&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Technical Development Document for the
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Point Source Category (Revised August 2004)
-------
United States Office of Water (4303T)
EPA-821-R-04-012
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
August 2004
-------
Technical Development Document for the Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated
Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category
(Revised August 2004)
Stephen L. Johnson
Acting Deputy Administrator
Benjamin Grumbles
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Geoffrey Grubbs
Director, Office of Science and Technology
Mary Smith
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 2004
-------
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.
-------
Foreword
This document includes technical support for the rulemaking for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category. After the
Administrator signed the final rule, EPA noted several changes to this document.
The following chapters have been altered:
Chapter 1
• On page 1-2, corrected the total number of priority pollutants to 126 and
updated the citation to 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A.
Chapter 2
• For clarification, in table 2.2-3, under Best Management Practices, line Ih)
Training, the word "system" was added to the second bullet point.
Chapter 3
• On page 3-33, the website given for the Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel (USEPA, 2002b) was changed to reflect its new location on the Internet.
Chapter 8
• EPA added a call out to figure 8.2-4 in the text of Section 8.2.1.4.
• The footnote numbering was corrected.
Chapter 9
• For consistency, the heading row in Table 9.3-1 was altered. The words
"Assumptions Used in Costing" were added to the title of the first column so
that this table would match with all others in this chapter.
-------
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY AND REGULATORY 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 (RFA) 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 1-7
1.5.1.2 Regulations Dealing Indirectly with Effluents and Discharges 1-9
1.5.1.3 Regulations Addressing All Other Types of Aquaculture-Related
Activities 1-12
1.5.2 Federal Regulations 1-16
1.6 Regulatory History of the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Industry 1-17
1.7 References 1-18
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY OF SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE FINAL 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
-------
Contents
2.2.1.3 National Pretreatment Standards 2-3
2.2.2 Applicability of the Rule 2-4
2.2.3 Summary of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 2-4
2.2.3.1 General Reporting Requirements 2-5
2.2.3.2 Narrative Requirements 2-6
2.3 References 2-17
CHAPTERS 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
3.1.3 Monitoring and Permit Data Analyzed Post-Proposal 3-7
3.2 Summary of Aquatic Animal Production Que stionnaire Activity 3-8
3.2.1 Background 3-8
3.2.2 Screener Survey 3-9
3.2.2.1 Description of the Screener Survey 3-9
3.2.2.2 Development of Screener Survey Mailing List 3-9
3.2.2.3 Response to the Screener Survey 3-10
3.2.2.4 Summary of Data from the Screener Survey 3-10
3.2.3 Detailed Survey 3-11
3.2.3.1 Description of the Detailed Survey 3-12
3.2.3.2 Sample Selection for the Detailed Survey 3-13
3.2.3.3 Response to Detailed Survey 3-13
3.2.3.4 Summary of Data from the Detailed Survey 3-14
3.3 Summary of EPA's Site Visit and Wastewater Sampling Programs 3-15
3.3.1 Site Visits 3-15
3.3.1.1 Site Visit Summary 3-17
3.3.1.2 Summary of Sites Visits to Facilities with Micro screens 3-21
3.3.2 Wastewater Sampling 3-21
3.3.2.1 Pollutants Sampled 3-22
3.3.2.2 Analytical Methods 3-26
3.4 U.S. Department of Agriculture Data 3-27
3.4.1 1998 Census of Aquaculture 3-27
3.4.2 National Agricultural Statistics Service 3-27
3.4.3 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Veterinary Services and
the National Animal Health Monitoring System 3-28
3.4.4 Economic Research Service 3-28
3.5 Summary of Other Data Sources 3-28
3.5.1 Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture 3-29
3.5.2 Other Government Agencies 3-29
-------
Contents
3.5.3 BMP Guidance Documents Developed by Governmental and Other
Organizations 3-29
3.5.3.1 Alabama 3-30
3.5.3.2 Arizona 3-30
3.5.3.3 Arkansas 3-30
3.5.3.4 Florida 3-30
3.5.3.5 Hawaii 3-31
3.5.3.6 Idaho 3-31
3.5.3.7 Other BMP Guidance Documents 3-31
3.5.4 Other Industry-Supplied Data: Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel 3-32
3.5.5 Summary of Public Participation 3-33
3.6 References 3-33
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 4-5
4.2.1 Ponds Systems 4-5
4.2.1.1 Levee Ponds 4-5
4.2.1.2 Watershed Ponds 4-7
4.2.2 Flow-through Systems 4-9
4.2.3 Recirculating Systems 4-11
4.2.4 Net Pens and Cages 4-11
4.2.5 Floating and Bottom Culture Systems 4-13
4.2.6 Other Systems: Alligator Farming 4-13
4.3 Production Description by Species 4-14
4.3.1 Catfish 4-14
4.3.1.1 Production Systems 4-15
4.3.1.2 Culture Practices 4-16
4.3.1.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-21
4.3.2 Trout 4-26
4.3.2.1 Production Systems 4-28
4.3.2.2 Culture Practices 4-29
4.3.2.3 Water Quality Management and Current Treatment Practices 4-32
4.3.3 Salmon 4-36
4.3.3.1 Production Systems 4-38
4.3.3.2 Culture Practices 4-39
4.3.3.3 Water Quality Management 4-42
4.3.4 Striped Bass 4-45
in
-------
Contents
4.3.4.1 Production Systems 4-46
4.3.4.2 Culture Practices 4-47
4.3.4.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-51
4.3.5 Tilapia 4-52
4.3.5.1 Production Systems 4-53
4.3.5.2 Culture Practices 4-54
4.3.5.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-56
4.3.6 Other Finfish 4-57
4.3.6.1 Largemouth Bass 4-57
4.3.6.2 Smallmouth Bass 4-58
4.3.6.3 Carp 4-59
4.3.6.4 Flounder 4-59
4.3.6.5 Paddlefish 4-61
4.3.6.6 Sturgeon 4-62
4.3.6.7 Sunfish Family 4-64
4.3.6.8 Walleye 4-65
4.3.6.9 Yellow Perch 4-67
4.3.7 Baitfish 4-68
4.3.7.1 Production Systems 4-69
4.3.7.2 Culture Practices 4-69
4.3.7.3 Water Quality Management Practices 4-70
4.3.8 Ornamental Fish 4-71
4.3.8.1 Production Systems 4-72
4.3.8.2 Culture Practices 4-73
4.3.8.3 Water Management Practices 4-75
4.3.9 Shrimp 4-75
4.3.9.1 Production Systems 4-75
4.3.9.2 Culture Practices 4-76
4.3.9.3 Water Quality Management 4-78
4.3.9.4 Effluent Characteristics and Treatment Practices 4-79
4.3.9.5 Freshwater Prawn 4-81
4.3.10 Crawfish 4-83
4.3.10.1 Production Systems 4-83
4.3.10.2 Effluent Characteristics 4-85
4.3.10.3 Current Effluent Treatment Practices Within the Industry 4-86
4.3.11 Lobster 4-87
4.3.11.1 Production Systems 4-88
4.3.11.2 Culture Practices 4-88
4.3.11.3 Water Quality Management Practices 4-90
4.3.12 Molluscan Shellfish 4-90
4.3.12.1 Production Systems 4-91
-------
Contents
4.3.12.2 Culture Practices 4-92
4.3.12.3 Water Quality Management Practices 4-94
4.3.13 Other Aquatic Animal Production (Alligators) 4-95
4.3.13.1 Production Systems 4-96
4.3.13.2 Culture Practices 4-96
4.3.13.3 Water Quality Management and Effluent Treatment Practices 4-100
4.4 Trends in the Industry 4-100
4.5 Aquatic Animal Production Size Categories 4-101
4.6 Industry Definition 4-102
4.7 References 4-102
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 Shellfish Hatcheries and Nurseries 5-5
5.1.1.7 Aquariums 5-5
5.1.1.8 Other Facility Types 5-5
5.1.1.9 Summary 5-6
5.1.2 Species 5-7
5.1.3 Facility Age 5-7
5.1.4 Facility Location 5-7
5.1.5 Facility Size 5-7
5.1.6 Feed Type and Feeding Rate 5-7
5.1.7 Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts 5-8
5.1.8 Disproportionate Economic Impacts 5-8
5.1.9 Summary of Initial Factor Analysis 5-8
5.2 Final Categories 5-9
5.2.1 Flow-through and Recirculating Systems 5-9
5.2.2 Net Pen Systems 5-9
5.3 References 5-9
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
-------
Contents
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 6-11
6.2.5 Other Production Systems: Alligators 6-12
6.3 Water Conservation Measures 6-12
6.3.1 Pond Systems 6-12
6.3.2 Flow-through Systems 6-12
6.3.3 Recirculating Systems 6-13
6.3.4 Other Production Systems: Alligators 6-13
6.4 Pollutants of Concern 6-13
6.4.1 Characterization of Pollutants of Concern 6-13
6.4.2 Methodology for Selection of Regulated Pollutants 6-14
6.5 Pollutants and Pollutant Loadings 6-15
6.5.1 Sediments and Solids 6-15
6.5.2 Nutrients 6-16
6.5.2.1 Nitrogen 6-16
6.5.2.2 Phosphorus 6-17
6.5.3 Organic Compounds and Biochemical Oxygen Demand 6-17
6.5.4 Metals 6-18
6.6 Other Materials 6-18
6.7 References 6-18
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 7-2
7.2.4 Inventory Control 7-3
7.2.5 Mortality Removal 7-3
VI
-------
Contents
7.2.6 Net Cleaning 7-3
7.2.7 Pond Discharge Management 7-3
7.2.8 Rainwater Management 7-4
7.2.9 Siting 7-5
7.2.10 Secondary Containment (Escape Control) 7-5
7.2.11 Solids Removal BMP Plan 7-5
7.2.12 Drug and Pesticide BMP Plan 7-6
7.3 Wastewater Treatment Technologies 7-6
7.3.1 Aeration 7-6
7.3.2 Biological Treatment 7-7
7.3.3 Constructed Wetlands 7-8
7.3.4 Injection Wells 7-8
7.3.5 Disinfection 7-9
7.3.6 Flocculation/Coagulation Tank 7-10
7.3.7 Filters 7-10
7.3.7.1 Microscreen Filters 7-10
7.3.7.2 Multimedia Filters 7-10
7.3.7.3 Sand Filters 7-10
7.3.8 Hydroponics 7-11
7.3.9 Infiltration/Percolation Pond 7-11
7.3.10 Oxidation Lagoons (Primary and Secondary) 7-12
7.3.11 Quiescent Zones 7-13
7.3.12 Sedimentation Basins 7-13
7.3.13 Vegetated Ditches 7-15
7.3.14 Publicly Owned Treatment Works 7-15
7.3.15 Solids Handling and Disposal 7-15
7.3.15.1 Dewatering 7-15
7.3.15.2 Composting 7-16
7.3.15.3 Land Application 7-16
7.3.15.4 Storage Tanks and Lagoons 7-16
7.4 Treatment Technologies Observed at EPA Site Visits 7-16
7.5 References 7-20
CHAPTER 8 CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN EFFLUENT 8-1
8.1 Overview of Data Selection and Configurations 8-1
8.2 Episode Selection for Each Configuration 8-4
8.2.1 EPA Sampling Episodes 8-5
8.2.1.1 Episode 6297 8-5
8.2.1.2 Episode 6439 8-8
8.2.1.3 Episode 6460 8-8
8.2.1.4 Episode 6495 8-9
Vll
-------
Contents
8.2.2 Self-Monitoring Data 8-11
8.2.2.1 Proposal DMR Data 8-11
8.2.2.2 Post-Proposal DMR Data 8-12
8.3 Data Exclusions 8-12
8.4 Data Aggregation 8-13
8.4.1 Aggregation of Filtrate Samples 8-14
8.4.2 Aggregation of Field Duplicates 8-14
8.4.3 Aggregation of Data Across Sample Points ("Flow-Weighting") 8-15
8.5 Estimation of the Numeric Limitations 8-16
8.5.1 Calculation of Configuration Long-Term Averages 8-16
8.5.2 Calculation of Configuration Variability Factors 8-18
8.5.3 Calculation of Numeric Limitations 8-18
8.6 References 8-19
CHAPTER 9 COSTING METHODOLOGY 9-1
9.1 Introduction 9-1
9.1.1 Approach for Estimating Compliance Costs 9-1
9.1.2 Organization of the Cost Chapter 9-2
9.2 Cost Model Structure 9-2
9.2.1 Facility Configuration 9-3
9.2.2 General Cost Assumptions 9-4
9.3 Unit Cost of BMPs 9-4
9.3.1 Best Management Practices 9-5
9.3.1.1 Best Management Practices Overall 9-5
9.3.2 Feed Management 9-8
9.3.2.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-8
9.3.2.2 Capital Costs 9-8
9.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs 9-8
9.3.3 Drug, Pesticide, and Feed Materials Spill Prevention Training and
INAD and Extralabel Reporting 9-15
9.3.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-15
9.3.3.2 Capital Costs 9-16
9.3.3.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs 9-16
9.3.4 Maintaining Structural Integrity 9-18
9.3.4.1 Description of Technology or Practice 9-18
9.3.4.2 Capital Costs 9-18
9.3.4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs 9-18
9.4 Facility Configurations 9-20
9.5 Sample Weighting Factors 9-20
9.6 Regulatory Options Considered 9-22
9.7 Results of Cost Analysis 9-23
-------
Contents
9.8 Changes to Costing Methodology 9-24
9.8.1 Background 9-24
9.8.2 Modifications to Model Facility Methodology 9-24
9.8.3 Net Pen Systems 9-25
9.9 References 9-25
CHAPTER 10 POLLUTANT LOADING METHODOLOGY 10-1
10.1 Introduction 10-1
10.1.1 Approach for Estimating Loadings 10-1
10.1.2 Organization of the Chapter 10-2
10.2 Loading Model Structure 10-3
10.2.1 Facility Configuration 10-4
10.2.2 Unit Load Reduction Modules 10-4
10.2.3 Output Data 10-4
10.2.4 Weighting Factors 10-5
10.3 Feed Inputs 10-6
10.3.1 Introduction 10-6
10.3.2 Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) 10-9
10.3.3 FCR Analysis 10-11
10.3.4 Feed Inputs 10-13
10.3.5 Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors 10-14
10.4 Unit Load Reduction Modules 10-15
10.4.1 Feed Management 10-16
10.4.1.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-16
10.4.1.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems 10-16
10.4.2 Active Feed Monitoring 10-18
10.4.2.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-18
10.4.2.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems 10-18
10.4.3 Drug Reporting and Material Storage 10-18
10.4.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-19
10.4.3.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems 10-19
10.4.4 Structural Integrity of the Containment System 10-19
10.4.4.1 Description of Technology or Practice 10-19
10.4.4.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems 10-19
10.5 Facility Groupings 10-19
10.6 Load Reductions at Regulatory Options 10-22
10.7 Other Pollutant Loads 10-23
10.8 References 10-24
CHAPTER 11 NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11-1
11.1 Solid Waste 11-1
IX
-------
Contents
11.1.1 Sludge Characterization 11-1
11.1.2 Estimating Decreases in Sludge Collection 11-3
11.2 Energy 11-3
11.2.1 Estimating Decreases in Energy 11-4
11.2.2 Energy Summary 11-4
11.3 Air Emissions 11-4
11.3.1 Application Rate 11-5
11.3.2 Application Method 11-5
11.3.3 Quantity of Animal Waste 11-6
11.3.4 Calculation of Emissions 11-6
11.4 References 11-7
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACRONYMS-!
GLOSSARY GLOSSARY-I
APPENDIX A SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESTIMATES
APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL METHODS AND NOMINAL QUANTITATION LIMITS
APPENDIX C DAILY INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
APPENDIX D SUMMARY STATISTICS AT EACH SAMPLE POINT FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
APPENDIX E MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Figures
Figure 4.3-1. Raceway Units in Series (a) on Flat Ground and (b) on Sloping
Ground 4-28
Figure 4.3-2. Raceway Units in Parallel 4-29
Figure 4.3-3. Combination Series and Parallel Raceway Units with Water
Recirculation 4-29
Figure 4.3-4. Offline Settling Ponds 4-35
Figure 4.3-5. Use of Full-Flow Settling Ponds to Treat 100% of the Flow From the
Fish Farm Before it is Discharged 4-36
Figure 4.3-6. Example of a Fish Farm and Various Pen Configurations 4-39
Figure 8.1-1. Schematic of FFSB-FT Effluent Stream 8-2
Figure 8.1-2. Schematic of OLSB-Separate Effluent Stream 8-3
Figure 8.1-3. Schematic of OLSB-Combined Effluent Stream 8-3
Figure 8.1-4. Schematic of RAS-Separate Effluent Stream 8-4
-------
Contents
Figure 8.1-5 Schematic of RAS-Combined Effluent Stream 8-4
Figure 8.2-1. Schematic of Sampling Points and Facility for Episode 6297 8-7
Figure 8.2-2. Schematic of Sample points and Facility for Episode 6439 8-8
Figure 8.2-3. Schematic of Sample points and Facility for Episode 6460 8-9
Figure 8.2-4. Schematic of Sample Points and Facility for Episode 6495 8-10
Figure 9.2-1. Schematic of Cost Model Structure 9-3
Figure 10.2-1. Schematic of Loading Model Structure 10-3
Tables
Table 2.2-1. Applicability of Final Rule to CAAP Subcategories 2-4
Table 2.2-2. Summary of Final Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating
Facilities 2-13
Table 2.2-3. Summary of Final Requirements for Net Pen Facilities 2-15
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 3-10
Table 3.2-2. States Within Each USDA Region 3-11
Table 3.2-3. Production Systems 3-11
Table 3.2-4. Questionnaire Summary 3-14
Table 3.2-5. Production Systems 3-14
Table 3.2-6. Ownership Type 3-14
Table 3.2-7. Species Identified at Facility in Survey Sample 3-15
Table 3.2-8. Geographical Distribution 3-15
Table 3.3-1. Summary of System Type Visited by EPA for the Development of
Aquatic Animal Production Effluent Limitations Guidelines 3-17
Table 3.3-2. Summary of Species Visited by EPA for the Development of Aquatic
Animal Production Effluent Limitations Guidelines 3-17
Table 3.3-3. Regional Distribution of Sites Visited 3-17
Table 3.3-4. Aquatic Animal Production Site Visit Summary 3-18
Table 3.3-5. Sampling Analytes 3-23
Table 3.3-6. Metal Analytes 3-24
Table 3.3-7. Volatile Organic Analytes 3-24
Table 3.3-8. Semivolatile Organic Analytes 3-25
Table 4.3-1. Number of Years Between Drainings By Pond Type and Operation
Size 4-18
XI
-------
Contents
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 4-23
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 4-24
Table 4.3-4. Site Characteristics of Trout Farms 4-33
Table 4.3-5. Water Quality Data 4-33
Table 4.3-6. Hatchery Effluent Quality During Cleaning and Drawdown Events 4-42
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) 4-44
Table 4.3-8. Means and Ranges for Selected Water Quality Variables from
Hybrid Striped Bass Ponds in South Carolina 4-51
Table 4.3-9. Water Quality of Inlet Water and Various Water Exchanges (Mean
Values) of Shrimp Stocked at a Density of 4. I/Square Foot 4-79
Table 4.3-10. Composition of Discharge Waters from Ponds Stocked at Different
Densities of Penaeus Monodon 4-80
Table 4.3-11. Pollutant Concentrations in Alligator Raw Wastewater 4-100
Table 5.1-1. Comparison of Water Use, Frequency of Discharge, and Process for
Maintaining Water Quality for CAAP Systems 5-6
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 BODs 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 6-10
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 6-11
Table 6.2-7. Recirculating System Sampling Data 6-11
Table 6.2-8. Alligator Wastewater Characteristics 6-12
Table 7.4-1. Aquatic Animal Production Site Visit Summary 7-16
Table 8.1-1 Descriptions of Technology Configurations 8-2
Table 8.2-1 Summary of Episode and Sample Point Selection 8-5
Table 8.4-1. Aggregation of Field Duplicates 8-15
Table 8.4-2. Aggregation of Data Across Streams 8-16
Xll
-------
Contents
Table 8.5-1. Configuration Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Numeric Limitations 8-19
Table 9.3-1. Estimated Costs for BMP Plan Development 9-7
Table 9.3-2. Estimated Costs for Feed Management 9-10
Table 9.3-3. Drug and Pesticide Spill Prevention Training and INAD Reporting 9-17
Table 9.3-4. Estimated Costs for Maintaining Structural Integrity 9-19
Table 9.4-1. Facility Groupings by System-Ownership-Species 9-20
Table 9.6-1. Treatment Technology and BMP Components of the Regulatory
Options Evaluated 9-22
Table 9.6-2. Summary of TSS Numeric Limits for Flow-through and Recirculating
Systems 9-23
Table 9.7-1. Summary of Cost Analysis by System-Ownership-Species Group 9-23
Table 10.3-1. Quartile Analysis 10-13
Table 10.3-2. Range of Feed Loads by System-Species-Ownership Grouping 10-14
Table 10.3-3. Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors 10-14
Table 10.3-4. Raw Waste Loads by Category 10-15
Table 10.5-1. Facility Groupings by System Type 10-20
Table 10.5-2. Facility Groupings by Ownership 10-20
Table 10.5-3. Facility Groupings by Location 10-20
Table 10.5-4. Facility Groupings by Sampled Species 10-20
Table 10.5-5. Facility Groupings by System-Ownership-Species 10-21
Table 10.5-6. Baseline Loads by Category 10-21
Table 10.6-1. Estimated Pollutant Load After Implementation for In-Scope
CAAP Facilities 10-22
Table 10.7-1. Metals and Other Material Load Reductions Associated with TSS
Reductions at In-Scope CAAP Facilities 10-24
Table 11.1-1. Characterization of CAAP Sludge 11-2
Table 11.1-2. Average Nutrient Content Measurements of Fish Manure from
Various Treatment Systems 11-2
Table 11.1-3. Rainbow Trout Manure Compared to Beef, Poultry, and Swine
Manures (Presented as Ranges on a Dry Weight Basis) 11-2
Table 11.1-4. Impacts of the Final Regulatory Option on TSS 11-3
Table 11.3-1. Percent of Nitrogen Volatilizing as Ammonia from Land
Application 11-5
Table 11.3-2. Ammonia Volatilization from CAAP Solids 11-6
xm
-------
CHAPTER 1
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
This section presents background information supporting the development of effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) point source category. Section 1.1 describes the legal authority to
regulate the CAAP industry. Section 1.2 discusses the Clean Water Act specifically;
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 promulgates 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. 125l(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
1-1
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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
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 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 Section 403.5, abbreviated as 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). EPA currently lists a total of 126 toxic or
"priority pollutants" in 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. 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
1-2
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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
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 for a POTW to upgrade from secondary to advanced secondary treatment
($0.68/pound in 2003 dollars). EPA calculates the industry cost-effectiveness test by
calculating 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 and comparing it to 1.29, which is a 29%
increase. If the BCT numbers are higher than either of these benchmarks, then the
technology has failed the BCT cost test. 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)oftheCWA
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 and may be 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
1-3
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy
requirements and to consider a "no discharge" option.
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 in 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 years 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 (NRDC, et al v. Leavitt, D.D.C.
Civ. No 89-2980) and EPA agreed to a settlement of that action in a Consent Decree
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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 was required to sign a
proposed rule 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
(SBA); (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 in 13 CFR 121.201. These size standards
were updated effective February 22, 2002. SBA size standards for the AAP industry, for
North American Industry Classification System (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 were 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 were 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
1-5
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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.
However, because sufficient data were available to determine the parent nonprofit
association (and its revenues) for the small Alaska nonprofit facilities, EPA analyzed
small entity impacts at 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 is certifying that the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entitities.
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 http:7/www. aquanic.org/publicat/state/md/perm 1.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 non-native 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).
1-6
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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.
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 of fish (e.g., trout and salmon) in ponds, raceways, or other
similar structures that discharge at least 30 days/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 of fish (e.g.,
respectively, catfish, sunfish, and minnows) in ponds, raceways, or similar structures
that discharge at least 30 days/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.
1-7
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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,
Florida, Guam, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. These regulations address pesticides 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: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, and Minnesota. Waste handling
regulations in these states address land application of sludge, disposal of sewage and
solid waste, and waste hauling permits.
Illinois, Iowa, 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.
1-8
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
• 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
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, non-native 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
1-9
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, South
Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 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
shellfish depositing in tidal waters when the shellfish were imported from outside the
state.
Non-native Species
EPA found 22 states and territories that have reported having regulations or permits
dealing with importation or possession of non-native species: Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Guam, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Types of permits and regulations dealing
with non-native species include stocking licenses, general importation permits for aquatic
species and plants, and restrictions on possession, sale, importation, transportation, and
release of non-native 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, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, 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
1-10
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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.
• 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
1-11
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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.
• Puerto Rico 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:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Licensing and Permitting
Forty states and territories have several licensing and permitting regulations or permits
associated with aquaculture: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 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
1-12
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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: Arizona, Arkansas,
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.
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, New Jersey, North
Carolina, 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
1-13
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 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.
• 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, without which a person may not
deposit material upon, extract material from, construct, modify, repair,
reconstruct, or occupy any structure or facility on submerged lands or tidelands.
• 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
1-14
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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
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. 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
1-15
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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
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 of 1981: 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
1-16
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
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.
1.6 REGULATORY HISTORY OF THE CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL
PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
Until the current 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 the 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 of fish 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 (NRDC v. 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 in
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
days per year; however, facilities that produce less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms
1-17
-------
Chapter 1: Legal Authority and Regulatory Background
(approximately 20,000 pounds) per year and facilities that feed less than 2,272 kilograms
(approximately 5,000 pounds) during the calendar month of maximum feeding are not
defined as CAAP facilities. The warmwater CAAP facilities must discharge at least 30
days/year, but closed ponds that discharge only during periods of excess runoff or
facilities that produce less than 45,454 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 100,000
pounds) 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.
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 CONTENT OF THE FINAL
REGULATION
This chapter presents a summary of the rule for the concentrated aquatic animal
production (CAAP) industry. The rule establishes effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs)
and new source performance standards based on treatment technologies or operational
and management measures for the control of pollutants. Section 2.1 summarizes and
discusses the applicability of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) regulations, and Section 2.2 summarizes and discusses the applicability of the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the CAAP industry.
2.1 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
The NPDES regulations define which aquatic animal production facilities are
concentrated aquatic animal production facilities that are point sources subject to the
NPDES permit program (see 40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C to Part 122). A CAAP is
either a facility that meets the criteria in 40 CFR Part 122 Appendix C or a facility that
EPA or a state designated a CAAP 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 the following conditions (40 CFR Appendix C to Part 122):
The coldwater species category includes ponds, raceways, or other similar
structures which discharge at least 30 days/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
of fish; e.g., trout and salmon.
The warmwater category includes ponds, raceways, or other similar structures
which discharge at least 30 days/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 is not revising the NPDES regulation.
2-1
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
2.2 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations 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 is not establishing national pretreatment standards for this category, which contains
very few indirect dischargers. The indirect dischargers discharge mainly TSS and BOD,
which the POTWs are designed to treat and which consequently, do not pass through. In
addition, nutrients discharged from CAAP facilities are in concentrations lower, in full
flow discharges, and similar, in off-line settling basin discharges, to nutrient
concentrations in human wastes discharged to POTWs. The options EPA considered do
not directly treat nutrients, but some nutrient removal is achieved incidentally through the
control of TSS. EPA concluded POTWs would achieve removals of TSS and associated
nutrients equivalent to those achievable by the options considered for this rulemaking and
therefore there would be no pass through of pollutant in amounts needing regulation. In
the event of pass through that causes a violation of a POTWs NPDES limits, the POTW
must develop local limits for its users to ensure compliance with its permit.
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 generally for three classes of pollutants: (1) conventional pollutants (i.e., TSS,
oil and grease, BOD, 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-N, 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
Direct Dischargers
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
Indirect Dischargers
PSES Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
PSNS Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
2-2
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
The effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS 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 is not requiring categorized
pretreatment standards for the CAAP industrial category.
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 regulation contains the technology-
based effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the CAAP 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 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 his 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 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 40 CFR Part 451 regulations for the CAAP industry will be
promulgated after March 31, 1989, NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the
effluent limitations guidelines will need to be included in the next NPDES permit issued
after promulgation of the regulation. The permits must require immediate compliance
with the effluent limitations. If the permitting authority wishes to provide a compliance
schedule, it must do so through an enforcement mechanism.
2.2.1.2 New Source Performance Standards
New sources will need to comply with the NSPS and limitations of the CAAP rule at the
time such sources commence discharging CAAP process wastewater. Because the final
rule was not promulgated within 120 days of the proposed rule, the Agency will consider
a discharger to be a new source if construction of the source begins 30 days after the date
of publication of the Rule in the Federal Register.
2.2.1.3 National Pretreatment Standards
The national pretreatment standards at 40 CFR Part 403 have three principal objectives:
(1) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs that will interfere with POTW
2-3
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
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 regulation will
not establish national categorical pretreatment standards (PSES and PSNS) applicable to
CAAP facilities that are regulated by 40 CFR Part 451.
2.2.2 Applicability of the Rule
EPA has subcategorized the CAAP point source category based on production system
type. See Chapter 5 for a discussion on subcategorization. The subcategories are listed in
Table 2.2-1. The rule applies to facilities that annually produce at least 100,000 pounds
of aquatic animals in the following subcategories: (1) flow-through and recirculating and
(2) net pens. EPA did not promulgate regulations for closed pond systems because 1)
most do not discharge 30 days or more and are not defined as CAAPs; 2) because of the
minimal pollutant discharges; and 3) because the pond itself acts as an effective treatment
system.
Table 2.2-1. Applicability of Final Rule to CAAP Subcategories
System Type or
Subcategory
Closed Ponds
Flow-through and
Recirculating
(Subpart A)
Net pen
(Subpart B)
Annual Production (Ib)
<100,000
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
>100,000
Exempt
Subject to Sections:
451.3(a)-(d)
451.11(a)-(e)
451.12-14
Subject to Sections:
451.3(a)-(d)
451.21(a)-(h)
451.22-24
2.2.3 Summary of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
The final regulatory option requires reporting of Investigational New Animal Drugs
(INADs) and extralabel drug use. It also requires facilities to report failure in or damage
to the structure of an aquatic animal containment system resulting in an unanticipated
material discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. Facilities must develop
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
and maintain a BMP plan onsite describing how the permittee will achieve the final
requirements.
2.2.3.1 General Reporting Requirements
EPA established general reporting requirements (found in 40 CFR 451.3) for the use of
certain types of drugs.
The general reporting requirements apply to flow-through, recirculating, and net pen
systems.
INADs and Extralabel Drug Use
The permittee will need to notify the permitting authority of the use in a CAAP facility
(subject to this Part) of any INAD (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 extralabel drug use (i.e., when a drug is not used according to label requirements),
where such use may lead to discharge to waters of the United States. Reporting is not
required for an INAD or extralabel drug use when the drug is used for a different species
or disease at or below the approved dose and involves similar conditions of use. For
INADs:
• The permittee must provide a written report to the permitting authority of an
INAD's impending use within 7 days of agreeing or signing up to participate in an
INAD study. The written report must identify the INAD to be used, method of
application, the dosage, and the disease or condition the INAD is intended to treat.
For INADs and extralabel drug use:
• The permittee must provide an oral report to the permitting authority as soon as
possible, preferably in advance of use, but no later than 7 days after initiating use
of the drug. The oral report must identify the drugs used, the method of
application, and the reason for using the drug.
• The permittee must provide a written report to the permitting authority within 30
days after initiating use of the drug. The written report must identify the drug used
and include: the reason for treatment, date(s) and time(s) of the addition
(including duration); method of application; and the amount added.
Failure in or Damage to the Structure of an Aquatic Animal Containment System
The permittee needs to notify the permitting authority of any failure in, or damage to, the
structure of an aquatic animal containment system resulting in an unanticipated material
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. Any permittee must notify the
permitting authority when there is a reportable failure.
• The permitting authority may specify in the permit what constitutes reportable
damage and/or a material discharge of pollutants, based on a consideration of
production system type, sensitivity of the receiving waters, and other relevant
factors.
2-5
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
• The permittee must provide an oral report within 24 hours of discovery of any
reportable failure or damage that results in a material discharge of pollutants,
describing the cause of the failure or damage in the containment system and
identifying materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the
failure.
• The permittee must provide written report within 7 days of discovery of the
failure or damage documenting the cause, the estimated time elapsed until the
failure or damage was repaired, an estimate of the material released as a result of
the failure or damage, and steps being taken to prevent a reoccurrence.
• In the event a spill of drugs, pesticides, or feed occurs that results in a discharge to
waters of the U.S., the permittee must provide an oral report of the spill to the
permitting authority within 24 hours of its occurrence and a written report within
7 days. The report must include the identity and quantity of the material spilled.
BMP Plan
EPA requires that all facilities subject to this Part develop and maintain a BMP plan
describing how the permittee will achieve the final requirements. The permittee must
certify in writing to the permitting authority that a BMP plan has been developed and
make the plan available to the permitting authority upon request.
2.2.3.2 Narrative Requirements
For the final effluent guideline, EPA is establishing narrative effluent limitations for
flow-through, recirculating, and net pen systems.
Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
BPT
EPA is establishing nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
CAAP flow-through and recirculating facilities producing at least 100,000 pounds of
aquatic animals per year.
EPA based the final limitation on operation requirements to address solids controls,
materials storage, structural maintenance, record-keeping, and training. These practices
are widely available among the existing flow-through and recirculating system facilities.
Solids Control
The final regulation includes narrative limitations requiring solids control measures and
operational practices. To control the discharge of solids from flow-through and
recirculating system facilities, EPA requires the facility to employ efficient feed
management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the minimum amount
reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic
animal growth in order to minimize potential discharges of uneaten feed and waste
products to waters of the U.S.
In order to minimize the discharge of accumulated solids from settling ponds and basins
and production systems, facilities must identify and implement procedures for routine
2-6
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
cleaning of rearing units and offline settling basins, and procedures to minimize any
discharge of accumulated solids during the inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic
animals in the production system.
As part of the solids control requirements, facilities must remove and dispose of aquatic
animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent discharge to waters of the United
States, except in cases where the permitting authority authorizes such discharge in order
to benefit the aquatic environment. For example, federal, state, and tribal hatcheries raise
fish for stocking or mitigation purposes. In some cases, these facilities have been
approved to discharge fish carcasses along with the live fish that are being stocked. In
these situations, the carcasses are serving as a source of nutrients and food to the fish
being stocked in these waters.
Materials Storage
To address materials storage, facilities must ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides,
and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills that may result in the discharge of drugs,
pesticides, or feed to waters of the United States. In the event that a spill of drugs,
pesticides, or feed occurs that results in a discharge to waters of the United States, the
owner or operator will provide an oral report of this to the permitting authority within 24
hours of its occurrence and a written report within 7 days. The report will include the
identity of the material spilled and an estimated amount. Facilities must also implement
procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled material. Many
facilities may already have implemented practices that address these requirements.
Structural Maintenance
To address structural maintenance, EPA is requiring facilities to conduct routine
inspections of the production system and the wastewater treatment system to identify and
promptly repair any damage. EPA is not requiring any design specifications associated
with the structural components of the CAAP facility; EPA is merely expecting facilities
to identify practices that will ensure any existing structures are maintained in good
working order. Facilities must also conduct regular maintenance of the production system
and the wastewater treatment system to ensure that they are properly functioning. One of
the areas of concern associated with this requirement is to minimize the occurrence of
solids (especially large solids such as carcasses and leaves) from clogging screens that
separate the raceway from the quiescent zone. These solids could prevent the flow of
water through the screen causing water to instead flow over the screen and impair the
passage of solids into the quiescent zone.
Record-keeping
EPA is requiring facilities to keep records for certain activities. Facilities must maintain
records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting the feed amounts and estimates of
the numbers and weight of the aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed
conversion ratios. Facilities must also keep records documenting the frequency of
cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs.
2-7
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
Training
EPA is requiring facilities to train relevant facility personnel in spill prevention. The
training must include how to respond in the event of a spill and therefore ensures that
proper clean-up and disposal of spilled material can be addressed. Facilities must also
train staff on the proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment
systems, including training in feeding procedures and equipment.
A summary of the BPT requirements for flow-through and recirculating systems is
provided in Table 2.2-2 at the end of the chapter.
BAT
EPA is establishing BAT at a level equal to BPT for the flow-through and recirculating
system subcategory. For this subcategory, EPA did not identify any available
technologies that are economically achievable that would achieve more stringent effluent
limitations than those considered for BPT. Because of the nature of the wastes generated
from CAAP facilities, advanced treatment technologies or practices to remove additional
solids (e.g., smaller particle sizes) in TSS that would be economically achievable on a
national basis do not exist beyond those already considered.
BCT
EPA evaluated conventional pollutant control technologies applying its BCT cost test.
EPA did not identify a more stringent technology for the control of conventional
pollutants for BCT limitations that passes the BCT cost test. Consequently, EPA is not
promulgating BCT limitations or standards based on a different technology from that
used as the basis for BPT limitations and standards. For more details about the BCT cost
reasonableness test and the BAT analysis, see the Economic and Environmental Impact
Analysis (USEPA, 2004).
NSPS
After considering the technology options described in the proposed rule and Notice of
Data Availability (NODA) and evaluating the factors specified in Section 306 of the
CWA, EPA is promulgating standards of performance for new sources equal to BPT,
BAT, and BCT. There are no more stringent technologies available for NSPS that would
not represent a barrier to entry for new facilities. Because of the nature of the wastes
generated in CAAP facilities, EPA has not identified advanced treatment technologies or
practices to remove additional solids (e.g., smaller particle sizes) in TSS that would be
affordable beyond those already considered.
EPA determined that NSPS equal to BAT will not present a barrier to entry. See Section
IX of the Preamble for more discussion of barrier to entry analysis. The overall impacts
from the effluent limitations guidelines on new sources would not be any more severe
than those on existing sources. This is because the costs faced by new sources are
generally the same as or lower than those faced by existing sources. It is generally less
expensive to incorporate pollution control equipment into the design at a new facility
than it is to retrofit the same pollution control equipment in an existing plant. At a new
facility, no demolition is required and space constraints (which can add to retrofitting
costs if specifically designed equipment must be ordered) may be less of an issue.
2-8
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
Net Pen Systems
BPT
EPA is establishing nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
CAAP net pen facilities producing at least 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals per year
except for net pen facilities rearing native species released after a growing period of no
longer than 4 months to supplement commercial and sport fisheries.
Feed Monitoring
Facilities must minimize the accumulation of uneaten feed beneath pens through the use
of active feed monitoring and management strategies. These strategies may include one
or more of the following: use of real-time feed monitoring (including devices such as
video cameras, digital scanning sonar, and upweller systems), monitoring of sediment
quality beneath the pens, monitoring of benthic community quality beneath pens, capture
of waste feed and feces, or adoption of other good husbandry practices subject to the
permitting authority's approval. Real-time monitoring represents a widely used business
practice that is employed by many of the salmonid net pen facilities to reduce feed costs.
Net pen systems do not present the same opportunities for solids control as do flow-
through or recirculating systems. Therefore, in EPA's view, feed monitoring including
real-time monitoring and other practices is an important and cost reasonable practice to
control solids discharges.
Facilities must employ efficient feed management strategies that limit feed input to the
minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted
rates of aquatic animal growth in order to minimize potential discharges of uneaten feed
and waste products to waters of the United States.
Waste Collection and Disposal
EPA is requiring facilities to collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed
bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and netting. EPA assumes net pen facilities have
the equipment (e.g., trash receptacles) to store empty feed bags, packaging materials,
waste rope, and netting until they can be transported for disposal.
Transport or Harvest Discharge
Facilities must minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of
aquatic animals including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water
containing blood. During stocking or harvesting of fish, some may die. The wastes and
wastewater associated with the transport or harvest of fish have high BOD and nutrient
concentrations and should be disposed of at a location where they may be properly
treated.
Carcass Removal
Facilities must remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular
basis to prevent discharge to waters of the United States. Discharge of dead fish
represents an environmental concern because they may spread disease and attract
predators, which could imperil the structural integrity of the containment system.
2-9
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
Materials Storage
EPA is requiring net pen facilities to ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed
in a manner designed to prevent spills that may result in the discharge of drugs,
pesticides, or feed to waters of the United States. In the event that a spill of drugs,
pesticides, or feed occurs that results in a discharge to waters of the United States, the
owner or operator will provide an oral report of this to the permitting authority within 24
hours of its occurrence and a written report within 7 days. The report will include the
identity of the material spilled and an estimated amount. Facilities must also implement
procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled material.
Structural Maintenance
Facilities must inspect the production system on a routine basis in order to identify and
promptly repair any damage. In addition, facilities must conduct regular maintenance of
the production system to ensure that it is properly functioning. Net pens are vulnerable to
damage from predator attack or accidents that result in the release of the contents of the
nets, including fish and fish carcasses. EPA assumes facilities will conduct routine
inspections of the nets to ensure they are not damaged and make repairs as soon as any
damage is identified.
Record-keeping
Facilities must maintain records for each net pen documenting the feed amounts and
estimates of the numbers and weight of aquatic animals in order to calculate
representative feed conversion ratios. EPA is also requiring facilities to keep records of
the net changes, inspection, and repairs.
Training
Net pen facilities must adequately train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and, in
the event of a spill, how to respond to ensure the proper clean up and disposal of any
spilled material. Facilities must also train staff on the proper operation and cleaning of
the production systems, including training in feeding procedures and proper use of
equipment.
All existing net pen facilities that are currently covered by NPDES permits are subject to
permit requirements that meet the final regulatory option when the permit is reissued.
However, there maybe a small number of net pen facilities in Maine that may not have
taken coverage under an NPDES permit (Goodwin, 2004). EPA does not have detailed
results from these unpermitted facilities, but assumes they are employing operational
measures similar to those in use at the permitted net pen facilities EPA has reviewed.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the BPT limits are both technically available and cost
reasonable. A summary of the BPT requirement alternatives for net pen systems is
provided in Table 2.2-3 at the end of the chapter.
BAT
EPA is establishing BAT at a level equal to BPT for the net pen subcategory. For this
subcategory, EPA did not identify any available technologies that are economically
2-10
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
achievable that would achieve more stringent effluent limitations than those considered
for BPT. Because of the nature of the wastes generated from CAAP facilities, advanced
treatment technologies or practices to remove additional solids that would be
economically achievable on a national basis do not exist beyond those already
considered.
BCT
EPA evaluated conventional pollutant control technologies applying its BCT cost test.
EPA did not identify a more stringent technology for the control of conventional
pollutants for BCT limitations that passes the BCT cost test. Consequently, EPA is not
promulgating BCT limitations or standards based on a different technology from that
used as the basis for BPT limitations and standards. For more details about the BCT and
BAT economic analyses, see the Economic and Environmental Impact Analysis (USEPA,
2004)
NSPS
After considering the technology requirements described in the proposal and NOD A and
the factors specified in Section 306 of the CWA, EPA is promulgating standards of
performance for new sources equal to BPT, BAT, and BCT. There are no more stringent
best demonstrated technologies available. Because of the nature of the wastes generated
and the production system used, EPA has not identified advanced treatment technologies
or practices to require that would be affordable beyond those already considered.
Although siting is not addressed with the final standards, when establishing new net pen
CAAP facilities the location is critical in predicting the potential impact the net pen will
have on the environment. Net pens are usually situated in areas which have good water
exchange through tidal fluctuations or currents. Good water exchange ensures good water
quality for the animals in the nets, and it also minimizes the concentration of pollutants
below the nets. EPA encourages facilities and permit authorities to give careful
consideration to siting prior to establishing a new net pen facility.
EPA has concluded that NSPS equal to BAT does not present a barrier to entry. See
Section IX of the Preamble for more discussion of barrier to entry analysis. The overall
impacts from the effluent limitations guidelines on new source net pens is no more severe
than those on existing net pens. The costs faced by new sources generally should be the
same as or lower than those faced by existing sources. It is generally less expensive to
incorporate pollution control equipment into the design at a new facility than it is to
retrofit the same pollution control equipment in an existing facility.
Although EPA is not establishing standards of performance for new sources for small
coldwater facilities (i.e., those producing between 20,000 and 100,000 pounds of aquatic
animals per year), the facilities will be subject to existing NPDES regulations and permit
limits developed using the permit writer's "best professional judgment" (BPJ). EPA,
based on its analysis of existing data, determined that new facilities would produce
100,000 pounds of aquatic animals or more per year because of the expense of producing
the aquatic animals. Generally, the species produced are considered of high value and are
produced in such quantities to economically justify the production. For example, one net
2-11
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
pen typically holds 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals or more. In reviewing U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Census of Aquaculture and EPA's detailed
surveys, EPA has not identified any existing commercial net pen facilities producing
fewer than 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals per year.
Offshore aquatic animal production is an area of potential future growth. As these types
of facilities start to produce aquatic animals, they should meet the new source
requirements established for net pens as well as NPDES permitting.
2-12
-------
Table 2.2-2. Summary of Final Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
General Reporting Requirements
Drugs
1) Reporting of intention to use INADs
2) Oral reporting of IN AD and extralabel drug use
3) Written reporting of INAD and extralabel drug use
• Provide the permitting authority with a written report, within 7 days of agreeing or signing
up to participate in an INAD study
• Identify the INAD to be used, method of use, the dosage, and the disease or condition the
INAD is intended to treat
• Provide an oral report to the permitting authority as soon as possible, preferably in
advance of application, but no later than 7 days after initiating use of the drug
• Identify drugs used, method of application, and the reason for adding that drug
• Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 30 days after initiating use of
the drug
• Identify the drug used and include the reason for treatment, date(s) and times(s) of the
addition (including duration), method of application, and the amount added
Structural Integrity
1) Specification of reportable damage and/or material
discharge
2) Oral reporting of structural failure or damage
3) Written reporting of structural failure or damage
• The permitting authority may specify in the permit what constitutes reportable damage
and/or material discharge of pollutants, based on consideration of production system type,
sensitivity of the receiving waters, and other relevant factors
• Provide an oral report within 24 hours of the discovery of any reportable failure or damage
that results in a material discharge of pollutants
• Describe the cause of the failure or damage in the containment system
• Identify materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the failure
• Provide a written report within 7 days of discovery of the failure or damage
• Document the cause of the failure or damage
• Estimate the time elapsed until the failure or damage was repaired
• Estimate materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the failure or
damage
• Describe steps being taken to prevent a reoccurrence
Spills
1) Oral reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed
2) Written reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed
• Provide an oral report to the permitting authority within 24 hours of any spill of drugs,
pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States
• Identify the material spilled and quantity
• Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 7 days of any spill of drugs,
pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States
• Identify the material spilled and quantity
Reference
451.3(a)
451.3(a)(l)
451.3(a)(2)
451.3(a)(3)
451.3(b)
451.3(b)(l)
451.3(b)(2)
451.3(b)(3)
451.3(c)
451.3(c)
451.3(c)
-------
Table 2.2-2. Summary of Final Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities, Continued
Narrative Requirements
Best Management Practices Plan
1) Development and maintenance of a BMP plan on site that describes how the permittee will achieve the following five requirements:
a) Solids control
b) Material storage
c) Structural maintenance
d) Record-keeping
e) Training
• Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the
minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted
rates of aquatic animal growth in order to minimize potential discharges of uneaten feed
and waste products to waters of the United States
• Identify and implement procedures for routine cleaning of rearing units and offline settling
basins
• Identify procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals that
minimize discharge of accumulated solids
• Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent
discharge to waters of the United States, except where authorized by the permitting
authority in order to benefits the aquatic environment
• Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills
that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed to waters of the United States
• Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled
materials
• Routinely inspect production systems and wastewater treatment systems to identify and
promptly repair damage
• Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems
to ensure their proper function
• Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and estimates
of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed
conversion ratios
• Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs
• Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill to
ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials
• Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment
systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment
2) Make the plan available to the permitting authority upon request
3) Certify that a BMP plan has been developed
Reference
451.3(d)
451.3(d)(l)(i)
451.11(a)
451.11(b)
451.11(c)
451.11(d)
451.11(e)
451.3(d)(l)(ii)
451.3(d)(2)
*-*
•*».
-------
Table 2.2-3. Summary of Final Requirements for Net Pen Facilities
General Reporting Requirements
Drugs
1) Reporting of intention to use INADs
2) Oral reporting of IN AD and extralabel drug use
3) Written reporting of INAD and extralabel drug use
• Provide the permitting authority with a written report, within 7 days of agreeing or signing
up to participate in an INAD study
• Identify the INAD to be used, method of use, the dosage, and the disease or condition the
INAD is intended to treat
• Provide an oral report to the permitting authority as soon as possible, preferably in
advance of application, but no later than 7 days after initiating use of the drug
• Identify drugs used, method of application, and the reason for adding that drug
• Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 30 days after initiating use of
the drug
• Identify the drug used and include the reason for treatment, date(s) and times(s) of the
addition (including duration), method of application, and the amount added
Structural Integrity
1) Specification of reportable damage and/or material
discharge
2) Oral reporting of structural failure or damage
3) Written reporting of structural failure or damage
• The permitting authority may specify in the permit what constitutes reportable damage
and/or material discharge of pollutants, based on consideration of production system type,
sensitivity of the receiving waters, and other relevant factors
• Provide an oral report within 24 hours of the discovery of any reportable failure or damage
that results in a material discharge of pollutants
• Describe the cause of the failure or damage in the containment system
• Identify materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the failure
• Provide a written report within 7 days of discovery of the failure or damage
• Document the cause of the failure or damage
• Estimate the time elapsed until the failure or damage was repaired
• Estimate materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the failure or
damage
• Describe steps being taken to prevent a reoccurrence
Spills
1) Oral reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed
2) Written reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed
• Provide an oral report to the permitting authority within 24 hours of any spill of drugs,
pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States
• Identify the material spilled and quantity
• Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 7 days of any spill of drugs,
pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States
• Identify the material spilled and quantity
Reference
451.3(a)
451.3(a)(l)
451.3(a)(2)
451.3(a)(3)
451.3(b)
451.3(b)(l)
451.3(b)(2)
451.3(b)(3)
451.3(c)
451.3(c)
451.3(c)
-------
Table 2.2-3. Summary of Final Requirements for Net Pen Facilities, Continued
Narrative Requirements
Best Management Practices Plan
1) Develop and maintain a BMP plan on site that describes how the permittee will achieve the following seven requirements:
a) Feed monitoring
b) Waste collection and disposal
c) Transport or harvest discharge
d) Carcass removal
e) Materials storage
f) Structural maintenance
g) Record-keeping
h) Training
• Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the
minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted
rates of aquatic animal growth
• Minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens through active feed monitoring
and management strategies approved by the permitting authority
• Collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste
rope, and netting
• Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic animals
(including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing blood)
• Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent
their discharge into the waters of the United States
• Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills
that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed into waters of the United States
• Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled
material
• Inspect production systems on a routine basis in order to identify and promptly repair any
damage
• Conduct regular maintenance on the production system in order to ensure its proper
function
• Maintain records for aquatic animal net pens documenting the feed amounts and estimates
of the numbers and weight of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed
conversion ratios
• Keep records of net changes, inspections, and repairs
• Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond to spills to ensure
proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials
• Train staff on proper operation and cleaning of production system, including feeding
procedures and equipment
2) Make the plan available to the permitting authority upon request
3) Certify that a BMP plan has been developed
Reference
451.3(d)
451.3(d)(l)(i)
45 1.21 (a)
451.21(b)
451.21(c)
451.21(d)
451.21(e)
451.21(f)
451.21(g)
451.21(h)
451.3(d)(l)(ii)
451.3(d)(2)
-------
Chapter 2: Summary of Scope and Content of the Final Regulation
2.3 REFERENCES
Goodwin, J. 2004. Conversation with Dennis Merrill, Maine Department of
Environmental Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Economic and Environmental
Impact Analysis of the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-
R-04-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
2-17
-------
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 USD A Census of Aquaculture (USD A,
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, non-native species impacts,
and other potential impacts. EPA has included a summary of its environmental impact
analysis in the public docket (USEPA, 2004). 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.
After proposal, EPA collected additional technical, scientific, and regulatory information
from many sources on key issues about the CAAP industry. EPA performed targeted
literature searches or other types of investigations to assess issues raised by stakeholders
and commenters. These efforts included collecting additional information on net pens,
chemicals (including therapeutants) used at CAAP facilities, non-native species, and
water quality impacts.
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 evaluate 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
3-2
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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."
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. coli
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
Nitrogen2
Oil and grease
Outfall observation
Oxygen, dissolved
Ozone
pH
Phosphorus8
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
Whole effluent toxicity
Zinc
alncludes 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 DMRs 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.
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
3-3
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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
Nitrogen2
Oil and grease
Outflow during cleaning
Oxidation/reduction potential
Ozone
pH
Phosphorus8
Potassium permanganate
Roccal-II
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
alncludes 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
5-5
-------
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. In the NPDES database,
117 of the 174 facilities are government facilities. Fifty-six CAAP facilities were
privately owned and one was a tribal facility. 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, and DMR Data
EPA linked the data from the three 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
3-6
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
combining information from the databases to evaluate effluents from similar facilities.
The linked data were used to evaluate permit limits for CAAP facilities.
3.1.3 Monitoring and Permit Data Analyzed Post-Proposal
To better evaluate the quality of current facility discharges compared to the proposed
limits, EPA reviewed the detailed surveys to determine the number of facilities reporting
NPDES permits. Of the 207 facilities that responded to the detailed survey, EPA found
125 facilities with existing NPDES permits. The facilities that responded to the detailed
survey and have NPDES permits use these systems:
• 106 flow-through systems
• 13 pond systems
• 5 recirculating systems
• 1 other
EPA found that 82 of the 207 facilities that responded to the detailed survey did not
report having NPDES permits:
• 37 flow-through system facilities
• 26 pond facilities
• 10 net pen facilities
• 9 recirculating system facilities
Many of these facilities are not subject to existing requirements for NPDES permits (i.e.,
ponds that discharge less than 30 days, warmwater facilities producing less than 100,000
pounds, and coldwater facilities producing less than 20,000 pounds).
To further assess facilities with NPDES permits, EPA asked the EPA regional offices for
updated copies of permits, fact sheets, and DMR data for the 125 facilities that responded
to the survey. EPA was able to get NPDES permits and monitoring data (DMR data from
EPA regions or directly from the facility and PCS data) for 43 of the 125 facilities.
Once EPA had determined the scope of the rule, it found that of the 80 in-scope facilities
64 had NPDES permits and use these systems:
• 59 flow-through systems
• 5 recirculating systems
Sixteen of the 80 in-scope facilities did not have NPDES permits, including:
• 9 net pen facilities
• 5 flow-through facilities
• 2 recirculating facilities
EPA was primarily interested in reviewing information on the permit requirements and
effluent monitoring data to better assess the baseline performance of facilities (i.e.,
3-7
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
current effluent treatment conditions) that are in-scope for the regulation. EPA also
reviewed the NPDES permits for information about any required best management
practices (BMPs) to compare with the BMPs required in the regulation. For those
facilities that have BMP requirements in their current NPDES permit, EPA observed that
the requirements were primarily related to developing overall facility BMP plans and to
practices that addressed drugs and chemicals (Hochheimer and Meehan, 2004).
3.2 SUMMARY OF AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION QUESTIONNAIRE
ACTIVITY
EPA determined that a survey of the industry was necessary 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
needed 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 survey
was revised and divided into two survey phases. The first phase is the screener survey
(short version), and the second phase 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.
3-8
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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
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. Ultimately, EPA used the responses to the screener survey to characterize the
CAAP industry for development of the sample frame for the detailed survey.
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,
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 data were not
3-9
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
considered to be sufficient for purposes of selecting recipients for the detailed
questionnaire. Therefore, the primary purpose of the screener survey was to collect
sufficient information for use in designing a detailed sample frame that would accurately
characterize the CAAP industry.
3.2.2.3 Response to the Screener Survey
Approximately 6,000 facilities received the screener survey. At the time the detailed
sample frame was developed, the total number of respondents was 3,273 and the number
of respondents that actually produce aquatic animals was slightly over 1,700. The
discrepancy between the number of surveys sent and 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, which are not considered to be part of the industry
according to EPA's definition. 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 USDA, which has confidentiality agreements
that do not allow the Department to share its information with EPA.
3.2.2.4 Summary of Data from the Screener Survey
EPA used screener survey results as a basis for designing the detailed survey sample
frame. The following summary of the results from the screener survey (Westat, 2002) is
based on the 4,063 surveys that had been returned to EPA and analyzed as of July 2002.
Appendix A provides a detailed summary of the screener survey information. Of these
4,063 surveys, 2,329 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 Region"
Region
Southern
Western
North Central
Northeastern
Tropical
Total
Number of Facilities
1,048
513
382
333
50
2,326
Percentage of Facilitiesb
45%
22%
16%
14%
2%
100%
a Regions are defined by categories from the USDA 1998 Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000).
b Percentages may not add to 100%, based on rounding.
States that are included within each of the USDA regions described above are
summarized in Table 3.2-2.
3-10
-------
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, Washington, D.C.
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, Puerto Rico
Data from the survey indicate that ownership type is described as sole proprietorship for
approximately 41% of facilities producing aquatic animals. An additional 15% are
described as Subchapter S Corporations and 13% are identified as C Corporations.
Overall, close to 80% of all facilities are under private ownership. A total of 12% of the
facilities were described as state hatcheries, and another 3% were federal hatcheries.
Approximately 76% of all facilities produce only one species, and 16% produce two
species. Catfish production dominates the AAP industry in the United States; 29% of
respondents indicated that they produce catfish. Other species produced are trout (27%),
other finfish (21%), 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"
1,414
1,040
466
195
178
118
aNote: 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.
3.2.3 Detailed Survey
EPA designed the detailed survey to collect site-specific technical and financial
information from a representative sample of CAAP facilities. The detailed survey was
mailed to concentrated aquatic animal producers in June 2002. The data collected by the
detailed survey were compiled and analyzed after the proposed rule was published. The
3-11
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
data were made available for public comment in a Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
that was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 75068).
3.2.3.1 Description of the Detailed Survey
In June 2002, EPA mailed a detailed survey, entitled Detailed Questionnaire for the
Aquatic Animal Production Industry to 252 AAP facilities selected from the screener
respondents as described in the next section. A copy of the detailed survey is included in
the record (USEPA, 2002a). The detailed survey is divided into three parts. The first two
parts (Parts A and B) collect general facility, technical, and cost data. The third part
(Part C) collects economic and financial information.
The first set of questions in Part A requests 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 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 used the information from Part B to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards and pollutant loadings associated with the regulatory options that the Agency
considered for final rulemaking. The Agency also used 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 considered for final rulemaking.
Part C, the third part of the detailed survey, elicits site-specific financial and economic
data. EPA used 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 was 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 were available.
3-12
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.2.3.2 Sample Selection for the Detailed Survey
EPA used the screener responses to select a stratified random sample to receive the
detailed questionnaire. Sample criteria were designed primarily to capture facilities that
produce aquatic animals and were likely to be covered by the proposed rule.
EPA also developed sample criteria to capture facilities that are out of scope (based on
information in the screener survey) to validate its assumptions about the applicability of
the proposed regulation. For example, the sample criteria include facilities with ponds,
which are out of scope of the proposed regulation, to confirm that additional regulations
for ponds are unnecessary in the final rule. Appendix A, page Al 1, of this document
describes in detail the criteria and includes facilities that are in-scope and out of scope.
The facilities selected met one of these criteria:
• Aquariums.
• Production includes alligators and total biomass exceeds 100,000 pounds.
• Production includes trout or salmon and total biomass exceeds 20,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is catfish; and
total biomass exceeds 2,200,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is shrimp, tilapia,
other finfish, or hybrid striped bass; and total biomass exceeds 360,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is any method except ponds, and total biomass
exceeds 100,000 pounds.
Applying these criteria to the screener survey responses resulted in 539 facilities that met
these characteristics. EPA then classified the 539 facilities into 44 groups (strata) defined
by facility type (commercial, government, research, or tribal), the predominant species,
and predominant production method. A sample was drawn from the 539 facilities
ensuring sufficient representation of facilities in each of the 44 groups. The sample drawn
consisted of 263 facilities. From these 263 facilities EPA excluded 11 facilities that were
duplicates on the mailing list or, after revising production estimates, did not meet the
production thresholds for a CAAP facility. Detailed questionnaires were sent to 252
facilities.
3.2.3.3 Response to Detailed Survey
EPA received timely responses from 215 of the 252 questionnaires. One facility provided
late responses. A few completed questionnaires contained information on more than one
facility. Subsequently, EPA separated that information into several questionnaires so that
a single questionnaire represented an individual facility. These questionnaires with
multiple facility data resulted in eight additional facilities contributing relevant data to the
detailed survey. EPA excluded data from nine facilities that returned incomplete
responses. For a variety of reasons predominantly due to misrepresentation in the
screener survey data, these facilities would not have been subject to the proposed
limitations; therefore, EPA did not pursue additional information. After separating
multiple responses and excluding incomplete responses, information is available from
207 facilities. Table 3.2-4 provides a breakdown of this information.
3-13
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.2-4. Questionnaire Summary
Information Identifier
Sample frame
Mailed
Received
Incomplete and not followed-up
Received and useable
Received and useable plus separated
Number of
Questionnaires
263
252
216
9
207
215
3.2.3.4 Summary of Data from the Detailed Survey
The following summary of the results from the detailed survey is based on the 215
useable surveys that have been returned to EPA and analyzed. Table 3.2-5 summarizes
production system data based on responses to the detailed surveys.
Table 3.2-5. Production Systems
Production System
Flow-through
Recirculating
Ponds
Net Pens
Other-Aquarium
Multiple production systems
Percentage
of Facilities
64
5
11
4
1
15
Table 3.2-6 summarizes the ownership type of facilities that responded to the detailed
survey.
Table 3.2-6. Ownership Type
Ownership Type
State governments
Federal facilities
Army Corps of Engineers
Academic facilities
Tribal facilities
Private non-profit
Private commercial
Percentage
of Facilities
36
11
1
2
3
1
46
Table 3.2-7 describes the type of species produced at facilities that responded to the
detailed survey. Production of more than one species was reported by 19.5% of the
detailed survey respondents.
3-14
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.2-7. Species Identified at Facility in Survey Sample
Species*
Trout/salmon
Catfish
Tilapia
Other Finfish
Striped bass
Shrimp
Sturgeon
Red drum (i.e., "redfish," "spot tail")
Other (aquarium species)
Ornamentals
Baitfish
Percentage of
Facilities
72
8
4.5
4.5
4
3
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
* Based on predominant species; facility may produce more than one species.
Table 3.2-8 summaries how facilities that responded to the detailed survey are distributed
geographically.
Table 3.2-8. Geographical Distribution
EPA Region
1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT)
2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI)
3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA)
4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC SC, TN)
5 (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI)
6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
7 (IA, KS, MO, ME)
8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU)
10 (AK, ID, OR, WA)
Percentage of
Facilities
10
1
6
14
11
10
4
9
13
22
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. Since the rule was
proposed in 2002, EPA visited 17 additional sites, based, in part, on public comments
regarding specific gaps in the information EPA considered at proposal. 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.
3-15
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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 AAP 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.
To address public comments about the lack of representation of warmwater and green
water systems at proposal, EPA visited two facilities that use warmwater culture systems
and four facilities that use green water systems. To address public comments about the
effectiveness of microscreen treatment, especially in cold temperatures, EPA visited four
facilities reporting the use of microscreen technology to treat wastewater. These four
facilities were chosen from a population of 13 facilities that reported in their responses to
the detailed survey that they used microscreen technology as a primary or secondary
solids removal treatment system. During the visits to these four facilities, EPA observed
microscreens being used to remove solids from effluent streams. EPA also evaluated how
these facilities incorporated microscreens into the daily operation and maintenance
activities.
Other facilities that EPA visited after proposal included several state and federal
hatcheries in California, Washington, Idaho, Pennsylvania, and Utah. EPA looked at the
differences in mission, operation, and management of government facilities compared to
commercial facilities.
During each site visit EPA collected information on the facility and its operations,
including (1) general production data and information, (2) the types of AAP 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
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).
3-16
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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
34
5
13
5
2
93
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
12
20
5
8
9
5
5
7
1
Species
Alligator
Yellow perch
Soft-shell crab shedding
Salmon
Lobster
Chinese catfish
Mullet
Milkfish
Marine
Number of Sites
2
2
1
15
1
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
18
6
37
20
6
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.
3-17
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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
4/11/00
4/11/00
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
11/29/00
11/30/00
1/2/01
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
Eastport
Honolulu
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
ME
HI
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
Salmon
Ornamentals,
seaweed
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
Net pens
Flow-through
Reference
Tetra Tech, 2002ff
Tetra Tech, 2002o
Tetra Tech, 2002d
Tetra Tech, 2002rr
Tetra Tech, 2002c
Tetra Tech, 2002uu
Tetra Tech, 2002p
USEPA, 2002e
USEPA, 2002d
Tetra Tech, 2002g
Tetra Tech, 2002bb
Tetra Tech, 2002k
Tetra Tech, 2002pp
Tetra Tech, 2002gg
Tetra Tech, 2002hh
Tetra Tech, 2002cc
Tetra Tech, 2002i
Tetra Tech, 20021
USEPA, 2002c
Tetra Tech, 2002kk
Tetra Tech, 2002j
Tetra Tech, 2002mm
Tetra Tech, 2002qq
Tetra Tech, 2002tt
Tetra Tech, 2002s
Tetra Tech, 2002a
Tetra Tech, 2002n
Tetra Tech, 2002y
3-18
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Date of
Visit
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
4/05/01
4/05/01
4/06/01
4/06/01
4/06/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/17/01
7/17/01
City
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
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
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 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, 2002z
Tetra Tech, 2002q
Tetra Tech, 2002ii
Tetra Tech, 2002ss
Tetra Tech, 2002e
Tetra Tech, 2002aa
Tetra Tech, 2002b
Tetra Tech, 2002b
Tetra Tech, 2002b
Tetra Tech, 2002b
Tetra Tech, 2002b
Tetra Tech, 2002b
Tetra Tech, 2002m
Tetra Tech, 2002u
Tetra Tech, 2002h
Tetra Tech, 2002r
Tetra Tech, 2002r
Tetra Tech, 2002w
Tetra Tech, 200211
Tetra Tech, 2002mm
Tetra Tech, 2002t
3-19
-------
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
8/01/01
8/01/01
8/01/01
8/01/01
8/01/01
8/02/01
12/11/01
11/07/02
11/07/02
11/07/02
11/08/02
12/17/02
12/18/02
12/18/02
2/10/03
2/11/03
2/12/03
2/24/03
2/24/03
2/25/03
2/26/03
2/27/03
3/27/03
City
Osage Beach
Renville
Los Fresnos
San Benito
San Perlita
Rio Hondo
Lonoke
Lonoke
Lonoke
Cabot
Hazon
DeValls Bluff
Baltimore
Anderson
Manton
Paynes Creek
Rancho
Cordova
Oquossoc
Grand Isle
Newington
Carlisle
Groton
Amherst
Buhl
Bruneau
Ahsahka
Underwood
Kamas
York Haven
State
MO
MN
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
MD
CA
CA
CA
CA
ME
VT
NH
PA
NY
MA
ID
ID
ID
WA
UT
PA
Species
Various warmwater
species (including
bluegill, catfish,
paddlefish)
Tilapia
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Multiple
Salmon, steelhead
Trout
Trout
Trout, salmon,
steelhead
Salmon
Trout
Marine species
Trout
Tilapia
Tilapia
Catfish, tilapia,
alligators
Tilapia
Salmon/trout
Salmon
Trout
Hybrid striped bass
Production System
Ponds
Recirculating system
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Recirculating
Flow-through
Recirculating
Recirculating
Flow-through
Flow-through,
recirculating
Flow-through,
recirculating
Flow-through,
recirculating
Flow-through
Flow-through
Reference
Tetra Tech, 2002jj
Tetra Tech, 2002dd
Tetra Tech, 2002v
Tetra Tech, 2002v
Tetra Tech, 2002v
Tetra Tech, 2002oo
Tetra Tech, 2002f
Tetra Tech, 2002f
Tetra Tech, 2002f
Tetra Tech, 2002f
Tetra Tech, 2002f
Tetra Tech, 2002x
Tetra Tech, 2002ee
Tetra Tech, 2004d
Tetra Tech, 2004d
Tetra Tech, 2004d
Tetra Tech, 2004d
Tetra Tech, 2003d
Tetra Tech, 2003f
Tetra Tech, 2003i
Tetra Tech, 2004b
Tetra Tech, 2003g
Tetra Tech, 2003e
Tetra Tech, 2003h
Tetra Tech, 2003c
Tetra Tech, 2004a
Tetra Tech, 2004c
Tetra Tech, 2003j
Tetra Tech, 2003k
Note: "QZ" means quiescent zone; "OLSB" means offline settling basin.
5-20
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.3.1.2 Summary of Sites Visits to Facilities with Microscreens
To observe the operation of the microscreen, EPA made site visits to a total of five
facilities (three with recirculating systems and two with flow-through systems) that use
microscreens. EPA visited facilities in areas that experience freezing temperatures in
winter and concluded that operating a microscreen filter year round is possible because
the facilities demonstrated satisfactory performance. However, unlike the assumptions for
the proposal, these facilities operate the microscreen filters in indoor spaces that are
protected from freezing. Their microscreens are installed in existing heated spaces or, in
one case, in a recently-constructed building that houses other effluent treatment system
components. The facilities using microscreens were satisfied with their performance and
at least one was planning renovations that included additional microscreens (Tetra Tech,
2003d; Tetra Tech, 2003e; Tetra Tech, 2003g; Tetra Tech, 2003i; Tetra Tech, 2003J).
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.
EPA selected one facility for post-proposal wastewater sampling. The selected facility
was a state hatchery in Pennsylvania producing coldwater species (trout for stocking
enhancement) using flow-through system technology (sampling episode 6495). EPA
considered this facility a good candidate for sampling because it used wastewater
treatment similar to the treatment systems on which EPA based the proposed limitations.
Those systems rely on primary settling of solids generated during cleaning of quiescent
zones in an offline settling basin, and secondary settling of the primary effluent, and full
or bulk flow from the raceways. Primary settling generally involves physical separation
of particles through either quiescent zones and offline settling or a full-flow basin.
Secondary settling is sequential solids removal after primary by using a second settling
basin (i.e., polishing pond) or a technology unit such as a microscreen. EPA considers
this facility to be representative of a well-operated facility with effective wastewater
treatment. EPA sampled wastewater for five days at this facility during a time of year
when the facility approached a maximum stocking density. For more information, refer to
the sampling episode report for this facility (Tetra Tech, 2003b).
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
had not been included in the site visit report; and (7) the temperature, pH, and dissolved
oxygen of the sampled waste streams.
3-21
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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. 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; Tetra Tech,
2003a) 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 compounds for which EPA sampled at the four sites. Tables 3.3-6,
3.3-7, and 3.3-8 summarize the metal, volatile organic, and semivolatile organic analytes
sampled at all four visited sites.
5-22
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Table 3.3-5. Sampling Analytes
Compounds
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-hexane extractable material)
Sulfate
Metals
Volatile organics
Semivolatile organics
Oxytetracycline
Total coliforms
Fecal coliform
Fecal Streptococcus
Aeromonas
Mycobacterium marinum
Escherichia coli
Enterococcus faecium
Toxicity: Fathead minnow, Pimephales
promelas
Toxicity: Cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia
Toxicity: Green alga, Selenastrum
capricornutum
Sampling Episode
6297
^
^
v'
•/
/•
^
^
^
•/
v'
/•
^
^
^
S
•/
/•
^
^
^
•/
/•
^
^
6439
^
^
S
•/
/•
^
^
^
•/
v^
/•
^
^
^
S
•/
/•
^
^
^
S
/•
^
^
^
S
•/
/•
^
^
6460
S
S
S
•/
S
S
S
S
•/
S
/•
^
^
^
S
•/
S
S
S
S
S
/•
^
^
^
S
•/
6495
S
S
S
•/
S
S
•/
S
/•
^
^
S
•/
S
S
S
S
S
S
Note: A checkmark (^) means that the listed pollutant was sampled for at that site.
5-25
-------
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
D ibromome thane
trans- l,4-Dichloro-2-Butene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichlorethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3 -D ichloropropane
cis - 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1,3-Dichloropropene
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-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
m-Xylene
o- andp-Xylene
3-24
-------
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-
Anthracene
Aramite
Benzanthrone
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
B enzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
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
1 -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
2-Chlorophenol
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
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( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Isophorone
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
Isosafrole
Longifolene
Malachite green
Mestranol
Methapyrilene
Methyl methanesulfonate
2-Methylbenzothioazole
3-Methylcholanthrene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2-Nitro aniline
3-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
N,N-Dimethylformamide
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosomethyl-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
Pronamide
5-25
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Semivolatile Organic Analytes
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chrysene
Crotoxyphos
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
l,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'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfone
4,5-Methylene-phenanthrene
4,4-Methylene-bis(2-
Chloroaniline)
1 -Methylfluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1 -Methylphenanthrene
2-(Methylthio)-benzothiazole
Naphthalene
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)
n-C28 (n-octacosane)
n-C30 (n-triacontane)
4-Nitrobiphenyl
Pyrene
Pyridine
Resorcinol
Safrole
Squalene
Styrene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetra-chlorobenzene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Thianaphthene
Thioacetamide
Thioxanthe-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-Trimethoxybenzene
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, 200la;
Tetra Tech, 200Ib; Tetra Tech 2003a) 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
arinum, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcusfaecium). 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 hours over each 12-hour period or 24-hour
period. Samples for oil and grease were collected two or three times per day, every 4
hours, and microbiological samples were collected once a day.
EPA contract laboratories completed all wastewater sample analyses, except for the field
measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. EPA or facility staff collected
3-26
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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 evaluated data
from the Census.
3.4.2 National Agricultural Statistics Service
In addition to the Census of Aquaculture, EPA also evaluated data from USDA's NASS
reports 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 1998 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
5-27
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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 food-size 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 food-size 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.)
3.4.4 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.
3-28
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
3.5.1 Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (ISA) 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. ISA 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. ISA 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.
ISA's Aquaculture Effluents Task Force (AETF), 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 ISA'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.
3.5.2 Other Government Agencies
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 AAP 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 to clarify FDA's environmental assessment requirements for the
substances over which FDA has jurisdiction. EPA also met 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 AAP facilities and how EPA
should approach these facilities in regulation.
3.5.3 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. An example of technical guidance on BMP development is
5-29
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Best Management Practices for Flow-through, Net Pen, Recirculating, and Pond
Aquaculture Systems (Tucker et al., 2003). This guidance document provides examples of
existing BMP plans and state regulations, as well as technical information that can be
used in facilities' BMP plan development. Information is provided for four production
system types and ranges from guidance on site selection, to solids and feed management,
to facility operation and maintenance.
3.5.3.1 Alabama
Dr. Claude Boyd and his colleagues, with funding from the Alabama Catfish Producers (a
division of the Alabama Farmers Federation), have 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
USD A, 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.
3.5.3.2 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).
3.5.3.3 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.).
3.5.3.4 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
3-30
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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 off site 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; non-native and restricted non-native species;
health management; mortality removal; and chemical and drug handling (FDACS, 2000).
3.5.3.5 Hawaii
Hawaii 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-style 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.).
3.5.3.6 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.).
3.5.3.7 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
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,
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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).
3.5.4 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 ISA'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
the proposed rule. The SERs provided comments on materials provided by EPA. Their
3-32
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
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,
2002b) and can be accessed on-line at
http://vosemite.epa.gov/opei/Sbrefa.nsf/('PDFView)/4406/$file/pnl25b.pdf?OpenElement.
3.5.5 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 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 ten 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 AAP 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.
EPA held three public meetings in Washington, DC, Seattle, Washington, and Atlanta,
Georgia in October and November of 2002. During these public meetings, EPA
summarized the proposed rule and provided the public with a chance to ask questions
about the proposed rule. Summaries of the public meetings are available in the public
record (Mosso, 2002a; Mosso, 2002b; Mosso, 2002c).
3.6 REFERENCES
ABOFGA (Arkansas Bait and Ornamental Fish Growers Association), n.d. Arkansas Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for Bait and Ornamental Fish Farms. Arkansas Bait
and Ornamental Fish Growers Association, in cooperation with the University of
Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Aquaculture/Fisheries Center.
Auburn University and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. Alabama
Aquaculture Best Management Practices. Alabama Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Montgomery, AL. .
3-33
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). 2000. Aquaculture
Best Management Practices Manual. Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Division of Aquaculture, Tallahassee, FL.
Fitzsimmons, K. 1999. Arizona Aquaculture BMPs—Draft. Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality. . Accessed
September 25, 2001.
Hochheimer, J and C. Meehan. 2004. Technical Memorandum: Summary of Analysis of
Drug and Chemical Use at CAAP Facilities. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Howerton, R. 2001. Best Management Practices for Hawaii 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.I.J. 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.
Mosso, D. 2002a. Technical Memorandum: Notes For Washington, DC Public Meeting -
October 30, 2002. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Mosso, D. 2002b. Technical Memorandum: Notes For Seattle, Washington Public
Meeting - November 6, 2002. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Mosso, D. 2002c. Technical Memorandum: Notes For Atlanta, Georgia Public Meeting -
November 12, 2002. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
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,
University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program.
. Accessed October 2001.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000a. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Development of Aquatic
Production Facilities Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standard. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000b. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Episode Number 6297 of Aquatic
Animal Production Facilities (Aquaculture). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200 la. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Harrietta Hatchery for
Episode 6460. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
3-34
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200 Ib. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Fins Technology,
Turner Falls, MA, Episode 6439, April 23-28, 2001. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002a. Site Visit Report for Acadia Aquacu Iture (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b. Site Visit Report for Alabama Catfish Industry (AL). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002c. Site Visit Report for Alagri, Inc. (LA). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax,
VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002d. Site Visit Report for America's Catch (MS). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002e. Site Visit Report for Angels Hatchery (FL). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002f. Site Visit Report for Arkansas Baitfish Association (AR). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002g. Site Visit Report for Arrowhead Springs (PA). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002h. Site Visit Report for Atlantic Salmon of Maine, Kennebec
Hatchery (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002i. Site Visit Report for Aubrey Onley Aquaculture Soft Crab
Shedding (NC). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002J. Site Visit Report for Bill Jones Facility (ID). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002k. Site Visit Report for Cantrell Creek Trout Farm (NC). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 20021. Site Visit Report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Box Canyon
Facility (ID). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002m. Site Visit Report for Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery (ME).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002n. Site Visit Report for DB Rice Fisheries (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002o. Site Visit Report for Delta Western (MS). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002p. Site Visit Report for Dur and Brothers Ponds and Farm (LA).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
3-35
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002q. Site Visit Report for EkkWill Waterlife Resources (FL). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002r. Site Visit Report for Embden Hatchery, Governor Hill Hatchery
(ME). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002s. Site Visit Report for Fins Technology (MA). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002t. Site Visit Report for Gallon Brothers Wholesale Live Bait, LLC
(WI). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002u. Site Visit Report for Green Lake National Fish Hatchery (ME).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002v. Site Visit Report for Harlingen Shrimp Farm, Arroyo Shrimp
Farm, and Loma Alta Shrimp Farm (TX). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002w. Site Visit Report for Harrietta Hatchery (MI). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002x. Site Visit Report for Harry Saul Minnow Farm (AR). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002y. Site Visit Report for Heritage Salmon (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002z. Site Visit Report for Interstate Tropical Fish Hatchery (FL).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002aa. Site Visit Report for Lebaco Enterprise (FL). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002bb. Site Visit Report for Limestone Springs Facility (PA). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002cc. Site Visit Report for Mill Pond Crawfish Farm (NC). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002dd. Site Visit Report for MinnAqua Fisheries (MN). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002ee. Site Visit Report for National Aquarium (MD). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002ff. Site Visit Report for National Warmwater Aquaculture Center
(MS). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002gg. Site Visit Report for NCSU Lake Wheeler Road Agricultural
Facility (NC). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
3-36
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002hh. Site Visit Report for NCSU Vernon James Research and
Extension Center (NC). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002ii. Site Visit Report for Norton's Tampa Bay Fisheries (FL). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002JJ. Site Visit Report for Osage Catflsheries (MO). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002kk. Site Visit Report for Pisces Investments, Magic Springs Facility
(ID). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200211. Site Visit Report for Platte River State Fish Hatchery (MI). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002mm. Site Visit Report for Rich Passage (WA). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002nn. Site Visit Report for Rushing Waters Fisheries, Inc. (WI). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002oo. Site Visit Report for Southern Star Shrimp Farm (TX). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002pp. Site Visit Report for Sweetwater Trout Farm (NC). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002qq. Site Visit Report for Taylor Resources, Inc. (WA). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002rr. Site Visit Report for Til-Tech Aquafarm (LA). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002ss. Site Visit Report for Tropical Aquaculture Lab (FL). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002tt. Site Visit Report for Virginia Tech Aquaculture Center (VA).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002uu. Site Visit Report for Westover Farms (LA). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003a. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, Huntsdale Fish Culture
Station, Episode 6495. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003b. Final Sampling Episode Report: Huntsdale Fish Culture Station,
Huntsdale, Pennsylvania, Episode 6495, March 24-29, 2003. Tetra Tech Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003c. Site Visit Report for Ace Development USA, Inc. (ME). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
3-37
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003d. Site Visit Report for Atlantic Salmon of Maine—Oquossoc (ME).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003e. Site Visit Report for Bioshelters Inc. (MA). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003f. Site Visit Report for Ed Weed Fish Culture Station (VT). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003g. Site Visit Report for Fingerlakes Aquaculture (NY). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003h. Site Visit Report for Fish Breeders of Idaho (ID). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003i. Site Visit Report for Great Bay Aquaculture (NH). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003J. Site Visit Report for Kamas State Fish Hatchery (WA). Tetra
Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003k. Site Visit Report for Susquehanna Aquaculture (PA). Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004a. Site Visit Report for Dworshak (ID). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004b. Site Visit Report for Huntsdale National Fish Hatchery (PA).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004c. Site Visit Report for Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery (WA).
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004d. Summary of Site Visits to Four California CAAP Facilities in
Support of State Permit Development (CA). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tucker, C., S. Belle, C. Boyd, G. Fornshell, J. Hargreavse, S. LaPatra, S. Summerfelt,
and P. Zajicek, eds. 2003. Best Management Practices for Flow-Through, Net-Pen,
Reciruclating, and Pond Aquaculture Systems. Prepared through an Interagency
Agreement between USEPA and the USDA Cooperative Research, Education, and
Extension Service.
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 '97 Part I: Reference of 1996
U.S. Catfish Health & Production Practices. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal
Health, USD A/APHIS, Fort Collins, CO.
3-38
-------
Chapter 3: Data Collection Activities
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1997b. Catfish '97 Part II: Reference of 1996
U.S. Catfish Management Practices. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health,
USD A/APHIS, Fort Collins, CO.
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). 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. 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. 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). 2002c. Site Visit Report for Clear
Springs Foods, Snake River Facility (ID). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002d. Site Visit Report for David
LaCour's Crawfish Farm (LA). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002e. Site Visit Report for Glen
Dugas' Crawfish Farm (LA). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Economic and Environmental
Impact Analysis of the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-
R-04-013. 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. Statistics from the Aquatic Animals Screener Survey, Summary Statistics
Report. July 24, 2002. Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD.
3-39
-------
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 AAP 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.
4-1
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
The goals of public fish hatcheries, often referred to as conservation hatcheries, differ
from the goals of private commercial fish hatcheries. Conservation hatcheries produce
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
non-native sport fish species, and some states rely entirely on non-native species for
recreational sportfishing (Schramm and Piper, 1995).
4-2
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
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
4-3
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
commercial AAP and state and federal hatchery experiences, commercial foodfish
production in the United States has grown over the past 30 years.
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.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
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 (NRCS).
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
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).
4-5
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 (DO) 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.
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 pounds/acre.
Mechanical aeration is required to maintain adequate water quality and oxygen
4-6
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
levels in the ponds. Most catfish fanners 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
DO. 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 non-native
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.
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 inches. 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 feet. 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 NRCS has design criteria for watershed ponds, and local offices often offer
site-specific design assistance.
2 Information adapted from C. Tucker, Channel Catfish Culture, in the Encyclopedia ofAquaculture,
2000. ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 153-170. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
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
Like levee ponds, 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 acres). Experience has shown, however, that ponds smaller than 20 acres are easier to
manage and harvest than larger ponds. Ponds that are too small (less than about 5 acres
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 feet 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
4-8
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
(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 pounds/acre. 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 years.
Ponds are aerated to maintain DO 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 pounds/acre. 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 DO 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
300 to 500 pounds/acre. 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 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 2.5 feet deep (trout); 100
feet long, 10 feet wide, and 3 feet deep (trout and catfish); or a series of cells 30 feet long,
10 to 20 feet wide, and about 3 feet 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.
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
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 coldwater with high levels of DO.
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 pounds 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 DO 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 DO concentration of the culture water. Other facilities might add on-site
generated or liquid oxygen to supplement DO 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.
4-10
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
system create an effluent that is high in solids, nutrients, and biochemical oxygen demand
(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
4-11
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 square feet and a depth of
about 40 feet.
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
net pen and cage operations are anadromous salmonid species like Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar). Other Pacific salmon species, including pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha),
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
mykiss), 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 pounds 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.
4-12
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
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.
5 The information for this section was adapted from J. Rraeuter, et al., 2000, Preliminary Response to
EPA's Aquaculture Industry Regulatory Data Development Needs, Molluscan Shellfish Technical
Subgroup.
4-13
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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).
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
4-14
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 (ISA, 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
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
(USDA, 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 acres of water surface. For ease of harvest, most pond depths range
from 3 to 5 feet. The height of the levee is 1 to 2 feet above normal water stage
(freeboard and storage) (ISA, 2000a).
4-15
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 feet at the pipe and 3 feet on the shallow end. The
height of the levee for a watershed pond is around 3 feet 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 (ISA, 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 (ISA, 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 (ISA, 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 days 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
ounces 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 pounds. In the southeastern United States, 18 to 30 months
(two or three growing seasons) are required to produce a food-size channel catfish from
an egg (ISA, 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 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 years (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.
4-16
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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/acre. 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 inches in length, they are referred to as fingerlings.
Fingerlings ranging in age from 5 to 9 months and weighing 0.7 to 1.4 ounces 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 months 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/acre and average about 6,000 fish/acre. 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 pounds/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-
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
4-17
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 years, 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 years between renovations before being drained,
and the average time between pond drainings is over 6 years (USDA, 1997). On average,
producers drained ponds less often (every 6.4 years) 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 years). 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.
Table 4.3-1. Number of Years Between Drainings By Pond Type and Operation Size
Operation
Size (Ac)
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.
4-18
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Feed Management
Feed allowances in growout ponds average between 75 to 125 pounds/acre/day 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 pounds/acre/day
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 an FCR of 2.04 to 2.40 (Boyd
and Tucker, 1995). Much lower FCRs (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 FCR 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 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 (PGD), caused by the myxosporean
parasite, and "winter-kill syndrome," a disease associated with external fungal infections
4-19
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
(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 DO 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 month 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,
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 milligrams/liter 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 pesticides 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.
4-20
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 (ISA, 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 (ISA, 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 growout 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 DO.
Catfish need sustained levels of DO. Ideally, minimum DO concentrations need to be
between 4 and 5 milligrams/liter 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
DO to the system. By enhancing DO concentrations, aeration increases the capacity of
ponds to assimilate organic matter through aerobic processes. Higher DO 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
(ISA, 2000a). Furthermore, circulation can also improve water quality by increasing
4-21
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 (ISA, 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 (ISA,
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-year
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 BOD, chemical oxygen demand, total
ammonia, total nitrogen, nitrite, nitrate, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus,
suspended solids, and settleable solids.
4-22
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
(mgN/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
(0.03-4.44)
Total
Phosphorus
(mgP/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
(mg02/L)
26.1
(14.6^1.2)
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 (BODs), total ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, soluble
reactive phosphorus, nitrite, nitrate, total ammonia, suspended solids, volatile solids, and
settleable solids.
4-23
-------
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)
Kjeldahl
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
(0.05-4.71)
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
(mg02/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
4-24
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
concentration. Total ammonia nitrogen, soluble reactive phosphorus, and total
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 (ISA, 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 (ISA, 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 (ISA, 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 (ISA, 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 years) 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 years 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 years between drainings. Currently, the average time between production
pond drainings is more than 6 years.
4-25
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
The following is a summary of common practices in the catfish industry and the ways in
which they affect effluent quality.
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 draining s. Although nursery ponds are drained
annually, growout ponds are drained once every 5 to 10 (or more) years. 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 DO at 4.0
milligrams/liter 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 DO to the system. By
enhancing DO 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 inches below the height of the
overflow structure, about 160,000 to 325,000 gallons 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
4-26
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
(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,
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.
4-27
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
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 feet deep, 8 feet
wide, and 40 to 60 feet 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
feet wide, 80 to 150 feet long, and 2.5 to 3.5 feet deep (IDEQ, n.d.).
(a)
Raceway 1
Raceway 2
V ^
Raceway 3
%
r
Raceway 4
(b)
Source: Lawson, 1995a.
Figure 4.3-1. Raceway Units in Series (a) on Flat
Ground and (b) on Sloping Ground
4-28
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
— *
- Ih
Raceway 1
Raceway 2
Raceway 3
Raceway 4
-»
Source: Lawson, 1995a.
Figure 4.3-2. Raceway Units in Parallel
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 days 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
4-29
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 minutes, every 1 to 3 days (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,
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 days at 50 °F or 10 days 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 feet long, 12 to 18 inches wide, and 9 to 12 inches 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 inches,
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 inches, 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, DO concentration, pH, and fish size.
From the time fingerlings (about 3 inches) are stocked in raceways until they reach
marketable size (12 to 16 inches), 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 crowded
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
4-30
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
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 (BGD) 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 milligrams/liter (under an FDA-sponsored
Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) application) for 1 hour for 2 or 3 days.
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
4-31
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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. Facilities 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 reports from site visits conducted by
EPA, 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.
DO 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
4-32
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
aerators. Aeration or oxygenation can minimize the impact of DO 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.
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
How (mgd)
DO
(mg/L)
Temp
(°C)
pH (SU)
TSS
(mg/L)
FARM A
Met
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)
Within
Farm
3.2-13.3
(7.0)
11.5-15
(13)
7.0-7.4
(7.2)
0-30.4
(3.9)
Outlet
5.7-9.5
(8.5)
11-15.5
(12.9)
7.3-7.8
(7.5)
0.8-6
(3.2)
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)
Within
Farm
5.8-10.8
(8.6)
6-14 (9.1)
7.2-7.6
(7.4)
0^13.7
(5.3)
Outlet
6.8-9.6
(7.9)
5-16.5
(11.4)
6.9
1.5-7.5
(3.9)
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)
Within
Farm
4.8-9.7
(7.6)
8-14
(11.0)
7.1-7.6
(7.3)
0-28
(7.1)
Outlet
7.2-9.4
(8.1)
8.5-14
(10.4)
7.8
4.1-62
(6.1)a
4-33
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Parameter
SS
(ml/1)
BOD5
(mg/L)
DOC
(mg/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L)
FARM A
Inlet
NDb
0-1.25
(0.7)
0.93^.11
(2.1)
0.6
Within
Farm
0.5-3.9
(1.5)
0.9-7.9
(2.9)
0.2-1.1
(0.5)
Outlet
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
ND
0-1.4
(0.5)
0.91-2.56
(1.6)
0.2
Within
Farm
0.3-7.2
(2.1)
1.2-8.1
(2.7)
0.06-1.1
(0.5)
Outlet
0.01-0.08
(0.04)
0.6-2.4
(1.2)
1.2-3.1
(1.9)
0.45
FARMC
Inlet
ND
0-2.0
(1.1)
1.1-2.7
(2.0)
0.03
Within
Farm
0.4-7.5
(2.5)
1.1-11.1
(2.4)
0.03-2.2
(0.4)
Outlet
0.04-0.08
(0.07)
0.5-1.8
(1.3)
1.5-3.8
(2.3)
0.02-0.17
(0.1)
a Two outliers were not included in the calculation of mean.
bND: Non-detect
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
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-inch 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 hours.
The depth of a typical OLS pond is 3.5 feet, 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 months In Idaho most trout production operators remove the solids from OLS
ponds when TSS levels approach 100 milligrams/liter. 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
4-34
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
a: Racewa)
b: Parallel
Flow from
Quiescent
Zones
« and an off-line settling system. ^Quiescent Zones
Flow— »
Raceways
•-> Flow — >
• -i
• i
. _,
Flow to OLS ponds is less than 1% of
the total hatchery flow.
off-line settling ponds.
—
i
Quiescent Zone
i Cleaning Lines
4
1
Flow—*
Advantages of Pa red 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
the 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) ponds (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 7,800 centimeters/day
or 256 feet/day); 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.
4-35
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
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 concentrated aquatic animal production (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).
4-36
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 pounds 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. gorbuscha), chum (O. keta), sockeye (O.
nerka), chinook (O. tshawytscha), 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 weeks. In 2 to 6 months, the eggs hatch into translucent hatchlings
called alevins and obtain nutrition from their yolk sacs. After 3 to 4 months, the inch-long
salmon 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 months) in freshwater before moving to
sea. Chinook begin to move to sea within 6 months, while coho usually stay in freshwater
for up to 1 year, and sockeye salmon stay in freshwater for 1 to 3 years.
When they reach 2 inches 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 inches, 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 years, 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 years
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.
4-37
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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, up welling 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 years 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 months 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 DO, 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.
4-38
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Note: 36 Pens —50' xSO' with
3' wide walkways between
pens, 9' center walkway.
1" DIAMETER
ANCHOR
Detail
i m i i i i rrm
irrn
TT I I I
Examples of Various Pen Configurations
Source: WDF, 1990.
Figure 4.3-6. Example of a Fish Farm and Various Pen Configurations
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.
4-39
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 alevins 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 years 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).
Harvest Practices
A decade ago, the growout phase in net pens required at least 2 years. Today, salmon can
reach harvest size in 10 to 15 months 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 months in net pens, fish are
ready to harvest at weights ranging from 5 to 11 pounds (Novotny 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
4^0
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 pounds) 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
method 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 quart of solution with 100 parts per million
(active iodine) is applied to every 2,000 eggs for a period of 10 minutes, 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
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
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
Table 4.3-6. Hatchery Effluent Quality During Cleaning and Drawdown Events
Cleaning Events
Variable
PH
DO
TSS
Units
SU
mg/L
mg/L
Yakima Trout
Hatchery (Single
Raceway)
Normal
7.4
4.4
1
Cleaning
7.6
6.8
88
Aberdeen Trout
Hatchery (Multiple
Raceway Composite)
Normal
—
8.4
1
Cleaning
—
7.7
12
Drawdown Event, Naselle Salmon
Hatchery (Rearing Pond)
Prior to
Drawdown
7.6
9.8
7
Drawdown
Midpoint
6.7
7.0
30
Drawdown
Near End
7.1
12.1
94
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Cleaning Events
Variable
Total volatile
suspended
solids
Settleable
solids
Total Kjeldahl
nitrogen
Total
phosphorus
Chemical
oxygen
demand
Biochemical
oxygen
demand
(5-day)
Units
mg/L
mL/L
mg
N/L
mgP/L
mg/L
mg/L
Yakima Trout
Hatchery (Single
Raceway)
Normal
0
<0.1
0.43
0.22
6
3
Cleaning
69
2.5
1.7
4.0
130
32
Aberdeen Trout
Hatchery (Multiple
Raceway Composite)
Normal
<1
0.1
0.20
0.03
6
4
Cleaning
8
0.1
0.82
0.56
21
12
Drawdown Event, Naselle Salmon
Hatchery (Rearing Pond)
Prior to
Drawdown
3
0.1
0.30
0.03
6
<3
Drawdown
Midpoint
8
0.3
0.52
0.30
18
3
Drawdown
Near End
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 DO levels in Puget Sound except
during the summer or autumn at sites that had low background DO levels and did not
have adequate flushing (WDF, 1990). Overall, field measurements indicated that the area
affected by low DO 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 pounds/year farms showed an average increase of 0.0085 milligrams/liter 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
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.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association (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 farming
(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
foot). Sedimentation affects the benthic community by creating anaerobic conditions,
which can persist for up to 1.5 years or more (Erickson, 1999, personal communication).
Additional information about net pen water quality is available from Mosso et al., 2003.
-------
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 pounds in 1990 to
more than 10 million pounds in 1996 (Harrell and Webster, 1997).
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
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. americand). 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
inches) fingerlings in ponds feed on zooplankton until they reach about 0.2 inches 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
pounds/acre. 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 DO 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
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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).
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/pound (Harrell, 1997). In growout ponds
stocking densities range from about 74,000 to 150,000 larvae/acre, with harvest sizes
from 45 to 130 fish/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 days 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
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
pounds/acre/day. Producers use progressively larger feed sizes and increase the ration
sizes as the fish grow. Phase I usually takes 30 to 45 days when fish reach total lengths of
1.0 to 2.0 inches and weigh about 0.03 ounces (Kohler, 2000a). Survival rates greater
than 15% for white bass and 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 inch
total length (TL). Larger fish that are greater than 2.0 inches 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
year 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 acres, with a range between 1 and 10 acres (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.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
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
milligrams protein/kilocalorie 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
inches 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 pounds, 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
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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).
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 milligrams/liter) 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
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 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 milligrams/liter 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 grams/45
kilograms of fish per day for 10 days for treatment, and medicated feed containing
Romet-30 (sulfadimethoxine-ormetoprim) has been fed at a rate of 2 to 3 grams/45
4-50
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
kilograms 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
eggs is possible through daily treatments of formalin at a rate of approximately 600
milligrams/liter for a 15-minute 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 BODs of samples ranged from 2 to 60 milligrams/liter, 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
0-4.61
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
4-51
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
parameters associated with participate 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 BOD
were the water quality variables most elevated relative to the source water and would
have the greatest impact on receiving bodies of water.
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 week) 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.
4-52
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Mozambique tilapia can mature as early as 3 months after hatching; blue and Nile tilapia
mature after approximately 6 months (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).
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 pounds 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
more 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 coldwater 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
(Rakocy, 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 warmwater, such
as recycled wastewater that has been used to cool power plants or geothermally heated
water (Rakocy 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
4-53
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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).
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
milligrams/kilogram in their feed for 4 weeks beginning at the initiation of feeding. The
treated fry were raised in three 16-gallon tanks that contained no soil or gravel, 11 pounds
of soil, or 11 pounds of gravel, respectively. Methyl testosterone water levels peaked at
approximately 3.6 nanograms/milliliter at 28 days after the onset of feeding. The
concentration of methyl testosterone in water decreased to background levels (nondetect
to 0.02 nanograms/milliliter) in 1 to 2 weeks 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 weeks 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
nanograms/gram at the end of the 28-day treatment period. This level decreased to
approximately 3 nanograms/gram at 8 weeks after the end of the treatment period
(cessation of experiment). The methyl testosterone soil background level was 0.5
nanograms/gram at the beginning of the experiment. The methyl testosterone levels in the
gravel tank ranged from 22.9 to 99.2 nanograms/gram of fine sediment at 8 weeks after
the end of the treatment period. The authors suggested that the slow degradation of
4-54
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 pound, recommended stocking
levels drop to about nine fish per square foot (Rakocy, 1989). Most tilapia raised for
foodfish are harvested when they reach 1 pound. Depending on the quantity of food and
aeration inputs, tilapia can be raised from fry to harvestable sizes in 7 to 8 months
(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 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 (Rakocy 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, FCRs 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
4-55
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 DO fall beyond recommended ranges. Tilapia are more
tolerant of low DO 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 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 days
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.
4-56
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 pounds 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 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 years to grow bass to an adequate food-fish
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.
4-57
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 feet deep with no obstructions. Ponds are drained and completely dried in the fall
to get rid of predacious insects, fishes, and diseases. Some operators sow 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 days before
stocking to prevent the buildup of predacious insects. Well water or surface water, which
is filtered through 52 mesh/inch saran socks, are both acceptable for filling the ponds
(Davis and Lock, 1997).
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 inches) 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/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 weeks after stocking, when they are approximately 1.5 inches
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 hour 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
4-58
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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,
4.3.6.3 Carp
Several species of carp (family Cyprinidaej 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 idella) is commercially produced in the United States
primarily for use in controlling aquatic vegetation. This species is very controversial
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 days, and the fish feed off of their attached yolk sacs. After 3 days, 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 inches 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 inches 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
4-59
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 years 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
commercial production. In larval flow-through systems, 100-liter 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 cubic feet 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 years. 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 grams before being netted and graded into larger
4-60
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
tanks. Tanks may be round or square and range in size from 106 to 212 cubic feet.
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 grams in five months 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 months (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 poly chlorinated 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).
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 years
to mature. They are generally raised in circular tanks with an average diameter of 8 feet,
allowing them to swim continuously and aerate their gills; however, tanks can be larger.
Culture Practices
Approximately 2 weeks 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 pounds/acre. 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 days. The fry absorb residual yolk in
5 to 6 days, 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/acre in the
prepared (fertilized) earthen ponds, where they feed on the Daphnia or insect larvae. At
the age of about 5 to 6 weeks 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 pounds/acre, and after about 3 to 4 weeks, when the fish are 3
inches, they can eat 1/16-inch extruded pellets. In about 6 months, fish can grow to up to
4-61
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
14 inches long and 0.33 pounds in weight. The fish can be harvested easily with gill nets
or seines.
Paddlefish fingerlings (less than 10 inches) 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
weeks, when the fish are 3 inches long, they can eat 1/16-inch extruded pellets. The
pellets can be provided by automatic feeders every 15 to 20 minutes for about 7 to 10
days; then both automatic and hand feeding can be used to feed every 2 hours 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 weeks, fry should
be about 2 inches in length and should be reduced to 2.5 fish per gallon. At 4 weeks after
stocking, fish should be about 4 inches 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).
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 pound 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).
4-62
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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,
Migrating Atlantic sturgeons are captured with gill nets, transported to hatcheries, and
placed in either 0.25-acre freshwater earthen ponds or round fiberglass tanks. The fish are
held for 12 to 13 days 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
minutes, and fertilized eggs are stirred and washed for 10 to 30 minutes before being
placed in MacDonald hatching jars. Yolk sacs are absorbed by fry 9 to 11 days 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 days after hatching, after which the fry actively swim and feed on live brine
shrimp nauplii. When the fry reach a length of about 1 inch, 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 weeks, and males up to 6
weeks, 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 milligrams/liter for 10 minutes using a constant-flow method)
to prevent fungus development. Larvae are raised in fiberglass and aluminum troughs.
The troughs are 8 feet long, 1.5 feet wide, and 8 inches deep, and they are connected to a
flow-through freshwater system, which has regular applications of formalin (1.775
milligrams/liter for 1 hour) and occasional applications of streptomycin/penicillin. After
1 week, 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-acre outdoor ponds (mean depth about 5
feet) where they feed on the ponds' benthic fauna and supplemental dry rations. They can
also be raised indoors in 12-feet-diameter, 2.5-feet-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-acre ponds or cylindrical and raceway tanks
(with a volume of 190 to 2,300 gallons) supplied with recirculated water. Tank-held
4-63
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 DO levels, traces of hydrogen sulfide, and accumulation of organic loads on
the bottom of holding tanks. Streptococcus spp. can be treated with erythromycin (100
milligrams/kilogram body weight daily for 10 days), and Edwardsiella tarda can be
treated with daily oxytetracycline baths (Francis-Floyd, 2000).
4.3.6.7 Sunfish Family
Sunfish are produced for sport and foodfish, forage fish for predators including bass, and
stacker 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
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
millimeters. 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.
4-64
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Production Systems
Most culture of sunfish occurs in ponds. Spawning ponds should be less than 3 acres and
2 to 5 feet deep, with a smooth, evenly sloped bottom. It is recommended that the ponds
be filled at least 2 to 4 weeks 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 (Branson 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 inches before
harvesting because smaller-sized fish stress easily (Branson and Robinette, 2000).
Both Pomoxis species are cultured similarly. Usually, 2-year-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 (Branson and Robinette, 2000).
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
4-65
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
agricultural lime (CaCOs) 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 inches 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 inches
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 acres), 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.
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 inches in size),
sampling can be done through nighttime seining (Summerfelt, 2000).
4-66
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 inches 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 inches, 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 inches 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
controlled water temperature allows for a 12-month 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 pounds/year 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 pounds/year. 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
4-67
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 months to grow yellow perch to a harvest size of 0.25 pounds. 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
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.
4-68
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 acres 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 non-native 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 acres,
while ponds for fathead minnows are usually up to 10 acres (Stone, 2000). Ponds for
goldfish are even smaller, with an average pond size of 2 acres. Water depth is relatively
shallow, ranging from 2.5 to 6 feet 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 pounds/acre.
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 days.
4-69
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
days) than that in Arkansas (180 days); 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
pounds/acre/day, then gradually increase to 10 or 15 pounds/acre/day. 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
pounds/acre 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 pounds/acre for golden shiners and fathead minnows, and 790 pounds/acre for
goldfish (Collins and Stone, 1999). In contrast, foodfish raised in ponds are stocked at
approximately 6,000 pounds/acre.
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
4-70
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 inches 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 foot 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.
Few data are 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
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
4-71
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 (ISA,
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.
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 feet in length,
20 to 30 feet wide, and 5 to 6 feet deep. Farmers often cover outdoor ponds and tanks
4-72
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 square feet) 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 months, 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 years (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 (ISA, 2000b). Stocking densities are higher in
recirculating systems than in ponds, approaching 15 fish/gallon without oxygen injection
and 58 fish/gallon 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
ounces and length between 0.8 and 6 inches. Aquarium fish usually live from 6 to 10
years; however, some koi have been recorded as living as long as 70 to 80 years
(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.
4-73
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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. Guitarists 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 weeks 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 months 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.
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,
4-74
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
nalidixic acid, potassium permanganate, and copper sulfate (Chapman, 2000). Drugs are
not often used in pond systems because of the high cost to treat a large volume of water.
Drugs 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 are few 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 square feet, with
approximately 80,000 gallons 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 (ISA, 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 (Iversen 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 pounds/year with a value of $9.3 million. Hawaii,
with 12 farms, produced 197,000 pounds with a value of $1.7 million. South Carolina,
with six farms, produced approximately 43,000 pounds of shrimp annually. Overall, there
are 42 shrimp farms in the United States that produce a total of 4.2 million pounds/year
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.
4.3.9.1 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
4-75
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
outlets to fill and drain the pond. The gates are covered with screens to keep out
unwanted predators and to prevent the escape of non-native 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 months (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 square feet. The
tanks are about 13 feet 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/gallon (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 days
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.
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 months 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/acre. Adult shrimp are harvested in the fall (September through
4-76
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
November) approximately 140 to 170 days 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 x/2 to 1 hour 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 (Iversen 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
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
4-77
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 DO 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 non-native 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/square meter 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/square foot. 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.
4-78
-------
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 4.1/Square Foot
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 DO 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 pounds of
shrimp on 345 acres, or approximately 4,000 pounds/acre, in a semiclosed system
(Treece, 2000). The farm decreased its water use from 4,500 gallons/pound of shrimp
produced in 1994 to 300 gallons/pound 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 to 3.3 shrimp/square foot and increased its aeration from
8 tolO horsepower/acre (Fish Farming News, 2000). Research and industry practices
have demonstrated that water exchange rates can be reduced without affecting shrimp
production as long as DO 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 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 DO 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
4-79
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
example, as stocking densities increase, the quality of effluents deteriorates. In a study by
Dierberg and Kiattisimkul (1996), data presented (Table 4.3-10) show average
concentrations of water quality variables in effluent from shrimp (P. monodori) stocked at
different rates. The quality of effluent declines for stocking densities above
3.7 shrimp/foot.
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 (BODs), 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 BODs
and TSS concentrations often are about 50 milligrams/liter and 1,000 milligrams/liter,
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 BODs 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 hours 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 ofPenaeus 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 (ug/L)
Stocking Density (shrimp/ft2)
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-acre
settling area where discharged pond water remains for 2 days before being discharged
into receiving waters. Another facility uses weirs to allow discharged water to drop 10
feet 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
4-80
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
during harvest. This facility also uses weirs so that the water discharged drops 10 feet
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
standard of 6 milligrams/liter. 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 days
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 acres 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 days after stocking. Routine water exchange rates of 10% to
20% occur until DO level fluctuations stabilize. Each pond is equipped with six to fifteen
8-inch pipes and one 35-inch 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
(Iversen 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
days, 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 termjuvenile 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
4-81
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
ponds range from 1 to 5 acres, but some producers use larger ponds. Ponds are usually
rectangular with a minimum depth of 2 to 3 feet at the shallow end and a maximum depth
of 3.5 to 5 feet at the deep end (D'Abramo and Branson, 1996b).
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 Branson, 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 days in the southern
United States (D'Abramo and Branson, 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 Branson, 1996b). Some producers selectively harvest large prawns 4 to 6
weeks 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 pounds 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
Branson, 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 DO levels
and prevent thermal stratification. Farmers monitor dissolved levels in the bottom 1 foot
of the pond water to make sure that DO concentrations do not fall below 3 parts per
million. A common method in freshwater prawn culture is the use of full-time or nightly
aeration. Farmers typically use 1 horsepower/acre (D'Abramo and Branson, 1996b).
Because standing crops rarely exceed 1,000 pounds/acre, 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).
4-82
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
There are very few data available in the literature describing the characteristics of
effluent from freshwater shrimp ponds or effluent management practices associated with
these ponds.
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 pounds of crawfish with a value of $26.7 million were
produced in Louisiana on more than 143,000 acres 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 pounds of adult crawfish per acre (new ponds
only)
May-June Drain pond over a 2- to 4-week period
4-83
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 months longer because there is no overlap with
planting, 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 inches) and then flood the field
6 to 8 weeks 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 inches high), stock 50 to 60
pounds 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
4-84
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
In rice-crawfish-soybeans rotations, three crops are produced in 2 years. 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
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-acre 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
4-85
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
DO concentrations in crawfish pond effluents ranged from 0.4 to 12.6 milligrams/liter.
The concentration in effluent in fall (mean = 6.5 milligrams/liter) was higher than the
concentration in winter (mean = 4.7 milligrams/liter), spring (mean = 4.9
milligrams/liter), and summer (mean = 4.3 milligrams/liter). Ponds with native vegetation
had the lowest concentration of DO in effluents (mean = less than 3.5 milligrams/liter)
because relatively high quantities of vegetative biomass depleted oxygen in the ponds.
Total solids concentration in the spring and summer ranged from 143 to 2,431
milligrams/liter (mean = 522 milligrams/liter), and total volatile solids ranged from 0 to
432 milligrams/liter (mean = 96 milligrams/liter). Effluents from ponds with native
vegetation had significantly lower concentrations of total solids and total volatile solids in
spring and summer (mean = 286 and 69 milligrams/liter, respectively) than in rice ponds
(mean = 646 and 113 milligrams/liter) and sorgham-sudan grass ponds (mean = 578 and
92 milligrams/liter). Soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.002 to
0.653 milligrams/liter (mean + 0.116 milligrams/liter), and total phosphorus
concentrations ranged from 0.039 to 1.126 milligrams/liter (mean = 0.329
milligrams/liter).
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 pond systems, the most important water quality concern in crawfish ponds is
the level of DO. DO should be maintained above 3 milligrams/liter for optimal crawfish
production (LSU, 1999). Problems with DO 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 DO, some crawfish farmers use
paddlewheel aerators coupled with diversion levees in the pond to improve circulation
and maintain adequate DO 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
4-86
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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,
2002d). There is also cooperation with the 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 DO
levels are a concern, particularly as vegetation decays, crawfish farmers routinely check
levels and use BMPs and technologies like mechanical aeration to maintain appropriate
DO 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 top soil 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).
4-87
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
In 2000, 57 million pounds 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 pounds, 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.
4.3.11.1 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 pound 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 pounds of fish per day per 5,000 lobsters (Hodgkins, 2002,
personal communication; Tetra Tech, 2002e). Winter is the primary pounding season in
4-88
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Maine. On average, lobsters are fed for 40 days 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 months), 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 Gaffkemid) 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;
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 months
(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 years (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 oxytetracycline (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 oxytetracycline in a
pound season. Treatments with medicated feeds usually last 5 days before pound keepers
switch back to regular feed, and pound keepers commonly use the drug for two cycles, or
10 days, in a pound season. Oxytetracycline is administered through medicated feed at
approximately 6 to 8 pounds of feed per 1,000 pounds of lobster. As temperatures drop,
feeding rates also decline to 3 to 5 pounds of feed per 1,000 pounds of lobster. Assuming
an average facility holds 70,000 pounds of lobster, a facility would use roughly 3,850
pounds of medicated feed in a year. (For the entire industry, this would be approximately
127,050 pounds 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,
oxytetracycline is the only FDA-approved medication for lobsters (Bayer, 2002, personal
communication). Generally, this is the only drug used by lobster pound facilities.
4-89
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
4.3.11.3 Water Quality Management Practices
Mechanical aeration enhances DO levels in lobster pounds. Approximately two-thirds of
lobster pound facilities in Maine use mechanical aeration, especially in months with
warmwater 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
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
DO 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 (ISA, 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 feet deep, forming a reef-like mass on firm bottom. Depending on the
geographic location, oysters take from 18 to 48 months to reach market size
(ISA, 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 feet 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
4-90
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 months to reach
market size. Two additional species may be produced commercially in the near future:
the geoduck (Panope abruptd) 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 feet deep. These aggregations may be on hard substrate or
stabilized muds or sands. Both species typically reach commercial size in 19 to 24
months.
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
through Florida and is often associated with beds of eelgrass (ISA, 2000c). Cultured
scallops reach commercial size in 10 to 24 months 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 feet), is the most common bottom
culture in the United States. Intertidal techniques vary and are dependent on the species
4-91
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 feet 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
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 gallons. This process is a batch culture, and water is
typically exchanged every 2 days (Kraeuter et al., 2000). The conditioning phase takes
approximately 6 to 8 weeks. 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.
4-92
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 gallons) 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 days. 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 days.
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 days, and individuals may remain in the
tank for 1 to 3 weeks before they are placed in a field nursery. Clams, scallops, and
mussels are 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 weeks 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 to 10-20 millimeters (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.
4-93
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 gallons/day, 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.
Health Management
Drug and pesticide 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 (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 DO 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 pounds of nitrogen from the water column and that
sustainable harvest of the population would completely remove 17,000 pounds 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
4-94
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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
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 USFWS 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
4-95
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 feet and an age of 9 to 10 years. 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.
4.3.13.1 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 years,
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
4-96
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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).
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 acres 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 feet.
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
4-97
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 days 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 hours 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
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
days. 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 foot 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 square
foot/animal until the animal reaches 2 feet in length; 3 square feet/animal until the animal
reaches 4 feet in length; and 6 square feet/animal until the animal reaches 6 feet in length.
A common construction plan uses a 5,000-square foot building with an aisle down the
middle and pens on either side. A 4-foot aisle creates pens that are approximately 14 feet
wide. Pens are usually 13 feet long with a 3-foot concrete block separating individual
pens from the aisle. Another popular building design is the single round house, a structure
about 15 to 25 feet 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
4-98
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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. Warmwater 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
warmwater 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 feet 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.
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 days/week. 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 years old or a
length of 6 feet. 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 inches 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 feet in 14 months, and some producers have grown alligators to 6 feet in 24 months
(Masser, 2000).
Health Management
There is very little information available in the literature to characterize drug and
pesticide 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
4-99
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 milligrams/liter 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.
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
4-100
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 (Chen et al., 2002; Losordo and Timmons, 1994).
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.
For net pen systems, limited nearshore sites are available for AAP, 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
In evaluating the detailed industry survey data related to facility annual production, EPA
identified several variables distinguishing various types of facilities. CAAP facilities
varied by type of facility operation (species and production system) 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
based on the responses provided by individual facilities to the detailed industry survey.
For the final regulation, EPA grouped facilities into two size categories:
• < 100,000 pounds annual production
• >100,000 pounds annual production
For the purposes of estimating costs, loads, economic impacts, and non-water quality
impacts (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.
4-101
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
EPA used the results of the production rate thresholds to exclude facilities annually
producing less than 100,000 pounds from the scope of the rule because the Agency
anticipates that the technologies on which the options are based would not be
economically achievable (and in some cases would be cost-prohibitive) for the facilities
with the lowest production threshold (the smallest facilities).
4.6 INDUSTRY DEFINITION
The AAP 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 SBA size standards of $750,000, while the SBA 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 15-11. 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 ofSalmonid Culture, ed. W. Pennell and B.A. Burton, pp. 291-364.
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4-102
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
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 ofBiosecure 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, andP.A. Sandifer. 1996. Shrimp Farm Management:
Meeting the Challenges. Waddell Mariculture Center, Proceedings of the
International Forum of Shrimp Culture, August 1, 1996.
Branson, 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. brevirostrum), 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.
4-103
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Chapman, F.A. 2000. Ornamental Fish Culture, Freshwater. In Encyclopedia of
Aquaculture, ed. R.R. Stickney, pp. 602-610. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
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.
Clarke, W.C., R.L. Saunders, and S.D. McCormick. 1996. Smolt Production. In
Principles ofSalmonid Culture, ed. W. Pennell and B.A. Burton, pp. 517-567.
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
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, CA.
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. Branson. 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. Branson. 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., andR. P. Romaire. 1990b. Crawfish Culture: Site Selection,
Pond Construction and Water Quality. SRAC publication no. 240. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
4-104
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Deniseger, J., and LJ. 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.
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.
4-105
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
.
Accessed January 2002.
Gunderson J.L., and P. Tucker. 2000. A White Paper on the Status of Needs ofBaitfish
Aquaculture in the North Central Region. Draft document. North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center, Lansing, MI.
Haamer, J. 1996. Improving Water Quality in a Eutrophied Fjord System with Mussel
Farming. Ambio 25(5):356-362.
Hardy, R.W., G.C.G. Fornshell, and E.L. Brannon. 2000. Rainbow Trout Culture. In
Encyclopedia of Aquaculture, 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. 15-91. 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.
4-106
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 DO 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.
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.
4-107
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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, andM. Rice. 2000. Preliminary Response to EPA's Aquaculture
Industry Regulatory Development Data Needs. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
Molluscan Shellfish Aquaculture Technical Subgroup, Washington, DC.
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.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Loyless, J.C., and R.F. Malone. 1997. A Sodium Bicarbonate Dosing Methodology for
pH Management in Freshwater-Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. The Progressive
Fish-Culturist 59:198-205.
Loyless J.C., and R.F. Malone. 1998. Evaluation of Airlift Pump Capabilities for Water
Delivery, Aeration, and Degasification for Application to Recirculating Aquaculture
Systems. Aquacultural Engineering 18:117-133.
LSU (Louisiana State University). 1999. Crawfish Production Manual. Publication no.
2637. Louisiana State University, Agricultural Center, Louisiana Cooperative
Extension Service, Baton Rouge, LA.
Maine. 2002. Maine Landing Statistics for 2000. Maine Department of Marine
Resources. . 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.
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, andD.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, andR.J. Onders. 1999, November. Production of
Paddlefish. SRAC publication no. 437. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
Stoneville, MS.
Mosso, D., J. Harcum, and J. Hochheimer. 2003. Water Quality and Sediment/Benthic
Impacts and Modeling Tools used in Assessment at Net Pen Facilities. Tetra Tech,
Inc., Fairfax, Virginia.
Nash, C., ed. 2001, September. The Net-Pen Salmon Farming Industry in the Pacific
Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFS-49.
4-109
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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 DO 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 Bio engineering 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.
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.
4-110
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
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.
4-112
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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.
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.
4-113
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
Tucker, C.S. 2000. Channel Catfish Culture. In the Encyclopedia ofAquaculture, 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., andE.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 ofAquaculture 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, USD A/APHIS, Fort Collins, CO.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. The 1998 Census ofAquaculture. 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.
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.
4-114
-------
Chapter 4: Industry Profiles
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. Branson. 1997. Construction of Levee-type Ponds for Fish
Production, SRAC publication no. 101. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
Stoneville, MS.
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 ISA (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.
4-115
-------
CHAPTER 5
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION FOR EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to consider a number of different factors
when developing effluent limitations guidelines. 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 and detailed 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
5-1
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
• Facility age
• Facility location
• 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 CAAP facilities. The following sections show the basis for
EPA's decisions relating to subcategorization.
5.1.1 System Type
There are several groups of AAP systems: ponds, flow-through systems, recirculating
systems, net pens, bottom and off-bottom shellfish culture, shellfish hatcheries,
aquariums, 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 acre to more than 10 acres and typically
have average depths of 3.5 to 6 feet. Once full of water, the ponds remain static in terms
of water movement until rainfall events, operators add water, or operators drain the ponds
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.
5-2
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
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 acres of
watershed for each 1 acre 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. Draining less than once a year 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
5-5
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
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.
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. Although a widely accepted formal definition for recirculating systems does
not exist, these systems are generally distinguished by some form of engineered
biological treatment that allows for extended water reuse. EPA uses the term
"engineered" biological treatment to distinguish a recirculating system from a pond,
which has a "natural" biological treatment process that allows for extended water reuse.
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 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
Net pens are floating structures in which nets are suspended into the water column in
coastal waters and the open ocean. Net pen systems typically are located along a shore or
pier or may be anchored and floating offshore. The most significant net pen operations
are salmon net pens located in the northeastern and northwestern 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, and feed is added to the net pens.
Net pens are distinct from cages, which are generally relatively small structures with rigid
frames covered with wire mesh or netting, used most often in freshwater environments
(Stickney, 2002). Production in cages is very limited because of a lack of currents (tides).
5.1.1.5 Floating and Bottom Culture
Floating and bottom culture systems are used to grow molluscan shellfish in various
coastal water environments. As in net pen culture, the flushing action of tides and
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
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 Shellfish Hatcheries and Nurseries
Shellfish 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). Shellfish 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).
Fertilizers used in hatcheries to grow algae 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.
5.1.1.7 Aquariums
Aquariums are used to culture ornamental or tropical fish primarily for the home
aquarium where fish are kept as a hobby or as pets. 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 and detailed surveys, 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.
5.1.1.8 Other Facility Types
Other AAP 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 descriptions is the crawfish pond. Although
somewhat similar in appearance to other pond systems, crawfish ponds are shallow
(typically less than 18 inches 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.
5-5
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
5.1.1.9 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 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
(gal/lb
production)"
214
6,490-63,300
32,900
394
16
N/A
Discharge
Frequency
Infrequent
Continuous
Varies from
infrequent to
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
aAdapted from Chen et al, 2002.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
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.
Recirculating systems also produce overtopping water, which is system water displaced
by make-up water added to maintain water quality and replace water lost in solids
removal. Overtopping water may contain some suspended solids and is similar in quality
to water discharged from settling basins. 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
5-6
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
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
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 CAAP 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, 2004 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:
5-7
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
• 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
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, 2004).
5.1.9 Summary of Initial Factor Analysis
EPA did not find that the age of a facility or its equipment or the facility's location
significantly affected 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 those characteristics did not constitute a basis for subcategorization either.
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 AAP facilities.
EPA also identified types of production systems (e.g., flow-through, recirculating, 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.
5-8
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
5.2 FINAL CATEGORIES
In the final rule, EPA requires limitations and conditions for two subcategories.
Specifically, EPA requires new limitations and standards for facilities in the following
CAAP subcategories: (1) flow-through and recirculating systems and (2) net pens. The
final guidelines do not revise the existing definition of a CAAP as described in Chapters
1 and 2.
Minimum facility sizes used in subcategorization are based either on the current NPDES
definition of a CAAP or at a higher level of production based on economic impacts. The
NPDES definition sets the minimum frequency of discharge at 30 days/year and a
minimum production level of 20,000 pounds/year for coldwater species (e.g., trout and
salmon) and 100,000 pounds/year for warmwater species (e.g., catfish, hybrid striped
bass, and shrimp). The following is a more detailed description of each subcategory
based on its production processes and wastewater characteristics.
5.2.1 Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
For the flow-through and recirculating system subcategory, EPA is requiring all flow-
through and recirculating facilities that produce at least 100,000 pounds/year of aquatic
animals to be regulated by the same production-based effluent limitations guidelines.
5.2.2 Net Pen Systems
For the net pen system subcategory, EPA is requiring all facilities that produce at least
100,000 pounds/year of aquatic animals using net pens 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.
Kraeuter, J., B. Dewey, andM. Rice. 2000. Preliminary Response to EPA''s Aquaculture
Industry Regulatory Development Data Needs. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
Molluscan Shellfish Aquaculture Technical Subgroup, Washington, DC.
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.
J. Tomasso, pp. 105-118. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World
Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
5-9
-------
Chapter 5: Industry Subcategorizationfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
USD A (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). 2004. Economic and Environmental
Impact Analysis of the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-
R-04-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Wikfors, G.H. 1999. Personal communication to TimMotte, Coastal Resources
Management Council. Cited in ISA (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture), Comments
Submitted to EPA in Response to Draft Industry Profile: Molluscan Shellfish.
5-10
-------
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.
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 (DO), heavy solids
loads, and biological contaminants such as predator fish and insects.
Source water treatment systems are designed specifically to treat specific contaminants 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 only needs aeration before use. Surface
waters may contain one or more of a variety of contaminants including solids loads, wild
fish, parasites, waterborne predators, and disease organisms. Surface waters are often
filtered with fine mesh screens to remove these contaminants before use (Wheaton,
1977a). 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
6-1
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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
levels, but most commercial AAP 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-acre pond with an average depth of 4 feet holds about 13
million gallons of water. Adding 3 inches of water to compensate for evaporation
requires about 815,000 gallons of water in a 10-acre 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 acres of surface area and from 3 to 5 feet in depth
(Hargreaves et al., 2002). Striped bass are cultured in ponds with an average size of 2 to 4
acres as fingerlings and then moved to growout ponds with 5 to 10 acres of surface area
and a maximum depth of 6 feet (Hodson and Jarvis, 1990). Crawfish production ponds
typically range in size from 10 to 20 acres (LSU, 1999).
Water use in pond systems varies based on the size and draining frequency of the pond.
For example, a 10-acre catfish pond with a depth of 4 feet would contain about 13 million
gallons of water, but the water would be used for an average of 6 years before being
discharged (Boyd et al., 2000). Striped bass, shrimp, and crawfish production ponds are
drained annually. Crawfish ponds usually are managed to a depth of about 8 to 10 inches
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 gallons/acre/year
(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. As such, flow-through systems do not consume water but only flow
water through production units for a relatively short period of time, typically less than an
6-2
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
hour. The water is used to provide DO and to flush wastes from the system, producing 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.
Flow-through systems require high volumes of water. Water requirements for single-pass
raceways can be as high as 30,000 to 42,000 gallons/pound production; however, this
requirement can be reduced to 6,600 gallons/pound 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 coldwater with high levels of DO. Flow-through
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, may complete one
water exchange every 10 days; 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 DO. Net
pens and cages rely on tides and currents to provide a constant 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
6-3
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
practices practiced at the facility. Water use estimates for the alligator industry varied
between 0.5 and 2 gallons/alligator/day (Pardue et al., 1994; Shirley, 2002, personal
communication).
6.2 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Concentrated aquatic animal production (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 pesticides).
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 (ISA, 2000). Total nitrogen (TN) 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 (TP) 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 ponds, the most important constituents of potential effluents are nitrogen,
phosphorus, organic matter, and settleable solids (SS) (ISA, 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
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
present in the pond water throughout the growout period, and they represent potential
pollutants if discharged.
Table 6.2-1 shows effluent loadings for TSS, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODs), TN, and 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
years, 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 fry
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)
BODS
(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 years 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 typically drain their ponds more frequently because they
must be drained and completely harvested before restocking. To avoid draining the
6-5
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
ponds, some fanners 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.
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)
BOD (mg/L)
Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)
Total ammonia (mg N/L)
Nitrite (mg N/L)
Nitrate (mg N/L)
TP (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
0-4.61
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 pounds/acre and for catfish fingerling ponds about 4,000 pounds/acre. 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 BODs, 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 BODs
and TSS concentrations often are about 50 and 1,000 milligrams/liter, respectively (Boyd,
2000).
6-6
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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
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, 2002b).
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)
BOD5
5
10
50
-
TSS
100
150
1,000
-
Load (Ib/ac)
BOD5
107
71
89
267
TSS
2,142
1,071
1,785
4,998
Source: Boyd, 2000.
South Carolina shrimp farmers 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 are few 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 square feet
with approximately 80,000 gallons of water, ornamental culture facilities typically
discharge the volume of one pond, or less, per year (Watson, 2002 personal
communication). There are also very few 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.).
6-7
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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 AAP systems that rely on pelleted feed, feed
management practices will not significantly affect water quality because the feed input is
so low. Also, although DO 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 DO levels. Very few
data are available on water quality within 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 DO, temperature, pH, SS, TSS, total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), BODs, 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 parameters (DO, BODs, TSS, SS,
and ammonia-nitrogen (NHs-N)) 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 (mgd)
DO
(mg/L)
Temperature
(°C)
pH (SU)
TSS
(mg/L)
SS
(mg/L)
BOD5
(mg/L)
DOC
(mg/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L)
FARMA
Met
1.03-1.54"
(1.18?
9.2-14.2
(10.6)
10.5-13
(12.2)
7.1-7.4
(7J)
0-1.1
(0.2)
NDd
0-1.25
(0.7)
0.93^.11
(2.7)
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
(S.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
(1.3)
1.5-2.4
(1.9)
0.5-0.6
(0.6)
FARMB
Met
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)
ND
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
(2.7)
1.2-8.1
(2.7)
0.06-1.1
(0.5)
Outlet
6.8-9.6
(7.9)
5-16.5
(77.4)
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
(OJ)
ND
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
(10.4)
7.8
4.1-62
(6.1Y
0.04-0.08
(0.07)
0.5-1.8
(7.5)
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.
d ND: Non-detect
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.
6-9
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Table 6.2-5. Flow-through Sampling Data
Parameter
BOD (mg/L)
Flow (mgd)
pH(SU)
TP (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
Facility A
Inlet
ND(4)a
192.4
7.98-8.14
(8.05)
0.7-0.25
(0.14)
ND(4)
OLSB*
Effluent
56.0-185.0b
(125.70)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
(0.21)
ND(4)
Facility B
Inlet
ND(2)
2.481-2.777
7.73-8.06
(7-93)
0.02-0.03
(0.05)
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 NE>: Non-detect, the minimum level is listed in parenthesis.
b When available the range of values has been reported.
0 The average is indicated using italics.
d OLSB=Offline settling basin
Source: Tetra Tech, 2001a; Tetra Tech 2002a.
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 Barna
Parameter
Primary
settling 1
inflow
Primary
settling 2
TKN
(mg/L)
50.3
47.5
NH3-N
(mg/L)
2.96
2 42
NO2-N
(mg/L)
5.35
31.17
NO3-N
(mg/L)
109.0
78.5
TP
(mg/L)
28.6
22.7
POfP
(mg/L)
5.98
11.50
COD
(mg/L)
1043
690
TS
(%)
0.22
0.18
TSS
(mg/L)
752
364
6-10
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Parameter
inflow
Septic tank
2 outflow
Receiving
pond
effluent
TKN
(mg/L)
37.7
8.94
NHrN
(mg/L)
3.42
0.12
NO2-N
(mg/L)
44.00
1.93
NOrN
(mg/L)
36.4
8.2
TP
(mg/L)
17.6
4.95
POfP
(mg/L)
12.20
3.68
COD
(mg/L)
409
153
TS
(%)
0.16
0.11
TSS
(mg/L)
205
44
a Results are from sampling conducted 4 weeks after startup of the waste handling system. Flow from the
system into the receiving pond for the sampling period was 15.5 cubic meter/day.
Source: Chen et al., 2002.
Note: NO2-N = nitrite-nitrogen; NO3-N = nitrate-nitrogen, PO4-P = phosphate-phosphorous, COD =
chemical oxygen demand, TS = total solids
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 DO, and the accumulation of sediments under the pens or
cages can affect the local environment through eutrophication and degradation of benthic
communities (Stickney, 2002).
Table 6.2-7. Recirculating System Sampling Data
Parameter
BOD (mg/L)
Flow (mgd)
pH (SU)
TP (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
Facility C
Inlet
ND(2)a
0.22
7.8
ND (0.01)
ND(4)
Discharge
35.0-48.0b
(42.0)c
0.22
6.97-7.25
(7.15)
8.58-10.50
(9.52)
26.0-60.0
(42.80)
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: Tetra Tech, 200 Ib.
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.
6-11
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Table 6.2-8. Alligator Wastewater Characteristics
Parameter
BOD5
Total solids
Volatile solids
TP
Ammonia
Nitrate
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
water conservation measures include seepage reduction, building watershed ponds with
watershed-to-pond area ratios of 10 or less, and maintaining 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
Flow-through systems do not consume or hold water for long periods. Typically water in
a flow-through system is in a production unit for less than an hour. The opportunities to
use lower volumes of 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 gallons/pound to much lower rates of 6,600 gallons/pound.
Facilities reusing multi-pass serial raceways must use active or passive aeration systems
in order to maintain adequate DO 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 DO content of the culture water
(Wheaton, 1977b).
6-12
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
Facilities with insufficient head to passively aerate must use mechanical aeration systems
to increase the DO 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
pound/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 less than
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
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 (POC): (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 POCs. 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
level (ML) (ML is the level at which an analytical system gives recognizable signals and
an acceptable calibration point); (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 POCs are
presented in Appendix C.
6-13
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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 National Permit Discharge Elimination System (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 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, BOD,
chemical oxygen demand (COD), chlorine, nitrate, nitrite, oil and grease, OP, pH, SS,
TKN, TP, and TSS), metals (aluminum, barium, boron, copper, iron, manganese,
selenium, and zinc), microbiologicals (Aeromonas, fecal streptococcus, and total
coliforms), organic chemicals, and hexanoic acid.
6.4.2 Methodology for 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 CAAP 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 can be sufficient in some cases.
Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which EPA establishes numerical effluent
limitations and standards. EPA evaluated a POC for regulation in a subcategory using the
following criteria:
• Not considered a volatile compound.
• Effectively treated by the selected treatment technology option.
6-14
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
• 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, suspended solids, and
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 DO 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.
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. Proper management of flow-through and recirculating systems captures most of
the generated solids, which must then be properly disposed of. 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, 2002).
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 photo synthetic activity and
oxygen production by plants and phytoplankton. If sunlight is completely blocked from
bottom-dwelling plants, the plants stop producing oxygen and die. As the plants
decompose, bacteria use up more of the oxygen and decrease DO levels further.
Subsequently, low DO can cause fish kills. Decreased growth of aquatic plants also
affects a variety of aquatic life that 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 DO because warmwater holds
less DO than coldwater.
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 may harm fish development (Colt and Tomasso, 2001). 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 (NTUs) and a decline in sunfish, bass, chub, and catfish
when monthly turbidity exceeds 100 NTUs (Schueler and Holland, 2000).
6-15
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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 DO 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
The two major nutrients found in CAAP discharges are nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrogen from CAAP facilities is typically discharged nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and
organic nitrogen. Most of the nitrogen from these facilities 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 DO 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.
Excess nutrients in receiving waters can lead to nutrient overenrichment which can then
result in overgrowth of plants, murky water, low DO, 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 the activity of microbes, such as
Pfiesteria piscicida that may be harmful to human health (Grubbs, 2001).
6.5.2.1 Nitrogen
In CAAP facilities nitrogen can take many forms, although it is discharged mainly in the
forms of ammonia, nitrate, and organic nitrogen. Organic nitrogen decomposes in aquatic
environments into ammonia and nitrate. This decomposition consumes oxygen,
potentially reducing DO levels and adversely affecting aquatic life. Ammonia can be
directly toxic to aquatic life, affecting hatching and growth rates of fish. For example,
when levels of un-ionized ammonia exceed 0.0125-0.025 milligrams/liter, growth rates
of rainbow trout are reduced and damage to liver, kidney, and gill tissue may occur
(IDEQ, n.d.). The proportion of total ammonia in the un-ionized form can vary with
temperature and pH levels (IDEQ, n.d.). However, ammonia is not usually found at toxic
levels in CAAP discharges.
Ammonia and nitrate may both be used by plants as a source of energy. However, the
species of nitrogen available is largely dependent upon environmental conditions (e.g.,
availability of oxygen). Ammonia tends to bind to sediments and may be less available
6-16
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
for plant uptake than nitrate, and large quantities of ammonia may be toxic to plants
(Schlesinger, 1997). Nitrate is soluble in water and does not bind to particles, making
them highly mobile (Kaufman and Franz, 1993). As a result, elevated levels of nitrate
may cause increased plant and algae growth, particularly in estuarine or marine
environments where nitrogen is generally a limiting nutrient. Nitrate is not usually found
at toxic levels in CAAP effluents.
Some facilities with ponds and recirculating systems might have high levels of nitrite.
High concentrations of nitrite can produce "brown blood disease" in fish. In this disease,
the blood is unable to carry enough oxygen, leading to respiratory distress (Boyd and
Tucker, 1998). As a result, fish may die of suffocation. However, according to EPA
sampling data and technical literature, nitrite concentrations in CAAP facility effluents
generally do not approach toxic levels.
6.5.2.2 Phosphorus
CAAP facilities release phosphorus in both the solid and dissolved forms. Although the
solid form is generally unavailable, chemically some phosphorus may be slowly released
from the solid form. However, 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 OP, for their nutrition (Henry and Heinke, 1996). The
principle concerns associated with phosphorus in freshwater aquatic systems, however,
are algal blooms and increased eutrophication (Hinshaw and Fornshell, 2002), which is
an increase in levels of production in a water body (Wetzel, 2001). Eutrophication may
result in decreased DO levels as bacteria decompose dead algae, consuming oxygen in
the process. When DO concentrations fall below the levels required for metabolic
requirements of aquatic biota, both lethal (e.g., fish kills) and sublethal effects can occur.
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 DO 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, and 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 to remove solids provide substantial
6-17
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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 OTHER MATERIALS
CAAP facility effluents may also contain other materials, pathogens, drugs, chemicals,
and pesticides. There is little evidence to suggest that the accumulation of wastes from
net pen facilities is a source of human or environmental pathogens (Nash, 2003). Non-
native species, if introduced to an area, have the potential to become invasive,
outcompeting and threatening the survival of the native species. There is also the
potential that introducing non-native species may introduce diseases against which native
populations have no natural defenses. Potentially non-native species associated with
CAAP facilities include Atlantic salmon, grass carp, shrimp, and tilapia (depending on
the location of the facility).
Drugs, which include medicated feed, are added to the production facility to maintain or
restore animal health, and they can be subsequently released into the waters of the United
States. Some pesticides, such as copper sulfate, are used at CAAP facilities to remove
algae and subsequently might be discharged to waters of the United States. More detailed
information about pathogens, non-native species, and drugs/chemicals, as well as a
discussion of their environmental impacts, is available in Chapter 7 of the Economic and
Environmental Impact Analysis.
6.7 REFERENCES
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.
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.
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.
Colt, I.E. and J.R. Tomasso. 2001. Hatchery Water Supply and Treatment. Pages 91-186
in G.A. Wedemeyer, ed. Fish Hatchery Management, Second Edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
6-18
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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.
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
August 2002.
ISA (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.
Lawson, T.B. 1995. Fundamentals of Aquacultural Engineering, pp. 48-57. Chapman &
Hall, NY.
Losordo, T.M., and M.B. Timmons. 1994. An Introduction to Water Reuse Systems. In
Aquaculture Reuse Systems: Engineering Design and Management, pp. 1-7. Elsevier
Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
6-19
-------
Chapter 6: Water Use, Wastewater Characterization, and Pollutants of Concern
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.
Nash, C.E. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest VI. A synopsis
of the risk and uncertainty. Fisheries Research. 62: 339-347.
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.
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.
Schlesinger, W. 1997. Biogeochemistry. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Schueler, T.R., and H.K. Holland. 2000. The Practice of Watershed Protection.
pp. 64-65. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Shirley, M. 2002. Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. Personal communication,
May 14, 2002.
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.
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.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200la. Sampling Episode Report Clear Springs Foods, Inc. Box Canyon
Facility, Episode 6297. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200Ib. Sampling Episode Report, Fins Technology, Turners Falls,
Massachusetts, Episode 6439, April 23-28, 2001. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002a. Sampling Episode Report, Harrietta Hatchery, Harrietta, MI,
Episode 6460. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b. Site Visit Report for Harlingen Shrimp Farm, Arroyo Shrimp
Farm, and Loma Alta Shrimp Farm (TX). Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
6-20
-------
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 Southeastern United States. SRAC final report no. 600. Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.
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). 2002. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit no. ID-G13-0000, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Watson, C.A. 2002. University of Florida. Personal communication, February 2, 2002.
Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Academic Press, New York,
NY.
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.
6-21
-------
CHAPTER 7
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR THE CONCENTRATED
AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA evaluated a variety of concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) industry best
management practices (BMPs) and wastewater treatment technologies. BMPs are
management strategies and practices that 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 treatment technologies and practices, including those
presented in this chapter, as a part of the analyses used to support the development of the
final regulation.
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
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.
7-1
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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 the discharge of
higher pollutant loads.
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 of fish, 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.
7.2.2 Best Management Practices Plan
The BMP plan describes and documents management activities that are implemented at
the CAAP facility to reduce the discharge of pollutants, including solids generated from
feeding the aquatic animals. The BMP plan also documents practices and management
activities such as those associated with the storage and use of drugs and pesticides,
management and maintenance of solids containment systems, maintenance of the
structural integrity of various system components, and any activities associated with feed
management. Additionally, BMP plans include descriptions of record-keeping activities
and training sessions for employees. The overall goal of the BMP plan is to document
planning and implementation of operation and management activities that a facility uses
to control the discharge of solids, nutrients, and chemicals such as drugs and pesticides.
The BMP plan also shows regulatory authorities how facility personnel are preventing the
accidental discharge of stored materials, trash, and dead aquatic animals.
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
spread through the cultured population. Most states have diagnostic services available to
assist in screening aquatic animals and identifying potential problems. Measuring weight
7-2
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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.
7.2.4 Inventory Control
Inventory control refers to the ongoing management of the amount of aquatic animal
biomass in a culture system. Accurate record-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 (DO). Production systems with high biomass 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.
7.2.5 Mortality Removal
Mortality of the cultured species in small numbers is a common occurrence in CAAP
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 facilities have large numbers of mortalities, removal might
be more costly and require seines and crews similar to those used during harvest.
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 DO
available. Lack of water exchange due to a reduced open net area also increases the
buildup of metabolic waste in the system.
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
primarily because of fewer discharge events.
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
7-3
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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 can also
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 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.
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 inches below the height of the overflow structure, about 160,000 to 325,000 gallons
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 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
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
flowing through the ponds during large runoff events, the overflow volume is reduced
(Boydetal.,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.
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.
7.2.10 Secondary Containment (Escape 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 organisms such as 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.
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
aquatic animal production (AAP) 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 handling removed solids and
preventing excess feed from entering the system. The BMP plan also ensures planning for
7-5
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
proper operation and maintenance of equipment, especially treatment control
technologies.
7.2.12 Drug and Pesticide BMP Plan
The purpose of the drug and pesticide BMP plan is to document the proper use and
storage of specific drugs and pesticides in the production facility (e.g., amount of the
drugs and pesticides used, proper storage of chemicals, and proper identification of the
disease or problem and selection of proper chemical). The plan also addresses practices to
minimize the accidental spillage or release of drugs and pesticides. The CAAP facility is
expected to provide written documentation of a BMP plan and keep necessary records to
establish and implement the plan as well as to report use of investigational new animal
drugs and extralabel drug use. 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.
7.3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
7.3.1 Aeration
Some discharges from ponds, especially those from bottom waters, might be low in DO
or have sufficient biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) to be problematic in receiving
waters. When DO is a problem, aeration of pond discharges can be used to increase DO
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,
including waterfalls, rotating brushes, 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 DO concentrations in the culture water. Those facilities with sufficient
hydraulic head between raceways tend to use passive or gravity aeration systems to
7-6
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
increase the air-water interface, which in turn increases the DO content of the culture
water (Wheaton, 1977).
Facilities with insufficient head between raceways use mechanical aeration systems to
increase DO 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.
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
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 hours/day and 365 days/year. Systems that are not operated
continuously have reduced efficiency because of changes in nutrient loads to the
7-7
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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.
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 feet (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
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.
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
7-8
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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 milligrams/liter of total dissolved
solids, and not be exempted by EPA or state authorities from protection as a source of
drinking water (USEPA, 2001).
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 (Os), 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 concentrations of chlorine and ozone are used to
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 appeal. Chlorine systems must have a chlorine contact time of 15 to
30 minutes, after which the discharge must in general be dechlorinated prior to discharge,
depending on facility location and permit requirements. Chlorine systems may create
byproducts, such as trihalomethanes, which are known carcinogens. Finally, the contact
chamber must be cleaned on a regular schedule. Ozonation has limitations as well. Ozone
must 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 total suspended solids (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 DO
content of the discharge stream and destroys certain organic compounds.
7-9
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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/coagulation tanks include high costs for
maintenance and energy use.
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 CAAP 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
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.
7.3.7.2 Multimedia Filters
Multimedia filters are pressurized or non-pressurized treatment units that contain filter
media of at least two different materials. Wastewater flow is directed through a series of
media (e.g., gravel and sand) using the coarse, larger sized media first to facilitate the
removal of larger solids, then smaller sized media that are progressively less porous. At
periodic 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.
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 inches) 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.
7-10
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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 to remove 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 plants grow to their maximum size, they
are 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
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.
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.
7-11
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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 years.
7.3.10 Oxidation Lagoons (Primary and Secondary)
Oxidation lagoons, also known 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 years. 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 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.
7-12
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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
pounds 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
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.
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 the basins 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.
7-13
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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. When designing 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 will settle to the bottom of the basin.
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).
Proper design, construction, and operation of the sedimentation basin are essential for the
efficient removal of solids. The basin must be cleaned at proper intervals to ensure the
solids are removed at the designed efficiency.
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. 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).
7-14
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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.
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.
7.3.14 Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are wastewater treatment plants that are
constructed and owned by a municipal government for the purpose of treating municipal
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 dischargers.
7.3.15 Solids Handling and Disposal
7.3.15.1 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).
7-15
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
7.3.15.2 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.
7.3.15.3 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.
7.3.15.4 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.
7.4 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES OBSERVED AT EPA SITE VISITS
Table 7.4-1 describes the treatment technologies observed at the CAAP facilities that
EPA visited as part of the Agency's data collection efforts.
Table 7.4-1. Aquatic Animal Production Site Visit Summary
State
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AR
Species
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Baitfish
Production System
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Treatment Technologies
Storage of runoff in reservoir,
water management, erosion control,
proper ditch construction
Water management, erosion
control, proper ditch construction
Water management, riprap on pond
banks, erosion control
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, stairstep
watershed ponds
Water management, erosion control
7-16
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
State
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
LA
LA
Species
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Baitfish
Salmon, steelhead
Trout
Trout
Trout, salmon, steelhead
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals, seaweed
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp, ornamentals,
mullett, milkfish, red
snapper
Tilapia, Chinese catfish
Catfish, tilapia, alligators
Salmon/trout
Tilapia
Trout
Trout
Trout
Trout
Trout
Alligators
Crawfish
Production System
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through tanks, low
flow rate
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds, recirculating
systems
Recirculating, flow-
through tanks w/ low flow
rate
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Net pen in pond
Flow-through
Flow-through,
recirculating
Flow-through,
recirculating
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Ponds, flow-through
Other — alligator huts
Ponds
Treatment Technologies
Water management, erosion control
Water management, erosion control
Water management, erosion control
Water management, erosion control
Water management, erosion control
Settling pond
No treatment
Settling pond, constructed wetland
Infiltration pond
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
Infiltration ditches
In-pond treatment
Infiltration ditches
In-pond treatment
Settling ponds
Infiltration ditches
In-pond treatment
Quiescent zone, gravel ditches,
linear clarifiers, OLSB, full-flow
settling
Biological treatment, linear
clarifiers
Biological treatment ponds, full-
flow settling
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
2-stage lagoon
In-pond treatment
7-17
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
State
LA
LA
LA
LA
MA
MA
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MN
MO
MS
MS
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Species
Crawfish
Crawfish
Hybrid striped bass
Tilapia
Hybrid striped bass
Tilapia
Multiple
Brook trout, lake trout,
splake
Brook trout, landlocked
salmon (coho, chinook)
Lobster
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon, mussels
Salmon - native endangered
species
Salmon - native endangered
species
Landlocked salmon
Rainbow trout, brown trout
Tilapia
Various warmwater species
(including bluegill, catfish,
paddlefish)
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Crawfish
Hybrid striped bass,
crawfish
Tilapia
Trout
Trout
Yellow perch, crab
Production System
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating system
Recirculating system
Recirculating
Recirculating system
Flow-through
Flow-through
Other - pounds
Flow-through
Flow-through
Net pens
Net pens, off -bottom
hanging culture (mussels)
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Recirculating system
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Recirculating system
Flow-through
Flow-through
Ponds, tanks
Treatment Technologies
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
Land application of solids
Primary settling, biological
treatment, microscreen, ozonation,
indirect discharge
Plant production, constructed
wetland
Sand filters
Settling pond
Settling ponds
None
Microscreen filters
Settling ponds
Feed management, active feed
monitoring
Feed management, active feed
monitoring
Settling ponds
Settling ponds
OLSB, quiescent zone, polishing
pond
OLSB, quiescent zone, polishing
pond
Lagoon, indirect discharge,
composting
Erosion control, water
management, riprap
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
In-pond treatment
Solids particle trap
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Quiescent zones with OLSB
Settling pond
7-18
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
State
NH
NY
PA
PA
PA
PA
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WI
WI
Species
shedding, catfish
Marine species
Tilapia
Hybrid striped bass
Trout
Trout
Trout
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Trout
Tilapia, hybrid striped bass,
yellow perch
Trout
Molluscan shellfish - oysters
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Baitfish, various species of
sport fish
Rainbow trout
Production System
Recirculating
Recirculating
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Ponds
Flow-through
Recirculating system
Flow-through
Flow-through, bottom
culture
Flow-through,
recirculating
Net pens
Net pens
Net pens
Ponds
Flow-through, earthen
raceways
Treatment Technologies
Microscreen filter, solids settling
tank, UV
Holding pond — indirect discharge
Full-flow settling
Full flow settling
OLSB
Quiescent zone, OLSB, full-flow
settling basin
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
Quiescent zones, microscreen filter
Indirect discharger to POTW
Formalin detention pond, package
plant for aerobic digestion for
solids and phosphorus removal,
chemical addition for phosphorus
removal, full-flow polishing pond
None
Full-flow settling ponds in series
Feed management
Feed management
Feed management
Erosion control, water
management, discharge control
(bottom drawing)
Riprap, erosion control, settling
ponds, in pond settling
Note: OLSB = Offline settling basin.
7-19
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
7.5 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 andR. 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.
Henry, J.G., and G.W. Heinke. 1996. Environmental Science and Engineering. 2d ed., pp.
445-447. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
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. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002. Site visit report for Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Box, Canyon
Facility (ID). Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
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.
7-20
-------
Chapter 7: Best Management Practices and Treatment Technologies Considered
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.
7-21
-------
CHAPTER 8
CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN
EFFLUENT
This section describes the data sources, data selection, data conventions, and statistical
methodology used by EPA in evaluating achievable concentrations of total suspended
solids (TSS) for the flow-through and recirculating subcategories. Although this chapter
presents long-term averages, variability factors, and numeric limitations developed from
effluent data, EPA decided not to establish national numeric effluent limitations for TSS,
as explained in the preamble to the final rule. When EPA establishes national numeric
limitations, EPA generally performs a more rigorous statistical and engineering review of
the concentration data associated with the numeric limitations. For purposes of its
evaluation of the TSS concentration data, however, EPA considers that these data were
useful and of sufficient quality, and that the statistical analyses have provided reasonable
results. Thus, EPA has provided information in this chapter about the long-term averages,
variability factors, and numeric limitations for this data set. EPA considers these data and
results to be valuable information that can be used by permit authorities in developing
site-specific permits, although additional review of the data may be appropriate for that
purpose.
Section 8.1 provides a brief overview of data sources (a more detailed discussion is
provided in Chapter 3) and describes EPA's selection of episode data sets that were used
in EPA's evaluation. Section 8.2 provides a more detailed discussion of the selection of
the episode data sets for the configurations. Section 8.3 describes excluded data, and
Section 8.4 presents the procedures for data aggregation. Section 8.5 describes the
procedures for estimation of long-term averages, variability factors, and numeric
limitations. Appendix D provides the listings for this chapter. Section 24.1 of the record
for the final rule included most of the documents referenced in this chapter.
8.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA SELECTION AND CONFIGURATIONS
To develop the long-term averages, variability factors, and numeric limitations presented
in this chapter, EPA used concentration data corresponding to the two options, A and B,
described in the NODA, for the flow-through and recirculating subcategories. For
purposes of evaluating the TSS discharges, EPA also combined the data from the two
subcategories, and labeled the new set as the 'Combined subcategory.'
The TSS data for the analyses described in this chapter were collected from two sources:
EPA's sampling episodes and self-monitoring data collected from EPA regional offices
and EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), and submitted with comments on the
proposal. These data are a subset of those described in Chapter 3. This chapter refers to
S-l
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
the data from each facility in terms of 'sampling episodes' and 'self-monitoring
episodes.' All of the data are presented in terms of gross values, that is, the values are not
adjusted for TSS concentrations in the source water.
EPA considered the effluent discharges from different configurations associated with
raceways and offline settling basins (OLSBs). Table 8.1-1 provides a brief description of
each configuration. Figures 8.1-1 through 8.1-5 provide a graphical representation of
each configuration.
Table 8.1-1 Descriptions of Technology Configurations
Subcategory
Flow-Through
Recirculating
Combined
Option
A
B
N/A
A
B
A
B
Configuration
1A
2A
3A
4A
IB
2B
3B
4B
5
6A
7A
6B
7B
2A+6A+7A
2B+6B+7B
Description
Full flow settling basin effluent
OLSB effluent
Treated Raceway effluent
Combined OLSB and raceway effluent
Full flow settling basin effluent
OLSB effluent
Treated Raceway effluent
Combined OLSB and raceway effluent
Untreated raceway effluent
Solids treatment water
Overtopping water
Solids treatment water
Overtopping water
Continuous
Continuous
The next section describes the episode and sample point selection for each configuration.
Source Water-
Production Unit
Full-Flow Settling Basin
(FFSB)
-Treated Raceway Effluent - 1 A/B
Quiescent Zone/ln-Unit Settling
Source Water-
Production Unit
Full-Flow Settling Basin
(FFSB)
••Treated Raceway Effluent - 1 A/B
Figure 8.1-1. Schematic of FFSB-FT Effluent Stream
8-2
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
Quiescent Zone/ln-Unit Settling
1
Source Water-
Production Unit
Treated Raceway Effluent - 3 A/B
Raw Wastewater
Off-line Settling Basin
(OLSB)
Treated OLSB Effluent - 2 A/B
Figure 8.1-2. Schematic of OLSB-Separate Effluent Stream
Source Water -
"4A" Classified Facility
Quiescent Zone/ln-Unit Settling
1
Production Unit
Combined Effluent-4 A/B
Off-line Settling Basin
(OLSB)
"4B" Classified Facility
Facilities with Structural Technology
Quiescent Zone/ln-Unit Settling
1
Source Water -
Production Unit
Off-line Settling
(OLSB)
Polishing Pond
Discharge
Or "A" Classified Facility + Feed Management
Figure 8.1-3. Schematic of OLSB-Combined Effluent Stream
8-3
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
Source Water-
Production System
Overtopping Water - 7 A/B
Culture Water Treatment
Solids Treatment
Solids Treatment Water - 6 A/B
Figure 8.1-4. Schematic of RAS-Separate Effluent Stream
Source Water-
Production System
1 !
Culture Water Treatment
Combined Effluent - 8 A/B
— >
Solids Treatment
i
Figure 8.1-5 Schematic of RAS-Combined Effluent Stream
8.2 EPISODE SELECTION FOR EACH CONFIGURATION
EPA qualitatively reviewed the data from the sampling episodes and self-monitoring
episodes and then selected episodes to represent each configuration based on a review of
the production processes and treatment technologies in place at each facility. The data are
listed in DCN 55101: All Data: Listing of Influent and Effluent TSS Concentration Data
(SAIC, 2004a) and electronically in SAIC, 2004b. Section 8.2 describes the episodes in
more detail.
For its evaluations of the TSS concentrations for the final rule, EPA selected a subset of
the data. The data from this subset are listed in Appendix C and electronically in SAIC,
2004c. Section 24.1 of the record identifies this subset as the 'Year 2001 Subset,'
although the subset includes data from other years. First, this subset includes all of the
EPA sampling data (episodes 6297, 6439, 6460, and 6495), because EPA had collected
detailed information about the processes and treatment systems during the sampling
episode. Second, the subset includes the self-monitoring data corresponding to the year
2001, because the questionnaire information allowed EPA to identify the configurations
that were utilized by the facilities in 2001. Third, the subset includes the self-monitoring
data considered in developing the proposed limitations (DMR01, DMR02, DMR03, and
DMR04). The next section describes the data from the four EPA sampling episodes. The
following section describes the self-monitoring data. When EPA had data from both its
sampling episode and the facility's self-monitoring, EPA statistically analyzed the data
from the sampling episode separately from the self-monitoring episode. This is consistent
with EPA's practice for other industrial categories.
8-4
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
8.2.1 EPA Sampling Episodes
In calculating the numeric limitations, EPA used data from the four EPA sampling
episodes: 6297, 6439, 6460, and 6495. 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 were 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. Table 8.2-1
summarizes the episode and sample point selections associated with each configuration
of interest. This section describes the sample points selected from each episode for EPA's
evaluation of the TSS concentration data.
Table 8.2-1 Summary of Episode and Sample Point Selection
Subcategory
Flow-
through
Recircu-
lating
Flow-
Through
Flow-
through
Episode
6297A
6297B
6297C
6297D
6297E
6297F
6297G
6297H
62971
643 9 A
6439B
643 9Cf
6460A
6460B
6460C
6460D
6495A
6495B
Option
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
Configuration
2B
2B
2B
NAb
3B
3B
4B
4B
4B
6A
6B
7A
4A
3A
2A
4B
2A
4B
Influent
SP-7
SP-10
SP-12
SP-4
N/AC
N/AC
SP-7
SP-10
SP-12
SP-3
SP-8
SP-2
N/AC
N/AC
SP-8
SP-7, SP-8
SP-10
Spl2 and SP-12A
Effluent
SP-8 (dup SP-9)
SP-11
SP-13(dup SP-14)
N/AC
SP-5 (dup SP-6)
SP-2 (dup SP-3)
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-4
SP-9 (dup SP-11)
N/AC
SP-7 and SP-9
SP-7
SP-9
SP-10 (dup SP-11)
SP-11
SP-13 (dup SP-14)
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" (NA), EPA used these data to review the overall performance at the facility. EPA
has included these data in its data listings and summary statistics.
CN/A: for purposes of evaluating the configuration, this waste stream was not of interest or the data were
not available.
8.2.1.1 Episode 6297
Episode 6297 was conducted on December 11 through December 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
8-5
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
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 sample 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.
To evaluate the performance of the OLSBs, EPA considered data for the Eastman,
Blueheart, and Hatch House OLSBs, labeled as episodes 6297A, 6297B, and 6297C,
respectively. For comparison purposes, EPA considered data for the source water, which
was labeled as episode 6297D. To evaluate the performance of the raceways, EPA
considered data for the Eastman raceway (labeled as episode 6297E). EPA also
considered effluent from the hatch house (labeled as episode 6297F). By mathematically
combining data from different sample points, EPA considered three other configurations:
1. The Eastman raceway and its OLSB. This was labeled as episode 6297G.
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).1 EPA also included these data with the self-
monitoring data described in Section 8.2.2.1.
1 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.
8-6
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
•4
\ Raceway Effluent
i
i
i
SP-10
•*
f 4th Use
f 3rd Use
4.
A
OLSB Effluent «-/•
i
i
t SP-11
Source Water / *.
i
Hatch House / - -
Effluent "^/ -----
SP-2, SP-3
OLSB
Hatch House
OLSB
Hatch House
SP-12
SP-13, SP-14
Hatch House OLSB
River
Head Canal
Hydro Plant
A
t
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
8.2.1.2 Episode 6439
Episode 6439 was conducted at Fins Technology, LLC on April 23 through April 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 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. Wastewater 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 (overtopping) 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 8.2-2.
Culture Tank Effluent
i
. . SP-2
Solids
Removal
Effluent
SP-3
Primary
Settling
SP-4
Wastewater
Treatment
System
Microscreen
Filter
, Treated
Effluent
SP-9
Figure 8.2-2. Schematic of Sample points and Facility for Episode 6439
To evaluate the solids treatment associated with recirculating systems, EPA evaluated the
data from primary settling and wastewater treatment. The data associated with the two
effluents are labeled as episodes 6439A and 6439B. EPA also evaluated the data from the
overtopping, and labeled these data as episode 6439C.
EPA notes that the facility had exceeded its permit limits during EPA's sampling episode.
This facility is generally capable of complying with its permit limits of 50
milligrams/liter (daily maximum) and 30 milligrams/liter (monthly average), and
therefore, EPA determined that the permit limits more accurately reflected normal
operations. EPA also noted that the effluent from the polishing pond was more variable
than EPA's experience with typical performance of polishing ponds.
8.2.1.3 Episode 6460
Episode 6460 was conducted on August 24 through August 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
inches in length or about eight to ten fish to the pound. Figure 8.2-3 shows the process
diagram for the facility associated with this episode. Harrietta uses well water at a rate of
up to 5.5 million gallons per day from pumped and artesian wells that flow to the
8-8
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
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 August 27, 2001). To accommodate EPA's schedule, the facility discharged
from the OLSB two days earlier than originally scheduled. (See DCN 55209: Episode
6460 Concentration values ofTSS reported on 8/27/2001 (SAIC, 2004d) for a schematic
of the concentration levels through the facility on that day.)
To obtain one value for the combined discharges for each day, the Agency
mathematically combined the data from the commingled raceway discharge and the
OLSB discharge, and labeled them as episode 6460A. Because the OLSB discharged on
only one day, the daily 'commingled values' for the other four days are based on only the
raceway discharge. The discharge from one block of raceways, the OLSB, and polishing
pond are labeled as episodes 6460B, 6460C and 6460D, respectively.
Artesian
Well
Source
Water
Aeration
Raceway Water Flow
Polishing
Pond
SP-9
SP-10, SP-11
Discharge
to River
Figure 8.2-3. Schematic of Sample points and Facility for Episode 6460
8.2.1.4 Episode 6495
Episode 6495 was conducted at the Huntsdale Fish Culture Station in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania on March 24 through March 29, 2003. Huntsdale is owned by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and operated by the Pennsylvania Boat and Fish
Commission. The facility's mission is to produce salmonid and warmwater fish for
stocking into Pennsylvania waters. Species produced at the facility include brook trout
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
(Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta),
striped bass (Morone saxtilits), northern pike (Esox Indus), and muskellunge (Muskie)
(E. masquinongy). Sampling at this facility focused on the flow-through salmonid grow-
out production units within the facility.
As shown in Figure 8.2-4, the facility operates three sets of raceways and a hatchery for
salmonid production. Source water is obtained from a combination of surface water and
eight limestone springs located either on or adjacent to the facility. Average flow through
the facility is approximately 8,000 gallons per minute. Spring water used by the facility
averages 58 °F year-round. Due to drought conditions over the past two years, the
average flow has dropped to about 5,000 gallons per minute, and the facility has had to
rely on surface water sources for approximately 1,000 gallons per minute of its flow. The
facility also operates 11 ponds for the production of warmwater species. The effluent
conveyance system for these ponds is completely separate from the flow-through
production system. The warmwater production system was not operating during the
sampling episode.
Wastewater treatment operations at Huntsdale include the use of baffles and quiescent
zones (sediment traps) in each raceway, a linear clarifier, and polishing pond.
Approximately 11.5 million gallons per day of treated wastewater is discharged from the
facility. Most of the production water from Huntsdale flows directly to a polishing pond
before it is discharged into a ditch that conveys the water to Yellow Breeches Creek.
Huntsdale personnel also use several best management practices (BMPs) that help to
minimize the discharge of solids and reduce the need to use medicated feeds (antibiotic).
The facility uses an extensive feed management program to optimize feeding and meet
stringent production goals, which include numbers of individual fish within weight
tolerance limits, at specific times of the year.
The daily data for the discharge from the OLSB are labeled as episode 6495A. The
discharge from the commingled raceway and OLSB is labeled as episode 6495B.
North
Source
Water
Discharge
SP-13
SP-14
SP-3 SP-4
SP-5 SP-6 SP-8
SP-12 r
U
-',
*l
--(
i
•>
t
SK-S
Culture
Water
••SP-2
South
Source
Water
QZ Cleaning Effluent
-*• Raceway Water Flow
SP-10
Polishing Pond
Solids
Settling
. SP-11
Figure 8.2-4. Schematic of Sample Points and Facility for Episode 6495
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
8.2.2 Self-Monitoring Data
In calculating the numeric limitations, EPA used self-monitoring data corresponding to
the configurations described in Table 8.1-1. In the following sections and in the public
record, EPA has masked the identity of the facilities for which it used self-monitoring
data. Following the convention used for the proposal which included data from industry
discharge monitoring reports (DMR), these episodes are identified only as DMRxx where
"xx" is a two-digit number assigned to each self-monitoring episode. The following two
sections describe the self-monitoring data considered for the proposal, and additional data
incorporated into EPA's analyses after the proposal.
8.2.2.1 Proposal DMR Data
For the DMR episodes (DMR01, DMR02, DMR03, and DMR04) considered for the
proposal, EPA identified the configurations using information from 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?" After the proposal, EPA re-evaluated its use of these data. All of the self-
monitoring data had been collected from 1996 through 1999, which was earlier than the
base year, 2001, for the questionnaire. Thus, it is possible that the facility may have
changed its operations sometime between 1996 and 2001. Thus, some or all of the self-
monitoring data might have been generated by a different configuration than the one that
EPA had identified for that facility. For this reason, EPA calculated the episode-specific
long-term averages and variability factors from these data sets, but did not include them
in the calculation of the configuration-specific long-term averages, variability factors, and
numeric limitations. This section describes each of the four data sets in more detail.
For the four sets, EPA reviewed the NPDES permit information for each facility to
determine the reporting requirements. 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 five grab samples were collected. Because 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 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. For
purposes of listing the data, EPA assigned the sample point designation SP-1 to the
effluent for each episode. The following paragraphs describe each facility.
The facility that provided the episode DMR01 data is the 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 million gallons per day of spring water and uses
quiescent zones and full-flow settling for removing solids from the effluent stream.
The episode DMR02 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 million gallons per day.
8-11
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
Because the TSS data from DMR02 exceeded the monthly permit limit for one month,
EPA excluded these data from the calculations for the configuration-specific long-term
averages, variability factors, and numeric limitations.
The episode DMR03 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 million gallons per day
for the trout production part of the operation.
The episode DMR04 data are from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Buller 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 million gallons
per day for the trout production.
8.2.2.2 Post-Proposal DMR Data
After the proposal, EPA evaluated TSS concentration data from an additional 51 facilities
in the Year 2001 subset of effluent data. EPA obtained these data from EPA regional
offices and EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), and submitted with comments on
the proposal.
If a facility had multiple production and treatment systems or configurations, 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 (e.g., DMR21A). In addition, each discharge point was assigned a
different sample point number (e.g., SP-1, SP-2). For some facilities, EPA received data
on the source water, and has designated the sample point to be 'SP-0.' (In the
documentation, these data are sometimes identified as 'influent' data.)
In some cases, the reported monitoring frequency was once a month, but the actual
sample date was not reported. Or, the monitoring frequency was not reported, but the
daily maximum and monthly average values were identical for every month. In these two
situations, for purposes of listing the data, EPA assumed that the sample had been
collected on the first day of the month. Some other facilities reported the monitoring
frequency to be once a week, but did not report the actual sample date. For those
facilities, EPA assumed that the samples were collected every 7th day, starting with the 1st
day of the month.
8.3 DATA EXCLUSIONS
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 described in this section, EPA has used the
data from the episodes and sample points identified in Section 8.2.
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
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.
For the self-monitoring data, EPA compared each reported TSS concentration value to
the permit's daily maximum limit. If the concentration value was greater than the limit,
EPA excluded the value from its analyses. DCN 55208: Year 2001 Subset: Comparison
of Effluent Data to TSS Daily Maximum Limit in Permit (SAIC, 2004e) identifies the
values that have been excluded.
For two episodes, DMR19 and DMR61, some nondetected measurements were reported
as 'zero,' instead of sample-specific detection limits. (See DCN 55206: Year 2001
Subset: Listing of records with CONC=Ofor TSS (SAIC, 2004f).) Episode DMR19 had
only one zero value, and it was for source water. Episode DMR61 had 12 effluent values,
of which 8 were reported as 'zero.' EPA calculated episode-specific statistics for this data
set, but excluded it from the calculation of configuration long-term averages, variability
factors, and numeric limitations.
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
cases, this meant that field samples were averaged 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 calculated. DCN 55213:
Year 2001 Subset: Unaggregated Data for Total Suspended Solids (SAIC, 2004g)
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., <2 milligrams/liter) 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 types.
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
8-13
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
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 TSS 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, 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., milligrams/liter),
while the filtered solids were reported in weight/weight units (e.g., milligrams/kilogram).
EPA aggregated the results as explained in the memorandum Conversion of Aquaculture
Data for Episode 6297 (DynCorp, 2002). Listing of the Aquatic, Solid, and Combined
Filtrate Data for Facility 6297 (SAIC, 2002b) provides the reported (unaggregated) and
aggregated values.
8.4.2 Aggregation of Field Duplicates
During the sampling episodes, EPA collected a small number, about ten percent, of field
duplicates. Field duplicates are two samples collected from the same sample point at
approximately the same time, assigned different sample numbers, and flagged as
duplicates for a single sample point at a facility. DCN 55214: Year 2001 Subset:
Individual Field Duplicate Sample Results for Total Suspended Solids (SAIC, 2004h),
provides the individual values for the field duplicates for the sample points identified in
Table 8.2-1. (None of the self-monitoring episodes had more than one data value for any
day, and thus, this step was not used for self-monitoring episodes.)
Because the analytical data from each duplicate pair characterize the same conditions at
the same time at a single sample 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 TSS had
been present in one sample. (Even if the other duplicate had a zero value, TSS 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.
2 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.
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
Table 8.4-1. Aggregation of Field Duplicates
If the Field Duplicates
Are:
BothNC
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:
(NCl+NC2)/2
(DLl+DL2)/2
(NC+DL)/2
NC - noncensored (or detected).
ND - nondetected.
DL - sample-specific detection limit.
8.4.3 Aggregation of Data Across Sample Points ("Flow-Weighting")
After field duplicates 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.
In aggregating values across sample points, if one or more of the values were NC, the
aggregated result was considered NC because TSS 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 8.4-2. The
following example demonstrates the procedure at an episode with discharges on Day 1.
Example of calculating an aggregated flow-weighted value:
Day
1
1
Sample Point
Raceway
OLSB
Flow (cfs)
1
100
Concentration (rng/L)
50
10
Censoring
NC
ND
Calculation to obtain aggregated, flow-weighted value:
(lOO cfsx 10 mg / L)+ (icfsx 50 mg / L)
100 cfs+ 1 cfs
= 10.4 mg / L
Because one of the values was NC, the aggregated value of 10.4 milligrams/liter is NC.
8-15
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
Table 8.4-2. Aggregation of Data Across Streams
If the n Observations are:
Censoring Type is:
Formulas for Value of Aggregate
A11NC
NC
ZJJ£ Xflo
'
1 = 1
V^ flaw
A11ND
ND
Zflow
'
~x.flow
Mixture of k NC and
m ND (total number of
observations is n=k+m)
NC
NC - noncensored (or detected).
ND - nondetected.
DL - sample-specific detection limit.
8.5 ESTIMATION OF THE NUMERIC LIMITATIONS
In estimating the numeric limitations, EPA first determined an average performance level
that a facility with well-designed, well-operated model technologies (which reflect the
appropriate level of control) would be capable of achieving. Second, EPA determined an
allowance for the variation in TSS concentrations associated with well-operated systems.
This allowance for variance incorporates all components of variability, including
sampling and analytical variability. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a
facility's systems 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. If a facility
operates its system to meet the relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility will
have discharges at or below the limitations.
The following sections describe the calculation of the configuration long-term averages
and variability factors.
8.5.1 Calculation of Configuration Long-Term Averages
This section discusses the calculation of long-term averages by episode (episode long-
term average) and by configuration within each subcategory and option (configuration
long-term average). These averages were used to calculate the limitations.
First, EPA calculated the episode long-term average by using either the modified delta-
lognormal distribution or the arithmetic average. Listing 8-2 in Appendix D lists the
episode long-term averages. EPA has listed the arithmetic average (column labeled "Obs
Mean") and the estimated episode long-term average (column labeled "Est LTA"). If
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
EPA used the arithmetic average as the episode long-term average, the two columns have
the same value.
Second, EPA calculated the configuration long-term average as the median of the episode
long-term averages from selected episode data sets that contained effluent data from the
configuration. 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 is 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 configuration X configuration Z, if the four (n = 4)
episode long-term averages 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 configuration long-term average for configuration Z is the median of the ordered
values (the average of the 2nd and 3rd ordered values): (10 + 16)/2 milligrams/liter =13
milligrams/liter.
Listing 8-3 in Appendix D provides the calculated configuration long-term averages.
After calculating the configuration long-term averages, EPA compared these values to the
nominal quantitation limit of 4 milligrams/liter in EPA Method 160.2 used to measure
TSS concentrations in effluent samples (see Appendix B). EPA has determined that some
laboratories, under certain conditions, can measure to levels lower than the nominal
quantitation limit. EPA has concluded that these results are quantitatively reliable, and
therefore can be used to calculate long-term averages and variability factors. However,
8-17
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
EPA also recognizes that not all laboratories consistently measure to these lower levels.
To ensure the numeric limitations reflected "typical" laboratory reporting levels for
approved methods in 40 CFR 136 for NPDES compliance monitoring of TSS discharges,
EPA ensured that the configuration long-term averages had values equal to or greater
than the nominal quantitation limit of 4 milligrams/liter. For configuration 3B (treated
raceway effluent), the calculated configuration long-term average was 2.10
milligrams/liter. Because this value is less than 4 milligrams/liter, EPA substituted the
value of 4 milligrams/liter as the configuration long-term average. For all other
configurations, the calculated configuration long-term averages were equal to or greater
than 4 milligrams/liter. Table 8.5-1 provides final configuration long-term averages that
EPA considered in its evaluation of the TSS concentration data.
8.5.2 Calculation of Configuration Variability Factors
In developing the configuration variability factors used in calculating the numeric
limitations, EPA first developed daily and monthly episode variability factors using the
modified delta-lognormal distribution. Listing 8-2 in Appendix D lists the episode
variability factors. Appendix E describes the estimation procedure for the episode
variability factors using the modified delta-lognormal distribution.
After calculating the episode variability factors, EPA calculated the configuration daily
variability factor as the mean of the episode daily variability factors for that configuration
with the subcategory and option. Likewise, the configuration monthly variability factor
was the mean of the episode monthly variability factors for that configuration in the
subcategory and option. Listing 8-3 in Appendix D and Table 8.5-1 list the configuration
variability factors.
8.5.3 Calculation of Numeric Limitations
EPA calculated each daily maximum limitation using the product of the configuration
long-term average and the configuration daily variability factor. EPA calculated each
concentration-based monthly average limitation using the product of the configuration
long-term average and the configuration monthly variability factor. Table 8.5-1 provides
the configuration long-term average, configuration daily variability factor, and the daily
maximum limitation for each configuration.
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
Table 8.5-1. Configuration Long-Term Averages,
Variability Factors, and Numeric Limitations
Subcategory
Flow-through
Combined
Option
A
B
A
B
Configuration
2A (OLSB)
3A (Raceway)
4A (Combined)
2B (OLSB)
3B (Raceway)
4B (Combined)
2A+6A+7A
(Continuous)
2B+6B+7B
(Continuous)
Configuration
Long-Term
Average
(mg/L)
22.3
4.00
9.54
26.3
4.00
4.17
22.3
26.3
Configuration
Variability Factors
Daily
1.48
—
—
3.24
1.99
1.06
1.48
3.24
Monthly
1.21
—
—
1.57
1.27
1.02
1.21
1.57
Limitations
(mg/L)
Daily
Maximum
33.0
—
—
85.1
8
4.44
33.0
85.1
Monthly
Average
26.9
—
—
41.2
5
4.26
26.9
41.2
8.6 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. Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2002b. Listing of the
Aquatic, Solid, and Combined Filtrate Data for Facility 6297. Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004a. DCN55101: All
Data: Listing of Influent and Effluent TSS Concentration Data. Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004b. DCN 55107:
Compact Disk with Data from DCN 55101. Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004c. DCN 55207:
Compact Disk with Data from Appendix C of the Technical Development Document.
Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004d. DCN55209: Episode
6460 Concentration values of TSS reported on 8/27/2001. Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004e. DCN55208: Year
2001 Subset: Comparison of Effluent Data to TSS Daily Maximum Limit in Permit.
Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004f. DCN55206: Year
2001 Subset: Listing of records with CONC=Ofor TSS. Reston, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004g. DCN 55213: Year
2001 Subset: Unaggregated Data for Total Suspended Solids. Reston, VA.
-------
Chapter 8: Concentrations of Total Suspended Solids in Effluent
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation, Inc.). 2004h. DCN 55214: Year
2001 Subset: Individual Field Duplicate Samples Results for Total Suspended Solids.
Reston, VA.
-------
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 management practices EPA considered for
the final regulatory option.
9.1.1 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
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 at that facility and the
expected pollutant removals from these controls.
For the analyses that support the final regulation, EPA used a facility-specific approach
for estimating compliance costs. EPA obtained detailed, facility-level information for a
sample of potentially in-scope facilities through the detailed AAP survey (USEPA,
2002a). EPA analyzed the detailed survey information and determined the level of
treatment currently in place at each facility (i.e., baseline). For each facility, EPA
compared the specifications of the pollutant control technologies and management
practices currently in place at the facility to technologies and BMPs that were found to
meet the levels of pollutant removals specified for each regulatory option. EPA used data
and layout information from the facility as the primary source to estimate the cost of any
additional components that were not in place.
EPA developed a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to serve as a computing platform
for the cost and loadings analyses. The spreadsheets linked unit costs of the technologies
or practices representing each regulatory option with facility attributes to derive a
facility-specific cost estimate for compliance. The unit cost modules calculated an
estimated cost of each required 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. Whenever possible,
rate information for these estimates was taken from the facility's response to the detailed
survey (e.g., hourly rates for employees). When this information was not provided, EPA
9-1
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
used appropriate national or regional averages. For each facility, EPA applied
combinations of technologies and BMPs, given the facility configuration characteristics
(e.g., system type, size, and species). EPA did not cost for those components or parts of
components for which the facility provided evidence that the technology or management
practice is in place. EPA multiplied the costs estimates for each facility by its sample
weight and then summed the weighted costs to determine estimates for national capital,
one-time non-capital, and operation and maintenance costs.
9.1.2 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 information about individual facilities to develop estimates
of costs associated with the final regulatory option.
• Section 9.3 discusses unit costs of BMPs, which include the components of the
BMPs that compose the final regulatory option. The unit costs of BMPs contain
formulas by which to calculate the costs associated with the final regulatory
option based on the facility characteristics.
• Section 9.4 summarizes the facility configurations, based on analysis of the
detailed surveys. 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 9.5 discusses the sample weights that EPA used to estimate national costs.
• Section 9.6 summarizes the regulatory options that EPA considered.
• Section 9.7 provides output data.
• Section 9.8 describes the evolution and changes EPA made to the costing
methodology since proposal.
9.2 COST MODEL STRUCTURE
EPA estimated the costs associated with regulatory compliance for each of the regulatory
options it considered. The estimated costs of compliance to achieve the requirements
being evaluated include initial capital costs, in some cases, as well as annual O&M and
monitoring costs. EPA estimated compliance costs based on the lower cost between
implementing BMPs or installing, operating, and maintaining control technologies when
both have been shown to meet particular requirements.
To generate industry compliance cost estimates associated with each regulatory option
for CAAP facilities, EPA developed a computer-based model made up of several
individual cost modules. Figure 9.2-1 illustrates the structure of the cost model by
showing that it consists of several components, which can be grouped into four major
categories:
• Baseline facility configuration
9-2
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
• Unit cost of BMP
• Output data
• Weighting factors
Each module calculates costs and loading data for a specific BMP (e.g., feed
management) based on facility characteristics. These weighted facility costs are then
summed for each regulatory option and model facility. All costs were calculated in year
2001 dollars and then converted to present value during the economic analysis.
9.2.1 Facility Configuration
The facility configuration component of the costs model contains the characteristics of
each surveyed facility based primarily on system type, species, annual production, and
feed inputs. The facility configuration component also identifies the wastewater treatment
and control practices currently in use at the facilities. These data were collected from the
detailed survey and, if necessary, validated by contacting the facility.
Baseline Facility
Configuration
Unit
Module
Output Data
Farm
Industry
Figure 9.2-1. Schematic of Cost Model Structure
Input data to the facility configuration component include the following:
• Ownership
• Species produced
• Production method
9-3
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
• Pollutant control technologies and BMPs in place
• Cost—labor rates, feed, initial and annual cost of in-place technologies, other
operation costs
• Average flow (daily) and variation in flow
• Estimates of annual production
• Feed information—annual amount, peak month
9.2.2 General Cost Assumptions
Whenever possible, EPA used specific costs supplied by the facility in their detailed
survey response. However, when these data were not provided and unavailable for a
specific facility, EPA made several general assumptions for the cost analysis approach:
• When the specific cost information was not furnished, EPA estimated state and, if
necessary, regional averages from facilities with similar characteristics (e.g.,
ownership type, species, or system type) as a proxy.
• EPA assumed land costs to be $5,000/acre, which is in the high range of
agricultural land.
• EPA applied the land costs as an opportunity cost for a facility when sufficient
land was available for the technology system being considered.
• When sufficient land was not available for a particular technology system, EPA
substituted technologies that would fit into the existing infrastructure at the
particular facility.
• Daily activities are performed 6 days/week (312 days/year).
9.3 UNIT COST OF BMPs
A unit cost refers to the direct capital and annual costs for a particular practice. Cost
modules calculate the costs for developing and maintaining these practices for a CAAP
facility. Each cost module includes appropriate design of the technology based on the
characteristics of the model facility and the specific regulatory option.
Estimates of capital, operation, and maintenance costs are based on information collected
primarily from the AAP detailed survey. EPA also used data from the USDA 1998
Census of Aquaculture (USDA, 2000b), screener surveys, literature 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 that were considered as part
of the regulatory options and specifically discuss the following:
• Description of practice
• Capital costs
• Operation and maintenance costs
9-4
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.3.1 Best Management Practices
9.3.1.1 Best Management Practices Overall
All of the options EPA evaluated included a requirement that all CAAP facilities develop
BMP plans. The requirements and costs associated with the BMP plans were assumed to
be equal for all species and culture systems.
Description of Technology or Practice
Evaluating and planning site-specific activities for the development of a facility-wide
BMP plan, particularly with components 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.
In addition to providing an individualized overall strategy for CAAP facility operations to
control the release of solids, BMP plans can be used at CAAP facilities to ensure that
• Facilities do not discharge spilled drugs or pesticides.
• Facilities do not release drugs or pesticides that are not used in compliance with
FDA and FIFRA requirements.
• Facilities maintain the structural integrity of aquatic animal containment systems.
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 could be included in the plan:
• Operational components to prevent the discharge of blood, viscera, or transport
water.
• Operational components to prevent the discharge of solid waste (e.g., feed bags,
collected solids, culture unit cleaning solids, or mortalities).
• Operational components such as a description of pollution control equipment,
feeding methods, preventative maintenance, and the layout and design of the
facility.
• Description of critical structural integrity components that, if a failure occurs,
would lead to the loss of the cultured animals, collected solids, or drug and
pesticide storage systems.
• Description of cleaning of culture tanks/raceways and other equipment including
how accumulated solids are removed and methods of disposal.
9-5
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
• 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 (i.e., plan certification).
EPA Regional personnel and CAAP industry representatives (Fromm and Hill, 2002;
MacMillan, 2002, personal communication) indicated that development of a BMP plan
would take from about 4 hours for smaller facilities to at least 40 hours for larger
facilities. EPA has assumed that about 40 hours would be required to develop a 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 hours * managerial labor rate
where BMP plan costs are in dollars and the managerial labor rate is the rate reported by
the individual facility.
Operation and Maintenance Costs: All System Types
The O&M costs associated with the BMP plan included annual plan review of 4 hours
each for the farm managers and general labor employees. EPA used the following
formula to calculate costs associated with this monthly plan review:
BMP O&M costs = [(4 * general labor rate * No. of employees) + (4 * managerial
labor rate * No. of managerial employees)]
where O&M costs are in dollars, the general and the managerial labor rates were the rates
reported by the individual facility. Other implementation costs are included in the cost of
specific unit technologies, such as the costs associated with maintaining quiescent zones.
Table 9.3-1 provides a summary of BMP plan development and annual O&M costs.
9-6
-------
Table 9.3-1. Estimated Costs for BMP Plan Development
Assumptions Used in Costing
Labor Cost Elements — General
Labor
BMP Plan Review — All facility
staff to review the facility's BMP
Plan at beginning of employment
and at least annually thereafter.
Description
BMP Plan Review — All facility
staff to review the facility's BMP
Plan at beginning of employment
and at least annually thereafter.
WE
Initial Plan review — 4
hours
Annual plan review — 4
hours
Cost Estimate
4 hours * pay rate
4 hours * pay rate
Reference
Tetra Tech estimate based
on observations at site visits
and sampling events
Tetra Tech estimate based
on observations at site visits
and sampling events
Labor Cost Elements — Managerial Labor
Facility Wide Best Management
Practices (BMP) Plan
Development — Facility
management develop and maintain
a facility wide BMP Plan that
includes at minimum the following
components:
Identification of all waste and
wastewater streams within the
facility
Identification of all wastewater and
manure treatment/storage areas
within the facility
Identification and standard
operating procedures (SOPs) for
all BMPs employed with the
facility
Identification of managerial staff
and their areas of responsibility
Facility Wide Best Management
Practices (BMP) Plan
Development — Facility
management develop and maintain
a facility wide BMP Plan.
BMP Plan Review— Facility
management review the BMP Plan
for updating at least annually.
Annual compliance check — 8
hours/facility
Initial plan
development — 40 hours
Annual plan review — 4
hours
Annual compliance
check — 8
hours/facility/year
40 hours * facility
management pay
rate
4 hours * facility
management pay
rate
8 hours * facility
management pay
rate * once/year
R. McMillan, 2/22/03,
Personal Communication
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.3.2 Feed Management
Feed management is a management practice that was considered as part of Option 1 for
all net pen operations and Option B for flow-through and recirculating systems.
9.3.2.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Feed management recognizes the importance of effective, environmentally sound use of
feed. System 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 culture systems 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.
In net pen systems, 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; 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) and for flow-through
and recirculating systems in Idaho and Washington.
9.3.2.2 Capital Costs
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.
9.3.2.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Observing feeding and keeping records to improve the estimation of delivering the right
amounts of feed helps system operators to minimize wasted feed and adjust feeding rates
as necessary. EPA estimated that implementing a feed management program at a facility
would be site-specific, but would require the implementation of observation, record-
keeping, and data review activities. The extra time required would be used to observe
feeding behavior and perform additional record-keeping (amount of feed added to each
rearing unit, along with records tracking the number and size of fish in the rearing unit).
The record-keeping duties are documented by filling in a logbook. EPA assumed that
observations of feeding behavior and equipment could be accomplished by observing
feeding once per day, 312 days/year, based on information collected during site visits
9-8
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
(Tetra Tech, 2002a; Tetra Tech, 2002b). 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. EPA assumed that one key
component of feed management would be for facilities to keep written records to
document that the person feeding actually carries out the prescribed daily plan. Table
9.3-2 provides a summary of the labor costs elements and methods used to estimate the
costs associated with feed management.
9-9
-------
Table 9.3-2. Estimated Costs for Feed Management
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements—General Labor
Description
LOE
Cost Estimate
Reference
Initial Feed Measurements—Measure
and record feed amounts to be
distributed before being loaded into
the distribution system. Facilities that
feed by hand measure and record the
amount of the feed to be distributed
to each production area.
Hand Feeding Measurements and
Records—Personnel measure feed for
each production area before
distribution. Feed from different
production areas not be mixed prior to
distribution.
Measurement and recording
of feed—2 minutes/rearing
unit/day
No. of rearing units * 2
minutes * general
labor rate * 7
days/week * No. of
active weeks
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Feeder Inspection—Visually inspect
automatic and demand feeders
weekly. Observe automated feeding
systems during discharge to ensure
proper operation.
Mechanical Inspection of
Feeders—Facility personnel inspect all
moving parts for proper function and
normal wear.
Mechanical inspection of
automated feeders —5
minutes/feeder/day
No. of Feeders * 5
minutes * general
labor rate * 7
days/week * No. of
active weeks
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Visual Inspection of Feeding
Operations—Facility observe each
feeder in operation to ensure the feed
is distributed when required, over the
intended surface, and stop when
required.
Observation of feeding
activities (feeder operation
30 seconds, feeding
observation 3 minutes, note
taking 1.5 minutes)—5
minutes/production unit/day
No. of production units
* 5 minutes * general
labor rate * No. of
active weeks
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Feeder Repairs—Repair of any feeder
that shows signs of malfunctioning as
soon as feasible.
Facility specific
Feeder Calibration—Automated
feeding systems calibrated prior to
installation and then at least monthly
to ensure accurate discharges of feed
to the production system.
Initial Calibration—Upon installation,
calibrate each feeder to ensure the
proper volume or mass of feed is
distributed with each operation.
Feeder specific
Ongoing Calibration—Check the
calibration on each feeder at least
once/month or each time the feed size
is changed.
Feeder specific
-------
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements—General Labor
Description
LOE
Cost Estimate
Reference
Inventory Record-keeping—Staff
keep detailed notes on the following
information:
- Estimated number of cultured
species
- Estimated biomass
- Production unit sampled
Inventory information entered in the
facility's master records. This may be
either a computer database system or
hardcopy records
Record-keeping Activities—Inventory
information calculated based on data
collected in the field. Records at
minimum include the estimated
number of cultured species, estimated
biomass, and date production unit
sampled.
Staff record-keeping
activities—10
minutes/rearing unit/week in
use.
No. of units in use * 10
minutes * general
labor rate * 0.5 * No.
of consultations
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Feeding Observation—Facilities
using automated feeding systems
observe feeding in each production
unit at least once/day and note any
uneaten feed.
Staff observe feeding until all feed
has been consumed or five minutes
after feeding has ceased.
Automated Feeding Observations &
Record-keeping—Facility personnel
observe each automated feeder in
operation once/day. Record-keeping at
minimum includes information on
feeder operation and feeding activity.
Observation of feeding
activities (feeder operation
30 seconds, feeding
observation 3 minutes, note
taking 1.5 minutes)—5
minutes/production unit/day
No. of production units
* 5 minutes * general
labor rate * 7
days/week * No. of
active weeks
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Hand Feeding Observations & Record-
keeping—Observe feeding unit until
all feed has been eaten or five minutes
after feeding ceases. Record
observation. Record-keeping at
minimum includes information on
feeder operation and feeding activity.
Observation of feeding
activities (feed distribution
30 seconds, feeding
observation 3 minutes, note
taking 1.5 minutes)—5
minutes/production unit/day
No. of production units
* 5 minutes * general
labor rate * 7
days/week * No. of
active weeks
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
-------
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements—General Labor
Description
LOE
Cost Estimate
Reference
Feeding Record-keeping—Staff keep
detailed notes on the following
information:
- Amount of feed distributed
- Feeding time
- Feeding activity
At the end of each day, record feed
information collected during the day
in the facility's master records. This
may be either a computer database
system or hardcopy records.
Daily Record-keeping
Activities—Record the daily feeding
information in the field during feeding
Records at minimum include the
amount of feed distributed, feed type,
feeding time, and feeding activity.
Note: Should be completed
during the field activities, no
additional time required
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Data Entry QC—Staff check at least
5% of the data entries to ensure the
correct information has been entered.
Facility specific
Weekly Biomass
Measurements—Staff conduct
biomass measurements at least
once/week. Samples are random and
contain at least 10 samples to be
weighed and measured.
Collection and Examination—Facility
staff randomly collect samples from
each production area to weigh and
measure. The specimens are kept alive
while waiting for examination so they
can be returned to the production area.
Facility staff record at minimum, the
date and time of sampling, the
production area sampled, number of
specimens collected, and the length
and weight of each specimen.
Collection and examination
of samples—30
minutes/production unit
(sample collection setup—5
minutes, sample collection 3
minutes, sample examination
1 minute/sample, field note
taking 10 minutes)
No. of production units
* 30 minutes * general
labor rate
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
-------
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements—General Labor
Description
LOE
Cost Estimate
Reference
Daily Water Quality
Measurements—Water quality
measurements collected each day to
determine changes in culture water
characteristics. Analytes include at
minimum:
- Dissolved oxygen (DO)
- Temperature
-pH
- Ammonia
Daily Water Quality
Measurements—Water quality
measurements taken at points deemed
appropriate by the facility manager. At
minimum, water quality parameters
measured where the water first enters
the facility.
Water quality sampling and
record-keeping—5
minutes/day.
5 minutes/day *
general labor rate * 7
days/week * No. of
active weeks
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Equipment Calibration—Facility staff
record at minimum, date and time of
sampling, the source sampled, and the
result of each measurement. Calibrate
all sampling equipment/the
manufacturer's specifications. Note the
results of these calibrations in a
calibration log maintained for each
piece of equipment.
Equipment calibration, and
record-keeping—5
minutes/day.
5 minutes/day *
general labor rate 7
days/week * No. of
active weeks
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
-------
Assumptions Used For Costing Labor
Cost Elements — Managerial Labor
Daily Feeding and Water Quality Data
Review — Managers at least weekly
review all feed and water quality data for
the facility.
Weekly Biomass and Health Inspection
Data Review — Managers review all
weekly biomass and health inspection
reports for problems.
Feeding Regime Changes — Based upon
the review of biomass and health
inspections, changes to the upcoming
feeding regimes can be made to obtain
more efficient feeding results and insure
the optimal health of the cultured species.
Description
Weekly Data Review — Facility
management review at least
weekly the results of all feeding
and water quality measurements.
Additional review may be needed
during significant weather events
or disease outbreaks within the
facility.
Staff Consultation — Facility
management consult with staff as
necessary to update feeding
regimes and discuss water quality
issues.
Weekly Data Review — Facility
management review at least
biweekly the results of all biomass
and health inspection data.
Additional review may be needed
during disease outbreaks within
the facility.
Feeding Regime
Changes — Facility management
modify the feeding regime as
necessary to ensure optimal health
of the cultured species.
LOE
Weekly information
review — 0.25 hours/week
Staff consultation
information — 0.25
hours/consultation/week
Weekly information
review — 0.25 hours/week
Feeding regime
changes — 0.25
hours/change
Cost Estimate
0.25 hours * managerial
labor rate * No. of
active weeks
0.25 hours * managerial
labor rate * No. of
active weeks
0.25 hours * managerial
labor rate * No. of
active weeks
0.25 hours * managerial
labor rate * No. of
active weeks
Reference
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.3.3 Drug, Pesticide, and Feed Materials Spill Prevention Training and INAD and
Extralabel Reporting
Drug, pesticide, and feed spill prevention training and INAD and extralabel reporting
requirements were considered for all systems that reported using drugs or pesticides in
the detailed survey. EPA assumed all requirements and costs associated with the drug and
pesticide spill prevention training and INAD and extralabel reporting requirements to be
equal for all species and culture systems.
Materials Storage
To address materials storage, facilities must ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides,
and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills that may result in the discharge of drugs,
pesticides, or feed to waters of the United States. In the event that a spill of drugs,
pesticides, or feed occurs that results in a discharge to waters of the United States, the
owner or operator will provide an oral report of this to the permitting authority within 24
hours of its occurrence and a written report within 7 days. The report will include the
identity of the material spilled and an estimated amount. Facilities must also implement
procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled material. Many
facilities may already have implemented practices that address these requirements.
Discharge of IN AD and Extralabel Drug Discharges
Facilities that discharge drugs or pesticides that are used under the FDA INAD program
or as a prescription from a licensed veterinarian may be discharging drugs or pesticides
that have not been thoroughly reviewed for environmental impacts. This reporting alerts
permitting authorities of discharges.
EPA does not anticipate that facilities will incur significant cost for this requirement.
Facilities that use drugs as part of an INAD development are required to keep records that
include information such as:
• Diagnosis
• Number of animals tested
• Route of administration
• Amount of drug used
• Number of treatments
• Other information specified in the experimental protocols
9.3.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice
The primary purpose of the drug, pesticide, and feed spill prevention training is to
prevent the accidental discharge of drugs, pesticides, and feed used at CAAP facilities.
The training should focus on practices used by facility staff to prevent spillage or other
inadvertent releases of drugs, pesticides, and feed. The facility should document staff
training. The INAD and extralabel drug reporting requirements allow the state to easily
monitor the use of these drugs by facilities located within their boundaries.
9-15
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.3.3.2 Capital Costs
The capital costs for the drug, pesticide, and feed spill prevention training and INAD and
extralabel drug reporting requirements include the managerial time to become familiar
with the requirements and to develop a training program for all staff on the applicable
procedures at their facility.
EPA also computed costs for containment systems for liquid storage of drugs and
pesticides, including 55-gallon drug storage and smaller containers. When costing these
structures, EPA assumed the following:
• Liquid used in quantities of 55 gallons or greater are assumed to be stored in 55-
gallon drums.
• Facilities using more than six 55-gallon drums per year were assumed to have
drugs and pesticides delivered more than once per year, and therefore do not
require storing more than three pairs of drums at a time.
• Facilities using pesticides in smaller amounts than 55-gallon drums were
evaluated for containment storage using pesticide storage cabinets.
The storage-spill prevention system that was evaluated stores drums in a single unit or in
pairs, up to three pairs high. For facilities that reported using less than 55 gallons, a
smaller containment system was costed.
For facilities requiring storage of small amounts of pesticides, EPA costed facilities for
pesticide storage using 12-, 30-, and 45-gallon pesticide cabinets.
9.3.3.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs
The O&M costs for the drug and pesticide spill prevention training and INAD and
extralabel reporting include managerial and general labor for annual training and
reporting.
Details that explain the costing of the drug and pesticide spill prevention and reporting
are presented in Table 9.3-3.
9-16
-------
Table 9.3-3. Drug and Pesticide Spill Prevention Training and INAD Reporting
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements — General Labor
Drug and Pesticide Spill
Prevention — The purpose of this
training is to insure the proper use
and storage of specific drugs and
pesticides in the production facility.
The training also addresses practices
to minimize the accidental spillage or
release of drugs or pesticides.
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements — Managerial Labor
Drug and Pesticide Spill
Prevention — The purpose of this
training is to insure the proper use
and storage of specific drugs and
pesticides in the production facility.
The training also addresses practices
to minimize the accidental spillage or
release of drugs or pesticides.
INADs and Extra! abel
Requirements — Facility specific
usage.
Description
Staff Training — All facility staff attend
training sessions lead by facility
management as necessary to insure the
proper use and storage of specific drugs
and pesticides in the production facility.
Description
Management Training — Facility
management develop a training program
to be attended by facility staff as
necessary to insure the proper use and
storage of specific drugs and pesticides in
the production facility.
Staff Training — Facility management
lead training sessions attended by facility
staff as necessary to insure the proper use
and storage of specific drugs and
pesticides in the production facility.
Facility management review and report
the application to the appropriate agency
as soon as possible after application.
Facility management file a written report
of the application to the appropriate
agency as soon as possible after
application.
WE
Annual training — 4
hours
WE
Plan development — 8
hours
Annual training — 4
hours
Oral report — 20
minutes
Written report — 1 hour
Cost Estimate
Number of employees *
4 hours * general labor
rate
Cost Estimate
8 hours * managerial
labor rate
4 hours * managerial
labor rate
20 minutes *
managerial labor rate *
No. of uses/year
1 hour * managerial
labor rate * No. of
uses/year
Reference
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Reference
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional
judgment
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.3.4 Maintaining Structural Integrity
Maintaining structural integrity is applicable for all systems. Estimated costs for
maintaining structural integrity can be found in Table 9.3-4.
9.3.4.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Practices to inspect the structural integrity of the critical components of the facility
physical plant prevent the failure of the structure, resulting in the accidental or
catastrophic release of pollutants from a CAAP facility. These critical components
include culture system components (e.g., culture units, drains, nets, predator controls,
settling basins, and biosolids storage areas), water supply conveyances, and wastewater
treatment technologies. Facility personnel should evaluate systems to identify the critical
components that require routine inspection.
9.3.4.2 Capital Costs
EPA estimates that practices to maintain structural integrity will not require any
additional capital costs. EPA included costs for the identification of the critical
components in the overall BMP plan development activities.
9.3.4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs
For the purposes of estimating costs, EPA assumed the O&M costs to maintain the
structural integrity practices include managerial and staff labor for routine inspections of
the following critical components:
• Visual checks of each production unit
• Reporting failure of the structural integrity
9-18
-------
Table 9.3-4. Estimated Costs for Maintaining Structural Integrity
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements — General Labor
Maintenance of Structural
Integrity — Staff inspect and document
routine assessments of the structural
integrity of the production systems.
Assumptions Used in Costing Labor
Cost Elements — Managerial Labor
Maintenance of Structural
Integrity — Facility manager maintains
oversight over all inspections of
production units and other critical
components to insure their integrity and
insure the facility's compliance with any
rules or regulations.
Description
Production Unit
Inspection — Facility staff inspect
each production unit weekly to
ensure the integrity.
Description
Failure Reporting — Facility
management submit oral and
written reports to the appropriate
agency as soon as possible after
the failure.
LOE
Visual checks of each
unit — 5
minutes/unit/week
LOE
Oral Report — 20
minutes once/year
Written Report — 1 hour
once/year
Cost Estimate
No of production units *
5 minutes * general
labor rate * 52 days/year
Cost Estimate
20 minutes * managerial
labor rate * 1 report/year
1 hour * managerial
labor rate * 1 report/year
Reference
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional judgment
Reference
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional judgment
Tetra Tech estimate
based on best
professional judgment
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.4 FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS
EPA defined individual facility characteristics based on information supplied in the
detailed survey. Table 9.4-1 provides a summary of the facility counts for those facilities
that responded to the detailed survey. This summary groups similar facilities by system
type, production level, species, and ownership.
Table 9.4-1. Facility Groupings by System-Ownership-Species
Flow-through Systems
Production
> 100,000
> 100,000
> 100,000
> 100,000
Species
Salmon
Striped Bass-Tilapia-Catfish-Other
Trout
Trout
Owner
Commercial & Non-
commercial
Commercial & Non-
commercial
Commercial
Non-commercial
Total
Recirculatin
Production
> 100,000
Number of
Facilities
13
10
13
28
64
» Systems
Species
Striped Bass-Salmon-Shrimp-
Tilapia-Other
Owner
Commercial & Non-
commercial
Total
Number of
Facilities
1
7
Net Pen Systems
Production
> 100,000
Species
Salmon-Trout
Owner
Commercial
Total
Number of
Facilities
8
8
9.5 SAMPLE WEIGHTING FACTORS
In August 2001, EPA mailed approximately 6,000 screener surveys to aquatic animal
production facilities. EPA received responses from 4,900 facilities, of which about 2,300
facilities reported that they produce aquatic animals. EPA based its proposed regulations
on the data collected from the screener questionnaire.
Consistent with EPA's intentions described in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
based its analyses for the final rule on data collected from the detailed questionnaire. The
preamble described the detailed questionnaire (Hochheimer, 2003) and EPA's plans to
recalculate estimates for costs and benefits associated with the proposed regulatory
options. EPA reviewed the responses from the detailed questionnaire, performed follow-
up activities on the detailed questionnaires resulting from inconsistencies or questions
from an initial review of responses, and completed analyses of the data contained in these
responses.
EPA used the screener responses to select a stratified random sample to receive the
detailed questionnaire. Sample criteria were designed to primarily capture facilities that
produce aquatic animals and are likely to be covered by the proposed rule. EPA also
9-20
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
developed sample criteria to capture facilities that are out of scope (based on information
in the screener survey) to validate its assumptions about the applicability of the proposed
regulation. For example, the sample criteria includes facilities with ponds, which are out
of scope in the proposed regulation, to confirm that additional regulations for ponds are
unnecessary. The Technical Development Document (TDD), page All, describes in
detail the criteria and includes facilities that are in-scope and out of scope. The facilities
selected met one of these criteria:
• Aquariums.
• Production includes alligators and total biomass exceeds 100,000 pounds.
• Production includes trout or salmon and total biomass exceeds 20,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is catfish; and
total biomass exceeds 2,200,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is shrimp, tilapia,
other finfish, or hybrid striped bass; and total biomass exceeds 360,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is any method except ponds, and total biomass
exceeds 100,000 pounds.
Applying these criteria resulted in 539 facilities from the screener questionnaire
responses with these characteristics. EPA then classified the 539 facilities into 44 groups
defined by facility type (commercial, government, research, or tribal), the predominant
species, and predominant production. A sample was drawn from the 539 facilities
ensuring sufficient representation of facilities in each of the 44 groups. The sample drawn
consisted of 263 facilities. From these 263 facilities EPA excluded 11 facilities that were
duplicates on the mailing list or, after revising production estimates, did not meet the
production thresholds for a CAAP facility. Detailed questionnaires were finally sent to
252 facilities.
EPA received responses on 215 of the 252 questionnaires. A few responses contained
information on more than one facility. Subsequently, EPA separated that information into
several questionnaires so that a single questionnaire represented an individual facility.
EPA also excluded data from 12 facilities that returned incomplete responses. Because
these facilities would not have been subject to the proposed limitations, EPA did not ask
for more information. After separating multiple responses and excluding incomplete
responses, information is available from 205 facilities.
Because EPA selected the 205 facilities using a statistical design (see Appendix A of the
Technical Development Document for more information), the responses allowed EPA to
build a database to be used for estimating population characteristics reflecting the above
criteria. For national (i.e., population) estimates, EPA applied survey weights to the
facility responses that incorporate the statistical probability of a particular facility being
selected to receive the detailed questionnaire and adjust for non-responses. (The response
rate was about 80% for the detailed questionnaire. Appendix A of the proposed Technical
Development Document addresses the nonresponse adjustments for the screener
questionnaire.) In this case, a survey weight of 3 means that the facility represents itself
and two others in the population.
9-21
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.6 REGULATORY OPTIONS CONSIDERED
For the final regulation, EPA decided to subject flow-through and recirculating systems
to the same requirements and so included them in the same subcategory. EPA did not
change the regulatory requirements for net pen systems. However, EPA considered two
additional regulatory options for CAAP facilities:
• Option A—solids removal through treatment technologies and BMPs, facility
BMP plan, BMP components to maintain the structural integrity of the aquatic
animal containment system, and practices for minimizing the discharge of drugs
and pesticides.
• Option B—additional solids removal through treatment technologies or feed
management BMPs.
Table 9.6-1 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)TBest Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
regulatory options.
Table 9.6-1. Treatment Technology and BMP Components of
the Regulatory Options Evaluated
Regulatory
Option
m
.0
cL
O
Option A
Required BMPs and Technologies
Primary solids settling
BMP plan
Drug and pesticide BMP plan
Maintenance for the structural integrity of the
containment system
Active feed monitoring
Solids polishing and compliance monitoring OR feed
management plan
Subcategory
Flow-through and
Recirculating
X
X
X
X
X
Note: "X" represents a required treatment technology or BMP component for an option.
EPA would allow facilities alternate compliance provisions for meeting the solids
removal requirements for flow-through and recirculating. The first alternative requires
specific numeric TSS limits (Table 9.6-2). 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
believes that the alternate BMP plan approach could cost less than the monitoring and
9-22
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
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 performed additional cost analyses for the BMP plan alternative.
Table 9.6-2. Summary of TSS Numeric Limits for
Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
System/Discharge Type
Flow-through; full flow and single discharge
Flow-through; offline settling, separate discharge
Recirculating; more than 100,000 pounds annual
production
Maximum
Daily (mg/L)
10
69
50
Maximum Monthly
Average (mg/L)
6
55
30
9.7 RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS
Table 9.7-1. Summary of Cost Analysis by System-Ownership-Species Group
Flow-through Systems
Production
>100,000
>100,000
>100,000
>100,000
Species
Salmon
Striped
Bass-
Tilapia-
Catfish-
Other
Trout
Trout
Owner
Commercial
& Non-
commercial
Commercial
& Non-
commercial
Commercial
Non-
commercial
Number
of
Facilities
15
45
52
96
Land
$-
$-
$-
$-
Capital
$6,760.62
$24,476.88
$16,278.87
$68,828.55
One time
Non-
capital
$9,982.60
$59,269.99
$34,031.19
$99,413.88
Annual
O&M
$57,402.49
$298,735.93
$227,039.89
$760,510.82
Recirculatin
Production
>100,000
g Systems
Species
Striped
Bass-
Salmon-
Shrimp-
Tilapia-
Other
Owner
Commercial
& Non-
commercial
Number
of
Facilities
14
Land
$-
Capital
$22,578.03
One time
Non-
capital
$8,946.82
Annual
O&M
$541,73.47
Net Pen Systems
Production
>100,000
Species
Salmon-
Trout
Owner
Commercial
Number
of
Facilities
19
Land
$-
Capital
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
9.8 CHANGES TO COSTING METHODOLOGY
9.8.1 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
resulted in 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 CAAP 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.
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
shellfish in open waters, and alligators were no longer considered within the scope of the
proposed regulation.
9.8.2 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). Instead of assuming one model facility for each
of the three proposed subcategories, EPA used a minimum of six model facilities for each
facility type in terms of ownership (e.g., commercial, government, research, tribal) and
species size combination (e.g., fingerlings, stackers, food-size, trout, salmon, other) for
9-24
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
better accuracy in its analyses. EPA applied these facility classifications to the screener
survey data to derive the model facility characteristics that were 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.
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 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.
9.8.3 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.
9.9 REFERENCES
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, C. 2002. SER Comment: Carol R. Engle. 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.
Frornm, C. and H.B. Hill. Technical Memorandum: USEPA Region 10. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Hart, B. 2002. SER Comment: Betsy Hart. 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.
9-25
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Hochheimer, J. 2003. Memo Re: Summary of Survey Data, Weighted. 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.
Jensen, G. 2003. Comment to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding the
Proposed CAAP Rule. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluents
Task Force.
MacMillan, J. 2002. Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Buhl, ID. Personal communication,
March 4, 2002.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3ded.
revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton, pp. 220-240. McGraw Hill, NY.
Pierce, S. 2002. SER Comment: Sony Pierce. 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. Site Visit Report for Acadia Aquaculture (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b. Site Visit Report for Heritage Salmon (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
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.
Vaught, T.S. 2002. SER Comment: Tony S. Vaught. 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.
9-26
-------
Chapter 9: Costing Methodology
Westat. 2002. AAP Screener Survey Data: Production Range Report, Revision IV.
Westat, Inc. Rockville, MD.
9-27
-------
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 technologies and practices included in 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.
10.1.1 Approach for Estimating Loadings
Consistent with EPA's intentions described in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
based its analyses for the final rule on data collected from the detailed questionnaire. The
preamble described the detailed questionnaire (Hochheimer, 2003) and EPA's plans to
recalculate estimates for costs and benefits associated with the proposed regulatory
options. EPA reviewed the responses from the detailed questionnaire, performed follow-
up activities on the detailed questionnaires resulting from inconsistencies or questions
from an initial review of responses, and completed analyses of the data contained in these
responses.
For the analyses that support the final regulation, EPA used a facility-specific approach
for estimating pollutant load reductions. EPA obtained detailed, facility-level information
for a randomly-drawn, stratified sample of potentially in-scope facilities through the
detailed AAP survey (USEPA, 2002a). The sample was taken from a group of screener
surveys. EPA analyzed the detailed survey information and determined the level of
treatment currently in place at each facility (i.e., baseline). For each facility, EPA
evaluated the specifications of technologies and BMPs for each option that were used to
determine regulatory compliance in comparison to the technologies in place at the
facility. EPA used data from the facility to estimate the pollutant load reductions that
would be expected from any components that were not in place.
Feed inputs to aquatic animal culture systems are the drivers of effluent quality
discharged from CAAP facilities. 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. Pollutants
contributed include organic solids (in the form of TSS and contribute to BOD), nutrients
(i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus), and small amounts of metals and other compounds that
10-1
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
are present in the feed. Second, uneaten feed settles, breaks down, and increases the
pollutant load in the culture water. Depending on the culture and effluent treatment
systems, some or all of the feed by-products can be discharged from a CAAP facility. For
each in-scope facility that responded to the detailed survey, EPA estimated raw waste
loads, baseline loads, and effluent loads for different regulatory option scenarios. All of
the estimates are based on feed inputs to the systems.
EPA developed a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to serve as a computing platform
for the analysis. The spreadsheets linked feed inputs, unit pollutant load reductions of the
technologies or practices representing each regulatory option, and facility attributes to
derive a facility-specific load reduction estimate for compliance. For example, a pollutant
load module was developed for feed management BMPs. Inputs, in the form of estimated
pollutant loads, were customized for each individual facility using feed data supplied in
the detailed survey. For each facility, EPA evaluated feed management strategies to
enable the facility to meet narrative limits. EPA adjusted the total load reductions
according to the layout of the individual facility, the technologies or practices currently in
place. To check these estimates, EPA compared predicted loads and concentrations with
discharge monitoring data that were available for some of the facilities. Finally, EPA
multiplied the load reduction estimates for each facility by its sample weight and then
summed the weighted load reductions to determine national estimates.
10.1.2 Organization of the Chapter
The following pollutant load reduction information is discussed in detail in this chapter:
• Section 10.2 presents the structure of the load reduction model. EPA's load
reduction model for the CAAP industry uses a facility specific approach to
develop pollutant load reductions (from baseline loads) associated with each
regulatory option.
• Section 10.3 provides detailed background information on the contribution of
feeds to pollutant loads (including constituents of feeds, feeding practices, and
feed conversion ratios (FCRs)), the fate of feed in CAAP systems, and the method
used to estimate raw pollutant loads.
• Section 10.4 discusses unit load reduction modules, which are components of the
treatment technologies that compose the regulatory options. Each treatment
technology unit load reduction module contains formulas by which to calculate
the pollutant load reductions associated with each regulatory option based on the
facility characteristics.
• Section 10.5 discusses a summary of the facility groupings, based on analysis of
the detailed surveys. This section also provides estimates of raw and baseline
pollutant loads from facilities.
• Section 10.6 describes the estimates of pollutant loads from facilities when the
regulatory options were applied.
• Section 10.7provides a summary of estimates for loads of other materials (i.e.,
metals, PCBs, drugs) that would be removed with solids.
10-2
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
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 control
technologies that have known pollutant removal efficiencies and can achieve discharge
limits for total suspended solids, as demonstrated by facilities in the CAAP industry.
To generate industry loading removals associated with each regulatory option for CAAP
facilities, EPA developed a computer-based model made up of several individual
treatment technology modules. Figure 10.2-1 illustrates the loading model and shows
that it consists of several components, which can be grouped into five major categories:
• Feed input
• Baseline facility configuration
• Unit load reduction modules
• Output data—facility-specific pollutant load estimates and national pollutant load
estimates
• Weighting factors
Baseline Facility
Configuration
Unit Load Reduction
Modules
Output Data
Facility-Specific
Pollutant Loads
National Pollutant
Load Estimates
Figure 10.2-1. Schematic of Loading Model Structure
Since feed inputs are directly proportional to pollutant loads, annual feed use was first
evaluated for each facility. Once a validated feed estimate was obtained, raw pollutant
loads were calculated using known relationships between feed inputs and pollutant
outputs. The configuration of each specific facility was analyzed and the characteristics
matched to the pollutant reduction components of the specified options. Each unit load
10-3
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
reduction module calculates loading reductions for a specific wastewater treatment
technology (e.g., a primary settling basin or feed management) based on loading
reductions for the specific facility characteristics. When sufficient information from the
detailed survey were provided that enabled EPA to match facility-specific configurations
to the desired regulatory outcome, a unit load reduction module was not evaluated (i.e.,
no costs or pollutant load reductions were assigned). For example, EPA assumed that
facilities with quiescent zones and settling basins listed on the detailed survey had these
technologies properly designed, installed, and operated. Thus, the facility would not bear
a regulatory cost or contribute to national reductions in pollutants from primary settling.
When possible, the facility's monitoring data were checked to confirm consistency with
the regulatory limits. All of the unit load reductions were summed for a facility to
estimate the farm-level pollutant load reductions. Weighting factors were then applied to
the loading reductions to weight the reductions by the estimated percentage of operations
that are similar to the specific facility. EPA summed these weighted facility reductions to
estimate national load reductions resulting from the regulation.
10.2.1 Facility Configuration
The facility configuration part of the loading model sets up the characteristics of each
unique facility, based primarily on system type, species, the combination of existing and
final management practices and technologies, annual production, and feed inputs.
Input data to the model include the following:
• Data associated with feeding practices, including feeding in pounds/day and
pollutant concentrations conversion factors associated with feed to estimate raw
waste loads.
• Estimates of annual production.
• Average daily flow rates to each production unit and treatment component.
• Technologies and BMPs in place.
• Pollutant removals of technology options and BMPs.
10.2.2 Unit Load Reduction Modules
The unit load reduction modules contain the pollutant removal information for each
component, BMP, or treatment technology contained in the regulatory options. The load
reduction modules calculate the pollutant removals for the specific facilities, based on
culture species and production system, using pollutant-specific removals for each of the
regulatory options. The various load reduction factors are discussed in Section 10.5.
10.2.3 Output Data
Output data from the loading model provide estimates of baseline pollutant loadings
discharged and incremental pollutant removals associated with each regulatory option for
individual facilities and at a national level. Section 10.6 discusses the output data in more
detail.
10-4
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.2.4 Weighting Factors
EPA's detailed industry survey was sent to a representative sample of the CAAP
industry. Each sampled facility represents one or more facilities in the national
population of CAAP facilities. The relationship between the sampled facility (which
responded to the detailed survey) and the facilities it represents in the national population
is characterized by a sample weighting factor. This weighting factor is used by EPA to
scale its estimates from the sample population to the national population by multiplying
an individual facility's sample weight and load estimates for pollutants. The sample
weights are initially calculated when the stratified sample is drawn and then adjusted for
non response in the surveys.
In August 2001, EPA mailed approximately 6,000 screener surveys to aquatic animal
production facilities. EPA received responses from 4,900 facilities, of which about 2,300
facilities reported that they produce aquatic animals. EPA used the screener responses to
select a stratified random sample to receive the detailed questionnaire. Sample criteria
were designed to primarily capture facilities that produce aquatic animals and are likely
to be covered by the proposed rule. EPA also developed sample criteria to capture
facilities that are out of scope (based on information in the screener survey) to validate its
assumptions about the applicability of the proposed regulation. For example, the sample
criteria includes facilities with ponds, which are out of scope in the proposed regulation,
to confirm that additional regulations for ponds are unnecessary. The Technical
Development Document (TDD) for the proposed rule (USEPA, 2002b), page All,
describes in detail the criteria and includes facilities that are in-scope and out of scope.
The facilities selected met one of these criteria:
• Aquariums.
• Production includes alligators and total biomass exceeds 100,000 pounds.
• Production includes trout or salmon and total biomass exceeds 20,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is catfish; and
total biomass exceeds 2,200,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is ponds; predominant species is shrimp, tilapia,
other finfish, or hybrid striped bass; and total biomass exceeds 360,000 pounds.
• Predominant production method is any method except ponds, and total biomass
exceeds 100,000 pounds.
Applying these criteria resulted in 539 facilities from the screener questionnaire
responses with these characteristics. EPA then classified the 539 facilities into 44 groups
defined by facility type (commercial, government, research, or tribal), the predominant
species, and predominant production system type. A sample was drawn from the 539
facilities ensuring sufficient representation of facilities in each of the 44 groups. The
sample drawn consisted of 263 facilities. From these 263 facilities EPA excluded 11
facilities that were duplicates on the mailing list or, after revising production estimates,
did not meet the production thresholds described in the selection criteria for a CAAP
facility. Detailed questionnaires were finally sent to 252 facilities.
10-5
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
EPA received responses on 215 of the 252 questionnaires. A few responses contained
information on more than one facility. Subsequently, EPA separated that information into
several questionnaires so that a single questionnaire represented an individual facility.
EPA also excluded data from 12 facilities that returned incomplete responses. Because
these facilities would not have been subject to the proposed limitations, EPA did not ask
for more information. After separating multiple responses and excluding incomplete
responses, information is available from 205 facilities.
Because EPA selected the 205 facilities using a statistical design (see Appendix A of the
TDD, USEPA, 2002b, for more information), the responses allowed EPA to build a
database to be used for estimating population characteristics reflecting the above criteria.
For national (i.e., population) estimates, EPA applied survey weights to the facility
responses that incorporate the statistical probability of a particular facility being selected
to receive the detailed questionnaire and adjusted for non-responses. (The response rate
was about 80% for the detailed questionnaire. Appendix A of the proposed Technical
Development Document addresses the nonresponse adjustments for the screener
questionnaire.) In this case, a survey weight of 3 means that the facility represents itself
and two others in the population.
10.3 FEED INPUTS
10.3.1 Introduction
Food represents the fuel for a living organism, allowing it to live, grow, and reproduce.
Food represents the input of energy to the aquatic animals; its main forms of energy are
fats, carbohydrates, and proteins. All energy acquired through the ingestion of food is
ultimately converted to wastes (in feces or by excretion), used in metabolic processes, or
deposited as new body tissues (Jobling, 1994).
Jobling (1994) estimates that 20% to 35% of the ingested energy in aquatic animals is
deposited as growth (i.e., new body tissue). Goddard (1996) states that up to one third
(33%) of the content of feed used in intensive aquatic animal production may be
indigestible and thus is excreted as feces, which may contain up to 30% of the dietary
carbon and 10% of the consumed nitrogen. Chen (2000) estimates that up to 80% of feed
input (on a dry weight basis) will not be used for growth and will eventually support
metabolic processes or be wasted.
In most in-scope CAAP facilities, the aquatic animals being grown are carnivores (e.g.,
trout, salmon, striped bass) and omnivores (catfish and tilapia). Practical diets for these
species are common and generally available to the facilities. However, there are many
factors that contribute to the balance of growth, meeting metabolic needs, and producing
wastes when feeding aquatic animals. These factors include many individual
characteristics, as well as the interaction among the different factors. Some of the
individual characteristics include:
• Species-specific factors—genetics, trophic level
• Diet—energy levels, form, feeding program, ingredients
10-6
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
• Environment—temperature, water quality, stressors
The combination of these factors can contribute to overall success at a CAAP facility in
meeting its production goals and to the amount of waste produced. This combination of
factors also results in variation among (and often within) facilities in terms of waste
output. EPA attempted to account for some of this variation by using annual averages to
describe feed inputs and pollutant outputs. EPA also grouped similar types of facilities
(such as ownership-system type-species combination) when performing analyses. The
following provides more detailed information about some of the sources of variation
associated with feeds (and feeding) and the efficiency in which the aquatic animal uses
the feed.
The aquatic animal producer has an economic incentive to observe that the feed
introduced is fully utilized by the fish with little or no waste. Nevertheless, even under
the most careful feeding conditions it is, from a practical point of view, difficult to
eliminate feed waste completely (Cho et al., 1991). However, significant improvements
in the utilization of feed have been realized during the last decade. Although feed waste
cannot be determined accurately, it can be minimized by aiming at optimum rather than
maximum production, along with other techniques available to the producer. This
requires an awareness of important principles that can impact feed utilization by the fish.
Feeding of high energy diets is now a common practice for trout and salmon, which are
carnivorous species. Omnivores (like catfish and some tilapia species), on the other hand,
are fed lower-energy diets than carnivores. Diets of herbivores (such as tilapia and carp
species) are even lower in energy. These herbivore fish require more bulk in their diet
(which means they must be fed a higher percentage of their body weight on a daily basis
to meet their energy and growth requirements) and a more-or-less continuous feed intake
as they lack a stomach, but have a long gut.
Carnivores may use 44% of the feed calories for metabolism, 29% for growth, and 27%
excreted, while herbivores use 37% for metabolism, 20% for growth, and a high 43%
excretion. These are rule-of-thumb values; they depend on diets (especially low versus
high energy), percent digestibility, and species. The capacity of different species offish
to utilize the energy contained in different nutrients varies greatly (DeSilva and
Anderson, 1995). Also, the best performance occurs at a species optimum temperature.
Diets should provide required energy by means of fats and carbohydrates and spare the
protein for metabolic needs, especially growth. This has two important facets; protein is
the most expensive component of the diet and should not be used for energy, but rather
for growing muscle (meat) and secondly this reduces the nitrogen waste.
Protein sparing is a good idea, but if the protein-to-energy ratio is tilted too much toward
energy, feeding rate and efficiency are impaired. The goal, therefore, is to achieve the
optimum protein-to-energy ratio, which is species dependent (Forster and Hardy, 2000).
The less protein is used as an energy source (i.e., as an aerobic substrate), the less
nitrogen is excreted. For example, Johnsen and Wandsvik (1991) reported that using high
energy diets have resulted in reduced nitrogen excretion by species up to 35%. Well
balanced, high-energy diets have accomplished much in reducing nutrient wastes, as well
10-7
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
as reductions in solid wastes. This fact is also reflected in major improvements in the
efficiency of feeding, which is measured by feed conversion ratio (FCR) values. For
instance, in Nordic countries, FCRs for species were over 2.0 in 1976, but only 1.0-1.1 in
1995 (Pearson and Black, 2000).
As an example, for optimum growth and efficiency of a feeding program, feeding levels
should be adjusted when energy levels of the feed vary significantly. For low-energy
diets, feeding levels should be increased and vice versa (Barrows and Hardy, 2001).
Successful utilization of feed has physical and physiological aspects. Many factors play a
role in the effectiveness of these two major functions and it is important for the aquatic
animal producer to be aware of these.
The physical component, the capture and ingestion of the feed, depends on the fish's
sensory capacities to locate food and their ability to capture, handle, and ingest food
items. Once ingested, they depend on their physiological and biochemical capacities to
digest, transfer, and utilize the ingested nutrients (Kestemont and Baras, 2001).
Because of the many factors controlling feed intake (appetite), the management of
feeding and feed distribution is a very complex one (Guillaume et al., 2001). It is also
important to properly distribute and time the availability of food for the fish. The
activation of the feeding behavior (appetite) can be influenced by many factors such as:
• Aquatic animal health and stress
• Water quality, especially temperature and dissolved oxygen
• Whether the stomach is full or empty
• Time of day; diurnal responses
• Time of year; seasonal responses
• Rearing density
• Rearing unit characteristics, such as shape, depth, and flow pattern
With respect to the physiological/biochemical component affecting the utilization of the
ingested feed, the following should be considered:
• Diet composition; the energy content, nutritional balance in particular with
respect to the energy to protein ratio, digestibility of the ingredients, plant versus
animal source ingredients, vitamins, minerals and additives.
• Carnivorous versus omnivorous/herbivorous species.
• Water quality, especially temperature, dissolved oxygen, as well as the buildup of
ammonia and carbon dioxide in the rearing water.
• Overall fish health and stress.
Estimation of feed requirements may be relatively easy in theory, but estimates will
seldom match the needs of the aquatic animals at a specific time, because of large
variations in feed intake, both between days and over long periods of time (Alanara et al.,
2001; Guillaume et al., 2001). Often the most difficult part is accurately estimating the
10-8
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
biomass to be fed. Feeding tables, formulae, etc. are guidelines, but in practice, daily
observations are needed so any necessary adjustments can be made. Models that allow
estimation of feed requirements are important for production plans, i.e., long-term
planning of feed use. However, ultimately the best approach for producers is to develop
their own feed budgets based on accurate records over the years. Ideally, feeding should
be tuned to the aquatic animal's demand or appetite.
The act of feeding fish, according to DeSilva and Anderson (1995), is often considered to
be the single most important element in aquatic animal production. One aspect of
feeding, determining the optimum ration size, is one of the most difficult tasks in any
aquatic animal production operation.
The facility operator may have to adjust the amount of feed based on specific
requirements by the aquatic animals and, accordingly, select appropriate feed application
and distribution relative to feeding schedules and methods.
10.3.2 Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)
Feed conversion ratio (FCR) represents the ratio of feed fed to fish gain.
It is commonly used as a measure of the efficiency of a feeding program. Overall, the
tendency among producers is to aim for fast and maximum growth, while showing less
concern for FCRs and feed wastage. This approach is not necessarily the most economic
one (Doupe and Lymbery, 2003).
In trout that grow normally, an FCR of 1.2 or less indicates that dietary energy
requirements are met. For example, Barrows and Hardy (2001) state that the production
of one kilogram trout requires between 3,740 and 3,960 kilocalories/kilogram of
digestible diet. In practical terms, this corresponds to a feed containing about 4,000
kilocalories/kilogram diet, with a protein level of 42% and a dietary fat level of about
20%. The dietary requirements for trout, salmon, and catfish have been well studied and
optimal diets (in terms of energy requirements) can be formulated. Other species have not
been studied as extensively and optimal diets may not be available.
With higher energy feeds, FCRs of 1.0 or less are now routinely observed in salmon and
trout farming. Anytime FCRs are significantly greater, then less of the feed input goes to
growth and more is used to support metabolic processes and there is increased waste
generation, intrinsically as well as extrinsically (wasted feed).
As stated earlier, many factors contribute to feeding efficiency. For example, the feeding
method and feed availability can be shown to have significant effects on feeding
efficiency, effluent quality, and growth.
Alanara and Cripps (1991) report that demand feeding with unrestricted amounts of feed
available resulted in an FCR of 1.49, while a restricted feeding strategy produced an FCR
of 1.07. Interestingly, there was no significant difference in growth between these two
groups. This seems to indicate either feed loss (feed not ingested) or over-indulgence
with poor digestion (internal "loss"). Whether the waste was external (physical) or
internal (physiological), the impact on effluent quality was significant. Total phosphorus
10-9
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
output was reduced 45% from 10.2 to 5.6 grams/kilogram of fish. Total nitrogen was
reduced 44% from 75.9 to 42.7 grams/kilogram of fish. But then, Asgard and Hillestad
(1999) write that restricting feed below voluntary intake (satiation) can be a waste of
resources. It is their opinion that the faster the growth the greater the amount of feed is
converted to flesh, i.e., the lower the FCR. Aquatic animals, first of all, must meet their
metabolic energy requirements. If feed intake only provides for this, no energy is left
available for growth. As feed intake increases beyond metabolic energy requirements
growth occurs until it reaches the maximum the animal is willing to consume. The
preponderance of data show that optimum FCR and maximum growth do not coincide.
Eriksson and Alanara (1990) report that fish (rainbow trout), when offered food in
excess, grew larger than those on restricted feed. However, those on restricted feed
converted their food much more efficiently than those feeding to excess, and as a result,
the release of phosphorus and nitrogen was reduced by more than 50%.
Other studies showed that when rainbow trout were fed 75% of the maximum ration for
feed intake and growth rate, the lowest FCRs were realized. Under this feeding program
fish utilized feed more efficiently and released less nutrients into the effluent, but the
overall weight gain was lower than in fish fed to satiation.
When feeding approaches satiation, fish slow down in their feeding activity, and unless
the volume of introduced feed is reduced, the fish may not keep up with its capture, and
feed may potentially be lost. Frequently fed fish (for example fingerlings) utilize their
feed more efficiently than those fed less frequently. The benefit is lower FCR. As a rule
of thumb, Barrows and Hardy (2001) recommend 1.0% body weight per feeding to
ensure that, first of all, enough feed is offered that all fish have an opportunity to obtain
feed, and secondly not too much feed is presented so their feeding action will remain high
and the stomach is not over full. If fish gorge themselves, the feed may pass through the
digestive system faster resulting in reduced nutrient absorption (higher FCR). This means
the feed loss (nutrient loss) is indirect or internal, but it still contributes significantly to
the various waste components, such as solids, BOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Cho et al. (1991) mentions that under the most careful feeding conditions, it is still
difficult to eliminate feed waste completely, but it can be minimized, i.e., to less than 5%,
by aiming at optimum rather than maximum production. This requires the application of
scientific feeding standards and sensible feeding practices and by using well-
manufactured feeds of high water stability.
In 1991, Gowen et al., reported that food waste may account for as much as 20% of the
total food fed and may account for 70% of organic carbon input in net pen culture of
salmon. Pearson and Black (2000) report that current estimates of feed waste for
salmonid net pen culture vary between 1% and 5%. This agrees with the statement by
Riley (2001) that FCRs of 1.1 are now achievable in net pen operations by applying
computer-operated pneumatic feeding systems, which allow precise control of the
feeding operation and, subsequently, greatly reduces feed going to waste.
Hinshaw and Fornshell (2002) mention that feed waste varies from 1% to as high as 15%
for trout raceway culture. Yet, intensive raceway culture offers greater opportunity for
10-10
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
more accurate feeding programs than net pen culture. As a whole, today's trout industry
in Idaho and North Carolina accomplish FCRs of 1.0 to 1.2 and keep feed wastes below
3.0% (Fornshell and Sloan, personal communication).
Immediate improvements in FCR and feed waste can be realized by simply offering the
fish feed when they will use it most effectively and efficiently (Bergheim et al., 1991). As
mentioned earlier, frequently fed fingerlings utilize their feed more efficiently, thus
lowering the FCR and feed waste. Appetite returns in some carnivorous species, such as
rainbow trout and eel, on the basis of stomach emptying time (Goddard, 1996).
It is important to understand that obtaining the highest weight gain and lowest FCR are
separate goals; however, compromises can be made based on the goals of the hatchery
program (Barrows and Hardy 2001). Optimizing both growth rate and FCR appears to be
mutually exclusive. However, optimizing FCR benefits the environment, as it reflects low
volumes of feed waste. It can also have an economic benefit.
10.3.3 FCR Analysis
EPA analyzed FCR data from many of the flow-through and recirculating system
facilities that completed the detailed survey of the CAAP industry. The purpose of the
FCR analysis was two fold:
1. FCRs were used to estimate and check the amount of feed used at each
facility.
2. FCRs were used as a surrogate for estimating potential load reductions
resulting from feed management activities.1
For those facilities that provided annual production and feed use data, EPA calculated an
FCR estimate:
FCR = Feed Input/Facility Production
Where:
FCR = the annual feed conversion ration for the production system (pounds of
feed per pound of aquatic animals produced)
Feed Input = annual feed use at the facility (pounds)
Facility Production = annual production of aquatic animals at the facility (pounds)
EPA was able to calculate FCRs for 69 flow-through and recirculating system facilities
that responded to the detailed survey. EPA validated the feeding, production, and
estimated FCRs by contacting each facility. For those facilities that were not able to
supply accurate feed and/or production information, EPA randomly assigned an FCR.
EPA attempted to capture and account for as much of the variation as possible when
1 Note: EPA used FCR values as a means to estimate potential load reductions, not as a target to set
absolute FCR limits for a facility or industry segment.
10-11
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
analyzing FCRs and in the random assignment process. For example, the production
system, species, and system ownership (which are all known from the detailed surveys)
were expected to influence feeding practices, so facilities were grouped according to
these parameters. EPA included ownership as a grouping variable to account for some of
the variation in production goals. Most commercial facilities that were evaluated are
producing food-sized fish and generally are trying to maintain constant production levels
at the facility; commercial facilities would tend to weigh maximum weight gain against
FCR in determining their feeding strategy. Non-commercial facilities are generally
government facilities that are producing for stock enhancement purposes. Production
goals are driven by the desire to produce a target size (length and weight) at a certain
time of year for release. Non-commercial facility feeding goals may not weigh as heavily
on maximum growth. Some of the sources of variation, such as water temperature and
age of the fish, were accounted for by evaluating distributions of the similar facility FCRs
and using Monte Carlo simulations.
The process for the random assignment included:
• EPA grouped facilities by ownership, species, and production.
• FCRs were estimated for each facility with sufficient data and grouped.
• The distributions of grouped data were examined for possible outliers, which were
defined as FCRs less than 0.75 or greater than 3.0. When extreme values were
found and validated, they were removed from the grouping.2 Some extreme
values were updated based on validating information from the facility, and the
updates were found to be within the range used for analysis.
• After removing outliers, the first and third quartiles were calculated for each
grouping.3
• For each grouping, the target FCR was assumed to be the first quartile value.
• For the facilities with no FCR information, a random FCR between the first and
third quartiles was assigned with a uniform distribution between the first and third
quartile.4
Although these extremes may be possible and a function of production goals, water temperature, etc.,
EPA was not able to validate and model all of the factors contributing to the extreme FCR rates. Facilities
excluded because of extreme values were not assigned a random FCR, but were found to have a
documented reason for the extreme value. For example, one facility produced broodstock for stock
enhancement purposes.
3 The first quartile of a group of values is the value such that 25% of the values fall at or below this
value. The third quartile of a group of values is the value such that 75% of the values fall at or below this
value.
4 The uniform distribution leads to the most conservative estimate of uncertainty; i.e., it gives the
largest standard deviation. The calculation of the standard deviation is based on the assumption that the
end-points of the distribution are known. It also embodies the assumption that all effects on the reported
value, between a and b, are equally likely for the particular source of uncertainty. Detailed calculations are
contained in the analysis spreadsheets located in the CBI record for this rulemaking (Tetra Tech, 2003a).
10-12
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
• For some categories there were not sufficient data to do the quartile analysis. In
these cases, data from a similar category were used. Table 10.3-1 below
summarizes the results of the quartile analysis.
Table 10.3-1. QuartUe Analysis
Category
Commercial - Catfish - FT
Commercial - Trout - FT
Government - Trout - FT
Research - Trout - FT
Tribe - Trout - FT
Government - Salmon - FT
Commercial - Salmon - FT
Tribe - Salmon - FT
Commercial - Tilapia - FT
Commercial - Striped Bass - FT
Government - Other finfish - FT
Government - Trout - Recirculating
Government - Salmon - Recirculating
Commercial - Striped Bass - Recirculating
Commercial - Tilapia - Recirculating
Commercial - Other finfish - Recirculating
Commercial - Baitfish - Recirculating
Number of Facilities
<5
36
57
<5
<5
24
6
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
First Quartile — Third Quartile
1.12-1.48
1.19-1.60
1.19-1.60
1.00-1.31
1.00-1.31
1.00-1.31
2.10-2.21
1.22-1.87
1.12-1.48
1.00-1.31
1.22-1.87
2.10-2.21
10.3.4 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 10.3.5.
Feed inputs to the model were typically obtained from the facility's response to the
detailed survey. In these cases, the response from the detailed survey was checked and
validated with the facility. In some cases, the facility was not able to provide accurate
feed data and estimates were made by multiplying the specific facility production, which
was determined by analysis of the detailed survey, by the facility-specific FCR:
Feed input = facility production * FCR
Where:
Facility production = the average yearly production at the facility (pounds)
FCR = the annual feed conversion ratio for the production system (pounds of feed
per pound of fish produced) estimated using the procedure described in 10.3.3
If feed inputs were estimated using FCR values, EPA attempted to validate the estimates
by contacting each facility. Table 10.3-2 provides a summary of the feed information,
grouped by ownership, species, and system type.
10-13
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.3-2. Range of Feed Loads by System-Species-Ownership Grouping
System
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Recirculating
Species
Salmon
Striped Bass-
Tilapia-
Catfish-Other
Trout
Trout
Striped Bass-
Salmon-
Shrimp-
Tilapia-Other
Ownership
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Commercial
Non-commercial
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Number
13
10
13
28
7
Range (Ib)
112,200-1,178,480
62,400-259,360
42,700-750,000
24,000-744,200
132,000-7,206,700
10.3.5 Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors
EPA only modeled pollutant generation at each facility as a function of feed inputs,
which are the feed and associated metabolic wastes. EPA used values for the feed-to-
pollutant conversion factors (Table 10.3-3) in the loading model to represent the range of
values found in literature reviews (Hochheimer and Meehan, 2004).
Table 10.3-3. Feed-to-Pollutant Conversion Factors
Polluant
BOD
TN
TP
TSS
Conversion Factor
0.35
0.0275
0.005
0.25
Source: Hochheimer and Meehan, 2004.
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. 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.
10-14
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
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:
Raw pollutant loading = the pollutant load for each pollutant (i.e., TSS, BOD, TN,
TP) in pounds/year
Annual feed input = the amount of feed distributed to the production system
(pounds/year)
Feed-to-pollutant conversion factor = conversion of feed inputs into pollutant
loadings (i.e., TSS, BOD, TN, TP) in pounds of pollutant per pound of feed
A summary of the raw waste load estimates is presented in Table 10.3-4.
Table 10.3-4. Raw Waste Loads by Category
System
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Recirculating
Original
Species
Salmon
Striped
Bass-
Tilapia-
Catfish-
Other
Trout
Trout
Striped
Bass-
Salmon-
Shrimp-
Tilapia-
Other
Ownership
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Commercial
Non-commercial
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Number
13
10
13
28
7
Range (Ib)
BOD
39,270-
412,468
21,840-
90,776
14,945-
262,500
8,400-
260,470
46,200-
2,522,345
TN
3,086-
32,408
1,716-
7,132
1,174-
20,625
660-
20,466
3,630-
198,184
TP
561-
5,892
312-
1,297
214-
3,750
120-
3,721
660-
36,034
TSS
28,050-
294,620
15,600-
64,840
10,675-
187,500
6,000-
186,050
33,000-
1,801,675
10.4 UNIT LOAD REDUCTION MODULES
EPA evaluated several solids control strategies that are in use or could be used at flow-
through, recirculating, and net pen facilities. These management strategies include:
• Feed management practices to achieve optimal feeding and prevent wasted feed.
(Section 10.4.1).
• Active feed monitoring to ensure that feed offered to aquatic animals in net pen
systems is consumed and not wasted (Section 10.4.2).
10-15
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
EPA developed unit load reduction modules that calculate the pollutant removal
associated with a particular technology or practice for a CAAP facility. Each unit load
reduction module contains a description of the technology or practice and the pollutant-
specific removal efficiencies of the system component.
EPA used pollutant removal efficiencies for each of the TSS removal technologies and
practices to determine pollutant load reductions that could be expected when a
technology or practice is in place. These pollutant removal efficiencies were developed
from a combination of data that were collected in the literature, facility monitoring data,
and at EPA sampling events. By calculating load reduction efficiencies, EPA was able to
directly estimate load reductions, without having to estimate loads from effluent
concentrations and flow rates. EPA also compared its calculated estimates of loads and
effluent concentrations for TSS with available monitoring and sampling data as a quality
check (see Section 10.6 and Hochheimer and Escobar, 2004a; Hochheimer and Escobar,
2004b for details).
10.4.1 Feed Management
Feed management is a practice that was considered for all operations.
10.4.1.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Feed management recognizes the importance of effective, environmentally sound use of
feed. System 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, 2002c).
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. In net pen operations, excess feed and feces accumulate under
net pens, and if there is inadequate flushing, this accumulation can overwhelm the natural
benthic processes and results 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 in EPA Regions
1 and 10 (USEPA, 2002c; USEPA, 2002d) and in Idaho and Washington flow-through
system production facilities.
10.4.1.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems
Pollutant removals associated with feed management result from better feed utilization
and less wasted feed that is uneaten. Section 10.3.2 provides a detailed discussion on a
variety of activities that facilities do to optimize feed utilization. Data are also presented
in Table 10.3-1 that show ranges of feed conversion ratios (FCRs) for different facility
10-16
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
groups (i.e., system type-species-ownership type) of CAAP facilities. EPA used this FCR
data to estimate potential pollutant reductions at facilities with FCRs in the upper parts of
the ranges for a facility group. It is important to reiterate that EPA used FCR values only
as a means to estimate potential pollutant reductions, not as industry targets or regulatory
requirements. EPA recognizes that it is possible for an individual facility to have greater
than average FCRs for many reasons, even though the facility is practicing very efficient
feed management. For example, a facility that has sub-optimal temperatures (either too
high or too low) may have greater FCRs than a comparable facility with optimal, steady-
state temperatures.
EPA evaluated feed management as a regulatory option for facilities that provided
information on the detailed industry survey. The procedure EPA used involved facility-
specific FCRs compared to a low FCR, which was estimated as the 25th percentile FCR
value for the facility group. Many facilities provided sufficient data in their detailed
industry survey responses to enable EPA to calculate an actual facility-specific FCR.
Some facilities were not able to provide sufficient information to enable EPA to estimate
a facility-specific FCR, so EPA developed a methodology for estimating one. EPA used a
randomly assigned FCR (based on a uniform distribution for the range of reported FCRs
in a facility group) as the facility estimate. If the facility's FCR (either randomly assigned
or actual) was greater than 75% of the inter-quartile range and were not currently meeting
the regulatory limits for their type of discharge configuration, then EPA assumed that the
facility could benefit from feed management practices and would incur costs and
pollutant load reductions. More details about this methodology are presented in
Hochheimer and Escobar (2004c). EPA estimated the amount of feed conserved as:
Feed conserved = Feed used for year 2001*1-- '
Actual or estimated FCR)
Where:
Target FCR = the FCR obtained with implementation of a feed management
program
Actual FCR = the FCR as calculated based on information reported by the facility
Estimated FCR = the FCR estimated for a facility if the facility did not provide
sufficient data to calculate one
Feed used for year 2001 = pounds of feed reported by the facility in the detailed
survey or estimated by EPA (see Table 10.3-2)
EPA estimated pollutant load reductions using values presented in Table 10.3-3 and the
equation:
Specific Pollutant Load Reduction = Feed conserved * Specific Pollutant
Reduction Factor
10-17
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Where:
Feed conserved = pounds of feed reduced at the facility by feed management
practices
Specific Pollutant Reduction Factor = pounds of pollutant (i.e., TSS, TN, TP,
BOD) reduced/pound of feed reduced
10.4.2 Active Feed Monitoring
Active feed monitoring was proposed as a management practice for all net pen facilities.
Real-time feed monitoring is a proven technology that includes video monitoring, digital
scanning sonar, upwelling systems, used by all of the facility operators who responded to
the detailed survey to produce Atlantic salmon in net pen systems. Some type of remote
monitoring equipment is operated during feeding to monitor for uneaten feed pellets as
they pass through the bottom of the net. Active feed monitoring can also include
monitoring of sediment of sediment quality beneath the pens, monitoring the benthic
community beneath the pens, capture of waste feed and feces, or the adoption of good
husbandry practices, subject to the permitting authority's approval. For the final rule, net
pen facilities must develop practices to minimize the accumulation of uneaten food
beneath the pens using active feed monitoring and management practices.
10.4.2.1 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, an acoustic or digital
scanning sonar, or a simple air lift pump with its intake located at the bottom of the net.
One example of a real-time monitoring system used a video monitor at the surface that is
connected to an underwater 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. EPA observed this
technology at several Maine facilities during site visits (Tetra Tech, 2002b; Tetra Tech,
2002c).
10.4.2.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems
EPA estimated that pollutant reductions associated with active feed monitoring could be
about 5% or more for all pollutants. Since all of the in-scope net pen facilities that
responded to the detailed industry survey indicated that they had a form of active feed
management in place, EPA did not estimate any feed reductions for this technology as a
result of the final regulation.
10.4.3 Drug Reporting and Material Storage
The drug reporting requirement is estimated to be equal for all species and culture
systems and based on facility-specific drug usage.
10-18
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.4.3.1 Description of Technology or Practice
The purpose of the drug reporting requirement is to enable the permitting authority to
become aware of the potential for releases of INAD and extralabel drugs under specific
circumstances. The regulation also requires proper material storage including spill
containment for all drugs or pesticides stored at the facility. EPA evaluated spill
prevention training and chemical containment storage systems as ways facilities can meet
the regulatory requirements.
10.4.3.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems
Pollutant reductions for BOD, TN, TP, and TSS may occur as a result of implementation
of a drug reporting/material containment requirement. Containment systems and spill
clean-up procedures may help to reduce the discharge of materials (e.g., feed, drugs and
pesticides) only. EPA did not estimate load reductions from this technology/practice.
10.4.4 Structural Integrity of the Containment System
All flow-through, recirculating, and net pen facilities are required to maintain the
structural integrity of their production systems and wastewater treatment systems.
10.4.4.1 Description of Technology or Practice
Facilities can use regular inspections to ensure that critical structural components are in
proper working order and will not fail under typical operating conditions. Adherence to
this general requirement should prevent the release of materials including culture animals
and collected biosolids.
10.4.4.2 Pollutant Removals: All Systems
The maintenance of the structural integrity of the containment system is to ensure proper
operation to prevent failure and thus, a release of materials as a result of failure.
10.5 FACILITY GROUPINGS
EPA defined facility-specific models for flow-through and recirculating systems and
evaluated facility groups that were based on system type, species, and ownership.
EPA analyzed each facility separately to determine the production systems used, species
produced, and any other unique characteristics. Although facilities were all different, they
could be grouped into several categories. Table 10.5-1 shows in-scope facility groupings
by system type for those facilities analyzed in the detailed survey sample (unweighted)
and the corresponding estimate for the in-scope national population (weighted5). Table
10.5-2 illustrates the in-scope sample and national estimates grouped by ownership.
Table 10.5-3 shows the facilities grouped by location, which was defined by EPA region.
Table 10.4-4 groups in-scope facilities by the species identified in the screener survey
that was used to categorize the facility in the strata for the sample selection. Table 10.5-5
The number of facilities in each of the weighted groupings may not sum to 240 because of rounding
error.
10-19
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
shows the facilities grouped by the combination of system type-species-ownership. This
grouping was used in many of the comparative analyses, such as those done for FCR.
Table 10.5-1. Facility Groupings by System Type
System Type
Flow-through
Recirculating
Net Pens
Total
Weighted
Number
208
14
19
240
%
87
6
8
Unweighted
Number
64
7
8
79
%
81
9
10
Table 10.5-2. Facility Groupings by Ownership
Ownership
Non-commercial
Commercial
Total
Weighted
Number
139
101
240
%
58
42
Unweighted
Number
43
36
79
%
54
46
Non-Commercial
Federal
Army Corps
State
Number
33
3
103
% of Total
14
1
42
Number
10
1
32
% of Total
13
1
40
Table 10.5-3. Facility Groupings by Location
EPA Region
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 4
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 6
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 8
EPA Region 9
EPA Region 10
Total
Weighted
Number
34
3
14
35
14
6
4
21
48
61
240
%
13
1
6
16
6
3
2
9
20
24
Unweighted
Number
12
<5
5
10
<5
<5
<5
7
16
21
79
Table 10.5-4. Facility Groupings by Sampled Species
Species
Catfish-Other Finfish-Shrimp
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Total
Weighted
Number
8
150
64
8
11
240
%
3
62
27
3
5
Unweighted
Number
5
42
21
5
6
79
10-20
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Table 10.5-5. Facility Groupings by System-Ownership-Species
Flow-through Systems
Production
> 100,000
> 100,000
> 100,000
> 100,000
Species
Salmon
Striped Bass-Tilapia-Catfish-Other
Trout
Trout
Owner
Commercial & Non-
commercial
Commercial & Non-
commercial
Commercial
Non-commercial
Total
Number of
Facilities
13
10
13
28
64
Recirculatin
Production
> 100,000
» Systems
Species
Striped Bass-Salmon-Shrimp-
Tilapia-Other
Owner
Commercial & Non-
commercial
Total
Number of
Facilities
1
7
Net Pen Systems
Production
> 100,000
Species
Salmon-Trout
Owner
Commercial
Total
Number of
Facilities
8
8
EPA performed pollutants loadings analyses on 71 flow-through and recirculating
systems. Each facility was analyzed individually to determine baseline configurations and
baseline pollutant loads for TSS, BOD, TN, and TP. Table 10.5-6 summarizes the
baseline loads that were estimated for each facility. EPA used the removal efficiency data
for each treatment unit described in Section 10.4 to determine estimates for baseline
loads. EPA checked these estimates with monitoring data when possible to verify the
estimates (see Hochheimer and Escobar 2004d for more information).
Table 10.5-6. Baseline Loads by Category
System
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Original
Species
Salmon
Striped
Bass-
Tilapia-
Catfish-
Other
Trout
Trout
Ownership
Commercial
& Non-
commercial
Commercial
& Non-
commercial
Commercial
Non-
commercial
Number
13
10
13
28
Range (Ib)
BOD
3,641-
40,360
2,342-
21,981
430-
45,005
504-
205,513
TN_
1,765-
24,926
1,706-
6,669
505-
18,758
604-
18,726
TP
196-
3,848
296-
1,157
49-
2,896
98-
3,029
TSS
994-
96,600
8,120-
34,732
933-
71,113
2,760-
146,795
10-21
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
System
Recirculating
Original
Species
Striped
Bass-
Salmon-
Shrimp-
Tilapia-
Other
Ownership
Commercial
& Non-
commercial
Number
1
Range (Ib)
BOD
2,772-
228,900
TN
3,321-
90,669
TP
537-
14,666
TSS
15,180-
331,508
10.6 LOAD REDUCTIONS AT REGULATORY OPTIONS
EPA's regulatory requirements for flow-through and recirculating systems include:
• Practices to control solids
• Facilities must maintain the structural integrity of production and wastewater
treatment units. (No pollutant load reductions were estimated.)
EPA used its analysis of baseline conditions at each in-scope facility that responded to
the detailed survey to estimate baseline discharge loads (see Table 10.5-1). EPA then
applied a combination of treatment technologies and management practices to each
facility as appropriate. Individual facility pollutant load reductions were scaled up to
national pollutant load reductions by applying the appropriate weighting factor to the
estimates for the individual facility and then summing across the facilities in the facility
groups. Table 10.6-1 shows estimates of load reductions by facility group.
Table 10.6-1. Estimated Pollutant Load After Implementation for
In-Scope CAAP Facilities
System
Flow- through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Recirculating
Original
Species
Salmon
Striped
Bass-
Tilapia-
Catfish-
Other
Trout
Trout
Striped
Bass-
Salmon-
Shrimp-
Tilapia-
Other
Ownership
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Commercial
Non-commercial
Commercial &
Non-commercial
Number
13
10
13
28
7
Range (Ib)
BOD
3,502-
40,360
2,342-
21,981
430-
35,145
504-
205,513
2,772-
169,661
TN_
1,765-
24,926
1,596-
6,669
504-
18,758
604-
16,147
3,321-
57,874
TP
196-
3,848
277-
1,157
49-
2,896
98-
2,936
537-
9,361
TSS
994-
95,968
8,120-
34,732
933-
62,100
2,760-
146,795
15,180-
264,500
10-22
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
10.7 OTHER POLLUTANT LOADS
Metals may be present in CAAP effluents from a variety of sources. Some metals are
present in feed (as feed additives), occur in sanitation products, or may result from
deterioration of CAAP machinery and equipment. EPA has observed that many of the
treatment systems used within the CAAP industry provide substantial reductions of most
metals. Many of the metals present are readily adsorbed to solids and can be adequately
controlled by controlling solids.
Most of the metals appear to be originating from the feed ingredients. Trace amounts of
metals are added to feed in the form of mineral packs to ensure that the essential dietary
nutrients are provided for the cultured aquatic animals. Examples of metals added as feed
supplements include copper, zinc, manganese, and iron (Snowdon, 2003).
Estimated metals load reductions from in-scope facilities implementing the final rule are
summarized in the table below. These load reductions were estimated as a function of
TSS loads, using data obtained from four of the sampling episodes (Clear Springs-Box
Canyon Facility, (Tetra Tech, 2001a); Harrietta Hatchery (Tetra Tech, 2002a), and Fins
Technology (Tetra Tech, 200Ib) and Huntsdale Fish Culture Station (Tetra Tech, 2003b))
performed for the proposed rule. For this analysis, EPA first assumed that non-detected
sampled had half the concentration of the detection limit. From the sampling data, EPA
calculated net TSS and metals concentrations at different points in the facilities. EPA
then calculated metal to TSS ratios (in milligrams of metal/kilogram of TSS), based on
net concentrations calculated above, and removed negative and zero ratios from the
sample. Finally, basic sample distribution statistics were calculated to derive the
relationship between TSS and each metal.
Estimated load reductions of PCBs from in-scope facilities were calculated as a
percentage of TSS load reductions. Since the main source of PCBs at CAAP facilities is
through fish feed, a conversion factor was calculated to estimate the amount of PCBs
discharged per pound of TSS. EPA assumed that 90% of food fed was eaten, and that
90% of food eaten would be assimilated by the fish. By combining the amount of food
materials excreted by fish (10% of feed consumed) with the 10% of food uneaten, EPA
was able to partition the PCBs among fish flesh and aqueous and solid fractions. EPA
estimated that 2 micrograms/gram6 of feed would be contaminated with PCBs, and that
21% this load would be contained in the discharged TSS. Estimated loads of PCBs from
CAAP facilities under this rule are presented below in Table 10.7-1.
EPA estimated the load of oxytetracycline discharged from in-scope CAAP facilities
using data from EPA's Detailed Survey of the CAAP Industry and peer reviewed
scientific literature. EPA first determined facility specific amounts of oxytetracycline
used by each CAAP facility. For those facilities that reported using oxytetracycline, EPA
evaluated their responses to the detailed survey to determine the amount, by weight, of
medicated feed containing oxytetracycline and the concentration of the drug in the feed.
EPA applied this conversion factor to the amount of oxytetracycline used at an individual
' 2 micrograms/gram feed is the FDA limit on PCB concentrations in fish feed.
10-23
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
facility coupled with the estimated load of TSS reduced by the regulation to estimate the
facility level discharge of oxytetracycline in the solids. The facility level estimates were
then multiplied by the appropriate weighting factors and summed across all facilities to
determine the national estimate of pounds of oxytetracycline reduced from discharges as
a result of the regulation.
Table 10.7-1. Metals and Other Material Load Reductions Associated with TSS
Reductions at In-Scope CAAP Facilities
Pollutant
TSS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Total (Ib)
553,495
395.84
0.25
0.42
49.63
—
16.52
0.13
3.20
0.83
44.57
1,298.57
1.21
372.78
Pollutant
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
PCBs
Oxytetracycline
Total (Ib)
0.03
1.40
4.31
1.48
0.11
0.12
0.78
5.40
2.28
0.28
457.60
0.04
1,030
10.8 REFERENCES
Alanara, A. and SJ. Cripps. 1991. Feeding management and suspended particle removal
reduced nutrient losses. Pages 6-7 in N. DePauw and J. Joyce, editors. Aquaculture
and the environment. European Aquaculture Society. Special Publication no. 14.
Belgium.
Alanara, A., S. Kadri, and M. Paspatis, 2001. Feeding management. Pages 332-353 in D.
Houlihan, T. Boujard, and M. Jobling, editors. Food intake in fish. Blackwell Science,
Ames, Iowa.
Asgard, T. and M. Hillestad, 1999. Eco-friendly aqua feeds and feeding. Institute of
aquaculture research AS Sunndalsora, Norway.
Barrows, F.T. and R.W. Hardy, 2001. Nutrition and feeding. Pages 483-558 in G.A.
Wedemeyer, editor, 2001. Fish Hatchery Management. Second edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Bergheim, A., J.P. Aabel, and E.A. Seymour, 1991. Past and present approaches to
aquaculture waste management in Norwegian netpen culture operations. Pages 117-
136 in C.B. Cowey and C.Y. Cho, editors. Nutritional Strategies and Aquaculture
Waste. Proceedings of the first international symposium on nutritional strategies in
management of aquaculture waste. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
10-24
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Chen, S., 2000. Effluents: sludge. Pages 286-289 in R. R. Stickney, editor, Encyclopedia
ofAquaculture. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.
Cho, C.Y., J.D. Hynes, K.R. Wood, and H.K. Yoshida, 1991. Quantification offish
culture wastes by biological (nutritional) and chemical (limnological) methods; the
development of high nutrient dense (HND) diets. Pages 37-50 in C.B. Cowey and
C.Y. Cho, editors. Nutritional Strategies and Aquaculture Waste. Proceedings of the
first international symposium on nutritional strategies in management of aquaculture
waste. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
DeSilva, S.S. and T.A. Anderson, 1995. Fish Nutrition in Aquaculture. Chapman and
Hall, New York.
Doupe, R.G., and AJ. Lymbery, 2003. Toward the genetic improvement of feed
conversion efficiency in fish. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 34 (3): 245-
254.
Eriksson, L.O. and A. Alanara, 1990. Timing of feeding behavior in salmonids. Pages 41-
48 in I.E. Thorpe and F.A. Huntingford, editors, 1990. The Importance of Feeding
Behavior for the Efficient Culture ofSalmonid Fishes. World aquaculture workshop,
number 2. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Forster, I. and R.W. Hardy, 2000. Energy. Pages 293-298 in R. R. Stickney, editor,
Encyclopedia ofAquaculture. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.
Goddard, S. 1996. Feed management in intensive aquaculture. Chapman and Hall, New
York.
Gowen, R.J., D.P. Weston, and A. Errik, 1991. Aquaculture and the benthic environment:
A review. Pages 187-205 in C.B. Cowey and C.Y. Cho, editors. Nutritional Strategies
and Aquaculture Waste. Proceedings of the first international symposium on
nutritional strategies in management of aquaculture waste. University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Guillaume. J., S. Kaushik, P. Bergot, and R. Metailler, 2001. Nutrition and feeding of fish
and crustaceans. Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK.
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. 2003. Memo Re: Summary of Survey Data, Weighted. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and Escobar, A. 2004a. Memorandum: NPDES PCS-DMR and Model
Data Comparison, January 13, 2004. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and Escobar, A. 2004b. Memorandum: Michigan Facility DMR and
Model Comparison, January 8, 2004. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
10-25
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Hochheimer, J. and Escobar, A. 2004c. Memorandum to the Record: Feed Management
Analysis Methods, Examples, and Sensitivity. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and A. Escobar. 2004d. Memorandum to the Record: Loads and
Concentrations—Baseline and Option B. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Hochheimer, J. and C. Meehan. 2004. Technical Memorandum: Feed-to-Pollutant
Conversion Factor Support. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Jobling, M., 1994. Fish bioenergetics. Fish and fisheries 13. Chapman and Hall, New
York.
Johnsen, F. and A. Wandsvik. 1991. The impact of high energy diets on pollution control
in the fish farming industry. Pages 51-63 in C.B. Cowey and C.Y. Cho, editors.
Nutritional Strategies and Aquaculture Waste. Proceedings of the first international
symposium on nutritional strategies in management of aquaculture waste. University
of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Kestemont, P. and E. Baras, 2001. Environmental factors and feed intake; Mechanisms
and interactions. Pages 132-156 in D. Houlihan, T. Boujard, and M. Jobling, editors,
2001. Food Intake in Fish. Blackwell Science, Ames, Iowa.
Pearson, T.H. and K.D. Black, 2000. The environmental impacts of marine fish cage
culture. Pages 1-31 in K.D. Black, editor. Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Riley, J., 2001. An introduction to marine netpen culture in North America. Pages 143-
145 in S.T. Summerfelt, BJ. Watten, andM.B. Timmons, editors, 2001. Proceedings
from the Aquaculture Engineering Society's 2001 Issue forum. Aquaculture
Engineering Society, Shepherdstown, WV.
Snowdon, M. 2003. Feed analysis values: Explanation of terms. New Brunswick
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. New Brunswick, Canada.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200la. Sampling Episode Report Clear Springs Foods, Inc. Box, Canyon
Facility, Episode 6297. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 200Ib. Sampling Episode Report, Fins Technology, Turners Falls,
Massachusetts, Episode 6439, April 23-28, 2001. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002a. Sampling Episode Report, Harrietta Hatchery, Harrietta, MI,
Episode 6460. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002b. Site Visit Report for Acadia Aquaculture (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002c. Site Visit Report for Heritage Salmon (ME). Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Fairfax, VA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003a. Cost and Loads Support Files. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
10-26
-------
Chapter 10: Pollutant Loading Methodology
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003b. Final Sampling Episode Report: Huntsdale Fish Culture Station,
Huntsdale, Pennsylvania, Episode 6495, March 24-29, 2003. Tetra Tech Inc., Fairfax,
VA.
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. Development Document for the
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated
Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source Category. EPA 821-R-02-016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (NPDES) Permit no. ME0036234, issued to Acadia
Aquaculture Inc. Signed February 21, 2002.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002d. 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.
10-27
-------
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 regulation on solid waste generation, energy
consumption, 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 SOLID WASTE
The regulatory option chosen for the final rule will reduce solid waste generation by
approximately 2,300,000 pounds/year, mainly because feed management will reduce the
solids loads entering the system. 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 are nonhazardous.
Federal and state regulations require CAAP facilities to manage solids to prevent release
to the environment.
11.1.1 Sludge Characterization
Sludge harvested from settling basins, quiescent zones, or other solids capture
technologies at CAAP facilities is similar to other types of animal manures. For example,
Chen et al. (1996) provide a comprehensive review of the treatment and characteristics of
CAAP sludge from recirculating systems. Table 11.1-1 shows the characteristics of
sludge from a recirculating system that was captured from solids filter backwash after
settling for 30 minutes. IDEQ (n.d.) also provides a summary of the nutrient content of
fish manure, as shown in Table 11.1-2.
11-1
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
Table 11.1-1. Characterization of CAAP Sludge
Parameter
Total solids (TS) (%)
Total volatile solids (% of TS)
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L)
Total ammonia nitrogen (N, mg/L)
Total kjeldahl nitrogen (as nitrogen, % of TS)
Total phosphorus (as phosphorus, % of TS)
pH
CAAP Sludge
Range
1.4-2.6
74.6-86.6
1,588-3,867
6.8-25.6
3.7-4.7
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.
Table 11.1-2. Average Nutrient Content Measurements of Fish Manure from
Various Treatment Systems
Parameter
% Total nitrogen
% Total
phosphorus
% Total potassium
% Organic matter
or volatile solids
Raceways and
Quiescent Zones
7.06
1.71
0.21
77.2
Settling Basins
4.18
0.96
0.30
43.0
Earthen Ponds
0.86
0.52
0.50
26.0
Dried Aged
Manure
1.01
NA
NA
10.2
Source: Reported in IDEQ, n.d.
Note: NA = not available.
Naylor 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 11.1-3). Like livestock manure, the composition of fish manure is also
highly variable due to differences in animal, age, feed, manure handling, and storage
conditions.
Table 11.1-3. 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
0.56-4.67
0.06-0.23
3.0-11.2
0.04-1.93
Beef
1.90-7.8
0.41-2.6
0.44-4.2
0.53-5.0
0.29-0.56
Poultry
1.3-14.5
0.15-4.0
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
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
11.1.2 Estimating Decreases in Sludge Collection
EPA estimates feed management will reduce raw loads of total suspended solids (TSS)
within CAAP facilities by almost 500,000 pounds/year. After the final regulation is
implemented, treatment technologies currently in place at CAAP facilities will capture
about 276,000 fewer pounds of TSS each year than they do now because of the lower
incoming loads. Table 11.1-4 shows the estimates of raw TSS loads and TSS captured in
existing treatment technologies at CAAP facilities that would be in-scope for the final
regulation. These estimates were calculated as part of the loadings analysis for the final
regulatory option (see Chapter 10).
Table 11.1-4. Impacts of the Final Regulatory Option on TSS
Baseline
Final regulatory option
Change from baseline
Raw TSS
(Ib/yr)
20,323,054
19,828,936
-494,118
TSS Captured in
Treatment Technologies
(Ib/yr)
12,549,907
12,274,233
-275,674
TSS Released into the
Nation's Waters
(Ib/yr)
7,773,147
7,554,703
-218,444
EPA estimated the reduction in net sludge production, using the reduction in TSS and
assuming sludge from CAAP facilities has a 12% solids content (IDEQ, n.d.):
Decrease in TSS captured in treatment technologies = 275,674 pounds/year
Decrease in sludge produced = 275,674 pounds/year * (1/0.12) = 2,297,284
pounds/year
EPA estimates that net sludge generation will decrease by approximately 2,300,000
pounds/year.
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 may contain blood and other wastes.
EPA assumed that collected solids will 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 regulation. For more information about the analysis, refer to Hochheimer and
Escobar, 2004.
11.2 ENERGY
EPA estimates that implementing the final rule will result in a net decrease in energy
consumption for CAAP facilities by approximately 43 kilowatt hours/year. The decrease
is due to a reduction in the volume of sludge that will need to be pumped from raceways
to solids settling ponds, therefore requiring less energy to pump it.
11-3
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
11.2.1 Estimating Decreases in Energy
EPA based its estimates for decreased energy requirements on estimated reductions in the
volume of sludge generated due to implementation of the final regulation.
EPA calculated the decrease in net solids production based on the TSS load captured in
treatment technologies and a 12% solids content in the sludge:
Decrease in TSS captured in treatment technologies = 275,674 pounds/year
Decrease in sludge pumped per year = 275,674 * (1/0.12) = 2,297,284
pounds/year
EPA then converted the pounds of sludge into a volume:
1 gallon = 8.4 pounds
275,674 pounds/year * (1 gallon/8.4 pounds) = 273,486 gallons/year
A %-horsepower Model 7CYG pump pumping at a rate of 60 gallons/minute would take
76 hours to pump the volume (the annual reduction in net sludge production):
273,486 gallons * (1/60 gallons/minute) = 4,558 minutes
4,558 minutes * (1 hour/ 60 minutes) = 76 hours
EPA then estimated the decrease in energy consumption to be 42.5 kilowatt hours/year:
0.75 horsepower * 746 watts/horsepower * 76 hours * 1 watt/1000 kilowatts =
42.5 kilowatt hours
11.2.2 Energy Summary
EPA estimates that implementing this rule will result in a net decrease in energy
consumption for some CAAP facilities. The decrease is based on electricity currently
used to pump sludge from wastewater settling units that would no longer need to be
pumped under the final regulatory option.
EPA does not expect any adverse impacts to occur as a result of the decreased energy
requirements for the regulation. For more information about the analysis, refer to
Hochheimer and Escobar, 2004.
11.3 AIR EMISSIONS
EPA estimates that implementing the final rule will result in a net decrease of
approximately 2,300 pounds/year in air emissions due to the volatilization of ammonia in
solids generated at CAAP facilities.
Potential sources of air emissions from CAAP facilities include primary settling
operations (e.g., settling basins and lagoons) and the land application of manure. Because
the majority of emissions come from land application, EPA only estimated air emissions
from land application of sludge.
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
CAAP sludge emits gases when it is spread on land as fertilizer. 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.
11.3.1 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, then
the volatilization rate decreases. For the purposes of this analysis EPA assumed that the
CAAP industry applies manure at agronomic rates or lower; applying at agronomic rates
will not cause mulching.
11.3.2 Application Method
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.).
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, so the volatilization rate will be
higher than from smaller surface areas.
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)
% Loss "
15-30
10-25
1-5
1-5
0-2
15-40
Source: MWPS, 1983.
a Percent of nitrogen applied that is lost within 4 days of application.
11-5
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
EPA assumed the final 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.
11.3.3 Quantity of Animal Waste
The movement of waste off-site changes the location of the ammonia released but not the
quantity released. Land application is a common solid waste disposal method in the
CAAP industry. Although the final regulatory option does not require land application of
manure, for the purposes of estimating the maximum possible amount of emissions EPA
assumed all captured solids would be land-applied. Because the final regulation is
expected to decrease the amount of solid waste collected from CAAP facilities, the
amount of ammonia released as air emissions is expected to decrease since the quantity of
waste applied to cropland will decrease.
11.3.4 Calculation of Emissions
EPA estimated the decrease in ammonia emissions resulting from the implementation of
the final regulation. 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 (high) estimate of the volatilization rate of ammonia from solids
that are land applied. Table 11.3-2 shows estimates for the amount of solids generated,
amount of ammonia contained in the solids, and the amount of amount that volatilizes
before and after the regulation is implemented.
EPA calculated the ammonia content of the solid waste from CAAP facilities using the
following equation:
Ammonia content = amount of solids collected by CAAP facilities * 2.83%
EPA used the following equation to calculate the ammonia volatilized during land
application of the solids:
Ammonia volatilization = ammonia content * 30.0%
Table 11.3-2. Ammonia Volatilization from CAAP Solids
Baseline
Post-regulation
Change from baseline
Solids Collected
(Ib/yr)
12,549,907
12,274,233
-275,674
Ammonia in
Solids Collected
(Ib/yr)
355,162
347,361
-7,801
Ammonia Volatilized
(Ib/yr)
106,549
104,208
-2,341
EPA does not expect any adverse air impacts to occur as a result of the final regulation.
For more information about the analysis, refer to Hochheimer and Escobar, 2004.
11-6
-------
Chapter 11: Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
11.4 REFERENCES
Anderson, 2000. Chapter 13 in Animal Manure as a Plant Resource.
.
Chen, S., Z. Ning, and R.F. Malone. 1996. Aquaculture Sludge Treatment Using an
Anaerobic and Facultative Lagoon System. In Successes and Failures in Commercial
Recirculating Aquaculture, vol. II. pp. 421-430. National Regional Agricultural
Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY.
Hochheimer, J. and A. Escobar. 2004. Technical Memorandum: Non-water Quality
Impacts. 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.
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.
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.
11-7
-------
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-1
-------
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
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
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
Acronyms-2
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
LTA long-term average
LRP low regulatory priority
MAS motile Aeromonas septicemia
MD A 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
OLSB offline settling basin
O&M operation and maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
Acronyms-3
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
PCS Permit Compliance System
PGD proliferative gill disease
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
Acronyms-4
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
TBT tributyltin
TCI The Catfish Institute
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 eggs.
Glossary-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-4
-------
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 waste water 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-^
-------
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.
Stockers: 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-l 0
-------
APPENDIX A
SURVEY DESIGN AND CALCULATION OF NATIONAL ESTIMATES
-------
-------
Appendix A: 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 selected 263 screener questionnaire
respondents to receive the detailed questionnaire, "Detailed Questionnaire for the Aquatic
Animal Production Industry," ("detailed questionnaire," USEPA, 2002). 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.
A.1 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
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,
Some textbooks and journal articles refer to two-phase sampling as >double sampling.
A-l
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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 10%.
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.
• U.S. 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 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. While EPA has primarily relied on the Phase 2
data in developing the final rule, this Appendix describes Phase 1 because it was used to
develop the proposed rule, and to select the Phase 2 sample.
A-2
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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 8/8/02,3 EPA had received 4199 completed,4 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 % 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?'
A.2.2 Data Analysis
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
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.
3 After this date, EPA received a small amount of additional screener information, which EPA reviewed
and evaluated. However, because EPA primarily relied on data from the detailed questionnaire in
developing the final rule, EPA did not incorporate the more recent screener information into the screener
estimates presented in this appendix.
4 The values in this appendix are upon a more recent version (8/8/02) of the screener database than the
version used for Chapter 3. Thus, there are slight discrepancies between the values in that chapter and this
appendix.
A-3
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
estimates have less biased 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 most analyses, such as economic achievability. However,
EPA presented weighted results in Appendix A of the proposal TDD. These results also
are provided in this appendix. 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 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
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 pounds/catfish= 1,500 pounds.
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 stacker size conversion factor from Table A2.2, as follows:
1,000 whitefish stocker x 2.5 pounds/whitefishf00dsize x 0.1418 whitefish foodsize / whitefish
stocker = 354.5 pounds.
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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.
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: $20,000-$ 100,000; $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., $1,000-$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 of the species and production method
A-5
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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 stratum. (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.
/ \ Number of valid addresses in stratum g
w = \non- response adjustment]
g s 'Number of returned questionnaires in stratum g
(A-2)
The final screener weight w,- for facility i in non-response stratum g can be written as:
wt = (base weight}x(Non - response adjustment] = 1.0x wg(.} (A-3)
Where wg(i) is the non-response adjustment corresponding to the non-response stratum (g)
associated with facility i.
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. 1 shows the number of
valid addresses (excluding any duplicate addresses), the number of returned
A-6
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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 for all facilities in
stratum 1 is:
w, =1.0x1 — 1 = 1.33
93
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 assumption used in
survey estimation. However, if the non-respondents within a non-response adjustment
stratum are different from the respondents, the survey estimates may be biased. 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
1(AK)
2(AL)
3(AR)
4(CA)
5 (CO)
6(FL)
7(GA)
8 (HI)
9(IA)
10 (ID)
11 (IN)
12 (LA)
13 (MA)
14 (ME)
15 (MI)
16 (MO)
17 (MS)
Number of Valid
Addresses
124
162
450
316
65
524
155
163
67
109
68
246
323
100
107
74
220
Number of Returned
Questionnaires
93
111
323
249
52
410
118
105
57
92
55
182
218
73
85
65
163
Screener
Weight
ws
.333
.459
.393
.269
.250
.278
.314
.552
.175
.185
.236
.352
.482
.370
.259
.138
.350
Number of Responding
AAP Facilities in the
Stratum
56
74
164
144
30
125
69
50
31
59
29
119
114
50
51
44
121
A-7
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Non-Response
(Location)
Stratum
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
261
117
116
70
68
99
75
308
114
217
226
615
5559
Number of Returned
Questionnaires
194
86
93
58
55
74
64
254
90
162
171
462
4214
Screener
Weight
ws
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
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 k:
(A-4)
Where Iif_k is one if facility /' is in domain k and zero otherwise. For example, if the
domain of interest was 'Facilities in Western USDA Region,' yt was the trout production
at each facility /', and wt was the screener weight for that facility, then y^ 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,
y/t in that region, and the estimate of the number of facilities in that region producing
trout, tik.
yk =
SV.-E*
(A-5)
A-8
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
After calculating the national estimates, EPA calculated standard errors (s.e.) of its
estimates using ajackknife 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 and 10
responses were randomly assigned to group r, then the replicate weight adjustment, W(r),
was the ratio, 1.11, of the 100 responses in the full sample to the 90 responses (n(r)=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:
Yi
yk(r}
(A-7)
In order to illustrate how the sampling errors are calculated, let y be the weighted
national average estimate of a characteristic y (e.g., average trout production at facilities
that produce trout). If J7(r) is the corresponding estimate calculated using the facility
responses for all groups except group r, then the estimated variance of y is given by the
following formula:
99
(A-8)
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:
s.e.= Jvar(j) (A-9)
A-9
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
In Attachment A.3, the tables provide various estimates and their standard errors. These
standard errors can be used to compute 95 % confidence intervals around the estimate.
These intervals are given by:
confidence int erval = y ± (1.96 x s. 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 used 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 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.
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.
A-10
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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.5 EPA then classified the 539 facilities into 44
strata which were defined by facility type (commercial, government, research, or tribal),6
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
that 50 % of the respondents would answer "Yes" results in the largest possible variance
for the binomial distribution and the largest possible sample size, EPA assumed that the
probability of one outcome would be 0.5 (i.e., 50 % would select 'Yes' and 50 % select
'No.') This probability is 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
5 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.
6 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: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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 nn 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
Trout
Salmon
Predominant
Production
Method
Flow through
Ponds
Flow through
Other
Ponds
Recirculating
Flow through
Net pens
Flow through
Net pens
Number of
Facilities (based
on Screener
Responses)
Nh
<5
50
<5
<5
<5
<5
135
<5
16
10
Number of
Sampled
Facilities
nh
all
20
all
all
all
all
52
all
8
7
Sampling
Weight
DQh=Nh/nh
1.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.596
1.0
2.0
1.429
A-12
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Facility Type
Government
Research
Tribal
Totals
Predominant
Species
Striped Bass
Tilapia
Other Finfish
Baitfish
Ornamentals
Shrimp
Catfish
Trout
Salmon
Striped Bass
Other Finfish
Catfish
Other
Trout
Other Finfish
Trout
Salmon
Other Finfish
Predominant
Production
Method
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
Number of
Facilities (based
on Screener
Responses)
Nh
<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
nh
all
all
all
all
all
7
all
all
6
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
61
all
all
25
all
all
all
all
7
all
all
all
all
all
7
all
263
Sampling
Weight
DQh=Nh/nh
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.714
.0
.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.3.2 Final Survey Weights
EPA used the information collected by the detailed questionnaires to re-estimate the costs
and benefits associated with the proposed regulatory options and the NODA options. This
section provides an overview of EPA's development of survey weights that were used in
the final analyses. These final analyses are described elsewhere in this document and the
EIA.
A-13
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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.
For the final rule, EPA has applied survey weights that are slightly different than those
used for the NODA which were adjusted for non-response within each sampling strata.7
As a first cut, adjusting by sampling strata is a reasonable approach given the stratified
sample design. Dividing the sample into many strata has the advantage that the true
response probabilities are likely to be relatively constant within a strata, because the
facilities have some of the same characteristics which might lead to similar types of
behavior such as responding or not responding to the questionnaire. As a result, the non-
response adjustment within each strata is likely to be close to the correct adjustment for
all facilities in the strata. However, when the number of facilities in a strata is small, the
calculated non-response adjustment factor is variable (or imprecise). The imprecision of
the non-response adjustment will contribute variability to the estimates. If strata are
combined (or "collapsed" as statisticians generally describe it) to create fewer strata with
more facilities, the non-response adjustment factor in each strata will be more precise (the
objective is to collapse strata which have similar probabilities of response). At the same
time, the within-strata true response probabilities may differ more from the estimated
value because the collapsed strata now include more different kinds of facilities. This
difference contributes to bias in the survey estimates. Thus, there is a trade-off. After
examining the sample sizes in the strata, EPA noted that many of the sampling strata have
less than 10 facilities. For this reason, EPA determined that using collapsed strata,
containing a larger number of facilities, to determine the non-response adjustments would
be more appropriate than adjusting by strata as it had for the NODA analyses. Further,
EPA used a stepwise logistic regression to determine which factors or 2-way interactions
of factors were significant predictors of non-response. After combining Other, Baitfish,
and Ornamentals into a general Other category, ownership (with Tribal and Research
facilities collapsed into one group) was the only significant predicator of non-response.
(Westat, 2004). This finding provided additional support for EPA's determination that
ownership, rather than strata, should be used to adjust for non-response. The final weights
and the NODA weights have a correlation of about 0.96, and thus, the results are similar,
regardless of which set of weights are used.
Table A.3 shows the number of surveys sent and the number received by ownership
category, excluding nine facilities that returned incomplete responses. As explained in the
following paragraphs, EPA adjusted the response status in two situations.
First, for a few cases, the sampling frame listed facilities twice, and EPA has excluded
the duplicate entry of each pair from the totals in this table. Generally, EPA did not send
the duplicate questionnaire to the facility. For the one exception, for purposes of
7 The NODA survey weights also included an adjustment for strata without any respondents. While such an
adjustment is not necessary or correct, it has no effect on estimates of means and proportions and a
relatively small effect on the estimate of totals, such as numbers of facilities in the population that
potentially would be affected by a regulation. For the final survey weights, EPA has chosen a method that
does not include this adjustment.
A-14
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
developing the final survey weights, EPA simplified the calculations by treating this
single exception as a non-respondent.
Second, a few completed questionnaires contained information on more than one facility.
Subsequently, EPA separated that information into several questionnaires so that a single
questionnaire represented an individual facility. These questionnaires with multiple
facility data resulted in eight additional facilities contributing relevant data to the detailed
survey. However, for purposes of the costing analyses, for each original questionnaire,
EPA combined the data values from the multiple facilities into a single value. EPA then
applied the survey weight associated with the original questionnaire to that single,
combined, value in using the data to calculate national estimates.
Table A.3 Detailed Questionnaire: Response Rates
Ownership Category
Commercial
Government
Tribal or Research
Number Sent
134
102
15
Number Received
107
97
11
Response Rate
' ^ownership/
0.79851
0.95098
0.73333
The final detailed questionnaire weight
category g can be written as:
i for facility i in stratum h and ownership
ownership
(A-ll)
where DQh is the sampling weight from Table A. 2; RownersUP is the response rate from
Table A.3; and w,- is the screener weight from Table A. 1 adjusted for non-response as in
equation (A-3). EPA then used these adjusted survey weights to calculate national
estimates as described in Section A.2.2.3. These estimates are presented elsewhere in this
document and the record for the final rule.
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. andM.P. Couper. (1998). Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys.
New York: Wiley.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.
A-15
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
USD A (2000). 1998 USD A Census of Aquaculture. Located at DCN 60605 and
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm.
USEPA (2001). "Screener Questionnaire for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry."
DCN 10001 in the proposal record. Also at
http: //www. epa. go v/waterscience/guide/aquaculture/screener survey. pdfT.
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.
Westat (2004). "Sampling Weights for the Detailed Survey." DCN 51400 in Section 24.3.
Wolter, K. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
A-16
-------
ATTACHMENT A-l.
COMPARISON OF USDA CENSUS OF AQUACULTURE AND EPA SCREENER QUESTIONNAIRE
Primary
Objective
Year
Target
Population
Frame Source
Survey Design
Frame Size
USDA Census of Aquaciilture
Economic description of the industry
1998
All "aquaculture farms" from which
aquaculture products were sold, or
produced for restoration or conservation
purposes during the census year (1998).
Answered positively a 1997 Census of
Agriculture question on whether there
were "fish and other aquaculture
products" in 1997. This list was
supplemented by other USDA
information and lists of State and
Federal fish hatcheries.
Census
Not available, assumed to be 4028 or
more addresses based upon the reported
number of farms.
EPA Screener Questionnaire
Data for regulatory analysis
2000
All "facilities" in the Aquatic Animal
Production Industry which answer "Yes"
to the question "Do you produce (grow)
aquatic animals (fish, shellfish, or other
aquatic animals) at this facility?"
A mailing list of 5988 facilities was
constructed from Dun & Bradstreet, state
lists, tribal information, aquaculture
journals, various associations, the internet,
and aquaculture facilities identified by
respondents. TheD&B SIC codes
included: 0273 (animal aquaculture), 0279
(animal specialties), and 0921 (fish
hatcheries and preserves).
Census
5988 addresses
Difference
Two years
EPA did not require that any products be sold for 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 and non-
animal products. While the 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.
Although constructed differently, it is difficult to say
how the resulting lists of farms/facilities might
differ. Both frames may miss some aquaculture
farms or facilities. Total revenue of facilities in the
D&B database exceeded that of the Census by about
10%. Both estimates of total revenue were about
$1.0 billion. It was concluded that the facilities
missed by D&B probably were quite small.
None.
Differences are due to how the frames were
constructed, differences in the target population, or
changes in the industry over time.
>
a
s-
3
-------
USDA Census of Aquaculture
EPA Screener Questionnaire
Difference
Instrument
Mailed questionnaire augmented with
telephone and personal interviews.
Telephone calls and personal interviews
were used to collect data from non-
respondents.
Mailed questionnaire augmented with
follow-up phone calls to clarify data.
Reminder letters were sent to non-
respondents. A limited effort was made to
correct invalid addresses.
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.
Number of
Respondents
doing
Aquaculture
Apparently 4028, assuming no non-
response due to non-response follow-up.
Responses to some questions were
imputed.
2329
Differences are primarily due to screener non-
response as well as frame under-coverage for either
questionnaire, changes in the industry over time, and
inclusion of non-animal production in the USDA
Census.
>
a
s-
3
Estimated
Number of
Aquaculture
facilities
nationally
4028 aquaculture farms
3075 AAP facilities
Differences may be due to frame under-coverage for
either questionnaire, changes in the industry over
time, and inclusion of non-animal production in the
USDA Census.
Scope
Collected detailed information relating
to on-farm 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 distributed
for restoration or conservation purposes.
Collected information on the type of
facility (commercial, Government, Tribal,
etc.), quantities of animals produced in
2000 by species and size category,
production methods used, whether water
from the facility left the property and
whether to a POTW and/or with an
NPDES permit, and a description of
pollution control practices.
Comparable values include production methods,
species produced and some production information.
Production
Totals for
Selected
Species
National estimate:
Catfish: 593 million pounds
Trout: 63 million pounds
Weighted national estimate:
Catfish: 637 million pounds
Trout: 121 million pounds
For catfish and trout, total screener production is
somewhat larger than from the USDA Census.
Screener estimates are based on unit conversion
assumptions. Comparisons for other species would
require additional assumptions. Differences may be
due to changes over time and under coverage in the
two frames.
-------
Appendix A: 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
Codel
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 - smallmouth and
largemouth
Crappie
Eel
Paddlefish
Perch
Saugeye
Sturgeon
Sucker
Sunfish (including
bluegill and panfish)
Walleye
Whitefish
Pike
Shad (including threadfin)
Charr
Amberjack
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
Attachment A-2, Page 1
-------
Appendix A: 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
Selection3
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.
3 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: 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
f/SZM 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.
2SeeUSDA(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)7(110,588,000 Ibs - 70,129,000 Ibs)
= $2.16/lb which EPA rounded to $2.00/lb
Attachment A-2, Page 3
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
ATTACHMENT A-3.
NATIONAL ESTIMATES BASED ON SCREENER QUESTIONNAIRE
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
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 1
-------
Appendix A: 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
1 The predominant species is the species with the largest production at a facility. Each facility has only one
predominant species.
Table A3.4. Predominant Production Method
Predominant
Production Method
Ponds
Flow through
raceways, ponds, or
tanks
Recirculating 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
Attachment A—3, Page 2
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
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
1 The responses in the table combine the answers to questions 7 and 8 in the questionnaire.
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
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 3
-------
Appendix A: 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
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.
Table A3.9. 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 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 4
-------
Appendix A: 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
1 Sample sizes masked by 'ND' ('Not Disclosed') indicate there are five or fewer facilities
production methods for that specie.
for one or more of the
Attachment A-3, Page 5
-------
Appendix A: A Survey Design and Calculation of National Estimates
Table A3.ll. Estimated Number of Facilities Covered by the Proposed Rule1
Predominant
Production
Method
Flow-through
Recirculating
Net Pens
Species
Trout
Salmon
Striped
Bass
Tilapia
Striped
Bass
Tilapia
Salmon
Size
Foodsize
Stockers
All with $
value
All with $
value
All with $
value
All with $
value
All with $
value
All with $
value
Revenue Classes
Class 1
> $20,000
and
<$100,000
92
139
44
n/a2
n/a
n/a
n/a
ND
Class 2
> $100,000
and
<$500,000
44
131
52
ND3
ND
ND
13
ND
Class 3
> $500,000
13
39
38
ND
ND
ND
12
19
Total
> $20,0004
149
309
133
ND
9
ND
26
32
In the preamble to the proposed rale, 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.
n/a: not applicable in the proposed rale
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
4 Due to rounding, totals in this column may differ slightly from the sum of the numbers for the Classes.
Attachment A—3, Page 6
-------
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 rule, EPA
sampled aquatic animal production facilities to determine the levels of Aeromonas,
ammonia as nitrogen, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODs), 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 is regulating TSS for all
facilties, and regulating total phosphorus and BODs for some facilities.
Section B. 1 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.'l 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 metals, and is explained in detail in
Section B.3.2.
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
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 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.3.19.
4. The fourth category pertains to all microbiological methods. This category pertains to
the membrane filtration test and multiple tube fermentation procedures and are
explained in detail in Section B.3.20.
5. The fifth category pertains to all whole effluent toxicity methods. The whole effluent
toxicity methods are explained in detail in Section B.3.21.
B.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS REPORTING CONVENTIONS
Most of the analytical chemistry data were reported as liquid concentrations in
weight/volume units (e.g., micrograms per liter [ g/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 or for data
generated using multiple-tube fermentation techniques were reported as most probable
number per 100 milliliters (MPN/100 mL). 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.
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
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.
B-2
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
pollutant was quantitated3 in the sample. For the non-quantitated results, for each sample,
the laboratories reported a "sample-specific quantitation limit."4 The sample-specific
quantitation limit was used as a reporting limit for this industry. Two reporting examples
are provided below.
Example 1: For a hypothetical pollutant X, the sample-specific quantitation limit is 10
g/L. When the laboratory quantitated the amount of pollutant X in the sample as being 15
g/L, the result would be reported as "15 g/L."
Example 2: For the hypothetical pollutant X, the sample-specific quantitation limit is 10
g/L. When the laboratory could not quantitate the amount of pollutant X in the sample,
the result would be reported as "<10 g/L." That is, the analytical result indicated a value
less than the sample-specific quantitation limit of 10 g/L. The actual amount of pollutant
X in that sample is between zero (i.e., the pollutant is not present) and 10 g/L. 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. It means 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.
In its calculations, EPA generally substituted the reported value of the sample-specific
quantitation limit for each non-quantitated result.
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.
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.
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
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.
Table B-l Analytical Methods
Aeromonas
Ammonia as Nitrogen
BOD5
Ceriodaphnia Dubia
Chronic
COD
Chloride
Dissolved Phosphorus
E. coli
Enterococcus Faecium
Fathead Minnow
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Streptococcus
HEM
Metals
Method
1605
9260L
350.1
350.2
4500-NH3 H
405.1
1002.0
410.1
410.4
5220C
325.1
325.3
4500C1- B
365.2
1604
9230C
1000.0
9222D
9230C
9230B
1664
1620
200.7
200.9
245.1
CAS
Number
C2101
C2101
7664417
7664417
7664417
C003
N/A
C004
C004
C004
16887006
16887006
16887006
14265442D
68583222
68876788
N/A
C2106
C2107
C2107
C036
f
f
f
t
Nominal
Quantitation Limit
1
2
0.01
0.05
0.02
2.0
100
5.0
3.0
50.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.01
1
100
100
1
1
2
5.0
Unit
CFU/100 mL
MPN/100 mL
mg/L
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
MPN/100 mL
mg/L
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
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
Total Organic Carbon
Total Phosphorus
Total Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Organics
Volatile Residue
Method
9260M
353.1
353.3
4500-N03 E
5520E
365.2
150.1
9045C
1003.0
1625
2540F
375.3
375.4
Test Strip
1604
9221B
160.1
351.2
351.3
4500-NOTg C
415.1
Lloyd Kahn
365.2
160.3
160.2
1624
160.4
CAS
Number
C2119
COOS
COOS
COOS
C036
C034
C006
C006
N/A
f
N/A
14808798
14808798
7782505
E10606
E10606
C010
C021
C021
C021
CO 12
C012
14265442
COOS
C009
f
C030
Nominal
Quantitation Limit
4
0.01
0.01
0.01
5.0
0.01
100
0.1
10.0
1.0
0.05
1
2
10.0
0.5
1.0
0.02
1.0
100
0.01
10.0
4.0
10.0
Unit
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
MPN/100 mL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/kg
mg/L
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-5
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
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 g/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 Methods 1620, 200.7, 200.9, and 245.1 (Metals)
Laboratories used EPA Methods 1620, 200.7, 200.9, and 245.1 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 200.9 is not listed at 40 CFR Part 136,
but represents a consolidation of the graphite furnace analytical methods approved at 40
CFR Part 136, such as EPA Methods 206.2 and 279.2.
EPA Method 1620 employs the concept of an instrument detection limit (IDL). The IDL
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
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
B-6
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
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 g/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
g/L, the ML for the ICP method. Boron has an ML of 10 g/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 g/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 (BODs) 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.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
B-7
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
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 (NOs) present in the sample to nitrite (NOi). 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.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-8
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
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)
TM .
Total chlorine was determined by SenSafe total chlorine test strips in the field by the
TM .
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.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
B-9
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
the ammonia concentration: titrimetric, iodide colorimetric, or NHs 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 (Dissolved Phosphorus, Total Orthophosphate, and Total
Phosphorus)
Dissolved 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. Dissolved phosphorus results were obtained by filtering the sample
prior to this step. Total Orthophosphate represents the inorganic phosphorus (PO/O in the
sample determined by the direct colorimetric analysis procedure.
Method 365.2 is a colorimetric method and measures concentrations greater than 0.01
mg/L, which is also the nominal quantitation limit, for dissolved phosphorus, total
Orthophosphate, and total phosphorus.
B.3.17 EPA Method 160.3 (Total Solids)
Total solids were determined by EPA Method 160.3, which is approved at 40 CFR Part
136 as "residue-total." Method 160.3 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.3.18 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-10
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
B.3.19 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.3.20 EPA 1604 and SM 9221B, SM 9222D, SM 9230 B and 9230C, EPA 1605 and
SM 9260L, SM 9260M (total coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli, fecal Streptococcus,
Enterococcus faecium, Aeromonas, and Mycobacterium marinuni)
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 multiple-tube fermentation procedures methods
approved at 40 CFR Part 136 for ambient water for fecal coliform (SM9222D), fecal
streptococcus (SM9230B and SM9230C), Enterococcus faecium (EPA Method 1106.1),
total coliforms (EPA Method 1604 and SM9221B), and E. coli (EPA Method 1604).
There are no 40 CFR Part 136-approved methods for Aeromonas or Mycobacterium
marinum. For these microorganisms, EPA Method 1605 and SM 6260L was used for
Aeromonas, and SM 9260M was used for Mycobacterium marinum.
1. Total coliforms and E. coli (EPA Method 1604 and SM 9221B). For EPA Method
1604, samples are filtered utilizing 0.45 Dm 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. Total
coliforms were also measured by SM 922IB. Samples were inoculated into a
presumptive medium (lauryl tryptose broth) and incubated. Tubes positive for growth
and gas production were transferred into confirmatory media, brilliant green bile
broth for total coliform. Tubes with growth and gas production in this media were
recorded as positive.
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 9230 B and 9230C). Samples are filtered and placed onto
mEnterococcus plates and incubated for 48 + 3 hours for SM 9230C. All light and
dark red colonies are considered positive for fecal streptococcus. For SM 9230B,
samples were inoculated into a presumptive medium (azide dextrose broth) and
incubated. Tubes positive for turbidity (growth) were confirmed by streaking onto
bile esculin agar plates. All plates with typical growth were recorded as positive for
fecal streptococcus.
4. Aeromonas (EPA Method 1605 and SM 9260L). For 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. Aeromonas densities were also determined by SM
9260L, followed by the confirmation steps in EPA Method 1605 to minimize false
positive results. Samples were inoculated into a presumptive medium (TSB30) and
B-ll
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
incubated. Tubes with growth were streaked onto ampicillin-detxtrin agar (ADA). All
yellow colonies were isolated on nutrient agar and confirmed as Aeromonas if they
were oxidase positive and were able to ferment trehalose. In addition to the
biochemical confirmation, colony morphologies from ADA and nutrient agar were
recorded and used to differentiate between Aeromonas and Bacillus.
5. Enterococcus faecium (EPA Method 1106.1). 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 are based on the actual sample volume filtered for the
membrane filtration technique. 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. 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.
Data were also generated using the most probable number (MPN) approach specified in
Standard Methods. The MPN of each target organism per 100 milliliters was calculated
based on the positive and negative results from the analysis of multiple replicates at
multiple dilutions for each sample (see Table 9221.IV of Standard Methods). Based on
the tables in Standard Methods, the nominal quantitation limit for the analytes analyzed
by the multiple fermentation technique was 2 MPN/100 mL.
Table II at 40 CFR 136.3 specifies holding times of six hours for some pathogens. In
collecting data supporting this 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 6.20 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 922 IE, 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 conducted 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 evaluated total and fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, Aeromonas
B-12
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
species, and fecal streptococci for the aquatic animal production facilities industrial
effluents.
EPA conducted 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 established any
limitations and standards for these analytes. The report for the holding time study is
located at DCN 62398 in Section 6.20 in the public record for the Notice of Data
Availability (NODA).
B.3.20.1 Holding Time Study
When EPA conducted its own sampling episodes at the facilities, it exceeded the required
holding time for sample samples. Although laboratories qualified to conduct total
coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli analyses might have been within driving distance of
the facilities being evaluated, laboratories qualified to perform fecal streptococcus,
Aeromonas, and Enterococcus faecium analyses generally were not available, because
analysis for these analytes is more complex than coliform analyses. As a result, for most
sampling episodes, EPA decided to ship samples overnight to a laboratory capable of
performing all of the bacterial analyses. Because these samples would exceed the holding
time requirements in 40 CFR 136, EPA performed a holding time study to evaluate the
possible effects of analyzing samples at different holding times.
To determine whether or not the results for samples with longer holding times were
consistent with results for samples analyzed within 8 hours (i.e., the time period
consistent with 40 CFR 136 for compliance monitoring), for total coliforms fecal
coliforms, E. coli, Aeromonas, fecal streptococcus, and Enterococcus faecium from
CAAP facilities, EPA conducted a holding time study to evaluate sample concentrations
at 8, 24, 30, and 48 hours after sample collection for wastewater effluent samples from
two freshwater CAAP facilities. The study report, which contains results for all target
bacteria, is DCN 62398 in Section 6.20 in the public record for the Notice of Data
Availability (NODA).
Based on the results of this study, it appears that Aeromonas and fecal coliform samples
from aquaculture effluents may not be analyzed beyong 8 hours after sample collection
and still generate data comparable to those generate at 8 hours after sample collection.
With these exceptions noted, fecal streptococcus samples may be analyzed at 30 hours;
and total coliform, E. coli, Enterococcus, and E. faecium may be analyzed at 48 hours
after sample collection and still generate data comparable to those generated within 8
hours of sample collection, provided the samples are held below 10DC and are not
allowed to freeze. (Results of all samples analyzed are discussed in section 7.3 and Table
5 of the report.) Notwithstanding this conclusion, bacterial samples collected from
concentrated aquatic animal production effluents should always be analyzed as soon as
possible to comply with requirements at 40 CFR Part 136.
B.3.21 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
B-13
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
(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).
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.
B-14
-------
Appendix B: Analytical Methods and Nominal Quantitation Limits
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-15
-------
APPENDIX C
DAILY INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA FOR TOTAL
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
-------
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Total Suspended Solids
Part la: Episodes for each Configuration
Subcategory
Combined
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Option
A
B
A
A
A
B
Configuration
2A+6A+7A Continuous A
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2A OLSB A
3A Raceway A
4A Combined A
2B OLSB B
Episode
6439A
6460C
6495A
6297A
6297B
6297C
6439B
DMR06
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12B
DMR15
DMR18
DMR21A
DMR21B
DMR21C
DMR25A
DMR25B
DMR28
DMR31
DMR32
DMR34
DMR37
DMR38
DMR49
DMR54A
DMR54B
DMR59
6460C
6495A
6460B
6460A
DMR01
DMR03
DMR04
DMR61
6297A
6297B
6297C
DMR06
DMR10
No. of data points
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
12
2
49
49
43
1
48
48
48
48
48
48
43
1
20
48
11
20
48
49
9
1
5
5
5
19
37
34
12
5
5
5
12
2
C-l
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Total Suspended Solids
Subcategory
Flow-through
Option
B
Configuration
3B Raceway B
Episode
DMR12A
DMR12B
DMR15
DMR18
DMR21A
DMR21B
DMR21C
DMR25A
DMR25B
DMR28
DMR31
DMR32
DMR34
DMR37
DMR38
DMR49
DMR54A
DMR54B
DMR59
6297E
6297F
DMR05
DMR06
DMR07
DMR08
DMR09
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR13
DMR15
DMR17
DMR18
DMR19
DMR20
DMR21A
DMR23
DMR25A
DMR26
DMR27
DMR28
DMR29
DMR30
DMR31
No. of data points
49
49
43
1
48
48
48
48
48
48
43
1
20
48
11
20
48
49
9
5
5
3
12
2
9
1
16
49
2
39
1
11
4
4
48
9
48
11
2
44
3
2
44
C-2
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Total Suspended Solids
Subcategory
Flow-through
Recirculating
Recirculating
Option
B
A
B
Configuration
4B Combined B
6A RAS Solids A
6B RAS Solids B
Episode
DMR32
DMR34
DMR35
DMR36
DMR37
DMR38
DMR39
DMR42
DMR43
DMR44
DMR46
DMR47
DMR48
DMR49
DMR50
DMR51
DMR53
DMR54A
DMR57
DMR58
DMR59
DMR60
DMR62
6297G
6297H
62971
6460D
6495B
6439A
6439B
No. of data points
1
7
2
4
48
12
4
3
2
1
4
2
12
43
40
7
48
48
4
1
8
9
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
C-3
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Total Suspended Solids
Part Ib: Configurations for each Episode
Episode
6297A
6297B
6297C
6297E
6297F
6297G
6297H
62971
6439A
6439B
6460A
6460B
6460C
6460D
6495A
6495B
DMR01
DMR03
DMR04
DMR05
DMR06
DMR07
DMR08
DMR09
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12B
Subcategory
Combined
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Recirculating
Combined
Recirculating
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Option
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Configuration
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
4B Combined B
4B Combined B
4B Combined B
2A+6A+7A Continuous A
6A RAS Solids A
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
6B RAS Solids B
4A Combined A
3A Raceway A
2A+6A+7A Continuous A
2A OLSB A
4B Combined B
2A+6A+7A Continuous A
2A OLSB A
4B Combined B
4A Combined A
4A Combined A
4A Combined A
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
No. of data points
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
5
19
37
34
3
12
12
12
2
9
1
2
2
16
49
49
49
49
49
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Total Suspended Solids
Episode
DMR13
DMR15
DMR17
DMR18
DMR19
DMR20
DMR21A
DMR21B
DMR21C
DMR23
DMR25A
DMR25B
DMR26
DMR27
DMR28
DMR29
DMR30
DMR31
DMR32
DMR34
DMR35
DMR36
DMR37
Subcategory
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Option
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Configuration
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
No. of data points
2
43
43
39
1
1
1
11
4
4
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
9
48
48
48
48
48
11
2
48
48
44
3
2
43
43
44
1
1
1
20
20
7
2
4
48
48
C-5
-------
Appendix C: Daily Influent and Effluent Data for Total Suspended Solids
Episode
DMR38
DMR39
DMR42
DMR43
DMR44
DMR46
DMR47
DMR48
DMR49
DMR50
DMR51
DMR53
DMR54A
DMR54B
DMR57
DMR58
DMR59
DMR60
DMR61
DMR62
Subcategory
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Combined
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Flow-through
Option
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
Configuration
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
2B+6B+7B Continuous B
2B OLSB B
3B Raceway B
3B Raceway B
4A Combined A
3B Raceway B
No. of data points
48
11
11
12
4
3
2
1
4
2
12
20
20
43
40
7
48
48
48
48
49
49
4
1
9
9
8
9
12
4
C-6
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
o
Episode
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
6297D
Episode
6460C
6495A
6495A
6495A
6495A
6495A
Episode
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
6460B
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Day
3
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
Effluent
Sample Sample
Date Point
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
Subcategory=Flow- through
Sample
Date
08/27/2001
03/25/2003
03/26/2003
03/27/2003
03/28/2003
03/29/2003
Sub
Sample
Date
08/25/2001
08/26/2001
08/27/2001
08/28/2001
08/29/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP-9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
:ategory=Flow- through -
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
SP-7
Effluent
Concentration
-- Option=A --
Effluent
Concentration
38.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
4.00
- Option=A --
Effluent
Concentration
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
Conf iguration=27
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
Conf iguration=3A
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
SP-4
\ OLSB A
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-8
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
Raceway A
Influent
Sample
Point
Influent
Concentration
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Influent
Concentration
11800.00
91.00
92.00
62.00
29.00
25.00
Influent
Concentration
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent
Censor
Type
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=A -- Configuration=4A Combined A
o
Episode
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
6460A
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR01
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
1
2
3
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
Sample
Date
08/25/2001
08/26/2001
08/27/2001
08/28/2001
08/29/2001
05/02/1996
06/03/1996
07/07/1996
08/04/1996
09/05/1996
10/03/1996
01/02/1997
02/06/1997
03/04/1997
04/06/1997
05/07/1997
06/04/1997
10/06/1997
01/08/1998
03/09/1998
07/05/1998
04/07/1999
07/05/1999
07/13/1999
02/06/1996
03/04/1996
04/03/1996
05/10/1996
06/04/1996
07/02/1996
07/30/1996
09/05/1996
10/04/1996
11/04/1996
12/03/1996
01/10/1997
02/07/1997
03/04/1997
04/04/1997
05/05/1997
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
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
Concentration
4.00
4.00
31.68
4.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
3.90
5.50
3.40
4.00
4.10
3.10
3.00
5.60
5.40
2.40
3.30
3.20
2.40
5.00
4.30
4.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
NC
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
Influent Influent
Sample Influent Censor
Point Concentration Type
a
a,
'
t
I
§
a,
I
b
a
3"
a
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=A -- Configuration=4A Combined A
o
Episode
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR03
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
484
518
546
578
611
639
667
700
730
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
Sample
Date
06/03/1997
07/07/1997
08/04/1997
09/05/1997
10/08/1997
11/05/1997
12/03/1997
01/05/1998
02/04/1998
03/04/1998
04/03/1998
05/07/1998
06/08/1998
07/07/1998
08/06/1998
09/09/1998
10/09/1998
11/09/1998
12/07/1998
01/10/1999
02/09/1999
02/07/1996
03/05/1996
04/03/1996
05/03/1996
06/04/1996
07/02/1996
08/08/1996
09/05/1996
10/09/1996
11/07/1996
12/06/1996
01/07/1997
02/07/1997
04/07/1997
05/10/1997
06/10/1997
07/07/1997
08/06/1997
09/04/1997
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
6.50
4.10
3.50
1.70
2.00
2.40
2.20
3.10
2.90
3.20
4.60
2.60
3.20
2.40
1.80
3.90
7.00
4.00
4.50
4.30
3.90
1.70
6.10
4.50
1.40
1.60
1.00
2.10
2.40
1.90
0.90
1.00
6.30
9.60
2.40
2.90
2.50
3.30
1.10
0.90
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent Influent
Sample Influent Censor
Point Concentration Type
a
a,
'
t
I
§
a,
I
b
a
3"
a
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=A -- Configuration=4A Combined A
(continued)
Episode
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR04
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
DMR61
Episode
6297A
6297A
6297A
6297A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
UNK
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
611
639
672
756
794
820
854
882
916
939
973
1004
1030
1065
1092
612
643
671
702
732
763
793
824
855
885
916
946
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
the Influent
Sample
Date
10/09/1997
11/06/1997
12/09/1997
03/03/1998
04/10/1998
05/06/1998
06/09/1998
07/07/1998
08/10/1998
09/02/1998
10/06/1998
11/06/1998
12/02/1998
01/06/1999
02/02/1999
01/01/2001
02/01/2001
03/01/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sul
3category=Flow- through
| Effluent
Sample | Sample
Date j Point
12/11/2000 | SP8+9
12/12/2000 j SP8+9
12/13/2000 j SP8+9
12/14/2000 j SP8+9
Sample Point is identified as SP-0,
Effluent
Concentration
1.50
1.60
1.50
1.10
6.40
3.40
4.20
6.30
2.20
2.90
1.60
1.70
1.50
1.60
0.60
0.00
1.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
-- Option-B --
Effluent
Concentration
70.00
44.00
46.00
69.00
then the columns
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent Influent
Sample Influent Censor
Point Concentration Type
Conf iguration=2I
3 OLSB B
Effluent | Influent Influent
Censor | Sample Influent Censor
Type | Point Concentration TyPe
NC | SP-7 1000.00 NC
NC j SP-7 553.00 NC
NC j SP-7 1040.00 NC
NC j SP-7 1710.00 NC
3 for Influent provide information about Source Water
S^
'TO
a
&
"
0
b
a
^5"
^
^
1
2"
a
a.
^5
^SSi
TO
a
b
a
s-
^
S3
§1
^
*§
TO
TO"
a.
a3
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
6297A
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297B
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
6297C
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
367
398
426
457
487
518
548
579
610
640
671
701
367
374
398
405
426
433
457
487
518
548
579
610
671
692
Sample
Date
12/15/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
01/01/2001
02/01/2001
03/01/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
11/01/2001
11/22/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP-11
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
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
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
60.00
56.00
68.00
74.00
72.00
78.00
11.00
14.80
9.80
11.60
8.40
31.10
18.10
11.90
10.60
12.50
2.00
2.93
12.80
2.17
6.08
39.00
66.70
79.30
78.70
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-7
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-10
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
363 .00
1040.00
687.00
4.00
540.00
690.00
4050.00
707.00
2020.00
3360.00
2830.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
ND
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
ND
ND
ND
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=2B OLSB B
Kj
Episode
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
701
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
593
600
610
617
624
631
640
647
654
Sample
Date
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
10.60
21.60
4.70
5.90
39.20
6.00
12.60
2.10
6.20
5.40
2.00
10.80
4.70
14.10
14.70
21.80
11.70
10.40
10.00
23.80
13.20
30.50
18.10
24.20
5.20
2.01
16.50
3.28
2.23
2.19
3.44
15.00
16.80
10.50
8.64
46.10
10.10
2.00
4.69
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
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
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.40
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=2B OLSB B
Episode
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
661
671
678
685
692
699
701
708
715
722
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
Sample
Date
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
11/29/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-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
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
15.00
3.30
49.00
16.20
3.04
16.00
3.90
9.07
41.00
2.00
10.60
21.60
4.70
5.90
39.20
6.00
12.60
2.10
2.60
10.20
30.30
12.60
15.90
40.20
11.90
5.40
19.20
18.10
8.80
11.40
5.20
7.00
29.90
68.50
9.70
6.16
38.40
5.49
3.70
9.84
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
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
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
5.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR12B
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
593
600
610
617
624
631
640
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
699
701
708
715
722
307
314
321
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
427
434
441
448
458
465
472
479
488
495
Sample
Date
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
11/29/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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-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
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
9.57
17.00
23.40
2.00
15.40
20.90
7.97
7.92
8.77
20.30
5.47
14.50
15.50
15.50
18.40
14.30
4.34
16.70
14.70
29.00
7.00
17.00
28.00
26.00
12.00
29.00
43.00
26.00
42.00
4.00
23.30
8.20
17.00
16.00
16.80
19.00
32.50
18.80
10.00
10.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=2B OLSB B
Episode
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
374
398
426
457
487
518
548
579
600
610
654
671
367
374
381
388
398
Sample
Date
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/08/2001
02/01/2001
03/01/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
10/15/2001
11/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
22.80
16.80
6.70
5.70
6.70
7.00
2.30
4.10
5.70
5.50
3.40
4.10
8.40
4.00
11.80
10.40
5.80
2.90
24.20
2.20
7.50
2.30
2.00
23.00
39.00
60.00
73.00
32.00
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
3 .40
2 .00
2 .20
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
3.30
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.27
2.00
7.50
4.63
2.00
7.77
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=2B OLSB B
0\
Episode
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
593
600
610
617
624
631
640
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
701
708
Sample
Date
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
39.00
25.00
70.00
49.00
68.00
49.00
54.00
44.00
55.00
40.00
52.00
50.00
59.00
50.00
49.00
50.00
51.00
70.00
54.00
70.00
55.00
79.00
39.00
71.00
61.00
55.00
52.00
69.00
65.70
57.50
57.00
82.00
73.00
31.00
46.00
39.00
37.00
49.00
67.00
38.00
54.00
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
715
722
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
593
600
610
617
624
631
640
647
Sample
Date
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP-1
SP-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
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
39.30
34.00
50.00
38.00
36.00
37.00
22.00
48.00
33.00
56.00
31.00
33.00
43.00
59.00
48.00
46.00
34.00
43.00
35.00
57.00
33.00
44.00
33.00
60.00
68.00
64.00
60.00
66.00
53.00
43.50
46.00
55.00
37.00
62.00
56.00
51.00
39.00
48.00
47.00
68.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
do
Episode
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR21B
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR2 IB
DMR21B
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
654
661
671
678
685
692
701
708
715
722
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
Sample
Date
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
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
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
62.00
84.00
46.50
55.50
35.00
79.00
59.00
77.00
41.00
33.00
11.00
23.00
16.00
15.00
20.00
10.00
12.00
15.00
17.00
19.00
15.00
18.00
13.00
20.00
14.00
28.00
12.00
17.00
17.50
28.00
8.60
15.50
21.00
11.00
11.80
14.40
13.50
6.40
8.00
8.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR21C
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
593
600
610
617
624
631
640
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
701
708
715
722
1
123
154
185
199
215
276
307
314
321
328
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
Sample
Date
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
03/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
09/15/2001
10/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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-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
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
8.00
8.00
8.60
7.00
7.40
6.60
9.20
13.20
2.90
7.10
4.80
3.80
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.80
2.10
17.00
37.00
34.00
24.00
22.00
25.00
16.00
10.00
29.00
27.00
26.00
25.00
17.00
23.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Kj
Episode
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
411
418
427
434
441
448
458
465
472
479
488
495
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
307
314
321
328
338
345
Sample
Date
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
31.00
18.00
23.30
13.50
22.00
20.00
37.00
35.50
40.00
26.50
38.00
7.20
30.70
31.00
38.50
32.00
56.50
42.70
31.00
53.00
40.00
56.50
51.00
45.50
38.00
39.00
44.00
55.50
63.00
59.00
64.00
37.00
64.00
52.00
30.00
57.00
43.00
60.00
52.00
31.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=2B OLSB B
Kj
Episode
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
DMR25B
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
411
418
427
434
441
448
458
465
472
479
488
495
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
Sample
Date
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
SP-2
SP-2
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
42.00
50.00
72.00
48.00
37.00
38.00
49.00
49.00
40.00
44.00
31.00
43.00
38.00
30.00
59.00
23.00
37.00
45.00
37.00
45.50
42.00
52.00
26.00
22.50
39.00
30.00
28.00
31.00
37.30
15.30
33.00
39.00
36.00
58.00
64.30
47.00
52.00
45.00
73.00
43.00
66.00
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
cp
Kj
Kj
Episode
DMR25B
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
662
307
314
321
328
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
411
418
427
434
441
448
458
465
472
479
488
495
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
the Influent
Sul
Sample
Date
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
Part 2: TSS (r
}category=Flo
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP-2
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
49.00
26.60
11.50
10.10
8.80
10.70
31.20
20.80
19.00
13.10
13.20
6.10
24.80
31.50
8.20
13.10
19.80
9.60
18.30
14.90
14.00
49.10
4.20
20.90
13.10
55.20
13.20
11.70
11.20
11.60
2.43
14.70
11.40
2.34
18.80
14.40
10.70
33.90
15.40
20.10
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
cp
Kj
Oj
Episode
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
336
343
350
357
367
374
381
388
402
409
426
433
440
447
456
463
470
477
487
494
501
508
517
524
531
538
548
555
562
569
579
the Influent
Su
Sample
Date
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
Part 2: TSS (r
Dcategory=Flo
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
4.80
10.70
28.60
9.72
25.50
18.50
4.80
17.60
15.20
18.00
91.00
45.00
64.00
87.00
22.00
41.00
45.00
44.00
32.00
46.00
48.50
30.00
79.00
81.00
6.00
45.00
28.00
20.50
27.30
58.00
24.50
21.50
9.60
12.50
15.00
16.00
17.40
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=2B OLSB B
Kj
Episode
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR32
DMR32
DMR32
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
586
593
600
609
616
623
630
640
647
654
661
670
677
684
691
457
464
549
367
374
398
405
426
440
457
464
487
494
518
525
548
555
579
586
610
617
654
678
701
Sample
Date
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
10/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
03/01/2001
03/15/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
10/15/2001
11/08/2001
12/01/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
11.10
39.00
25.30
52.00
36.70
16.90
12.20
19.30
63.30
29.20
8.00
6.50
21.30
44.50
5.40
12.00
48.30
64.60
92.80
26.20
33.80
50.40
45.10
59.20
34.90
20.40
82.40
73.30
35.40
23.30
19.20
18.00
14.80
9.15
18.80
58.70
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
52 .00
4.00
25.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through - -
Kj
Episode
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
307
314
321
328
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
411
418
427
434
441
448
458
465
472
479
488
495
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
601
Sample
Date
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
19.00
29.00
23.00
17.00
19.00
20.00
18.50
31.00
30.00
23.00
17.00
22.00
48.00
27.00
30.00
24.00
17.30
17.00
24.00
15.30
19.30
14.70
22.70
26.00
18.70
23.30
32.00
43.00
36.70
55.00
25.00
26.00
28.00
22.00
28.00
26.40
21.30
20.00
37.50
14.60
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
cp
Kj
o\
Episode
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
381
419
447
471
508
539
569
607
631
668
692
729
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
the Influent
Su
Sample
Date
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/22/2001
04/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/22/2001
07/22/2001
08/29/2001
09/22/2001
10/29/2001
11/22/2001
12/29/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
Part 2: TSS (r
Dcategory=Flo
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
10.80
20.00
18.80
22.40
18.00
32.00
13.50
14.10
14.60
45.50
56.60
24.40
17.50
6.60
5.52
26.80
11.60
31.80
52.50
21.80
33.30
14.80
17.20
14.90
27.70
49.00
21.60
23.70
22.10
31.60
31.60
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
4.00
4.10
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .98
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
cp
Kj
X)
Episode
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
518
525
532
548
555
562
579
586
593
610
617
624
640
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
701
708
715
722
276
283
290
297
307
314
321
328
335
342
349
356
366
373
380
387
the Influent
Su
Sample
Date
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
Part 2: TSS (r
Dcategory=Flo
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
11.10
8.26
15.00
5.72
15.80
10.30
16.30
11.10
36.00
33.00
18.00
36.00
17.50
25.00
27.00
26.00
32.00
33.00
29.00
29.00
26.00
38.00
26.00
47.00
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
o
Kj
do
Episode
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
396
403
410
417
427
434
441
448
457
464
471
478
488
495
502
509
516
519
526
533
540
549
556
563
570
580
587
594
601
608
610
617
624
631
276
283
290
297
307
314
Sul
Sample
Date
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
08/29/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
11/29/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
Part 2: TSS (r
3category=Flo
Effluent
Sample
Point
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-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
48.00
10.40
42.00
23.50
44.70
32.70
52.00
18.80
9.00
30.00
14.30
31.00
26.00
52.00
19.00
35.00
15.10
18.80
34.50
48.00
29.30
37.30
29.00
3.60
33.30
19.00
63.00
19.00
30.70
23.30
4.00
18.00
50.00
35.00
45.00
54.00
47.00
56.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=2B OLSB B
Kj
Episode
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
321
328
335
342
349
356
366
373
380
387
396
403
410
417
427
434
441
448
455
457
464
471
478
488
495
502
509
516
519
526
533
540
549
556
563
570
580
587
594
601
608
Sample
Date
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
06/29/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
08/29/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
11/29/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
v^pL-J-Wll— D ^
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
42.00
39.00
51.00
46.00
90.00
17.00
27.00
49.00
19.00
72.00
62.00
73.00
40.00
30.70
84.00
32.70
98.00
76.00
43.00
62.00
52.00
14.00
92.00
51.00
40.00
86.00
51.00
22.00
71.40
36.50
93.30
75.00
21.00
37.00
60.00
3.80
45.00
43.00
35.00
wiij- J_y u. J_d L. J.W11 — ^L
Effluent
Censor
Type
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
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR54B
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR62
DMR62
DMR62
DMR62
Episode
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297E
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
6297F
DMR05
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
610
617
624
631
367
398
518
548
579
610
640
671
701
1
31
62
92
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
367
Sample
Date
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
02/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
Sub
Sample
Date
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
01/01/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
: at egory= Flow -through
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP5 + 6
SP2 + 3
SP2 + 3
SP2 + 3
SP2 + 3
SP2 + 3
SP-1
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
39.00
26.00
94.00
19.50
2.30
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.48
2.00
2.00
2.00
-- Option=B --
Effluent
Concentration
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Conf iguration=3B Raceway B
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Influent
Concentration
2.00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR05
DMR05
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR06
DMR07
DMR07
DMR08
DMR08
DMR08
DMR08
DMR08
DMR08
DMR08
DMR08
DMR08
DMR09
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
671
685
367
398
426
457
487
518
548
579
610
640
671
701
457
610
276
307
396
457
488
519
549
580
610
1
367
374
398
405
426
433
457
487
518
548
OUi^
Sample
Date
11/01/2001
11/15/2001
01/01/2001
02/01/2001
03/01/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
07/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
02/01/2001
05/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
10/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.70
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
7.60
3.70
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.10
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.80
3.60
2.70
2.00
3.40
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .40
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
cp
Oj
Kj
Episode
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
579
610
640
671
692
701
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
593
600
610
617
the Influent
Sulx
Sample
Date
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
Part 2: TSS (n
:ategory=Flow
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.70
2.20
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.70
2.00
2.70
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
5.40
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
cp
Oj
Oj
Episode
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR12A
DMR13
DMR13
DMR14
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
624
631
640
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
699
701
708
715
722
32
275
1
307
314
321
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
411
418
488
495
502
509
519
the Influent
Sub
Sample
Date
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
11/29/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
09/01/2001
11/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
Part 2: TSS (n
rategory=Flow
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.60
1.20
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.70
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.20
2.00
3.50
2.00
4.30
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.40
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
0.10
1.80
44.70
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR15
DMR17
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR18
DMR19
DMR19
DMR19
DMR19
DMR20
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
397
374
398
426
457
487
518
548
579
610
654
671
701
336
426
517
609
215
OUi^
Sample
Date
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
08/01/2001
01/08/2001
02/01/2001
03/01/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/15/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
04/01/2001
07/01/2001
10/01/2001
01/01/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
7.70
5.70
5.00
6.20
2.00
2.30
4.20
4.60
2.00
2.30
2.00
4.10
3.00
2.90
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.20
2.60
2.00
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.80
2.00
8.00
0.40
0.70
0.80
0.60
5.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
3.40
2.00
2 .20
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
3 .30
4.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
3 .30
2 .00
4.60
2 .00
7.80
44.30
0.00
0.40
1.00
1.00
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR20
DMR20
DMR20
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
274
366
427
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
593
600
610
617
624
631
640
oui^
Sample
Date
03/01/2001
06/01/2001
08/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
-di_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
4.60
2.30
1.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.10
2.10
2.00
2.50
2.40
2.50
2.00
2.30
2.60
2.60
2.40
2.70
4.30
2.40
2.90
2.90
2.70
2.00
2.10
2.80
2.60
2.10
2.90
2.70
2.30
2.50
2.20
2.90
2.30
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
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
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
1.40
2.10
1.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
o
Oj
o\
Episode
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR2 1A
DMR21A
DMR21A
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR23
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
701
708
715
722
1
123
154
185
199
215
246
260
276
307
314
321
328
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
411
418
427
434
441
Sub
Sample
Date
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
03/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
09/15/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
11/15/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
Part 2: TSS (r
:ategory=Flow
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Influent
Influent Censor
Concentration Type
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
2.00 ND
Effluent
Concentration
2.20
2.20
2.60
2.20
2.00
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.20
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.80
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
cp
Oj
X)
Episode
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR25A
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
If
Sample
Day
448
458
465
472
479
488
495
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
276
283
307
314
335
342
366
373
396
403
427
the Influent
Sub
Sample
Date
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
06/01/2001
Part 2: TSS (n
rategory=Flow
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.40
2.10
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.80
2.90
2.90
2.10
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.30
2.00
2.50
2.30
2.00
6.30
5.80
5.10
5.30
8.30
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
5.70
4.30
2.00
2.00
4.60
4.30
5.20
4.20
7.30
11.00
5.20
Influent
Censor
Type
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
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
cp
Oj
do
Episode
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR26
DMR27
DMR27
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
434
457
464
488
502
526
533
580
587
610
617
1
154
367
374
381
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
548
555
562
569
579
586
the Influent
Sub
Sample
Date
06/08/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
08/01/2001
08/15/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
07/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
Part 2: TSS (n
rategory=Flow
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
10.00
7.50
9.60
7.00
7.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.10
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.30
2.40
2.70
2.40
2.60
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.60
3.20
2.20
4.30
3.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
9.30
5.40
6.60
2.00
6.60
3.60
11.60
3 .90
17.00
14.10
7.10
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
ND
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR28
DMR29
DMR29
DMR29
DMR30
DMR30
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
WARM
WARM
WARM
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
593
600
610
617
624
631
640
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
701
708
715
722
1
93
184
1
276
336
343
350
357
367
374
381
388
402
409
426
433
440
447
456
OUi^
Sample
Date
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
06/01/2001
09/01/2001
12/01/2001
03/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
7.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
0.10
3.00
3.00
25.00
22 .00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR31
DMR32
DMR32
DMR32
DMR33
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
463
470
477
487
494
501
508
517
524
531
538
548
555
562
569
579
586
593
600
609
616
623
630
640
647
654
661
670
677
684
691
1
8
93
1
579
586
610
OUi^
Sample
Date
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
09/01/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.70
3.00
2.00
2.30
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
52.00
4.00
25.00
50.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR34
DMR35
DMR35
DMR36
DMR36
DMR36
DMR36
DMR36
DMR36
DMR36
DMR36
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
617
654
678
701
1
93
1
60
67
121
152
213
244
335
307
314
321
328
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
411
418
427
434
441
448
458
465
472
479
OUi^
Sample
Date
09/08/2001
10/15/2001
11/08/2001
12/01/2001
06/01/2001
09/01/2001
01/01/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
8.60
5.60
5.60
9.80
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.20
2.40
2.40
2.60
2.90
2.70
2.00
2.00
2.30
3.10
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
1.00
1.00
7.30
5.80
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
8.60
9.40
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
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
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
-IV
Episode
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR37
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR38
DMR39
DMR39
DMR39
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
488
495
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
571
580
587
594
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
86
124
152
176
213
244
274
312
336
373
397
434
154
244
335
OUi^
Sample
Date
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/22/2001
04/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/22/2001
07/22/2001
08/29/2001
09/22/2001
10/29/2001
11/22/2001
12/29/2001
01/01/2001
04/01/2001
07/01/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.40
2.10
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.80
2.50
2.30
2.00
2.60
2.30
2.00
2.50
2.20
3.30
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.70
2.70
2.30
3.60
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.80
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.60
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.10
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2 .40
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
cp
•ti.
Oo
Episode
DMR39
DMR40
DMR40
DMR42
DMR42
DMR42
DMR43
DMR43
DMR44
DMR46
DMR46
DMR46
DMR46
DMR47
DMR47
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR48
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
427
1
93
367
548
640
1
31
1
1
121
182
213
243
304
276
307
335
366
396
427
457
488
519
549
580
610
367
374
381
388
398
405
the Influent
Sub
Sample
Date
10/01/2001
07/01/2001
10/01/2001
02/01/2001
08/01/2001
11/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
06/01/2001
02/01/2001
06/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
05/01/2001
07/01/2001
01/01/2001
02/01/2001
03/01/2001
04/01/2001
05/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
Part 2: TSS (n
rategory=Flow
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.10
7.10
1.40
1.60
1.00
2.00
1.00
6.00
2.00
2.60
2.00
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.80
2.00
3.40
6.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.30
103 .00
40.50
2.00
2.00
2 .00
5.90
3 .60
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.60
2 .00
2 .00
2 .20
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
3.30
2.00
4.60
2 .00
5.20
4.10
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR49
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
518
525
532
548
555
562
579
586
593
610
617
624
640
647
654
661
671
678
685
692
701
708
715
722
367
374
381
OUi^
Sample
Date
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
NC
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
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Influent
Censor
Type
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR50
DMR51
DMR51
DMR51
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
388
398
405
412
419
426
433
440
447
457
464
471
478
487
494
501
508
518
525
532
539
548
555
562
569
579
586
593
600
607
610
617
624
701
708
715
722
367
395
426
OUi^
Sample
Date
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
08/29/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
02/01/2001
03/01/2001
04/01/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
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
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3 .00
1.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
-IV
Episode
DMR51
DMR51
DMR51
DMR51
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
456
517
609
630
307
314
321
328
335
338
345
352
359
366
373
380
387
397
404
411
418
427
434
441
448
458
465
472
479
488
495
502
509
519
526
533
540
550
557
564
oui^
Sample
Date
05/01/2001
07/01/2001
10/01/2001
10/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
01/29/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
-di_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
8.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
3 .00
5.00
3 .00
3.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
2 .00
1.00
2 .00
1.00
1.00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6 .00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR53
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
571
580
587
594
601
611
618
625
632
641
648
655
662
276
283
290
297
307
314
321
328
335
342
349
356
366
373
380
387
396
403
410
417
427
434
441
448
457
464
471
OUi^
Sample
Date
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
01/01/2001
01/08/2001
01/15/2001
01/22/2001
02/01/2001
02/08/2001
02/15/2001
02/22/2001
03/01/2001
03/08/2001
03/15/2001
03/22/2001
04/01/2001
04/08/2001
04/15/2001
04/22/2001
05/01/2001
05/08/2001
05/15/2001
05/22/2001
06/01/2001
06/08/2001
06/15/2001
06/22/2001
07/01/2001
07/08/2001
07/15/2001
jdi_cy wj. y — c j_ww
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
3.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
6.00
1.00
6.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
NC
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
1
b
a
§
a,
§
a
s-
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
I
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
do
Episode
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR54A
DMR56
DMR57
DMR57
DMR57
DMR57
DMR58
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
DMR59
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Sample
Day
478
488
495
502
509
516
519
526
533
540
549
556
563
570
580
587
594
601
608
610
617
624
631
1
1
198
222
245
1
367
518
548
579
610
640
671
701
Sample
Date
07/22/2001
08/01/2001
08/08/2001
08/15/2001
08/22/2001
08/29/2001
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
10/15/2001
10/22/2001
11/01/2001
11/08/2001
11/15/2001
11/22/2001
11/29/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
12/15/2001
12/22/2001
10/01/2001
04/01/2001
10/15/2001
11/08/2001
12/01/2001
10/01/2001
01/01/2001
06/01/2001
07/01/2001
08/01/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow-through - - Option=B - - Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.30
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.10
2.50
2.20
1.20
1.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
50.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
0.80
2 .20
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
-IV
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
DMR60
DMR60
DMR60
DMR60
DMR60
DMR60
DMR60
DMR60
DMR60
DMR62
DMR62
DMR62
DMR62
Episode
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297G
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
6297H
62971
62971
62971
62971
62971
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
If
Sample
Day
519
526
533
540
549
556
580
610
617
1
31
62
92
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
the Influent
Sub
: at egory= Flow -through
Sample
Date
09/01/2001
09/08/2001
09/15/2001
09/22/2001
10/01/2001
10/08/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
12/08/2001
09/01/2001
10/01/2001
11/01/2001
12/01/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Subcategory=Flow- through -
Sample
Date
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000
12/13/2000
12/14/2000
12/15/2000
Effluent
Sample
Point
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
Sample Point is identified as SP-0,
-- Option=B --
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.10
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.30
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
Conf iguration=3B Raceway B
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Sample
Point
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
SP-0
- Option=B -- Conf iguration=4B C
Effluent
Concentration
4.65
4.40
4.42
4.64
4.55
4.51
4.63
4.69
4.67
4.73
4.07
4.60
4.06
4.08
4.04
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
,
.om me
Influent
Sample
Point
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
then the columns for Influent provide information
Influent
Concentration
2.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 .00
Influent
Concentration
1000.00
553.00
1040.00
1710.00
363.00
1040.00
687.00
4.00
540.00
690.00
4050.00
707.00
2020.00
3360.00
2830.00
about Source Water
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
^
"§
a
&
!l
r^
b
a
a"
s
1
a
a
a.
^2^
1
a
b
»_
o
o5
~*
S3
B"
*•"
s^
*§
TO
a.
TO
a.
§
1
-------
Part 2: TSS (mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6460D
6495B
6495B
6495B
6495B
6495B
Episode
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
6439A
Episode
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
6439C
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Date
08/25/2001
08/26/2001
08/27/2001
08/28/2001
08/29/2001
03/25/2003
03/26/2003
03/27/2003
03/28/2003
03/29/2003
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP10+11
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
SP13+14
:egory=Recirculating
Effluent
Sample Sample
Date Point
04/24/2001 SP-4
04/25/2001 SP-4
04/26/2001 SP-4
04/27/2001 SP-4
04/28/2001 SP-4
Subcategory=Recirculating --
Effluent
Sample Sample
Date Point
04/24/2001
04/25/2001
04/26/2001
04/27/2001
04/28/2001
(continued)
Effluent
Concentration
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Effluent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-- Option=A -- Conf iguration=6A I
Effluent
Concentration
86.00
118.00
110.00
1010.00
84.00
Influent
Sample
Point
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP7,SP8
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
SP-12
iAS Solids A
Effluent Influent
Censor Sample
Type Point
NC SP-3
NC SP-3
NC SP-3
NC SP-3
NC SP-3
Option-A -- Conf iguration-7A RAS
Effluent
Concentration
ver opping
Effluent Influent
Censor Sample
Type Point
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
SP-2
Influent
Concentration
4.00
4.00
9607.52
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Influent
Concentration
363.00
730.00
1030.00
180.00
440.00
Influent
Concentration
38.00
45.00
49.00
55.00
44.00
Influent
Censor
Type
ND
ND
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
Part 2: TSS(mg/L) Effluent and Influent Concentration Data
Episode
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
6439B
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
WARM
Sample
Day
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Date
04/24/2001
04/25/2001
04/26/2001
04/27/2001
04/28/2001
Effluent
Sample
Point
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
SP9+11
Effluent
Concentration
44.00
53.00
61.00
28.50
46.50
Effluent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
| Influent
| Sample
j Point
| SP-8
j SP-8
j SP-8
j SP-8
j SP-8
1
Influent
Concentration
56 .00
58.00
68.00
30.00
74.00
Influent
Censor
Type
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
If the Influent Sample Point is identified as SP-0, then the columns for Influent provide information about Source Water
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY STATISTICS AT EACH SAMPLE POINT FOR
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
-------
-------
Listing 8-1: Summary Statistics for TSS Daily Values (mg/L)
Episode
ALL
6439A
6460C
6495A
Sample Point
ALL
SP-4
SP-9
SP-11
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
COLD
COLD
Episode
Mean
134.45
281.60
38.00
6 .60
Total
Number
Values
11
5
1
5
Number
of
ND
1
0
0
1
__ Subcategory=Combined --
Episode
ALL
6297A
6297B
6297C
6439B
DMR06
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12B
DMR15
DMR18
DMR21A
DMR21B
DMR21C
DMR25A
DMR25B
DMR28
DMR31
DMR32
DMR34
DMR37
DMR38
DMR49
DMR54A
DMR54B
DMR59
Sample Point
ALL
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP13+14
SP9+11
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
WARM
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Episode
Mean
29.80
57.80
69.60
11.12
46 .60
17.99
79.00
12 .89
14.81
14.07
2 .00
52 .61
49.05
11.68
34.75
42 .89
16 .56
34.08
12 .00
41.44
24.19
26 .67
20.14
29.02
49.96
2 .20
Total
Number
Values
713
5
5
5
5
12
2
49
49
43
1
48
48
48
48
48
48
43
1
20
48
11
20
48
49
9
Number
of
ND
13
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Obs
Std
Dev
293.84
407.46
1.67
Option=B --
Obs
Std
Dev
20.93
12.34
8.41
2.39
12.07
19.09
0.42
11.63
12.21
10.85
14.11
13.87
6.59
14.78
12.69
10.60
22.74
24.14
8.82
18.04
10.47
12.63
23.47
0.49
Obs
Median
Value
38.00
110.00
38.00
7.00
Mean
Value
NC
147.50
281.60
38.00
7.25
Conf iguration=2B+6B+7B Continuous
Obs
Median
Value
25.30
60.00
72 .00
11.00
46 .50
12 .20
79.00
10.40
11.90
10.00
2 .00
52 .00
47.50
11.40
33 .00
42 .50
13 .60
28.00
12 .00
35.15
22 .55
24.40
16 .75
29.00
46 .00
2 .00
Mean
Value
NC
30.32
57.80
69.60
11.12
46.60
19.44
79.00
13.60
15.08
14.07
52.61
49.05
11.89
34.75
42.89
16.56
34.08
12.00
41.44
24.19
26.67
20.14
29.02
49.96
2.59
Min
Value
NC
6 .00
84.00
38.00
6 .00
"" B
Min
Value
NC
2 .00
44.00
56 .00
8.40
28.50
2 .17
78.70
2 .01
2 .10
2 .20
23 .00
22 .00
2 .00
7.20
15.30
2 .34
5.40
12 .00
9.15
10.80
5.52
5.72
3 .60
3 .80
2 .00
Max
Value
NC
1010.00
1010.00
38.00
8.00
Max
Value
NC
98.00
70.00
78.00
14.80
61.00
66.70
79.30
49.00
68.50
43.00
82.00
84.00
28.00
64.00
73.00
55.20
91.00
12.00
92.80
55.00
56.60
49.00
63.00
98.00
3.48
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND
4.00 4.00
4.00 4.00
Min Max
Value Value
ND ND
2 .00 2.00
2.00 2.00
2.00 2.00
2.00 2.00
2.00 2.00
2.00 2 .00
2.00 2 .00
-------
Listing 8-1: Summary Statistics for TSS Daily Values (mg/L)
Episode
ALL
6460C
6495A
Sample Point
ALL
SP-9
SP-11
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
Total
Episode Number
Mean Values
11.83 6
38.00 1
6.60 5
Number
of
ND
1
0
1
__ Subcategory=Flow- through --
Episode
ALL
6460B
Episode
ALL
6460A
DMR01
DMR03
DMR04
DMR61
Episode
ALL
6297A
6297B
6297C
DMR06
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12B
DMR15
Sample Point
ALL
SP-7
Sample Point
ALL
SP7,SP9
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Sample Point
ALL
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP13+14
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
UNK
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Total
Episode Number
Mean Values
4.00 5
4.00 5
Total
Episode Number
Mean Values
3.06 107
9.54 5
1.79 19
3.69 37
2.70 34
Number
of
ND
5
5
?low- through --
Number
of
ND
4
4
0
0
0
1.50 12 0
__ Subcategory=Flow- through
Total Number
Episode Number
Mean Values
29.69 708
57.80 5
69.60 5
11.12 5
17.99 12
79.00 2
12.89 49
14.81 49
14.07 43
of
ND
13
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
0
Obs
Std
Dev
12.91
1.67
Option=A --
Obs
Std
Dev
0.00
0.00
Option=A --
Obs
Std
Dev
3.35
12.38
1.08
1.25
2.07
2.54
-- Option-B
Obs
Std
Dev
20.93
12.34
8.41
2.39
19.09
0.42
11.63
12.21
10.85
Obs
Median
Value
7.50
38.00
7.00
Mean
Value
NC
13.40
38.00
7.25
Min
Value
NC
6 .00
38.00
6 .00
Max
Value
NC
38.00
38.00
8.00
Min
Value
ND
4.00
4.00
Max
Value
ND
4.00
4.00
Conf iguration=3A Raceway A
Obs
Median
Value
4.00
Mean
Value
NC
4.00
Conf iguration=4A Combined 7
Obs Mean
Median
Value
2 .40
4.00
1.00
3 .50
1.80
Value
NC
3.03
31.68
1.79
3.69
2.70
0.00 1.50
-- Configuration-2B OLSB B -
Obs Mean
Median
Value
25.00
60.00
72 .00
11.00
12 .20
79.00
10.40
11.90
10.00
Value
NC
30.20
57.80
69.60
11.12
19.44
79.00
13.60
15.08
14.07
Min
Value
NC
\
Min
Value
NC
0.00
31.68
1.00
1.70
0.60
0.00
Min
Value
NC
2 .00
44.00
56 .00
8.40
2 .17
78.70
2 .01
2 .10
2 .20
Max
Value
NC
Max
Value
NC
31.68
31.68
5.00
7.00
9.60
6.00
Max
Value
NC
98.00
70.00
78.00
14.80
66.70
79.30
49.00
68.50
43.00
Min
Value
ND
4.00
4.00
Min
Value
ND
4.00
4.00
Min
Value
ND
2 .00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Max
Value
ND
4.00
4.00
Max
Value
ND
4.00
4.00
Max
Value
ND
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
-------
Listing 8-1: Summary Statistics for TSS Daily Values (mg/L)
Episode Sample Point
DMR18 SP-1
DMR21A SP-1
DMR21B SP-2
DMR21C SP-3
DMR25A SP-1
DMR25B SP-2
DMR28 SP-1
DMR31 SP-1
DMR32 SP-1
DMR34 SP-1
DMR37 SP-1
DMR38 SP-1
DMR49 SP-1
DMR54A SP-1
DMR54B SP-2
DMR59 SP-1
Episode Sample Point
ALL ALL
6297E SP5+6
6297F SP2+3
DMR05 SP-1
DMR06 SP-1
DMR07 SP-1
DMR08 SP-1
DMR09 SP-1
DMR10 SP-1
DMR12A SP-1
DMR13 SP-1
DMR15 SP-1
DMR17 SP-1
DMR18 SP-1
DMR19 SP-1
DMR20 SP-1
DMR21A SP-1
DMR23 SP-1
DMR25A SP-1
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Episode
Mean
2 .00
52 .61
49.05
11.68
34.75
42 .89
16 .56
34.08
12 .00
41.44
24.19
26 .67
20.14
29.02
49.96
2 .20
Subc
Episode
Mean
2 .39
4.00
4.10
2 .00
2 .06
2 .50
3 .04
2 .00
2 .43
2 .04
1.90
2 .85
2 .20
2 .98
0.63
3 .23
2 .36
2 .08
2 .14
Total
Number
Values
1
48
48
48
48
48
48
43
1
20
48
11
20
48
49
9
Number
of
ND
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
:ategory=Flow- through
Total
Number
Values
688
5
5
3
12
2
9
1
16
49
2
39
1
11
4
4
48
9
48
Number
of
ND
417
5
4
3
11
1
5
1
6
43
0
17
0
7
0
1
9
7
27
(continued)
Obs
Std
Dev
14.11
13.87
6.59
14.78
12.69
10.60
22.74
24.14
8.82
18.04
10.47
12.63
23.47
0.49
-- Option=B
Obs
Std
Dev
1.23
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.20
0.71
1.82
0.54
0.14
0.99
1.38
2.01
0.17
1.90
0.41
0.17
0.26
Obs
Median
Value
2 .00
52 .00
47.50
11.40
33 .00
42 .50
13 .60
28.00
12 .00
35.15
22 .55
24.40
16 .75
29.00
46 .00
2 .00
Mean
Value
NC
52.61
49.05
11.89
34.75
42.89
16.56
34.08
12.00
41.44
24.19
26.67
20.14
29.02
49.96
2.59
-- Conf iguration=3B Raceway B
Obs
Median
Value
2 .00
4.00
4.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .50
2 .00
2 .00
2 .20
2 .00
1.90
2 .20
2 .20
2 .00
0.65
3 .45
2 .30
2 .00
2 .00
Mean
Value
NC
3.09
4.50
2.70
3.00
4.35
2.68
2.33
1.90
3.50
2.20
4.70
0.63
3.97
2.45
2.35
2.33
Min
Value
NC
23 .00
22 .00
2 .00
7.20
15.30
2 .34
5.40
12 .00
9.15
10.80
5.52
5.72
3 .60
3 .80
2 .00
Min
Value
NC
0.40
4.50
2 .70
3 .00
3 .00
2 .00
2 .10
1.20
2 .00
2 .20
2 .40
0.40
2 .30
2 .00
2 .20
2 .00
Max
Value
NC
82.00
84.00
28.00
64.00
73.00
55.20
91.00
12.00
92.80
55.00
56.60
49.00
63.00
98.00
3.48
Max
Value
NC
10.00
4.50
2.70
3.00
7.60
3.60
2.70
2.60
7.70
2.20
8.00
0.80
5.00
4.30
2.50
2.90
Min
Value
ND
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
Min
Value
ND
1.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Max
Value
ND
2.00
2.00
2.00
Max
Value
ND
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
1.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
-------
Listing 8-1: Summary Statistics for TSS Daily Values (mg/L)
Episode Sample Point
DMR26 SP-1
DMR27 SP-1
DMR28 SP-1
DMR29 SP-1
DMR30 SP-1
DMR31 SP-1
DMR32 SP-1
DMR34 SP-1
DMR35 SP-1
DMR36 SP-1
DMR37 SP-1
DMR38 SP-1
DMR39 SP-1
DMR42 SP-1
DMR43 SP-1
DMR44 SP-1
DMR46 SP-1
DMR47 SP-1
DMR48 SP-1
DMR49 SP-1
DMR50 SP-1
DMR51 SP-1
DMR53 SP-1
DMR54A SP-1
DMR57 SP-1
DMR58 SP-1
DMR59 SP-1
DMR60 SP-1
DMR62 SP-1
Episode Sample Point
ALL ALL
6297G SP8+9,SP5+6
6297H SPll,SP5+6
62971 SP13+14,SP2+3
6460D SP10+11
6495B SP13+14
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
COLD
COLD
WARM
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Episode
Mean
6 .99
2 .00
2 .21
6 .00
7.50
2 .06
1.00
2 .00
2 .10
7.40
2 .28
2 .25
2 .00
2 .00
5.10
1.40
1.40
4.00
2 .85
2 .01
1.28
2 .00
2 .88
2 .03
2 .00
1.50
2 .00
2 .16
2 .05
Subc
Episode
Mean
4.27
4.53
4.65
4.17
4.00
4.00
Total
Number
Values
11
2
44
3
2
44
1
7
2
4
48
12
4
3
2
1
4
2
12
43
40
7
48
48
4
1
8
9
4
Number
of
ND
0
2
27
0
0
36
1
7
1
0
11
9
4
3
0
0
3
1
7
42
35
7
15
41
0
0
8
7
3
:ategory=Flow- through
Total
Number
Values
25
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
ND
19
0
5
4
5
5
(continued)
Obs
Std
Dev
1.74
0.00
0.43
1.00
0.71
0.19
0.00
0.14
2.14
0.33
0.51
0.00
0.00
2.83
0.49
2.83
1.48
0.06
0.45
0.00
1.75
0.09
0.56
0.00
0.37
0.10
-- Option=B
Obs
Std
Dev
0.30
0.12
0.08
0.24
0.00
0.00
Obs
Median
Value
7.00
2 .00
2 .00
6 .00
7.50
2 .00
1.00
2 .00
2 .10
7.10
2 .20
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
5.10
1.40
1.30
4.00
2 .00
2 .00
1.00
2 .00
2 .50
2 .00
2 .15
1.50
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
Mean
Value
NC
6.99
2.54
6.00
7.50
2.33
2.20
7.40
2.37
3.00
5.10
1.40
1.60
6.00
4.04
2.40
2.00
3.64
2.19
2.00
1.50
2.70
2.20
-- Conf iguration=4B Combined
Obs
Median
Value
4.07
4.55
4.67
4.07
4.00
4.00
Mean
Value
NC
4.54
4.53
4.60
Min
Value
NC
5.00
2 .00
5.00
7.00
2 .00
2 .20
5.60
2 .00
2 .60
3 .10
1.40
1.60
6 .00
2 .40
2 .40
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
1.20
1.50
2 .30
2 .20
Min
Value
NC
4.40
4.40
4.60
Max
Value
NC
10.00
4.30
7.00
8.00
3.00
2.20
9.80
3.30
3.60
7.10
1.40
1.60
6.00
6.00
2.40
2.00
8.00
2.50
2.50
1.50
3.10
2.20
Max
Value
NC
4.65
4.65
4.60
Min
Value
ND
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
1.00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2 .00
2 .00
2 .00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2 .00
2.00
2 .00
2 .00
Min
Value
ND
4.00
4.51
4.04
4.00
4.00
Max
Value
ND
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2 . 00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Max
Value
ND
4.73
4.73
4.08
4.00
4.00
-------
Listing 8-1: Summary Statistics for TSS Daily Values (mg/L)
__ Subcategory=Recirculating - - Option=A - - Configuration=6A RAS Solids A
Warm Total Number Obs Obs Mean Min Max Min Max
or Episode Number of Std Median Value Value Value Value Value
Episode Sample Point Cold Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC ND ND
ALL ALL 281.60 5 0 407.46 110.00 281.60 84.00 1010.00
6439A SP-4 WARM 281.60 5 0 407.46 110.00 281.60 84.00 1010.00
__ Subcategory=Recirculating - - Option=B - - Configuration=6B RAS Solids B
Warm Total Number Obs Obs Mean Min Max Min Max
or Episode Number of Std Median Value Value Value Value Value
Episode Sample Point Cold Mean Values ND Dev Value NC NC NC ND ND
ALL ALL 46.60 5 0 12.07 46.50 46.60 28.50 61.00
6439B SP9+11 WARM 46.60 5 0 12.07 46.50 46.60 28.50 61.00
-------
Listing 8-2: Episode Long-Term Averages (mg/L) and Variability Factors for TSS
(with 3-significant digits)
o\
Episode
6439A
6460C
6495A
Sample
Point
SP-4
SP-9
SP-11
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
COLD
COLD
#
Obs
5
1
5
#
NDs
0
0
1
__ Subcategory=Combined
Episode
6297A
6297B
6297C
6439B
DMR06
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12B
DMR15
DMR18
DMR2 1A
DMR2 IB
DMR21C
DMR25A
DMR25B
DMR28
DMR31
DMR32
DMR34
DMR37
DMR38
DMR49
DMR54A
DMR54B
DMR59
Sample
Point
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP13+14
SP9+11
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
WARM
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
#
Obs
5
5
5
5
12
2
49
49
43
1
48
48
48
48
48
48
43
1
20
48
11
20
48
49
9
#
NDs
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
mu
5.05
1.97
-- Option=B
mu
4.04
4.24
2 .39
3 .81
2 .52
2 .27
2 .45
2 .33
3 .92
3 .85
2 .29
3 .45
3 .71
2 .62
3 .29
3 .55
3 .13
3 .03
2 .88
3 .24
3 .77
0.92
Obs
sigma Mean
1.05 282.0
38.0
0.14 6.60
;^-r o^-r / ^
Est .
LTA
273.0
38.0
6.61
-- Conf iguration=2B+6B+7B
Obs
sigma Mean
0.22 57.8
0.13 69.6
0.21 11.1
0.29 46.6
1.04 18.0
79.0
0.86 12.9
0.73 14.8
0.84 14.1
2 .00
0.29 52.6
0.29 49.1
0.68 11.7
0.48 34.7
0.31 42.9
0.65 16.6
0.74 34.1
12 .0
0.64 41.4
0.33 24.2
0.79 26 .7
0.52 20.1
0.57 29.0
0.60 50.0
0.29 2 .20
Est .
LTA
58.1
69.7
11.2
47.1
19.8
79.0
13.3
14.9
14.6
2.00
52.8
49.1
12.2
35.3
43.1
17.0
35.3
12.0
42.5
24.2
28.4
20.4
30.2
52.0
2.21
^WllL. -LllUWUti .rt. - •
Est.
STD
388.0
1.58
on inuous
Est.
STD
13 .0
8.96
2 .37
13 .8
29.0
0.424
14.6
12 .8
14.8
15.6
14.4
9.48
18.1
13 .9
12 .4
30.2
30.1
8.26
26 .7
11.5
18.8
34.1
0.535
1-Day
V.F.
6 .65
1.48
1-Day
V.F.
1.63
1.34
1.59
1.87
6 .83
5.31
4.25
4.96
1.88
1.87
3 .89
2 .74
1.98
3 .70
4.26
3 .60
2 .05
4.63
2 .95
3 .22
3 .36
1.96
Monthly
V.F.
2.33
1.21
Monthly
V.F.
1.19
1.11
1.18
1.26
2.37
2.04
1.81
1.96
1.26
1.26
1.73
1.47
1.28
1.68
1.80
1.66
1.30
1.89
1.52
1.57
1.61
1.22
Excluded
Y
Excluded
Y
§
a
£3*
<>>'
I
Y in the Excluded column means that the data were not used for Listing 8-3
I
a,
&Q
S.
I;
-------
Listing 8-2: Episode Long-Term Averages (mg/L) and Variability Factors for TSS
(with 3-significant digits)
Episode
6460C
6495A
Episode
6460B
Sample
Point
SP-9
SP-11
Sample
Point
Episode
6460A
DMR01
DMR03
DMR04
DMR61
Episode
6297A
6297B
6297C
DMR06
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR12B
DMR15
DMR18
Sample
Point
SP7,SP9
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
Sample
Point
SP8 + 9
SP-11
SP13+14
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
o u.j_"^c
#
Obs
1
5
iL.cywj.y-r1 j.
#
NDs
0
1
ww- L-iij-wuyii
mu
1.97
__ Subcategory=Flow- through --
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
#
Obs
5
#
NDs
5
mu
__ Subcategory=Flow- through --
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
UNK
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
#
Obs
5
19
37
34
#
NDs
4
0
0
0
mu
0.44
1.25
0.76
12 0 1.30
# #
Obs
5
5
5
12
2
49
49
43
1
NDs
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
0
1
mu
4.04
4.24
2 .39
2 .52
2 .27
2 .45
2 .33
v^pL. J.W11— rt
sigma
0.14
Option=A --
sigma
Option=A --
sigma
0.52
0.34
0.67
0.87
sigma
0.22
0.13
0.21
1.04
0.86
0.73
0.84
— ^wiij. j_y u
Obs
Mean
38.0
6 .60
J-d L. J.W11— ^
Est .
LTA
38.0
6.61
Conf iguration=3A
Obs
Mean
4.00
Est.
LTA
4.00
Conf iguration=4A
Obs
Mean
9.54
1.79
3 .69
2 .70
Est .
LTA
9.54
1.78
3.70
2.68
t\ V^J-IOD t\
Est
STD
1
1-Day
.58
V
1
.F.
.48
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
1.21
Raceway A
Est
STD
0
Combined
Est
STD
12
0
1
2
1.50 5.35 5
.0
A --
1
V
-Day
.F.
1-Day
.4
.999
.31
.01
.69
Obs Est. Est.
Mean
57.8
69.6
11.1
18.0
79.0
12 .9
14.8
14.1
2 .00
LTA
58.1
69.7
11.2
19.8
79.0
13.3
14.9
14.6
2.00
STD
13
8
2
29
0
14
12
14
.0
.96
.37
.0
.424
.6
.8
.8
V
2
2
3
5
.F.
.94
.09
.78
.18
1-Day
V
1
1
1
6
5
4
4
.F.
.63
.34
.59
.83
.31
.25
.96
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
1.51 Y
1.31 Y
1.70 Y
2.01 Y
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
1.19
1.11
1.18
2.37
2.04
1.81
1.96
Y in the Excluded column means that the data were not used for Listing 8-3
-------
Listing 8-2: Episode Long-Term Averages (mg/L) and Variability Factors for TSS
(with 3-significant digits)
Episode
DMR2 1A
DMR2 IB
DMR21C
DMR25A
DMR25B
DMR28
DMR31
DMR32
DMR34
DMR37
DMR38
DMR49
DMR54A
DMR54B
DMR59
Episode
6297E
6297F
DMR05
DMR06
DMR07
DMR08
DMR09
DMR10
DMR12A
DMR13
DMR15
DMR17
DMR18
DMR19
DMR20
DMR2 1A
DMR23
Sample
Point
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-1
Sample
Point
SP5 + 6
SP2 + 3
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
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
— o ui-i^t
#
Obs
48
48
48
48
48
48
43
1
20
48
11
20
48
49
a.i_cywj_y— c j
#
NDs
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LW W - L.11J.WU>-
mu
3 .92
3 .85
2 .29
3 .45
3 .71
2 .62
3 .29
3 .55
3 .13
3 .03
2 .88
3 .24
3 .77
9 6 0.92
- Subcategory=Flow- through
#
Obs
5
5
3
12
2
9
1
16
49
2
39
1
11
4
4
48
9
#
NDs
5
4
3
11
1
5
1
6
43
0
17
0
7
0
1
9
7
mu
1.39
0.97
0.84
1.17
1.42
-0.50
1.32
0.88
0.85
jii v^pL-J-Wll— D
(continued)
sigma
0.29
0.29
0.68
0.48
0.31
0.65
0.74
0.64
0.33
0.79
0.52
0.57
0.60
0.29
-- Option=B --
sigma
0.43
0.20
0.12
0.40
0.59
0.30
0.43
0.15
0.09
— ^wiij. j_y u.j
Obs
Mean
52 .6
49.1
11.7
34.7
42 .9
16 .6
34.1
12 .0
41.4
24.2
26 .7
20.1
29.0
50.0
_d L. J.W11 — A
Est.
LTA
52.8
49.1
12.2
35.3
43.1
17.0
35.3
12.0
42.5
24.2
28.4
20.4
30.2
52.0
2 .20 2.21
Conf iguration=3B
Obs
Mean
4.00
4.10
2 .00
2 .06
2 .50
3 .04
2 .00
2 .43
2 .04
1.90
2 .85
2 .20
2 .98
0.625
3 .23
2 .36
2 .08
Est.
LTA
4.00
4.10
2.00
2.06
2.50
3.08
2.00
2.43
2.04
1.90
2.84
2.20
3.06
Est.
STD
15.6
14.4
9.48
18.1
13 .9
12 .4
30.2
30.1
8.26
26 .7
11.5
18.8
34.1
0.535
Est.
STD
0.0
0.224
0.0
0.202
0.707
1.80
0.541
0.147
0.990
1.32
2 .39
0.633 0.195
3.33
2.36
2.08
2 .08
0.374
0.179
1-Day
V.F.
1.88
1.87
3 .89
2 .74
1.98
3 .70
4.26
3 .60
2 .05
4.63
2 .95
3 .22
3 .36
1.96
1-Day
V.F.
3 .12
1.66
1.34
2 .64
4.22
1.92
2 .90
1.43
1.31
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
1.26
1.26
1.73
1.47
1.28
1.68
1.80
1.66
1.30
1.89
1.52
1.57
1.61
1.22
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
1.54
1.19
1.08
1.42
1.74
1.27
1.57
1.13
1.08
Y in the Excluded column means that the data were not used for Listing 8-3
§
a
£3*
<>>'
I
I
a,
&Q
s.
I;
-------
Listing 8-2: Episode Long-Term Averages (mg/L) and Variability Factors for TSS
(with 3-significant digits)
_ _ Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=3B Raceway B
(continued)
Episode
DMR25A
DMR26
DMR27
DMR28
DMR29
DMR30
DMR31
DMR32
DMR34
DMR35
DMR36
DMR37
DMR38
DMR39
DMR42
DMR43
DMR44
DMR46
DMR47
DMR48
DMR49
DMR50
DMR51
DMR53
DMR54A
DMR57
DMR58
DMR59
DMR60
DMR62
Episode
6297G
6297H
Sample
Point
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
Sample
Point
SP8+9,SP5+6
SPll,SP5+6
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
WARM
COLD
COLD
WARM
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
#
Obs
48
11
2
44
3
2
44
1
7
2
4
48
12
4
3
2
1
4
2
12
43
40
7
48
48
4
1
8
9
#
NDs
27
0
2
27
0
0
36
1
7
1
0
11
9
4
3
0
0
3
1
7
42
35
7
15
41
0
0
8
7
mu
0.84
1.92
0.91
1.78
0.83
1.97
0.85
1.09
1.32
0.69
1.21
0.78
0.66
0.98
4 3
- Subcategory=Flow- through
#
Obs
5
5
#
NDs
0
5
mu
1.51
sigma
0.13
0.24
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.29
0.13
0.17
0.43
0.00
0.41
0.08
0.33
0.21
-- Option=B --
sigma
0.03
Obs
Mean
2 .14
6 .99
2 .00
2 .21
6 .00
7.50
2 .06
1.00
2 .00
2 .10
7.40
2 .28
2 .25
2 .00
2 .00
5.10
1.40
1.40
4.00
2 .85
2 .01
1.28
2 .00
2.88
2 .03
2 .00
1.50
2 .00
2 .16
Est .
LTA
2.14
7.01
2.00
2.21
6.03
7.50
2.06
1.00
2.00
2.10
7.48
2.28
2.25
2.00
2.00
5.10
1.40
1.40
4.00
2.88
2.01
1.28
2.00
2.88
2.03
2.03
1.50
2.00
2.16
2.05 2.05
Conf iguration=4B
Obs
Mean
4.53
4.65
Est.
LTA
4.53
4.65
Est.
STD
0.253
1.73
0.0
0.396
1.02
0.707
0.196
0.0
0.141
2 .22
0.319
0.510
0.0
0.0
2 .83
0.490
2 .83
1.60
0.0610
0.447
0.0
1.74
0.0937
0.679
0.0
0.409
0.100
Est.
STD
0.122
0.0831
1-Day
V.F.
1.38
1.71
1.62
1.46
1.42
1.88
1.38
1.78
3 .07
1.57
2 .86
1.21
2 .02
1.77
1-Day
V.F.
1.06
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
1.10
1.21
1.16
1.15
1.10
1.26
1.12
1.20
1.51
1.28
1.55
1.05
1.30
1.18
Monthly
V.F. Excluded
1.02
Y in the Excluded column means that the data were not used for Listing 8-3
§
a
£3*
<>>'
I
I
a,
&Q
s.
I;
-------
Listing 8-2: Episode Long-Term Averages (mg/L) and Variability Factors for TSS
(with 3-significant digits)
__ Subcategory=Flow-through -- Option=B -- Configuration=4B Combined B
(continued)
b
Episode
62971
6460D
6495B
Episode
6439A
Episode
6439B
Sample
Point
SP13+14,SP2+3
SP10+11
SP13+14
Sample
Point
SP-4
Sample
Point
SP9+11
Warm
or
Cold
COLD
COLD
COLD
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
Warm
or
Cold
WARM
#
Obs
5
5
#
NDs mu
4
5
5 5
Subcategory=Recirculating --
#
Obs
#
NDs mu
5 0 5.05
Subcategory=Recirculating --
#
Obs
5
#
NDs mu
0 3 .81
Obs
sigma Mean
4.17
4.00
Est.
LTA
4.17
4.00
4.00 4.00
Option-A -- Conf iguration-6A RAS
Obs
sigma Mean
Est.
LTA
1.05 282.0 273.0
Option-B -- Conf igurat ion- 6B RAS
Obs
sigma Mean
0.29 46.6
Est .
LTA
47.1
Est.
STD
0.242
0.0
0.0
Est.
STD
388.0
Solids B
Est.
STD
13 .8
1-Day Monthly
V.F. V.F.
1-Day Monthly
V.F. V.F.
6.65 2.33
1-Day Monthly
V.F. V.F.
1.87 1.26
Excluded
Excluded
Y
Excluded
Y
Y in the Excluded column means that the data were not used for Listing 8-3
-------
b
Listing 8-3: Numeric Limitations for TSS (mg/L)
(with 3-significant digits)
1-Day Monthly Daily Monthly
Subcategory Option Configuration LTA V.F. V.F. Limit Limit
Combined A 2A+6A+7A Continuous A 22.30 1.48 1.21 33.0 26.9
Combined B 2B+6B+7B Continuous B 26.30 3.24 1.57 85.1 41.2
Flow-through A 2A OLSB A 22.30 1.48 1.21 33.0 26.9
Flow-through A 3A Raceway A 4.00 .
Flow-through A 4A Combined A 9.54 . . . .
Flow-through B 2B OLSB B 26.30 3.24 1.57 85.1 41.2
Flow-through B 3B Raceway B 2.10 1.99 1.27 4.17 2.67
Flow-through B 4B Combined B 4.17 1.06 1.02 4.44 4.26
Values are as calculated. See Chapter 8 for substitutions for Configuration 3B
-------
APPENDIX E:
MODIFIED DELTA-LOGNORMAL 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
(ND) measurements in the database.4 A lognormal density is used to represent the set of
1 In the remainder of this appendix, references to 'limitations' includes 'standards.'
2 Aitchison, J. and Brown, JA.C. (1963) The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge University Press, pages
87-99.
3 Owen, W.J. 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.
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
E-l
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
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.
Censoring 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, 6
represents the proportion of non-detected values in the dataset and is the sum of smaller
fractions, 6;, each representing the proportion of non-detected values associated with each
distinct detection limit value. By letting D; equal the value of the i"1 smallest distinct
detection limit in the data set and the random variable XD represents a randomly chosen
non-detected measurement, the cumulative distribution function of the discrete portion of
the modified delta-lognormal model can be mathematically expressed as:
8 .
0
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
The mean and variance of this discrete distribution can be calculated using the following
formulas:
! k
St A (E-2)
1
Var(XD ) = - 2>z (D, - E(XD)) (E-3)
° /=!
The continuous, lognormal portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution was used
to model the detected measurements from the aquatic animals industry database. The
cumulative probability distribution of the continuous portion of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution can be mathematically expressed as:
(E-4)
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
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 ^
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(U
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
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 8t and § are estimated from the data using the
following formulas:
n
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:
8 i=\
O i=
i=\
The parameters of the continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, /}
and
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution can be calculated from the data as:
cr
(E-17)
-1
(E-18)
Finally, the expected value and variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution can
be estimated using the following formulas:
Var(U] =
(E-19)
(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.
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:
Dx = 10, S, = 1/10D2 = 15, S2 = 1/5D3 = 20,^ = 1/10.
E-6
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Since 8 = 2/5, the expected value and the variance of the discrete portion of the modified
delta-lognormal distribution are
10
— x(10-15)2 + -x(15-15)2 + — x(20-15)2 =12.5.
V ; ^ '
2/5UO 5 10
The mean and variance of the log NC values are calculated as
"c
2. ln(xj / ^ ^ ^
follows: » = -& - = ^ - — - ^^ - ^ - -- =344
n 6
(2 x (ln(25) - 3.44)2) + (ln(30) - 3.44)2 + (2 x (ln(35) - 3.44)2) + (ln(40) - 3.44)2
= - - - - - - - -
nc - 1
a 2 = — - = - - - - - - - - = 0.0376
Then, the expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-
lognormal distribution are
-/ x 0.0376 I
E(XC) = exp 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\
E(U) = -x 15+ I 1--I x 31.779= 25.063
Var(U) = -x. (l2.5+152) + l-- x(38.695+ 31.7792)- 25.0672 = 95.781.
E-7
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
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.
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
5 Compliance with the monthly average limitations will be required in the final rulemaking regardless of
the number of samples analyzed and averaged.
E-8
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
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 =
i:D, 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 If p* < 0.99, then P99 = Dj else if p*^ 0.99, then
P99 = exp
CT0
-1
0.99 -
\-8
(E-22)
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
E-9
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
-i
\-8
(E-23)
The episode daily variability factor, VF1, was then calculated as:
VF\ =
P99
W)
(E-24)
Example:
Since no such m exists such that pm > 0.99 (m=l,...,k),
P99 = exp 3.44 + 0.194 x O
0.99-0.4
1-0.4
= 47.126.
The episode daily variability factor, VF1, was then calculated as:
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
E-10
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
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
f/4 , the sample mean for a random sample of four independent concentrations, was
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:
E(U4) =
(25)
where 8\ denotes the probability of detection of the 4-day average, (X4 }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 (6) 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, 6'4 = 64.
Because the measurements are assumed to be independent, the following relationships
hold:
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-ll
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
E(U4) =
,_. Var
(E-26)
Substituting into equation 26 and solving for the expected value of the continuous portion
of the distribution gives:
E(U}-S*E(XD)
1-8'
(E-27)
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 C/4 gives:
Var(u)
(E-28)
Using equations 17 and 18 and solving for the parameters of the lognormal distribution
describing the distribution of (^4JC gives:
1
=ln
and
(E-29)
'I
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 D15 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:
E-12
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
/
1
2
3
4
5
(3A
(2A
(DjH
D*
A
+ D2)/4
+ 2D2)/4
-3D2)/4
A
6*
^4
^1
4^3^2
/:^2 c2
Oc>j c>2
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,
Pr
I «/
4!
(E-30)
where u; is the number of non-detected measurements in the data set with the D; detection
limit. The maximum number of possible discrete points, k*, for k= 1,2,3,4, and 5 are as
follows:
k
2
4
k!
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 6; 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 6, /} ,and £ to estimates of 64, /}4 and cr4
respectively.
E-13
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
Then, using E\U $ \ = E(lJ\, the estimate of the episode 4-day variability factor, VF4,
was calculated as:
Example:
^95
W)
E(UA) = 25.067
, ,_v 95.781
Var(U4) = = 23.95
E\(XA =15
(E-31)
~,-\ 25.067-0.44 x 15 24.683
E(X.) = 2 = =25.331.
V 4/c j _ Q^4
0.974
, ,_, 23.95 + 25.0672 - 0.44 x (3.125+152)
Var(X4}c = t_o44 l '- - 25.3312 = 21.789
ol = In [ r + l = 0.0334
* = (jj = 0.0256
, , 0.0334
ju4 = ln(25.33l)- = 3.215.
P95=exp 3.215+0.183x0
-1
0.95- 0.44
1 - 0.44
= 33.683.
E-14
-------
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, W.J. 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-15
-------
Appendix E: Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
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
------- |