct, modify, repair,
reconstruct, or occupy any structure or facility on submerged lands or tidelands
without first obtaining a permit.
• Florida requires a special activity license for any person to use gear or equipment
not authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for harvesting
saltwater species. Florida also requires a private easement for erecting any intake
or discharge structures and for dredging and filling on state-owned submerged
lands.
• Illinois requires a license for disposing of dead animals and a permit for removing
undesirable fish from state waters.
• In Indiana, all manufacturers and wholesale distributors of food (excluding meat,
poultry, and dairy products) must apply for a registration of business.
• In Michigan, regulations cover proper procedures for dealing with the bodies of
dead animals, including composting of dead fish from aquaculture activities.
• Mississippi requires that all tilapia products offered for direct sale for human
consumption have the product name specifically labeled in the manner described
by the state's regulations.
• In New York, regulations control any new or expanded land use and development
that is defined as a Class A or B regional project. New York also requires fish
tags for identifying hatchery-raised fish and permits to install a fish screen and to
remove or transfer fish.
• Oregon has numerous overlapping permits and state government regulatory
permits for the kinds of aquaculture permitted in the state. To begin the permitting
process, an applicant should first contact the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
• Puerto Rico was vague in describing its specific aquaculture regulations,
indicating that it has zoning and building regulations pertaining to aquaculture.
• Rhode Island may require the execution of a bond by the permittee to ensure the
permittee's performance of all conditions of the permit and, in the event of failure
to perform, to ensure the removal of aquaculture apparatus from the waters of the
state.
• In South Carolina, harvesting equipment permits are required to use dredges,
hydraulic escalators, patent tongs, or any other mechanically operated device for
taking shellfish from any bottom. South Carolina also requires a license for using
1-14
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
powerboats or other vessels equipped with commercial fishing equipment for
taking shellfish.
• South Dakota's regulation on contract commercial fishing for rough and bullheads
covers the bond required and activities such as supervision, equipment tagging,
sale and transportation of fish, and deposition of game fish taken.
• In Tennessee, an animal damage permit is required for any person, company, or
other entity desiring to destroy, or otherwise control, nuisance wildlife and charge
a fee for such services.
• Texas requires shell dredging permits for all shell dredging in state-owned
submerged tidelands. In Texas, aquaculture producers may be subject to other
permits, licenses, or approvals.
• Virginia's food quality sanitation regulations govern the inspection of food
manufacturers, warehouses and retail food stores, food product sampling, and
food product label review.
• In Washington, regulations cover the identification requirements for products
cultivated by aquatic farmers. Washington also has shellfish certification
regulations, which cover shellfish sanitation and practices, including certificate of
compliance, certificates of approval for shellfish growing areas, and certificates
for culling, shucking, and packing facilities.
• Wisconsin's permit for private management allows a person who owns all of the
land bordering a navigable lake that is completely landlocked to remove, destroy,
or introduce fish. Wisconsin also has a permit that allows a person to use a natural
body of water for a fish farm.
• All places in West Virginia that tender to the public any item for human
consumption need a permit for water well installations and on-site sewage system
installations.
• In Wyoming, food safety regulations cover good manufacturing practice labeling.
Wyoming also requires a mining permit for removal of solid minerals from the
earth for commercial purposes including some forms of aquatic animal
production.
1.5.2 Federal Regulations
EPA evaluated other federal statutes and regulations that might affect the CAAP industry
(Tetra Tech, 2001). The following federal statutes and regulations address a variety of
areas that might apply to CAAP facilities:
• Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987: Section 404
deals with permits for dredged and filled sites. More specifically, Section 404
establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into
waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United
States that are regulated under this program include fills for development, water
resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as
1-15
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
highways and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and
forestry.
• Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended'. The Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) deals with proposed federal activities affecting a
state's coastal zone. Activities include direct federal agency actions, federal
licenses and permits, and financial assistance to state and local governments. The
requirements of CZMA apply to all States in the "coastal zone," including parts of
the Great Lakes.
• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899: Section 10 states that
the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress to the
navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is prohibited.
• Federal Standard Sanitation Standards for Fish Plants: This regulation describes
an optional Quality Assurance Inspection in which U.S. Department of Commerce
inspectors will, upon request, inspect processing plants and facilities, and grade
aquaculture products for quality assurance (50 CFR Part 260).
• Endangered Species Act of 1973: This statute deals with any activity that might
affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat.
• Lacey Act Amendments of1981: Under this law, it is unlawful to import, export,
sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, or plants taken, possessed, transported, or
sold (1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law or (2) in interstate or foreign commerce
involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken, possessed, or sold in violation of state
or foreign law.
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the use of
lethal control methods on migratory birds, which are causing aquaculture crop
losses. USFWS issues permits for the control of these migratory birds.
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Permits issued under the wild, scenic, and
recreational rivers systems program are intended to control land use and
development along river corridors specifically designated under the system and to
protect and preserve the river qualities that qualified the particular rivers
designated under the system. This program is jointly managed by the USFWS and
any other agency that might hold title to involved lands.
• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
through 1992: The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect
jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking in any state
and the head of any federal department or independent agency having authority to
license any undertaking must, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any
federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case
may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register.
1-16
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
1.6 REGULATORY HISTORY OF THE CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL
PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
Until the current proposed regulation, EPA had not proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the concentrated aquatic animal production industry. In the
early 1970s, however, EPA staff did evaluate fish hatcheries and fish farms to develop
recommendations on whether the Agency should propose effluent guidelines in
conjunction with this evaluation. Ultimately, EPA did not propose any such regulations
because the 1977 Clean Water Act amendments had refocused the Agency's attention on
establishing effluent limitations guidelines for industry sectors with effluents containing
toxic metals and organics. EPA's evaluation offish hatcheries and farms did not reveal
significant contributions of toxic metals or organic chemical compounds in the wastes
discharged from those facilities. That draft development document, however, did assist
NPDES permit writers in the exercise of their "best professional judgment" to develop
permits for those fish hatcheries and farms that were considered "concentrated aquatic
animal production facilities" and thus were required to apply for NPDES permits under
EPA regulations.
EPA actions to regulate concentrated aquatic animal production facilities under the
NPDES permitting program date back to 1973, when the Agency proposed and
promulgated NPDES permit application rules for CAAP facilities, (38 FR 10960 (May 3,
1973); (proposed), 38 FR 18000 (July 5, 1973)). After some litigation over the NPDES
regulations, EPA proposed and took final action to reestablish the CAAP facility
requirements, (NRDCv. Costle. 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977); 43 FR 37078 (Aug. 21,
1978); 44 FR 32854 (June 7, 1979)). To date, the 1979 version of the regulations has not
substantively changed since then.
The NPDES regulations specify the applicability of the NPDES permit requirement to a
concentrated aquatic animal production facility, the definition of which can be found at
40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C to Part 122. To be a CAAP facility, the facility must
either meet the criteria in 40 CFR Appendix C or be designated on a case-by-case basis
(40 CFR 122.24(b)). A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a CAAP facility if it
contains, grows, or holds aquatic animals in either of two categories: coldwater species or
warmwater species. The coldwater species CAAP facilities must discharge at least 30
d/yr; however, facilities that produce less than 9,090 harvest weight kg (approximately
20,000 Ib) per year and facilities that feed less than 2,272 kg (approximately 5,000 Ib)
during the calendar month of maximum feeding are not defined as CAAP facilities. The
warmwater CAAP facilities must discharge at least 30 d/yr, but closed ponds that
discharge only during periods of excess runoff or facilities that produce less than 45,454
harvest weight kg (approximately 100,000 Ib) per year are not defined as CAAP facilities
(40 CFR 122 Appendix C).
1.7 REFERENCES
MDA (Maryland Department of Agriculture). 1995. State/Territory Permits and
Regulations Impacting the Aquaculture Industry. Maryland Department of
Agriculture, . Accessed
September 2001.
1-17
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Background
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2001. Technical Memorandum: Updates to the Report State/Territory
Permits and Regulations Impacting the Aquaculture Industry. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
USDA (U. S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. The 1998 Census of Aquaculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
Westat. 2002. AAP Screener Survey Production Range Report, Revision IV. Westat, Inc.,
Rockville, MD.
1-18
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY OF SCOPE AND PROPOSED REGULATION
This chapter presents a summary of the proposed rale for the concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) industry. The proposed rule includes effluent limitations guidelines
(ELGs) based on treatment technologies or best management practices (BMPs) for the
control of pollutants. Section 2.2 summarizes and discusses the applicability of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, and Section 2.3
summarizes and discusses the applicability of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for the CAAP industry.
2.1 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
The NPDES regulations specify the applicability of the NPDES permit requirement to a
concentrated aquatic animal production facility in 40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C to Part
122. To be a concentrated aquatic animal production facility, the facility must either meet
the criteria in 40 CFR Part 122 Appendix C or be designated on a case-by-case basis (40
CFR 122.24(b)). A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a concentrated aquatic animal
production facility if it contains, grows, or holds, aquatic animals in either of two
categories (40 CFR Appendix C to Part 122):
The coldwater species category includes ponds, raceways, or other similar
structures which discharge at least 30 days per year but does not include: facilities
which produce less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 20,000
pounds) per year; and facilities which feed less than 2,272 kilograms
(approximately 5,000 pounds) during the calendar month of maximum feeding.
Coldwater aquatic animals include, but are not limited to, the Salmonidae family
offish; e.g., trout and salmon.
The warmwater category includes ponds, raceways, or other similar structures
which discharge at least 30 days per year but does not include: closed ponds
which discharge only during periods of excess runoff; or facilities which produce
less than 45,454 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 100,000 pounds) per
year. Warmwater aquatic animals include, but are not limited to, the Ameiuride,
Centrarchidae, and Cyprinidae families offish; e.g., respectively catfish, sunfish,
and minnows.
EPA does not propose to revise the NPDES regulation.
2-1
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
2.2 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations would establish
the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Control
Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT), and Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) limitations, as well as New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS). EPA does not propose any pretreatment standards for this industry.
The indirect dischargers would discharge mainly total suspended solids (TSS) and
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which the publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) are designed to treat. In addition, the nutrients discharged from CAAP facilities
that might pass through the POTW are at concentrations similar to nutrient concentrations
in human wastes discharged to POTWs. The options EPA considered do not directly treat
for nutrients, but nutrients are incidentally removed through the control of TSS. EPA
believes that the POTW removals of TSS would achieve nutrient removals equivalent to
those obtained by the options considered for this proposed rulemaking and therefore
concludes there would be no pass through of pollutant amounts necessitating regulation.
2.2.1 Regulatory Implementation of Part 451 Through the NPDES Permit
Program and the National Pretreatment Program
Under Sections 301, 304, 306, and 307, of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA
promulgates national effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance for
major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) conventional pollutants (i.e.,
total suspended solids, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliforms, and
pH); (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc;
toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene); and
(3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia, formaldehyde, and phosphorus).
EPA considers development of six types of effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for each major industrial category, as appropriate:
Abbreviation Effluent Limitation Guideline or Standard
BPT Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
BAT Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BCT Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
PSES Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
PSNS Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
The effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards apply to
industrial facilities with direct discharges to navigable waters. Pretreatment standards
apply to industrial facilities with wastewater discharges to POTWs. As noted above, EPA
has not proposed categorized pretreatment standards for the CAAP industrial category.
2-2
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
2.2.1.1 NPDES Permit Program
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES permit program. The NPDES permit
program is designed to limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the
United States through a combination of various requirements, including technology-based
and water quality-based effluent limitations. This proposed regulation contains the
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the
concentrated aquatic animal production industry to be used by permit writers to derive
NPDES permit technology-based effluent limitations. Water quality-based effluent
limitations are based on receiving water characteristics and ambient water quality
standards, including designated water uses. They are derived independently from the
technology-based effluent limitations set out in this proposed regulation. The CWA
requires that NPDES permits must contain, for a given discharge, the more stringent of
the applicable technology-based or water quality-based effluent limitations for any given
pollutant of concern.
Section 402(a)(l) of the CWA provides that in the absence of promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines or standards, the Administrator, or her designee, may establish
technology-based effluent limitations for specific dischargers on a case-by-case basis.
Federal NPDES permit regulations provide that these limits may be established using
"best professional judgment" (BPJ) taking into account any proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and other relevant scientific, technical, and economic
information, as well as the statutory technology-based standards of control.
Section 301 of the CWA requires that BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants are to
have been achieved as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 3 years from the date
of promulgation of such limitations and in no case later than March 31, 1989. (See §
301(b)(2).) Because the proposed 40 CFR Part 451 regulations would be promulgated
after March 31, 1989, NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the effluent limitations
guidelines would need to be included in the next NPDES permit issued after
promulgation of the regulation, and the permit would need to require compliance
effective upon issuance.
2.2.1.2 New Source Performance Standards
New sources would need to comply with the new source performance standards and
limitations of the C AAP rule (once it is finalized) at the time such sources commence
discharging CAAP process wastewater. Because the final rule is not expected to be
promulgated within 120 days of the proposed rule, the Agency would consider a
discharger to be a new source if construction of the source begins after promulgation of
the final rule. EPA expects to take final action on this proposal in June 2004.
2.2.1.3 Pollutants in Intake Water (Net Limitations)
The TSS limitations being proposed are based on the implementation of production
management controls and wastewater treatment. Depending on the quality of the intake
water and the specific needs and tolerance of the species being raised, some facilities
might or might not currently employ pretreatment of intake waters prior to their use in the
production systems. EPA does not intend that the proposed limits would force facilities
that otherwise would not pretreat their intake waters to do so. EPA is proposing to apply
the TSS limitations on a net basis, such that the TSS content of the intake waters would
2-3
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
be subtracted from the TSS content of the effluent in determining compliance with any
such final TSS limitation. This credit for intake water pollutant content is consistent with
the provisions of 40 CFR 122.45(g) and more closely reflects the ability of controls and
treatment to minimize the addition of TSS by the production systems. EPA solicits
comment on whether facilities that pretreat intake waters in order to sustain the growth of
aquatic organisms should base the net calculations on the content of the intake waters
subsequent to that pretreatment, but prior to use in the production system.
2.2.1.4 National Pretreatment Standards
The national pretreatment standards at 40 CFR Part 403 have three principal objectives:
(1) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that will interfere with POTW operations including use or disposal of
municipal sludge; (2) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will
pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible with the treatment
works; and (3) to improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial
wastewaters and sludges.
The national pretreatment and categorical standards comprise a series of prohibited
discharges to prevent the discharge of "any pollutant(s) which cause Pass Through or
Interference." (See 40 CFR 403.5(a)(l).) Local control authorities are required to
implement the national pretreatment program including application of the federal
categorical pretreatment standards to their industrial users that are subject to such
categorical pretreatment standards, as well as any pretreatment standards derived locally
(i.e., local limits) that are more restrictive than the federal standards. This proposed
regulation would not establish federal categorical pretreatment standards (PSES and
PSNS) applicable to concentrated aquatic animal production facilities that would be
regulated by 40 CFR Part 451.
2.2.2 Applicability of the Proposed Rule
EPA has proposed subcategorization of the C AAP point source category based on
production system type. See Chapter 5 for a discussion on subcategorization. The
proposed subcategories are listed in Table 2.2-1. The proposal would apply to facilities
that annually produce more than 100,000 Ib of aquatic animals in three types of
production systems: recirculating, flow-through, and net pens. EPA did not propose
regulations for pond systems because of the minimal pollutant discharges and because the
pond itself acts as an effective treatment system.
EPA established general reporting requirements (§ 451.3) for the use of drugs and
chemicals that are investigational new animal drugs and any drugs and chemicals not
used according to the label. Flow-through system facilities that produce less than 475,000
Ib per year would be exempt from the general reporting requirements for drugs and
chemicals.
2-4
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
Table 2.2-1. Applicability of Proposed Rule to CAAP Subcategories
System Type or
Subcategory
Pond
Flow-through
Recirculatlng
Net pen
Annual Production (Ib)
<100,000
(Small)
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
100,000 to 475,000
(Medium)
Exempt
451.3(a), (b)
451.4
45 1.1 l(b), (c)
451.12-14
451.15(b)-(d)
451.3(a), (b)
451.4
451.2-
451.3-
451.3(a), (b)
>475,000
(Large)
Exempt
451.3(a), (b)
451.4
451.11(a)
451.12-15
451.3(a), (b)
451.4
451.2-
451.3-
451.3(a), (b)
The permittee would need to notify the permitting authority of the addition directly to an
aquatic animal production facility (subject to this Part) of any investigational new animal
drug (i.e., a drug for which there is a valid exemption in effect under 512(j) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21.U.S.C. 360b(j)) and any drag that is not used
according to label requirements, as well as any chemical that is not used according to
label requirements. For drugs and chemicals that are not used according to label
requirements:
• The permittee would need to provide an oral report to the permitting authority
within 7 days after initiating application of the drug or chemical. The oral report
would need to identify the drug and/or chemical added and the reason for adding
the drug and/or chemical.
• The permittee would need to provide a written report to the permitting authority
within 30 days after conclusion of the addition of the drag or chemical. The
written report would need to identify the drag and/or chemical added and include:
the reason for treatment, date(s) and time(s) of the addition (including duration);
the total amount of active ingredient added; the total amount of medicated feed
added (only for drugs applied through medicated feed), and the estimated number
of aquatic animals medicated by the addition.
For investigational new animal drugs, the permittee would need to provide a written
report to the permitting authority within 30 days after conclusion of the addition of any
investigational new drug. The written report would need to identify the drug added
including: the reason for treatment, date(s) and time(s) of the addition (including
duration); the total amount of active ingredient added; the total amount of medicated feed
added (only for drugs applied through medicated feed), and the estimated number of
aquatic animals medicated by the addition.
EPA also proposed to establish the general requirement of BMP plan certification for all
facilities. The certification requires the facility owner or operator to certify that a BMP
2-5
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
plan was developed and would meet the objectives of the regulation. The plan would
need to be available to the permitting authority if requested.
2.2.3 Summary of the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
The proposed guidelines establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based on treatment
technologies or BMPs evaluated for each of the subcategories. EPA evaluated the
following options in the development of the ELGs for the proposed subcategories:
Option 1. Development of a BMP plan for all subcategories and numeric
limitations for TSS based on primary settling for flow-through and recirculating
systems.
Option 2. Option 1 + development of a BMP plan to address the use of drugs and
chemicals, escapes of nonnative species, and mortality removal for all
subcategories except the medium facilities within the flow-through subcategory.
Option 3. Option 2 + numeric limits for flow-though and recirculating systems
based on additional solids treatment and active feed monitoring for net pens.
The options are additive in nature, and represent increasing stringency; thus, Option 2
limitations would be based on, and incorporate, primary settling (Option 1) in addition to
the limitations based on BMP considerations under Option 2. These options are further
discussed in Chapters 9 and 10.
2.2.3.1 BPT
Flow-through Systems
EPA is proposing (1) no nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines for facilities
producing less than 100,000 Ib/yr, (2) effluent limitations based on Option 1 for facilities
producing 100,000 Ib/yr up to 475,000 Ib/yr, and (3) effluent limitations based on Option
3 for facilities producing 475,000 Ib/yr or more.
For small flow-through facilities (facilities that produce between 20,000 and 100,000
Ib/yr of cold water species), the proposed rule would not establish any national
requirements for existing flow-through facilities. EPA's analysis estimated that the
economic impacts below the 100,000 Ib/yr threshold were significant. EPA determined
that by considering different levels of control for the two production thresholds
established, the unreasonable cost impacts would be minimized.
Any flow-through facilities below the production threshold of 100,000 Ib/yr would still
be subject to existing NPDES regulations and would be subject to permit limits based on
the permit writer's "best professional judgment" if the facility is a "concentrated aquatic
animal production facility" under the existing NPDES regulations.
For facilities producing 100,000 Ib/yr up to 475,000 Ib/yr, the proposed rule would
establish BPT limits based on primary settling, including quiescent zones and settling
basins and/or BMP development (Option 1) for existing flow-through facilities.
For facilities producing 475,000 Ib/yr or more, the proposed rule would establish limits
based on solids polishing and/or a requirement to develop and implement a BMP plan
2-6
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
(Option 3). EPA considered the impacts of such proposal requirements on these larger
facilities and, based on the results, determined that 475,000 Ib/yr would be an appropriate
threshold for which the costs of compliance would remain cost reasonable.
EPA is also proposing to establish limits for TSS discharged from separate off-line
treatment systems (i.e., physically separate and discharging from an outfall distinct from
the main flow of the system) based on Option 3 technology performance. For these
systems, EPA also proposes a BMP plan for solids control in the bulk, or main, discharge
of the system. A summary of the BPT requirement alternatives for flow-through systems
is provided in Table 2.2-2 at the end of this chapter.
Recirculating Systems
EPA is proposing to establish BPT limits on the basis of solids polishing (i.e., additional
solids removal) including a settling basin and the development of a BMP plan, and
general reporting requirements for drug and chemical use (Option 3) for existing
recirculating facilities that produce more than 100,000 Ib/yr. This option is technically
available for recirculating systems at this size threshold. A summary of the BPT
requirement alternatives for recirculating systems is provided in Table 2.2-2 at the end of
this chapter.
Net Pen Systems
EPA is proposing to establish BPT limits on the basis of active feed monitoring (i.e.,
additional solids removal) and the development of a BMP plan, and general reporting
requirements for use of certain drugs and chemicals (Option 3) for facilities that produce
more than 100,000 Ib/yr as the technology basis for the effluent limitations guidelines for
existing sources in the proposed rule. A summary of the BPT requirement alternatives for
net pen systems is provided in Table 2.2-2 at the end of this chapter.
2.2.3.2 BCT and BAT
Flow-through Systems
EPA proposes to establish BCT and BAT at a level equal to BPT for flow-through
systems.
EPA is establishing BPT limitations for flow-through facilities with an annual production
of 100,000 Ib and greater. A BCT test can be performed for the category with 100,000 up
to 475,000 Ib in annual production. (EPA is proposing the most stringent option for
facilities with 475,000 Ib and greater in annual production. Hence, there is no more
stringent option to be considered for BCT for this group.) For purposes of this analysis,
EPA is assuming that the proposed BPT limits are baseline. Thus, EPA is considering
only Options 2 and 3 as BCT candidate options. EPA's analyses found that Option 3 fails
the second part of the cost reasonableness test. Based on these results, EPA is proposing
that BCT be set equal to BPT.
Because EPA projects limited economic impacts associated with BPT requirements, EPA
does not expect significant economic impacts for BAT. EPA did not select the more
stringent Option 2 for facilities with 100,000 up to 475,000 Ib/yr production because EPA
was concerned about the number of commercial facilities estimated to experience
compliance costs greater than 5% of revenues from aquaculture sales. EPA also
2-7
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
determined that Option 3 would not be economically achievable for these facilities based
on the high number of facilities estimated to experience compliance costs greater than the
10% revenue threshold. EPA selected Option 3 for facilities with greater than 475,000
Ib/yr production because no facilities are estimated to experience compliance costs that
exceed the 5% revenue threshold.
For more details about the BCT cost reasonableness test and the BAT analysis, see the
economic and environmental assessment (USEPA, 2002).
Recirculating Systems
EPA proposes to establish BAT equal to BPT for recirculating systems. EPA proposed
the most stringent option for facilities with recirculating systems. Because EPA projects
limited economic impacts associated with the BPT requirements, EPA expects only
limited economic impacts associated with BAT. For more details about the BCT and
BAT economic analyses, see the economic and environmental assessment (USEPA,
2002).
Net Pen Systems
EPA proposes to establish BAT equal to BPT for net pen systems. EPA has determined
that no more stringent options representing BAT are available. For more details about the
BCT and BAT economic analyses, see the economic and environmental assessment
(USEPA, 2002).
2.2.3.3 NSPS
EPA is proposing new source performance standards that are identical to those proposed
for existing dischargers that meet the 100,000 Ib/yr production threshold. Engineering
analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution control systems during new
construction is no more than the cost of retrofitting existing facilities and is frequently
less than the retrofit cost. Because EPA projects the costs for new sources to be equal to
or less than those for existing sources and because limited impacts are projected for these
existing sources, EPA does not expect significant economic impacts (or barrier to entry)
for new sources that meet the 100,000 Ib/yr production threshold.
EPA is considering establishing new source performance standards for smaller coldwater
CAAP facilities that produce between 20,000 and 100,000 Ib/yr. EPA intends to conduct
further analysis pertaining to this issue using detailed survey data.
2-8
-------
Table 2.2-2. Summary of Proposed BPT Requirements for CAAP Facilities
System
Flow-through systems
Full flow, 100,000 to
475. 000 Ib; includes
treatment from OLSB
that recombines with
bulk flow
Description
Combined or
single discharge
OR
Combined or
single discharge
TSS Numeric Limit
Maximum monthly average: 6 rng/L
Maximum daily average: 11 mg/L
(Both are net concentrations)
BMP Requirement
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
— Structural maintenance
— Materials storage
- Disposal of biological waste
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
- Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
— Disposal of biological waste
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Reference
451.11(b)(l)
451.15(b)
451.15(d)
451.3(b)
451.15(a)
451.15(b)
451.15(d)
451. 3(b)
-------
System
Flow-through systems
Separate OLSB discharge:
100,000 to 475, 000 lb;
facilities that discharge
from OLSB separate to
bulk discharge
Description
OLSB discharge
Bulk discharge
OR
OLSB discharge
Bulk discharge
TSS Numeric Limit
Maximum monthly average: 67 mg/L
Maximum daily average: 87 mg/L
(Both are net concentrations)
BMP Requirement
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
- Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
— Disposal of biological waste
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
— Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
- Disposal of biological waste
Ensure staff are Familiar with BMP plan
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
- Structural maintenance
— Materials storage
— Disposal of biological waste
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
— Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
- Disposal of biological waste
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
Reference
451.11(bX2)
451.11(c)
451.15(b)
451.15(d)
451.3(b)
451.15(a)
451.15(b)
451.15(d)
451.15(a)
451.15(b)
451.15(d)
451.3(b)
451.15(a)
451.15(b)
45 1.1 5 (d)
-------
System
Flow-through systems
Full flow: more than
475, 000 lb: includes
treatment from OLSB that
recombines with bulk flow
Description
Combined or
single discharge
OR
Combined or
single discharge
TSS Numeric Limit
Maximum monthly average: 6 rng/L
Maximum daily average: 10 mg/L
(Both are net concentrations)
BMP Requirement
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
— Structural maintenance
— Materials storage
- Disposal of biological waste
• Develop and implement practices to minimize potential escape of
nonnative species
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Drugs and chemical reporting
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
- Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
— Disposal of biological waste
• Develop and implement practices to minimize potential escape of
nonnative species
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Drugs and chemical reporting
Reference
451.11(a)(l)
451.11(c)
451.15(b)
451.15(c)
45 1.1 5 (d)
451.3(b)
451.3(a)
451.15(a)
45 1.1 5 (b)
451.15(c)
451.15(d)
451.3(b)
451.3(a)
-------
System
Flow-through systems
Separate OLSB
discharge: more than
475,000 lb; facilities that
discharge from OLSB
separate to bulk
discharge
Description
OLSB discharge
Bulk discharge
OR
OLSB discharge
Bulk Discharge
TSS Numeric Limit
Maximum monthly average: 55 mg/L
Maximum daily average: 69 mg/L
(Both are net concentrations)
BMP Requirement
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
- Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
— Disposal of biological waste
• Develop and implement practices to minimize potential escape of
nonnative species
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
— Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
- Disposal of biological waste
Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
Drugs and chemical reporting
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
— Structural maintenance
— Materials storage
- Disposal of biological waste
• Develop and implement practices to minimize potential escape of
nonnative species
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
- Structural maintenance
— Materials storage
— Disposal of biological waste
Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
Drugs and chemical reporting
Reference
451.11(a)(2)
451.11(c)
451.15(b)
451.15(c)
45 1.1 5 (d)
451.3(b)
451.15(a)
451.15(b)
451.15(d)
451.3(a)
451.15(a)
451.15(b)
451.15(c)
451.15(d)
451.3(b)
451.15(a)
451.15(b)
451.15(d)
451.3(a)
-------
System
Recirculating Systems
More than 100,000 pounds
annual production
Net Pen Systems
All net pen systems with
annual production more
than 100,000 pounds,
except those producing
native species of salmon in
AK
Description
All discharges
OR
All discharges
All discharges
TSS Numeric Limit
Maximum monthly average: 30 mg/L
Maximum daily average: 50 mg/L
BMP Requirement
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
— Structural maintenance
- Materials storage
- Disposal of biological waste
• Develop and implement practices to minimize potential escape of
nonnative species
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Drugs and chemical reporting
Develop BMP plan - management and removal of solids and excess feed
Develop BMP plan
• Proper O&M of facility
- Structural maintenance
— Materials storage
— Disposal of biological waste
• Develop and implement practices to minimize potential escape of
nonnative species
• Ensure staff are familiar with BMP plan
• Certify BMP plan
Drugs and chemical reporting
Maintain real time monitoring system to monitor the rate of feed
consumption through the detection of uneaten feed passing through the
bottom of the net pen.
Develop BMP plan
• Minimize the discharge of net fouling organisms
• Avoid the discharge of
— Blood, viscera, fish carcasses, or transport water
— Substances associated with in-place cleaning of nets
• Develop and implement practices to minimize potential escape of
nonnative species
• Prohibited discharges:
- Feed bags and other solid waste
— Chemicals used to clean nets, boats or gear
— Materials containing or treated with tributyllin compounds
• Certify BMP plan
Drugs and chemical reporting
Reference
451.21
451.25(b)
451.25(c)
451.25(d)
451.3(b)
451.3(a)
451.25(a)
451.25(b)
451.25(c)
451.25(d)
451.3(b)
451.3(a)
451.31
451.35
451.3(b)
451.3(a)
O
a
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Proposed Regulation
2.3 REFERENCES
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Economic and Environmental
Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-
R-02-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
2-14
-------
CHAPTER 3
DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
3.1 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
EPA collected data from a variety of sources to characterize the aquatic animal
production (AAP) industry. The main purpose of EPA's data collection efforts was to
obtain information on documented environmental impacts of concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) facilities, as well as additional data on CAAP waste characteristics,
pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment technology innovation, and facility
management practices. EPA also engaged in other data collection activities, which
included literature searches; a review of the Agency's Permit Compliance System (PCS),
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits; a survey of the AAP industry; EPA site visit and wastewater
sampling program; and meetings with industry experts and the public.
3.1.1 Literature Searches
EPA evaluated the following online databases to locate technical data and information to
support regulatory development: the Agency's PCS database, Aquatic Sciences and
Fisheries Abstracts' database, U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) aquaculture
literature database AGRICOLA, and the 1998 USDA Census of Aquaculture (USDA,
2000). In addition, the Agency conducted a thorough collection and review of secondary
sources, which included technical journal articles; data, reports, and analyses published
by government agencies; reports and analyses published by the AAP industry and its
associated organizations; and publicly available financial information compiled by both
government agencies and private organizations.
EPA used the documents cited above to develop the industry profile and a survey
sampling frame, and to stratify the survey sampling frame. In addition to these
publications, EPA examined many other documents that provided useful overviews and
analyses of the AAP industry. EPA also conducted general Internet searches on many
different technical components of the AAP industry.
EPA conducted several literature searches to obtain environmental impact information on
various aspects of the AAP industry, including pollutants causing environmental impacts,
water quality and ecological impacts from these pollutants, nonnative species impacts,
and other potential impacts. EPA has included a summary of its environmental impact
analysis in the public docket (USEPA, 2002a). This analysis, which EPA summarized in
case studies, includes primary sources such as technical journal articles, newspaper
articles, and comments and information from industry experts and government contacts
for AAP.
3-1
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
EPA also conducted separate literature searches for case studies that characterize the
AAP industry, including the typical effluents associated with different production system
types and species. The primary sources for these case studies were technical journal
articles, and comments and information from industry experts and government contacts
for AAP.
3.1.2 Permitting Information
Permit Compliance System
EPA evaluated information from its PCS to identify CAAP industry point source
dischargers with NPDES permits. EPA performed this initial analysis by searching the
PCS, using the reported Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes used to describe
the primary activities occurring at the site. Specifically, two SIC codes were used: 0273
(Animal Aquaculture) and 0921 (Fish Hatcheries and Preserves). Information obtained
from this analysis is referred to in this document as the "PCS database."
EPA identified a total of 1,189 CAAP facilities in the PCS database. Based on the
information in the database, an estimated 673 CAAP facilities have active NPDES
permits. Some parameters found in the PCS data are parameters that the facility must
report or monitor during use, but do not have established limits. Some parameters are
monitored without set limits in order to enable the permitting authority to characterize the
effluent and determine if continued monitoring is necessary. Other chemicals that appear
in the PCS data have "report only" requirements where facilities report when they use
specific chemicals or perform certain activities (such as cleaning tanks), which may only
occur once or twice a year. Another group of parameters (such as flow, biomass, fish on
hand, and fish food fed per day) are used by the permitting authority to characterize the
volume of effluents and qualitative characteristics of the effluent and facility.
Table 3.1-1 provides a summary of parameters reported by CAAP facilities in the PCS
database. Most facilities retrieved from the PCS are located in Florida, Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington.
Discharge Monitoring Reports
EPA collected long-term effluent data from facility DMRs to supplement the PCS data in
an effort to perform a "real world" check on the achievability of requirements of the
proposed rule. DMRs summarize the quality and volume of wastewater discharged from
a facility under an NPDES permit. DMRs are critical for monitoring compliance with
NPDES permit provisions and for generating national trends on Clean Water Act
compliance. DMRs may be submitted monthly, quarterly, or annually depending on the
requirements of the NPDES permit. EPA developed a DMR database by collecting
information from numerous CAAP facility DMRs and combining the information into a
database for analysis. That database is referred to in this document as the "DMR
database."
3-2
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.1-1. Parameters in the PCS Database
Parameter
Ammonia
Backwash cycles
Biocides
Biochemical oxygen demand
Cadmium
Chemical oxygen demand
Chloramine
Chloride
Chlorophyll a
Coliform, fecal
Color
Conductivity
Copper
Diquat
Discharge event observation
Duration of discharge
E. coll
Fish food fed per day
Fish on hand
Floating solids or visible foam
Flow
Formalin (formaldehyde)
Hydrogen peroxide
Inorganic suspended solids
Lead
Parameter
Manganese
Nickel
Nitrogen"
Oil and grease
Outfall observation
Oxygen, dissolved
Ozone
pH
Phosphorus"
Potassium
Salinity
Silver
Sludge waste from secondary clarifiers
Solids, settleable
Solids, total dissolved
Solids, total suspended
Solids, volatile suspended
Stream flow
Temperature
Terramycin
Total production
Turbidity
WET test
Zinc
"Includes inorganic, organic, and total forms.
Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with their control authority (e.g.,
publicly owned treatment works (POTW)) at least twice per year as required under the
General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR Part 403). Direct dischargers file discharge
monitoring reports with their permitting authority at least once per year. EPA did not
collect compliance monitoring reports for CAAP facilities that are indirect dischargers
because (1) a vast majority of CAAP indirect dischargers discharge small volumes of
wastewater and do not discharge toxic compounds, (2) this information is less centralized
and more difficult to collect, and (3) many of these indirect dischargers would not be
considered significant industrial users (SIUs), and might not be subject to Part 403
requirements.
3-3
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
EPA was able to identify facility characteristics and evaluate DMR information from 57
flow-through facilities and 2 recirculating facilities. EPA collected 38,096 data points on
126 separate parameters (including nitrogen, phosphorus, solids, flow, chemicals such as
formalin and diquat, and copper). Some parameters found in the DMR data are
parameters that the facility must report or monitor during use, but do not have established
limits. Some parameters are monitored without set limits in order to enable the permitting
authority to characterize the effluent and determine if continued monitoring is necessary.
Other chemicals that appear in the DMR data have "report only" requirements where
facilities report when they use specific chemicals, which may only occur once or twice a
year. Another group of parameters (such as flow, biomass, fish on hand, and fish food fed
per day) are used by the permitting authority to characterize the volume of effluents and
qualitative characteristics of the effluent and facility.
Table 3.1-2 provides a summary of the parameters found in the DMR database. Most
facilities in the database are located in Idaho, Michigan, New York, Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
Table 3.1-2. Parameters in the DMR Database
Parameter
Aluminum
Ammonia
Biochemical oxygen demand
Biomass
BOD, carbonaceous
Cadmium
Calcium carbonate
Chemical oxygen demand
Chloramine-T
Chlorophyll a
Chlorine
Coliform, fecal
Copper
Diquat
Dissolved oxygen
Duration of discharge
Fecal Streptococcus
Fish food fed per day
Fish on hand
Floating solids or visible foam-visual
Flow
Formalin (formaldehyde)
Hydrogen peroxide
Iron
Parameter
Lead
Manganese
Nitrogen'
Oil and grease
Outflow during cleaning
Oxidation/reduction potential
Ozone
pH
Phosphorus"
Potassium permanganate
Roccal-n
Settleable solids
Silver
Sludge waste from secondary clarifiers
Solids, inorganic suspended
Solids, total dissolved
Solids, total suspended
Solids, volatile suspended
Sulfate, total
Temperature
Terramycin
Turbidity
Zinc
"Includes inorganic, organic, and total forms.
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
NPDES Permits
EPA reviewed over 170 NPDES permits and permit applications, provided by the
Agency's regional offices, to obtain information on facility type, production methods and
systems, species produced, and effluent treatment practices. EPA used this information as
part of its initial screening process. The Agency identified types of CAAP facilities,
including pond systems, flow-through systems, recirculating systems, and net pen
systems, that might be covered under the proposed regulation. In addition, EPA used
information from existing NPDES permits to better define the scope of the information
collection requests and to supplement other information (e.g., DMR and PCS data)
collected on waste management practices in the industry. EPA compiled the information
from these permits into a database, which is referred to in this document as the "NPDES
database."
EPA collected NPDES permits from 174 CAAP facilities. The following summaries
characterize different aspects of the CAAP facilities in the NPDES database by facility
location, type of ownership, production system types, and species types. EPA evaluated
174 NPDES permits from 37 states. Table 3.1-3 lists the number of NPDES permits (in
the NPDES database) in each state.
Table 3.1-3. Number of Permitted Facilities by State
State
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Delaware
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
North Carolina
North Dakota
No. of Permitted
Facilities
1
1
6
2
1
1
4
3
1
1
2
9
7
7
12
4
6
2
4
6
3-5
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
State
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Total: 37 states
No. of Permitted
Facilities
4
8
1
15
1
7
1
2
6
9
1
13
5
2
2
5
12
174
EPA classified each facility by type of ownership (government, private, or other), often
determining the type of ownership by the name of the facility. Most of the facilities in the
NPDES database are government facilities, with 117 of the 174 facilities. Fifty-six CAAP
facilities were privately owned. Flow-through systems are the predominant system type
in the NPDES database. EPA determined system type by searching for system
descriptions in the permit, including diagrams showing specific facility components, and
by analyzing information concerning outfalls. EPA determined the species type at each
facility by finding specific mention of the species in the permit or attached documents.
When the species type was unknown or different from the major species categories
chosen (catfish, molluscs, perch, salmon, shrimp, striped bass, tilapia, or trout), EPA
classified the species as "other."
In addition, EPA categorized facilities with more than one species as "multiple." Trout is
the most common species represented in this database, with 63 facilities identified as
producing this species. There are 42 facilities identified as producing multiple species,
and 48 facilities identified as "other," which is primarily game and sport fish.
Summary of NPDES, PCS, andDMR Data
EPA linked data from the NPDES database to the PCS and DMR databases. This
provided the Agency with a description of the production systems and species at different
facilities, as well as a characterization of the treatment systems at those facilities. This
approach was useful for combining information from the databases to evaluate effluents
3-6
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
from similar facilities. The linked data were used to evaluate permit limits for CAAP
facilities.
3.2 SUMMARY OF AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION QUESTIONNAIRE
ACTIVITY
EPA developed a survey questionnaire because the existing primary and secondary
sources of information available to the Agency did not contain the information necessary
to thoroughly evaluate regulatory options. In particular, EPA needs facility/site-specific
technical and economic information to evaluate the costs and benefits of regulation.
3.2.1 Background
EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55522),
announcing its intent to submit the Aquatic Animal Production Industry Survey
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The September 14, 2000, notice requested comment on the draft ICR and the survey
questionnaires. EPA received 44 sets of comments during the 60-day public comment
period. Commenters on the ICR included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Trout Farmers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation,
North Carolina State University, Louisiana Rice Growers Association, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm
Bureau Federation, and Freshwater Institute. EPA made significant revisions to the
survey methodology and questionnaires as a result of these public comments. The
questionnaire was revised and divided into two survey versions. The first version is the
screener survey (short version), and the second version is the detailed survey (the longer
version). The two major reasons for the Agency's splitting the survey were (1) comments
to the effect that the Agency would not know how much emphasis to place on rarely
occurring facility types without a census and (2) the need to target specific types of
CAAP facilities that could not be identified using information obtained from the
databases available to the Agency at that time.
EPA published a second notice in the Federal Register on June 8, 2001 (66 FR 30902),
announcing its intent to submit another Aquatic Animal Production Industry Survey ICR
to OMB. The June 8, 2001, notice requested comment on the draft ICR and the detailed
survey questionnaire. EPA received nine sets of comments during the 30-day public
comment period. Commenters on the ICR included North Carolina Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Ohio Aquaculture Association, Catfish Farmers of
America, National Aquaculture Association, National Association of State Aquaculture
Coordinators, U.S. Trout Farmers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
EPA made every reasonable attempt to ensure that the AAP industry surveys did not
request data and information currently available through existing sources of data. Before
publishing the September 14, 2000, notice, EPA met with and distributed draft survey
questionnaires to the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluents Task
Force (JSA/AETF), which includes representatives from industry and trade associations,
academia, and other interested stakeholders. After evaluating the comments received on
the September 14, 2000, notice, EPA drafted a revised survey, and sent it to the
3-7
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
JSA/AETF for review and comment. EPA worked with the JSA/AETF through
conference calls and written comments to further refine the detailed survey. EPA also
conducted two conference calls with the economic technical subgroup of JSA/AETF to
discuss the economic and financial questions in the survey. To the extent possible, EPA
incorporated comments and suggestions from these initial reviews into the survey. EPA
obtained approval from OMB for the use and distribution of the screener survey on
August 1, 2001 (66 FR 64817) and for the detailed survey on November 28, 2001 (67 FR
6519).
3.2.2 Screener Survey
3.2.2.1 Description of the Screener Survey
In August 2001 EPA mailed a short screener survey, entitled Screener Questionnaire for
the Aquatic Animal Production Industry, to approximately 6,000 AAP facilities. A copy
of the screener survey is included in the record (USEPA, 2001). The screener survey
consisted of 11 questions that solicited general facility information, including
confirmation that the facility was engaged in aquatic animal production, species and size
category produced, type of production system, wastewater disposal method, and total
production at the facility in the year 2000. EPA used the information collected through
the screener survey to describe industry operations and wastewater disposal practices.
EPA also used the responses to the facility production question to classify each facility as
small or not-small according to the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR
Part 121.
3.2.2.2 Development of Screener Survey Mailing List
The mailing list (sample frame) for EPA's screener survey was developed by
synthesizing facility information from the Dunn and Bradstreet database, EPA's PCS,
contacts with EPA regional permit writers, EPA site visits, state aquaculture contacts,
universities, recent issues of Aquaculture Magazine, assistance from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs on tribal facilities, and an extensive collection of Web sites with aquaculture
references. Additionally, EPA requested, but was denied, access to the facility
identification data associated with the USDA's 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA,
2000). The mailing list EPA developed contained approximately 6,000 facilities. This
number seemed to compare favorably with the roughly 5,000 facilities in the 1998
Census of Aquaculture. EPA believes that the sample frame was as current as possible
and reasonably complete, and minimized duplication.
Because approximately 90% of the facilities identified in EPA's mailing list were not
classified by species of aquatic animal in production, the available database was not
considered to be sufficient for purposes of selecting recipients for the detailed
questionnaire. Again, the primary purpose of the screener survey was to collect this
information.
3.2.2.3 Response to the Screener Survey
Although some 6,000 facilities received the screener survey, the total number of
respondents was 3,273 and the number of respondents that actually produce aquatic
animals was a little over 1,700. The discrepancy between the number of surveys sent and
3-8
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
the number of facilities reporting they are aquatic animal producers is largely attributable
to the fact that the list was compiled from general industry sources and included not only
producers but also processors, retailers, and the like. The Agency believes that the
facilities missed by its screener survey are likely to be small facilities that go into and out
of business faster than can currently be tracked by sources outside the USDA, which has
confidentiality agreements that do not allow the Department to share its information with
EPA.
Because EPA intended to reduce the scope of the regulation by excluding these smaller
facilities by production levels and species, the Agency sent the detailed survey to 263
facilities. Results of the screener survey were used to ensure that all of the facilities that
received the detailed questionnaire produce aquatic animals and that a high percentage
are conducting operations included in the scope of the proposed rule. Under the
assumption that most of the facilities missing from the screener survey are small
facilities, results from the 1998 Census of Aquaculture were used to assist the Agency in
selecting appropriate sample sizes for each combination of production method and
species.
3.2.2.4 Preliminary Summary of Data from the Screener Survey
The following summary of the results from the screener survey (Westat, 2002) is based
on the 3,273 surveys that have been returned to EPA and analyzed (as of February 2002).
Appendix A provides a detailed summary of the screener survey information. EPA will
continue to process additional surveys and then analyze the complete data set. Of these
3,273 surveys, 1,747 respondents indicated that they produce aquatic animals at their
facility. Table 3.2-1 is a summary of facilities that produce aquatic animals by region,
based on screener survey data.
Table 3.2-1. Facilities Producing Aquatic Animals by Region3
Region
Southern
Western
North Central
Northeastern
Tropical
Total
Number of Facilities
780
392
292
247
36
1,747
Percentage of Facilities
45%
22%
17%'
14%
2%
100%
" Regions are defined by categories from the USDA 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000).
States that are included within each of the USDA regions described above are
summarized in Table 3.2-2.
3-9
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.2-2. States Within Each USDA Region
Region
Southern
Western
North Central
Northeastern
Tropical
States
Alabama. Arkansas. Florida, Georgia, Kentucky. Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, West Virginia
Hawaii
Data from the survey indicate that ownership type is described as sole proprietorship for
approximately 40% of facilities producing aquatic animals. An additional 15% are
described as Subchapter S Corporations and 12% are identified as C Corporations.
Overall, close to 80% of all facilities are under private ownership. A total of 13% of the
facilities were described as state hatcheries, and another 3% were federal hatcheries.
Approximately 77% of all facilities produce only one species, and 15% produce two
species. Catfish production dominates the AAP industry hi the United States; 31% of
respondents indicated that they produce catfish. Other species produced are trout (28%),
other finfish (19%), salmon (9%), and molluscan shellfish (9%). Pond systems are the
most common production system in use with 61% of the respondents indicating the use of
ponds. Table 3.2-3 summarizes production system data based on responses to the
screener survey.
Table 3.2-3. Production Systems
System
Ponds
Flow-through raceways, ponds, or tanks
Recirculating systems
Net pens or cages
Floating or bottom aquaculture
Other
Number of Facilities
Using System"
1,068
787
310
151
144
79
"Note: Some respondents indicated using more than one system type; therefore, the number of systems in
this data set is greater than the number of facilities that reported producing aquatic animals.
3-10
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.2.3 Detailed Survey
3.2.3.1 Description of the Detailed Survey
EPA designed the detailed survey to collect site-specific technical and financial
information from a representative sample of CAAP facilities. A copy of the detailed
survey is included in the record (USEPA, 2002o). The detailed survey is divided into
three parts. The first two parts collect general facility, technical, and cost data. The first
set of questions in Part A request general facility site information, including facility
contact information, facility size, and NPDES permit information. The general facility
information questions also ask the site to identify and confirm that it is engaged in
aquatic animal production. The second set of questions in Part A focuses on system
descriptions and wastewater control technologies.
The detailed survey was mailed to concentrated aquatic animal producers shortly before
the proposed regulation was signed. The data that will be collected by the detailed survey
will be compiled and analyzed after the proposed rule has been published. The data will
be noticed and made available for public comment in a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) that will be published in the Federal Register.
The wastewater control technology section is divided into six parts, one part for each type
of production system (pond, flow-through, recirculating, net pens and cages, floating
aquaculture and bottom culture, and other systems). The individual system sections have
been tailored with specific questions and responses. Each of these sections asks the
responder to describe (1) the system, (2) water use, (3) pollutant control practices, and (4)
discharge characteristics.
Part B, the second part of the survey, asks the respondent for facility cost information.
The cost information is intended to provide EPA with a complete description of all cost
elements associated with the pollution control practices and technologies used at the
facility. Separate tables show the details of capital and annual operating costs. The cost
section also evaluates the current discharge monitoring practices, product losses, and feed
information.
EPA will use the information from Part B to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards and pollutant loadings associated with the regulatory options that the
Agency considers for final rulemaking. The Agency also will use data received in
response to these questions to identify treatment technologies in place; to determine the
feasibility of regulatory options; and to estimate compliance costs, the pollutant
reductions associated with the technology-based options, and potential environmental
impacts associated with the regulatory options EPA considers for final rulemaking.
Part C, the third part of the detailed survey, elicits site-specific financial and economic
data. EPA will use this information to characterize the economic status of the industry
and to estimate potential economic impacts of wastewater regulations. The financial and
economic information collected in the survey will be used to complete the economic
analysis of the final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the CAAP industry.
EPA requested financial and economic information for the fiscal years ending 1999,
2000, and 2001—the most recent years for which data are available.
3-11
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.2.3.2 Sample Selection for the Detailed Survey
Respondents to the detailed questionnaire were selected at random from within groups
(stratified random selection) that were identified using screener survey results. Based on
the same screener survey results, along with design principles detailed in EPA's ICR, 263
facilities received the detailed questionnaire.
The sample and the questionnaires described above are expected to provide EPA with the
minimum amount of information necessary to estimate the costs and benefits associated
with regulatory options to be developed. These results will be noticed in the NOD A, as
mentioned above.
3.3 SUMMARY OF EPA's SITE VISIT AND WASTEWATER SAMPLING
PROGRAMS
3.3.1 Site Visits
During 2000 and 2001 EPA conducted site visits at 71 AAP facilities. The objectives of
these site visits were (1) to collect information on aquatic animal operations, (2) to collect
information on wastewater generation and waste management practices used by the AAP
facilities, and (3) to evaluate each facility as a candidate for multi-day sampling.
In selecting candidates for site visits, EPA attempted to identify facilities representative
of various AAP operations, as well as both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA
specifically considered the type of aquatic animal production operation (production
method and species produced), geographic region, age of the facility, size of facility (in
terms of production), wastewater treatment processes employed, and best management
practices (BMPs) and pollution prevention techniques used. EPA also solicited
recommendations for facilities that perform well (e.g., facilities with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies) from EPA regional offices, state agencies, and the
JSA/AETF. The site-specific selection criteria are discussed in site visit reports prepared
for the sites visited by EPA and are summarized in this document. The sites visited reflect
a cross section of the industry that is fairly complete and proportionally representative of
the AAP industry as a whole. EPA recognizes that a number of AAP facilities visited
during the site visits are not CAAP facilities and would not be regulated under proposed
rules. However, EPA was interested in collecting information from a wider range of AAP
facilities than just CAAP facilities to evaluate the diversity of the AAP industry and to
determine which segments should be included in proposed regulations.
During each site visit EPA collected information on the facility and its operations,
including (1) general production data and information, (2) the types of aquatic animal
production wastewaters generated and treated on-site, (3) water source and use, and (4)
wastewater treatment and disposal operations.
EPA used the site visit reports to prepare sampling and analysis plans for each facility
that would undergo multi-day sampling. For those facilities selected for sampling
episodes, EPA also collected information on potential sampling locations for wastewater
(raw influent, within the treatment system, and final effluent), as well as other
information necessary for developing a sampling plan for possible multi-day sampling
3-12
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
episodes. The purpose of the multi-day sampling was to characterize pollutants in raw
wastewaters prior to treatment as well as to document wastewater treatment performance
(including selected unit processes).
3.3.1.1 Site Visit Summary
Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 summarize the different types of systems and species at the
facilities that EPA visited to develop effluent guidelines for the CAAP industry.
Table 3.3-1. Summary of System Type Visited by EPA for the Development of
Aquatic Animal Production Effluent Limitations Guidelines
System
Pond
Flow-through
Net pen
Recirculating
Shellfish - bottom and off-bottom culture
Other
Total
Number of Sites
34
21
5
7
5
2
74
Table 3.3-2. Summary of Species Visited by EPA for the Development of Aquatic
Animal Production Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Species
Catfish
Trout
Striped and hybrid striped bass
Tilapia
Ornamental
Crawfish
Molluscs
Shrimp
Red snapper
Number of Sites
11
12
4
4
9
5
5
7
1
Species
Alligator
Yellow perch
Soft-shell crab shedding
Salmon
Lobster
Chinese catfish
Mullet
Milkfish
Number of Sites
1
2
1
10
1
1
1
1
Table 3.3-3 describes the regional distribution of sites visited by EPA.
Table 3.3-3. Regional Distribution of Sites Visited
USDA Aquaculture Center Regions
Northeastern
North Central
Southern
Western
Tropical
Number of Sites Visited
11
6
37
11
6
3-13
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.3-4 summarizes all of the sites visited, describing the geographic area, production
systems used, and treatment technologies employed at the different facilities.
Table 3.3-4. Aquatic Animal Production Site Visit Summary
Date of
Visit
1/31/00
1/31/00
1/31/00
2/1/00
2/1/00
2/2/00
2/2/00
2/2/00
2/2/00
3/30/00
3/30/00
4/1 1/00
4/1 1/00
4/12/00
4/12/00
4/12/00
4/13/00
7/10/00
7/10/00
7/11/00
7/11/00
7/11/00
7/12/00
7/12/00
7/12/00
7/14/00
7/23/00
11/27/00
11/28/00
1 1/29/00
City
Stoneville
Indianola
Itta Bena
Robert
Denham
Springs
Jeanerette
New Ibernia
New Ibernia
Abbeville
Richland
Richland
Brevard
Sapphire
Raleigh
Plymouth
Plymouth
Hertford
Buhl
Buhl
Twin Falls
Twin Falls
Twin Falls
Seattle
Puget Sound
Bainbridge
Bow
Blacksburg
Turners Falls
Mt. Desert
Birch Harbor
State
MS
MS
MS
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
PA
PA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
WA
WA
WA
WA
VA
MA
ME
ME
Species
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Tilapia
Alligators
Hybrid striped bass
Crawfish
Crawfish
Crawfish
Trout
Trout
Trout
Trout
Tilapia
Hybrid striped bass,
crawfish
Crawfish
Yellow perch, crab
shedding, catfish
Trout
Trout
Trout
Trout
Trout
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Molluscan shellfish -
oysters
Tilapia, hybrid striped
bass, yellow perch
Hybrid striped bass
Salmon, mussels
Lobster
Production System
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating system
Other - alligator huts
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Recirculating system
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds, tanks
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Ponds, flow-through
Net pens
Net pens
Net pens
Flow-through, bottom
culture
Recirculating system
Recirculating system
Net pens, off-bottom
hanging culture
(mussels)
Other - pounds
Reference
USEPA, 2002b
USEPA, 2002c
USEPA, 2002d
USEPA, 2002e
USEPA, 2002f
USEPA, 2002g
USEPA, 2002h
USEPA, 20021
USEPA, 2002J
USEPA, 2002k
USEPA, 20021
Tetra Tech, 2002a
Tetra Tech, 2002b
Tetra Tech, 2002c
Tetra Tech, 2002d
Tetra Tech, 2002e
Tetra Tech, 2002f
Tetra Tech, 2002g
Tetra Tech, 2002h
Tetra Tech, 20021
Tetra Tech, 2002j
Tetra Tech, 2002k
Tetra Tech, 20021
USEPA, 2002m
Tetra Tech, 2002m
Tetra Tech, 2002n
Tetra Tech, 2002o
3-14
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Date of
Visit
11/30/00
1/2/01
1/2/01
1/2/01
1/2/01
1/8/01
1/10/01
1/25/01
1/25/01
1/25/01
1/25/01
1/26/01
1/26/01
3/15/01
3/16/01
3/17/01
3/18/01
3/19/01
3/20/01
4/5/01
4/5/01
4/6/01
4/6/01
4/6/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/17/01
7/17/01
City
Eastport
Honolulu
Honolulu
Honolulu
Honolulu
Honolulu
Kauai
Lakeland
Gibsonton
Ruskin
Ruskin
Homestead
Miami
Greensboro
Gallion
Greensboro
Greensboro
Greensboro
Greensboro
East Orland
Ellsworth
Solon
North Anson
Augusta
Harrietta
Beulah
Palmyra
Dodgeville
State
ME
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
WI
WI
Species
Salmon
Ornamentals, seaweed
Tilapia, Chinese
catfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Shrimp, ornamentals,
mullett, milkfish, red
snapper
Shrimp
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Salmon - native
endangered species
Salmon - native
endangered species
Salmon
Brook trout,
landlocked salmon
(coho, chinook)
Brook trout, lake
trout, splake
Rainbow trout, brown
trout
Landlocked salmon
Rainbow trout
Baitfish, various
species of sport fish
Production System
Net pens
Flow-through
Net pen in pond
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds, recirculating
systems
Ponds
Flow-through tanks,
low flow rate
Recirculating, flow-
through tanks w/ low
flow rate
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through, earthen
raceways
Ponds
Reference
Tetra Tech, 2002p
Tetra Tech, 2002q
Tetra Tech, 2002r
Tetra Tech, 2002s
Tetra Tech, 2002t
Tetra Tech, 2002u
Tetra Tech, 2002v
Tetra Tech, 2002w
Tetra Tech, 2002w
Tetra Tech, 2002w
Tetra Tech, 2002w
Tetra Tech, 2002w
Tetra Tech, 2002w
Tetra Tech, 2002x
Tetra Tech, 2002y
Tetra Tech, 2002z
Tetra Tech, 2002aa
Tetra Tech, 2002aa
Tetra Tech, 2002bb
Tetra Tech, 2002cc
Tetra Tech, 2002dd
Tetra Tech, 2002ee
3-75
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Date of
Visit
7/18/01
7/19/01
7/30/01
7/31/01
7/31/01
7/31/01
8/1/01
8/1/01
8/1/01
8/1/01
8/1/01
8/2/01
12/11/01
City
Osage Beach
Renville
Los Fresnos
San Benito
San Perlita
Rio Hondo
Lonoke
Lonoke
Lonoke
Cabot
Hazon
DeValls Bluff
Baltimore
State
MO
MN
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
MD
Species
Various warmwater
species (including
bluegill, catfish,
paddlefish)
Tilapia
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Multiple
Production System
Ponds
Recirculating system
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating
Reference
Teti-a Tech, 2002ff
Tetra Tech. 2002gg
Tetra Tech, 2002hh
Tetra Tech, 2002hh
Tetra Tech, 2002hh
Tetra Tech, 2002ii
Tetra Tech, 2002jj
Tetra Tech, 2002jj
Tetra Tech, 2002jj
Tetra Tech, 2002jj
Tetra Tech, 2002jj
Tetra Tech, 2002kk
Tetra Tech, 200211
Note: "QZ" means quiescent zone; "OLSB" means offline settling basin.
3.3.1.2 Comparison of Site Visit Data with 1998 Aquaculture Census
EPA compared the distribution of system types visited by the Agency with percentage of
system types reported in the 1998 Aquaculture Census (USDA, 2000). Relative to the
national distribution of production systems as reported by the Aquaculture Census, EPA
visited proportionately more net pens and flow-through systems and fewer pond systems.
Data from the 1998 Aquaculture Census suggest that about 63% of the aquatic animal
production is in ponds, 14% in flow-through systems, 4% in net pens and cages, 7% in
recirculating systems, 7% in bottom shellfish culture, and 5% in other systems. Of the
systems EPA visited, 46% were ponds, 28% flow-through systems, 7% net pens and
cages, 9% recirculating systems, 7% bottom shellfish culture, and 3% other systems.
3.3.2 Wastewater Sampling
Based on data collected from the site visits, EPA selected three facilities (two flow-
through systems, sampling episodes 6297 and 6460, and one recirculating system,
sampling episode 6439) for multi-day sampling. Selection of the facilities was based on
an analysis of information collected during the site visits, as well as the following
criteria: (1) the facility performed operations representative of CAAP facilities, (2) and
the facility used in-process and/or end-of-pipe treatment practices that EPA was
considering for technology option selection.
The Agency collected the following types of information during each sampling episode:
(1) dates and times of sample collection; (2) flow data corresponding to each sample; (3)
production data corresponding to each sample; (4) design and operating parameters for
source reduction, recycling, and treatment; (5) technologies characterized during
sampling; (6) information about site operations that had changed since the site visit or
3-16
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
had not been included in the site visit report; and (7) the temperature, pH, and dissolved
oxygen of the sampled waste streams.
Data collected from the sampling episodes contributed to characterization of the industry,
development of the list of pollutants of concern, and development of raw wastewater
characteristics. EPA used the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent
points to analyze the efficacy of treatment at the facilities and to develop current
discharge concentrations, loadings, and the treatment technology options for the CAAP
industry. EPA also used effluent data to calculate the long-term averages and limitations
for each of the proposed regulatory options. EPA will also use industry-provided data
from the AAP detailed survey (USEPA, 2002o) to complement the sampling data for
these calculations. During each sampling episode, EPA also collected flow rate data
corresponding to each sample collected and production information from each associated
production system for use in calculating pollutant loadings and production-normalized
flow rates. EPA has included in the public record all information collected for which the
facility has not asserted a claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI) or which
would indirectly reveal information claimed to be CBI.
After the conclusion of the sampling episodes, EPA prepared sampling episode reports
for each facility, which included descriptions of the wastewater treatment processes,
sampling procedures, and analytical results. EPA documented all data collected during
sampling episodes in the sampling episode report for each sampled site; the reports are in
the AAP Administrative Record. Nonconfidential business information from these reports
is available in the public record for this proposal. For detailed information on sampling
and preservation procedures, analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control
procedures, refer to the quality assurance project plan (Tetra Tech, 2000a) and sampling
and analysis plans (Tetra Tech, 2000b; Tetra Tech 200la; Tetra Tech 200Ib) completed
for the sampling visits.
3.3.2.1 Pollutants Sampled
During each multi-day sampling episode, facility influent and effluent waste streams
were sampled. Samples were also collected at intermediate points throughout the
wastewater treatment system to assess the performance of individual treatment units.
Sampling episodes were conducted over a 12-hour or 24-hour period, depending on the
production system being analyzed. Samples were obtained using a combination of
composite and grab samples. EPA had the samples analyzed for a variety of conventional
compounds (5-day biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease,
and pH), nonconventional compounds (nutrients, microbiological contaminants, drugs,
and chemicals), and toxic compounds (metals and organics). When possible for a given
parameter, EPA collected 24-hour composite samples to capture the variability in the
waste streams generated throughout the day (e.g., production wastewater during feeding
and non-feeding periods).
Table 3.3-5 lists the pollutants for which EPA sampled at the three sites. Tables 3.3-6,
3.3-7, and 3.3-8 summarize the metal, volatile organic, and semivolatile organic analytes
sampled at all three visited sites.
3-17
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.3-5. Sampling Analytes
Pollutant
Settleable solids
PH
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Chloride
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total volatile solids
Total phosphorus
Dissolved phosphorus
Orthophosphate
Ammonia as nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate/nitrite
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Oil and grease (n-hexaiie extractable material)
Sulfate
Metals
Volatile organics
Semivolatile organics
Oxytetracycline
Total coliforms
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococcus
Aeromonas
Mycobacteriitm marinum
Escherichia colt
Enterococcusfaecium
Toxicity: Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas
Toxicity: Cladoceraii, Ceriodaphnia dubia
Toxicity: Green alga, Selenastrum capricornutum
Sampling Episode
6297
^
/
^
^
^
^
•/
^
•/
^
^
^
S
•/
^
^
^
•/
/
^
•/
^
^
•/
6439
^
^
/•
•/
^
^
S
S
S
^
^
^
•/
S
S
^
^
^
^
/•
^
/
^
S
S
•/
S
^
^
^
6460
S
S
S
S
S
•/
S
S
S
•/
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
•/
s
s
s
s
Note: A checkmark (Y) means that the listed pollutant was sampled for at mat site.
3-18
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.3-6. Metal Analytes
Metal Analytes
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Table 3.3-7. Volatile Organic Analytes
Volatile Organic Analytes
Acetone
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Allyl alcohol
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroacetonitrile
Chlorobenzene
2-Chloro-l,3-Butadiene (chloroprene)
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
3-Chloropropene
Crotonaldehyde
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Dibromomethane
trans- 1 ,4-Dichloro-2-Butene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
trans- 1,2-Dichlorethene
1 , 2 -Dichloropropane
1 .3-Dichloropropane
cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1,3-Dichloroproperie
Diethyl ether
p-Dioxane
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl methacrylate
2-Hexanone
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Methacrylonitrile
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
m-Xylene
o- and /^-Xylene
3-79
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.3-8. Semivolatile Organic Analytes
Semivolatile Organic Analytes
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
Alpha-terpineol
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Aniline, 2,4,5-trimethyl-
Antliracene
Aramite
Benzan throne
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)rluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2,3-Benzofluorene
Benzoic acid
Benzonitrile, 3, 5-Dibromo-
4-Hydroxy-
Benzyl alcohol
Beta-Naphthylamine
Biphenyl
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
l-Bromo-2-Chlorobenzene
l-Bromo-3-Chlorobenzene
4-Bromophenyl, phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbazole
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Chloro-2-Nitroaniline
l-Chloro-3-Nitrobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
7. 1 2-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
3,6-Dimethyrpheiianthreiie
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4' -Dinitrobenzene
2.4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Diphenyl ether
Diphenylamine
Diphenyldisulfide
1.2-Diphenylhydrazine
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-benzoquinone
Ethane, pentachloro-
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethylenethiourea
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Hexanoic acid
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Isopropylnaphtlialene
Isosafrole
Longifolene
Malachite green
Mestranol
Methapyrilene
Methyl metlianesulfonate
2-Methylbenzothioazole
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
N,N-Dimethylformamide
N-Nittosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosometliyl-ethylamine
N-Nitrosomethyl-phenylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
o-Anisidine
o-Cresol
o-Toluidine
o-Toluidine, 5-Chloro
p-Chloroaniline
p-Cresol
p-Cymene
p-Dimethylamino-azobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pentamethylbenzene
Perylene
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phenol, 2-methyl-4.6-Dinitro
Phenothiazine
1 -Phenylnaphthalene
2-Phenylnaphthalene
2-Picoline
P-Nitroaniline
3-20
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Semivolatile Organic Analytes
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Crotoxyphos
Dibenzo( a.h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1 ,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol
2,6-Dichloro-4-Nitroaniline
2.3-Dichloroaniline
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2.3-Dichloronitro-benzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
l,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
Diethyl phthalate
3,3'-Dimethoxybeiizidine
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfone
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,5-Methylene-phenanthrene
4.4-Methylene-bis(2-
Chloroaniline)
1 -Methylfluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1 -Methylphenanthrene
2-(Methylthio)-benzothiazole
Naphtlialene
1 ,5-Naphthalenediamine
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
n-CIO (n-decane)
n-C12 (n-dodecane)
n-C14 (n-tetradecane)
n-C16 (n-hexadecane)
n-C18 (n-octadecane)
n-C20 (n-eicosane)
n-C22 (n-docosane)
n-C24 (n-tetracosane)
n-C26 (n-hexacosane)
H-C28 (n-oetaeosane)
n-C30 (n-triacontane)
4-Nitrobiphenyl
Pronamide
Pyrene
Pyridine
Resorcinol
Safrole
Squalene
Styrene
1,2,4,5-Tetra-chlorobenzene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tliianaphthene
Thioacetamide
Thioxantlie-9-one
Toluene, 2,4-Diamino-
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2,3-Trimetlioxybenzene
Triphenylene
Tripropyleneglycolmethyl ether
1,3,5-Trithiane
—
3.3.2.2 Analytical Methods
The Agency collected, preserved, and transported all samples according to EPA protocols
as specified in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (Tetra Tech, 2000b; Tetra Tech, 2001a;
Tetra Tech, 20015) for each facility and in the AAP Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
EPA collected composite samples for most parameters because the Agency expected the
wastewater composition to vary over the course of a day. The Agency collected grab
samples from unit operations for oil and grease and microbiological contaminants (e.g.,
total and fecal coliform bacteria, fecal Streptococcus, Aeromonas, Mycobacterium
annum, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecium). Composite samples were collected
either manually or by using an automated sampler. Individual aliquots for the composite
samples were collected at least once every 4 h over each 12-h period or 24-h period.
Samples for oil and grease were collected two or three times per day, every 4 h, and
microbiological samples were collected once a day.
3-21
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
EPA contract laboratories completed all wastewater sample analyses, except for the field
measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. EPA or facility staff collected
field measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH at the sampling sites. The
analytical chemistry methods used, as well as the sample volume requirements, detection
limits, and holding times, were consistent with the laboratory's quality assurance and
quality control plan. Laboratories contracted for AAP sample analysis followed EPA-
approved analysis methods for all parameters.
The EPA contract laboratories reported data on their standard report sheets and submitted
them to EPA's sample control center. The center reviewed the report sheets for
completeness and reasonableness. EPA reviewed all reports from the laboratory to verify
that the data were consistent with requirements, reported in the appropriate units, and in
compliance with the applicable protocol.
A description of the analytical methods and nominal quantitation limits is available in
Appendix B. Quality control measures used in performing all analyses complied with the
guidelines specified in the analytical methods and in the AAP QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
EPA reviewed all analytical data to ensure that these measures were followed and that the
resulting data were within the QAPP-specified acceptance criteria for accuracy and
precision.
3.4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DATA
3.4.1 1998 Census of Aquaculture
The 1998 Census of Aquaculture was the first national census taken for the AAP
industry. Conducted by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), this
census was a response to a need for accurate measurements of the rapidly growing
aquaculture industry. The industry had grown from $45 million for value of products sold
in 1974 to more than $978 million in 1998 (USDA, 2000).
The 1998 Census of Aquaculture was conducted to expand the aquaculture data collected
in the 1997 Census of Agriculture. The Census of Aquaculture collected detailed
information on on-site aquaculture practices, size of operation based on water area,
production, sales, method of production, sources of water, point of first sale outlets,
cooperative agreements and contracts, and aquaculture products distributed for
conservation and recreation (USDA, 2000). The Census was conducted using mailed
questionnaires, follow-up telephone calls, and personal interviews.
EPA used the 1998 Census of Aquaculture to develop the production rate thresholds. Six
production size categories, based on revenue classifications used in the 1998 Census of
Agriculture, were used to group facility production data reported in the screener surveys:
• National 1: $ 1,000 to $24,999
• National 2: $25,000 to $49,999
• National 3: $50,000 to $99,999
• National 4: $100,000 to $499,999
3-22
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
• National 5: $500,000 to $1,000,000
• National 6: more than $1,000,000
EPA collected data from a review of USDA's 1998 Census of Aquaculture data and used
these data to define model CAAP facilities for estimating national compliance costs. The
data were also used to determine estimates of pollutant loads, discharge volumes, BMPs
and treatment technologies currently in use, and the applicability of BMPs and treatment
technologies.
3.4.2 National Agricultural Statistics Service
In addition to the Census of Aquaculture, EPA also evaluated data from the USDA's
NASS to characterize current trends in AAP production in the United States by
evaluating data on inventory and sales by size category for catfish and trout, the two
leading sectors in the AAP industry.
Before the Census, NASS tracked the catfish and trout industry through reports on
monthly catfish processing, reports on quarterly catfish production, and annual catfish
and trout surveys (USDA, 2000). The first catfish processing reports were published in
February 1980. Surveys for catfish production were also initiated in 1980 but were then
discontinued in 1982 because of funding shortages. Currently, the NASS catfish
production survey is conducted twice a year in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and
Louisiana and annually in nine additional states.
3.4.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Veterinary Services and the
National Animal Health Monitoring System
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has conducted several studies,
which EPA used to characterize production practices in the AAP industry. A 1995 report,
An Overview of Aquaculture in the United States (USDA, 1995), describes the diverse
U.S. aquaculture industry, reviews trends in industry development, and discusses
regulatory complexities facing the industry. EPA reviewed this report to develop a more
comprehensive understanding of the AAP industry in the United States and develop
industry profiles for various species.
The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) is sponsored by USDA
through the APHIS's Veterinary Services (VS). VS collaborated with USDA's NASS to
implement a two-part study of foodsize catfish producers in Alabama, Arkansas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi. The first part of the study, Catfish '97: Part I: Reference of
1996 U.S. Catfish Health and Production Practices (USDA, 1997a), provides
information on disease and production of foodsize catfish. The second part of the study,
Catfish '97: Part II, Reference of 1996 U.S. Catfish Management Practices (USDA,
1997b), describes catfish production management practices. EPA reviewed both studies
to collect information to develop the catfish industry profile.
EPA used information from NAHMS to further characterize the catfish industry in the
United States and describe current disease management issues and practices. (Refer to
Chapter 4, Industry Profiles, for more information on the catfish sector of the AAP
industry.)
3-23
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.4.4 Economic Research Service
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS) publishes
Aquaculture Outlook, a semi-annual report that analyzes aquaculture imports and exports
and consumption of aquaculture products in the United States. EPA used data from this
report to evaluate trends in markets for AAP products and to develop a description of
factors that affect the AAP industry and influence domestic AAP markets, including
competition from international competitors. Species covered in the report include catfish,
trout, tilapia, salmon, shrimp, molluscs, and ornamental fish.
3.5 SUMMARY OF OTHER DATA SOURCES
Other data sources used to characterize the AAP industry include information from the
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, BMP guidance documents developed by
governmental and other organizations, data from the Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel, and public participation.
3.5.1 Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) serves as a federal interagency
coordinating group to increase the overall effectiveness and productivity of federal
aquaculture research, transfer, and assistance programs. Membership includes the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior, the U.S. Secretary of Energy; the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Chief of Engineers, the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Administrator of the Agency for
International Development, the Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Director
of the National Science Foundation, the Governor of the Farm Credit Administration, and
the other heads of federal agencies as appropriate. JSA is a statutory committee that
operates under the aegis of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Office of the Science Advisor to the
President. JSA reports to the NSTC's Committee on Science, which is one of five
research and development committees NSTC has established to prepare strategies and
budget recommendations for accomplishing national goals.
JSA's Aquaculture Effluents Task Force, created in September 1999, assisted EPA in the
development of effluent guidelines by gathering technical information to develop
industry profiles and assess regulatory options. The Task Force convened a Technical
Information Exchange Forum hosted by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. The Forum included the participation of each of the
Task Force's 14 technical subgroups. EPA consulted with JSA's Task Force throughout
the effluent guideline development process. The Task Force provided a vehicle for
coordinating and facilitating stakeholder input, and its participants represented a range of
interests, experiences, and expertise in the AAP industry.
3-24
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.5.2 BMP Guidance Documents Developed by Governmental and Other
Organizations
A number of states, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, and Idaho,
were found to have recommended BMPs for AAP. In addition, BMPs have also been
developed for specific types of aquatic species. BMPs are addressed in manuals or
regulations, depending on the state. Data were collected from in-house resources and
through Internet research and might not represent every state that has developed BMPs
for AAP.
3.5.2.1 Alabama
Dr. Claude Boyd and his colleagues, with funding from the Alabama Catfish Producers (a
division of the Alabama Farmers Federation), has developed a set of BMPs for
aquaculture facilities in Alabama. The BMPs are described in a series of guide sheets that
have been adopted by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to
supplement the Service's technical standards and guidelines (Auburn University and
USDA, 2002). The NRCS technical standards are intended to be referenced in Alabama
Department of Environmental Management rules or requirements that are promulgated
for aquaculture in Alabama. The guide sheets address a variety of topics, including
reducing storm runoff into ponds, managing ponds to reduce effluent volume, erosion
control in watersheds and on pond embankments, settling basins and wetlands, and feed
management.
3.5.2.2 Arizona
Arizona's BMPs for feeding operations regulation covers aquaculture facilities classified
as feeding operations for purposes of regulation of discharge water quality (ARS
49-245-47; Section 318 CWA).
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has rules that regulate aquaculture
through three general, goal-oriented BMPs. These BMPs address manure handling,
including harvesting, stockpiling, and disposal; treatment and discharge of aquaculture
effluents containing nitrogenous wastes; and closing of aquaculture facilities when they
cease operation (Fitzsimmons, 1999).
Compliance with these BMPs is intended to minimize the discharge of nitrates from
facilities without being too restrictive for farm operations. The draft document Arizona
Aquaculture BMPs describes BMPs that can minimize nitrogen impacts from aquaculture
facilities. A list of information resources is also provided for additional information about
Arizona aquaculture and BMPs (Fitzsimmons, 1999).
3.5.2.3 Arkansas
The Arkansas Bait and Ornamentals Fish Growers Association (ABOFGA, n.d.)
developed a list of BMPs to help its members make their farms more environmentally
friendly. More specifically, the Association provides a set of BMPs that help to conserve
water, reduce effluent, capture solids, and manage nutrients. Members may voluntarily
agree to adopt the BMPs on their farms (ABOFGA, n.d.).
3-25
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.5.2.4 Florida
Florida's aquaculture certificate of registration and BMP regulation requires any person
engaging in aquaculture to be certified by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services and to follow BMPs (Ch 5L-3.003, 5L-3). Aquaculture Best
Management Practices, a manual prepared by the department, establishes BMPs for
aquaculture facilities in Florida. By legislative mandate (Chapter 5L-3), the BMPs in the
manual are intended to preserve environmental integrity, while eliminating cumbersome,
duplicative, and confusing environmental permitting and licensing requirements. When
these BMPs are followed, aquaculturists meet the minimum standards necessary for
protecting and maintaining offsite water quality and wildlife habitat. All certified
aquaculturists are required to follow the BMPs in Chapters II through X of the manual,
which address federal permitting; construction; compliance monitoring; shipment,
transportation, and sale; water resources; nonnative and restricted nonnative species;
health management; mortality removal; and chemical and drug handling (FDACS, 2000).
3.5.2.5 Hawaii
Hawaii recently developed a practical BMP manual to assist aquaculture farmers in
managing their facilities more efficiently and complying with discharge regulations. The
manual, Best Management Practices for Hawaiian Aquaculture (Howerton, 2001), is
available from the Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture.
Hawaii is also developing a BMP for traditional use of a loko kuapa-stylz Hawaiian fish
pond. Because of changes in the land tenure, decreases in native population, total loss of
traditional pond management practices, and benign neglect, fishpond production has
declined in Hawaii. Although Hawaii's fishpond production efficiency is too low to
justify the economic cost, Hawaii is making major efforts to restore and put into service
several of these traditional structures as sustainable development demonstrations and as
opportunities for maintaining ties to a nearly extinct element of cultural heritage
(SOEST, n.d.).
3.5.2.6 Idaho
In combination with site-specific information, Idaho Waste Management Guidelines for
Aquaculture Operations can be used to develop a waste management plan to meet water
quality goals. Such a waste management plan would address Idaho's water quality
concerns associated with aquaculture in response to the Clean Water Act and Idaho's
Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements. The manual is also
intended to assist aquaculture facility operators in developing BMPs to maintain
discharge levels that do not violate the state's water quality standards (IDEQ, n.d.).
3.5.2.7 Other BMP Guidance Documents
BMPs have also been developed for specific species, including shrimp, hybrid striped
bass, and trout. The Global Aquaculture Alliance, in Codes of Practice for Responsible
Shrimp Farming, has compiled nine recommended codes of practice that are intended to
serve as guidelines for parties who want to develop more specific national or regional
codes of practice or formulate systems of BMPs for use on shrimp farms. These codes of
practice address a variety of topics, including mangroves, site evaluation, design and
construction, feeds and feed use, shrimp health management, therapeutic agents and other
3-26
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
chemicals, general pond operations, effluents and solid wastes, and community and
employee relations (Boyd, 1999). The purpose of the document is to provide a framework
for environmentally and socially responsible shrimp farming that is voluntary, proactive,
and standardized. The document also provides a background narrative that reviews the
general processes involved in shrimp farming and the environmental and social issues
facing the industry (Boyd, 1999).
The Hybrid Striped Bass Industry: From Fish Farm to Consumer is a brochure that
provides guidance to new and seasoned farmers in the proper handling of fish from the
farm to the consumer. Although the brochure is primarily geared toward providing
quality fish products to consumers, the information it provides about the use of drugs and
chemicals, including pesticides and animal drugs and vaccines, could be used to benefit
the environment (Jahncke et al., 1996).
The Trout Producer Quality Assurance Program of the U.S. Trout Farmer's Association
(USTFA) is a two-part program that emphasizes production practices that enable
facilities to decrease production costs, improve management practices, and avoid any
possibilities of harmful drug or other chemical residues in fish. Part 1 discusses the
principles of quality assurance, and Part 2 provides information about the highest level of
quality assurance endorsed by the USTFA. Although the program addresses a variety of
subjects related to trout production, the discussion on waste management and drugs and
chemicals can be applied to protecting the environment (USTFA, 1994).
3.5.3 Other Industry-Supplied Data: Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
EPA collaborated with the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR), which
convened on the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the CAAP
industry. Section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires that a panel be
convened prior to publication of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis that an agency
may be required to prepare under the RFA.
The Panel, with input from Small Entity Representatives (SERs), analyzed issues related
to small entities. These issues included an estimate of the number of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply; a description of reporting, record keeping, and other
compliance requirements and an estimate of the classes of small entities that may be
subject to the requirements; identification of federal rules that might duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the proposed rule; alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the
stated objectives and minimize significant economic impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities; and any impacts on small entities.
Before convening the Panel, EPA had several discussions, meetings, and conference calls
with small entities that will potentially be affected by the proposed rule. Between August
and October 2001, EPA held discussions with members of JSA's Aquaculture Effluents
Task Force (AETF) to identify potential SERs. EPA invited 16 aquatic animal producers
and two university professors to serve as potential SERs for the pre-panel outreach
process. In November 2001, EPA mailed a packet of background materials about the
rulemaking process to potential SERs. On December 12, 2001, EPA held a
meeting/conference call in Washington, DC, with small entities potentially affected by
3-27
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
the proposed rule. The SERs provided comments on materials provided by EPA. Their
comments were used to update existing information collected by EPA and to revise the
proposed regulatory options for the CAAP industry.
A Panel Report is included in the public record supporting this rulemaking (USEPA,
2002n) and can be accessed on-line at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guidance/aquaculture/.
3.5.4 Summary of Public Participation
The public participated in the rulemaking process through several mechanisms, such as
public meetings, outreach to AAP industry representatives, conference calls, and
information exchange by mail.
EPA encouraged the participation of all interested parties throughout the development of
the proposed CAAP effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA conducted
outreach to the major trade associations through the JSA/AETF (whose membership
includes producers, trade associations, federal and state agencies, and academic and
environmental organizations). EPA also participated in seven JSA/AETF meetings and
gave presentations on the status of the regulation development. In addition, EPA met with
environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, SeaWeb, and
Environmental Defense, concerning this proposal.
When the CAAP industry was first identified as a candidate for rulemaking, EPA met
with industry associations and environmental groups and representatives from state and
local governments to solicit their opinions on the issues that the Agency should consider
as it moved toward rulemaking.
In the development of the surveys, which were used to gather facility-specific
information on this industry, EPA consulted with the various JSA/AETF technical
subgroups to ensure that the information was requested in an understandable manner and
that the information would be available in the form requested.
EPA and representatives from USDA, FDA, and DOI held meetings to discuss this
regulation. EPA met with USDA's APHIS to discuss how APHIS and the industry might
be affected by or affect requirements on the CAAP industry implemented by EPA in this
rule. EPA and the FDA's Center of Veterinary Medicine met to discuss the new drug
approval process and with Fish and Wildlife Service representatives to discuss aquatic
nuisance species and the regulatory authority various agencies have over such species.
EPA also met with representatives from state and local governments to discuss their
concerns regarding aquatic animal production facilities and how EPA should approach
these facilities in regulation.
3.6 REFERENCES
ABOFGA (Arkansas Bait and Ornamental Fish Growers Association), n.d. Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for Baitfish and Ornamental Fish Farms. Arkansas
Bait and Ornamental Fish Growers Association, in cooperation with the University of
Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Aquaculture/Fisheries Center.
3-28
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Auburn University and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. Alabama
Aquaculture BMP Fact Sheets, No. 1-15. Alabama Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Montgomery, AL. .
FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). 2000. Aquaculture
Best Management Practices. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Aquaculture, Tallahassee, FL.
Fitzsimmons, K. 1999. Draft: Arizona Aquaculture BMPs. Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, . Accessed
September 25, 2001.
Howerton, R. 2001. Best Management Practices for Hawaiian Aquaculture. Center for
Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension
Services, Publication No. 148.
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality), n.d. Idaho Waste Management
Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
. Accessed
August 2002.
Jahncke, M.L, T.IJ. Smith, and B.P, Sheehan. 1996. The Hybrid Striped Bass Industry:
from Fish Farm to Consumer. U.S. Department of Agriculture, FISMA Grant No. 12-
25-G-0131. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and South Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
SOEST (School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, Hawaii Sea Grant), n.d.
Development of a Best Management Practice for Traditional Use of A Loko Kuapa
Style Hawaiian Fishponds. School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology,
Hawaii Sea Grant. .
Accessed October 2001.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000a. Aquatic Animal Production Industry Quality Assurance Project
Plan. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000b. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Box
Canyon Facility, Buhl, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200la. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Fins Technology,
Turner Falls, MA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200Ib. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Harrietta Hatchery,
Harrietta, MI.
3-29
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002a, August. Site visit report for Cantrell Creek Trout Farm,
Brevard, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b, August. Site visit report for Sweetwater Trout Farm,
Sapphire, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002c, August. Site visit report for Lake Wheeler Road Agriculture
Facility, Raleigh, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002d, August. Site visit report for Vernon James Research and
Extension Center, Plymouth, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002e, August. Site visit report for Mill Pond Crawfish Farm,
Plymouth, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002f, August. Site visit report for Aubrey Onley, Hertford, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002g, August. Site visit report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Box
Canyon Facility, Buhl, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002h, August. Site visit report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Snake
River Facility, Buhl, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002i, August. Site visit report for Pisces Investments, Magic Springs
Facility, Twin Falls, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002J, August. Site visit report for Bill Jones Facility, Twin Falls, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002k, August. Site visit report for Rich Passage, Seattle, WA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 20021, August. Site visit report for Taylor Industries, Bow, WA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002m, August. Site visit report for Fins Technology, Turner Falls, MA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002n, August. Site visit report for Acadia Aquaculture,
Mt. Desert, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002o, August. Site visit report for DB Rice Fisheries,
Birch Harbor, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002p, August. Site visit report for Heritage Salmon, Eastport, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002q, August. Site visit report for Interstate Tropical Fish Hatchery,
Lakeland, FL.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002r, August. Site visit report for EkkWill Waterlife Resources,
Gibsonton, FL.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002s, August. Site visit report for Norton's Tampa Bay Fisheries,
Ruskin, FL.
3-30
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002t, August. Site visit report for University of Florida Tropical
Aquaculture Lab, Ruskin, FL.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002u, August. Site visit report for Angel's Hatchery, Homestead, FL.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002v, August. Site visit report for Lebaco Enterprises, Inc.,
Miami, FL.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002w, August. Site visit report for Alabama Catfish Industry,
Greensboro, AL.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002x, August. Site visit report for Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery,
East Orland, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002y, August. Site visit report for Greenlake National Fish Hatchery,
Ellsworth, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002z, August. Site visit report for Atlantic Salmon of Maine,
Solon, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002aa, August. Site visit report for Embden Rearing Station and
Governor Hill Hatchery, Augusta, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002bb, August. Site visit report for Harrietta Hatchery, Harrietta, MI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002cc, August. Site visit report for Platte River Hatchery, Beulah, MI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002dd, August. Site visit report for Rushing Waters Fisheries, Inc.,
Palmyra, WI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002ee, August. Site visit report for Gollon Brothers, Dodgeville, WI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002ff, August. Site visit report for Osage Catfisheries,
Osage Beach, MO.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002gg, August. Site visit report for MinnAqua Fisheries Facility,
Rennville, MN.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002hh, August. Site visit report for Harlingen Shrimp Farm, Arroyo
Aquaculture Association, and Loma Alta, Los Fresnos, TX.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002ii, August. Site visit report for Southern Star Shrimp Farm,
Rio Hondo, TX.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002jj, August. Site visit report for Arkansas Baitfish Association,
Lonoke, AR.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002kk, August. Site visit report for Harry Saul Minnow Farm,
DeVails Bluff, AR.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200211, August. Site visit report for Baltimore Aquarium,
Baltimore, MD.
3-31
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1995. Overview of Aquaculture in the United
States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Information
Services, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1997a. Catfish NAHMS '97, Parti: Reference
of 1996 U.S. Catfish Health & Production Practices. Centers for Epidemiology and
Animal Health, USD A/APHIS, Fort Collins, CO.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1997b. Catfish NAHMS '97, Part II: Reference
of 1996 U.S. Catfish Management Practices. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal
Health, USDA/APHIS, Fort Collins, CO.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. The 1998 Census of Aquaculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Screener Questionnaire for the
Aquatic Animal Production Industry. OMB Control No. 2040-0237. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Economic and Environmental
Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-
R-02-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b, August. Site visit report for
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c, August. Site visit report for
Delta Western, Indianola, MS.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002d, August. Site visit report for
America's Catch, Itta Bena, MS.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002e, August. Site visit report for Til-
Tech, Robert, LA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002f, August. Site visit report for
Alagri, Denham Springs. LA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002g, August. Site visit report for
Westover Farms, Jeanerette, LA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002h, August. Site visit report for
Durand Brothers Crawfish Farms, New Ibernia, LA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002i, August. Site visit report for
Glen Dugas Crawfish Farm, New Ibernia, LA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002J, August. Site visit report for
David LaCour Crawfish Farm, Abbeville, LA.
3-32
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002k, August. Site visit report for
Arrowhead Springs, Richland, PA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 20021, August. Site visit report for
Limestone Springs, Richland, PA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002m, August. Site visit report for
Virginia Tech Aquaculture Center, Blacksburg, VA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002n. Final Report of the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule: Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002o. Detailed Questionnaire for the
Aquatic Animal Production Industry. OMB Control No. 2040-0240. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USTFA (U.S. Trout Farmer's Association). 1994. Trout Producer Quality Assurance
Program. U.S. Trout Farmer's Association, Charles Town, WV.
Westat. 2002. Preliminary Statistics from Aquaculture Questionnaires: Summary
Statistics Report. February 6, 2002. Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD.
3-33
-------
CHAPTER 4
INDUSTRY PROFILES
4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY
Aquaculture in the United States began in the 1850s as a commercial enterprise when fish
culturists developed the technology needed to spawn and grow brook trout. Several
culturists who became proficient in fish raising techniques found that they could sell their
fish for a profit (Stickney, 2000b). Today, the aquaculture industry in the United States
encompasses the production of finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, reptiles, other aquatic
animals, and aquatic plants. These plants and animals are produced for a variety of
reasons, including as food, pets, bait, and sportfish; for ornamental and display purposes;
as research and test organisms; and to enhance natural populations. EPA has broadly
defined aquatic animal production (AAP) to include any production of aquatic animals
and is not including aquatic plant production in the definition. The following chapter
describes aquatic animal production in the United States, including systems used to
produce aquatic animals and many of the aquatic animals produced.
As valuable commercial fisheries began to decline in the latter half of the 19th century,
there was a growing concern about the stock depletion. Spencer F. Baird, who was
affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute, worked with Congress to create a federal
fisheries agency (Stickney, 2000b). The nation's first federal conservation agency, the
U.S. Fish & Fisheries Commission, was established in 1871. Known today as the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency is responsible for marine commercial
fisheries, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for freshwater
fish, whose use is primarily recreational. The two agencies share responsibility for
anadromous fish such as chinook and coho salmon.
After the U.S. Fish & Fisheries Commission was established, fish culture activities
developed quickly. By the end of 1871, 11 states had established fish commissions; by
1877 there were fish commissions in 26 states. To further expand fish culture activities,
Baird instructed Livingston Stone to set up an egg collection facility in California on the
McCloud River. Prior to this facility, fish culturists transported fish via the newly
established transcontinental railway from the east to the west coast. The striped bass and
the American shad became most successful (Hartman and Preston, 2001). These species
were exported around the world as well. Many people were optimistic that the work of
artificial propagation of foodfishes, the introduction of promising exotic species, and the
redistribution of native fishes to new waters could ensure an increased and sustainable
food production in the nation's natural water bodies, in particular the Great Lakes and the
oceans.
The goals of public fish hatcheries, often referred to as conservation hatcheries, differ
from the goals of private commercial fish hatcheries. Conservation hatcheries produce
4-1
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
fish for stocking in public waters to enhance or restore recreational or commercial
fisheries. Private, for-profit hatcheries produce fish for several purposes, including food,
bait, use in the aquarium trade, and use in stocking private waters (Westers, 2001).
Generally, public hatcheries focus on the "wild" qualities of the fish produced. Fish
produced for enhancement purposes are produced to retain genetic integrity and
characteristics needed to survive in the wild. On the other hand, most private hatcheries
focus on maximum production to meet economic goals. Commercial producers
emphasize genetic selection for fast growth and adaptation to culture conditions. These
differences in goals are reflected in the variety of production strategies generally applied
by public and private programs.
4.1.1 Development of Federal, State, and Local Hatchery Programs
Expansion continued and by 1949, 46 of the states counted a total of 522 hatcheries,
while the federal system had 99 hatcheries in 43 states. At the same time, however,
stocking programs came under scrutiny. Stocking of fingerling-size trout had replaced the
early fry stocking programs, but even fingerling stocking, in most instances, produced
dismal returns. At the same time, angling pressure increased. To meet angler demand
many states launched into stocking catchable-size trout. It was now possible to feed the
fish dry prepared diets, giving hatcheries the opportunity to greatly expand production in
terms of biomass and numbers. This expansion required greater hatchery capacity.
Public fish hatcheries became extremely popular with the public at large, as many
became favored places to visit. Such facilities became firmly entrenched in local
communities, making it politically difficult to discontinue their operations. Hatcheries
attracted not only tourists, but also people interested in sportfishing opportunities,
especially the stocking of catchable trout.
Both state and federal governments established research facilities, which made significant
contributions to the advancement of fish culture in the United States. State fish hatchery
facilities made significant advances in developing of prepared feeds, identifying diseases
and treatments, advancing engineering design for water systems, and identifying or
developing methods to measure and control water quality (Stickney, 2000b).
In 1973, the Endangered Species Act became a catalyst for shifting the goals of some
public hatcheries from stocking sport fish to propagating endangered and threatened
species. Today the USFWS considers its primary responsibility to be fish resource
restoration and maintenance, while the states' responsibility is to supply fish for the
enhancement of sportfishing opportunities. As a consequence, many federal hatchery
facilities have either been closed or transferred to the state.
Currently, 28 USFWS hatcheries are involved in the restoration of threatened or
endangered species. Maintaining the genetic integrity of these aquatic organisms is
considered a high priority (Hartman and Preston, 2001). Despite this goal, 49 states use
nonnative sport fish species, and some states rely entirely on nonnative species for
recreational sportfishing (Schramm and Piper, 1995).
An example of a successful state hatchery program is the restoration of red drum in the
Gulf of Mexico. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department releases 20-30 million
juvenile red drum fingerlings annually into coastal bays (Pennell et al., 2001). It has been
4-2
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
estimated that since 1990, the abundance of red drum 1 to 5 years of age is double the
population prior to the 1980s. The success of this fishery might also have been affected
by the closing of the commercial fishery in 1981 when red drum was declared a game
fish.
Both federal and state hatcheries serve as a tool for fisheries management to develop and
maintain recreational, commercial, and tribal fisheries; supply year-classes to supplement
natural reproduction; introduce new species; and restore endangered or threatened
species.
Put-and-take stocking, or stocking that increases angler opportunities through the release
of harvestable-size fish, is still an important activity in many state hatchery programs.
State hatcheries stocked more than 60 million catchable trout in 1980. That same year the
federal hatchery system released 11.9 million catchable trout. Coldwater fish make up the
largest stocking program; 252 state and 36 federal hatcheries produce salmonids. More
than 500 million coldwater fish are stocked annually, and according to Radonski and
Martin (1986), this number falls 38 million short of the amount required to meet angler
demands. Most salmonids stocked are Pacific salmon species released as smolts into
various river systems connected to the Pacific Ocean. In the Columbia River Basin, more
than 90 state and federal hatcheries raise and release some 190 million juvenile Pacific
salmon annually (Schramm and Piper, 1995).
Total estimated production of all salmonid species for stocking in public waters is 35-42
million pounds annually. In terms of numbers of fish stocked on an annual basis,
coolwater fish, including walleye, northern pike, and yellow perch, are the most
abundant. At least 47 states have programs for stocking coolwater fish. In the 1983-1984
season, over 1 billion walleye fry were stocked in the United States, followed by 42
million northern pike and 13 million yellow perch. Finally, approximately 43 states have
warmwater stocking programs for primarily largemouth bass. Other warmwater fish
species stocked to restore or enhance fisheries are smallmouth bass, bluegill, sunfish,
crappies, striped bass, hybrid striped bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and blue
catfish (Smith and Reeves, 1986).
4.1.2 Development of Commercial Aquatic Animal Production
Commercial foodfish production in the United States began to grow in the 1960s. Before
that time, AAP was generally limited to trout production. The trout industry in Idaho
began to expand, as did production of warmwater species in southern states, particularly
catfish production (Stickney, 2000b). Interest in commercial AAP gained popularity at
several universities, including the University of Washington and Auburn University. The
expansion of faculties' expertise and research activities in commercial AAP led to an
increased body of knowledge about fish life cycles, production methods, and husbandry
practices. Commercial AAP benefited from new research activities and strong university
programs. In the mid-1980s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) created five
regional aquaculture centers that represent the Western, North Central, Southern,
Northeastern, and Tropical/Subtropical Regions. Building on academic interest in
commercial AAP and state and federal hatchery experiences, commercial foodfish
production in the United States has grown over the past 30 years.
4-3
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Idaho dominates trout production with cultured rainbow trout. Relying on cold spring
water, the trout industry has been developed primarily around the Magic Valley region of
Idaho using water from subterranean rivers (Stickney, 2000b). Initiated by research at
USFWS laboratory facilities in Stuttgart, Arkansas, and in Marion, Alabama, channel
catfish became the dominant species for production in the southern United States.
Although the catfish industry was originally centered in Arkansas, falling water tables in
the early 1970s limited expansion potential. Instead, catfish farmers moved to the
Mississippi Delta region with its flat topography and shallow water table. Today
Mississippi leads catfish production in the United States; however, catfish are produced
in all southern states. Limited catfish production occurs in other states, such as California
and Idaho. Though once considered of interest as food only in southern states, today the
catfish industry has developed a national market through an aggressive marketing
campaign (Stickney, 2000b). In addition to trout and catfish, other freshwater fish and
shellfish are also raised commercially in the United States, including hybrid striped bass,
tilapia, and crawfish.
Salmon production developed in the 1970s in Puget Sound, Washington, with the
production of pan-sized coho. Research to expand net pen production originally focused
on coho and chinook. Researchers, charged with maintaining threatened native stocks of
Atlantic salmon in Maine, experimented with producing Atlantic salmon in the Pacific
Northwest and discovered that Atlantic salmon were better suited for production in
captivity than salmon species indigenous to the Pacific. Today, salmon culture continues
to grow in Maine, whereas in Washington salmon production has leveled off and even
declined in recent years. Salmon net pen culture is illegal in Oregon and Alaska;
however, salmon ranching, the production of smolts for release and recapture as adults, is
permitted.
Commercial marine fish production in the United States remains limited. A few
commercial facilities produce red drum in Texas, and there are a few commercial
operations for the production of summer flounder (Stickney, 2000b). Marine shrimp
culture is well established in the United States; Texas is the leading producer. Some
mollusc production, including oysters, mussels, and clams, occurs on the Atlantic, Gulf
of Mexico, and Pacific coasts of the United States.
4.2 SYSTEM TYPES
4.2.1 Ponds Systems
4.2.1.1 Levee Ponds1
Regions of the United States with relatively flat land and sufficient clay in the soils are
usually well suited for constructing levee ponds for producing aquatic animals. A levee
pond is constructed by creating earthen levees from excess soil that is covering the future
pond bottom. It can be constructed as a single unit or as a singular part of a group of
ponds in which the levees often serve as common walls for more than one pond. The tops
1 Some of the information for this section was adapted from T. Wellborn and M. Brunson, Construction
of Levee-type Ponds for Fish Production, publication no. 101 (Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
Stoneville, Mississippi, 1997).
4-4
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
of levees are maintained, at least on one side, so that the operator can move equipment
and vehicles along the pond bank for feeding and harvesting. Assistance in pond design
and construction is sometimes available from local offices of the USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
Water supplies for levee ponds are typically wells, located on-site at a facility. Some
facilities rely on pumped or free-flowing water from surface water bodies such as lakes,
streams, or coastal waters. Those relying on surface waters, however, must be careful not
to introduce undesirable species or organisms into the culture ponds. Water might need to
be screened or filtered as it is pumped into the pond. Rainwater falling directly on the
pond is also captured and can be a source for maintaining water levels. For those systems
that rely on well water, water conservation and rainwater capture are important
management tools to minimize pumping costs.
Like watershed ponds, the size and shape of levee ponds are determined by the available
land, its topography, and its underlying soils. Levee pond size varies from less than 1 to
more than 25 acres, but most ponds for foodfish production are 4 to 16 acres. Smaller
ponds may be used for broodstock holding and fry or seed production because they are
easier to manage for these purposes than larger ponds. Larger levee ponds are typically
more difficult to manage and harvest than smaller ones, but they are more economical to
construct. The average depth of a levee pond is about 4 to 5 feet.
Drainage structures on a levee pond have two functions. The first is to provide a
conveyance for overflow, which regulates the water level in the pond. If a pond captures
excessive rainfall, the overflow structure allows the excess water to drain before it
overflows the levees that enclose the pond. In some pond facilities (e.g., baitfish
facilities), overflow pipes connect the ponds so water can be transferred between adjacent
ponds to conserve water.
The second function of drainage structures is to allow the complete draining of the pond.
The drainpipe is located in one of the levee walls just below the grade of the pond
bottom. Some ponds have a drainage structure that functions as both an overflow control
and a drain. For example, the structure can be in the form of a standpipe that swivels or a
riser structure. Other ponds have separate overflow pipes and drains. If the drain has a
valve, the valve remains closed at all times until the pond is drained.
In catfish ponds, which represent more than half of the ponds in production in the United
States, as well as other high-density production ponds such as ponds for hybrid striped
bass and shrimp, the use of mechanical aeration is common throughout the growing
season. Stationary mechanical aerators are strategically positioned in the pond to
maintain sufficient dissolved oxygen levels throughout the entire pond. In the event of
extreme low-oxygen conditions, supplemental emergency aeration might be required.
Emergency aeration is usually provided by using tractor-driven mechanical aerators.
Fish harvest takes place using seines that can be stretched across the entire pond. The
mesh size of the seine allows smaller fish to escape to be harvested at a later date. After
being seined into a section of the pond, the fish are removed from the pond with a net
attached to a scale and boom. After being simultaneously removed and weighed, the fish
are loaded into live haul trucks for shipment to a processing facility.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Levee ponds are the most commonly used method of production for channel catfish.
Hybrid striped bass and shrimp are also commonly grown in levee ponds. Any species
amenable to pond culture can be grown in a levee pond; for example, crawfish, shrimp,
baitfish, ornamentals, sport fish, and perch. The following are some examples of different
production practices in levee ponds:
Channel catfish. Channel catfish fingerlings are produced in nursery ponds, which
are smaller than production ponds. Feed-trained fry are stocked into the ponds,
usually in the spring of the year. These ponds are managed to ensure that plankton
blooms are also available as a source of natural food until the fry become
proficient at using the artificial diet as their sole source of food. Fingerlings are
grown in the ponds for about 5 to 9 months and then harvested by seining during
the colder seasons and transferred to growout ponds. The nursery pond is
eventually drained, and any remaining fish are killed to prevent cannibalism of
the fry by larger fish.
Foodfish production varies among farms, but it can involve crops of single
cohorts or multiple cohorts. For the single-cohort cropping system, fingerlings are
stocked, grown to market size, and then harvested. The pond is cleaned of all fish
(by draining or killing the remaining fish), and a new cohort is put into the pond
to repeat the cycle. Multiple cohorts can be cropped by selectively harvesting
larger fish and understocking with fingerlings. This approach allows the operator
to use most of the water for many years between draining events.
Both fingerlings and foodfish are typically fed with mechanical feeders that blow
the feed across the surface of the pond. With respect to stocking density,
producers usually try to achieve a maximum biomass of about 6,000 Ib/ac.
Mechanical aeration is required to maintain adequate water quality and oxygen
levels in the ponds. Most catfish farmers use paddlewheel aerators to supply
sufficient aeration for production.2
Penaeid shrimp. Levee ponds are also commonly used for the production of
penaeid shrimp. The ponds are filled in the spring of each year, and the larval
shrimp are stocked in the ponds. The shrimp are fed by broadcasting feed into the
ponds with mechanical feeders or by hand feeding out of a boat criss-crossing the
pond. Shrimp production ponds are also aerated to maintain sufficient levels of
dissolved oxygen. After the shrimp are harvested in the fall, the ponds are drained
and left to dry. This oxidizes the organic matter and reduces the likelihood of
disease problems from growing season to growing season. Most shrimp facilities
use surface water as a source and screen the inlets to prevent predators from
entering the ponds. Because many of the shrimp grown in the United States are
nonnative species, escapement and disease are concerns for regulatory agencies.
Outlets are screened to prevent escapement. Water is reused by draining it to
ditches and pumping or conveying it back into the ponds from the ditches.
2 Information adapted from C. Tucker, Channel Catfish Culture, in the Encyclopedia of Aquaciilture,
2000. ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 153-170. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
4-6
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Crawfish. Levee ponds are also used in crawfish production. Managing crawfish
production ponds is different from managing other pond production systems.
Crawfish ponds are shallow, with an average depth of 18 to 24 in. They are
drained every spring to begin the reproduction process. As the water is drained
from the ponds, the crawfish burrow into the pond bottom and produce their
young. A forage crop is planted to provide food for the crawfish when the ponds
are flooded in the fall; rice is a common forage crop. After the growing season,
the rice is harvested, and the rice stubble is left in the field. The field is then
flooded to a depth of about 1.5 ft. The crawfish come out of their burrows and
feed on the decaying vegetation. Crawfish are harvested by using baited traps.
4.2.1.2 Watershed Ponds'
In much of the United States, watershed ponds are built to capture storm water runoff,
which serves as the primary water supply for the pond. Although often not ideal for use
as AAP ponds, watershed ponds can be constructed in hilly areas that are not suitable for
levee ponds. Watershed ponds are constructed by building earthen dams, or levees, to
trap water in a topographic depression within the landscape. Another construction
technique uses two- or three-sided ponds that are constructed parallel to hills bordering
creeks. Watershed ponds constructed for AAP may sometimes differ from those used as
general farm ponds or those used to control large volumes of runoff from agricultural or
other types of watersheds. The goal of AAP watershed pond site selection and
construction is to have a pond that allows the owner ease of management and harvesting.
The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service has design criteria for watershed
ponds, and local offices often offer site-specific design assistance.
The local topography determines the size and shape of watershed ponds constructed for
AAP. On gently sloping or rolling landscapes, the watershed pond is sited and
constructed to capture enough water to maintain adequate water levels throughout the
year and to minimize the need for water sources other than runoff. On steeper slopes or if
available land permits, one or more ponds can be constructed in series to capture larger
volumes of runoff during rainy seasons. Another technique for steeply sloped terrain is to
divert excess water around the watershed pond. The ponds are constructed with relatively
flat bottoms for ease of harvest with seines. The levees are constructed with top widths
that are sufficient to drive trucks and other farm equipment on, primarily for feeding and
harvesting. Costs for watershed pond construction depend primarily on the amount of soil
moved to create levees and smooth pond bottoms.
Depending on the contributing watershed, these ponds could be rather large (in excess of
20 ac). Experience has shown, however, that ponds smaller than 20 ac are easier to
manage and harvest than larger ponds. Ponds that are too small (less than about 5 ac for
foodfish production) also are not as desirable, especially from a harvesting perspective.
Extra labor is required to harvest multiple small ponds to collect enough fish to make
centralized processing efficient. The pond size is a function of the watershed, annual and
seasonal rainfall, available land, and production goals. Pond depths are kept below 10 ft
3 Some of the information for this section was adapted from J. Jensen, Watershed Fish Production
Ponds: Site Selection and Construction, publication no. 102 (Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
Stoneville, Mississippi, 1989).
4-7
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
to facilitate harvesting, enhance aeration and mixing, and meet other pond management
needs.
Drains are usually installed in the watershed pond to allow the operator to completely
drain the pond when the production strategy requires draining. Watershed ponds are also
equipped with overflow pipes to drain smaller volumes of excess water from the ponds
during runoff events. The overflows may be piped to adjacent ponds that are constructed
and operated in series. At sites in Alabama, for example, up to five watershed ponds were
observed in series. A properly designed watershed pond also includes an emergency
spillway, which is a low spot along a levee that is grassed and maintained to control
runoff. The emergency spillway is sized according to expected runoff volumes,
depending on local climatic conditions and the size of the watershed.
The quantity of water available from runoff events for a watershed pond depends on the
size of the contributing watershed, frequency and duration of rainfall events, and land use
characteristics of the watershed. These factors also greatly influence the quality of water
entering the pond during rainfall events. Large watersheds typically collect more water
than smaller ones and might present the opportunity for more pollutants to accompany
the runoff into the ponds. The frequency and duration of rainfall events have obvious
implications on the quantity of water available for the ponds and the amounts that might
overflow. (Heavier and more frequent rainfall produces more water.) Watersheds with
land uses like roads, houses, and agricultural cropland present different water quality
inputs to watershed ponds. For example, roads contribute oil and other petroleum
products, metals, and potentially large amounts of suspended solids to watershed ponds.
Management strategies for watershed ponds for AAP depend primarily on the size and
type of fish. Watershed ponds are used primarily for the production of catfish, as well as
other warmwater and coolwater species such as hybrid striped bass, sunfish, yellow
perch, ornamental fish, baitfish, and many sport and game fish. The species and life stage
(e.g., fry, fingerling, or food-sized fish) will determine relative densities and many
management practices, as shown in the following examples:
Catfish food-sized fish. These fish are often stocked to achieve maximum
densities of about 5,000 to 6,000 Ib/ac. They can be harvested and understocked
with smaller fish to maintain higher biomass and longer periods between draining;
complete draining usually occurs once every 7 to 10 yr. Ponds are aerated to
maintain dissolved oxygen and water quality. Fish are fed once or twice daily
with mechanical feeders.
Hybrid striped bass food-sized fish. These fish are often stocked to achieve
maximum densities of about 5,000 to 6,000 Ib/ac. They must be completely
harvested before restocking. (The ponds are drained between harvest and stocking
or are treated with a piscicide to remove remaining fish.) Ponds are usually
drained annually or biennially, depending on stocking size, and are aerated to
maintain dissolved oxygen and water quality. Fish are fed once or twice per day
with mechanical feeders.
Baitfish. Baitfish are often stocked to achieve a desired number of fish per acre to
maintain size requirements at harvest. The overall densities are typically less than
4-8
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
300 to 500 Ib/ac. Ponds must be completely harvested before restocking, and they
are usually drained annually for maintenance; aeration is used to assist in harvest.
Fish are fed minimally to supplement natural food as well as provide nutrients to
the pond for natural food production. They are fed by hand or with mechanical
feeders. Feeding may also be used to concentrate the fish to facilitate harvesting.
4.2.2 Flow-through Systems4
Flow-through systems consist of single- or multiple-pass units with constantly flowing
culture water, and they commonly use raceways or tanks (circular or rectangular).
Raceways typically are long rectangular tanks constructed of earth, concrete, plastic, or
metal. Sizes vary depending on topography and the operational goals of the facility.
Some sizes commonly used are 80 ft long, 8 ft wide, and 2.5 ft deep (trout); 100 ft long,
10 ft wide, and 3 ft deep (trout and catfish); or a series of cells 30 ft long, 10 to 20 ft
wide, and about 3 ft deep. Many raceways are constructed to reuse the flowing water
several times by passing the water through multiple units before discharging it.
Circular or rectangular tanks are also used with constantly flowing water, and they are
made from concrete, plastic, or metal. They can be above the ground or placed in the
ground, and most use gravity to maintain flows. The primary difference between
raceways and tanks is the flow pattern within the containment structure. Raceways tend
to have plug flows of water along the length of the raceway. Tanks establish varying flow
patterns, depending on the inlet and drain configurations, and the volume of water used.
Circular tank systems are operated to enhance solids removal, while raceways allow
settling of solids within a portion of the rearing unit.
Flow-through systems are found throughout the United States, wherever a consistent
volume of water is available. Most flow-through systems use well, spring, or stream
water as a source of production water. The water source is chosen to provide a constant
flow with relatively little variation in rate, temperature, or quality.
Flow-through systems are the primary method used to grow salmonid species, such as
rainbow trout. These species require high-quality cold water with high levels of dissolved
oxygen. Flow-though systems are located where water is abundant, which enables
farmers to efficiently produce these types of fish. Some other species cultured using flow-
through systems are hybrid striped bass, tilapia, and ornamentals.
Facility size for flow-through systems can vary tremendously. Facilities can range from
small earthen or concrete raceway systems producing about 2,000 Ib of fish per year to
much larger facilities with production levels in the millions of pounds per year.
Most flow-through systems require supplemental oxygen or aeration to maintain
sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen in the culture water. The source water might require
oxygenation to be suitable for production, or as water is reused in serial units,
oxygenation or aeration might be required. In some cases, facilities use mechanical or
passive aeration devices to increase the dissolved oxygen concentration of the culture
4 Information for this section was adapted from J. Avault, 1996a. Fundamentals of Aquaculture (AVA
Publishing, Baton Rouge, Louisiana).
4-9
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
water. Other facilities might add on-site generated or liquid oxygen to supplement
dissolved oxygen levels.
Because many flow-through systems have relatively constant temperatures all year, the
fish can be fed year-round. Feeding systems for flow-through systems vary significantly
by size and management objectives. Small operators might choose to hand-feed all fish,
use demand feeders in different areas of the production facility, or have a mechanical
system to deliver feed to the different raceways. Large operators typically use some kind
of mechanical feeding system to distribute feed at the desired intervals to meet
production goals.
Flowing water in flow-through systems is expected to carry away accumulating waste
products, including feces, uneaten feed, and other metabolic wastes. The flowing water
and swimming fish help move solids down through the raceway. Raceway systems
typically have quiescent zones at the tail ends of the raceways. The quiescent zones allow
solids to settle in an area of the raceway that is screened off from the swimming fish.
Baffles, or other solids-flushing enhancements, help move solids to the quiescent zones
without breaking them into smaller particles. The settled solids are then regularly
removed from the quiescent zone by vacuuming or gravity. Flow-through systems with
tanks sometimes use self-cleaning or concentrating devices to collect solids and allow
them to be efficiently removed from the system. Most facilities store the collected solids
in settling basins, convey the solids to a dewatering process, or hold the solids in a
storage tank for future disposal.
4.2.3 Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems are highly intensive culture systems that actively filter and reuse
water many times before it is discharged. These systems typically use tanks or raceways
to hold the growing animals and have extensive filtration and support equipment to
maintain adequate water quality. Recirculating systems use biological filtration
equipment to remove ammonia from the production water. Solids removal, oxygenation,
temperature control, pH management, carbon dioxide control, and disinfection are other
common water treatment processes used in recirculating systems. The size of the
recirculating system depends primarily on available capital to fund the project and can be
designed to meet the production goals of the operator.
Recirculating systems can be used to grow a number of different species. They can be
used anywhere in the country because a relatively small volume of water is needed to
produce a unit of product. Thus, the facility can economically temper the water to optimal
production temperatures. Recirculating systems grow various species of fish in controlled
environments year-round. Species commonly grown in such systems include hybrid
striped bass and tilapia.
Feeding regimes in recirculating systems vary significantly from operation to operation.
Some operators feed by hand once or twice per day, whereas other operators use
automatic feeders to feed the fish at specified intervals throughout the day.
The water treatment processes are designed to minimize water requirements, which leads
to small-volume, concentrated waste streams. A typical recirculating facility has one or
more discrete waste streams. Solids and backwash water removed from the production
4-10
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
system create an effluent that is high in solids, nutrients, and BOD. Most systems add
make-up water (about 5% to 10% of the system volume each day) to dilute the
production water and to compensate for evaporation and other losses. In addition, some
overflow water, which is dilute compared to the solids water, is discharged.
Recirculating system facilities use a variety of methods to treat, hold, or dispose of the
solids collected from the production water. Some facilities send the collected solids, and
some overflow water, directly to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for
treatment. Other facilities pretreat in settling ponds or other primary treatment systems to
concentrate solids and send a more dilute effluent to the POTW. Still others concentrate
solids and then land-apply the solids slurry when practical. The overflow water may be
directly discharged, land-applied, or otherwise treated.
4.2.4 Net Pens and Cages
Net pens and cages are suspended or floating holding systems in which some cultured
species are grown. These systems may be located along a shore or pier or may be
anchored and floating offshore. Net pens and cages rely on tides, currents, and other
natural water movement to provide a continual supply of high-quality water to the
cultured animals. In most locations, net pens are designed to withstand the high-energy
environments of open waters and are anchored to keep them in place during extreme
weather events. Strict siting requirements typically restrict the number of units at a given
site to ensure sufficient flushing to distribute wastes and prevent degradation of the
bottom below and near the net pens.
Net pens use a floating structure to support nets, which are suspended under the structure
in the water column. The net pens vary in shape but are typically circular, square, or
rectangular on the water surface. Their size also varies, depending on the available
surface area and depth. For example, a net pen facility that EPA visited in Maine had 10
adjoining square units, each with a surface area of about 250 ft2 and a depth of about
40ft.
A common practice in net pen culture is to use two nets—a containment net on the inside
and an outer predator net to keep out predators, such as seals. The predator net also adds
protection to minimize the risk of underwater escapement. At the surface, jump nets are
used to keep fish from jumping out of the net pen. The jump nets extend several feet
above the surface around the perimeter of the net pen. Bird nets are also suspended above
the surface of the net pens to prevent bird predation. Cage culture uses floating cages or
baskets that are usually much smaller than net pens. The shape of cages varies, and
plastic and other corrosion-resistant materials are usually used to construct them.
For cage and net pen culture, the mesh size of the netting used to contain the fish should
be large enough to prevent critically reduced water flows when fouling occurs, but small
enough to keep the cultured fish inside the structure. Most nets and cages are cleaned
mechanically with brushes and power washers. Antifoulants have limited use in the
United States. A few have been approved for foodfish production, but those typically
show minimal effectiveness.
Net pens and cages are used primarily in the coastal areas of the United States to grow
anadromous or near-coastal species of finfish. The species most commonly cultured in
4-11
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
net pen and cage operations are anadromous salmonid species like Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar). Other Pacific salmon species, including pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuschd),
chum (Oncorhynchus keta), chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye
(Oncorhynchus nerka), and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), are either grown in net pens
for part of their life cycle, prior to release into the open ocean for final growout, or grown
to food-size (chinook and coho). Other species, such as steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus
my kiss), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), and redfish (Sciaenops ocellata), also can be
cultured in net pen operations.
Feeding practices include hand feeding and use of a variety of mechanical feeders.
Operators of small cages with a low biomass of fish mostly rely on hand feeding, which
necessitates placing the cages near shore with access from land, a dock, or a small boat.
Most net pen systems contain a large biomass of fish (e.g., 30,000 fish with a harvest
weight of about 8 to 10 Ib each) and require the use of mechanical feeders. For net pens
that are single structures without supporting walkways, barges and boats with feed
blowers are used to take feed to the net pens and dispense feed, usually once or twice a
day. Bad weather can impede this method of feeding. Other facilities may use a stationary
blower to deliver feed to each net pen in a group of pens. To control overfeeding, many
facilities use underwater cameras to monitor feed consumption.
Most net pens are regularly inspected by divers. The divers look for holes in the nets,
dead fish, and fouling problems. State regulatory programs require benthic monitoring at
many net pen sites to ensure that degradation is not occurring under or around the net
pens.
4.2.5 Floating and Bottom Culture Systems5
The production of bivalves in the United States involves several different methods, which
are selected based on variables such as species, location, and legal or political issues. The
commercial growout of bivalves always relies on naturally occurring foods that are
present in the water in which the bivalves are placed. The key to successful floating and
bottom culture is sufficient tides and currents to move water containing natural food to
the shellfish. The water movement must also move wastes away from the growing
shellfish and minimize the accumulation of sediment. Harvests can be made with divers,
lifting gear, or conventional shellfishing techniques. The basic growout techniques use
the intertidal areas above mean low water (but within the tidal reach) and the subtidal
areas (areas always submerged). Those techniques can be further subdivided into
techniques that use the bottom and those that use the water column. Some species are
better suited for off-bottom culture (e.g., mussels); other species (e.g., clams and oysters)
may be grown in either bottom or off-bottom growout systems. The specific locations of
a growing area and that area's tidal characteristics (e.g., whether it is intertidal or
subtidal) dictate the choice of intertidal versus subtidal growout. Other factors, such as
legal restrictions, social pressure, waterway use, and aesthetics, might dictate the culture
method.
5 The information for this section was adapted from J. Kraeuter, et al., 2000, Preliminary Response to
EPA's Aquaculture Industry Regulatory Data Development Needs, Molluscan Shellfish Technical
Subgroup.
4-12
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
One popular bottom culture technique places the shellfish directly on the bottom in beds.
Clams tend to dig into the bottom substrate, while oysters and mussels remain on top of
the substrate. When predation is a problem, the shellfish are placed in mesh bags or
covered with mesh to keep the predators away from the growing crop. Bottom culture
techniques require a relatively firm bottom to keep the shellfish from sinking too deep
into the substrate. Bottom culture does not work when excessive sediment settles over the
shellfish beds and smothers the crop. Shellfish can also be placed in trays, nets, or racks
positioned directly on the bottom.
Off-bottom culture techniques include suspending shellfish from longlines on strings or
racks. Longlines can also be used to suspend the shellfish in bags or racks. Floats are
sometimes used to suspend strings, bags, or trays of shellfish in the water column. Racks
of strings are a popular off-bottom method of growing mussels.
4.2.6 Other Systems: Alligator Farming
The only species of alligator commercially produced in the United States is the American
alligator (Alligator mississipiensis). Alligator production, which takes place primarily in
Louisiana and Florida, is a relatively new business that is still undergoing many changes.
Alligator production facilities usually consist of corrugated metal buildings constructed
on top of concrete slabs with walls that form a tank. The buildings are insulated to reduce
heating costs during the winter. To maintain the desired temperature, heated water is
circulated through a piping network encased in the concrete floor. The drainage structures
for alligator production facilities differ greatly from facility to facility, but most have a
single drain for each alligator pen in the production area. These pen drains usually
combine to form a main drain, which conveys wastewater to the wastewater treatment
operations for the facility.
Alligator feeding regimes have changed significantly since alligator farming first began.
Currently, most alligators are fed a manufactured diet consisting of pelleted feed with the
same feedstocks used for finfish feeds.
Cleanliness of the growout areas is important to the production of high-quality skins for
eventual sale. Most alligator pens are cleaned every other day using a high-pressure hot-
water spray, sometimes combined with small amounts of bleach to reduce the risk of
bacterial infection. Water drained from the growout areas is usually discharged to a
singular treatment lagoon or a series of lagoons before it is land applied for its fertilizer
value.
4.3 PRODUCTION DESCRIPTION BY SPECIES
4.3.1 Catfish
Representing nearly half of the total AAP in the United States for all species, production
of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) is the largest AAP enterprise in the country. In
2000, more than 656 million pounds of channel catfish were produced commercially. In
2001, sales increased to over 670 million pounds (USDA, 2002). Production is
concentrated in the southeastern United States: Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and
Louisiana account for 97% of the total domestic catfish production (USDA, 2002).
4-13
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Catfish growers in 13 select states had sales of $443 million in 2001, down 12% from the
previous year (USDA, 2002). Prices per pound dropped from $0.75 in 2000 to $0.65 in
2001.
The original range of channel catfish extended from northern Mexico through the states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico and up the Mississippi River and its tributaries (Tucker,
2000). Today, the channel catfish can be found throughout the world as a sport fish and
an AAP product. A native North American freshwater fish, the channel catfish is a
bottom dweller with a preference for a substrate of sand and gravel. Its natural habitat is
sluggish to moderately swift rivers and streams; however, channel catfish also thrive in
ponds and lakes.
Between 1955 and 1965 most of the growth in commercial catfish culture occurred in
southeast Arkansas. Farmers discovered that raising fish could be a profitable alternative
to growing traditional crops like rice and cotton. By 1975, the industry began to expand
quickly, particularly in Mississippi, where profits from traditional agriculture were in
decline. Aquaculture offered farmers an opportunity to diversify their crop production
and use land that did not successfully support row crops. Cooperation among farmers
helped create the infrastructure needed to support catfish production, including the
development of large feed mills and fish processing plants. In 1968, the creation of a
national grower's association, the Catfish Farmers of America, also enhanced the growth
of the industry. In 1986 the Catfish Institute, an association of catfish farmers, processors,
and feed manufacturers, launched a national marketing campaign, further strengthening
the industry.
Today most catfish farms are family farms or partnerships. According to the USDA,
about 88% of catfish farms are small businesses with annual sales of less than $750,000
(USDA, 2000). Of the 1,370 catfish farms in the United States, 38% reported annual
revenues of less than $25,000. Catfish production plays a significant role in the
southeastern United States, a region that continues to be one of the more economically
challenged regions in the country.
4.3.1.1 Production Systems
Facilities and culture practices vary within the southeast region. Many studies on catfish
farming have focused on practices in northwest Mississippi (Tucker et al., 1996; Tucker
and van der Ploeg, 1993) and west-central and central Alabama (Boyd et al., 2000;
Schwartz and Boyd, 1994b). There are fewer studies on catfish farming practices in
Louisiana and Arkansas, the other two leading producers of commercial catfish, or on
practices in other states with catfish farms.
In the southeastern United States, the two major catfish-producing areas are (1) the
Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, which includes northwest Mississippi, southeast
Arkansas, and northeast Louisiana, and (2) west-central Alabama and east-central
Mississippi (JSA, 2000a). Because of the flat topography and an available groundwater
source, many catfish farms in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley use levee
(embankment) ponds. Levee ponds are built by removing dirt from the area that will
become the pond bottom and using that dirt to build levees around the pond perimeter. In
west-central Alabama and east-central Mississippi, some catfish farms use watershed
ponds. Watershed ponds take advantage of hills and sloping terrain to build a pond by
4-14
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
damming an existing drainage area to capture rainwater and runoff from the watershed.
Many watershed ponds also require an additional source of water to supplement rainwater
and runoff.
Overall, by operation size in acres, about 90% of all commercial catfish ponds in
production in the United States are levee ponds; the remaining 10% are watershed ponds
(USD A, 1997).
Levee Ponds
Ponds in northwest Mississippi are predominantly levee ponds. Most ponds are
rectangular with about a 3:1 to 5:1 ratio of length to width with an average pond size of
between 8 and 15 ac of water surface. For ease of harvest, most pond depths range from 3
to 5 ft. The height of the levee is 1 to 2 ft above normal water stage (freeboard and
storage) (JSA, 2000a).
Watershed Ponds
In west-central Alabama and east-central Mississippi, commercial catfish farms use both
levee and watershed ponds. The average size of ponds in this region is 10 to 12 acres.
The average maximum depths are 7 ft at the pipe and 3 ft on the shallow end. The height
of the levee for a watershed pond is around 3 ft above normal water stage. Watershed
ponds can expect more input from rainwater and runoff because a larger natural
watershed area drains into the pond. A levee pond has a smaller "watershed" contained
within the slopes of the levee.
About 75% of the commercial catfish ponds in west-central Alabama are watershed
ponds. The remaining 25% of the ponds in this region are levee ponds, filled with water
pumped mainly from groundwater wells (JSA, 2000a). About half of the ponds in east-
central Mississippi are watershed ponds, and the other half are levee ponds or hybrid
watershed-levee ponds that primarily use water pumped from nearby streams or other
surface water supplies rather than from groundwater supplies (JSA, 2000a).
4.3.1.2 Culture Practices
Catfish AAP in ponds involves four phases: (1) broodfish production, (2) hatchery
production, (3) fry nursery production, and (4) growout production (JSA, 2000a).
Broodfish are held in ponds and allowed to randomly mate each spring. Spawning occurs
when the water temperature rises above 70 °F. Fertilized eggs are then taken to a
hatchery, where they hatch under controlled conditions. The fry are raised in the hatchery
for 5 to 15 d and are then transferred to a nursery pond, where they are fed a
manufactured feed throughout the summer and fall. Fingerlings weighing 0.7 to 1.4 oz
are seined from the nursery pond and transferred to the foodfish growout ponds in winter
or spring, where they are fed a manufactured feed until they reach the size desired for
processing, usually 1 to 2 Ib. In the southeastern United States, 18 to 30 mo (two or three
growing seasons) are required to produce a food-size channel catfish from an egg (JSA,
2000a). Within the industry, some farmers specialize in producing fingerlings. The
fingerlings are then sold to farmers who specialize in growing food-size fish. Many
farmers combine all aspects of production by having broodfish ponds, a hatchery, fry
nursery ponds, and growout ponds. In the catfish industry, fish are usually harvested from
growout ponds with long seine nets pulled by tractor-powered reels. The fish are
4-75
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
transferred to live-haul trucks in a basket connected to a crane. Using different mesh
sizes, the seines are designed to capture market-sized fish and allow smaller fish to
remain in the pond. The captured fish are then transported to processing plants or directly
to market.
Broodfish ponds represent about 2% of the total pond area devoted to catfish production.
Although some farmers harvest and drain broodfish ponds every fall to replace poor
breeders and adjust the sex ratios, most broodfish ponds in northwest Mississippi are
drained only every 1 to 5 yr (Tucker, 1996). Instead of draining the pond every year,
broodfish are inspected by seining the pond. In Alabama very few commercial hatcheries
remain in operation (Boyd et al., 2000). Most fingerlings stocked in Alabama ponds are
imported from Mississippi.
After a short stay in the hatchery, the fry are moved to a nursery pond for further growth.
Nursery ponds are stocked with approximately 100,000 to 300,000 fry/ac. Because
recently transferred fry are weak swimmers, farmers prepare a natural plant food source
for fry that are too weak to swim to the areas where feed is offered (Tucker, 2000). After
a month or so, as the fry approach 2 in. in length, they are referred to as fingerlings.
Fingerlings ranging in age from 5 to 9 mo and weighing 0.7 to 1.4 oz are harvested from
the nursery ponds and placed in growout ponds. The nursery ponds are harvested by
seining each pond several times over 1 to 3 mo. The mesh size of the seine grades the fish
by size, releasing smaller fingerlings back into the nursery pond for further development.
Nursery ponds are usually drained each year to remove all fish from the pond.
Fingerlings are removed from the pond to prevent cannibalism of fry in the next cycle of
fingerling production (Tucker, 2000). Nursery ponds represent approximately 10% of the
total pond area in commercial production. Because these ponds are drained each year
between crops, water use is higher in nursery ponds than in broodfish or foodfish
growout ponds (Tucker and Hargreaves, 1998).
Broodfish and nursery pond practices remain fairly constant throughout the industry, but
foodfish culture practices often vary among different farms based on production goals
and the economics of different production strategies. There are two fundamental
production variables in foodfish growout, fish stocking density and cropping system
(Tucker and Robinson, 1990). Stocking densities in growout ponds range from 4,000 to
more than 12,000 fish/ac and average about 6,000 fish/ac. The cropping system refers to
the stocking-harvest-restocking schedule. The two cropping systems in commercial
catfish production are clean harvest and understocking (or multiple-batch). In the clean
harvest system, farmers keep only one year-class of fish in the pond at one time.
Fingerlings are stocked and grown to the desired harvest size (1 to 2 Ib/fish). Faster-
growing fish are selectively removed by seining the pond in two to four separate harvests
over several months until all of the fish are removed. After the harvest, the pond is often
restocked without draining in order to conserve water and to reduce time lost between
crops (Tucker, 2000).
The understocking or multiple-batch system has more than one year-class of fish (with
three or four distinct size-classes of fish) after the first year of production. Multiple-batch
harvesting is the predominant production type, accounting for 89.2% of foodfish harvest
(USDA, 1997). At first the pond is stocked with a single year-class of fingerlings. Faster-
4-16
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
growing fish are selectively harvested using large-mesh seines, and fingerlings are added
to replace the harvested fish. Most commercial catfish ponds in Alabama use multiple-
batch systems and harvest with seines (Boyd et al., 2000). This process of selective
harvest and understocking (adding fingerlings) continues for years without draining the
pond. After several cycles, the pond contains several year-classes of fish with a range of
sizes from recently stocked fingerlings to fish that might be several years old.
The clean harvest system produces fish more uniform in size than fish from understocked
ponds, and processors prefer uniform sizes (Tucker and Robinson, 1990). Inventory
records are also easier to keep with the clean harvest system because populations are reset
at zero after each crop cycle. With the clean harvest system, feed conversion efficiencies
are better because larger fish, which convert feed to flesh less efficiently, are not carried
over into the next production cycle. The advantage of the understocking system is that
more ponds will have market-size fish at any one time than with clean harvest crops. This
is important because it provides a farmer with other harvest options if a pond is
temporarily unacceptable for processing because of factors like algae-related off-flavors
or ongoing losses due to infectious disease.
Water use practices have shifted in the catfish industry in recent years. Today farmers use
water more conservatively. Before 1985, many catfish ponds in northwest Mississippi
were regularly refilled with pumped water (Tucker and Hargreaves, 1998). Farmers
believed that "flushing" the pond improved productivity. Research by McGee and Boyd
(1983), however, showed that "flushing" was generally not beneficial. Today almost all
catfish ponds in northwest Mississippi are managed as "static" systems with very little
water exchange except from heavy rain creating overflow. In another study in Alabama
(Seok et al., 1995), in a period of 3 yr, three ponds were harvested annually by draining
and three were harvested without draining. There were no differences in net production,
average fish size at harvest, or feed conversion rates; however, in the undrained ponds,
concentrations of chlorophyll a and total ammonia nitrogen were higher. This study has
reinforced the practice of harvesting without draining, a management practice that is now
common throughout the catfish industry.
Daily management practices for both crop systems are similar. Today, foodfish ponds are
usually drained only when a levee needs to be repaired or when there is a need to adjust
the inventory by completely removing all fish. Table 4.3-1 shows that most commercial
ponds remain in production for 3 to 10 yr between renovations before being drained, and
the average time between pond drainings is over 6 yr (USDA, 1997). On average,
producers drained ponds less often (every 6.4 yr) at operations where 90% or more of the
ponds were levee ponds than at operations with a smaller percentage of levee ponds
(every 4.7 yr). Smaller operations (measured by acreage) drained ponds more often
regardless of predominant pond type. During renovation the pond bottom is dried and the
dried clay is broken by disking the bottom. Dried material is scraped from the bottom and
used to rebuild the levee and restore the proper pond slope.
4-77
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Table 4.3-1. Number of Years Between Drainings By Pond Type and Operation Size
Operation
Size (Acres)
1-19
20-49
50-149
150 or more
All
Pond Type"
Levee
Ponds
3.1
5.9
6.1
8.7
6.4
Standard
Error
(± 0.4)
(± 0.5)
(± 0.3)
(± 0.4)
(± 0.2)
Watershed/
Mixture
Ponds
2.4
2.6
8.4
9.7
4.7
Standard
Error
(± 0.5)
(± 0.8)
(±1.7)
(± 0.7)
(± 0.8)
All
2,9
5.1
6.5
8.8
6.1
Standard
Error
(± 0.3)
(± 0.5)
(±0.4)
(± 0.4)
(± 0.2)
aPond type for the operation was classified levee if at least 10% of the operation's ponds were reported as
levee ponds. Otherwise, the pond type was classified as "Watershed/Mixture."
Source: USDA, 1997.
Fee d Management
Feed allowances in growout ponds average between 75 to 125 Ib/ac/d during late spring
and early summer (Tucker, 2000). Feeding activity declines as water temperatures drop in
late fall, with feeding rates declining to less than 25 Ib/ac/d during midwinter; however,
feeding allowances may be higher during unusually mild winters. A report from the
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) found that 87.5% of
operations with fish on hand during winter fed their foodfish during winter, with 62.8%
feeding 3 or more days per month (USDA, 1997). Operators identified water temperature
and levee condition as being very important criteria in determining winter feeding
schedules.
The cost of feed depends on its quality and contents. The conversion of feed protein to
fish protein is important because protein is the most expensive feed ingredient, based on
the amount of protein in the feed and the cost of the protein used. In most catfish feed, a
portion of the protein comes from fish meal and sometimes other animal sources. In
recent years, the industry has improved upon earlier catfish feeds. Modern feeds contain
less crude protein and a much smaller percentage of animal protein (Boyd and Tucker,
1995).
The feed conversion ratio (FCR) is a measure of the feeding efficiency. It is calculated as
the ratio of the weight of feed applied to the weight of the fish produced:
FCR = Dry weight of feed applied
Wet weight of fish gained
Commercial catfish farms in Mississippi typically achieve a feed conversion ratio of 2.04
to 2.40 (Boyd and Tucker, 1995). Much lower feed conversion ratios (in the 1.3 to 1.5
range) can be reached in research ponds under conditions where fish are less crowded,
have less wasted food, and live in water with better aeration than is found on most
commercial farms (Boyd and Tucker, 1995). The feed conversion ratio is an important
tool that operators use for measuring the efficiency of the system. If stocking rates are too
low, efficient feeding becomes more difficult (fish are too spread out), and thus
increasing the stocking density would improve FCR. When stocking and feeding rates are
4-18
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
increased to the point where water quality is negatively impacted, however, FCR
increases (poorer efficiency). As the growing season progresses, the fish grow and
require more feed. As feeding rates increase, water quality tends to deteriorate as a result
of excessive phytoplankton (microscopic algae), increased oxygen demand, and high
concentrations of nutrients, including total ammonia nitrogen. In ponds that use the
multiple-batch system, removing marketable fish and adding new fingerlings, the feeding
rate might remain more constant because the number of pounds of foodfish per acre
levels out as large fish are removed and small fish are added.
Health Management
High fish densities and stressful environmental conditions can lead to the outbreak and
rapid spread of infectious diseases in channel catfish ponds. Bacterial diseases account
for most of the losses of fingerlings in nursery ponds, whereas foodfish in growout ponds
are most often affected by proliferative gill disease (PGDs, caused by the myxosporean
parasite) and "winter-kill syndrome," a disease associated with external fungal infections
(Tucker, 2000). PGD occurs most often in spring and autumn when temperatures are
between 60 and 68 °F. There is no treatment for the disease, but farmers can reduce
losses by maintaining high dissolved oxygen levels during an outbreak. "Winter-kill
syndrome" is common when temperatures fall below 60 °F. Mortality rates from this
fungal infection can be high, and the conditions that contribute to its outbreak are not
well understood. There is no cost-effective treatment available for fungal infections in
large commercial ponds.
The channel catfish virus (CCV) affects young catfish and can lead to large losses in
hatcheries or nursery ponds. The virus causes channel catfish virus disease (CCVD), and
fish less than 1 mo old are most susceptible. There is no cure for CCVD, but losses can
be reduced by controlling water temperature in hatcheries and reducing stress in fry or
fingerling populations by maintaining relatively low stocking densities, avoiding stressful
handling, and preventing adverse environmental conditions (Plumb, 1994a; Winton,
2001).
Three bacterial diseases are significant to channel catfish AAP because they can cause
large losses: enteric septicemia of catfish, columnaris disease, and motile aeromonad
septicemia.
Enteric septicemia in catfish (ESC) is one of the leading bacterial diseases in commercial
catfish production. This disease costs the industry millions of dollars annually in fish
mortalities and expenditures for preventive measures and therapeutic treatments (Plumb,
1994b; Winton, 2001). Only two Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs,
oxytetracycline (Terramycin) and sulfadimethoxine-ormetroprim (Romet), are effective
against ESC. Today farmers rely more on vaccination and management practices to
reduce stress to prevent ESC rather than drug treatments.
Two other bacterial diseases are often encountered in channel catfish production: motile
aeromonas septicemia (MAS), a ubiquitous disease of many freshwater fish species, and
columnaris, caused by Flexibacter columnaris. MAS is typically caused by one of several
gram-negative, motile bacteria that are members of the genus Aeromonas, such as A.
hydrophila, A. sobria, and A. cariae. Occasionally, various species of Pseudomonas,
4-19
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
especially Pseudomonad fluorescent, can cause a form of disease that is indistinguishable
from MAS (Winton, 2001).
Most columnaris infections in channel catfish are mixed infections with other bacteria,
especially ESC and MAS. Initial columnaris infections are usually the result of
mechanical or physiological injuries or environmental stress. MAS is also a stress-
mediated disease. Treatment with a 1% to 3% salt solution or 2 to 4 mg/L of potassium
permanganate reduces the incidence of post-handling infections.
Infectious disease is a significant problem in catfish production that is primarily
controlled by preventing the poor water quality conditions that lead to outbreaks. Pond
culture of catfish prohibits the use of most drugs and chemicals for treatment because of
the high cost of treating the large water volume. Sick fish tend not to eat, so the few
FDA-approved medicated feeds are limited in their effectiveness.
Some algae and bacteria that grow in catfish ponds produce odorous organic compounds
that can give the fish undesirable off-flavors. Synthesized by blue-green algae, geosmin,
an earthy-smelling compound, and 2-methylisoborneol, which has a musty smell, are the
two most common causes of off-flavors in pond-raised catfish (Tucker, 2000). To prevent
off-flavored fish from reaching the market, fish are taste-tested before harvest. In
Alabama it is a common practice to treat ponds with copper sulfate to control blue-green
algae and off-flavor in ponds. Studies show that copper precipitates rapidly in ponds and
is unlikely to be a concern in effluents (Boyd et al., 2000).
4.3.1.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices
Water Quality in the Production System
In catfish ponds, the most important constituents of potential effluents are nitrogen,
phosphorus, organic matter, and settleable solids (JSA, 2000a). These materials are a
direct or indirect product of feeds added to the ponds to promote rapid fish growth.
Farmers need relatively high stocking and feeding rates to reach profitable levels of
production. Although catfish are able to convert more feed into flesh than warm-blooded
animals, nutrient use is not as efficient. Less than 30% of the nitrogen and phosphorus
added to the pond in feed is recovered in the harvested fish (JSA, 2000a). The remainder
of the nutrient load stays in the pond system as fish waste. Inorganic nutrients in fish
waste stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which in turn stimulate the production of
more organic matter through photosynthesis. For both watershed and levee ponds,
nitrogen and phosphorus compounds and organic matter are present in the pond water
throughout the grow out period and represent potential pollutants if discharged.
Fish wastes contain nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients required for plant growth.
The input of these nutrients, particularly in the summer growing season, stimulates the
growth of plant communities in catfish ponds. Although some ponds may develop rooted
aquatic plants, the most common plant form is phytoplankton (Tucker, 1996).
Phytoplankton are producers as well as users of oxygen. They also assimilate ammonia as
a nitrogen source of growth (Tucker, 1996). Phytoplankton can be beneficial to the
catfish pond system; however, a pond with high levels of phytoplankton biomass might
use more oxygen than it produces, resulting in a community deficit of dissolved oxygen.
4-20
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Catfish need sustained levels of dissolved oxygen. Ideally, minimum dissolved oxygen
concentrations need to be between 4 and 5 mg/L to maintain the health of the fish
(Tucker, 1996). Aerators are one of the most common control technologies used in the
catfish industry to improve water quality. Mechanical aerators improve the quality of the
water in the pond by continually mixing the water and preventing thermal stratification.
Aeration also adds dissolved oxygen to the system. By enhancing dissolved oxygen
concentrations, aeration increases the capacity of ponds to assimilate organic matter
through aerobic processes. Higher dissolved oxygen concentrations also increase the
nitrification rate of ammonia to nitrate, which is then lost from the pond through
denitrification. In addition, aeration and water circulation influence rates of phosphorus
loss from the system. The interface between water and sediment in aerated ponds appears
to be sufficiently oxidized to enhance rates of inorganic phosphorus removal from pond
water and reduces the availability of phosphorus for phytoplankton (JSA, 2000a).
Furthermore, circulation can also improve water quality by increasing nutrient uptake by
phytoplankton. Water circulation increases the aggregate exposure of phytoplankton cells
to light, resulting in an increase in phytoplankton growth rates, which in turn increases
the nutrient uptake.
Over time natural processes in the pond lower the concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and organic material. If water is retained in catfish ponds over a period of time,
biological, chemical, and physical processes remove some of the waste generated by fish.
Some of the organic matter from phytoplankton production and fish waste is oxidized in
the natural process of microbial decomposition (JSA, 2000a). Total nitrogen levels in
catfish pond waters are lowered as nitrogen is lost from the water column as organic
matter with nitrogen particulates is decomposed on the bottom of the pond. Nitrogen is
also lost from the water as a gas through denitrification and volatilization. Finally, total
phosphorus concentrations in the water are lowered as phosphorus is lost to the pond
bottom soils as particulate organic phosphorus and precipitates of calcium phosphates.
Effluent Characteristics
The major components of concern from catfish pond effluents are solids, organic matter,
phosphorus, and nitrogen. Based on these components, the major potential impact on
receiving waters is the possibility of eutrophication. The impact on the receiving waters
will depend on the volume and concentration of substances in the effluent in relation to
the flow rate of the receiving body of water and the timing of the effluent discharge (JSA,
2000a).
Watershed ponds and levee ponds, as well as the different production practices used by
different facilities, influence water use practices and water quality in the ponds. In turn,
water quantity and quality affect the discharge volume and the characteristics of the water
discharged, or effluent, from catfish production. Effluent from a pond may be discharged
intentionally. For example, a pond might be periodically drained for harvest or
maintenance. Ponds might also discharge water though unplanned events, such as
overflow due to excessive rainwater and runoff.
General characteristics of overflow from catfish ponds in northwest Mississippi are
described in a study (Table 4.3-2) that examines long-term changes in the quality of
effluents from typical commercial catfish ponds (Tucker et al., 1996). Water samples
were taken from 20 ponds in Washington County in northwest Mississippi over a 2-yr
4-21
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
period beginning in summer 1991. These ponds represented typical culture practices of
ponds used to produce catfish in the area. Samples were taken in August (summer),
November (autumn), February (winter), and May (spring). Samples were collected from
the top 12 inches of the surface of the pond and the bottom 12 inches of the pond at a site
adjacent to the discharge pipe. Samples were taken at two different depths because water
can be discharged from ponds at either the surface or the bottom, depending on the type
of discharge pipe. Samples were analyzed for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand, total ammonia, total nitrogen, nitrite, nitrate, total phosphorus,
soluble reactive phosphorus, suspended solids, and settleable solids.
Table 4.3-2. Means and Ranges of Potential Effluents Parameters from
20 Commercial Channel Catfish Ponds in Northwest Mississippi from
Summer 1991 Through Spring 1993
Season
Summer
1991
Autumn
Winter 1992
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter 1993
Spring
Settleable
Solids
(mL/L)
0.20
(0-0.90)
0.02
(0-0.25)
0.06
(0-0.70)
0.11
(0-1.35)
0.09
(0-0.58)
0.02
(0-0.15)
0.01
(0-0.03)
0.12
(0-0.70)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/L)
127
(40-225)
80
(20-225)
109
(51-194)
123
(72-204)
117
(47-175)
93
(41-175)
93
(39-165)
135
(46-289)
Total
Nitrogen
(mgN/L)
6.1
(2,1-14.1)
6.1
(2.9-10.8)
5.1
(2.1-8.8)
4.5
(1.8-6.7)
7.0
(2.6-10.9)
6.9
(3.8-10.4)
5.5
(0.6-8.8)
5.2
(1.5-7.9)
Total
Ammonia
(mg N/L)
1.22
(0.01-3.19)
2.63
(0.05-6.35)
0.86
(0.04-3.85)
1.06
(0.04-3.04)
0.71
(0.03-2.02)
2.76
(0.07-8.10)
1.48
(0.02-5.14)
2,21
(0.03^.44)
Total
Phosphorus
(mg P/L)
0.54
(0.23-1.24)
0.26
(0.14-0.58)
0.34
(0.13-0.62)
0.31
(0.15-0.56)
0.51
(0.26-0.87)
0.35
(0.15-1.03)
0.34
(0.14-0.62)
0.37
(0.24-0.58)
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(mg OJL)
26.1
(14.6-41.2)
9.7
(1.9-29.7)
13.7
(5.7-20.3)
14.8
(8.2-27.1)
21.2
(10.5-36.4)
12.3
(5.4-34.0)
11.9
(4.8-22.9)
14.9
(8.5-25.5)
Source: Tucker et
Note: Ranges are
al, 1996.
in parentheses.
Pond effluents varied from pond to pond, season to season. Typically the quality of
potential effluents was poorest in the summer, with high concentrations of solids, organic
matter, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen. This same trend was confirmed by other
studies of catfish pond water quality (e.g.. Tucker and van der Ploeg, 1993).
Long-term changes in quality of effluents in typical commercial catfish ponds in central
and west-central Alabama are described in a study (Table 4.3-3) by Schwartz and Boyd
(1994b). They collected water samples during February, May, August, and November of
1991 and 1992 from 25 commercial catfish ponds using the same sampling method used
in the study described above. Samples were analyzed for 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand, total ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, soluble reactive
phosphorus, nitrite, nitrate, total ammonia, suspended solids, volatile solids, and
settleable solids.
4-22
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Table 4.3-3. Means and Ranges of Potential Effluent Parameters from 25
Commercial Channel Catfish Ponds in Central and West-Central Alabama from
Winter 1991 Through Autumn 1992
Season
Winter 1991
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter 1992
Summer
Autumn
Settleable
Solids
(inL/L)
0.06
(0-0.33)
0.05
(0-0.40)
0.19
(0-1.80)
0.03
(0-0.54)
0.01
(0-0.10)
0.15
(0-0.28)
0.03
(0-0.25)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/L)
81
(22-202)
52
(5-134)
96
(14-240)
103
(18-232)
29
(1-100)
102
(10-308)
73
(14-337)
KjeldaM
Nitrogen
(mgN/L)
3.7
(0.9-9.2)
4.4
(1.8-10.6)
5.0
(1.7-11.3)
6.1
(2.2-11.5)
1.9
(0.6-3.7)
3.9
(1.6-8.4)
6.0
(2.2-14.0)
Total
Ammonia
(mgN/L)
0.7
(0.07-2,47)
1.07
(0.02-3.45)
0.85
(0.05^.71)
1.86
(0.10-8.07)
0.27
(0.03-1.08)
1.89
(0.06-3.30)
1.91
(0.09-5.26)
Total
Phosphorus
(mgP/L)
0.25
(0.04-0.57)
0.21
(0.07-0.37)
0.36
(0.12-0.75)
0.46
(0.12-1.85)
0.09
(0-0.31)
0.19
(0-0.47)
0.27
(0.06-0.83)
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
(mg 02/L)
9.0
(1.2-21.9)
6.5
(2,4-21.4)
10.7
(4.3-20.3)
18.1
(6.1-35.6)
9.2
(5.5-17.5)
8.0
(1.4-15.9)
7.6
(1.2-23.4)
Source: Schwartz and Boyd, 1994b.
Note: Ranges are in parentheses.
Settleable solid concentrations were highest during the summer and were generally
greater in the surface waters. Phytoplankton were the major source of suspended solids in
the samples. The other effluent parameters (e.g., suspended solids, TKN, BOD, total
ammonia, and total phosphorus) generally cycle throughout the year. These effluent
parameters are usually lower in the spring, increase through the summer, peak in the fall,
and then decrease in the winter.
Overall, concentrations of settleable solids and suspended solids were similar in Alabama
and Mississippi catfish ponds. Concentrations of Kjeldahl nitrogen in Alabama ponds and
total nitrogen in Mississippi ponds are not directly comparable because of a difference in
analytical methods; however, if nitrogen compounds not measured in the Kjeldahl
analysis are accounted for, values for total nitrogen are probably similar in both studies.
Concentrations for total phosphorus and BOD are somewhat higher in ponds in
Mississippi. This is probably a result of the higher fish stocking and feeding rates
commonly used in Mississippi, which might lead to higher standing crops of
phytoplankton (Tucker et al., 1996).
Schwartz and Boyd (1994a) also conducted a study to describe the quality of effluents
drained for harvest. This study was conducted in three watershed ponds at the Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station near Auburn. Ponds were stocked with 4,000 fingerling
channel catfish per acre and were fed a pelleted commercial feed during the growing
season and intermittently during the winter. This study showed that concentrations of
TKN, BOD, and settleable solids were fairly constant throughout the draining phase. As
the pond level was lowered and the seining phase began, these variables increased in
concentration. Total ammonia nitrogen, soluble reactive phosphorus, and total
4-23
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
phosphorus steadily increased during the draining phase and then sharply increased
during the seining phase. Increases in phosphorus were likely a result of sediments being
stirred up. The rise in total ammonia-nitrogen concentrations was likely a result of
metabolic wastes, becoming more concentrated in a decreasing volume of water.
Draining a pond for harvest concentrates fish into a relatively small volume of water,
causing sediments to be stirred up by the fish and the nets. Water discharged during
harvest contains solids and other substances from the disturbed sediments and is,
therefore, different from typical pond water (JSA, 2000a). The findings from this study
suggest that the best way to minimize impacts from effluents from ponds drained for
harvest is to harvest ponds as quickly as possible, and either to not discharge the water
during the seining process or to discharge this highly contaminated water into a settling
basin or retention pond (JSA, 2000a). As noted in the report prepared by the Technical
Subgroup for Catfish Production in Ponds for the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
most ponds are not drained for harvest (JSA, 2000a). Draining ponds for harvest is
practiced mostly in watershed ponds that have deep areas near the dam that prevent
harvest by seining. Watershed ponds are common in areas such as west-central Alabama
and east-central Mississippi, but overall they constitute a small proportion of ponds used
in catfish farming.
Current Industry Effluent Treatment Practices
In addition to natural processes in ponds that help improve water quality by reducing
levels of organic material and concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, catfish farmers
also play a role in improving in-pond water quality through best management practices
(BMPs).
Effluent volume from levee ponds is lowered by two common management practices in
the catfish industry. The practices, which include keeping the pond water level below the
level of the drain and not draining water between crops, significantly reduce the volume
of water discharged (JSA, 2000a).
As demonstrated in a study by Tucker et al. (1996), reuse of water for multiple crops
results in significant savings in water use and also reduces overall effluent volume. This
study modeled the effect of water reuse on mass discharge of nutrients and organic matter
for levee ponds operated at three intervals (1,3, and 5 yr) between total pond drainings
and managed with and without storage potential. Harvesting fish without draining the
ponds between crops substantially reduced the average volume of water discharged each
year, and the reduction was greatest when ponds were also managed to maintain storage
potential. For ponds not managed to maintain surplus water storage, the model indicated
that using the ponds for 5 yr before draining reduced the annual average waste discharge
by approximately 45% compared to annually drained ponds. When ponds were managed
for surplus water storage, discharge of nutrients and organic matter was reduced relative
to annually drained ponds by more than 60% when ponds were used for 5 yr between
drainings. Currently, the average time between production pond drainings is more than 6
years.
The following is a summary of common practices in the catfish industry and the ways in
which they affect effluent quality.
4-24
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Draining practices. Draining practices are a function of harvest practices. Water
is most commonly drained from a pond to facilitate harvests, prevent predation in
fingerling ponds, or maintain pond banks and bottoms. Catfish production is
characterized by infrequent drainings. Although nursery ponds are drained
annually, growout ponds are drained once every 5 to 10 (or more) yr. When the
water is used for several years between draining events, effluent volumes are
significantly reduced.
Harvest practices. Fish raised in ponds are typically harvested using seines that
can be stretched across the entire pond. Catfish are usually harvested with seine
nets without draining the ponds. Some watershed ponds require partial draining
before harvest to capture fish in the deeper end of the pond adjacent to the dam
(Tucker et al., 2002). Ponds harvested without draining have reduced effluent
volumes. Draining and seining also affect effluent pollutant loads.
Feed management. Feed management is one of the most important practices that
can influence water quality in the pond system. By managing feed, farmers
manage the amount of nutrients in the form of fish waste and uneaten feed that are
added to the pond system. Water quality in catfish ponds is directly related to the
amount of feed added to the ponds. Uneaten feed contributes only to lowering of
water quality, not to fish growth.
Water quality management. Catfish need sustained levels of dissolved oxygen at
4.0 mg/L or above. Most catfish farmers use paddlewheel aerators to supply
sufficient aeration for production. Mechanical aeration is required to maintain
adequate water quality and oxygen levels in the ponds. Mechanical aerators
improve the quality of the water in the pond by continually mixing the water and
preventing thermal stratification. Aeration also adds dissolved oxygen to the
system. By enhancing dissolved oxygen concentrations, aeration increases the
capacity of ponds to naturally assimilate organic matter through aerobic
processes.
Overflow management. Ponds can be managed to store precipitation and minimize
the need for expensive pumped ground or surface water. The practice of
preventing overflow by capturing rainwater is common throughout the catfish
industry. By maintaining pond depths at 6 to 12 in. below the height of the
overflow structure, about 160,000 to 325,000 gal of storage capacity per surface
acre of the pond is available to capture direct rainfall. When more water is stored,
less water is released through overflows and smaller amounts of potential
pollutants are released. Capturing rainfall and reducing the amount of overflow
reduce the need for pumping additional water into a pond to compensate for water
lost to evaporation and infiltration.
4.3.2 Trout
The production of trout represents the second largest sector of total AAP in the United
States. In 2000, the total value of all trout sales, both fish and eggs, was $75.8 million
(USDA, 2001). Idaho leads trout production in the United States and accounted for 53%
of the total value of trout sold in 2000. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and California are
the other leading trout-producing states. Trout distributed for restoration, conservation,
4-25
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
and recreational purposes, primarily from state and federal hatcheries, had an estimated
value of $60.9 million for both eggs and fish distributed.
Trout are cultured both for foodfish production and to stock recreational facilities.
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is the most common species cultured for AAP;
however, brown trout (Salmo trutta) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are also raised
in AAP facilities. Trout belong to the group of fishes called salmonids, which are
coldwater fishes that also include Atlantic salmon and Pacific salmon. Rainbow trout
were originally native to North American rivers draining into the Pacific Ocean. Brook
trout are native to an area that extends from the northeastern coast of North America,
west to the Great Lakes, and south through the Appalachian Mountains. The brown trout,
a native of European waters, was first introduced into the United States more than 100
years ago. Because of their popularity as both a sport fish and a source of food, all three
species of trout are now widely distributed and cultured around the world (Avault,
1996b.).
Rainbow trout culture became a farming business in the early 1900s, with a third of the
farms operating as fee-fishing operations (Hardy et al., 2000). In Idaho, the first
commercial trout farm was started in 1909 near Twin Falls. This area is known for its
abundant spring water with a constant temperature from the Eastern Snake River Aquifer.
In the early 1950s, trout farming expanded greatly, supported in part by the development
of pelleted feeds. Farms no longer had to prepare their own feed, and production costs
decreased. During the growth phase of the 1950s and 1960s, individual operators,
including egg producers, growers, fish processors, distributors, and feed manufacturers,
dominated the U.S. trout farming industry. Over the past decade, the industry has become
more consolidated and vertically integrated. Today the most common trout farming
businesses combine farming, processing, and sales. Egg production and feed
manufacturing have remained specialized businesses.
Individuals and sport fisher groups originally began trout production to replenish wild
stocks in natural waterways. These private hatcheries eventually evolved into the current
state and federal hatchery system. State and federal hatcheries produce a number of
species for restocking programs, while private commercial trout producers focus on food
production of rainbow trout. Public hatcheries generally focus on the quality of the fish
produced. Fish produced for enhancement purposes are produced to retain genetic
integrity and characteristics needed to survive in the wild. Private hatcheries focus on
maximum production to meet economic goals. Commercial producers emphasize genetic
selection for fast growth and adaptation to culture conditions. These differences in goals
are reflected in the different production strategies applied by public and private programs.
Trout production is the largest component of the inland stocking program. In 1982, some
200 million trout were stocked from more than 200 state and federal fish hatcheries, with
states contributing roughly 80% of this total.
4.3.2.1 Production Systems
Most trout production facilities use flow-through systems. Flow-through systems are
raceways, ponds, or tanks through which water flows continuously. Commonly, they are
earthen or concrete rectangular troughs with varied dimensions and angles of pitch to
allow a shallow stream of water to flow directly from one end to the other. The most
4-26
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
common configuration for multiple raceways is either in series or in parallel. When
constructed in series (Figure 4.3-1), water enters the upper raceway and then exits into a
second raceway just downstream. This gravity-driven flow continues to the last raceway
in the series. When raceways are constructed in parallel (Figure 4.3-2), the water source
splits to flow through multiple raceways arranged parallel to each other. The water then
exits the raceways into a common outflow pipe. Many large flow-through farms use a
combination of the series and parallel configurations (Lawson, 1995a), shown in Figure
4.3-3. In North Carolina, raceways for trout production are typically 3 ft deep, 8 ft wide,
and 40 to 60 ft long; most commercial facilities in North Carolina use concrete raceways
(Dunning and Sloan, n.d.) In the southeastern United States, concrete raceways are also
the most common rearing unit for commercial trout farms (Hinshaw, 2000). In Idaho the
most common rearing unit is a concrete raceway with dimensions of 10 to 18 ft wide, 80
to 150 ft long, and 2.5 to 3.5 ft deep (IDEQ, n.d.).
(a)
Raceway 1
Raceway 2
V ^
Raceway 3
"\
f
Raceway 4
(b)
Source: Lawson, 1995a.
Figure 4.3-1. Raceway Units in Series (a) on Flat
Ground and (b) on Sloping Ground
— »
h
Raceway 1
Raceway 2
Raceway 3
Raceway 4
-»
Source: Lawson, 1995a.
Figure 4.3-2. Raceway Units in Parallel
4-27
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Raceways
Source: Lawson, 1995a.
Figure 4.3-3. Combination Series and Parallel Raceway
Units with Water Recirculation
4.3.2.2 Culture Practices
After fertilization and water-hardening, eggs are transported to incubation systems where
they are incubated undisturbed until the eyed stage (about 14 d at a water temperature of
50 °F). Handling the eggs before the eyed stage damages and kills the sensitive embryos.
There are several incubation methods for trout eggs. Eggs can be placed in wire baskets
or rectangular trays suspended in existing hatchery troughs. Partitions between the trays
force the water to flow up through the eggs from below before spilling over into the next
compartment. Water is passed through the baskets or trays, and the newly hatched fry
drop through the mesh to the bottom of the trough. The second method of incubation uses
specially designed hatching jars placed in rows in hatchery troughs. The third method
uses vertical flow incubators, which are widely used for trout eggs. Water is introduced at
one end of the top tray and flows up through the screen bottom, circulating through the
eggs. The water then spills over the tray below and is aerated as it drops.
Eggs hatch in the trays and remain there until they are ready to feed. Fungal growth can
affect incubation. To prevent fungal growth, it is common to treat eggs with formalin (a
37% solution of formaldehyde) at a concentration of approximately 1 part formalin to
600 parts water for 15 min, every 1 to 3 d (Cain and Garling, 1993). Because of the
specialized skill and labor involved in spawning, as well the high cost of maintaining
broodstock, many trout farmers buy eggs for incubation rather than producing their own
(Cain and Garling, 1993). In the North Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin), 92% of all purchased rainbow trout eggs come from outside the region,
4-28
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
predominantly from western states. Farmers can also purchase fingerlings from hatching
facilities that specialize in incubation and fry growout.
Trout emerge from eggs with a reserve of food in a yolk sac. At this stage, they are
referred to as yolk-sac fry, or alevins, and they continue to live off and obtain nutrition
from their yolks for approximately 20 d at 50 °F or 10 d or less at 60 °F (Hardy et al.,
2000). When the fish begin to swim up to the surface, the thin yolk sac has been
absorbed, and they begin to seek food actively. If incubation does not occur in a rearing
trough, sac fry are transferred to a trough shortly after hatching. Troughs for raising fry
are usually 12 to 16 ft long, 12 to 18 in. wide, and 9 to 12 in. deep. Fry are typically
stocked at a rate of 1,000 to 2,000 fry per square foot of trough surface area. Flow rate
and temperature also affect stocking rates. The water level in the fry trough should be
kept shallow until the fish begin to "swim up." When fry reach about 2 in., they are ready
for transfer to larger, deeper fingerling tanks. Fish are usually held and fed in fingerling
tanks until they reach a length of about 3 in., and then they are moved to outdoor
raceways for final growout.
The maximum amount of fish in pounds that a volume of water in a raceway can support
is referred to as the carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of a culture unit depends on
water flow rate, water volume, water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH,
and fish size. From the time fingerlings (about 3 in.) are stocked in raceways until they
reach marketable size (12 to 16 in.), they must be graded periodically to sort the fish into
similar size groups and improve feeding efficiency. Trout are typically graded four times
during a production cycle. Using a rectangular frame with evenly spaced bars of
aluminum tubing, PVC pipe, or wooden dowels, the grader is placed in the inflow end of
the raceway and moved toward the outflow end. This crowds larger fish in the outflow
area so they can be removed and stocked in another raceway with fish of similar size.
Trout are harvested by using a bar grader as described above. As the fish are crowed into
a small area of the raceway, they are dipped out with a hand net or a combination of a
hand net and fish pump. The ease of harvesting fish from raceways makes this type of
rearing unit very popular for flow-through systems. Round tanks use crowding screens
specifically designed for the tank.
Feed Management
Early life stages such as fry are usually hand fed. Fry need many regular feedings
throughout the day; they are often observed and fed only what they can consume in a
short amount of time to prevent overfeeding. Fish in production raceways may be fed
with mechanical feeders or demand feeders (IDEQ, n.d.). Mechanical feeders typically
deliver a predetermined amount of feed to the fish. Commercial feeder designs range
from stationary units to truck-mounted units. Automatic designs, like spring-loaded belts
or auger-driven feeders, deliver small amounts of feed at any one time. This method
restricts fish to a set amount of food each day. Demand feeders allow fish to feed to
satiation. This method allows fish to choose how much feed is needed and when feed is
released. Fish activate the suspended feeder, dispensing small amounts of feed, by
bumping a rod that extends to the water.
4-29
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
In the United States, consumers expect trout to have white meat, so they are fed diets
lacking the carotenoid pigments that give trout and salmon fillets their typically red color
(Hardy et al., 2000). In nature, these pigments are present in their food through natural
sources such as krill, yeast, or algae, or through astaxanthin, the carotenoid pigment
found in the wild, produced by chemical synthesis. In Europe and Chile, trout are
expected to have pigmented meat, so the feed for these fish is supplemented with
astaxanthin.
Feed, including its manufacture, storage, and delivery to the fish, is one of the most
important aspects of trout AAP waste management (IDEQ, n.d.). Research by Boardman
et al. (1998) showed that using high-energy feed may reduce the amount of solids leaving
the system. The study showed that effluents of basins receiving standard trout grower
feed generally contained higher levels of total suspended solids (TSS) than those
receiving high-energy feed. Further analysis showed that effluents of basins receiving the
standard grower trout feed had lower levels of TKN than those receiving a high-energy
feed.
Health Management
Bacterial gill disease (BCD) is one of the most common diseases of cultured trout (Piper
et al, 1982). Sudden lack of appetite, orientation in rows against the water current,
lethargy, and riding high in the water are typical signs of BGD. Crowding, mud and silt
in the water supply, and dusty starter diets are stress factors that contribute to outbreaks
of the disease. The most important factor contributing to BGD is the accumulation of fish
metabolic wastes due to crowding. To treat the disease, facility operators correct
unfavorable water conditions, reduce stress, and use constant flow treatments with salt
(NaCl), or Chloramine-T at 8 to 10 mg/L (under an FDA-sponsored Investigational New
Animal Drug (INAD) application) for 1 h for 2 or 3 d. Furunculosis, another common
bacterial fish disease, is generally considered a disease of salmonids. Once an infected
population of trout has overcome the disease, some of the survivors become carriers.
Stress and poor water quality conditions can reduce the resistance of fish, and carrier fish
can experience chronic or acute infections. Healthy rearing conditions, sanitation, and use
of pathogen-free fish help control furunculosis. If the bacterium is sensitive to
Terramycin (oxytetracycline), facility operators can use medicated feed. Facilites may
also use Romet-30. Vaccination against furunculosis can also be effective (Plumb,
1994c).
Fish health management in rainbow trout farming is based on prevention; once a disease
outbreak occurs, it is difficult to treat or control (Hardy et al., 2000). Farmers keep
raceways clean, use high-quality feed, prevent overcrowding, minimize disease vectors,
and vaccinate stocks. Vaccination has been very effective in preventing some important
diseases in rainbow trout (Hardy et al., 2000). Birds are a common disease vector because
they move from farm to farm and eat diseased fish. Most farms in Idaho use netting to
restrict birds' access to trout raceways. Use of antibiotics delivered in feed to treat
rainbow trout is not a common practice. Antibiotic use is limited by cost and by the
regulation of their use in trout farming. Only two antibiotics (Terramycin and Romet-30)
have been approved for use in the United States for fish, and they are not typically
effective against many trout diseases. According to site visit reports conducted by EPA,
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
several trout production facilities in Idaho use vaccination programs to prevent disease
rather than treating sick fish with antibiotics (Tetra Tech, 2002a; Tetra Tech, 2002b).
4.3.2.3 Water Quality Management and Current Treatment Practices
Water Quality Management Practices
Flow-through systems require large inputs of high-quality, oxygenated water. In the trout
culture industries in the northeast and northwest United States, freshwater springs are the
most common source of water because of their relatively low and constant water
temperatures (Lawson, 1995b). Water supplies may also come from surface waters such
as streams, rivers, and irrigation returns. In western North Carolina, most water supplies
come from surface waters that have been diverted for use by the facility (Tetra Tech,
2002a).
Concrete raceways have the advantage that there is no erosion of the sides, as happens
with earthen ponds or raceways. This also means that these raceways can be operated at
higher flow rates. The water flowing in delivers the needed oxygen to the fish while
carrying away the dissolved metabolic waste products as the water exits the pond, or they
are passed on to the pond below if raceways are positioned in series. These metabolic
waste components must be kept within safe concentrations for the fish being raised.
Concentrations of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen need to be controlled to limit the impacts
of this highly toxic compound.
Dissolved oxygen is another important limiting factor in flow-through systems. These
systems often use gravity aerators to supplement the oxygen supply. Gravity aerators are
often called waterfall aerators or cascades (Lawson, 1995c). They use the energy released
when water loses altitude to transfer oxygen. Based on local topography, if a sufficient
gradient exists, gravity fall is a common method for aerating flow-through systems. Man-
made gravity aerators include components such as weirs, splashboards, lattices, or
screens, which break up water to increase surface area and oxygen transfer. For example,
facilities may use a combination of splashboards and weirs between raceways to create
gravity aerators. Aeration or oxygenation can minimize the impact of dissolved oxygen
as a factor limiting production. The greater the flow of water through the raceway, the
more oxygen is delivered and the more fish can be supported.
In a study conducted by Boardman et al. (1998), three trout farms in Virginia were
selected to represent fish farms throughout Virginia (Table 4.3-4). Sampling and
monitoring (Table 4.3-5) at all three sites revealed that little change in water quality
between influents and effluents occurred during normal conditions at each facility.
Raceway water quality, however, declined during heavy facility activity like feeding,
harvesting, and cleaning. During a 5-day intensive study, high TSS values were
correlated with feeding events. TKN and ortho-phosphate (OP) concentrations also
increased during feeding and harvesting activities. Overall, most samples taken during
this study had relatively low solids concentrations, but high flows through these facilities
increased the total mass loadings.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Table 4.3-4. Site Characteristics of Trout Farms
Characteristic
Average production (Ib/yr)
Fish type
# Raceways in use (total #)
Feeding practice
Reported feed conversion
ratios (FCRs)
Concrete/earthen-lined
Water source
Labor
Pollutants regulated
Treatments
FARM
A
59,965 - 80,027
Rainbow, brook
3(7)
Automated (pull string)
1.6
Concrete
Spring
1 person
TSS, NH3-N, SS
Sediment traps
B
59,965
Rainbow
14(14)
Hand (measured)
1.6-2
Both
Spring
1 person
TSS, BOD5. SS
None
c
175,045-250,002
Rainbow, brook, brown
24(31)
Hand (measured)
1.2-1.8
Both
Spring
4—6 people
TSS, BOD5, NH3-N, SS
Sediment traps
Source: Boardman et al., 1998.
Table 4.3-5. Water Quality Data
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
DO
(mg/L)
Temp
(°C)
pH(SU)
TSS
(mg/L)
SS
(ml/1)
BOD,
(mg/1)
DOC
(mg/L)
NH,-N
(mg/L)
FARM A
Inlet
1.03-1.54
(1.18)
9.2-14.2
(10.6
10.5-13
(12.2)
7.1-7.4
(7.3)
0-1.1
(0.2)
0
0-1.25
(0.7)
0.93-111
(2.1)
0.6
Within
Farm
3.2-13.3
(7.0)
11.5-15
(13)
7.0-7.4
(7.2)
0-30.4
(3.9)
0.5-3.9
(1.5)
0.9-7.9
(2.9)
0.2-1.1
(0.5)
Outlet
5.7-9.5
(8.5)
11-15.5
(12.9)
7.3-7.8
(7.5)
0.8-6
(3.2)
0-0.04
(0.02)
0.96-1.9
(1.3)
1.5-2.4
(1.9)
0.5-0.6
(0.6)
FARMS
Inlet
4.26-9.43
(6.39)
8.2-11.5
(10.5)
6-12.5
(9.7)
7.3-7.6
(7.5)
0-1.8
(0.5)
0
0-1.4
(0.5)
0.91-2.56
(1.6)
0.2
Within
Farm
5.8-10.8
(8.6)
6-14(9.1)
7.2-7.6
(7.4)
0^3.7
(5.3)
0.3-7.2
(2.1)
1.2-8.1
(2.7)
0.06-1.1
(0.5)
Outlet
6.8-9.6
(7.9)
5-16.5
(11.4)
6.9
1.5-7.5
(3.9)
0.01-0.08
(0.04)
0.6-2.4
(1.2)
1.2-3.1
(1.9)
0.45
FARMC
Inlet
9.74-10.99
(10.54)
9.4-10.6
(10.5)
8.5-13.5
(10.5)
7.3
0-1.5
(0.3)
0
0-2.0
(1.1)
1.1-2.7
(2.0)
0.03
Within
Farm
4.8-9.7
(7.6)
8-14
(11.0)
7.1-7.6
(7.3)
0-28
(7.1)
0.4-7.5
(2.5)
1.1-11.1
(2.4)
0.03-2.2
(0.4)
Outlet
7.2-9 .4
(8.1)
8.5-14
(10.4)
7.8
4.1-62
(6.1)'
0.04-0.08
(0.07)
0.5-1.8
(1.3)
1.5-3.8
(2.3)
0.02-0.17
(0.1)
' Two outliers were not included in the calculation of mean.
Source: Boardman et al., 1998.
Note: Averages are in parentheses.
Quiescent zones are the primary areas where solids are collected in a raceway. These
zones are downstream of the rearing area, without fish, which allows bio-solids to settle
undisturbed while intact and large in size (IDEQ, n.d.). Typically, quiescent zones are
part of each trough or raceway; their dimensions account for the settling velocity of
particles. The swimming activity of larger fish helps move solids downstream into
4-32
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
settling zones. The most common method of solids removal from quiescent zones is
through a vacuum head (IDEQ, n.d.). Usually, standpipes in each quiescent zone connect
to a common 4- to 8-in PVC pipe, which carries the slurry of water and solids to the
offline destination. In Idaho Waste Management Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations
(IDEQ, n.d.), the state recommends cleaning quiescent zones as often as possible, with a
minimum of twice per month on lower raceway sets and once per month on upper
raceway sets. Last-use quiescent zones should be cleaned most frequently.
Offline settling (OLS) ponds are settling zones that receive the water and solids slurry
from the quiescent zones (Figure 4.3-4). These ponds can be earthen or concrete and are
the second settling zone in the solids collection system. Quiescent zones, in combination
with OLS ponds, are the most commonly used solids collection and removal system for
trout farming in Idaho (IDEQ, n.d.). Flow to OLS ponds is usually very small when
compared to the total facility flow. OLS pond effluent is typically less than 1.5% of the
total flow during daytime working hours and less than 0.75% averaged over 24 h. The
depth of a typical OLS pond is 3.5 ft, but some are deeper. Depth is not required for
settling efficiency but is required for solids storage. The Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality recommends that, at a minimum, OLS ponds should be cleaned
every 6 mo. In Idaho most trout production operators remove the solids from OLS ponds
when TSS levels approach 100 mg/L. Many facilities in the state have several OLS
ponds, which are linked together to improve solids collection. When one pond is
undergoing solids harvest, the other is receiving solids from the quiescent zones. To
remove the solids, the inflow is diverted to another OLS pond, and the supernate from the
a: Raceway
b: Parallel
Flow from
Quiescent
Zones
« and an off-line settling system. ^Quiescent Zones
Flow— »
Raceways
:low to OLS ponds is le
the total hatchery flow.
off-line settling ponds.
—
•-> Flow — > --i
"" "1 Ouipscent 7nnp
• -i • -i Cleaning Lines
• i • -t
Flow — >
Advantages of Paired Settling Ponds
1) Allow solids removal from quiescent zones during OLS pond cleaning.
2) Allows doubling of settling area by running ponds in parallel or series.
Inlet Weir
o
o
Outlet Weir
Source: IDEQ, n.d.
Figure 4.3-4. Offline Settling Ponds
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
pond being harvested is moved to an adjacent pond. Earthen ponds are allowed to dry for
a few days, and the solids are removed by a backhoe from the pond bank. In a concrete
pond, the OLS pond has a ramp where a front-end loader can enter the pond to remove
solids.
Some trout facilities use full-flow settling (FFS) pond (Figure 4.3-5), which may not
include quiescent zones or OLS ponds. The FFS system has one or two large settling
zones, which collect the solids from the water flow for the entire facility. Instead of
removing solids from individual raceways or troughs, the water from all of the rearing
units combines and enters the FFS pond, where the solids are collected. FFS ponds are
typically used by smaller facilities with low flow volumes.
In the study of Virginia trout farms by Boardman et al. (1998), waste solid accumulations
in quiescent zones were monitored to quantify the capacity and trapping efficiency of the
units. Solids were found to accumulate at a rapid rate (more than 7,800cm/d or 256 ft/d);
however, the trapping efficiency of the units was found to be extremely low when taking
into account the FCRs and typical utilization rates of production fish. High overflow
rates, particle degradation, flow spikes, and high sludge banks led to scouring of waste
solids and a point of maximum capacity for the sediment trap.
Raceways
Parallel Full-flow Settling Ponds
Receiving Channel
Discharge to
Receiving Waters
Outlet Weir
Source: IDEQ, n.d.
Figure 4.3-5. Use of Full-Flow Settling Ponds to Treat 100% of the Flow From
the Fish Farm Before it is Discharged
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Once solids are removed from OLS ponds or FFS ponds, they are stored or used in ways
that minimize their impact on groundwater or surface waters. In Idaho, land application
of collected solids to cropland has become the easiest and most widely adopted technique
to dispose of wastes and recycle nutrients from trout production settling ponds (IDEQ,
n.d.). Regulations vary from state to state, but most allow for aquacultural solid wastes to
4-34
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
be applied to land because of minimal concentrations of metals, pathogens, and toxic
substances in the sludge. The rate at which sludge may be applied to land varies based on
soil type, plant type, odor issues, and sludge nutrient content.
Composting is another popular sludge disposal and treatment option (Boardman et al.,
1998). When large areas of land are not available for land application or transportation
costs for disposal are high, composting represents a good alternative (IDEQ, n.d.).
Because of high costs, landfills are one of the least common means of disposing of solid
wastes from CAAP facilities; however, some states are required to take their sludge to a
landfill, where the states regulate the waste as industrial, rather than agricultural, waste
(Boardman et al., 1998).
4.3.3 Salmon
Two distinct sectors influence salmon AAP: production for foodfish and production for
stocking to restore wild stocks for conservation and recreation. In the United States,
private salmon farming for foodfish production began in Washington State in the early
1970s with farms producing pan-sized coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in marine
net pens (Roberts and Hardy, 2000).
Public hatchery stocking programs are dominated by production of coldwater fish
(salmonids). Most salmonids stocked in the United States are Pacific salmon released as
smolts into various river systems connected to the Pacific Ocean. In the Columbia River
Basin, more than 90 state and federal hatcheries raise and release roughly 190 million
juvenile Pacific salmon annually (Schramm and Piper, 1995).
Atlantic salmon dominates commercial production in the United States. Although salmon
was traditionally sold smoked or canned, today most salmon is sold frozen or fresh.
According to the 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000), 45 farms produced salmon
commercially in the United States, producing more than 110 million Ib in food-size fish.
In 1998 the salmon AAP sector generated more than $103 million in revenue (USDA,
2000). The 1998 Census of Aqauculture data show that three states, Alaska with 19
farms, Maine with 12 farms, and Washington with 9 farms, are the largest producers of
salmon in the United States (USDA, 2000). Alaska, which prohibits private farming of all
fish species, has 19 salmon hatcheries that are operated as private nonprofit corporations.
They raise smolts and release them into the wild, where they are later harvested from the
ocean in a practice called ocean ranching.
Both Atlantic and Pacific salmon belong to the Salmonidae family, which also includes
trout and whitefish. Atlantic salmon has its own genus, Salmo, while the five primary
species of Pacific salmon belong to the genus Oncorhynchus. In the United States, there
are five species of Pacific salmon: pink (O. gorbuschd), chum (O. ketd), sockeye (O.
nerkd), chinook (O. tshawytschd), and coho (O. kisutch).
Wild salmon begin their life cycle as eggs in the gravel of cold, freshwater rivers and
streams. When females reach freshwater spawning grounds, they use their caudal fin to
excavate a nest, or redd, in the gravel riverbed. Females deposit their eggs in layers as
they are fertilized by the male salmon. The female covers the eggs with gravel and guards
the nest for up to 2 wk. In 2 to 6 mo, the eggs hatch into translucent hatchlings called
alevins and obtain nutrition from their yolk sacs. After 3 to 4 mo, the inch-long salmon
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
fry emerge from the gravel and begin foraging for food in the river. As the fry grow into
fingerlings, they move to a lake to mature as fingerlings before smoltification. Chum and
pink salmon spend little time (1 to 3 mo) in freshwater before moving to sea. Chinook
begin to move to sea within 6 mo, while coho usually stay in freshwater for up to 1 yr,
and sockeye salmon stay in freshwater for 1 to 3 yr.
When they reach 2 in. in length, Pacific salmon begin feeding on insects, worms, and
other invertebrates. As they develop dark vertical bar markings, they are called parr. At
about 6 in, Pacific salmon begin moving to sea. The physiological changes salmon make
to switch from a freshwater to a saltwater environment are collectively called
smoltification. After smoltification, salmon remain in the sea for 1 to 5 yr, depending on
the species, feeding and growing to sexual maturity and then returning to freshwater
streams to spawn. Atlantic salmon parr may remain in freshwater for as long as 8 yr
before moving to sea (Weber, 1997). Most salmon species die after spawning, but
Atlantic salmon can spawn several times, returning to the sea between events.
4.3.3.1 Production Systems
There are two types of salmon AAP, salmon farming and salmon ranching (or ocean
ranching). Salmon farming involves two phases: (1) the freshwater hatchery phase for the
incubation of eggs and the raising of juveniles to the smolt stage and (2) the seawater
phase, in which the salmon are grown out to market size, usually in floating pens (Clarke,
2000). Salmon ranching, which is practiced primarily in Alaska, is an alternative form of
AAP that involves the release of smolts from hatcheries and the harvest of adults
returning from the ocean.
The hatchery or freshwater stage begins when fertilized eggs are placed in hatcheries
operated with oxygenated water. Salmon hatcheries generally use flow-through systems;
some partial recirculation systems are used to conserve heat during egg incubation.
Stacked trays, upwelling jars, or troughs may be used as egg incubators. The salmon life
cycle makes it possible for fish farmers to raise juvenile salmon in land-based tank and
raceway operations before growing them out in marine environment net pens or cages.
Young fish are raised in upland hatcheries until they become smolts; on the west coast,
however, parr are often placed in estuarine pens of reduced salinity, and some fish are
raised to maturity in freshwater. Smolts are then transferred to net pens (i.e., salmon
farming), where they remain for 1 to 2 yr until they reach market size. In Alaska, Pacific
salmon (coho and chinook) are commonly raised in marine net pens for periods of 1 to 6
mo before release by public agencies or Native American tribes for enhancement
projects. These fish are stocked as late parr or smolt and released after growing in the
pens (i.e., salmon ranching). Holding salmon later than their normal smolt outmigration
timing causes them to residualize in the nearshore waters, a technique used to enhance
the sport fishery.
Generally, flow-through systems are used in the hatchery phase for the production of
smolts. Raceways, tanks, or ponds are used to grow juvenile salmon until they undergo
smoltification. Saltwater production normally begins after smoltification when the
salmon are moved to net pen systems, which is the dominant production mode in
saltwater salmon farming in coastal waters (Figure 4.3-6). The advantages of net pen
cage farm systems in marine environments are relatively low capital cost per unit of
rearing volume, reduced risks of stock loss through system failure and low dissolved
4-36
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
oxygen, and access to large volumes of relatively high quality water without pumping
costs (Karlsen, 1993). The primary disadvantages of marine net pen systems are
increased risks due to storm damage; a complicated, lengthy, and expensive permitting
process; a reduced ability to manipulate environmental conditions such as water
temperature; and a potentially increased risk of predation and disease transmission from
wild animals.
Note: 36 Pens — 50' x 50' with
3' wide walkways between
pens, 9' center walkway.
FLOAT 1" CABLE
5' DIAMETER
1" DIAMETER
ANCHOR
Detail
Examples of Various Pen Configurations
Source: WDF, 1990.
Figure 4.3-6. Example of a Fish Farm and Various Pen Configurations
4-37
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.3.2 Culture Practices
Broodstock may be collected from the wild or raised at a hatchery facility. The goals of a
hatchery program raising salmon to be released into the wild are different from the goals
of a hatchery raising salmon for commercial production. Domestication is an important
characteristic for salmon raised for commercial production, but hatcheries want to avoid
the domestication of salmon that are to be released into the wild (Pepper and Crim,
1996). For enhancement production, broodstock should be chosen from wild stocks. For
commercial foodfish production, broodstock may be either collected from the wild or
bred and raised at a hatchery facility.
There are several types of incubators, but generally they all have a container with
sufficient water flowing through it and some type of screened enclosure to prevent eggs
and larvae from being washed away (Billard and Jensen, 1996). After hatching, the
salmon, now called alevins, have a large yolk sac reserve. As they near the completion of
the yolk absorption, alevins leave the substrate and become free-swimming fry (Pennell
and McLean, 1996). The timing of emergence occurs as the alevin complete the
absorption of the yolk sac. Emergence is influenced by factors such as light, substrate
type, and changes in temperature and oxygen concentrations.
The initial presentation of food is a critical stage in salmon culture because it marks the
transition between incubation and raising (Pennell and McLean, 1996). The fry are then
transferred to rearing units. Flow-through raceways, both earthen and concrete, are the
most common rearing units used for juvenile salmon culture (Pennell and McLean,
1996).
Production for Release
Pacific salmon species dominate production for release. Alaska hatcheries incubate
approximately 100 million sockeye salmon eggs per year. Most of the fry are stocked into
lakes not accessible to wild salmon and allowed to develop into smolts under natural
conditions (Clarke et al., 1996). Atlantic salmon are more challenging to cultivate for
release because of their slower growth rates and large smolt size. Most smolt production
hatcheries use elevated temperature to speed incubation, advance the time of the first
feeding, and optimize feeding during the summer (Clarke et al., 1996).
Production for Commercial Culture
For Atlantic salmon, smolt production for either stock enhancement or commercial AAP
is most efficient when done in the shortest amount of time to minimize costs (Clarke et
al., 1996). Atlantic salmon usually require 2 yr of growth to reach the smolt stage in
nature, but in commercial production, practices have allowed facilities to produce smolts
in the first year by manipulating favorable temperatures, using high-energy feed, and
applying good husbandry practices to minimize stress and disease (Clarke et al., 1996).
After smoltification, salmon for foodfish production are transferred to net pens for
growout to market size. After the smolts are introduced to saltwater net pens, farmers
monitor the progress of the salmon as they adjust to saltwater. Atlantic salmon, which can
be especially sensitive, may need several days to resume proper feeding and acclimate to
the net pens (Novotny and Pennell, 1996).
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Harvest Practices
A decade ago, the growout phase in net pens required at least 2 yr. Today, salmon can
reach harvest size in 10 to 15 mo after their transfer to net pens. Changes in feed
formulation, feed pelletizing technology, the introduction of effective vaccines, and the
domestication of farmed salmon stocks has shortened the time needed to grow salmon to
harvest size (Roberts and Hardy, 2000). Today, after 12 to 18 mo in net pens, fish are
ready to harvest at weights ranging from 5 to 11 Ib (Novtony and Pennell, 1996). Because
the salmon market is driven by quality of fish, farms emphasize quality control for
harvest. Prior to harvesting, fish go through a period of starvation to reduce the fat
content in the muscle tissue and the flora in the gut. This practice increases the shelf life
of the salmon product (Novotny and Pennell, 1996). Fish are crowded into one corner of
the pen and then pumped out with a fish pump or fish escalator and through a grader.
Feed Management
Feeding practices include hand feeding and a variety of mechanical feeders (Novotny and
Pennell, 1996). Smaller cages with a low biomass of fish rely mostly on hand feeding.
This requires cages placed nearshore with land access, a dock, or a small boat. Most net
pen systems contain a large biomass of fish (e.g., 30,000 fish with a harvest weight of
about 8 to 10 Ib) and require the use of mechanical feeders. For net pens that are single
structures without supporting walkways, barges and boats with feed blowers take feed to
the net pens and feed, usually once or twice a day. Bad weather can impede this way of
feeding. Other facilities use a stationary blower to deliver feed to each net pen in a group
of pens. To control overfeeding, many facilities also use underwater cameras to monitor
feed consumption (Nash, 2001).
Health Management
To prevent transmission of diseases, salmonid eggs are sometimes disinfected at the time
of fertilization or at the eyed stage. The common treatment used is the iodophor Povidine
with a 1% to 2% concentration of active iodine, which is similar to iodine but not as
corrosive (Billard and Jensen, 1996). About 1 qt of solution with 100 ppm (active iodine)
is applied to every 2,000 eggs for a period of 10 min, followed by a rinsing. Formalin is
also used to prevent the spread of fungus (Saprolegnia) infections in eggs.
Freshwater salmonid diseases that have been observed in Pacific salmon hatcheries in the
Pacific Northwest include furunculosis, bacterial gill disease, bacterial kidney disease,
botulism, enteric redmouth disease, coldwater disease, columnaris, infectious
hematopoietic necrosis, infectious pancreatic necrosis, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, and
erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome. Pacific salmon hatcheries have also had outbreaks
of a large number of parasitic infections like gyrodactylus, nanophyetus, costia,
trichodina, ceratomyxosis, proliferative kidney disease, whirling disease, and
ichthyophonis (Nash, 2001). Atlantic salmon are especially susceptible to furunculosis.
The frequency of pathogen occurrences varies geographically. For example, a greater
percentage of Alaska hatcheries tested positive for infectious hematopoietic necrosis,
viral hemorrhagic septicemia, furunculosis, and ceratomyxosis between 1988 and 1992
than hatcheries located in other western states.
In the past oral delivery of oxytetracycline in the feed was the standard treatment. Today,
the use of vaccines is a common industry practice. Immersion and injected vaccines have
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
been so successful and so commonly used that antibiotic treatment is infrequent (Novotny
and Pennell, 1996).
Several drugs have been approved by the FDA for use in salmonid AAP (FDA, 2002).
Oxytetracycline is approved for use in Pacific salmon for marking skeletal tissue and for
use in salmonids to control ulcer disease, furunculosis, bacterial hemorrhagic septicemia,
and pseudomonas disease. Sulfadimethoxine is approved for use in salmonids to control
furunculosis. Tricaine methanesulfonate is approved for use as a sedative or as an
anesthesia, and formalin is approved for use in salmon culture to control protozoa
(Chilodonella, Costia, Epistylis, Ichthyophthirius, Scyphidia, Trichodina spp.) and
monogenetic trematodes. Formalin is also approved for use on salmon eggs to control
fungi of the family Saprolegniaceae.
4.3.3.3 Water Quality Management
Hatchery Water Quality Characteristics
Like other flow-through systems, hatcheries for salmon smolt production rely on a clean
water supply with a consistent temperature. Water quality management in the system,
including the raceways, directly affects the quality of effluents and the volume of
discharge released from the rearing unit.
In a study by Kendra (1991), salmonid hatchery effluents from 20 different facilities (11
state and 9 commercial) in Washington State were monitored during the summer low-
flow season. Relative to source water, effluents from salmonid hatcheries had elevated
levels for temperature, pH, solids, ammonia, organic nitrogen, total phosphorus, and
oxygen demand. Cleaning events elevated concentrations of solids, nutrients, and oxygen
demand (Table 4.3-6). Salmonid smolts in Washington are typically released from state
hatcheries through the drawdown of the rearing unit or pond. Near the completion of the
release event, samples indicated increases in solids, nutrients, and oxygen demand. As the
pond depth decreased, fish crowding increased the amount of disturbed accumulated
sediments.
This study (Kendra, 1991) also measured the impact of effluent on receiving waters and
found that benthic communities below hatchery outfalls were different from those located
upstream or farther downstream. Three of the four hatchery discharges in the benthic
community study caused a depression of taxa sensitive to organic pollutants. Several
mayfly and stonefly species were eliminated below the outfall, as well as elmid beetles.
Some invertebrates, such as mollusc families, planarians, and oligochaetes, were
enhanced by the hatchery discharge (Kendra, 1991). As a result of this study, the
hatchery National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits in
Washington were revised to include primary settling of solid wastes as a minimum
requirement for all hatcheries.
4-40
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Table 4.3-6. Hatchery Effluent Quality During Cleaning and Drawdown Events
Cleaning Events
Variable
pH
Dissolved
oxygen
Total
suspended
solids
Total
volatile
suspended
solids
Settleable
solids
Total
Kjeldahl
nitrogen
Total
phosphorus
Chemical
oxygen
demand
Biochemica
1 oxygen
demand
(5-d)
Units
SU
ing/L
rng/L
mg/L
rnL/L
ing
N/L
ingP/L
rng/L
rng/L
Yakima Trout
Hatchery (Single
Raceway)
Normal
7.4
4.4
1
0
<0.1
0.43
0.22
6
3
Cleaning
7.6
6.8
88
69
2.5
1.7
4.0
130
32
Aberdeen Trout
Hatchery (Multiple
Raceway Composite)
Normal
—
8.4
1
<1
<0.1
0.20
0.03
6
4
Cleaning
—
7.7
12
8
0.1
0.82
0.56
21
12
Drawdown Event^ Nasette Salmon
Hatchery (Rearing Pond)
Prior to
Drawdown
7.6
9.8
7
3
<0.1
0.30
0.03
6
<3
Drawdown
Midpoint
6.7
7.0
30
8
0.3
0.52
0.30
18
3
Drawdown
Near End
7.1
12.1
94
25
1.1
1.3
0.11
56
—
Source: Kendra, 1991.
Net Pen Water Quality
In a study by the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF, 1990) to evaluate the
environmental impacts of commercial culture of fish in net pens, several water quality
parameters were analyzed and potential impacts on the surrounding environment were
evaluated. The EIS study by the Washington Department of Fisheries concluded that fish
farms were not likely to have a significant impact on dissolved oxygen levels in Puget
Sound except during the summer or autumn at sites that had low background dissolved
oxygen levels and did not have adequate flushing (WDF, 1990). Overall, field
measurements indicated that the area affected by low dissolved oxygen levels was less
than 165 feet around the net pen structures.
Salmon net pens might also cause or increase phytoplankton blooms by increasing
localized nutrient enrichment (Weston, 1986). Excessive phytoplankton growth can cause
eutrophication. In a summary of experiments and modeling for phytoplankton impacts,
the WDF assessment concluded that nutrients added by net pen operations were not likely
to adversely affect phytoplankton abundance in Puget Sound. Model results for five
500,000 Ib/yr farms showed an average increase of 0.0085 mg/L in nitrogen
concentrations in winter conditions, or less than 1% increase in total nitrogen
concentrations (Table 4.3-7). During the summer, the model predicted a 2% increase in
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
phytoplankton biomass. The study did note, however, that poorly flushed bays are more
sensitive to nutrient loading and that areas identified as nutrient-sensitive should limit
total fish production. The study also recommended locating farms to minimize the
overlap of near-field conditions from multiple farms.
Table 4.3-7. Effect of Five Fish Farms in an Embayment on the Nitrogen,
Phytoplankton, and Zooplankton Concentrations for Summer and Winter
Conditions Based on the Kieffer and Atkinson Model (1988)
Winter
Summer
Dissolved Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Ambient
1.5
0.012
Increase
0.0085
0
Phytoplankton
' (mg/L)
Ambient
0.012
0.186
Increase
0
0.004
Zooplankton
(mg/L)
Ambient
0.003
0.186
Increase
0
0.004
Source: WDF, 1990.
In a technical memorandum prepared by NOAA (Nash, 2001), the report identified three
key issues of net pen salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest that appear to carry the
most risk: the impact of bio-deposits (uneaten feed and feces), the impact on benthic
communities of the accumulation of heavy metals in sediments below the net pens, and
the impact on nontarget organisms from the use of therapeutic compounds
(Pharmaceuticals and pesticides) at net pen farms.
Sediment deposits beneath net pen operations affect benthic communities. Biodeposits
from uneaten feed and fish fecal matter settle onto sediments near net pens and affect the
chemistry of the sediment and the benthic community (Nash, 2001). Sedimentation from
salmon farms changes the total volatile solids and sulfur chemistry in the sediments in the
immediate area surrounding the net pens. At sites with poor water circulation, deposit
accumulations can exceed the aerobic assimilative capacity of sediments, leading to
reduced oxygen tension and significant changes in the benthic community. The
accumulation of organic wastes in the sediments can also change the abundance and
diversity of the benthic infaunal communities.
The impact on benthic communities of the accumulation of heavy metals in the sediments
below the net pens was also identified as a significant impact from salmon fanning
(Nash, 2001). Both copper, from marine antifouling compounds used on net pens, and
zinc, from fish feeds, can be toxic in their ionic forms to marine organisms. Higher
concentrations of sulfide in the sediment reduce the availability of both copper and zinc,
which could make the observed concentrations near net pens nontoxic.
Results from a sampling program in the Broughton Archipelago in British Columbia
confirmed that organic waste material was accumulating at a rate faster than the rate of
decomposition beneath salmon net pen farms (Deniseger and Erickson, 1998). Sediments
from 30 active fish farms were surveyed for physical and chemical characteristics.
Researchers found that material accumulations can be significant (greater than about 1
ft). Sedimentation affects the benthic community by creating anaerobic conditions, which
can persist for up to 1.5 yr or more (Erickson, 1999, personal communication).
4-42
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Current Treatment Practices in Net Pen Systems
The same advantages that make the net pen systems favorable for production are also the
characteristics that limit the use of treatment practices. Net pens are open systems that
use natural water currents and tides for water supplies and flushing. Relative to pond and
raceway facilities, net pen systems have several advantages, including the following: land
requirements are minimal, construction and capital costs are generally lower, and there
are virtually no pumping costs (Weston, 1992). From an effluent treatment perspective,
however, net pen culture creates unique challenges. Because the effluent is not confined,
treatment of dissolved wastes does not appear possible, and the treatment or removal of
solid wastes has several technical difficulties (Weston, 1992). For the most part, the
industry relies on dispersal and dilution of waste by natural water currents to maintain
water quality for fish production and to minimize environmental impacts (Weston, 1992).
The most effective way of reducing water pollution from net pen facilities is to minimize
the loss of feed (Bergheim et al., 1991)
Most net pens are inspected by divers on a regular basis. The divers look for holes in the
nets, dead fish, and fouling problems. State regulatory programs require benthic
monitoring at many net pen sites to ensure that degradation is not occurring under or
around the net pens. Other current requirements include video recordings in the spring
and fall of the bottom beneath and adjacent to the cages; biennial sediment redox layer
depth determinations (which measure sediment chemistry) during the fall; monitoring and
reporting monthly feed use; and monitoring and reporting water quality, nutrients, and
phytoplankton at farfield sites at four separate water depths. Prior to placement in pens,
Atlantic salmon smolt/juveniles must be marked to link the identity of each fish to the
facility. In Maine, reproductively viable non-North American Atlantic salmon stocks and
transgenic salmonids are prohibited at CAAP facilities (USEPA, 2002).
BMPs required for fish pen operations in Maine include mortality removal; prohibition of
disposal of feed bags or other solid wastes into U.S. waters; prohibition of discharge
associated with pressure washing of nets; operation of facilities to minimize the
concentration of net-fouling organisms; prohibition of biocides, tributyltin compounds,
and storage of predator control or containment nets on the sea floor; minimizing the loss
of unconsumed food and food fines from pens; reporting requirements for events such as
fish kills, algal blooms, and confirmation of fish infected with infectious salmon anemia
or other transmittable disease; and damage to a net pen that could result in salmon
escapement. BMPs for disease control include using FDA-approved drugs. Unapproved
drugs, including drugs in the INAD program, are prohibited. There is also a reporting
requirement for all drugs discharged within 30 days of application (USEPA, 2002).
4.3.4 Striped Bass
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) were originally produced and stocked in freshwater
impoundments primarily for recreational purposes. Interest in hybrid striped bass for
foodfish production in the United States began in the late 1970s. Production of food-size
hybrid striped bass in the United States grew from about 1 million Ib in 1990 to more
than 10 million Ib in 1996 (Harrell and Webster, 1997).
One of four Morone species, the striped bass is a major sport and commercial species
native to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, with stockings that have
4-43
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
expanded its range throughout much of North America (Kohler, 2000a). The other
Morone species are white bass (M. chrysops), yellow bass (M. mississippiensis), and
white perch (M. americana). When a reproducing population of striped bass was
discovered in landlocked Santee Cooper Reservoir in South Carolina, fisheries biologists
were interested in stocking striped bass in reservoirs for sport fishing and as a predator to
control underutilized forage species. Morone hybridization programs began in the 1960s
and focused on combining characteristics of recreational trophy fish with adaptability to
landlocked freshwater systems (Kohler, 2000a).
In 1965, Robert Stevens, of the South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department, initiated
the production of hybrid striped bass by crossing striped bass with white bass. The first
hybrid striped bass cross, of the striped bass female with the white bass male, was
initially called the original cross-hybrid striped bass, but it is now referred to as the
palmetto bass. The reciprocal hybrid striped bass cross of the white bass female with the
striped bass male is called the sunshine bass. Of the various crosses and backcrosses
made, only the hybrid of a striped bass crossed with a white bass has gained wide
acceptance as a cultured species.
4.3.4.1 Production Systems
The industry has two main components: fingerling production and growout production.
Some farmers are involved in both sectors, but most farms focus on either fingerling or
growout production.
Hybrid striped bass are frequently sorted by size, or phases, to keep fish of similar size
together and prevent cannibalism. Hybrid striped bass fry and phase I (approximately 0.2
in.) fingerlings in ponds feed on zooplankton until they reach about 0.2 in. in size, when
they must be trained to accept artificial feeds to decrease the chances of cannibalism.
Often fish are harvested, graded, and stocked into tanks for training on feed and then are
reintroduced into growout ponds as phase II fish (Harrell, 1997).
Foodfish are often stocked to achieve maximum densities of about 5,000 to 6,000 Ib/ac.
They must be completely harvested before restocking. The ponds are drained between
harvesting and restocking. To avoid draining the ponds, some farmers treat the ponds
with a piscicide (a pesticide like Rotenone, used to kill fish) to eliminate remaining fish
before restocking. Ponds are usually drained annually or biennially, depending on
stocking size. Ponds are aerated to maintain dissolved oxygen and water quality. Fish are
fed once or twice daily with mechanical feeders. Like catfish, hybrid striped bass
production is concentrated in the southeastern United States and includes North Carolina,
South Carolina, Florida, and Virginia.
Millions of Morone fingerlings are produced annually in state and federal hatcheries for
stock enhancement and in private hatcheries as seed stock for foodfish production and fee
fishing operations (Harrell and Webster, 1997). The fingerlings are stocked in earthen
ponds, flow-through systems, closed recirculating systems, and net pens for growout.
Today, foodfish production is based primarily on the production and raising of hybrid
Morone. Although other striped bass hybrids have been created for potential foodfish
production or have been used for stocking recreational programs, today only the palmetto
bass and the sunshine bass are raised for production (Harrell and Webster, 1997).
4-44
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
In 1995 the Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center funded a survey conducted by the
Striped Bass Growers Association and the University of Maryland to collect information
from producers on the state of the striped bass industry (Harrell and Webster, 1997). The
survey indicated that 66% of striped bass/hybrid striped bass producers use earthen
ponds, 15% use tanks, 10% use net pens, and 9% use raceways for production. Of the
producers culturing fish in tanks, most used flow-through systems (67%), while 22%
used closed recirculating systems and 11% had the capability for both.
Stocking density for ponds differs between production of foodfish and production of fish
for population enhancement efforts. Phase I fingerling ponds for population enhancement
programs are stocked at a higher density, and fish are harvested at a smaller size than in
ponds at foodfish growout operations. Stocking densities of striped bass larvae for
population enhancement efforts range from about 50,000 to 600,000 per acre, and fish are
harvested at sizes from 200 to 1,600 fish per pound (Harrell, 1997). In growout ponds
stocking densities range from about 74,000 to 150,000 larvae per acre, with harvest sizes
from 45 to 130 fish per pound (Harrell, 1997).
4.3.4.2 Culture Practices
Hatchery Phase
Unlike production of most cultured species, hybrid striped bass production typically
relies on fertile wild broodfish to begin the production process. Striped bass broodstock
are usually collected during spawning migrations in river headwaters above and below
dams using electrofishing or gillnets (Kohler, 2000a). Another way to develop
broodstock is to raise larvae or fingerlings in captivity until they reach reproductive age
(Sullivan et al., 1997). Producers use hormones to induce spawning and then collect the
eggs. Semen is then added to a mixture of eggs and water for fertilization. Embryos are
incubated in aquaria, Heath trays, or MacDonald-type jars (Kohler, 2000a). Development
is temperature-dependent; at 60.8 to 64.4 °F, the embryos begin to hatch 1 to 2 d after
fertilization. By the fifth day, depending on the water temperature, the larvae absorb their
yolk sacs. At this stage, they are known as fry until they metamorphose into juvenile
phase I fish.
Phase I in Ponds
Successful phase I production requires a proper fertilization plan to ensure that the right
zooplankton communities are present. Before phase I ponds are stocked with fry, they are
drained, refilled, and fertilized with a mixture of organic fertilizers (such as cottonseed
meal and alfalfa hay) and inorganic fertilizers (such as ammonium nitrate and phosphoric
acid). The stocking density is dependent on the production goal. If the purpose of
stocking is population enhancement, fry are stocked at a higher density to produce a
greater number of smaller fish at harvest. Population enhancement programs need high
quantities of fish to meet the management objectives of stocking a certain number of fish
per acre of a reservoir or number of fish per mile of a river (Harrell, 1997). Fingerling
producers stock fish at lower densities to produce larger fish. Producers buying
fingerlings for growout want as large a fingerling as possible so that the fish can reach
market size faster. Fry are fed salmon starter feeds by day 21 at a rate of 5 to 10 Ib/ac/d.
Producers use progressively larger feed sizes and increase the ration sizes as the fish
grow. Phase I usually takes 30 to 45 d when fish reach total lengths of 1.0 to 2.0 in. and
weigh about 0.03 oz (Kohler, 2000a). Survival rates greater than 15% for white bass and
4-45
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
sunshine bass and greater than 45% for striped bass and palmetto bass are considered
successful for phase I production. Phase I is the period during which the fish primarily
feed on live food, mostly zooplankton; however, toward the end of this phase, the fish
become more piscivorous. If supplemental feeding has not been initiated, cannibalism
can cause high production losses.
Phase II in Ponds
Harvested phase I fingerlings are graded to separate out fish that are less than 1.0 in. total
length (TL). Larger fish that are greater than 2.0 in. TL are also graded out to prevent
cannibalism. The separated size groups are stocked in separate ponds. Unlike phase I,
fertilizers are not used in phase II ponds. Because the fish are being fed manufactured
feed, there is no need to stimulate zooplankton growth. Phase II describes striped bass
and hybrid bass fingerlings from the time of phase I harvest until they are 1 yr old
(Harrell, 1997). Many growout farmers purchase phase I fish and stock them in their
ponds for phase II and phase III growout. Some producers market phase II fish; these
fingerlings are primarily sold to government agencies for enhancement stocking or to net
pen operations. Harvesting smaller ponds (< 2.5 acres) for phase II fish is similar to
harvesting phase I fish. Ponds are drained down, and producers use seine nets to harvest
the fish. This is a common practice for fish used for enhancement purposes, where fish
are loaded directly into a transport unit (Harrell, 1997). Larger ponds are too expensive to
drain and harvest at one time, so many farmers have started using large haul seines
similar to those used by the catfish industry, and fish loading pumps to move fish
between ponds. The pumps can be connected to graders that sort the fish by size and
return smaller fish to the pond being harvested for further growout.
Phase III in Ponds
Phase III production is not common in enhancement production efforts, so most of the
available information on actual production efforts in ponds comes from the industry
itself, not from scientific literature (Harrell, 1997). Phase III growout is basically the
second year production of striped bass and hybrid striped bass to a market-size fish. Most
of the time, fish are harvested before the beginning of the third growing season, and the
ponds are prepared to receive a new crop of phase II fish to repeat the cycle. Production
ponds for final growout are usually larger than phase I and phase II ponds. Most phase III
ponds are about 5 to 6 ac, with a range between 1 and 10 ac (Harrell, 1997). Since most
growout operations do not have the facilities to completely draw down a pond and hold
the harvest in tanks until the fish can be sold, producers harvest their ponds weekly or
biweekly (Harrell, 1997). Haul seines are pulled through the pond, and fish are crowded
into live cars. Producers can also use boom nets and then load fish into hauling trucks for
transport to a processing plant. Fish can also be quickly killed with an ice brine or
electrical shock; then the individually are graded and sorted into shipping containers.
Other Systems Used to Culture Hybrid Striped Bass
Flow-through systems and recirculating systems are also used to culture hybrid striped
bass. For hybrid striped bass production, the advantages of flow-through or recirculating
systems include better control over water quality and the health of the fish, growing
seasons that are independent of climatic influences, easier fish handling and harvests, and
flexibility for extended harvests, resulting in year-round sales.
4-46
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
A small percentage of hybrid striped bass production relies on freshwater cage culture
methods, which are generally restricted to small-scale operations where pond water
resources are not conducive to seining or ponds are already inhabited by other fish. Phase
II fingerlings are stocked through openings in the cage top, which also allow for feeding
and harvesting. With fish confined in the cages, the culturist can readily observe their
behavior and health and more easily feed, manage, and harvest.
Feed Management
When hybrid striped bass are cultured in tanks or other confined systems, automatic
feeders are often used to dispense feed at regular intervals. In larger systems, such as
ponds, blowers are more commonly used to dispense the food across a wider area.
Finding a cost-effective feed for striped bass and hybrid striped bass is very important
because feeding cost can be one of the largest variable expenses of producing these
species (Gatlin, 2001). Protein is an essential element in hybrid striped bass diets. It is
important to maintain the proper ratio of protein to energy to ensure that the fish
synthesize the protein and use it for growth instead of metabolizing it for energy. An
excess of energy can reduce intake and result in decreased growth. Because protein is the
most expensive component of many AAP diets, it is not economical to supply excess
protein. In a feeding trial at Kentucky State University, one group of juvenile sunshine
bass raised in cages was fed a diet with 41% protein and a protein-to-energy ratio of 99
mg protein/kcal energy, a second group was fed a diet with more protein and higher
protein-to-energy ratios, and a third group was fed a diet with 41% protein and a lower
protein-to-energy ratio. The results for the first two groups were similar. The decrease in
protein in the third group's diet did not limit growth; however, it did cause increased fat
deposition, which can cause a decreased meat yield in the final product (SRAC, 1998).
Fry and phase I fingerlings in ponds feed on zooplankton until they reach about 0.2 in. in
size, when they must be trained to accept artificial feeds to decrease the chances of
cannibalism. Often fish are harvested, graded, and stocked into tanks for training on feed
and then can be reintroduced as phase II fish in growout ponds (Harrell, 1997). Because
feeding observation is an important method of determining overall stock health, floating
feed is most often preferred, except during the winter. In winter months, sinking feed is
used so that fish will not have to rise to the surface for floating feed and be exposed to
extreme temperature changes (Harrell, 1997).
Initially, phase II fish need to eat about 15% to 25% of their body weight per day, given
in two separate feedings. Once the fingerlings reach 0.06 Ib, daily feeding rates are
gradually decreased to about 2% to 3% of their body weight in two separate daily
feedings (Harrell, 1997). Tractor-drawn blowers are often used to deliver the feed at large
operations, but demand and automatic feeders can also be used in pond culture
(Hochheimer and Wheaton, 1997).
Although hand feeding and demand feeders have been used in some flow-through
systems, automated mechanical feeders are most commonly used for both recirculating
and flow-through systems. These feeders include towed blowers, stationary broadcast or
blower feeders, and automated feed delivery systems (Hochheimer and Wheaton, 1997).
4-47
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Health Management
There appears to be no difference between pure strains of striped bass and hybrid striped
bass with respect to the fishes' susceptibility to diseases. Striped bass diseases are caused
by viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and metazoan parasites. Except for viruses and
parasitic worms, most of the infectious agents trigger diseases only when striped bass are
stressed or injured. Since striped bass and their hybrids are extremely susceptible to
environmental stress, the best ways to prevent infectious diseases are to follow good AAP
practices and health management practices, including an emphasis on maintenance of
good water quality, use of optimum stocking densities, provision of adequate feed and
good nutrition, maintenance of optimum temperature, and use of proper fish handling
procedures (Plumb, 1997).
Viruses known to infect striped bass include the lymphocystis virus, infectious pancreatic
necrosis virus (IPNV), and striped bass aquareovirus. Because viruses do not severely
threaten striped bass, little is done to control virus outbreaks. Fish infected with
lymphocystis are simply removed from a production facility; it is not practical, however,
to remove fish infected with IPNV. In either case, the facility can be dried thoroughly or
disinfected with chlorine (200 mg/L) to kill any residual virus. There is not adequate
information about striped bass aquareovirus to manage and control outbreaks (Plumb,
1997).
Bacteria cause the most serious debilitating infections of cultured striped bass. No
bacterial diseases are unique to striped bass, but some bacteria have more serious effects
on striped bass than on other cultured fish. Bacterial diseases affecting striped bass are
Motile Aeromonas septicemia (MAS), Pseudomonas septicemia, Columnaris,
Pasteurellosis, Edwardsiellosis, Vibriosis, Enterococcosis, Streptococcosis,
Mycobacteriosis, and Carnobacteriosis (Plumb, 1997).
Control of bacterial diseases is best achieved through maintaining a high-quality
environment and preventing conditions stressful to the fish. Sterilization of nets, buckets,
and other production tools prevents cross-contamination between culture units. In
recirculating water or open water supplies, ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ozone
disinfection can reduce bacteria. Some drugs and chemicals have proven effective in
treating bacterial infections in striped bass. Although none of the therapeutic agents are
FDA-approved, bathing fish in sodium chloride (0.5% to 2% for varying times) or
potassium permanganate (2 to 5 mg/L for an hour to indefinitely) and feeding fish
medicated feed have been successful in treating bacterial infections. Medicated feed
containing oxytetracycline (Terramycin) has been fed at a rate of 2.5 to 3.5 g/45 kg of
fish per day for 10 d for treatment, and medicated feed containing Romet-30
(sulfadimethoxine-ormetoprim) has been fed at a rate of 2 to 3 g/45 kg of fish per day.
Romet-30, however, might not be effective against Streptococcosis (Plumb, 1997).
Less is known about fungal diseases than about other diseases affecting striped bass
because of the difficulty in identifying fungi and the fact that fungi are sometimes
secondary pathogens to other diseases, injuries, or environmental stress. A few fungi that
are known to cause infections in striped bass are Saprolegnia parasitica and related
species, which cause "water mold," and Branchiomyces species, which causes "gill rot."
Treatments of fungal infections with formalin, copper sulfate, and potassium
permanganate have been used, but are often unsuccessful. Preventing fungal infections on
4-48
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
eggs is possible through daily treatments of formalin at a rate of approximately 600 mg/L
for a 15-min flush (Plumb, 1997).
4.3.4.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices
Pond Systems
In a study in South Carolina (Tucker, 1998), water samples were collected and analyzed
from 20 commercial hybrid striped bass ponds (Table 4.3-8). In an attempt to provide a
broad representation of the industry, researchers included large and small operations, as
well as ponds from both the coastal plain and piedmont areas of the state. Most of the
commercial ponds sampled were freshwater ponds, but some saltwater ponds were also
represented in this study. Overall, water quality parameters varied considerably from
pond to pond. The 5-d biochemical oxygen demand of samples ranged from 2 mg/L to 60
mg/L, and suspended solids and volatile suspended solids were typically high but
variable. Generally, concentrations for many of the variables were higher in the pond
samples than in the water source samples.
Table 4.3-8. Means and Ranges for Selected Water Quality
Variables from Hybrid Striped Bass Ponds in South Carolina
Variable
Suspended solids (mg/L)
Volatile suspended solids (mg/L)
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L)
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)
Total ammonia (mg N/L)
Nitrite (mg N/L)
Nitrate (mg N/L)
Total phosphorus (mg P/L)
Soluble reactive phosphorus (mg P/L)
Mean
49
29
11.5
7.1
0.95
0.07
0.36
0.31
0.02
Range
0-370
0-135
1.4-64.4
0-97.0
0.02-7.29
0-2,94
0^.61
0-1.9
0-0.18
Source: Tucker, 1998.
The South Carolina study also compared water quality in fingerling ponds and growout
ponds. Fingerlings were usually produced in smaller ponds, and although average
aeration rates were similar for fingerling and growout ponds, water exchange was less in
fingerling production. Biomass and feeding rates were lower in fingerling ponds, as were
parameters associated with paniculate matter and nutrients. Overall, the quality of
effluents from hybrid striped bass ponds varied greatly from pond to pond. The study did
not find any significant seasonal variation in quality, but researchers noted that the
sampling protocol might have affected the measure of true seasonal effects.
Concentrations of suspended solids, total nitrogen (including total ammonia), and
biochemical oxygen demand were the water quality variables most elevated relative to
the source water and would have the greatest impact on receiving bodies of water.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Other Production Systems
Water management in intensive systems, such as flow-through and recirculating systems,
must address the full range of water quality parameters that could affect fish health and
growth. Parameters to consider are continuous flow, adequate oxygen, consistent
temperature, waste removal from the culture space, acceptable ranges of ammonia levels,
control of parasite populations, and elimination of all other stress factors. Nearly all
intensive systems include simple settling as part of the water management system to
remove solids from the effluent stream, whether the water is to be reused in the system or
discharged. Simple settling has proven adequate in removing the relatively dense waste
solids from hybrid striped bass production (Hochheimer and Wheaton, 1997).
Because net pen culture practices rely on the water quality of the site at which the pens
are located, there is little information on water management practices for hybrid striped
bass production. Cages can be moved around within the pond, but generally they are of
such small size that any water quality effects are negligible.
4.3.5 Tilapia
Tilapia are indigenous to Africa. In the 1940s they were introduced into Caribbean
nations and, as a result, also entered Latin America and the United States. By the late
1950s the species had become the main focus of AAP research at Auburn University.
Tilapia have been raised in most, if not all, U.S. states. Species cultured in the United
States include Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), blue tilapia (O. aureus), Mozambique
tilapia (O. mossambicus), Zanzibar tilapia (O. urolepis hornorum), and various hybrids of
these species (Popma and Masser, 1999). In states where the growing season is not long
enough to produce tilapia before winterkill occurs, production takes place in greenhouses
or other buildings where supplemental heat is available. Since tilapia are still considered
exotic, some states have restrictions on tilapia culture. In Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, and Texas, a permit may be
required to culture tilapia, or the fish may be raised only if the species of interest appears
on a list of approved fishes (Stickney, 2000c).
Most species of tilapia are mouthbrooders. Males construct nests in pond bottoms,
females extrude eggs into the nests, males fertilize them, and females scoop them up in
their mouths. Egg incubation (about 1 wk) and hatching of fry take place in the female's
mouth, and fry stay in the mouth during yolk sac absorption. Once fry are ready to forage
for food, they stay in a school around the female and go back into her mouth at any sign
of danger. The fry remain in a school for several days after leaving the shelter of the
female and stay around the edges of the pond where the water is warmest. Mozambique
tilapia can mature as early as 3 mo after hatching; blue and Nile tilapia mature after
approximately 6 mo (Stickney, 2000c).
Although many tilapia species are produced as foodfish, some species, such as Tilapia
zilli, are herbivorous and have been used to control aquatic vegetation in irrigation canals
and sewage lagoons. Other more colorful tilapia species have been marketed as aquarium
fishes in the ornamental market. Some salt-tolerant tilapia and hybrids have become the
focus of new interest in tilapia production in coastal ponds and marine cages in the
Bahamas and some Caribbean nations (Stickney, 2000c).
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Tilapia have become one of the most commonly cultured species in the world. The 1998
Census of Aquaculture estimated that 116 farms produced 11.5 million Ib of tilapia, with
a total of 137 farms producing food-size tilapia with a value of more than $23 million
(USDA, 2000). The top five states for tilapia production in the United States are (in
descending order) California, Maryland, Texas, Idaho, and Florida. Many culturists
prefer to raise blue tilapia and Nile tilapia over the Mozambique tilapia because the
former have better dress-out percentages, later maturity, and a more desirable flesh color
(Stickney, 2000c).
4.3.5.1 Production Systems
Three primary types of production systems are in use at tilapia farms: ponds, flow-
through production, and recirculating systems. Ponds and recirculating systems are the
most common systems used for tilapia production in the United States, while flow-
through systems are less common. In the southern United States, tilapia are sometimes
raised in cages or net pens in lakes, large reservoirs, farm ponds, rivers, cooling water
discharge canals, and estuaries; however, cage culture is a less common production
system for tilapia.
Tilapia's intolerance of cold water limits its production potential in outdoor systems
throughout most of the United States. Only southern Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, Hawaii,
and other Pacific islands have climates suitable for year-round outdoor pond production
(Rackocy, 1989). Enclosed greenhouses are also used in some parts of the country, and in
temperate climates tilapia must be grown indoors with heated water. Operators must
either heat their airspace and influent water or use alternative sources of warm water,
such as recycled wastewater that has been used to cool power plants or geothermally
heated water (Rackocy and McGinty, 1989).
Ponds for tilapia production are similar to pond systems developed for other warmwater
AAP species such as catfish and shrimp. Tilapia ponds require a design conducive to
draining because fish harvest is difficult to perform without removing some or all water
from the pond (Rakocy and McGinty, 1989). Tilapia are also cultured in flow-through
systems. Circular tanks are the most common rearing unit for flow-through tilapia
production because they have superior flow characteristics with fewer low-flow "dead
spots" than rectangular tanks (Rakocy, 1989). Recirculating systems for tilapia
production are similar to flow-through systems in terms of tank design, aeration, feeding,
fish handling, and solids removal; however, water discharge is minimal with the
operation of a recirculating system. Recirculating systems are widely used to produce
tilapia for the live fish market because recirculating systems can be used for year-round
production. Recirculating systems can also reduce water-heating costs and transportation
costs because facilities can be located near large metropolitan market areas.
4.3.5.2 Culture Practices
Tilapia are often bred in recirculating systems because spawning is more easily observed
and controlled in small tanks than in other systems. Ten to twenty days after tilapia
broodstock spawn, fry begin to swim away from the mouth-brooding female fish. Fry can
be collected with dip nets from the brood tank for stocking in nursery tanks (Rakocy,
1989).
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Male tilapia are preferred for intensive food fish culture because they grow more quickly
than female fish. Female fish divert energy from growth to producing eggs, and mouth-
brooding females generally do not eat while holding young in the mouth. It is possible to
produce all male fish with certain hybrids of Oreochromis species. Feeding newly
hatched female fry with feed treated with male hormones inverts the sex of female tilapia
to change them into reproductively functional male tilapia. Androgens such as methyl
testosterone are used to invert the sex of female fry (Kohler, 2000b). Other methods
include using a combination of hormones to produce "supermale" tilapia with double Y
(YY) chromosomes instead of XY chromosomes. These YY males can be crossed with
normal XX female fish to produce all male progeny. Researchers also have been
experimenting with triploid (fish that have three sets of chromosomes and are unable to
reproduce) and tetraploid fish (fish that have four sets of chromosomes that can be mated
with diploid fish to produce triploids) to produce faster growing fish without the use of
hormone treatments (Kohler, 2000b).
Fitzpatrick et al. (2000) treated fry with methyl testosterone at a concentration of 60
mg/kg in their feed for 4 wk beginning at the initiation of feeding. The treated fry were
raised in three 16-gal tanks that contained no soil or gravel, 11 Ib of soil, or 11 Ib of
gravel, respectively. Methyl testosterone water levels peaked at approximately 3.6 ng/mL
(nanograms per milliliter) at 28 d after the onset of feeding. The concentration of methyl
testosterone in water decreased to background levels (nondetect to 0.02 ng/mL) in 1 to 2
wk after the end of treatment with methyl testosterone-impregnated food in those tanks
containing soil or gravel. The concentration of methyl testosterone in the tank containing
no soil or gravel remained above background levels for 3 wk after the end of treatment
with methyl testosterone-impregnated food (Fitzpatrick et al., 2000). Methyl testosterone
degrades when exposed to light or high temperatures. In addition, bacteria and fungi can
metabolize methyl testosterone; therefore the light, temperature, and microbial
degradation in an outdoor pond setting degrade methyl testosterone.
The soil concentration of methyl testosterone in the tank with soil was 6.1 ng/g at the end
of the 28-d treatment period. This level decreased to approximately 3 ng/g at 8 wk after
the end of the treatment period (cessation of experiment). The methyl testosterone soil
background level was 0.5 ng/g at the beginning of the experiment. The methyl
testosterone levels in the gravel tank ranged from 22.9 to 99.2 ng/g of fine sediment at 8
wk after the end of the treatment period. The authors suggested that the slow degradation
of methyl testosterone in soil and gravel might have occurred because the sediments
acted as a trap for methyl testosterone (Fitzpatrick et al., 2000).
Stocking density for tilapia fry in flow-through systems can be maintained at as high as
750 fry per square foot. Once fish reach approximately 1 Ib, recommended stocking
levels drop to about nine fish per square foot (Rakocy, 1989). Most tilapia raised for
foodfish are harvested when they reach 1 Ib. Depending on the quantity of food and
aeration inputs, tilapia can be raised from fry to harvestable sizes in 7 to 8 mo (Rakocy,
1989). Tilapia are more difficult to capture in seines than many other species of cultured
freshwater fish because they have a tendency to jump over, or burrow under, nets
(Rakocy and McGinty, 1989). Only 25% to 40% of tilapia in a small pond are usually
harvested by seine nets. Complete or partial pond draining is usually necessary to harvest
all the tilapia in a pond (Rakocy and McGinty, 1989). Tilapia in recirculating systems are
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
usually harvested by crowding the fish into one part of the tank. The fish are then dipped
out of the tank with nets or pumped out.
Feed Management
In pond production tilapia are able to feed on naturally occurring green algae, blue-green
algae, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and decomposing organic matter. Many
operators, however, supply tilapia with commercially prepared feeds using mechanical
feeders to encourage faster growth.
Because tilapia can thrive on naturally occurring foods in ponds, they can be integrated
into catfish pond culture during the summer months when water temperatures are above
50 °F. The stocked tilapia produce a second crop of fish without the producer incurring
additional feed costs. Raising tilapia with catfish also might have the additional benefit of
reducing off-flavor problems that can occur in traditional catfish farming because tilapia
consume the blue-green algae that often cause an off-flavor problem (Rackocy and
McGinty, 1989). Labor costs associated with sorting the catfish and tilapia at harvest,
however, may reduce net profits for the operator.
Tilapia raised in flow-through systems are fed commercially prepared feeds using
mechanical feeders. Adult fish are usually fed 3 to 6 times per day, at a rate of
approximately 1% to 3% of their body weight per day. Under ideal conditions, with high-
quality feeds, feed conversion ratios approaching 1.5 are possible with tank-raised tilapia
(Rakocy, 1989). Tilapia in recirculating systems are also fed high-protein, commercially
prepared feeds that optimize growth. Generally, the fish are fed using automatic feeders,
which dispense food from above the tank.
Health Management
Three types of water-conditioning chemicals are commonly added to commercial
recirculating systems for tilapia production. Sodium bicarbonate, or an alternative
alkalinity source such as sodium hydroxide, is often added to replace alkalinity lost to
nitrification in the biofilter (Loyless and Malone, 1997; Malone and Beecher, 2000; Tetra
Tech, 2002c). Salt (sodium chloride) is added the system to prevent the occurrence of
brown blood disease, which occurs in fish when water contains high nitrite
concentrations. With this fish disease, nitrite enters the bloodstream through the gills and
turns the blood to a chocolate-brown color. Hemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the
blood, combines with nitrite to form methemoglobin, which is incapable of oxygen
transport. Brown blood cannot carry sufficient amounts of oxygen, and affected fish can
suffocate despite adequate oxygen concentration in the water (Tetra Tech, 2002c).
Calcium chloride is used to simultaneously provide chlorides and increase calcium
hardness in soft water areas.
4.3.5.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices
Pond Systems
Tilapia become susceptible to disease when water temperatures are below 65 °F or when
levels of ammonia, pH, and dissolved oxygen fall beyond recommended ranges. Tilapia
are more tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels than many other cultured foodfish
species (Stickney, 2000c). Tilapia grown at low densities may not benefit from artificial
aeration under normal pond conditions; however, supplemental aeration is recommended
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
when growing tilapia in intensive pond culture systems with high fish densities
(Papoutsoglou and Tziha, 1996; Rakocy and McGinty, 1989).
Tilapia ponds are drained to harvest fish, to adjust fish inventories, or to repair ponds. At
the start of pond draining for harvest, pond water effluent characteristics can be expected
to be similar to production water characteristics. Fish harvest by seining, however, stirs
up sediments at the bottom of the pond. In fertilized tilapia ponds, sediments are likely to
contain significant quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus. As draining and seining
continue, effluent water quality can be expected to deteriorate (Tucker, 1998).
There is little mention in the literature of pond effluent treatment practices specifically
for tilapia. If tilapia, however, are held in earthen ponds similar to those used for other
freshwater fish, effluent management practices developed for catfish, crawfish, and
hybrid striped bass can be expected to apply to tilapia culture. Tucker (1998) outlines
some general pond culture effluent management guidelines: use high-quality feeds to
reduce waste; provide adequate aeration and water circulation to avoid pond
stratification; minimize water exchange during the growing season; leave excess storage
capacity to capture rainfall and minimize overflow; harvest ponds without draining; and
if draining is necessary for harvest, hold the last 10% to 20% of the water for 2 to 3 d
prior to discharge to allow time for solids to settle.
Flow-through Systems
Flow-through systems must be managed to provide sufficient volumes of water to supply
fish with oxygen and remove solid and dissolved wastes; therefore, these systems have a
high demand for water.
There is little information concerning effluent treatment in tilapia flow-through systems;
however, it is likely that common solids removal practices for other flow-through
systems, including screens and settling basins, are common for tilapia flow-through
production as well.
Recirculating Systems
Tilapia are hardy, disease-resistant fish, but when water temperatures are too low, they
lose their resistance to disease and stop growing. In indoor recirculating systems, the
optimal water temperature for tilapia production is 82 to 86 °F (Rakocy and McGinty,
1989). In temperate climates, water used in recirculating systems needs to be heated,
especially during winter months. Alternatives to heating municipal or well water include
using geothermically heated water (Rakocy and McGinty, 1989) or using heated effluents
from electric power generating stations (Rakocy, 1989).
Many growers aerate recirculating systems with oxygen from liquid oxygen tanks leased
from commercial suppliers. Tilapia grown in a recirculating system in North Carolina are
supplemented with approximately 0.5 Ib of liquid oxygen per pound of food added to the
system (Tetra Tech, 2002c). High-density systems that use enriched oxygen sources must
also provide for a means of carbon dioxide stripping to prevent pH depression in the
circulating waters (Grace and Piedrahita, 1994). Some recirculating system design
guidelines advocate direct aeration of tanks (Malone and Beecher, 2000; Sastry et al.
1999) or indirect aeration through the use of airlift pumps (Parker, 1981; Parker and
Suttle, 1987; Reinemann and Timmons, 1989). In these blown air systems, oxygen
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
addition and carbon dioxide stripping are reasonably balanced, and a separate carbon
dioxide stripping process is not employed (Loyless and Malone, 1998).
Some of the water in recirculating systems must be discharged daily to remove solid
wastes. In general, effluents from recirculating systems are more concentrated than
wastewater from flow-through or pond systems. The total daily volume of effluents from
recirculating systems is typically orders of magnitude smaller than effluents from flow-
through systems of similar capacity that do not reuse water. Small discharge volumes
make wastewater more economical to treat and in some cases alleviate the need to
discharge to receiving waters. A recirculating system used to grow tilapia in North
Carolina discharged such small quantities of wastewater that evaporation from an on-site
aerobic waste lagoon exceeded the rate of wastewater inflow during summer months
(Tetra Tech, 2002c).
4.3.6 Other Finfish
4.3.6.1 Largemouth Bass
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are said to be the most sought after freshwater
sport fish in the United States. State and federal hatcheries produced 21 million
largemouth bass for sport fish stocking in 1995 and 1996 (Heidinger, 2000). It is
estimated that commercial hatcheries produced approximately the same amount. A
limited number of adult bass are used as foodfish by some consumers (mainly centered
around large cities), but it can take 2 to 3 yr to grow bass to an adequate foodfish size.
The geographic range of largemouth bass is limited by temperature because they can be
stressed at low temperatures (around 36 to 39 °F). These temperatures can occur in the
winter in culture ponds located at the latitude of southern Illinois.
There are two subspecies of largemouth bass, the northern largemouth bass (M. salmoides
salmoides) and southern Florida largemouth bass (M. salmoides floridanus). Genetic tests
are required to tell the two species apart because they cannot be differentiated by a visual
inspection. It is important to know which species one is working with during production
because the southern subspecies is not as tolerant of low temperatures as the northern
subspecies can be (Heidinger, 2000).
Production Systems
Various methods are used to produce largemouth bass. Most producers stock broodfish in
ponds to spawn, although some are stocked in raceways or net pens, allowing the
producer to be in greater control of production. Ponds are usually rectangular and less
than 6 ft deep with no obstructions. Ponds are drained and completely dried in the fall to
get rid of predacious insects, fishes, and diseases. Some operators sew winter rye in the
pond to serve as an organic fertilizer after spring flooding. Agricultural lime can be added
if the pond bottom soil is too acidic. Ponds should not be filled more than 14 d before
stocking to prevent the buildup of predacious insects. Well water or surface water, which
is filtered through 52 mesh/in, saran socks, are both acceptable for filling the ponds
(Davis and Lock, 1997).
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Culture Practices
Fry are left in the spawning ponds or moved to rearing ponds and fed zooplankton and
aquatic insects. When the fish are fingerlings, they are raised at a low density on insects,
or they can be trained in tanks to eat a prepared diet. Fingerlings (1.5 to 2.0 in.) are seined
from nursery ponds, graded to uniform sizes, and stocked in round or rectangular flow-
through tanks for feed training. Stocking density can be high, with a range from 200 to
500 fish per cubic foot (Tidwell et al., 2000). Fingerlings that are trained to eat the
prepared diet grow faster than those feeding on insects, and the trained bass can then be
moved to ponds, net pens, or raceways until they reach the desired size.
Bass are most often harvested by trapping, seining, or draining the pond. Fingerlings are
generally harvested 2 to 4 wk after stocking, when they are approximately 1.5 in. in
length, to lessen the chances of cannibalism. Although cannibalism is possible at any
time, it is more likely to occur if fry are stocked at different ages and sizes and if there is
a shortage of food. If at any time it is found that no appropriate invertebrates are present
in the pond as a food source, the bass must be harvested regardless of size (Heidinger,
2000).
During training periods in tanks, largemouth bass are extremely susceptible to external
parasites and the bacterial disease columnaris (caused by Cytophagus columnaris).
Affected fish are treated immediately through medicated feed (terramycin). The use of
salt baths of 0.5% to 1.0% for up to 1 hr is another practice used to reduce stress from
handling and grading and to reduce the incidence of infectious diseases (Tidwell et al.,
2000).
4.3.6.2 Smallmouth Bass
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) are popular sport fish found in many parts of
the United States and are essentially nonmigrating fish. The species requires growing
temperatures from 50 to 70 °F and spawning temperatures of 58 to 62 °F; the upper lethal
temperature reported is 95 °F (Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, n.d.). Ponds are the most
common production system used for smallmouth bass culture (Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant,
n.d.).
4.3.6.3 Carp
Several species of carp (family Cyprinidae) have been cultured in the United States. The
government stopped stocking common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in the United States in the
late 1800s because of problems associated with the species, such as damage due to
erosion caused by the fish digging into the pond banks. Many reproducing populations,
however, became established from early stocking programs and are still plentiful today.
Although common carp are cultured as foodfish in other countries, there is a very small
demand for them as foodfish in the United States. The fish have many small bones and
often have poor flavor. There is a very small amount of commercial production of
bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis) and silver carp (Hypopthalmichthys molitrix), but that
production is insignificant. Various carp species are banned in some U.S. states because
they are considered to be exotic species.
The grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idelld) is commercially produced in the United States
primarily for use in controlling aquatic vegetation. This species is very controversial
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
because of concerns that it might also consume desirable vegetation and reproduce and
become established in areas where it is not desired. Since the species is banned in many
states and controversial in others, commercial producers began producing triploid grass
carp (fish that have three sets of chromosomes and are unable to reproduce). Triploid
grass carp are beneficial in controlling vegetation, and they die after a few years, so the
decision can then be made whether to restock. Some states that had banned carp have
made exceptions and allow stocking of the sterile triploid grass carp as long as the
producers can certify that the fish are 100% triploid (Stickney, 2000a).
Culture Practices
Production of sterile triploid grass carp includes subjecting fertilized eggs to a pressure
treatment that makes the eggs hold onto an extra set of chromosomes. The process
involves placing the eggs in a stainless steel container and subjecting them to 8,000 psi
(pounds per square inch) of hydrostatic pressure. The eggs hatch after an incubation
period of 2 to 3 d, and the fish feed off of their attached yolk sacs. After 3 d, the fish can
be fed hard-boiled egg yolks followed by commercial fish food and brine shrimp larvae
as they grow. After a week in the hatchery, the young fish should be transferred to larger
ponds, which should be fertilized to encourage zooplankton growth for a food source.
After the fish reach approximately 1.5 in. in length, they begin to eat green plant material.
The fish can undergo blood testing to determine whether they are triploid and sterile
when they are 2 to 3 in. in length (Imperial Irrigation District, 1998).
4.3.6.4 Flounder
The summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) is a foodfish found along the east coast of
the United States, from Maine to Florida (Bengtson and Nardi, 2000). The winter
flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) is a foodfish found along the east coast of
North America, from the State of Georgia to Labrador, Canada. The species has been
exploited for more than a century and is now considered overexploited due to its decline
over the past 20 years. Hatchery production of winter flounder was first attempted in the
late 1800s by the U.S. Fish and Fisheries Commission in an attempt to try to rebuild wild
populations that were in decline. Those hatcheries released tens of millions of larvae
before closing in the 1950s. Some of the techniques developed at those hatcheries are still
in use today, now that declining stocks, coupled with a demand for quality flatfish, have
once again motivated attempts to culture winter flounder (Howell and Litvak, 2000).
Production Systems
Commercial hatchery production of summer flounder in recirculating or flow-through
tanks began in 1996, after 6 yr of government funding for research and development for
cultural practices of the species. So far, only wild-caught broodstock have been used in
commercial production, but hatcheries are working on domesticating them (Bengtson and
Nardi, 2000).
Researchers and fish culturists of winter flounder have looked to information on
production techniques for summer flounder for guidance. There are, however, some
differences in culture techniques for the two species. Hormonal injections to induce
spawning seem to be used more in winter flounder production than in summer flounder
production. Static, flow-through, and in situ systems have all been used to raise winter
flounder larvae, though static systems have been used only in research, not for
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
commercial production. In larval flow-through systems, 100-L circular tanks are supplied
with seawater that has been filtered and treated with ultraviolet light and kept at ambient
temperatures and salinities. One in situ system was tried in Rhode Island with favorable
results. It consisted of an open-mesh enclosure (406 ft3 in size) suspended from a surface
flotation collar. The mesh size was small enough to keep larvae in while still allowing
their natural food to enter the enclosure. The estimated time for growth to market size is 2
to 4 yr. This time might be shortened in an AAP setting due to optimal fixed conditions
used there, and the growout systems used would be similar to those for summer flounder
(land-based tanks or raceways and net pens) (Howell and Litvak, 2000).
Culture Practices
Ideally, captured summer flounder broodstock are held for several months to allow them
to adjust to their new surroundings and nonliving food diet before spawning is initiated.
Some hormonal injections have been tried to induce spawning, but the most widely used
method is hand-stripping the ripe fish. It is a high priority to develop methods for natural
spawning since hand-stripping fish is highly stressful to the fish and might not be the best
method for gathering the highest-quality eggs. After eggs and milt are stripped from the
females and males, the gametes are combined in beakers where fertilization takes place.
The embryos are placed in cylindrical containers of seawater. Hatched larvae can be
taken from the incubation containers and put into rearing tanks, where they feed on
rotifers. Survival rates are higher in rearing tanks to which algae have been added.
After larvae go through metamorphosis and settle to the bottom of the rearing tanks, they
should be transferred to juvenile rearing tanks where they can become accustomed to an
artificial diet and grow out to about 2 g before being netted and graded into larger tanks.
Tanks may be round or square and range in size from 106 to 212 ft3. Raceways should
have rounded corners (known as D-ended). Regular cleaning of tanks and removal of
uneaten feed and feces are extremely important.
Summer flounder can grow to about 5 g in five mo and are then ready for transfer to a
growout operation. It has not been determined what systems and procedures work best for
growout production, but recirculating systems and net pens have both been tested by
certain companies. The U.S. government has funded some of those projects and hopes to
compare growth and quality of the fish grown in the two types of systems, as well as
qualitative and quantitative cost production differences for the two systems. The
estimated time for growth to market size is 24 to 28 mo. (Bengtson and Nardi, 2000).
4.3.6.5 Paddlefish
Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) are prehistoric fishes used as foodfish and as a source of
eggs, or roe, for caviar. They are found in 22 states on the Mississippi River Basin and
the adjacent Gulf Coast drainage. Overfishing, habitat modification, and contamination
by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlordane have caused paddlefish numbers to
decline. Paddlefish are protected against illegal roe collection through their listing on the
United Nations' Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES).
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Production Systems
Paddlefish can be raised in ponds or raceways. In pond production, survival rate ranges
from 30% to 80%. In raceways, the survival rate increases to approximately 50% to 80%.
Paddlefish broodstock are usually obtained from the wild because they take 7 to 9 yr to
mature. They are generally raised in circular tanks with an average diameter of 8 ft,
allowing them to swim continuously and aerate their gills; however, tanks can be larger.
Culture Practices
Approximately 2 wk before propagation, ponds to be used for paddlefish fry are
completely drained and dried. After propagation, the ponds are filled with water from a
well or from a reservoir that filters water through a saran sock. Organic fertilizers, such
as rice bran or cottonseed, soybean, and alfalfa meals, are recommended for use in the
nursery ponds to achieve a total nitrogen amount of 40 Ib/ac. During the initial
fertilization period, large zooplankton such as Daphnia species should be inoculated into
the pond at a concentration of eight Daphnia per gallon. It is recommended that ponds be
covered with netting to prevent bird predation of fry.
Propagation of paddlefish can be achieved artificially. The fertilized eggs are placed in
incubation jars, where fry hatch in approximately 6 d. The fry absorb residual yolk in 5 to
6 d, after they are ready to eat external food such as Daphnia. Once water temperatures
are higher than 65 °F, fry can be stocked at a rate of 25,000 fish/ac in the prepared
(fertilized) earthen ponds, where they feed on the Daphnia or insect larvae. At the age of
about 5 to 6 wk old, the fry's gill rakers develop, allowing them to filter-feed. Their diet
can be supplemented during this time with trout/salmon crumbles (50% protein) at a rate
of 15 Ib/ac, and after about 3 to 4 wk, when the fish are 3 in., they can eat 1/16-in.
extruded pellets. In about 6 mo, fish can grow to up to 14 in. long and 0.33 Ib in weight.
The fish can be harvested easily with gill nets or seines.
Paddlefish fingerlings (less than 10 in.) can also be cultured in raceways or flow-through
systems. If groundwater is used, it should be aerated and heated to more than 72 °F.
Surface water may also be used, but it needs to be filtered and also aerated and heated if
needed. Because strong sunlight can cause sunburn and mortality in paddlefish, outdoor
raceways should be covered with 95% shade cloth, which may also offer some protection
against bird predation. Like fry raised in ponds, fry in raceways can be trained to eat a
sinking diet of trout/salmon crumbles (more than 50% protein), and after about 3 to 4 wk,
when the fish are three in. long, they can eat 1/16-in. extruded pellets. The pellets can be
provided by automatic feeders every 15 to 20 min for about 7 to 10 d; then both
automatic and hand feeding can be used to feed every 2 h until the fish are stocked into
ponds or reservoirs.
Initially, fry can be stocked in raceways at eight fish per gallon, but as they grow, fish
should be reduced to lower concentrations to prevent crowding. After 2 wk, fry should be
about 2 in. in length and should be reduced to 2.5 fish per gallon. At 4 wk after stocking,
fish should be about 4 in. and should be reduced to 0.75 fish per gallon. If fish start
"billing"—swimming at the surface with their paddles out of the water—they are
demonstrating that they are stressed by high densities. Reducing densities generally stops
this behavior (Minis et al., 1999).
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.6.6 Sturgeon
Atlantic, shortnose, lake, and white sturgeons (Acipenser oxyrhynchus, A. brevirostrum,
A. flurescens, and A. transmontanus, respectively) are prehistoric anadromous fish used
as foodfish and a source of roe for caviar. Sturgeons were once abundant, but habitat
modification and overfishing, combined with the species' slow reproductive rate, have
dramatically reduced sturgeon populations (Friedland, 2000). White sturgeons are found
in North America from Ensenada, Mexico, to Cook Inlet, Alaska (PSMFC, 1996), while
Atlantic sturgeons are found from Florida to Labrador, Canada, and shortnose sturgeons
range from Florida to New Brunswick, Canada (Friedland, 2000).
Production Systems
Sturgeon culture facilities are usually land-based tank systems. Producers can use
recirculating systems during different production cycle phases. Sturgeon producers can
also use gravity-flow linear raceways and discharge water to water bodies, preventing the
escapement of cultured fish through the use of screens and settling ponds (Doroshov,
2000).
Bird predation is a significant problem in pond culture, especially for small sturgeons.
Netting over ponds can help prevent bird predation, but recirculating systems or flow-
through systems may be more economical for the growout of small sturgeons to market
size. Larger sturgeons (1 Ib or larger) are less vulnerable to bird predation due, in part, to
the fact that the larger fish are almost entirely benthic (Bury and Graves, 2000).
Culture Practices
Sturgeon culture is difficult because of the complexity of replicating the species' natural
spawning and raising activities. Minor surgery is required for internal examination of the
fish to determine their sex and level of maturity, and eggs must be closely monitored to
determine when they can be successfully fertilized (Government of British Columbia,
n.d.).
Migrating Atlantic sturgeons are captured with gill nets, transported to hatcheries, and
placed in either 0.25-ac freshwater earthen ponds or round fiberglass tanks. The fish are
held for 12 to 13 d before spawning is induced by intramuscular injections of acetone-
dried or fresh sturgeon pituitary gland extract. Eggs and sperm are mixed for 1 to 2 min,
and fertilized eggs are stirred and washed for 10 to 30 min before being placed in
MacDonald hatching jars. Yolk sacs are absorbed by fry 9 to 11 d after hatching, and the
fry are then fed a diet of ground beef liver mixed with salmon mash, supplemented with
live Anemia nauplii (Conte et al., 1988).
Lake sturgeons can be artificially spawned and then raised in floating cages or net pens.
Spawning lake sturgeons are dip-netted from the Fox and Wolf Rivers in central
Wisconsin. Sperm and eggs are collected from the fish, and the fish are then released.
Eggs are fertilized and placed in MacDonald hatching jars. The fry absorb their yolk sacs
within 10 d after hatching, after which the fry actively swim and feed on live brine
shrimp nauplii. When the fry reach a length of about 1 in., they begin feeding on larger
zooplankton (Conte et al., 1988).
Shortnose sturgeons are captured with gill nets or by electro-fishing and transferred to
cylindrical tanks at the hatchery. Females are held for 3 to 4 wk, and males up to 6 wk,
4-60
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
before spawning is induced by intramuscular injections of acetone-dried or fresh sturgeon
pituitary gland extract. Eggs and sperm are collected and mixed, and fertilized eggs are
incubated in MacDonald hatching jars or Heath Techna trays. Eggs are treated daily with
formalin (1,670 mg/L for 10 min using a constant-flow method) to prevent fungus
development. Larvae are raised in fiberglass and aluminum troughs. The troughs are 8 ft
long, 1.5 ft wide, and 8 in deep, and they are connected to a flow-through freshwater
system, which has regular applications of formalin (1.775 mg/L for 1 h) and occasional
applications of streptomycin/penicillin. After 1 wk, larvae are fed live Anemia nauplii
and salmon starter meal. After the larvae absorb their yolk sacs, ground beef liver is
added to the diet as are supplemental experimental feeds and commercial semi-moist and
dry rations.
Juvenile shortnose sturgeons are raised in 0.5-ac outdoor ponds (mean depth about 5 ft)
where they feed on the ponds' benthic fauna and supplemental dry rations. They can also
be raised indoors in 12-ft-diameter, 2.5-ft-deep fiberglass tanks connected to a freshwater
recirculating system, where they feed on beef liver, squid, earthworms, polychaete
worms, dry salmon and trout rations, experimental diets, and later on trout crumbles.
Tanks are preferred because producers have more control of the water quality in tanks
than in ponds.
Adult shortnose sturgeons are held in 0.5-ac ponds or cylindrical and raceway tanks (with
a volume of 190 to 2,300 gal) supplied with recirculated water. Tank-held adults feed on
fish, squid, molluscs, crustaceans, worms, and beef liver; pond-held adults do not receive
supplementation (Conte et al., 1988).
Bacterial agents that cause diseases in sturgeon include Aeromonas hydrophilia, A.
sobria, Pseudomonas spp., Edwardsiella tarda, Yersinia ruckeri, Streptococcus spp., and,
rarely, Flavobacterium columnariae. Factors that may predispose cultured sturgeon to
bacterial diseases include stress factors, such as handling, and water quality problems,
such as low dissolved oxygen levels, traces of hydrogen sulfide, and accumulation of
organic loads on the bottom of holding tanks. Streptococcus spp. can be treated with
erythromycin (100 mg/kg body weight daily for 10 d), and Edwardsiella tarda can be
treated with daily oxytetracycline baths (Francis-Floyd, 2000).
4.3.6.7Sunfish Family
Sunfish are produced for sport and foodfish, forage fish for predators including bass, and
stocker fingerlings for recreational ponds. The sunfish family (Centrarchidae) is
exclusive to North America and includes 30 species, the most popular of which are the
bream (Lepomis spp.) and crappie (Pomoxis spp.).
Species from the genus Lepomis are commonly referred to as bream, sunfish, sun perch,
or panfish. Only 4 out of the 11 Lepomis species are extensively cultured as sport fish.
They are the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus}, redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). The bluegill is
probably the most well known of all sunfish species and has been stocked throughout
North America as a game fish. It is most abundant in shallow, eutrophic lakes and ponds
but can also be found in streams. The redear, also known as "shellcracker" and
"chinquapin," has also been stocked throughout North America as a game fish or used as
a companion to bluegill in controlled systems, but it prefers sluggish waters. The
4-61
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
warmouth, or "goggle-eye," occupies sluggish waters and is not usually used to stock
recreational waters. Its main use is for the production of hybrids with other primary
Lepomis species. Green sunfish are also known to hybridize with other Lepomis species.
They are found in a wide range of habitats (from ponds and lakes to river systems) and
are perhaps the most adaptable and abundant of all the sunfish species.
The most popular size for stocking of bluegills, redears, and sunfish hybrids is 50 mm.
Bluegills and redears are stocked as forage species for largemouth bass and also for
sportfishing. There has also been newfound interest in using bluegills, redears, and some
sunfish hybrids in nontraditional markets such as foodfish for human consumption and
use in fee-fishing operations.
The two Pomoxis species, the black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) and white crappie
(Pomoxis annularis), are cultured for stocking ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. Black
crappies are common in Quebec and Manitoba provinces in Canada, the northern and
eastern portions of the United States, and as far south as Florida and Texas. White
crappies are common in southern Ontario, Canada, in Minnesota and states eastward, and
as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.
Production Systems
Most culture of sunfish occurs in ponds. Spawning ponds should be less than 3 ac and 2
to 5 ft deep, with a smooth, evenly sloped bottom. It is recommended that the ponds be
filled at least 2 to 4 wk before spawning activity commences and that the ponds be
completely free of any other fish species. A plankton bloom should also be established
before the spawning activity begins. This can be accomplished through the use of organic
or inorganic fertilizers. Groundwater is the preferred water source for production ponds,
and the water level can be manipulated by drainpipes (Brunson and Robinette, 2000).
Culture Practices
It is critical to properly identify broodfish used for sunfish culture to ensure that the
desired offspring are produced because Lepomis species have a tendency to hybridize.
Lepomis broodfish spawn very soon after optimum temperatures have been reached. A
powder or mash is usually the first food given, and then feed particles matched to the size
of the fish are given as the fish grow. The fish are grown out to at least 2 in. before
harvesting because smaller-sized fish stress easily (Brunson and Robinette, 2000).
Both Pomoxis species are cultured similarly. Usually, 2-yr-old crappies are put into ponds
to spawn, and they are given fathead minnows, threadfin, or gizzard shad as forage.
Spawning and egg incubation proceed naturally in the open ponds. After crappie eggs
hatch, the fish can be transferred to small raceways to be trained to accept prepared
rations or pelleted feeds. They are then harvested as fingerlings.
Care needs to be taken during harvesting because handling stress can increase the
incidence of columnaris disease. It has been found that harvesting fingerlings during
winter can reduce handling stress, and that black and hybrid crappies endure handling
stress better than white crappies (Brunson and Robinette, 2000).
4-62
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.6.8 Walleye
Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) are raised as foodfish and for stocking purposes. Most
commercial harvest of wild walleye in North America occurs on the Canadian shore of
Lake Erie and in isolated lakes of western Ontario and the Canadian Prairie Provinces. In
the United States, some tribes harvest a small amount of walleye on the Great Lakes for
subsistence and also commercial purposes.
Production Systems
Several types of culture systems are used, including pond culture, tandem pond-to-tank
culture, pond-to-tank-to-pond culture, cage culture, and intensive culture. In any of the
culture systems, walleye eat diatoms, rotifers, and copepod nauplii, cyclopoid copepods,
or small soft-bodied cladocerans when the fish are young. As they grow, their diet
switches to larger cladocerans and then to immature aquatic insects.
Fingerling walleye can be produced in drainable ponds, with levees on all four sides, or
undrainable ponds, which include farm and ranch ponds, shallow natural lakes, marshes,
borrow pit ponds, and dug ponds. Drainable ponds are prepared by seeding pond bottoms
with an annual rye grass, if there is adequate time between pond drainage and the next
production cycle, or drying and disking the ponds if seeding is not possible. Additions of
agricultural lime (CaCO3) may be necessary to increase alkalinity, and additions of
caustic (hydrated) lime (Ca(OH)2) may be necessary to kill parasites after pond drainage.
Ponds may be filled with groundwater or surface water, but surface water must be filtered
so that unwanted organisms are not introduced to the pond. There is little information on
pond culture in undrainable ponds. It is known that stocking densities in undrainable
ponds are much less than in drainable ponds; however, there is a wide range of stocking
densities in both types of ponds.
Tandem pond-tank culture is used to grow phase II fingerlings because it is hard to raise a
large number of walleye to sizes over 4 in. in ponds (unless forage fish are added).
Fingerlings are transferred from ponds to indoor culture tanks after they are accustomed
to formulated feed diets and are raised to a size of 5 to 8 in.
In pond-to-tank-to-pond culture, phase II fingerlings are pond-raised and overwintered. In
early spring they are transferred to cages in small ponds (0.16 ac), where they are put on
formulated feed diets. Feed-trained fingerlings are then returned to ponds, where they
remain on the manufactured feed diet, and raised for a few years to produce food-size
fish. This culture method is uneconomical because of high mortality rates in all stages of
the culture process (between fry stocking and fingerling harvest, during overwintering in
ponds, during transfer of fingerlings from ponds to cages and to formulated feed diets,
and during transfer back to ponds and another overwintering).
Walleye can also be raised in cages tethered to piers, docks, or rafts. This culture method
has been used in water-filled gravel and rock quarries, natural and artificial lakes, and
farm ponds. It has been used to raise fry to fingerlings, phase I pond-raised fingerlings to
phase II fingerlings for enhancement stocking, and food-size fish. The survival rate of
fingerlings from summer to fall is higher if feed-trained fingerlings are used instead of
trying to train pond-raised fingerlings to take commercial feed in the cages.
4-63
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Intensive culture refers to raising finfish in flowing water systems, such as flow-through
systems, at a high density, and it encompasses single-pass (one-use), serial-reuse (stair-
step raceway), and recirculating systems. These systems use high exchange rates of
water, which allows for a good supply of oxygen in the culture tank and removal of
dissolved wastes such as ammonia. Intensive culture is most often used to adjust phase I
fingerlings to formulated feed and then to grow them to fall fingerlings. The feed-trained
fingerlings can reach a marketable food-size when raised in intensive culture. Advantages
of intensive culture include raising the fish indoors under optimum conditions, raising the
fish where space or water supply is limited, and acclimating fingerlings or fry to
formulated feed rations under controlled conditions (Summerfelt, 2000).
Culture Practices
In drainable and undrainable ponds, fingerlings can be partially harvested by trapping or
seining; however, in drainable ponds, they are most often harvested all at once by being
drained into a catch basin. A distinctive characteristic of walleye fingerlings is their
attraction to light, allowing for easy capture in light traps to monitor populations. After
the fish cease to have an attraction to light (when they are around 1.6 in. in size),
sampling can be done through nighttime seining (Summerfelt, 2000).
Culture practices for raising walleye to food-size include combinations of the above-
mentioned systems. Phase I fingerlings can be raised in ponds until the fish are about
1.25 to 2.5 in. in length, at which time they must be harvested so that fish density can be
determined. The phase I fingerlings need to be trained to accept formulated feed, and this
can be initiated in intensive culture systems or in ponds. Ponds must be restocked at
densities suitable for growth of the fish to a larger size, and then fingerlings can be raised
through the end of the growing season to an average size of 5 to 8 in., when they are
known as phase II fingerlings (Summerfelt, 1996). Phase II fingerlings must be
overwintered in adequately aerated ponds and can reach sizes of 12 to 14 in. by the end of
the second summer in southern Iowa and the middle to end of the third summer in more
northern locations (Summerfelt, 1996). Disadvantages to pond culture of food-size
walleye include the length of time for the fish to grow out to market size, potential
winterkill, and potential summerkill in instances of prolonged high temperatures
(Summerfelt, 1996).
Walleye can be raised to food-size in flow-through systems, such as raceways or circular
tanks, as long as the tanks are covered to reduce intense sunlight, to which walleye are
sensitive. The greatest limitation of these flow-through culture systems is the necessity
for available water sources with desirable water temperature. Flow-through systems must
have a plentiful supply of water in the 66 to 77 °F range because growth rates diminish to
nearly zero at temperatures lower than 60 °F. Intensive culture has a much higher
survival rate than ponds for growout of walleye to food-size (Summerfelt, 1996). Fry can
be cultured intensively by feeding them brine shrimp or formulated feed, and then grown
out to food-size. Another option is to transfer phase I fingerlings raised in ponds into
intensive culture systems to be habituated to formulated feed (Summerfelt, 1996).
Recirculating systems are another choice for raising walleye to food-size. The systems
can be used throughout North America, with new water use minimized to around 5% or
less of the total system volume per day and fish stocked at high densities and raised on
pelleted feeds (Summerfelt, 1996). Recirculating systems are advantageous because the
4-64
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
controlled water temperature allows for a 12-mo growing season. These systems also
have low water requirements relative to production capabilities, produce a small volume
of concentrated waste, and offer the opportunity to locate facilities near major markets.
4.3.6.9 Yellow Perch
Yellow perch (Percaflavescens) is a popular food fish with high market demand. It is a
coolwater species found in the Great Lakes region and Canada. Yellow perch harvests
from the Great Lakes surpassed 33 million Ib/yr in the 1950s and 1960s, and market
demand kept up with the large supply. In the 1980s and 1990s, harvests fell to between
11 million and 17.6 million Ib/yr. Commercially cultured yellow perch now add to the
supply, and the market demand is high for them because of their freshness and because of
concerns regarding microcontaminants in wild-caught fish (Manci, 2000).
Production Systems
Most commercial yellow perch production is conducted in ponds, but there is also
potential for cage culture (KSUAP, n.d.). Ponds are prepared by adding organic fertilizer
to stimulate the growth of zooplankton, which acts as a food source for newly hatched fry
(Wallat and Tiu, 1999).
Culture Practices
It takes about 18 mo to grow yellow perch to a harvest size of 0.25 Ib. Some research has
indicated that stocking yellow perch at high densities could be advantageous to
production because the high densities stimulate feeding activity and allow for maximum
growth (KSUAP, n.d.).
4.3.7 Baitfish
Baitfish is the term used to describe live fish sold as fishing bait or as "feeders," which
are fish fed to ornamental fish and to invertebrates with piscivorous food habits (Stone,
2000). More than 20 species are caught in the wild and used for bait, but fewer species
are raised on farms. Farmers face strong price competition from wild-caught bait, which
has negatively affected the profitability of baitfish farming. If farm-raised fish cannot be
supplied at a competitive price, the result is increased harvest pressures on wild stocks to
meet market demands (Stone et al., n.d.). The common farm-raised species are the golden
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), and the
goldfish (Carassius auratus) (Stone, 2000). The baitfish industry is one of two non-food
production sectors in U.S. AAP. (The other sector is ornamental fish production.)
According to the 1998 Census of Aquaculture, the baitfish industry generated $37.5
million in total sales with 275 growers throughout the country (USDA, 2000).
According to the Census of Aquaculture, Arkansas leads the industry in production of
baitfish in the United States, with 62 growers and $23 million in total sales; however, it is
believed that the number of farms and the value of the industry are higher than the
Census figures indicate. For example, Collins and Stone (1999) estimated the 1998 value
of Arkansas baitfish production at $37.9 million. Compared to foodfish culture, baitfish
culture is unique in the vast number of individual fish produced and the variety of sizes
required by the market. In addition, the impact of competitive market forces plays a
critical role in the baitfish industry. Demand for bait is seasonal, driven by regional
customer preferences, and sensitive to weather conditions (Stone, 2000). Farmers monitor
4-65
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
weekend weather forecasts for regions where their fish are sold to determine how many
fish to harvest, grade, and harden in vats in anticipation of sales orders. For example, a
warm winter means fewer days of ice fishing and a reduced market for minnows (Stone
et al., n.d.)
Sources of baitfish include wild capture, extensive culture, and intensive culture. In the
past, most baitfish were captured in the wild. In some areas, collecting small fish for bait
is still legal, and commercial fishermen use seines or traps to harvest the fish. Farming
fish for bait grew in response to shortages of wild-caught minnows in the 1930s and
1940s, as well as concerns over the possible depletion of wild stocks. Extensive culture,
more common in northern states, is the practice of raising seasonal crops of fathead
minnows or white suckers in shallow lakes. Fry are stocked in the spring and allowed to
grow. The fish are raised on natural food alone. With this form of culture, the production
yields are lower than those in intensive culture, which has a higher biomass within the
production unit, but the costs incurred by the operator are also lower.
In 1934 the Michigan Department of Conservation began experimenting with minnow
propagation (Stone, 2000). In the late 1940s through the 1970s, baitfish farms grew
rapidly (Stone et al., 1997). Today about half of all baitfish are farm-raised (Stone, 2000).
The first baitfish farms in Arkansas began in the late 1940s. In 1997 Arkansas had an
estimated 27,800 ac under cultivation for baitfish (USDA, 2000). Most baitfish farm
acreage produces golden shiners and fathead minnows (Stone et al., 1997). Golden
shiners are the predominant species raised in Arkansas (Collins and Stone, 1999).
Fathead minnows are the most common species raised in the North Central Region,
which includes Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin
(Meronek et al., 1997). Goldfish are primarily raised in Arkansas and the southern part of
the North Central Region (Gunderson and Tucker, 2000). Golden shiners are both wild-
harvested and cultured in the North Central Region, while goldfish are only cultured
(Gunderson and Tucker, 2000).
The production of farm-raised baitfish can help to minimize environmental impacts by
reducing the demand for wild-caught baitfish. These fish are an integral part of the food
chain for freshwater systems. Their decline could impact the entire ecosystem by
reducing the number of forage fish. Also, the transfer of wild-caught baitfish from their
native populations to other sites across the country raises concern about possible
infiltration of nonnative species.
4.3.7.1 Production Systems
Although culture practices vary with species and from farm to farm, most baitfish are
raised in earthen ponds. Ponds used for golden shiners range in size from 5 to 20 ac,
while ponds for fathead minnows are usually up to 10 ac (Stone, 2000). Ponds for
goldfish are even smaller, with an average pond size of 2 ac. Water depth is relatively
shallow, ranging from 2.5 to 6 ft to help farmers harvest fish without draining the ponds.
Groundwater is used most often to fill ponds for baitfish culture. If surface water is used,
farmers use fine-mesh, self-cleaning filters to prevent the introduction of wild fish into
baitfish ponds. Golden shiners and fathead minnows are partially harvested from ponds
during the year. Fish are baited into a corner and harvested by surrounding the fish with a
seine. By the time the pond is emptied, the standing crop has been reduced to 25 to 50
Ib/ac.
4-66
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.7.2 Culture Practices
Golden shiners and goldfish have traditionally been propagated using either the wild-
spawn method or the egg-transfer method (Stone, 2000). With the wild-spawn method,
broodfish are stocked into newly filled ponds with aquatic vegetation in shallow water.
Fish spawn freely on the vegetation, and then juveniles are either raised with their parents
or transferred to another pond. In the wild-spawn method, fry are often vulnerable to
predation by older generations of fish. Although fathead minnow growers generally use
the wild-spawn method, most golden shiner and goldfish farmers use the egg-transfer
method. In the latter method, spawning mats are used to collect eggs, and then the eggs
are transferred to a rearing pond filled with a shallow layer of fresh well water (not filled
to capacity) for incubation and hatching. Eggs hatch in 3 to 7 d.
Usually, eggs or fry are stocked into prepared ponds at higher densities, and when the
juvenile fish are large enough, they are spread out into other ponds at lower densities.
Juvenile fish can be stocked into ponds with adult fish once they are large enough to
avoid being eaten. The growing season in the North Central Region is shorter (120 to 150
d) than that in Arkansas (180 d); therefore, the size attained by golden shiners and
goldfish over a single growing season in the North Central Region is smaller (Gunderson
and Tucker, 2000).
In preparation for stocking fry, ponds are fertilized to encourage the development of
natural food. Golden shiners feed on zooplankton, but they also eat a wide variety of
other animal and plant materials (Stone, 2000). Fathead minnows are primarily algae
eaters, but they also eat zooplankton and insect larvae. Young goldfish feed primarily on
zooplankton; as they age, they also feed on algae and detritus.
Feeding practices vary greatly among producers. Unlike in foodfish culture, the primary
goal in baitfish production is not to grow the fish to market size as fast as possible;
instead, producers manipulate the stocking density and feeding rate to produce a variety
of sizes (Stone et al., 1997). Feeding rates for baitfish are determined by the market
demand for various fish sizes. In Arkansas many farmers start feeding at 5 Ib/ac/d, then
gradually increase to 10 or 15 Ib/ac/d. Most of the feed input to ponds is thought to
contribute to the natural production of food organisms (Stone and Park, 2001, personal
communication). Many baitfish farmers feed in one area of a pond, where aerators are
placed, to attract fish for ease of harvest with seines. In the northern North Central
Region, golden shiners are usually not fed prepared feed (Gunderson and Tucker, 2000).
Farmers also apply fertilizer to promote the growth of natural food. As a general rule, a
single application of inorganic fertilizer for baitfish ponds should contain 3 to 4 Ib/ac of
phosphorus (Stone et al., 1997). Organic fertilizers, such as vegetable meals, hay, and
poultry litter, are normally used only for fry nursery ponds in combination with inorganic
fertilizer. Fertilizer use has declined as farmers have switched to using prepared feeds,
but natural food is still an important part of the baitfish diet (Stone et al., n.d.).
The biomass for baitfish in pond culture is low. Average yields for baitfish production are
350 Ib/ac for golden shiners and fathead minnows, and 790 Ib/ac for goldfish (Collins and
Stone, 1999). In contrast, foodfish raised in ponds are stocked at approximately 6,000
Ib/ac.
4-67
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.7.3 Water Quality Management Practices
A common practice in Arkansas is to drain and pump water from pond to pond. The most
common type of drain used in baitfish production ponds is the inside swivel drain (Stone
et al., 1997). The swivel drain allows baitfish farmers to drain the pond from the top of
the pond (the surface of the water) and minimize the release of solids during draining.
Water is transferred when ponds are drained to conserve water and reduce pumping costs.
Drains are installed to transfer water between ponds, or diesel pumps are used to pump
water from pond to pond. Boyd (1990) describes a method developed to reuse water on a
large minnow pond in Arkansas. The farm installed pipes at the water level of adjacent
ponds. When the pond is emptied, water is pumped into adjacent ponds and stored. After
the pond is harvested, the cross pipes are opened, and the pond is refilled. Baitfish
farmers in Arkansas routinely capture rainwater and prevent overflow from the ponds by
maintaining pond water levels at least 6 in. below the overflow pipe. When a pond is
emptied, water is often captured in a ditch and then transferred to another pond for reuse.
During the spring spawning season, a number of baitfish ponds are drained to make room
for the new crop of fish (Stone et al., n.d.). A pond being prepared for fry is drained to
adjacent ponds. After drying to ensure that organisms that could eat the small fry will not
be present, the pond is filled to a depth of about 1 ft with well water. The well water is
fertilized, and as the fry grow larger, water from the adjacent ponds is transferred back.
Ponds are drained sequentially, so that old water from one pond can be used to top off
ponds with new fry. (During incubation and hatching, these ponds contain only a shallow
layer of fresh well water.) The old water has the advantage of containing natural foods for
the young fry. Generally, this is the only time of year at which any discharge reaches
receiving streams (Stone et al., n.d.). The volume of discharge is typically less than the
volume of the pond because of water management practices that support the transfer and
reuse of pond water.
Little data is available on water quality in commercial baitfish ponds or on effluents from
these ponds; however, the impact is likely to be minimal. Baitfish production uses low
biomass stocking densities. Also, current management practices within the industry
reduce potential impacts of effluent discharges. Farmers seine by hand to prevent stirring
up sediments because small baitfish are sensitive to muddy conditions. Farmers begin
with a low biomass and lower the biomass density even further with partial harvests
throughout the year. The combination of low biomass and reduced feed input prior to
draining makes it likely that baitfish effluents will have lower solids concentrations than
effluents from catfish ponds (Stone et al., n.d.). Also, it is likely that farmers' efforts to
conserve water have also reduced effluent quantities.
4.3.8 Ornamental Fish
The culture of ornamental, or tropical, fish is primarily to supply animals for the home
aquarium where fish are kept as a hobby or as pets. The ornamental fish industry is one of
the two major non-food production sectors in the AAP industry; the baitfish industry is
the other sector. Although many freshwater ornamental species are cultured, some
examples are guppies (Lebistes reticulates), mollies (Mollienesia sp.), swordtails
(Xiphophorus sp.), tetras (Hemigrammus sp.), gouramis (Osphroneums, Sphaerichthys,
Trichogaser sp.), and goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus). More than 1,000 freshwater
4-68
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
species in about 100 families are represented in the ornamental fish trade at any one time;
however, only about 150 species are in great demand and account for the largest volume
of trade (Chapman, 2000). Most ornamental fish currently produced in the United States
are freshwater fish. Nearly 80% of the freshwater ornamental fish sold in the United
States are raised in confinement, and the majority of those are raised in pond operations
(Stoskopf, 1993). The production of marine ornamental fish is an emerging industry with
few species regularly reproduced in captivity. Some of the most common species
available from marine culture facilities include the clownfish (Amphiprion spp. and
Premnas biaculeatus), the neon goby (Gobiosoma oceanops), and the dottyback
(Psuedochromis spp. and Ogilbyina novaehollandiae).
According to the 1998 Census of Aquaculture, there are 345 ornamental fish farm
operations in the United States, which produce roughly $68 million in total sales (USDA,
2000). Florida, with 171 growers, dominates the domestic ornamental fish industry, with
approximately $56 million in total sales, or 81% of the total sales in ornamental fish
species in 1998. California, Arkansas, Indiana, and Hawaii also produce ornamental fish.
Ornamental fish culture may benefit wild ornamental populations by preventing
destructive collection practices, which deplete wild populations and degrade natural
habitat. The Asia Pacific region is the global center of marine diversity; it supports more
species of coral and fish than any other region in the world (Holt, 2000). This region is
home to 4,000 species of reef fish and more than one-third of the world's coral reefs. In
this region and throughout the tropics, natural populations of coral reef fish, which make
up the majority of marine ornamental species, are increasingly threatened by
development, dredging, coral collecting, and the live foodfish and aquarium fish trade
(Holt, 2000). Many common collection methods, which include the use of dynamite and
sodium cyanide, are destructive and cause damage to coral reef habitats. Loss of habitat
reduces the area available for the settlement of new fish recruits.
4.3.8.1 Production Systems
Ornamental fish farming is characterized as an extensive culture (very low biomass
densities) and often has two phases of production: a hatchery phase and a growout phase.
Most breeding for ornamental fish takes place in recirculating systems, while the growout
phase usually occurs in ponds. In many cases, ornamental fish farms are small businesses
owned and operated by a family (Chapman, 2000). Farms often use a combination of
both indoor and outdoor facilities for production. Indoor areas, usually built from
modified greenhouses and wooden and steel sheds, are used primarily for breeding,
hatching eggs, and raising larvae or fry. The remaining indoor area is used for holding,
sorting, and shipping fish. The most common outdoor facilities are earthen ponds and
concrete tanks. In Hawaii, broodstock of live-bearing ornamental fish are typically held
in net cages in ponds, and then the juveniles are transferred to ponds for growout (JSA,
2000b). Net cages are small floating structures that allow water to flow through while
retaining the confined animals (Stickney, 2000d). They are used for raising early life
stages of various species, or sometimes to hold fish in advance of spawning. In Florida,
live-bearer production is typically done in ponds.
4-69
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Pond Systems
Although some ornamental fish are raised in recirculating systems, most are produced in
outdoor earthen ponds (Watson and Shireman, n.d.). In Florida these ponds are almost all
water-table ponds in sandy loams. Because the water table is so close to the surface,
ponds can be created by digging out the appropriate area and letting the pond fill with
water from the water table. The water level in the pond is dependent on the existing
hydrology. In many areas, during dry seasons, well water is used to supplement the water
table source. A typical outdoor pond in Florida is approximately 65 to 82 ft in length, 20
to 30 ft wide, and 5 to 6 ft deep. Farmers often cover outdoor ponds and tanks with nets
to protect the fish from predators, or they use plastic to provide shade and maintain water
temperatures, depending on the time of year (Chapman, 2000).
A typical growout pond (approximately 2,152 ft2) may be stocked with 10,000 to 80,000
fish from egg-laying parents or with around 200 live-bearing broodfish (Chapman, 2000).
After 2 mo, the live-bearing population in the pond can reach 30,000 fish. Growout ponds
for juvenile freshwater ornamental fish are prepared for stocking by draining the pond
after each production cycle and washing and preparing the bottom. After washing, the
ponds are disinfected with hydrated lime to ensure that all predators are eliminated from
the system. Although specific to individual species, some ponds remain in production
unwashed for 1 to 2 yr (Chapman, 2000). The ponds are fertilized to stimulate the growth
of phytoplankton in the water. Organic fertilizers are used to sustain a release of nutrients
over a longer period of time. Cottonseed meal is a common organic fertilizer used by
ornamental fish producers. Inorganic fertilizers provide a short-term nutrient release and
are often used to initialize phytoplankton growth. After the ponds are fertilized, they are
filled with water and an algae bloom is allowed to develop to encourage the creation of a
natural food source.
Recirculating Systems
Although recirculating systems are used primarily for the hatchery phase of ornamental
production, producers are exploring opportunities to expand growout production, using
technologies from recirculating systems (JSA, 2000b). Stocking densities are higher in
recirculating systems than in ponds, approaching 15 fish/gal without oxygen injection and
58 fish/gal with oxygen injection. Water for facilities using recirculating systems is often
treated internally with mechanical and biological filters (Chapman, 2000). Internal
processes within recirculating systems include settling basins, baffles, screens, and
upflow solids contact clarifiers to remove suspended and settleable solids. To break down
organic wastes, some culturists use microbes in trickling filters and modified upflow
clarifiers. To disinfect treated water, some culturists use ozone and/or ultraviolet light.
Ozone is also used to oxidize organic compounds. Fine suspended solids and other
dissolved organics are stripped with dissolved air flotation or foam fractionation
technology.
4.3.8.2 Culture Practices
With the exception of a few species like koi and goldfish, most ornamental fish are native
to tropical regions of the world and cannot tolerate temperatures below 64 °F.
Ornamental fish are relatively small in size, with a market weight between 0.1 and 1.4 oz
4-70
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
and length between 0.8 and 6 in. Aquarium fish usually live from 6 to 10 yr; however,
some koi have been recorded as living as long as 70 to 80 yr (Chapman, 2000).
Based on their reproductive cycles, freshwater ornamental fish are divided into egg layers
and live-bearers. Egg-laying fish deposit their eggs on spawning mats or broadcast them
for external fertilization. Live-bearing fish, such as guppies, release fully developed
young that are ready to feed on their own.
Most egg layers are artificially bred in indoor hatcheries. Broodfish are paired in tanks or
spawned together in large groups (Chapman, 2000). Fish are stimulated into breeding by
using spawning mats and by manipulating the temperature, flow, pH, and hardness of the
water. Culturists sometimes use hormones like human chorionic gonadotropin or carp
pituitary extract, which are injected into individual fish to induce spawning. After
spawning the eggs either are allowed to hatch where they are laid or are collected and
placed in incubators. The larvae that hatch are pooled and transferred to rearing tanks or
outdoor ponds. The fertilization and spawning of live-bearing fish is allowed to occur
naturally in breeding ponds or tanks. In production, live-bearing parents are usually
separated from their offspring to prevent cannibalism.
Many of the more popular and expensive marine ornamental fish, such as butterfly fish,
angelfish, and wrasses, are difficult to raise in captivity. Clownfish, neon gobies, and
dottybacks are easier to raise because they can change sex; therefore, a spawning pair is
not needed. Clownfish have eggs that take several days to hatch, and they produce larvae
that are large enough to feed on rotifers when they hatch. In captivity, gobies spawn
regularly every 2 to 3 wk and produce large eggs. Young can be raised on rotifers and
zooplankton and, later, brine shrimp nauplii. Like gobies, dottybacks produce large larvae
that grow quickly.
In general, it takes 3 to 6 mo to produce market-ready fish. The typical survival rate for
freshwater ornamental fish in a pond is 40% to 70%. Most losses in outdoor culture
systems are due to predation, deterioration of water quality, and disease. Fish are
harvested with fine seine nets, dip nets, and traps (Chapman, 2000). The process for
harvesting ornamental fish differs from that for foodfish because the fish are individually
selected and must be kept alive. Ornamental fish are sorted by hand, based on color and
size. Mechanical graders are not yet available for the ornamental industry.
Feed Management
There is very little published information on the nutrition and feeding of ornamental fish.
Most dietary knowledge has evolved from trial-and-error tests by individual farmers and
a few studies in research laboratories (Chapman, 2000). Although most producers rely on
a natural food sources for fish in outdoor ponds, these sources are sometimes
supplemented with formulated feed. Fish raised in indoor tanks are fed commercial feed
mixtures. Feed is delivered by hand or automatic feeder. Because of the small particle
size of the feed and the low volume of feed used for the growout phase, feed is often
allotted at a constant rate of 3% to 10% of fish biomass per day for freshwater ornamental
fish (Chapman, 2000). Because the biomass for ornamental fish production is small, the
feed input is also small.
4-71
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Health Management
Parasites and bacteria are the two most common causes of infectious diseases in
ornamental fish. The most common external parasites are ciliated protozoans, primarily
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, or "ich," and Trichodina. Common treatments for external
parasites include salt, formalin, copper sulfate, and potassium permanganate. The most
prevalent infectious bacteria are in the aeromonad and columnaris groups. Common
drugs used to treat bacterial infections are tetracycline, erythromycin, mitrofurazones,
nalidixic acid, potassium permanganate, and copper sulfate (Chapman, 2000). Drugs and
chemicals are not often used in pond systems because of the high cost to treat a large
volume of water. Drugs or chemicals applied for ornamental culture are more commonly
used in tanks for indoor recirculating systems (Watson, 2002, personal communication).
4.3.8.3 Water Management Practices
While there is little data in the literature on ornamental fish farm effluent characteristics,
the impact from water discharged from ornamental fish production facilities is likely to
be minimal. Assuming the average size of a growout pond is 2,152 ft2, with
approximately 80,000 gal of water, ornamental culture facilities typically discharge the
volume of one pond, or less, per year (Watson, 2002, personal communication). Also,
ornamental fish are extremely sensitive to water quality; therefore, water quality in the
production system is constantly monitored by producers. Many producers are already
implementing BMPs to reduce the impacts of effluents. For example, when ponds are
drained, some facilities discharge water into settling basins, while others discharge into
channels and ditches that run into surface waters. In Florida, ornamental fish farm
effluents are regulated by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
The producer agrees to adhere to a set of BMPs, most of which deal with treatment of
effluent prior to discharge (JSA, 2000b). When in compliance with Florida's BMP
program, ornamental fish producers are issued an aquaculture certificate to verify their
compliance. This program has a high compliance rate, estimated at 95% of the
ornamental fish producers in Florida (Watson, 2002, personal communication). Because
consumers and distributors often choose to buy fish only from certified aquaculture
facilities, the demands of the market reinforce compliance with the BMP program.
4.3.9 Shrimp
Most commercial shrimp farms in the United States produce Pacific white shrimp
(Penaeus vannamei), which were introduced from the Pacific coast of Central and South
America, for a single annual crop (Iverson et al., 1993). According to the 1998 Census of
Aquaculture (USDA, 2000), Texas is the leading producer of cultured shrimp in the
United States, producing 3.7 million Ib a year with a value of $9.3 million. Hawaii, with
12 farms, produced 197,000 Ib with a value of $1.7 million. South Carolina, with six
farms, produced approximately 43,000 Ib of shrimp annually. Overall, there are 42
shrimp farms in the United States that produce a total of 4.2 million Ib/yr and generate
sales of $11.6 million. Blue shrimp (P. stylirostris) from the Pacific coast of Central and
South America and giant tiger prawn (P. monodori) from the western Pacific have also
been introduced into the United States for shrimp farming.
4-72
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.9.1 Production Systems
Although shrimp can be raised in tanks, raceways, or ponds, most commercial facilities
raise shrimp in levee ponds. Penaeid shrimp ponds rely on access to supplies of seawater.
In general, shrimp farming in the United States takes place in coastal areas, primarily
along estuary systems or waterways, such as tidal rivers or canals. A facility must be able
to obtain seawater from the ocean, adjacent estuaries, or a reservoir. Pumping systems are
used to transfer water to the ponds, and some facilities maintain reservoirs with
supplemental supplies of seawater. Shrimp ponds usually have water gate inlets and
outlets to fill and drain the pond. The gates are covered with screens to keep out
unwanted predators and to prevent the escape of nonnative cultured species to the
receiving waters.
4.3.9.2 Culture Practices
In the wild, shrimp mate in the ocean. A single female can spawn 100,000 eggs or more
at a time (Boyd and Clay, 1998). Within 24 hours of fertilization, the eggs hatch into
larvae and begin feeding on plankton. The nauplius is the first larval stage. After
approximately 12 days, the larval period ends and the young shrimp, now postlarvae, are
carried on currents from the open ocean into nutrient-rich bays and estuaries. There they
transform from organisms suspended in the water column into bottom-dwelling animals.
Maturation from postlarvae to juveniles generally takes 4 to 5 mo (Treece, 2000). In the
late juvenile or early adult stage, the shrimp return to the ocean to mature and mate.
Culture for marine shrimp has three phrases—hatchery, nursery, and pond growout.
Many shrimp producers rely on hatcheries that specialize in the production of postlarvae
or juveniles for supplies of animals to stock their growout ponds. Shrimp hatcheries
require relatively small tracts of land compared to growout facilities (Treece, 2000).
Broodstock shrimp are harvested from the ocean and brought to the hatchery for sexual
maturation and reproduction. Mated females harvested from the wild are allowed to
spawn in a nauplii production facility. Some hatcheries prefer to control all production
inputs; therefore, they harvest both males and females from wild stocks and quarantine
them to ensure they are free of disease and other pathogens. The most important
parameters for successful maturation of penaeid shrimp are constant temperature and
acceptable levels of salinity, pH, light, and nutrition. Hatcheries rely on a readily
available supply of high-quality seawater for successful shrimp maturation.
Shrimp are stocked in hatchery tanks at densities of 5 to 7 shrimp/10 ft2. The tanks are
about 13 ft in diameter and are supplied with water through a flow-through system or a
recirculating system (Treece, 2000). Most hatcheries now recirculate roughly 80% of the
water to maintain better control over water quality (Treece, 2000). Once hatched, the
young larvae (nauplii) are disinfected and evaluated for physical attributes. Nauplii with
suitable physical characteristics are transferred to larval rearing tanks and stocked at
densities ranging from 379 to 568 nauplii/gal (Treece, 2000). At the postlarvae stage,
shrimp are transferred from the larval rearing tank to a postlarvae-rearing/holding tank.
Once the postlarvae have reached the PL8-18 stage (8 to 18 d old), they are usually sold
to production farms for growout. Nursery ponds are smaller ponds used for an
intermediate growout phase and to eliminate substandard juveniles. Not all farms use the
nursery phase. Many farms stock postlarvae, either from the wild or from the hatchery,
directly into growout ponds.
4-73
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Climate plays an important role in shrimp production in the United States. Compared to
tropical locations, the cooler climate in the continental United States limits outdoor
shrimp culture to 9 mo in southern regions of the country. Growout ponds are stocked in
the early spring. Based on the characteristics of a typical facility from a 1998 report
prepared for EPA, growout ponds are usually stocked at densities of 50,000 to 75,000
postlarvae/ac. Adult shrimp are harvested in the fall (September through November)
approximately 140 to 170 d after stocking (SAIC, 1998). Shrimp are usually harvested by
draining the pond and collecting the shrimp in bags or containers on the outside of the
pond at the end of the drainpipe. Shrimp can also be harvested by pumps that draw the
shrimp out of the pond with a vacuum suction. Growout ponds remain dry throughout the
winter. Most shrimp farmers manage bottom sediments by allowing the ponds to dry
naturally, then mechanically tilling the pond bottoms.
Feed Management
In early spring growout ponds are filled with water from a nearby estuary. Inorganic
fertilizer is added to the ponds to promote plankton growth. Postlarval shrimp feed on
plankton and a commercial feed supplement for several weeks after stocking. Four to six
weeks after stocking, the shrimp are large enough to receive pelleted feed. The shrimp are
fed by broadcasting feed into the ponds with mechanical feeders. To prevent overfeeding,
most marine shrimp farmers feed at least twice a day and use feeding trays to monitor
consumption. Feed placed on the feeding trays is visually inspected J/2 to 1 h after being
placed in the ponds to evaluate feed use. Feeding rates and quantity are determined by
visual water quality, feeding tray assessments, and percent body weight increase (SAIC,
1998).
Health Management
Viruses frequently cause high mortalities in shrimp crops and limit shrimp farming
production. More than 20 known viruses are associated with penaeid shrimp culture;
however, only 4 of these pose a serious threat to the shrimp culture industry (Treece,
2000). The four disease-causing viruses that affect marine shrimp culture are infectious
hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis (IHHN) virus, taura syndrome virus (TSV),
white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), and yellow head virus (YHV).
There are several theories on possible sources for shrimp viruses. These include entry to
the facility through contaminated feed, infected broodstock or seed, and bird or animal
transport. Two other potential sources are carrier organisms in ship ballast water and
frozen seafood products (Browdy and Holland, 1998). Current treatment options for
shrimp diseases are similar to traditional livestock disease treatment methods. Shrimp
diseases are not harmful to humans due to the freezing and cooking processes typically
conducted prior to consumption (Iverson et al., 1993). Facilities that do have an outbreak
of disease dispose of the contaminated stock and water, and then sanitize the pond
facilities. Ponds are chlorinated, dechlorinated, quarantined, and inspected before reuse
(SAIC, 1998). Many shrimp facilities buy specific pathogen-free (SPF) or specific
pathogen-resistant (SPR) shrimp to reduce disease outbreaks. Shrimp hatcheries are
developing a new strain of P. stylirostris that is resistant to TSV and WSSV.
In addition to concern for the health of cultured species, there is concern for wild native
populations, which can be infected by viruses carried out of an AAP facility through the
4-74
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
discharge of pond effluent, processing plant wastewater, pond flooding, the escapement
of cultured species, and the use of infected bait shrimp (SAIC, 1998). The spread of
shrimp viruses is one of the most important problems limiting shrimp culture production
worldwide (Browdy and Bratvold, 1998). Control of disease will depend on the
development of biosecure production systems, which prevent pathogen transfer and
establishment. Researchers at the Waddell Mariculture Center in South Carolina are
exploring ways to create biosecure systems by identifying paths of pathogen transfer and
evaluating existing technologies.
4.3.9.3 Water Quality Management
Shrimp farmers use aeration, water exchange, management of stocking densities, and
feed management to improve water quality and support healthy stocks of shrimp. Shrimp
production ponds are aerated to maintain sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen and to
keep the water column well mixed. Shrimp farmers typically use more aeration per acre
than finfish farmers because shrimp farmers must maintain sufficient oxygen levels on
the pond bottom where the shrimp live. Good pond aeration also encourages natural
processes within the pond to assimilate nutrients and wastes and to reduce total pollutant
loads to receiving waters when pond water is discharged (Boyd, 2000).
After the shrimp are harvested in the fall, the ponds are drained and left to dry. This
oxidizes the organic matter and reduces the likelihood of disease problems from growing
season to growing season. Most shrimp facilities use surface water as a source and screen
the inlets to prevent predators from entering the ponds. Because many of the shrimp
grown in the United States are nonnative species, escapement and disease are concerns
for regulatory agencies. Outlets are screened to prevent escapement. Water is often
reused by draining it into closed ditches, allowing sediments to settle, and then moving
the water back into the ponds from the ditches.
In the past, water use in shrimp pond production was high, with average water exchange
rates ranging from 8% to 23% of the pond volume per day to flush the pond system
(Hopkins et al., 1993).
In a 1991 study, Hopkins et al. compared the effect of a typical exchange rate of 14% of
the pond volume per day to the effect of a lower exchange rate of 4% on the growth and
survival of P. vannamei stocked at 76 animals/m2 and found no difference in productivity
(Table 4.3-9) (Hopkins et al., 1991). Hopkins et al. (1993) studied the effects of high
water exchange at 25% and low water exchange at 2.5% on ponds stocked with P.
setiferus at 4.1 postlarvae/ft2. Nutrient concentrations were higher in the pond with the
lower exchange rate, but the total mass of pollutants discharged was lower. Growth and
survival were good under both exchange conditions, with a higher production in the pond
with the reduced exchange.
4-75
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Table 4.3-9. Water Quality of Inlet Water and Various Water Exchanges
(Mean Values) of Shrimp Stocked at a Density of 4. I/ft2
Water Exchange
Treatment
Inlet water
Normal exchange
(25% per day)
Reduced exchange
(2.5% per day)
No exchange
(0% per day)
Mean Size
(Ib)
N/A
0.035
0.040
0.041
Survival
(%)
N/A
81.9
79.5
0.2
TSS
(mg/L)
178.9
183.3
196.2
157.3
BOD
(mg/L)
1.5
8.5
14.7
18.8
DO
(mg/L)
N/A
5.4
5.0
4.8
Organic
Solids (mg/L)
132.2
122.5
115.4
85.3
Source: Hopkins et al., 1991.
Currently, shrimp farmers rely on lower water exchange rates. Aeration is preferred over
water exchange to enhance dissolved oxygen levels (Browdy et al., 1996). In the early
1990s Texas shrimp farms, under the requirements of more strict water quality and
discharge regulations, initiated a shift in water use practices. Using semiclosed systems,
farmers began reusing and recirculating water within the facility. In 1998, one Texas
farm, Arroyo Aquaculture Association (AAA), produced more than 1.4 million Ib of
shrimp on 345 ac, or approximately 4,000 Ib/ac, in a semiclosed system (Treece, 2000).
The farm decreased its water use from 4,500 gal/lb of shrimp produced in 1994 to 300
gal/lb of shrimp produced in 1998 through 2000. Most of the water added is used to fill
ponds and offset evaporation.
Shrimp farmers like AAA have also decreased their stocking densities and increased
aeration to promote optimum conditions for shrimp production. AAA decreased its
stocking density from 4.7 shrimp/ft2 to 3.3 shrimp/ft2 and increased its aeration from 8
hp/ac to 10 hp/ac (Fish Farming News, 2000). Research and industry practices have
demonstrated that water exchange rates can be reduced without affecting shrimp
production as long as dissolved oxygen levels are maintained.
4.3.9.4 Effluent Characteristics and Treatment Practices
The composition of pond effluents during water exchange, overflow after heavy rains,
and initial stages of pond draining is similar to that of catfish pond water (Boyd and
Tucker, 1998). Marine shrimp AAP facilities have two types of discharges: routine water
exchange and water drained during harvest.
Shrimp pond effluents can have high concentrations of nutrients and suspended solids,
high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and low levels of dissolved oxygen. When
discharged into receiving waters, effluents with high levels of suspended solids can cause
turbidity, which can reduce light available for photosynthesis. Low dissolved oxygen
levels can affect estuarine organisms in the receiving waters, and excessive nutrients can
accelerate plankton growth, resulting in die-offs and increased BOD in receiving waters.
There is some evidence to suggest that effluent characteristics for marine shrimp ponds
are similar to effluent characteristics for catfish farms (Boyd and Tucker, 1998). For
example, as stocking densities increase, the quality of effluents deteriorates. In a study by
4-76
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Dierberg and Kiattisimkul (1996), data presented (Table 4.3-10) show average
concentrations of water quality variables in effluent from shrimp (P. monodon) stocked at
different rates. The quality of effluent declines for stocking densities above 3.7 shrimp/ft.
When shrimp ponds are drained, the effluent is almost identical in composition to pond
water until about 80% of the pond volume has been released (Boyd, 2000). During the
draining of the final 20% of the pond volume, concentrations of 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD,), TSS, and other substances increase because of sediment
resuspension caused by harvest activities, crowding of agitated shrimp, and shallow and
rapidly flowing water. The average BOD5 and TSS concentrations often are about 50
mg/L and 1,000 mg/L, respectively (Boyd, 2000). The draining effluent contributes more
to potential pollution than water exchange at 2%. Settling basins offer a treatment method
for effluent released during shrimp harvest, especially for the highly concentrated final
20%. Settling basins or ponds remove coarse solids and the BOD, associated with them.
Studies have shown that 60% to 80% of TSS and 15% to 30% of BOD5 can be removed
in a settling basin with only 6 to 8 h of holding time (Teichert-Coddington et al., 1999).
Settling basins also reduce TSS levels.
Table 4.3-10. Composition of Discharge Waters from Ponds
Stocked at Different Densities of Penaeus Monodon
Variable
Nitrite-nitrogen (mg/L)
Nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L)
Total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L)
Total nitrogen (mg/L)
Total phosphorus (mg/L)
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L)
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
Chlorophyll a (ng/L)
Stocking Density (shrimp/ff)
2.8
0.02
0.07
0.98
3.55
0.18
10.0
92
70
3.7
0.01
0.06
0.98
4.04
0.25
11.4
114
110
4.6
0.06
0.15
6.36
14.9
0.53
28.9
461
350
5.7
0.08
0.15
7.87
20.9
0.49
33.9
797
460
6.5
0.08
0.15
6.50
17.1
0.32
28.8
498
350
Source: Dierberg and Kiattisimkul, 1996.
Based on the 1998 report for EPA, settling ponds are the method of water treatment most
commonly used by shrimp facilities discharging effluent (SAIC, 1998). Based on the
facilities monitored, some commercial farms discharge as much as 600 million
gallons/year (MGY), while others report zero discharges. One facility has a 20-ac settling
area where discharged pond water remains for 2 d before being discharged into receiving
waters. Another facility uses weirs to allow discharged water to drop 10 ft before entering
a drainage ditch. Many drainage ditches are designed as settling basins to trap solids from
effluent discharged from ponds.
In addition to reusing water during production in a closed ditch system, AAA uses
drainage ditches equipped with aerators to serve as settling basins for water discharged
during harvest. This facility also uses weirs so that the water discharged drops 10 ft into
the drainage ditch, helping to promote natural aeration and mixing. Drainage ditches are
periodically monitored to ensure that the BOD levels are in compliance with the state
4-77
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
standard 6 mg/L. Arroyo also uses screens on its effluent pipes to capture foam and
prevent its transfer to receiving waters. Also, water drained from the ponds during the
yearly harvest is collected and allowed to settle in empty ponds for 15 d before being
released into the drainage ditches.
The Southern Star facility (Texas) has a constructed wetland area that is used to treat
effluent from shrimp ponds. The wetland was constructed by building a dike around 100
ac of previously unused land adjacent to the facility. The wetland is designed to treat
discharged wastewater and then filter recirculated water back to the ponds for reuse
(SAIC, 1998).
Harlingen Shrimp Farms, located in Texas, is one of the largest shrimp farming
operations in the United States. Pond effluent is usually discharged through water
exchanges that begin 30 days after stocking the ponds, and all growout ponds are drained
for harvesting 140 to 170 d after stocking. Routine water exchange rates of 10% to 20%
occur until dissolved oxygen level fluctuations stabilize. Each pond is equipped with six
to fifteen 8-in. pipes and one 35-in. gate for draining water during harvest (SAIC, 1998).
4.3.9.5 Freshwater Prawn
The Malaysian prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), a freshwater prawn, has been
cultured on a limited scale in the United States (KSU, 2002). The primary economic
challenges associated with culturing shrimp in the United States are the availability of
low-cost, high-quality feed; shorter growing seasons, with only one crop per year in some
areas due to temperatures; the high cost of land and labor; high operating costs; foreign
competition; and price fluctuations (Treece, 2000).
The Malaysian prawn spends part of its natural life cycle in saltwater. Adult shrimp
migrate down rivers to estuaries to have their young. The prawns spend their early larval
lives in brackish water, migrating to freshwater as juveniles and remaining there as adults
(Iverson et. al., 1993). The larvae feed by sight on zooplankton, worms, and larval stages
of other aquatic invertebrates. Larvae undergo 11 molts before transforming into
postlarvae. Transformation from newly hatched larvae to postlarvae requires 15 to 40 d,
depending on food quality and quantity and temperature. After their metamorphosis to
postlarvae, prawns change from living suspended in the water column to dwelling
principally near the bottom (D'Abramo and Branson, 1996a). Postlarvae can tolerate a
range of salinities. They migrate to freshwater upon transformation, where they take on a
bluish to brownish color as they change to the juvenile stage. Postlarvae are juveniles, but
the common usage for the term juvenile is to describe freshwater prawns between
postlarva and adult (D'Abramo and Branson, 1996a).
Production Systems
As in penaeid shrimp production, most freshwater shrimp culture facilities use earthen
ponds to produce shrimp. Ponds used for raising freshwater prawns have many of the
same features as ponds used for the culture of channel catfish. Surface areas for growout
ponds range from 1 to 5 ac, but some producers use larger ponds. Ponds are usually
rectangular with a minimum depth of 2 to 3 ft at the shallow end and a maximum depth
of 3.5 to 5 ft at the deep end (D'Abramo and Branson, 1996b).
4-78
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Culture Practices
As in penaeid shrimp culture, there are three phases of culture for freshwater prawns—
hatchery, nursery, and pond growout. Many prawn producers purchase juveniles for the
pond growout phase. Commercial hatcheries in Texas, California, and Mexico produce
postlarvae and juveniles (D'Abramo and Brunson, 1996b).
Ponds are filled and then fertilized to provide natural food for the prawns and to create a
phytoplankton bloom to shade out unwanted bottom plants. Juveniles are usually stocked
at densities of 12,000 to 16,000 per acre. The length of the growout period depends on
the water temperature of the ponds, but it is generally 120 to 180 d in the southern United
States (D'Abramo and Brunson, 1996b). At the end of the growout season, prawns are
harvested by seine or by draining the pond. For seining, the water volume is decreased by
one-half before seining. During drain-down harvests, prawns are usually collected outside
the pond levee as they travel through a drainpipe to a collecting device (D'Abramo and
Brunson, 1996b). Some producers selectively harvest large prawns 4 to 6 wk before the
final harvest. After the harvest prawns are chilled and then marketed fresh on ice. They
may be processed and frozen, or frozen whole for storage and shipment.
Feed Management
Juveniles stocked in growout ponds initially feed on natural pond organisms. As the
juveniles grow to a weight of 0.011 Ib or greater, prawns are fed a manufactured feed.
Channel catfish feed with 28% to 32% crude protein can be used for prawns. The feeding
rate is determined by the mean weight of the population.
Health Management
Diseases do not appear to be a significant problem in freshwater prawn culture; however,
as densities are increased, diseases are likely to be more prevalent (D'Abramo and
Brunson, 1996b). Blackspot disease, also called shell disease, could affect freshwater
shrimp. This disease is caused by bacteria that break down the outer skeleton.
Water Characteristics and Effluent Treatment Practices
Like catfish ponds, freshwater prawn ponds use aerators to maintain adequate dissolved
oxygen levels and prevent thermal stratification. Farmers monitor dissolved levels in the
bottom 1 ft of the pond water to make sure that dissolved oxygen concentrations do not
fall below 3 ppm. A common method in freshwater prawn culture is the use of full-time
or nightly aeration. Farmers typically use 1 hp/ac (D'Abramo and Brunson, 1996b).
Because standing crops rarely exceed 1,000 Ib/ac, this level of aeration is usually
sufficient to prevent oxygen depletion. Some farmers use only emergency aeration as
needed. Unlike marine shrimp production, there is no water exchange for freshwater
prawn production. Nutrients in the pond are partially assimilated by pond processes
(Boyd and Tucker, 1998).
There is very little data available in the literature describing the characteristics of effluent
from freshwater shrimp ponds or effluent management practices associated with these
ponds.
4-79
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.10 Crawfish
Red swamp crawfish (Procambarus clarkii) and white river crawfish (Procambarus
acutus acutus) account for about 90% of all crawfish cultured in the United States (Davis,
n.d.). Currently, crawfish represent the only crustacean species cultured on a large-scale
basis in the United States (USDA, 1995). As a commercially available food source,
crawfish can be traced back to New Orleans French Market records from the 1800s
(LSU, 1999). A commercial fishery for wild crawfish was developed in the 1940s in the
Atchafalaya River swamp in Louisiana, where crawfish are still harvested today. Because
catches from the wild were unpredictable and driven by seasonal changes, an increase in
consumer demand for a year-round supply eventually led to the development of a
crawfish AAP industry in Louisiana (de la Bretonne and Romaire, 1990b).
In 1993 more than 59.5 million Ib of crawfish with a value of $26.7 million were
produced in Louisiana on more than 143,000 ac of ponds operated by 1,618 producers
(USDA, 1995). Production in Louisiana represents over 90% of the total U.S. farmed
production for crawfish, 70% of which is consumed locally (de la Bretonne and Romaire,
1990a). In addition to Louisiana, some 21,000 acres of ponds are used for culturing
crawfish in Texas; Mississippi, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida,
Georgia, and California also have commercial crawfish farms. There are also some
smaller producers in the midwestern and northeastern United States that culture crawfish
for fish bait (Eversole and McClain, 2000).
4.3.10.1 Production Systems
Culture methods used to grow crawfish complement farm management plans by using
marginal agricultural land, permanent farm labor, and farm equipment in the off-peak
agricultural farming periods (de la Bretonne and Romaire, 1990b). There are two types of
crawfish ponds: permanent ponds and rotational ponds (LSU, 1999). Permanent ponds
are ponds that remain in the same location and have a continuous management plan
applied year after year. Rotational ponds describe the practice of rotating the annual
sequence of crops grown in a pond or rotating the physical location of the field in which
crawfish are grown.
Permanent Ponds
Approximately half of the ponds in Louisiana are classified as permanent ponds (LSU,
1999). The three primary types of permanent ponds are single-crop crawfish ponds,
naturally vegetated ponds, and wooded ponds. The typical culture cycle for permanent
ponds is as follows (LSU, 1999):
Time Procedure
April-May Stock 50 to 60 Ib of adult crawfish per acre (new ponds only)
May-June Drain pond over a 2- to 4-wk period
June-August Plant crawfish forage or manage natural vegetation
October Reflood pond
November-May/June Harvest crawfish
May/June Drain pond and repeat cycle without restocking crawfish
Single-crop crawfish ponds are managed solely for the purpose of cultivating crawfish.
Crawfish can be harvested 1 or 2 mo longer because there is no overlap with planting,
4-80
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
draining, or harvesting schedules for other crops. Naturally vegetated ponds usually refer
to marsh impoundments and agricultural lands that are managed to encourage the growth
of naturally occurring vegetation as a forage base for crawfish. High amounts of organic
matter in the soil often lower the water quality, which decreases production. Though
marsh ponds exist in Louisiana, they are not usually recommended for commercial
production because of inconsistent yields. The last type of permanent pond is a wooded
pond. Wooded ponds are built on heavy clay soils in forested areas (cypress-tupelo
swamps) near drainage canals. Leaf litter provides the bulk of forage, but water quality is
difficult to manage. While wooded ponds may provide advantages such as potential for
waterfowl hunting, low initial start-up costs, and selective removal of unwanted
vegetation, overall production per acre is usually lower than that for other management
regimes (LSU, 1999).
Rotational Ponds
The most common crawfish-agronomic crop rotations are rice-crawfish-rice; rice-
crawfish-soybeans; rice-crawfish-fallow; and field rotation. In rice-crawfish-rice
rotations, rice and crawfish are double-cropped annually. A rice farmer can use the same
land, equipment, pumps, and farm labor that are already in place. Farmers plant rice in a
drained field (a shallow pond with a depth of roughly 18 in.) and then flood the field 6 to
8 wk later. After the field has been flooded, crawfish are stocked to grow and reproduce.
When the fields are drained in August to harvest the rice, crawfish burrow underground.
Crawfish burrow when water temperatures become too warm and when oxygen levels are
low. They can survive as long as their gills stay moist. After the grain is harvested, the
remaining stubble is fertilized, flooded, and allowed to regrow (ratoon) (LSU, 1999). The
ratoon crop is used as a forage base for crawfish. Crawfish are harvested between
November and April; however, the harvest season is shortened in rotational ponds
because ponds are usually drained in March or April to prepare fields to replant rice in
the spring. Crawfish are harvested using baited traps. Harvesting crawfish is labor-
intensive and accounts for nearly two-thirds of the production costs (LSU, 1999).
The following is a typical rotation schedule for rice-crawfish-rice rotations (LSU, 1999):
Time Procedure
March-April Plant rice
June At permanent flood (rice 8 to 10 in. high), stock 50 to 60 Ib
of adult crawfish per acre
August Drain pond and harvest rice (later in northern Louisiana)
October Reflood rice fields
November-April Harvest crawfish
March-April Drain pond and replant rice
In rice-crawfish-soybeans rotations, three crops are produced in 2 yr. This rotation has
the advantage of allowing for a longer crawfish harvest season than the rice-crawfish-rice
rotation. The rice-crawfish-fallow rotation allows the farmer to leave the land fallow for a
certain period of time to break the natural cycle of certain weeds and prevent
overpopulation of crawfish. This is a common practice in southwest Louisiana. After
several years in production, rotational ponds may develop stunted crawfish as a result of
overpopulation in the pond. Some farmers relocate crawfish in stunted ponds by moving
4-81
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
mature crawfish from the affected pond to stock a new pond that will be used in a
crawfish-agronomic rotation. The affected pond is left dry during the part of the cycle
during which crawfish would be harvested (LSU, 1999). When crawfish are produced
with other crops through the rotational crop system, producers use the same amount of
water they would need if they were raising only crawfish.
Health Management
Crawfish are sensitive to most chemicals. Four herbicides are approved for use in rice or
soybean fields intended for use as crawfish ponds: Stam, Basagran, 2,4-D and Rodeo
(LSU, 1999). The use of herbicides to control weeds is a common management tool for
rice and soybean crop production. Farmers use broad-spectrum herbicides like 2,4-D as a
pre-emergent treatment prior to planting rice to kill any native vegetation (weeds).
Narrow spectrum herbicides like Rodeo are used to spot-treat post-emergent weeds. The
mixture of herbicides, both broad-spectrum and narrow-spectrum, used to support rice
and soybean growth is independent from crawfish production.
Of all insecticides available, only Malathion and Bt are labeled for use in crawfish ponds.
Malathion is commonly used to control mosquitoes. There are no plant fungicides labeled
for use in crawfish ponds or in fields intended for use as crawfish ponds. The frequency
with which herbicides are used is unknown. Considering the potential to eliminate the
crawfish crop plus the added expense of the chemicals, it is not likely that herbicides are
used often; therefore, the impact on water quality would be negligible. If herbicides are
used, farmers use them in association with their agricultural crops and use them sparingly
to avoid building up chemical toxicities that could adversely affect crawfish.
Primary disease pathogens of crawfish include bacteria, fungi, protozoans, and parasitic
worms; however, disease problems associated with current crawfish culture practices
have been minor (LSU, 1999). In estimating variable costs of crawfish production for a
40-ac pond in southwestern Louisiana, herbicides are listed as a potential expense, but
drugs to treat diseases are not included in the report (de la Bretonne and Romaire, 1990a).
Using drugs to treat crawfish ponds for disease is not likely to be a common practice;
however, if a disease outbreak does occur, this might result in a reduced crawfish crop for
the season.
4.3.10.2 Effluent Characteristics
In a study conducted by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (Tucker, 1998) to
characterize the quality of effluents from commercial crawfish ponds, samples were
collected from 17 commercial ponds in south-central and southwest Louisiana. Three
types of culture systems were selected: crawfish- rice field (rotational), single-crop
crawfish (permanent), and wooded (permanent). Rice-field ponds included rice-crawfish
double-cropping systems. Permanent crawfish ponds selected either were planted with
rice or sorghum-sudan grass in early to late summer or were not planted with cultivated
forages and had native aquatic and terrestrial plants.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in crawfish pond effluents ranged from 0.4 to 12.6
mg/L. The concentration in effluent in fall (mean = 6.5 mg/L) was higher than the
concentration in winter (mean = 4.7 mg/L), spring (mean = 4.9 mg/L), and summer
(mean = 4.3 mg/L). Ponds with native vegetation had the lowest concentration of
4-82
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
dissolved oxygen in effluents (mean = less than 3.5 mg/L) because relatively high
quantities of vegetative biomass depleted oxygen in the ponds.
Total solids concentration in the spring and summer ranged from 143 mg/L to 2,431
mg/L (mean = 522 mg/L), and total volatile solids ranged from 0 mg/L to 432 mg/L
(mean = 96 mg/L). Effluents from ponds with native vegetation had significantly lower
concentrations of total solids and total volatile solids in spring and summer (mean = 286
mg/L and 69 mg/L, respectively) than in rice ponds (mean = 646 mg/L and 113 mg/L)
and sorgham-sudan grass ponds (mean = 578 mg/L and 92 mg/L). Soluble reactive
phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 0.653 mg/L (mean + 0.116 mg/L), and
total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.039 mg/L to 1.126 mg/L (mean = 0.329
mg/L).
Results from the study showed that concentrations of nutrients and solids in effluents in
crawfish ponds were generally higher in the spring and summer. Effluent quality was
poorest during the summer drainage period. The type and quantity of summer vegetation
had a significant influence on the quality of water discharged from crawfish ponds. Ponds
with native vegetation generally had lower concentrations of nutrients and solids than
ponds with rice or sorghum-sudan grass. The presence of aquatic macrophytes in spring
and summer in ponds with native vegetation increased nutrient uptake and reduced the
level of suspended sediments. This study suggests that ponds with native vegetation are
more likely to have better water quality.
4.3.10.3 Current Effluent Treatment Practices Within the Industry
As in other ponds systems, the most important water quality concern in crawfish ponds is
the level of dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen should be maintained above 3 mg/L for
optimal crawfish production (LSU, 1999). Problems with dissolved oxygen in crawfish
AAP are compounded by the presence of large amounts of decomposing vegetation,
which make typical remedies like emergency aerators ineffective (Eversole and McClain,
2000). Instead, crawfish farmers rely on preventive management measures such as the
choice of forage type, the timing of flooding dates, the close monitoring of water quality
conditions, and pond designs that divert flow to all areas of the pond. To improve levels
of dissolved oxygen, some crawfish farmers use paddlewheel aerators coupled with
diversion levees in the pond to improve circulation and maintain adequate dissolved
oxygen levels (Eversole and McClain, 2000). Whereas feed management and the impacts
of adding pelleted feed to the system are usually important water quality considerations
for the culture of other species, feeding is not a regular practice in crawfish culture
(Eversole and McClain, 2000). Instead, current production practices rely on a forage-
based system. There are no feed management practices to recommend for this
subcategory because the feed input is low and additional feed management practices
would not likely have a significant impact.
Because farmers rely on soils to grow multiple crops like rice and soybeans in addition to
crawfish, farmers using rotational crop systems in Louisiana, the region that accounts for
90% of the crawfish production in the United States, drain ponds slowly to prevent loss
of soil. Ponds are also drained slowly to encourage crawfish to burrow into the pond
bottom to start their reproductive cycle. There are some examples of crawfish farmers
discharging water from crawfish ponds into siltation ditches and ponds prior to
discharging the effluent into receiving surface waters like streams and rivers (Tetra Tech,
4-83
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
2002d). There is also cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) to implement BMPs to minimize erosion and reduce the amount of nutrients and
pesticides in effluent discharges (LSU, 1999). Examples of these practices include
channel vegetation to improve turbidity problems, filter strips to reduce sediment in
inflow and discharge water and help reduce soil erosion, and irrigation water
management with planned flooding and draining to manage forage and crawfish.
BMP guidelines from NRCS also describe the positive environmental impacts of well-
managed crawfish ponds (LSU, 1999). In many cases, flooded crawfish ponds benefit
and improve the quality of the water entering and exiting fields by developing or
restoring wetlands. Crawfish ponds provide more than 115,000 acres of man-made
wildlife wetland habitat, benefiting waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, furbearers,
reptiles, amphibians, and other invertebrate animals.
Although there is limited information about the quality of water discharged from either
rotational ponds or permanent ponds, the impact of the volume of water discharged and
the quality of the water discharged is likely to be minimal. First, crawfish production
relies on the forage-based system for feeding, so feed management practices would not
significantly impact water quality because the feed input is so low. Also, although
dissolved oxygen levels are a concern, particularly as vegetation decays, crawfish farmers
routinely check levels and use BMPs and technologies like mechanical aeration to
maintain appropriate dissolved oxygen levels. Crawfish farmers also use siltation ditches
to minimize the impact of discharge from crawfish ponds. Finally, when water is
discharged from ponds, farmers release the water slowly to prevent the loss of valuable
topsoil needed for productive agricultural crops and to encourage crawfish to burrow.
4.3.11 Lobster
The impoundment or pounding of the American lobster (Homarus americanus) in tidal
lobster pounds is an important part of the lobster industry in Maine. Pounds are man-
made tidal pools or impounded coves (Loughlin et al., 2000). They are flushed daily at
high tide, replacing the holding area with fresh seawater. Pounds help lobster fishers and
pound operators control the supply of lobsters to meet the market demand in the off-
season when fishers are not harvesting wild catches. Although pounding is an important
practice in Canada, according to the Maine Lobster Pound Association, Maine is the only
state in the United States using this cultivation practice (Hodgkins, 2002, personal
communication). There are 65 lobster pounds in Maine owned by 50 operators
(Hodgkins, 2002, personal communication; Tetra Tech, 2002e).
In 2000, 57 million Ib of American lobster with a commercial value of more than $187
million were landed in Maine (Maine, 2002). Most wild-caught lobster harvests are
shipped immediately to market, but some are held in pounds to extend their growth cycle.
Tidal pounds in Maine hold about 5 million Ib, or approximately 10% of the total lobster
landed in the state (Hodgkins, 2002, personal communication). In the colonial period,
lobsters were considered poverty food, served daily to children, prisoners, and indentured
servants (Gulf of Maine Aquarium, 2000). In today's market, the increased demand for
lobster and the decline in wild lobster harvests has transformed lobster into a high-priced
commodity, thereby encouraging the development of pounding.
4-84
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.11.1 Production Systems
For fall pounding, lobster fishers sell their catches of newly shed lobsters from September
through November to pound keepers, who hold the shellfish in pounds (All, 1989).
Without aeration, lobsters are typically stocked 1 Ib per square foot of bottom area. The
average size of a lobster pound is 70,000 ft2 (Hodgkins, 2002, personal communication;
Tetra Tech, 2002e). From early September through April, the lobsters fill in their new
larger shells with meat while the pound operators wait for a favorable market price. There
are also shorter spring and summer pounding seasons with fewer lobsters. Spring
pounding starts in May when the Canadian season opens, and spring-pounded lobsters are
sold before they molt in July and August. From July to August soft shell lobsters are
placed in pounds, where they harden and are sold. Summer pounding caters to the
airfreight market (Tetra Tech, 2002e).
Lobsters are harvested using one of three methods: pumpers, dragging, or divers
(Loughlin et al., 2000). Because of their speed and efficiency, airlift or hydraulic
pumpers are considered the most cost-effective means of harvesting lobsters from a
pound. With diver-operated pumpers, a diver works on the bottom, collecting lobsters
and placing them into the end of the suction tube. Water flowing through the tube carries
the lobsters to the surface. Dragging or seining is another common harvest method;
however, lobsters are sometimes crushed or damaged when the work crew hauls the drag
over the edge of the platform. Divers are also used to remove lobsters from pounds. They
use a mesh bag to collect the lobsters. The bag is attached to a line that extends to the
workstation. When the bag is full, the diver signals the crew to haul up the bag. Some
pound owners drag their pounds until they recover about 80% of their lobsters; then they
use divers to collect another 15%. The remaining lobsters are harvested when the pound
is drained (Loughlin et al., 2000).
4.3.11.2 Culture Practices
Feed Management
Pound operators feed lobsters while they are in the pound. Most lobster pound facilities
feed lobster freshly killed fish such as sculpin, pickled and smoked herring, and
menhaden (Hodgkins, 2002, personal communication). Fresh or salted fish racks can also
be used as a food source for lobsters. Operators generally use manufactured feed only
when they need to apply medicated feed. The average feeding rate for Maine lobster
pounds is approximately 70 Ib offish per day per 5,000 lobsters (Hodgkins, 2002,
personal communication; Tetra Tech, 2002e). Winter is the primary pounding season in
Maine. On average, lobsters are fed for 40 d within the winter pounding season. Feeding
rates drop off when water temperatures drop below 40 °F. When water temperatures
approach 32 °F, lobsters begin hibernating and do not consume food during this period.
The summer and spring pounding seasons are shorter (1 to 2 mo), with fewer lobsters and
very few feeding days (Hodgkins, 2002, personal communication; Tetra Tech, 2002e).
Health Management
The three main diseases that affect lobsters are red tail, vibrio, and ciliated protozoan
disease. Red tail (caused by Gaffkemia) is a fatal, infectious bacterial disease of lobsters
that passes from one lobster to another through a break in the tail (Loughlin et al., 2000).
Symptoms of red tail include inactive, weak, and lethargic lobsters; red tint under the tail;
4-85
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
and a tendency in lobsters to remain near the shore (Loughlin et al., 2000). Red tail
disease is present in an average of 5% to 7% of wild lobsters (Lobster Institute, 1995). If
infected lobsters are placed in a pound and die, the live bacteria cells spread to other
lobsters (Gulf of Maine Aquarium, 2000). Gram negative rod bacteria, such as Vibrio, are
hard to detect and difficult to treat. To stop the spread of the bacteria to healthy lobsters,
pounds prevent overfeeding and remove weak lobsters (Loughlin et al., 2000). Ciliated
protozoan disease is fatal to lobsters, with mortality usually occurring in 1 to 2 mo
(Loughlin et al., 2000). As in red tail, the protozoan enters the lobster through a break or
wound in the tail. The disease has no approved treatment and has shown up in more than
a dozen pounds over the past 10 yr (Loughlin et al., 2000).
Pound operators conduct an initial health screening of the lobsters before they are stocked
into the pound to remove weak and sick animals. This practice reduces the frequency of
disease in the pound. Pound operators also conduct periodic inspections using divers or a
small hand drag to sample the pond and to screen out sick and dead lobsters (Loughlin et
al., 2000).
When needed, pound keepers use medicated feed containing oxytetracyclin (brand name
Terramycin) to treat bacterial diseases like red tail. The frequency of use varies from
facility to facility. On average, about half of the pound facilities use oxytetracyclin in a
pound season. Treatments with medicated feeds usually last 5 d before pound keepers
switch back to regular feed, and pound keepers commonly use the drug for two cycles, or
10 d, in a pound season. Oxytetracyclin is administered through medicated feed at
approximately 6 to 8 Ib of feed per 1,000 Ib of lobster. As temperatures drop, feeding
rates also decline to 3 to 5 Ib of feed per 1,000 Ib of lobster. Assuming an average facility
holds 70,000 Ib of lobster, a facility would use roughly 3,850 Ib of medicated feed in a
year. (For the entire industry, this would be approximately 127,050 Ib of medicated feed
per year.)
The FDA regulates the use of medicated feed and requires lobster growers to apply a 30-
day withdrawal period. Facilities must wait at least 30 days after feeding lobsters
medicated feed before they remove lobsters from the pound to ensure that residues from
the medication are flushed from the lobster before human consumption. Currently,
oxytetracyclin is the only FDA-approved medication for lobsters (Bayer, 2002, personal
communication). Generally, this is the only drug or chemical used by lobster pound
facilities.
4.3.11.3 Water Quality Management Practices
Mechanical aeration enhances dissolved oxygen levels in lobster pounds. Approximately
two-thirds of lobster pound facilities in Maine use mechanical aeration, especially in
months with warm water temperatures (Hodgkins, 2002, personal communication). Dams
for the impoundment are built to the height of the mean low water mark with a notch at
the mean low water mark. As incoming water flows through this notch at high tide, the
increase in water velocity promotes water mixing inside the impoundment (Tetra Tech,
2002e). Pounds rely on tidal flushing to maintain the water quality in the impoundment.
Currently, there are no existing control technologies in the industry to reduce discharge.
Although there is little information about the quality of water discharged from lobster
pounds, the impact of the effluent is likely to be minimal. Currently, lobster pounds are
4-86
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
found only in Maine, and they are not likely to expand to other states. This is a small
industry subcategory that is site-specific to Maine. Based on a relatively low input of
food and a limited number of feeding days, feed management BMPs are not likely to
improve water quality in the system. Regular tidal flushing for all pounds and
supplemental aeration for many pounds in Maine also help maintain water quality and
dissolved oxygen levels. Finally, the industry is regulated by the FDA 30-day withdrawal
requirement limiting the number of days that pound keepers can use medicated feed, so
the impact from inputs of medicated feed into the system is likely to be minimal and is
already regulated by another agency.
4.3.12 Molluscan Shellfish
Molluscan shellfish AAP systems are used to raise oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops.
These animals are bivalves; that is, they have a soft body enclosed by two hard shells or
valves. The valves are attached at a hinge and are held shut by a strong muscle. Most
cultured molluscan shellfish are filter feeders that rely on phytoplankton and particulate
detritus delivered by water currents as their food source (JSA, 2000c).
Oyster farming is practiced on the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific coasts of the
United States. In the United States, two species currently dominate the oyster culture
industry: the Pacific or Japanese oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and the American oyster
(Crassostrea virginicid). Oysters usually inhabit areas from low intertidal zone to
approximately 45 ft deep, forming a reef-like mass on firm bottom. Depending on the
geographic location, oysters take from 18 to 48 mo to reach market size (JSA, 2000c).
Clam farming is widespread throughout the United States, particularly on the east coast.
Two species dominate commercial production. The hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria),
also known as the quahog, hard-shelled clam, cherrystone clam, or little neck clam, is
indigenous to the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, with smaller populations present on
the west coast. The hard clam prefers relatively protected areas that have stable sandy to
muddy bottoms with small amounts of shell. Populations exist from the low intertidal
zone to nearly 60 ft in depth. The second species of clam most often cultured in the
United States is the Manila clam (Tapes philippinarum) on the Pacific coast. Manila
clams are typically found in habitats similar to those of the hard clam, but they generally
exist slightly higher in the intertidal zone in areas with a coarser substrate like gravel. As
with the hard clam, Manila clams have short siphons (necks), and this limits the depth to
which they can burrow. Like oysters, clams typically take from 18 to 48 mo to reach
market size. Two additional species may be produced commercially in the near future:
the geoduck (Panope abrupta) on the west coast and the surf clam (Spisula solidissimd)
on the east coast.
Mussel farming is a relatively new sector in the United States. Three principal mussel
species are cultivated: Mytilus edulis on the east coast and M. galloprovincialis and M.
trossulus on the west coast. Mussels usually form dense aggregations, like reefs, from the
low intertidal zone to 30 ft deep. These aggregations may be on hard substrate or
stabilized muds or sands. Both species typically reach commercial size in 19 to 24 mo.
Scallop farming, like mussel farming, is also a relatively new sector in the United States.
Scallop culture is limited, and most commercial efforts have been confined to the bay
scallop (Argopecten irradians). This species lives in shallow bays from Massachusetts
4-87
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
through Florida and is often associated with beds of eelgrass (JSA, 2000c). Cultured
scallops reach commercial size in 10 to 24 mo. There is also a growing interest in the
northeastern United States in the sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus), but currently
these efforts are experimental. In Washington there is a project exploring the possibility
of culturing the rock scallop (Hinnites giganteus).
Harvest data related specifically to the molluscan shellfish industry are very limited and
inconsistent (Kraeuter et al., 2000). Shellfish production as reported by most states is not
divided based on whether the shellfish are cultured or from a wild harvest fishery, and
there is no consistency among states regarding reporting units. For example, some states
report oysters by live weight and some in shucked meat weight. Based on data from the
1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000), there are 535 molluscan shellfish farms in
the United States—268 in the Southern Region, 150 in the Northeastern Region, 108 in
the Western Region, 5 in the Tropical/Subtropical Region, and 4 in the North Central
Region. Though it has fewer facilities, the Northeastern Region leads the country in
revenue with approximately $26.7 million in total sales, followed by the Southern Region
with $24.7 million in total sales.
4.3.12.1 Production Systems
Shellfish AAP activities vary widely throughout the United States. Different species are
cultured in different regions and use a variety of culture systems. Determining what is
actually AAP is a challenge (Kraeuter et al., 2000). On one end of the spectrum are
managed wild fisheries, which rely on natural recruitment to reseed public beds. At the
other end of the spectrum is intensive culture on privately owned tidelands. Beds are
seeded with juveniles that began as larvae in a hatchery, raised in an upland nursery on
cultured algae, transferred to a land-based nursery that relies on natural algae present in
the water, and finally planted in some sort of growout system. Between these two ends of
the spectrum are a range of other options with varying levels of control over the product
being cultured.
Intertidal culture, or shallow-depth culture (less than 3 ft), is the most common bottom
culture in the United States. Intertidal techniques vary and are dependent on the species
being cultured. Clams, oysters, and mussels may be placed directly on the bottom in beds.
Clams dig in, whereas oysters and mussels remain on the bottom surface. In clam culture,
mesh is usually placed over the clams or they are placed in mesh bags to prevent
predators from consuming the crop. Oysters and mussels are usually planted without
protective devices; in Washington's Puget Sound, however, farmers sometimes use
plastic mesh bags, which are attached to the bottom on a longline. Intertidal plantings of
oysters and mussels can also be suspended above the bottom on racks, trays, longlines, or
bags strung on lines or wrapped on pilings. These techniques usually suspend the crop 1
or 2 ft off the bottom and rely on tidal action to feed the animals and remove wastes.
Subtidal water column culture is used where tidal amplitudes are not sufficient to support
intertidal beds or where the organisms do not require sediment. Scallops, mussels, and
oysters are cultured in subtidal water column systems. Water column culture in deeper
waters, or floating culture, uses either rafts or longlines attached to floats, or a tray or
rack system. Tray systems require specialized diving or lifting gear for maintenance in
deeper waters. Subtidal water column culture is less common in the United States
because these systems require floats or rafts on the surface that create conflicts with
4-88
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
competing recreation or commercial uses of the water surface or column, as well as
concerns from upland owners regarding visual impact.
4.3.12.2 Culture Practices
The intensive culture of molluscan shellfish has five phases: food production, broodstock
maintenance/conditioning, hatchery, nursery, and growout.
Bivalve hatcheries are used to condition (i.e., prepare for spawning) broodstock, spawn
animals, and raise larvae. Food for conditioning broodstock, larval, and post-set bivalves
consists of various forms of unicellular algae that are grown and added to the water for
the bivalve to filter (Kraeuter et al., 2000). The production of algae is one of the most
time-consuming and expensive parts of bivalve culture. There are two methods for
producing phytoplankton for use as food for molluscan shellfish. The Wells-Glancey
method involves filtering raw seawater to remove large diatoms and algae consumers,
such as copepods, and enriching the filtrate to promote the growth of small diatoms and
flagellates. This method is inexpensive, but it provides little control over the species
cultured. The Milford method uses a single species of phytoplankton in bacteria-free or
clean, but not contaminant-free, cultures. This method provides more control over algal
growth, but the need to maintain cultures and sterile conditions increases the expense.
Broodstock are used to produce the gametes for the next generation. Most broodstock are
maintained in field sites until they are to be conditioned, the process of gonadal
maturation for spawning. The animals are brought into a hatchery where water
temperatures can be controlled to manipulate spawning. Animals to be spawned are
placed in tanks and slowly warmed, and then cultured algal food is added to the water.
Tanks range in size from 150 to 500 gal. This process is a batch culture, and water is
typically exchanged every 2 d (Kraeuter et al., 2000). The conditioning phase takes
approximately 6 to 8 wk. A small hatchery may condition 50 to 100 animals, and a larger
hatchery may condition up to 2,000 animals. Only algal food is added to the water during
this phase.
With strip spawning, eggs or sperm are removed from the animal, and the eggs are
fertilized and placed in a tank of filtered seawater. Mass or individual spawning is
achieved by placing the animals in a seawater bath. In most instances, volumes of water
used are small (usually less than 100 gal) because hatcheries minimize the amount of
water for which they need to control the water temperature. Once spawning begins, the
eggs are retained in a dish, or a container for single spawning individuals. In mass
spawning, fertilization takes place in a tray with animals. After the eggs hatch the larvae
are fed algae beginning on the second day. Water is exchanged every 1 or 2 d. Some
hatcheries use flow-through systems with screens to prevent the escape of larvae. The
number of days in larval culture varies, but typically ranges from 14 to 20 d.
Setting is the process by which a bivalve grows a shell and changes from a planktonic,
pelagic animal to a benthic animal. Though procedures vary from species to species,
usually the animals are set and maintained with food inputs of cultured algae. Oysters
may be set at the hatchery or moved to a remote site, where they are added to tanks that
have been filled with bags of shell and filtered seawater and some unicellular algal food.
The tanks are aerated. Setting can take 1 to 3 d, and individuals may remain in the tank
for 1 to 3 wk before they are placed in a field nursery. Clams, scallops, and mussels are
4-89
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
all set by attaching to a substrate by their byssal threads. These animals are removed from
the larval culture tanks and placed in downwellers (cylinders with a mesh bottom through
which water is passed by pumping it in through the top), in bags of setting material, or in
trays. Many of these methods continue to feed with unicellular algae for 1 to 2 wk and
then transition to a nursery culture.
Nurseries hold animals until they are ready to be planted in the substrate. The longer the
larvae, or seed, can be raised in protected nursery systems, the higher the survival rate
will be when they are planted in the final growout phase. As with the hatchery phase, the
number of animals being cultured in a nursery is large, but the biomass is very small
when compared to fish or crustacean culture (Kraeuter et al., 2000). Nurseries use two
different culture methods: induced circulation and natural circulation. Induced circulation
uses pumps, paddlewheels, or airlifts to move large volumes of water to create a flow so
the bivalves can filter feed. For natural circulation, animals are placed in bags suspended
in the water or on trays on the bottom, and natural circulation moves water over the
animals to bring them food and remove waste. Animals are usually kept in a nursery until
they are large enough to be planted. For most bivalve nurseries, the individuals increase
in size from 1 mm to 10-20 mm (Kraeuter et al., 2000). The only significant addition to
the production water in this phase is the freshwater used to wash the seed and flush the
trays, upwellers, raceways, or sieves. Some nursery facilities also add cultured algae to
the system, but costs limit this practice.
The growout phase is the last phase in bivalve culture. Some producers buy seed and
focus only on growout. All growout techniques for bottom culture rely on naturally
occurring food sources at the site. There are no feed management practices because there
is no feed input.
Feed Management
Bivalve (molluscan) AAP is substantially different from other forms of AAP in that no
food is added to the culture water during the growout phase (Kraeuter et al., 2000).
Shellfish are grown out in the open, protected coastal waters. They feed by filtering large
volumes of seawater through their gills and extracting natural phytoplankton present in
estuaries. Depending on the species, size, water temperature, and other variables,
volumes of water filtered can range from 20 to 80 gal/d, per animal (Kraeuter et al.,
2000). This demand at the growout stage for high volumes of water and physical space
generally requires that molluscan shellfish are produced in the natural environment.
Although hatcheries and some nurseries add cultured algae to the water as a food source,
the impact from this addition is not significant. The risk of nonindigenous microalgae
grown for shellfish feed disrupting natural phytoplankton ecology is very low (Wikfors,
1999, personal communication). Cultured algae strains have been sheltered in artificial
culture conditions. If they were to escape, they would most likely have lost most of their
ability to compete with indigenous phytoplankton. Furthermore, there have been no
examples of nonindigenous algal strains from shellfish hatcheries creating a bloom or
even a low-level introduction in receiving waters.
4-90
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Health Management
Drug and chemical use in molluscan shellfish culture is very limited. The common
industry practice is to maintain bacteria at low levels in the early stages of culture by
sterilizing the water (Kraeuter et al., 2000). It is not economically feasible to use drugs to
control disease in bivalves. If hatcheries use chlorine to clean tanks or sterilize seawater,
these facilities are required to dechlorinate prior to discharge (Tetra Tech, 2001). Abalone
culture is the only culture activity that uses spawning aids like hydrogen peroxide and L-
Dopa to enhance settlement. For bivalves, research facilities are the primary users of any
other chemicals or drugs (Tetra Tech, 2001).
4.3.12.3 Water Quality Management Practices
The importance of bivalve filtration, or lack of filtration, in natural systems has been used
as an argument for restoring the abundance of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay and the
New York harbor through either AAP or natural reef restoration (Revkin, 1999;
Zimmerman, 1998). Restoring this filter feeding population would increase dissolved
oxygen and water clarity and remove nitrogen and phosphorus from the system through
direct harvest (Newell and Ott, 1999). The ecological consequence of this current lack of
filter feeders is significant. Rice et al. (1999) have estimated that the northern quahog
(hard clam) could remove up to 167,000 Ib of nitrogen from the water column and that
sustainable harvest of the population would completely remove 17,000 Ib of organic
nitrogen annually. Another study found that an intensive mussel culture raft system
increased the rate of energy flow, as well as nitrogen and phosphorus deposition and
regeneration; but unlike fish farming, the mussel culture did not cause eutrophication by
nutrient input (Rodhouse and Roden, 1987). Still another study proposes the use of
mussels as a means to clean up eutrophied fjord systems in Sweden (Haamer, 1996).
Fertilizers used in hatcheries are not likely to affect receiving waters. The fertilizer mix
used in shellfish hatcheries is designed to be deficient in nitrogen, the nutrient of most
concern in coastal eutrophication (Wikfors, 1999, personal communication). Nitrogen is
the limiting factor for phytoplankton growth. The standard hatchery operation involves
growing algae to a density at which all nitrogen is assimilated by the microalgae and the
algae stop growing.
The growout phase of molluscan shellfish production does not add food to the system.
The bivalves rely on natural food found in coastal waters. In terms of a mass balance,
materials are extracted from the estuary as they are converted into bivalve flesh and shell,
or used for respiration (Kraeuter et al., 2000). Because there is no feed input, there are no
feed management practices. Bivalve culture can actually result in the net removal of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollutants when crops are harvested and removed from
the system (Kraeuter et al., 2000). Because bivalves filter nutrients out of the water, they
do not pose a threat to water quality. EPA believes there is little, if any, impact on water
quality; therefore, no current technologies or BMPs are being used by this industry
subcategory.
4.3.13 Other Aquatic Animal Production (Alligators)
American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) are raised in captivity primarily for their
hides and meat. The leather is used to make luxury apparel items such as belts, wallets,
purses, briefcases, and shoes. In the past the high value of these leather products led to
4-91
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
extensive hunting of alligators in the wild. By the 1960s this exploitation, plus loss of
habitat, had depleted many wild populations (Masser, 2000). Research into the life
history, reproduction, nutrition, and environmental requirements of the American
alligator, along with the rapid recovery of wild populations, led to the establishment of
commercial farms in the United States in the 1980s. In 1996 wild harvest and farm-raised
alligators from the United States supplied more than 240,000 hides to world markets.
Approximately 83% of these hides were from alligator farms (Masser, 2000). States with
licensed alligator farms are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Texas.
The American alligator was once native to the coastal plain and lowland river bottoms
from North Carolina to Mexico (Masser, 2000). The only other species of alligator (A.
sinensis) is found in China and is endangered. Hunting alligators for their hides began in
the 19th century. At the turn of the 20th century, the annual alligator harvest in the United
States was around 150,000 animals. Overharvesting and habitat destruction depleted the
wild population, and by the 1960s, most states had stopped allowing alligator hunting. To
protect alligators from further exploitation, they were designated under the Endangered
Species Act as endangered or threatened throughout most of their range, with the
exception of Louisiana. Alligator populations recovered quickly, particularly in
Louisiana, which had stopped legal harvesting in 1962 (Masser, 2000). Louisiana
reopened limited harvesting of wild alligators in 1972, but the population continued to
increase even with sustained harvesting. Most other southern states also experienced
population increases after federal protection.
In 1983, under the CITES, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changed the designation for
the American alligator to "threatened for reasons of similarity in appearance" (Masser,
2000). This classification means that the alligator is not threatened or endangered in its
native range; however, the sale of its products must be strictly regulated so that the
products of other crocodilian species that are endangered are not sold illegally as those of
American alligators. Today, in addition to alligator farming, nuisance control is allowed
in several southern states, and limited harvests from the wild are permitted in Louisiana,
Texas, and Florida (Masser, 2000).
Alligators inhabit all types of fresh to slightly brackish aquatic habitats. Males grow
larger than females, and growth and sexual maturity are dependent on climate and the
availability of food (Masser, 2000). Along the Gulf coast, females usually reach sexual
maturity at a length of 6.5 ft and an age of 9 to 10 yr. As in other cold-blooded animals,
maturation age is affected by temperature. Optimum growth occurs at temperatures
between 85 and 91 °F (Masser, 2000). No apparent growth takes place below 70 °F, and
temperatures above 93 °F cause stress and sometimes death.
In the wild, young alligators usually consume invertebrates such as crawfish and insects.
As they grow, fish become a part of their diet. Adults consume mammals such as
muskrats and nutria. Large adult alligators even consume birds and other reptiles,
including smaller alligators (Masser, 2000). Females do not move or migrate over long
distances once they have reached breeding age, and they prefer heavily vegetated marsh
habitat. Males move extensively but prefer to establish territories in areas of open water.
4-92
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.13.1 Production Systems
Alligator farming uses a unique production system that is not easily categorized as either
a pond system or a flow-through system. Alligator systems use more water than typical
pond systems and less water than typical flow-through systems. Available literature
suggests that pond-like systems, in the form of outdoor ponds and lagoons, are most often
used for raising and maintaining breeding alligators for a source of eggs. Young alligators
are typically raised for growout in indoor pens with shallow pools that use concrete tanks
to hold the animals. Within the concrete tanks, water is usually pumped from a well and
then heated before it is pumped into the pools of each pen. At some facilities, water in the
indoor pools is completely drained and replaced daily or every other day to maintain
good water quality (Coulson et al., 1995). Some facilities drain less frequently.
Maintaining water temperature and minimizing heating costs are often major concerns of
alligator farmers. Based on daily drainings, the production system could be described as a
batch-like flow-through system with a daily exchange of water. When facilities drain less
often, the system could be described as a pond with frequent drainings.
In an effort to reduce costs, some producers are using outside growout facilities (Masser,
2000). In this system, alligators are raised in indoor facilities for the first year of growth
and then moved to outdoor fenced ponds. The alligators are fed a commercial diet during
warm weather and are allowed to hibernate during cooler seasons. After about 2 yr, the
ponds are drained, usually during the winter, to facilitate handling and harvesting of the
animals.
4.3.13.2 Culture Practices
The commercial production of alligators can be divided into three phases: management of
adult alligators for breeding; egg collection, incubation, and hatching; and growout of
juvenile alligators to market size. Alligator farmers must either purchase eggs or
hatchlings from other producers or produce their own eggs. In Louisiana, Florida, and
Texas, eggs and/or hatchlings can be taken from the wild under special permit
regulations. Today, the primary source for eggs is wild populations; however, Louisiana
law does not allow the sale of alligator eggs outside Louisiana.
Some farmers have completely integrated operations with their own breeding stocks,
hatching facilities, nursery facilities, and growout houses, but most alligator farmers
focus on only growout operations (Jensen, 2000, personal communication). This
approach is also called ranching, an open-cycle system that does not maintain adult
breeders or produce its own stock, similar to a cattle feedlot operation (Lane and King,
1996). With growout operations, hatchlings are purchased from a farm or ranch
specializing in the production of hatchlings, usually from eggs collected from wild
stocks. Most of the eggs used to produce hatchlings are collected on private lands, which
provide a source of income to marsh landowners who, in turn, maintain and manage
wetland habitat for the benefit of the alligator population. Egg collection from wild
populations is regulated by state agencies that set site-specific quotas for the number of
nests that may be harvested (Heykoop and Freschette, 1999). Hatchlings may also be
available from state agencies that regulate wild populations. The wild population is a
source of young stock for domestic populations, and in Louisiana, where a percentage of
hatchlings is returned to the wild, the domestic population is a source of juveniles for the
wild populations (Heykoop and Freschette, 1999).
4-93
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
The first phase, maintaining adult alligators and achieving successful and consistent
reproduction, is extremely difficult and expensive (Masser, 1993a). Adult alligators that
have been raised entirely in captivity or confinement behave differently from wild stock.
Farm-raised alligators accept confinement and crowding as adults better than wild
alligators. Also, adult alligators raised together tend to develop a social structure, adapt
quicker, and breed more successfully than animals without an established social structure.
For the few farms that maintain breeding stocks or specialize in producing eggs, pens for
adult alligators are built approximately 1 to 2 ac in size (Masser, 1993a). Pens must be
carefully fenced to prevent the escape of the adult alligators. Breeding pen design,
particularly the water ratio and configuration, is very important. The land area-to-water
area ratio in the pen is approximately 3:1, and the shape of the pond maximizes the
shoreline area with an 'S' or 'Z' shape. The depth of the breeding pond is at least 6 ft.
Breeding ponds have dense vegetation around the pond to provide cover, shade, and
nesting material. Alligators burrow into the pond banks if adequate shade is not provided.
Stocking densities for adult alligators are approximately 10 to 20 animals per acre. The
female-to-male ratio should be approximately 3:1.
Adult breeders should be disturbed as little as possible from February through August,
during egg maturation, courting, and nesting. Nesting success in captive alligators has
been highly variable. Wild versus farm-raised origin, pen design, density, the
development of social structure within the group, and diet all affect nesting (Masser,
2000). Nesting rates for adult females in the wild averages around 60% to 70% with the
most favorable habitat and environmental conditions. Nesting rates in captivity are
usually much lower (Masser, 2000). Clutch sizes vary with the age and condition of the
female, with larger and older females usually laying more eggs. Clutch size averages
around 35 to 40 eggs and egg fertility varies from 70% to 95%. Survival of the embryo
also varies from 70% to 95% and the hatching rate from 50% to 90%. Land costs, long-
term care of adults, and low egg production contribute significantly to the cost of
maintaining breeding stocks (Masser, 2000).
The method and timing of egg collection are very important; alligator embryos are very
sensitive to handling from 7 to 28 d after the eggs are laid (Masser, 2000). Eggs should
be collected in the first week or after the fourth week of natural incubation. When eggs
are collected, they must be kept in the same position and not turned or rotated during
handling. Compared with wild nesting, artificial incubation improves hatching rates
because of the elimination of predation and weather-related mortality (Masser, 2000).
The best hatching rates for eggs left in the wild are less than 70%, while hatching rates
for eggs taken from the wild and incubated artificially average 90% or higher (Masser,
2000).
Eggs should be transferred into incubation baskets and placed in an incubator within 3 or
4 h after collection. Eggs are completely surrounded with nesting material like grasses
and other vegetation. The natural decomposition of the nesting materials helps with the
breakdown of the eggshell. The incubation temperature is critical for the survival and
development of the hatchlings. Temperature also determines the sex of the alligator.
Temperatures of 86 °F or below produce females, and temperatures of 91 °F or above
produce males. Temperatures much above or below these ranges result in high mortalities
(Masser, 2000). After the alligators hatch, the hatchling are kept in the incubation baskets
4-94
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
for the first 24 hours and then moved to small tanks heated to 86 to 89 °F. Maintaining
89 °F helps hatchlings absorb the yolk. Usually, hatchlings will begin to feed within 3 d.
Once hatchlings are actively feeding, they can be moved into growout facilities.
A variety of growout facilities are used for raising alligators. Growout buildings are
usually heavily insulated concrete block, wood, or metal buildings with heated
foundations. They usually do not have windows. Most animals are kept in near or total
darkness except during feeding and cleaning times. The concrete slab is lined with hot
water piping or, sometimes, electric heating coils. A constant temperature is maintained
by pumping hot water through the pipes. Covering about two-thirds of each pen is a pool
of water about 1 ft deep at the drain. The bottom of the pool is sloped down toward the
drain to facilitate cleaning. The remaining one-third of the pen area is above water and is
used as a feeding area and basking deck (Masser, 1993b). Pens vary in size. In general,
smaller pens are used for smaller alligators and larger pens are used as alligators grow.
Usually, farmers construct several sizes of growout pens and reduce the density by
moving the animals as they grow. Common stocking densities include 1 ft2/animal until
the animal reaches 2 ft in length; 3 ft2/animal until the animal reaches 4 ft in length; and 6
ftVanimal until the animal reaches 6 ft in length.
A common construction plan uses a 5,000-ft2 building with an aisle down the middle and
pens on either side. A 4-ft aisle creates pens that are approximately 14 ft wide. Pens are
usually 13 ft long with a 3-ft concrete block separating individual pens from the aisle.
Another popular building design is the single round house, a structure about 15 to 25 ft in
diameter constructed as a single pen (Masser, 2000). Round houses have also been built
from concrete blocks, or from a single section and roof of a prefabricated metal silo used
for storing grain. The round concrete slab on which the house sits is sloped from the outer
edge toward a drain in the center of the structure. The round house is filled with water so
that approximately one-third of the floor is above the water level. Because they are
single-pen units, round houses have the advantage of not disturbing alligators in other
pens during feeding, cleaning, and handling operations.
The heating system, which consists of water heaters and pumps, is an important part of
the growout facility. Warm water is needed to heat the building, fill the pools, and clean
the pens. Some heating systems have industrial-size water heaters, while other systems
have flash-type heaters to heat water for cleaning and standard heaters to circulate warm
water through the slab. Thermostats regulate the temperature and circulation pumps. The
temperature in growout pens must be between 86 and 88 °F for optimal growth (Masser,
2000).
Written approval and hide tags must be obtained from the appropriate state regulatory
agency before any alligators may be harvested. Some states also require a minimum
length of 6 ft at harvest. Alligators may be skinned only at approved sites. Skinning,
scraping, and curing must be done carefully to protect the quality of the skin; hides that
are cut, scratched, or stretched have a reduced value. Most hides are sold to brokers, who
purchase and hold large numbers of hides and then sell them to tanneries for processing.
A few larger farms sell directly to the tanneries, the best of which are in Asia and Europe.
4-95
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Feed Management
In general, alligators in the wild consume a diet high in protein and low in fat. Early
alligator producers manufactured their own feed using inexpensive sources of meat like
nutria, beef cattle, horse, chicken, muskrat, fish, and beaver. Today, several feed mills are
manufacturing pelleted alligator feed. Most farmers feed their animals only commercially
available feed; however, some continue to feed the animals a combination of raw meats
and commercial diets.
Feed is spread out on the deck in small piles to reduce competition. Typically, farmers
feed alligators 5 times per week, although some may feed 6 or 7 d/wk. The feeding rate is
roughly 25% of the animal's body weight per week the first year; then the rate is
gradually reduced to 18% of body weight as the animal approaches 3 yr old or a length of
6 ft. Feed conversion efficiencies decrease as alligators grow larger. The food conversion
ratio is between 2:1 and 3:1 (Masser, 2000). Monthly growth rates in alligators can be as
high as 3 in. when the temperature is held at a constant 86 to 89 °F and they are fed a
quality diet with minimal stress. Many producers grow hatchlings to 4 ft in 14 mo, and
some producers have grown alligators to 6 ft in 24 mo (Masser, 2000).
Health Management
There is very little information available in the literature to characterize drug and
chemical use for alligator farming. No antibiotics are approved for use on alligators;
therefore, any antibiotics needed must be obtained through a prescription from a
veterinarian (Masser, 2000). Two antibiotics, oxytetracycline and virginiamycin, have
been used by alligator producers and added to feed to fight bacterial infections (Masser,
1993b).
Alligators need clean water to maintain the quality of their skins. Poor water management
can lead to brown spot disease, which scars the skin and reduces its value (Masser,
1993b). After pools are drained, veterinarians suggest that the refill water contain
1 to 2 mg/L of chlorine to reduce bacteria and fungi (Schaeffer, 1990).
4.3.13.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices
Raw wastewater from alligator production facilities closely resembles domestic
wastewater. The major difference is that alligators tend to excrete approximately twice
the amount of ammonia per body mass when compared to humans (Pardue et al., 1994).
The concentrations of various alligator raw wastewater constituents are presented in
Table 4.3-11.
Effluent treatment practices vary significantly from facility to facility. Most facilities use
oxidation ponds or lagoons to treat effluent from the raising operations. In some cases,
facilities have begun to experiment with the use of "package plants" to treat raw
wastewater before it is recycled for cleaning purposes. These "plants" are small filtration
units designed for the needs of individual facilities.
4-96
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Table 4.3-11. Pollutant Concentrations in
Alligator Raw Wastewater
Parameter
Ammonia
Nitrate
TKN
Total phosphorus
Soluble phosphorus
BOD5
pH
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Conductivity
Total solids
Volatile solids
Concentrations (mg/L)
77.5
4.6
153.4
10.9
7.6
452
6.9
13.4
5
14.8
650
379
219
Source: Pardue et al., 1994.
4.4 TRENDS IN THE INDUSTRY
Based on an estimated increase in population in the United States from 270 million in
1998 to 310 million in 2015, it is likely that the U.S. demand for AAP products will
continue to increase (Tomasso, 2002). The dependency of the United States on imported
seafood might also be a factor in the future growth of AAP in this country. As world
capture fisheries continue to decline and collapse, it is likely that AAP products will
provide a source to meet the growing demand for fish products. Recently, American
consumers have demanded more fresh seafood rather than canned or cured. If the trend
toward fresh seafood continues, AAP will provide an important supply (Tomasso, 2002).
Despite an anticipated increase in demand for AAP products, the opportunities for
expansion within the industry are limited by the demands of production systems. For
pond systems, there are limited sites available with suitable land and water supplies for
additional pond facilities. Increased profitability for production in pond systems will
depend on improving efficiencies in farm management.
The expansion of flow-through systems is also limited by the availability of appropriate
sites with suitable water sources. Development of this sector will depend on increased
demand and its impact on profitability based on price. It is likely that conventional flow-
through systems will be modified to some form of recirculating system or partitioned
AAP system.
Recirculating systems have potential for expansion with continued research and
technology development. There is a great deal of interest in recirculating systems because
of their ability to reuse and recycle water. Although they are too expensive to use for the
production of most species at this time, recirculating systems have the potential to expand
in the future because they rely on smaller spaces for their facilities and use less water.
4-97
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
For net pen systems, limited nearshore sites are available for aquatic animal production,
and net pens are not permitted in the Great Lakes. There are potentially an unlimited
number of offshore sites, but the technology to support these offshore sites is expensive
and not fully developed. This option is not likely to be developed in the near future while
it is still less expensive to import salmon from other countries.
4.5 AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION SIZE CATEGORIES
EPA developed the production rate thresholds based on 1998 Census of Agriculture
(USDA, 2000) data and the AAP Screener data (Westat, 2002), which were available
prior to proposal. Six production size categories, based on revenue classifications used in
the 1998 Census of Agriculture ($1,000 to $24,999; $25,000 to $49,999; $50,000 to
$99,999; $100,000 to $499,999; $500,000 to $1,000,000; and more than $1,000,000),
were used to group facility production data reported in the screener surveys. EPA used
national average product prices, taken from the 1998 Census of Aquaculture, to estimate
the production (in pounds) for the dominant species reported grown in flow-through
systems (e.g., trout, salmon, tilapia), recirculating systems (e.g., tilapia, hybrid striped
bass), and net pen systems (e.g., salmon). For alligator systems reported in the screener
survey, data from industry reports were used to estimate production value and create
groupings of the facilities. EPA used this size classification grouping to more accurately
estimate costs, loadings, non-water quality impacts (NWQIs), and economic impacts of
the proposed limitations and standards for each of the size classifications within the
various species (or aquatic animal types) cultured in this industry. That is, rather than
assume one model facility for each of the three regulatory subcategories, EPA used a
minimum of six model facilities for each facility type (e.g., commercial, government,
research, tribal) and species size combination (e.g., fingerlings, stackers, food-size) for
better accuracy in its analyses. EPA applied these size classifications to the screener
survey data to derive the model facility characteristics that have been used to support this
proposed regulation.
In evaluating the screener data related to facility annual production, EPA identified
several variables distinguishing various types of facilities. Concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) facilities varied by type of facility operation (species and production
method) and type of wastewater management (e.g., direct discharger, indirect discharger,
no discharge/wastes applied to land on site). EPA identified annual production levels (by
mass) at facilities and then identified the corresponding annual revenue thresholds. For
the purposes of estimating costs, loads, economic impacts, and NWQIs, EPA used
facility-level production and revenue data to project facilities that would meet the
definition of a CAAP facility as defined in 40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C to Part 122.
The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) standard to determine a "small business"
in the AAP industry is $750,000 annual revenues at the company level.
EPA is using the results of the revised production rate thresholds to exclude most smaller
AAP facilities from the scope of the proposed rule because the Agency anticipates that
the technologies on which the options are based would not be affordable (and in some
cases would be cost-prohibitive) for the facilities with the lowest production threshold
(the smallest facilities). The production-based thresholds for the proposal, however, are
based on available screener survey data. EPA intends to conduct more detailed
4-98
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
evaluations of these thresholds using responses to the detailed survey. Further evaluation
may warrant a change in the proposed production-based thresholds.
4.6 INDUSTRY DEFINITION
The aquatic animal production industry includes sites that fall within the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 112511 (finfish farming and fish
hatcheries), 112512 (shellfish farming), 112519 (other animal aquaculture), and part of
712130 (aquariums, part of zoos and botanical gardens). The first three groups (NAICS
112511, 112512, and 112519) have SB A size standards of $750,000, while the SB A size
standard for NAICS 712130 is $5.0 million. SBA sets up standards to define whether an
entity is small and eligible for Government programs and preferences reserved for "small
business" concerns. Size standards have been established for types of economic activity,
or industry, generally under the NAICS. Refer to 13 CFR Part 121 for more detailed
information. EPA uses these SBA size standards to conduct preliminary analyses to
determine the number of small businesses in an industrial category and whether the
proposed rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
4.7 REFERENCES
All (Aeration Industries International, Inc.). 1989. Lobster Pounds Add Weight and
Profits. Aeration Industries International, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
Avault, J. 1996a. Fundamentals of Aquaculture, pp 188-192. AVA Publishing, Baton
Rouge, LA.
Avault, J. 1996b. Fundamentals of Aquaculture, pp 75-77. AVA Publishing, Baton
Rouge, LA.
Bayer, B. 2002. Lobster Institute, Orono, ME. Personal communication, January 23,
2002.
Bengtson, D.A., and G. Nardi. 2000. Summer Flounder Culture. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 907-913. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Bergheim, A., J.P. Aabel, and E.A. Seymour. 1991. Past and Present Approaches to
Aquaculture Waste Management in Norwegian Net Pen Culture Practices. In
Nutritional Strategies and Aquaculture Waste, Proceedings of the 1st International
Symposium on Nutritional Strategies and Management of Aquaculture Waste,
University ofGuelph, Ontario, Canada, ed. C.B. Cowey and C.Y. Cho, pp. 117-136.
Billard, R., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Gamete Removal, Fertilization, and Incubation. In
Principles of Salmonid Culture, ed. W. Pennell and B.A. Burton, pp. 291-364.
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Boardman, G.D., V. Maillard, J. Nyland, G.J. Flick, and G.S. Libey. 1998. The
Characterization, Treatment, and Improvement of Aquacultural Effluents.
Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Food Science and Technology,
and Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
4-99
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Boyd, C.E. 1990. Water Quality in Ponds for Aquaculture. Alabama Agricultural
Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Boyd, C.E. 2000. Farm Effluent During Draining for Harvest. The Global Aquaculture
Advocate (August):26-27.
Boyd, C.E., and J.W. Clay. 1998. Shrimp Aquaculture and the Environment. Scientific
American (June):42-49.
Boyd, C.E., J. Queiroz, J. -Y. Lee, M. Rowan, G. Whitis, and A. Gross. 2000.
Environmental Assessment of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Farming in
Alabama. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 31:511-544.
Boyd, C.E., and C.S. Tucker. 1995. Sustainability of Channel Catfish Farming. World
Aquaculture 26(3):45-53.
Boyd, C.E., and C.S. Tucker. 1998. Pond Aquaculture Water Quality Management.
pp. 541-575. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
Browdy, C.L., and D. Bratvold. 1998. Preliminary Development of Biosecure Shrimp
Production System. U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program Biosecurity Workshop,
February 1998.
Browdy, C.L., and A.F. Holland. 1998. Shrimp Virus Risk Management: A South
Carolina Case Study. Aquatic Nuisance Species Digest 2(3, February).
Browdy, C.L., A.D. Stokes, and P.A. Sandifer. 1996. Shrimp Farm Management:
Meeting the Challenges. Waddell Mariculture Center, Proceedings of the
International Forum of Shrimp Culture, August 1, 1996.
Brunson, M.W., and H.R. Robinette. 2000. Sunfish Culture. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 913-917. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Bury, D., and J.S. Graves. 2000. Status of Knowledge of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus oxyrinchus}, Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus desotoi), Shortnose
Sturgeon (A. brevirostruni), White Sturgeon (A.transmontanus), and Bester Hybrid
Sturgeon (Huso huso x A. ruthenus) as It Relates to Risks for Their Culture in the
State of Florida. Revised August 2000. In Proceedings of the Florida Sturgeon
Culture Risk Assessment Workshop, April 6-7, 2000, Sarasota, FL.
Cain, K., and D. Garling. 1993. Trout Culture in the North Central Region. North Central
Regional Aquaculture Center. Lansing, MI.
Chapman, F. A. 2000. Ornamental Fish Culture, Freshwater. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 602-610. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Clarke, W.C., R.L. Saunders, and S.D. McCormick. 1996. Smolt Production. In
Principles of Salmonid Culture, ed. W. Pennell and B.A. Burton, pp. 517-567.
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4-100
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Clarke, W.C. 2000. Smolting. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp.
879-884. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Collins, C., and N. Stone. 1999. Arkansas Aquaculture Production 1998. Aquaculture
Magazine 25(4):64-66.
Conte, F.S., S.I. Doroshov, P.B. Lutes, and E.M. Strange. 1988. Hatchery Manual for the
White Sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus Richardson, With Application to Other
North American Acipenseridae. Publication 3322. Cooperative Extension, University
of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Berkeley, C A.
Coulson, R.A., T.D. Coulson, and J.D. Herbert. 1995, December. Some Comments on
Growing Alligators. Supplement to Gator Tales, Louisiana Alligator Farmers and
Ranchers Newsletter.
D'Abramo, L.R., and M.W. Brunson. 1996a, July. Biology and Life History of
Freshwater Prawns. SRAC publication no. 483. Southern Regional Aquaculture
Center, Stoneville, MS.
D'Abramo, L.R., and M.W. Brunson. 1996b, July. Production of Freshwater Prawns in
Ponds. SRAC publication no. 484. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville,
MS.
Davis, J.T. n.d. Crawfish Production. Special project no. 87-EXCA-3-0836. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service and Extension
Service, Washington, DC.
Davis, J.T., and J.T. Lock. 1997, October. Culture ofLargemouth Bass Fingerlings.
SRAC publication no. 201. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
de la Bretonne, L.W., Jr., and R.P. Romaire. 1990a. Crawfish Production: Harvesting,
Marketing, and Economics. SRAC publication no. 240. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
de la Bretonne, L.W., Jr., and R. P. Romaire. 1990b. Crawfish Culture: Site Selection,
Pond Construction and Water Quality. SRAC publication no. 240. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Deniseger, J., and L.J. Erickson. 1998. Salmon Aquaculture in Broughton Archipelago:
the Results of a Sediment Sampling Program — 1996/97, A Data Report. Ministry of
Environment, Lands, and Parks, Pollution Prevention and Pesticides Management,
Environmental Section, Nanaimo, British Columbia.
Dierberg, F.E., and W. Kiattisimkul. 1996. Issues, Impacts, and Implications of Shrimp
Aquaculture in Thailand. Environmental Management 20(5):649-666.
Doroshov, S.I. 2000. The Escape of Cultured Sturgeon and the Interbreeding with Wild
Stock. In Proceedings of the Florida Sturgeon Culture Risk Assessment Workshop.
April 6-7, 2000, Sarasota, FL.
4-101
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Dunning, R., and D. Sloan, n.d. Aquaculture in North Carolina, Rainbow Trout: Inputs,
Outputs, and Economics. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Division of Aquaculture and Natural Resources, Franklin, NC.
Erickson, LJ. 1999. Personal communication with Mike Clipper (USEPA), April 20,
1999.
Eversole, A.G., and W. R. McClain. 2000. Crawfish Culture. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 185-198. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2002. Drugs Approved for Use in Aquaculture
(Poikilothermic Food Species), . Accessed March 2002.
Fish Farming News. 2000. Water Reuse Key to Future of Texas Shrimp Farming. Fish
Farming News (January/February).
Fitzpatrick, M.S, W.M. Contreras-Sanchez, and C.B. Schreck. 2000. Fate of
Methyltestosterone in the Pond Environment: Detection ofMT in Soil After Treatment
with MT Food. Pond Dynamics, Aquaculture CRSP, Corvallis, OR.
Francis-Floyd, R. 2000. Disease History of Cultured Sturgeon in Florida, 1990-1999. In
Proceedings of the Florida Sturgeon Culture Risk Assessment Workshop, April 6-7,
2000, Sarasota, FL.
Friedland, K. 2000. Status of Fisheries Resources off Northeastern United States—
Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons, . Last revised January 2000. Accessed March 2002.
Gatlin, D.M., III. 2001. Guidelines for Nutrition and Feeding of Striped Bass and
Hybrids. . Accessed December 2002.
Government of British Columbia, n.d. Conservation Fish Culture for White Sturgeon.
. Accessed
March 2002.
Grace, G.R., and R.H. Piedrahita. 1994. Carbon Dioxide Control. In Aquaculture Water
Reuse Systems: Engineering Design and Management, ed. M. B. Timmons and T. M.
Losordo, pp. 209-234. Elsevier Science Publishing Company. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Gulf of Maine Aquarium. 2000. All About Lobsters: Lobstering History. Lobster
History—Gulf of Maine Aquarium,
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Hardy, R.W., G.C.G. Fornshell, and E.L. Brannon. 2000. Rainbow Trout Culture. In
Encyclopedia ofAquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 716-722. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., NY.
Harrell, R.M. 1997. Morone Pond Production. In Striped Bass and Other Morone
Culture: Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, ed. R.M. Harell, vol.
30. pp. 75-97. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Harrell, R.M., and D.W. Webster. 1997. An Overview of Morone Culture. In Striped
Bass and Other Morone Culture: Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries
Science, ed. R.M. Harell, vol. 30. pp. 1-10. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Hartman, K.J., and B. Preston. 2001. Stocking, pp 661-686. In Fish Hatchery
Management, 2d ed. G.A. Wedemeyer, ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
MD.
Heidinger, R. 2000. Black Bass/Largemouth Bass Culture. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 108-117. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. NY.
Heykoop, J., and D. Freschette. 1999. A Dynamic Model of the U.S. Alligator Industry:
Lessons for Sustainable Use and Farm Management. In Proceedings from the
American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN,
August 8-11, 1999.
Hinshaw, J.M. 2000. Trout Farming: Carrying Capacity and Inventory Management.
SRAC publication no. 222. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Hochheimer, J.N., and F.W. Wheaton. 1997. Intensive Culture of Striped Bass. In Striped
Bass and Other Morone Culture: Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries
Science, ed. R.M. Harell, vol. 30. pp. 127-168. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Hodgkins, H. 2002. Executive Secretary Maine Lobster Pound Association, Orono, ME.
Personal communication, January 23, 2002.
Holt, G.J. 2000. Ornamental Fish Culture, Marine. In Encyclopedia ofAquaculture, ed.
R.R. Stickney, pp. 610-614. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Hopkins, J.S., R.D. Hamilton, P.A. Sandifer, C.L. Browdy, and A.D. Stokes. 1993. Effect
of Water Exchange Rate on Production, Water Quality, Effluent Characteristics and
Nitrogen Budgets of Intensive Shrimp Ponds. Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society 24(3):304-320.
Hopkins, J.S., A.D. Stokes, C.L. Browdy, and P.A. Sandifer. 1991. The Relationship
Between Feeding Rate, Paddlewheel Aeration Rate and Expected Dawn Dissolved
Oxygen in Intensive Shrimp Ponds. Aquacultural Engineering 10(1991):281-290.
Howell, W.H., and M. K. Litvak. 2000. Winter Flounder Culture. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 998-1005. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
4-103
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality), n.d. Idaho Waste Management
Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
. Accessed
August 2002.
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, n.d. Sea Grant Tip Sheet Series AS-508.
Accessed March 2002.
Imperial Irrigation District. 1998. Aquatic Weed Control.
. Accessed March 2002.
Iversen, E.S., D.M. Allen, and J.B. Higman. 1993. Shrimp Capture and Culture Fisheries
in the United States. Halsted Press, an Imprint of John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Jensen, G. 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC. Personal
communication with Marta Jordan (USEPA), December 12, 2000.
Jensen, J. 1989. Watershed Fish Production Ponds: Site Selection and Construction,
SRAC publication no. 102. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture). 2000a. Effluents from Catfish Aquaculture
Ponds. Prepared by the Technical Subgroup for Catfish Production in Ponds, Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Washington, DC.
JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture). 2000b. Comments submitted to EPA in
response to Industry Profile Draft: Ornamental Fish, Washington, DC.
JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture). 2000c. Comments submitted to EPA in
response to Industry Profile Draft: Molluscan Shellfish, Washington, DC.
Karlsen, L. 1993. Chapter 3: Developments in Salmon Aquaculture Technology.
pp. 59-82. In Salmon Aquaculture. eds. K. Keen, R.L. Monahan, and F. Utter. Halsted
Press, New York, NY.
Kendra, W. 1991. Quality of Salmon Hatchery Effluents During a Summer Low-Flow
Season. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:43-51.
KSU (Kentucky State University). 2002. Shrimp Manual. Kentucky State University
Aquaculture Program. . Accessed May 2002.
Kohler, C.C. 2000a. Striped Bass and Hybrid Striped Bass Culture. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 898-907. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Kohler, C.C. 2000b. A White Paper on the Status and Needs of Tilapia Aquaculture in the
North Central Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Lansing, MI.
Kraeuter, J., B. Dewey, and M. Rice. 2000. Preliminary Response to EPA's Aquaculture
Industry Regulatory Development Data Needs. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
Molluscan Shellfish Aquaculture Technical Subgroup, Washington, DC.
4-104
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
KSUAP (Kentucky State University Aquaculture Program.) n.d. Perca flavescens: Yellow
Perch, . Accessed March 2002.
Lane, T.J., and F.W. King. 1996. Alligator Production in Florida. VM-52. Department of
Large Animal Clinical Services, College of Veterinary Medicine, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Lawson, T. 1995a. Raceway Culture Systems, pp. 176-179. In Fundamentals of
Aquacultural Engineering. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
Lawson, T. 1995b. Water Supply, pp. 48-57. In Fundamentals of Aquacultural
Engineering. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
Lawson, T. 1995c. Oxygen and Aeration, pp. 248-310. In Fundamentals of Aquacultural
Engineering. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
Lobster Institute. 1995, October 18. Lobster Pound. Lobster Pound—University of
Maine, . Accessed January 2002.
Malone, R.F., and L.E. Beecher. 2000. Use of Floating Bead Filters to Recondition
Recirculating Waters in Warmwater Aquaculture Production Systems. Aquacultural
Engineering 22(l-2):33-56.
Manci, B. 2000. Prospects for Yellow Perch Aquaculture. Global Aquaculture Advocate
3(6):62-63.
Masser, M.P. 1993a. Alligator Production: Breeding and Egg Incubation. SRAC
publication no. 231. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
4-105
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Masser, M.P. 1993b. Alligator Production: Growout and Harvest. SRAC publication no.
232. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Masser, M.P. 2000. Alligator Aquaculture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. R.R.
Stickney, pp. 27-33. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
McGee, M.V., and C. E. Boyd. 1983. Evaluation of the Influence of Water Exchange in
Channel Catfish Ponds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:557-560.
Meronek, T.G., F.A. Copes, and D.W. Coble. 1997. The Bait Industry in Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Technical bulletin series
105. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Lansing, MI.
Minis, S.D., W.L. Shelton, F.S. Wynne, and RJ. Onders. 1999, November. Production of
Paddlefish. SRAC publication no. 437. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
Stoneville, MS.
Nash, C., ed. 2001, September. The Net-Pen Salmon Farming Industry in the Pacific
Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFS-49.
Newell, R.I.E., and J.A. Ott. 1999. Macrobenthic Communities and Eutrophication. pp.
265-293. In Ecosystems at the Land-Sea Margin: Drainage Basin to Coastal Sea. eds.
T. Malone, A. Malej, L. Harding, N. Smodlaka, and R. Turner, Coastal and Estuarine
Studies 55, American Geophysical Union.
Novotny, A.J., and W. Pennell. 1996. Rearing Salmonids to Market Size in Marine
Waters. In Principles ofSalmonid Culture, ed. W. Pennell and B.A. Burton, pp. 569-
611. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Papoutsoglou, S.E., and G. Tziha. 1996. Blue Tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) Growth Rate
in Relation to Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Under Recirculating Water
Conditions. Aquacultural Engineering 15. 181-192.
Pardue, J.H., R.D. DeLaune, W.H. Patrick, Jr., and J.A. Nyman. 1994. Treatment of
Alligator Farm Wastewater Using Land Application. Aquacultural Engineering
13:129-145.
Parker, N.C. 1981. An Air-Operated Fish Culture System with Water-Reuse and
Subsurface Silo, pp. 131-137. In Proceedings of the Bioengineering Symposium for
Fish Culture, Vol. 1.
Parker, N.C., and M.A. Suttle. 1987. Design of Airlift Pumps for Water Circulation and
Aeration in Aquaculture. Aquacultural Engineering 6:97-110.
Pennell, W., and W.E. McLean. 1996. Early Rearing. In Principles ofSalmonid Culture,
ed. W. Pennell and B. A. Burton, pp. 365-465. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Pennell, W., E.D. Lane, and F. Dalziel. 2001. Open Systems: The Culture of Fish for
Release into Natural Systems, pp. 187-239. In Fish Hatchery Management, 2d ed.
G.A. Wedemeyer, ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
4-106
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Pepper, V.A., and L.W. Crim. 1996. Broodstock Management. In Principles ofSalmonid
Culture, ed. W. Pennell and B.A. Burton, pp. 231-289. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Piper, R., I. McElwain, L. Orme, J. McCraren, L. Fowler, and J. Leonard. 1982. Fish
Hatchery Management. U.S. Fish Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Plumb, J.A. 1994a. Health Maintenance of Cultured Fishes: Principal Microbial
Diseases, pp. 49-55. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Plumb, J.A. 1994b. Health Maintenance of Cultured Fishes: Principal Microbial
Diseases, pp. 135-160. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Plumb, J.A. 1994c. Health Maintenance of Cultured Fishes: Principal Microbial
Diseases, pp. 177-222. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Plumb, J.A. 1997. Infectious Diseases of Striped Bass. In Striped Bass and Other Morone
Culture: Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, ed. R.M. Harell, vol.
30. pp. 271-313. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Popma, T., and M. Masser. 1999. Tilapia: Life History and Biology. SRAC publication
no. 283. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
PSMFC (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission). 1996. White Sturgeon. (Fact
sheet). Revised December 12, 1996. . Accessed March 2002.
Radonski, G.C., and R.G. Martin. 1986. Fish Culture is a too, not a Panacea, pp. 7-13. In
Fish Culture in Fisheries Management. R.H. Stroud, ed. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
Rakocy, J.E. 1989. Tank Culture of Tilapia. SRAC publication no. 282. Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Rakocy, J.E., and A.S McGinty. 1989. Cage Culture of Tilapia. SRAC publication no.
281. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Reinemann, D.J., and M.B. Timmons. 1989. Prediction of Oxygen Transfer and Total
Dissolved Gas Pressure in Airlift Pumping. Aquaculture Engineering 8:29-46.
Revkin, A.C. 1999, June 24. Making Up Their Beds and Hoping the Oysters Will Move
In. New York Times.
Rice, M.A., A. Valliere, M. Gibson, and A. Ganz. 1999. Eutrophication Control by
Bivalves: Population Filtration, Sedimentation and Nutrient Removal Through
Secondary Production. (Abstract). Journal of Shellfish Research 18:333.
Roberts, R.J., and R.W. Hardy. 2000. Salmon Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture,
ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 773-778. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
4-107
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Rodhouse, P.O., and C.M. Roden. 1987. Carbon Budget for Coastal Inlet in Relation to
Intensive Cultivation of Suspension-Feeding Bivalve Molluscs. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 36:225-236.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1998. Final Report: Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology and/or Best Available Technology to
Support Economically Achievable Effluent Limitations for Shrimp Farm Operations.
Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Science Applications
International Corporation, San Diego, CA.
Sastry B.N., A.A. Delos Reyes, Jr., K.A. Rusch, and R.F. Malone. 1999. Nitrification
Performance of a Bubble-Washed Bead Filter for Combined Solids Removal and
Biological Filtration in a Recirculating Aquaculture System. Aquacultural
Engineering 19:105-117.
Schaeffer, D.O. 1990. Preventing Bacteria Disease Problems in Farm Raised Alligators.
Gator Tales l(l):5-6. (Louisiana Alligator Farmers and Ranchers newsletter).
Schramm, H.L., Jr., and R.G. Piper, eds. 1995. Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in
Aquatic Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15, Bethesda, MD.
Schwartz, M.F., and C.E. Boyd. 1994a. Effluent Quality During Harvest of Channel
Catfish from Watershed Ponds. Progressive-Fish Culturist 56:25-32.
Schwartz, M.F., and C.E. Boyd. 1994b. Channel Catfish Pond Effluents. Progressive
Fish-Culturist 56:273-281.
Seok, K., S. Leonard, C.E. Boyd, and M.F. Schwartz. 1995. Water Quality in Annually
Drained and Undrained Channel Catfish Ponds over a Three-Year Period.
Progressive Fish-Culturist 57:52-58.
Smith, B.W., and W.C. Reeves. 1986. Stocking Warmwater Species to Restore and
Enhance Fisheries, pp 17-29. In Fish Culture in Fisheries Management. R.H. Stroud,
ed. American Fisheries, Bethesda, MD.
SRAC (Southern Regional Aquaculture Center). 1998. Improving Feeds for Hybrid
Striped Bass. SRAC publication no. 304. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
Stoneville, MS.
Stickney, R.R. 2000a. Carp Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney,
pp. 147-153. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Stickney, R.R. 2000b. History of Aquaculture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture. ed. R.R.
Stickney, pp. 436-446. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Stickney, R.R. 2000c. Tilapia Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed., R.R.
Stickney, pp. 934-941. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Stickney, R.R. 2000d. Cage Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed., R.R. Stickney,
pp. 139-141. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
4-108
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Stone, N. 2000. Baitfish Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp.
97-104. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Stone, N., and E. Park. 2001. University of Arkansas and Arkansas Baitfish Association.
Personal communication, August, 1, 2001.
Stone, N., H. Thomforde, and E. Park. n.d. Baitfish Production in Ponds. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the Technical Subgroup of the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluent Task Force, Washington, DC.
Stone, N., E. Park, L. Dorman, and H. Thomforde. 1997. Baitfish Culture in Arkansas:
Golden Shiners, Goldfish, and Fathead Minnows. MP 386. Cooperative Extension
Program, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
Stoskopf, M.K. 1993. Fish Medicine. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA.
Sullivan, C.V., D.L. Berlinsky, and R.G. Hodson. 1997. Reproduction. In Striped Bass
and Other Morone Culture: Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, ed.
R.M. Harell, vol. 30. pp. 11-73. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Summerfelt, R.C. 2000. Walleye culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. R.R.
Stickney, pp. 970-985. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Summerfelt, R.C., ed. 1996. Walleye Culture Manual, NCARC Culture Series 101. North
Central Regional Aquaculture Center Publications Office, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA.
Teichert-Coddington, D.R., D.B. Rouse, A. Potts, and C.E. Boyd. 1999. Treatment of
Harvest Discharge from Intensive Shrimp Ponds by Settling. Aquacultural
Engineering 19:147-161.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2001. Technical Memorandum: Summary of Molluscan Shellfish
Conference Call and Follow-Up. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002a, August. Site visit report for Cantrell Creek Trout Farm, Brevard,
NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b, August. Site visit report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Box
Canyon Facility, Buhl, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002c, August. Site visit report for Lake Wheeler Road Agricultural
Facility, Raleigh, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002d, August. Site visit report for Aubrey Onley Aquaculture, Hertford,
NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002e, August. Site visit report for DB Rice Fisheries, Birch Harbor,
ME.
Tidwell, J.H., S.D. Coyle, and T.A. Woods. 2000. Species Profile: Largemouth Bass.
SRAC publication no. 722. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
4-109
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Tomasso, J.R. 2002. Global Aquaculture Production with an Emphasis on the United
States. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso, pp.
1-7. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton
Rouge, LA.
Treece, G. 2000. Shrimp Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp.
798-868. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Tucker, C.S. 1996. The Ecology of Channel Catfish Ponds in Northwest Mississippi.
Reviews in Fisheries Science 49(1): 1-55.
Tucker, C.S., ed. 1998. Characterization and Management of Effluents from Aquaculture
Ponds in the Southern United States. SRAC final report no. 600. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Tucker, C.S. 2000. Channel Catfish Culture. In the Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed.
R.R. Stickney, pp. 153-170. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Tucker, C.S., and J.A. Hargreaves. 1998. Effluents from Channel Catfish Aquaculture
Ponds. Thad Cochran National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Mississippi State
University, Stoneville, MS.
Tucker, C.S., S.W. Kingsbury, J.W. Pote, and C.W. Wax. 1996. Effects of Water
Management Practices on Discharge of Nutrients and Organic Matter from Channel
Catfish Ponds. Aquaculture 147:57-69.
Tucker, C.S., and E.H. Robinson. 1990. Channel Catfish Farming Handbook. Van
Nostrand, Reinhold, NY.
Tucker, C.S., and M. van der Ploeg. 1993. Seasonal Changes in Water Quality in
Commercial Channel Catfish Ponds in Mississippi. Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society 24(4): 473-481.
Tucker, C.S., C.E. Boyd, and J.A. Hargreaves. 2002. Characterization and Management
of Effluents from Warmwater Aquaculture Ponds. In Aquaculture and the
Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 35-76. U.S. Aquaculture
Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1995. Overview of Aquaculture in the United
States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Information
Services, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1997. Catfish NAHMS '97, Part II: Reference
of 1996 U.S. Catfish Management Practices. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal
Health, USDA/APHIS, Fort Collins, CO.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. The 1998 Census of Aquaculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2001. Aquaculture Outlook. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.
4-110
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002, February 7. Catfish Production. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit no. ME0036234, issued to Acadia Aquaculture, Inc.
Signed February 21,2002.
Wallat, G., and L. Tiu. 1999. Production and Feed Training of Yellow Perch Fingerlings.
The Ohio State University, Centers at Piketon, Piketon, OH.
Watson, C.A. 2002. University of Florida. Personal communication, February 2, 2002.
Watson, C.A., and J.V. Shireman. n.d. Production of Ornamental Aquarium Fish. Fact
Sheet FA-35. University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, Gainesville, FL.
WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries). 1990. Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement, Fish Culture in Floating Net-Pens. Washington Department of
Fisheries, Olympia, WA.
Weber, M.L. 1997. Farming Salmon: Briefing Book. The Consultative Group on
Biological Diversity, San Francisco, CA.
Wellborn, T., and M. Brunson. 1997. Construction of Levee-type Ponds for Fish
Production, SRAC publication no. 101. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
Stoneville, MS.
Westat. 2002. AAP Screener Survey Production Range Report, Revision IV. Westat, Inc.,
Rockville, MD.
Westers, H. 2001. Production. In Fishery Hatchery Management, 2d ed., ed. G.A.
Wedemeyer, pp. 31-90. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Weston, D. 1986, August. The Environmental Effects of Floating Mariculture in Puget
Sound. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Fisheries and the
Washington State Department of Ecology, Seattle, WA.
Weston, D. 1992. Status of Waste Management Practices in Marine Net-Pen Systems in
Washington State. In National Livestock, Poultry, and Aquaculture Waste
Management, ed. J. Blake, J. Donald, and W. Magette, pp. 211-214. publication no.
03-92. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Wikfors, G.H. 1999. Personal communication to Tim Motte, Coastal Resources
Management Council. Cited in JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture), Comments
Submitted to EPA in Response to Draft Industry Profile: Molluscan Shellfish.
Winton, J.R. 2001. Fish Health Management. In Fish Hatchery Management, 2d ed., ed.
G. Wedemeyer. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Zimmerman, T. 1998. How to Revive the Chesapeake Bay: Filter it with Billions and
Billions of Oysters. U.S. News & World Report, December 29, 1997- January 5,
1998.
4-111
-------
CHAPTER 5
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION FOR EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA, when developing effluent limitations
guidelines, to consider a number of different factors. For example, when developing
limitations that represent the best available technology economically achievable (BAT)
for a particular industry category, EPA must consider, among other factors, the age of the
equipment and facilities in the category, location, manufacturing processes employed,
types of treatment technology to reduce effluent discharges, cost of effluent reductions,
and non-water quality environmental impacts (Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account other factors
that the EPA Administrator deems appropriate and requires the BAT model technology
chosen by EPA to be economically achievable, which generally involves considering
both compliance costs and the overall financial condition of the industry. EPA used the
best available data to take these factors into account in considering whether to establish
subcategories. The Agency found that dividing the industry into subcategories leads to
better-tailored regulatory standards, thereby increasing regulatory predictability and
diminishing the need to address variations among facilities through a variance process.
(See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978) for more detail.)
5.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS
EPA used published literature, site visit data, industry screener survey data, and EPA
sampling data for the subcategorization analysis. Various subcategorization criteria were
analyzed for trends in discharge flow rates, pollutant concentrations, and treatability to
determine where subcategorization (segmentation) was warranted. EPA analyzed several
factors to determine whether subcategorizing an industrial category and considering
different technology options for those subcategories would be appropriate. For this
analysis, EPA evaluated the characteristics of the industrial category to determine their
potential to provide the Agency with a means to differentiate effluent quantity and quality
among facilities. EPA also evaluated the design, process, and operational characteristics
of the different industry segments to determine technology control options that might be
applied to reduce effluent quantity and improve effluent quality. The factors associated
with the aquatic animal production (AAP) industry that EPA assessed for the
concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) point source category are as follows:
• Species system type
• Facility age
• Facility location
5-7
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
• Facility size
• Feed type and feeding rate
• Non-water quality environmental impacts
• Disproportionate economic impacts
EPA found the AAP industry is very diverse and that there are many unique aspects,
depending on a combination of the facility characteristics listed above. Although most of
the individual facilities in the AAP industry tend to have unique design and operational
characteristics, EPA found that one factor, system type, captures the dominant differences
between significant groups of AAP facilities. The following sections show the basis for
EPA's current decisions relating to subcategorization.
5.1.1 System Type
There are six groups of AAP systems: ponds, flow-through systems, recirculating
systems, net pens, bottom and off-bottom shellfish culture, and other systems.
5.1.1.1 Pond Systems
Ponds are the most popular systems used to produce aquatic animals in the United States,
with more than 2,800 commercial pond facilities (USDA, 2000) and numerous
noncommercial ponds. Catfish, hybrid striped bass, shrimp, sport and game fish,
ornamentals, and baitfish are all grown in pond systems. Pond systems use relatively
large volumes of static water to grow aquatic animals. Most ponds used for producing
aquatic animals range in size from less than 1 ac to more than 10 ac and typically have
average depths of 3.5 to 6 ft. Once full of water, the ponds remain static in terms of water
movement until rainfall events, operators add water, or the ponds are drained for harvest
or maintenance. Water might be added intentionally to make up for seepage or
evaporative losses and to exchange water to maintain process water quality. Pond
draining frequencies range from annually to every 10 years (or more). Ponds rely on
natural processes to maintain water quality, using supplemental aeration (when
necessary) and limiting the stocking density of the crop.
Most pond systems used for AAP are constructed to operate and function in the same
general manner. Control of water entering the pond is the primary characteristic that
distinguishes one type of pond system from another. Further subdividing pond systems
into levee, watershed, and depression ponds accounts for most of these differences. Levee
ponds are constructed by creating a dam or berm completely around an area of land. Soil
is taken from the area to be enclosed to create the berms. Levee ponds are constructed
above grade to give the operator almost complete control of water in the pond. Only
rainwater falling directly onto the surface of the pond and the interior walls of the berms
enters the pond without operator intervention. Pumping, or otherwise conveying, water
from a surface water or groundwater source adds water to the pond.
Watershed ponds are constructed by creating a dam across a low-lying area of land to
capture runoff during rainfall events. The pond can be shaped and a flat, sloping bottom
created to make the watershed pond easy to manage for producing aquatic animals.
Sizing the watershed to capture the right amount of water is a critical design feature of
properly constructed watershed ponds. A general rule of thumb is about 10 ac of
5-2
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
watershed for each 1 ac of pond. The key consideration is to capture enough rainfall and
runoff to keep the pond full. Oversized contributing watersheds tend to add too much
water to the pond and create excessive overflows, which are difficult to manage. Some
watershed ponds are filled or topped off with well water in addition to the natural runoff.
Depression ponds are built similarly to levee ponds but are almost completely below
grade. They are typically constructed in sandy soils to allow high groundwater tables to
contribute water to the pond. To drain depression ponds, they must be pumped. Water
levels are often difficult to control in depression ponds, so they are mostly constructed in
areas of good-quality groundwater that is consistently near the surface.
Two sources of water are discharged from ponds—overflows during or following rainfall
events and water from intentional draining for harvest or renovation. Many ponds are
managed to capture as much rainfall (and runoff in the case of watershed ponds) as
possible to minimize the need for pumping water to maintain water levels. Overflows
sometimes occur. Because levee ponds are built above grade, the only source of overflow
during storms is the rain actually falling onto the surface of the pond and interior berms.
This contrasts to watershed ponds, where larger areas can contribute to the volume of
storm water entering and possibly overflowing from ponds. These overflows are
intermittent, depending on the frequency and intensity of storms and the capacity of the
pond for storing additional water. Many watershed ponds serve as a sink for pollutants
(primarily sediment) entering the ponds in the runoff water. The overflows typically
contain dilute concentrations of pollutants.
Discharges from ponds also occur when the ponds are drained as part of the management
strategy for the operation. Two predominant drainage strategies have been found among
pond facilities—annual (or more frequent) draining and less frequent-than-annual
draining. Annual draining is common among many parts of the AAP industry, including
fingerling production for most species and production of shrimp, baitfish, hybrid striped
bass, and many other species of foodfish and sport fish. Some of these discharges might
drain into adjacent ponds for storage and reuse. Less frequent-than-annual draining is
used by segments of the industry that can selectively harvest and restock with smaller fish
or can almost completely harvest and then kill any remaining fish before restocking. The
desire is to minimize water usage and pumping costs. Both drainage strategies result in
large, mostly dilute volumes of water being discharged over several days. Because water
remains in the ponds for long periods of time, some natural processing of the wastes in
the ponds occurs.
5.1.1.2 Flow-through Systems
Flow-through systems consist of raceways, ponds, or tanks that have constant flows of
water through them. Flow-through systems are the second most popular production
system in the United States, with more than 600 commercial and several hundred
noncommercial facilities (USDA, 2000). Trout, salmon, and hybrid striped bass are
examples of fish grown in flow-through systems. Flow-through systems are most
commonly long, rectangular concrete raceways, but they also include tanks of various
shapes made from fiberglass, concrete, or metal. Some flow-through systems use earthen
ponds to culture aquatic animals.
5-3
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
In general, flow-through systems rely on flushing to maintain water quality, and the
predominant management practices to maintain water quality are aeration, settling of
solids in quiescent zones or in sumps, and maintenance of manageable stocking densities.
Discharges from flow-through systems tend to be large in volume and continuous. When
solids in tanks or raceways are collected and removed, these waste streams are usually
higher in pollutant concentrations, including solids, nutrients, and biochemical oxygen
demand than the water normally leaving the tank or raceway.
5.1.1.3 Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems use a variety of processes to maintain production water quality and
minimize water usage, including aeration, solids removal, biological filtration, and
disinfection. Recirculating systems are gaining popularity in the United States as system
design and management become better understood. Any species can be grown in a
recirculating system, but tilapia and hybrid striped bass are the predominant species. The
primary sources of wastewater are solids removal equipment and overflow. Overflow
water is generated when water is regularly added to the recirculating system. Solids are
captured from the production water and discharged in a waste stream that is relatively
low in volume and high in pollutant concentrations. The solids generated from flow-
through and recirculating systems are similar in quality.
5.1.1.4 Net Pens
A floating structure of nets can be used to contain fish in large water bodies, such as
lakes, reservoirs, coastal waters, and the open ocean. The most significant net pen
operations are salmon net pens located in the northeast and northwest coastal areas of the
United States. Salmon are grown for foodfish and as a source of smolts for ocean
ranching using net pens. Water quality is maintained in net pens by the flushing action of
tides and currents. Feed is added in these operations.
5.1.1.5 Floating and Bottom Culture
Floating and bottom culture are used to grow molluscan shellfish in various coastal water
environments. As in net pen culture, the flushing action of tides and currents helps to
maintain water quality. Unlike fish produced in net pens, molluscan shellfish use
naturally occurring food, the availability of which is also a function of the tides and
currents. No feed is added to molluscan shellfish cultures in natural waters.
5.1.1.6 Other Facility Types
Other aquatic animal production facilities encompass those facilities that do not fit well
into the other categories. Alligator farming is a good example. Alligator farming typically
uses a batch cycling of water through the facilities. The water in cement-lined basins,
located in huts, is replaced every few days. Water is held for as long as possible (to
minimize energy needed to maintain the correct temperature) and then discharged.
Alligator farms therefore produce intermittent flows of concentrated effluents. Another
production type that does not fit well into the other system type descriptions is the
crawfish pond. Although somewhat similar in appearance to other pond systems,
crawfish ponds are shallow (typically less than 18 in. of water) and also managed for the
forage crop that provides food for the growing crawfish. Water levels in crawfish ponds
are managed by annual draining to promote reproduction in the pond.
5-4
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
5.1.1.7 Summary
The characteristics that distinguish CAAP systems from each other are the relative
amount of water used to produce a unit of product, the draining frequency, the general
design of the facility, and the processes used to treat production water. Table 5.1-1 shows
the relative amount of water used, the draining frequencies, and the processes used to
treat water for some of the system types. Each of the above system types has similar
water use and management strategies, which produce wastewater flow rates and quality
that are similar. Ponds produce infrequent discharges of overflow and drained water.
Table 5.1-1. Comparison of Water Use, Frequency of Discharge,
and Process for Maintaining Water Quality for CAAP Systems
System
Ponds
Flow- through
Coldwater species
Warmwater species
Recirculating
Coldwater species
Warmwater species
Net pen
Water Use
(Ib/yr Production
per gal/min)"
2,453
8.3-81.0
16
1.335
32,543
N/A
Draining
Frequency
Infrequent
Continuous
Continuous
N/A
Water Quality Maintenance in
System
Aeration, water exchange,
natural physical, chemical, and
biological processes
Aeration, water exchange
Clarifiers, biological filters,
aerators
Water exchange
"Adapted from Chen et al., 2002,
The quality of overflow water from ponds is typically equivalent to the quality in the
pond, which must be sufficient for animal production. Drained water is similar to
overflow water in quality but may contain elevated levels of solids and other pollutants at
the beginning or end of the draining process. Flow-through systems produce a constant,
high-volume quantity and nearly consistent quality effluent that is relatively low in
pollutant concentrations. Changes in flow-through system effluent quality reflect changes
in biomass and cleaning activities. Recirculating systems produce a small volume of
effluent mostly made up of solids removed by process equipment in the system. Net pens
and shellfish culture discharge directly into the waters where they reside. Aquatic animals
grown in net pens are fed by operators. Shellfish rely on natural food in the water and are
not fed any additional food. Alligator systems are managed to discharge once every few
days to keep the systems clean. The effluent is small in volume with relatively high levels
of pollutants such as solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and nutrients. Crawfish
effluents are infrequent when ponds are drained.
5.1.2 Species
EPA evaluated species as possible subcategories. The Agency's analyses indicated that
species is not a significant factor in determining differences in production system effluent
characteristics. For example, Hargreaves, et al., (2002) noted, "The ecological processes
5-5
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
that affect effluent volume and quality are the same in all warmwater aquaculture ponds,
whether they are used to grow baitfish in Arkansas or hybrid striped bass in North
Carolina." EPA found similar results for other species. The management practices for a
particular species dictate stocking densities, feed types, feeding rates and frequencies, and
the overall management strategy. Species, however, does not appear to be a major
determinant in the quality or quantity of effluent from a production system.
5.1.3 Facility Age
Facility age does not appear to be a significant factor in the quality or quantity of
effluents from AAP facilities of the same system type. EPA noted a range of facility ages
during site visits. Important factors associated with facility age include the following:
• Newer facilities might be designed with equipment that enhances the production
capabilities or ease of operation.
• Some older facilities might not have sufficient area for the installation of
treatment technologies.
• Some older facilities might not be conducive to retrofits of technologies; for
example, quiescent zones in raceways.
5.1.4 Facility Location
EPA did not find geographic location to be a significant factor in the determination of
effluent quality. EPA was not able to find any geographic operational differences that
occur in the CAAP industry to indicate significant differences in the quality of
discharges.
5.1.5 Facility Size
EPA found facility size enables some operational economies of scale, but the Agency
does not expect size to have a significant influence on effluent quality. EPA does expect
that facility size will have a significant impact on the quantity of effluent. EPA evaluated
facility size as a part of the economic analyses and found size to be an important
determinant in the affordability of treatment options (see USEPA, 2002 for more
information).
5.1.6 Feed Type and Feeding Rate
EPA found feed type and feeding rate to be important characteristics of CAAP facilities
that identify differences in effluent quality. The following factors were evaluated:
• No food is added, as in the case of molluscan shellfish culture. Naturally
occurring and created foods are the source of food for these species. Natural foods
are produced by stimulating production with nutrients (fertilizers) and are used for
larval diets for many species (e.g., catfish, hybrid striped bass, perch, and most
sport fish) and as the primary diet for species like baitfish. The use of natural diets
is primarily limited to pond systems, but natural diets are also used in some flow-
through and recirculating systems.
• Prepared diets are used for the production of most species in CAAP facilities.
These diets vary in the ingredients and relative proportions of fat, protein, and
5-6
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
carbohydrates. The formulation of a diet can significantly influence the
digestibility and uptake for a particular species.
• Feeding rates are a function of species, stocking density, temperature, and water
quality.
Management objectives are a significant factor in feeding strategies. For example, game
fish, grown for stocking enhancement in natural waters, are cultured with different
management objectives than foodfish of the same species.
5.1.7 Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
EPA evaluated the effects of various non-water quality environmental impacts (see
Chapter 11 of this document), including the following:
• Energy use
• Solid waste generation and disposal
• Air emissions
5.1.8 Disproportionate Economic Impacts
The economic analysis evaluated the potential for disproportionate economic impacts of
the rulemaking on various segments of the industry (USEPA, 2002).
5.1.9 Summary of Initial Factor Analysis
EPA did not find that equipment and facility age and facility location significantly affect
wastewater generation or wastewater characteristics; therefore, age and location were not
used as a basis for subcategorization. An analysis of non-water quality environmental
characteristics (e.g., solid waste and air emission effects) showed that these
characteristics also did not constitute a basis for subcategorization.
Facility size (production rates) directly affects the effluent quality, particularly the
quantity of pollutants in the effluent, and size was used as a basis for subcategorization
because more stringent limitations would not be cost- effective for smaller aquatic animal
production facilities. EPA also identified types of production systems (e.g., flow-through,
recirculating, or net pen) as a determinative factor for subcategorization due to variations
in quantity and quality of effluents and estimated pollutant loadings. Based on the results
of an initial evaluation, EPA determined that using the production system and facility size
most appropriately subcategorizes the CAAP industry.
5.2 PROPOSED CATEGORIES
In the proposed rule, EPA proposes limitations and conditions for three subcategories.
Specifically, EPA proposes new limitations and standards for facilities in the following
CAAP subcategories: medium and large flow-through systems, recirculating systems, and
net pens. This proposal would not revise the existing definition of a CAAP as described
in Chapters 1 and 2. EPA chose to further segment the subcategories with different
limitations by facility size (the amount of aquatic animals they produce) because of
economic impact considerations (USEPA, 2002).
5-7
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
Minimum facility sizes used in subcategorization are based either on the current NPDES
definition of a C AAP or at a higher level of production based on economic impacts. The
NPDES definition sets the frequency of discharge at 30 d and a minimum production
level of 20,000 Ib/yr for coldwater species (e.g., trout and salmon) and 100,000 Ib/yr for
warmwater species (e.g., catfish, hybrid striped bass, and shrimp). Facilities are grouped
into production size ranges, based on the size ranges developed by USDA for the 1998
Aquaculture Census. The sizes are estimated from production levels, typically in pounds,
and used average prices reported in the 1998 Aquaculture Census (USDA, 2000) to
convert production to dollar levels. The production size categories used for analysis are
National 3 ($50,000 to $99,999); National 4 ($100,000 to $499,999); National 5
($500,000 to $999,999); and National 6 (more than $1,000,000) (Hochheimer, 2002).
The following is a more detailed description of each subcategory based on its production
processes and wastewater characteristics.
5.2.1 Flow-through Systems
EPA proposes the medium flow-through system facility subcategorization scheme to
require all facilities that produce 100,000 Ib/yr or more, but less than 475,000 Ib/yr, of
aquatic animals to be regulated by the same production-based effluent limitations
guidelines. EPA proposes the large flow-through system facility subcategorization
scheme to require all facilities that produce 475,000 Ib/yr or more of aquatic animals to
be regulated by the same production-based effluent limitations guidelines.
5.2.2 Recirculating Systems
EPA proposes the recirculating system subcategorization scheme to require all facilities
that produce more than 100,000 Ib/yr of aquatic animals to be regulated by the same
production-based effluent limitations guidelines.
5.2.3 Net Pen Systems
EPA proposes the net pen system subcategorization scheme to require all facilities that
produce more than 100,000 Ib/yr of aquatic animals to be regulated by the same
production-based effluent limitations guidelines.
5.3 REFERENCES
Chen, S., S. Summerfelt, T. Losordo, and R. Malone. 2002. Recirculating Systems,
Effluents, and Treatments. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States,
ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 119-140. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Hargreaves, J.A., C.E. Boyd, and C.S. Tucker. 2002. Water Budgets for Aquaculture
Production. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso,
pp. 9-34. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society,
Baton Rouge, LA.
Hochheimer, J. 2002. Technical Memorandum: Production Categories from NASS Data.
Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
5-8
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. The 1998 Census ofAquaculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Economic and Environmental
Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-
R-02-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
5-9
-------
CHAPTER 6
WATER USE, WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION, AND
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
6.1 WATER USE BY SYSTEM TYPE
The quantity of water required for aquatic animal production (AAP) depends on the type
of production system and the facility's management practices. For AAP facilities, water
is required to replace evaporative and seepage losses, to replenish oxygen, and to flush
wastes from the system. Most AAP facilities are constructed to allow the operators at
least some control over the water supply to the production units. There are a wide array
of production systems, many unique in their layout and design. The unique characteristics
of an individual system often take advantage of site-specific water supply characteristics.
The following subsections describe typical water use by production system type.
6.1.1 Pond Systems
The type of water supply for a pond system is primarily a function of the type of pond.
Levee ponds are built with berms above grade to exclude surface water and allow the
operator almost complete control of the water that enters the pond. Rainwater falling
directly onto the surface of the pond and interior slopes of the berms is the only
uncontrolled input of water to levee ponds; all other water is pumped or piped into the
ponds.
Watershed ponds are constructed to capture water from a contributing watershed during
storm events. Ideally, watershed ponds are constructed so that the contributing watershed
provides good-quality water (free of sediment and other pollutants) and sufficient
quantities of water to maintain adequate volumes throughout the year. The pond operator
does not usually have much control over the runoff into the pond. Water is sometimes
pumped or piped into watershed ponds to maintain pond volumes.
Depression ponds are constructed below grade, and most take advantage of groundwater
seepage to maintain water levels in the pond. Depression ponds capture direct rainfall and
some runoff, depending on the topography of the surrounding landscape. Water is
sometimes pumped or piped into depression ponds to maintain pond volumes.
For many ponds the water supply is one or more wells located on-site at a facility. Some
facilities rely on pumped or free-flowing water from surface water bodies such as lakes,
streams, or coastal waters. Those relying on surface waters, however, must be careful not
to introduce undesirable species or organisms into the culture ponds. To prevent this,
water might need to be screened or filtered as it is pumped into the pond. Rainwater
falling directly on the pond is also captured and can be a source for maintaining water
6-1
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
levels, but most commercial aquaculture ponds cannot be filled with rainfall alone
because rainfall events are sporadic.
Pond systems initially require a large supply of water to fill the ponds and then smaller
amounts of water to regulate the water levels and compensate for seepage and
evaporation. For example, a 10-ac pond with an average depth of 4 ft holds about 13
million gal of water. Adding 3 in. of water to compensate for evaporation requires about
815,000 gal of water in a 10-ac pond. Generally, ponds are drained infrequently;
therefore, after initially filling the ponds, operators typically do not use large volumes of
additional water. For those systems that rely on well water, water conservation and
rainwater capture are important management tools to minimize pumping costs.
Pond system sizes vary depending on the species and lifestage (fingerlings versus food-
size) raised and among facilities producing the same species. Typical pond sizes for
catfish production vary from 7 to 15 ac of surface area and from 3 to 5 ft in depth
(Hargreaves et al., 2002). Striped bass are cultured in ponds with an average size of 2 to 4
ac as fingerlings and then moved to growout ponds with 5 to 10 ac of surface area and a
maximum depth of 6 ft (Hodson and Jarvis, 1990). Crawfish production ponds typically
range in size from 10 to 20 ac (LSU, 1999).
Water use in pond systems varies based on the size and draining frequency of the pond.
For example, a 10-ac catfish pond with a depth of 4 ft would contain about 13 million gal
of water, but the water would be used for an average of 6 yr before being discharged
(Boyd et al., 2000). Striped bass, shrimp, and crawfish production ponds are drained
annually. Crawfish ponds usually are managed to contain about 8 to 10 in. of water, but
water is exchanged throughout the harvest season (LSU, 1999). Water exchange can
increase the water use in crawfish ponds to 651,800 gal/ac/yr (Lutz, 2001).
6.1.2 Flow-through Systems
Flow-through systems rely on a steady water supply to provide a continuous flow of
water for production. The water is used to provide dissolved oxygen and to flush wastes
from the system, which produces a high volume of continuous discharge. Most flow-
through systems use well, spring, or stream water as a source of production water. These
sources are chosen to provide a constant flow with relatively little variation in rate,
temperature, or quality.
Sources of culture water for AAP facilities include groundwater, springs, surface water,
rainwater, municipal water, and seawater (Lawson, 1995). Many of these water sources
require either the filtration or purification of before use (Wheaton, 1977a). Common
problems with source water include insufficient dissolved oxygen, heavy solids loads,
and biological contaminates such as predator fish and insects.
Source water treatment systems are designed specifically to treat specific contaminates or
problems with the source water before it is added to the culture system. Source water
problems are usually specific to the water source. Groundwater lacks oxygen, but is
usually free of other pollutants and therefore must only be aerated before use. Surface
waters may contain one or more of a variety of contaminates including solids loads, wild
fish, parasites, waterborne predators, and disease organisms. Surface waters are often
6-2
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
filtered with fine mesh screens to remove these contaminates before use (Wheaton,
1977a).
Flow-through systems require high volumes of water. Water requirements for single-pass
raceways can be as high as 30,000 to 42,000 gal/lb production; however, this requirement
can be reduced to 6,600 gal/lb production using serial raceways (Hargreaves et al., 2002).
Facilities with flow-through systems are found throughout the United States, wherever
consistent quantity and quality of water are available. Flow-through systems are the
primary method used to grow salmonid species such as rainbow trout. These species
require high-quality cold water with high levels of dissolved oxygen. Flow-though
systems are therefore located where water is abundant, allowing farmers to efficiently
produce these types of fish.
6.1.3 Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems do not require large volumes of water because the culture water is
continuously filtered and reused before it is discharged. System water volumes include
the volume of the production units, filters, and reservoirs. The production water treatment
process is designed to minimize water requirements, which leads to small-volume,
concentrated waste streams as well as makeup water overflow. Waste streams from
recirculating systems are typically a small but continuous flowing effluent. (Refer to
Chapter 4, section 4.2.3 for more information about internal treatment processes used in
recirculating systems.) Facility operators typically rely on a supply of pumped
groundwater from on-site wells or municipal water supplies. Most systems add makeup
water (about 5% to 10% of the system volume each day) to dilute the production water
and to account for evaporation, solids removal, and other losses. A recirculating
production system operating at 10% added makeup water per day, would complete one
water exchange every 10 d; a flow-through production system, on the other hand, might
complete more than 100 volume exchanges per day (Orellana, 1992).
6.1.4 Net Pen Systems
Net pen systems rely on the water quality of the site at which the net pens are located.
Open systems like net pen facilities can implement fewer practices than closed or semi-
closed systems to control water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, and
dissolved oxygen. Net pens and cages rely on tides and currents to provide a continual
supply of high-quality water to the cultured animals and to flush wastes out of the system.
The systems may be located along a shore or pier or may be anchored and floating
offshore or in an embayment. Strict siting requirements typically restrict the number of
units at a given site to ensure sufficient flushing to distribute wastes and prevent
degradation of the bottom near the net pens.
6.1.5 Other Production Systems: Alligators
Alligator production systems use water primarily to provide resting pools and to clean the
holding areas where alligators are kept. The amount of water used varies greatly between
facilities depending on the cleaning frequency, pool depth, and water recirculating
practices practiced at the facility. Water use estimates for the alligator industry varied
between 0.5 gal and 2 gal per alligator per day (Pardue et al., 1994; Shirley, 2002,
personal communication).
6-3
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.2 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
CAAP facilities produce a variety of pollutants that may be harmful to the aquatic
environment when discharged in significant quantities. The most significant of these
pollutants are nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), total suspended solids (TSS), and
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Each of these pollutants causes a variety of impacts
on water quality or ecology in different bodies of water. Each type of production system
produces different quantities and qualities of effluents, which are determined by the
following:
• Amount and type of feed used for production
• Volume and frequency of discharge
• In-system treatment processes (including natural processes)
• Other inputs to the process water (such as drugs or chemicals).
The following subsections describe some of the production system wastewater
characteristics.
6.2.1 Pond Systems
Characteristics of effluent from pond systems are influenced by the culture practices used
to raise different species and the type of pond used. The composition of pond effluents
during water exchange, overflow after heavy rains, and initial stages of pond draining is
similar to that of pond water (Boyd and Tucker, 1998). Pond systems are unique because
they are capable of assimilating wastes within the pond. Over time, natural processes
within the pond lower the concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic material.
If water is retained in catfish ponds over a long enough period of time, biological,
chemical, and physical processes remove some of the waste generated by fish. Some of
the organic matter from phytoplankton production and fish waste is oxidized in the
natural process of microbial decomposition (JSA, 2000). Total nitrogen levels in catfish
pond waters are lowered as nitrogen is lost from the water column as organic matter
when nitrogen particulates decompose on the bottom of the pond. Nitrogen is also lost
from the water as a gas through denitrification and volatilization. Finally, total
phosphorus concentrations in the water are lowered as phosphorus is lost to the pond
bottom soils as particulate organic phosphorus and precipitates of calcium phosphates.
6.2.1.1 Catfish
In catfish aquaculture ponds, the most important constituents of potential effluents are
nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, and settleable solids (JSA, 2000). These materials
are a direct or indirect product of feeds added to the ponds to promote rapid fish growth.
Inorganic nutrients in fish waste stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which, in turn,
stimulate the production of more organic matter through photosynthesis. For both
watershed and levee ponds, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds and organic matter are
present in the pond water throughout the growout period, and they represent potential
pollutants if discharged.
6-4
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Table 6.2-1 shows effluent loadings for TSS, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) from channel catfish ponds in Alabama.
These data illustrate the influence of draining frequency on annualized effluent loadings.
For example, TSS loads from levee foodfish production ponds, which are drained an
average of once per 6.5 yr, are about an order of magnitude lower than TSS loads from
levee fry and fingerling ponds, which are drained once per year. Annual effluent loads in
watershed ponds are about four times lower in the less frequently drained foodfish ponds
than in fly and fingerling ponds.
Table 6.2-1. Mass Discharge of TSS, BOD5, TN,
and TP from Channel Catfish Farms in Alabama
Pond Type
Source of
Effluent
TSS
(Ib/ac/yr)
BOD<
(Ib/ac/yr)
TN
(Ib/ac/yr)
TP
(Ib/ac/yr)
Fry and Fingerling Ponds
Annual Draining
Levee ponds
Watershed
ponds
Overflow
Partial drawdown
Final drawdown
Total
Overflow
Partial drawdown
Final drawdown
Total
58
823
3,062
3,943
232
822
3,062
4,116
7.9
112.3
94.8
214.7
31.5
112.2
94.8
238.5
4.5
75.3
1.8
108.3
9.82
75.2
28.5
113.5
0.48
2.98
4.73
8.19
1.94
2.98
4.74
9.66
Foodfish Production Ponds
Average 6 yr Between Drainings
Levee ponds
Watershed
ponds
Overflow
Partial drawdown
Final drawdown
Total
Overflow
Partial drawdown
Final drawdown
Total
58
123
204
385
738
123
204
1,065
7.8
16.9
6.3
31
50.9
16.9
6.3
74.1
4.5
6.1
19.0
29.6
15.8
6.1
19.0
40.9
0.48
0.45
0.31
1.24
3.15
0.45
0.31
3.91
Source: Boyd et al, 2000.
6.2.1.2 Hybrid Striped Bass
Effluents from hybrid striped bass ponds are similar to catfish pond effluents; however,
hybrid striped bass facilities typcially drain their ponds more frequently because they
must be drained and completely harvested before restocking. To avoid draining the
ponds, some farmers treat the ponds with a piscicide (a pesticide, such as Rotenone, used
to kill fish) to eliminate remaining fish before restocking. Ponds are usually drained
annually or biennially, depending on stocking size and production management.
6-5
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
In a study in South Carolina (Tucker, 1998), water samples were collected and analyzed
from 20 commercial hybrid striped bass ponds (Table 6.2-2). To provide a broad
representation of the industry, researchers included large and small operations, as well as
ponds from both the coastal plain and piedmont areas of the state. Most of the
commercial ponds sampled were freshwater ponds, but some saltwater ponds were also
represented in the study. Water samples were collected from the surface and the bottom
of each pond. Overall, the quality of effluents from hybrid striped bass ponds varied
greatly from pond to pond. Concentrations of suspended solids, TN (including total
ammonia), and BOD were the parameters that were most elevated relative to the source
water and could potentially have the greatest impact on receiving bodies of water.
Table 6.2-2. Means and Ranges for Selected Water Quality Variables
from Hybrid Striped Bass Ponds in South Carolina
Variable
Suspended solids (mg/L)
Volatile suspended solids (mg/L)
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L)
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)
Total ammonia (mg N/L)
Nitrite (mg N/L)
Nitrate (mg N/L)
Total phosphorus (mg P/L)
Soluble reactive phosphorus (mg P/L)
Mean
49
29
11.5
7.1
0.95
0.07
0.36
0.31
0.02
Range
0-370
0-135
1.4-64.4
0-97.0
0.02-7.29
0-2.94
0^.61
0-1.9
0-0.18
Source: Tucker. 1998.
6.2.1.3 Penaeid Shrimp
There is some evidence to suggest that effluent characteristics for marine shrimp ponds
are similar to effluent characteristics for catfish farms (Table 6.2-3), but that the final
portion of effluent from marine shrimp ponds is higher in pollutant concentrations by
20% to 30% (Boyd and Tucker, 1998). For example, total annual TSS for shrimp ponds is
about 5,000 Ib/ac and for catfish fingerling ponds about 4,000 Ib/ac. When shrimp ponds
are drained for harvest, the effluent is almost identical in composition to pond water until
about 80% of the pond volume has been released (Boyd, 2000). During the draining of
the final 20% of the pond volume, concentrations of BOD5, TSS, and other substances
increase because of sediment resuspension caused by harvest activities, crowding of
agitated shrimp, and shallow and rapidly flowing water. The average BOD5and TSS
concentrations often are about 50 mg/L and 1,000 mg/L, respectively (Boyd, 2000).
Although catfish ponds and shrimp ponds might have similar effluent characteristics,
shrimp ponds are drained more frequently than food-size catfish ponds to facilitate
harvest; therefore, the volume of water discharged from a shrimp farm is typically higher
than the volume of water discharged from a catfish farm. Shrimp farms in the United
States have responded to state regulatory concerns regarding the discharge of solids
during draining and harvesting. In Texas, shrimp farms use drainage canals and large
6-6
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
sedimentation basins to hold water on the farm and reuse the water in other ponds to
minimize TSS in effluents. Most Texas facilities try to discharge during the winter, after
harvests are complete and solids have had maximum time to settle (Tetra Tech, 2002).
Table 6.2-3. Average Concentrations and Loads of BOD5 and TSS in a Typical
Shrimp Farming Pond with a Water Exchange of 2% per day
Type of Effluent
Water exchange
Draining (first 80%)
Final draining
Total
Concentration (mg/L)
BOD,
5
10
50
-
TSS
100
150
1,000
-
Load (Ib/ac)
BOD,
107
71
89
267
TSS
2,142
1,071
1,785
4.998
Source: Boyd, 2000.
South Carolina shrimp fanners also try to reuse water, when possible. Some South
Carolina shrimp farms are holding water in harvested ponds and growing clams and other
shellfish. The "treated" water is then slowly discharged after the shellfish are harvested
(Whetstone, 2002 personal communication).
6.2.1.4 Other Species
Tilapia ponds are drained to harvest fish, to adjust fish inventories, or to repair ponds. At
the start of pond draining for harvest, pond water effluent characteristics can be expected
to be similar to production water characteristics. However, fish harvest by seining stirs up
sediments at the bottom of the pond. In fertilized tilapia ponds, sediments are likely to
contain significant quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus. As draining and seining
continue, effluent water quality can be expected to deteriorate (Tucker, 1998).
Although there is little data on ornamental fish farm effluent characteristics in the
literature, the impact from water discharged from ornamental fish production facilities is
likely to be minimal. Assuming the average size of a growout pond is 2,152 ft2 with
approximately 80,000 gal of water, ornamental culture facilities typically discharge the
volume of one pond, or less, per year (Watson, 2002 personal communication). There is
also very little data available on water quality in commercial baitfish ponds or on effluents
from these ponds. Baitfish production uses low biomass stocking densities. The
combination of low biomass and reduced feed input before draining makes it likely that
baitfish effluents will have lower solids concentrations than effluents from catfish ponds
(Stone et al., n.d.).
There is limited information about the quality of water discharged from crawfish ponds for
either rotational ponds or permanent ponds. Crawfish production relies on the forage-
based system for feeding, so unlike other aquaculture production systems that rely on
pelleted feed, feed management practices will not significantly affect water quality
because the feed input is so low. Also, although dissolved oxygen levels are a concern,
particularly as vegetation decays, crawfish farmers routinely check levels and use best
management practices (BMPs) and technologies, such as mechanical aeration, to maintain
appropriate dissolved oxygen levels. Very little data is available on water quality within
6-7
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
commercial ponds for other finfish production or on effluents from these ponds; however,
the effluent is likely to be similar to the effluent from hybrid striped bass ponds.
6.2.2 Flow-through Systems
Effluents from flow-through systems can be characterized as continuous, high-volume
flows containing low pollutant concentrations. Effluents from flow-through systems are
affected by whether a facility is in normal operation or whether the tanks or raceways are
being cleaned. Waste levels can be considerably higher during cleaning events (Hinshaw
and Fornshell, 2002; Kendra, 1991).
Boardman et al. (1998) conducted a study after surveys conducted in 1995 and 1996 by
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) revealed that the benthic
aquatic life of receiving waters was adversely affected by discharges from several
freshwater trout farms. Three trout farms in Virginia were selected to represent fish farms
throughout the state. This study was part of a larger project to identify practical treatment
options that would improve water quality both within the facilities and in their discharges
to receiving streams.
After initial sampling and documentation of facility practices, researchers and
representatives from VDEQ discovered that although pollutants from the farms fell under
permit regulation limits, adverse effects were still being observed in receiving waters.
Each of the farms was monitored from September 1997 through April 1998, and water
samples were measured for dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, pH, settleable solids
(SS), TSS, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and dissolved organic carbon (DOC).
Sampling and monitoring at all three sites revealed that little change in water quality
between influents and effluents occurred during normal conditions at each facility (Table
6.2-4). The average concentrations of each regulated parameter (DO, BOD5, TSS, SS, and
AN) were below their regulatory limit at each facility; however, raceway water quality
declined during heavy facility activity like feeding, harvesting, and cleaning. During
these activities, fish swimming rapidly or employees walking in the water would stir up
solids that had settled to the bottom. During a 5-day intensive study, high TSS values
were correlated with feeding events. TKN and ortho-phosphate (OP) concentrations also
increased during feeding and harvesting activities. Overall, most samples taken during
this study had relatively low solids concentrations, but high flows through these facilities
increased the total mass loadings.
6-8
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Table 6.2-4. Water Quality Data for Three Trout Farms in Virginia
Parameter
Flow (ingd)
DO
(mg/L)
Temp
(°C)
pH(SU)
TSS
(mg/L)
ss
(ing/L)
BOD5
(mg/L)
DOC
(mg/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L)
/viflMA
Inlet
1.03-1.54'
(7.78)"
9.2-14.2
(70.6)
10.5-13
(72.2)
7.1-7.4
(7.3)
0-1.1
(0.2)
0
0-1.25
(0.7)
0.93^.11
(2.7)
0.6
Within
Farm
3.2-13.3
(7.0)
11.5-15
(73)
7.0-7.4
(7.2)
0-30.4
(3.9)
0.5-3.9
(7.5)
0.9-7.9
(2.9)
0.2-1.1
(0.5)
Outlet
5.7-9.5
(8.5)
11-15.5
(72.9)
7.3-7.8
(7.5)
0.8-6
(3.2)
0-0.04
(0.02)
0.96-1.9
(7.3)
1.5-2.4
(7.9)
0.5-0.6
(0.6)
FARMS
Inlet
4.26-9.43
(6.39)
8.2-11.5
(70.5)
6-12.5
(9.7)
7.3-7.6
(7.5)
0-1.8
(0.5)
0
0-1.4
(0.5)
0.91-2.56
(7.6)
0.2
Within
Farm
5.8-10.8
(8.6)
6-14
(9.7)
7.2-7.6
(7.4)
0-43.7
(5.3)
0.3-7.2
(2.7)
1.2-8.1
(2.7)
0.06-1.1
(0.5)
Outlet
6.8-9.6
(7.9)
5-16.5
(11.4)
6.9
1.5-7.5
(3.9)
0.01-0.08
(0.04)
0.6-2.4
(7.2)
1.2-3.1
(7.9)
0.45
FARMC
Inlet
9.74-10.99
(70.54)
9.4-10.6
(70.5)
8.5-13.5
(70.5)
7.3
0-1.5
(0.3)
0
0-2.0
(7.7)
1.1-2.7
(2.0)
0.03
Within
Farm
4.8-9.7
(7.6)
8-14
(77.0)
7.1-7.6
(7.3)
0-28
(7.7)
0.4-7.5
(2.5)
1.1-11.1
(2.4)
0.03-2.2
(0.4)
Outlet
7.2-9.4
(8.1)
8.5-14
(70.4)
7.8
4.1-62
(6.7)e
0.04-0.08
(0.07)
0.5-1.8
(7.3)
1.5-3.8
(2.3)
0.02-0.17
(0.7)
a When available the range of values has been reported
b The average is indicated using italics.
c Two outliers were discarded for calculation of mean.
Source: Boardman et al.. 1998.
Table 6.2-5 describes the water quality data for two flow-through systems sampled as
part of EPA's data collection efforts at CAAP facilities.
Table 6.2-5. Flow-through Sampling Data Table
Parameter
Biochemical oxygen
demand (nig/L)
Flow (nigd)
pH (SU)
Total phosphorus
(mg/L)
Total suspended solids
(mg/L)
Facility A
Inlet
ND (4)'
192.4
7.98-8.14
(8.05)
0.7-0.25
(0.74)
ND(4)
OLSB
Effluent
56.0-185.0"
(725.70)c
0.914
6.11-6.58
(6.43)
8.32-11.10
(9.81)
44.0-78.0
(63.0)
Bulk Water
Discharge
3.50-4.20
(3.85)
91.4
7.50-7.83
(7.72)
0.15-0.25
(0.27)
ND(4)
Facility B
Inlet
ND (2)
2.481-2.777
7.73-8.06
(7.93)
0.02-0.03
(0.03)
ND (4)
OLSB
Effluent
13
0.017
7.27
0.36
38
Final
Effluent
ND(2)
2.481-2.777
7.93-8.19
(8.03)
0.03-0.07
(0.05)
ND(4)
a ND: Non-detect. the minimum level is listed in parenthesis.
b When available the range of values has been reported.
c The average is indicated using italics.
Source: USEPA sampling data.
6-9
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.2.3 Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems have internal water treatment components that process water
continuously to remove waste and maintain adequate water quality. Overall, recirculating
systems produce a lower volume of effluent than flow-through systems. The effluent
from recirculating systems usually has a relatively high solids concentration in the form
of sludge. The sludge is then processed into two streams—a more concentrated sludge
and a less concentrated effluent (Chen et al., 2002). Once solids are removed from the
system, sludge management is usually the focus of effluent treatment in recirculating
systems.
In a study describing the waste treatment system for a large recirculating facility in North
Carolina, Chen et al. (2002) characterize effluent at various points in the system (Table
6.2-6). Approximately 40% of the solid waste produced by this particular facility is
collected in the sludge collector and composted. The remaining 60% of the solids are
treated with two serial primary settlers (septic tanks) and then a polishing pond (receiving
pond). Table 6.2-7 describes the water quality data for one recirculating system sampled
as part of EPA's data collection efforts at CAAP facilities.
Table 6.2-6. Water Quality Characteristics of Effluent at Various Points in the
Waste Treatment System of Recirculating Aquaculture Systems at the North
Carolina State University Fish Barn3
Parameter
Primary
settling i
inflow
Primary
settling 2
inflow
Septic tank
2 outflow
Receiving
pond
effluent
TKN
(mg/L)
50.3
47.5
37.7
8.94
NH.-N
(mg/L)
2.96
2.42
3.42
0.12
N02N
(mg/L)
5.35
31.17
44.00
1.93
NOJV
(mg/L)
109.0
78.5
36.4
8.2
TP
(mg/L)
28.6
22.7
17.6
4.95
PO4-P
(mg/L)
5.98
11.50
12.20
3.68
COD
(mg/L)
1043
690
409
153
TS
(%)
0.22
0.18
0.16
0.11
TSS
(mg/L)
752
364
205
44
* Results are from sampling conducted 4 wk after startup of the waste handling system. How from the
system into the receiving pond for the sampling period was 15.5 m'Vd.
Source: Chen et al., 2002,
6.2.4 Net Pen Systems
Although net pen systems do not generate a waste stream like other production systems,
waste from the system can adversely affect water quality. The release of nutrients,
reductions in concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and the accumulation of sediments
under the pens or cages can affect the local environment through eutrophication and
degradation of benthic communities (Stickney, 2002).
6-70
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Table 6.2-7. Recirculating System Sampling Data
Parameter
Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L)
Flow (mgd)
pH (SU)
Total phosphorus (mg/L.)
Total suspended solids (mg/L)
Facility C
Inlet
ND (2)"
0.22
7.8
ND (0.01)
ND(4)
Discharge
35.0^8.0"
(42.0)'
0.22
6.97-7.25
(7.75)
8.58-10.50
(9.32)
26.0-60.0
(42.80)
'" ND: Non-detect, the minimum level is listed in parenthesis.
b When available the range of values has been reported.
c The average is indicated using italics.
Source: EPA sampling data.
6.2.5 Other Production Systems: Alligators
Wastewater from alligator production facilities is generated during the cleaning of
production pens and when discharges are released from the building heating system.
Wastewater characteristics from alligator farms are analogous to those of strong
municipal wastewater (Pardue et al., 1994). Values for alligator farm wastewater
constituents are shown in Table 6.2-8.
Table 6.2-8. Alligator Wastewater Characteristics
Parameter
BOD5
Total solids
Volatile solids
Total phosphorus
Ammonia (NH,)
Nitrite (NO,)
TKN
pH
Concentration (mg/L)
452
379
219
11
78
5
153
6
9 (SU)
Source: Pardue et al., 1994.
6.3 WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
6.3.1 Pond Systems
Pond systems provide many opportunities to conserve water. Water conservation
practices can be grouped into structural conservation measures and management
conservation measures. Structural conservation measures are those measures that can be
installed at the time the production pond is constructed or added at a later date. Structural
6-77
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
water conservation measures include seepage reduction, watershed-to-pond area ratios of
10 or less, and vegetated levees. Ongoing management water conservation measures
include maintaining storage volume, harvesting without draining, and reducing or
eliminating water flushing (Hargreaves et al., 2002).
6.3.2 Flow-through Systems
The opportunities to conserve water in flow-through systems are usually limited and can
involve substantial expense. Often, more fish can be grown in a flow-through system
with a fixed inflow of water through increased stocking densities in production raceways,
with additional oxygenation of the production water. Water use can also be maximized
through the use of multi-pass serial raceways or tanks, which use re-oxygenated water
passing through multiple raising units prior to discharge. Using water more efficiently
allows flow-through system operators to reduce water use from high rates of 30,000 to
42,000 gal/lb to much lower rates of 6,600 gal/lb.
Facilities reusing multi-pass serial raceways must use active or passive aeration systems
in order to maintain adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations in the culture water.
Facilities with sufficient hydraulic head between raceways often use passive or gravity
aeration systems to increase the air-water interface thereby increasing the dissolved
oxygen content of the culture water (Wheaton, 1977b).
Facilities with insufficient head to passively aerate must use mechanical aeration systems
to increase the dissolved oxygen content of the culture water. Mechanical aeration
systems include liquid oxygenation systems and diffuser aerators. Liquid oxygen systems
operate by adding liquid oxygen below the surface of the culture water. Diffuser aerators
inject air or pure oxygen below the culture waters surface in the form of bubbles. As the
bubbles pass through the water column oxygen is transferred across the air-water
interface (Wheaton, 1977b).
6.3.3 Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems are designed to conserve water by raising fish in small volumes of
water, treating the water to remove waste products, and then reusing it (Rakocy et al.,
1992). Normal stocking densities in recirculating systems vary from 0.5 to over 1 Ib per
gallon of culture water (Losordo and Timmons, 1994). Opportunities to conserve water in
recirculating systems include operating all filter systems as efficiently as possible,
increasing stocking densities, and reducing daily makeup water to below 10%. These
practices would not amount to significant reductions in water use and might not be
achievable in most recirculating systems.
6.3.4 Other Production Systems: Alligators
Water conservation measures at alligator production systems have focused on reusing or
recirculating cleaning water. Each alligator holding pen contains a shallow pool that
accumulates waste products and must be cleaned regularly to remove the wastes and
ensure good skin quality for the alligators. The pen-cleaning process takes place daily or
every other day and causes the loss of a large amount of heated water (Delos Reyes, Jr. et
al., 1996). Properly operating recirculating systems can reduce daily loss of heated water
6-12
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
to as little as 5% (Delos Reyes, Jr. et al., 1996), but these systems are not commonly used
in alligator production (Pardue et al., 1994; Shirley, 2002, personal communication).
6.4 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
6.4.1 Characterization of Pollutants of Concern
Four sources of data were reviewed to provide an initial assessment of the pollutants of
concern (1) data from a sampling event at a flow-through facility; (2) data from a
sampling event at a recirculating facility; (3) discharge monitoring report (DMR) data
submitted to EPA from the EPA regions; and (4) Permit Compliance System (PCS) data
from an EPA database.
EPA used several criteria to identify the list of pollutants of concern. For the sampling
data, the identification criteria were as follows: (1) raw wastewaters with analytes that
had three or more reported values with an average concentration greater than 5 times the
minimum limit (ML); (2) raw wastewaters with analytes that had three or more reported
values with an average concentration greater than 10 times the ML; and (3) treated
effluents with analytes that had at least one reported value with an average concentration
greater than 5 times the ML. The results for determining pollutants of concern are
presented in Appendix C.
The first two criteria were applied to the same data (e.g., a raw wastewater from a
sampling event) and were used as a measure to determine how a more stringent criterion
(> 5 ML) contrasted with a less stringent criterion (> 10 ML) in determining an analyte as
a pollutant of concern. In almost all cases, both criteria (> 5 ML and > 10 ML) produced
the same results.
For the PCS and DMR data sets, the original data were first associated with a system type
as defined by NPDES permit information. Parameters with measurements in the DMR
and PCS data without a value or with a value of zero were excluded from the data sets
and assumed to be nondetectable. All other data were summarized by system type and
analyte, with an analysis for the average sampling value, the maximum sampling value,
the minimum sampling value, and the number of samples taken.
The PCS and DMR data, composed mainly of state and federal facilities and large
commercial facilities that have NPDES permits, represent the best available information.
One limitation of the data is the lack of information on pond systems. Generally, the
pollutants identified in the DMR or PCS database are included in the list of pollutants of
concern (POCs) provided below.
The POCs that are currently indicated for the CAAP industry, based on the available data,
include the following: conventional and nonconventional pollutants (ammonia,
biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, chlorine, nitrate, nitrite, oil and
grease, ortho-phosphate, pH, settleable solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and total suspended solids), metals (aluminum, barium, boron, copper, iron, manganese,
selenium, and zinc), microbiologicals (Aeromonas, fecal streptococcus, and total
coliforms), organic chemicals, and hexanoic acid.
6-13
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.4.2 Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants
EPA selects the pollutants for regulation based on the POCs identified for each
subcategory. Generally, a pollutant or pollutant parameter is considered a POC if it was
detected in the untreated process wastewater at five times the minimum level in more
than 10% of samples. The ML is a metric of the sensitivity of the analytic testing
procedure to measure for a pollutant or pollutant parameter.
Monitoring for all POCs is not necessary to ensure that AAP wastewater pollution is
adequately controlled because many of the pollutants originate from similar sources (the
feed), are associated with the solids, and are treated with the same pollutant removal
technologies and similar mechanisms. Therefore, monitoring for one pollutant as a
surrogate or indicator of several others might be sufficient.
Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which EPA may establish numerical effluent
limitations and standards. EPA evaluates a POC for regulation in a subcategory using the
following criteria:
• Not considered a volatile compound.
• Effectively treated by the selected treatment technology option.
• Detected in the untreated wastewater at treatable levels in a significant number of
samples, e.g., generally five times the minimum level in more than 10% of the
raw wastewater samples.
6.5 POLLUTANTS AND POLLUTANT LOADINGS
CAAP facility effluents can have high concentrations of nutrients and suspended solids,
high BOD and low levels of DO. When discharged into receiving waters, effluents with
high levels of suspended solids can cause turbidity, which can reduce light available for
photosynthesis. Low dissolved oxygen levels can affect estuarine organisms in the
receiving waters, and excessive nutrients can accelerate plankton growth, resulting in die-
off s and increased BOD in receiving waters.
6.5.1 Sediments and Solids
Solids are the largest pollutant loading generated in CAAP facilities. Most pond systems,
however, are managed to capture and hold solids in the pond, where the solids naturally
degrade. In addition, management of flow-through and recirculating systems captures
most of the generated solids, which must then be properly disposed of. Although most
solids are land-applied, solids that leave the facility in the effluent stream can have a
detrimental effect on the environment. Many CAAP facilities with NPDES permits must
control and monitor their discharge levels of solids. In Idaho, NPDES permits specify
average monthly and maximum daily TSS limits that vary according to production and
system treatment technology (USEPA, 2002b).
Although some solids from CAAP facilities are land-applied, other solids leave the
facility in the effluent stream and can have a detrimental effect on the environment.
Suspended solids can degrade aquatic ecosystems by increasing turbidity and reducing
the depth to which sunlight can penetrate, which decreases photosynthetic activity and
oxygen production by plants and phytoplankton. If sunlight is completely blocked from
6-14
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
bottom-dwelling plants, the plants stop producing oxygen and die. As the plants are
decomposed, bacteria use up more of the oxygen and decrease dissolved oxygen levels
further. Subsequently, low dissolved oxygen can cause fish kills. Decreased growth of
aquatic plants also affects a variety of aquatic life, which use the plants as habitat.
Increased suspended solids can also increase the temperature of surface water because the
particles absorb heat from the sunlight. Higher temperatures result in lower levels of
dissolved oxygen because warm water holds less dissolved oxygen than cold water
(Murphy, 2000c).
Suspended particles can abrade and damage fish gills, increasing the risk of infection and
disease. They can also cause a shift toward more sediment-tolerant species, reduce
filtering efficiency for zooplankton in lakes and estuaries, carry nutrients and metals,
adversely affect aquatic insects that are at the base of the food chain (Schueler and
Holland, 2000), and reduce fish growth rates (Murphy, 2000c). Suspended particles
reduce visibility for sight feeders and disrupt migration by interfering with a fish's ability
to navigate using chemical signals (USEPA, 2000). Finally, suspended particles cause a
loss of sensitive or threatened fish species when turbidity exceeds 25 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU) and a decline in sunfish, bass, chub, and catfish when monthly
turbidity exceeds 100 NTU (Schueler and Holland, 2000).
As sediment settles, it can smother fish eggs and bottom-dwelling organisms, interrupt
the reproduction of aquatic species, destroy habitat for benthic organisms (USEPA, 2000)
and fish spawning areas, and contribute to the decline of freshwater mussels and sensitive
or threatened darters and dace. Deposited sediments also increase sediment oxygen
demand, which can deplete dissolved oxygen in lakes or streams (Schueler and Holland,
2000).
Increased levels of suspended solids and nutrients have very different effects on aquatic
plants. High levels of suspended solids can kill off desirable species, while elevated
nutrient levels can cause too many plants to grow. In either situation, an ecosystem can
be drastically altered by increases in these pollutants. As a result, it is important to
maintain a balance in the levels of suspended solids and nutrients reaching waterbodies to
reduce such drastic impacts on aquatic plants.
6.5.2 Nutrients
Nitrogen from CAAP facilities is discharged mainly in the form of nitrate, ammonia, and
organic nitrogen. Most nitrogen from these facilities, however, is in the form of
ammonia, which is not usually found at toxic levels in CAAP discharges. Some facilities
with ponds and recirculating systems might also have high levels of nitrite. Organic
nitrogen decomposes in aquatic environments into ammonia and nitrate. This
decomposition consumes oxygen, reducing dissolved oxygen levels and adversely
affecting aquatic life. Phosphorus is discharged from CAAP facilities in both the solid
and dissolved forms. The dissolved form, however, poses the most immediate risk
because it is available to plants. Although the solid form of phosphorus is generally
unavailable, depending on the environmental conditions, some phosphorus may be slowly
released from the solid form.
6-15
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.5.2.1 Nitrogen
Nitrates cause problems in aquatic environments because they are directly available for
plant or algae uptake (Murphy, 2000a). They are soluble in water and do not bind to
particles, making them highly mobile (Kaufman and Franz, 1993). Elevated levels of
nitrate cause increased plant and algae growth. When the algae sink to the bottom and
die, they are decomposed by bacteria, which consume oxygen. As a result, increased
nitrate indirectly decreases dissolved oxygen, and low dissolved oxygen can adversely
affect fish and other aquatic life. This process is referred to as eutrophication. In addition,
high concentrations of nitrate and/or nitrite can produce "brown blood disease" in fish. In
this disease, the blood is unable to carry enough oxygen, despite adequate oxygen in the
surrounding water (Murphy, 2000a). As a result, fish may die of suffocation.
Ammonia causes two main problems in the aquatic environment. First, it can be toxic to
aquatic life, affecting hatching and growth rates of fish. For example, when un-ionized
levels of ammonia exceed 0.0125 to 0.025 mg/L, growth rates of rainbow trout are
reduced and damage to liver, kidney, and gill tissue may occur (Murphy, 2000a). Second,
ammonia is easily converted to nitrate in waters where oxygen is available. Once
ammonia is converted to nitrate, it is available for plant uptake. As previously mentioned,
elevated levels of nitrate may increase plant and algae growth, which can decrease
dissolved oxygen levels and affect aquatic life (Murphy, 2000a). The proportion of total
ammonia in the un-ionized form can vary with temperature and pH levels (IDEQ, n.d.).
Organic nitrogen decomposes in aquatic environments into ammonia and nitrate. This
process consumes oxygen, reducing dissolved oxygen levels and adversely affecting
aquatic life.
6.5.2.2 Phosphorus
CAAP facilities release phosphorus in both the solid and dissolved forms. Although the
solid form is generally unavailable, the dissolved form is readily available and it poses
the most immediate risk to the environment. Plants and bacteria require phosphorus in the
dissolved form, generally as orthophosphate, for their nutrition (Henry and Heinke,
1996). Phosphates are not toxic unless they are present at very high levels (Murphy,
2000b); however, excessive amounts of orthophosphate in the aquatic environment
increase algae and aquatic plant growth. As before, this change results in decreased
dissolved oxygen levels as bacteria decompose dead algae, consuming oxygen in the
process. When dissolved oxygen concentrations fall below the levels required for
metabolic requirements of aquatic biota, both lethal (e.g., fish kills) and sublethal effects
can occur. Oxygen loss in bottom waters can also free phosphorus previously trapped in
the sediment, increasing the amount of available phosphorus and continuing the process
of decreasing dissolved oxygen (Murphy, 2000b).
Nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary causes of cultural eutrophication. The most
recognizable evidence of eutrophication is algal blooms that occur during the summer.
Symptoms of nutrient overenrichment include murky water, low dissolved oxygen, fish
kills, and depletion of desirable flora and fauna. In addition, the increase in algae and
turbidity in drinking water supplies heightens the need to chlorinate drinking water.
Chlorination, in turn, leads to higher levels of disinfection by-products that have been
shown to increase the risk of cancer. Excessive amounts of nutrients can also stimulate
6-16
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
the activity of microbes, such as Pfiesteria piscicida that may be harmful to human health
(Grubbs, 2001).
6.5.3 Organic Compounds and Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Organic matter is discharged from CAAP facilities primarily from feces and uneaten
feed. Elevated levels of organic compounds contribute to eutrophication and oxygen
depletion. This occurs because oxygen is consumed when microorganisms decompose
organic matter. BOD is used to measure the amount of oxygen consumed by
microorganisms when they decompose the organic matter in a waterbody. The greater the
BOD, the greater the degree of pollution and the less oxygen available. When a sufficient
level of oxygen is not available, aquatic species become stressed and might not eat well.
Their susceptibility to diseases can increase dramatically, and some species might even
die. Even small reductions in dissolved oxygen can lead to reduced growth rates for
sensitive species.
6.5.4 Metals
Metals may be present in CAAP wastewaters for various reasons. They might be used as
feed additives, occur in sanitation products, or result from deterioration of CAAP
machinery and equipment. Many metals are toxic to algae, aquatic invertebrates, or fish.
Although metals can serve useful purposes in CAAP operations, most metals retain their
toxicity once they are discharged into receiving waters. EPA observed that many of the
treatment systems used in the CAAP industry provide substantial reductions of most
metals. Because most of the metals are present in particulate form or bind to solid
particles, they can be adequately controlled by controlling solids.
6.6 SPECIAL POLLUTANTS
6.6.1 Pathogens
Pathogens associated with the CAAP industry include those that can impair human health
and those that are harmful to aquatic animals if discharged. Total coliform bacteria, fecal
coliform bacteria, Esherichia coli, fecal streptococci, Enterococcus faecium,
Mycobacterium marinum, and Aeromonas were sampled at two of the sampling event
facilities to determine the presence of these indicator organisms in CAAP effluents.
Sampling points included influent water, process water, treated effluents, and solids
storage effluents. Most of the data show nondetectable levels of these organisms,
including in influent water. However, some of the indicators, including aeromonas, total
coliform bacteria, and fecal streptococcus, had average measured levels greater than
60,000 bacteria/100 mL in treated effluents and solids storage effluents.
6.6.1.1 Human Health Concerns
When testing for the presence of pathogens, it is important to note that there is a
distinction between indicator microorganisms and pathogens. Human pathogens found in
aquatic systems can include bacteria (e.g., Salmonella sp., Vibrio sp.), viruses (e.g.,
Norwalk viruses, enteroviruses, rotaviruses), and protozoans (e.g., Cryptosporidium
parvum, Giardia intestinalis). EPA has long recognized that it is difficult to assay waters
for the presence of human pathogens. Given the difficulty in detecting pathogens in
aquatic systems, EPA relies on the detection of indicator microorganisms, which are used
6-17
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
to infer the presence of pathogens and to predict public health risks due to ingestion or
contact with water.
A range of indicator organisms has been used over time. However, all indicator
organisms have a few common traits: (1) they are commonly found in contamination that
also contains pathogens, (2) they persist in the aquatic environment as long as pathogens,
and (3) they can be easily detected. Total coliforms, fecal coliforms (or more specifically
E. coli), and enterococci have all been used as indicators of water quality. Even though
these bacterial indicators have been used with some success for protecting public health,
they are limited in their use in more complex systems. Because of varying rates of
degradation and persistence in aquatic environments, these bacterial indicators do not
always adequately represent risk due the presence of pathogenic bacteria.
Human pathogens in CAAP effluents can stem from animal feed, other animals, and
source waters to the facility. In the majority of cases, levels of human pathogens are
likely to be minimal, especially in finfish CAAP facilities. Transfer of animal viral
pathogens to humans is highly unlikely because most viruses are species-specific.
CAAP facilities are not considered a significant source of pathogens that adversely affect
human health (MacMillan et al., 2002). CAAP facilities culture cold-blooded animals
(fish, crustaceans, molluscs, etc.) that are unlikely to harbor or foster pathogens that
would adversely affect warm-blooded animals like humans by causing disease. CAAP
facilities could become contaminated with such pathogens if, for example, wastes from
warm-blooded animals were to contaminate CAAP facility waters or the source waters
used by CAAP facilities, but this is not considered a substantial risk in the United States
(MacMillan et al., 2002).
6.6.1.2 Aquatic Animal Pathogens
Most fish pathogens are not hazardous to humans; however, some, such as streptococcus
bacteria, can infect humans. Transfer of other microorganisms like Vibrio sp. and
protozoan pathogens could also be expected. High levels of antibiotics and genetically
engineered components in fish feed (e.g., soya additives) can also pose risks due to
increased antibiotic resistance. At this point, the amount of research conducted in this
area is so small that no concluding statements can be made regarding the need to regulate
effluents based on their pathogen content.
Fish pathogens already exist in the natural environment. Theories of disease must account
for the fact that in any community, a large percentage of healthy normal individuals
continually harbor potentially pathogenic microbes without suffering any symptoms
(Dubos, 1955). In aquaculture, fish are no longer in the natural environment; instead, they
are confined within a finite amount of space from which they cannot escape even when
conditions become undesirable or unbearable. It is the responsibility of the fish culturist
to prevent such conditions from occurring because of increased susceptibility of fish to
diseases when raised in artificial environments. Not only do disease outbreaks cause
economic hardship, but the affected facility also becomes a primary site to amplify the
specific disease organism, potentially disseminating these pathogens into the natural
environment.
6-18
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Obligate fish pathogens are pathogens that cannot survive as free-living organisms but
depend on a fish host for their continuous survival and propagation. These pathogens
include viruses, bacteria, and protozoans such as Myxosoma cerebralis, which causes
whirling disease; Ceratomyxa shasta, which infects salmonids; viral hemorrhagic
septicemia (VHS); and Yersinia ruckeri, which causes enteric redmouth (ERM).
Facultative pathogens, such as Motil Aeromonas Septicemia (MAS) caused by
Aeromonas hydrophila, can live independently of a host organism by obtaining nutrients
from organic matter present in the environment. These opportunistic bacteria are
ubiquitous on a worldwide scale in freshwater environments and typically can cause
disease episodes after fish have been exposed to unfavorable temperatures, low dissolved
oxygen levels, accumulated metabolic waste products, handling, marking, and crowding
(Meyer, 1970). There are two major strategies to avoid outbreaks offish diseases in
aquaculture facilities: (1) keep obligate fish pathogens out and (2) avoid stress by
maintaining proper water quality conditions.
CAAP facilities can be sources of infectious disease transmission to wild populations of
aquatic organisms. Such infectious diseases include those caused by pathogens that are
exotic to native ecosystems, as well as the much larger group caused by pathogenic
microbes that already exist in wild fish populations. For example, wastes and escapement
of infected shrimp from CAAP facilities is considered a major potential pathway for wild
shrimp exposure to viral diseases (JSA Shrimp Virus Work Group, 1997). In addition, in
light of potentially serious risks of disease transmission from hatcheries to wild
populations, guidelines (USDA, 2002) have been developed to define certain practices to
prevent the spread of pathogens that might result from the release of infected salmon
from hatcheries.
There are a number of studies that indicate how CAAP facilities may be sources of
disease transmission to wild populations. For example, the Asian tapeworm
Bothriocephaus acheilognathi was identified in North America in 1975 in fish farms
where golden shiners Notemigonus crysoleucas, fathead minnows Pimephales promelas,
and grass carp were raised. More recently, the use of poeciliids, such as mosquitofish
Gambusia affinis, for mosquito control and possible releases of exotic fishes from aquaria
have been suggested as mechanisms for introduction of the parasite into native fish in
areas such as Hawaii. Font and Tate (1994) found that native Hawaiian fish from streams
where no exotic species were found were completely free of adult helminthes (a type of
parasite). Conversely, in two rivers with exotic species, nematodes and Asian tapeworms
were found in both the exotic species and the native fish (Blazer and LaPatra, 2002).
Another parasite associated with fish farms is Myxobolus cerebralis, which causes
whirling disease. The disease was first identified in the United States in 1956 in brook
trout in Pennsylvania. Although widely distributed by the 1970s, clinical whirling disease
was only reported in fish from CAAP facilities. However, a survey of wild fish in
Michigan found that the parasite had become established in native brook and brown trout
below a CAAP facility that contained infected fish. Other surveys have observed a lack
of effect on wild populations. The fact that M. cerebralis may cause effects in some wild
populations and not others makes whirling disease the subject of much current research
(Blazer and LaPatra, 2002).
6-19
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Blazer and LaPatra's (2002) discussion on the potential pathogen risks to wild fish
populations from cultured fish also provided a summary of risks from viruses, such as
infectious hematopietic necrosis virus (IHNV), infectious pancreatic necrosis virus
(IPNV), and infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV), and bacteria, such as Edwardsiella
ictaluri and Renibacterium salmoninarum. Although these viruses and bacteria are
hazardous to wild fish populations, a weaker causative association was made between
CAAP facilities and disease outbreaks in wild populations.
6.6.2 Nonnative Species
Some aquatic animal species in commercial production are considered "nonnative" to the
geographic area of production. These are species that have been brought into the United
States from abroad or into a region of the United States where they would not occur
naturally. Whenever nonnative species are introduced to an area, there is potential for
these species to become invasive, outcompeting and threatening the survival of the native
species. There is also the potential that the introduction of nonnative species may
introduce diseases against which native populations have no natural defenses. The
Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the Department of
Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service, oversee the introduction of nonnative
species into the United States.
In addition, many state Departments of Fish and Wildlife have established programs to
control the introduction and release of nonnative species within their states. The United
States, however, has banned the importation of very few nonnative species. There are
several examples of species becoming established in the United States (e.g., Atlantic
salmon, grass carp, and some ornamental species) after being introduced, in part, through
aquatic animal production. Potential problems associated with the introduction and
establishment of nonnative species include disease, parasitism, interbreeding with native
species, habitat destruction, and competition with native species.
The introductions of nonnative aquatic organisms, through intentional or accidental
releases from CAAP facilities, can cause adverse environmental impacts. There is great
inconsistency in the terminology used by literature and scientists when discussing
nonnative species. Therefore, it is important to note that a nonnative species is defined as
an individual, group, or population of a species that is introduced into an area or
ecosystem outside its historical or native geographic range. One glossary in which the
term nonnative is defined considers the term to include both foreign (exotic) and
transplanted species and uses it synonymously with "alien" and "introduced" (Fuller et
al., 1999).
6.6.2.1 General Impacts
Nonnative species, which are often considered biological pollutants, can alter and
degrade habitat. When species are introduced into new habitats, they often overrun the
area and crowd out new species. If enough food is available, populations of nonnative
species can increase considerably. Once they are established in an area, they can be
difficult to eliminate (UMN, 2000).
Many nonnative species are introduced into the environment by accident when they are
carried into an area by vehicles, ships, produce, commercial goods, animals, or clothing
6-20
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
(UMN, 2000) or when they escape from CAAP facilities. Other species are introduced
intentionally. Although some species can be harmless or beneficial to an environment,
others can be detrimental to ecosystems and recreation (UMN, 2000).
Impacts of nonnative aquatic organisms on native aquatic species in North America can
be classified into five general categories: habitat alteration, trophic alteration, spatial
alteration, gene pool deterioration, and introduction of diseases.
6.6.2.2 Habitat Alteration
Nonnative fish, such as carp and tilapia, introduced to control vegetation can cause a
variety of habitat impacts. Both exotic and native vegetation can be destroyed as a result
of carp predation. This, in turn, results in bank erosion, restrictions on fish nursery areas,
and acceleration of eutrophication as nutrients are released from the plants. Grass carp
can adversely affect rice fields and waterfowl habitat, while common carp reduce
vegetation by direct consumption and by uprooting, as they dig through the substrate in
search of food. Digging also increases turbidity in the water (AFS, 1997; Kohler and
Courtenay, n.d.).
6.6.2.3 Trophic Alteration
Nonnative species can also cause complex and unpredictable changes in community
trophic structure. Communities can be changed by explosive population increases of
nonnative fish or by predation of native species by introduced species (AFS, 1997).
Several studies have documented dietary overlap in native and introduced fishes. As a
result, there is potential for competition. However, it has proven difficult to link dietary
overlap to competition (Kohler and Courtenay, n.d.).
6.6.2.4 Spatial Alteration
Spatial changes can result from overlap in the use of space by native and nonnative fish,
which can lead to competition if space is limited or of variable quality (AFS, 1997).
6.6.2.5 Gene Pool Deterioration
Heterogeneity can be decreased through inbreeding by species being produced in a
hatchery. This risk is most serious with species of intercontinental origin because the
initial broodstock already has a limited gene pool. If these species are introduced to new
habitat, they might lack the genetic characteristics necessary for them to adapt or perform
as predicted. There is also a possibility that native gene pools might be altered through
hybridization when nonnative species are introduced to a habitat; however, hybridization
events in open waters are rare (AFS, 1997; Kohler and Courtenay, n.d.).
6.6.2.6 Introduction of Diseases
Nonnative species can transmit diseases caused by parasites, bacteria, and viruses to an
environment. The transmission of diseases from nonnative species to native species is
considered one of the most serious threats to native communities (AFS, 1997).
There are numerous examples of nonnative species introducing diseases in native species.
Transfer of diseased nonnative fish from Europe is believed to be responsible for
introducing whirling disease in North America. Infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic
necrosis (IHHN) virus has been spread to a number of countries as a result of shipments
6-21
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
of live penaeid shrimp. IHHN was first diagnosed at Hawaiian shrimp culture facilities in
shrimp from Panama. "Ich," a common fish disease that is caused by a ciliated protozoan,
might have been transferred from Asia throughout the temperate zone with fish shipments
(Kohler and Courtenay, n.d.).
6.6.3 Nonnative Species Associated with CAAP Facilities
Potentially nonnative species associated with CAAP facilities include Atlantic salmon,
grass carp, shrimp, and tilapia.
6.6.3.1 Atlantic Salmon
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) are raised in net pens off the east and west coasts of the
United States and in British Columbia. Escapement has become a concern to some,
particularly Alaska, because of potential impacts from disease, parasitism, interbreeding,
and competition. In areas where the salmon are exotic (i.e., the West Coast), most
concerns focus not on interbreeding with other salmon species but on whether the
escaped salmon will establish feral populations, reduce the reproductive success of native
species through competition, alter the ecosystem in some unpredictable way, or transfer
diseases (EAO, 1997).
Although it remains uncertain whether escaped farmed Atlantic salmon can definitely
transfer diseases, it is useful to examine some biological information on escaped salmon
reported by the Environmental Assessment Office of British Columbia. Between 1991
and 1995, 90 adult Atlantic salmon recovered in British Columbia and Alaska were
examined to determine if they were infected with any diseases. Two fish were infected
with Aeromonas salmonicida, the causative agent of furunculosis, and none of the fish
contained unusual parasite infestations. Additionally, none of the 56 fish tested were
infected with common viral infections (Alverson and Ruggerone, 1998).
In contrast, Atlantic salmon stocked in Puget Sound were believed to have been
responsible for introducing a new disease, viral hemorraghic septicemia (VHS), to the
west coast. This disease has been found in two salmon hatcheries in Puget Sound
(Dentler, 1993). VHS is a systemic infection of various salmonid and a few nonsalmonid
fish. It is caused by a rhabdovirus and can cause significant cumulative mortality. Fish
that survive become carriers of the disease. VHS is constantly present in most countries
of continental Eastern and Western Europe. However, the virus has been isolated off the
coast of Washington, in Puget Sound (McAllister, 1990).
Experiments have shown that Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis), golden trout (Oncorhynchus aguabonita), rainbow trout x coho salmon
hybrids, giebel (Carassius auratus gibelio), sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), and turbot
(Scophthalmus maximus) are all susceptible to VHS. Experiments have also shown that
common carp (Cyprinus carpio), chub (Leuciscus cephalus), Eurasian perch (Perca
fluviatilis), roach (L. rutilus), and tench (Tinea tinea) are all resistant to VHS (McAllister,
1990).
6-22
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.6.3.2 Grass Carp
The grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), or white amur, is native to the Amur River in
China and Russia. It was first imported to the United States in 1963 by aquaculture
facilities in Alabama and Arkansas and is used for biological control of vegetation. In the
past few decades, the grass carp has spread rapidly as a result of research projects;
escapes from ponds and aquaculture facilities; legal and illegal interstate transport;
releases by individuals and groups; stockings by federal, state, and local government
agencies; and natural dispersion from introduction sites (Dill and Cordone, 1997; Lee et
al., 1980; Pflieger, 1975).
Many states have restrictions on the use of grass carp. For example, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia have all approved the use of grass carp for weed control,
with certain restrictions. These states require that the fish be "triploid," meaning that they
must have three sets of chromosomes instead of two, which makes the fish sterile
(University of Delaware, 1995). Although researchers have reported that the probability
of successful reproduction of triploid grass carp is "virtually nonexistent" (Loch and
Bonar, 1999), some researchers have questioned the sterility of triploids because
techniques used to induce triploidy are not always effective. Therefore, each fish should
be genetically checked (USGS, 2001). In addition, measures should be taken to reduce
the number of escapes by these fish. Barriers could be constructed and maintained to
prevent migration from lakes. Consideration should also be given to the location and type
of water bodies stocked with grass carp. Lakes and ponds that are prone to flooding
should not be stocked with these carp (Loch and Bonar, 1999).
According to the literature, there are a variety of actual and potential impacts of
introducing grass carp to an area. Shireman and Smith (1983) concluded that the effects
of grass carp on a water body are complex and depend on the stocking rate, the
macrophyte abundance, and the ecosystem's community structure. Negative effects of
grass carp include interspecific competition for food with invertebrates and other fish,
interference with fish reproduction, and significant changes in the composition of
macrophyte, phytoplankton, and invertebrate communities. Chilton and Muoneke (1992)
reported that grass carp might affect other species indirectly, by modifying preferred
habitat, or directly, through predation or competition when food is scarce. Bain (1993)
reports that grass carp have significantly altered the food web and trophic structure of
aquatic ecosystems by causing changes in fish, plant, and invertebrate communities.
More specifically, he indicates that these effects are largely a result of decreased density
and composition of aquatic plants.
The removal of vegetation by grass carp can result in the elimination of food, shelter, and
spawning substrates for native fish (Taylor et al., 1984). Additionally, the partial
digestion of plant material by grass carp results in increased phytoplankton populations
because grass carp can digest only half of the plant material they consume. The rest of the
material is released into the water and increases algal blooms (Rose, 1972), which
decreases oxygen levels and reduces water clarity (Bain, 1993).
Grass carp may carry diseases and parasites that are known to be infectious or potentially
infectious to native fish. Grass carp imported from China are believed to be responsible
for introducing the Asian tapeworm Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis (Ganzhorn et al.,
1992; Hoffman and Schubert, 1984).
6-23
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.6.3.3 Pacific White Shrimp
The Pacific white shrimp (Paneaus vannamei) and the blue shrimp (P. stylirostris) from
the Pacific coast of Central and South America were introduced to the United States as
productive culture species for the U.S. industry, when smaller native species (brown
shrimp (P. aztecus), white shrimp (P. setiferus), and pink shrimp (P. duoraruni) proved
unsuitable for commercial production. The giant tiger prawn (P. monodon) from the
western Pacific has also been introduced into the United States for shrimp farming.
Today most commercial ventures in the United States produce the Pacific white shrimp
for a single annual crop (Iverson et al., 1993). Most shrimp farms are in South Carolina,
Florida, and Texas. Escapement of nonnative shrimp is a major concern because of the
possible spread of disease, as well as various bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, to
wild populations. Because diseases like white spot disease are very contagious and have
high mortality rates, states have taken precautions to prevent escapement from shrimp
farms. Other diseases that commonly affect shrimp include infectious hypodermal and
hematopoietic necrosis (IHHN) virus, Taura syndrome virus (TSV), and the yellow head
virus syndrome (YHV) (Treece, 2000). In Florida state laws regulate where Pacific white
shrimp can be grown, including containment within controlled facilities. Texas and South
Carolina have similar guidelines to prevent the release of nonnative shrimp and to
minimize their potential impact on wild populations. In Texas, the Pacific white shrimp is
the only nonnative species permitted to be cultured in AAP facilities.
6.6.3.4 Tilapia
The most commonly raised species of tilapia are blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus), Nile
tilapia (O. niloticus), and Mozambique tilapia (O. mossambicus). Native to Africa and the
Middle East, tilapia have been introduced throughout the world as cultured species in
temperate regions (Stickney, 2000). They are freshwater fish from the family Cichlidae
and are primarily herbivores or omnivores. Feeding lower on the food chain has enhanced
their popularity as a culture species (Stickney, 2000). Tilapia were first introduced to the
Caribbean islands in the 1940s and then eventually were introduced to Latin America and
the United States. In addition to production for foodfish, one species, Tilapia zillii, an
herbivore, has been stocked in irrigation canals to control aquatic vegetation. Tilapia have
also been used for aquarium and bait bucket releases, as a sport fish, and as forage for
warmwater predatory fish (Courtenay et al., 1984; Courtenay and Williams, 1992; Lee et
al., 1980).
Tilapia are competitors with native species for spawning areas, food, and space (USGS,
2000a). There have been reports that certain streams where blue tilapia are abundant have
lost most vegetation and nearly all native fish (USGS, 2000a). In Hawaii, Mozambique
tilapia has been considered a significant factor in the decline of the desert pupfish
(Cyprinodon macularius) in the Stalton Sea area (USGS, 2000b)
Because of its nonnative status, the tilapia has been regulated by various states to prevent
escapement and impacts on wild stocks of native species. Importation and movement of
tilapia are regulated in the United States. The following states have some form of
restriction on tilapia culture: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, and Texas (Stickney, 2000).
6-24
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.6.4 Drugs and Chemicals
Drugs are substances, including medicated feed, that are added to the production facility
to maintain or restore animal health, and they can be subsequently discharged into the
waters of the United States. The following summary includes drugs that can be injected
directly into aquatic animals or used in immersion baths, but are not discharged to the
waters of the United States; however, the proposed rule does not address this category of
drugs. Chemicals are substances that are added to an AAP facility to maintain or restore
water quality for aquatic animal production and that subsequently might be discharged to
waters of the United States.
By providing food and oxygen, AAP facilities can produce fish and other aquatic animals
in greater numbers than natural conditions would allow. This means that system
management is important to ensure that the animals do not become overly stressed,
making them more vulnerable to disease outbreaks. When diseases do occur, facilities
might be able to treat their populations with drugs. Operators producing aquatic animals
that are being produced for human consumption must comply with requirements
established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with respect to the drugs that
can be used to treat their animals, the dose that can be used, and the withdrawal period
that must be achieved before the animals can be harvested. Drugs can be divided into four
categories: approved drugs, investigational drugs, extra-label use drugs, and unapproved
drugs. Approved drugs have already been screened by the FDA to ensure that they do not
cause significant adverse public health or environmental impacts when used in
accordance with label instructions. Currently, there are only six approved drugs for AAP
species consumed by humans:
• Chorionic gonadotropin (Chorulon)
• Oxytetracycline (Terramycin)
• Sulfadimethoxine, ormetoprim (Romet-30)
• Tricane methanesulfonate (Finquel and Tricane-S)
• Formalin (Formalin-F, Paracide and Parasite-F)
• Sulfamerazine
FDA authorizes use of investigational drugs on a case-by-case basis to allow a way of
gathering data for the approval process (21 USC 3606(j)). Quantities and conditions of
use are specified. FDA, however, sometimes relies on the NPDES permitting process to
establish limitations on pollutant discharges to prevent environmental harm. NPDES
permits to date have required only reporting of the use of drugs and chemicals. EPA
suspects that permits have not established limitations on the use of drugs and chemicals
because of the frequency of use and the lack of analytical methods to measure such drugs
and chemicals in wastewater matrices. Extra-label drug use is restricted to use of
approved animal and human drugs by, or on the order of, a licensed veterinarian and must
be within the context of a valid veterinarian-patient relationship. New unapproved animal
drugs are sometimes used in discrete cases where the FDA exercises its regulatory
discretion.
6-25
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.6.4.1 FDA-Approved Animal Drugs
Drugs included in this category are those that the FDA has approved for use at AAP
facilities. These drugs are widely used at facilities to treat various specified diseases and
species, often at application rates that are greater than necessary. Because of the
widespread use of some of these drugs, there is potential for antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotics are typically applied orally or by immersion. These routes can allow
significant amounts of antibacterial agents (through uneaten medicated feed or leached,
unabsorbed, or excreted drug) to escape into the environment and cause resistance. A
number of studies support the fact that antibacterial resistance is associated with the
frequency of antibiotic use in an environment. Additionally, the frequency of resistance
can be increased by antibacterial agent concentrations that are inadequate for killing the
bacteria. Insufficient concentrations may result from choosing the wrong drug, failure to
deliver the proper dose, faulty treatment regimes, prophylactic treatment, and heavy
reliance on a limited number of antibacterial agents because of regulations or specific
applicator preferences (GESAMP, 1997).
Table 6.6-1 describes the drugs approved by the FDA for use at AAP facilities, their
approved uses, and their environmental effects.
6-26
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Table 6.6-1. FDA-Approved New Animal Drugs for Aquaculture
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
Formalin
(All finfish eggs)
Control of the
fungi of the
family of
Saprolegniacae
Fate in the Environment: The Center for Veterinary Medicine has
found that no environmental impacts are expected from using
formalin, provided that the finfish egg treatment water is diluted
100-fold.
Aquatic Life: A National Fisheries Research Center study showed
that formalin concentrations of 1,000 to 2,000 ppm is safe for
finfish eggs of the orders Cypriniformes (common carp and white
sucker), Perciformes (walleye), and Siluriformes (channel
catfish).
Human Health: An Auburn University study showed that the use
of formalin at the recommended concentration (1,000 to 2,000
/(L/L for 15 minutes for all finfish eggs except Acipenseriformes
and up to 1,500/
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
Human chorionic
gonadotropin
(HCG)
Chorulon is the
recommended HCG
product for use with
brood finfish
Aid in
improving
spawning
function in ail
male and female
brood finfish
Fate in the Environment: The Center for Veterinary Medicine has
concluded mat HCG does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment.
Aquatic Life: Chorionic gonadotropin should be administered,
depending on the fish species, at a dose of 50 to 510 I.U. per
pound body weight for males and 67 to 1,816 I.U. per pound body
weight for females, for one to three injections. Animal safety
studies indicate mat HCG can be administered to broodfish at the
levels recommended in the product labeling without significant
adverse effects.
Human Health: The total dose administered (all injections
combined) must not exceed 25.000 I.U. (25 mL) in fish intended
for human consumption. There is no withdrawal period required
for broodfish treated according to label directions.
For specific dose recommendations and summaries of animal
safety and human health studies for various species, refer to FDA,
1999.
Source: FDA, 1999
Oxytetracycline
(catfish)
Control of
bacterial
hemorrhagic
septicemia and
pseudomonas
disease
No environmental fate information was available.
Aquatic Life: The FDA recommends 2.5 to 3.75 g per 100 Ib of
fish per d, administered in mixed ration for 10 d. Oxytetracycline
should not be administered when water is below 16.7 °C (62 °F).
Human Health: Fish should not be liberated or slaughtered for 21
d following the last administration of medicated feed.
Source: FDA, 1996
Oxytetracycline
(lobster)
Control of
gaffkemia
No environmental fate information was available.
Aquatic Life: The FDA recommends 1 g/lb, fed for 5 d as the sole
ration.
Human Health: Oxytetracycline should be withdrawn from feed
30 d before harvesting lobsters.
Source: FDA, 1996
Oxytetracycline
(salmonids)
Control of ulcer
disease,
furunculosis,
bacterial
hemorrhagic
septicemia, and
pseudomonas
disease
No environmental fate information was available.
Aquatic Life: The FDA recommends 2.5 to 3.75 g per 100 Ib of
fish per d, administered in mixed ration for 10 d. Oxytetracycline
should not be administered when water is below 9 °C (48.2 °F).
Human Health: Fish should not be liberated or slaughtered for 21
d following the last administration of medicated feed.
Source: FDA, 1996
6-28
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
Oxytetracycliiie
(pacific salmon)
Marking of
skeletal tissue
No environmental fate information was available.
Aquatic Life: The FDA recommends 250 mg per kilogram of fish
per d (11.35 g per 100 Ib of fish per d) for salmon not over 30 g
body weight, administered as sole ration for 4 d in feed.
Human Health: Fish should not be liberated for at least 7 d
following the last administration of medicated feed.
Source: FDA, 1996
Sulfadimethoxine
and ormetroprim
(catfish)
Control of
enteric
septicemia
No environmental fate or aquatic life information was available.
Human Health: Sulfadimethoxine and ormetroprim have a 3-d
withdrawal time for catfish.
Source: FDA, 2002
Sulfadimethoxine
and ormetroprim
(salmonids)
Control of
furunculosis
No environmental fate or aquatic life information was available.
Human Health: Sulfadimethoxine and ormetroprim have a 42-d
withdrawal time for salmonids.
Source: FDA, 2002
Sulfamerazine (not
currently available)
Control of
furunculosis for
rainbow trout,
brook trout, and
brown trout
No environmental fate or aquatic life information was available.
Human Health: Sulfamerazine has a 21-d withdrawal time.
Source: FDA, 2002
Tricaine
methanesulfonate
Temporary
immobilization
(anesthetic) for
Ictaluridae,
Salmonidae,
Esocidae, and
Percidae (In
other fish and
cold-blooded
animals, the drug
should be
limited to
hatchery or
laboratory use)
No environmental fate information was available.
Aquatic Life: FDA has not required any animal safety studies for
this drug because it is a generic copy of the brand name drug,
whose safety has been established. When tricaine
methanesulfonate is used in fish food, water temperature should
not exceed 10 °C (50 °F) and use should be restricted to
Ictaluridae. Salmonidae. Esocidae. and Percidae.
Human Health: For human food safety, tricaine methanesulfonate
may not be used within 21 d of harvesting fish for food.
Source: FDA, n.d.b.
6.6.4.2 Drugs of Low Regulatory Priority
The drugs included in this group have undergone review by the FDA and have been
determined to be new animal drugs of low regulatory priority (LRP). The FDA is
unlikely to object to the use of any of these drugs if the substances are used for the proper
indications, at the prescribed levels, and according to good management practices. In
addition, the product should be of an appropriate grade for use in food animals and there
should not be an adverse effect on the environment (FDA, 1997).
6-29
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
The FDA does not require labeling for low-priority use for chemicals that are commonly
used for non-drug purposes even if the manufacturer or distributor promotes the chemical
for the permitted low-priority use. However, a chemical that has significant animal or
human ding uses in addition to the low-priority aquaculture use must be labeled for the
low-priority uses if the manufacturer or distributor uses promotion or other means to
establish the intended low-priority use for the product. Additional labeling requirements
are available from the FDA (FDA, 1997).
Table 6.6-2 summarizes the LRP drugs, their intended uses, and their' environmental
effects. Based on the information provided in the table, LRP drugs are expected to cause
minimal adverse effects on aquatic life and the environment.
Table 6.6-2. LRP Drugs
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
Acetic acid
Used as a dip concentration of
1,000-2,000 milligrams per
liter (mg/L) for 1-10 min as a
parasticide for fish
Fate in the Environment: When released into
water, acetic acid should readily biodegrade and it
is expected to have a half-life of between 1 and 10
d (J.T. Baker, 2001).
Aquatic Life: Acetic acid is expected to be slightly
toxic to aquatic life. The LC50/96-h values for fish
are between 10 and 100 mg/L (J.T. Baker, 2001).
Dilution is expected to eliminate pH risks.
Human Health: Symptoms of exposure to acetic
acid include irritation of the eyes, nose, throat,
and lungs, vomiting, diarrhea, circulatory
collapse, breaming difficulties, coughing, and
chest pains (NTP, 199la).
Calcium chloride
Used to increase water
calcium concentration to
ensure proper egg hardening.
Dosages used would be those
necessary to raise calcium
concentration to 10-20 mg/L
as calcium carbonate. Also
used to increase water
hardness up to 150 mg/L to
aid in maintenance of osmotic
balance in fish by preventing
electrolyte loss.
Fate in the Environment: Based on available
information for calcium chloride anhydrous, this
material will not biodegrade or bioaccumulate
(J.T. Baker, 1999a).
Aquatic Life: The LC50/96-h values for fish are
over 100 mg/L (J.T. Baker, 1999a).
Human Health: Calcium chloride can cause
irritation if it is inhaled, ingested, or comes in
contact with the eyes or skin. Ingestion of large
doses can lead to renal damage, dehydration, and
hypercalcaemia (Syndel, 2001a).
Calcium oxide
Used as an external
protozoacide for fmgerling to
adult fish at a concentration of
2,000 mg/L for 5 s.
Aquatic Life: Calcium oxide is expected to be
toxic to aquatic life (J.T. Baker, 1998). Dilution is
expected to eliminate pH risks.
Human Health: Calcium oxide can irritate the
eyes, skin, nose, and lungs (New Jersey, 1996).
Carbon dioxide
gas
Used for anesthetic purposes
in cold, cool, and warm water
fish.
No environmental effects are expected.
6-30
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
Fuller's earth
Used to reduce the
adhesiveness of fish eggs to
improve fish hatchability.
No environmental fate, aquatic life, or human
health information was available.
Garlic (whole)
Used to control helminth and
sea lice infestations in marine
salmonids at all life stages.
No environmental effects are expected.
Hydrogen
peroxide
Used at 250-500 mg/L to
control fungi on all species
and at all life stages of fish.
including eggs.
No aquatic life information was available.
Human Health: Large doses of hydrogen peroxide
can cause gastritis, esophagitis, rupture of the
colon, proctitis. and ulcerative colitis (NTP.
1991b). Hydrogen peroxide can irritate the eyes,
skin, nose, throat, and lungs. It is considered a
mutagen and should be handled with extreme
caution. Health effects are unlikely to occur with
commercial solutions of hydrogen peroxide used
as a skin disinfectant (New Jersey, 1998).
Ice
Used to reduce metabolic rate
of fish during transport.
No environmental effects are expected.
Magnesium
sulfate (Epsom
salts)
Used to treat external
monogenetic trematode
infestations and external
crustacean infestations in fish
at all life stages. Used in
freshwater species. Fish are
immersed in a solution of
30,000 mg/L magnesium
sulfate and 7,000 mg/L.
sodium chloride for 5-10 min.
No environmental effects are expected.
Onion (whole)
Used to treat external
crustacean parasites and to
deter sea lice from infesting
external surface of fish at all
life stages.
No environmental effects are expected.
Papain
Used as a 0.2% solution in
removing the gelatinous
matrix of fish egg masses to
improve hatchability and
decrease the incidence of
disease.
No environmental effects are expected.
Potassium
chloride
Used as an aid in
osmoregulation to relieve
stress and prevent shock.
Dosages used would be those
necessary to increase chloride
ion concentration to 10-2,000
mg/L.
Aquatic Life: The highest concentration of
chloride to which an aquatic community can be
exposed briefly without an unacceptable effect is
860 mg/L. The highest concentration of chloride
to which an aquatic community can be exposed
indefinitely without an unacceptable effect is 230
mg/L (USEPA, 1999a).
Human Health: Large doses of potassium chloride
usually induce vomiting, so acute intoxication by
mouth is rare (NTP, 1991c).
6-31
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
Povidone iodine
compounds
Used as a fish egg disinfectant
at rates of 50 mg/L for 30 min
during water hardening and
100 mg/L solution for 10 min
after water hardening.
No environmental fate or aquatic life information
was available.
Human Health: There is no evidence of adverse
effects from inhalation, ingestion, skin contact, or
eye contact with povidone iodine (Syndel,
200 Ib).
Sodium
bicarbonate
(baking soda)
Used at 142-642 mg/L for 5
min as a means of introducing
carbon dioxide into the water
to anaesthetize fish.
No environmental effects are expected.
Sodium chloride
(salt)
Used as a 0.5%-1% solution
for an indefinite period as an
osmoregulatory aid for the
relief of stress and prevention
of shock. Used as a 3%
solution for 10-30 min as a
paras ticide.
Freshwater Aquatic Life: Certain life stages might
be affected by changes in sodium chloride
concentrations (Syndel, 2001c). The highest
concentration of chloride to which an aquatic
community can be exposed briefly without an
unacceptable effect is 860 mg/L. The highest
concentration of chloride to which an aquatic
community can be exposed indefinitely without
an unacceptable effect is 230 mg/L. (USEPA,
1999a).
Human Health: There is no evidence of adverse
effects from inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact
with sodium chloride. However, ingesting very
large doses may cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
dehydration, and congestion in most internal
organs (Syndel, 2001c).
Sodium sulfite
Used as a 15% solution for 5-
8 min to treat eggs to improve
hatchability.
No aquatic life information was available.
Human Health: Sodium sulfite is an irritant when
it is inhaled, ingested, or comes into contact with
the eyes. It is unlikely to irritate skin after brief
contact, but may be irritating after prolonged
contact (Syndel, 2001d).
Urea and tannic
acid
Used to denature the adhesive
component of fish eggs at
concentrations of 15 g urea
and 20 g NaCl per 5 L of
water for approximately 6
min, followed by a separate
solution of 0.75 g tannic acid
per 5 L water for an additional
6 min. These amounts will
treat approximately 400,000
eggs.
Fate in the Environment: Urea may moderately
biodegrade in water and is not expected to
evaporate significantly (J.T Baker, 1999b). No
environmental fate information for tannic acid
was available.
Aquatic Life: Urea has an experimentally
determined bioconcentration factor of less man
100 and is not expected to significantly
bioaccumulate (J.T. Baker. 1999b). Dilution is
expected to eliminate pH risks from tannic acid.
Human Health: Exposure to urea may cause eye
irritation, headache, nausea, convulsions, and
vomiting (NTP, 1991d; CDC, n.d.). Tannic acid
can irritate the skin and eyes (ProSciTech, 1998).
6-32
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
6.6.4.3 Investigational New Animal Drugs
Investigational new animal drugs (INADs) are those drugs for which FDA has authorized
use on a case-by-case basis to allow a way of gathering data for the approval process (21
USC 3606(j)). Quantities and conditions of use are specified. FDA, however, sometimes
relies on the NPDES permitting process to establish limitations on pollutant discharges to
prevent environmental harm. Table 6.6-3 provides information about INADs, their uses,
and their environmental effects.
Table 6.6-3. Investigational New Animal Drugs for Aquaculture
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
AQUI-S
Approved for use as an
anesthetic and sedative
in New Zealand and
Australia. It has been
used for harvesting
salmon since 1994 and
is also widely used in
transporting lobster,
eels, and other finfish
(AQUI-S, 1998).
No environmental fate information was available.
Aquatic Life: Fish have a fast recovery from AQUI-S, which
is effective at low concentrations of 10-20 mg/L. Specific
efficacy data and dosage information are available from New
Zealand Ltd. (AQUI-S, 1998).
Human Health'. There is no withholding period for AQUI-S,
allowing the aquatic animal to be harvested for human
consumption (AQUI-S, 1998).
Chloramine-T
(Halamid)
Halamid is used in
major European trout
farming countries to
prevent and cure
bacterial gill disease. It
can be used at all stages
of farming for the
general disinfection of
passage bath tanks,
pond surfaces and
equipment, water
preconditioning, water
quality maintenance,
and disinfecting eggs
and artemia. The United
States is researching its
use in controlling
bacterial gill disease in
salmonids (FDA, 1998)
and flavobacteriosis in
cold, cool, and warm
water fishes.
According to the manufacturer, Halamid has a low toxicity,
is readily biodegradable, and does not accumulate in the
environment. Aquatic toxicity information is available from
the manufacturer's web site, but a password is required
(Halamid, n.d.).
6-33
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Drug
Copper sulfate
(Triangle Brand
Copper Sulfate)
Crude carp
pituitary
Erythromycin
Florfenicol
(Aquflor)
Formalin
Use
Used to control bacterial
diseases, fungal
diseases, and external
protozoan and metazoan
parasites.
Aid in improving
spawning function in
various fish (FDA,
1998).
Control of bacterial
kidney disease in
salmonids (FDA, 1998).
Used to control
flexibacteriosis and
furunculosis.
Used as a fungicide on
fish and their eggs at
public aquaculture
facilities.
Environmental Effects
Fate in the Environment: Copper is adsorbed to organic
materials and to clay and mineral surfaces. The degree to
which it is adsorbed depends on the acidity or alkalinity of
the soil. Copper sulfate is highly soluble in water, making it
one of the more mobile metals in soil. However, its leaching
potential is low in all but sandy soils because of its binding
capacity. Copper sulfate can persist indefinitely, although it
will bind to water particulates and sediment (Extoxnet,
1996a). Copper sulfate can aggravate low dissolved oxygen
problems in ponds by killing the primary source of oxygen
(the algae) and by adding a large biochemical oxygen
demand in the form of dead and decomposing algae.
Therefore, consideration should be given to dissolved
oxygen before treating a pond (Cornell, 1998).
Aquatic Life: Copper sulfate is highly toxic to fish. It can be
poisonous to trout and other fish, especially in soft or acidic
waters, even when it is applied at recommended rates.
Copper sulfate' s toxicity to fish tends to decrease as water
hardness increases. Fish eggs are more resistant to the toxic
effects of copper sulfate man young fish fry. Copper sulfate
is also toxic to aquatic invertebrates such as crabs, shrimp.
and oysters (Extoxnet, 1996a).
Human Health: The acute toxicity of copper sulfate is due
largely to its being caustic. The lowest dose of copper sulfate
that has been toxic when ingested by humans is 1 1 mg/kg.
Ingestion of copper sulfate is often not toxic because
vomiting is an automatic reflex of its irritation of the
gastrointestinal tract. However, symptoms are severe if it is
retained in the stomach. Symptoms include a burning pain in
the chest and abdomen, intense nausea, repeated vomiting,
diarrhea, headache, sweating, shock, and injury to the brain.
liver, kidneys, and stomach (Extoxnet, 1996a). It can also
irritate the skin and eyes (Syndel, 200 le). Copper sulfate has
been shown to cause reproductive effects in test animals
(Extoxnet, 1996a).
No environmental fate, aquatic life, or human health
information was available.
No environmental fate, aquatic life, or human health
information was available.
No environmental fate, aquatic life, or human health
information was available.
Effects vary, based on the concentration used and the
conditions in which it is used.
6-34
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Drug
Use
Environmental Effects
Gonadotropin
releasing hormone
analog (Ovaplant,
Ovaprim)
Ovaplant is used to
advance maturation and
ovulation and has been
tested in Atlantic
salmon and other fish
species (Syndel, 200 Ih).
Ovaprim is used to
promote and facilitate
reproduction of many
species of fish (Syndel,
20011).
No environmental fate or aquatic life information was
available.
Human Health: Ovaplant and Ovaprim might be harmful if
they are inhaled, ingested, or come into contact with the eyes
or skin. Although the toxicological properties have not been
studied, it is possible that Ovaplant and Ovaprim might
modify reproductive ability (Syndel, 200If, 2001g).
Hydrogen
peroxide
Used to control bacterial
gill disease in various
fish (FDA, 1998),
fungal infections,
external bacterial
infections, and external
parasites.
No environmental fate or aquatic life information was
available.
Human Health: Large doses of hydrogen peroxide can cause
gastritis, esophagitis, rupture of the colon, proctitis, and
ulcerative colitis (NTP, 1991b). Hydrogen peroxide can
irritate the eyes, skin, nose, throat, and lungs. It is considered
a mutagen and should be handled with extreme caution.
Health effects are unlikely to occur with commercial
solutions of hydrogen peroxide used as a skin disinfectant
(New Jersey, 1998).
17-
methyltestosteron
Used in rainbow trout
(FDA, n.d.c.).
No environmental fate, aquatic life, or human health
information was available.
Oxytetracycline
For control of
columnaris in walleye,
vibriosis in summer
flounder, Streptococcus
infection in tilapia
(FDA, 1998), and
flavobacteriosis in cold,
cool, and warm water
fishes. Also used in
otolith marking of fish.
Effects will vary, based on the concentration used and the
conditions in which it is used.
Potassium
permanganate
(Cairox)
Used to control external
Ichthyophthirius
multifilis in catfish
(FDA, 1997), external
protozoan, metazoan
parasites, and bacterial
and fungal diseases.
No environmental fate or aquatic life information was
available.
Human Health: Potassium permanganate is an irritant when
it is inhaled, ingested, or comes into contact with the eyes,
skin, or nasal and respiratory passages. Early symptoms of
exposure include sluggishness, sleepiness, and weakness in
the legs. Symptoms of advanced cases include fixed facial
expression, emotional disturbances, and falling (Syndel,
2001J).
6.6.4.4 Registered Pesticides
Pesticides may be used to control animal parasites and aquatic plants and might be
present in wastewaters. Some pesticides are bioaccumulative and retain their toxicity
once they are discharged into receiving waters. Although EPA observed that many of the
treatment systems used in the CAAP industry provide adequate reductions of pesticides,
most systems are not specifically designed and operated to remove pesticides.
6-35
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Table 6.6-4 provides information about registered pesticides, their uses, and their
environmental effects.
Table 6.6-4. Pesticides Registered for Aquaculture
Chemical
Chelated
copper
Copper
Copper as
elemental
Use
Used to control
algae.
Used to control
algae.
Used to control
algae.
Environmental Effects
Effects are the same as effects of copper.
Fate in the Environment: Soluble copper compounds, which dissolve
in water, are more likely to threaten human health than those that bind
to solids. Soluble copper compounds released into rivers and lakes,
however, tend to rapidly become attached to particles in neutral and
basic water within almost a day, making these compounds less
threatening to human health (ATSDR, 1990). In contrast, copper
compounds can leach from acidic environments and as a result become
bioavailable and threatening to human health.
Aquatic Life: Crayfish have an LC,0 value of 600 micrograms per liter
(wg/L) for copper. LCW values for bluegill sunfish have been measured
as low as 400/
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Chemical
Use
Environmental Effects
Copper sulfate
pentahydrate
Used to control
algae.
Fate in the Environment: Copper is adsorbed to organic materials and
to clay and mineral surfaces. The degree to which it is adsorbed
depends on the acidity or alkalinity of the soil. Copper sulfate is highly
soluble in water, making it one of the more mobile metals in soil.
However, its leaching potential is low in all but sandy soils because of
its binding capacity. Copper sulfate can persist indefinitely, although it
will bind to water particulates and sediment (Extoxnet, 1996a). Copper
sulfate can aggravate low dissolved oxygen problems in ponds by
killing the primary source of oxygen (the algae) and by adding a large
biological oxygen demand in the form of dead and decomposing algae.
Therefore, consideration should be given to dissolved oxygen before
treating a pond (Cornell, 1998).
Aquatic Life: Copper sulfate is highly toxic to fish. It may be
poisonous to trout and other fish, especially in soft or acidic waters,
even when it is applied at recommended rates. Copper sulfate's
toxicity to fish tends to decrease as water hardness increases. Fish eggs
are more resistant to the toxic effects of copper sulfate man young fish
fry. Copper sulfate is also toxic to aquatic invertebrates such as crabs,
shrimp, and oysters (Extoxnet, 1996a).
Human Health: The acute toxicity of copper sulfate is due largely to its
being caustic. The lowest dose of copper sulfate that has been toxic
when ingested by humans is 11 mg/kg. Ingestion of copper sulfate is
often not toxic because vomiting is an automatic reflex of its irritation
of the gastrointestinal tract. However, symptoms are severe if it is
retained in the stomach. Symptoms include a burning pain in the chest
and abdomen, intense nausea, repeated vomiting, diarrhea, headache,
sweating, shock, and injury to the brain, liver, kidneys, and stomach
(Extoxnet, 1996a). It may also irritate the skin and eyes (Syndel,
2001e). Copper sulfate has been shown to cause reproductive effects in
test animals (Extoxnet, 1996a).
Diuron
Used to control
algae.
Fate in the Environment: Diuron is moderately to highly persistent in
soils and relatively stable in neutral water. Microbes are the primary
agents in the degradation of diuroii in water (Extoxnet, 1996b). When
used properly, the chemical will not accumulate in pond bottom soils
(Tucker and Leard. n.d.).
Aquatic Life: Diuron is moderately toxic to fish and highly toxic to
aquatic invertebrates. The LC50 (48-h) values for diuron range from 4.3
tng/L to 42 mg/L in fish and from 1 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L in aquatic
invertebrates. The LC,0 (96-h) for rainbow trout is 3.5 mg/L (Extoxnet,
1996b).
Human Health: Diuron is slightly toxic to mammals. Animal studies
indicate that it can cause increased mortality, growth retardation.
abnormal blood pigment, anemia, and changes in the spleen, bone
marrow, and blood chemistry (Extoxnet, 1996b). Diuron has been
classified as a known/likely human carcinogen by all routes (USEPA,
1999b).
6-37
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Chemical
Use
Environmental Effects
Acid blue and
acid yellow
(Aquashade)
Used to control
vascular aquatic
plants.
No environmental fate information was available.
Aquashade is reported to be nontoxic to humans, livestock, and aquatic
organisms (Washington Department of Ecology, 1994). Yet, it may
cause eye and skin irritation, nausea, or gastric disturbances (Applied
Biochemists, 1999). In a study that examined the effect of Aquashade
on the oxygen consumption of crayfish, no effects were found at a
concentration of 1 mg/L over 5 d (Danish Technological Institute,
1998).
Dichlobenil
Used to control
vascular aquatic
plants.
Fate in the Environment: Dichlobenil is persistent in water and
groundwater and especially in soil. It has the potential to reach
groundwater based on its water solubility, chemical structure, and use
patterns. EPA requires a warning about this on labels of dichlobenil-
containing products (Cox, 1997). Some formulations may not be
labeled for commercial fish production ponds. Label instructions
should be followed carefully (UGA, 2001).
Aquatic Life: The acute toxicity of dichlobenil to fish under lab
conditions varies, depending on the species and the length of exposure.
Over a 10-d period, concentrations of less man 2 ppm killed fish.
Rainbow trout are especially sensitive, with an LC,0 of less than 5 ppm
over 4 d. The LC50 for other species ranges from 6 to 16 ppm. In a field
study in which small ponds were treated with dichlobenil, some fish
developed tumors, inflamed kidney nodules, and reproductive
problems. Dichlobenil can bioconcentrate in fish by a factor of 40
(Cox, 1997).
The acute toxicity of dichlobenil on aquatic invertebrates varies widely
among species. Sand fleas, water fleas, and stonefly nymphs are
especially susceptible. Sublethal effects that can occur include a
"narcotizing" effect on many invertebrates, gill irritation in
damselflies, immobilization of caddisflies, and a loss of pigmentation
in water boatmen. Aquatic invertebrates may also be affected
indirectly when aquatic plants are killed and they have no place to hide
(Cox, 1997).
Human Health: Fish from treated waters should not be used for human
consumption for 90 d following application (Riemer, 1984). Chronic
exposure to dichlobenil may cause inactivity, loss of appetite, sedation,
coma, or respiratory arrest (Information Ventures, 2000a). Exposure
can also damage the olfactory system or cause eye and skin irritation.
Animal studies show mat long term exposure may result in liver
nodules, kidney stones, reproductive effects, decreased weight gain,
decreased food consumption, and increased liver and kidney weights.
EPA has classified dichlobenil as a possible human carcinogen (Cox,
1997).
6-38
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Chemical
Use
Environmental Effects
Diquat
dibromide
Used to control
vascular aquatic
plants.
Fate in the Environment: Diquat dibromide is highly persistent in soil
and ground water. Although it is water soluble, its capacity for strong
adsorption to soil organic matter and clay suggest that it will not easily
leach through the soil, be taken up by plants or soil microbes, or
broken down by sunlight. When applied to open water, diquat
dibromide disappears rapidly because it binds to suspended particles in
the water. Diquat dibromide stays bound to these particles, remaining
biologically inactive in surface waters. Its half life is less than 48 h in
the water column. Microbial degradation and sunlight play roles in the
breakdown of diquat dibromide in surface waters (Extoxiiet, 1996c).
Aquatic Life: Diquat dibromide is practically nontoxic to fish and
aquatic invertebrates. The 8-h LC30 for diquat dibromide is 12.3 mg/L
in rainbow trout and 28.5 mg/L in Chinook salmon. Research indicates
mat yellow perch suffer significant respiratory distress when herbicide
concentrations in the water are similar to those normally present during
aquatic vegetation control programs. There is little or no
bioconcentration of diquat dibromide in fish (Extoxnet, 1996c).
Human Health: Diquat dibromide is acutely toxic when absorbed
through the skin and moderately toxic via ingestion. Ingestion of
sufficient doses can cause severe irritation of the mouth, throat,
esophagus, and stomach, followed by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
severe dehydration, and alterations in body fluid balances,
gastrointestinal discomfort, chest pain, kidney failure, and toxic liver
damage. Very large doses can result in convulsions and tremors.
Absorption of the herbicide from the gut into the bloodstream is low.
Oral doses are metabolized within the intestines and then excreted in
the feces. It is unlikely that diquat dibromide will cause reproductive
effects in humans under normal circumstances (Extoxnet, 1996c).
Endothall
Used to control
vascular aquatic
plants.
Fate in the Environment: Endothall is highly mobile in soil; however,
rapid degradation limits the extent of leaching. Endothall disappears
from soil in 7-21 d. Its half-life is 4-5 d in clay soils and 9 d in soils
with high organic content. Endothall is rapidly degraded in surface
water, where its half-life is 4-7 d for dipotassium endothall and
approximately 7 d for technical endothall. Biodegradation is slower
without the presence of air (Extoxnet, 1995).
Aquatic Life: Endothall is toxic to some species of fish. Inorganic salts
of endotliall in aquatic formulations are safe for fish in 100-500 ppm
concentrations. However, amine salts of endothall are more toxic to
fish than the dipotassium endothall. Endothall has a low toxicity to
crustaceans and a medium toxicity to aquatic insects. Long term
ingestion may cause severe damage to the digestive tract, liver, and
testes in fish (Extoxnet. 1995).
Human. Health: Endothall is highly irritating to mucous membranes
and precautions should be taken to keep it out of eyes. nose, mouth.
and other sensitive areas (Riemer, 1984). Endothall is not classified as
a carcinogen (Extoxnet, 1995).
6-39
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Chemical
Use
Environmental Effects
Fluridone
Used to control
vascular aquatic
plants.
Fate in the Environment: Fluridone is moderately persistent in water
and sediments following treatment. It is strongly adsorbed to organic
matter in soil. Field tests have shown that the average half-life in pond
water is 21 d and longer in sediments (90 d in hydrosoil). Residues
may persist longer, depending on the amount of sunlight and the water
temperature. Fluridone is stable to hydrolysis and it is primarily
degraded by sunlight and microorganisms (DOH, 2000; Cornell,
1986).
Aquatic Life: Fluridone does not significantly bioaccumulate or
biomagnify in fish (DOH, 2000). Maximum Acceptable Theoretical
Concentration (MATC) values indicate a potential hazard for aquatic
organisms in shallow areas at higher treatment rates described on the
label (Cornell, 1986).
Human Health: Consumption of fish from treated water does not pose
a threat to human health. Fluridone is not considered to be a
carcinogen or mutagen (DOH, 2000).
Glyphosate
Used to control
vascular aquatic
plants.
Fate in the Environment: Glyphosate is not generally active in the soil
and is not usually absorbed from the soil by plants. Its half-life in soil
ranges from 3 to 130 d, depending on soil texture and organic content,
and it is broken down by soil microorganisms. Glyphosate dissolves
easily in water and its potential for leaching into ground water is low.
The half-life of glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 d
(Information Ventures, 2000b).
Aquatic Life: Glyphosate is practically nontoxic to fish and may be
slightly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. The common glyphosate product
is acutely toxic to fish. Acute toxicities of glyphosate vary widely due
to differences in toxicity between the salts and the parent acid or to
surfactants used in the formulation. There is a very low potential for
glyphosate to bioaccumulate in aquatic invertebrates or other aquatic
organisms (Extoxnet, 1996d).
Human Health: Glyphosate can cause irritation of the eyes and skin,
nausea, dizziness (Information Ventures, 2000b), low blood pressure.
lung congestion or dysfunction, erosion of the gastrointestinal tract,
and kidney damage or failure (Cox, 1995).
6-40
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Chemical
Use
Environmental Effects
2,4-D
(acids, esters)
Used to control
vascular aquatic
plants.
Fate in the Environment: 2,4-D has low persistence in soil, with a half-
life of less than 7 d. Soil microbes are primarily responsible for
breaking it down. Despite its short half-life, 2,4-D has been detected in
groundwater supplies in at least 5 states. Very low concentrations have
also been detected in surface waters throughout the United States. In
aquatic environments, 2,4-D is readily degraded by microorganisms.
Hie rate of degradation increases with increased nutrients, sediment
load, and dissolved organic carbon. The half-life of 2,4-D in water
under oxygenated conditions is 1 wk to several weeks (Extoxnet,
1996e).
Aquatic Life: Some formulations of 2,4-D are toxic to fish. Depending
on the formulation used, the LC,0 in cutthroat trout ranges between 1
and 100 mg/L. Channel catfish had less man 10% mortality when
exposed to 10 mg/L for 48 h. Green sunfish showed no effect on
swimming response when exposed to 110 mg/L for 41 h (Extoxnet,
1996e).
Human, Health: The human health criterion for 2,4-D, which is used to
protect people from the carcinogenic risks of consuming water and/or
organisms contaminated with 2,4-D, is 10 /
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Chemical
Use
Environmental Effects
Rotenone
Used to kill fish.
Fate in the Environment: The time for natural degradation of rotenone
by hydrolysis is governed primarily by temperature. Studies show that
rotenone completely degrades within 1 to 8 wk within the range of 10-
20 °C. Its half life ranges from 13.9 h to 10.3 d for water temperatures
of 24 °C and 5 °C, respectively. Rotenone dissipates quickly (less than
24 h) as a result of dilution and increased rates of hydrolysis and
photolysis. Although it can be found in lake sediments, levels
approximate those found in water and breakdown of rotenone lags 1 to
2 wk behind water levels. It is uncommon to find rotenone in stream
sediments (AFS, 2000).
Aquatic Life: Fish are more susceptible to rotenone than other aquatic
animals. All animals have natural enzymes in the digestive tract that
neutralize rotenone. However, fish are more susceptible because
rotenone is readily absorbed into their blood through their gills, and
thus digestive enzymes cannot neutralize it (AFS, 2000).
Human Health: Research shows that rotenone does not cause birth
defects, reproductive dysfunction, gene mutations, or cancer. When
used according to label instructions, rotenone poses little if any hazard
to public health. EPA has concluded that the use of rotenone for fish
control does not present a risk of unreasonable adverse effects on
humans and the environment (AFS, 2000).
6.6.4.5 Summary of Potential Impacts
Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance
A variety of antibiotics are heavily used in the CAAP industry, including oxytetracycline,
sulfadimethoxine, and sulfamerazine. Effluents produced from these facilities can contain
not only appreciable concentrations of the antibiotics themselves but also a variety of
bacterial species, some of which are antibiotic-resistant. These antibiotic-resistant strains
of bacteria have the potential to confer antibiotic resistance to the resident bacteria in the
guts of humans, along with native aquatic bacteria species that are found in the effluent
release areas. Many bacteria in aquatic environments have a pronounced capacity for
acquisition and transfer of resistance genes. The route of transmission from animals to
humans by meat products is well established. The transfer of antibiotic resistance from
fish to humans by fish consumption is not as well studied, but it is presumed to occur at
the same rates. To assess the impacts of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance on public
health, animal health, and ecosystem health, some basic assessments of the types and
concentrations of antibiotics used will be necessary to determine whether CAAP effluents
should be monitored for excess antibiotics or antibiotic-resistant bacterial species
(particularly those that represent a public health risk).
Biological Impairment
One of the most difficult to quantify, and potentially most dangerous, impacts of CAAP
effluents is biological impairment. Effluents from CAAP facilities can contain a range of
altered species, including antibiotic-resistant microorganisms and escaped organisms. In
addition, the dangers of the added drugs and chemicals used for increased production are
not well known. Extensive surveys of the amounts and types of chemicals used in
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
aquaculture facilities is necessary, along with an understanding of the impacts of these
drugs and chemicals on the surrounding ecosystems.
Another area of acute concern is invasive species introduction from CAAP facilities,
which poses serious potential and observed risks to native fishery resources and wild
native aquatic species from the establishment of escaped individuals (Carlton, 2001;
Hallerman and Kapuscinski, 1992; Volpe et al., 2000). In some regions of the United
States, ecological and natural resource threats associated with invasive species are among
the most critical concerns facing environmental protection agencies. A particular concern
is a potentially higher risk of adverse impacts on native populations that might arise from
the introduction of genetically modified organisms ("transgenic organisms"), which are
being contemplated for use in this industry (Hedrick, 2001). CAAP facilities also employ
a range of drugs and chemicals used both therapeutically that may be released into
receiving waters. The absence of adequate information on potential risks to ecosystems
and possibly to human health from the consumption of organisms inadvertently exposed
to these substances after their release into the environment has led to regulatory action at
the regional level to prohibit certain drug and chemical applications (USEPA, 2002a).
Finally, CAAP facilities also may inadvertently introduce pathogens into receiving
waters, with potentially serious adverse impacts on native biota.
6.7 REFERENCES
AFS (American Fisheries Society). 1997. Resource Policy Handbook: Introduction of
Aquatic Species. American Fisheries Society.
. Accessed January 2002.
AFS (American Fisheries Society). 2000. Rotenone Use in Fisheries Management:
Administrative and Technical Guidelines Manual. American Fisheries Society.
. Accessed May 2001.
Alverson, D.L., and G.T. Ruggerone. 1998. Escaped Farm Salmon: Environmental and
Ecological Concerns. Environmental Assessment Office, Government of British
Columbia. . Accessed March 2002.
Applied Biochemists. 1999. Material Safety Data Sheet: Aquashade.
. Accessed May 2001.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1990. Public Health
Statement: Copper. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
. Accessed October 2000.
AQUI-S, New Zealand Ltd. 1998. AQUI-S. . Accessed May
2001.
Bain, M.B. 1993. Assessing Impacts of Introduced Aquatic Species: Grass Carp in Large
Systems. Environmental Management 17(2):211-224.
Blazer, V.S., and S.E. LaPatra. 2002. Pathogens of Cultured Fishes: Potential Risks to
Wild Fish Populations. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States, ed.
6-43
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
J. Tomasso. pp. 197-224. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Boardman, G.D., V. Maillard, J. Nyland, GJ. Flick, and G.S. Libey. 1998. The
Characterization, Treatment, and Improvement of Aquacultural Effluents.
Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Food Science and Technology,
and Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
Boogaard, M.A., T.D. Bills, J.H. Selgeby, and D.A. Johnson. 1997. Evaluation of
Piscicides for Control of Ruffe. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Boyd, C.E. 2000. Farm Effluent During Draining for Harvest. The Global Aquaculture
Advocate (August):26-27.
Boyd, C.E., and C.S. Tucker. 1998. Pond Aquaculture Water Quality Management.
pp. 541-575. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
Boyd, C.E., J. Queiroz, J.-Y. Lee, M. Rowan, G. Whitis, and A. Gross. 2000.
Environmental Assessment of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Farming in
Alabama. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 31:511-544.
Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters. Environmental Impacts
and Management Priorities. Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington,
VA.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), n.d. International Chemical Safety
Cards: Urea. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
. Accessed May 2001.
Chen, S., S. Summerfelt, T. Losordo, and R. Malone. 2002. Recirculating Systems,
Effluents, and Treatments. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States,
ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 119-140. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Chilton, E.W., and M.I. Muoneke. 1992. Biology and Management of Grass Carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idella, Cyprinidae) for Vegetation Control: a North American
Perspective. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 2:283-320. In USGS, 2001.
Nonindigenous Fishes - Ctenopharyngodon idella. . Accessed March 2002.
Cornell. 1986. Fluridone Herbicide Profile. Cornell University, Ithaca.
. Accessed May 2001.
Cornell. 1998. Treatment of Diseased Fish. Cornell University, Cornell Veterinary
Medicine, Ithaca.
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Courtenay, W.R., Jr., D.A. Hensley, J.N. Taylor, and J.A. McCann. 1984. Distribution of
Exotic Fishes in the Continental United States. In Distribution, Biology and
Management of Exotic Fishes, ed. W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.R. Stauffer, Jr.,
pp. 41-77. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and J.D. Williams. 1992. Dispersal of Exotic Species from
Aquaculture Sources, with Emphasis on Freshwater Fishes. In Dispersal of Living
Organisms into Aquatic Ecosystems, ed. A. Rosenfield, and R. Mann, pp. 49-81.
Maryland Sea Grant Publication, College Park, MD.
Cox, C. 1995. Glyphosate Fact Sheets: Part 1 and Part 2. Journal of Pesticide Reform
15(3). . Accessed May 2001.
Cox, C. 1997. Herbicide Factsheet: Dichlobenil. Journal of Pesticide Reform, Spring.
. Accessed May 2001.
Danish Technological Institute. 1998. Survey ofAzo-Colorants in Denmark:
Consumption, Use, Health, and Environmental Aspects. Danish Environmental
Protection Agency, Denmark, . Accessed May 2001.
Delos Reyes, Jr., A.A., R.F. Malone, S.J. Langlinias, J.V. Huner, R. Soileau, and K.A.
Rusch. 1996. Energy Conservation and Environmental Improvement in an Intensive
Recirculating Alligator Production System. In Successes and Failures in Commercial
Recirculating Aquaculture, vol. II. pp. 494-506. National Regional Agricultural
Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY.
Dentler, J.L. 1993. Noahs Farce: The Regulation and Control of Exotic Fish and Wildlife.
University ofPuget Sound Law Review 17:191-242.
Dill, W. A., and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and Status of Introduced Fishes in
California, 1871-1996. Manuscript for Fish Bulletin of the California Department of
Fish and Game 178, pp. 223-226. California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, CA.
DOH (Department of Health). 2000. Fluridone (Sonar). Washington State Department of
Health. .
Accessed May 2001.
Dubos, R.J. 1955. Second Thoughts on Germ Theory. Scientific American 192:31-35.
EAO (Environmental Assessment Office). 1997. Impacts of Farmed Salmon Escaping
from Net Pens. Environmental Assessment Office, Government of British Columbia.
. Accessed March
2002.
Extoxnet. 1995. Pesticide Information Profiles: Endothall. Extension Toxicology
Network, a cooperative effort of the University of California-Davis, Oregon State
University, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and the University of
6-45
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Idaho, . Accessed
May 2001.
Extoxnet. 1996a. Pesticide Information Profiles: Copper Sulfate. Extension Toxicology
Network, a cooperative effort of the University of California-Davis, Oregon State
University, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and the University of
Idaho, . Accessed
May 2001.
Extoxnet. 1996b. Pesticide Information Profiles: Diuron. Extension Toxicology
Network, a cooperative effort of the University of California-Davis, Oregon State
University, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and the University of
Idaho, . Accessed May 2001.
Extoxnet. 1996c. Pesticide Information Profiles: DiquatDibromide. Extension
Toxicology Network, a cooperative effort of the University of California-Davis,
Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and the
University of Idaho, .
Accessed May 2001.
Extoxnet. 1996d. Pesticide Information Profiles: Glyphosate. Extension Toxicology
Network, a cooperative effort of the University of California-Davis, Oregon State
University, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and the University of
Idaho, . Accessed May
2001.
Extoxnet. 1996e. Pesticide Information Profiles: 2,4-D. Extension Toxicology Network,
a cooperative effort of the University of California-Davis, Oregon State University,
Michigan State University, Cornell University, and the University of Idaho.
. Accessed May 2001.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1996. Freedom of Information Summary: NADA
008-804. . Accessed
May 2001.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1997. NRSP-7 Holds Semi-Annual
Committee.Meeting. FDA Veterinarian Newsletter 12 (November/December).
. Accessed May 2001.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1998. NRSP Holds Semi-Annual Committee.
Meeting. FDA Veterinarian Newsletter 13 (November/December).
. Accessed May 2001.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1999. Freedom of Information Summary: NADA
140-927. . Accessed
May 2001.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 2002. Drugs Approved for Use in Aquaculture
(Poikilothermic Food Species), . Accessed August 2002.
6-46
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
FDA (Food and Drug Administration), n.d.a. Parasite-S NADA 140-989: General
Information, . Accessed May
2001.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration), n.d.b. Freedom of Information Summary
Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application (ANADA) 200-226. . Accessed May 2001.
FDA (Food and Drug Administration), n.d.c. Extramural Research.
. Accessed May 2001.
Faust, R.A. 1992. Toxicity Summary for Copper. Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental
Restoration Program, . Accessed March 2002.
GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection). 1997. Towards Safe and Effective Use of Chemicals in Coastal
Aquaculture. IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of
Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. Reports and
Studies GESAMP. No. 65. London, IMO. 40 pp. . Accessed October 2001.
Grubbs, G. 2001, November 14. Memorandum to Regions I - X Water Directors, State
Water Programs Directors, Great Water Body Programs Directors, Authorized Tribal
Water Quality Standards Programs Directors, and State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators. Development and Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water
Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, . Accessed
May 2001.
Hallerman, E.M., and A.R. Kapuscinski, 1992. Ecological Implications of Using
Transgenic Fishes in Aquaculture. ICES March Science Symposium 194:56-66.
6-47
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Hargreaves, J.A., C.E. Boyd, and C.S. Tucker. 2002. Water Budgets for Aquaculture
Production. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso,
pp. 9-34. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society,
Baton Rouge, LA.
Hedrick, P.W. 2001. Invasion of Transgenes from Salmon or other Genetically Modified
Organisms into Natural Populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science 58(2001):841-844.
Henry, J.G., and G.W. Heinke. 1996. Environmental Science and Engineering. 2d ed.
pp. 327-328. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hinshaw, J.M., and G. Fornshell. 2002. Effluents from Raceways. In Aquaculture and the
Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 77-104. U.S. Aquaculture
Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Hodson, R.G., and J. Jarvis. 1990. Raising Hybrid Striped Bass in Ponds. University of
North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh, NC.
Hoffman, G.L., and G. Schubert. 1984. Some Parasites of Exotic Fishes. In Distribution,
Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes, ed. W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.R.
Stauffer, Jr., pp. 233-261. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality), n.d. Idaho Waste Management
Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
. Accessed
August 2002.
Information Ventures. 2000a. Dichlobenil Pesticide Fact Sheet. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, . Accessed May 2001.
J.T. Baker. 1999a. Material Safety Data Sheet: Calcium Chloride.
. Accessed May 2001.
J.T. Baker. 1999b. Material Safety Data Sheet: Urea, . Accessed May 2001.
J.T. Baker. 2001. Material Safety Data Sheet: Acetic Acid Glacial.
. Accessed May 2001.
6-48
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture) Shrimp Virus Work Group. 1997. An
Evaluation of Potential Shrimp Virus Impacts on Cultured Shrimp and Wild Shrimp
Populations in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Coastal Waters. A
report to the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture prepared by the JSA Shrimp Virus
Work Group, Washington, DC.
JSA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture). 2000. Effluents from Catfish Aquaculture
Ponds. Prepared by the Technical Subgroup for Catfish Production in Ponds, Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Washington, DC.
Kaufman, D.G., and C.M. Franz. 1993. Biosphere 2000: Protecting Our Global
Environment. Harper Collins College Publishers, NY.
Kendra, W. 1991. Quality of Salmon Hatchery Effluents During a Summer Low-Flow
Season. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:43-51.
Kentucky State University, n.d. Removal of Undesirable Fishes from Warmwater Ponds.
Kentucky State University Cooperative Extension Program.
. Accessed May 2001.
Kohler, C.C., and W.R. Courtenay. n.d. American Fisheries Society Position on
Introductions of Aquatic Species. American Fisheries Society, Introduced Fish
Section, . Accessed January 2002.
Lawson, T.B. 1995. Fundamentals of Aquacultural Engineering, pp. 48-57. Chapman &
Hall, NY.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer,
Jr. 1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State
Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. (Cited as the complete work rather than as
individual accounts in the interest of space).
Loch, J.J., and S.A. Bonar. 1999. Occurrence of Grass Carp in the Lower Columbia and
Snake Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:374-379.
Losordo, T.M., and M.B. Timmons. 1994. An Introduction to Water Ruse Systems. In
Aquaculture Reuse Systems: Engineering Design and Management, pp. 1-7. Elsevier
Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
LSU (Louisiana State University). 1999. Crawfish Production Manual. Publication no.
2637. Louisiana State University, Agricultural Center, Louisiana Cooperative
Extension Service, Baton Rouge, LA.
Lutz, G. 2001. Best Waste Management Practices for the Alligator, Crawfish, and Turtle
Industries. Paper presented at the Aquaculture Waste Management Symposium, July
22-24, 2001.
MacMillan, J.R., R. Reimschuessel, B.A. Dixon, G.J. Flick, and E.S. Garrett. 2002.
Aquaculture Effluents and Human Pathogens: A Negligible Impact. The Human
Pathogens and Aquaculture Effluent Special Subgroup. Submitted to the JSA
Aquaculture Effluents Task Force, 8 pp.
6-49
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
McAllister, P.E. 1990. Fish Disease Leaflet 83: Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia of Fishes.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, National
Fisheries Research Center-Leetown, National Fish Health Research Laboratory.
. Accessed March 2002.
Meyer, P.P. 1970. Seasonal Fluctuations in the Incidence of Disease on Fish Farms. In
A Symposium on Diseases of Fishes and Shell Fishes, ed. S.F. Snieszko. special
publication no. 5, American Fishery Society, Washington, DC.
Murphy, S. 2000a. General Information on Nitrogen. Boulder Area Sustainability
Information Network (BASIN), . Accessed December 2001.
Murphy, S. 2000b. General Information on Phosphorus. Boulder Area Sustainability
Information Network (BASIN). . Accessed December 2001.
Murphy, S. 2000c. General Information on Solids. Boulder Area Sustainability
Information Network (BASIN), .
Accessed May 2001.
New Jersey. 1998. Hydrogen Peroxide, . Accessed May 2001.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 1991a. NTP Chemical Repository: Acetic Acid.
National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
National Institutes of Health, . Accessed May 2001.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 1991b. NTP Chemical Repository: Hydrogen
Peroxide. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, . Accessed May 2001.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 199Id. NTP Chemical Repository: Urea. National
Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National
Institutes of Health. . Accessed May 2001.
NTP (National Toxicology Program), n.d. NTP Chemical Repository: 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health,
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/Chem_H&S/NTP_Chem9/Radian94-75-7.html>.
Accessed May 2001.
Nussey, G., J.HJ. van Vuren, and H.H. du Preez. 1995. Effect of Copper on the
Hematology and Osmoregulation of the Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis
mossambicus) (Cichlidae). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 111C(3):369-
380.
Orellana, F.X. 1992. Characterization of Effluents from Commercial Crawfish Ponds in
Southern Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
Pardue, J.H., R.D. DeLaune, and W.H. Patrick, Jr., and J.A. Nyman. 1994. Treatment of
Alligator Farm Wastewater Using Land Application. Aquacultural Engineering
13:129-45.
Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri, pp. 129-130. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.
ProSciTech. 1998. Material Safety Data Sheet: Tannic Acid.
. Accessed May 2001.
Rakocy, J.E., T.M. Losordo, and M.P. Masser. 1992. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank
Production Systems: Integrating Fish and Plant Culture. SRAC publication no. 454.
Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Riemer, D. 1984. Introduction to Freshwater Vegetation, pp. 153-155. Avi Publishing
Company, Inc., Westport, CT.
Rose, S. 1972. What About the White Amur? A Superfish or a Supercurse? Florida
Naturalist (October): 156-157.
Schueler, T.R., and H.K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection.
pp. 64-65. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Scudder, B.C., J.L. Carter, and H.V. Leland. 1988. Effects of Copper on the Development
of the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Aquatic Toxicology
12:107-124.
Shireman, J.V., and C. R. Smith. 1983. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Grass Carp
Ctenopharyngodon idella (Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1844). FAO Fisheries Synopsis
no. 135. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome,
Italy. 86 pp.
Shirley, M. 2002. Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. Personal communication,
May 14, 2002.
Stickney, R.R. 2000. Tilapia Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed., R.R. Stickney,
pp. 934-941. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
Stickney, R.R. 2002. Impacts of Cage and Net Pen Culture on Water Quality and Benthic
Communities. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States, ed.
6-51
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
J. Tomasso, pp. 105-118. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Stone, N., H. Thomforde, and E. Park. n.d. Baitfish Production in Ponds. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the Technical Subgroup of the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluent Task Force, Washington, DC.
Syndel. 2001a. Material Safety Data Sheet: Calcium Chloride. Syndel International, Inc.
. Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200Ib. Material Safety Data Sheet: Ovadine. Syndel International, Inc.
. Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200Ic. Material Safety Data Sheet: Sodium Chloride. Syndel International, Inc.
. Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200Id. Material Safety Data Sheet: Sodium Sulfite. Syndel International, Inc.
. Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200le Material Safety Data Sheet: Copper Sulfate. Syndel International, Inc.
. Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200If. Material Safety Data Sheet: Ovaplant. Syndel International, Inc.
. Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200Ig. Material Safety Data Sheet: Ovaprim. Syndel International, Inc.
. Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200Ih. Ovaplant. Syndel International, Inc. . Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200li. Ovaprim. Syndel International, Inc. . Accessed May 2001.
Syndel. 200 Ij. Material Safety Data Sheet: Potassium Permanganate. Syndel
International, Inc. . Accessed May 2001.
Taylor, J. N., W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.A. McCann. 1984. Known Impact of Exotic
Fishes in the Continental United States. In Distribution, Biology, and Management of
Exotic Fish, ed. W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.R. Stauffer, pp. 322-373. Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, MD.
TEC (Total Environment Centre). 1998. Copper. Total Environment Centre, Nature
Conservation Council, . Accessed October 2000.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002, August. Site visit report for Harlingen Shrimp Farm, Arroyo
Aquaculture Association, and Loma Alta, Los Fresnos, TX.
Treece, G.D. 2000. Shrimp Culture. In Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney,
pp. 798-868. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
6-52
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Tucker, C.S., ed. 1998. Characterization and Management of Effluents from Aquaculture/
Ponds in the Southern United States. SRAC final report no. 600. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
Tucker, T.S., and A.T. Leard. n.d. Managing Catfish Off-Flavors with Diuron. Thad
Cochran National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
UGA (University of Georgia). 2001. Georgia Pest Control Handbook: Aquatic Weed
Control. University of Georgia, Entomology, . Accessed May 2001.
UMN (University of Minnesota). 2000. A Field Guide to Aquatic Exotic Plants and
Animals. University of Minnesota, Minnesota Sea Grant Program.
. Accessed January 2002.
University of Delaware. 1995. Exotic Species Watch: News About Non-Native Aquatic
Plants and Animals of Concern to Delaware. University of Delaware Sea Grant
College Program, . Accessed March
2002.
USD A (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. Infectious Anemia Program Standards.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plan Health Inspection Service,
Veterinary Service, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Copper —1984. EPA 440/5-84-031. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria - Correction. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
. Accessed May 2001.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Federal Register Document:
Diuron. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. . Accessed May 2001.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. National Water Quality
Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-00-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
. Accessed December 2001.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit no. ME0036234, issued to Acadia Aquaculture, Inc.
Signed February 21, 2002.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit no. ID-G13-0000, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Seattle, WA.
6-53
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), n.d. Emergency First Aid Treatment
Guide for Antimycin A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
. Accessed May 2001.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000a. Nonindigenous Fishes — Oreochromis aureus.
United States Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species.
. Accessed
March 2002.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000b. Nonindigenous Fishes — Oreochromis
mossambicus. United States Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species.
. Accessed
March 2002.
USGS (U.S.Geological Survey). 2001. Nonindigenous Fishes — Ctenopharyngodon
idella. United States Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species.
. Accessed
March 2002.
Volpe, J.P., E.B. Taylor, D.W. Rimmer, and B.W. Glickman. 2000. Evidence of Natural
Reproduction of Aquaculture-Escaped Atlantic Salmon in a Coastal British Columbia
River. Conservation Biology 14(3 June 2000):899-903.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. A Citizen's Manual for Developing Integrated
Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans. Appendix D. Aquatic Plant Control Methods.
Washington State Department of Ecology, . Accessed May 2001.
Watson, C.A. 2002. University of Florida. Personal communication, February 2, 2002.
Wheaton, F.W. 1977a. Aquacultural Engineering, pp. 229-247. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., NY.
Wheaton, F.W. 1977b. Aquacultural Engineering, pp. 643-679. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., NY.
Whetstone, J. 2002. Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Personal communication, April
11,2002.
6-54
-------
CHAPTER 7
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR THE CONCENTRATED
AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Best management practices (BMPs) are management strategies and practices that
concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) facility operators use to increase
production efficiencies while reducing either the effluent volume or concentrations of
pollutants in the effluent stream. Examples of BMPs include feed management, health
management, and mortality removal. Wastewater treatment technologies are used at a
facility to remove one or more pollutants from the effluent stream. For example, primary
settling of solids is a technology used at a facility to capture solids from the facility's
effluent. EPA evaluated a variety of BMPs and treatment technologies, which are
described in this chapter, currently used in the CAAP industry, as well as some used in
other industries. Because each production system discharges effluents with different
characteristics, EPA considered the treatment technologies and practices discussed in this
chapter throughout the development of the ELGs. EPA further evaluated some of these
technologies and practices as part of the regulatory options that may apply the technology
or practice. The production systems listed at the end of each technology or BMP
description indicates which systems may apply to the technology or practice discussed.
7.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
7.2.1 Feed Management
Feed is the primary source of pollutants to CAAP systems. Feed management recognizes
the importance of effective, environmentally sound use of feed. Facility operators should
continually evaluate their feeding practices to ensure that feed is consumed at the highest
rate possible. For pond systems, pond biomass, though difficult to estimate accurately,
can be helpful in determining how much feed to add to a particular pond. For all systems,
observing feeding behavior and noting the presence of excess feed can be used to adjust
feeding rates to ensure maximum feed consumption and minimal excess.
The primary operational factors associated with proper feed management are
development of feeding regimes, based on the weight of the cultured species, and regular
observation of feeding activities to ensure that the feed is consumed. This practice is
advantageous because it decreases the costs associated with excess feed that is not
consumed by the cultured species. Excess feed can degrade the quality of the production
water by adding excess nutrients to the system. Facilities should also handle and store
7-1
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
feed with care to prevent the breakdown of feed into fine particles. If fines are present in
the feed, they should be removed and disposed of properly.
In pond systems, solids from the excess feed usually settle out and are naturally
processed, along with feces from the aquatic animals. Although most of the dissolved and
solids fractions from the uneaten feed are treated in the pond, some of the constituents
can be released when water overflows from the pond or during draining. Too much
excess feed can overwhelm natural processes in the pond and result in higher pollutant
loads discharged.
There are a variety of practices that can be used to minimize wasted feed and optimize
feed uptake by the aquatic animals. Facilities should use high-quality feed consistent with
the nutritional needs of the cultured species to maximize feed consumption and
conversion. The facility operator should know the feed requirements of the cultured
species to accurately determine daily feed amounts. Facilities should use information
including size offish, water temperature, projected growth rates, and biomass in the
system to determine appropriate feeding rates (Westers, 1995). Facilities should also
store feed properly to maintain the nutrient quality and minimize humidity to prevent
growth of molds or bacteria on feed.
In addition to the above practices, feed management practices for net pen facilities should
monitor feeding rates using technologies such as underwater photography. Excess feed is
the primary source of sediment accumulation beneath net pens, which can have an
adverse effect on the benthic community.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, net pens, and
alligators.
7.2.2 Best Management Practices Plan
The best management practices plan includes components designed to minimize potential
problems associated with aquatic animal pathogens, the escapes of nonnative species, and
the use of drugs and chemicals. The goal of the BMP plan is to control conventional and
nutrient pollutants in the discharge and to minimize the use of drugs and chemicals
through BMPs.
An individual facility operator can develop a BMP plan tailored to the unique conditions
of the CAAP facility, which will further reduce the discharge of pollutants consistent
with the goals of the Clean Water Act. EPA called this plan the Pollutant Analysis at
Critical Control Points (PACCP), which uses the well-established Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Points (HACCP) methodology developed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure safe
processing and importation of fish and shellfish products. Similar to the application of
HACCP in food processing, PACCP can be used to identify and minimize important
pollutants in effluents from CAAP facilities.
The HACCP methodology is a preventive system of hazard control rather than a reactive
one (Gunderson and Kinnunen, 2001). For example, the overall goal of HACCP in
seafood processing is to provide healthy, uncontaminated fish products to consumers
(Gunderson and Kinnunen, 2001). CAAP facilities can use the similar PACCP approach
7-2
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
to reduce or minimize the risks associated with pollutants in effluents, which should
minimize impacts on receiving waters. The goals of PACCP are to identify the potential
pollutants found in effluents from CAAP facilities (analogous to hazards in HACCP), to
establish controls to minimize the pollutants, and to monitor the controls. The controls
may be BMPs, such as feed management, or technologies, such as settling basins.
Seven basic principles of HACCP (Gunderson and Kinnunen, 2001) can be adopted for
use in PACCP:
• Conduct a hazard analysis. Prepare a list of steps in the process where significant
hazards occur and describe preventive measures.
• Identify the critical control points in the process.
• Establish controls for each critical control point identified.
• Establish critical control point monitoring requirements. Establish procedures for
using monitoring results to adjust the process and maintain control.
• Establish corrective actions to be taken when monitoring indicates that there is a
deviation from an established critical limit.
• Establish procedures to verify that the PACCP system is working correctly.
• Establish effective record-keeping procedures that document the PACCP system.
The PACCP approach considered for CAAP facilities could be used to minimize the
discharge of pollutants commonly associated with CAAP facilities, including suspended
solids, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), and oxygen-demanding substances. In
addition, PACCP could also be used to prevent escapement, and to evaluate and control
pollutants such as therapeutic drugs and chemicals, pesticides, and pathogens. The most
important aspect of using a management approach such as PACCP is the flexibility it
provides both the facility operator and the regulator. More specifically, the facility
operator has flexibility to develop a plan that fits the pollutant reduction needs of the
individual facility. In addition, the operator can also use several different approaches to
meet the goals of the plan, which in turn would have met the goals of the effluent
limitations guidelines.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, net pens, and
alligators.
7.2.3 Health Screening
During normal operations, health screening involves the periodic sampling of the cultured
species, which are screened for diseases, parasites, and body weight. Health screening
can be done periodically and involves using small seines, cast nets, or dip nets to collect a
random sample. The samples are visually inspected for diseases and parasites, then
weighed and returned to the culture system.
Health screening allows for the early detection of certain diseases and parasites, such as
columnaris or trichodina, which would otherwise not be detected until the outbreak had
7-3
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
spread through the cultured population. Most states have diagnostic services available to
assist in screening aquatic animals and identifying potential problems. Measuring weight
allows producers to evaluate general health, determine how well the crop is performing,
and continually update feeding regimes so that the most efficient feed rates are used.
Health screening can also reduce the use of medicated feeds by identifying diseases early
in their development before catastrophic outbreaks occur.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, and net pens.
7.2.4 Inventory Control
Inventory control refers to the ongoing management of the amount of aquatic animal
biomass in a culture system. Accurate recording-keeping and regular sampling to
determine the average size of cultured species are important tools for estimating the
amount of biomass in the production system. Higher biomass requires higher feed inputs,
which could potentially lower the water quality by adding nutrients and reducing levels
of dissolved oxygen. Production systems with high biomasses are subject to reduced
growth rates, lower feed conversion ratios, and increased pollutant loadings from
metabolic wastes. Information collected as part of inventory control helps the facility to
develop cost-effective feeding regimes to promote optimal water quality.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, net pens, and
alligators.
7.2.5 Mortality Removal
Mortality of the cultured species in small numbers is a common occurrence in C AAP
systems. Many of the mortalities float to the surface of the culture water and can be
collected by hand or with nets. Mortality removal requires at least daily inspection of
each culture unit to check for the presence of mortalities. Changes in operations should
not be required because most producers complete at least one daily inspection of all
production operations.
The timely removal of mortalities helps to prevent the spread of some diseases. Quickly
removing mortalities before they start to decompose also reduces the introduction of
excess nutrients into the system. There are no known disadvantages to the timely removal
of mortalities; however, when ponds have large numbers of mortalities, removal might be
more costly and require seines and crews similar to those used during harvest.
Application production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, and net pens.
7.2.6 Net Cleaning
The regular cleaning of production nets helps to ensure the constant flow of water
through the production area of the net pens. As the nets sit in the culture area, marine
organisms attach to and grow on the nets, reducing the area of the openings. This
reduction in area reduces the water flow through the net pens and the amount of dissolved
oxygen available. Lack of water exchange due to a reduced open net area also increases
the buildup of metabolic waste in the system.
Applicable production systems: net pens.
7-4
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
7.2.7 Pond Discharge Management
The most significant determinant for effluent quality in pond systems appears to be
frequency and duration of pond drainings. The longer the time interval between
drainings, the lower the wastewater volume and pollutant loads being discharged.
Pond systems are characterized as systems with infrequent discharges of water that have
been treated by natural processes in the pond. There are two types of discharge from
ponds: unintentional discharges due to overflow events and intentional discharges related
to production practices such as harvesting.
Intentional discharges vary in frequency with the type of pond, the species being
produced, and operator preferences. Water may be intentionally discharged from ponds to
facilitate harvests or to improve the quality of the water in the pond by flushing or
exchanging the water with new water additions.
Discharge management applies practices to reduce the volume of water discharged and to
improve the quality of water through in-pond processes. By managing the frequency of
discharge and holding water between crops, natural processes in the pond can assimilate
wastes in the system. Other practices and technologies, such as aeration and feed
management, also enhance water quality in the system.
Reusing water for multiple crops reduces the effluent volume. Effluent volume also can
be reduced by draining ponds only when necessary. When possible, facilities can
construct ponds that do not have to be drained for harvest. Facilities may also harvest fish
by seining without partially or completely draining the pond unless it is necessary to
harvest in deep ponds, restock, or repair pond earthwork.
Facilities may also design new ponds with structures that allow the ponds to be drained
near the surface instead of from the bottom to improve the quality of the water drained.
(Water from the bottom of the pond has more solids.) If necessary, facilities may install a
swivel-type drain that can take in water from the surface and be lowered to completely
drain the pond.
When ponds must be drained completely, it is recommended that the final 20% to 25% of
the pond volume be discharged into a settling basin or held for 2 to 3 days to minimize
suspended solids and then discharged slowly.
Applicable production systems: ponds.
7.2.8 Rainwater Management
Ponds can be managed to capture and store precipitation and minimize the need for
expensive pumped groundwater or surface water. By maintaining pond depths between 6
to 12 in. below the height of the overflow structure, about 160,000 to 325,000 gal of
storage capacity per surface acre of pond is available to capture direct rainfall and runoff
from the pond walls. When more water is stored, less water is released through overflows
and smaller amounts of potential pollutants are released. Capturing rainfall and reducing
the amount of overflow reduces the need for pumping additional water into a pond to
compensate for water lost to evaporation and infiltration. The capture of rainfall also
reduces the amount of pollutants released into the waterways by extending the natural
7-5
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
treatment processes that take place in the pond. This practice of preventing overflow by
capturing rainwater is a common practice in many sectors within pond operations such as
the catfish and baitfish industry. An additional benefit of this practice is that less energy
is required for operating the facility.
For watershed ponds in larger watersheds, excess flows can be diverted away from the
ponds. Diversions can be designed to provide sufficient water for the management of the
pond and crop of fish while diverting excess water away from the pond. With less water
flowing through the ponds during large runoff events, the overflow volume is reduced
(Boyd et al., 2000).
There are little, if any, costs for this practice. The cost of energy and pump maintenance
will be saved if water is not pumped into ponds to maintain water levels. The cost of
adding more capacity by extending the height of drain structures should include pond
design evaluations, materials to modify the structure, and labor to perform the
modifications.
Applicable production systems: ponds.
7.2.9 Siting
Siting is the preimplementation planning that should take place to ensure that a net pen
system is located in an area of adequate flow. Net pens placed in areas without sufficient
tidal flushing have an increased probability of sedimentation beneath the pens. Net pens
should also be located in areas where they are protected from storm events and do not
become a hazard to navigation.
Applicable production systems: net pens.
7.2.10 Secondary Containment (Escapement Control)
Secondary containment involves the use of a second set of containment netting around a
net pen system. The secondary containment netting should be positioned to capture any
fish that might escape the primary containment netting due to damage to the net pen
system, which could occur because of a storm event or other structural failure.
Influent screening is also applicable to all systems using ambient water sources for
culture water. Influent screening can prevent the escapement of the cultured animals into
source water. Screening also ensures the removal of harmful biological pollutants (wild
fish and insects) that can significantly reduce production through predation.
Many facilities also screen effluents to guard against the escapement of the cultured
species into the receiving waters. Effluent screening may include the use of metal grates
or screens with mesh sizes small enough to exclude the cultured species from the effluent
stream or the use of disinfection techniques such as ozonation or UV disinfection to kill
any of the cultured species before they are discharged to a receiving waterbody.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, and net pens.
7-6
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
7.2.11 Solids Removal BMP Plan
A facility's solids removal BMP plan includes components designed to minimize the
discharge of solids from the facility. The CAAP facility would provide written
documentation of a solids removal BMP plan and keep necessary records to establish and
implement the plan.
Evaluating and planning site-specific activities to control the release of solids from AAP
facilities is a practice currently required in several EPA regions as part of individual and
general NPDES permits (e.g., shrimp pond facilities in Texas, net pens in Maine, and
flow-through facilities in Washington and Idaho). BMP plans in these permits require the
facility operators to develop a management plan for handling removed solids and
preventing excess feed from entering the system. The BMP plan also ensures planning for
proper operation and maintenance of equipment, especially treatment control
technologies.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, net pens, and
alligators.
7.2.12 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan
The purpose of the drug and chemical BMP plan is to document the proper use and
storage of specific drugs and chemicals in the production facility (e.g., amount of the
drugs and chemicals used, proper storage of chemicals, and proper identification of the
disease or problem and selection of proper chemical). The plan would also address
practices to minimize the accidental spillage or release of drugs and chemicals. The
CAAP facility is expected to provide written documentation of a BMP plan and keep
necessary records to establish and implement the plan. Again, this tool is intended to be
flexible; individual facilities are able to comply with the regulations by designing plans
that address the unique needs of their facilities.
Applicable systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, net pens, and alligators.
7.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
7.3.1 Aeration
Some discharges from ponds, especially those from bottom waters, might be low in
dissolved oxygen or have sufficient biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) to be
problematic in receiving waters. When dissolved oxygen is a problem, aeration of pond
discharges can be used to increase dissolved oxygen levels and prevent receiving water
problems. Discharges from ponds can be aerated by using mechanical or passive aeration
devices before they are discharged into a receiving water body. For relatively shallow
ponds that are easily mixed, aerating the pond to meet fish culture needs should be
sufficient to prevent problematic discharges.
Mechanical aeration devices include paddlewheel aerators and other surface aerators that
create surface agitation. Surface agitation increases the surface area available for oxygen
transfer. For deeper ponds, aeration of the discharge as it leaves the pond might be more
practical and efficient. Passive aeration systems use the energy generated by falling water
to increase the air-water surface area. Passive aeration systems take many forms,
7-7
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
including waterfalls, rotating brashes, and splash boards. Mechanical aeration devices
used for effluent treatment should undergo the same inspection and maintenance
procedures implemented for aeration devices used in production areas. Passive aeration
devices should be inspected regularly to remove debris and ensure correct function of the
device.
Mechanical aeration can be integrated at most pond production facilities because the
facilities already own the necessary equipment to aerate the pond. Passive aeration
systems require no energy inputs and have low maintenance inputs once they have been
constructed. Passive aeration systems can also be used to convey discharges to the
receiving water body, thus reducing the potential for erosion along earthen conveyance
systems.
Facilities with multi-pass serial raceways use active or passive aeration systems to
maintain adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations in the culture water. Those facilities
with sufficient hydraulic head between raceways tend to use passive or gravity aeration
systems to increase the air-water interface, which in turn increases the dissolved oxygen
content of the culture water (Wheaton, 1977).
Facilities with insufficient head between raceways use mechanical aeration systems to
increase dissolved oxygen in the culture water. Recirculating systems also use
mechanical aeration systems. Mechanical aeration systems include liquid oxygenation
systems and diffuser aerators. Liquid oxygen systems add oxygen to the culture water
under pressure to increase the efficiency of oxygenation. Diffuser aerators inject air or
pure oxygen below the culture waters surface in the form of bubbles. As the bubbles pass
through the water column, oxygen is transferred across the air-water interface (Wheaton,
1977).
Disadvantages of mechanical aeration systems include the energy and labor resources
required to operate and maintain the aeration devices. Mechanical aerators should be
operated and sited carefully to minimize the generation of suspended solids in the
effluent.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, and recirculating.
7.3.2 Biological Treatment
Biological treatment involves the use of microorganisms to remove dissolved nutrients
from a discharge (Henry and Heinke, 1996). Organic and nitrogenous compounds in the
discharge can serve as nutrients for rapid microbial growth under aerobic (with oxygen)
or anaerobic (with little or no oxygen) conditions. Biological treatment systems can
convert approximately one-third of the colloidal and dissolved organic matter to stable
end products and convert the remaining two-thirds into microbial cells, which can be
removed through gravity separation.
Biological treatment operations are contained in tanks, lagoons, or filter systems. Most
biological treatment systems are aerobic, meaning that they require free oxygen to
maintain the microbial biomass necessary for effective treatment. Oxygen is usually
supplied through diffusers in the bottom of the containment structure. In addition to
providing oxygen, the diffusers ensure mixing of the discharge in the containment
7-8
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
structure. After treatment, the discharge usually flows to polishing treatment operations
before being discharged. Excess biomass from the containment structure is drained from
the containment structure or captured in a settling device after the treated discharge
leaves the biological treatment unit.
Biological treatment systems must have a constant supply of nutrient-rich water to keep
the microorganism growth at its maximum potential. Aerobic biological systems also
require supplemental oxygen systems to supply oxygen to the treatment system. In
addition, biological systems in northern climates must be insulated from extremely cold
conditions to remain effective throughout the winter. Biological treatment systems
provide for the rapid conversion and removal of organic and nitrogenous pollutants in a
small treatment volume. Biological treatment units also help to remove both fine and
coarse solids as the discharge is settled.
Disadvantages of biological treatment systems include the cost associated with the
continuous operation of these systems. Biological treatment systems are most effective
when operated 24 h/d and 365 d/yr. Systems that are not operated continuously have
reduced efficiency because of changes in nutrient loads to the microbial biomass.
Biological treatment systems also generate a consolidated waste stream consisting of
excess microbial biomass, which must be properly disposed. Operation and maintenance
costs vary with the process used.
Applicable production systems: recirculating.
7.3.3 Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetland treatment systems consist of shallow pools constructed on non-
wetland sites with water at depths of usually less than 2 ft (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991;
USEPA, 1996). Constructed wetlands provide substrate for specific emergent vegetation
types such as cattail, bulrush, and reeds.
Constructed wetlands are designed to treat discharges through physical, chemical, and
biological processes. The vegetation causes the discharge to flow slowly in a more
serpentine manner, increasing the likelihood of solids settling. The vegetation also aids in
the absorption of potential pollutants through plant and bacterial uptake, and it increases
the oxygen level in the discharge flowing through it. Constructed wetland treatment
systems can be designed to provide several different benefits, including treatment of the
discharge through biological and chemical processes, temporary storage of discharges,
recharge of aquifers, and reduction in discharge volume to receiving water bodies.
Constructed wetland treatment systems are most commonly used to provide a polishing
or finishing step for discharge treatment operations. Newly constructed systems often
require significant replanting of vegetation and backfilling of erosion damage. Once the
system is operating properly, it should be inspected regularly to remove dead or fallen
vegetation, check for erosion and channelization, and monitor sedimentation levels.
Periodic harvest and proper disposal of the vegetation can also increase nutrient removal.
Constructed wetlands that have collected large amounts of sediment should be
refurbished to ensure proper removal efficiencies and protect against the resuspension of
collected solids. The section of the constructed wetland being refurbished should be taken
7-9
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
offline for a period long enough to allow the removal of solids and regrowth of emergent
vegetation. Solids removed from the wetland should either be land applied at agronomic
rates or disposed using other sludge disposal methods.
Constructed wetlands have varying success in CAAP operations. Wetlands require large
areas for treatment of relatively small volumes of water; therefore, facilities with limited
available land for expansion are not able to use constructed wetlands. In many parts of
the United States, constructed wetlands have seasonal differences in pollutant removal
efficiencies. For example, in colder climates, constructed wetlands might discharge some
dissolved nutrients during the colder season and become a sink for these pollutants during
warmer months.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, and recirculating.
7.3.4 Injection Wells
Deep well injection is a wastewater disposal method by which wastewater is injected into
a geologic layer beneath the earth's surface. EPA categorizes injection wells into five
classes, based on the type of well and the waste disposed of. Class I and Class V wells are
the only wells that may be used by CAAP facilities. Because of the costs associated with
drilling and maintaining Class I wells, EPA assumes that most injection wells used by the
CAAP industry are Class V wells. Class V injection wells are defined as shallow wells
such as septic systems and drywells used to place nonhazardous fluids directly below the
land surface (USEPA, 2002b). Class V wells include technologically advanced
wastewater treatment systems and simple waste disposal systems, such as septic systems
and cesspools. These wells are usually shallow and depend on gravity to "inject" wastes
below the earth's surface. Because Class V wells may be hydraulically connected to
drinking water aquifers, they should be closely monitored to avoid contamination
(USEPA, 2002a).
Class I injection wells are defined as municipal or industrial injection wells that inject
wastewater below the lower most underground source of drinking water (USWD). To
qualify as a USWD, the aquifer or part of it must or be able to supply a public water
system (PWS) or contain water with less than 10,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids, and
not be exempted by EPA or state authorities from protection as a source of drinking water
(USEPA, 2001).
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.5 Disinfection
Disinfection is a process by which disease-causing organisms are destroyed or rendered
inactive. Most disinfection systems work in one of the following four ways: (1) damage
to the cell wall, (2) alteration of the cell permeability, (3) alteration of the colloidal nature
of the protoplasm, or (4) inhibition of enzyme activity (Henry and Heinke, 1996; Metcalf
and Eddy, 1991).
Disinfection is often accomplished using bactericidal agents. The most common agents
are chlorine, ozone (O3), and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, or disinfection with UV light.
Chlorination, the use of chlorine, is the most common method of disinfection used in the
United States. Applications of high concentration of chlorine and ozone are used to
7-10
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
disinfect the discharge stream. UV radiation disinfects by penetrating the cell wall of
pathogens with UV light and completely destroying the cell or rendering it unable to
reproduce.
Each disinfection system has specific operational factors related to its successful use,
which might limit its effectiveness. Chlorine systems must have a chlorine contact time
of 15 to 30 min, after which the discharge must be dechlorinated prior to discharge.
Chlorine systems also run the risk of developing trihalomethanes, which are known
carcinogens. Finally, the contact chamber must be cleaned on a regular schedule.
Ozonation has limitations as well. This system requires the ozone to be generated on-site
because its volatility does not allow it to be transported. On-site generation requires
expensive equipment. UV radiation systems might have only limited value to dischargers
without adequate TSS removal because the effectiveness of UV radiation systems
decreases when solids in the discharge block the light. This system also requires
expensive equipment with high maintenance costs to keep the system clean and replace
UV bulbs.
Disinfection systems are beneficial because they render CAAP effluents free from active
pathogenic organisms, regardless of their source. In addition, ozonation increases the
dissolved oxygen content of the discharge stream and destroys certain organic
compounds.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, re circulating, and alligator.
7.3.6 Flocculation/Coagulation Tank
Flocculation or coagulation tanks are used to improve the treatability of wastewater and
to remove grease and scum from wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The purpose of
wastewater flocculation is to cluster fine matter to facilitate its removal. These clusters
are often referred to as "floes." The flocculation of wastewater by mechanical or air
agitation increases the removal of suspended solids and BOD in primary settling
facilities. For mechanical and air agitation, the energy input is commonly decreased so
that the initially formed floes will not be broken as they leave the flocculation facilities.
Disadvantages associated with flocculation/coagualtion tanks include high costs for
maintenance and energy use.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, re circulating, and alligator.
7.3.7 Filters
A number of different filtration systems are available to treat CAAP effluents, including
microscreen filters, multimedia filters, and sand filters. Filters are used to remove solids
and associated pollutants from the wastewater stream. Because small- diameter solids and
associated nutrients contained in AAP industry effluents might be difficult to remove
using only conventional (gravity) solids settling wastewater treatment operations, the use
of filtration systems can efficiently increase the removal of these solids.
7.3.7.1 Microscreen Filters
Microscreen filters are commonly used filtration systems that consist of a synthetic
screen of specific pore size that is used to remove solids from the effluent stream. Typical
7-11
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
pore sizes for microscreen filters vary from 60 to 100 microns. Most microscreen filters
operate by pumping the wastewater stream across the filter. Water passes through the
screen and the solids are trapped on the surface of the screen, where they can later be
flushed off to a solids holding unit for further treatment.
Applicable production systems: flow-through recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.7.2 Multimedia Filters
Multimedia filters are pressurized or non-pressurized treatment units that contain filter
media of at least two different sizes. Wastewater flow is directed through a series of
media (e.g., gravel and sand) using the coarser media first to facilitate the removal of
larger solids, then media that are progressively less porous. At normal intervals the flow
of wastewater is stopped and the filters are backwashed (cleaned) by forcing clean water
through the filter in the direction opposite the wastewater flow. The procedure removes
the collected solids from the filter media and directs waste to either an additional
treatment unit or to a solids holding structure.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.7.3 Sand Filters
Sand filters can be pressurized or nonpressurized treatment units that contain sand. Sand
filters are typically shallow beds of sand (24 to 30 in.) with a surface distribution system
and an underdrain system (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The effluent is applied to the surface
of the sand bed and the treated liquid is collected in the underdrain system. Most sand
filters are buried underground.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.8 Hydroponics
Hydroponics is a process in which fine solids and nutrients in discharges are removed
through the culture of aquatic or terrestrial plants (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Van Gorder,
2001). After a concentrated waste has been screened for coarse solids, it is diverted
through the hydroponics system. A hydroponics system functions by suspending the root
system of a plant species in the discharge stream to allow for the uptake of nutrients and
removal of fine solids. After the plant species reaches its maximum growth, it is
harvested and replaced with new plants that will more effectively absorb nutrients.
Operational factors associated with hydroponic systems include the need for a constant
supply of a nutrient-rich discharge to the hydroponics operation for the cultured plants,
the harvesting of the cultured aquatic plants, and disposal of any unused biomass.
Constant nutrient-rich discharge requirements make hydroponic systems most applicable
to recirculating and flow-through production systems. The constant harvesting or removal
of biomass requires the dedication of labor resources to these tasks. Hydroponic systems
that use aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth, duckweed, or pennywort, to treat
discharges must develop composting plans because the biomass generated by these
species has no commercial value.
Limitations of hydroponic systems for intensive CAAP systems include the size of the
hydroponics system needed to effectively treat the discharge stream and climatic
7-72
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
conditions. A small intensive CAAP operation can provide sufficient nutrients for a
large-scale hydroponics operation; however, a large hydroponic treatment in northern
climates is limited by the infrastructure inputs needed to operate the system year-round.
Most hydroponically grown plants cannot effectively grow year-round without being
located inside a greenhouse. Also, it can be very difficult to control the nutrient content
of effluents to meet the specific nutrient needs of the cultured plants.
Advantages of hydroponic systems include the removal of nutrients, such as phosphorus
and ammonia, and economic benefits through the sale of crops such as lettuce.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, re circulating, and alligator.
7.3.9 Infiltration/Percolation Pond
Infiltration/percolation ponds allow for the simultaneous treatment and disposal of
discharges by allowing them to gradually infiltrate the soils surrounding the basin. These
ponds are constructed in soils with high hydraulic conductivity, allowing for the rapid
infiltration of the wastewater into the soil (USEPA, 1996). Infiltration/percolation basins
are designed with flat bottoms and without drainage structures. Evaporation is not
considered to significantly increase the effectiveness of these basins.
Infiltration/percolation systems have few operational factors once they have been
constructed. Before the ponds are constructed, soil tests must be conducted to ensure that
the soils will have sufficient infiltration rates. Once operational, the basins should be
inspected monthly to monitor water levels, check for soils accumulation, and determine
whether any erosion of the banks has occurred. In some cases, it might be necessary to
remove sediment and debris, and to till the basin bottom to preserve functionality.
All solids removed as part of an operation and maintenance program or in conjunction
with a refurbishing effort should be treated in the same manner as solids from primary
settling operations. The solids can be either be land applied at agronomic rates or
disposed using other sludge disposal methods.
The primary advantage of these systems is the low operation and maintenance costs
associated with their operation. Very few equipment or labor inputs are required after the
construction of the systems; periodic brief inspection of the basin should be the only
required operational task. Additional benefits of infiltration/percolation basins include the
recharge of groundwater aquifers located below the basins and the absence of a discharge
to a receiving water body.
Disadvantages of these systems include space availability for the basin and requirements
for specific soil types with high hydraulic conductivities. Infiltration systems require a
large surface area to successfully treat and dispose of large volumes of discharge.
Another limitation of these systems is their long-term viability. Studies have shown the
functional life of these systems is 5 to 10 yr.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, re circulating, and alligator.
7-13
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
7.3.10 Oxidation Lagoons (Primary and Secondary)
Oxidation lagoons, also know as stabilization ponds, are usually earthen, relatively
shallow wastewater treatment units used for the separation of solids and treatment of
soluble organic wastes (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The basins are cleaned of solids as
needed, which may be as long as once every 20 yr. Oxidation ponds are used extensively
in the wastewater treatment industry and are commonly used by the alligator industry for
the treatment of wastewater generated during pen cleaning.
Oxidation lagoons are usually classified as aerobic, anaerobic, or aerobic-anaerobic
(facultative) according to the nature of the biological activity in the pond. Aerobic and
facultative lagoons require that oxygen be added to all or parts of the lagoon constantly;
therefore, in order to reduce costs, most lagoons in the alligator industry are operated as
anaerobic lagoons.
The primary advantages of oxidation lagoons for treatment of alligator industry
wastewater are the relative low costs of designing, constructing, and operating oxidation
lagoons; the low technology requirements for the operators; and the demonstrated
effectiveness of their use in treating similar effluents. Oxidation lagoons can also be
operated without a discharge to surface waters through land application by spray
irrigating water from the lagoon to prevent overflows.
Disadvantages of oxidation lagoons include the need to clean out accumulated solids; the
potential odor emitted from the lagoon under normal operating conditions and during
solids removal; and the inability of the lagoons to remove small-sized particles. The
lagoon is designed to hold a fixed volume of solids and must be cleaned when the solids
volume exceeds the design volume. Accumulated solids must be removed and properly
disposed of through land application or other sludge disposal methods. Odors are a
constant nuisance, and several methods are available to treat particularly bad odor
problems. These solutions, however, tend to be costly and require additional equipment
and operational resources.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, re circulating, and alligator.
7.3.11 Quiescent Zones
Quiescent zones are used in raceway flow-through systems where the last approximately
10% of the raceway serves as a settling area for solids. It is important to note that flow-
through system raceways are typically sized according to loading densities (e.g., 3 to 5 Ib
of fish per cubic foot), but the flow rate of water through the system drives the production
levels in a particular raceway. Thus, EPA evaluated the impacts of placing quiescent
zones in the lower 10% of raceways and found no adverse impacts on the production
capacity of a facility (Hochheimer and Westers, 2002). The goal of quiescent zones and
other in-system solids collection practices is to reduce the total suspended solids (and
associated pollutants) in the effluent. Quiescent zone pollutant reductions were based on
information supplied by industry representatives (Hinshaw, 2002, personal
communication; Tetra Tech, 2002).
Quiescent zones usually are constructed with a wire mesh screen that extends from the
bottom of the raceway to above the maximum water height to prohibit the cultured
7-14
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
species from entering the quiescent zone. The reduction in the turbulence usually caused
by the swimming action of the cultured species allows the solids to settle in the quiescent
zone. Then, the collected solids are available to be efficiently removed from the system.
The quiescent zones are usually cleaned on a regular schedule, typically once per week in
medium to large systems (Tetra Tech, 2002), to remove the settled solids. The Idaho
BMP manual (IDEQ, n.d.) recommends minimal quiescent zone cleaning of once per
month in upper raceways and twice per month in lower units. The settled solids must be
removed regularly to prevent breakdown of particles and leaching of pollutants such as
nutrients and BOD.
Quiescent zones placed at the bottom or end of each raising unit or raceway allow for the
settling of pollutants, mainly solids, before the pollutants are discharged to other
production units (when water is serially reused in several raising units) or receiving
waters.
Quiescent zones increase labor inputs because of the regular removal of collected solids
and maintenance of screens that exclude the culture species. Cleaning of the quiescent
zones also creates a highly concentrated waste stream that should be treated before it is
discharged into a receiving water body.
Applicable production systems: flow-through.
7.3.12 Sedimentation Basins
Sedimentation basins, also known as settling basins, settling ponds, sedimentation ponds,
and sedimentation lagoons, separate solids from water using gravity settling of the
heavier solid particles (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). In the simplest form of sedimentation,
particles that are heavier than water settle to the bottom of a tank or basin. Facilities with
high levels of production and feeding rates clean as often as once per month. Facilities
with lower feeding rates clean less often, but at a minimum of once per year.
Sedimentation basins are used extensively in the wastewater treatment industry and are
commonly found in many flow-through aquatic animal production facilities. Most
sedimentation basins are used to produce a clarified effluent (for solids removal), but
some sedimentation basins remove water from solids to produce a more concentrated
sludge. Both of these practices are used and are important in CAAP systems.
Settling in sedimentation basins occurs when the horizontal velocity of a particle entering
the basin is less than the vertical (settling) velocity in the tank. To design a sedimentation
basin, settling properties of an effluent are determined, particularly the settling velocities,
and the basins are sized to accommodate the expected flow through the basin. The length
of the sedimentation basin and the detention time can be calculated so that particles with
a particular settling velocity (Vc) will settle to the bottom of the basin (Metcalf and Eddy,
1991). The relationship of the settling velocity to the detention time and basin depth is
Vc = depth/detention time
Other design factors include the effects of inlet and outlet turbulence, short-circuiting of
flows within the basin, solids accumulation in the basin, and velocity gradients caused by
disturbances in the basin (such as those from solids removal equipment).
7-75
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
Proper design, construction, and operation of the sedimentation basin are essential for the
efficient removal of solids. Solids must be removed at proper intervals to ensure the
designed removal efficiencies of the sedimentation basin.
The primary advantages of sedimentation basins for removing suspended solids from
effluents from aquatic animal production systems are the relative low cost of designing,
constructing, and operating sedimentation basins; the low technology requirements for
the operators; and the demonstrated effectiveness of their use in treating similar effluents.
In many CAAP systems, most of the solids from feces and uneaten feed are of sufficient
size to settle efficiently in most moderately sized sedimentation basins. Many of the
pollutants from CAAP operations can be partly or wholly removed with the solids
captured in a sedimentation basin.
Disadvantages of a sedimentation basin include the need to clean out accumulated solids,
the potential odor emitted from the basin under normal operating conditions, the odor
produced by solids removed from the basin, and the inability of the basin to remove
small-sized particles. Accumulated solids must be periodically removed and properly
disposed of through land application or other sludge disposal methods. Odors are a
constant nuisance, and several methods are available to treat particularly bad odor
problems. These solutions, however, tend to be costly and require additional equipment
and operational resources. System operators should attempt to minimize the breakdown
of particles (into smaller sizes) to maintain or increase the efficiency of sedimentation
basins. Many existing CAAP systems might have limited available space for the
installation of properly sized sedimentation basins.
Sedimentation basins do not function well in colder climates, where they are likely to
freeze. The viscosity of water increases as its temperature decreases which results in a
decrease of the settling velocity of solids in the wastewater stream. Sedimentation basins
designed for colder climates should include a safety factor to account for the longer
detention times and inlet and outlet pipes should be located underwater to reduce the
likelihood of freezing (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.13 Vegetated Ditches
A vegetated ditch is an excavated ditch that serves as a discharge conveyance, treatment,
and storage system (USEPA, 1996). The vegetation layer aids in treating the discharge
and reduces the susceptibility of the ditch banks and bottom to erosion. The length and
width of the ditch are designed to allow for the slowing and temporary storage of the
discharge as it flows toward the receiving water body. The walls of the ditch are
excavated at an angle that supports the growth of a dense vegetation layer to enhance
sedimentation and ensure against erosion.
Vegetated ditches are effective for treating wastewater discharges from CAAP facilities.
They reduce the velocity of discharged water, which induces the settling of solids and
associated pollutants by gravity. The vegetation ditch essentially traps pollutants such as
suspended solids, settleable solids, and BOD and prevents them from being discharged
into receiving waters. Depending on the porosity of the soil, a vegetated ditch might also
allow wastewater to infiltrate the underlying soil as it flows along the channel.
7-16
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
Few operational factors are associated with using vegetated ditches. The main component
of effective operation is proper design and construction of the ditch to ensure adequate
vegetation and prevent scouring flows. Infiltration/percolation rates are a function of soil
porosity and increase if the ditch is constructed in an area of high soil porosity. Vegetated
ditches need to be maintained periodically to remove accumulated sediment for proper
disposal and to maintain vegetation. Periodic harvest and proper disposal of the
vegetation can also increase nutrient removal.
Disadvantages of vegetated ditches include lack of control over the treatment of the
discharge. Furthermore, vegetated ditches have no backup system in the event of
extremely high flow or during times when the vegetation needs to be reestablished.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.14 Manure Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
7.3.14.1 Dewatering
Dewatering is the physical process used to reduce the moisture content of sludge to make
it easier to handle for transport, or prior to composting or incineration of the sludge.
Several techniques are used to dewater sludge; some rely on natural evaporation, whereas
others use mechanically assisted physical means such as filtration, squeezing, capillary
action, vacuum withdrawal, and centrifugal separation (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).
Applicable production systems: flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.14.2 Composting
Composting is a process by which organic material undergoes biological degradation to a
stable end product (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Approximately 20% to 30% of the volatile
solids are converted to carbon dioxide and water. As the organic material in the sludge
decomposes, the compost heats to temperatures in the range of 120 to 160 °F, and
pathogenic organisms are destroyed.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.14.3 Land Application
Land application is the most common sludge disposal method in the CAAP industry
(Chen et al., 2002). Land application of sludge is defined as the spreading of sludge on or
just below the soil surface (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Application methods include using
sprinklers and tank trucks to apply the sludge directly to the land. Sludge may be applied
to agricultural land, forested land, disturbed land, and dedicated land disposal sites. In all
of these cases, the land application is designed with the objective of providing further
sludge treatment (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Sunlight, soil microorganisms, and dryness
combine to destroy pathogens and other toxic organic substances present in sludge.
Applicable production systems: ponds, flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.14.4 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are wastewater treatment plants that are
constructed and owned by a municipal government for the purpose of treating municipal
7-77
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
and industrial wastewater from homes and businesses within its borders and/or
surrounding areas. A facility that discharges to a POTW is considered to be an "indirect''
discharger because the facility's wastewater is directed to a POTW for treatment before
being discharged to surface water. Some CAAP facilities are indirect discharges.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, re circulating, and alligator.
7.2.14.5 Storage Tanks and Lagoons
Manure, or sludge, from CAAP facilities has to be properly treated and disposed of.
Storage tanks or storage lagoons are used to store untreated wastewater until the water
can be treated or to store treated wastewater until it can be reused by the production
system. Holding tanks, storage tanks, and surge tanks are used throughout the CAAP
industry to hold untreated or treated wastewater.
Applicable production systems: flow-through, recirculating, and alligator.
7.3.15 Treatment Technologies Observed at EPA Site Visits
Table 7.2-1 describes the treatment technologies observed at the CAAP facilities that
EPA visited as part of their data collection efforts.
Table 7.2-1. Aquatic Animal Production Site Visit Summary
State
MS
MS
MS
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
PA
PA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ID
ID
Species
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Tilapia
Alligators
Hybrid striped bass
Crawfish
Crawfish
Crawfish
Trout
Trout
Trout
Trout
Tilapia
Hybrid striped bass.
crawfish
Crawfish
Yellow perch, crab
shedding, catfish
Trout
Trout
Production System
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating system
Other - alligator huts
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Recirculating system
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds, tanks
Flow-through
Flow-through
Treatment Technologies
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
Land application of solids
2-stage lagoon
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
OLSB
Full flow settling
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Solids particle trap
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
Settling pond
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
7-18
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
State
ID
ID
ID
WA
WA
WA
WA
VA
MA
ME
ME
ME
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Species
Trout
Trout
Trout
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Molluscan shellfish -
oysters
Tilapia, hybrid striped bass,
yellow perch
Hybrid striped bass
Salmon, mussels
Lobster
Salmon
Ornamentals, seaweed
Tilapia, Chinese catfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Shrimp, ornamentals,
mullett, milkfish, red
snapper
shrimp
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Production System
Flow-through
Flow-through
Ponds, flow-through
Net pens
Net pens
Net pens
Flow-through, bottom
culture
Recirculating system
Recirculating system
Net pens, off-bottom
hanging culture (mussels)
Other - pounds
Net pens
Flow-through
Net pen in pond
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds, recirculating
systems
Ponds
Flow- through tanks, low
flow rate
Recirculating. flow-
through tanks w/ low
flow rate
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Treatment Technologies
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Feed management
Feed management
Feed management
None
Indirect discharger to POTW
Primary settling, biological
treatment, microscreen, ozonation,
indirect discharge
Feed management, active feed
monitoring
None
Feed management, active feed
monitoring
Infiltration ditches
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
Infiltration ditches
Settling ponds
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Water management, riprap on pond
banks, erosion control
Water management, riprap on pond
banks, erosion control, drainage to
natural wetland
Water management, riprap on pond
banks, erosion control
Water management, erosion
control, proper ditch construction
7-79
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
State
AL
AL
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
WI
WI
MO
MN
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
AR
AR
Species
Catfish
Catfish
Salmon - native endangered
species
Salmon - native endangered
species
Salmon
Brook trout, landlocked
salmon (coho, chinook)
Brook trout, lake trout.
splake
Rainbow trout, brown trout
Landlocked salmon
Rainbow tout
Baitfish, various species of
sport fish
Various warmwater species
(including bluegill, catfish,
paddlefish)
Tilapia
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Production System
Ponds
Ponds
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through, earthen
raceways
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating system
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Treatment Technologies
Storage of runoff in reservoir,
water management, erosion
control, proper ditch construction
Water management, riprap on pond
banks, erosion control, stairstep
watershed ponds
Settling ponds
Settling ponds
Settling ponds
Settling ponds
Settling pond
OLSB. quiescent zone, polishing
pond
OLSB, quiescent zone, polishing
pond
Riprap, erosion control, settling
ponds, in pond settling
Erosion control, water
management, discharge control
(bottom drawing)
Erosion control, water
management, riprap
Lagoon, indirect discharge,
composting
Erosion control, water
management, reuse, disease
management, screening of effluent
Erosion control, water
management, reuse, disease
management, screening of effluent,
Erosion control, water
management, reuse, disease
management, screening of effluent,
constructed wetland
Erosion control, water
management, reuse, disease
management, screening of effluent,
constructed wetland
Water management, erosion
control
Water management, erosion
control
Water management, erosion
control
7-20
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
State
AR
AR
AR
MD
Species
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Multiple
Production System
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating system
Treatment Technologies
Water management, erosion
control
Water management, erosion
control
Water management, erosion
control
Sand filters
Note: OLSB = Offline settling basin.
7.4 REFERENCES
Boyd, C.E., J. Queiroz, J.-Y. Lee, M. Rowan, G. Whitis, and A. Gross. 2000.
Environmental Assessment of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Farming in
Alabama. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 31:511-544.
Chen, S., S. Summerfelt, T. Losordo and R. Malone. 2002. Recirculating Systems,
Effluents, and Treatments. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States,
ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 119-140. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Gunderson J.L., and R.E. Kinnunen, ed. 2001. Aquatic Nuisance Species-Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point Training Curriculum (ANS-HACCP). Minnesota
Sea Grant Publication No. MN SG-F11. Duluth, MN.
Henry, J.G., and G.W. Heinke. 1996. Environmental Science and Engineering. 2d ed., pp.
445-447. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.T.
Hinshaw, J. 2002. North Carolina State University. Personal communication,
February 20, 2002.
Hochheimer, J. and H. Westers. 2002. Technical Memorandum: Flow-Through Systems.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality), n.d. Idaho Waste Management
Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
. Accessed
August 2002.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 199 la. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 992-1002. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991b. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 351-352. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 199 Ic. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 741-745. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991d. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 248-271. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
7-27
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991e. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 1002-1011. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991f. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 604-614. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991g. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 220-240. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991h. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 855-877. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991L Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 842-850. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 199Ij. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 903-914. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002, August. Site visit report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Box
Canyon Facility, Buhl, ID.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A
Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA 843-B-96-001 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Class I Underground Injection
Control Program: Study of the Risks Associated with Class I Underground Injection
Wells. EPA 816-R-01-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Classes of Injection Wells.
. Accessed July 2002.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. Final Determination Fact
Sheet. EPA 816-F-02-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Van Gorder, S.D. 2001. Wastewater Management in Closed Aquaculture Systems.
Presented at the Aquaculture Waste Symposium, Roanoke, VA.
Westers, H. 1995. Feed and Feeding Strategies to Reduce Aquaculture Waste.
Aquaculture Bioengineering Corporation, Aquaculture Engineering and Waste
Management: In Proceeding from the Aquaculture Expo VIII and Aquaculture in the
Mid-Atlantic Conference, pp. 365-376. Washington, DC, June 24-29, 1995.
Wheaton, F.W. 1977. Aquacultural Engineering, pp. 643-679. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
NY.
7-22
-------
CHAPTER 8
LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS:
DATA SELECTION AND CALCULATION
This section describes the data sources, data selection, data conventions, and statistical
methodology used by EPA in calculating the long-term averages, variability factors, and
proposed limitations. The proposed effluent limitations and standards1 are based on long-
term average effluent values and variability factors that account for variation in treatment
performance within a particular treatment technology over time. EPA is proposing
limitations for flow-through and recirculating system subcategories. EPA is not proposing
limitations for net pen systems. In calculating the proposed limitations for total
suspended solids (TSS), EPA used a combination of the data from sampling episodes and
data from industry discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). For both subcategories, EPA
considered, but did not propose, limitations for total phosphorus. For the recirculating
subcategory, EPA also considered, but did not propose, limitations for 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5). This section describes the data selection and calculations for
limitations based on the TSS, total phosphorus, and BOD5 data.
Section 8.1 gives a brief overview of data sources (a more detailed discussion is provided
in Chapter 3) and describes EPA's evaluation and selection of episode data sets that are
the basis of the proposed limitations. Section 8.2 provides a more detailed discussion of
the selection of the episode data sets for the options. Section 8.3 describes excluded and
substituted data and Section 8.4 presents the procedures for data aggregation. Section 8.5
provides an overview of the limitations. Section 8.6 describes the procedures for
estimation of long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations.
8.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA SELECTION
To develop the long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations, EPA used
concentration data from facilities with components of the model technology in the two
subcategories. These data were collected from two sources, EPA's sampling episodes and
DMR data collected from EPA regional offices and in EPA's Permit Compliance System
(PCS) database. This section refers to the DMR data as the facility's "self-monitoring
episode."
EPA used only data from facilities that had the model technologies described in
Chapter 9. EPA qualitatively reviewed these data from the sampling episodes and self-
monitoring episodes and then selected episodes to represent each technology based on a
1 In the remainder of this chapter, references to 'limitations' includes 'standards.
8-1
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
review of the production processes and treatment technologies in place at each facility.
Appendix C lists the data for the pollutants of concern (see Chapter 6) and Appendix D
provides summary statistics for those data. The proposal record also contains an
electronic spreadsheet of the data (DCN 50013, Section 10.1).
EPA's sampling episodes typically provided data for a range of pollutants. (See Chapters
3 and 6 for more information on sampling episode data.) In contrast, the industry self-
monitoring (DMR) data were for only a limited subset of pollutants because most
facilities monitor for only the pollutants specified in their permits.
EPA assumed that the DMR data were generated by the production method and treatment
technologies reported by the facility in the Aquatic Animal Production (AAP) screener
survey (USEPA, 2001) in response to the open-ended question (question 10) "What
pollutant control practices do you use before water leaves your property?" Because of
time constraints, EPA was able to incorporate additional DMR data from only four
Virginia flow-through concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) facilities taken
over a period of several years. For the final rule, EPA intends to review the PCS database
and other possible sources of data to determine whether additional DMR data should be
included in developing the final limitations.
Because of time constraints, in calculating the proposed limitations, EPA has not
included self-monitoring data for any facility selected for an EPA sampling episode. For
the final rule, if EPA selects data from a sampling episode, it is likely to use any self-
monitoring data that were submitted by that facility or are available from PCS. In
calculating the final limitations, EPA would then be likely to statistically analyze the data
from each episode separately. This is consistent with EPA's practice for other industrial
categories. Data from different sources generally characterize different time periods
and/or different chemical analytical methods.
For the episode data sets that were used to develop the proposed limitations, EPA
performed a detailed review of the data and all supporting documentation accompanying
the data. This was done to ensure that the selected data represent a facility's normal
operating conditions and ensure that the data accurately reflect the performance expected
by the production method and treatment systems. Thus, EPA evaluated whether the data
were collected while a facility was experiencing exceptional incidents (upsets). EPA also
evaluated whether the DMR data were in compliance with the facility's permit.
The next section describes the episode and sample point selection for each subcategory
and option.
8.2 EPISODE SELECTION FOR EACH SUBCATEGORY AND OPTION
This section describes the episodes selected for each technology option for the two
proposed subcategories (flow-through and recirculating systems). Table 8.2-1
summarizes the episode and sample point selections. Appendix C lists the data for the
pollutants of concern (see Chapter 6) and Appendix D provides summary statistics of
those data.
8-2
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Table 8.2-1. Summary of Episode and Sample Point Selection
Subcat
Flow-through
Recirculatiiig
Option
N/Ab
Raceway
OLSB
1
3
N/Ab
1
3
Episode
6297CC
6297Dd
6297Fe
6297E
6460B
6297A
6297B
6460C
6297G
6297H
62971
6460A
DMR1
DMR3
DMR4
6460D
DMR2
6439C1
6439A
6439B
Influent"
SP-12
SP-4
N/A
N/A
N/A
SP-7
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-10
SP-12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SP-7, SP-8
N/A
SP-2
SP-3
SP-8
Effluent "
SP-13(dup SP-14)
N/A
SP-2 (dup SP-3)
SP-5 (dup SP-6)
SP-7
SP-8 (dup SP-9)
SP-11
SP-9
SP-8 (dup SP-9)
and SP-5 (dup SP-6)
SP-11
with SP-5 (dup SP-6)
SP- 13 (dup SP-14)
and SP-2 (dup SP-3)
SP-7 and SP-9
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-10 (dup SP-11)
SP-1
N/A
SP-4
SP-9 (dup SP-11)
aWhen EPA collected duplicate samples, it assigned a different sample point designation than the
sample point for the original sample. The parentheses identify the sample points for the duplicates.
bAlthough these sample points were not considered in developing the limitations and are labeled as
"Not applicable" (N/A), EPA used these data to review the overall performance at the facility. EPA
has included these data in its data listings and summary statistics.
""Influent and effluent corresponding to the Hatch House OLSB.
dSource water.
^Effluent from the Hatch House.
'Overflow from production tanks.
Note: N/A, data were not provided for that location.
If a facility had multiple production and treatment trains that EPA sampled separately,
EPA has treated the data as if they were collected from different facilities because the
trains are operated independently with different waste streams. In the documentation, the
episode identifier is appended with a character, such as "A", to indicate that the data are
from one of the multiple trains. In the following sections and in the public record, EPA
has masked the identity of the facilities for which it used DMR data. These episodes are
8-3
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
identified only as DMRx where "x" is a one-digit number assigned to each DMR episode.
EPA has arbitrarily assigned the sample point designation SP-1 to all DMR episodes.
8.2.1 Flow-through Subcategory
For the flow-through subcategory, EPA proposed limitations for Options 1 and 3. EPA
also considered separate limitations for raceway and offline settling basins (OLSBs),
although it chose to propose limitations for only the combined discharges. This section
describes the data used to develop the limitations for Option 1, Option 3, raceways, and
OLSBs. For this subcategory, EPA proposed limitations for TSS and considered
limitations on total phosphorus discharges.
8.2.1.1 Option 1
In developing the proposed limitations for Option 1, EPA used data from two of its
sampling episodes, 6297 and 6460, and three DMR episodes, DMR1, DMR3, and DMR4.
As explained below, EPA used the data from the three DMR episodes and mathematically
aggregated the data from each of the two episodes to obtain a total of seven
process/treatment streams that it considered as seven episodes in its calculations. This
section describes the data from each episode.
Episode 6297 was conducted on December 11-16, 2000, in Buhl, Idaho, at the Box
Canyon trout facility owned and operated by Clear Springs Foods, Inc. Box Canyon is the
largest trout-producing raceway system in the United States and has an average annual
production of some 8 million pounds. The facility includes a hatchery consisting of
upwelling incubators; 20 raceways and four steel tanks for producing fry; 180 flow-
through raceways for growout; and three OLSBs for solids collection. An overall
schematic of the facility with the sampling point locations is presented as Figure 8.2-1.
Surface water from Box Canyon Spring is piped under the Snake River to Box Canyon at
a rate of approximately 300 cubic feet per second (cfs). The water is diverted under the
river through three steel pipes and through three turbines for electrical energy production.
After passing through the turbines, the flow is split among the Blueheart, Eastman, and
hatchery sections of the facility. Both the Blueheart and Eastman sections of the facility
contain 90 concrete raceways holding approximately 10,000 fish per raceway. Automatic
fish feeders are located above each raceway in four different locations. Automated
feeding systems are used to feed the fish in the 180 raceways used for growout. All
feeding in the hatchery is done by hand. Wastewater treatment operations at Box Canyon
include quiescent zones, offline settling basins, and regular vacuuming of raceways. The
quiescent zone at the terminal end of each raceway allows fecal material to settle before
the raceway water is reused or discharged to the Snake River. Solids are removed from
the quiescent zone by vacuuming. The vacuumed solids then flow by gravity to the
designated OLSB for each section of the facility. In evaluating Option 1, EPA considered
three process/treatment streams at this facility by mathematically combining the data
from:
1. The Eastman raceway and its OLSB. This was labeled as episode 6297G.
8-4
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
2. The Eastman raceway and the Blueheart OLSB. This was labeled as episode
6297H.
3. The hatch house and its OLSB. This was labeled as episode 62971.
EPA also received self-monitoring data from the Box Canyon facility and has
summarized that information in Listings for Episode 6297: DMR Data, Summary
Statistics, and Estimates (SAIC, 2002a). Because of time constraints, EPA did not
include these data in developing the proposed limitations, but is considering their use for
the final rule. In the record, EPA used the reported weekly flows to mathematically
combine the data from different sample points. For the few cases where weekly flows
were not reported, EPA used the average flow for the month. If a monthly average flow
was also missing, then EPA used the maximum flow value reported for the month.
OLSB
Effluent
Race
*7 — *~~
way Effluent
,
1 SP-10
A
!
A
|
4™ Use
A
i
A
|
Source /
Water /
.' Head Canal
OLSB
Hatch House
Effluent
Hatch House
OLSB Effluent
4 •« •«
I D
1 Section
2NDUse
C
Section
1ST Use
•^ ^"
B
i Section
T 21™ Use
^
A
Section
lSTUse
Hydro
Plant
SP-4
Main Farm
Head Canal
Sampling Points
SP-2 -Duplicate of SP-3
SP-3 -Hatch House Effluent
SP-4 -Source Water
SP-5 -Raceway Effluent
SP-6 -Duplicate of SP-5
SP-7 -OLSB Influent
SP-8 -OLSB Effluent
SP-9 -Duplicate of SP-8
SP-10 -OLSB Influent
SP-11 -OLSB Effluent
SP-12 -Hatch House OLSB Influent
SP-13 -Hatch House OLSB Effluent
SP-14 -Duplicate of SP-13
River
Effluent
OLSB _
/
i
4™ Use
3RD Use
•4 Head Canal
Effluent
SP-5,
SP-6
SP-7
SP-8,
SP-9 OLSB
Figure 8.2-1. Schematic of Sampling Points and Facility for Episode 6297
Episode 6460 was conducted on August 24-29, 2001, in Harrietta, Michigan, at the
Harrietta Hatchery trout facility. Harrietta Hatchery is a Michigan Department of Natural
Resources hatchery whose mission is to produce rainbow and brown trout for stocking
into Michigan waters. Harrietta produces about 1.2 million trout annually. The trout are
harvested from Harrietta's raceways when they are about 5 to 8 in. in length or about
eight to ten fish to the pound. Figure 8.2-2 shows the process diagram for the facility
associated with this episode. Harrietta uses well water at a rate of up to 5.5 million
8-5
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
gallons per day (mgd) from pumped and artesian wells that flow to the hatchery and 12
raceways. Wastewater treatment operations at the Harrietta Hatchery include the use of
baffles, quiescent zones (sediment traps) in each raceway, a manure storage/settling pond,
and a polishing pond. The outdoor growout system consists of 12 covered raceways
grouped in three blocks of four. Water flows through each raceway in the block and is
collected in a common trough, which is discharged either to an aeration shed or a
polishing pond. At the downstream end of each raceway is a quiescent zone where solids
settle and are easily vacuumed. The vacuumed solids are diverted into a manure
collection/storage basin (or OLSB) adjacent to the polishing pond. A standpipe in each
raceway can also be pulled to send water and solids to the OLSB. This OLSB has an
intermittent discharge, typically weekly, and only occurred once during EPA's sampling
episode (on 8/27/01). To accommodate EPA's schedule, the facility discharged from the
OLSB two days earlier than originally scheduled. In evaluating Option 1, to obtain one
value for the combined discharges for each day that EPA sampled, the Agency
mathematically combined the data from the commingled raceway discharge and the
OLSB discharge. Because the OLSB discharged on only 1 day, the daily values for the
other 4 days are based on only the commingled raceway discharge. The daily data for this
option were labeled as episode 6460A.
Artesian
Well
Source Water
Aeration
Aeration
I Chamber
SP-7
Raceway Water Flow
SP-8
Figure 8.2-2. Schematic of Sampling Points and Facility for Episode 6460
For the three DMR episodes (DMR1, DMR3, and DMR4), EPA assumed that the
discharges resulted from the combined flows from raceways and OLSBs based on
examination of the facility NPDES permit and the responses to the open-ended question
(question 10) in the AAP screener questionnaire, "What pollutant control practices do
you use before water leaves your property?" The facility that provided the DMR1 data is
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Coursey Springs Fish Culture
Station, Millboro, Virginia, a state fish hatchery that produces brook, brown, and rainbow
trout for stocking in public trout streams. The facility uses about 11.5 mgd of spring
water and uses quiescent zones and full-flow settling for removing solids from the
8-6
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
effluent stream. The DMR3 data are from Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Marion Fish Culture Station, Marion, VA, another state facility that produces
trout, muskellunge, pike, and walleye for stocking in public waters. This facility
separately samples its effluents from quiescent zones and a full-flow settling basin below
the trout raceways. The facility then mathematically combines the two effluent data
values to obtain one daily value for the facility. The facility uses about 2.0 mgd for the
trout production part of the operation. The DMR4 data are from Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries, Duller Fish Culture Station, Marion, VA, a state-owned trout
rearing station that produces trout for stocking in public waters. The facility samples its
effluents from quiescent zones and a full-flow settling basin, separately, and then
mathematically combines the results to obtain one daily value. The facility uses about 0.5
mgd for the trout production.
8.2.1.2 Option 3
For Option 3, EPA evaluated the data collected from the polishing pond at episode 6460
and the data from DMR2. Because the TSS data from DMR2 exceeded the monthly
permit limit for 1 month, EPA excluded these data from further consideration in
calculating the proposed TSS limitations. Thus, the proposed TSS limitations were based
on the discharge from the polishing pond at episode 6460. The data were labeled as
episode 6460D, and the facility is described under Option 1. The DMR2 data are from a
state-owned trout production facility for stocking in public trout streams. The facility
produces brook, brown, and rainbow trout in raceways. Effluents from the raceways flow
into a two-stage settling pond for primary settling and secondary solids polishing. The
system flow rate is about 2.8 mgd.
8.2.1.3 Raceways
To evaluate the performance of the raceways in Option 1, EPA calculated limitations
using the data for the Eastman raceway from episode 6297 (labeled as episode 6297E)
and the discharge (labeled as episode 6460B) from one of the blocks of raceways from
episode 6460.
8.2.1.4 OLSBs
To evaluate the performance of the OLSBs in Option 1, EPA calculated limitations using
the data for the Eastman and Blueheart OLSBs from episode 6297 (labeled as episode
6297A and episode 6297B, respectively) and the OLSB from episode 6460 (labeled as
episode 6460C).
8.2.2 Recirculating Subcategory
For the recirculating subcategory, EPA proposed limitations for Option 3 based on the
permit limits from the facility that EPA sampled during episode 6439, which was
conducted at Fins Technology, LLC on April 23-28, 2001 in Turners Falls,
Massachusetts. Fins Technology, started in 1990 as AquaFuture, Inc, produces about 1
million pounds of hybrid striped bass per year in a recirculating system. It sells live and
iced whole fish throughout the U.S. east coast and New England. A unique feature of this
8-7
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
facility is its ability to grow hybrid striped bass from egg to foodfish in recirculating
systems, all of which are located on-site. Fins Technology uses recirculating system
technology to maintain water quality in the growing tanks for the hybrid striped bass. The
facility adds less than 10% of the total system volume each day to offset water losses
because of filter backwashes and to account for some of the inefficiencies in the
recirculating system. Waste water is generated from solids filtration equipment that
maintains process water quality in the recirculating system. Solids are generated when the
solids filters are backwashed throughout the day. Additional system overflow water is
added to the waste stream and comes directly from the process tanks. Because the facility
has claimed its process diagram as CBI, EPA is providing only a brief summary of the
process at that facility in Figure 8.2-3.
Rather than basing the proposed TSS limitations on the data it had collected, EPA used
the permit limits for this facility because the facility had exceeded those limits during
EPA's sampling episode. This facility is generally capable of complying with its permit
limits, and therefore, EPA determined that the permit limits more accurately reflected
normal operations of the model technology for this option. EPA also noted that the
effluent from the polishing pond was more variable than EPA's experience with typical
performance of polishing ponds. EPA is considering BOD and total phosphorus
limitations for the recirculation subcategory in addition to TSS. The data and summary
statistics for this episode are included in Appendices C and D. Table 8.6-2 in Section 8.6
provides the long-term average and variability factors for this episode.
Culture Tank
Effluent
SP-2 •
Solids Removal ^
Effluent * *
SP-3
Primary
Settling
A fc
SP-4
Wastewater Treatment
System
• h
9
SP-8
Microscreen
Filter
^ Treated
Effluent
SP-9
Figure 8.2-3. Schematic of Sampling Points and Facility for Episode 6439
8.3 DATA EXCLUSIONS AND SUBSTITUTIONS
In some cases, EPA did not use all of the data described in Section 8.2 in calculating the
limitations. Other than the data exclusions and substitutions described in this section and
those resulting from the data editing procedures, EPA has used the data from the episodes
and sample points identified in Table 8.2-1.
EPA excluded the data for one sample (55949) of the influent during episode 6297
(sample point 12) because it was filtered before measuring the concentration levels.
Instead, in its statistical analyses, EPA used the concentration data from another sample
(55948) collected at approximately the same time at that sample point, but was not
filtered prior to measuring the concentrations.
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
For the DMR data (episodes DMR1, DMR2, DMR3, and DMR4), EPA reviewed the
NPDES permit information for each facility to determine the reporting requirements. For
the parameters of interest to EPA (TSS, BOD, and settleable solids), the monitoring
frequency was typically once per month or once per three months and the samples were
typically 8-hour composite samples collected hourly or until 5 grab samples were
collected. Other parameters sometimes required more frequent monitoring, which were
reported over more than one 24-hour period. Since facilities report multiple parameters in
a single report, multiple days are sometimes recorded as the monitoring period for all of
the data. Based on the permit information, EPA assumed that each reported value (for the
parameters of interest) was from a single 24-hour period. For purposes of the statistical
analyses and data listings, EPA assumed that the sample date was the one associated with
the "Monitoring from" date (starting date of the sampling) listed in the DMR.2
The DMR data did not indicate whether they were nondetected (ND) or noncensored
(NC) values. Except for settleable solids, EPA assumed that all values were NC. For
settleable solids, EPA assumed that all reported values of 0.1 mL/L were ND. For the two
values reported at 0.01 mL/L, EPA assumed that they were ND and replaced the reported
value with the detection limit of 0.1 mL/L. (One value is from DMR2 and the other from
DMR4.) In the memorandum Censoring Assumptions for DMR Data in the Aquatic
Animals Proposal (USEPA, 2002), EPA evaluates the effect of assuming that low values
of TSS are ND rather than NC on the estimates.
In general, EPA used the reported measured value or sample-specific detection limit in its
calculations. However, for hexane extractable material (HEM) and hexanoic acid, EPA
compared each laboratory-reported sample result to the minimum level (ML) in the
chemical analytical method. The ML is defined as the lowest level at which the entire
analytical system must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for
the analyte. When an ML is published in a method, the Agency has demonstrated that at
least one well-operated laboratory can achieve the ML, and when that laboratory or
another laboratory uses that method, it is required to demonstrate, through calibration of
the instrument or analytical system, that it can make measurements at the ML. HEM and
hexanoic acid are the only two pollutants of concern measured using EPA Methods with
the ML concept, so EPA determined that only their data needed to be compared in this
manner. None of the measured values or sample-specific detection limits were reported
with values below the ML. If EPA had found any such values (or if it finds such values
for the final rule), EPA would have substituted the ML for these lower values. In its
statistical models, EPA also would have assumed that these substitutions were ND
concentrations.
8.4 DATA AGGREGATION
In some cases, EPA determined that two or more samples had to be mathematically
aggregated to obtain a single value that could be used in other calculations. In some
2 There was one exception for DMR4, which reported two settleable solids data with the same starting date
of sampling and different ending dates. For the data point reported with a later ending date, EPA assumed
that the data were taken the day after the reported starting date
8-9
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
cases, this meant that field duplicates and grab samples were aggregated for a single
sample point. In addition, for one facility, data were aggregated to obtain a single daily
value representing the facility's influent or effluent from multiple sample points.
Appendix C lists the data after these aggregations were completed and a single daily
value was obtained for each day for each pollutant. Listing 5: Unaggregated Data for
Pollutants of Concern (SAIC, 2002b) provides the unaggregated data.
In all aggregation procedures, EPA considered the censoring type associated with the
data, as well as the measured values to be detected. In statistical terms, the censoring type
for such data was NC. Measurements reported as less than some sample-specific
detection limit (e.g., <10 mg/L) were censored and were considered to be ND. In the
tables and data listings in this document and the record for the rulemaking, EPA has used
the abbreviations NC and ND to indicate the censoring types3.
The distinction between the two censoring types is important because the procedure used
to determine the variability factors considers censoring type explicitly. This estimation
procedure modeled the facility data sets using the modified delta-lognormal distribution.
In this distribution, data are modeled as a mixture of two distributions. Thus, EPA
concluded that the distinctions between detected and nondetected measurements were
important and should be an integral part of any data aggregation procedure. (See
Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution.)
Because each aggregated data value was entered into the modified delta-lognormal model
as a single value, the censoring type associated with that value was also important. In
many cases, a single aggregated value was created from unaggregated data that were all
either detected or nondetected. In the remaining cases with a mixture of detected and
nondetected unaggregated values, EPA determined that the resulting aggregated value
should be considered to be detected because the pollutant was measured at detectable
levels.
This section describes each of the different aggregation procedures. They are presented in
the order in which the aggregation was performed: filtrate samples, field duplicates, grab
samples, and multiple sample points.
8.4.1 Aggregation of Filtrate Samples
For SP 12 at episode 6297, the laboratory filtered the samples and processed the aqueous
filtrate and filtered solids separately. As a result, for the classical/conventional analytes
and the metals pollutants, the laboratory reported two results for each sample. The
aqueous filtrate results were reported in weight/volume units (e.g., mg/L), while the
filtered solids were reported in weight/weight units (e.g., mg/kg). EPA aggregated the
results as explained in the memorandum Conversion ofAquaculture Data for Episode
3 Laboratories can also report numerical results for specific pollutants detected in the samples as "right-
censored." Right-censored measurements are those that are reported as being greater than the highest
calibration value of the analysis (e.g., >1000 ng/L). None of the data used to develop the proposed TSS
limitations were right-censored.
8-10
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
6297 (DynCorp, 2002). Listing of the Aquatic, Solid, and Combined Filtrate Data for
Facility 6297" (SAIC, 2002c) provides the reported (unaggregated) and aggregated
values.
8.4.2 Aggregation of Field Duplicates
During the sampling episodes, EPA collected a small number, about 10%, of field
duplicates. Field duplicates are two samples collected from the same sampling point at
approximately the same time, assigned different sample numbers, and flagged as
duplicates for a single sample point at a facility. Listing 6: Individual Field Duplicate
Sample Results for Pollutants of Concern (SAIC, 2002d), provides the individual values
for the field duplicates for the pollutants of concern for the sample points identified in
Table 8.2-1.
Because the analytical data from each duplicate pair characterize the same conditions at
the same time at a single sampling point, EPA aggregated the data to obtain one data
value for those conditions by calculating the arithmetic average of the duplicate pair.
In most cases, both duplicates had the same censoring type. In these cases, the censoring
type of the aggregate was the same as the duplicates. In the remaining cases, one
duplicate was an NC value and the other duplicate was an ND value. In these cases, EPA
determined that the appropriate censoring type of the aggregate was NC because the
pollutant had been present in one sample. (Even if the other duplicate had a zero value,4
the pollutant still would have been present if the samples had been physically combined.)
Table 8.4-1 summarizes the procedure for aggregating the analytical results from the field
duplicates. This aggregation step for the duplicate pairs was the first step in the
aggregation procedures for both influent and effluent measurements.
Table 8.4-1. Aggregation of Field Duplicates
If the Field Duplicates
Are:
Both NC
BothND
One NC and one ND
Censoring
Type of
Average is:
NC
ND
NC
Value of Aggregate is:
Arithmetic average of measured
values
Arithmetic average of sample-
specific detection limits
Arithmetic average of measured
value and sample-specific detection
limit
Formulas for
Aggregate Value
of Duplicates:
(NC, + NC2)/2
(DL, + DL2)/2
(NC + DL)/2
NC - tioncensored (or detected).
ND - nondetected.
DL - sample-specific detection limit.
4 This is presented as a "worst-case" scenario. In practice, the laboratories cannot measure 'zero' values.
Rather they report that the value is less than some level.
8-11
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
8.4.3 Aggregation of Grab Samples
During the sampling episodes, EPA collected mostly composite samples. However, the
chemical analytical method specifies that grab samples must be used for two pollutants of
concern: oil and grease (O&G) and settleable solids. For O&G, EPA collected multiple
(usually three) grab samples during a sampling day at a sample point. For settleable
solids, a single grab sample was collected each day at each sample point. To obtain one
value characterizing the pollutant levels at the sample point on a single day, EPA
mathematically aggregated the measurements from the grab samples. Listing 7:
Individual Grab Sample Results for Pollutants of Concern (SAIC, 2002e), provides these
values for the sample points identified in Table 8.2-1.
The procedure arithmetically averaged the measurements to obtain a single value for the
day. When one or more measurements were NC, EPA determined that the appropriate
censoring type of the aggregate was 'non-censored' because the pollutant was present.
Table 8.4-2 summarizes this procedure.
8.4.4 Aggregation of Data Across Sample Points ("Flow-Weighting")
After field duplicates and grab samples were aggregated, the data from each sample point
in facilities with multiple sample points were further aggregated to obtain a single daily
value representing the episode's influent or effluent. Listing 5: Unaggregated Data for
Pollutants of Concern (SAIC, 2002b) provides the unaggregated data for the pollutants of
concern for the sample points identified in Table 8.2-1.
Table 8.4-2. Aggregation of Grab Samples
If the Grab or Multiple
Samples are:
A11NC
A11ND
Mixture of NC and ND
values
(total number of
observations is n = k + in)
Censoring Type of
Daily Value is:
NC
ND
NC
Daily Value is:
Arithmetic average of
measured values
Arithmetic average of
sample-specific detection
limits
Arithmetic average of
measured values arid
sample-specific detection
limits
Formulas for
Calculating Daily Value:
ZNC,
i=l
n
5X
n
iXi+iXi
1=1 1=1
n
NC - noncensored (or detected).
ND - nondetected.
DL - sample-specific detection limit.
In aggregating values across sample points, if one or more of the values were NC, the
aggregated result was considered NC because the pollutant was present in at least one
stream. When all of the values were ND, the aggregated result was considered to be ND.
The procedure for aggregating data across streams is summarized in Table 8.4-3. The
8-12
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
following example demonstrates the procedure for hypothetical pollutant X at an episode
with discharges on Day 1 from an OLSB and raceway for Option 1 of the flow-through
subcategoiy.
Example of calculating an aggregated flow-weighted value:
Day Sample Point Flow (cfs) Concentration (mg/L) Censoring
1 Raceway 1 50 NC
1 OLSB 100 10 ND
Calculation to obtain aggregated, flow-weighted value:
(lOO cfsx 10 ing / l)+(lcfsx 50 mg / L)
= 10.4 nig / L
100cfs+ 1 cfs
Because one of the values was NC, the aggregated value of 10.4 mg/L is NC.
Table 8.4-3. Aggregation of Data Across Streams
If the n Observations are:
AUNG
AUND
Mixture of k NC and
niND
(total number of observations is
n=k+m)
Censoring Type is:
NC
ND
NC
Formulas for Value of Aggregate
n
£ NC.xflow.
1 ! !
n
£ flow.
n
I DL. xflow.
• _ 1 1 J
n
£ flow.
k m
S» T
N \ X f 1 n w -(- / 1~) 1 X f 1 o w
n
i=l
NC - noncensored (or detected).
ND - nondetected.
DL - sample-specific detection limit.
8.5 OVERVIEW or LIMITATIONS
The preceding sections discuss the data selected as the basis for the limitations along with
the data aggregation procedures EPA used to obtain daily values in its calculations. This
section provides a general overview of limitations before returning to the development of
the proposed limitations for the CAAP industry.
8-13
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
For the CAAP industry, the limitations for pollutants for each option are provided as
daily maximums and maximums for monthly averages. Definitions provided in 40 CFR
122.2 state that the daily maximum limitation is the "highest allowable 'daily
discharge,'" and the maximum for monthly average limitation (also referred to as the
"average monthly discharge limitation") is the "highest allowable average of 'daily
discharges' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all 'daily discharges'
measured during a calendar month divided by the number of 'daily discharges' measured
during that month." Daily discharges are defined as the '"discharge of a pollutant'
measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling."
This section describes EPA's objective for daily maximum and monthly average
limitations, the selection of percentiles for those limitations, and compliance with final
limitations. EPA has included this discussion in Chapter 8 because these fundamental
concepts are often the subject of comments on EPA's effluent guidelines regulations and
in EPA's contacts and correspondence with industry.
8.5.1 Objective
In establishing daily maximum limitations, EPA's objective is to restrict the discharges
on a daily basis at a level that is achievable for a facility that targets its treatment at the
long-term average. EPA acknowledges that variability around the long-term average
results from normal operations. Occasionally, facilities discharge at a level that is greater
than or considerably lower than the long-term average. To allow for these possibly higher
daily discharges, EPA has established the daily maximum limitation. A facility that
consistently discharges at a level near the daily maximum limitation is not targeting its
treatment to achieve the long-term average, which is part of EPA's objective in
establishing the daily maximum limitations. That is, targeting treatment to achieve the
limitations might result in frequent values exceeding the limitations due to routine
variability in treated effluent.
In establishing monthly average limitations, EPA's objective is to provide an additional
restriction to help ensure that facilities target their average discharges to achieve the long-
term average. The monthly average limitation requires continuous dischargers to provide
on-going control, on a monthly basis, that complements controls imposed by the daily
maximum limitation. In order to meet the monthly average limitation, a facility must
counterbalance a value near the daily maximum limitation with one or more values well
below the daily maximum limitation. To achieve compliance, these values must result in
a monthly average value at or below the monthly average limitation.
8.5.2 Selection of Percentiles
EPA calculates limitations based on percentiles chosen with the intention to be high
enough to accommodate reasonably anticipated variability within the control of the
facility and to be low enough to reflect a level of performance consistent with the Clean
Water Act requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the "best" technologies.
The daily maximum limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the distribution of
8-14
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
the daily measurements. The monthly average limitation is an estimate of the 95th
percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the daily measurements.
The 99th and 95th percentiles do not relate to, or specify, the percentage of time a
discharger operating the "best available" or "best available demonstrated" level of
technology will meet (or not meet) the limitations. Rather, the use of these percentiles
relates to the development of limitations. (The percentiles used as a basis for the
limitations are calculated using the products of the long-term averages and the variability
factors as explained in the next section.) If a facility is designed and operated to achieve
the long-term average on a consistent basis and maintains adequate control of its
processes and treatment systems, the allowance for variability provided in the limitations
is sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule. The use of 99 percent and 95 percent
represents a need to draw a line at a definite point in the statistical distributions (100
percent is not feasible because it represents an infinitely large value) and a policy
judgment about where to draw the line that would ensure that operators work hard to
establish and maintain the appropriate level of control. In essence, in developing the
limitations, EPA has taken into account the reasonable anticipated variability in
discharges that might occur at a well-operated facility. By targeting its treatment at the
long-term average, a well-operated facility should be able to comply with the limitations
at all times because EPA has incorporated into limitations an appropriate allowance for
variability.
In conjunction with the statistical methods, EPA performs an engineering review to verify
that the limitations are reasonable based on the design and expected operation of the
control technologies and the facility process conditions. As part of that review, EPA
examines the range of performance by the facility data sets used to calculate the
limitations. Some facility data sets demonstrate the best available technology, and others
demonstrate the same technology but not the best demonstrated design and operating
conditions for that technology. For the latter facilities, EPA evaluates how the facility can
upgrade its design, operating, and maintenance conditions to meet the limitations. If such
upgrades are not possible, the limitations are modified to reflect the lowest levels that the
technologies can reasonably be expected to achieve.
8.5.3 Compliance with Limitations
EPA promulgates limitations that facilities are capable of complying with at all times by
properly operating and maintaining their processes and treatment technologies. However,
the issue of exceedances or excursions (values that exceed the limitations) is often raised.
Comments often suggest that EPA include a provision that a facility is in compliance
with permit limitations if its discharge does not exceed the specified limitations, with the
exception that the discharge may exceed the monthly average limitations 1 month out of
20 and the daily average limitations 1 day out of 100. This issue was, in fact, raised in
other rules, including EPA's final Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) rulemaking. EPA's general approach in that case for developing limitations
based on percentiles was the same as this rule and was upheld in Chemical Manufacturers
Association v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 870 F.2d 177, 230 (5th Cir. 1989).
The Court determined the following:
8-15
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
EPA reasonably concluded that the data points exceeding the 99th and
95th percentiles represent either quality-control problems or upsets
because there can be no other explanation for these isolated and extremely
high discharges. If these data points result from quality-control problems,
the exceedances they represent are within the control of the plant. If,
however, the data points represent exceedances beyond the control of the
industry, the upset defense is available.
Id at 230.
More recently, this issue was raised in EPA's Phase I rule for the pulp and paper industry.
In that rulemaking, EPA used the same general approach for developing limitations based
on percentiles that it had used for the OCPSF rulemaking and for the proposed CAAP
rule. This approach for the monthly average limitation was upheld in National Wildlife
Federation et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-1452, Slip Op. at Section
III.D (D.C. Cir.) (April 19, 2002). The Court determined that
EPA's approach to developing monthly limitations was reasonable. It
established limitations based on percentiles achieved by facilities using
well-operated and controlled processes and treatment systems. It is
therefore reasonable for EPA to conclude that measurements above the
limitations are due to either upset conditions or deficiencies in process and
treatment system maintenance and operation. EPA has included an
affirmative defense that is available to mills that exceed limitations due to
an unforeseen event. EPA reasonably concluded that other exceedances
would be the result of design or operational deficiencies. EPA rejected
Industry Petitioners' claim that facilities are expected to operate processes
and treatment systems so as to violate the limitations at some pre-set rate.
EPA explained that the statistical methodology was used as a framework
to establish the limitations based on percentiles. These limitations were
never intended to have the rigid probabilistic interpretation that Industry
Petitioners have adopted. Therefore, we reject Industry Petitioners'
challenge to the effluent limitations.
As that Court recognized, EPA's allowance for reasonably anticipated variability in its
effluent limitations, coupled with the availability of the upset defense, reasonably
accommodates acceptable excursions. Any further excursion allowances would go
beyond the reasonable accommodation of variability and would jeopardize the effective
control of pollutant discharges on a consistent basis and/or bog down administrative and
enforcement proceedings in detailed fact-finding exercises, contrary to Congressional
intent. See, for example, Rep. No. 92-414, 92d Congress, 2d Sess. 64, reprinted in A
Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (at 1482);
Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (at 464-65).
EPA expects that facilities will comply with promulgated limitations at all times. If the
exceedance is caused by an upset condition, the facility would have an affirmative
defense to an enforcement action if the requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(n) are met. If the
8-16
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
exceedance is caused by a design or operational deficiency, EPA has determined that the
facility's performance does not represent the appropriate level of control (best available
technology for existing sources; best available demonstrated technology for new sources).
For promulgated limitations and standards, EPA has determined that such exceedances
can be controlled by diligent process and wastewater treatment system operational
practices such as frequent inspection and repair of equipment, use of backup systems, and
operator training and performance evaluations.
8.6 ESTIMATION OF THE PROPOSED LIMITATIONS
In estimating the proposed limitations, EPA determines an average performance level (the
"option long-term average" discussed in the next section) that a facility with well-
designed, well-operated model technologies (which reflect the appropriate level of
control) is capable of achieving. This long-term average is calculated from data from the
facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects that all facilities
subject to the final limitations will design and operate their treatment systems to achieve
the long-term average performance level consistently because facilities with well-
designed, well-operated model technologies have demonstrated that this can be done.
In the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance for the
variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through extensive and well-designed
production and treatment systems. This allowance for variance incorporates all
components of variability, including shipping, sampling, storage, and analytical
variability, and is incorporated into the limitations by using variability factors calculated
from the data from the facilities using the model technologies. If a facility operates its
treatment system to meet the relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility will be
able to meet the limitations. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a
facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations. By accounting for these
reasonable excursions above the long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors
results in limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term averages.
Facilities that are designed and operated to achieve long-term average effluent levels used
in developing the limitation should be capable of compliance with the limitations, which
incorporate variability, at all times.
The following sections describe the calculation of the option long-term averages and
option variability factors.
8.6.1 Calculation of Option Long-Term Averages
This section discusses the calculation of long-term averages by episode (episode long-
term average) and by option (option long-term average) for each pollutant. These
averages were used to calculate the limitations and as the option long-term averages for
the pollutants of concern.
First, EPA calculated the episode long-term average by using either the modified delta-
lognormal distribution or the arithmetic average (see Table 8.6-1 for the episode long-
term averages). For the final rule, EPA intends to evaluate the appropriateness of the
8-17
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
modified delta-lognormal distribution for these data and possibly consider other
distributions such as the censored lognormal distribution (see Appendix F). In Appendix
D, EPA has listed the arithmetic average (column labeled "Obs Mean") and the estimated
episode long-term average (column labeled "Est LTA"). If EPA used the arithmetic
average as the episode long-term average, the two columns have the same value.
Table 8.6-1. Episode Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Sub-
category
Flow-
Through
Recir-
eulating
Option or
Technology
OLSB
Raceway
1
3
3
Pollutant
TSS
Total
Phosphorus
TSS
Total
Phosphorus
TSS
Total
Phosphorus
TSS
Total
Phosphorus
TSS
BOD
Total
Phosphorus
Episode
6297A
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297B
6460C
6297E
6460B
6297E
6460B
6297G
6297H
62971
6460A
DMR1
DMR3
DMR4
6297G
6297H
62971
6460A
DMRi
6460D
DMR2a
6460D
DMR2
6439Ba
6439B3
6439B"
Number of
Data
Points
5
5
1
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
19
37
34
5
5
5
5
12
5
16
5
9
5
5
5
Episode
Long-Term
Average
(rng/L)
58.1037
69.7312
38.0000
10.1657
9.4936
0.3600
4.0000
4.0000
0.1721
0.0445
4.5330
4.6477
4.1696
9.5361
1.7814
3.6962
2.6764
0.2746
0.2641
0.1323
0.0978
0.0932
4.0000
3.1236
0.0462
0.2146
47.0929
45.8269
10.9182
Episode Variability
Factors
Daily
1.6295
1.3358
n/a
1.1281
1.3719
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.9026
2.1131
1.0645
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.9449
2.0935
3.7816
2.1236
1.7196
2.9745
5.7387
5.6559
n/a
5.1171
1.5830
6.1765
1.8709
1.2004
1.9564
Monthly
1.1933
1.1091
n/a
1.0437
1.1199
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.3831
1.3186
1.0224
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.5141
1.3138
1.6997
1.3212
1.2800
1.5454
2.1297
2.1113
n/a
1.9920
1.1804
2.2280
1.2574
1.0671
1.2793
Note: n/a means mat die data set did not meet the requirements specified in Appendix E.
a As explained in Section 8.2, EPA excluded these data from developing the limitations.
Second, EPA calculated the option long-term average for a pollutant as the median of the
episode long-term averages for that pollutant from selected episodes with the technology
8-18
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
basis for the option (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2). The median is the midpoint of the values
ordered (ranked) from smallest to largest. If there is an odd number of values (with n =
number of values), the value of the (n + l)/2 ordered observation is the median. If there
are an even number of values, the two values of the n/2 and [(n/2)+l] ordered
observations are arithmetically averaged to obtain the median value.
For example, for subcategory Y option Z, if the four (n = 4) episode long-term averages
for pollutant X are:
Facility Episode-Specific Long-Term Average
A 20 mg/L
B 9 mg/L
C 16 mg/L
D 10 mg/L
the ordered values are:
Order Facility Episode-Specific Long-Term Average
1 A 9 mg/L
2 B 10 mg/L
3 C 16 mg/L
4 D 20 mg/L
and the pollutant-specific long-term average for option Z is the median of the ordered
values (the average of the 2nd and 3rd ordered values): (10 + 16)/2 mg/L = 13 mg/L.
The option long-term averages were used in developing the limitations for each pollutant
within each regulatory option.
8.6.2 Calculation of Option Variability Factors
In developing the option variability factors used in calculating the limitations, EPA first
developed daily and monthly episode variability factors using the modified delta-
lognormal distribution. Table 8.6-1 lists the episode variability factors.
Appendix E describes the estimation procedure for the episode variability factors using
the modified delta-lognormal distribution. For the final rule, EPA intends to evaluate the
appropriateness of the modified delta-lognormal distribution for the CAAP data and
possibly consider other distributions such as the censored lognormal distribution (see
Appendix F). In addition to evaluating the distributional assumptions, EPA intends to
evaluate whether autocorrelation is likely to be present in weekly measurements of
wastewater data from the CAAP industry. When data are said to be autocorrelated, it
means that measurements taken at specific time intervals (such as 1 week or 2 weeks
apart) are related. For example, positive autocorrelation would be present in the data if
the final effluent concentration of TSS was relatively high one week and was likely to
remain at similar high values the next and possibly succeeding weeks. In some industries,
8-19
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
measurements in final effluent are likely to be similar from one day (or week) to the next
because of the consistency from day to day in the production processes and in final
effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of wastewater in basins, holding
tanks, and other components of wastewater treatment systems. To determine if
autocorrelation exists in the data, a statistical evaluation is necessary and will be
considered before the final rule. To estimate autocorrelation in the data, many
measurements for each pollutant would be required with values for equally spaced
intervals over an extended period of time. If such data are available for the final rule,
EPA intends to perform a statistical evaluation of autocorrelation and, if necessaiy,
provide any adjustments to the limitations. This adjustment would increase the values of
the variance and monthly variability factor used in calculating the maximum monthly
limitation. However, the estimate of the long-term average and the daily variability factor
(and thus the maximum daily limitation) are generally only slightly affected by
autocorrelation.
After calculating the episode variability factors, EPA calculated the option daily
variability factor as the mean of the episode daily variability factors for that pollutant in
the subcategory and option. Likewise, the option monthly variability factor was the mean
of the episode monthly variability factors for that pollutant in the subcategory and option.
Table 8.6-2 lists the option variability factors.
Table 8.6-2. Option Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and Limitations
Subcategory
Flow-through
Recirculating
Option or
Technology
OLSB
Raceway
1
3
3
Pollutant
TSS
Total Phosphorus
TSS
Total Phosphorus
TSS
Total Phosphorus
TSS
Total Phosphorus
TSS*
BOD
Total Phosphorus
Option
Long-
Term
Average
(mg/L)
58.1
9.49
4.00
0.108
4.17
0.132
4.00
0.130
-
45.8
10.9
Option Variability
Factors
Daily
1.48
1.25
2.47
2.01
2.47
3.64
2.47
3.88
-
1.20
1.96
Monthly
1.15
1.08
1.39
1.35
1.39
1.68
1.39
1.70
-
1.07
1.28
Limitations
(mg/L)
Daily
Maximum
87
11.9
9.88
0.217
11
0.482
10
0.506
50
55.0
21.4
Monthly
Average
67
10.3
5.56
0.146
6
0.222
6
0.222
30
48.9
14.0
Section 8.2 explains the derivation of these limitations.
8-20
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
8.6.3 Transfers of Option Variability Factors
After estimating the option variability factors, EPA identified one option (Option 3) and
one technology (raceways) in the flow-through subcategory, for which variability factors
for TSS could not be calculated. (See Table 8.6-3.) This resulted when all episode data
sets had too few detected measurements to calculate episode variability factors (see data
requirements in Appendix E). For example, if TSS had all ND values for all of the
episodes in an option, it was not possible to calculate the option variability factors. In
both cases, EPA calculated the limitations using the Option 1 variability factors from the
flow-through subcategory. EPA determined that these variability factor transfers were
appropriate because EPA would expect the effluent from a raceway and from a polishing
pond (Option 3) to be less variable than the combined discharges from an OLSB and a
raceway (Option 1).
Table 8.6-3. Cases Where Option Variability Factors Could Not Be Calculated
Subcategory
Flow-through
Option or
Technology
Raceway
3
Pollutant
TSS
TSS
Source of Variability Factors
Option 1
Option 1
8.6.4 Summary of Steps Used to Derive the Proposed Limitations
This section summarizes the steps used to derive the proposed limitations for TSS. EPA
used these same steps to calculate the limitations that it considered for total phosphorus
and BOD. For each pollutant in an option (or technology such as OLSB) for a
subcategory, EPA performed the following steps in calculating the limitations:
Step 1 EPA calculated the episode Jong-term averages and daily and monthly
variability factors for all selected episodes with the model technology for the
option in the subcategory. (See Section 8.2 for selection of episodes and Table
8.6-1 for episode long-term averages and variability factors.)
Step 2 EPA calculated the option long-term, average as the median of the episode long-
term averages. (See Table 8.6-2.)
Step 3 EPA calculated the option variability factors for each pollutants as the mean of
the episode variability factors from the episodes with the model technology.
(See Table 8.6-2.) The option daily variability factor is the mean of the episode
daily variability factors. Similarly, the option monthly variability factor is the
mean of the episode monthly variability factors.
Step 4 For the pollutants for which Steps 1 and 3 failed to provide option variability
factors, EPA determined variability factors on a case-by-case basis. (See Table
8.6-3.)
8-21
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
Step 5 EPA calculated each daily maximum limitation for a pollutant using the product
of the option long-term average and the option daily variability factor. (See
Table 8.6-2.)
Step 6 EPA calculated each monthly average limitation for a pollutant using the
product of the option long-term average and the option monthly variability
factor. (See Table 8.6-2.)
Step 7 EPA compared the daily maximum limitations to the data used to develop the
limitations. EPA usually performs this comparison to determine whether it used
appropriate distributional assumptions for the data used to develop the
limitations (i.e., whether the curves EPA used provide a reasonable "fit" to the
actual effluent data5 or if there was an engineering or process reason for an
unusual discharge). Except for one case, all proposed daily maximum
limitations had greater values than the data used to develop the limitations. The
exception was the TSS proposed daily maximum limitation for Option 1 in the
flow-through subcategory. The single value exceeding the limitation was from
episode 6460A on the day when the facility discharged from the OLSB. As
explained in Section 8.2, during EPA's visit, the facility discharged the OLSB at
a shorter than usual retention time. EPA also notes that the facility's OLSB
would be considered to be underdesigned if it were the final treatment step at
the facility. However, the facility has a polishing pond, which was designed to
operate as a part of the overall treatment train at the facility, and thus the OLSB
can be operated at less than maximum treatment efficiency and the effluent from
this OLSB receives additional treatment prior to discharge.
8.7 REFERENCES
DynCorp, 2002. Memorandum: Conversion of Aquaculture Data for Episode 6297, from
H. McCarty to C. Simbanin, July 24, 2002.
SAIC. (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.) 2002a. Listings for Episode
6297: DMR Data, Summary Statistics, and Estimates, Falls Church, VA.
SAIC. (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.) 2002b. Listing 5:
Unaggregated Data for Pollutants of Concern, Falls Church, VA.
SAIC. (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.) 2002c. Listing of the
Aquatic, Solid, and Combined Filtrate Data for Facility 6297, Falls Church, VA.
SAIC. (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.) 2002d. Listing 6: Individual
Field Duplicate Sample Results for Pollutants of Concern, Falls Church, VA.
5 EPA believes that the fact that the Agency performs such an analysis before promulgating limitations
might give the impression that EPA expects occasional exceedances of the limitations. This conclusion is
incorrect. EPA promulgates limitations that facilities are capable of complying with at all times by
properly operating and maintaining their treatment technologies.
8-22
-------
Chapter 8: Limitations and Standards: Data Selection and Calculation
SAIC. (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.) 2002e. Listing 7: Individual
Grab Sample Results for Pollutants of Concern, Falls Church, VA.
USEPA. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2001. Screener Survey for the Aquatic
Animal Production Industry. OMB Control No. 2040-0237 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2002. Memorandum: Censoring
Assumptions for DMR Data in the Aquatic Animals Proposal, from M. Smith to M.
Jordan, August 14, 2002.
8-23
-------
CHAPTER 9
COSTING METHODOLOGY
9.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA identified several potential regulatory options for the concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) industry. This chapter describes the methodology used to estimate
engineering compliance costs associated with installing and operating the treatment
technologies and management practices considered for the regulatory options.
9.1.1 Regulatory Option Summary
EPA developed three regulatory options for CAAP facilities:
• Option 1—solids removal through treatment technologies and best management
practices (BMPs).
• Option 2—BMP plan for pathogen control, prevention of nonnative species
escapement, and minimization of drugs and chemicals.
• Option 3—additional solids control through treatment technologies.
Table 9.1-1 illustrates the treatment technologies and BMPs for each proposed option by
subcategory. All three options were evaluated for Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT)/Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
regulatory options. To determine the cost for complying with each option, EPA
developed combinations of technologies and management practices that form the basis of
the cost estimate for each type of CAAP facility production system under the BPT/BAT
options. The combinations of treatment technologies and management practices are based
primarily on the type of production system used at a facility. (See Chapter 5,
Subcategorization of the Technical Development Document, for more information.) The
type of production system determines the relative volume and strength of wastewater
produced at a particular facility and the treatability of the wastewater using cost-efficient
treatment technologies and management practices. The size of a facility (e.g., production
level) determines the overall volume of water discharged and associated pollutant load.
EPA used the type of production system and facility size in combination to determine the
BMPs and treatment technologies that formed each proposed regulatory option.
9-1
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Table 9.1-1. Treatment Technologies and BMPs for Proposed
Regulatory Options, by Subcategory
Regulatory
Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Required BMPs and
Technologies
Sedimentation basin
Quiescent zones
BMP plan
Compliance monitoring
Drug & chemical BMP plan
Solids polishing
Compliance monitoring
Active feed monitoring
Subcategory
Flow-through
Medium"
X
X
X
X
Large"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recirculating
X
X
X
X
X
X
Net Pen
X
X
Note: "X" represents a required treatment technology or BMP component for an option.
"See section 9.3.1 for description of medium and large flow-through systems.
EPA proposed alternate compliance provisions for meeting the solids removal
requirements for flow-through and recirculating systems. The first alternative requires
specific numeric TSS limits (Table 9.1-2). These limits were determined for different
discharge scenarios and levels of treatment options. The cost analysis included weekly
monitoring and monthly reporting to show that a facility is meeting the requirements (see
section 9.4 for more details on the cost assumptions) for monitoring and reporting. The
second alternative allows facilities to develop and implement a BMP plan that will
achieve the numeric limits. The BMP plan and its implementation would then be used as
the measure of compliance, in lieu of the weekly monitoring and monthly reporting. EPA
Table 9.1-2. Summary of TSS Numeric Limits for
Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
System/Discharge Type
Flow-through; more than 475,000 Ib annual
production; full flow and single discharge
Flow-through; more man 475.000 Ib annual
production; offline settling, separate discharge
Flow-through; more than 100,000 Ib, but less than or
equal to 475,000 Ib annual production; full flow and
single discharge
How-through; more man 100,000 Ib, but less than or
equal to 475,000 Ib annual production; offline settling,
separate discharge
Recirculating; more man 100,000 Ib annual
production
Maximum
Daily (mg/L)
10
69
11
87
50
Maximum Monthly
Average (mg/L)
6
55
6
67
30
9-2
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
believes that the alternate BMP plan approach could cost less than the monitoring and
reporting approach. EPA does not believe that the BMP compliance alternative will cost
any more than the estimated costs associated with the technology options described in
this report. EPA did not perform any additional cost analysis for the BMP plan
alternative.
9.1.2 Approach for Estimating Compliance Costs
EPA traditionally develops either facility-specific or model facility compliance costs and
pollutant loading reduction estimates. Facility-specific compliance costs and pollutant
loading reduction estimates require detailed process and geographic information about
many, if not all, facilities in an industry. These data typically include production,
capacity, water use, wastewater generation, waste management operations (including
design and cost data), monitoring data, geographic location, financial conditions, and any
other industry-specific data that might be required for the analyses. EPA then uses each
facility's information to estimate the cost of installing new pollution controls and the
expected pollutant removals from these controls.
When facility-specific data are not available, EPA develops model facilities to provide a
reasonable representation of the industry. For the CAAP industry, EPA chose a model-
facility approach to estimate compliance costs because detailed information about the
scope of the CAAP industry was not available. EPA expects to obtain more detailed
facility-level information, although not on every facility, through the detailed AAP
survey (USEPA, 2002a).
EPA developed model facilities to reflect CAAP facilities with a specific production
system, type of ownership, and (in many cases) species. The model facilities represented
these facilities across a specific size range and were based on the average production
value for all facilities represented within this range. These model facilities were based on
data gathered during site visits, information provided by industry members and their
associations, and other publicly available information. EPA estimated the number of
facilities represented by each model using data from the Aquatic Animal Production
(AAP) screener survey (Westat, 2002), in conjunction with information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000b). Costs
and pollutant loading reductions were estimated for each model facility, and then
industry-level costs were calculated by multiplying model facility costs by the estimated
number of facilities required to implement the treatment technology or management
practice in each model category.
EPA designed the model facility approach to capture the key characteristics (model
facility configuration) of individual facilities, based on the Census of Aquaculture and the
AAP screener survey, by averaging these key characteristics and then representing the
averages as a model facility. Using this approach, every facility was characterized
according to specific attributes, which included production system type, species, and
dollar level of production. EPA estimated or calculated other key attributes for each of
the model facilities, including system inputs (e.g., feed), estimated pollutant loads,
discharge flow characteristics, and geographic data. All of these attributes and
characteristics were then linked into option modules using Microsoft Excel as a
9-3
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
computing platform to enable ease of changes to model facility assumptions and
characteristics, as well as ease of calculation.
Control technology options and BMPs used to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the
environment were linked with the unit cost modules, which calculated an estimated cost
of the component based on estimates of capital expenses (which included elements such
as engineering design, equipment, installation, one-time costs, and land) and annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses. For each model facility, EPA applied
combinations of technologies and BMPs, given the model facility configuration
characteristics (e.g., system type, size, and species). EPA adjusted the total cost of the
component with a frequency factor that accounts for CAAP facilities that already have
that technology or management practice in place. This adjusted cost, which reflects the
number of facilities that would incur the costs associated with the technologies or
management practices, is used to determine the estimated national capital and O&M costs
for each model facility type.
9.1.3 Basic Model Assumptions
EPA based the compliance cost models on several primary assumptions:
• Feed offered to the cultured species contributes to pollutant discharges in two
ways. First, metabolic wastes and unmetabolized feed consumed by the cultured
species are contained in the feces and urine. Second, uneaten feed settles and
increases the pollutant load in the culture water. Thus, feed inputs to the systems
are the drivers of the quality of effluents from CAAP facilities.
• Feed conversion ratios (FCRs), although they vary among species and production
systems, geographically, and by size or age of the animal, determine the amount
of feed put into CAAP production systems. To determine the annual amount of
feed used at a CAAP facility, EPA multiplied the annual production for a model
facility by the FCR. EPA evaluated the technical literature for information about
FCRs (Hochheimer and Westers, 2002a) and found the reported values to vary,
especially by system type and species. EPA assumed that using average values for
predominant species (e.g., catfish, trout, hybrid striped bass, and salmon), which
are also the FCRs reported in the literature, in estimating pollutant loads and costs
was a reasonable approach. The averages reflect some of the variation that occurs
among species and within a system type. EPA used average FCRs for each
production system to estimate the feed inputs, which translate into pollutant loads
to a model facility (Table 9.1-3).
Table 9.1-3. Feed Conversion Ratios
System Type
Ponds
Flow-through
Recirculating
Net pen
Initial
FCR
2.2
1.4
1.6
1.2
Treatment/BMP
—
—
—
Active feed monitoring
New
FCR
—
—
—
1.0
Source: Hochheimer and Westers. 2002a.
9-4
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
• EPA received several comments from industry representatives regarding FCRs.
The comments ranged from "FCRs are species- and site-specific" (Rice, 2002) to
"FCRs are constantly changing" (Rheault, 2002). Several commenters thought the
FCRs were too low (Engle, 2002; Pierce, 2002), and some thought EPA had
estimated too high (Plemmons, 2002). As a result of these comments, EPA
verified the assumed FCRs with other industry sources (Hinshaw, 2002, personal
communication; MacMillan, 2002, personal communication). EPA will continue
to evaluate the impact of different FCR assumptions.
• Technology options and BMPs have typical, definable, and steady-state efficiency
rates of removing specific pollutants from water.
• Certain technologies are more applicable to some system types and flows than to
others.
9.1.4 Organization of the Cost Chapter
The following costing information is discussed in detail in this chapter:
• Section 9.2 presents the structure of the cost model. EPA's cost model for the
CAAP industry uses the model facility approach to develop costs associated with
each regulatory option.
• Section 9.3 discusses the model facility configuration. This section also describes
input data, including wastewater generation, pollutant inputs, and cost factors, for
the model facilities for flow-through, recirculating, and net pen systems. EPA's
cost model relies on specific information about the species raised, culture system,
pollutant inputs, and wastewater generation rates to accurately predict the costs
associated with each regulatory option.
• Section 9.4 discusses unit cost modules, which are components of the treatment
technologies and BMPs that compose the regulatory options. Each treatment
technology or BMP cost module contains formulas by which to calculate the costs
associated with each regulatory option based on the facility characteristics.
• Section 9.5 describes the current frequency of existing BMPs and treatment
technologies at CAAP facilities. EPA used this occurrence frequency, or
frequency factor, to estimate the portion of the operations that would not incur
costs to comply with the new regulation.
• Section 9.6 provides output data.
• Section 9.7 describes the evolution and changes EPA made to the costing
methodology.
9.2 COST MODEL STRUCTURE
EPA estimated the costs associated with regulatory compliance for each of the regulatory
options under consideration. The estimated costs of compliance to achieve the proposed
requirements include initial capital costs, in some cases, as well as annual O&M and
monitoring costs. EPA estimated compliance costs based on the cost of implementing the
BMPs or control technologies that have been shown to meet particular requirements, as
demonstrated by facilities in the CAAP facility industry.
9-5
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
To generate industry compliance cost estimates associated with each regulatory option
for AAP facilities, EPA developed a computer-based model made up of several
individual cost modules. Figure 9.2-1 illustrates the cost model by showing that it
consists of several components, which can be grouped into four major categories:
• Model facility configuration
• Unit cost of treatment technology or BMP
• Frequency factors
• Output data
Each module calculates costs and loading data for a specific wastewater treatment
technology or BMP (e.g., a primary settling basin) based on model facility characteristics.
Frequency factors are then applied to the component costs to weight the costs by the
estimated percentage of operations that already have that treatment technology or practice
in place. These weighted facility costs are then summed for each regulatory option and
model facility. All costs are in year 2000 dollars.
9.2.1 Model Facility Configuration
The model facility configuration part of the cost model sets up the characteristics of each
unique model facility, based primarily on system type, species, the combination of
existing and proposed management practices and technologies, capital costs (e.g., land
costs, regional differences in technology implementation costs), annual production, and
feed inputs.
Model Facility
Configuration
Unit Cost Modules
Output Data
Weighted Component
Unit Costs
Model Farm Costs
Industry Costs
Figure 9.2-1. Schematic of Cost Model Structure
9-6
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Input data to the model facilities include the following:
• Number of facilities for a combination of system types, sizes, culture species,
facility types, and locations.
• Technologies and BMPs.
• National average capital cost, land requirements of technology options, and
BMPs.
• Average flow (daily).
• Estimates of annual production and price per pound.
• Data associated with feeding practices, including feeding in pounds per day and
pollutant concentrations associated with feed.
9.2.2 Unit Cost of Treatment Technologies or BMPs
9.2.2.1 Unit Cost Components
The unit cost component of treatment technologies or BMPs (unit cost modules) contains
the cost information for each component (BMP or treatment technology) contained in the
regulatory options. The cost modules calculate the various capital and O&M costs for the
model facilities, based on culture species and production system, using various cost
factors for labor, electricity, and land values for each of the regulatory options. Section
9.3 describes the various cost factors. The unit cost modules are used in conjunction with
the frequency factors (see Section 9.5) to determine the costs for each segment of the
industry.
9.2.2.2 General Cost Assumptions
Most of the input data for each model facility are specific to the species cultured and the
production system, such as facility size, annual production, or unit sizes. Some cost input,
however, is independent of the species and culture system. EPA assumed a management
labor rate of $13.46/h, based on government labor statistics for full-time employees in the
agricultural industry (Department of Labor, 2001). EPA assumed a general labor rate of
$7.69/h, based on government labor statistics for full-time employees in the agricultural
industry (Department of Labor, 2001). For cost estimates, EPA assumed average land
values of $l,050/ac (USDA, 2000a). The value is the average U.S. farm real estate value,
including all land and buildings for the continental United States in the year 2000
(USDA, 2000a). For cost estimates EPA assumed an electricity cost of $0.0722/kWh
(EIA, 2002). The value is the average retail revenue per kilowatt-hour in the continental
United States in the year 2000 (EIA, 2002). Additional costing impacts are species- or
system-specific and are described in Sections 9.3.1 through 9.3.4.
9.2.3 Frequency Factors
EPA recognized that some individual facilities have already implemented some of the
treatment technologies or BMPs included as part of the proposed options. When
estimating costs and pollutant loadings for implementing the proposed options across the
entire subcategory nationwide, EPA did not include costs or pollutant removals for BMPs
or treatment technologies already in place.
9-7
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
EPA determined the current frequency of existing BMPs and treatment technologies at
CAAP facilities based on existing NPDES permit requirements, screener survey
responses, site visits, and sampling visits and information provided by the industry. This
occurrence frequency was used to estimate the portion of the operations that would not
incur costs to comply with the new regulation. Frequency factors are discussed in greater
detail in Section 9.5.
9.2.4 Output Data
Output data from the cost model provide economic estimates for incremental pollution
control in the CAAP industry. Capital and one-time costs, annual O&M costs, and pre-tax
annualized costs were calculated for each subcategory and, more specifically, by option
and facility size. From the cost model EPA also estimated the pre-tax annualized cost of
the proposed options, based on the screener survey facility counts, and summed the pre-
tax annualized costs for all of the proposed options to estimate the national pre-tax
annualized cost of the proposed options. The national pre-tax annualized costs, which
were used to evaluate the economic affordability of the regulation, are estimates of the
annual costs that an individual facility would incur as a result of the proposed regulation.
9.3 MODEL FACILITY CONFIGURATION
EPA defined model facilities for flow-through, recirculating, and net pen systems based
on species, ownership (e.g., commercial, federal, state), and facility production size.
9.3.1 Flow-through Systems
Flow-through systems are located where water is abundant, which allows farmers to
produce fish that require continuous supplies of high-quality water. Discharges from
flow-through systems can be low in concentrations of pollutants, primarily because of the
high flow rates. Flow-through systems require a high volume of water to flush wastes
from the production area and make oxygen available to the aquatic animals. Most flow-
through systems are designed and operated with water flows that exchange or replace
water in the system tanks or raceways 3 to 6 times per hour (Hinshaw and Fornshell,
2002), which translates into a system flow rate of 100 gal/min per pound of annual
production (Hochheimer and Westers, 2002b).
For flow-through systems, EPA developed model facilities for two production groups.
EPA determined the production levels based on an initial analysis of cost and economic
impacts. EPA based this initial cost estimate on model facilities derived from revenue
categories (Hochheimer and Moore, 2002) using the Census of Aquaculture (USDA,
2000b). EPA used the results of this initial analysis to arrive at the production thresholds
for medium and large facilities. Data from the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002)
representing a species, lifestage (e.g., food-size or stackers), and facility type (e.g.,
commercial, federal, state) were sorted into two production groups, facilities that produce
100,000 Ib up to 475,000 Ib (medium) and facilities producing 475,000 Ib or more (large)
annually. All of the facilities from the AAP screener survey that fell within a species-
lifestage-facility type combination for medium and large facility size classes were then
averaged to produce the model facility. For example, all seven of the federal (facility
type) facilities that produce trout (species) stockers (lifestage) in flow-through systems
that annually produce 100,000 Ib up to 475,000 Ib were grouped as medium facilities.
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
EPA used average production values for the facilities grouped within a specific model
facility to reflect the distribution of facilities reported in the AAP screener results. An
example of how EPA calculated average model facility size, using trout-stockers-federal,
is provided in Table 9.3-1. In this example, the range of facility sizes is 106,788 to
309,885 Ib, with an average of 208,296 Ib.
Table 9.3-1. Model Facility Production Calculation: Trout-Stockers-Federal
Facility Number
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Average model facility size
Facility Production (Ib/yr)
106.788
121,600
198.400
214,400
230,850
276,152
309,885
208,296
Based on industry input (Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; Plemmons, 2002),
EPA assumed a loading density of 3 lb/ff for sizing of facilities (determining the
estimated number of raceways for a given facility size). EPA assumed the raceway size
for medium facilities to be 150 ft long by 14 ft wide by 3 ft deep (volume = 6,300 ff).
The raceway size for large facilities was assumed to be 175 ft long by 18 ft wide by 3 ft
deep (volume = 9,450 ft"'). The number of raceways is a factor in many of the cost
estimates. EPA believes the sizes and loading densities are reasonable for medium and
large flow-through systems. To estimate the number of raceways at a flow-through
facility, EPA used the following calculation:
Number of raceways = annual production/(loading density * volume per
raceway)
Where:
• Number of raceways is the number for a model facility type (rounded up to the
nearest integer)
• Annual production is the average production for the model facility type in pounds
• Loading density is 3 Ib/tV (Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; Plemmons,
2002)
• Volume per raceway is 6,300 ft"' for medium facilities and 9,450 ft"' for large
facilities
EPA developed raceway configurations from information obtained during site visits and
conversations with AAP industry representatives (Hinshaw, 2002, personal
communication; Tetra Tech, 2002d; Tetra Tech, 2002f; Tetra Tech, 2002g; Tetra Tech,
9-9
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
2002h; Tetra Tech, 20021; Tetra Tech, 2002J; Tetra Tech, 2002k; Tetra Tech, 20021;
Tetra Tech, 2002m; Tetra Tech, 2002n;). For the purpose of costing, EPA developed
models for flow-through systems assuming raceways would be concrete. Site visits and
screener data indicated smaller flow-through facilities also operate circular tanks, earthen
raceways, and flow-through concrete or earthen ponds (Tetra Tech, 2002d; Tetra Tech,
2002e; Tetra Tech, 2002f; Tetra Tech, 2002g; Tetra Tech, 2002h; Tetra Tech, 20021;
Tetra Tech, 2002J; Tetra Tech, 2002k; Tetra Tech, 20021; Tetra Tech, 2002m; Tetra Tech,
2002n). EPA assumed that raceways are the predominant systems used in flow-through
facilities at the sizes being considered for this proposed regulation.
For the purpose of costing, EPA also assumed costs for non-raceway flow-through
systems to be comparable to those for concrete raceway systems. For flow-through
system facilities that do not use raceways, there are a variety of alternatives for collecting
solids to remove them from the discharge. Circular tank systems often use dual drains to
take advantage of the settling and concentrating of solids around a bottom center drain. In
a dual drain system, overflow water is typically drained at a location above the tank
bottom to control water levels in the tank. This primary drain discharges most of the flow
and typically has low concentrations of solids. The second drain, at the bottom center of
the tank, discharges the higher concentrated solids portion of the effluent. The bottom
drain can be constructed to continually discharge a small volume of water with the
concentrated solids or to be manually opened to discharge the concentrated solids.
Summerfelt and others (2000) provides additional information on drains for circular
tanks.
The number of facilities represented by each flow-through model facility group is
indicated in Table 9.3-2. EPA found nothing to indicate that the wide range of facility
sizes represented by the average production values used as input for the model facilities
grouped as "large" would misrepresent the range of facilities that made up the class.
Although the larger facilities can realize economies of scale in production costs, EPA did
not find any differences in waste treatment or effluent quality characteristics at the larger
systems in the range. Thus, EPA assumed the average facility sizes could accurately
represent the range of facilities in the size class. (This observation holds for the ranges in
facility sizes for recirculating and net pen systems as well.)
Table 9.3-2. Model Facility Information
Model Facility
Trout-Commercial-Flow-tlirough
Trout-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-
through
Size
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Number
of
Facilities"
22
8
<5
<5
5
7
<5
Production Range
(lb/yr)b
100,000-370,000
592,900-8.260.815
—
—
128,000-317,000
106,788-309,885
—
Average Production
(lb/yr)b
208,986
2,499.170
—
—
192,137
208,296
—
9-10
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Model Facility
Trout-Stockers-State -Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia Commercial-How -through
Striped Bass Commercial-Flow-
through
Salmoii-Other-Flow-through
Size
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Number
of
Facilities"
44
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Production Range
(lb/yr)b
100,800-433,915
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Average Production
(Ib/yr)"
224,193
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
a < 5 indicates a group with fewer than five facilities and is reported in this manner to protect the
confidentiality of the individual facilities.
b Model facility groups with fewer than five facilities are not reported.
Common industry BMPs and treatment technologies observed at flow-through production
facilities include:
• Feed management
• Solids management BMP plan
• Raceway cleaning1
• Mortality removal
• Quiescent zones
• Quiescent zone cleaning
• Primary settling
• Vegetated ditches
• Land application of collected solids
9.3.2 Alaska Flow-through Systems
Alaska's salmon producers refer to production operations as "ocean ranching" in which
hatchery fish are released into coastal areas to supplement the natural populations.
Government and nonprofit organizations operate these facilities, which commercial and
recreational fishermen support through fees.
1 Raceway cleaning removes accumulated solids (biofouling and adhering feces or uneaten feed) from
the raceways. The frequency of cleaning depends on factors such as temperature, sunlight, feed type, and
size of the cultured species and can range from once every 2 to 3 weeks to once per growing cycle.
Operators typically brush the walls and bottom of the raceway and port the solids-laden water to a
sedimentation basin.
9-77
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Alaska's salmon production systems represent a slight departure from traditional flow-
through culture systems. Because of the high costs associated with the disposal of solids
and tidal flushing in the waters adjacent to the facilities, most facilities do not operate
wastewater treatment units for the collection of solids. Otherwise, the facilities operate
much like all other flow-through systems.
Because facility-specific data were available for the Alaskan facilities, EPA analyzed
each facility separately to determine compliance costs. EPA estimated production data for
each facility using 2000 hatchery production data reported in Alaska Fish and Game's
Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program. 2000 Annual Report (McNair, 2001). EPA
estimated hatchery releases by facilities using a conversion of 0.4 g per fish for pink and
chum salmon and 20 g per fish for coho, chinook, sockeye, and other salmon species,
based on industry-provided information (Tetra Tech, 2002a).
Only the facilities producing 100,000 Ib/yr or more were modeled. Table 9.3-3 shows
production estimates for the Alaska salmon facilities producing more than 100,000 Ib/yr.
Table 9.3-3. Alaskan Salmon Producers
Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Production
(Ib/yr)
104,738
201,052
204,139
144,436
135,510
403,515
150,822
125,720
153,371
Facility
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Production
(Ib/yr)
207,649
985,194
116,636
366,030
244,543
571,095
145,089
222,290
250,047
EPA used Alaska-specific data for the general cost (electricity rates, land values, and
labor rates). The Energy Information Association (EIA, 2002) reports average electricity
rates in 2000 for Alaska as $0.093/kWh. Land costs were estimated from a report on
habitat and restoration of stream bank property, which valued land at an average of
$12,024 ($12,697 in 2000 dollars) per acre (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2002).
In 2000, Alaska's labor rates for managers were $21.38/h and for general labor were
$15.03/h (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2002).
EPA used the following assumptions to estimate compliance costs at Alaska facilities:
• Loading densities are estimated at 3 lb/ft'.
• Raceway size is 150 ft long by 14 ft wide by 3 ft deep, which is the same size as
medium-sized flow-through facilities in other states.
9-72
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
• Flow rate is 100 gal/min per pound of production, which is the same rate as that
of medium-sized flow-through facilities in other states.
Common Alaska salmon industry BMPs and treatment technologies include:
• Feed management
• Raceway cleaning
9.3.3 Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems typically require inputs of relatively small volumes of water
because water in these systems is continuously filtered and reused. Internal biological
filtration processes remove ammonia, mechanical filters remove solids, and other life-
support equipment adds oxygen and alkalinity to the system water. The production water
treatment process is designed to minimize water requirements, which results in a small-
volume, concentrated waste stream that is discharged daily. Many recirculating systems
are operated with a 10% makeup volume of water added daily to dilute the production
water and replace water lost to evaporation and backwashing of the solids filters (Chen et
al., 2002). Thus, recirculating systems have a continuous discharge consisting of the
backwash from the solids filter and overflows resulting from the added makeup water.
The loading density was indicated by the average stocking density of the culture species
within the production system at maximum production levels. Information from site visits
conducted at facilities operating recirculating production systems indicated loading
densities of about 1 Ib per gallon of culture water (Tetra Tech, 2002b; Tetra Tech, 2002o;
Tetra Tech, 2002p; USEPA, 2002d).
EPA calculated the production system volume for recirculating systems using the model
facility's annual production and loading density. The formula used to calculate
production system volume is as follows:
Production system volume = facility annual production/loading density
where production system volume is reported in gallons, loading density is 1.0 Ib/gal
(Tetra Tech, 2002b; Tetra Tech, 2002o; Tetra Tech, 2002p), and facility annual
production is the average annual model facility production in pounds. Since many
recirculating system operators add about 10% of the system volume per day, EPA
assumed that recirculating systems would generate a daily discharge volume of about
10% of the system volume. For systems that add less make-up water, then this
assumption is a conservative estimate of the volume of effluent requiring treatment on a
daily basis.
For recirculating systems EPA developed one model facility to represent all facilities
having a production level equal to or greater than 100,000 Ib/yr. EPA grouped data from
the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002) representing a species, lifestage (e.g., food-size
or stackers), and facility type (e.g., commercial, federal, state) combination into model
facility groups representing facilities annually producing 100,000 Ib or more (large). All
of the species-lifestage-facility type combinations for the large facility size class were
then averaged to produce the model facility. Table 9.3-4 provides an example of how
9-13
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
EPA calculated production for a model facility, using tilapia-food-size-commercial.
Table 9.3-5 shows the number of facilities represented by each recirculating model.
Table 9.3-4. Model Facility Production Calculation: Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial
Facility Number
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Average model facility size
Facility Production (Ib/yr)
Range: 300,000 to 525,000
351,634
Table 9.3-5. Model Facility Information
Model Facility
Tilapia-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Recirculating
Size
Large
Large
Facilities Represented
5
<5'
" < 5 indicates a group with fewer than five facilities and is reported in this manner to protect the
confidentiality of the individual facilities.
Common industry BMPs and treatment technologies at recirculating production facilities
include:
• Feed management
• Solids management BMP plan
• Mortality removal
• Primary settling
• Microscreen filtration
• Biological treatment
9.3.4 Net Pen Systems
Net pen systems are suspended or floating holding cages or nets used for the growout of
the culture species. The systems may be located along a shore or pier or may be anchored
and floating offshore. Net pens rely on tides and currents to provide a continual supply of
high-quality water to the cultured animals. For most locations the structural design of net
pens must consider the potential high-energy environment in open waters, especially
during storms. Net pens are designed to withstand such high-energy environments and
are anchored to keep them in place during extreme weather events. Net pen systems are
located in coastal bays or estuaries where tidal or river flow is abundant.
9-14
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
For net pen systems EPA developed one model facility to represent all facilities having a
production level equal to or greater than 100,000 Ib. EPA sorted data from the AAP
screener survey representing a species, lifestage (e.g., food-size), and facility type (e.g.,
commercial, federal, state) into facilities producing 100,000 Ib or more (large) annually.
All of the species-lifestage-facility type combinations for the large facility size class were
then averaged to produce the model facility. Table 9.3-6 provides an example of how
EPA calculated production for a model facility.
Table 9.3-6. Model Facility Production Calculation: Salmon-Food-size-Commercial
Facility Number
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Average model facility size
Facility Production (Ib/yr)
Range:
342,380-6,352,715
2,387,086
EPA estimated that a loading density of 0.8 lb/ftJ was applicable to the industry
(Hochheimer and Westers, 2002c). The volume of Individual nets was assumed to be
250,000 ftJ, based on site visit information (Tetra Tech, 2002c; Tetra Tech, 2002s). To
estimate the number of net pens at a facility, EPA used the following calculation:
Number of net pens = annual production/(loading density * volume per net pen)
Where:
• Number of net pens is the number for a model facility type (rounded up to the
nearest integer)
• Annual production is the average production for the model facility type in pounds
• Loading density is 0.8 lb/ft3
• Volume per net pen is 250,000 ft3 for all facilities
Common industry BMPs and treatment technologies at net pen production facilities
include:
• Feed management
• Solids management BMP plan
• Mortality removal
• Active feed monitoring
9-75
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
• Double netting
• Net maintenance (removal of fouling organisms)
9.4 UNIT COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND BMPs
Cost modules calculate the direct capital and annual costs for installing, operating, and
maintaining a particular technology or practice for an AAP facility. Each cost module
determines an appropriate design of the system component based on the characteristics of
the model facility and the specific regulatory option. Waste volumes generated by the
model facility spreadsheets were used to size equipment and properly estimate the direct
capital costs for purchasing and installing equipment and annual O&M costs.
Estimates of capital and annual cost components are based on information collected from
the USDA 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000b), screener surveys, literary
references, technical reports, EPA site and sampling visits, and estimates based on
standard engineering methods of cost estimation (Hydromantis, 2001; Metcalf and Eddy,
1991). The following subsections describe each technology or BMP cost module used as
a basis for the regulatory options and specifically discuss the following:
• Description of technology or practice
• Design
• Cost
9.4.1 Quiescent Zones
Quiescent zones are a technology control considered in Option 1 for all flow-through
CAAP facilities as a part of primary solids removal.
9.4.1.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Quiescent zones are a practice used in raceway flow-through systems in which the last
approximately 10% of the raceway serves as a settling area for solids. It is important to
note that flow-through system raceways are typically sized according to loading densities
(e.g., 3 to 5 Ib of fish per cubic foot), but the flow rate of water through the system drives
the production levels in a particular raceway. Thus, EPA evaluated the impacts of placing
quiescent zones in the lower 10% of raceways and found no adverse impacts on the
production capacity of a facility (Hochheimer and Westers, 2002b). The goal of quiescent
zones and other in-system solids collection practices is to reduce the total suspended
solids (TSS) and associated pollutants in the effluent. Estimates of quiescent zone
pollutant reductions were based on information supplied by AAP industry representatives
(Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; MacMillan, 2002, personal communication).
Quiescent zones usually are constructed with a wire mesh screen that extends from the
bottom of the raceway to above the maximum water height to prohibit the cultured
species from entering the quiescent zone. The reduction in the turbulence usually caused
by the swimming action of the cultured species allows the solids to settle in the quiescent
zone. The collected solids are then available to be efficiently removed from the system.
Quiescent zones are usually cleaned on a regular schedule, typically once per week in
medium to large systems (Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; MacMillan, 2002,
9-16
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
personal communication), to remove the settled solids. The Idaho BMP manual (IDEQ,
n.d.) recommends a minimal quiescent zone cleaning frequency of once per month in
upper raceways and twice per month in lower units. The settled solids must be removed
regularly to prevent breakdown of particles and leaching of pollutants such as nutrients
and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
Quiescent zones placed at the bottom or end of each rearing unit or raceway allow for the
settling of pollutants before they are discharged to other production units (when water is
serially reused in several rearing units) or receiving waters.
Operational factors associated with operating quiescent zones include the following:
• The necessity to clean the screens to prevent fouling and damming of water in the
raceway.
• The regular removal of collected solids from the quiescent zones. Timely cleaning
involves the dedication of the needed resources to regularly clean the quiescent
zones. Facilities must also have the equipment needed to clean the quiescent
zones regularly.
Quiescent zones increase labor inputs because of the need to remove collected solids
regularly and maintain the screens that exclude the culture species. Cleaning of the
quiescent zones also creates a highly concentrated waste stream that should be treated
before it is discharged into a receiving water body.
9.4.1.2 Design
Quiescent zones are designed to exclude fish from the lower portion of the raceway. The
influent side of the quiescent zone usually has a wire mesh screen that extends from the
bottom of the raceway to above the maximum water height to prohibit the cultured
species from entering the quiescent zone and disturbing the settled solids. Most designs
use channels cut into the concrete sides of a raceway to retain the screen and might also
require a center column to support the screen frame in wider raceways. Water leaving the
effluent end of the quiescent zone is controlled with dam boards installed across the
width of the raceway. The dam boards are stacked to regulate the height of water in the
raceway. Water flows slowly from the entire width of the raceway at the top of the water
column so that the settled solids are not disturbed. A drain is installed in the bottom of the
quiescent zone for cleaning the accumulated solids. A standpipe, which is higher than the
height of the dam boards, prevents water from entering the drain under normal operation.
When cleaning is desired, the standpipe is pulled and a vacuum hose is attached to the
drain. The solids are then vacuumed into the drain for additional treatment.
9.4.1.3 Capital Costs
For the purpose of estimating capital costs, EPA assumed that the costs for quiescent
zones in both medium and large systems are based on construction that rebuilds
approximately 100 ft2 of surface area in the lower portion of the raceway to install a drain
and to cut channels for the screens and dam boards. Even though raceway widths vary
among facilities, EPA assumed a constant construction disturbed area of 100 ft2 because
the installation of drains should require disturbing about the same size area independent
of the actual width of the raceway. This construction could result in excavation to a depth
of 3.5 ft. The rebuilding of the lower portion of the raceway includes the installation of
9-77
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
channels to hold the fish exclusion screen and dam boards, as well as reconstruction of
the drain structure to allow for water level management and drains for cleaning the solids.
EPA assumed that, in the worst case, a facility would have raceways with the bottom of
the slab 3.5 ft below grade. This would necessitate the following excavation volume:
Excavation volume = 100 ft2 x 3.5 ft = 13 yd3
27 ft3/yd3
where the excavation volume is in cubic yards.
The excavation cost would then be:
Excavation cost = 13 yd3 x $5.70/yd3 = $74.10
where excavation cost is in dollars and the cost per cubic yard ($5.70/yd3) is from RS
Means (2000).
The quiescent zone walls and floor were considered to be constructed with concrete and
have an 8-in. thickness. Concrete used in the wall and floor construction was estimated to
cost $73.50 per cubic yard installed (RS Means, 2000). EPA observed several different
drain and quiescent zone configurations during the site visits at flow-through system
facilities. The design that required the most concrete included a concrete dam (across the
width of the raceway and lower than the outside wall height) that acts as a water level
control. For the purpose of estimating costs, EPA assumed this quiescent zone design
would require the addition of the equivalent of four walls (the two sides, the end, and the
dam) at the tail end of a raceway. The volume of concrete required for the concrete walls
and floor was computed using the following two equations:
Concrete required = (wall length * wall height * wall thickness * 4) + (floor
surface area * floor thickness)
Concrete costs = concrete required * concrete costs ($/yd3)
Where:
Wall length = the length of one wall of the quiescent zone
Wall height = the height of the quiescent zone
Wall thickness = the thickness of the concrete wall
Floor thickness = the thickness of the concrete floor
EPA assumed that the concrete would be reinforced with reinforcing steel bar (Rebar),
which would add 10% to the concrete costs (Swanson, 2002). The rebar costs were
computed as follows:
Rebar costs = concrete costs * 10%
EPA assumed that facilities installing quiescent zones would also install offline settling
basins and that the costs for additional piping were part of the estimates for the settling
9-18
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
basins (see Section 9.4.2). Water and solids in the quiescent zone are suctioned into the
drain (assuming gravity flow) and conveyed under the raceway to the feeder pipe leading
to the sedimentation basin. Screens are cleaned as part of the quiescent zone cleaning at
intervals of no more than 2 weeks.
9.4.1.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Facilities using quiescent zones must clean the accumulated solids at least every 2 weeks
to prevent breakdown of the solids and resuspension in the effluent. Most facilities can
use gravity flow to pull a vacuum, which can be used to suction out accumulated solids in
quiescent zones and transport them to the offline settling basin. EPA assumed quiescent
zones could be cleaned with gravity flows and the cleaning would not require pumps or
electrical costs. Vacuums connect to the drain line of the raceway that runs to the
sedimentation basin and are made from PVC plastic pipe fittings and PVC flexible hoses.
To vacuum a raceway, the standpipe normally in the drain is pulled and one end of the
vacuum inserted. Solids are then vacuumed from the quiescent zone by the water flowing
into the flexible hose. The cost for materials to construct a vacuum is assumed to be $500
per year. The vacuum component costs are an annual cost because of the normal wear on
the vacuum. For the purpose of estimating O&M costs, EPA used information collected
during the sampling program for the CAAP industry that indicated facility personnel
spend about 20 to 30 minutes per week per raceway cleaning and maintaining quiescent
zones (Tetra Tech, 2002d). EPA estimated this cost using general labor at a rate of 5
minutes per raceway 6 d/wk (312 d/yr). EPA found 6-d workweeks to be the prevalent
practice among the facilities visited during the site visits, so 312 d was used as the
standard number of working days for general labor for O&M activities. The equation for
all quiescent zone O&M, including cleaning, is as follows:
Raceway O&M labor costs = number of raceways * 5 minutes per day * 312
days/year * general labor rate
where the raceway O&M costs are in dollars per year, the number of raceways is
estimated in the model configuration, and the general labor rate is $7.69/h.
The cost for screens is assumed to be $100 per raceway per year. Screens are constructed
with a metal or wood frame to hold the screen and can be made of metal or plastic mesh.
One screen that spans the width of the raceway and is about 6 inches higher than the
water depth is required for each raceway. Adding wooden dam boards after the screen
can also enhance settling. The cost for the dam boards is assumed to be $20 per raceway
per year (Hochheimer, 2002).
9.4.2 Sedimentation Basins (Gravity Separation)
Sedimentation basins are a technology control considered in Option 1 for all flow-
through and recirculating CAAP facilities as a part of primary solids removal.
Sedimentation basins at flow-through facilities can be in the form of offline or full-flow
basins. Offline settling treats a portion of the flow-through effluent volume in which
solids have been concentrated. When offline settling is used, treatment technologies to
concentrate solids (e.g., quiescent zones) are also used. Full-flow settling treats the entire
flow-through effluent volume. For recirculating systems, sedimentation basins are used to
treat the waste stream discharged from the recirculating system.
9-79
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.4.2.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Sedimentation, also known as settling, separates solids from water using gravity settling
of the heavier solid particles (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). In the simplest form of
sedimentation, particles that are heavier than water settle to the bottom of a tank or basin.
Sedimentation basins (also called settling basins, settling ponds, sedimentation ponds, or
sedimentation lagoons) are used extensively in the wastewater treatment industry
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991) and are commonly found in many flow-through and
recirculating CAAP facilities (Westat, 2002). Most sedimentation basins are used to
produce a clarified effluent (for solids removal), but some sedimentation basins remove
water from solids to produce a more concentrated sludge. Both of these applications of
sedimentation basins are used and are important in CAAP systems.
Periodically, when accumulating solids exceed the designed storage capacity of the basin,
the basin is cleaned of the accumulated solids. EPA found that the cleaning frequencies
of sedimentation basins used at CAAP facilities ranged from 2 to 12 times per year
depending on the size of the facility (Jackoviac, 2002, personal communication;
MacMillan, 2002, personal communication). For estimating costs EPA used a cleaning
frequency of nine times per year to capture some of the variation in cleaning frequencies
used by the industry. By sizing sedimentation basins for a cleaning frequency of 9 times
per year, the basin volume is larger than that for a cleaning frequency of 12 times per
year. The extra storage also provides a safety factor to accommodate facilities that cannot
use a solids disposal method such as land application, which requires year-round access
to application sites.
The primary advantages of sedimentation basins for removing suspended solids in
effluents from CAAP systems are the relative low cost of designing, constructing, and
operating sedimentation basins; the low technology requirements for the operators; and
the demonstrated effectiveness of their use in treating similar effluents. In many aquatic
animal production systems, most of the solids from feces and uneaten feed are of
sufficient size to settle efficiently in most moderately sized (37 ft3 to 741 ft3)
sedimentation basins, without adding chemicals. Many of the pollutants of concern in
CAAP system effluents can be partly or wholly removed with the solids captured in a
sedimentation basin. Much of the phosphorus tends to bind with the solids; BOD and
organic nitrogen are in the form of organic particles in the fish feces and uneaten feed;
and some other compounds, such as oxytetracycline, were found in the sediments
captured in sedimentation basins in EPA's sampling data.
Disadvantages of sedimentation basins include the need to clean out accumulated solids,
the potential odor emitted from the basin under normal operating conditions, and the
inability of the basins to remove small-sized particles without chemical addition.
Accumulated solids must be periodically removed and properly disposed of through land
application or other sludge disposal methods. For the purpose of costing, EPA assumed
no cost associated with the disposal of collected solids in flow-through and recirculating
systems. EPA based this assumption on the observation that disposal alternatives are
available to CAAP facilities that have a no cost impact. For example, collected solids can
be used as a valuable fertilizer by the facility on other facility-owned land or taken for
free by local farmers and gardeners. System operators should maintain or increase the
efficiency of sedimentation basins by cleaning quiescent zones as frequently as possible
9-20
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
and attempt to minimize the breakdown of particles (into smaller sizes) by avoiding
cleaning methods that tend to grind up the particles. Industry representatives report that
existing CAAP systems might have limited available space for the installation of properly
sized sedimentation basins. Therefore, included in the cost for sedimentation basins is a
cost for the purchase of land.
9.4.2.2 Design
Settling in sedimentation basins occurs when the horizontal velocity of a particle entering
the basin is less than the vertical (settling) velocity in the tank. The settling properties of
an effluent, particularly the settling velocities, are determined, and sedimentation basins
are sized to accommodate the expected flow through the basin. From Metcalf and Eddy
(1991), the length of the sedimentation basin and the detention time can be calculated so
that particles with a particular settling velocity (Vc) will settle to the bottom of the basin.
The relationship of the settling velocity to the detention time and basin depth is
Vc = depth/detention time
Other design factors include the effects of inlet and outlet turbulence, short-circuiting of
flows within the basin, solids accumulation in the basin, and velocity gradients caused by
disturbances within the basin (such as those from solids removal equipment).
A sedimentation basin does not function if it is frozen. Proper design, construction, and
operation of the sedimentation basin are essential for the efficient removal of solids.
Collected solids must be removed when they reach the design accumulation depth to
ensure the designed removal efficiencies of the sedimentation basin. Otherwise, particles
entering the sedimentation basin will not have sufficient depth in which to settle.
For the purpose of cost analysis, EPA assumed the use of quiescent zones (see Section
9.4.1) and offline settling in flow-through systems, which should be less expensive to
install and operate than full-flow settling in the larger systems for which requirements are
being considered. Large production facilities are not expected to effectively operate full-
flow settling basins because of the surface area that would be required to settle the entire
volume of water. Offline settling basins in flow-through systems were assumed to treat
about 1% of the flow rate in flow-through systems. Thus, full-flow settling would require
100 times more settling capacity than offline settling. In small systems, full flow might be
cost-effective in lieu of installing and maintaining quiescent zones (also see IDEQ, n.d.).
EPA used the Computer-Assisted Procedure for the Design and Evaluation of
Waste water Treatment (CAPDET) model (Hydromantis, 2001) to aid in determining
capital costs associated with the construction of sedimentation basins. CAPDET is
intended to provide planning-level cost estimates to analyze alternative design
technologies for wastewater treatment systems (Hydromantis, 2001). CAPDET estimates
costs and design parameters based on settling velocity, influent wastewater parameters
(TSS in this case), and flow rate. EPA used CAPDET to estimate construction and design
(engineering) costs associated with sedimentation basins for both recirculating and flow-
through systems. The estimated settling velocity for particles in a CAAP wastewater
stream, regardless of system type, ranges from 0.0015 to 0.0030 ft/s, so a mid-range
value of 0.0023 ft/s was used (Chen et al., 1994). Chen et al. (1994) provides the most
comprehensive review of solids settling for CAAP facilities.
9-27
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
EPA used an average TSS value of 689 mg/L (range of 4 mg/L to 1,040 mg/L from flow-
through system sampling data) (Tetra Tech, 2002q, Tetra Tech, 2002r) as the solids input
for CAPDET to design the sedimentation basin. For initial costs estimates, EPA used a
flow rate of 93.8 gpm, which represented a medium to large flow-through facility.
CAPDET cost output was not very sensitive over the range of flow rates from the
different model facilities. EPA chose the mid-range value of 93.8 gpm to estimate costs
on a dollar per gallon basis to provide more sensitivity in the cost estimates because the
flow rates from the model facilities were from a narrow range at the lower end of the
input flows used in CAPDET. The value of 93.8 gpm was at about the middle of the
range of flows for medium and large flow-through facilities (and at the upper end of the
range for recirculating systems). For the range of model facility flows, CAPDET
produces a linear relationship between sedimentation basin inflows and cost. Thus, EPA
chose the midpoint value of 93.8 gpm to estimate dollars per gallon per minute values to
calculate sedimentation basin costs. At 93.8 gpm, CAPDET generates an engineering
design cost of $10,300, which is about $109.8/gpm. CAPDET estimates the construction
costs at $68,400, or about $729.2/gpm. The construction costs include cost elements for
earthwork and concrete work. To determine the design costs for all settling basins, EPA
multiplied the flow rate to the settling basin by $109.8; for the construction costs, EPA
multiplied the flow rate by $729.2.
EPA estimated land costs by using the settling area calculated by CAPDET and adding
10%. These values were similar to those reported in the Idaho BMP Manual (IDEQ, n.d.)
and by Chen et al. (1994). For ease of calculation, land costs were rounded up to the
nearest 1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of an acre. EPA used land values of
$l,050/ac (USDA, 2000a) and $12,024/ac in Alaska (Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, 2002), and the land cost was negligible in the overall cost of implementing settling
basins (for large facilities, less than 1% of the total capital cost).
9.4.2.3 Capital Costs: Flow-through Systems
The cost calculation for the design and construction of a sedimentation basin based on the
outputs from the CAPDET model are provided below:
Design costs = facility flow rate * 0.01 * $109.8/gpm
Construction costs = facility flow rate * 0.01 * $729.20/gpm
Where:
Facility flow rate = the discharge rate from the facility
EPA included costs for a gravity-fed conveyance system constructed of PVC pipe to
carry effluent from each raceway to the sedimentation basin. EPA assumed a quiescent
zone configuration similar to that shown in Figure 9.4-1. Quiescent zones have a bottom
(floor) drain that connects to a feeder pipe leading to the offline sedimentation basin.
EPA assumed that, in the worst case, a series of raceways two wide are placed end to end
at a facility. This approach estimates the longest possible length of pipe. The connection
from the stand pipe/drain to the feeder pipe is an elbow for all of the raceways in a series.
The connection at the feeder pipe is an elbow for the uppermost raceway in a series and a
"T" for all other downstream raceways.
9-22
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1 r...
I
_Flow
Fish Rearing Area
Flow
Fish Rearing Area
Se,, ^ ! Elb°W
Are 9, \ -^ Dam Boards
a
!
Sett '
lino i ^ Dam
Arf |
a JJBI • i
|"1
I — • — ..T..
Boards
t
Fish Exclusion Screen
*
Flow
Flow
•
y~"
i
Flow j |0|
i
Flo w j
: •
?_._« _.j
i
Flow
Flow
^
To OLSB
^A f ; te-
•" T
r
Figure 9.4-1. Model Facility Quiescent Zone Configuration and Drain Layout
EPA assumed 8-in. diameter PVC pipe could be used for all conveyance systems
(Hochheimer, 2002). The cost for 8-in. installed PVC pipe was estimated to be $4.25 per
linear foot installed underground (VA AG, 2000). The cost for PVC pipe was obtained by
multiplying the length of each raceway by the number of raceways (see Section 9.3.1).
The costs for 8-in. 90° elbows and "T's" were estimated to be $50.65 and $78.39 each
(Hochheimer, 2002). The cost calculation for installation of the conveyance system is as
follows:
PVC pipe cost = no. of raceways * raceway length * installed pipe cost
Where:
No. of raceways = the number of production raceways at the model facility
Raceway length = the length of the production raceways at the facility
Installed pipe cost = the price per foot for 8-in. PVC pipe installed
Total cost of "T's" = ((no. of raceways •*• 2) - 1) * cost per "T"
Where:
No. of raceways = the number of production raceways at the model facility
Cost per "T" = the cost per unit for an 8-in. PVC "T"
Total 90° elbow costs = ((no. of raceways + 2) + 1) * cost per elbow
9-23
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Where:
No. of raceways = the number of production raceways at the model facility
Cost per elbow = the cost per unit for an 8-in. PVC elbow
Total conveyance system cost = PVC pipe costs + total "T" costs +
total elbow costs
After each component was computed, the components were summed to indicate the total
capital costs for the sedimentation basin. The calculation for total capital costs is as
follows:
Sedimentation basin cost = design cost + construction cost + land cost +
conveyance system cost
9.4.2.4 Capital Costs: Recirculating Systems
The construction and design costs for a sedimentation basin at a recirculating facility
were also estimated using the CAPDET model. Recirculating systems are expected to
generate a maximum of about 10% of the system volume per day, which is about 125,000
gpd in large recirculating systems. The cost calculation for the design and construction of
a sedimentation basin is as follows:
Daily discharge rate = total system volume * 0.10
Where:
Total system volume = the total volume of water used for the production of the
cultured species
Design costs = daily discharge rate * $109.8/gpm
Construction costs = daily discharge rate * $729.20/gpm
9.4.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
The O&M costs include the labor to maintain and clean the basins. For O&M costs, EPA
assumed that no electricity costs would be necessary because the basins operate using
gravity flow. CAPDET estimated the time required for general maintenance at 82.7 h/yr
for the 93.8-gpm sedimentation basin. This equates to 0.88 h/yr/gpm of flow. EPA used
the 0.88 h/yr/gpm, multiplied by the total system flow, to estimate labor requirements.
General labor was required for this O&M task, which, as specified by CAPDET, includes
checking for proper operation of the sedimentation basin, performing minor repairs, and
observing and correcting for short-circuiting of flows.
The O&M costs also include equipment and labor to clean the basin nine times per year.
The estimated cleaning frequency was based on information supplied by AAP industry
representatives and information obtained during site and sampling visits. EPA assumed
that cleaning a settling basin with a front-end loader and a two-person cleaning crew
takes 1 day and occurs nine times per year. The cost for renting a front-end loader
(tractor) was estimated to be $293.00 per day (RS Means, 2000). For estimating costs,
EPA assumed facilities that currently collect solids (facilities with quiescent zones and/or
sedimentation basins in place) currently incur the cost of cleaning the sedimentation
9-24
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
basins. For those facilities that are not currently collecting solids (those facilities that
need to install quiescent zones and sedimentation basins), a front-end loader is not
available onsite and one would be rented. The cleaning labor cost associated with
cleaning was estimated using the following equation:
Cleaning labor cost = 16 h (2 people, 1 day) * general labor rate
Where:
General labor rate = the hourly wage rate for general labor employees
The total cleaning cost for a sedimentation basin includes the cleaning labor cost plus the
cost for the tractor rental. The total cleaning cost was computed as follows:
Total cleaning cost = (tractor rental + cleaning labor costs) * 9 cleanings per year
Where:
Tractor rental = the cost for a 1-day rental of a tractor equipped with a front-end
loader
9.4.3 Solids Control BMP Plan
Solids control BMP plans are considered as a management practice for all CAAP
facilities under Option 1. All requirements and costs associated with the solids control
BMP plans are assumed to be equal for all species and culture systems.
9.4.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Evaluating and planning site-specific activities to control the release of solids from
CAAP facilities is a practice currently required in several EPA regions as part of
individual and general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits (e.g., shrimp pond facilities in Texas, net pens in Maine, and flow-through
facilities in Washington and Idaho). BMP plans in these permits require the facility
operators to develop a management plan for preventing excess feed from entering the
system and removing solids from the effluent. The BMP plan also ensures planning for
proper O&M of equipment, especially treatment control technologies. Implementation of
the BMP plan results in a series of pollution prevention activities, such as ensuring that
employees do not waste feed and planning for the implementation of other O&M
activities, which are costed under each technology control or BMP.
9.4.3.2 Capital Costs: All System Types
The capital costs for the BMP plan are based on the amount of managerial time required
to develop a plan. The following components should be included in the plan:
• Operational components such as a description of pollution control equipment,
feeding methods, preventative maintenance, and the layout and design of the
facility.
• Integrated loss control plan to describe precautions taken by the facility to prevent
the loss of nonnative species.
9-25
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
• Description of cleaning of culture tanks/raceways and other equipment including
how accumulated solids are removed and methods of disposal.
• Description of training for facility personnel to assure they understand the goals
and objectives of BMPs and their role in complying with the goals and objectives
of the BMP plan.
• Description of records maintenance for feed records, water quality monitoring and
final disposition of collected solids.
• The BMP plan should also include a statement that the plan has been reviewed
and endorsed by the facility manager and the individuals responsible for the
implementation of the plan.
AAP industry representatives (Fromm and Hill, 2002; MacMillan, 2002, personal
communication) indicated that development of a solids management BMP plan would
take from about 4 hours for smaller facilities to at least 40 hours for larger facilities.
Because the proposed requirements for the solids control BMP plan affect medium and
large facilities, EPA has assumed that about 40 hours would be required to develop a
solids control BMP plan. EPA assumed that the plan would be developed by the facility
manager and would be revised or updated as needed or at least every 5 years upon permit
renewal. The cost equation for plan development was as follows:
BMP plan costs = 40 h * managerial labor rate
where BMP plan costs are in dollars and the managerial labor rate is $13.46/h ($21.38/h
in Alaska).
9.4.3.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: All System Types
The O&M costs associated with the BMP plan included monthly plan review of 1 h each
for the farm manager and one general labor employee. EPA used the following formula
to calculate costs associated with this monthly plan review:
BMP O&M costs = [(1 * general labor rate) + (1 * managerial labor rate)]* 12
mo/yr
where O&M costs are in dollars, the general labor rate is $7.69/h ($15.03/h in Alaska),
and the managerial labor rate is $13.46/h (21.38/h in Alaska). Other implementation costs
are included in the cost of specific unit technologies, such as the costs associated with
maintaining quiescent zones.
9.4.4 Compliance Monitoring
For the purpose of estimating costs, EPA assumed compliance monitoring for CAAP
facilities was a function of the production level or the production system used at the
facility.
9.4.4.1 Flow-through Facilities
EPA estimated the cost of monitoring for flow-through facilities based on the production
level (medium or large) at the facility. EPA assumed that all costs related to compliance
monitoring would be included under O&M costs. The O&M costs for monitoring consist
of two components: (1) the labor associated with sampling (e.g., collecting the sample
9-26
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
and preparing it for transport) and transport of the sample to the lab and (2) sampling
materials (e.g., bottles) and analysis. EPA estimated for costing purposes that medium
facilities, those producing between 100,000 Ib and 474,999 Ib, monitor weekly for TSS.
EPA estimated costs for the sampling and the transport of the samples to the analysis
laboratory at 4 h of general labor, which includes time to collect an 8-h composite sample
at 15 min/h to grab one sample per hour and 2 h to prepare the samples and transport
them to a lab. Sampling materials and sample analysis were estimated to cost $40.00 per
sample, which includes sample bottles (two needed at $2 each), the analysis (at
$30/sample), and a cooler with ice (at $6/sample). The total monthly cost for sampling
once per month (which includes all the materials, labor for collecting the samples, and the
analysis) is estimated to be $283.04 per month, which is added to O&M costs.
EPA estimated monitoring requirements for flow-through facilities producing 475,000 Ib
or more per year to include both TSS and total phosphorus monitoring at a frequency of
once per month. Regulatory Option 1 for the large facilities estimates weekly monitoring
for TSS (see costs listed previously).
Regulatory Option 3 also estimates weekly monitoring for total phosphorus, which
requires additional weekly sampling materials and an analysis cost of $40 per sample.
The cost breakdown is the same as that for TSS. The total monthly cost for sampling
(which includes all materials, labor for collecting the sample, and the analysis) was
estimated to be $443.04.
9.4.4.2 Recirculating Systems
The monitoring estimates for recirculating CAAP systems are the same as those for flow-
through facilities producing 475,000 Ib or more per year. EPA assumed that no capital
costs would be associated with compliance monitoring for recirculating systems.
9.4.4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Recirculating Systems
The O&M costs for monitoring consist of two components: (1) the labor associated with
sampling (e.g., collecting the sample and preparing it for transport) and transport of the
sample to the lab and (2) sampling materials (e.g., bottles) and analysis. Monitoring cost
estimates are specific to the size of the facility. Recirculating facilities were estimated to
monitor weekly for TSS and total phosphorus.
EPA based the monitoring estimates for recirculating systems on the regulatory option
chosen. Regulatory Option 1 requires weekly monitoring for TSS (see costs listed
previously for flow-through facilities).
Regulatory Option 3 also estimates weekly monitoring for total phosphorus, which
requires additional weekly sampling materials and an analysis cost of $40 per sample.
The cost breakdown is the same as that for TSS. The total monthly cost for sampling
(which includes all materials, labor for collecting the samples, and the analysis) was
estimated to be $443.04.
9.4.5 Feed Management
Feed management is a management practice that was considered as part of Option 1 for
all net pen operations, but was not required in the proposed regulation.
9-27
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.4.5.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Feed management recognizes the importance of effective, environmentally sound use of
feed. Net pen operators should continually evaluate their feeding practices to ensure that
feed placed in the production system is consumed at the highest rate possible. Observing
feeding behavior and noting the presence of excess feed can be used to adjust feeding
rates to ensure minimal excess (USEPA, 2002b).
An advantage of this practice is that proper feed management decreases the costs
associated with the use of excess feed that is never consumed by the cultured species.
Excess feed distributed to net pens breaks down, and some of the resulting products
remain dissolved in the receiving water. More important, solids from the excess feed
usually settle and are naturally processed along with feces from the aquatic animals.
Excess feed and feces accumulate under net pens, and if there is inadequate flushing this
accumulation can overwhelm the natural benthic processes, resulting in increased benthic
degradation.
The primary operational factors associated with proper feed management are
development of precise feeding regimes based on the weight of the cultured species and
constant observation of feeding activities to ensure that the feed offered is consumed.
Other feed management practices include use of high-quality feeds, proper storage and
handling (which includes keeping feed in cool, dry places; protecting feed from rodents
and mold conditions; and handling feed gently to prevent breakage of the pellets), and
feeding pellets of proper size. Feed management is a practice required in net pen facility
permits issued by EPA Regions 1 and 10 (USEPA, 2002b; USEPA, 2002c).
9.4.5.2 Capital Costs: Net Pens
Because feed management does not require any capital improvements or additions to
implement the practice, EPA assumed that no capital costs would be associated with the
implementation of feed management for net pen systems.
9.4.5.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Net Pens
Observing feeding and keeping records helps net pen system operators to minimize
wasted feed and adjust feeding rates as necessary. EPA estimated that implementing a
feed management program at a net pen facility would require an extra 10 minutes per net
pen for each day of feeding. The extra time required would be used to observe feeding
behavior and perform additional record keeping (amount of feed added to each net pen,
along with records tracking the number and size of fish in the pen). The record-keeping
duties involve filling in a logbook. EPA assumed that feeding occurred once per day, 312
days per year, based on information collected during site visits (Tetra Tech 2002c; Tetra
Tech 2002s). EPA assumed that the feed management (observing feeding behavior and
record keeping) would be performed by the person feeding and thus included labor costs
for a general laborer. EPA also assumed that the farm manager already estimates the
amount of feed needed for each daily feeding and performs other management duties
related to feeding. The practice considered would have explicitly required written records
to document that the person feeding actually carries out the prescribed daily plan.
9-28
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
The equation used to calculate the labor costs is as follows:
Feed management costs = number of net pens * (10 min/d ^60 min/h) *
general labor rate
where feed management costs are in dollars, the number of net pens is derived based on
model facility production (see Section 9.3.4), and the general labor rate is $7.69/h.
9.4.6 Drug and Chemical Management
The drug and chemical BMP plan proposed under Option 2 is for large flow-through
systems (producing 475,000 Ib or more annually), net pens, and recirculating systems. All
requirements and costs associated with the drug and chemical BMP plan are estimated to
be equal for all species and culture systems.
9.4.6.1 Description of Technology or Practice
The purpose of the proposed drug and chemical BMP plan is to document the use of
specific classes of drugs and chemicals, the release of nonnative species, and specific
aquatic animal pathogens in the production facility. The plan would also address
practices that minimize the inadvertent spillage or release of drugs and chemicals.
Additionally, the intentional release of nonnative aquatic animals would be prohibited.
Facilities would need to develop an integrated loss control plan before moving or
transferring nonnative animals to the facility. The loss control plan should have a
schedule for maintenance and inspection of a containment system (screens over inlet and
outlet pipes or double nets on net pens). Components of the plan should also include:
• Methods of predator determent
• Escape recovery protocols
• Storm preparedness measures
• Fish transfer procedures
9.4.6.2 Capital Costs: All Systems
The capital costs for the drug and chemical BMP plan include the managerial time
required to develop a plan. EPA assumed the facility manager would develop the plan.
For estimating costs, EPA assumed the development of the drug and chemical BMP plan
would require the same amount of effort as the solids control BMP plan. Development of
both plans requires the manager to assess activities at the facility and to develop a written
management plan. The plan would require 40 h to complete and would be reviewed, and
revised if necessary, every 5 years upon permit renewal. The cost equation for plan
development was as follows:
Drug and chemical BMP plan costs = 40 h * managerial labor rate
where drug and chemical BMP plan costs are in dollars and managerial labor rates are
$13.46/h ($21.38/h in Alaska).
9-29
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.4.6.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs: All Systems
The O&M costs for the drug and chemical BMP plan include managerial and general
labor for meeting and updating the plan.
The O&M costs associated with the drugs and chemical BMP plan include monthly plan
review for the farm manager and one general labor employee. EPA used the following
formula to calculate costs associated with this monthly plan review:
Drug and chemical BMP O&M costs = (1 * general labor rate) + (1 * managerial
labor rate) * 12 mo/yr
where O&M costs are in dollars, the general labor rate is $7.69/h ($15.03/h in Alaska),
and the managerial labor rate is $13.46/h ($21.38/h in Alaska).
9.4.7 Additional Solids Removal (Solids Polishing)
Additional solids removal is considered under Option 3 for flow-through systems and
recirculating systems.
9.4.7.1 Description of Technology or Practice
"Solids polishing" refers to the use of a wastewater treatment technology to further
reduce solids discharged from sedimentation basins used to treat flow-through and
recirculating systems. Several technologies are available, including microscreen filters
and polishing ponds. For the purpose of cost analysis, EPA assumed that polishing ponds
could be used, especially if particle sizes remain larger than 100 |um. However, for
particles 75 to 100 |um, technologies such as microscreens might perform better (Chen et
al., 1994). Also, microscreen filters, sized to polish effluents, are available at a much
lower cost than that for large solids retention ponds. For example, the cost of a second
sedimentation basin for a large salmon flow-through system is up to 100 times the cost of
a microscreen filter.
Microscreen filters consist of fine mesh filters that are usually fitted to a rotating drum.
The wastewater stream is pumped into the drum, and solids are removed from the
effluent as the water passes through the screen. The screen size usually varies from 60 to
90 microns. The filters are equipped with automatic backwash systems that remove
collected solids from the screen and direct them to further treatment or solids storage
(Chen et al., 1994).
9.4.7.2 Design
EPA assumed that a rotary microscreen filter would be used so that clogging problems
were minimized. A small motor rotates the screen to enhance performance, and automatic
backwash jets are activated when the pressure drop across the screen reaches a set level
(Chen et al., 1994). The backwash solids and water are usually conveyed to a solids
storage tank or basin to await proper disposal. Commercial units are readily available for
the flow rates and TSS concentrations expected from sedimentation basins at CAAP
facilities.
9-30
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.4.7.3 Capital Costs: Flow-through andRecirculating Systems
The capital costs for a microscreen filter are based on treating the effluent flow from the
settling basin or 1% of the total facility flow. The sizing of the microscreen filter is based
on a single unit with the capacity to treat up to 150 gpm. For flows in excess of 150 gpm,
EPA costed a larger unit that can treat up to 300 gpm. EPA obtained quotes from vendors
of microscreen filters that market to CAAP facilities. The vendors quoted estimated costs
of $7,527.50 for the smaller unit and $8,049.45 for the larger unit. The costs for shipping
and delivery were estimated to be $200 (Chen et al., 1994).
Microscreen filters are relatively small (with a footprint of about 25 ft2) and can be
installed adjacent to the sedimentation basin. EPA observed that most of the larger
facilities had electrical service readily available around the facility. For the purpose of
estimating costs, EPA assumed the filter would be installed within 40 feet of the previous
treatment technology at the facility and within 100 feet of the closest electrical
connection. The filters contain electrical motors that can be powered by a standard GFI
electrical outlet. The costs for each component of the electrical installation are included
in Table 9.4-1.
Table 9.4-1. Installation Costs
Component
# 8 Stranded copper wire
Wire installation
Wire conduit
Trencher
GFI receptacle (installed)
6-inch PVC pipe (installed)
Unit Costs
$15.60/100 ft
$50.90/100 ft
$7.30/100 ft
$19.91/li
$74.50
$3.15/ft
Total Costs
$46.80
$50.90
$7.30
$19.91
$74.50
$126.00
Source: RS Means, 2000.
9.4.7.4 Operation and Maintenance Costs: Flow-Through and Recirculating Systems
For the purpose of estimating costs, EPA assumed O&M for the microscreen filter would
take 5 min/d of general labor on 312 d/yr for general maintenance and to ensure the filter
was functioning properly (Chen et al., 1994). EPA assumed most flow-through facilities
operate minimal crews 1 d/wk, but the filter operates 24 h/d, 365 d/yr. The cost
calculation for general labor was as follows:
General labor costs = 5 min/d ^ 60 min/h * 312 d/yr * general labor rate
where the general labor costs were in dollars and the general labor rate was $7.69/h
($15.03/h in Alaska).
EPA assumed the electricity requirements for the microscreen filter would be 12,900
kWh/yr (Chen et al., 1994). The national average electricity costs were found to be $
0.07/kWh (EIA, 2002), or $0.08/kWh in Alaska. The total electricity costs for the
microscreen filter were computed using the following equation:
Electricity costs = electricity requirement (kWh) * electricity costs per kWh
9-31
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
AAP industry representatives indicated that the microscreen should be replaced
approximately every 2 yr under normal conditions (Chen et al., 1994). The cost for a new
microscreen was estimated at $500 (Chen et al., 1994). The cost for a new screen was
divided over 2 yr of O&M costs, resulting in a yearly cost of $250.
9.4.8 Active Feed Monitoring
Active feed monitoring is considered as a management practice in Option 3 for all net
pen facilities. Active feed monitoring is a relatively new but proven technology used by
some facility operators in the salmon industry. Some type of remote monitoring
equipment, such as an underwater video camera, is lowered from the surface to the
bottom of a net pen during feeding to monitor for uneaten feed pellets as they pass by the
video camera.
9.4.8.1 Description of Technology or Practice
The goal of active feed monitoring is to further reduce pollutant loads associated with
feeding activities. A variety of technologies have been reported, including video cameras
with human or computer interfaces to detect passing feed pellets. A new NPDES permit
issued in Maine (USEPA, 2002b) also suggests that ultrasonic equipment might be
available. Most facilities that use this technology use a video monitor at the surface that is
connected to the video camera. An employee watches the monitor for feed pellets passing
by the video camera and then stops feeding activity when a predetermined number of
pellets (typically only two or three) pass the camera.
9.4.8.2 Capital Costs
The camera equipment includes a single portable underwater video camera and a monitor
for a facility, estimated to cost about $10,000, with a life span of greater than 10 years
(Tetra Tech, 2002c; Tetra Tech, 2002s). EPA observed the use of portable feed
monitoring equipment, which consists of the monitor mounted on a wheeled cart that is
pushed from pen to pen along the floating walkway and the camera mounted on a long
cable that is dropped into the pen being monitored. The camera and monitor was easily
moved from pen to pen (Tetra Tech, 2002c; Tetra Tech, 2002s).
9.4.8.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs
For O&M costs, EPA assumed that an active feed monitoring system would require an
additional 10 min of general labor per net per feeding day. EPA assumed that feeding
would take place 6 d/wk or 312 d/yr. The equation used to calculate the additional
general labor cost is as follows:
General labor cost = (10 min + 60 min/h) * no. of net pens * 312 d/yr * labor rate
Where:
• General labor cost is the labor cost in dollars
• Number of net pens is calculated in Section 9.3.4
• 312 d/yr assumes feeding takes place 6 d/wk
• The general labor rate is $7.69/hr
9-32
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.5 FREQUENCY FACTORS
Applying the frequency factors to the unit component costs reduces the effective cost of
that component for the model facility. Essentially, EPA adjusts the component cost to
account for those facilities that already have the component in place. Facilities that
already have the component in place would not have to install and operate a new
component as a result of the proposed regulation. If a cost component has a frequency
factor value of zero, the cost for that component is incurred by all facilities. If a cost
component has a frequency factor of 1, the cost for that component is incurred by none of
the facilities.
EPA estimated frequency factors based on sources such as those listed below. (Each
source was considered along with its limitations.)
• EPA site visit information was used to assess general practices of CAAP facility
operations and how they vary among regions and size classes.
• The screener survey was used to assess general treatment practices, determine
specific frequency factors of CAAP facility operations, and evaluate variation of
treatments among regions and size classes.
• EPA used observations on CAAP operations by industry experts, who were
contacted to provide insight into operations and practices, especially where data
were limited or not publicly available.
• The data currently available from the NASS 1998 CAAP Census were used to
determine the distribution of CAAP facility operations across the USDA Regional
Aquaculture Center regions by size class.
• State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Aquatic
Animal Production (Hochheimer and Mosso, 2002) was used to estimate
frequency factors, based on current requirements for treatment technologies and
BMPs that already apply to CAAP facilities in various states. For example, BMP
plans are required for all facilities with permits in Idaho and Washington, so the
facilities in these states were assumed to have solids control BMP plans in place.
9.5.1 Quiescent Zones
Quiescent zones are commonly used by flow-through CAAP facilities to remove solids.
EPA developed frequency factors for quiescent zones in flow-through CAAP facilities
from the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002), and they are presented in Table 9.5-1.
Table 9.5-1. Quiescent Zone Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-tlirough
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Frequency Factor
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.57
9-33
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Species
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-througli
Trout-Stockers-Other-FIow-through
Tilapia-Commercial -How-through
Tilapia-Commercial-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Other-Flow-through
Model
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Frequency Factor
0.50
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
—
1.00
—
1.00
9.5.2 Sedimentation Basin
Sedimentation basins are the most common solids separation technique used to treat
effluents in the United States. EPA based frequency factors for sedimentation basins used
in the cost model for flow-through and recirculating CAAP facilities on the AAP screener
survey (Westat, 2002), and they are presented in Table 9.5-2.
Table 9.5-2. Sedimentation Basin Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Commercial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Commercial-Recirculatiiig
Striped Bass-Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Other-Flow-through
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Frequency Factor
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.57
0.50
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.5.3 BMP Plans
Solids management BMP plans are currently required of CAAP facilities operating in
EPA's Region 10 (e.g., Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). EPA developed frequency
9-34
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
factors for solids management BMP plans in flow-through, net pen, and recirculating
CAAP facilities from the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002), and they are presented in
Table 9.5-3.
Table 9.5-3. BMP Plan Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Commercial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Commercial-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Other-Flow-tlirough
Salmon-Commercial-Net Pen
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Frequency Factor
0.32
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.14
0.50
0.02
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
9.5.4 Feed Management
Feed management is a commonly used practice in the CAAP facility industry because its
benefits include both a costs savings for farms and reductions to pollutant loads. Feed
management is specified as a management practice for net pen operations. Frequency
factors used in the cost model are based on the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002) and
are listed in Table 9.5-4.
Table 9.5-4. Feed Management Frequency Factor
Species
Salmon-Net Pen
Model
Large
Frequency Factor
0.88
9.5.5 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan
EPA does not currently know of any facilities that have developed a drug and chemical
BMP plan. Therefore, for the purpose of estimating costs, EPA assumed the frequency
factors for a drug and chemical BMP plan in flow-through, net pen, and recirculating
CAAP facilities were all zero.
9-35
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.5.6 Solids Polishing
Approximately 5% of all facilities responding to EPA's AAP screener survey (Westat,
2002) reported using several different treatment technologies, including microscreen
filters, for additional solids removal. EPA developed frequency factors for additional
solids removal in flow-through and recirculating CAAP facilities from the AAP screener
survey (Westat, 2002). They are presented in Table 9.5-5.
Table 9.5-5. Solids Polishing Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stoekers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Commercial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Commercial-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Commercial-Recirculating
Salmoii-Otlier-Flow-through
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Frequency Factor
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
1.00
0.67
0.00
9.5.7 Compliance Monitoring
The frequency factor for compliance monitoring was estimated at zero in the absence of
any data readily available to EPA linking facilities used to estimate costs in the model
facility analysis.
9.5.8 Net Pen Active Feed Monitoring
EPA developed frequency factors for active feed monitoring in net pen CAAP facilities
from the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002). They are presented in Table 9.5-6.
Table 9.5-6. Active Feed Monitoring Frequency Factors
Species
Salmon-Net Pen
Model
Large
Frequency Factor
0.38
9-36
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.6 OUTPUT DATA
EPA combined results from the unit cost modules (Section 9.4) and the frequency factors
(Section 9.5) to form the inputs to industry estimated costs. Appendix B provides results
for all of the model facilities that EPA analyzed for flow-through, recirculating, and net
pen systems. Appendix B includes the analysis for Alaska salmon flow-through facilities.
EPA used these results to develop weighted component unit costs and combined the unit
costs to form the costs for each model facility. EPA then summed the model facility costs
to estimate the total industry costs. This section provides a detailed explanation of the
process EPA used to estimate these costs.
9.7 CHANGES TO COSTING METHODOLOGY
9.7.1 Background
While the proposed regulatory options were under development, EPA performed several
analyses and reviews to evaluate the options, including sharing drafts with stakeholders,
small entity representatives (SERs), and technical experts. As specific elements of the
proposed options were defined, EPA researched technical literature and studies and
contacted technical experts to better quantify the compliance costs and the pollutant load
removal efficiencies of the options. Throughout the option development process, EPA
continued to modify the options to reflect new information as it became available. EPA
developed and presented (to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) panel) a range of control technology and BMP options and estimated their
compliance costs as part of the small business panel process.
EPA considered several technology options in its initial analysis. Some of these options
were estimated to require a high cost in relation to revenues, and therefore EPA did not
pursue those technologies further. For example, one option EPA considered, but did not
pursue, was disinfection. EPA considered disinfection as an option to control pathogens
present in effluents from solids collection and storage units at AAP facilities, which
might adversely affect human health. The economic impact of the estimated costs for
disinfection was found to be high in proportion to revenues and could impose a severe
adverse economic impact on facilities required to implement disinfection.
Initially, EPA also considered a feed management BMP plan for all subcategories. Based
on input from industry representatives, EPA removed this option component for all
subcategories except net pen systems. SERs indicated that good feed management
practices are site-specific for individual facilities and are already a common practice
throughout the AAP industry. Industry input also indicated that facilities apply good feed
management practices as an effective animal husbandry measure, as well as a means of
keeping facility costs down. Although EPA is still applying feed conversion ratio data in
the cost and loadings models to estimate pollutant loadings in the raw waste, the Agency
is not assigning a specific FCR as a goal to represent optimum feed management.
EPA performed several analyses, including economic and technical analyses, to evaluate
the impacts of the proposed regulation on various sectors of the CAAP industry. As a
result of the economic analyses, consultation with industry experts, and the deliberation
of the Small Business Advisory Review Panel, production of aquatic animals in pond
systems, lobster pounds, and aquariums, as well as the production of crawfish, molluscan
9-37
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
shellfish in open waters, and alligators were no longer considered within the scope of the
proposed regulation. This section will summarize the analysis of these system types and
the development of options and their costs, but does not provide the same level of detail
as prescribed earlier for systems subject to the proposed requirements.
9.7.1.1 Pond Systems
EPA considered numerous management practices for pond operations, such as discharge
management technologies. After extensive discussions with industry experts, the Agency
concluded that discharge management technologies would provide limited benefits in
reducing wastewater pollutants discharged during pond drainage for most aquatic animals
species grown in pond systems.
9.7.1.2 Lobster Pounds
Intertidal "pounds" are used for live storage of marine crustaceans (e.g., lobsters, crabs)
to keep caught wild animals alive pending sale. EPA is not proposing nationally
applicable effluent limitations guidelines for lobster pounds at this time because the
Agency has not found any applicable pollutant control technologies to reduce discharges.
EPA continues to evaluate BMPs that might apply for these types of facilities.
9.7.1.3 Crawfish
Crawfish are typically raised in conjunction with plant crops, such as rice or soybeans,
because crawfish maintain aeration of the growing medium. EPA is not proposing
nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines for discharges associated with
crawfish operations because crawfish producers do not add feed, drugs, or chemicals to
manage the crawfish operations and because any associated pollutants tend to be
assimilated into the soils used to grow plant crops.
9.7.1.4Molluscan Shellfish Production in Open Waters
For large-scale production of molluscs for food, operators typically use bottom culture,
bottom- anchored racks, or floating rafts tethered to the bottom in open waters. Because
such operations do not typically add materials to waters of the United States, and because
EPA has not found any generally applicable pollutant control technologies to reduce any
discharge, the Agency is not proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
discharges from open-water mollusc culture. EPA notes that molluscs are filter feeders
that in some cases are recommended not only as a food source but also as a pollution
control technology. Molluscs remove pollutants from ambient waters by filtration. EPA
also is aware that molluscs have been incorporated into polyculture AAP operations to
minimize discharges of pollutants.
9.7.1.5 Aquariums
Public aquariums are AAP facilities that display a variety of aquatic animals to the public
and conduct research on many different threatened and endangered aquatic species. EPA
has determined, through the AAP screener survey, that most aquariums are indirect
dischargers. If these facilities discharge directly into waters of the United States, it is
done only in emergency situations requiring rapid tank dewatering. These systems
maintain low stocking densities and very clean, clear water to enhance the visual display
of the animals. Discharges from aquariums are likely to be low in TSS and nutrients
because of the low stocking densities. Because most of the drugs used to treat stressed or
9-38
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
ill animals are injected directly into the animal, EPA believes that discharges of drugs
would be minimal. The few chemicals used include pH buffers and chemicals used to
make artificial sea salt.
9.7.1.6 Alligators
Alligator production systems are unique because they produce discharges from
production units in "batches" when pens or huts are drained and cleaned. EPA found that
effluents from alligator production systems are typically treated and stored on-site in
lagoons. After consultation with industry representatives, EPA also discovered that
alligator production facilities do not discharge from treatment lagoons. Excess volume in
lagoons is applied to cropland.
9.7.2 Modifications to Model Facility Methodology
EPA developed model facilities to reflect CAAP facilities with a specific production
system, type of ownership, and often species. These model facilities were based on data
gathered during site visits, information provided by industry members and their
associations, and other publicly available information. EPA estimated the number of
facilities represented by each model using data from the AAP screener survey (Westat,
2002), in conjunction with information from the USDA 1998 Census of Aquaculture
(USDA, 2000b). EPA estimated costs for each model facility and then calculated
industry-level costs by multiplying model facility costs by the estimated number of
facilities required to implement the treatment technology or management practice in each
model category.
Initially, EPA developed the production rate thresholds based on data from the 1998
Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000b). To group the facility production data reported in
the screener surveys (Westat, 2002), EPA used six production size categories, based on
revenue classifications in the 1998 Census of Agriculture: $1,000 to $24,999; $25,000 to
$49,999; $50,000 to $99,999; $100,000 to $499,999; $500,000 to $1,000,000; and
>$ 1,000,000. EPA used national average product prices, taken from the 1998 Census, to
estimate the production (in pounds) for the dominant species that were reported grown in
ponds (e.g., catfish, hybrid striped bass, shrimp), flow-through (e.g., trout salmon,
tilapia), recirculating (e.g., tilapia, hybrid striped bass), and net pen (e.g., salmon)
systems. For alligator systems reported in the screener survey, EPA used data from
industry reports to estimate production value and create groupings of the facilities. EPA
used this size classification grouping to more accurately estimate costs of the proposed
limitations and standards for each of the size classifications within the various species (or
aquatic animal types) cultured in this industry. That is, instead of assuming one model
facility for each of the three regulatory subcategories, EPA used a minimum of six model
facilities for each facility type (e.g., commercial, government, research, tribal) and
species size combination (e.g., fingerlings, stackers, food-size) for better accuracy in its
analyses. EPA applied these size classifications to the screener survey data to derive the
model facility characteristics that have been used to support the proposed regulation.
Final cost estimations for the proposed options are based on screener survey data.
Commercial facilities are adjusted by a scaling factor, which is the ratio of commercial
facilities in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture to the number of commercial facilities
responding to the AAP screener survey.
9-39
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Several SERs (Engle, 2002; Hart, 2002; Pierce, 2002; Vaught, 2002) questioned the
ability of a model facility to capture the diversity of production sizes and operational
differences among AAP facilities. EPA used average production data and average values
to estimate loadings to account for some of the variation among facilities. EPA
recognizes the diversity in the AAP industry; however, the Agency does not have site-
specific data on each AAP facility. EPA used the best available data to make its estimates
for the cost models, including AAP screener survey results, USDA Census of
Aquaculture data, and technical input from producers and industry leaders. These data
sources will be supplemented with the results of EPA's detailed survey in the final rule.
9.7.3 Pond Systems
Based on additional input from industry representatives regarding in-pond processes,
pond systems were evaluated for their unique ability to serve as treatment systems, and
this treatment capacity was incorporated into the assessment of various options for ponds
(Hargreaves, 2002a, personal communication; Hargreaves, 2002b). EPA considered
several factors related to pond systems in this initial option evaluation, including the
relationship of draining frequency to pollutants discharged, water management strategies
in ponds, and species-specific operational factors. The culture of aquatic animals in ponds
requires pond owners to maintain high-quality water at all times to sustain and grow the
aquatic animal crop. Most pond owners drain or actively discharge water only when
necessary to completely harvest a crop or to maintain the pond. The frequency of
draining is usually once per year and associated with harvesting the crop, but it can be
less than once per 10 or more years. For many aquatic animals raised in ponds, the pond
itself serves as a natural biological treatment system to reduce wastes generated by the
animals in the pond (including excess feed, manure, and dead aquatic animals). The only
other time a pond might discharge is when excess runoff occurs (usually during periods
of heavy precipitation). Most ponds have overflow pipes that drain passively from the top
surface of the pond. The water quality of this overflow discharge is comparatively high
(Tucker et al., 2002).
Shrimp are produced in ponds, but the operation of shrimp ponds is somewhat different
from that of ponds in which other aquatic animals are raised. To harvest shrimp, the pond
is drained, and the shrimp are removed from the pond along with the water. Shrimp are
captured external to the pond in a harvest box. The water must be drained rapidly from
the pond to prevent the shrimp from burrowing into the pond bottom. Because of the need
to drain the ponds so rapidly, there is a greater potential for the discharge of pollutants
resulting from the disturbance of the pond bottom. Therefore, EPA evaluated shrimp
culture in ponds and found ponds to have adequate controls and BMPs in place. Shrimp
pond effluents potentially contain higher TSS and BOD loadings than other pond
drainage. State requirements for existing shrimp farms include the capture of discharge
water in sedimentation basins or constructed wetlands to minimize the release of TSS so
that facilities can meet effluent limits set by the state. Some shrimp farmers reuse the
water discharged from draining ponds to fill other ponds or to grow other aquatic animal
crops (e.g., oysters or clams) over the winter. Most of the shrimp grown in the United
States is considered nonnative, which leads to concern regarding escapement of the
shrimp and discharge of exotic pathogens when disease outbreaks occur. Strict state
requirements are in place to minimize the risk of shrimp escapement and release of
9-40
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
pathogens. These requirements include use of certified disease-free seed stock, testing of
animals before harvest or draining, BMP plans, and mandatory escapement controls.
9.7.4 Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
EPA initially considered an approach to manage the use of drugs and chemicals,
minimize the escape of nonnative species, and maintain animal health similar to the
Hazardous Analysis at Critical Control Points (HACCP) paradigm used in the food
processing industry. Input from industry representatives indicated that an HACCP-based
plan, with its extensive training and record-keeping requirements, would be expensive to
implement. The requirement would also depend on the creation of an infrastructure to
provide the training necessary to develop and implement these plans. Industry input also
indicated that the plan did not have clearly identified targets. Therefore, EPA modified
the approach and developed a drug and chemical BMP plan. Under the drug and chemical
BMP plan, facilities would develop a plan to prevent spills or accidental discharges.
EPA also proposes to require facilities to develop and implement a BMP plan that
addresses the discharge of solids from recirculating and flow-through systems. This plan
would include cleaning and maintaining quiescent zones. EPA revised its labor cost
estimates for quiescent zone maintenance to reflect input from industry representatives.
Input from the industry indicated that most facilities spend approximately 15 to 30
min/wk cleaning quiescent zones. Using the high end of this range (30 min/wk) and the
number of days per week for normal facility operations (6 d/wk), EPA reduced its
estimate of the time needed to clean quiescent zones from 30 minutes to 5 minutes per
raceway per day. EPA considers quiescent zone cleanings part of normal facility
operations, and input from industry representatives (Hinshaw, 2002, personal
communication; MacMillan, 2002, personal communication) indicates that most facilities
conduct normal operations 6 d/wk. EPA also based quiescent zone cleaning on 312 d/yr,
which more accurately reflects the 6 d/wk schedule of facilities.
EPA estimated construction and O&M costs on a per gallon treated basis to enable ease
of calculations for the different sizes of facilities encountered in the cost modeling. Using
this approach, EPA initially estimated costs over a wide range of facilities, including
many in the 20,000 to 50,000-pound size range. Certain fixed costs, such as design and
equipment mobilization costs, are relatively constant for construction of sedimentation
basins at facilities of any size. EPA used an average treatment volume, which was
strongly influenced by the large number of smaller facilities that use flow-through
systems, to estimate the initial design volume for scaling costs among all model facilities.
For example, construction costs for sedimentation basins were reduced from $0.014 per
gallon treated to $0.0014 per gallon treated by increasing the average sedimentation basin
size up to 93.8 gpm. This cost reduction reflects EPA's reevaluation of sizing and costs
for larger-sized sedimentation basins that would be needed at the medium- and large-
sized flow-through and recirculating facilities. EPA analyzed the CAPDET
(Hydromantis, 2001) capital and O&M cost estimates for facilities in the medium and
large size range and found the costs to be linear over this range of system sizes. When
looking at smaller sizes, however, the costs were not linear. Design costs for
sedimentation basins were also reduced from $0.0021 per gallon treated to $0.000209 per
gallon treated. Values for O&M labor for sedimentation basins has been reduced from
9-41
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
$0.000008 per gallon treated to $0.0000017 per gallon treated. (See Section 9.4 for
additional information on sizing of sedimentation basins.)
Although EPA initially considered disinfection treatment as a regulatory option, it is not
being considered for the proposed regulation. After reviewing existing NPDES permits
and consulting with industry experts and EPA regional NPDES coordinators, EPA
believed that practices like disinfection would not be affordable and that the supporting
data were too inconclusive to warrant disinfection as a treatment option. (An analysis of
the microbiological indicator data collected at the sampled facilities did not clearly
indicate the presence of human health pathogens.)
Another modification to the cost model includes the cost components for compliance
monitoring in Options 1 and 3 to reflect the monitoring that would be necessary to
comply with the numeric limits for TSS.
9.7.5 Net Pen Systems
Net pen systems are unique because their placement directly in the receiving water allows
little opportunity for the treatment of effluents. Initially EPA targeted management
practices that reduce feed inputs and uneaten feed in the development of options for net
pen systems. After consulting with industry representatives and evaluating AAP screener
survey data and existing NPDES permits, EPA found some net pen facilities currently
using feed management practices. Thus, EPA determined the estimated cost of
implementing feed management to be affordable.
Initially EPA also considered an option requiring net pen facilities to develop HACCP
plans. Input from industry representatives indicated that an HACCP-based plan, with its
extensive training requirements, would not be affordable to implement. Comments from
industry representatives indicated that EPA's estimates of costs associated with training
and hours needed for developing the HACCP-based plan were too low. Industry input
also indicated that the plan did not have clearly identified targets. EPA evaluated current
industry practices and found that some of the facilities with NPDES permits are required
to have loss control plans and implement practices (such as double netting and inventory
reporting) to prevent escapes. The original BMP plan, now the drug and chemical BMP
plan, requires only BMPs for pathogen control, prevention of nonnative species
escapement, and reporting requirements for drugs and chemicals.
EPA evaluated the labor costs for mortality removal in the cost calculations and found
that mortality removal is an integral part of daily net pen system management. Input from
site visits confirmed that facilities already routinely remove mortalities and take them to
land-based disposal sites.
EPA changed the feed management BMP plan to a broader solids management plan,
which requires the facility to develop and implement a plan to reduce treatment of solids
discharged. EPA found this required in several states and regional NPDES permits. EPA
used a lower FCR as a means to measure the removal efficiency of each pollutant based
on the effectiveness of the solids management BMP plan.
9-42
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.8 REFERENCES
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Senate Bill 183 Restoration and Land
Acquisitions. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration
Division, .
Accessed June 2002.
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 2002. 2000 Alaska Wage
Rates: Statewide. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
Research and Analysis Section, .
EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2002. Retail Sales of Electricity, Revenue, and
Average Revenue per Kilowatt-hour (and RSEs) by United States Electric Utilities to
Ultimate Consumers by Census Division, and State, 2000 and 1999—Commercial.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC.
. Accessed January
2002.
Engle. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Fromm, C.H., and H.B. Hill. 2002. Technical memorandum to record. Janet Goodwin,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle, WA.
Hargreaves, J., 2002a. Mississippi State University. Personal communication (Monte
Carlo simulation), February 2002.
Hargreaves J., 2002b. Mississippi State University. Memo (Monte Carlo simulation),
February 2002.
Hart. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
9-43
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Hinshaw, J., 2002. North Carolina State University. Personal communication, February
20, 2002.
Hinshaw, J., and G. Fornshell. 2002. Effluents from Raceways. In Aquaculture and the
Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 77-104. U.S. Aquaculture
Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Hochheimer, J. 2002. Technical Memorandum: Description of Trout Model Facility
Calculations. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and C. Moore. 2002. Technical Memorandum: Development of Model
Facilities. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and D. Mosso. 2002. Technical Memorandum: Summary of Aquatic
Animal Production Industry Permits and Regulations. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and H. Westers. 2002a. Technical Memorandum: Fish Growth, Feed
Conversion, and Waste Production in Aquaculture. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and H. Westers. 2002b. Technical Memorandum: Flow-Through
Systems. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and H. Westers. 2002c. Technical Memorandum: Water Sources, Uses
and Conservation Measures in Aquaculture. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hydromantis, Inc. 2001. CAPDET: For the Design and Cost Estimation ofWastewater
Treatment Plants Version 1.0. [Computer program and manual]. Hydromantis, Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Ontario, Canada.
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality), n.d. Waste Management Guidelines
for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
. Accessed
August 2002.
Jackoviac, J. 2002. Harietta Hatchery, Harietta, MI. Personal communication, March 4,
2002.
MacMillan, J. 2002. Clear Springs Foods, Buhl, ID. Personal communication, March 4,
2002.
McNair, M. 2001. Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program: 2000 Annual Report. Regional
Information Report no. 5J01-01. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, AK.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed.
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 220-240. McGraw Hill, NY.
Pierce. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
9-44
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Plemmons. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small
Business Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Point Source Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
RS Means. 2000. RS Means Building Construction Cost Data. 58th annual edition, ed.
P.R. Waier, R.S. Means Company, Inc. Kingston, MA.
Rheault. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Rice. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Sumerfelt, S.T., J. Davidson, and M.B. Timmons. 2000. Hydrodynamics in the "Cornell-
Type" Dual-Drain Tank. In: Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on
Recirculating Aquaculture, Blacksburg, VA.
Swanson, J. 2002. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA. Personal communication, January 15,
2002.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002a. Alaska salmon conference call summary, February 2002.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b, August. Site visit report for MinAqua Fisheries Facility, Renville,
MN.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002c, August. Site visit report for Heritage Salmon, Eastport, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002d, August. Site visit report for Harrietta Hatchery, Harrietta, MI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002e, August. Site visit report for Platte River Hatchery, Beulah, MI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002f, August. Site visit report for Rushing Waters Fisheries,
Palmyra, WI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002g, August. Site visit report for Embden Rearing Station and
Governor Hill Hatchery, Augusta, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002h, August. Site visit report for Green Lake National Fish Hatchery,
Ellsworth, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002i, August. Site visit report for Cantrell Creek Trout Farm, Brevard,
NC.
9-45
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002J, August. Site visit report for Sweetwater Trout Farm, Sapphire,
NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002k, August. Site visit report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc. Snake
River Facility, Buhl, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 20021, August. Site visit report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Box
Canyon Facility, Buhl, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002m, August. Site visit report for Pisces Investments, Magic Springs
Facility, Twin Falls, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002n, August. Site visit report for Bill Jones Facility, Twin Falls, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002o, August. Site visit report for Fins Technology, Turner Falls, MA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002p, August. Site visit report for Lake Wheeler Road Agricultural
Facility, Raleigh, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002q. Sampling Event Report for Harrietta Hatchery, Harrietta, MI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002r. Sampling Event Report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc. Box Canyon
Facility, Buhl, ID.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002s, August. Site visit report for Acadia Aquaculture, Mt. Desert, ME.
Tucker, C.S., C.E. Boyd, and J.A. Hargreaves. 2002. Characterization and Management
of Effluents from Warmwater Aquaculture Ponds. In Aquaculture and the
Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 35-76. U.S. Aquaculture
Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000a. Agricultural Land Values. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS),
Washington, DC.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000b. The 1998 Census of Aquaculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Services, Washington,
DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Detailed Questionnaire for the
Aquatic Animal Production Industry. OMB Control No. 2040-0240. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit no. ME0036234, issued to Acadia Aquaculture, Inc.
Signed February 21,2002.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit no. WA0040878, issued to Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife, South Sound Net Pens, Mason County. Signed March 20, 2002.
9-46
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002d, August. Site visit report for
Virginia Tech Aquaculture Center, Blacksburg, VA.
VA, AG. 2000. USDA/NRCS - Conservation Practice Average Cost Estimates for
Virginia, January 2000. Prepared by NRCS/VA. 21pp.
.
Vaught. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Westat. 2002. AAP Screener Survey Production Range Report, Revision IV. Westat, Inc.
Rockville, MD.
9-47
-------
CHAPTER 10
POLLUTANT LOADING METHODOLOGY
10.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA identified several potential regulatory options for the concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) industry. To develop and evaluate these options, EPA used a
computer spreadsheet model that estimates compliance costs and pollutant loadings for
different combinations of the regulatory options considered. Chapter 9 presents the
costing methodology. This chapter describes the methodology used to estimate the
pollutant loading reductions associated with installing and operating the pollutant control
technologies and best management practices (BMPs) considered for the regulatory
options.
The following pollutant loading/removal information is discussed in detail in this chapter:
• Section 10.2 presents the structure of EPA's loading model for the CAAP
industry. The model uses the model facility approach to develop estimated
loading removal efficiencies associated with each regulatory option.
• Section 10.3 discusses the model facility configuration. This section also
describes input data, including wastewater generation and pollutant inputs, for the
model facilities for flow-through, recirculating, and net pen systems. EPA's
loading model relies on specific information about the species raised, culture
system, pollutant inputs, and wastewater generation rates to accurately predict the
pollutant removals associated with each regulatory option.
• Section 10.4 discusses the effectiveness of the treatment technology units that
compose the regulatory options. Each technology/BMP unit contains equations by
which to calculate the reduction of the loadings associated with each regulatory
option based on the facility characteristics.
• Section 10.5 describes the current frequency of existing BMPs and treatment
technologies at CAAP facilities.
• Section 10.6 discusses the loading model structure and provides an example
calculation.
• Section 10.7 provides pollutant removals by model facility for the proposed
options.
10.1.1 Regulatory Options
EPA developed three regulatory options for CAAP facilities:
• Option 1—solids removal through treatment technologies and BMPs.
10-1
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
• Option 2—BMP plan for pathogen control, prevention of nonnative species
escapement, and minimization of drugs and chemicals.
• Option 3—additional solids control through treatment technologies.
Table 10.1-1 presents the treatment technologies and BMPs for each proposed option by
subcategory. EPA describes the development of this set of options in more detail in
Section 9.1 of this document. EPA used the combination of pollutant control technologies
and BMPs shown in Table 10.1-1 as the basis for pollutant reductions in the pollutant
loading models. These combinations of control technologies and BMPs reflect the
pollutant reduction strategies that EPA found effective for removing the types of
pollutants found in CAAP effluents, including total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP).
Table 10.1-1. Treatment Technologies and BMPs for
Proposed Regulatory Options, by Subcategory
Regulatory
Option
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Required BMPs and
Technologies
Sedimentation basin
Quiescent zones
BMP plan
Compliance monitoring
Drug & chemical BMP plan
Solids polishing
Compliance monitoring
Active feed monitoring
Subcategory
Flow-through
Medium"
X
X
X
X
Large'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recirculating
X
X
X
X
X
X
Net Pen
X
X
X
Note: "X" represents a required treatment technology or BMP component for an option.
"See section 9.3.1 for description of medium and large flow-through systems.
10.1.2 Approach for Estimating Loadings
EPA typically uses one of two approaches, a facility'-specific approach or a model facility
approach, to estimate pollutant loading reductions for an industry. In both cases, EPA
evaluated combinations of regulatory options that are applied to subcategories, or groups,
of facilities to determine estimates of pollutant removals. Facility-specific pollutant
loading reduction estimates require detailed process and geographic information about
individual facilities in an industry. These data typically include facility characteristics
such as the amount of aquatic animals produced (e.g., pounds of aquatic animals), size or
production capacity of the facility, water use, quantity and quality of wastewater
generated, waste management operations currently in place (including design, pollutant
loadings, and removal effectiveness data), monitoring data, geographic location, financial
conditions, and any other industry-specific data (e.g., species of the aquatic animals, life
stages produced, types of feed used, amount of feed used, and drugs and chemicals used)
that might be required for the analyses. EPA uses each facility's information to estimate
20-2
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
the expected pollutant removals at that facility, based on the regulatory options applied to
the subcategory for which the facility is classified.
When sufficient facility-specific data are not available, EPA uses model facilities to
provide a reasonable representation of the industry. A model facility is created to
characterize a group of actual facilities for which EPA has some key facility-specific
information it can use to approximate the process and effluent. Thus, a model facility
represents a reasonable approximation of facility-specific characteristics for a group of
similar real facilities. EPA makes a series of assumptions about the model facility
characteristics to create the reasonable assumptions. For the pollutant loading model
facilities, EPA averaged a range of characteristics to account for some of the variation
among facilities within a model facility grouping.
EPA developed model facilities to reflect CAAP facilities with specific production
system, ownership, and species combinations. EPA uses the average production value to
represent all facilities within the group of facilities characterized by a model facility. For
example, the model facility representing 44 medium (defined as facilities that produce
100,000 Ib/yr to 475,000 Ib/yr) flow-through facilities, which are state-owned and
produce trout stackers, have an annual average production of 224,193 Ib (the production
actually ranges from 100,800 Ib/yr to 433,915 Ib/yr). The facility size and configuration,
water use, wastewater generation, and other facility characteristics for the state-flow-
through-trout-stockers-medium model facility are based on this annual average
production of 224,193 Ib.
EPA based these model facilities on data gathered during site visits, information provided
by industry members and their associations, and other publicly available information.
EPA estimated the number of facilities represented by each model using data from the
Aquatic Animal Production (AAP) screener survey (Westat, 2002), in conjunction with
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1998 Census of
Aquaculture (USDA, 2000). EPA estimated pollutant loading reductions for each model
facility and then calculated industry-level loading reductions by multiplying model
facility reductions by the estimated number of facilities required to implement the
treatment technology or management practice in each model category. For the CAAP
industry, EPA chose a model facility approach to estimate the pollutant reductions
because detailed information about the scope of the industry was not available. EPA
expects to obtain more detailed facility-level information, although not on every facility,
through the detailed survey (USEPA, 2002a).
EPA designed the model facility approach to capture the key characteristics (model
facility configuration) of individual facilities, based on the Census of Aquaculture
(USDA, 2000) and the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002), by averaging these key
characteristics and then representing the averages as a model facility. Using this
approach, EPA characterized every facility according to specific attributes, which
included production system type, species, and dollar level of production. EPA estimated
or calculated other key attributes for each of the model facilities, including system inputs
(e.g., feed), estimated pollutant loadings, discharge flow characteristics, and geographic
data. EPA then linked all of these attributes and characteristics into option modules using
Microsoft Excel as a computing platform to enable ease of changes to model facility
assumptions and characteristics, as well as ease of calculation.
10-3
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Control technology options and BMPs used to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the
environment were linked in the unit loading modules, which calculated an estimated
loading removal efficiency of the component based on estimates of pollutant reductions.
EPA used sampling data, industry experts, and technical literature as sources of pollutant
removal efficiencies for the components making up each regulatory option. For each
model facility, EPA applied combinations of technologies and BMPs, given the model
facility configuration characteristics (e.g., system type, size, and species). EPA adjusted
the total loading removal efficiency of the component with a frequency factor that
accounts for CAAP facilities that already have that technology or management practice in
place. EPA used this adjusted loading estimate, which reflects the number of facilities
that are subject to the proposed regulations, to determine the estimated national pollutant
loading reductions associated with the proposed pollutant control technologies or
management practices for each of the model facility types.
10.1.3 Basic Model Assumptions
EPA used annual facility production rates in the pollutant loading models to estimate the
amount of feed added to a facility. The feed input drives the pollutant output from a
facility. EPA used annual pollutant loadings, based on average annual production at a
facility, as a basis for decision-making to account for the impacts of production
variability on the model facility outputs. One source of this variation is the natural
growing cycle of the aquatic animals; that is, small fish grow fast, but they add little
biomass to a system, whereas larger fish grow more slowly, but add larger biomass to a
system. Many CAAP facilities have multiple production units with different sizes and
cohorts of animals in production at a given time. These multiple production units often
combine effluent streams into one or two discrete conveyances. Although commercial
CAAP facilities attempt to maintain maximum biomass in the culture facilities at all
times to maximize production, there is often month-to-month variation within a facility.
In a multiple-cohort practice, where different sizes of fish are in a system at one time, the
biomass can have a narrower range at any given time. Many noncommercial facilities
have a goal of producing a single cohort (generational group of animals) for natural
resources enhancement. In a single cropping (a single cohort of animals from start to
finish in a production unit, such as a pond or tank) management practice, the biomass in a
production unit increases throughout the growing cycle. For both cases (single- and
multiple-cohort production systems), the discharge varies in pollutant loadings over time,
depending on the biomass of animals in the production units at a given time.
Availability of seed stock or fingerlings is another factor that strongly influences the size
distribution of animals at a facility. Trout eggs, particularly those species and strains used
for commercial production of foodfish, are usually available all year. The eggs of other
species, such as hybrid striped bass, are typically available only when naturally spawning
broodstock are available (in the spring). Another factor affecting growth and feed inputs
is temperature, which influences growth of the cold-blooded animals grown in most
CAAP facilities. Most aquatic animals grow in a defined range of water temperatures; for
example, trout grow best at temperatures of 52 to 67 °F and remain relatively dormant at
temperatures below 41 °F.
10-4
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
EPA based the pollutant loading model on several primary assumptions:
• Feed offered to the cultured species contributes to pollutant discharges in two
ways. First, metabolic wastes and unmetabolized feed consumed by the cultured
species are contained in the feces. Second, uneaten feed settles and increases the
pollutant loading in the culture water. Thus, feed inputs to the systems drive the
quality of effluents from CAAP facilities.
• Feed conversion ratios (FCRs), although they vary among species and production
systems, geographically, and by size or age of the animal, determine the amount
of feed put into C AAP facility production systems. To determine the annual
amount of feed used at a CAAP facility, EPA multiplied the annual production for
a model facility by the FCR. EPA evaluated the technical literature for
information about FCRs (Hochheimer and Westers, 2002a) and found the
reported values to vary, especially by system type and species. EPA assumed that
using average values for predominant species (e.g., catfish, trout, hybrid striped
bass, and salmon), which are also the FCRs reported in the literature, in
estimating pollutant loadings was a reasonable approach. The averages reflect
some of the variation that occurs among species and within a system type. EPA
used average FCRs for each production system to estimate the feed inputs, which
translate into pollutant loadings to a model facility (Table 10.1-2).
Table 10.1-2. Feed Conversion Ratios
System Type
Flow-through
Recirculating
Net Pen
Initial
FCR
1.4
1.6
1.2
Treatment/BMP
—
—
Active feed monitoring
New
FCR
—
—
1.0
Source: Hochheimer and Westers, 2002a.
• EPA received several comments from industry representatives regarding FCRs.
The comments ranged from "FCRs are species- and site-specific" (Rice, 2002) to
"FCRs are constantly changing" (Rheault, 2002). Several commenters thought the
FCRs were too low (Engle, 2002; Pierce, 2002), and some thought EPA had
estimated too high (Plemmons, 2002). As a result of these comments, EPA
verified the assumed FCRs with other industry sources (Hinshaw, 2002, personal
communication; MacMillan, 2002, personal communication). EPA will continue
to evaluate the impact of different FCR assumptions.
• Although EPA found TSS, BOD, nitrogen, phosphoais, some metals (e.g.,
aluminum, barium, boron, copper, iron, manganese, selenium, and zinc), and a
few organic compounds (e.g., bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, hexanoic acid, P-
cresol, phenol) present in effluents from CAAP facilities during sampling events,
EPA focused its modeling efforts on TSS, BOD, TN, and TP. Most of the metals
and organic compounds found in the sampled effluents were associated with the
solids fraction hi the effluent, so removing the solids would remove substantial
portions of the metals and organic compounds as well.
20-5
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
• Technology options and BMPs have typical, definable, and steady-state efficiency
rates of removing specific pollutants from water.
• Certain technologies are more applicable to some system types and flows than to
others.
• EPA developed the pollutant loadings models for estimating the fate of TSS,
BOD, TN, and TP in CAAP facilities. EPA had insufficient data to determine the
pollutant removal efficiencies for drugs and chemicals used at CAAP facilities.
Other special pollutants, such as escaping animals and aquatic animal pathogens,
do not have pollutant removal efficiencies available for EPA to use in modeling.
10.1.3.1 Feed Inputs
EPA assumed the sources of pollutant loadings in CAAP facility production systems are
the feed input and resulting metabolic wastes generated by the aquatic animals. The
pollutant loadings calculated in the loading model were based on the feed input to the
system and the feed-to-pollutant calculation, as described in the following discussion.
The feed input to the model facility system was obtained by multiplying the model
facility production, which was determined by analysis of the AAP screener results (see
Section 10.3 for more details), by the initial FCR (listed in Table 10.1-2) for the CAAP
facility.
EPA obtained the amount of feed input to each system using the following equation:
Feed input = model facility production * FCR
Where:
Model facility production = the average yearly production at the model facility
(pounds)
FCR = the initial feed conversion ratio for the production system (pounds of feed per
pound of fish produced).
10.1.3.2 Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors
EPA only modeled pollutant generation as a function of feed inputs, which are the feed
and associated metabolic wastes. The Agency used values for the feed-to-pollutant
conversion factors (Table 10.1-3) in the loading model to represent the range of values
found in literature reviews (Hochheimer and Westers, 2002a).
Table 10.1-3. Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors
Pollutant
BOD
TN
TP
TSS
Conversion Factor
0
0
0
0
35
03
005
3
Source: Hochheimer and Westers, 2002a.
10-6
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
EPA found studies that determine the pollutants associated with feeding fish are often
done in controlled laboratory situations using tanks with static water. The feed-to-
pollutant conversion factors vary somewhat by species and the constituents in the feed, so
EPA used typical values found in the literature to represent some of this variability. For
the purpose of estimating pollutant loadings, EPA assumed that all feed added to a
production system is consumed and undergoes some metabolic conversion by the aquatic
animals. The resulting pollutants were estimated using the conversion factors in
Table 10.1-3. Although feed conversion ratios greater than 1 indicate potentially uneaten
feed, the amount of uneaten feed could vary considerably on a daily basis in a given
production unit. Some of the factors that contribute to this variation are stress to the
animals (e.g., changes in dissolved oxygen, spikes in production unit ammonia, unusual
activity at the production facility, or a recent storm), water temperature, age of the
aquatic animal, and the presence of disease. The mass of pollutants associated with
unmetabolized feed are greater than those that are consumed and undergo the metabolic
processes of the aquatic animals, so EPA used the more conservative value in the loading
models. EPA used this assumption in all cases except active feed monitoring in net pens.
EPA used the feed-to-pollutant conversion factors to estimate an untreated or "raw
loading," which was used as the input to pollutant control technologies and BMPs. EPA
calculated raw pollutant loadings by using the following equations:
Raw pollutant loading = annual feed input * feed-to-pollutant conversion factor
Where:
Annual feed input is the amount of feed distributed to the production system (pounds
per year).
Feed-to-pollutant conversion factor converts feed inputs into pollutant loadings.
10.1.3.3 Production System Treatment Trains
EPA's loading model consists of combinations of regulatory options, which are
combinations of pollutant control technologies and BMPs that are added to achieve
increasing levels of pollutant loading reduction. EPA uses specific combinations of
pollutant control technologies and BMPs (or treatment trains) for a model facility in
estimating pollutant reductions. The loading model first estimates a raw wastewater
pollutant loading based on feed conversion ratios and feed inputs. As the wastewater
flows through different components of the treatment train, pollutants are removed. The
loading model calculates pollutant loadings, not concentrations.
Figure 10.1-1 illustrates the treatment train for flow-through systems. Option 1 for flow-
through systems consist of a quiescent zone coupled with a sedimentation basin and a
BMP plan for solids removal. For the purpose of analysis, EPA assumed that all pollutant
removals from the quiescent zone are conveyed to the sedimentation basin. The drug and
chemical BMP plan is the only additional component of Option 2. Because this plan is
targeted at only special pollutants (drugs and chemicals) for which EPA has no BMP
efficiency removals/rates, the Agency could not include any pollutant removals for TSS,
BOD, TN, and TP under Option 2. Solids polishing is the only additional component of
Option 3 in flow-through systems.
10-7
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
1
a
•§
P
3
Opl
* HUH water uiscnarge Solids ^ & chemical
Removal nmram
BMP Plan
BMP Plan
(A A -\
Sedimentation v ir ^ Solids
Basin *" Polishing
x v, ^
Effluent
ion 1 Option 2 Option 3
Figure 10.1-1. Flow-through Systems
For recirculating systems, Option 1 consists of the sedimentation basin and solids
removal BMP plan. EPA assumed that all of the daily discharge would be conveyed to
the sedimentation basin for treatment. The drug and chemical BMP plan is the only
additional component of Option 2. Similar to flow-through systems, EPA targeted the
drug and chemical BMP plan specifically for special pollutants (drugs and chemicals), for
which EPA has no BMP efficiency removals. EPA did not include any pollutant removals
for TSS, BOD, TN, and TP at Option 2. In recirculating systems, solids polishing is the
only additional component of Option 3. Figure 10.1-2 illustrates the treatment train for
recirculating systems. The treatment train includes only treatment practices for the
wastewater discharge component of the recirculating system. Treatment components in
the recirculating systems used for the process culture water, such as biological filters for
ammonia removal, oxygenators, or internal solids collection devices, were not included in
the treatment options. Also, treatment practices, such as biological treatment, to reduce
BOD in the effluent were not evaluated.
CZ^
Recirculating
System
Solids ^ & Chemical
Removal BMP Plan
BMP Plan
( } f }
J Sedimentation v lr i» Solids
Discharge Basin Polishing
V J V J
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Figure 10.1-2. Recirculating System
Figure 10.1-3 illustrates the treatment train for net pen systems. Option 1 includes
pollutant removals with feed management and the solids removal BMP plan. The
pollutant reductions estimated for Option 1 are based on decreasing the FCR of the
production system. Feed management is a management practice that was considered as
part of Option 1 for all net pen operations, but was not required in the proposed
regulation. The drug and chemical BMP plan is the only additional component of
Option 2. Similar to flow-through and recirculating systems, EPA could not include any
10-8
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
pollutant removals for TSS, BOD, TN, and TP. Active feed monitoring is the only
additional component of Option 3.
\
\
System
Solids ! Drue & Chemical !
B" i BMPPta i
i I r -\
Feed IF i v i J Active Feed
"" Management | | H Monitoring
| \ \. )
i i
I I
i i
Option 1 I Option 2 I Option 3
Figure 10.1-3. Net Pen System
10.2 LOADING MODEL STRUCTURE
EPA estimated the loading reduction associated with each of the regulatory options under
consideration. EPA estimated loading reductions based on the implementation of BMPs
and control technologies that have known pollutant removal efficiencies, as demonstrated
by facilities in the CAAP facility industry.
To generate industry loading removals associated with each regulatory option for AAP
facilities, EPA developed a computer-based model made up of several individual
treatment technology/BMP modules. Figure 10.2-1 illustrates the loading model by
showing that it consists of several components, which can be grouped into four major
categories:
• Model facility configuration
• Treatment/BMP modules
• Frequency factors
• Output data
Each module calculates loading reductions for a specific wastewater treatment
technology or BMP (e.g., a primary settling basin) based on loading reductions for the
specific model facility characteristics. Frequency factors are then applied to the loading
reductions to weight the reductions by the estimated percentage of operations that already
have that treatment technology or practice in place. EPA summed these weighted facility
reductions for each regulatory option and model facility for those facilities without
treatment.
10.2.1 Model Facility Configuration
The model facility configuration part of the loading model sets up the characteristics of
each unique model facility, based primarily on system type, species, the combination of
existing and proposed management practices and technologies, annual production, and
feed inputs.
10-9
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Frequency
Model Facility
Configuration
i
r
Unit Cost Modules
Factor
!
1
i
r Output Data
Weighted Component
Unit Costs
i
?
Model Farm Costs
i
?
Industry Costs
Figure 10.2-1. Schematic of Loading Model Structure
Input data to the model facilities includes the following:
• Number of facilities for a combination of system types, sizes, culture species,
facility types, and locations.
• Technologies and BMPs by system type and facility size.
• Pollutant removals of technology options and BMPs.
• Average daily flow by system type and facility size.
• Estimates of annual production and price per pound.
• Data associated with feeding practices, including feeding in pounds per day and
pollutant concentrations associated with feed.
10.2.2 Unit Loading Modules
The unit loading modules contain the loading information for each component, BMP, or
treatment technology contained in the regulatory options. The loading modules calculate
the pollutant removals for the model facilities, based on culture species and production
system, using pollutant-specific removals for each of the regulatory options. The various
loading factors are discussed in Section 10.3. The unit loading modules are used in
conjunction with the frequency factors (see Section 10.5) to determine the pollutant
loading for each segment of the industry.
10-10
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.2.3 Frequency Factors
EPA recognized that some individual facilities have already implemented some of the
treatment technologies or BMPs included as part of the proposed options. When
estimating pollutant loadings for implementing the proposed options across the entire
subcategory nationwide, EPA did not include pollutant removals for BMPs or treatment
technologies already in place.
EPA determined the current frequency of existing BMPs and treatment technologies at
CAAP facilities based on existing NPDES permit requirements, screener survey
responses, site visits, and sampling visits and information provided by the industry. EPA
used this occurrence frequency to estimate the pollutant removals resulting from
wastewater treatment technologies and BMPs already in use at CAAP facilities.
Frequency factors are discussed in greater detail in Section 10.5.
10.2.4 Output Data
Output data from the loading model provide estimates of baseline pollutant loadings
discharged and incremental pollutant removals associated with each regulatory option.
Section 10.7 discusses the output data in more detail.
10.3 MODEL FACILITY CONFIGURATION
EPA defined model facilities for flow-through, recirculating, and net pen systems based
on species, ownership (e.g., commercial, federal, state) and facility production size.
10.3.1 Flow-through Systems
The basic flow-through system model facility consists of a series of raceways and a
treatment train of pollutant control technologies, including a quiescent zone, an offline
settling basin, and a microscreen filter. Site visits (Tetra Tech, 2002d; Tetra Tech, 2002e;
Tetra Tech, 2002f) and screener data (Westat, 2002) indicated that smaller flow-through
facilities also operate circular tanks, earthen raceways, and flow-through concrete or
earthen ponds. EPA assumed that raceways are the predominant systems used in flow-
through facilities at the sizes being considered by the proposed regulation.
EPA developed raceway configurations from information obtained during site visits and
conversations with AAP aquaculture industry representatives (Hinshaw, 2002, personal
communication; Tetra Tech, 2002d; Tetra Tech, 2002e; Tetra Tech, 2002f). For flow-
through systems, EPA developed the following physical attributes:
• Annual production (pounds of aquatic animals)
• Number of facilities
• Total facility flow rate (gallons per minute of water flowing through the facility)
• Feed conversion ratio (pounds of feed per pound of animal produced)
• Loading density (pounds of fish per cubic foot of raceway)
• Raceway dimensions
- Length of individual raceways (feet)
10-11
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
- Width of individual raceways (feet)
- Depth of individual raceways (feet)
- Volume of individual raceway (cubic feet)
• Number of raceways at a facility
• Loadings from raceways (pounds of pollutants in the raw effluent)
10.3.1.1 Annual Production
For flow-through systems EPA developed model facilities for facilities producing
100,000 Ib/yr up to 475,000 Ib/yr and facilities producing 475,000 Ib/yr or mor
sorted data from the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002) representing a species, lifestage
(e.g., food-size or stackers), and facility type (e.g., commercial, federal, state) into two
production groups, facilities producing 100,000 Ib/yr up to 475,000 Ib/yr (medium) and
facilities producing 475,000 Ib/yr or more (large). EPA then averaged all of the facilities
from the AAP screener survey that fell within a species-lifestage-facility type
combination for medium and large facility size classes to develop the model facility. For
example, EPA grouped all seven of the federal (facility type) facilities that produce trout
(species) stackers (lifestage) in flow-through systems producing 100,000 Ib/yr up to
475,000 Ib/yr as medium facilities. Table 10.3.1 provides details on the annual production
ranges and average annual production used in the flow-through system calculations.
Section 9.3 describes EPA's development of model facility size classifications in more
detail.
EPA evaluated the limited available data, including the AAP screener survey data
(Westat, 2002) and site visit information (see Chapter 3), and found nothing to indicate
that the wide range of facility sizes represented by the average production values used as
input for the model facilities in the large size class would misrepresent the range of
facilities that made up the class. Although larger facilities can realize economies of scale
in production costs, EPA was not able to find any differences in waste treatment or
effluent quality characteristics for the larger systems in the range. Thus, EPA assumed
the average facility sizes could accurately represent the range of facilities in the size
class. (This observation holds for the ranges in facility sizes for recirculating and net pen
systems as well.) EPA will evaluate the detailed survey data to verify this assumption.
10.3.1.2 Number of Facilities
Table 10.3-1 presents the number of facilities represented by each flow-through model
facility group. EPA used the AAP screener survey results (Westat, 2002) for the counts of
facilities in each model facility group.
10.3.1.3 Total Flow Rate
Flow-through systems require a high volume of water to flush wastes from the production
area and make oxygen available to the aquatic animals. Most flow-through systems are
designed and operated with water flows that exchange or replace water in the system
tanks or raceways 3 to 6 times per hour (Hinshaw and Fornshell, 2002), which translates
into a system flow rate of 1 gallon per minute per 100 Ib of annual production
(Hochheimer and Westers, 2002b).
10-12
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.3-1. Model Facility Information
Model Facility
Trout-Commercial-Flow-
through
Trout-S late-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-
Flow- through
Trout-Stockers-Federal- Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-
through
Tilapia-Comrnercial-Flow-
through
Striped Bass-Commercial-Flow-
through
S almon -Other-Fl o w-tlirough
Size
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Number of
Facilities"
22
8
<5
<5
5
7
<5
44
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Production Range
(Ib/yr)"
100,000-370,000
592,900-8,260,815
—
—
128.000-317.000
106,788-309,885
—
100,800^33,915
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Average
Production
(lb/yr)b
208,986
2,499,170
—
—
192,137
208,296
—
224,193
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
a <5 indicates a group with fewer than 5 facilities and is reported in this manner to protect the
confidentiality of individual facilities.
b Model facility groups with fewer than 5 facilities are not reported.
10.3.1.4 Feed Conversion Ratio
EPA used an FCR of 1.4 for all flow-through systems. (See Section 10.1.3 for additional
information on FCR values and assumptions.)
10.3.1.5 Loading Density
Based on industry input (Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; Plemmons, 2002),
EPA assumed a loading density of 3 Ib/ft for sizing of facilities (determining the
estimated number of raceways for a given facility size).
10.3.1.6 Raceway Dimensions
EPA assumed the raceway size for medium facilities to be 150 ft long by 14 ft wide by 3
ft deep (volume = 6,300 iV). The raceway size for large facilities was assumed to be 175
ft long by 18 ft wide by 3 ft deep (volume = 9,450 ft3).
10.3.1.7 Number of Raceways
To estimate the number of raceways at a flow-through facility, EPA used the following
calculation:
Number of raceways = annual production/(loading density * volume per raceway)
70-73
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Where:
• Number of raceways is the number for a model facility type (rounded up to the
nearest integer)
• Annual production is the average production for the model facility type in pounds
• Loading density is 3 lb/ft' (Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; Plemmons,
2002) "
• Volume per raceway is 6,300 ft"' for medium facilities and 9,450 ft"' for large
facilities
10.3.1.8 Loadings from Raceways
To estimate the pollutant loadings from each raceway, EPA used the pollutant loading
values presented in Table 10.1-3 and the methodology described in Section 10.1.3 to
estimate values for BOD, TN, TP, and TSS. Table 10.3-2 provides the estimated raw
pollutant loadings for flow-through facilities.
Table 10.3-2. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility) for Flow-through Facilities
Model Facility
Trout-Food-size-State-Medium-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Large-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Medium-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Lai'ge-Flow- through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Medium-Flow-through
Trout-S lockers-Federal -Large -Flow- through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Medium-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Medium-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Large-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Medium-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Large-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Medium-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Coiimercial-Large -Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-Cornmercial-Medium-Flow-
through
Salmon-Food-size-Other-Large-Flow-through
BOD
(Ib/yr)
119,959
269,500
102,403
1,224,593
102,065
671,300
94,147
186,830
235,200
109,855
242,963
120,867
490,000
60,409
1,160,871
TN
(Ib/yr)
10,282
23,100
8,777
104,965
8,748
57,540
8,070
16,014
20,160
9,416
20,825
10,360
42,000
5,178
99,503
TP
(Ib/yr)
1,714
3,850
1,463
17,494
1,458
9,590
1,345
2,669
3,360
1,569
3,471
1,727
7,000
863
16.584
TSS
(Ib/yr)
102,822
231,000
87,774
1,049,651
87,484
575,400
80,698
160,140
201,600
94,161
208,254
103,600
420,000
51,779
995,033
10.3.2 Alaska Flow-through Systems
Alaskan salmon producers refer to their production operations as "ocean ranching" in
which hatchery fish are released into coastal areas to supplement the natural populations.
Alaska salmon production systems represent a slight departure from traditional flow-
10-14
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
through culture systems. Because of the high costs associated with the disposal of solids
and good tidal flushing in the waters adjacent to the facilities, most facilities do not
operate wastewater treatment units for the collection of solids. Otherwise, facilities
operate much like all other flow-through systems.
Because EPA received facility-specific data from the Alaska facilities, the Agency
modeled each facility separately to determine pollutant removals.
10.3.2.1 Annual Production
EPA estimated production data for each facility using 2000 hatchery production data
reported in Alaska Fish and Game's Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program 2000 Annual
Report (McNair, 2001). EPA estimated hatchery releases by facilities using a conversion
of 0.4 g per fish for pink and chum salmon and 20 g per fish for coho, chinook, sockeye,
and other salmon species, based on industry-provided information (Tetra Tech, 2002i).
EPA modeled only the facilities producing more than 100,000 Ib/yr. Table 10.3-3
presents production estimates for each Alaska salmon facility producing more than
100,000 Ib/yr.
Table 10.3-3. Alaska Salmon Producers
Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Production (Ib/yr)
104,738
201,052
204,139
144,436
135,510
403,515
150,822
125,720
153,371
Facility
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Production (Ib/yr)
207,649
985,194
116,636
366,030
244,543
571,095
145,089
222,290
250,047
10.3.2.2 Number of Facilities
EPA estimated the number of facilities based on 2000 hatchery production data reported
in Alaska Fish and Game's Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program 2000 Annual Report
(McNair, 2001). Table 10.3-3 shows the 18 Alaska facilities that EPA used to estimate
loadings.
10.3.2.3 Total Flow Rate
EPA used a system flow rate of 1 gallon per minute per 100 pounds of annual production,
which is the same flow rate used for other flow-through systems (Hochheimer and
Westers, 2002b).
70-75
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.3.2.4 Feed Conversion Ratio
EPA used a feed conversion ratio of 1.4 for all flow-through systems. (See Section 10.1.3
for additional information on FCR values and assumptions.)
10.3.2.5 Loading Density
Based on industry input (Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; Plemmons, 2002),
EPA assumed a loading density of 3 Ib/lV for sizing of facilities (determining the
estimated number of raceways for a given facility size).
10.3.2.6 Raceway Dimensions
EPA used the raceway size of 150 ft long by 14 ft wide by 3 ft deep, which is the same
size as the medium-sized flow-through facilities in other states.
10.3.2.7 Number of Raceways
To estimate the number of raceways at a flow-through facility, EPA used the following
calculation:
Number of raceways = annual production/(loading density * volume per raceway)
Where:
• Number of raceways is the number for a model facility type (rounded up to the
nearest integer)
• Annual production is the average production for the model facility type in pounds
• Loading density is 3 lb/ft3 (Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; Plemmons,
2002)
• Volume per raceway is 6,300 ff for medium facilities
10.3.2.8 Loadings from Raceways
To estimate the pollutant loadings from each raceway, EPA used the pollutant loading
values presented in Table 10.1-3 and the methodology described in Section 10.1.3 to
estimate values for BOD, TN, TP, and TSS. Table 10.3-4 provides the estimated raw
pollutant loadings for Alaska flow-through facilities.
Table 10.3-4. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility)
for Alaska Flow-through Facilities
Model Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
BOD
(Ib/yr)
51322
98,515
100,028
70.774
66.400
75.152
TN
(Ib/yr)
4,399
8,444
8,574
6,066
5,691
6,442
TP
(Ib/yr)
733
1,407
1,429
1,011
949
1,074
TSS
(Ib/yr)
43,990
84,442
85,738
60,663
56,914
64,416
70-76
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Model Facility
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
BOD
(Ib/yr)
197,722
73,903
61,603
101,748
482,745
57,152
179,355
119,826
571,095
71,094
108,922
122,523
TN
(Ib/yr)
16,948
6,335
5,280
8,721
41,378
4,899
15,373
10,271
14,169
6,094
9,336
10,502
TP
(Ib/yr)
2,825
1,056
880
1,454
6,896
816
2,562
1,712
2,362
1,016
1,556
1,750
TSS
(Ib/yr)
169,476
63,345
52,802
87,213
413,781
48,987
153,733
102,708
141,693
60,937
93,362
105,020
10.3.3 Recirculating Systems
Recirculating systems typically require inputs of relatively small volumes of water
because water in these systems is continuously filtered and reused. The production water
treatment process is designed to minimize water requirements, which results in a small-
volume, concentrated waste stream that is discharged daily. For the loading modeling,
EPA used a basic recirculating system configuration for the production system and
support equipment (with no predefined internal process configuration) that produces a
concentrated effluent. The effluent waste stream is treated with a sedimentation basin and
microscreen.
EPA developed recirculating system configurations from information obtained during site
visits (Tetra Tech, 2002a; Tetra Tech, 2002g; Tetra Tech, 2002h; USEPA, 2002d) and
from AAP industry representatives (AES, 2001). For recirculating systems, EPA
developed the following characteristics:
• Annual production (pounds of aquatic animals)
• Number of facilities
• Feed conversion ratio (pounds of feed per pound of animal produced)
• Loading density (pounds of fish per cubic foot of production system volume)
• Volume of the system (cubic feet)
• Daily discharge rate (gallons per minute of water flowing from the facility)
• Loadings in effluent (pounds of pollutants in the raw effluent)
10.3.3.1 Annual Production
For recirculating systems EPA developed one model facility to represent all facilities
producing 100,000 Ib/yr or more. EPA sorted data from the AAP screener survey
10-17
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
(Westat, 2002) representing a species, lifestage (e.g., food-size or stackers), and facility
type (e.g., commercial, federal, state) into facilities producing greater than 100,000 Ib/yr
(large). EPA then averaged all of the species-lifestage-facility type combinations for the
large facility size class to develop the model facility. Section 9.3 provides additional
details on the development of production size ranges. Table 10.3-5 shows the production
ranges and average production for recirculating facilities.
Table 10.3-5. Model Facility Information
Model Facility
Tilapia-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Recirculating
Size
Large
Large
Production Range
(Ib/yr)
200,000-525,000
-
A verage
Production (Ib/yr)
351,643
-
Facilities
Represented
5
<5'
" <5 and "-" indicate a group with fewer than five facilities, reported in this, to protect the confidentiality of
the individual facilities.
10.3.3.2 Number of Facilities
Table 10.3-5 presents the number of facilities represented by each recirculating system
model facility group. EPA used the AAP screener survey results (Westat, 2002) for the
counts of facilities in each model facility group.
10.3.3.3 Feed Conversion Ratio
EPA used a feed conversion ratio of 1.6 for all recirculating systems. (See Section 10.1.3
for additional information on FCR values and assumptions.)
10.3.3.4 Loading Density
EPA used the average stocking density of the culture species within the production
system at maximum production levels for estimating the loading density. Information
from site visits conducted at facilities operating recirculating production systems
indicated loading densities of about 1 Ib per gallon of culture water (Tetra Tech, 2002a;
Terra Tech, 2002g; Tetra Tech, 2002h) are common in the United States.
10.3.3.5 System Volume
EPA calculated the production system volume for recirculating systems using the model
facility's annual production and loading density. The formula used to calculate
production system volume is as follows:
Production system volume = facility annual production/loading density
where production system volume is reported in gallons, loading density is 1.0 Ib/gal, and
facility annual production is the average annual model facility production in pounds.
10.3.3.6 Daily Discharge Rate
Many recirculating systems are operated with a 10% makeup volume of water added
daily to dilute the production water and replace water lost to evaporation and
backwashing of the solids filters (Chen et al., 2002). Thus, recirculating systems have a
10-18
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
continuous discharge consisting of the backwash from the solids filter and overflows
resulting from the added makeup water. EPA calculated the daily discharge rate as
Daily discharge rate = production system volume * daily makeup factor
Where the daily discharge rate is in gallons per day, the production system volume is in
gallons, and the daily makeup factor is 10% of the system volume per day.
10.3.3.7 Loadings from Redrculating Systems
To estimate the pollutant loadings from each recirculating system, EPA used the pollutant
loading values presented in Table 10.1-3 and the methodology described hi Section
10.1.3 to estimate values for BOD, TN, TP, and TSS. Table 10.3-6 provides the estimated
raw pollutant loadings for recirculating system facilities.
Table 10.3-6. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility)
for Recirculating System Facilities
Model Facility
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial-Large-Recirculating
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Large-Recirculating
BOD
(Ib/yr)
688,800
196,915
TN
(Ib/yr)
59,040
16,878
TP
(Ib/yr)
9,840
2,813
TSS
(Ib/yr)
590,400
168,784
10.3.4 Net Pen Systems
Net pen systems are suspended or floating holding cages or nets used for the growout of
the culture species. Net pen systems are located directly in the receiving water, and
wastes are directly deposited from the net pen into the water. For the loading modeling,
EPA used a net pen system physical configuration consisting of only the production
system with no pollutant control technologies in place. EPA had observed at the site
visits that some of the net pen facilities already have some of the BMPs in place (e.g.,
feed management, escapement plans, or active feed monitoring) and accounted for these
in-place management practices with frequency factors.
EPA developed net pen system configurations from information obtained during site
visits and conversations with AAP industry representatives (Tetra Tech, 2002b; Terra
Tech, 2002c) For net pen systems EPA developed the following characteristic:
• Annual production (pounds of aquatic animals)
• Number of facilities
• Feed conversion ratio (pounds of feed per pound of animal produced)
• Loading density (pounds of fish per cubic foot of net pen)
• Volume of the system (cubic feet)
• Number of net pens
• Loadings from net pens (pounds of pollutants in the raw effluent)
70-79
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.3.4.1 Annual Production
For net pen systems EPA developed one model facility to represent all facilities
producing 100,000 Ib/yr or more. EPA sorted data from the AAP screener survey
(Westat, 2002) representing a species, lifestage (e.g., food-size), and facility type (e.g.,
commercial, federal, state) into facilities producing 100,000 Ib (large) or more annually.
All of the species-lifestage-facility type combinations for the large facility size class were
then averaged to produce the model facility. Additional information on production system
sizes for net pens is provided in Section 9.3. Table 10.3-7 provides production
information for net pen facilities.
Table 10.3-7. Model Facility Information
Model Facility
Salmon-Net Pens
Size
Large
Production Range
(Ib/yr)
342,380-6,352,715
Average Production
(Ib/yr)
2,387,086
Facilities
Represented
8
10.3.4.2 Number of Facilities
Table 10.3-7 presents the number of facilities represented by the net pen system model
facility group. EPA used the AAP screener survey results (Westat, 2002) for the counts of
facilities in each model facility group.
10.3.4.3 Feed Conversion Ratio
EPA used an initial feed conversion ratio of 1.2 for all net pen systems. (See Section
10.1.3 for additional information on FCR values and assumptions.)
10.3.4.4 Loading Density
EPA estimated that a loading density of 0.8 lb/ft3 was applicable to the industry
(Hochheimer and Westers, 2002c).
10.3.4.5 System Volume
The volume of individual nets was assumed to be 250,000 ft3, based on site visit
information (Tetra Tech, 2002b; Tetra Tech, 2002c).
10.3.4.6 Number of Net Pens
To estimate the number of net pens at a facility, EPA used the following calculation:
Number of net pens = annual production/(loading density * volume per net pen)
Where:
• Number of net pens is the number for a model facility type (rounded up to the
nearest integer)
• Annual production is the average production for the model facility type in pounds
• Loading density is 0.8 lb/ft3
• Volume per net pen is 250,000 ft3 for all facilities
70-20
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.3.4.7 Loadings from Net Pen Systems
To estimate the loadings of pollutants from the net pen system model, EPA used the
pollutant loading values presented in Table 10.1-3 and the methodology described in
Section 10.1.3 to estimate values for BOD, TN, TP, and TSS. Table 10.3-8 provides the
estimated raw pollutant loadings for net pen facilities.
Table 10.3-8. Raw Loading Estimates (per Facility) for Net Pen Facilities
Model Facility
Salmon-Food-size-Commercial-Large-Net Pen
BOD
(Ib/yr)
1,002,576
TN
(Ib/yr)
85,935
TP
(Ib/yr)
14,323
TSS
(Ib/yr)
858,351
10.4 UNIT LOADING MODULES
Loading modules calculate the pollutant removal associated with a particular technology
or practice for an AAP facility. Each loading module contains the pollutant-specific
removal efficiencies of the system component.
• Description of technology or practice
• Pollutant removal efficiencies
10.4.1 Quiescent Zones
Quiescent zones are a technology control considered in Option 1 for all flow-through
CAAP facilities as a part of primary solids removal.
10.4.1.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Quiescent zones are a practice used in raceway flow-through systems that use the last
approximately 10% of the raceway as a settling area for solids. Quiescent zones placed at
the bottom or end of each rearing unit or raceway allow for the settling of pollutants
before they are discharged to other production units (when water is serially reused in
several rearing units) or receiving waters. Because quiescent zones settle and store solids
in the production system, the solids must be removed and further treated. EPA observed
facilities treating these solids (and any water removed from the quiescent zone during
cleaning) by concentrated, direct land application, or dewatering and composting. For
most medium and large facilities, quiescent zones are coupled with an offline settling
basin to concentrate the solids and water mixture vacuumed from the quiescent zone.
Solids are stored in the basin and removed before exceeding the storage capacity of the
basin (typically about once per month at large facilities). Treated water is decanted from
the offline basin and discharged directly or combined with the bulk discharge stream. For
estimating pollutant loadings, EPA assumed that quiescent zones are coupled with offline
settling basins. Thus, treatment efficiencies and pollutant removals were estimated for the
combination of a quiescent zone and settling basin, not each practice individually. EPA
also assumed a single frequency factor for the quiescent zone-offline settling basin
combination.
Quiescent zones usually are constructed with a wire mesh screen that extends from the
bottom of the raceway to above the maximum water height to prohibit the cultured
70-27
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
species from entering the quiescent zone. The reduction in the turbulence usually caused
by the swimming action of the cultured species allows the solids to settle in the quiescent
zone. The solids are then available to be efficiently removed from the system. Quiescent
zones are usually cleaned on a regular schedule, typically once per week in medium to
large systems (Hinshaw, personal communication, 2002; MacMillan, personal
communication, 2002), to remove the settled solids. The Idaho BMP manual (IDEQ, n.d.)
recommends a minimal quiescent zone cleaning frequency of once per month in upper
raceways and twice per month in lower units. The settled solids must be removed
regularly to prevent breakdown of particles and leaching of pollutants such as nutrients
and BOD.
10.4.1.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Flow-Through Systems
EPA used pollutant removals specific to each pollutant to calculate the removal by the
quiescent zones. EPA obtained pollutant removal efficiencies for quiescent zones from
the technical literature (Hinshaw and Fornshell, 2002). Table 10.4-1 presents the removal
efficiency for each pollutant modeled. The calculation used in the loading model to
obtain the loading discharged from the quiescent zone is as follows:
Where:
Effluent pollutant loading = influent pollutant loading * (1 - removal efficiency)
Influent pollutant loading = the pollutant removal from the quiescent zone
Removal efficiency = the specific removal efficiency for the treatment unit
Table 10.4-1. Quiescent Zone Removal Efficiencies
Pollutant
BOD
TN
TP
TSS
Removal Efficiency (%)
94.0
8.5
17.7
51.2
10.4.2 Sedimentation Basins
Sedimentation basins are a technology control considered in Option 1 for all flow-
through and recirculating CAAP facilities as a part of primary solids removal.
Sedimentation basins at flow-through facilities can be in the form of offline or full-flow.
Offline settling treats a portion of the flow-through effluent volume in which solids have
been concentrated. Full-flow sedimentation basins treat all of the flow from flow-through
systems and are sized to accommodate settling of solids prior to discharge. Full-flow
settling requires large areas to accommodate the higher flow rates encountered in medium
and large flow-through systems. EPA found only a few full-flow settling basins in
medium-sized facilities and none in larger systems. When offline settling is used,
treatment technologies to concentrate solids (e.g., quiescent zones) are also used. For
recirculating systems sedimentation basins are used to treat the concentrated waste stream
that is discharged from the recirculating system.
70-22
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.4.2.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Sedimentation basins (also called settling basins, settling ponds, sedimentation ponds, or
sedimentation lagoons) are used extensively in the wastewater treatment industry
(Metcalf and Eddy, 199la) and are commonly found in many flow-through and
recirculating CAAP facilities (Westat, 2002). Sedimentation basins are used to collect
and store the solids captured in quiescent zones or other in-system pollutant removal
practices. EPA assumed that all solids captured in the quiescent zone are vacuumed and
conveyed to the offline sedimentation basin. Most sedimentation basins are used to
produce a clarified effluent (for solids removal), but some sedimentation basins remove
water from solids to produce a more concentrated sludge. Both of these applications of
sedimentation basins are used and are important in CAAP systems.
Sedimentation basins are sized according to the settling time for the particles in the
effluent and the desired final effluent quality. EPA based its estimated sedimentation
basin pollutant reductions on information supplied by AAP industry representatives
(Hinshaw, 2002, personal communication; MacMillan, 2002, personal communication).
EPA also used pollutant reductions in the model that were specific to each pollutant.
Based on information obtained during site visits, EPA expects recirculating systems to
generate a maximum of about 10% of the system volume per day.
10.4.2.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Flow-through Systems and Recirculating
Systems
EPA's loading model used pollutant removals specific to each pollutant to calculate the
removal by the sedimentation basin. EPA obtained the removal for each pollutant from
the technical literature (Hinshaw and Fornshell, 2002). These values used in the model
are similar to those obtained in EPA sampling trips and are comparable to those reported
in AAP industry publications (e.g., Boyd and Tucker, 1995). Table 10.4-2 presents the
removal efficiency for each pollutant modeled.
Table 10.4-2. Sedimentation Basin Removal Efficiencies
Pollutant
BOD
TN
TP
TSS
Removal Efficiency
(%)
79.0
7.1
29.1
84.1
Influent loadings to the sedimentation basin were derived differently for flow-through
and recirculating systems. For flow-through systems, EPA assumed that the total loading
removed by the quiescent zone would be conveyed to the sedimentation basin for
treatment. For recirculating systems, the entire raw pollutant loading was conveyed to the
sedimentation basin.
The loading model calculates the pollutant removal by using two calculations. First the
influent loading is multiplied by (1 - removal efficiency) to obtain the loading discharged
70-23
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
from the sedimentation basin. The loading removed is the influent loading multiplied by
the removal efficiency. The calculations used for pollutant removals is as follows:
Effluent pollutant loading = influent pollutant loading * (1 - removal efficiency)
Loading removed = influent pollutant loading * removal efficiency
Where:
Influent pollutant loading = the pollutant loading entering the sedimentation basin
Removal efficiency = the specific removal efficiency for the treatment unit
Loading removed = the pollutant removal by the sedimentation basin
10.4.3 Feed Management
Feed management is a management practice that was considered as part of Option 1 for
all net pen operations, but was not required in the proposed regulation.
10.4.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Feed management recognizes the importance of effective, environmentally sound use of
feed. Net pen operators should continually evaluate their feeding practices to ensure that
feed placed in the production system is consumed at the highest rate possible. Observing
feeding behavior and noting the presence of excess feed can be used to adjust feeding
rates to ensure minimal excess (USEPA, 2002b).
An added advantage of this practice is that proper feed management decreases the costs
associated with the use of excess feed that is never consumed by the cultured species.
Excess feed distributed to the production system increases the oxygen demand of the
culture water and increases the solids loading to the treatment system. More important,
solids from the excess feed usually settle and are naturally processed along with feces
from the aquatic animals. Excess feed and feces accumulate under net pens, and if there
is inadequate flushing this accumulation can overwhelm the natural benthic processes,
resulting in increased benthic degradation.
The primary operational factors associated with proper feed management are
development of precise feeding regimes based on the weight of the cultured species and
constant observation of feeding activities to ensure that the feed offered is consumed.
Feed management is a practice required in net pen facility permits issued by EPA
Regions 1 and 10 (USEPA, 2002b; USEPA, 2002c).
10.4.3.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Net Pen Systems
The pollutant removals for feed management in net pen systems are based on lowering
the feed conversion ratio from 1.2 to 1.1, resulting in a removal efficiency of 8.3 % for all
parameters. EPA site visits to net pen production facilities indicated FCRs of 1.1 could be
obtained by salmon producers. The calculation for the removal efficiency is as follows:
Removal efficiency = (1 - (new FCR •*• old FCR)) * 100
10-24
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Where:
New FCR = the FCR obtained with implementation of a feed management
program
Old FCR = the estimated FCR obtained by the industry at baseline
10.4.4 BMP Plan
Solids control BMP plans are considered as a management practice for all CAAP
facilities under Option 1. All requirements associated with the solids control BMP plans
are assumed to be equal for all species and culture systems except net pens.
10.4.4.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Evaluating and planning site-specific activities to control the release of solids from
CAAP facilities is a practice currently required in several EPA regions as part of
individual and general NPDES permits (e.g., shrimp pond facilities in Texas, net pens in
Maine, and flow-through facilities in Washington and Idaho). BMP plans in these permits
require the facility operators to "develop a management plan for removed solids and
prevention of excess feed from entering the system." The BMP plan also ensures
planning for proper operation and maintenance of equipment, especially treatment control
technologies. Implementation of the BMP plan results in a series of pollution prevention
activities, such as ensuring that employees do not waste feed and planning for the
implementation of other operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could result in
decreased pollutant discharges.
10.4.4.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
Pollutant reductions realized as a result of a BMP plan would be highly variable and
specific to each facility; therefore, EPA used pollutant reductions in only the loading
model for net pens.
The pollutant removals for the solids management BMP plan in net pen systems are
based on lowering the feed conversion ratio from 1.1 to 1.0, resulting in a removal
efficiency of 9.1 for all parameters. Information obtained during EPA site visits at net pen
production facilities and research of AAP industry publications indicated FCRs of 1.0
could be obtained (Fish Farmer Magazine, 2002). The calculation for the removal
efficiency is as follows:
Removal efficiency = (1 - (new FCR •*• old FCR)) * 100
Where:
New FCR = the FCR obtained with implementation of a solids management BMP
plan
Old FCR = the estimated FCR obtained by the industry at baseline
10.4.5 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan
The drug and chemical BMP plan is proposed under Option 2 for large flow-through
systems (producing 475,000 Ib or more annually), all net pens, and all recirculating
70-25
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
systems. All requirements associated with the drag and chemical BMP plan are estimated
to be equal for all species and culture systems.
10.4.5.1 Description of Technology or Practice
The purpose of the drug and chemical BMP plan is to document the use of specific
classes of drugs and chemicals in the production facility. The plan would also address the
practices to minimize the accidental spill or release of drugs and chemicals.
10.4.5.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
Pollutant reductions for BOD, TN, TP, and TSS are not expected to occur as a result of
implementation of a drag and chemical BMP plan. This plan is proposed to reduce the
discharge of special pollutants (drags and chemicals) only. Therefore, EPA could not use
pollutant reductions for BOD, TN, TP, and TSS in the loading model.
10.4.6 Additional Solids Removal (Solids Polishing)
Additional solids removal is considered under Option 3 for flow-through systems and
recirculating systems.
10.4.6.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Solids polishing refers to the use of a wastewater treatment technology to further reduce
solids discharged from sedimentation basins used to treat flow-through and recirculating
systems. Several technologies are available, including microscreen filters and polishing
ponds. Microscreen filters consist of fine mesh filters that are usually fitted to a rotating
drum. The wastewater stream is pumped into the inside of the drum, and solids are
removed from the effluent as the water passes through the screen. The screen size usually
varies between 60 and 90 microns. The filters are equipped with automatic backwash
systems that remove collected solids from the screen and direct them to further treatment
or solids storage (Chen et al., 1994).
EPA assumed that a rotary microscreen filter would be used so that clogging problems
could be minimized. A small motor rotates the screen to enhance performance, and
automatic backwash jets are activated when the pressure drop across the screen reaches a
set level (Chen et al., 1994). The backwash solids and water are usually conveyed to a
solids storage tank or basin to await proper disposal. Commercial units are readily
available for the flow rates and TSS concentrations expected from sedimentation basins
at CAAP facilities.
10.4.6.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
EPA used CAPDET (Hydromantis, 2001) to estimate pollutant reduction rates for
microscreen filters. CAPDET provided estimated pollutant reductions of 60% for TSS
and 50% for BOD, TN, and TP. EPA found that these values were supported in the
technical literature: Metcalf and Eddy (1991b) indicated pollutant removals for
microscreens of between 10% and 80% for suspended solids; other sources indicated
phosphorus removals of up to 80% with microscreens (Chen et al., 1994). EPA opted for
the more conservative 60% removal for TSS and 50% removals for BOD, TN, and TP
because of the scarcity of data from AAP facilities.
10-26
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.4.7 Active Feed Monitoring
Active feed monitoring is considered as a management practice in Option 3 for all net
pen facilities. Active feed monitoring is a relatively new but proven technology used by
some facility operators in the salmon industry. Some type of remote monitoring
equipment, such as an underwater video camera, is lowered from the surface to the
bottom of a net pen during feeding to monitor for uneaten feed pellets as they pass by the
video camera.
10.4.7.1 Description of Technology or Practice
The goal of active feed monitoring is to further reduce pollutant loadings associated with
feeding activities. A variety of technologies could be used, including video cameras with
human or computer interfaces to detect passing feed pellets. A new NPDES permit issued
in Maine (USEPA, 2002b) also suggests that ultrasonic equipment might be available.
Most facilities that use this technology use a video monitor at the surface that is
connected to the video camera. An employee watches the monitor for feed pellets passing
by the video camera and then stops feeding activity when a predetermined number of
pellets (typically only two or three) pass the camera.
10.4.7.2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies: Net Pen Systems
EPA estimated that pollutant reductions associated with active feed monitoring would be
about 5.0% for all pollutants.
10.5 FREQUENCY FACTORS
Applying the frequency factors to the modules allows the loading model to account for
the treatment units and BMPs already in place. Essentially, EPA adjusts the component
loading removal to account for facilities that already have the component in place. Such
facilities would not have to install and operate a new component as a result of the
proposed regulation.
EPA estimated frequency factors based on sources such as those listed below. (Each
source was considered along with its limitations.)
• EPA site visit information was used to assess general practices of CAAP facility
operations and how they vary among regions and size classes.
• The AAP screener survey was used to assess general practices of CAAP facility
operations and how they vary among regions and size classes.
• EPA used observations on CAAP facility operations by industry experts, who
were contacted to provide insight into operations and practices, especially where
data were limited or not publicly available.
• State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Aquatic
Animal Production (see Chapter 9) was used to estimate frequency factors, based
on current requirements for treatment technologies and BMPs that already apply
to CAAP facilities in various states (MDA, 1995). For example, BMP plans are
required for all facilities with permits in Idaho and Washington, so the facilities in
these states were assumed to have solids control BMP plans in place.
10-27
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.5.1 Quiescent Zones
Quiescent zones are commonly used by flow-through CAAP facilities to remove solids.
EPA developed frequency factors for quiescent zones in flow-through CAAP facilities
from the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002), and they are presented in Table 10.5-1.
Table 10.5-1. Quiescent Zone Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State -How-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-tlirough
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Salmon-Food-size-Other-Flow-through
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Frequency
Factor
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.57
0.50
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.5.2 Sedimentation Basin
Sedimentation basins are the most common solids separation technique used to treat
effluents in the United States. EPA based frequency factors for sedimentation basins used
in the loading model for flow-through and recirculating CAAP facilities on the AAP
screener survey results (Westat, 2002). The factors are presented in Table 10.5-2.
Table 10.5-2. Sedimentation Basin Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial -Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State -Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commereial-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Frequency
Factor
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.57
0.50
0.91
1.00
10-28
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Species
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Food-size-Other-Flow-through
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Frequency
Factor
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.5.3 BMP Plans
Solids management BMP plans are currently required of CAAP facilities operating in
EPA's Region 10 (e.g., Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). EPA developed frequency
factors for solids management BMP plans in flow-through, net pen, and recirculating
CAAP facilities from the AAP screener survey (Westat, 2002). The factors are presented
in Table 10.5-3.
Table 10.5-3. BMP Plan Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial -Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State -Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commereial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Reeirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial -Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Food-size-Other-Flow-through
Salmon-Food-size-Commercial-Net Pen
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Frequency
Factor
0.32
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.14
0.50
0.02
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
70-29
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.5.4 Feed Management
Feed management is a commonly used practice in the CAAP facility industry because its
benefits include both a cost savings for farms and reductions in pollutant loadings. EPA
specified feed management as a management practice for net pen operations. The
frequency factor EPA used in the loading model is based on the AAP screener survey
results (Westat, 2002), and the factor is presented in Table 10.5-4.
Table 10.5-4. Feed Management Frequency Factor
Species
Salmon-Food-size-Commercial-Net Pen
Model
Large
Frequency
Factor
0.88
The frequency factor for feed management was based on responses to the screener
survey. Screener survey data indicated that about 88% of net pens are practicing feed
management activities.
10.5.5 Drug and Chemical BMP Plan
EPA does not know of any facilities that have developed a drug and chemical BMP plan.
Therefore, for the purpose of estimating pollutant loadings and removals, EPA assumed
the frequency factors for a drug and chemical BMP plan in flow-through, net pen, and
recirculating CAAP facilities were all zero.
10.5.6 Solids Polishing
Approximately 5% of the facilities responding to EPA's AAP screener survey reported
using several different treatment technologies, including microscreen filters, for
additional solids removal. EPA developed frequency factors for additional solids removal
in flow-through and recirculating CAAP facilities from the AAP screener survey results
(Westat, 2002), which are presented in Table 10.5-5.
Table 10.5-5. Solids Polishing Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-througri
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Frequency
Factor
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
10-30
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Species
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-Commercial-Recirculatiiig
Salmon-Food-size-Otlier-Flow-through
Model
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Frequency
Factor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
1.00
0.67
0.00
10.5.7 Net Pen Active Feed Monitoring
EPA developed a frequency factor for active feed monitoring in net pen CAAP facilities
from the AAP screener survey results (Westat, 2002). The factor is presented in Table
10.5-6.
Table 10.5-6. Active Feed Monitoring Frequency Factor
Species
Salmon-Food-size-Commercial-Net Pen
Model
Large
Frequency Factor
0.38
10.6 LOADING MODEL STRUCTURE
10.6.1 Loading Removal Flow Chart
Figures 10.6-1 through 10.6-3 show how the pollutant loading models for flow-through,
recirculating, and net pen production systems combine pollutant removal components to
form the proposed regulatory options (for example, Option 1 for flow-through systems
includes quiescent zones, sedimentation basins, and a BMP plan; Option 2 is the drug and
chemical BMP plan; and Option 3 is solids polishing). Each flow chart also indicates how
each treatment technology or BMP component loading is applied only to those facilities
in the model facility group that do not currently have the treatment technology or BMP in
place. Multiplying the number of facilities in the model facility group by each
component-specific frequency factor makes this adjustment.
EPA's modeling approach estimates a total pollutant loading before and after each
pollutant removal component. EPA can then determine pollutant loadings resulting from
the individual component or across several linked components (one or more regulatory
options). The modeling approach also allows EPA to determine pollutant removals for
one or more proposed options by subtracting the estimated loading after a pollutant
removal component from the estimated loading before the same component.
70-37
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
C 1 '
Raw 1 C
Ponutant |L Quiescent Zone
Loading T MatontRemOTals
i V J
Sedimentation Basin
^ Pollutant Removals j
V }
f Free
N*
Frequency Factor
Option 1
BMP Plan Cher
BMP
i ^ ^
:i j
N* N
juency Factor Frequent
Option 2
g&
nical
Plan
F
1.
Solids 1
Polishing F
^ J
t
,y Factor
N*
Frequency Factor
Option 3
_!„ Discharged
Pollutant
Loading
Discharged
-^ Pollutant
Loading
Figure 10.6-1. Schematic of Flow-through System Pollutant Loading Model
Raw
Pollutant
Loading
Ik
0
r A
Sedimentation Basin
Pollutant Removals
J
t
i
N*
Frequency Factor
•ption 1
BMP Plan
i
i
F
k
N*
Frequency Factor
i
Drag&
Chemical
BMP Plan
i
i
i
k
N*
Frequency Factor
Option 2
f A
Solids
"*" Polishing
v J
t
i
N*
Frequency Factor
Options
Discharged
+. Poflutant
Loadtag
Figure 10.6-2. Schematic of Recirculating System Pollutant Loading Model
Raw
Ponutant
Loading
/
h»
%
0
Feed Management
Pollutant Removals
^ V
i
^
N*
Frequency Factor
ption 1
Dm
BMP Plan Cher
BMP
^ r ^
^ t ^
g&
nical
Plan
r
k
N* N*
Frequency Factor Frequency Factor
Option 2
Active Feed
Monitoring
V V
i
.
N*
Frequency Factor
Option 3
Discharged
_^. Pollutant
Loading
Figure 10.6-3. Schematic of Net Pen System Pollutant Loading Model
Baseline loadings for each pollutant are defined as the amount of pollutant currently
being discharged by the facilities in a model facility group, including discharges from
facilities that have existing treatment technologies in place. EPA calculated the baseline
for a pollutant control technology as:
Component baseline loading = (raw pollutant loading * number of facilities) -
baseline removal
10-32
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Where:
Component baseline loading = pounds of a specific pollutant discharged prior to
the application of a pollutant control technology, but
includes control technologies currently in place at
these facilities
Raw pollutant loading = pounds of raw pollutant
Number of Facilities = the count of facilities grouped as a model facility
Baseline Removal
= pounds of a specific pollutant removed at the
facilities, based on technologies currently in place
EPA calculated estimates of pollutant loadings for each pollutant removal component
using the following general equation:
Component baseline pollutant removal = raw pollutant loading * technology
removal rate number of facilities *
frequency factor
Where:
Component baseline pollutant removal = pounds of pollutant currently
removed from raw waste loadings
Raw pollutant loading = pounds of untreated pollutant from the facility
Technology removal rate = the percentage of pollutants removed by a
treatment technology
Number of facilities
Frequency factor
= the count of facilities grouped as a model facility
= the percentage of facilities in the model facility
group that have the specific treatment technology
in place (see Tables 10.5-1 to 10.5-7)
The pollutant removal for a proposed option was calculated as follows:
Option pollutant removal = [input pollutant loading * technology removal *
number of facilities * (1 - frequency factor)]a +
[input pollutant loading * technology removal *
number of facilities * (1 - frequency factor)]b
Where:
Option pollutant removal = pounds of a specific pollutant removed by the
application of an option
Input pollutant loading = pounds of a pollutant prior to application of the
option
10-33
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Technology removal
Number of facilities
Frequency factor
a,b
= percentage of pollutant removed by the treatment
technology
= the count of facilities grouped as a model facility
= the percentage of facilities in the model facility
group that have the specific treatment technology
in place (see Tables 9.5-1 to 9.5-7)
= each technology component
10.6.2 Loading Model Example
To illustrate the loading calculations, EPA has provided an example of one loading model
facility. The example model facility is the medium-sized federal-flow-through-trout-
stockers model. As shown in Table 10.3-1, this model facility represents seven facilities
that produce between from 106,788 and 317,000 Ib/yr, with an average production of
206,296 Ib/yr.
For medium flow-through facilities, only regulatory Option 1 applies. The proposed
Option 1 for flow-through systems includes quiescent zones, sedimentation basins, and a
solids control BMP plan. The quiescent zone and sedimentation basin constitute a
treatment control component. Note that the solids control BMP plan does not have any
pollutant removal components, so the pollutant removal is zero. The schematic in
Figure 10.6-4 shows how the components are grouped in Option 1.
EPA calculated baseline removal, baseline discharged loading, and the option removals
using the equations shown in Section 10.6.1. The following shows the calculations.
Raw
Pollutant
Loading
•!->
f A
Quiescent Zone
Pollutant Removals
fch.
f A
Sedimentation Basin
Pollutant Removals
•"•.
i
i
i
......
Plan
i
t
r i,
Discharged
Pollutant
Loading
Discharged
^ Pollutant
Loading
N*
Frequency Factor
N*
Frequency Factor
Option 1
Figure 10.6-4. Schematic of Option 1 for Flow-through Systems
10.6.2.1 Estimation of Raw Loading
Because the raw pollutant loading is based on feed inputs (see Section 10.3-1 for more
details), the loading model first calculates the annual feed input for the model facility
10-34
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
using the facility annual production and feed conversion ratio. The equation for the
annual feed input was:
Annual feed input
= facility annual production * feed conversion ratio
Where:
Facility annual production = 208,296 Ib of trout stackers
Feed conversion ratio = 1.4 Ib of feed per pound of fish
produced (Table 10.1-2)
Annual feed input
Annual feed input
= 208,296 Ib of trout * 1.4 Ib of feed per pound of
trout
= 291.614 Ib of feed
EPA calculated the raw pollutant loadings by multiplying the annual feed input by the
feed- to-pollutant conversion ratio (see Table 10.1-3) for each pollutant modeled. The
equation used for each pollutant was as follows:
Raw pollutant loading = annual feed input * feed-to-pollutant conversion ratio
Example:
Raw BOD loading = 291,614 Ib of feed * 0.35 Ib BOD per pound of feed
Raw BOD loading = 102.065 Ib
The feed-to-pollutant conversion ratios and results of the raw pollutant loading
calculations for the example model facility are shown in Table 10.6-1.
Table 10.6-1. Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stockers
Model Facility Raw Pollutant Loadings
Pollutant
BOD
TN
TP
TSS
Feed-to-Pottutant
Conversion Ratio
0.35
0.03
0.005
0.3
Raw Pollutant Loading
(Ib)
102,065
8,748
1,458
87,484
10.6.2.2 Frequency Factors
EPA used frequency factors estimated from the AAP screener survey in the loading
model to account for those existing federal-flow-through-trout-stockers facilities that
already have the treatment technology (or equivalent) in place. The frequency factors for
each component in Option 1 are presented in Table 10.6-2.
70-35
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.6-2. Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stockers Frequency Factors
Treatment Technology (source)
Quiescent zone (Table 10.5-1)
Sedimentation basin (Table 10.5-2)
BMP plan (Table 10.5-3)
Frequency Factor
0.57
0.57
0.14
(1 - Frequency Factor)
0.43
0.43
0.86
10.6.2.3 Baseline Removal
The baseline removal was calculated using the following equation:
Baseline removal
Where:
Raw loading
Quiescent zone removal
[raw loading * quiescent zone removal *
sedimentation basin removal * N * frequency
factor] + [loading, * BMP plan removal * N *
frequency factor]
= the untreated pollutant loading contained in the
culture water from the model facility (Table
10.6-1)
= the percentage of a specific pollutant removed
by the quiescent zone (Table 10.6-3)
Sedimentation basin removal = the percentage of a specific pollutant removed
by the sedimentation basin (Table 10.6-3)
Loading,
BMP plan removal
N
Frequency factor
= the loading from the first component
= the percentage of a specific pollutant removed
by the BMP plan (Table 10.6-3)
= the number of facilities represented by the
model facility
= the number of facilities indicating the use of
primary settling operations in EPA's screener
survey of the AAP industry (Table 10.6-2)
Because the BMP plan pollutant removals are zero for the pollutants EPA evaluated, the
BMP plan component is eliminated from the calculations.
Example baseline removal calculation for BOD:
Baseline BOD removal = 102,065 Ib BOD * 0.94 * 0.79 * 7 facilities * 0.57
Baseline BOD removal = 302.416 Ib
10-36
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.6-3. Summary of Quiescent Zone (QZ), Sedimentation
Basin (SB), and BMP Plan (BMP) Removal Information for the
Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stockers Model Facility
Pollutant
BOD
TN
TP
TSS
QZ Pollutant
Removal Rate (%)
94.0
8.5
17.7
51.2
SB Pollutant
Removal Rate (%)
79.0
7.1
29.1
84.1
BMP Pollutant
Removal Rate (%)
0
0
0
0
Table 10.6-4 shows the summary of baseline removals for remaining pollutants estimated
for {\\Qfederal-flow-through-trout-stockers model facility. EPA next calculated the
baseline loading discharged:
Baseline loading discharged = (raw loading * N) - baseline removal
Where:
Raw loading = the untreated pollutant loading contained in the culture
water from the model facility
N = the number of facilities represented by the model facility
Baseline removal = the removal obtained by the baseline treatment
technologies
Example baseline loading discharged calculation for BOD:
Baseline loading discharged = (102,065 Ib BOD * 7) - 304,416 Ib BOD
Baseline loading discharged = 412.039 Ib BOD
Table 10.6-4 summarizes the baseline discharge loadings for all of the pollutants for the
federal-flow-through-trout-stockers model facility. The Option 1 removal is calculated
using the following equation:
Option 1 removal
= raw loading * quiescent zone removal * sedimentation
basin removal * N * (1 - frequency factor)
Where:
Raw loading
Quiescent zone removal
= the untreated pollutant loading contained in the
culture water from the model facility
= the percentage of a specific pollutant removed
by the quiescent zone
Sedimentation basin removal = the percentage of a specific pollutant removed
by the sedimentation basin
10-37
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
N
Frequency factor
= the number of facilities represented by the
model facility
= the number of facilities indicating the use of
primary settling operations in EPA's screener
survey of the AAP industry
Example Option 1 removal calculation for BOD:
Option 1 removal = 102,065 lbBOD5 * 0.94 * 0.79 *7 * (1-0.57)
Option 1 Removal = 228.138 Ib
Table 10.6-4 summarizes the Option 1 removals for all of the pollutants for the federal-
flow-through-trout-stockers model facility.
Table 10.6-4. Summary of Baseline Removals, Baseline Discharge Loading, and
Option 1 Removals for the Federal-Flow-through-Trout-Stockers Model Facility
Pollutant
BOD
TN
TP
TSS
Baseline Removal
db)
302,416
210
300
150,303
Baseline Discharge
Loading (Ib)
412,039
61,029
9,907
462,087
Option 1 Pollutant
Removals (Ib)
228,138
158
226
113,387
10.7 LOADING MODEL OUTPUT
EPA used the loading methodology described in this chapter to estimate the current
discharge loadings of BOD, TN, TP, and TSS for the model facilities. EPA then applied
the proposed regulatory options using the treatment trains illustrated in Section 10.6 to
estimate pollutant reductions in these loadings, based on the option components for each
system type. Table 10.7-1 presents the estimated total current discharge loadings for the
model facilities. Table 10.7-2 presents the estimated total pollutant reductions for
proposed regulatory Option 1. Table 10.7-3 presents the estimated total pollutant
reductions for proposed regulatory Option 2. Table 10.7-4 presents the estimated total
pollutant reductions for proposed regulatory Option 3. Table 10.7-5 presents the
estimated current discharge loads for Alaska salmon facilities. Table 10.7-6 presents the
estimated Option 1 total pollutant removals for Alaska salmon facilities. Table 10.7-7
presents the estimated Option 2 total pollutant removals for Alaska salmon facilities.
Table 10.7-8 presents the estimated Option 3 total pollutant removals for Alaska salmon
facilities.
10-38
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-1. Estimated Current Discharge Loadings for the Model Facilities
Model Facility
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow- through
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State -Flow-
through
Trout-Food-size-State -Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-
Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal -Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-
tlirough
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-
through
Tilapia-Food-size
Commercial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size
Commercial-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size
Commercial-Recirculatiiig
Striped Bass-Food-size
Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size
Commercial-Recirculating
Salmoii-Food-size-Other-
Flow-through
Salmon-Food-size-
Commercial-Net pen
Size
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Count
22
8
<5
<5
5
7
<5
44
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
8
BOD
(Ib/yr)
730,457
2,521,683
123,510
69,369
121,167
412,039
844,093
1,567,218
62,539
48,090
60,540
182.192
126.126
850,555
15,549
1,727,510
298,808
7,432,432
TN
(Ib/yr)
192,046
834,670
40,882
22,961
40,106
61,029
114,734
412,041
20,700
15,918
20,039
30.955
41.747
46,568
5,147
81,475
98,905
637,066
TP
(Ib/yr)
30,675
132,745
6,502
3,652
6,378
9,907
18,686
65,815
3.292
2.532
3,187
5,001
6,639
11,847
819
23,911
15,730
106,178
TSS
(Ib/yr)
1,174,378
4,781,439
234,191
131,533
229,749
462,087
903,037
2,519,665
118,582
91,185
114,793
221.136
239.151
249,235
29,483
267,451
566,579
6,370,656
70-39
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-2. Estimated Option 1 Total Pollutant Removals
Model Facility
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow- through
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State -Flow-
through
Trout-Food-size-State -Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-State -Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-
through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Cornmercial-
Recirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size-
Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-
Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Food-size-Other-Flow-
through
Salmon-Food-size-Commercial-
Net pen
Size
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Count
22
8
<5
<5
5
7
<5
44
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
8
BOD
(Ib/yr)
150,568
0
0
0
0
228,138
498,507
323,049
0
0
0
88,858
0
0
0
0
0
661,700
TN
(Ib/yr)
105
0
0
0
0
158
346
224
0
0
0
62
0
0
0
0
0
56,717
TP
(Ib/yr)
149
0
0
0
0
226
494
320
0
0
0
88
0
0
0
0
0
9,453
TSS
(Ib/yr)
74,834
0
0
0
0
113,387
247,763
160,558
0
0
0
44,163
0
0
0
0
0
567,172
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-3. Estimated Option 2 Total Pollutant Removals
Model Facility
Trout-Food-size-
Commercial-How-through
Trout-Food-size-
Commercial -Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State -How-
through
Trout-Food-size-State -How-
through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-
Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-
tlirough
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Other-How-
through
Trout-Stockers-Other-How-
tlirough
Tilapia-Food-size-
Commerci al -Flo w-through
Tilapia-Food-size-
Commerci al -Flo w-through
Tilapia-Food-size-
Commercial-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size-
Comrnercial-How-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-
Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Food-size-Other-
How-through
Salmon-Food-size-
Commercial-Net pen
Size
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Count
22
8
<5
<5
5
7
<5
44
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
8
BOD
(Ib/yr)
150,568
0
0
0
0
228,138
498,507
323,049
0
0
0
88,858
0
0
0
0
0
661,700
TN
(Ib/yr)
105
0
0
0
0
158
346
224
0
0
0
62
0
0
0
0
0
56,717
TP
(Ib/yr)
149
0
0
0
0
226
494
320
0
0
0
88
0
0
0
0
0
9,453
TSS
(Ib/yr)
74,834
0
0
0
0
113,387
247,763
160,558
0
0
0
44,163
0
0
0
0
0
567,172
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-4. Estimated Option 3 Total Pollutant Removals
Model Facility
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-
Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State -How-
through
Trout-Food-size-State -Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial-
Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-Federal -Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-
through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-
through
Trout-Stoekers-Other-Flow-
through
Trout-Stoekers-Other-Flow-
through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commereial-
Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commereial-
Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size-Commercial-
Recirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size-
Commercial-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Food-size-
Commercial-Recirculating
Salmon-Food-size-Other-Flow-
through
Salmon-Food-size-Commercial-
Net pen
Size
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Count
22
8
<5
<5
5
7
<5
44
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
8
BOD
(Ib/yr)
352,914
966,939
47,360
26,600
46,462
298,655
631,022
776,271
23,980
18,440
23,214
124,647
48,363
296,318
0
342,047
114,578
868,899
TN
(Ib/yr)
7,009
32,995
1,616
908
1,585
2,565
4,868
15.690
818
629
792
1,283
1,650
11,646
0
13,443
3,910
74,477
TP
(Ib/yr)
1,987
8,782
430
242
422
866
1,697
4,436
218
167
211
413
439
3,418
0
3,945
1,041
12,413
TSS
(Ib/yr)
160,666
410,160
20,089
11,283
19,708
143,299
303,973
352,808
10,172
7.822
9.847
59,344
20,515
38,230
0
44,129
48,602
744,771
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-5. Estimated Current Discharge Loadings
for the Alaska Salmon Facilities
Model Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
BOD
(Ib/yr)
51,322
98.515
100,028
70,774
66,400
197,722
73,903
61,603
75,152
101,748
482,745
57,152
179,355
119,826
279,837
71,094
108,922
122,523
TN
(Ib/yr)
4,399
8,444
8,574
6,066
5,691
16,948
6,335
5,280
6,442
8,721
41,378
4.899
15,373
10.271
23,986
6.094
9,336
10.502
TP
(Ib/yr)
733
1,407
1,429
1,011
949
2.825
1,056
880
1,074
1.454
6,896
816
2,562
1,712
3,998
1,016
1,556
1,750
TSS
(Ib/yr)
43,990
84,442
85,738
60,663
56,914
169,476
63,345
52,802
64,416
87,213
413,781
48.987
153,733
102.708
239,860
60.937
93,362
105.020
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-6. Estimated Option 1 Total Pollutant Removals
for Alaska Salmon Facilities
Model Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
BOD
(Ib/yr)
38,111
73.158
74,281
52,557
49,309
146.029
54,880
45.746
55,808
75.558
358,486
42,441
133,189
88,983
207,807
25,996
80,886
90,986
TN
(Ib/yr)
26
51
52
36
34
102
38
32
39
52
249
29
92
62
144
18
56
63
TP
(Ib/yr)
38
72
74
52
49
145
54
45
55
75
355
42
132
88
206
26
80
90
TSS
(Ib/yr)
18,942
36,360
36,918
26,121
24,507
72,975
27,276
22,736
27,737
37,553
178,171
21.093
66,196
44.225
103,282
12.920
40,201
45.221
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-7. Estimated Option 2 Total Pollutant Removals
for Alaska Salmon Facilities
Model Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
BOD (Ib/yr)
38,111
73,158
74,281
52,557
49.309
146,029
54.880
45,746
55.808
75,558
358.486
42,441
133.189
88,983
207.807
25,996
80.886
90,986
TN (Ib/yr)
26
51
52
36
34
102
38
32
39
52
249
29
92
62
144
18
56
63
TP (Ib/yr)
38
72
74
52
49
145
54
45
55
75
355
42
132
88
206
26
80
90
TSS (Ib/yr)
18,942
36.360
36,918
26.121
24.507
72,975
27.276
22,736
27.737
37,553
178.171
21,093
66.196
44,225
103.282
12,920
40.201
45,221
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.7-8. Estimated Option 3 Total Pollutant Removals
for Alaska Salmon Facilities
Model Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
BOD
(Ib/yr)
43,177
82.881
84,154
59.542
55,862
166.344
62,174
51.826
63,225
85.601
406,133
48,082
150,891
100,810
235,426
29,451
91,636
103,079
TN
(Ib/yr)
199
383
388
275
258
768
287
239
292
395
1,875
222
697
465
1,087
136
423
476
TP
(Ib/yr)
84
161
163
116
108
323
121
101
123
166
788
93
293
196
457
57
178
200
TSS
(Ib/yr)
21,090
40.485
41,106
29,084
27,287
81,253
30,370
25,315
30,883
41,813
198,382
23,486
73,705
49,242
114,998
14,386
44,761
50,350
10.8 REFERENCES
AES (Aquacultural Engineering Society). 2001. 2001 AES Issues Forum,
November 11-14, 2001.
Boyd, C.E., and C.S. Tucker. 1995. Sustainability of Channel Catfish Farming. World
Aquaculture 26(3):45-53.
Chen, S., D. Stechey, and R.F. Malone. 1994. Suspended Solids Control in Recirculating
Aquaculture Systems. In Aquaculture Water Reuse Systems: Engineering Design and
Management, ed. M.B. Timmons and T.M. Losordo, pp. 61-100. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Chen, S., S. Summerfelt, T. Losordo, and R. Malone. 2002. Recirculating Systems,
Effluents and Treatments. In Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States,
ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 119-140. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Engle. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Fish Farmer Magazine. 2002. Steps to Keep Fish Feed in Line with Public Concerns.
. 14(June).
Hinshaw, J. 2002. North Carolina State University. Personal communication,
February 20, 2002.
Hinshaw, J., and G. Fornshell. 2002. Effluents from Raceways. In Aquaculture and the
Environment in the United States, ed. J. Tomasso, pp. 77-104. U.S. Aquaculture
Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Hochheimer, J. and H. Westers, 2002a. Technical Memorandum: Fish Growth, Feed
Conversion, and Waste Production in Aquaculture. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and H. Westers. 2002b. Technical Memorandum: Flow-Through
Systems. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and H. Westers. 2002c. Technical Memorandum: Water Sources, Uses
and Conservation Measures in Aquaculture. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hydromantis Inc. 2001. CAPDET: For the Design and Cost Estimation ofWastewater
Treatment Plants Version 1.0 [Computer program and manual]. Hydromantis, Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Ontario, Canada.
IDEQ (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality), n.d. Idaho Waste Management
Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
. Accessed
August 2002.
MacMillan, J. 2002. Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Buhl, ID. Personal communication,
March 4, 2002.
McNair, M. 2001. Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program: 2000 Annual Report. Regional
Information Report no. 5J01-01. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, AK.
MDA (Maryland Department of Agriculture). 1995. State/Territory Permits and
Regulations Impacting the Aquaculture Industry. Maryland Department of
Agriculture, . Accessed
September 2001.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991a. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal. 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 220-240. McGraw Hill, NY.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991b. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal. 3d ed.,
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 689-690. McGraw Hill, NY.
Pierce. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
10-47
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Plemmons. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small
Business Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Point Source Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Rheault. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Rice. 2002. Comment from Small Entity Representative (SER) to the Small Business
Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel on Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002a, August. Site visit report for MinAqua Fisheries Facility,
Renville, MN.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b, August. Site visit report for Heritage Salmon, Eastport, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002c, August. Site visit report for Acadia Aquaculture, Mt. Desert, ME.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002d, August. Site visit report for Harrietta Hatchery, Harrietta, MI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002e, August. Site visit report for Platte River Hatchery, Beulah, MI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002f, August. Site visit report for Rushing Waters Fisheries,
Palmyra, WI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002g, August. Site visit report for Fins Technology, Turner Falls, MA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002h, August. Site visit report for Lake Wheeler Road Agricultural
Facility, Raleigh, NC.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002L Alaska salmon conference call summary, February 2002.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. The 1998 Census of Aquaculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Services,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Detailed Questionnaire for the
Aquatic Animal Production Industry. OMB Control no. 2040-0240. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (NPDES) Permit no. ME0036234, issued to Acadia
Aquaculture Inc. Signed February 21, 2002.
10-48
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit no. WA0040878, issued to Washington State Department
of Fish and Wildlife, South Sound Net Pens, Mason County. Signed March 20, 2002.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002d, August. Site visit report for
Virginia Tech Aquaculture Center, Blacksburg, VA.
Westat. 2002. AAP Screener Survey Production Range Report, Revision IV. Westat, Inc.,
Rockville, MD.
10-49
-------
CHAPTER 11
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act require EPA to consider non-water
quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements, associated with effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. In accordance with these requirements, EPA has
considered the potential impacts of the proposed regulation on energy consumption, solid
waste generation, and air emissions. The estimates of these impacts for the concentrated
aquatic animal production (CAAP) industry are summarized in Sections 11.1, 11.2,
and 11.3.
11.1 ENERGY
Additional energy requirements for the proposed rule are a result of electric motors
needed to operate microscreen filters (a component of Option 3 for flow-through and
recirculating systems) and video monitoring equipment for active feed management at net
pen facilities. EPA proposed microscreen filters as a solids polishing treatment
technology to remove additional TSS from the effluent prior to discharge. EPA proposed
active feed management as a means to prevent uneaten feed from leaving the net pen. To
calculate incremental energy consumption increases for the CAAP industry, EPA first
determined the number of facilities that potentially would need to install new equipment,
which are those flow-through facilities that annually produce more than 475,000 Ib and
recirculating and net pen system facilities that annually produce more than 100,000 Ib.
EPA used AAP screener survey data (Westat, 2002) and the 1998 Census of Aquaculture
(USD A, 2000) to estimate the number of existing flow-through and recirculating system
facilities without solids polishing currently in place. EPA used the same procedure to
estimate the number of facilities without active feed management. Then, using the cost
model (described in Chapter 9 of this document), EPA estimated the total number of
microscreen filters and video monitors that would need to be installed to achieve the goal
of the proposed rule. Finally, EPA used manufacturers' information to calculate the
energy that would be required to operate microscreen filters and video monitors at those
facilities without solids polishing currently in place. EPA estimated the energy
requirements for the video monitoring equipment using a personal computer as a
surrogate because manufacturer information on energy use was not available.
11.1.1 Estimating Increased Energy Requirements
Option 1
Option 1 proposes that flow-through and recirculating CAAP facilities implement
primary settling treatment operations and develop a BMP plan. Primary settling treatment
uses gravity settling, which requires no additional energy inputs. EPA assumed all
facilities would use gravity flow to move water from quiescent zones (in flow-through
11-1
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
systems) and other solids capture processes (in recirculating systems) to settling basins.
EPA based this assumption on observed gravity flows from solids capture to primary
settling in all of flow-through and recirculating systems seen during the site visits.
Because gravity flow is assumed, no additional energy would be required for primary
settling operations.
Option 1 would require net pen facilities to develop a best management practices (BMP)
plan to minimize the addition of pollutants into the environment. Net pen systems are
also subject to general requirements, which include the following BMPs:
• Develop and implement practices to minimize the potential escape of nonnative
aquatic animals.
• A BMP plan to address net fouling and net cleaning; control of discharges of
water containing blood associated with the transport or harvesting of fish or
discharges of substances associated with pressure-washing nets.
• Practices to prevent the discharge of feed bags and other solid wastes, biocides or
disinfectants used to clean equipment or nets, and materials containing or treated
with tributyltin compounds.
Option 1 components for net pen facilities do not require additional energy; therefore,
EPA assumed that there would be no increase in the energy used under regulatory Option
1 for any of the net pen facilities.
Option 2
Regulatory Option 2 for all facilities would require the reporting of the use of certain
drugs and chemicals, which would not increase the energy requirements of production
facilities.
Option 3
Energy requirements for flow-through and recirculating systems would be increased
under Option 3 based on the installation of microscreen filters (solids polishing) as a
treatment technology to meet the requirement of this regulatory option. Flow-through
facilities that annually produce more than 475,000 Ib and recirculating system facilities
that annually produce more than 100,000 Ib would be required to meet Option 3
standards under the proposed rule. Based on the AAP screener survey data (Westat,
2002) and the 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000), 40 CAAP facilities meet these
definitions and require implementation of solids polishing.1
1 To obtain estimates of the total number of facilities in the United States affected by the proposed rule,
EPA used a comparison of the AAP screener survey results (Westat, 2002) and the 1998 Census of
Aquaculture (USDA, 2000). Because the 1998 Census of Aquaculture represents only commercial facilities
in the United States, EPA compared the number of facilities that responded to the AAP screener survey to
the number of similar facilities in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture. EPA found the ratio to be about 2.5. For
noncommercial facilities, EPA assumed that the AAP screener survey reflects a good approximation of the
total number of facilities in the United States. Refer to Hochheimer (2002d) for more details.
11-2
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
EPA assumed the electricity requirements for the microscreen filter would be 5,782
kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year (Keaton Industries, 2002, personal communication). EPA
used the following equation to determine the increase in energy requirements.
Energy increase = number of facilities x per facility energy increase
Where:
Number of facilities = the number of in-scope facilities that will have an energy
increase
Per facility increase = the EPA-estimated per facility energy requirement
increase
Energy increase = 40 facilities * 5,782 kWh
Energy increase = 231,280kWh
EPA also estimated the cost of underwater video monitoring at net pen facilities. The
Agency was not able to find manufacturers' data on the amount of electricity used in
operating underwater video monitoring equipment, so EPA assumed the electrical usage
would be similar to that for a personal computer and monitor, which is about 7.8 amps at
120 volts. EPA assumed that the feeding time per net pen is about 10 min per feeding.
The fish are fed once per day for 312 d/yr (6 feeding days per week). The model facility
has 12 net pens. EPA used the following equations to estimate the increase in energy
(Hochheimer, 2002b).
Watts = amps * volts = 7.8 amps * 120 volts = 936 watts
Daily energy use (kWh) = (watts/1,000) * (10 min/feeding * 1 h/60 min) * 1
feeding per day
Daily energy use = (936 W/1,000) * (10 min/feeding * 1 h/60 min) * 1
feeding per day = 0.156 kWh
Annual energy increase (kWh/yr) = kWh * 312 d = 0.156 kWh * 312 d = 48.7
kWh per net pen
Total energy increase per facility = number of net pens * 48.7 kWh per net pen
Total energy increase per facility = 12 net pens * 48.7 kWh per net pen = 584.4
kWh
Total industry energy increase = 12 facilities * 584.4 kWh = 7,013 kWh
11.1.2 Energy Summary
EPA estimates that implementing this rule will result in a net increase in energy
consumption for some CAAP facilities. The incremental increase is based on electricity
used to operate microscreen filters or video monitoring equipment at facilities that are not
11-3
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
currently operating wastewater treatment equipment comparable to the proposed
regulatory options.
EPA extrapolated the energy consumption increases to represent the entire CAAP
industry using estimates of the number of facilities and frequency factors (as discussed in
Chapter 9). The total incremental energy increase for microscreens and video monitoring
equipment at CAAP facilities as a result of this regulation would be 238,293 kWh/yr.
Site-specific information is needed to assess the impact of additional energy required for
solids polishing at flow-through and recirculating facilities and video monitoring at net
pen facilities. EPA used estimates of electrical costs from published enterprise budgets to
provide a comparison of the existing electrical requirements and the added electrical
requirements of microscreen filters at flow-through and recirculating system facilities
(Hochheimer, 2002a). Hinshaw et al. (1990) estimated annual electrical requirements at
about 7,357 kWh for a 100,000-lb production facility in North Carolina. San et al. (2001)
estimated electrical requirements of about 1,662 kWh for a facility of similar size in West
Virginia. Dunning et al. (1998) estimated an annual electrical requirement of 2.3 kWh per
pound of fish produced at recirculating system facilities. Thus, for average-size flow-
through facilities (annual production of 1,841,889 Ib/yr; Westat, 2002), the range of
existing energy use is from 30,612 to 135,507 kWh. For recirculating systems (annual
production of 681,022 Ib/yr; Westat, 2002), the existing electrical usage estimate is about
1,566,351 kWh. Thus, the average flow-through facility would increase its electrical use
by about 4.3% to 18.9%, and the average recirculating system would increase its use by
about 0.4%.
Site-specific information is also needed to accurately assess the impact of additional
energy required for active feed monitoring at net pen facilities. EPA was not able to find
estimates of current energy usage at net pen facilities. The estimated increase in energy
usage at a facility was about 584 kWh, which is not expected to be a significant increase
with respect to the total energy requirements at these facilities.
EPA does not expect any adverse impacts to occur as a result of the small energy
requirements for the proposed regulation.
11.2 SOLID WASTE
The proposed treatment technologies will generate solid wastes. Solid wastes include
sludge from sedimentation basins (primary settling) and from solids polishing
technologies such as microscreen filters. EPA assumed all solid wastes generated by the
CAAP industry to be nonhazardous. Federal and state regulations require CAAP facilities
to manage solids to prevent release to the environment.
11.2.1 Sludge Characterization
Chen et al. (1996) provide a comprehensive review of the treament and characteristics of
CAAP sludge. Table 11.2-1 shows the characteristics of recirculating system sludge
captured from solids filter backwash allowed to settle for 30 min. Although representing
only one study, these data represent a process similar to EPA's Option 1.
11-4
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Table 11.2-1. Characterization of CAAP Sludge
Parameter
TS(%)
TVS (% of TS)
BOD5 (mg/L)
TAN (N, mg/L.)
TKN (N. % of TS)
TP(P, %ofTS)
PH
CAAP S/wdge
Range
1.4-2.6
74.6-86.6
1,588-3,867
6.8-25.6
3.7^.7
0.6-2.6
6.0-7.2
Mean
1.8
82.2
2,756.0
18.3
4.0
1.3
6.7
Standard
Deviation
0.35
4.1
212.0
6.1
0.5
0.7
0.4
Source: Reported in Chen et al., 1996.
Nay lor et al. (1999) compared fish manure with manure from beef, poultry, and swine.
Overall, the nutrient composition of trout manure is similar to that of other animal
manures (Table 11.2-2). Like livestock manure, the composition offish manure is also
highly variable due to differences in animal, age, feed, manure handling, and storage
conditions.
Table 11.2-2. Rainbow Trout Manure Compared to Beef, Poultry, and Swine
Manures (Presented as Ranges on a Dry Weight Basis)
Element
Nitrogen (%)
Phosphorus (%)
Potassium (%)
Calcium (%)
Magnesium (%•)
Fish
2.04-3.94
0.56^.67
0.06-0.23
3.0-11.2
0.04-1.93
Beef
1.90-7.8
0.41-2.6
0.44^.2
0.53-5.0
0.29-0.56
Poultry
1.3-14.5
0.15^.0
0.55-5.4
0.71-14.9
0.3-1.3
Swine
0.6-10.0
0.45-6.5
0.45-6.3
0.4-6.4
0.09-1.34
Source: Naylor et al., 1999.
11.2.2 Estimating Increased Sludge Collection
EPA estimated the incremental sludge generation from the treatment options similarly to
the way the Agency estimated the incremental energy consumption. EPA assumed that
sludge generation would not increase at facilities with the required technology already in
place. EPA used the loadings models (see Chapter 9) to estimate the incremental sludge
generation rates for facilities that do not have these technologies in place.
By using reported production values, EPA estimated the total amount of solids collected
and disposed of for CAAP facilities. The total estimated amount of solids currently
collected by all in-scope facilities before regulation is shown in the first column of
Table 11.2-3.
EPA also estimated the incremental amounts of solids collected for disposal by CAAP
facilities after implementation of the proposed regulatory options. They are shown in
27-5
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Table 11.2-3. The proposed regulation requires all flow-through and recirculating CAAP
facilities to meet the requirements contained in Option 1. Net pen systems do not collect
solids. Under general requirements for net pen systems, however, facilities must control
discharges of solid waste and prevent discharge of water used for transport, which might
contain blood and other wastes. Regulatory Option 2 does not have additional solids
removal for any of the facility groupings. Large flow-through and recirculating facilities
collect additional solids under Option 3, and the estimated amounts are shown in
Table 11.2-3.
Table 11.2-3. Estimated Solids Collection
Facility Group
State-Federal-Other-
Medium-Flow-through
Commercial-Medium-
Flow- through
State-Federal-Other-Large-
Flow-through
Commercial-Large-Flow-
through
Large-Recirculating
Total
Current Solids
Collection
(Ib/yr)
2,719,134
3,060,809
1,673,874
10,562,685
5.956.215
23.972,717
Option 1
Incremental
Solids
Collection
(Ib/yr)
269,270
207,524
379,782
0
0
856.576
Option 2
Incremental
Solids
Collection
(Ib/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option 3
Incremental
Solids
Collection
(Ib/yr)
0
0
424,214
1,198,193
165,787
1,788,194
EPA assumed that collected solids would be land-applied as fertilizer at agronomic rates
and therefore does not expect any adverse impacts due to solid waste to occur as a result
of the proposed regulation.
11.3 AIR EMISSIONS
Potential sources of air emissions from CAAP facilities include primary settling
operations (e.g., settling basins and lagoons) and the land application of manure.
11.3.1 Air Emissions from Primary Settling Operations
EPA assumed that the additional air emissions from primary settling operations would be
minimal. Only about 10% of in-scope flow-through and recirculating CAAP facilities
(estimated from the AAP screener survey data (Westat, 2002) and the 1998 Census of
Aquaculture (USDA, 2000)) would require the addition of primary settling to meet
Option 1 requirements. Primary settling treatment technologies store collected solids
below the surface of the water, reducing their exposure to the atmosphere. Air emissions
primarily result from exposure of collected solids to air (Battye et al., 1994). For
ammonia that volatilizes from aquatic animal manures, the pH of the water in the
sedimentation basin covering the settled solids reduces the rate of volatilization because
at lower pH levels most of the ammonia in the water is in an ionized form. At pH levels
11-6
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
from 6.5 to 7.5, which are typical of sampled sedimentation basins, and at a temperature
of 86 °F (a worst-case situation), the percentage of ammonia in solution (un-ionized)
ranges from 0.26% to 2.48%. At typical total ammonia levels found in the sampling of
sedimentation basins (about 0.4 to 3.69 mg/L), the concentration of un-ionized ammonia
ranges from 0.0010 to 0.0915 mg/L. The air-to-water interface is also relatively low in
sedimentation basins (Hochheimer, 2002c)
11.3.2 Air Emissions from Land Application Activities
The CAAP sludge emits pollutants when it is spread on land for its fertilizer value. Air
emissions are primarily generated from the volatilization of ammonia at the point the
material is applied to land (Anderson, 2000). Additional emissions of nitrous oxide are
liberated from agricultural soils when nitrogen applied to the soil undergoes nitrification
and denitrification. Loss through denitrification depends on the oxygen levels of the soil
to which manure is applied. Low oxygen levels, resulting from wet, compacted, or warm
soil, increase the amount of nitrate-nitrogen released to the air as nitrogen gas or nitrous
oxide (OSUE, 2000). A study by Sharpe and Harper (1997), which compared losses of
ammonia and nitrous oxide from the sprinkler irrigation of swine effluent, concluded that
ammonia emissions made a larger contribution to airborne nitrogen losses. Data for the
CAAP industry are insufficient to quantify air emission impacts from the land application
of manure; therefore, this analysis uses available information from similar industries and
focuses on the volatilization of nitrogen as ammonia. The emission of other constituents
is expected to be less significant.
11.3.2.1 Application Rate
The application rate affects the volatilization rate if the amount of manure applied causes
significant buildup of material on the field surface, causing a mulching effect. For the
purposes of this analysis EPA assumed that the CAAP industry applies manure at
agronomic rates or lower. Applying at agronomic rates, CAAP facilities do not apply
enough waste under the proposed options to cause mulching.
11.3.2.2 Application Method
Significant differences in the volatilization rate of ammonia result from the method used
to apply manure (see Table 11.3-1). When manure is sprinkler-irrigated, a greater surface
area from which the ammonia can volatilize is available. Manure application methods
practiced by the CAAP industry include irrigation, surface application, and subsurface
injection. EPA observed that applying solids as fertilizer for cropland at agronomic rates
is a common industry practice. When agricultural land is adjacent to a CAAP facility,
solids can be vacuumed directly from quiescent zones into a sprinkler system that land-
applies the biosolids and water (IDEQ, n.d.). EPA assumed this regulation would not
change the method of land application used by any CAAP facilities. Based on this
assumption, no significant change in the rate at which ammonia volatilizes is expected.
11-7
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Table 11.3-1. Percent of Nitrogen Volatilizing as Ammonia from Land Application
Application Method
Surface application
Subsurface injection
Irrigation
Broadcast (solid)
Broadcast (liquid)
Broadcast (solid, immediate incorporation)
Broadcast (liquid, immediate incorporation)
Knifing (liquid)
Sprinkler irrigation (liquid)
Percent Loss "
15-30
10-25
1-5
1-5
0-2
15^0
Source: MWPS, 1983.
"Percent of nitrogen applied that is lost within 4 days of application.
11.3.2.3 Quantity of Animal Waste
The movement of waste off-site changes the location of the ammonia released but not the
quantity released. Although the proposed options do not require land application of
manure, the options do increase the amount of solid waste collected from CAAP
facilities. Land application is a common solid waste disposal method in the CAAP
industry; therefore, the amount of ammonia released as air emissions would be expected
to increase as the quantity of waste applied to cropland increases.
11.3.2.4 Calculation of Emissions
EPA estimated the increase in ammonia emissions resulting from the implementation of
each proposed regulatory option. The Agency assumed the ammonia content of solid
waste from CAAP facilities was approximately 2.83% (Naylor et al., 1999). A factor of
30% was chosen as a conservative estimate of losses from land application activities.
Table 11.3-2 indicates the current estimated ammonia volatilization resulting from land
application of solids by CAAP facilities. Tables 11.3-3 and 11.3-4 indicate the estimated
incremental increase in ammonia volatilization resulting from regulatory Option 1 and
Option 3.
EPA calculated the ammonia content of the solid waste using the following equation:
Ammonia content = solid waste volume * 2.83%
Where:
Solid waste volume = the amount of solids collected by CAAP facilities
The following equation was used to calculate the ammonia volatilized during application:
Ammonia volatilization = ammonia content * 30.0%
Where:
Ammonia content = the amount of ammonia contained in solids from CAAP facilities
11-8
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Table 11.3-2. Baseline Ammonia Volatilization
Facility Group
State-Federal-Medium-Flow-through
Commercial-Medium-Flow-through
State-Federal-Large-Flow-through
Commercial-Large -Flow-through
Large-Recirculating
Current Solids
Collection
(Ib/yr)
2,719,134
3,060,809
1,673,874
10,562,685
5,956,215
Ammonia
Content
(Ib/yr)
76,951
86,621
47,371
298,924
168,561
Ammonia
Volatilization (Ib/yr)
23,085
25,986
14,211
89,677
50,568
Table 11.3-3. Incremental Increases in Ammonia Volatilization Under Option 1
Facility Group
State-Federal-Medium-Flow-through
Commercial-Medium-Flow-through
State-Federal -Large-Fl o w-through
Commercial-Large-Flow-through
Large-Recirculating
Option 1 Solids
Collection
Increase (Ib/yr)
269,270
207,524
379,782
0
0
Ammonia
Applied
(Ib/yr)
7,620
5,873
10,748
0
0
Ammonia
Volatilization (Ib/yr)
2,286
1,762
3,224
0
0
Table 11.3-4. Incremental Increases in Ammonia Volatilization Under Option 3
Facility Group
State-Federal-Medium-Flow-through
Commercial-Medium-Flow-through
State-Federal-Large-Flow-through
Commercial-Large-Flow-through
Large-Recirculating
Option 3 Solids
Collection
Increase (Ib/yr)
0
0
424,214
1,198,193
165,787
Ammonia
Applied
(Ib/yr)
0
0
12,005
33.909
4,692
Ammonia
Volatilization
(Ib/yr)
0
0
3,602
10,173
1.408
EPA does not expect any adverse air impacts to occur as a result of the proposed
regulation.
27-9
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
11.4 REFERENCES
Anderson, 2000. Chapter 13 in Animal Manure as a Plant Resource.
. Accessed
August 2002.
Keaton Industries. 2002. Personal communication, July 22, 2002.
MWPS (Midwest Plan Service). 1983. Midwest Plan Service: Livestock Waste Facilities
Handbook. 2d ed. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Naylor, S.J., R.D. Moccia, and G.M. Durant. 1999. The Chemical Composition of
Settleable Solid Fish Waste (Manure) from Commercial Rainbow Trout Farms in
Ontario, Canada. North American Journal of Aquaculture 61:21-26.
OSUE (Ohio State University Extension). 2000. Selecting Forms of Nitrogen Fertilizer.
Ohio State University
Extension. Accessed July 2002.
11-10
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
San, N.N., D. Miller, G. D'Souza, O.K. Smither, and K. Semmens. 2001. West Virginia
Trout Enterprise Budgets. Aquaculture Information Series publication no. AQ01-1.
West Virginia University Extension Service, Morgantown, WV.
Sharpe, R.R., and L.A. Harper. 1997. Ammonia and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from
Sprinkler Irrigation Applications of Swine Effluent. Journal of Environmental
Quality 26:1703-1706.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. The 1998 Census of Aquaculture. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
Westat. 2002. AAP Screener Survey Production Range Report, Revision IV. Westat, Inc.
Rockville, MD.
11-11
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAP aquatic animal production
ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management
ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game
AETF Aquaculture Effluents Task Force (JSA)
AFS American Fisheries Society
APHIS Animal and Planet Health Inspection Service (USDA)
BAT Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BCT Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants
BCD bacterial gill disease
BMPs best management practices
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5 biochemical oxygen demand measured over a 5-day period
BPJ best professional judgment
BPT Best Practicable Control Technology
CAAP concentrated aquatic animal production
CAPDET Computer-Assisted Procedure for the Design and Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment
CBI Confidential Business Information
C-BOD5 carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand measured over a 5-day period
CCVD channel catfish virus disease
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora
COD chemical oxygen demand
Acronyms-l
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CTSA Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
DO dissolved oxygen
ELGs Effluent Limitations Guidelines
ERM enteric redmouth
ERS Economic Research Service (USDA)
ESC enteric septicemia in catfish
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations)
FCR feed conversion ratio
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FDF fundamentally different factor
FFS full-flow settling
FR Federal Register
FTE full-time equivalent
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
HCG human chorionic gonadotropin
ICR Information Collection Request
IDEQ Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
IHHN infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis
INAD investigational new animal drug
IPNV infectious pancreatic necrosis virus
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
ISA infectious salmon anemia
JSA Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
LTA long-term average
Acronyms-2
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
LRP low regulatory priority
MAS motile aeromonas septicemia
MDA Maryland Department of Agriculture
MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
ML minimum limit
MPRSA Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NAHMS National Animal Health Monitoring System
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NASAC National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA)
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce)
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce)
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSTC National Science and Technology Council
NTTA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
NWPCAM National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
NWQI non-water quality impact
OLS offline settling
O&M operation and maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCS Permit Compliance System
PGD proliferative gill disease
Acronyms-3
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
POC Pollutants of Concern
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PSES Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
PSNS Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QZ quiescent zone
R&D Research and Development
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RHA Rivers and Harbors Act
SAL Special Activity License
SAP Sampling and Analysis Procedures
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SCC Sample Control Center
SEQR State Environmental Quality Review
SER Small Entity Representative
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SIU Significant Industrial User
SPF specific pathogen-free
SPR specific pathogen-resistant
SRAC Southern Regional Aquaculture Center
SS settleable solids
TAN total ammonia nitrogen
TBT tributyltin
TCI The Catfish Institute
Acronyms^
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
TDS total dissolved solids
TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TL total length
TN total nitrogen
TOC total organic carbon
TP total phosphorus
TS total solids
TSS total suspended solids
TSV taura syndrome virus
TVS total volatile solids
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey (Department of the Interior)
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior)
USTFA United States Trout Farmer's Association
UV ultraviolet
VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VHS viral hemorrhagic septicemia
WDF Washington Department of Fisheries
WDOE Washington Department of Ecology
WSSV white spot syndrome virus
YHV yellow head virus
Acronyms-5
-------
-------
GLOSSARY
Aeration: The process of bringing air into contact with a liquid by one or more of the
following methods: (1) spraying the liquid into the air, (2) bubbling air through the liquid,
and (3) agitating the liquid to promote absorption of oxygen through the air-liquid
interface.
Aerobic: Having or occurring in the presence of free oxygen.
Agronomic rates: The land application of animal wastes at rates of application that
provide the crop or forage growth with needed nutrients for optimum health and growth.
Algal bloom: Sudden spurts of algal growth, which can affect water quality adversely
and indicate potentially hazardous changes in local water chemistry.
Aliquot: A measured portion of a sample taken for analysis. One or more aliquots make
up a sample.
Anadromous: Describes fish born in freshwater, descending into the sea to grow to
maturity, and then returning to spawn in freshwater rivers and streams.
Anaerobic: Characterized by the absence of molecular oxygen, or capable of living and
growing in the absence of oxygen, such as anaerobic bacteria.
Analytes: Chemical constituents analyzed as part of the aquatic animal production
industry sampling episodes.
Androgens: Hormones used to invert the sex of female fry.
Antifoulant: Substance used to retard the growth of marine organisms on an object
placed in the underwater marine environment.
Aquaculture: The production of aquatic plants and animals under controlled or
semicontrolled conditions.
Aquatic animal pathogen: An organism that can cause disease outbreaks in aquatic
animals.
Aquatic animal production: The production of aquatic animals under controlled or
semicontrolled conditions.
Baffle: A device (such as a plate, wall, or screen) to deflect, check, or regulate the flow
of water in a raceway.
Glossary-l
-------
Glossary
Benthic monitoring: Monitoring conducted to ensure that degradation is not occurring
under or around net pens.
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT): Technology-based
standard established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) as the most appropriate means
available on a national basis for controlling the direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters. BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in
general, represent the best existing performance of treatment technologies that are
economically achievable within an industrial point source category or subcategory.
Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT): Technology-based
standard for the discharge from existing industrial point sources of conventional
pollutants including BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, oil and grease. The BCT is
established in light of a two-part "cost reasonableness" test, which compares the cost for
an industry to reduce its pollutant discharge with the cost to a POTW for similar levels of
reduction of a pollutant loading. The second test examines the cost-effectiveness of
additional industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find limits, which are reasonable
under both tests before establishing them as BCT.
Best management practice (BMP): A practice or combination of practices found to be
the most effective, practicable (including economic and institutional considerations)
means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated.
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT): The first level of
technology-based standards established by the CWA to control pollutants discharged to
waters of the United States. BPT effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on
the average of the best existing performance by plants within an industrial category or
subcategory.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD): An indirect measure of the concentration of
biodegradable substances present in an aqueous solution. Determined by the amount of
dissolved oxygen required for the aerobic degradation of the organic matter at 20 °C.
BOD5 refers to the oxygen demand for the initial 5 days of the degradation process.
Biocide: Products added to other materials (typically liquids) to protect the other material
from biological infestation and growth. Examples are well drilling fluid additives,
cooling tower algaecides, products called slimicides, etc. The size of the biological
organism a biocide controls is usually limited to single cell organisms and microscopic
multicell organisms.
Biomass: All of the living material in a given area.
Bivalves: Animals characterized by a soft body enclosed by two hard shells or valves.
The valves are attached at a hinge and are held shut by a strong muscle.
Brackish water: Mixed fresh and salt water.
Broodstock: A sexually mature group of a cultured species maintained solely for the
production of esss.
production of eggs.
Glossarv-2
-------
Glossary
Byssal threads: Strong threadlike material used by some mussels to attach to their
surroundings.
Carotenoids: Yellow or red pigments found in animal fat and some plants.
Chemical: Any substance that is added to a concentrated aquatic animal production
facility to maintain or restore water quality for aquatic animal production and that might
be discharged to waters of the United States.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD): A measure of the oxygen equivalent of the portion of
organic matter that can be oxidized by a strong chemical oxidizing agent. This measure
gives a better estimate of the total oxygen demand (as compared to BOD).
Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water Act is an act passed by the U.S. Congress to
control water pollution. It was formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 or Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., as amended by: Public Law 96-483; Public Law 97-
117; Public Laws 95-217, 97-117, 97-440, and 100-04.
Cohort: A group of like-species aquatic animals born in the same year.
Concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) facility: A hatchery, fish farm, or
other facility that contains, grows, or holds aquatic animals in either of the following
categories, or that the Director1 designates as such on a case-by-case basis, and must
apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit:
A. Coldwater fish species or other coldwater aquatic animals including, but not limited
to, the Salmonidae family offish (e.g., trout and salmon) in ponds, raceways, or other
similar structures that discharge at least 30 days per year but does not include
(1) facilities that produce less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms (approximately
20,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year and (2) facilities that feed less than 2,272
kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of food during the calendar month of
maximum feeding.
B. Warmwater fish species or other warmwater aquatic animals including, but not
limited to, the Ameiuridae, Cetrachidae, and the Cyprinidae families offish (e.g.,
respectively, catfish, sunfish, and minnows) in ponds, raceways, or similar structures
that discharge at least 30 days per year, but does not include (1) closed ponds that
discharge only during periods of excess runoff or (2) facilities that produce less than
45,454 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 100,000 pounds) of aquatic animals
per year.
1 The Regional Administrator or State Director, as the context requires, or an authorized representative.
When there is no approved state program, and there is an EPA administered program, Director means the
Regional Administrator. When there is an approved state program, "Director" normally means the State
Director.
Glossary-3
-------
Glossary
Confidential Business Information (CBI): Any information in any form received by
EPA or its approved contractors from any person, firm, partnership, corporation,
association, or local, state, or federal agency, or foreign government, that contains trade
secrets or commercial or financial information; has been claimed as CBI by the person
submitting it; and has not been determined to be non-CBI under the procedures in 40
CFR Part 2.
Consent decree: A legal document, approved by a judge, that formalizes an agreement
reached between EPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs) through which PRPs
will conduct all or part of a cleanup action at a Superfund site, cease or correct actions or
processes that are polluting the environment, or otherwise comply with EPA-initiated
regulatory enforcement actions to resolve the contamination at the Superfund site
involved. The consent decree describes the actions PRPs will take and may be subject to
a public comment period.
Conventional pollutants: Pollutants typical of municipal sewage, and for which
municipal secondary treatment plants are typically designed; defined by Federal
Regulation [40 CFR 401.16] as BOD, TSS, fecal coliform bacteria, oil and grease, and
pH.
Daily discharge: The discharge of a pollutant measured during any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents a calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with
limitations expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is calculated as the total mass
of the pollutant discharged during the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in
other units of measurement (e.g., concentration) the daily discharge is calculated as the
average measurement of the pollutant throughout the day (40 CFR 122.2).
Denitrification: The chemical or biological reduction of nitrate or nitrite to gaseous
nitrogen, either as molecular nitrogen (N2) or as an oxide of nitrogen (N2O).
Direct discharger: A facility that discharges or may discharge treated or untreated
wastewaters into waters of the United States.
Dissolved oxygen (DO): Oxygen dissolved in water by diffusion from the atmosphere
and through the release into the water as a by-product of photosynthesis in aquatic plants;
a water quality parameter.
Drug: Any substance, including medicated feed, that is added to a production facility to
maintain or restore animal health and that subsequently might be discharged to waters of
the United States.
Effluent limitations guideline (ELGs): Under the Clean Water Act, section 502(11),
any restriction, including schedules of compliance, established by a state or the
Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological,
and other constituents that are discharged from point sources into navigable waters, the
waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean (Clean Water Act sections 301(b) and
304(b)).
End-of-pipe treatment practices: Technologies such as settling basins or microscreens
that reduce discharge of pollutants after they have formed.
Glossary^
-------
Glossary
Escapement: The release of aquatic animals from a production facility to waters of the
United States.
Eutrophication: A process in which the addition of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus) to water bodies stimulates algal growth. This is a natural process, but it can
be greatly accelerated by human activities.
Excess feed: Feed that is added to a production system, is not consumed, and is not
expected to be consumed by the aquatic animals.
Existing source: For a categorical industrial user, any source of discharge, the
construction or operation of which commenced prior to the publication of proposed
categorical pretreatment standards under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.
Facility: All contiguous property and equipment owned, operated, leased, or under the
control of the same person or entity.
Feed conversion ratio (FCR): A measure of feeding efficiency that is calculated as the
ratio of the weight of feed applied to the weight of the fish produced.
Finfish: A term used to delineate bony fishes from other aquaculture species such as
crustaceans and molluscs.
Fingerling: Juvenile fish that are typically 2 to 6 inches long or weigh 2 to 60 pounds per
1,000 fish.
Floating or bottom aquaculture system: A system used for the production of molluscs
and shellfish. The cultured species can be grown attached to or lodged in the substrate or
suspended from strings or cages.
Flow-through system: A system designed for a continuous water flow to waters of the
United States through chambers used to produce aquatic animals. Flow-through systems
typically use either raceways or tank systems. Raceways are fed by nearby rivers or
springs and are typically long, rectangular chambers at or below grade, constructed of
earth, concrete, plastic, or metal. Tank systems are similarly fed and concentrate aquatic
animals in circular or rectangular tanks above grade. The term does not include net pens.
Foodfish: Fish for human consumption, typically over 0.75 pound.
Forage crop: Crop planted to provide food for crawfish when the ponds are flooded in
the fall; rice is a common forage crop.
Frequency factors: The regional compliance of animal feeding operations with best
management practices associated with a nutrient management plan, facility upgrades, or
strategies to reduce excess nutrients.
Fry: Young fish that are typically under 2 inches long or weigh less than 2 pounds per
1,000 fish.
Groundwater: Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or water.
Glossary-5
-------
Glossary
Herbivore: An animal that feeds on plants.
Indirect discharger: A facility that discharges or may discharge wastewaters into a
publicly owned treatment works.
Loading density: The average stocking density of the culture species within the
production system at maximum production levels.
Long-term average (LTA): For purposes of the effluent guidelines, average pollutant
levels achieved over a period of time by a facility, subcategory, or technology option.
LTAs were used in developing the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in the
proposed regulation.
Maximum monthly discharge limitation: The highest allowable average of "daily
discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges"
measured during the calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges"
measured during the month.
Microbial decomposition: The breakdown of complex molecules in either plant or
animal matter by bacteria and fungi.
Minimum level: The level at which an analytical system gives recognizable signals and
an acceptable calibration point.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit: A permit to
discharge wastewater into waters of the United States issued under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, authorized by section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program: The NPDES
program authorized by sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act. It applies
to facilities that discharge wastewater directly to U.S. surface waters.
Navigable waters: Traditionally, waters sufficiently deep and wide for navigation by all,
or specified vessels; such waters in the United States come under federal jurisdiction and
are protected by certain provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Net pen system: A stationary, suspended, or floating system of nets or screens in open
marine or estuarine waters of the United States. Net pen systems typically are located
along a shore or pier or may be anchored and floating offshore. Net pens and cages rely
on tides and currents to provide a continual supply of high-quality water to animals in
production.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Technology-based standards for facilities
that qualify as new sources under 40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 122.29. Standards consider
that the new source facility has an opportunity to design operations to more effectively
control pollutant discharges.
Nonconventional pollutants: Pollutants that are neither conventional pollutants nor
priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR 401.15 and Part 423, Appendix A.
Glossary-6
-------
Glossary
Nonnative aquatic animal species: An individual, group, or population of species found
(1) to be outside its historical or native geographic range and (2) to threaten native
aquatic biota determined and identified by the appropriate state authority or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. This term excludes species raised for stocking by public agencies.
Non-water quality environmental impacts: Deleterious aspects of control and
treatment technologies applicable to point source category wastes, including, but not
limited to, air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge, and solid waste generation, and energy
used.
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): System developed jointly
by the United States, Canada, and Mexico to provide new comparability in statistics
about business activity across North America.
Ocean ranching: The process of rearing smolts and releasing them into the wild (the
ocean), from which they are later harvested.
Omnivore: An animal that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances.
Outfall: The mouth of the conduit drains and other conduits from which a facility
effluent discharges into receiving waters.
Pass through: A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States, or
state of Washington, in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a
discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of
the city's NPDES permit including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a
violation.
Pathogen: A predatory or parasitic organism present in water or aquatic animals that,
when discharged to waters of the United States, threatens disease in aquatic animals or
humans.
Pelagic: Of, relating to, or living or occurring in the open sea.
Permitting authority: The agency authorized to administer the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permitting program in a state or territory.
Phytoplankton: Microscopic plants that serve as the plant food base for other organisms
(zooplankton and larger animals) that are then consumed by fish. Phytoplankton is often
referred to as the base of the food chain.
Planktonic: Relating to, being, or characteristic of plankton, a wide variety of plant and
animal organisms that float or drift freely in water.
Point source: Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants
are or may be discharged. See Clean Water Act section 502(14).
Pollutant load: The amount of a specific pollutant in a wastewater stream measured in
mass units (pounds, kilograms).
Glossary-7
-------
Glossary
Pollutants of concern (POCs): Pollutants commonly found in concentrated aquatic
animal production facilities wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is considered a POC if it
is detected in untreated process wastewater at five times a baseline value in more than 10
percent of the samples.
Pond system: An impoundment of water used for the production of aquatic animals.
Pond systems are the most widely used production system in the aquatic animal
production industry.
Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) of indirect discharges: Under
section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act, standards applicable (for this rule) to indirect
dischargers that commenced construction prior to promulgation of the final rule.
Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS): Under section 307(c) of the Clean
Water Act, standards applicable to indirect dischargers that commence after promulgation
of the final rule.
Protozoa: Unicellular organisms that live individually or in small groups. Many kinds of
protozoa are harmful to aquaculture animals. In some aquaculture systems, parasitic
protozoa are the most important disease agents.
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW): A treatment works as defined by section
212 of the Clean Water Act, which is owned by a state or municipality (as defined by
section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act). This definition includes any devices and systems
used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes, and other conveyances,
only if they convey wastewater to a POTW. The term also means the municipality, as
defined in section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act, that has jurisdiction over the indirect
discharges to and the discharges from such a treatment works.
Quiescent zones: Solids-collection zones placed at the end of a raceway tank to collect
the settleable solids swept out of the fish-rearing area. They are the primary means for
solids removal in flow-through raceways.
Raceways: Culture units in which water flows continuously, making a single pass
through the unit before being discharged; these systems are also referred to as flow-
through systems.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976: (42 U.S.C. sections 6901
et seq.). RCRA regulates the generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid
and hazardous wastes.
Recirculating system: A system that filters and reuses water in which aquatic animals
are produced prior to discharge. Recirculating systems typically use tanks, biological or
mechanical filtration, and mechanical support equipment to maintain high-quality water
to produce aquatic animals.
Seine: A net with weights attached to the bottom and floats on the top that can be pulled
from each end to enclose fish during harvest.
Glossary-8
-------
Glossary
Settleable solids: Material heavy enough to sink to the bottom of a wastewater treatment
tank.
Sludge: Settled sewage solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved
materials that are removed from sewage by screening, sedimentation, chemical
precipitation, or bacterial digestion.
Smolt: A young salmon ready for life in a saltwater environment.
Sole proprietorship: An unincorporated business owned by one person, who is entirely
liable for all business debts. A sole proprietor files either IRS Schedule C (profit or loss
from a business) or Schedule F (profit or loss from farming). This Schedule becomes part
of the owner's Form 1040 (personal tax form).
Spawning ground: A specific site where fish lay their eggs.
Standard industrial classification (SIC): A numerical categorization system used by
the U.S. Department of Commerce to catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the
products, or group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered by an
operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group establishments by the economic
activities in which they are engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility's primary,
secondary, tertiary, etc. economic activities.
Stackers: Fish used for stocking public or private fishing areas that are typically more
than 6 inches long or weigh 60 to 750 pounds per 1,000 fish.
Total dissolved solids (TDS): All material that passes the standard glass river filter; now
called total filtrable residue. Term is used to reflect salinity.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN): Water and wastewater analyte that indicates the sum of
organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen in the matrix analyzed.
Total nitrogen: Sum of nitrate/nitrite and total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
Total organic carbon (TOC): The fraction of carbon covalently bound to organic
molecules within a sample.
Total suspended solids (TSS): The weight of particles that are suspended in water.
Suspended solids in water reduce light penetration in the water column, can clog the gills
of fish and invertebrates, and are often associated with toxic contaminants because
organics and metals tend to bind to particles. Differentiated from total dissolved solids by
a standardized filtration process whereby the dissolved portion passes through the filter.
Total volatile solids (TVS): Those solids in water or other liquids that are lost on
ignition of the dry solids at 550 °C.
Turbidity: A measure of light penetration in water. Produced by dissolved and
suspended substances. The more dense these substances, the higher the turbidity.
Volatile compound: Any substance that evaporates readily.
Glossary-9
-------
Glossary
Wastewater treatment: The processing of wastewater by physical, chemical, biological,
or other means to remove specific pollutants from the wastewater stream, or to alter the
physical or chemical state of specific pollutants in the wastewater stream. Treatment is
performed for discharge of treated wastewater, recycle of treated wastewater to the same
process that generated the wastewater, or reuse of the treated wastewater in another
process.
Zooplankton: The animal portion of plankton, which makes up the primary and
secondary food chains in most bodies of water and is generally passively floating, or
weakly swimming, minute animal or plant life. Zooplankton generally feed on
phytoplankton. In turn, zooplankton provide an important food source for larval fish and
shrimp in aquaculture ponds.
Glossary-10
-------
APPENDIX A
SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION
OF NATIONAL ESTIMATES
-------
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
APPENDIX A:
SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESTIMATES
EPA has collected information from aquatic animal production by using a two-phase
sample design with a questionnaire in each phase. A two-phase1 sample design is a
standard survey statistic technique (see, for example, Cochran (1977) or Kish (1965)). In
the first phase of this design, information is collected from every unit (e.g., facility) in the
sample. In the second phase, detailed information is collected from each unit in a second,
smaller, sample. Typically, the first phase sample is used to classify the population for the
second phase sample and this second sample is selected from the units in the first sample.
Statistical inference can be made using the information from the second phase alone or in
some combination of the first and second phases.
In the first phase conducted in August 2001, EPA sent a short screener questionnaire,
entitled "Screener Questionnaire for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry" ("screener
questionnaire," USEPA, 2001) to a list of 5939 possible aquatic animal production (AAP)
facilities. This sample frame (list) is discussed in Section A. 1 below. The screener
questionnaire consisted of eleven questions to solicit general facility information,
including confirmation that the facility was engaged in aquatic animal production, species
and size category produced, type of production system, wastewater disposal method, and
the total production at the facility in the year 2000. Section A.2 describes the census
conducted in this first phase and the data analysis of the responses.
In the second phase conducted in June 2002, EPA sent the detailed questionnaire,
"Detailed Questionnaire for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry," ("detailed
questionnaire," USEPA, 2002) to 263 concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP)
facilities selected from the screener questionnaire respondents. EPA designed this second
questionnaire to collect detailed site-specific technical and financial information. The
detailed questionnaire is divided into three parts. The first two parts collect general
facility, technical, and cost data. The third part of the detailed questionnaire elicits site-
specific financial and economic data. EPA sent each facility only the portions of each part
that were relevant to the operations reported in the screener questionnaire. Section A.3
describes the sample selection criteria and estimation procedures from the responses from
this second phase. Because EPA has not yet evaluated the results from this questionnaire,
Section A.3 provides only a general overview of EPA's approach to calculating national
estimates for the final rule.
A.I SAMPLE FRAME
In 1998, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified 4,028 aquaculture
facilities in its Census of Aquaculture ("USDA Census"). Because their database was
1 Some textbooks and journal articles refer to two-phase sampling as 'double sampling.
A-l
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
confidential and thus not available, EPA constructed a sampling frame from alternative
sources consisting of data received from Dun & Bradstreet, augmented with supplemental
sources of facilities. Attachment A-l to this appendix summarizes the differences
between the sample frames and other aspects of the two questionnaires.
EPA developed its initial list of facilities from the February 2001 version of the Dun &
Bradstreet (D&B) database. D&B provided a list of 2,025 facilities whose primary,
secondary, or tertiary SIC codes related to AAP. The SIC codes included 0273 (animal
aquaculture), 0279 (animal specialties), and 0921 (fish hatcheries and preserves). EPA
found that the D&B database only contained half as many facilities as the USDA Census,
2,025 compared to 4,028. Although the size of the industry may have changed between
1998 (USDA Census) and 2001 (D&B), it was more likely that D&B did not include
some facilities identified by the USDA. EPA then examined the total revenue of facilities
in the D&B database, and found that it exceeded that of the Census by about ten percent.
Because both estimates of total revenue were about $1.0 billion, EPA concluded that the
facilities not included in the D&B database probably were quite small.
In order to identify AAP facilities not identified by the D&B database, a number of
secondary sources were identified and utilized. About 4,000 facilities were identified
from supplemental sources. These included:
• An initial list of 2,241 facilities supplied by 24 state agencies such as Departments of
Agriculture or Environmental Protection. These data varied considerably in quality
and utility, including some lists that were incomplete and/or out of date.
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• The Internet, associations, and trade journals.
• EPA used its own list of 288 farms from which a subset of 121 new listings in 28
states was identified. EPA developed this list of 288 farms from its Permit
Compliance System (PCS), Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), and other permit
information. In addition, some additional facilities were added from a list of 30
facilities on EPA's site visit list.
• The frame was augmented with a list of public aquariums in the United States. These
were identified largely through the Internet as well as data supplied by the American
Zoo and Aquarium Association.
Identification and deletion of duplicate facilities (i.e., those appearing more than once on
the list, perhaps with slightly different addresses or company names) was conducted both
prior to and after mailing the questionnaires. In order to ensure that no active AAP
facility would be inadvertently removed, only obvious duplicates were deleted prior to
the mailing.
A-2
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
A.2 SCREENER QUESTIONNAIRE (PHASE 1)
This section describes the screener questionnaire responses that were collected in Phase 1
of EPA's survey of the AAP industry. Section A.2.1 describes the sample design, which
was a census of the industry, and the number of responses. Section A.2.2 describes the
data analysis of the responses including the use of conversion factors; development of
sample weights that adjust for non-response; and the estimation of national totals,
national means, and their standard errors.
A.2.1 Sample Design: Census
In Phase 1, the screener questionnaires were mailed to all 59342 addresses on the frame.
Because they were mailed to all facilities on the sample frame, the sample design for this
phase is considered to be a 'census.' After the mailing, 53 unsolicited questionnaires were
received that were not on the original mailing list. Many of these were from facilities that
operated more facilities than the number of questionnaires that they received. In its data
analyses and selection of the sample for the second phase, EPA considers these 53
facilities as if they were part of the original sample frame. Thus, the 'final' frame
contained 5987 potential AAP facilities.
As of 8/8/02, EPA had received 4199 completed, 58 incomplete, and 75 blank
questionnaires. EPA also had identified an additional 161 duplicate questionnaires (i.e.,
more than one questionnaire was sent to the same facility). For questionnaires returned by
the delivery service, EPA attempted various data retrieval and searches to obtain a better
mailing address. For 435 addresses, EPA was unsuccessful in finding better addresses,
and thus, EPA assumed that these facilities did not exist (e.g., out of business). In
addition, although they received a letter reminding them to return the questionnaire, 1064
facilities did not return their questionnaires and are considered to be 'non-respondents' in
the statistical analysis presented in this appendix. (Five of the 1064 facilities returned a
blank questionnaire and also are considered to be non-respondents.)
Response rates can be calculated in various ways. One widely accepted method is to use
the ratio of the number of returned questionnaires to the number of valid addresses. EPA
was able to determine the number of valid addresses because the delivery service required
recipients to sign a manifest. For the screener questionnaire, the number of valid
addresses was 5552, that is, the remainder of the 5987 potential AAP facilities after
subtracting the 435 addresses without a viable address. The response rate of 75.6 percent
is the ratio of the 4199 completed questionnaires to the 5552 valid addresses.
From the completed questionnaires, EPA identified 2329 facilities in the AAP industry.
These facilities answered 'Yes' to question 1 which asked 'Do you produce (grow)
aquatic animals (fish, shellfish, other aquatic animals) at this facility?'
2 Elsewhere in this document and other record materials, EPA may have identified the total number of
questionnaires as 5939; however, five were replacements of questionnaires with incomplete mailing labels.
In some summaries, EPA includes the replacements as five new questionnaires.
A-3
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
A.2.2 Data Analysis
Elsewhere in this document, the preamble to the proposed rule, and the proposal record,
EPA has presented summary statistics of the AAP industry without weighting the results
to adjust for the non-response rate.3 Weighting the data allows inferences to be made
about all eligible facilities, including those that did not respond to the questionnaire.
Another advantage is that weighted estimates have smaller variances than unweighted
estimates (i.e., counts of the responses). Because of time constraints for the proposal,
EPA was unable to incorporate these weighted results into its other analyses, such as
economic achievability. However, EPA is likely to incorporate these weighted results into
its analyses for the final rule, and this section presents its methodology for calculating the
weighted results presented in Attachment A-3.
This section consists of three subsections. Section A.2.2.1 describes various conversion
factors and their application in determining the biomass, predominant species,
predominant production method, and total revenue at each facility. Section A.2.2.2
describes the sample weights that adjust for non-response. Section A.2.2.3 describes the
application of these sample weights in developing national estimates (e.g., number of
facilities with trout as their predominant species) and the standard errors of these
estimates.
A.2.2.1 Use of Conversion Factors
To simplify its data analyses, EPA determined the biomass, predominant species and
predominant production method for each facility, using various conversion factors in
Attachment A-2. This section describes the use of the conversion factors and these
determinations.
Biomass
For each size category, the screener questionnaire collected production in any of six units
(pounds (live weight), number or count, live dry bushels, dozens, dollars sold, or other).
To estimate the production at a facility, EPA converted all units into pounds (Ibs) using
conversion factors from sources such as the USDA Census of Aquaculture, industry
experts, internet sites about fish, and calls to aquaculture farms (see DCN 50070 in
Section 10.3 of the proposal record). As shown in Tables A2.1 and A2.2 in Attachment
A-2, the conversion factors depended on the species, the size category, and the reported
units. When specific conversion factors were not available (for a minority of facilities),
EPA used approximate conversion factors based on 1) the weight of food-size animals for
3 As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in order to estimate the national pre-tax annualized
compliance costs attributed to the proposed rule, EPA multiplied the commercial facilities by a factor of
2.5. This factor was estimated by calculating the ratio of the number of potentially regulated facilities
identified in the USDA Census to the number of potentially regulated facilities identified in the responses
to the screener questionnaire. A more detailed explanation of this analysis can be found in the EA [CAAP
Economic Analysis] and rulemaking record (DCN 61793). The memorandum 'Alternative weighting plan'
(Westat, 2002a) describes alternative methods of using the USDA Census results in weighting the EPA's
results from the screener questionnaire.
A-4
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
the species, 2) an approximate weight ratio of food size to other size animals, and 3)
approximate conversion factors from the reported unit into pounds. As an example of
using the appropriate conversion factor in Table A2.1, if a facility produced 1,000 catfish
of foodsize, the biomass of the catfish was calculated as
1,000 catfish x 1.5 lbs/catfish= 1,500 Ibs.
As another example, if a facility produced 1,000 whitefish of stacker size, the biomass
was calculated using the conversion factor for whitefish of foodsize from Table A2.1 and
the stocker size conversion factor from Table A2.2, as follows:
1,000 whitefish stocker x 2.5 Ibs/whitefish foodsize x 0.1418 whitefish foodsize / whitefish stocker =
354.5 Ibs.
The total biomass, or total production, for a facility is the total weight in pounds across
all size and species categories.
Predominant Species
To determine the predominant species, EPA calculated the biomass for each species
reported by a facility. The species biomass was the total weight in pounds across all size
categories for that species. EPA then selected the species with the largest biomass as the
predominant species.
Predominant Production Method
In response to question 6 on the screener questionnaire, facilities could specify any of six
different production methods (ponds, flow through systems, recirculating systems, net
pens or cages, floating aquaculture, and other). However, the screener questionnaire
requested species and production information separately from the production method.
Thus, for facilities with multiple species, it was not possible to determine which
production method was used for a particular species. Also, some facilities reported more
than one production method. To assign a single production method to a facility's
predominant species, EPA ordered the production methods from most common to least
common among facilities with the same predominant species. Table A2.3 in Attachment
A-2 presents this ordering of production methods. (As noted in the table, EPA used a
slightly different ordering sequence for the data analyses presented in Attachment A-3,
than it did for the sample selection for the detailed questionnaire.) As an example, assume
a facility has catfish as the predominant species and uses both recirculating systems and
flow through systems. From Table A2.3, the most common production method for
facilities with catfish as the predominant species is ponds; however, ponds are not used at
this facility. The second most common production method is flow through systems.
Because this facility uses flow through systems, EPA would assume that these flow
through systems are the predominant production method for catfish production at this
facility.
A-5
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Total Revenue
In response to question 5 of the screener questionnaire, facilities could report production
in any of six units: pounds (live weight), number or count; live dry bushels; dozens;
dollars sold; and other. Most facilities reported their total production in pounds, counts,
or dollars. To convert the production units into dollars, EPA used the conversion factors
in Table A2.4, in Attachment A-2, to estimate the number of facilities that would be
subject to the proposed rule in three revenue classes: $20,0004100,000; $100,000-
$499,999, and >$500,000.
As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, in evaluating the screener
questionnaire responses to question 5 (production), EPA used six production size
categories that correspond with the revenue classifications used in the 1998 Census of
Aquaculture (i.e., $l,000-$24,999; $25,000 - $49,999; $50,000 - $99,999; $100,000 -
$499,999; $500,000 - $1,000,000; and >$ 1,000,000). These classifications were used to
develop model facilities representing these size ranges for each species evaluated.
Because of the small numbers of facilities in some for the species and production method
categories, EPA has not presented these results to protect confidential business
information.
A.2.2.2 Sample Weights
This section describes the methodology used to calculate the base weights, non-response
adjustments, and the final weights for the screener questionnaire. The sample weights
accounted for different response rates and ineligible facilities. In conjunction with the
conversion and predominant determinations described in the last section, the sample
weights were used to calculate the national estimates presented in Attachment A-3.
The base weight is equal to 1.0 for all facilities because the screener questionnaire was
sent to the entire sample frame (i.e., a census).
base weight = 1.0 (A-l)
The number of returned questionnaires includes duplicate questionnaires, whether they
were completed or not, but does not include questionnaires that were not deliverable. The
non-response adjustment in effect spreads the weight associated with the non-responses
(questionnaires not returned) across the responses. The non-response adjustment assumes
that the fraction of duplicate addresses among those who responded is the same as the
fraction among those who did not respond. Because different species tend to be located in
different parts of the country, EPA decided to use the facility location as a basis for
calculating the non-response rate. For states with 50 or more respondents, EPA defined
the location of the facility as its state. For states with less than 50 respondents, EPA
grouped the facilities into one strata. (See Westat, 2002b, for a logistic regression that
assessed which factors were significant predictors of non-response.) Within each stratum
g, the non-response weight adjustment is the ratio of the number of facilities with valid
addresses to the number that responded.
A-6
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
= (non —response adjustment^ = •
Number of valid addresses in stratum g
8 Number of returned questionnaires in stratum g
(A-2)
The final screener weight >v, for facility / in non-response stratum g can be written as:
w ?i = {l)ase weight}x(non — response adjustment^ = 1.0 xw? =w? (A-3)
Although the weight is applicable to all responding facilities, EPA is interested in only
those facilities in AAP. For each non-response strata g. Table A.I shows the number of
valid addresses (excluding any duplicate addresses), the number of returned
questionnaires, the screener weight, and the number of responding AAP facilities. The
weights for the screener respondents ranged from 1.14 to 1.55.
As an example of the application of the screener weights, consider strata 1 which had 124
valid addresses and 93 returned questionnaires. The sample weight is:
w =1.0xf — ]=1.33
As shown in the last column, 56 of the 93 returned questionnaires are from AAP
facilities. Then, using the sample weight, the estimated number of AAP facilities is 1.33 x
56 = 75 (rounded to an integer).
Using a non-response adjustment assumes that the fraction of facilities doing AAP is the
same among the respondent and non-respondents. In its data analyses of the screener
questionnaire responses, EPA has assumed that non-respondents have the same
characteristics, proportionally, as the respondents. This is a common technique used in
survey estimation, although it is likely to incorporate some bias into the estimates. There
is considerable research into the area of non-response estimation (see, for example,
Groves and Couper (1998)).
Table A.I. Screener Weights and Number of Facilities by Non-Response
(Location) Strata
Non-Response
(Location)
Stratum
KAK)
2(AL)
3(AR)
4(CA)
5 (CO)
6(FL)
7(GA)
Number of
Valid Addresses
124
162
450
316
65
524
155
Number of
Returned
Questionnaires
93
111
323
249
52
410
118
Screener
Weight
wt
1.333
1.459
1.393
1.269
1.250
1.278
1.314
Number of Responding
AAP Facilities in the
Stratum
56
74
164
144
30
125
69
A-7
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Non-Response
(Location)
Stratum
8 (HI)
9(IA)
10 (ID)
11 (IN)
12 (LA)
13 (MA)
14 (ME)
15 (MI)
16 (MO)
17 (MS)
18 (NC)
19 (NE)
20 (NY)
21 (OH)
22 (OK)
23 (OR)
24 (PA)
25 (TX)
26 (VA)
27 (WA)
28 (WI)
29 (Other States)
Total
Number of
Valid Addresses
163
67
109
68
246
323
100
107
74
220
261
117
116
70
68
99
75
308
114
217
226
615
5559
Number of
Returned
Questionnaires
105
57
92
55
182
218
73
85
65
163
194
86
93
58
55
74
64
254
90
162
171
462
4214
Screener
Weight
ws
1.552
1.175
1.185
1.236
1.352
1.482
1.370
1.259
1.138
1.350
1.345
1.360
1.247
1.207
1.236
1.338
1.172
1.213
1.267
1.340
1.322
1.331
Number of Responding
AAP Facilities in the
Stratum
50
31
59
29
119
114
50
51
44
121
123
35
53
35
31
55
44
122
40
102
98
261
2329
A.2.2.3 National Estimates and Standard Errors
This section presents the general methodology and equations for estimating national
totals, national means, and their standard errors, from the responses to the screener
questionnaire.
Estimates of national totals were obtained for each characteristic and domain of interest
by multiplying the reported value by the screener weight and by summing all weighted
values for the facilities that belong to the domain of interest /c:
Vi- =
(A-4)
A-8
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Where / iejt is one if facility i in stratum g is in domain k and zero otherwise. For
example, if the domain of interest was 'Facilities in Western USD A Region,' _ygi was the
trout production at each facility i in stratum g, and wgi was the screener weight for that
facility, then yk was the estimate of trout production for facilities in the Western USDA
region.
Similarly, ratio estimates (for example, means and percentages) in a given domain k were
obtained as a ratio of estimates of two total values. For example, the average trout
production in the Western USDA region was the ratio of the estimate of trout production,
yk in that region, and the estimate of the number of facilities in that region producing
trout, nk:
(A-5)
After calculating the national estimates, EPA calculated standard errors (s.e.) of its
estimates using a jackknife replication method. (Wolter, 1985) Under the jackknife
replication method, a series of samples (called jackknife replicates) are selected from all
responses (n). EPA created 100 replicates to obtain 99 degrees of freedom which EPA
considered to be adequate for the statistical estimates while resulting in reasonably sized
data files for the replicates. Each facility response was randomly assigned a number
between 1 and 100. The first replicate used the responses from all facilities except those
assigned to group 1. The other replicates were derived in a similar way by excluding the
values for a different group each time. The replicate weights were used to adjust the
replicate sample size for the missing group. That is, if there were 100 responses in a non-
response (location) stratum and 10 responses were randomly assigned to group r, then the
replicate weight adjustment for that stratum, wr, was the ratio, 1.11, of the 100 responses
(n=100) and the 90 responses (nw=90) in the replicate sample. In this way, a series of
replicate weights were generated for each facility response, which together with the
screener weight were used to calculate national estimates and averages:
giv> g(r)y wl gi* (A-6)
(A_7)
In order to illustrate how the sampling errors are calculated, let J be the weighted
national average estimate of a characteristic y (e.g., average trout production at facilities
that produce trout). If jT(r) is the corresponding estimate calculated using the facility
A-9
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
responses for all groups except group r, then the estimated variance of y is given by the
following formula:
100
where the summation extends over all 100 jackknife replicates that were formed from the
screener responses. The standard error is then the square root of the variance:
(A-9)
In Attachment A.3, the tables provide various estimates and their standard errors. These
standard errors can be used to compute 95 percent confidence intervals around the
estimate. These intervals are given by:
confidence interval = y~±(l.96 xs.e.) (A-10)
A.3 DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE (PHASE 2)
This section describes the detailed questionnaire that was distributed in Phase 2 of EPA's
survey of the AAP industry. Section A.3.1 describes the sample design and sample
selection for the detailed questionnaire based upon the responses to the screener
questionnaire in Phase 1. Section A.3.2 describes the methods that EPA is likely to use in
developing national estimates from the responses to the detailed questionnaire.
A.3.1 Sample Design: Stratified Random Sample
After reviewing the results from the screener questionnaire, EPA decided that the
information from the detailed questionnaire was needed for only a subset of the AAP
facilities. Because the proposed rule is applicable only to concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) facilities, EPA was particularly interested in facilities, classified as
either Commercial, Government, Research, or Tribal, and subject to the current NPDES
regulations. (40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C to Part 122.) According the the NPDES
regulations, CAAP facilities can be in either of two categories: cold water or warm water.
The cold water species category includes ponds, raceways, or other similar structures
which discharge at least 30 days per year but does not include: facilities which produce
less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 20,000 pounds) per year of trout
or salmon; and facilities which feed less than 2,272 kilograms (approximately 5,000
pounds) during the calendar month of maximum feeding. The warm water category
includes ponds, raceways, or other similar structures which discharge at least 30 days per
year but does not include: closed ponds which discharge only during periods of excess
runoff; or facilities which produce less than 45,454 harvest weight kilograms
(approximately 100,000 pounds) per year of any species except trout and salmon.
Although EPA excluded ponds from the proposed rule, EPA determined that it needed
additional information from facilities with ponds and large production volumes to
evaluate whether EPA had appropriately excluded such facilities from the proposed rule.
A-10
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
EPA also considered aquariums to assess concerns from interested parties, particularly
with respect to drug and chemical use. EPA selected these based upon the facility name,
responses to questions 4 and 5, and additional information from an industry trade
association.
After considering these factors, EPA determined that it should sample facilities meeting
one of the following six criteria:
1. Aquariums.
2. Production includes alligators and total biomass exceeds 100,000 pounds.
3. Production includes trout or salmon and total biomass exceeds 20,000 pounds.
4. Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is catfish; and total
biomass exceeds 2,200,000 pounds.
5. Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is shrimp, tilapia,
other finfish, or hybrid striped bass; and total biomass exceeds 360,000 pounds.
6. Predominant production method is any except ponds; and total biomass exceeds
100,000 pounds.
By applying these criteria, EPA identified 539 facilities with these characteristics from
the screener questionnaire responses. In developing the sample selection criteria, EPA
determined each facility's predominant species and predominant production method as
explained in Section A.2.2.1, except that it excluded molluscan shellfish from its
determination of the predominant species.4 EPA then classified the 539 facilities into 44
strata which were defined by facility type (commercial, government, research, or tribal),5
the predominant species, and predominant production.
In calculating the sample sizes, EPA used a common method for estimating sample sizes
that is based upon the binomial distribution (see, for example, Cochran (1977)). The
binomial distribution applies to situations where there are only two possible outcomes.
For example, there are only two outcomes (yes or no) to a dichotomous question such as
'Does any of this water go to a publicly owned treatment works.' Because the assumption
results in the largest possible variance for the binomial distribution and the largest
possible sample size, this method assumes that the probability of one outcome would be
0.5 (i.e., 50 percent would select 'Yes' and 50 percent select 'No.') This probability is
4 Before selecting the sample for the detailed questionnaire, EPA evaluated the impact of its 'approximate'
conversion factors in the total biomass calculations described in Section A.2.2.1. Because it had identified
facilities with production close to the cutoff for inclusion into the selected strata and expended additional
effort to obtain more precise conversion factors, the use of approximate conversion factors had relatively
little effect.
5 Facility type was determined by the facility's response to question 4 of the screener questionnaire. If the
facility type was missing (7 cases) or indicated as being 'Other,' EPA excluded these facilities from
consideration for the detailed questionnaire.
A-ll
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
written as 'p=0.5.' EPA used this probability (p=0.5) and its precision targets to derive
the sample sizes. EPA's criteria for its sample can be summarized as follows:
1. For estimates for each stratum: a 95% confidence interval for p=0.5 is (0.2, 0.8); and
2. For overall estimates (i.e., of the entire population meeting the criteria above): a 95%
confidence interval for p=0.5 is (0.45, 0.55); and
3. No one facility unduly influences the overall estimate.
To achieve the desired precision, EPA determined that information should be collected
from 263 of the 539 facilities in the 44 strata. For 34 strata with five or fewer facilities,
EPA determined that a census was appropriate because of the relatively small sample
sizes, and thus, selected the 163 facilities in those strata. (Of these 34 strata, 20 strata
contained only one facility.) For the other 10 strata, EPA selected 200 of the 376
facilities. Table A.2 lists the variables defining each stratum, the number of facilities in
the stratum (Nh), the number of facilities in the sample (nh), and the sampling weight. The
number of facilities are based on the responses to the screener questionnaire, without
adjusting for non-response. As shown in Table A.2, the sampling weights are fairly
consistent, ranging from 1.0 to 2.6. (Although aquariums and alligators are not listed in
Table A.2, facilities selected for the sample included facilities that were aquariums and
alligator farms.)
In selecting the sample for each of the 10 strata, EPA selected the first nh facilities in
alphabetical order. Assuming that the information collected in the detailed questionnaire
is not correlated with the alphabetical ordering of the facilities, the sample can be treated
as a random statistical sample. By examining the production levels calculated from the
screener questionnaire responses in each stratum, the sample appears to be representative
of the population in each of the 10 strata (Westat, 2002c). After selecting the sample,
EPA identified 8 of the 539 facilities as being duplicates of other facilities; however, they
either were not selected for the sample or were only selected once. EPA also identified
another facility that should have been excluded from consideration for the detailed
questionnaire, because it did not meet the selection criteria. Although the facility was one
of the 263 selected to receive the detailed questionnaire, it has been removed from the
sample. EPA has concluded that the 262 remaining facilities in the sample will provide
acceptable precision estimates for the 530 facilities.
Table A.2 Sampling Strata for Detailed Questionnaire
Facility Type
Commercial
Predominant
Species
Catfish
Other
Predominant
Production
Method
Flow through
Ponds
Flow through
Other
Ponds
Number of Facilities
(based on Screener
Responses)
X*
<5
50
<5
<5
<5
Number of
Sampled
Facilities
»;,
all
20
all
an
all
Sampling
Weight
",/"*
1.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
A-12
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Facility Type
Government
Research
Tribal
Predominant
Species
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Other Finfish
Baitfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Sniped Bass
Other Finfish
Catfish
Other
Trout
Other Finfish
Trout
Salmon
Other Finfish
Predominant
Production
Method
Recirculating
Flow through
Net pens
Flow through
Net pens
Recirculating
Flow through
Ponds
Recirculating
Flow through
Recirculating
Flow through
Net pens
Ponds
Recirculating
Recirculating
Flow through
Recirculating
Flow through
Ponds
Recirculating
Flow through
Ponds
Flow through
Other
Ponds
Flow through
Net pens
Recirculating
Ponds
Flow through
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating
Flow through
Recirculating
Flow through
Flow through
Ponds
Totals
Number of Facilities
(based on Screener
Responses)
Nk
<5
135
<5
16
10
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
12
<5
<5
8
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
157
<5
<5
64
<5
<5
<5
<5
12
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
10
<5
537
Number of
Sampled
Facilities
«;,
all
52
all
8
7
all
all
all
all
aD
7
all
all
6
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
aD
all
61
all
aD
25
all
all
aD
aU
7
all
aU
all
all
all
7
all
263
Sampling
Weight
NJnh
1.0
2.596
1.0
2.0
1.429
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.714
1.0
1.0
1.333
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.574
1.0
1.0
2.560
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.714
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.429
1.0
A-13
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
A.3.2 Data Analysis
EPA will use the information collected by the detailed questionnaires to re-estimate the
costs and benefits associated with the proposed regulatory options. These results will be
published in a Notice of Data Availability (NOD A) prior to final action on the proposed
rule. This section provides a preliminary overview of EPA' s plans for statistically
analyzing these data to estimate national totals, national means, and their standard errors.
Weighting the data allows inferences to be made about all eligible facilities, not just those
included in the sample, but also those not included in the sample or those that did not
respond to the either the screener or detailed questionnaire. The base weight for a facility
responding to the detailed questionnaire is calculated by multiplying the screener weight
which adjusted for non-response (see Section A.2.2.2) by the weight from the sample
selection for the detailed questionnaire (See Table A.2). The detailed questionnaire base
weight for a facility i in sampling strata h and non-response (location) strata g can be
written as follows:
W =w (A-ll)
where Nh is the number of facilities in the sample that belong to sampling stratum h (Nh
and nh are shown in Table A.2), nh is the number of facilities selected in the stratum h and
wgi is the non-response adjusted screener weight from Table A.I. If necessary, EPA will
adjust this base weight for any non-response to the detailed questionnaire. In addition,
instead of using the values of Nh from Table A.2, EPA will consider using estimates of Nh
based upon adjustments for non-response to the screener questionnaire. These estimates
would be the same as or greater than the number of facilities in Table A.2.
To obtain national estimates based upon the detailed questionnaire responses, EPA plans
to use these sample weights and the methodology described in Section A.2. 2.3.
REFERENCES
Brick, J.M., D. Morganstein, R. Valliant. (2000). "Analysis of Complex Sample Data
Using Replication." Westat (www.westat.com).
Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: Wiley.
Groves, R.M. and M.P. Couper. (1998). Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys.
New York: Wiley.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.
USDA (2000). 1998 USDA Census of Aquaculture. Located at DCN 60605 and
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm.
A-14
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
USEPA (2001). "Screener Questionnaire for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry."
DCN 10001 in the proposal record. Also at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/aquaculture/screenersurvey.pdf.
USEPA (2002). "Detailed Questionnaire for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry."
DCN 10002 in the proposal record.
Westat (2002a). "Alternative weighting plan." DCN 50050 in Section 10.3.
Westat (2002b). "Logistic Regression Results." DCN 50058 in Section 10.3.
Westat (2002c). "Analysis of Variance Results" DCN 50057 in Section 10.3.
Wolter, K. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
A-15
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
PA Screener Questionnaire
CS
o>
h
S
*-
"a
^
a
^C
«M
O
tn
1/3
S
V
U
^f
"
Q
Y3
a
N»
'o
O
•r
W
e
o
U
l-H
•
=
Attach]
J
.£
S
c
s
c
*2
^
5j
S
«»
U
S
»)
>/3
t;
Si
a
^j
5
U
Q
S
1*1
•<
^>
S
s
u
fj
,
5
§
.3
£?
"03
03
0
3
3)
CD
1
S+H
03
Q
1"
^
"O
.3
U
"o
q
•i
t
V)
U
T3
0
1
§
a
>~. >
•j -^i
.§ -1
*«. •£
ft- O
1
o
H
o
o
!L>
S3 . .
EPA did not require that any products be sold foi
the farm to be included in its population. The
USDA Census generally excluded farms that did
not sell its products (e.g., state hatcheries). The
USDA Census included "other aquaculture
products" including algae. The EPA Screener
excluded algae arid non-animal products. While t
USDA includes such farms, only 20 farms report
algae and sea vegetables production (Table 19 in
USDA (appears to be only about 20 farms in the
USDA count.
%> ^ <3
1 ^ W °
"^ ^ (iJ O -
•^ ^ o *• ^"*
u a £ ^ •""
•a w o '-B S
03 jq VH 3 U
q u O. aj 03
cy 3 -2 ^q "-1
^:~i
•S &* o ^ ^j
r % ''a 2, x
~-s> q o s 3
o ^ TJ S H
1 y ^ ! .y
= T3 r-j C3 ?3
^ 1 2 1 1
jq
So u
>• ^ .q
5> -O T3
S "° OJ)
=§ i of
;• y q T3
I ^ -S s
rt CJ S O
'•" SO a oo
u "g cc g as
•*— | C^H ^, r-i ^_^
q u O S v,
O C •*-* .Ji c3
,o3 d q 53 3
r3 CT1 >-i S u
CU ^ OJ ^ ^ Cg ^j
r/l ™ T^ "H^' ' rt ^^ O S?
.t) -O U ry? -3 _g -H p, ^
i3^1,o«^S-So3
y Cg •*"* - &i 'r* r^ VJ
f * q- •§ 1 1 1 •§ -S
KQ|l|og^a
Ullla-gSi
"~l ,, -^ c3 ^ ""*"* "^ 'T^'1 ;T2
.qj o ,2 j Is "S a S ^
^2"^ *" F^ £H "£3 D Cg
t> ctS ^ > — >, ^
1~H C ^— VJ '"^ '-u-
« § o?3 g ° S
_^, q u, H -3 £ -c
•Z3 g ° S' ^ ^3 "^
'v5 q 73 Hn Frt ^ °^
o o1 ^ ^ 03 ^H
OH u ™ .9 -e q -q
"9 3 -S = U -£3 !£3
iiinii
03 U
2 a-§
gll
w
7
1
2
ta
Attachment A-1, Page 1
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
1
ta
onnaii
\
^
%>
«a
£
S
*H
USDA Census of Aquaculture
USDA had little non-response due to intensive
follow-up of non-respondents. Screener results
were weighted to adjust for non-response to
calculate national estimates.
o
"3 • ^
'S -2 £j
""O O >
1 i 1 1 1
| S a 3 .2
"S s =r « «
W Z < =2 a
Couipai-able values include production rnetiiods,
species produced and some production infonnation.
i *•
S S
rtn C *^
"^ *^H ^ "-t
^ H T3 ^ ^ <^
ijjij!!!
go'^cD'o^'^gcS?^
oaHcoy'^"'3--^
•2"3§-o^-o ^
g§tos2'T^<3^
1 I H If Sf f
•H ^ ^*~* *^ r^ Jn C/j O
O ^* O" r^ J^ "3 £d Mj -J-j
SSog-g SuQ^
U<2Scs a<§ "1 2 &
CH ^ *S ^
Collected detaded infonnation relat
to on-fann aquaculture practices, si;
of operation based on water area,
production, sales, method of
production, sources of water, point
fkst sale oudets, cooperative
agreements and contracts, and
aquaculture distiibuted for restoratil
or conservation purposes.
a.
o
&
For catfish and trout, total screener production is
somewhat larger tiian from die USDA Census.
Screener estimates are based on unit conversion
assumptions. Comparisons for other species would
requke additional assumptions. Differences may be
due to changes over time and under coverage ki die
two frames.
3 1= ,3
1 M
£ a 8.
1 ll
% a a
<5 c^ 3
S CD ,_!
•W J-H ' '
•^ ~H . .
.ye |
IUH
National estimate:
Catfish: 593 million pounds
Trout: 63 million pounds
•2 o
"3 '*" "S sfi
s J8 •** .8
2 2 ~ o-
Cu M O5 O5
Attachment A-1, Page 2
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
ATTACHMENT A-2. CONVERSION FACTORS FOR SCREENER QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONSES
Table A2.1. Biomass Calculations for Predominant Species: Pounds-to-Count
Conversion Factors
Species
Code'
1
2
3
4
5
6
6-15
6-19
6-20
6-24
6-26
6-27
6-29
6-30
6-31
6-33
6-34
6-35
6-69
6-71
6-73
6-74
6-75
7
7-48
8
8-17
9
10
11
12
13
13-14
13-21
13-32
SPECIES
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Other Finfish (except as listed)
bass - smallrnouth and largemouth
Crappie
Eel
Paddlefish
Perch
Saugeye
Sturgeon
Sucker
Sunfish (including bluegill and
panfish)
Walleye
Whitefish
Pike
Shad (including threadfm)
Charr
Arnberjack
Bream
Shell cracker
Baitfish (except smelt)
Smelt
Ornamentals (except carp)
Carp (includes koi, white amur)
Shrimp
Crawfish
Other Crustaceans
Molluscan shellfish
Other (except as listed)
Alligators (and caimen)
Frogs and tadpoles
Turtles
SIZE (Size Category from Question 5 in the Screener) 2
Foodsize
(1)
1.5
1
5
1.75
1.75
1
2.00
1.13
4.62
2.00
0.59
1.00
45.00
2.19
0.25
3.00
2.50
4.63
2.50
2.00
75.00
0.33
0.50
0.01
0.19
0.01
4.00
0.0444
0.0444
0.10
0.10
1.00
13.00
0.13
Stackers
(2)
0.18
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
Fingerlings
(3)
0.0334
0.035
0.035
0.06
0.035
0.035
Seed
Stock
(6)
6.6E-06
Brood-
stock
(7)
4.31
2.5
10
5
2.5
2.5
0.1
0.08
3.5
Fry
(4)
.03
'The first number is the same as the categories listed in question 5 of the screener questionnaire. EPA assigned the
second number to other species.
2For production reported in 'Other' units in question 5. EPA used 64 Ibs/bushel; 1 lb/dollar, and other or unknown
units were assumed to be counts.
Conversions for specific facilities: Misc. Invertebrates, 0.0000022 Ibs/count; Bambooshark eggs and Seahorse seed
stock, 0.001 Ibs/count; Minnows, Mysid Shrimp, Silverside, and Waterfleas. 20 Ibs/dollar.
Attachment A-2, Page 1
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A2.2. Total Biomass Calculations: Foodsize-to-Other Sizes Conversion
Factors (when not specified in Table A2.1)
Size Code from Question
5 in the Screener
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Size
Foodsize
Stockers
Fingerlings
Fry
Eggs
Seed stock
Brood size
Other
Food Size
Multiplier
1.0000
0.1418
0.0214
0.0014
0.00001
0.0001
3.4247
0.1000
Table A2.3. Determination of Predominant Production Method: EPA's Assumed
Hierarchy of Most to Least Common Production Method
Purpose
Screener
Questionnaire
Data Analysis2
(See Attachment
A-3)
Detailed
Questionnaire
Sample Selection"
Predominant
Species
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Other Finfish
Baitfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Crawfish
Other
crustaceans
Other
Most Common to Least Common Production Method1
Ponds. Flow through, Recirculating, Other
Flow through, Recirculating, Ponds. Net Pens
Net pens. Flow through, Recirculating
Ponds, Recirculating, Flow through
Recirculating, Flow through. Ponds
Ponds, Flow through. Net pens, Recirculating, Other
Flow through. Ponds, Recirculating, Other, Net Pens. Floating aquaculture
Flow through, Net pens, Recirculating, Ponds, Other, Floating aquaculture
Ponds, Flow through, Recirculating, Net pens. Other
Recirculating, Flow through. Ponds. Net pens. Other, Floating aquaculture
Ponds, Flow through. Recirculating, Net pens, Other, Floating aquaculture
Ponds, Flow through, Recirculating
Ponds, Recirculating, Flow through, Other, Net pens, Floating aquaculture
Ponds, Recirculating, Flow through. Other, Net pens. Floating aquaculture
Ponds. Net pens. Flow through, Recirculating, Other
Recirculating, Flow through, Floating aquaculture, Ponds
Ponds. Recirculating, Other, Flow through, Net pens, Floating aquaculture
1 The production methods (e.g.. 'Other) are from the choices provided in question 6 of the screener questionnaire.
2 This hierarchy was based upon sources other than the screener questionnaire responses.
" This hierarchy is based upon a data analysis of the screener questionnaire responses. EPA acknowledges that floating
aquaculture is unlikely to be used as a production method for certain species, and EPA plans additional review of these
questionnaire responses.
Attachment A-2, Page 2
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A2.4. Revenue Calculations: Prices for Species by Size1
Species
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Size
Foodsize
Stockers
Fingerlings/Fry
Brood Stock
Foodsize
Stockers
Fingerlings
Foodsize (except Alaska)
Foodsize (Alaska)
Fingerlings/Fry
Foodsize
Fingerlings/Fry
Foodsize
Fingerlings
Prices
$0.74/lb
$1.03/lb
$1.66/lb
$0.91/lb
$1.06/lb
$2.29/lb
$162. 16/1000 fish eggs
$2.00/lb
$0.23/lb
$0.17/lb
$2.44/lb
$0.26/lb
$1.70/lb
$0.1 I/fish
USDA Table (page) 2
8(20)
8(21)
8(22)
8(19)
9(24)
9 (25)
9 (26)
3
12 (39)
12 (40)
12 (34)
12 (35)
12(41)
12 (42)
'EPA included only the listed species/size categories in its revenue calculations. Of those categories. EPA included
only those responses that were reported in dollars sold, in pounds (applying the above conversion factors), or counts
that could be converted to pounds using the conversion factors in Table A2.1.
2See USDA (2000).
3 EPA adjusted the national average provided in Table 12 (p. 39) to obtain a value that did not include Alaska as
follows:
(National total sales - Alaska sales (/(National total quantity - Alaska quantity)
= ($103,583,000 - $16,340.000)/( 110.588,000 Ibs - 70,129,000 Ibs)
= S2.16/lb which EPA rounded to $2.00/lb
Attachment A-2, Page 3
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
ATTACHMENT A-3 NATIONAL ESTIMATES BASED ON SCREENER
QUESTIONNAIRES
The following tables provide national estimates (i.e., adjusted for non-response) of the
responses to the screener questionnaires. Each table presents estimates for different types
('domains') of facilities, such as facilities in each USDA region or facilities using each
production method. The facility domains are shown in the left column. Within each
domain, Tables A3.1 through A3.8 show the number of facilities, percent of facilities, and
total aquatic animal production. The total aquatic animal production is the total
production of all species across all facilities in the domain. In contrast, Table A3.9 shows
the total production of only the species used to define the domain rather than all species.
In some tables in this attachment, EPA has not presented the totals, because some
facilities were placed in more than one category. For example, Table A3.7 provides the
number of facilities and their production for each production method. Thus, if a facility
has ponds and flow-through systems, the facility and its production would be counted
under both production methods.
Table A3.1. USDA Region
Region
NORTHEASTERN
SOUTHERN
NORTH CENTRAL
WESTERN
TROPICAL
ALL
Number of Facilities
Estimate
452
1393
485
664
80
3075
Standard
error
18
30
18
20
9
46
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
14.7%
45.3%
15.8%
21.6%
2.6%
100.0%
Standard
error
0.5%
0.7%
0.5%
0.6%
0.3%
Production
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
74,673
820,946
27,138
258,830
7,382
1,190,000
Standard
error
15,890
112,800
5,978
96,884
4,088
150,200
Attachment A-3, Page 1
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.2. Facility Type
Facility Type
Commercial
Government
Research
Tribal
Other
ALL
Number of Facilities
Estimate
2384
447
67
29
147
3075
Standard
error
44
23
9
6
14
46
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
77.5%
14.5%
2.2%
1.0%
4.8%
100.0%
Standard
error
0.9%
0.7%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
Production
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
1,060,000
102,046
1,738
2,356
20,762
1,190,000
Standard
error
146,700
18,743
724
782
5,266
150,200
Attachment A-3, Page 2
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.3. Predominant Species1
Predominant Species
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Other Finfish
Baitfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Crawfish
Other crustaceans
Molluscan shellfish
Other
ALL
Number of Facilities
Estimate
739
707
197
91
129
376
116
173
54
38
15
274
168
3075
Standard
error
29
30
13
11
14
21
13
13
8
7
5
17
13
46
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
24.0%
23.0%
6.4%
3.0%
4.2%
12.2%
3.8%
5.6%
1.7%
1.2%
0.5%
8.9%
5.5%
100.0%'
Standard
error
0.9%
0.9%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%
0.0%
Production, All Species
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
613,627
98,373
111,756
17,788
12,599
31,542
8,371
8,800
11,702
629
160
139,231
134,390
1,190,000
Standard
error
103,700
19,398
21,466
5,538
3,843
9,313
2,220
2,465
4,620
310
129
97,493
53,166
150,200
The predominant species is the species with the largest production at a facility. Each facility has only one
predominant species.
Attachment A-3, Page 3
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.4. Predominant Production Method
Predominant
Production Method
Ponds
Flow through
raceways, ponds, or
tanks
Reckculating
systems
Net pens or cages
Floating aquaculture
or bottom culture
Other
ALL
Number of Facilities
Estimate
1561
960
228
40
233
53
3075
Standard
error
38
33
18
7
17
8
46
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
50.8%
31.2%
7.4%
1.3%
7.6%
1.7%
100.0%
Standard
error
1.0%
0.9%
0.6%
0.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0%
Production
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
763,380
278,181
61,256
45,455
37,564
3,134
1,190,000
Standard
error
109,500
98,100
24,797
17,670
11,463
2,003
150,200
Table A3.5. Water Discharge Status to POTW1
Does water go to a
POTW?
Water leaves to
POTW
Water leaves, not to
POTW
Water does not leave
No answer
ALL
Number of Facilities
Estimate
127
1981
954
13
3075
Standard
error
13
39
35
4
46
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
4.1%
64.5%
31.0%
0.4%
100.0%
Standard
error
0.4%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%'
0.0%
Production
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
9,242
1,030,000
147,904
474
1,190,000
Standard
error
3,583
142,400
39,775
324
150,200
The responses in the table combine the answers to questions 7 and 8 in the questionnaire.
Attachment A-3, Page 4
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.6. Water Discharge Status and NPDES Permits1
Does water go to a
POTW?
Water leaves, facility
has NPDES permit
Water leaves, No
NPDES permit
Water does not leave
No answer
ALL
Number of Facilities
Estimate
541
1565
954
14
3075
Standard
error
27
35
35
5
46
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
17.6%
50.9%
31.0%
0.5%
100.0%
Standard
error
0.8%
1.0%
1.0%
0.1%
0.0%
Production
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
278,103
762,451
147,904
511
1,190,000
Standard
error
98,129
110,600
39,775
324
150,200
1 The responses in the table combine the answers to questions 7 and 9 in the questionnaire.
Table A3.7. Production Method1
Production Method
Ponds
Flow through
raceways, ponds, or
tanks
Recirculating
systems
Net pens or cages
Floating aquaculture
or bottom culture
Other
Number of Facilities
Estimate
1860
1358
610
262
248
155
Standard
error
43
36
26
17
16
13
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
60.7%'
44.3%
19.9%
8.6%
8.1%
5.1%'
Standard
error
1.0%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
Production
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
786,298
394,321
129,575
71,454
38,315
19,432
Standard
error
104,400
101,100
29,385
19,388
11,296
9,026
1 If a facility reports using more than one production method, the facility is included in the table totals for each
production method used. Therefore the sum of the column for the number of facilities is greater than the number of
facilities represented by the data, and the same is true for the production numbers. Thus, the totals are not presented.
Attachment A-3, Page 5
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.8. Species1
Species
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Other Finfish
Baitfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Crawfish
Other crustaceans
Molluscan shellfish
Other
Number of Facilities
Estimate
901
818
277
155
178
644
259
267
73
83
24
303
156
Standard
error
30
28
16
13
15
28
18
19
10
9
6
18
11
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
29.3%
26.6%
9.0%
5.1%
5.8%
21.0%
8.4%
8.7%
2.4%
2.7%
0.8%
9.9%
5.1%
Standard
error
0.9%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.6%
0.4%
Production, All Species
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
637,211
120,600
128,305
24,817
24,005
75,781
30,044
24,031
12,957
12,353
293
140,308
135,762
Standard
error
99,896
23,065
23,860
6,168
7,236
14,802
8,485
7,881
4,623
6,430
170
96,204
45,566
1 If a facility produces more than one species, the facility is included in the table totals for each species produced.
Therefore, the sum of the column for the number of facilities is greater than the number of facilities represented by the
data, and the same is true for the production numbers. Each row provides the total production for all species at those
facilities having the individual species in the left-hand column. See Table A3.9 for total production of just the
individual species at those facilities.
Attachment A-3, Page 6
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.9. Species1
Species
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Oilier Finfish
Baitfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Crawfish
Other crustaceans
Molluscan shellfish
Other
Number of Facilities
Estimate
901
818
277
155
178
644
259
267
73
83
24
303
156
Standard
error
30
28
16
13
15
28
18
19
10
9
6
18
11
Percent of Facilities
Estimate
29.3%
26.6%
9.0%
5.1%
5.8%'
21.0%'
8.4%
8.7%
2.4%
2.7%
0.8%
9.9%
5.1%
Standard
error
0.9%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%>
0.8%'
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.6%
0.4%
Production of
Listed Species
(thousands of pounds)
Estimate
613,569
97,381
112,514
17,848
13,771
26,888
10,781
10,054
11,634
754
131
139,321
134,324
Standard
error
99,705
20,420
23,443
5,228
3,870
6,317
2,975
2,828
4,501
309
98
96,225
45,584
'The total production is the production for the species listed in the left column. See Table A3.8 for the total facility
production which includes production of all other species at the facilities producing that species in the left column.
Attachment A-3, Page 7
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.10. For Selected Species, Number of Facilities by Predominant Production
Method
Species
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Shrimp
Tilapia
Sportfish (other
Finfish)
Striped Bass/
Hybrid Striped
Bass
Alligator
Predominant Production Method
Ponds
Flow Through & Not(Ponds)
Recirculating & Not( Ponds or Flow Through)
Other, Not(Ponds, Flow Through, or Recirculating)
All systems
Flow Through
Recirculating & Not(Flow Through)
Ponds & Not(Flow Through or Recirculating)
Net Pens & Not(Flow Through, Recirculating, or
Ponds)
Missing Production Information
All systems
Net Pens
Flow Through & Not(Net Pens)
Recirculating & Not(Net Pens or Flow Through)
Other, Not(Net Pens, Flow Through, or Recirculating)
All systems
Ponds
Recirculating & Not(Ponds)
Flow through & Not(Ponds or Recirculating)
All systems
Recirculating
Flow Through & Not(Recirculating)
Ponds & Not(Recirculating or Flow Through)
Missing Production Information
All systems
Ponds
Flow Through & Not(Ponds)
Recirculating & Not(Ponds or Flow Through)
Other, Not(Ponds, Flow Through, or Recirculating)
All systems
Ponds
Recirculating & Not( Ponds)
Flow through & Not(Ponds or Recirculating)
Other & Not(Ponds, Recirculating, or Flow Through)
All systems
All systems
National
Estimate1
861.13
26.87
ND
ND
900.91
735.07
17.22
60.94
ND
ND
818.40
46.98
219.25
ND
ND
276.65
55.57
ND
ND
72.53
119.42
35.61
ND
ND
176.08
557.95
59.28
20.68
6.33
644.24
129.33
19.59
ND
ND
155.22
41.12
Responses
649
20
ND
ND
679
569
13
47
ND
ND
633
35
166
ND
ND
201
42
ND
ND
55
90
26
ND
ND
132
432
45
16
5
498
99
15
ND
ND
119
31
Sample sizes masked by 'ND' ('Not Disclosed') indicate there are five or fewer facilities for one or more of the
production methods for that specie.
Attachment A-3, Page 8
-------
Appendix A: Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.11. Estimated Number of Facilities Covered by the Proposed Rule1
Predominant
Production Species
Method
Flow-
through
Recirculating
Net Pens
Trout
Salmon
Striped
Bass
Tilapia
Striped
Bass
Tilapia
Salmon
Size
Foodsize
S lookers
All with $
value
All with $
value
AU with $
value
All with $
value
All with $
value
All with $
value
Class 1
a $20,000
and
<$100,000
92
139
44
n/a2
n/a
n/a
n/a
ND
Revenue
Class 2
;> $100,000
and
<$500,000
44
131
52
ND3
ND
ND
13
ND
Classes
Class 3
> $500,000
13
39
38
ND
ND
ND
12
19
Total
$20,0004
149
309
133
ND
9
ND
26
32
1 In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA discusses six production size categories that correspond with the revenue
classifications used in the 1998 USDA Census of Aquaculture (i.e., $l,000-$24,999: $25,000 - $49,999; $50,000 -
$99.999; $100,000 - $499,999; $500,000 - $1,000.000; and >$ 1.000,000) to develop model facilities representing
these size ranges for each species evaluated. Because small sample sizes for some revenue categories have small
sample sizes, the national estimates are presented here. They are included in the non-public record as DCN50066CBI
in Section 10.3.
2 n/a: not applicable in the proposed rule
3 ND: Sample sizes masked by 'ND' ('Not Disclosed') indicate there are five or fewer facilities for one or more of the
classes in the production method/specie/size category
4Due to rounding, totals in this column may differ slightly from the sum of the numbers for the Classes.
Attachment A-3, Page 9
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND
NOMINAL QUANTITATION LIMITS
-------
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND NOMINAL QUANTITATION LIMITS
The analytical methods described in this appendix were used to determine pollutant levels
in wastewater samples collected by EPA at a number of aquatic animal production
facilities (sampling efforts are described in Chapter 3). In developing the proposed rule,
EPA sampled aquatic animal production facilities to determine the levels of Aeromonas,
ammonia as nitrogen, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen
demand (COD), chloride, E. coli, Enterococcus faecium, fecal coliform, fecal
streptococcus, 27 metals, Mycobacterium marinum, nitrate/nitrite, oil and grease
(measured as hexane extractable material (HEM)), pH, settleable solids, semivolatile
organics, sulfate, total chlorine, total coliform, total dissolved solids (TDS), total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN), total organic carbon (TOC), total orthophosphate, total phosphorus, total
solids, total suspended solids (TSS), volatile organics, volatile residue, and whole effluent
toxicity (WET). As explained in Chapters 2 and 8, EPA proposes to regulate only TSS,
but it is also considering regulating total phosphorus and BOD5 for some facilities.
Section B.I of this appendix provides an explanation of nominal quantitation limits.
Section B.2 describes the reporting conventions used by laboratories in expressing the
results of the analyses. Section B.3 describes each analytical method and the nominal
quantitation limits associated with each method.
B.I NOMINAL QUANTITATION LIMITS
The nominal quantitation limit is the smallest quantity of an analyte that can be reliably
measured with a particular method, using the typical (nominal) sample size. The
protocols used for determination of nominal quantitation limits in a particular method
depend on the definitions and conventions that EPA used at the time the method was
developed. Printouts in Section 10 of the proposal record list the nominal quantitation
limit as a 'baseline value.'1 The nominal quantitation limits associated with the methods
addressed in this section fall into five categories.
1. The first category pertains to EPA Methods 1624, 1625, and 1664, which define
the minimum level (ML) as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system
must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the
analyte. These methods are described in Section B.3.1.
2. The second category pertains specifically to EPA Method 1620, and is explained
in detail in Section B.3.2.
3. The third category pertains to the remainder of the chemical methods (classical
wet chemistry analytes) in which a variety of terms are used to describe the lowest
1 EPA used two different methods to analyze for ammonia as nitrogen and TKN, and only one method for
the remaining pollutants of concern. The printout lists the nominal quantitation limit for the analytical
method that was used most frequently for ammonia as nitrogen (Method 350.1) and TKN (Method 351.2).
B-l
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
level at which measurement results are quantitated. In some cases the methods
date to the 1970s and 1980s when different concepts of quantitation were
employed by EPA. These methods typically list a measurement range or lower
limit of measurement. The terms differ by method and, as discussed in
subsequent sections, the levels presented are not always representative of the
lowest levels laboratories currently can achieve.
For those methods associated with a calibration procedure, the laboratories
demonstrated through a low-point calibration standard that they were capable of
reliable quantitation at method-specified (or lower) levels. In such cases, these
nominal quantitation limits are operationally equivalent to the ML (although not
specifically identified as such in the methods).
In the case of titrimetric or gravimetric methods, the laboratory adhered to the
established lower limit of the measurement range published in the methods.
Details of the specific methods are presented in Sections B.3.3 through B.3.18.
4. The fourth category pertains to all microbiological methods. This category
pertains specifically to the membrane filtration test procedure and is explained in
detail in Section B.3.19.
5. The fifth category pertains to all whole effluent toxicity methods. The whole
effluent toxicity methods are explained in detail in Section B.3.20.
B.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORTING CONVENTIONS
The laboratories expressed results of the analyses either numerically or as not quantitated2
for a pollutant in a sample. If the result is expressed numerically, then the pollutant was
quantitated3 in the sample. Most of the analytical chemistry data were reported as liquid
concentrations in weight/volume units (e.g., micrograms per liter [iig/L]), except for
settleable solids data., which were reported in volume/volume units (e.g., milliliters per
liter [mL/L]), and the pH data, which were reported in "standard units" (SU). In the case
of solid samples such as sediments, the results were provided in weight/weight units (e.g.,
milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]). Bacteriological data generated using membrane
filtration techniques were reported as colony forming units (CPU) per 100 mL volume of
sample. Whole effluent toxicity data endpoints measured were lethality in 50% of the
organisms (LC50) for the fathead minnow and the Ceriodaphnia, growth in the larval
fathead minnow and Selenastrum, and the number of offspring produced in the
Ceriodaphnia.
2 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA may refer to pollutants as "not
detected" or "non-detected." This appendix uses the term "not quantitated" or "non-quantitated" rather
than non-detected.
3 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA may refer to pollutants as
"detected." This appendix uses the term "quantitated" rather than detected.
B-2
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
For example, for a hypothetical pollutant X, the result would be reported as "15 |ig/L"
when the laboratory quantitated the amount of pollutant X in the sample as being 15
|ig/L. For the pollutants which could not be quantitated, the laboratories would report a
"sample-specific quantitation limit,"4 e.g., "<10 |ag/L" when the analytical result
indicated a value less than the sample-specific quantitation limit of 10 |ig/L. In this
example, the actual amount of pollutant X in that sample is between zero (i.e., the
pollutant is not present) and 10 |ig/L. The sample-specific quantitation limit for a
particular pollutant is generally the smallest quantity in the calibration range that can be
measured reliably in any given sample. If a pollutant is reported as non-quantitated in a
particular wastewater sample, this does not mean that the pollutant is not present in the
wastewater, merely that analytical techniques (whether because of instrument limitations,
pollutant interactions, or other reasons) do not permit its measurement at levels below the
sample-specific quantitation limit.
B.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS
EPA analyzed all of the aquatic animal production facility wastewater samples using
methods identified in Table B-l. (As explained in Section Z, EPA is proposing to
regulate only a subset of these analytes.) Except for the volatile and semivolatile
organics and total organic carbon, EPA used either EPA methods from Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW) or the American Public Health
Association's Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. EPA
methods are identified in the sections that follow by their method number, e.g., EPA
Method 1624. Methods from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater are prefaced by "SM." All of the chemical methods cited from Standard
Methods (SM) are from the 18th edition; the biological methods cited from Standard
Methods are from the 20th edition.
In analyzing samples, EPA generally used analytical methods approved at 40 CFR Part
136 for compliance monitoring or methods that had been in use by EPA for decades in
support of effluent guidelines development. Exceptions for use of non-approved methods
are explained in the method-specific subsections that follow. All EPA-proposed
limitations or standards are based upon data generated by methods approved at 40 CFR
Part 136.
Each of the following sections states whether the method is listed at 40 CFR Part 136
(even if the pollutant was not proposed for regulation), provides a short description of the
method, and identifies the nominal quantitation limit. Methods listed at 40 CFR Part 136
are approved for use in wastewater compliance monitoring under the NPDES process.
4 Elsewhere in this document and in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA may refer to a "sample-
specific quantitation limit" as a "sample-specific detection limit" or, more simply, as a "detection limit.'
B-3
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
Table B-l Analytical Methods
Analvte
Aeromonas
Ammonia as Nitrogen
BOD5
Ceriodaphnia Dubia Chronic
COD
Chloride
E. coli
Enterococcus Faecium
Fathead Minnow
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Streptococcus
HEM
Metals
Mycobacterium marinum
Nitrate/Nitrite
Oil and Grease
Orthophosphate
pH
Selenastrum Growth Test
Semivolatile Organics
Settleable Solids
Sulfate
Total Chlorine
Total Coliform
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Method
1605
350.1
350.2
4500-NH3 H
405.1
1002.0
410.1
410.4
5220C
325.1
325.3
4500Cr B
600-R-00-013
9230C
1000.0
9222D
9230C
1664
1620
9260M
353.1
353.3
4500-NO3 E
5520E
365.2
150.1
9045C
1003.0
1625
2540F
375.3
375.4
Test Strip
600-R-00-013
160.1
351.2
CAS
Number
C2101
7664417
7664417
7664417
C003
N/A
C004
C004
C004
16887006
16887006
16887006
68583222
68876788
N/A
C2106
C2107
C036
t
C2119
COOS
coos
coos
C036
C034
C006
C006
N/A
t
N/A
14808798
14808798
7782505
E10606
C010
C021
Nominal
Quantitation Limit
1.00
0.01
0.05
0.02
2.0
100
5.0
3.0
50.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.00
100.00
100
1.00
1.00
5.0
4.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
5.0
0.01
100
0.1
10.0
1.0
0.05
1.0
10.0
0.5
Unit
CFU/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
%
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
CFU/100 mL
CFU/100 mL
%
CFU/100 mL
CFU/100 mL
mg/L
CFU/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SU
SU
%
mL/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
CFU/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
B-4
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
Analvte
Total Organic Carbon
Total Phosphorus
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Organics
Volatile Residue
Method
351.3
4500-N^ C
415.1
Lloyd Kahn
365.2
160.2
1624
160.4
CAS
Number
C021
C021
C012
C012
14265442
C009
t
C030
Nominal
Quantitation Limit
1.0
0.02
1.0
100
0.01
4.0
10.0
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
N/A There is no CAS Number for this analyte.f The method analyzed a number of pollutants.
B.3.1 EPA Methods 1624,1625, and 1664 (Volatile Organics, Semivolatile
Organics, and HEM)
Laboratories used EPA Methods 1624, 1625, and 1664 to measure volatile organics,
semivolatile organics, and n-hexane extractable material (HEM). EPA Methods 1624,
1625, and 1664 are approved at 40 CFR Part 136.
These methods use the minimum level (ML) concept for quantitation of pollutants. The
ML is defined as the lowest level at which the entire analytical system must give a
recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte. When an ML is
published in a method, the Agency has demonstrated that the ML can be achieved in at
least one well-operated laboratory. When that laboratory or another laboratory uses that
method, the laboratory is required to demonstrate, through calibration of the instrument
or analytical system, that it can achieve pollutant measurements at the ML.
The nominal quantitation values are equal to the MLs listed in the methods for each
analyte. The MLs for majority of volatile and semivolatile organics are 10 |ig/L, with a
small number of higher values for pollutants that are more difficult to analyze. The ML
for HEM determined by EPA Method 1664 is 5 mg/L.
B.3.2 EPA Method 1620 (Metals)
Laboratories used EPA Method 1620 to measure the concentrations of 27 metals. While
EPA Method 1620 is not listed at 40 CFR Part 136, it represents a consolidation of the
analytical techniques in several 40 CFR 136-approved methods such as EPA Method
200.7 (inductively coupled plasma atomic emission (TCP) spectroscopy of trace elements)
and Method 245.1 (mercury cold vapor atomic absorption technique). EPA Method 1620
was developed specifically for the effluent guidelines program. This method includes
more metal analytes than are listed in the approved metals methods and contains quality
control requirements that are at least as stringent as the approved methods.
EPA Method 1620 employs the concept of an instrument detection limit (IDE). The IDE
is defined as "the smallest signal above background noise that an instrument can detect
reliably." Data reporting practices for EPA Method 1620 analyses follow conventional
B-5
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
metals reporting practices used in other EPA programs, in which values are required to be
reported at or above the IDL. In applying EPA Method 1620, IDLs are determined on a
quarterly basis by each analytical laboratory and are, therefore, laboratory-specific and
time-specific.
Although EPA Method 1620 contains MLs, these MLs pre-date EPA's recent refinements
of the ML concept described earlier. The ML values associated with EPA Method 1620
are based on a consensus reached between EPA and laboratories during the 1980s
regarding levels that could be considered reliable quantitation limits when using EPA
Method 1620. These limits do not reflect advances in technology and instrumentation
since the 1980s. Consequently, the IDLs were used as the lowest values for reporting
purposes, with the general understanding that reliable results can be produced at or above
the IDL. The nominal quantitation values are the MLs listed in EPA Method 1620,
except for two instances. The published ML for lead in EPA Method 1620 is 5 |ag/L for
graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) spectroscopy analysis. However, for the
purposes of this effluent guideline study, EPA determined that it was not necessary for
the laboratories to measure lead to such low levels, and permitted the analysis of lead by
ICP spectroscopy. Consequently, the nominal quantitation limit for lead was adjusted to
50 |ig/L, the ML for the ICP method. Boron has an ML of 10 |ig/L, but historical
information indicates that laboratories could not reliably achieve this low level. As a
result, EPA only required laboratories to measure values at 100 |ig/L and above; this is
the nominal quantitation limit used here.
B.3.3 EPA Methods 350.1 and 350.2, and SM 4500H (Ammonia as Nitrogen)
Ammonia, as nitrogen, was measured using EPA Methods 350.1 and 350.2, and SM
4500H, all of which are approved at 40 CFR Part 136. Methods 350.1 and SM 4500H are
automated methods using a continuous flow analytical system with a
phenate/hypochlorite color reagent that reacts with ammonia to form indophenol blue that
is proportional to the ammonia concentration. Method 350.2 utilizes either colorimetric,
titrimetric, or electrode procedures to measure ammonia.
Method 350.1 has a lower measurement range limit of 0.01 mg/L. SM 4500H has a
lower measurement range limit of 0.02 mg/L. Method 350.2 has a lower measurement
range limit of 0.20 mg/L for the colorimetric and electrode procedures, and a lower
measurement range limit of 1.0 mg/L for the titrimetric procedure.
B.3.4 EPA Method 405.1 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) was measured using EPA Method 405.1, which is
approved at 40 CFR Part 136. The sample and appropriate dilutions are incubated for
five days at 20°C in the dark. The reduction in dissolved oxygen concentration during
the incubation period is the measure of the biochemical oxygen demand.
The nominal quantitation limit for Method 405.1, which is expressed in the method as the
lower limit of the measurement range, is 2 mg/L.
B-6
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
B.3.5 EPA Methods 410.1 and 410.4, and SM 5220C (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was measured using EPA Methods 410.1 and 410.4,
and SM 5220C, all of which are approved at 40 CFR Part 136. Methods 410.1 and SM
5220C are titrimetric procedures designed to measure mid-level concentrations of COD
and are associated with a nominal quantitation limit of 50 mg/L. Method 410.4 is a
spectrophotometric procedure that measures COD and is associated with a nominal
quantitation limit of 3 mg/L.
B.3.6 EPA Methods 325.1 and 325.3, and SM 4500B (Chloride)
Chloride was measured using Methods 325.1 and 325.3, and SM 4500B, all of which are
approved at 40 CFR Part 136. Method 325.1 is an automated colorimetric method that
uses a ferricyanide reagent color for development. Method 325.3 is a titrimetric
procedure that uses mercuric nitrate as the titrant. SM 4500B is also a titrimetric
procedure, but it uses silver nitrate as the titrant.
Methods 325.1 and 325.3 measure concentrations greater than 1 mg/L, so the nominal
quantitation limit is 1 mg/L. SM 4500B measures concentrations greater than 1.5 mg/L,
so the nominal quantitation limit is 1.5 mg/L.
B.3.7 EPA Methods 353.1 and 353.3, and SM 4500E (Nitrate/Nitrite)
Nitrate/nitrite was measured using EPA Methods 353.1 and 353.3, and SM 4500E, all of
which are approved at 40 CFR Part 136. Method 353.1 is based on a colorimetric
technique (i.e., adding reagents to a sample that form a colored product when they react
with the nitrate/nitrite and measuring the intensity of the colored product). Method 353.1
uses hydrazine to reduce the nitrate (NO3) present in the sample to nitrite (NO2).
Methods 353.3 and SM 4500E use granulated copper cadmium to reduce nitrate to nitrite.
The nitrite is determined by reaction with sulfanilamide and coupling with N-(l-
naphthyl)-ethylene diamine dihydrochloride to form a highly colored azo dye that is
measured spectrophotometrically.
The nominal quantitation limit associated with Methods 353.1, 353.3, and SM 4500E is
0.01 mg/L.
B.3.8 SM 5520E (Oil and Grease)
SM 5520E was used to measure oil and grease in the sediment samples from the aquatic
animal production facilities because EPA Method 1664 is only applicable to aqueous
samples. SM5520E is not approved at 40 CFR Part 136 because this method is
applicable only to solid samples and not wastewater samples. SM 5520E is a gravimetric
method in which the sediment is dried, the oil and grease is extracted with n-hexane, and
the extract is weighed to obtain the concentration of oil and grease in the sample. The
only difference between SM5520E and Method 1664 is the preparation of the sample for
extraction. The solid sample is dried and magnesium sulfate added before extraction.
There is no nominal quantitation limit associated with this method.
B-7
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
B.3.9 EPA Methods 150.1 and 9045C (pH)
EPA Method 150.1 was used to analyze aqueous samples. Method 150.1 is approved at
40 CFR Part 136. Method 9045C, from Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846), was used to analyze the sediment samples.
Although Method 9045C is not approved at 40 CFR Part 136, it is approved for analyses
of solid samples under the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR Part 261.
For Method 150.1, the pH of a sample is determined electrometrically using either a glass
electrode in combination with a reference potential or a combination electrode. For
Method 9045C, the sample is mixed with reagent water and the pH of the resulting
aqueous solution is measured electrometrically.
There are no nominal quantitation limits for either Method 150.1 or 9045C.
B.3.10 SM 2540F (Settleable Solids)
Settleable solids was determined by SM 2540F in the field by the samplers at the aquatic
animal production facilities. SM 2540F is a volumetric method which uses an Imhoff
cone. An Imhoff cone is filled to the 1-L mark with a well-mixed wastewater sample.
The solids in the sample are allowed to settle in the cone for 45 minutes. The sample is
agitated near the sides of the cone with a rod or by spinning and allowed to settle for an
additional 15 minutes. The volume of the settleable solids in the cone is recorded as
milliliters per liter (mL/L).
SM 2540F is approved at 40 CFR Part 136 under "residue-settleable." The method lists
a lower limit of the measurement range of 0.1 mL/L; this value is also the nominal
quantitation limit.
B.3.11 EPA Methods 375.3 and 375.4 (Sulfate)
Sulfate was measured by EPA Methods 375.3 and 375.4, both of which are approved at
40 CFR Part 136. Method 375.3 is a gravimetric method that measures the amount of
barium sulfate formed by reacting the sample with barium chloride. Method 375.4
measures the turbidity created by the insoluble barium sulfate in solution. A
dispersant/buffer is added to the solution to aid in creating uniform suspension of the
barium sulfate.
The nominal quantitation limit (also the lower limit of the measurement range) for
Method 375.3 is 10 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit for Method 375.4 is 1 mg/L.
B.3.12 Test Strip Kit (Total Chlorine)
Total chlorine was determined by SenSafe™ total chlorine test strips in the field by the
samplers at the aquatic animal production facilities. SenSafe™ total chlorine test strips
range in sensitivity from 0.05 mg/L to 80 mg/L. The test strip from each sample is
compared to a color chart to determine the result of the total chlorine.
B-8
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
B.3.13 EPA Method 160.1 (Total Dissolved Solids)
Total dissolved solids (TDS) were measured by EPA Method 160.1, which is approved at
40 CFR 136 under "residue-filterable." Method 160.1 is a gravimetric method with a
lower limit of the measurement range of 10 mg/L; this value is also the nominal
quantitation limit.
B.3.14 EPA Methods 351.2 and 351.3, and SM 4500C (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was measured by EPA Methods 351.2 and 351.3, and SM
4500C, all of which are approved at 40 CFR Part 136. For Method 351.2, the sample is
digested in a strong acid and a metal ion catalyst solution, taken to dryness, then
reconstituted with an alkaline solution. The ammonia is the solution is determined by
indophenol colorimetry using an automated continuous flow system. For Methods 351.3
and SM 4500C, the sample digestion is performed using a strong acid reagent with a
metal ion catalyst. After the digestion period is complete, the solution is made alkaline
and the ammonia in the digestate is distilled off into a borate buffer solution. Methods
351.3 and SM 4500C offer three different quantitation technique options for determining
the ammonia concentration: titrimetric, iodide colorimetric, or NH3 ion selective
electrode.
The nominal quantitation limit (also the lower limit of the measurement range) for
Method 351.2 is 0.1 mg/L. The nominal quantitation limit for Method 351.3 is 0.05
mg/L and the nominal quantitation limit for SM 4500C is 0.02 mg/L.
B.3.15 EPA Method 415.1 and the "Lloyd Kahn" Procedure (Total Organic
Carbon)
Total organic carbon (TOC) was determined by EPA Method 415.1 and the "Lloyd
Kahn" procedure. Method 415.1 is a combustion (or oxidation) method with a lower
limit of the measurement range is 1 mg/L; this value is also the nominal quantitation
limit. The Lloyd Kahn procedure is similar to Method 415.1, but allows for a pyrolitic
method that uses an elemental analyzer to determine carbon concentration. The nominal
quantitation limit for the Lloyd Kahn procedure is 100 mg/kg.
Method 415.1 is approved at 40 CFR Part 136 and was used to analyze aqueous samples.
However, this method only applies to aqueous samples. Therefore, the Lloyd Kahn
procedure was used to analyze the solid samples. The Lloyd Kahn procedure applies only
to solid samples and therefore is not approved at 40 CFR Part 136.
B.3.16 EPA Method 365.2 (Total Orthophosphate and Total Phosphorus)
Total orthophosphate and total phosphorus were measured by EPA Method 365.2, which
is approved at 40 CFR Part 136. Total phosphorus represents all of the phosphorus
present in the sample, regardless of form, as measured by the persulfate digestion
procedure. Total orthophosphate represents the inorganic phosphorus (PO4) in the sample
determined by the direct colorimetric analysis procedure.
B-9
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
Method 365.2 is a colorimetric method and measures concentrations greater than 0.01
mg/L, which is also the nominal quantitation limit, for total orthophosphate and total
phosphorus.
B.3.17 EPA Method 160.2 (Total Suspended Solids)
Total suspended solids (TSS) were determined by EPA Method 160.2, which is approved
at 40 CFR Part 136 as "residue-nonfiltrable." Method 160.2 is a gravimetric method with
a lower limit of the measurement range of 4 mg/L; this value is also the nominal
quantitation limit.
B.3.18 EPA Method 160.4 (Volatile Residue)
Volatile residue was determined by EPA Method 160.4, which is approved at 40 CFR
Part 136. Method 160.4 is a gravimetric and ignition method with a lower limit of the
measurement range of 10 mg/L; this value is also the nominal quantitation limit.
B.3.19 EPA 600-R-00-013, SM 9222D, SM 9230C, EPA 1605, SM 9260M (total
coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal Streptococcus, Enterococcus faecium,
Aeromonas, and Mycobacterium marinum)
Laboratories measured the densities of total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal
Streptococcus, Aeromonas, and Enterococcus faecium using membrane filtration methods
specified in Standard Methods. EPA used methods approved at 40 CFR Part 136 for
fecal coliform (SM9222D), fecal streptococcus (SM9230C), and Enterococcus faecium
(SM 9230C). There are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved methods for E. coli, Aeromonas,
and Mycobacterium marinum. However, the method employed for E. coli was proposed
for ambient water monitoring on August 30, 2001 (66 FR 169, pages 45811-45829).
1. Total coliforms and E. coli (EPA 600-R-00-013). Samples are filtered utilizing
0.45-//m filters, placed onto MI agar, and incubated for 24 ± 2 hours. Plates are
read using ambient light and UV light to obtain total coliform and E. coli counts.
Blue colonies are recorded as positive for E. coli and all colonies that fluoresce
under UV light are recorded as total coliforms.
2. Fecal coliforms (9222D). Samples are filtered and placed onto mFC plates and
incubated for 24 ± 2 hours in a water bath at 44.5 °C ± 0.2°C. All blue colonies
are considered positive for fecal coliforms.
3. Fecal streptococcus (SM 9230C). Samples are filtered and placed onto
mEnterococcus plates and incubated for 48 ± 3 hours. All light and dark red
colonies are considered positive for fecal streptococcus.
4. Aeromonas (EPA Method 1605). Samples are filtered and placed onto ADA-V
plates. All yellow colonies are isolated on nutrient agar and confirmed as
Aeromonas if they are oxidase- and indole-positive and are able to ferment
trehalose.
B-10
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
5. Enterococcus faecium (SM 9230C). Samples are filtered, placed onto mE agar,
and incubated for 48 ± 3 hours. All filters with growth are transferred to EIA
plates and incubated for an additional 20 minutes. All pink to red colonies on mE
agar that produced a black or reddish brown precipitate on EIA agar are
considered positive for Enterococcus. This effluent guideline study required that
five positive colonies from each plate be submitted to biochemical identification
to speciate and determine the levels of Enterococcus faecium.
6. Mycobacterium marinum (SM9260M). Samples are screened for acid-fast
bacteria prior to culturing. If acid-fast bacteria are present, the samples are
decontaminated to remove organisms that may out-compete and overgrow the
mycobacterium. After decontamination the samples are cultured in duplicate and
incubated for 3-8 weeks at 37° C. Biochemical tests were then used to speciate
the Mycobacterium.
The nominal quantitation limits for all the microbiological methods, except Enterococcus
faecium and Mycobacterium marinum, are 1 CFU/100 mL. The nominal quantitation
limit for Enterococcus faecium is 100 CFU/100 mL; the nominal quantitation limit for
Mycobacterium marinum is 4 CFU/100 mL. The nominal quantitation limits are based
on the actual sample volume filtered. For example, if a 100-mL volume is filtered, the
nominal quantitation limit would be 1 CFU/100 mL. If a 10-mL volume is filtered, the
nominal quantitation limit would be 10 CFU/100 mL.
Table II at 40 CFR 136.3 specifies holding times of six hours for some pathogens. In
collecting data supporting this proposed rule, EPA measured counts in samples that had
been retained longer than the six hours specified in Table II. In its data review narratives
(located in Section X of the proposal record), EPA has identified those samples that were
retained longer than eight hours at the laboratory (includes the six-hour holding time
allotted for delivery to the laboratory plus an additional two hours at the laboratory).
Standard Method 9221E, the 40 CFR Part 136-approved method for fecal coliform, states
that "Water treatment and other adverse environmental conditions often place great stress
on indicator bacteria, resulting in an extended lag phase before logarithmic growth takes
place." EPA is currently conducting a holding time study to assess potential changes in
pathogen concentrations in effluents over time (i.e., 8, 24, 30, and 48 hours after sample
collection). This study will evaluate total and fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli,
Aeromonas species, and fecal streptococci for both the aquatic animal production
facilities and meat products industrial effluents. Additionally, Enterococcus faecium was
analyzed in aquaculture effluents, and Salmonella was analyzed in meat products industry
effluents.
EPA is conducting this holding time study for possible revisions to Table II. EPA notes
that if the holding time can be extended to longer periods, overnight shipping of samples
would be possible for compliance monitoring. However, EPA has not proposed any
limitations and standards for these analytes. The study plan for the holding time study is
located at DCN 50022 in Section 10.2 of the proposal record. In the forthcoming NOD A,
EPA will provide the data collected during the study and EPA's evaluation of the results.
B-ll
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
B.3.20 EPA Methods 1003.0,1000.0, and 1002.0 (Selenastrum growth test, Fathead
Minnow Chronic, and Ceriodaphnia Dubia Chronic)
Whole effluent toxicity was measured using a suite of methods including the Selenastrum
growth test (EPA Method 1003.0), the fathead minnow larval survival and growth test
(EPA Method 1000.0), and Ceriodaphnia dubia survival and reproductive test (EPA
Method 1002.0). All three methods are listed in Table 1A at 40 CFR Part 136.
Endpoints measured were lethality in 50% of the organisms (LC50) for the fathead
minnow and the Ceriodaphnia, growth in the larval fathead minnow and Selenastrum,
and the number of offspring produced in the Ceriodaphnia.
1. Method 1003.0: Selenastrum growth test. A population of the green algae,
Selenastrum capricornutum, is exposed in a static system to a series of effluent
concentrations for 96 hours. The response of the population is measured in terms
of changes in cell density (cell counts per mL). The toxicity of the effluent is
indicated by increases or decreases in algal growth in response to nutrients and
toxicants, compared to a control group (unexposed) of algae.
The test is run using a 50-mL aliquot of effluent solution in a 250-mL flask. The
effluent solutions are 6.25%, 12.5%, 25%, 50%, and 100% effluent. Each effluent
concentration is run in five replicates. Each flask is inoculated with 10,000 cells
per mL and allowed to grow during a 96-hour time period. During this time, the
flasks are swirled twice daily to homogenize the cells within the flasks to allow
for optimum growth. After the 96 hours, cells are counted from each of the flasks
by taking an aliquot and counting the cells under a microscope using an approved
cell counting method.
2. Method 1000.0: Fathead minnow chronic. Larva of the fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas, are exposed to different concentrations of effluent for
seven days in a static renewal system. Test results are based on survival and
weight of the larvae. The toxicity of the effluent is indicated by changes in the
survival rate and decreases in the growth of the larvae that survive the testing
period, compared to a control group (unexposed) of larvae.
The test is run using a 250-mL aliquot of effluent solution in a 500-mL beaker.
The effluent solutions are 6.25%, 12.5%, 25%, 50%, and 100% effluent. Each
effluent concentration is run in 4 replicates, each containing 10 minnows, with an
initiation age of less than 24 hours old. Daily observations are made to record the
number of surviving minnows when the effluent solution is renewed. At 96 hours
the test is terminated, the final number of surviving minnows is recorded, and the
surviving minnows are preserved in 70% ethanol, then dried and weighed. The
survival of minnows at the different concentration levels is compared to the
control group to determine if any statistical difference was observed and the
results are reported as an LC50. The weight of the surviving minnows at the
different concentration levels is compared to the control group to determine if any
statistical difference was observed and the results are reported as the inhibition
concentration with a 25% effect (IC25).
B-12
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
3. Method 1002.0: Ceriodaphnia dubia chronic. Ceriodaphnia dubia are exposed
in a static renewal system to different concentrations of effluent until 60% of
surviving control organisms have three broods of offspring. Test results are based
on survival and reproduction. If the test is conducted properly, the surviving
control organisms should produce 15 or more offspring in three broods.
The test is run using a 15-mL aliquot of effluent solution in a 30-mL beaker. The
effluent solutions are 6.25%, 12.5%, 25%, 50%, and 100% effluent. Each effluent
concentration is run in 10 replicates containing 1 female with an initiation age of
less than 24 hours old. Daily observations are made to record the number of
surviving organisms and the number of offspring when the effluent solution is
renewed. When 60% of the surviving females produce 3 broods, the test is
terminated. The survival of organisms at the different concentration levels is
compared to the control group to determine if any statistical difference was
observed and the results are reported as an LC50. The number of offspring
produced by the surviving organisms at the different concentration levels is
compared to the control group to determine if any statistical difference was
observed and the results are reported as an IC25.
B-13
-------
APPENDIX C
DAILY INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA FOR POLLUTANTS
OF CONCERN
-------
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
CAS No
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
Baseline
Value
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
OU.J_"^Ct L.
Influ
SamPo
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
Influent
Cone .
1940.000
2210.000
2950.000
720.000
2610.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
1.160
1.940
4.200
1.520
1.440
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
317.000
288.000
327.000
249.000
382.000
21.900
21.400
21.900
21.200
22.200
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
Effluent
Cone .
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
1.690
0.840
1.070
1.305
1.580
0.140
0.120
0.120
0.100
0.095
23 .000
22 .600
22 .950
23 .150
23 .500
22 .650
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
2205.664 50.000 97.73
50.000
50.000
2.075 1.309 36.90
0.050
0.115
313.402 23.040 92.65
21.721
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Baseline
Analyte
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CAS_No
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
Value
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
3
3
3
3
3
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
369.000
377.000
380.000
184.000
380.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
6.000
4.000
105.000
226.000
216.000
231.000
136.000
48.500
47.000
46.200
46.600
47.400
5130.000
1800.000
732.000
870.000
480.000
20.000
Inf.
Censor
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
RC
RC
ND
Effluent
SamPoint
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
Effluent
Cone.
21.650
21.800
21.500
21.500
15.700
11.200
14.200
16 .550
14.800
3 .050
4.400
4.000
6 .000
2 .200
48 .000
51.600
48 .950
46 .650
49.500
51.000
50.000
48 .000
48 .900
45.000
56 .300
20.000
54.950
52 .300
30.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
21.821
343.432 14.529 95.77
4.400
3.944
185.838 48.947 73.66
47.142
48.592
1896.347 43.279 97.72
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
<-} COPPER
I COPPER
(jj
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANOIC ACID
CAS_No
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
142621
Baselin
Value
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
Episode
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
oui^^jctL-ey w
Influent
SamPoint
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
371.000
233.000
267.000
68.200
406.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
900.000
345.000
451.000
247.000
5.000
5.000
7.133
13.187
5.410
33.100
Inf.
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
Effluent
Cone.
20.000
25.200
20.000
30.100
20.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
20.800
16 .300
44.767
5.000
5.000
5.893
15.030
5.510
10.000
Eff .
Censor
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
20.000
23.104
296.819 5.000 98.32
5.000
5.000
501.351 19.070 96.20
7.345
7.789
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
<-} IRON
1 IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
CAS_No
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
COOS
Baseline
Value
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0.01
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
Sample
Day
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
oui^^jctL-ey w
Influent
SamPoint
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
456.000
239.500
10.000
10.000
10.000
5590.000
7210.000
5580.000
2230.000
7150.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
1350.000
882.000
1190.000
463.000
1740.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
0.940
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
Effluent
Cone.
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
9.300
9.900
8 .650
8 .700
9.900
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
0.250
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
390.639 10.000 97.44
10.000
10.000
5776.343 50.000 99.13
50.000
50.000
1168.254 9.294 99.20
5.000
5.000
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
<-} SELENIUM
.1 SELENIUM
(^1
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
CAS_No
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
Baseline
Value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
Sample
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
oui^^jctL-ey w
Influent
SamPoint
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
0.960
0.850
0.740
0.830
1.080
1.040
1.080
1.120
1.080
6.200
6.940
8.160
30.500
8.500
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
95.000
98.000
4.230
96.700
68.000
29.100
37.900
0.500
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
Effluent
SamPoint
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
Effluent
Cone.
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
1.040
0.970
0.940
1.110
1.050
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
0.100
0.100
1.000
1.000
5.000
133 .000
4.105
4.225
4.930
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
0.865 0.250 71.10
1.080
1.022
12.094 2.000 83.46
2 .000
2.000
96.500 0.550 99.43
65.893 28.029 57.46
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
<-} TOTAL
1 TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
C009
Baseline
Value
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
Sample Influent
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
SamPoint
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
18.400
4.300
24.600
8.210
17.500
0.050
0.190
0.050
0.210
0.050
10.500
25.400
2.340
80.400
76.000
0.250
0.190
0.079
0.070
0.094
4050.000
Inf.
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
Effluent
Cone.
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.180
0.420
0.400
0.505
0.050
0.100
0.175
0.050
0.210
0.090
0.560
0.780
0.635
0.390
0.780
0.050
0.260
0.130
0.090
0.094
11.000
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
0.500
0.500
15.841 0.322 97.97
0.110
0.128
62.131 0.636 98.98
0.141
0.127
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ZINC
ZINC
<-} ZINC
1 ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
Analyte
AEROMONAS
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
CAS_No
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
CAS_No
C2101
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
Baseline
Value
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Baseline
Value
1
200
200
200
200
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Unit
/100M
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
Episode
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
Sample Influent
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SamPoint
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
(continued)
Influent Inf. Effluent
Cone . Censor
707.000 NC
2020.000 NC
3360.000 NC
2830.000 NC
4.000 ND
4.000 ND
4.000 ND
4.000 ND
4.000 ND
3350.000 NC
2190.000 NC
3040.000 NC
1180.000 NC
3300.000 NC
5.000 ND
5.000 ND
5.000 ND
5.000 ND
5.000 ND
5ubcategory=Flow- thru -- Option=C
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
3 SP-8
1 SP-7
2 SP-7
3 SP-7
4 SP-7
SamPoint
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
SP2+3
3LSB
Influent Inf. Effluent
Cone. Censor SamPoint
100000.000 ND SP-9
300.000 NC SP8+9
762.000 NC SP8+9
730.000 NC SP8+9
1090.000 NC SP8+9
Effluent
Cone.
14.800
9.800
11.600
8 .400
4.000
4.500
4.000
4.000
4.000
15.400
12 .800
12 .250
10.900
13 .000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
Effluent
Cone .
1000.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LTA LTA Removal
2829.903 11.166 99.61
4.000
4.100
2691.931 12.889 99.52
5.000
5.000
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor | LTA LTA Removal
ND | 100000.000 1000.000 99.00
1
ND |
ND j
ND j
ND j
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
o
Analyte
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS_No
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
Baseline
Value
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
:> ui^^jct L-cyw j.
Influent
SamPoint
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
938.000
357.000
683.000
636.000
486.000
491.000
2860.000
2.850
0.950
1.190
0.900
1.420
0.370
1.200
1.460
1.230
0.740
14.000
66.900
154.000
140.000
1060.000
664.000
88.100
133.000
127.000
227.000
204.000
565.000
366.000
186.000
380.000
3.780
179.000
56.000
178.000
376.000
93.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
RC
NC
NC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
Effluent
Cone.
54.200
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
75.400
67.400
3 .530
3 .180
2 .040
2 .710
2 .730
0.400
1.410
0.910
1.280
1.680
0.360
47.000
43 .500
45.350
44.000
45.200
43 .300
43 .500
45.200
45.700
44.100
20.700
58 .000
182 .000
172 .500
84.000
185.000
56 .000
70.000
172 .000
85.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
796.452 50.840 93.62
534.549 55.080 89.70
2860.000 67.400 97.64
1.478 2.852 -92.90
1.051 1.199 -14.08
14.000 0.360 97.43
491.713 45.014 90.85
158.369 44.362 71.99
565.000 20.700 96.34
716.288 142.072 80.17
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
CAS_No
COOS
COOS
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
C2107
Baseline
Value
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/100M
Episode
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6460C
Sample
Day
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
3
ijjuctL.eyoiy=£l
Influent
SamPoint
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-8
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
163 .000
3990.000
57.100
68 .300
68 .600
955.000
515.000
62 .100
69.800
69.200
229.000
189.000
119.000
2020.000
2060.000
1880.000
105.000
487.000
1730.000
1760.000
2230.000
1190.000
180.000
9100.000
68 .000
132 .000
131.000
112 .000
139.000
93 .400
141.000
141.000
86 .700
83 .500
192 .000
2900000.00
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP-11
SP-9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP-9
Effluent
Cone .
183.000
13.000
51.000
50.300
50.850
50.450
51.600
49.700
51.100
49.700
50.600
50.200
2.000
642.000
398.000
372.000
412.500
380.000
367.000
442.000
397.000
472.000
360.000
33.000
14.500
12.200
12.500
11.250
12.400
9.400
13.600
15.900
14.300
13.800
1.000
2500.000
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
RC 183.187 116.545 36.38
NC 3990.000 13.000 99.67
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 404.241 50.841 87.42
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 128.202 50.261 60.80
ND 119.000 2.000 98.32
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 1958.783 442.324 77.42
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 1823.326 408.144 77.62
NC 9100.000 33.000 99.64
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 117.855 12.580 89.33
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 109.822 13.468 87.74
ND 192.000 1.000 99.48
NC 2900000.00 2500.000 99.91
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
O HEXANOIC ACID
hL HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
CAS_No
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
Baseline
Value
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
3
5
1
3
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
3 ui^^jct L-cyw j.
Influent
SamPoint
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
ontinued)
Influent
Cone .
46.700
64.500
72.667
20.497
200.893
5.000
84.467
186.267
93.333
30.633
735.000
109.000
52.800
47.600
38.100
75.800
24.400
965.000
885.000
2440.000
2260.000
1500.000
2930.000
1390.000
2230.000
1890.000
1270.000
1260.000
32200.000
166.000
593.000
463.000
286.000
551.000
352.000
642.000
575.000
330.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
Effluent
Cone.
5.000
10.900
68 .667
85.350
76 .033
9.933
12 .800
105.667
109.500
76 .700
6 .000
115.000
110.850
111.000
85.400
103 .000
142 .000
10.000
231.000
230.000
229.000
210.000
218 .000
264.000
280.000
269.000
257.000
283 .000
559.000
162 .000
143 .000
146 .000
141.500
141.000
170.000
180.000
195.000
190.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
86.761 70.879 18.31
87.403 82.319 5.82
735.000 6.000 99.18
71.912 112.291 -56.15
48.619 111.315 -128.95
965.000 10.000 98.96
2070.117 223.641 89.20
1617.388 270.644 83.27
32200.000 559.000 98.26
429.666 146.745 65.85
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
o
Analyte
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL COLIFORM
CAS_No
7439965
7439965
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
coos
coos
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E10606
Baseline
Value
15
15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
/100M
Episode
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6460C
Sample
Day
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
3
^u^a L-eyw j. y
Influent
SamPoint
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-8
tinued)
Influent
Cone .
280.000
3990.000
0.750
1.260
0.720
0.870
0.740
0.720
0.740
1.090
0.770
0.780
0.550
2 .500
2 .000
4.600
3 .720
4.520
2 .100
2 .000
3 .200
2 .000
2 .000
11.000
70.000
50.000
59.000
105.000
21.000
69.000
41.000
31.000
240.000
0900.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP-11
SP-9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP-9
Effluent
Cone .
179.000
41.100
0.500
0.500
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.500
0.250
1.940
0.250
0.250
0.090
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
4.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
0.100
0.100
1.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
1.000
0.100
2.000
0.200
460.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
441.278 182.853 58.56
3990.000 41.100 98.97
0.871 0.350 59.83
0.822 0.638 22.36
0.550 0.090 83.64
3.505 2.000 42.95
2.284 2.400 -5.08
11.000 2.000 81.82
71.788 0.280 99.61
41.750 0.698 98.33
240.000 0.200 99.92
10900.000 460.000 95.78
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
1-4
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Baseline
Value
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
4
4
4
4
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
Sample Influent
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
SamPoint
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
69.100
57.500
142.000
12.500
34.300
37.300
67.500
98.600
14.300
13.200
68.400
6.380
17.300
8.480
9.120
8.010
7.280
10.100
11.000
4.690
3.150
33.300
10.500
41.300
41.800
17.900
19.500
10.500
22.900
0.200
16.700
10.100
61.100
1000.000
553.000
1040.000
1710.000
363.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
Effluent
Cone.
14.900
13 .100
13 .100
13 .750
14.000
0.700
13 .900
14.000
13 .300
13 .500
1.900
12 .100
11.000
10.145
10.850
11.100
9.680
11.500
11.500
10.700
10.300
0.370
10.500
10.900
10.075
9.670
9.670
8 .630
11.100
10.800
8 .530
8 .320
0.360
70.000
44.000
46 .000
69.000
60.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
71.441 13.774 80.72
51.405 18.255 64.49
68.400 1.900 97.22
9.938 11.043 -11.12
7.516 10.742 -42.92
33.300 0.370 98.89
27.320 10.166 62.79
39.427 9.494 75.92
61.100 0.360 99.41
976.155 58.104 94.05
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
hL ZINC
Oo
Analyte
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
CAS_No
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
CAS No
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
Baseline
Value
4
4
4
4
4
4
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Baseline
Value
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6460C
Episode
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
Sample Influent
Day
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
Si
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
SamPoint
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-8
(continued)
Influent Inf. Effluent
Cone . Censor
1040.000 NC
687.000 NC
4.000 ND
540.000 NC
690.000 NC
11800.000 NC
386.000 NC
1060.000 NC
952.000 NC
1600.000 NC
1640.000 NC
768.000 NC
1170.000 NC
1070.000 NC
792.000 NC
625.000 NC
3770.000 NC
Influent Influent Inf.
SamPoint Cone . Censor
SamPoint
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP8+9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-9
Effluent
SamPoint
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
Effluent
Cone.
56 .000
68 .000
74.000
72 .000
78 .000
38 .000
75.800
63 .000
69.950
69.900
74.500
61.800
98 .700
116 .000
106 .000
94.900
30.200
Effluent
Cone .
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
48 .000
48 .000
48 .000
48 .000
48 .000
0.370
0.840
0.340
0.380
0.370
0.220
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Eff.
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
LTA LTA Removal
597.100 69.731 88.32
11800.000 38.000 99.68
1193.105 70.669 94.08
890.912 96.233 89.20
3770.000 30.200 99.20
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
50.000
48.000
0.462
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CAS_No
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
coos
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
Baseline
Value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
3
3
3
3
3
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
(continued)
Sample Influent Influent Inf. Effluent
Day SamPoint Cone . Censor SamPoint
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
Effluent
Cone
0.
0.
0.
0.
22 .
21.
22 .
21.
21.
22 .
22 .
17.
17.
18 .
3 .
4.
4.
6 .
4.
2 .
6 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
47.
46 .
44.
47.
46 .
30.
378 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
14.
100
120
160
120
000
600
000
500
800
200
000
900
100
000
250
000
000
000
200
000
000
000
000
000
750
850
900
200
000
900
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
0.145
21.780
19.469
4.302
2.800
46.543
208.509
20.000
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
CAS_No
C004
C004
C004
C004
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
Baseline
Value
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
(continued)
Sample Influent Influent Inf. Effluent
Day SamPoint Cone . Censor SamPoint
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
3
5
1
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
Effluent
Cone
10.
10.
10.
10.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
5.
5.
6 .
23 .
8 .
6 .
5.
6 .
6 .
6 .
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
50.
50.
50.
50.
50.
87.
92 .
20.
27.
25.
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
093
000
020
967
197
000
500
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
100
900
000
500
600
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
10.800
5.000
1.000
10.272
5.900
10.000
10.000
50.000
54.144
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
O NITRATE/NITRITE
hL NITRATE/NITRITE
°\ NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
CAS_No
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
coos
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
Baseline
Value
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
(continued)
Sample Influent Influent Inf. Effluent
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SamPoint Cone . Censor
SamPoint
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
Effluent
Cone
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
18 .
18 .
5.
7 .
6 .
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
0.
6 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
000
000
000
000
000
500
200
500
600
000
050
000
970
040
090
140
160
240
750
670
000
000
400
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
665
670
680
640
600
330
250
230
220
310
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
LTA LTA Removal
5.000
11.552
1.030
0.419
2.080
2.000
1.779
0.269
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
O TOTAL
hL TOTAL
^J TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
Baseline
Value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
(continued)
Sample Influent Influent Inf. Effluent
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SamPoint Cone . Censor
SamPoint
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
Effluent
Cone.
0.179
0.155
0.083
0.320
0.130
0.030
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.180
0.235
0.240
0.050
0.150
0.060
0.060
0.040
0.030
0.030
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
5.900
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
1.800
1.100
1.000
1.900
2 .000
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
LTA LTA Removal
0.177
0.021
0.172
0.045
4.000
4.000
5.180
1.576
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
AEROMONAS
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
O ALUMINUM
hL ALUMINUM
°° ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
CAS No
C2101
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
Baseline
Value
1
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Unit
/100M
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6460A
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
62971
62971
62971
62971
62971
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
62971
62971
62971
62971
62971
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
Sample Influent
Day
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SamPoint
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
Influent
Cone .
300.000
762 .000
730.000
1090.000
938 .000
357.000
683 .000
636 .000
486 .000
491.000
1940.000
2210.000
2950.000
720.000
2610.000
2 .850
0.950
1.190
0.900
1.420
0.370
1.200
1.460
1.230
0.740
1.160
1.940
4.200
1.520
1.440
Inf. Effluent
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SamPoint
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
Effluent
Cone .
1000.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.042
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.251
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
48.000
48.000
63.794
48.000
48.000
0.401
0.863
0.357
0.403
0.393
0.370
0.846
0.346
0.389
0.383
0.155
0.127
0.129
0.112
0.110
0.220
0.100
0.315
0.160
0.120
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
ND 1000.000
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC 796.452 50.008 93.72
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND 534.549 50.050 90.64
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND 2205.664 50.000 97.73
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND 51.159
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 1.478 0.486 67.12
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 1.051 0.469 55.37
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 2.075 0.127 93.88
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 0.187
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
O BARIUM
hL BARIUM
^ BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS_No
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
Baseline
Value
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Unit Episode
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Influent
SamPoint
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
66.900
154.000
140.000
1060.000
664.000
88.100
133.000
127.000
227.000
204.000
317.000
288.000
327.000
249.000
382.000
366.000
186.000
380.000
3.780
179.000
56.000
178.000
376.000
93.000
163.000
369.000
377.000
380.000
184.000
380.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
RC
NC
NC
RC
RC
RC
RC
NC
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
Effluent
Cone.
22 .248
21.817
22 .231
21.723
22 .032
22 .210
21.816
22 .229
21.739
22 .020
22 .653
21.659
21.811
21.516
21.520
22 .200
22 .000
20.180
17.100
18 .000
3 .792
5.762
5.668
6 .772
5.990
3 .771
4.652
5.659
6 .780
5.965
3 .175
4.467
4.101
6 .105
2 .325
2 .000
6 .000
10.955
2 .000
2 .000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
RC
RC
RC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
491.713 22.010 95.52
158.369 22.003 86.11
313.402 21.833 93.03
19.924
716.288 5.632 99.21
183.187 5.418 97.04
343.432 4.048 98.82
4.591
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte CAS_No
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
O BORON 7440428
t!o BORON 7440428
^ BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
Baseline
Value
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
62971
62971
62971
62971
62971
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
62971
62971
62971
62971
62971
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Influent
SamPoint
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
57.100
68.300
68.600
955.000
515.000
62.100
69.800
69.200
229.000
189.000
105.000
226.000
216.000
231.000
136.000
2020.000
2060.000
1880.000
105.000
487.000
1730.000
1760.000
2230.000
1190.000
180.000
5130.000
1800.000
732.000
870.000
480.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
NC
RC
RC
RC
RC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
Effluent
Cone.
47.782
46 .884
44.959
47.232
46 .055
47.769
46 .892
44.947
47.234
46 .041
50.970
50.016
48 .009
48 .878
45.045
30.900
378 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
26 .158
23 .743
23 .485
23 .886
23 .564
23 .426
24.167
23 .722
24.463
23 .357
20.360
25.148
20.346
30.320
20.099
14.000
10.000
28 .725
10.000
10.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
404.241 46.585 88.48
128.202 46.579 63.67
185.838 48.595 73.85
208.509
1958.783 24.172 98.77
1823.326 23.827 98.69
1896.347 23.303 98.77
15.127
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte CAS_No
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
O COPPER 7440508
t!o COPPER 7440508
l-4 COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS C2107
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
Baseline
Value
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Unit Episode
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
/100M 6460A
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Influent
SamPoint
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
68 .000
132 .000
131.000
112 .000
139.000
93 .400
141.000
141.000
86 .700
83 .500
371.000
233 .000
267.000
68 .200
406 .000
46 .700
64.500
72 .667
20.497
200.893
5.000
84.467
186 .267
93 .333
30.633
900.000
345.000
451.000
247.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
Effluent
Cone .
5.094
5.071
5.074
5.062
5.073
5.043
5.085
5.108
5.092
5.087
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2500.000
5.092
5.058
6.640
24.574
8.868
5.141
5.077
7.004
24.811
8.873
5.000
5.000
6.041
15.043
5.899
6.000
5.500
6.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent Effluent
LTA LTA
117.855 5.075
109.822 5.083
296.819 5.000
1.000
2500.000
86.761 10.172
87.403 10.734
501.351 7.875
Percent
Removal
95.69
95.37
98.32
88.28
87.72
98.43
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
O IRON
t!o IRON
1x0 IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
CAS_No
C036
C036
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
142621
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
Baseline
Value
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
15
15
15
Unit Episode
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
4
5
1 SP-7
3 SP-7
5 SP-7
1 SP-10
3 SP-10
5 SP-10
1 SP-12
3 SP-12
5 SP-12
1
3
1 SP-7
2 SP-7
3 SP-7
4 SP-7
5 SP-7
1 SP-10
2 SP-10
3 SP-10
4 SP-10
5 SP-10
1 SP-12
2 SP-12
3 SP-12
4 SP-12
5 SP-12
1
2
3
4
5
1 SP-7
2 SP-7
3 SP-7
4 SP-7
5 SP-7
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
109.000
52.800
47.600
38.100
75.800
24.400
33.100
456.000
239.500
885.000
2440.000
2260.000
1500.000
2930.000
1390.000
2230.000
1890.000
1270.000
1260.000
5590.000
7210.000
5580.000
2230.000
7150.000
166.000
593.000
463.000
286.000
551.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
Effluent
Cone.
6 .000
6 .000
11.040
10.999
11.000
10.744
10.918
11.303
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
51.792
51.782
51.772
51.584
51.663
52 .113
52 .271
52 .162
52 .044
52 .300
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
87.100
92 .900
458 .818
27.500
25.600
6 .554
6 .366
6 .396
6 .351
6 .347
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent
LTA LTA
5.900
71.912 11.013
48.619 10.989
390.639 10.000
10.000
2070.117 51.719
1617.388 52.178
5776.343 50.000
152.229
429.666 6.403
Percent
Removal
84.69
77.40
97.44
97.50
96 .77
99.13
98 .51
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
CAS_No
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
coos
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
Baseline
Value
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
5
5
Unit Episode
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Influent
SamPoint
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
352.000
642.000
575.000
330.000
280.000
1350.000
882.000
1190.000
463.000
1740.000
0.750
1.260
0.720
0.870
0.740
0.720
0.740
1.090
0.770
0.780
0.940
0.960
0.850
0.740
0.830
2.500
2.000
4.600
3.720
4.520
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
Effluent
Cone.
6 .629
6 .728
6 .876
6 .827
6 .718
5.043
5.049
5.036
5.037
5.049
18 .500
18 .200
34.483
7.600
6 .000
1.045
0.995
0.963
1.032
1.082
1.045
0.993
0.980
1.032
1.082
1.032
0.963
0.933
1.101
1.042
0.140
0.160
0.118
0.750
0.670
2 .000
2 .000
2 .396
2 .000
2 .000
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
441.278 6.755 98.47
1168.254 5.043 99.57
18.033
0.871 1.023 -17.45
0.822 1.026 -24.90
0.865 1.015 -17.32
0.400
3.505 2.079 40.69
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
CAS_No
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
Value
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Unit Episode
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
mL/L 6297G
mL/L 6297G
mL/L 6297G
mL/L 6297G
mL/L 6297G
mL/L 6297H
mL/L 6297H
mL/L 6297H
mL/L 6297H
mL/L 6297H
mL/L 62971
mL/L 62971
mL/L 62971
mL/L 62971
mL/L 62971
mL/L 6460A
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
mL/L DMR1
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
33
67
95
127
155
246
281
307
340
Influent
SamPoint
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
2.100
2.000
3.200
2.000
2.000
6.200
6.940
8.160
30.500
8.500
70.000
50.000
59.000
105.000
21.000
69.000
41.000
31.000
95.000
98.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Effluent
Cone.
2 .000
2 .000
2 .416
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
0.100
0.100
1.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
1.000
0.100
2 .000
0.100
0.100
1.000
1.000
0.200
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
2.284 2.083 8.79
12.094 2.000 83.46
2.000
71.788 0.280 99.61
41.750 0.698 98.33
96.500 0.550 99.43
0.200
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
CAS_No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
Value
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Unit
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
Episode
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
Sample
Day
371
399
523
617
677
795
886
1071
1160
1
28
58
95
120
148
176
213
242
273
302
340
368
393
424
455
484
518
546
578
611
639
667
700
730
758
788
822
854
883
913
947
977
1008
1036
1070
1100
(continued)
Influent Influent Inf .
SamPoint Cone . Censor
Effluent
SamPoint
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Effluent
Cone.
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
Eff .
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
0.100
0.100
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
O SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
t!o SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
°\ SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
CAS_No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E10606
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
Baseline
Value
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Unit
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
6460A
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
(continued)
Sample Influent Influent Inf. Effluent
Day
28
57
87
184
212
246
275
304
336
367
394
426
459
490
517
547
576
611
639
672
702
734
756
794
820
854
882
916
917
939
973
1004
1030
1065
1092
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
SamPoint Cone. Censor
SP-7 69.100 NC
SP-7 57.500 NC
SP-7 142.000 NC
SP-7 12.500 NC
SP-7 34.300 NC
SP-10 37.300 NC
SP-10 67.500 NC
SP-10 98.600 NC
SP-10 14.300 NC
SamPoint
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
Effluent
Cone
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
460.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
0.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
000
806
734
803
770
733
665
741
812
765
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
LTA LTA Removal
0.100
460.000
71.441 1.909 97.33
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
CAS_No
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
Baseline
Value
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Unit Episode
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
Influent
SamPoint
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
13.200
4.230
96.700
68.000
29.100
37.900
6.380
17.300
8.480
9.120
8.010
7.280
10.100
11.000
4.690
3.150
18.400
4.300
24.600
8.210
17.500
10.500
41.300
41.800
17.900
19.500
10.500
22.900
0.200
16.700
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
Effluent
Cone.
0 .727
0.545
1.814
0.536
0.537
0.544
0.330
0.250
1.590
0.220
0.310
0.297
0.262
0.183
0.424
0.239
0.273
0.267
0.196
0.422
0.230
0.101
0.177
0.053
0.213
0.090
0.030
0.030
0.303
0.020
0.010
0.282
0.341
0.337
0.145
0.244
0.263
0.342
0.344
0.134
Eff .
Censor
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
51.405 1.881 96.34
65.893 0.795 98.79
0.538
9.938 0.283 97.15
7.516 0.279 96.28
15.841 0.130 99.18
0.080
27.320 0.275 98.99
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
O TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
t!o TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
°° TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Baseline
Value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Unit Episode
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L DMR1
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297G
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 6297H
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 62971
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
MG/L 6460A
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
33
67
95
127
155
246
281
307
340
371
399
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Influent
SamPoint
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
10.100
10.500
25.400
2.340
80.400
76.000
1000.000
553.000
1040.000
1710.000
363.000
1040.000
687.000
4.000
540.000
690.000
4050.000
707.000
2020.000
3360.000
2830.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
Effluent
Cone.
0.231
0.055
0.265
0.135
0.093
0.101
0.060
0.060
0.301
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.010
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.070
0.070
0.540
0.090
0.130
0.060
4.653
4.396
4.416
4.644
4.554
4.513
4.632
4.691
4.671
4.731
4.069
4.602
4.058
4.075
4.044
4.000
4.000
31.681
Eff .
Censor
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
39.427 0.264 99.33
62.131 0.132 99.79
0.098
0.093
976.155 4.533 99.54
597.100 4.648 99.22
2829.903 4.170 99.85
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
O TOTAL
t!o TOTAL
^ TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Baseline
Value
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6460A
6460A
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR1
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
o ujj^ct ueyui. y =r -Lu w - L-iii. u — wp L. j. ui i = j.
(continued)
Sample Influent Influent Inf. Effluent
Day
4
5
1
33
67
95
127
155
246
281
307
340
371
399
523
617
677
795
1071
1160
1168
1
28
58
95
120
148
176
213
242
273
302
340
368
393
424
455
484
518
546
578
611
639
667
700
730
SamPoint Cone . Censor
SamPoint
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Effluent
Cone .
4.000
4.000
1.000
2 .000
1.000
1.000
1.000
5.000
3 .000
1.000
3 .000
1.000
2 .000
1.000
3 .000
2 .000
1.000
1.000
2 .000
2 .000
1.000
3 .900
5.500
3 .400
4.000
4.100
3 .100
3 .000
5.600
5.400
2 .400
3 .300
3 .200
2 .400
5.000
4.300
4.000
6 .500
4.100
3 .500
1.700
2 .000
2 .400
2 .200
3 .100
2 .900
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
LTA LTA Removal
9.536
1.781
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
O TOTAL
Oo TOTAL
^ TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Baseline
Value
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR3
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
DMR4
o ujj^ct ueyui. y =r -Lu w - L-iii. u — wp L. j. ui i = j.
(continued)
Sample Influent Influent Inf. Effluent
Day
758
788
822
854
883
913
947
977
1008
1036
1070
1100
1
28
57
87
119
147
184
212
246
275
304
336
367
426
459
490
517
547
576
611
639
672
756
794
820
854
882
916
939
973
1004
1030
1065
1092
SamPoint Cone . Censor
SamPoint
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Effluent
Cone .
3 .200
4.600
2 .600
3 .200
2 .400
1.800
3 .900
7.000
4.000
4.500
4.300
3 .900
1.700
6 .100
4.500
1.400
1.600
1.000
2 .100
2 .400
1.900
0.900
1.000
6 .300
9.600
2 .400
2 .900
2 .500
3 .300
1.100
0.900
1.500
1.600
1.500
1.100
6 .400
3 .400
4.200
6 .300
2 .200
2 .900
1.600
1.700
1.500
1.600
0.600
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
LTA LTA Removal
3.696
2.676
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
O ZINC
Oo ZINC
l-4 ZINC
ZINC
CAS_No
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
Baseline
Value
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Unit Episode
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297G
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 6297H
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 62971
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
UG/L 6460A
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
386.000
1060.000
952.000
1600.000
1640.000
768.000
1170.000
1070.000
792.000
625.000
3350.000
2190.000
3040.000
1180.000
3300.000
u ca egory- ow ru
Analyte
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
CAS No
C2101
C2101
C2101
C2101
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
Baseline
Value
1
1
1
1
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Unit Episode
/100M 6460D
/100M 6460D
/100M 6460D
/100M 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
3 SP7,SP8
4
5
6
1 SP7,SP8
2 SP7,SP8
3 SP7,SP8
4 SP7,SP8
5 SP7,SP8
1 SP7,SP8
2 SP7,SP8
3 SP7,SP8
4 SP7,SP8
5 SP7,SP8
Influent
Cone .
100000.000
48 .000
48 .000
2337.343
48 .000
48 .000
0.220
0.100
11.420
0.160
0.120
Inf. Effluent
Censor SamPoint
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
SP7,SP9
p lon-
Inf. Effluent
Censor SamPoint
ND SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
ND SP10+11
ND SP10+11
NC SP10+11
ND SP10+11
ND SP10+11
NC SP10+11
NC SP10+11
NC SP10+11
NC SP10+11
NC SP10+11
Effluent
Cone.
6 .592
5.574
5.643
5.643
5.688
6 .452
5.925
6 .096
5.997
5.888
5.103
5.077
5.072
5.058
5.079
1.800
1.100
24.773
1.900
2 .000
Effluent
Cone .
665.500
270.000
341.000
690.000
48.000
48.000
48.000
48.000
48.000
0.215
0.070
0.130
0.110
0.195
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1193.105 5.831 99.51
890.912 6.072 99.32
2691.931 5.078 99.81
6.086
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC
NC
NC
NC 100000.000 507.312 99.49
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND 505.869 48.000 90.51
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 2.446 0.148 93.96
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Oo
Analyte CAS_No
BARIUM 7440393
BARIUM 7440393
BARIUM 7440393
BARIUM 7440393
BARIUM 7440393
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND COOS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND COOS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND COOS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND COOS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND COOS
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
BORON 7440428
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD C004
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
COPPER 7440508
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS C2107
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS C2107
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS C2107
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS C2107
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL COS 6
HEXANOIC ACID 142621
HEXANOIC ACID 142621
IRON 7439896
IRON 7439896
IRON 7439896
IRON 7439896
Baseline
Value
200
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
3
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
100
100
100
100
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
3
1
2
3
4
Influent
SamPoint
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
22 .200
22 .000
463 .312
17.100
18 .000
2 .000
6 .000
3248 .764
2 .000
2 .000
30.900
378 .000
97.254
2 .000
2 .000
14.000
10.000
7410.473
10.000
10.000
1.000
1.000
156 .499
1.000
1.000
2900000.00
6 .000
5.500
599.503
6 .000
6 .000
10.000
787.497
87.100
92 .900
26218 .814
27.500
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
Effluent
Cone .
22.400
22.600
22.150
19.200
17.300
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
30.600
16.450
2.000
2.000
2.000
21.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
21.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
370.000
221.000
120.000
730.000
6.000
5.500
5.250
5.000
6.000
10.000
10.000
101.150
88.100
105.300
37.600
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
101.098 20.762 79.46
652.153 2.000 99.69
138.149 11.082 91.98
2401928.41 14.400 100.00
32.100 1.000 96.88
2900000.00 390.352 99.99
124.601 5.550 95.55
398.749 10.000 97.49
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
tio SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
Oo
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
CAS_No
7439896
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E10606
E10606
E10606
E10606
C021
C021
Baseline
Value
100
15
15
15
15
15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
Unit Episode
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
UG/L 6460D
mL/L 6460D
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
mL/L DMR2
/100M 6460D
/100M 6460D
/100M 6460D
/100M 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
1
27
58
86
126
210
244
273
297
394
492
576
666
764
849
941
1035
1128
3
4
5
6
1
2
Influent
SamPoint
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
25.600
18 .500
18 .200
3249.415
7.600
6 .000
0.140
0.160
0.492
0.750
0.670
2 .000
2 .000
9.327
2 .000
2 .000
240.000
10900.000
0.330
0.250
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
Effluent
Cone .
34.650
15.200
15.450
17.500
7.800
6.150
0.155
0.145
0.220
0.710
0.685
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
505.000
485.000
1.000
126.000
0.350
0.290
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
10758.373 76.462 99.29
988.017 12.792 98.71
0.488 0.408 16.28
3.465 2.000 42.29
240.000
0.100
10900.000 321.683 97.05
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
O TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
Oo TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
•^ TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
C021
C021
C021
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Baseline
Value
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Unit Episode
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L 6460D
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
MG/L DMR2
Sample
Day
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
27
58
86
126
210
244
273
297
1
2
3
4
5
1
27
86
210
244
273
297
394
492
576
666
764
849
941
1035
1128
Influent
SamPoint
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
55.729
0.220
0.310
0.030
0.030
27.113
0.020
0.010
0.060
0.060
49.751
0.030
0.030
4.000
4.000
9607.518
4.000
4.000
Inf.
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
Effluent
SamPoint
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Effluent
Cone.
0.190
0.260
0.280
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.060
0.050
0.045
0.040
0.035
0.010
0.150
0.140
0.200
0.200
0.130
0.200
0.300
0.170
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
1.000
2 .000
7.000
3 .000
2 .000
9.000
3 .000
12 .000
1.000
2 .000
4.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
13.557 0.276 97.97
16.670 0.014 99.91
27.323 0.046 99.83
0.215
1924.704 4.000 99.79
3.124
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
Analyte
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
tio ALUMINUM
°> ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
CAS_No
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
CAS No
C2101
C2101
C2101
C2101
C2101
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
Baseline
Value
20
20
20
20
20
Baseline
Value
1
1
1
1
1
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Unit
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
Episode
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
1 SP7,SP8
2 SP7,SP8
3 SP7,SP8
4 SP7,SP8
5 SP7,SP8
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
1 SP-2
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
1.800
1.100
3069.469
1.900
2.000
Influent
Cone .
60000.000
200000.000
76500.000
35000.000
42400.000
17.000
54.000
17.000
17.000
17.000
1.100
2 .080
1.380
1.200
1.090
27.100
27.700
28 .600
26 .400
28 .000
59.000
38 .000
51.000
47.000
49.000
236 .000
263 .000
309.000
264.000
Inf. Effluent Effluent Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor SamPoint Cone. Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC SP10+11 1.150 NC
NC SP10+11 1.150 NC
NC SP10+11 3.900 NC
NC SP10+11 1.000 ND
NC SP10+11 6.850 NC 2208.876 3.118 99.86
Inf. Effluent Effluent Eff.
Censor SamPoint Cone . Censor
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
84654.980
24.400
1.377
27.563
48.934
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Oo
Analyte
BORON
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
CAS_No
7440428
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
C2107
C2107
C2107
C2107
C2107
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
142621
142621
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
7782492
Baseline
Value
100
3
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
15
15
15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
Unit
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
Episode
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
1
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
279.000
95.000
118 .000
116 .000
79.000
59.000
16 .600
15.900
17.600
14.000
15.400
5100.000
200000.000
26000.000
34000.000
13000.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
7.500
9.000
10.000
10.000
79.500
146 .000
141.000
91.900
12 .000
53 .200
160.000
128 .000
100.000
119.000
112 .000
98 .800
116 .000
133 .000
132 .000
2 .500
Inf. Effluent Effluent Ef f . Influent Effluent Percent
Censor SamPoint Cone . Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
270.458
94.350
15.912
65130.942
6.314
10.000
95.217
114.919
118.551
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Oo
XI
Analyte
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
CAS_No
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E10606
E10606
E10606
E10606
E10606
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
Baseline
Value
5
5
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
4
4
4
4
20
20
20
20
20
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
Sample Influent
Day
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
SamPoint
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
20.000
20.000
2 .000
2 .000
0.100
0.100
0.300
0.100
0.100
2900.000
200000.000
4200.000
200000.000
28000.000
2 .760
3 .090
6 .650
3 .530
3 .020
12 .600
8 .830
10.500
9.060
8 .720
14.100
11.100
11.900
10.500
8 .830
38 .000
45.000
49.000
55.000
44.000
34.800
38 .200
47.300
38 .100
1.000
Inf. Effluent Effluent Ef f . Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
RC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
SamPoint Cone . Censor
LTA LTA Removal
9.300
0.140
209212.560
3.833
9.963
11.319
46.288
31.942
-------
Oo
Oo
Analyte
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANOIC ACID
CAS No
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
142621
Baseline
Value
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
3
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
5
5
5
5
5
10
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
Episode
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
1
:> U.J_"^Ct L.
Infl
SamP
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Subcategory=RecircuL
L UUJ.ctL.LI
Influent
Cone .
247.000
551.000
583.000
431.000
311.000
1.870
3.050
2.910
1.650
1.600
60.900
83.900
94.000
73.200
73.400
198.000
207.000
542.000
624.000
207.000
203.000
258.000
228.000
261.000
278.000
675.000
1100.000
880.000
666.000
532.000
51.300
72.400
83.500
69.800
74.300
7.500
17.500
7.000
9.500
11.000
10.000
a -- upL
Inf .
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
Effluent
SamPoint
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
Effluent
Cone .
74.300
67.700
17.000
779.000
104.000
2 .180
3 .010
2 .610
3 .690
1.100
38 .200
41.100
40.500
109.000
42 .900
68 .000
80.000
94.000
616 .000
94.000
208 .000
214.000
234.000
270.000
258 .000
134.000
185.000
141.000
652 .000
136 .000
21.000
20.400
21.600
163 .000
23 .900
5.500
7.000
5.000
7.000
8 .500
10.000
Eff .
Censor
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
431.484 223.416 48.22
2.236 2.600 -16.27
77.291 54.613 29.34
366.176 187.123 48.90
246.022 237.104 3.62
776.297 249.919 67.81
70.541 48.848 30.75
10.604 6.623 37.54
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
tio SELENIUM
^ SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
CAS_No
142621
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
Baseline
Value
10
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
15
15
15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
Sample
Day
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
:> ui^uct L-cyw j.
Influent
SamPoint
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
SP-3
L UUJ.ctL.LI
ntinued)
Influent
Cone .
10.000
935.000
1810.000
1970.000
1450.000
1270.000
398.000
512.000
629.000
602.000
720.000
99.600
77.400
60.700
91.000
100.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
3.400
23.000
30.000
24.000
25.000
26.000
24.300
58.500
65.900
82.400
38.300
6.560
6.670
6.790
7.240
6.790
18.100
7.320
7.380
18.400
y -- upL
Inf .
Censor
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
Effluent
Cone.
10.000
193 .000
196 .000
177.000
2990.000
232 .000
119.000
113 .000
100.000
715.000
181.000
93 .000
85.200
68 .500
66 .100
95.900
2 .000
20.000
3 .900
7.500
2 .000
0.750
1.500
1.500
39.000
6 .000
3 .860
11.700
24.400
33 .000
6 .610
7.240
5.990
6 .670
7.580
6 .670
7.950
10.200
10.100
18 .600
Eff .
Censor
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
10.000 10.000 0.00
1502.378 716.012 52.34
575.649 246.123 57.24
86.200 82.000 4.87
16.680 7.207 56.79
25.624 11.388 55.56
55.625 17.711 68.16
6.811 6.836 -0.36
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
Analyte
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAS_No
14265442
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
CAS_No
C2101
C2101
C2101
C2101
C2101
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7429905
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7664417
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
7440393
COOS
COOS
COOS
Baseline
Value
0.01
4
4
4
4
4
20
20
20
20
20
Baseline
Value
1
1
1
1
1
200
200
200
200
200
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200
200
200
200
200
2
2
2
Unit Episode
MG/L 6439A
MG/L 6439A
MG/L 6439A
MG/L 6439A
MG/L 6439A
MG/L 6439A
UG/L 6439A
UG/L 6439A
UG/L 6439A
UG/L 6439A
UG/L 6439A
Unit Episode
/100M 6439B
/100M 6439B
/100M 6439B
/100M 6439B
/100M 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
MG/L 6439B
Sample Influent
Day SamPoint
5 SP-3
1 SP-3
2 SP-3
3 SP-3
4 SP-3
5 SP-3
1 SP-3
2 SP-3
3 SP-3
4 SP-3
5 SP-3
Si
(continued)
Influent
Cone .
8.580
363.000
730.000
1030.000
180.000
440.000
365.000
605.000
781.000
463.000
550.000
ibcategory=Recirculatinc
Sample Influent
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
SamPoint
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
Influent
Cone .
28000.000
200000.000
27600.000
44100.000
28000.000
71.300
61.200
17.000
47.100
109.000
2 .200
3 .280
2 .590
1.190
1.020
34.200
35.400
35.900
35.100
37.900
73 .000
38 .000
56 .000
Inf. Effluent
Censor SamPoint
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
NC SP-4
-- Optic
}n 3
Inf. Effluent
Censor
NC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SamPoint
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
Effluent
Cone.
8 .450
86 .000
118 .000
110.000
1010.000
84.000
69.900
88 .300
78 .100
904.000
101.000
Effluent
Cone .
49.850
17.000
17.000
38.100
61.700
1.805
3.230
1.980
1.075
0.965
33.250
33.050
34.950
34.000
34.850
52.000
42.000
45.000
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC 12.205 11.132 8.79
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 581.740 272.634 53.13
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 557.483 239.410 57.06
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
LTA LTA Removal
65215.769
61.942 37.031 40.22
2.121 1.853 12.61
35.705 34.022 4.71
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
o
Analyte
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
CAS_No
COOS
COOS
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
7440428
C004
C004
C004
C004
C004
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
7440508
C2107
C2107
C2107
C2107
C2107
C036
C036
C036
C036
C036
142621
142621
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439896
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
7439965
Baselin
Value
2
2
100
100
100
100
100
3
3
3
3
3
25
25
25
25
25
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
15
15
15
15
15
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Episode
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
Sample
Day
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
1
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
^i^^jct L-eyw j. y
Influent
SamPoint
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
±1 uuxctLxiiy
ontinued)
Influent
Cone .
48 .000
58 .000
208 .000
258 .000
275.000
228 .000
442 .000
100.000
147.000
227.000
85.000
58 .000
20.000
16 .900
19.100
18 .600
20.700
46000.000
200000.000
200000.000
40000.000
200000.000
15.000
6 .000
6 .000
7.000
15.000
10.000
10.000
152 .000
136 .000
161.000
123 .000
12 .000
108 .000
123 .000
110.000
142 .000
158 .000
Inf. Effluent
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
RC
RC
NC
RC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SamPoint
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
Effluent
Cone .
46.000
44.000
216.500
265.500
228.500
243.000
246.500
95.000
127.000
189.500
86.500
94.500
15.800
16.750
17.000
17.800
16.600
5.000
6.000
6.500
5.750
9.000
10.000
10.000
122.500
119.000
114.000
12.000
12.000
104.500
104.400
104.000
147.500
134.500
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
54.941 45.827 16.59
283.809 240.145 15.39
126.657 119.347 5.77
19.072 16.793 11.95
154354.324
10.091 6.491 35.67
10.000 10.000 0.00
117.010 75.916 35.12
128.529 119.285 7.19
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
CAS_No
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
7782492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E10606
E10606
E10606
E10606
E10606
C021
C021
C021
C021
C021
C034
C034
C034
C034
C034
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
14265442
C009
C009
C009
C009
C009
Baseline
Value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
5
5
5
5
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
4
4
4
4
4
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
Episode
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
^i^^jct L-eyw j. y
Influent
SamPoint
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
±1 uuxctLxiiy
ontinued)
Influent
Cone .
54.100
101.000
71.200
61.500
98 .700
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
2 .000
0.800
0.500
0.900
0.100
0.900
55000.000
200000.000
200000.000
200000.000
101000.000
7.800
82 .800
8 .470
6 .530
6 .220
8 .150
9.520
7.580
8 .490
8 .040
8 .960
10.700
12 .700
8 .710
8 .960
56 .000
58 .000
68 .000
30.000
74.000
Inf. Effluent
Censor
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
RC
RC
RC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SamPoint
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
Effluent
Cone .
108.500
102.400
89.500
113.500
115.000
11.350
3.300
2.000
11.000
2.550
0.100
0.100
0.150
0.350
0.100
3.610
5.625
5.795
2.600
3.950
8.490
14.500
8.095
8.035
7.980
8.515
17.500
10.850
9.145
8.265
44.000
53.000
61.000
28.500
46.500
Eff. Influent Effluent Percent
Censor LTA LTA Removal
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
77.914 105.901 -35.92
2.000 6.371 -218.56
0.648 0.168 74.07
159608.055
21.475 4.371 79.65
8.362 9.455 -13.07
10.028 10.918 -8.87
58.268 47.093 19.18
-------
Analyte
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Pollutants of Concern
Option=3
CAS_No
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
7440666
Subcategory=Recirculating
(continued)
Baseline Sample Influent
Value Unit Episode Day | SamPoint
20
20
20
20
20
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
UG/L 6439B
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
SP-8
Influent Inf.
Cone. Censor
60.800
71.800
70.200
57.500
79.700
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Effluent
SamPoint
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
Effluent Eff.
Cone. Censor
50.050 NC
70.050 NC
68.050 NC
1.000 ND
1.000 ND
Influent Effluent Percent
LTA LTA Removal
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY STATISTICS AT EACH SAMPLE POINT FOR
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
-------
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
AMMONIA AS
BARIUM
BARIUM
Sample
Episode Point
6460 SP7,SP8
6460 SP7,SP9
6460 SP-8
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
NITROGEN
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
100000.00 1
1000.00 1
100000.00 1
1000
507
50
50
50
796
50
50
534
55
50
2205
50
50
48
505
51
2860
67
48
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
14
0
0
21
21
.00
.31
.00
.00
.00
.45
.84
.01
.55
.08
.05
.66
.00
.00
.00
.87
.16
.00
.40
.00
.12
.05
.46
.48
.85
.49
.05
.20
.47
.08
.31
.13
.15
.45
.19
.00
.36
.15
.82
.72
1
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
1
1
1
1
0
5
5
5
0
4
4
0
4
5
0
5
5
5
4
4
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev Value
100000.00
1000.00
100000.00
217
0
0
0
297
1
0
130
11
0
854
0
0
0
1023
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
.09
.00
.00
.00
.07
.88
.02
.41
.36
.11
.94
.00
.00
.00
.83
.06
.00
.02
.00
.21
.80
.56
.21
.44
.50
.21
.23
.35
.02
.05
.04
.09
.06
.48
.41
1000
491
50
50
50
764
50
50
530
55
50
2086
50
50
48
505
51
2860
67
48
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
14
0
0
21
21
.00
.63
.00
.00
.00
.00
.84
.01
.60
.08
.05
.00
.00
.00
.00
.87
.16
.00
.40
.00
.12
.05
.46
.46
.84
.48
.00
.14
.47
.05
.30
.13
.14
.40
.18
.00
.36
.14
.82
.72
Mean
Value
NC
491.
764.
54.
50.
530.
75.
2086.
2337.
63.
2860.
67.
0.
0.
1
2.
0.
1.
1
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
2.
0.
14.
0.
0.
21.
21.
.63
.00
.20
.04
.60
.40
.00
.34
.79
.00
.40
.12
.46
.46
.84
.48
.00
.14
.47
.05
.30
.13
.14
.40
.18
.00
.36
.14
.82
.72
Std
Dev
NC
217
297
130
854
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
.09
.07
.41
.94
.02
.21
.80
.56
.21
.44
.50
.21
.23
.35
.02
.05
.04
.09
.06
.48
.41
Min
Value
NC
270
300
54
50
357
75
720
2337
63
2860
67
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
21
21
.00
.00
.20
.04
.00
.40
.00
.34
.79
.00
.40
.10
.34
.90
.04
.36
.37
.40
.35
.16
.84
.11
.10
.10
.10
.00
.36
.07
.50
.20
Max Min Max
Value Value Value
NC ND ND Unit
100000.00 100000.00 /100M
1000.00 1000.00 /100M
100000.00 100000.00 /100M
690
1090
54
50
683
75
2950
2337
63
2860
67
0
0
2
3
0
1
1
0
4
1
0
0
11
0
14
0
0
22
22
.00
.00
.20
.04
.00
.40
.00
.34
.79
.00
.40
.14
.84
.85
.53
.86
.46
.68
.85
.20
.69
.16
.22
.42
.32
.00
.36
.22
.65
.20
1000.00 1000.00 /100M
/100M
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.25 UG/L
UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
48.00 48 .00 UG/L
48.00 48 .00 UG/L
48.00 48 .00 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
48.00 48 .00 UG/L
MG/L
0.05 0.05 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BIOCHEMICAL
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
Sample
Episode Point
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
21
491
45
22
158
44
22
313
23
21
19
101
19
565
20
20
3
4
4
716
142
5
183
116
5
343
14
4
2
652
4
3990
13
2
48
47
46
404
50
46
128
50
46
.78
.71
.01
.01
.37
.36
.00
.40
.04
.83
.47
.10
.92
.00
.70
.76
.94
.40
.30
.29
.07
.63
.19
.55
.42
.43
.53
.05
.80
.15
.59
.00
.00
.00
.59
.14
.54
.24
.84
.59
.20
.26
.58
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
5
4
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev
0
430
1
0
57
1
0
49
0
0
2
198
2
2
1
0
1
155
60
1
123
59
1
86
2
1
1
1451
3
0
2
0
1
398
0
1
79
0
1
.23
.97
.36
.24
.72
.05
.22
.23
.33
.47
.45
.35
.30
.37
.44
.89
.02
.29
.49
.10
.92
.71
.17
.21
.04
.43
.79
.55
.96
.00
.30
.88
.12
.78
.51
.10
.09
.60
.11
Mean
Value
Value
21
416
45
22
155
44
22
312
23
21
19
108
19
565
20
20
3
4
4
222
136
5
173
113
5
338
14
4
2
652
4
3990
13
2
48
47
46
332
50
46
123
50
46
.78
.98
.01
.01
.82
.36
.00
.60
.04
.83
.44
.52
.90
.00
.70
.73
.93
.40
.29
.96
.30
.60
.20
.20
.37
.00
.49
.03
.80
.15
.59
.00
.00
.00
.58
.14
.54
.80
.84
.58
.82
.26
.58
21.
416.
45.
22.
155.
44.
22.
312.
23.
21.
19.
108.
19.
565.
20.
20.
2.
3.
222.
136.
5
173.
113.
4 .
338.
14.
2.
3248.
10.
3990.
13.
48.
47.
46.
332.
50.
46.
123.
50.
46.
NC
.78
.98
.01
.01
.82
.36
.00
.60
.04
.83
.44
.52
.90
.00
.70
.73
.63
.73
.96
.30
.60
.20
.20
.87
.00
.49
.75
.76
.96
.00
.00
.58
.14
.54
.80
.84
.58
.82
.26
.58
Std
Dev
0
430
1
0
57
1
0
49
0
0
2
198
2
2
0
0
155
60
1
123
59
1
86
2
0
2
0
1
398
0
1
79
0
1
NC
.23
.97
.36
.24
.72
.05
2 2
.23
.33
.47
.45
.35
.30
.37
.60
.67
.29
.49
.10
.92
.71
.55
.21
.04
.60
.30
.88
.12
.78
.51
.10
.09
.60
.11
Min
Value
21
66
43
21
88
43
21
249
2 2
21
17
17
17
565
20
17
2
3
3
58
3
56
56
3
184
11
2
3248
10
3990
13
45
46
44
57
50
44
62
49
44
NC
.50
.90
.50
. 72
.10
.30
.74
.00
.60
.52
.10
.10
.10
.00
.70
.30
.20
.25
.78
.00
.79
.00
.00
.77
.00
.20
.32
.76
.96
.00
.00
.00
.20
.90
.10
.30
.96
.10
.70
.95
Max
Value
22
1060
47
22
227
45
22
382
23
22
22
463
22
565
20
22
3
4
380
185
6
376
183
5
380
16
3
3248
10
3990
13
51
48
47
955
51
47
229
51
47
NC
.00
.00
.00
.25
.00
.70
.23
.00
.50
.65
.20
.31
.20
.00
.70
.60
.05
.20
.00
.00
.77
.00
.00
.97
.00
.55
.18
.76
.96
.00
.00
.00
.50
.75
.00
.60
.78
.00
.10
.77
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
4.00 6 .00 MG/L
4.00 6 .00 MG/L
4.00 6 .00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
4.65 6.78 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
4.10 6 .10 MG/L
2.00 6 .00 MG/L
2.00 6 .00 MG/L
2.00 6 .00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
2.00 2 .00 MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
(3 CHEMICAL
1 CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
CHEMICAL
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
Sample
Episode Point
6297 SP-12
6297 SP13+14
6297 SP13+14,SP2+3
6460 SP-7
6460 SP7,SP8
6460 SP7,SP9
6460 SP-8
6460 SP-9
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
OXYGEN
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
(COD)
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
185.84 5
48.95 5
48.59 5
208.51 5
138.15 5
208.51 5
119.00 1
2 .00 1
11
23
20
20
1958
442
24
1823
408
23
1896
43
23
10
2401928
15
9100
33
14
5
5
5
117
12
5
109
13
5
296
5
5
1
32
1
.08
.10
.00
.00
.78
.32
.17
.33
.14
.83
.35
.28
.30
.80
.41
.13
.00
.00
.40
.00
.00
.00
.86
.58
.07
.82
.47
.08
.82
.00
.00
.00
.10
.00
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
0
0
0
3
2
3
0
1
3
3
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
3
4
3
3
0
0
3
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
5
4
5
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev Value
58.17 182.80
1.84 48.94
2.27 48.58
165.40 82.98
159.10 102.03
165.40 82.98
119.00
2 .00
12
4
0
0
938
113
1
783
48
0
1925
16
4
1
3309
8
6
0
0
0
28
1
0
29
2
0
133
0
0
0
69
0
.81
.53
.00
.00
.20
.52
.12
.95
.37
.48
.93
.61
.48
.79
.15
.11
.02
.00
.00
.00
.85
.19
.01
.32
.41
.02
.04
.00
.00
.00
.54
.00
10
23
20
20
1310
440
24
1418
407
23
1802
42
23
10
1490
14
9100
33
14
5
5
5
116
12
5
109
13
5
269
5
5
1
32
1
.61
.06
.00
.00
.40
.90
.17
.00
.60
.83
.40
.71
.25
.80
.89
.55
.00
.00
.40
.00
.00
.00
.40
.57
.07
.12
.40
.08
.04
.00
.00
.00
.10
.00
Mean
Value
NC
182.80
48.94
48.58
204.45
168.72
204.45
119.00
23.
27.
1310.
440.
24.
1418.
407.
1802.
48.
27.
14.
3712.
21.
9100.
33.
21.
116.
12.
5
109.
13.
269.
156.
.53
.65
.40
.90
.17
.00
.60
.40
.39
.73
.00
.24
.36
.00
.00
.00
.40
.57
.07
.12
.40
.04
.50
Std
Dev
NC
58 .17
1.84
2 .27
245.44
184.26
245.44
10
3
938
113
1
783
48
1925
12
3
5230
10
0
28
1
0
29
2
133
.01
.46
.20
.52
.12
.95
.37
.93
.37
.66
.10
.41
.00
.85
.19
.01
.32
.41
.04
Min
Value
NC
105.00
46.65
45.04
30.90
30.90
30.90
119.00
16
25
105
372
23
180
360
480
30
25
14
14
14
9100
33
21
68
11
5
83
9
68
156
.45
.20
.00
.00
.49
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.25
.06
.50
.40
.20
.50
Max
Value
NC
231.00
51.60
50.97
378 .00
378 .00
378 .00
119.00
30
30
2060
642
26
2230
472
5130
56
30
14
7410
28
9100
33
21
139
14
5
141
15
406
156
.60
.10
.00
.00
.16
.00
.00
.00
.30
.32
.00
.47
.73
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.09
.00
.90
.00
.50
Min
Value
ND
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.
20.
20.
20.
23.
20.
20.
10.
10.
10.
10.
5.
5
5.
5.
5.
5
1
1.
1
.00
.00
.00
.00
.36
.00
.10
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Max
Value
ND
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2
20
20
20
24
20
20
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
.00
.00
.00
.00
.46
.00
.36
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.11
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
Total
Sample Est Number
Episode Point LTA Values
6460 SP-8 192.00 1
6460 SP-9 1.00 1
6460 SP10+11 1.00 5
6460 SP7,SP8 2900000.00 1
6460 SP7,SP9 2500.00 1
6460 SP-8 2900000.00 1
6460 SP-9 2500.00 1
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
390
7
7
10
86
70
10
87
82
10
501
19
7
5
124
5
735
6
5
10
10
10
71
112
11
48
111
10
390
10
10
10
398
10
965
.35
.79
.35
.27
.76
.88
.17
.40
.32
.73
.35
.07
.87
.90
.60
.90
.00
.00
.55
.00
.00
.00
.91
.29
.01
.62
.32
.99
.64
.00
.00
.00
.75
.00
.00
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
(continued)
Number Obs Obs Mean
of Std Mean Value
ND Dev Value NC
0 192.00 192.00
1 1.00
5 0.00 1.00
0 2900000.00 2900000.00
0 2500.00 2500.00
0 2900000.00 2900000.00
0 2500.00 2500.00
0
3
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
3
5
4
5
0
1
5
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
2
1
2
0
267
4
3
8
69
38
8
69
48
8
288
16
4
0
265
0
0
0
0
0
34
2
0
26
28
0
211
0
0
0
549
0
.03
.34
.49
.10
.92
.17
.27
.91
.75
.33
.46
.31
.30
.22
.48
.22
.45
.00
.00
.00
.05
.35
.02
.62
.97
.29
.47
.00
.00
.00
.77
.00
360
7
7
9
81
49
10
79
62
10
485
18
7
5
124
5
735
6
5
10
10
10
69
112
11
46
110
10
242
10
10
10
398
10
965
.25
.29
.15
.66
.05
.19
.05
.94
.92
.18
.75
.37
.40
.90
.60
.90
.00
.00
.55
.00
.00
.00
.80
.28
.01
.10
.13
.99
.87
.00
.00
.00
.75
.00
.00
360.
10.
10.
12.
81.
49.
10.
98.
62.
13.
485.
27.
10.
599.
735.
69.
112.
11.
46.
110.
242.
787.
965.
.25
.46
.16
.73
.05
.19
.05
.68
.92
.56
.75
.29
.54
.50
.00
.80
.28
.01
.10
.13
.87
.50
.00
Std Min Max
Dev Value Value
NC NC NC
192.00 192.00
2900000.00 2900000.00
2500.00 2500.00
2900000.00 2900000.00
2500.00 2500.00
267
6
4
9
69
38
8
64
48
9
288
15
6
34
2
0
26
28
211
.03
.46
.28
.79
.92
.17
.27
.63
.75
.79
.46
.30
.37
.05
.35
.02
.62
.97
.47
120
5
7
6
20
5
5
30
9
7
247
16
6
599
735
47
110
11
24
85
33
787
965
.00
.89
.13
.02
.50
.00
.06
.63
.93
.00
.00
.30
.04
.50
.00
.60
.85
.00
.40
.40
.10
.50
.00
730
15
13
23
200
85
24
186
109
24
900
44
15
599
735
109
115
11
75
142
456
787
965
.00
.03
.19
.97
.89
.35
.57
.27
.50
.81
.00
.77
.04
.50
.00
.00
.00
.04
.80
.00
.00
.50
.00
Min
Value
ND
1.00
1.00
5.
5
5.
5.
5.
5.
5
5
5.
5
6.
5
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
.00
.00
.00
.00
.08
.00
.00
.50
.50
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.74
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Max
Value
ND
1.00
1.00
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
10
10
10
11
10
10
10
10
10
.51
.41
.09
.00
.14
.00
.90
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.30
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Unit
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
Sample
Episode Point
6460 SP-9
6460 SP10+11
6297 SP2+3
6297 SP-4
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
10.00 1
10.00 2
50.00 5
50.00 5
50
2070
223
51
1617
270
52
5776
50
50
54
10758
152
32200
559
76
5
5
5
429
146
6
441
182
6
1168
9
5
11
988
18
3990
41
12
1
1
1
0
.00
.12
.64
.72
.39
.64
.18
.34
.00
.00
.14
.37
.23
.00
.00
.46
.00
.00
.00
.67
.74
.40
.28
.85
.76
.25
.29
.04
.55
.02
.03
.00
.10
.79
.02
.08
.03
.87
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
1
2
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev Value
10.00
0.00 10.00
0.00 50.00
0.00 50.00
0
809
9
0
432
10
0
2021
0
0
36
11699
181
34
0
0
0
181
8
0
161
9
0
482
0
0
6
1447
11
5
0
0
0
0
.00
.21
.24
.09
.80
.88
.11
.17
.00
.00
.11
.39
.93
.59
.00
.00
.00
.02
. 77
.09
.54
.83
.10
.28
.61
.01
.61
.57
.39
.08
.07
.03
.05
.23
50
2003
223
51
1608
270
52
5552
50
50
50
5290
138
32200
559
73
5
5
5
111
146
6
435
182
6
1125
9
5
11
659
16
3990
41
12
1
1
1
0
.00
.00
.60
.72
.00
.60
.18
.00
.00
.00
.62
.38
.38
.00
.00
.36
.00
.00
.00
.80
.70
.40
.80
.80
.76
.00
.29
.04
.16
.94
.96
.00
.10
.42
.02
.08
.03
.87
Mean
Value
NC
2003.
223.
51.
1608.
270.
5552.
58.
5290.
138.
32200.
559.
73.
411.
146.
6.
435.
182.
1125.
9.
11.
659.
16.
3990.
41.
12.
1.
1
1.
0.
.00
.60
.72
.00
.60
.00
.28
.38
.38
.00
.00
.36
.80
.70
.40
.80
.80
.00
.29
.16
.94
.96
.00
.10
.42
.02
.08
.03
.87
Std
Dev
NC
809
9
0
432
10
2021
36
11699
181
34
181
8
0
161
9
482
0
6
1447
11
5
0
0
0
0
.21
.24
.09
.80
.88
.17
.72
.39
.93
.59
.02
.77
.09
.54
.83
.28
.61
.61
.57
.39
.08
.07
.03
.05
.23
Min
Value
NC
885
210
51
1260
257
2230
25
25
25
32200
559
34
166
141
6
280
170
463
8
5
6
6
3990
41
6
0
1
0
0
.00
.00
.58
.00
.00
.00
.60
.60
.60
.00
.00
.65
.00
.00
.35
.00
.00
.00
.65
.50
.00
.00
.00
.10
.15
.94
.04
.97
.72
Max
Value
NC
2930
231
51
2230
283
7210
92
26218
458
32200
559
105
593
162
6
642
195
1740
9
18
3249
34
3990
41
17
1
1
1
1
.00
.00
.79
.00
.00
.00
.90
.81
.82
.00
.00
.30
.00
.00
.55
.00
.00
.00
.90
.50
.41
.48
.00
.10
.50
.11
.12
.09
.26
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
10.00 10.00 UG/L
10.00 10.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
52.04 52 .30 UG/L
UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
50.00 50.00 UG/L
20.00 20.00 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
5.00 5.00 UG/L
5.00 5.00 UG/L
5.00 5.00 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
6.63 6.88 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
5.04 5.05 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
Sample
Episode Point
6297 SP8+9
6297 SP8+9,SP5+6
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
0.35 5
1.02 5
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
12
2
2
2
3
2
11
2
2
71
0
0
41
0
0
96
0
0
.82
.64
.03
.86
.25
.01
.42
.49
.40
.55
.09
.41
.00
.00
.08
.51
.00
.08
.28
.40
.08
.09
.00
.00
.00
.47
.00
.00
.00
.00
.79
.28
.28
.75
.70
.70
.50
.55
.55
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
2
4
4
(continued)
Number Obs Obs
of Std Mean
ND Dev Value
5 0.14 0.35
5 0.05 1.02
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
4
1
5
5
3
4
4
0
5
5
5
4
5
0
1
5
0
4
4
0
3
3
0
2
2
0.15
0.74
0.04
0.09
0.00
0.07
0.29
0.28
0.31
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.18
1.18
0.00
0.18
0.53
0.89
0.19
10.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.28
0.00
0.00
24.10
0.40
0.40
20.68
0.84
0.84
2.12
0.52
0.52
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
12
2
2
2
3
2
11
2
2
71
0
0
40
0
0
96
0
0
.82
.64
.03
.86
.25
.01
.39
.44
.37
.55
.09
.38
.00
.00
.08
.47
.00
.08
.26
.40
.08
.06
.00
.00
.00
.47
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.28
.28
.50
.66
.66
.50
.55
.55
Mean
Value
NC
0.
1.
1
0.
1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3 .
2.
4 .
2.
12.
9 .
11.
71.
1.
1
40.
1
1.
96.
1.
1
.82
.94
.03
.86
.01
.39
.44
.37
.55
.09
.38
.40
.84
.65
.00
.42
.06
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.50
.50
.50
.00
.00
Std
Dev
NC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
24
20
0
0
2
0
0
.15
.04
.09
.07
.29
.28
.31
.29
.97
.78
.35
.10
.68
.71
.71
.12
.00
.00
Min
Value
NC
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
4
2
6
9
11
50
1
1
21
1
1
95
1
1
.72
.94
.98
.74
.93
.14
.14
.12
.55
.09
.15
.40
.50
.10
.00
.42
.20
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Max
Value
NC
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
3
4
2
30
9
11
105
1
1
69
2
2
98
1
1
.09
.94
.08
.96
.10
.75
.75
.75
.55
.09
.71
.40
.60
.20
.00
.42
.50
.33
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Min
Value
ND
0.25
0.96
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.25
.25
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
Max
Value
ND
0.50
1.08
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
.25
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.40
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SP7,SP8
mL/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
b
i
XI
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
COLIFORM
COLIFORM
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
Sample
Episode Point
6460 SP7,SP9
6460 SP-8
6460 SP-9
DMR1 SP-1
DMR2 SP-1
DMR3 SP-1
DMR4 SP-1
6460 SP7,SP8
6460 SP7,SP9
6460 SP-8
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
0.20 1
240.00 1
0.20 1
0.10 19
0.10 18
0.10 37
0.10 35
10900.00 1
460.00 1
10900.00 1
460
321
0
0
1
71
13
1
51
18
1
65
28
0
0
13
0
68
1
0
0
0
0
9
11
0
7
10
0
.00
.68
.50
.50
.78
.44
.77
.91
.40
.26
.88
.89
.03
.79
.27
.56
.54
.40
.90
.28
.13
.11
.18
.94
.04
.28
.52
.74
.28
1
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
(continued)
Number Obs Obs
of Std Mean
ND Dev Value
0 0.20
0 240.00
0 0.20
19 0.00 0.10
18 0.00 0.10
37 0.00 0.10
35 0.00 0.10
0 10900.00
0 460.00
0 10900.00
0
1
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
254
0
0
2
49
0
2
36
5
2
35
57
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
.43
.00
.00
.69
.20
.75
.66
.69
.81
.68
.86
.44
.57
.05
.80
.59
.06
.07
.08
.09
.28
.70
.09
.37
.79
.09
460
279
0
0
1
63
13
1
46
11
1
47
30
0
0
11
0
68
1
0
0
0
0
9
11
0
7
10
0
.00
.25
.50
.50
.85
.08
.77
.97
.18
.08
.94
.19
.25
.79
.27
.37
.54
.40
.90
.27
.13
.11
.17
.86
.04
.28
.24
.74
.28
Mean
Value
NC
0.20
240.00
0.20
10900.00
460.00
10900.00
460.
372.
1.
63.
13.
1
46.
11.
1
47.
30.
0.
11.
0.
68.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9.
11.
0.
7 .
10.
0.
.00
.00
.85
.08
. 77
.97
.18
.08
.94
.19
.25
.27
.37
.54
.40
.90
.27
.14
.20
.17
.86
.04
.28
.24
.74
.28
Std
Dev
NC
213
2
49
0
2
36
5
2
35
57
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
.28
.69
.20
.75
.66
.69
.81
.68
.86
.44
.05
.80
.59
.06
.06
.01
.09
.28
.70
.09
.37
.79
.09
Min
Value
NC
0.20
240.00
0.20
10900.00
460.00
10900.00
460
126
0
12
13
0
13
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
68
1
0
0
0
0
6
10
0
3
9
0
.00
.00
.60
.50
.10
.73
.20
.70
.67
.23
.11
.22
.22
.22
.40
.90
.19
.09
.19
.08
.38
.15
.18
.15
.68
.20
Max
Value
NC
0.20
240.00
0.20
10900.00
460.00
10900.00
460
505
6
142
14
6
98
14
6
96
133
0
55
1
68
1
0
0
0
0
17
12
0
11
11
0
.00
.00
.67
.00
.90
.73
.60
.00
.74
.70
.00
.33
.73
.59
.40
.90
.35
.21
.21
.32
.30
.10
.42
.00
.50
.42
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
0.10 0.10 mL/L
0.10 0.10 mL/L
0.10 0.10 mL/L
0.10 0.10 mL/L
/100M
/100M
/100M
/100M
1.00 1.00 /100M
0.50 0.50 MG/L
0.50 0.50 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.54 1.81 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.05 0.05 MG/L
0.05 0.05 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Sample
Episode Point
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
DMR1
DMR2
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP-1
SP-1
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
15
0
0
0
16
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
27
10
0
39
9
0
62
0
0
0
27
0
61
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
976
58
4
597
69
4
2829
11
4
.84
.32
.13
.02
.67
.08
.30
.37
.01
.13
.14
.17
.32
.17
.27
.43
.49
.26
.13
.64
.13
.04
.32
.10
.10
.36
.05
.09
.21
.10
.00
.00
.16
.10
.53
.10
.73
.65
.90
.17
.17
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
12
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
5
0
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
4
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev
8
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
8
1
0
36
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
521
12
0
376
8
0
1289
2
0
.21
.19
.07
.01
.12
.13
.01
.08
.08
.08
.42
.54
.08
.46
.35
.09
.82
.16
.08
.02
.23
.12
.01
.14
.08
.22
.00
.00
.77
.34
.12
.76
.41
.08
.63
.39
.24
Mean
Value
Value
14
0
0
0
5
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
26
10
0
12
9
0
38
0
0
0
9
0
61
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
933
57
4
592
69
4
2593
11
4
.60
.31
.13
.02
.44
.08
.30
.37
.01
.12
.14
.17
.20
.16
.27
.08
.48
.26
.93
.63
.13
.04
.99
.10
.10
.36
.05
.10
.17
.10
.00
.00
.20
.80
.53
.20
.60
.65
.40
.12
.17
14.
0.
0.
0.
5
0.
33.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
26.
10.
0.
12.
9.
0.
38.
0.
0.
0.
9 .
0.
61.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
933.
57.
4 .
739.
69.
2593.
11.
4 .
NC
.60
.38
.15
.02
.44
.08
.30
.37
.01
.14
.14
.20
.20
.16
.27
.08
.48
.30
.93
.63
.15
.04
.99
.10
.10
.36
.05
.10
.17
.50
.20
.80
.53
.25
.60
.40
.12
.60
Std
Dev
8
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
8
1
0
36
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
521
12
0
212
8
1289
2
NC
.21
.14
.06
.01
.12
.13
.01
.08
.08
.04
.42
.54
.08
.46
.35
.06
.82
.16
.08
.02
.23
.12
.01
.14
.08
.77
.34
.12
.37
.41
.63
.39
Min
Value
4
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
10
9
0
0
8
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
61
0
0
0
0
4
363
44
4
540
56
707
8
4
NC
.30
.18
.09
.01
.01
.01
.30
.37
.01
.09
.07
.15
.50
.67
.15
.20
.32
.23
.34
.39
.09
.03
.03
.03
.10
.36
.04
.01
.01
.50
.00
.00
.40
.00
.00
.00
.40
.60
Max
Value
24
0
0
0
27
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
41
10
0
22
11
0
80
0
0
0
49
0
61
0
0
0
0
4
1710
70
4
1040
78
4050
14
4
NC
.60
.51
.21
.03
.11
.30
.30
.37
.02
.26
.25
.24
.80
.90
.34
.90
.10
.34
.40
.78
.27
.06
.75
.30
.10
.36
.06
.54
.30
.50
.00
.00
.65
.00
.00
.00
.80
.60
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
0.05 0.05 MG/L
0.05 0.05 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.05 0.05 MG/L
MG/L
0.05 0.05 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.13 0.13 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
0.06 0.06 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
MG/L
4.51 4.73 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
4.04 4.08 MG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
TOTAL SUSPENDED
ZINC
ZINC
(3 ZINC
1 ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
Analyte
AEROMONAS
AEROMONAS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SOLIDS
Episode
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
DMR1
DMR2
DMR3
DMR4
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6297
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
6460
Episode
6439
6439
Sample
Point
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP2+3
SP-4
SP5 + 6
SP-7
SP8+9
SP8+9,SP5+6
SP-10
SP-11
SPll,SP5+6
SP-12
SP13+14
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP-7
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP9
SP-8
SP-9
SP10+11
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-8
4
1924
9
11800
38
4
1
3
3
2
5
5
5
1193
70
5
890
96
6
2691
12
5
1
2208
6
3770
30
3
84654
65215
Est
LTA
.00
.70
.54
.00
.00
.00
.78
.12
.70
.68
.00
.00
.18
.10
.67
.83
.91
.23
.07
.93
.89
.08
.58
.88
.09
.00
.20
.12
Est
LTA
.98
.77
Total
Number
Values
5
5
5
1
1
5
19
16
37
34
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
Total
Number
Values
5
5
(continued)
Number Obs Obs
of
ND
5
4
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
Subcat
Number
of
ND
0
0
Std
Dev
0.00
4294.82
12.38
0.00
1.08
3.31
1.25
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.40
517.47
5.02
0.43
226.60
20.47
0.23
926.00
1.63
0.02
0.47
1371.95
10.32
2.56
:egory=Recii
Obs
Std
Dev
67476.60
75493.56
Mean
Value
4.00
1924.70
9.54
11800.00
38 .00
4.00
1.79
3 .19
3 .69
2 .70
5.00
5.00
5.18
1127.60
70.63
5.83
885.00
95.48
6 .07
2612 .00
12 .87
5.08
1.56
615.25
6 .31
3770.00
30.20
2 .81
. cu a ing
Obs
Mean
Value
82780.00
65540.00
Mean
Value
NC
9607.52
31.68
11800.00
38.00
1.79
3.19
3.69
2.70
5.90
1127.60
70.63
5.83
885.00
95.48
6.45
2612.00
12.87
1.70
615.25
6.31
3770.00
30.20
3.26
Mean
Value
NC
82780.00
65540.00
Std
Dev
NC
1.08
3 .31
1.25
2 .07
517.47
5.02
0.43
226 .60
20.47
926 .00
1.63
0.41
1371.95
10.32
2 .72
Std
Dev
NC
67476 .60
75493 .56
Min
Value
NC
9607.52
31.68
11800.00
38.00
1.00
1.00
1.70
0.60
5.90
386.00
63.00
5.57
625.00
61.80
6.45
1180.00
10.90
1.10
1.10
1.10
3770.00
30.20
1.15
Min
Value
NC
35000.00
27600.00
Max
Value
9607
31
11800
38
5
12
7
9
5
1640
75
6
1170
116
6
3350
15
2
3069
24
3770
30
6
NC
.52
.68
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.60
.90
.00
.80
.59
.00
.00
.45
.00
.40
.00
.47
.77
.00
.20
.85
Max
Value
200000
200000
NC
.00
.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
4.00 4.00 MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
4.00 4.00 MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
5.00 5.00 UG/L
5.00 5.00 UG/L
5.00 5.00 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
5.89 6 .10 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
5.06 5.10 UG/L
1.00 1.00 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
1.00 1.00 UG/L
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
/100M
/100M
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BARIUM
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
BORON
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
Sample
Episode Point
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-8
SP-2
SP-3
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
24
431
223
61
37
1
2
2
2
1
27
77
54
35
34
48
366
187
54
45
270
246
237
283
240
94
776
249
126
119
15
70
48
19
16
65130
154354
6
10
.40
.48
.42
.94
.03
.38
.24
.60
.12
.85
.56
.29
.61
.71
.02
.93
.18
.12
.94
.83
.46
.02
.10
.81
.14
.35
.30
.92
.66
.35
.91
.54
.85
.07
.79
.94
.32
.31
.60
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
4
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
t L-cyw j. y — i^-c^j j. j. ^ju j-ct L. j-iiy
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev
16
146
320
33
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
30
1
0
7
209
238
12
3
26
29
26
93
18
25
222
225
66
42
!
11
63
1
0
81484
86018
1
4
.55
.25
.51
.69
.85
.41
.71
.97
.95
.91
.84
.48
.60
.38
.88
.56
.63
.17
.95
. 77
.66
.85
.97
.03
.61
.05
.20
.92
.31
.62
.35
.79
.19
.45
.72
.80
.60
.86
.23
Mean
Value
Value
24
424
208
61
36
1
2
2
2
1
27
77
54
35
34
48
355
190
54
45
270
245
236
282
240
93
770
249
123
118
15
70
49
19
16
55620
137200
6
10
.40
.60
.40
.12
.73
.37
.22
.52
.06
.81
.56
.08
.34
.70
.02
.80
.60
.40
.60
.80
.20
.60
.80
.20
.00
.40
.60
.60
.40
.50
.90
.26
.98
.06
.79
.00
.00
.30
.50
54.
424.
256.
72.
49.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
27.
77.
54.
35.
34.
48.
355.
190.
54.
45.
270.
245.
236.
282.
240.
93.
770.
249.
123.
118.
15.
70.
49.
19.
16.
55620.
137200.
8.
10.
NC
.00
.60
.25
.15
.88
.37
.22
.52
.06
.81
.56
.08
.34
.70
.02
.80
.60
.40
.60
.80
.20
.60
.80
.20
.00
.40
.60
.60
.40
.50
.90
.26
.98
.06
.79
.00
.00
.25
.50
Std
Dev
146
348
26
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
30
1
0
7
209
238
12
3
26
29
26
93
18
25
222
225
66
42
1
11
63
1
0
81484
86018
1
4
NC
.25
.86
.50
.80
.41
.71
.97
.95
.91
.84
.48
.60
.38
.88
.56
.63
.17
.95
.77
.66
.85
.97
.03
.61
.05
.20
.92
.31
.62
.35
.79
.19
.45
.72
.80
.60
.06
.23
Min
Value
54
247
67
47
38
1
1
1
1
0
26
60
38
34
33
38
198
68
38
42
236
203
208
208
216
59
532
134
58
86
14
51
20
16
15
5100
40000
7
7
NC
.00
.00
.70
.10
.10
.09
.60
.10
.02
.97
.40
.90
.20
.20
.05
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.30
.40
.90
.80
.00
.00
.50
.00
Max Min
Value Value
54
583
779
109
61
2
3
3
3
3
28
94
109
37
34
59
624
616
73
52
309
278
270
442
265
118
1100
652
227
189
17
83
163
20
17
200000
200000
9
17
NC ND
.00 17.00
.00
.00 17.00
.00 17.00
.70 17.00
.08
.05
.69
.28
.23
.60
.00
.00
.90
.95
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.60
.50
.00
.70
.80
.00
.00
.00 5.00
.50
Max
Value
ND Unit
17.00 UG/L
UG/L
17.00 UG/L
17.00 UG/L
17.00 UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
/100M
/100M
5.00 MG/L
MG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
IRON
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
tJ MANGANESE
hL MANGANESE
h— MANGANESE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
NITRATE/NITRITE
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
Sample
Episode Point
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-8
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
6
10
6
10
10
10
10
10
95
1502
716
117
75
114
575
246
128
119
118
86
82
77
105
9
16
7
2
6
0
25
11
0
0
209212
159608
3
55
17
21
.62
.09
.49
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.22
.38
.01
.01
.92
.92
.65
.12
.53
.28
.55
.20
.00
.91
.90
.30
.68
.21
.00
.37
.14
.62
.39
.65
.17
.56
.05
.83
.62
.71
.48
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
5
2
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
ct L-cyw j. y — i^-c^j j. j. ^ju j-ct L. j-iiy
(continued)
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
54
415
1248
60
58
39
122
264
21
20
14
16
13
21
10
9
7
7
0
4
0
2
16
0
0
103619
68772
1
22
12
33
.39
.76
.52
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.43
.57
.11
.38
.41
.40
.40
.25
.48
.62
.40
.73
.78
.48
.35
.77
.42
.56
.00
.71
.09
.70
.48
.34
.11
.07
.81
.61
.90
.39
.80
Mean
Value
Value
6
9
6
10
10
10
10
10
94
1487
757
116
75
112
572
245
128
118
118
85
81
77
105
9
16
7
2
6
0
25
9
0
0
87020
151200
3
53
15
22
.60
.80
.45
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.08
.00
.60
.80
.90
.04
.20
.60
.20
.98
.36
.74
.74
.30
.78
.30
.68
.08
.00
.04
.14
.60
.75
.64
.16
.00
.00
.81
.88
.91
.36
7 .
12.
7 .
114.
1487.
757.
143.
118.
112.
572.
245.
128.
118.
118.
85.
81.
77.
105.
2.
3.
5
5
0.
25.
9 .
0.
0.
87020.
151200.
3.
53.
15.
22.
NC
.00
.33
.75
.60
.00
.60
.00
.50
.04
.20
.60
.20
.98
.36
.74
.74
.30
.78
.50
.40
.70
.73
.30
.60
.75
.78
.20
.00
.00
.81
.88
.91
.36
Std
Dev
1
4
1
33
415
1248
16
4
39
122
264
21
20
14
16
13
21
10
2
4
2
16
0
0
103619
68772
1
22
12
33
NC
.22
.62
.77
.81
.57
.11
.87
.27
.40
.40
.25
.48
.62
.40
.73
.78
.48
.35
.55
.88
.70
.48
.19
.13
.07
.81
.61
.90
.39
.80
Min
Value
5
7
6
79
935
177
123
114
53
398
100
108
104
98
60
66
54
89
2
3
3
2
0
23
0
0
0
2900
55000
2
24
3
6
NC
.50
.00
.50
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.20
.00
.00
.00
.00
.80
.70
.10
.10
.50
.50
.40
.90
.55
.30
.00
.75
.50
.10
.00
.00
.76
.30
.86
.22
Max
Value
8
15
9
146
1970
2990
161
122
160
720
715
158
147
133
100
95
101
115
2
3
7
11
0
30
39
0
0
200000
200000
6
82
33
82
NC
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.90
.00
.00
.50
.40
.50
.35
.30
.00
.00
.90
.35
.00
.00
.65
.40
.00
.80
Min
Value
5
6.
5
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
12.
12.
12.
2.
20.
2.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
ND
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.10
.10
.10
Max
Value
5
6
6
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
20
20
20
2
11
0
0
0
ND
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.10
.10
.10
Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
mL/L
/100M
/100M
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
-------
Appendix D: Summary Statistics at Each Sample Point for Pollutants of Concern
Analyte
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
to TOTAL
1
1x0 ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Sample
Episode Point
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
6439
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-8
SP9+11
Total
Est Number
LTA Values
4
9
6
6
8
9
11
12
11
10
10
46
581
272
58
47
31
557
239
68
38
.37
.96
.81
.84
.36
.45
.32
.20
.13
.03
.92
.29
.74
.63
.27
.09
.94
.48
.41
.12
.26
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
:ontinued)
Obs Obs
Std Mean
Dev
1
1
0
0
0
2
i
5
4
1
3
6
334
407
16
12
17
156
366
8
34
.37
.65
.26
.61
.73
.85
.94
.77
.33
.70
.85
.30
.20
.46
.89
.07
.88
.64
.75
.92
.69
Mean
Value
Value
4
9
6
6
8
9
11
11
11
10
10
46
548
281
57
46
31
552
248
68
38
.32
.94
.81
.83
.36
.42
.29
.96
.06
.01
.86
.20
.60
.60
.20
.60
.88
.80
.26
.00
.03
4 .
9 .
6.
6.
8.
9.
11.
11.
11.
10.
10.
46.
548.
281.
57.
46.
39.
552.
248.
68.
62.
NC
.32
.94
.81
.83
.36
.42
.29
.96
.06
.01
.86
.20
.60
.60
.20
.60
.60
.80
.26
.00
.72
Std
Dev
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
5
4
1
3
6
334
407
16
12
5
156
366
8
11
NC
.37
.65
.26
.61
.73
.85
.94
.77
.33
.70
.85
.30
.20
.46
.89
.07
.37
.64
.75
.92
.02
Min
Value
2
8
6
5
7
7
8
7
7
8
8
38
180
84
30
28
34
365
69
57
50
NC
.60
.72
.56
.99
.58
.98
.83
.32
.95
.71
.27
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.80
.00
.90
.50
.05
Max
Value
5
12
7
7
9
14
14
18
18
12
17
55
1030
1010
74
61
47
781
904
79
70
NC
.80
.60
.24
.58
.52
.50
.10
.40
.60
.70
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.30
.00
.00
.70
.05
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND Unit
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
1.00 1.00 UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
1.00 1.00 UG/L
-------
APPENDIX E
MODIFIED DELTA-LOG NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
-------
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
APPENDIX E:
MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
This appendix describes the modified delta-lognormal distribution and the estimation of
the episode long-term averages and variability factors used to calculate the limitations
and standards.1 This appendix provides the statistical methodology that was used to
obtain the results presented in Chapter 8.
E.I BASIC OVERVIEW OF THE MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL
DISTRIBUTION
EPA selected the modified delta-lognormal distribution to model pollutant effluent
concentrations from the aquatic animals industry in developing the long-term averages
and variability factors. A typical effluent data set from a sampling episode or self-
monitoring episode (see Chapter 8 for a discussion of the data associated with these
episodes) consists of a mixture of measured (detected) and non-detected values. The
modified delta-lognormal distribution is appropriate for such data sets because it models
the data as a mixture of measurements that follow a lognormal distribution and non-detect
measurements that occur with a certain probability. The model also allows for the
possibility that non-detect measurements occur at multiple sample-specific detection
limits. Because the data appeared to fit the modified delta-lognormal model reasonably
well, EPA has determined that this model is appropriate for these data.
The modified delta-lognormal distribution is a modification of the 'delta distribution'
originally developed by Aitchison and Brown.2 While this distribution was originally
developed to model economic data, other researchers have shown the application to
environmental data.3 The resulting mixed distributional model, which combines a
continuous density portion with a discrete-valued spike at zero, is also known as the
delta-lognormal distribution. The delta in the name refers to the proportion of the overall
distribution contained in the discrete distributional spike at zero; that is, the proportion of
zero amounts. The remaining non-zero, non-censored (NC) amounts are grouped together
and fit to a lognormal distribution.
EPA modified this delta-lognormal distribution to incorporate multiple detection limits.
In the modification of the delta portion, the single spike located at zero is replaced by a
discrete distribution made up of multiple spikes. Each spike in this modification is
associated with a distinct sample-specific detection limit associated with non-detected
1 In the remainder of this appendix, references to 'limitations' includes 'standards.'
2 Aitchison, J. and Brown, J.A.C. (1963) The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge University Press, pages
87-99.
3 Owen, WJ. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980. "Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data Containing Zeroes
and Left-Censored Values, with Applications to the Measurement of Worker Exposure to Air
Contaminants." Biometrics, 36:707-719.
E-l
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
(ND) measurements in the database.4 A lognormal density is used to represent the set of
measured values. This modification of the delta-lognormal distribution is illustrated in
Figure 1.
The following two subsections describe the delta and lognormal portions of the modified
delta-lognormal distribution in further detail.
Censor i ng Type
E.2
Figure E-l. Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS OF THE MODIFIED DELTA-
LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
The discrete portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution models the non-detected
values corresponding to the k reported sample-specific detection limits. In the model, 8
represents the proportion of non-detected values in the dataset and is the sum of smaller
fractions, 8i? each representing the proportion of non-detected values associated with each
distinct detection limit value. By letting D; equal the value of the ifll smallest distinct
detection limit in the data set and the random variable XD represents a randomly chosen
4 Previously, EPA had modified the delta-lognormal model to account for non-detected measurements by
placing the distributional "spike" at a single positive value, usually equal to the nominal method detection
limit, rather than at zero. For further details, see Kahn and Rubin, 1989. This adaptation was used in
developing limitations and standards for die organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) and
pesticides manufacturing rulemakings. EPA has used the current modification in several, more recent,
rulemakings.
E-2
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
non-detected measurement, the cumulative distribution function of the discrete portion of
the modified delta-lognormal model can be mathematically expressed as:
0
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
E.3 COMBINING THE CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE PORTIONS
The continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution is combined with the
discrete portion to model data sets that contain a mixture of non-detected and detected
measurements. It is possible to fit a wide variety of observed effluent data sets to the
modified delta-lognormal distribution. Multiple detection limits for non-detect
measurements are incorporated, as are measured ("detected") values. The same basic
framework can be used even if there are no non-detected values in the data set (in this
case, it is the same as the lognormal distribution). Thus, the modified delta-lognormal
distribution offers a large degree of flexibility in modeling effluent data.
The modified delta-lognormal random variable U can be expressed as a combination of
three other independent variables, that is,
U =IUXD+(1-IU)XC (E-7)
where XD represents a random non-detect from the discrete portion of the distribution, Xc
represents a random detected measurement from the continuous lognormal portion, and Iu
is an indicator variable signaling whether any particular random measurement, u, is
non-detected or non-censored (that is, Iu=l if u is non-detected; Iu=0 if u is non-censored).
Using a weighted sum, the cumulative distribution function from the discrete portion of
the distribution (equation 1) can be combined with the function from the continuous
portion (equation 4) to obtain the overall cumulative probability distribution of the
modified delta-lognormal distribution as follows,
Pr(f/
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Although written in terms of U, the following relationship holds for all random variables,
U, XD, and Xc.
(E-ll)
So using equation 11 to solve for Var(U), and applying the relationships in equations 9
and 10, the variance of U can be obtained as
E.4 EPISODE ESTIMATES UNDER THE MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL
DISTRIBUTION
In order to use the modified delta-lognormal model to calculate the limitations, the
parameters of the distribution are estimated from the data. These estimates are then used
to calculate the limitations.The parameters 8l and 8 are estimated from the data using the
following formulas:
where nd is the number of non-detected measurements, dj,j = 1 to nd, are the detection
limits for the non-detected measurements, n is the number of measurements (both
detected and non-detected) and I(. . .) is an indicator function equal to one if the phrase
within the parentheses is true and zero otherwise. The "hat" over the parameters indicates
that they are estimated from the data.
The expected value and the variance of the delta portion of the modified delta-lognormal
distribution can be calculated from the data as:
1=1
O i=\
E-5
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
The parameters of the continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, /}
and (72 , are estimated by
(E-16)
where ;c; is the i"1 detected measurement value and nc is the number of detected
measurements. Note that n = nd + nc.
The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution can be calculated from the data as:
Finally, the expected value and variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution can
be estimated using the following formulas:
(E-20)
Equations 17 through 20 are particularly important in the estimation of episode long-term
averages and variability factors as described in the following sections. These sections are
preceded by a section that identifies the episode data set requirements.
E-6
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Example:
Consider a facility that has 10 samples with the following concentrations:
Sample number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Measurement Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Concentration (mg/L)
10
15
15
20
25
25
30
35
35
40
The ND components of the variance equation are:
Dj = 10,4 = 1/10D2 = 15,52 = 1/5D3 = 20'4 = 1/10-
w
Since 8 =2/5, the expected value and the variance of the discrete portion of the modified
delta-lognormal distribution are
)=_L_ [ J_ x(10-15)2 +-x(15-15)2 + — x(20 -15)2 | =12.5.
D>
2/5UO
10
The mean and variance of the log NC values are calculated as
(2 x In(25) + In(30) +2 x In (35) +In(40))
follows: ft = —
= 3.44
£-7
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
(2x(ln(25)-3.44)2) + (ln(30)-3.44)2 + (l x(ln(35)-3.44)2)+ (ln(40)-3.44)2
- - '- - - - '- - = 0.0376
n-\
Then, the expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution are
3.44+ ' =31.779
Var(xc) = [31.779]2 (exp(0.0376)-l) = 38.695.
The expected value and variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution are
2 ( 2\
= -xl5 + 1-- x31.779 = 25.063
2 ( 1\
= -x(l2.5+152) + 1-- x(38.695+ 31.7792)-25.0672 =95.781.
j \ j j
E.4.1 Episode Data Set Requirements
Estimates of the necessary parameters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be
calculated with as few as two distinct detected values in a data set. (In order to calculate
the variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, two distinct detected values are
the minimum number that can be used and still obtain an estimate of the variance for the
distribution.)
If an episode data set for a pollutant contained three or more observations with two or
more distinct detected concentration values, then EPA used the modified delta-lognormal
distribution to calculate long-term averages and variability factors. If the episode data set
for a pollutant did not meet these requirements, EPA used an arithmetic average to
calculate the episode long-term average and excluded the dataset from the variability
factor calculations (because the variability could not be calculated).
In statistical terms, each measurement was assumed to be independently and identically
distributed from the other measurements of that pollutant in the episode data set.
E-8
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
The next two sections apply the modified delta-lognormal distribution to the data for
estimating episode long-term averages and variability factors for the aquatic animals
industry.
E.4.2 Estimation of Episode Long-Term Averages
If an episode dataset for a pollutant mets the requirements described in the last section,
then EPA calculated the long-term average using equation 19. Otherwise, EPA calculated
the long-term average as the arithmetic average of the daily values where the sample-
specific detection limit was used for each non-detected measurement.
E.4.3 Estimation of Episode Variability Factors
For each episode, EPA estimated the daily variability factors by fitting a modified delta-
lognormal distribution to the daily measurements for each pollutant. In contrast, EPA
estimated monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal distribution to
the monthly averages for the pollutant at the episode. EPA developed these averages
using the same number of measurements as the assumed monitoring frequency for the
pollutant. EPA is assuming that all pollutants will be monitored weekly (approximately
four times a month).5
E.4.3.1 Estimation of Episode Daily Variability Factors
The episode daily variability factor is a function of the expected value, and the 99th
percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to the daily concentration
values of the pollutant in the wastewater from the episode. The expected value, was
estimated using equation 19 (the expected value is the same as the episode long-term
average).
The 99th percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to each data set was
estimated by using an iterative approach. First, the pollutant-specific detection limits
were ordered from smallest to largest. Next, the cumulative distribution function, p, for
each detection limit was computed. The general form, for a given value c, was:
p=
(E-21)
where O is the standard normal cumulative distribution function. Next, the interval
containing the 99th percentile was identified. Finally, the 99th percentile of the modified
delta-lognormal distribution was calculated. The following steps were completed to
compute the estimated 99th percentile of each data subset:
5 Compliance with the monthly average limitations will be required in the final rulemaking regardless of
the number of samples analyzed and averaged.
E-9
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Step 1 Using equation 21, k values of p at c=Dm, m=l,...,k were computed and
labeled pm.
Step 2 The smallest value of m (m=l,...,k), such that pm > 0.99, was determined and
labeled as pj. If no such m existed, steps 3 and 4 were skipped and step 5 was
computed instead.
•A.
Step 3 Computed p* = pj - 8}•.
Step 4 Ifp*<0.99, then ^99 =D. else if p*^ 0.99, then
P99 =exp
/t + (JO
"1
#
0.99-^
,,
1-5
V L jy
where O"1 is the inverse normal distribution function.
Step 5 If no such m exists such that pm > 0.99 (m=l,...,k), then
P99=exp
0.99-5
/v
1-8
The episode daily variability factor, VF1, was then calculated as:
VFl =
P99
E(U)
Example:
Since no such m exists such that pm > 0.99 (m=l,...,k),
(E-22)
(E-23)
(E-24)
P99 =exp 3.44 + 0.194x0
-i
0.99-0.4
1-0.4
= 47.126.
The episode daily variability factor, VF1, was then calculated as:
E-10
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
47.126
VFl = = 1.880.
25.067
E.4.3.2 Estimation of Episode Monthly Variability Factors
EPA estimated the monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal
distribution to the monthly averages. These equations use the same basic parameters, |i
and a, calculated for the daily variability factors. Episode monthly variability factors
were based on 4-day monthly averages because the monitoring frequency was assumed to
be weekly (approximately four times a month).
Before estimating the episode monthly variability factors, EPA considered whether
autocorrelation was likely to be present in the effluent data. When data are said to be
positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements taken at specific time intervals
(such as 1 day or 1 week apart) are related. For example, positive autocorrelation would
be present in the data if the final effluent concentration of TSS was relatively high one
day and was likely to remain at similar high values the next and possibly succeeding
days. Because EPA is assuming that the pollutants will be monitored weekly, EPA based
the monthly variability factors on the distribution of the averages of four measurements.
If concentrations measured on consecutive weeks were positively correlated, then the
autocorrelation would have had an effect on the estimate of the variance of the monthly
average and thus on the monthly variability factor. Adjustments for positive
autocorrelation would increase the values of the variance and monthly variability factor.
(The estimate of the long-term average and the daily variability factor are generally only
slightly affected by autocorrelation.)
EPA has not incorporated an autocorrelation adjustment into its estimates of the monthly
variability factors. In some industries, measurements in final effluent are likely to be
similar from one day (or week) to the next because of the consistency from day-to-day in
the production processes and in final effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention
time of wastewater in basins, holding tanks, and other components of wastewater
treatment systems. To determine if autocorrelation exists in the data, a statistical
evaluation is necessary and will be considered before the final rule. To estimate
autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for each pollutant would be required with
values for equally spaced intervals over an extended period of time. If such data are
available for the final rule, EPA intends to perform a statistical evaluation of
autocorrelation and if necessary, provide any adjustments to the limitations.
Thus, in calculating the monthly variability factors for the proposal, EPA assumed that
consecutive daily measurements were not correlated. In order to calculate the 4-day
variability factors (VF4), EPA further assumed that the approximating distribution of
U 4 , the sample mean for a random sample of four independent concentrations, was
E-ll
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
derived from the modified delta-lognormal distribution.6 To obtain the expected value of
the 4-day averages, equation 19 is modified for the mean of the distribution of 4-day
averages in equation 25:
, / , X^
where 54' denotes the probability of detection of the 4-day average, (x 4 )D denotes the
mean of the discrete portion of the distribution of the average of four independent
concentrations, (i.e., when all observations are non-detected values), and (x*)c denotes
the mean of the continuous lognormal portion (i.e., when any observations are detected).
First, it was assumed that the probability of detection (8) on each of the four days was
independent of the measurements on the other three days (as explained in Section E.4.1,
daily measurements were also assumed to be independent) and therefore, 8'4 = 84.
Because the measurements are assumed to be independent, the following relationships
hold:
E(!T4) =
(E-26)
Vari
Substituting into equation 26 and solving for the expected value of the continuous portion
of the distribution gives:
_ v E(U)-84E(X
^
Using the relationship in equation 20 for the averages of 4 daily measurements and
substituting terms from equation 25 and solving for the variance of the continuous portion
of U 4 gives:
6 As described in Section 8.4, when non-detected measurements are aggregated with non-censored
measurements, EPA determined that the result should be considered non-censored.
E-12
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
_ , -,2 (E-28)
Using equations 17 and 18 and solving for the parameters of the lognormal distribution
describing the distribution of (% 4 )c gives:
=ln
+ 1
and
(E-29)
In finding the estimated 95th percentile of the average of four observations, four non-
detects, not all at the same sample-specific detection limit, can generate an average that is
not necessarily equal to Dp D2,..., or Dk. Consequently, more than k discrete points exist
in the distribution of the 4-day averages. For example, the average of four non-detects at
k=2 detection limits, are at the following discrete points with the associated probabilities:
1
2
3
4
5
+2D2)/4
+3D2)/4
When all four observations are non-detected values, and when k distinct non-detected
values exist, the multinomial distribution can be used to determine associated
probabilities. That is,
E-13
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Pr
u,=-
4!
ulu2...uk =
(E-30)
where u4 is the number of non-detected measurements in the data set with the D4 detection
limit. The maximum number of possible discrete points, k*, for k=l,2,3,4, and 5 are as
follows:
k
2
4
kl
5
35
1
3
5
1
15
70
To find the estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of the average of four
observations, the same basic steps (described in Section E.4.3.1) as for the 99th percentile
of the distribution of daily observations, were used with the following changes:
Step 1 Change P99 to P95, and 0.99 to 0.95.
Step 2 Change Dm to Dm*, the weighted averages of the sample-specific detection
limits.
Step 3 Change 8; to 6*.
Step 4 Change k to k*, the number of possible discrete points based on k detection
limits.
Step 5 Change the estimates of 8, /t ,and & to estimates of 84, jH4 and 6*4
respectively.
Then, using E \U 4 ) = £([/), the estimate of the episode 4-day variability factor, VF4,
was calculated as:
VF4 =
P95
E(U)
(E-31)
E-14
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Example:
= 25.067
* /_v 95.781
Var(U,) = - = 23.95
\ ^ / A
£ *4 n =15
1-0.4'
24.683
0.974
Var
23.95 + 25.0672 -0.44 x3.125
-25.3312 =21.789
'7... +1 =0.0334 S;=S4 =(-\ =0.0256
/24 =ln(25.33l)-°'°o334 =3.215.
P95 = exp
3.215 + 0.183x0
-i
v
0.95-Q.44
1-0.44
= 33.683.
33.683
£-75
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
E.4.3.3 Evaluation of Episode Variability Factors
Estimates of the necessary parameters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be
calculated with as few as two distinct measured values in a data set (in order to calculate
the variance); however, these estimates can be unstable (as can estimates from larger data
sets). As stated in Section E.4.1, EPA used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to
develop episode variability factors for data sets that had a three or more observations with
two or more distinct measured concentration values.
To identify situations producing unexpected results, EPA reviewed all of the variability
factors and compared daily to monthly variability factors. EPA used several criteria to
determine if the episode daily and monthly variability factors should be included in
calculating the option variability factors. One criteria that EPA used was that the daily
and monthly variability factors should be greater than 1.0. A variability factor less than
1.0 would result in a unexpected result where the estimated 99th percentile would be less
than the long-term average. This would be an indication that the estimate of a (the log
standard deviation) was unstable. A second criteria was that the daily variability factor
had to be greater than the monthly variability factor. A third criteria was that not all of the
sample-specific detection limits could exceed the values of the non-censored values. All
the episode variability factors used for the limitations and standards met these criteria.
E.5 REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. 1963. The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Barakat, R. 1976. Sums of Independent Lognormally Distributed Random Variables.
Journal of the Optical Society of America 66: 211-216.
Cohen, A. Clifford. 1976. Progressively Censored Sampling in the Three Parameter Log-
Normal Distribution. Technometrics 18:99-103.
Crow, E.L. and K. Shimizu. 1988. Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY.
Kahn, H.D., and M.B. Rubin. 1989. Use of Statistical Methods in Industrial Water
Pollution Control Regulations in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, vol. 12:129-148.
Owen, WJ. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980. Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data
Containing Zeroes and Left-Censored Values, with Applications to the Measurement
of Worker Exposure to Air Contaminants. Biometrics 36:707-719.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point
Source Category. Volume I, Volume II. EPA 440/1-87/009.
E-16
-------
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVE STATISTICAL METHODS
-------
-------
Appendix F: Alternative Statistical Methods
APPENDIX F:
ALTERNATIVE STATISTICAL METHODS
This appendix describes statistical methods that EPA may consider for modeling the
effluent data for developing the final limitations and standards for the concentrated
aquatic animal production (CAAP) industry. A typical CAAP effluent data set from a
sampling episode or self-monitoring episode (see Chapter 8 for a discussion of the data
associated with these episodes) consists of a mixture of measured concentrations and
values reported as being less than some sample-specific detection limit (e.g., <10 mg/L)
or "non-detected." In statistical terms, measured concentrations are "non-censored" and
non-detected values are "left-censored." The distinction between non-censored and left-
censored measurements is often important in modeling the data and each model described
in this appendix has different underlying assumptions about the physical processes that
generate non-censored and left-censored measurements. For example, the modified delta-
lognormal distribution assumes that they are generated from different processes and
models the non-detected values using a delta distribution, while the censored lognormal
distribution assumes that all observations (non-censored and non-detected) are regarded
as random measurements generated from a common underlying lognormal distribution. In
the censored lognormal model, non-detect measurements are treated as left-censored
observations in the lognormal distribution.
Section F. 1 provides a brief summary of the modified delta-lognormal distribution that
was used for the proposal and is described in Appendix E. The remaining sections discuss
another modification of delta-lognormal distribution, the censored lognormal distribution,
the probability regression method for the lognormal distribution, and nonparametric
methods. Before the final rule, EPA will evaluate the appropriateness of these models for
the CAAP industry effluent data. EPA also will evaluate whether the predicted values are
consistent with the observed effluent values.
F.I MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL MODEL
For the proposed, EPA used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to model the
effluent concentrations from the CAAP industry. As explained in Appendix E, this
distribution models the data as a mixture of measurements that follow a lognormal
distribution and non-detected measurements that occur with a certain probability
(Aitchison and Brown (1963), Kahn and Rubin (1989), and U.S. EPA (1993)). By a
modification to the delta portion of the distribution, this model also allows for the
possibility that non-detected measurements can be observed at different sample-specific
detection limits.
For some industries, different pollutant-generating mechanisms appear to act to produce
non-censored and non-detected measurements at a facility. For example, non-detected
measurements may indicate that the pollutant is not generated by a particular source or
production practice, and non-censored values may be generated by different source,
production, and/or wastewater treatment conditions. The modified delta-lognormal
F-l
-------
Appendix F: Alternative Statistical Methods
distribution is appropriate for such data sets because each data type (i.e., non-censored
measurements and non-detected measurements) is modeled separately with different
distributional properties. For the final rule, EPA will evaluate whether this assumption is
appropriate for CAAP data.
F.2 ANOTHER MODIFICATION OF THE DELTA-LOGNORMAL MODEL
Another possible model for the CAAP effluent data is a further modification of the delta-
lognormal distribution described in the previous section. This modification would
incorporate left-censoring into the lognormal portion of the model while retaining the
delta distribution for the non-detected measurements. This model would explicitly censor
the lognormal distribution at some point, such as the minimum sample-specific detection
limit observed in a data set. The lognormal distribution would be censored at this point
because laboratory instruments would be incapable of measuring below that point and
would be reported as non-detected values. Thus, non-censored values would be assumed
to be observed only above this point. This modification is based upon an extension of the
method developed by Moulton and Halsey (1995). EPA used a similar modification in
developing the limitations for the pulp and paper industry (USEPA). Its implementation
resulted in only minor differences from the values obtained from the model described in
Section F.I.
F.3 CENSORED LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
In a censored lognormal model (see Cohen, 1959), all observations (non-censored and
non-detected) are regarded as random measurements generated from a common
underlying lognormal distribution. Estimates of the mean, variance, and upper
percentiles, used as a basis of the limitations, can be computed from the estimated best-
fitting lognormal distribution. These estimates are similar to those derived under the
modified delta-lognormal model, except that in Cohen's procedure non-detected
measurements are treated merely as one type of censored sample, namely left-censored.
Thus, it is assumed that non-detects, if the true concentration or mass amounts were
measurable, would follow the same lognormal pattern as the rest of the data set.
F.4 PROBABILITY REGRESSION METHOD FOR THE LOGNORMAL
DISTRIBUTION
The probability regression method assumes that the entire data set would follow a
specific distributional model (e.g., the lognormal distribution) if concentrations of non-
detected measurements could be observed. The basic idea behind the probability
regression technique can be described by first considering the case with no censored
measurements (for instance, a set of detected and precisely known observations). If it is
assumed that the data were generated by an underlying lognormal distribution, then it
would be expected that the logged values would plot on a probability plot in roughly a
linear pattern when graphed against ordered quantiles from a standard normal
distribution. In fact, it would be possible in this case to fit a linear regression to the points
F-2
-------
Appendix F: Alternative Statistical Methods
on the probability plot and determine the slope and intercept of the regression equation.
The slope and intercept of this regression equation allow the estimation of an "optimal"
set of parameters for fitting a specific lognormal density to the observed data. When the
censored data are non-detects exhibiting multiple detection limits, and the set of detection
limits overlaps the set of detected values, the desired ordering of the data is more difficult
to construct. However, Helsel and Cohn (1988) adapt the simpler probability regression
method with a single detection limit to the more general case of multiple detection limits
and overlapping of non-censored and non-detected measurements. This adaptation orders
the data in terms of conditional probabilities. EPA will evaluate whether an ordering of
the non-detected values is appropriate for the CAAP effluent data.
F.5 NONPARAMETRIC METHODS
In contrast to the other statistical methods discussed in this appendix, nonparametric
methods are not based on fitting a distribution to the data. The nonparametric estimate of
the 99th percentile of an effluent concentration data set is the observed value that exceeds
99 percent of the data points. If a data set consists of fewer than 100 observations the best
that can be done, using nonparametric methods, is to use the maximum value as an
approximate nonparametric estimate of the 99th percentile, but this will underestimate the
true value (in statistical expectation). Because most of the data sets analyzed in support of
limitations development had fewer than 100 observations, it was prudent to adopt a
parametric approach, such as the modified delta-lognormal distribution, to avoid
underestimating the values used as a basis of the limitations. EPA will determine if these
sample size constraints exist for the final rule.
F.6 REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. 1963. The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge
University Press, NY.
Cohen, A.C., Jr. 1959. Simplified estimators for the normal distribution when samples are
singly censored or truncated. Technometrics, vol. 1, pp. 217-237.
Helsel. D.R. and T.A. Cohn. 1988. Estimation of descriptive statistics for multiply
censored water quality data. Water Resources Research, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1997-
2004.
Kahn, H.D., and M.B. Rubin. 1989. Use of statistical methods in industrial water
pollution control regulations in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, vol. 12, pp. 129-148.
Moulton, L.H. and N.A. Halsey. 1995. A mixture model with detection limits for
regression analysis of antibody response to vaccine. Biometrics, vol. 51, pp.
1197-1205.
F-3
-------
Appendix F: Alternative Statistical Methods
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Statistical Support Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Point Source Category. EPA 821-R-93-023. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
F-4
-------
APPENDIX G
UNIT COST MODEL AND FREQUENCY FACTOR
RESULTS FOR MODEL FACILITIES
-------
-------
Table G-l. Unit Cost Model and Frequency Factor Results for Model Facilities: Option 1
Regulatory Option 1 Unit Costs and Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-
through
Trout-Food-size-Commercial -Flow-
through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State- Flow- through
Trout-Stockers-Cornmercial-Flow-thi'ough
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-throiTgh
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow- through
Trout-Stockers -Other-Flo w-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size Commercial-Flo w-
through
Tilapia-Food-size Corninercial-Flow-
through
Tilapia-Food-size Commercial-
Recirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size Coinrnercial-Flow-
through
Striped Bass-Food-size Coinrnercial-
Recirculating
Salrnon-Food-size-Other- Flo w-through
S ahnon-Food-size-Cornmercial-Net pen
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
FM
Capital
($)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
FM
O&M
($)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.753.36
FM
Frequency
Factor
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.88
QZ Capital
($)
7,195.56
53,367.07
7,795.19
11,992.60
6.595.93
7,195.56
29.381.87
7,195.56
10,793.34
12,592.23
10,193.71
8,394.82
21,586.68
-
3,911.33
-
50,368.92
-
QZ
O&M
($)
4,339.28
28.974.66
4,659.22
6,898.80
4,019.34
4,339.28
16,177.06
4,339.28
6.258.92
7.218.74
5.938.98
4,979.16
12.017.84
-
2,586.94
-
27,374.96
-
QZ
Frequency
Factor
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.57
0.50
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
-
1.00
-
1.00
-
SB
Capital
($)
26,343.55
286,015.67
30.162.01
63,242.13
24,259.24
26,285.19
157,030.04
27,629.59
56,987.49
47.494.59
54,874.86
30,978.03
114.695.32
20.661.44
15.226.05
72,246.56
270.766.77
-
SB
O&M
($)
3,887.96
5.461.58
3,912.58
4,122.27
3,876.38
3,887.48
4,685.71
3.898.41
4.085.06
4.006.35
4.074.18
3,913.85
4.431.48
3,944.30
3.829.07
4,331.27
5,372.23
-
SB
Frequency
Factor
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.57
0.50
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-
I
a
a.
So
-i
I
£
Note: FM = feed management; QZ = quiescent zone; SB = settling basin.
-------
Regulatory Option 1 Unit Costs and Frequency Factors (continued)
Species
TimTt-Food-size-Commercial-Flow-through
Trout- Food-size-Cominercial-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Food-size-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Commercial -Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow- through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Food-size Conunercial-Flow-
through
Tilapia-Food-size Comrnercial-Flow-
through
Tilapia-Food-size Comrnercial-
Recirculating
Striped Bass-Food-size Comrnercial-Flow-
through
Striped Bass-Food-size Comrnercial-
Recirculating
Sahnon-Food-size-Other-Flow-through
Saknon-Food-size-Commercial-Netpen
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
BMP Plan
Capital
($)
1.076.80
1,076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
BMP Plan
O&M
($)
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
BMP Plan
Frequency
Factor
0.32
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.14
0.50
0.02
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
Monitoring
Capital
($)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
Monitoring
O&M
($)
3,396.48
3,396.48
3.396.48
3,396.48
3,396.48
3,396.48
3,396.48
3.396.48
3,396.48
3.396.48
3,396.48
3.396.48
3.396.48
3.396.48
3,396.48
3,396.48
3.396.48
-
Monitoring
Frequency
Factor
0.32
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.14
0.50
0.02
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
I
a
a.
So
-i
I
£
-------
Table G-2. Unit Cost Model and Frequency Factor Results for Model Facilities: Option 2
Species
Trout-Flow-through
Trout-Flow-through
Trout-State-Flo w-through
TroiU-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Flow-tlirough
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers -Other-Flo w-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-through
Tilapia-Flow- through
Tilapia-Flow-through
Tilapia-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Recirculating
Salmon-Other-Flo w-through
Sahnon-Net Pen
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Health and
Chemical BMP
Plan Capital
($)
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1.076.80
1.076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
1,076.80
Health and
Chemical BMP
Plan O&M
($)
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
253.80
Health and
Chemical BMP Plan
Frequency Factor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I
a
a.
So
-i
I
I
s
-------
Table G-3. Unit Cost Model and Frequency Factor Results for Model Facilities: Option 3
Regulatory Option 3 Unit Costs and Frequency Factors
Species
Trout-Flow-through
Trout-Flow-through
Trout-State-Flo w-through
Trout-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Flow through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Federal-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-State-Flow-through
Trout-Stockers-Other-Flow-Through
Trout-Stockers -Other-Flo w-through
Tilapia-Flow- through
Tilapia-Flow-through
Tilapia-Recirculating
Striped Bass-Flow-through
Striped Bass-Recirculating
S ahnon-Other-Flo w-through
Salmon-Net Pen
Model
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Medium
Large
Large
Large
SP
Capital
($)
8,052.91
8,574.86
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8.052.91
8,052.91
8,574.86
-
SP
O&M
($)
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,862.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,831.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
1.861.32
1,861.32
1,861.32
-
SP
Frequency
Factor
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
1.00
0.67
0.00
-
Monitor
Capital
($)
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
_
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
0.00
-
0.00
0.00
-
Monitor
O&M
($)
-
1,920.00
-
1.920.00
-
_
1,920.00
-
1.920.00
-
1.920.00
-
1.920.00
1,920.00
-
1,920.00
1.920.00
-
Monitor
Frequency
Factor
-
1.00
-
0.00
-
_
0.50
-
0.00
-
1.00
-
0.00
0.40
-
0.00
0.00
-
AF
Monitoring
Capital ($)
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.000.00
AF
Monitoring
O&M($)
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.828.42
AF
Frequency
Factor
-
-
-
-
-
—
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.38
I
a
a.
So
-i
I
£
Note: SP = solids polishing; AF = active feed.
-------
Table G-4. Unit Cost Model and Frequency Factor Results for Alaska Salmon Flow-through Facilities: Option 1
Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Harvest
(Ib/yr)
201,052
204,139
144,436
135,510
403,515
150,822
125,720
207,649
985,194
116,636
366,030
244,543
571,095
145,089
222,290
250,047
104,738
153,371
QZ
Capital ($)
6,378.67
6,476.61
4,582,44
4,299.25
12,802.10
4,785.05
3.988.65
6,587.97
31,256.71
3,700.45
11,612.83
7,758.48
18,118.82
4.603.16
7,052.47
7,933.10
3,322,97
4,865.92
QZ
O&M ($)
5,933.51
6,016.94
4,403.44
4,162,21
11,405.15
4,576.02
3.897.63
6,111.80
27,125.26
3,652.13
10,392,11
7,108.87
15,934.07
4.421.09
6,507.48
7,257.62
3,330.59
4,644.91
QZ
Frequency
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SB
Capital ($)
24,884.00
25,252.76
17,862,69
16,796.40
49,715.01
18,625.54
15,626.91
25,672.06
121,265.81
14,541.75
45,108.09
30,208.38
70,378.97
17,940.69
27,421.04
30,865.88
12,991.40
19,059.08
SB
O&M($)
5,071.32
5,075.47
4,995.29
4.983.30
5,343.22
5.003.87
4.970.16
5,080.18
6,124.40
4,957.96
5.292.88
5,129.73
5.568.28
4.996.17
5,099.85
5,137.12
4,941.98
5.007.29
SB
Frequency
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
a
a.
So
-i
I
I
s
Note: QZ = quiescent zone; SB = settling basin.
-------
Regulatory Option 1 Unit Costs and Frequency Factors (continued)
Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Harvest
(lb/yr)
201,052
204,139
144,436
135,510
403,515
150,822
125,720
207,649
985,194
116,636
366,030
244,543
571,095
145,089
222,290
250,047
104,738
153,371
BMP Plan
Capital ($)
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
BMP Plan
O&M ($)
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
BMP Plan
Frequency
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monitoring
Capital ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monitoring
O&M ($)
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
4,805.76
Monitoring
Frequency
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
S'
I
a
a
a.
tS*
^t
§;
-------
Table G-5. Unit Cost Model and Frequency Factor Results for
Alaska Salmon Flow-through Facilities: Option 2
Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 1 1
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Harvest
(Ib/yr)
201,052
204,139
144,436
135.510
403,515
150,822
125,720
207,649
985,194
116,636
366.030
244,543
571,095
145,089
222,290
250,047
104,738
153.371
BMP Plan
Capital ($)
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1.710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1.710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1,710.40
1.710.40
BMP Plan
O&M ($)
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
436.92
BMP Plan
Frequency Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
a
a.
So
-i
I
I
s
-------
Table G-6. Unit Cost Model and Frequency Factor Results for Alaska Salmon Flow-through Facilities: Option 3
Regulatory Option 3 Unit Costs and Frequency Factors
Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Harvest
(Ib/yr)
201,052
204,139
144,436
135,510
403,515
150,822
125,720
207,649
985,194
116,636
366,030
244,543
571,095
145,089
222,290
250,047
104,738
153,371
Solids
Polishing
Capital ($)
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052,91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8.052,91
8,052,91
8,052.91
8,052,91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8,052.91
8.052,91
8,052,91
8,052.91
Solids
Polishing
0&M($)
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
2,320.48
Solids
Polishing
Frequency
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monitoring
Capital ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monitoring
O&M ($)
1,920.00
1,920.00
1.920.00
1,920.00
1,920.00
1,920.00
1,920.00
1.920.00
1.920.00
1,920.00
1.920.00
1,920.00
1,920.00
1,920.00
1,920.00
1.920.00
1.920.00
1,920.00
Monitoring
Frequency
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
S'
a
a.
So
-s
|
I
S
------- |