^£±\  Compliance Guide for the
^^ I  Concentrated Aquatic Animal
VRcX  Production Point Source Category

-------
              9
United States Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Water
           Washington, DC 20460
                  (4303T)

             EPA-821-B-05-001
                March 2006

-------
Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic
   Animal Production Point Source Category
               Engineering and Analysis Division
                Office of Science and Technology
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Washington, DC 20460
                       March 2006

-------
                           Acknowledgments

The Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology has prepared
this compliance guidance and approved it for publication. Tetra Tech, Inc., Contract 68-
C-99-263, supported the preparation of the guidance under the direction and review of
the Office of Science and Technology.

Technical experts in the concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) industry
prepared the document Best Management Practices for Flow-Through, Net-Pen,
Recirculating, and Pond Aquaculture Systems by Tucker, C, S. Belle, C. Boyd, G. Fornshell,
J. Hargreaves, S. LaPatra, S. Summerfelt, and P. Zajicek (2003). It provided valuable
background information for EPA in the development of this compliance guide.

-------
                                 Disclaimer

The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance. The statutory
provisions and regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This document is not
a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations.
Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated
community. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon
any member of the public.

While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this
guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes,
regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the
discussion in this document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be
controlling.

The general descriptions provided here may not apply to particular situations based
upon the circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections
about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the application of this
guidance to a particular situation. EPA and other decision-makers retain the discretion
to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this
guidance where appropriate.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or
recommendation for their use.

This document may be revised periodically without public notice. EPA welcomes
public input on this document at any time.

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.

-------
                                                                        Table of Contents
Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 	1-1
       How do I use the symbols contained in this document?	1-1
       Who should use this guide?	1-2
       Who is in charge of the CAAP permitting program where I live - EPA or the state? 1-3
       What does this guide cover?	1-3
       How should I use this guide?	1-3
       How can I get a copy of the federal regulations?	1-5

Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?                                       2-1
       What is the NPDES Program?	2-1
       What are the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for CAAPs?	2-1
       Why is this regulation important?	2-2
       Do other laws regulate CAAPs?	2-3

Chapters: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?                                 3-1
       What operations are CAAPs under the NPDES regulation?	3-1
       What operations are covered under the CAAP ELGs?	3-2
       What is the difference between NPDES and ELGs for CAAPs?	3-2
       What is considered a facility?	3-3
       What if I have more than one type of production system at my facility?	3-3
       Are there any aquaculture facilities that do not need an NPDES permit?	3-4
       How do I know if I am not covered by these regulations?	3-5
       What if I discharge to a POTW?	3-5
       What part of my CAAP is regulated?	3-5

Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?                      4-1
       How do I apply for an NPDES permit?	4-1
       What is an NPDES general permit?	4-1
       What is an NPDES individual permit?	4-2
       What information do I have to include in my NOT or permit application?	4-3
       When do I have to get an NPDES permit?	4-3
             Existing CAAP Facilities	4-4
             New Dischargers	4-4
             New Sources	4-5
       When will my NPDES permit expire?	4-6
       How long should I keep my NPDES permit?	4-6
       What if I make significant changes to my operation while I have an
       NPDES permit?	4-7

Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?                  5-1
       What are the elements of an NPDES permit for a CAAP facility?	5-1
       What effluent limitations will be included in my NPDES permit?	5-2
             Effluent limitations for flow-through and recirculating facilities	5-2
             Effluent limitations for net pen facilities	5-3
EPA-821-B-05-001                            i                                March 2006

-------
                                                                           Table of Contents
       What are special conditions?	5-3
       What special conditions will be included in my CAAPNPDES permit?	5-3
       What are the standard conditions of all NPDES permits?	5-4
       What records do I have to keep?	5-4
             What are the record-keeping requirements for all CAAPs, under the ELGs? . 5-4
       What monitoring do I have to perform under my NPDES permit?	5-4
             What monitoring do I have to perform under the ELGs?	5-5
       What do I have to report to the permitting authority?	5-5
             What else do I have to report?	5-5
       What other requirements might my permit contain?	5-6

Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating,
and Net Pen Facilities	6-1
       What is an IN AD drug?	6-1
       What is extralabel use of a drug?	6-1
       What am I required to do if I use anINAD drug?	6-2
       What am I required to do if there is extralabel drug use at my CAAP facility?	6-2
       What am I required to do if there is a failure in, or damage to, the structure
       of an aquatic animal containment system?	6-3

Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating,
and Net Pen Facilities	7-1
       What is required for solids control?	7-1
       What is required for materials storage?	7-2
       What is required for maintenance?	7-2
       What is required for record-keeping?	7-3
       What is required for training?	7-3
       What is required for feed management?	7-3
       What are additional requirements for net pens?	7-4

Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan                                     8-1
       What is the goal of a BMP plan?	8-1
       How do I write a BMP plan?	8-1
             Solids control	8-1
             Material storage	8-2
             Maintenance	8-2
             Record-keeping	8-2
             Training	8-3
             Feed  management	8-3
             Waste collection and disposal	8-3
             Transport or harvest discharge	8-4
             Carcass removal	8-4
             Other information	8-4
       How do I certify my BMP plan?	8-4
EPA-821-B-05-001                             ii                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                         Table of Contents
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities	9-1
       Feed Management	9-1
             Examples of Feed Management Practices	9-1
       Solids Management	9-4
             Examples of Solids Management Practices	9-5
       Solids Disposal	9-8
             Examples of Solids Disposal Practices	9-8
       Solids Storage	9-10
             Examples of Solids Storage Practices	9-10
       Mortality Removal and Disposal	9-11
             Examples of Mortality Removal and Disposal Practices	9-11

Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net
Pen Facilities	10-1
       Materials Storage	10-1
             Examples of Materials Storage Practices	10-1
             Additional Suggestions	10-3

Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities	11-1
       Maintenance	11-1
             Examples of Maintenance Practices	11-1

Chapter 12: Record-keeping for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net
Pen Facilities	12-1
       Record-keeping	12-1
             Examples of Record-keeping Practices	12-1

Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net
Pen Facilities 	13-1
       Training	13-1
             Examples of Training Practices	13-1

Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities	14-1
       Feed Management	14-1
             Examples of Feed Management Practices	14-1

Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or Harvest Discharge,
and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities	15-1
       Waste Collection and Disposal	15-1
             Examples of Waste Collection and Disposal Practices	15-1
       Transport or Harvest Discharge	15-2
             Examples of Transport or Harvest Discharge Practices	15-2
       Carcass Removal	15-2
             Examples of Carcass Removal Practices	15-2

References and Resources
EPA-821-B-05-001                            iii                                March 2006

-------
                                                                        Table of Contents
Appendices
      Appendix A: State Permitting Authorities/Departments of Environmental Protection
      Appendix B: Natural Resources Agencies Associated with Fisheries
      Appendix C: Frequently Asked Questions
      Appendix D: Code of Federal Regulations
             Appendix Dl: 40 CFR 122.24
             Appendix D2: 40 CFR 451
      Appendix E: BMP Plans
             Appendix El: BMP Plan Template
             Appendix E2: Example BMP Plan
      Appendix F: BMP Certification Form
      Appendix G: State BMP Programs
      Appendix H: National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC),
             Cooperative Extension Services, and Sea Grant Information
      Appendix I: Additional Resources
      Appendix J: Glossary
      Appendix K: NPDES Permit Applications
             Appendix Kl: Form 1
             Appendix K2: Form 2B
      Appendix L: Applicability Matrix
      Appendix M: General Reporting Forms
             Appendix Ml: Example Written Report - Participating in an INAD Study
             Appendix M2: Checklist for Oral Report for INAD and Extralabel Drug Use
             Appendix M3: Example Written Report - INAD and Extralabel Drug Use
             Appendix M4: Checklist for Oral Report of Failure or Damage to the Structure of
                   Containment Systems
             Appendix M5: Example Written Report - Failure or Damage to the Structure of
                   Containment Systems
             Appendix M6: Checklist for Oral Report of Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed
             Appendix M7: Example Written Report - Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed
      Appendix N: Feed Conversion Ratios Log
      Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log
      Appendix P: Inspection  and Maintenance Logs
             Appendix PI: Example Inspection and Maintenance Log for Flow-through and
             Recirculating Systems
             Appendix P2: Example Inspection and Maintenance Log for Net Pen Systems
      Appendix Q: Cleaning Log
      Appendix R: Record-keeping Checklist
      Appendix S: Employee Training Log
      Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log
      Appendix U: FDA Labeling
      Appendix V: SDAFS BMP Plan
EPA-821-B-05-001                            iv                                March 2006

-------
                                                                     Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1:  Introduction
On June 30, 2004, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) completed
regulations under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) establishing Effluent Limitations
Guidelines (ELGs) and New Source
Performance Standards for the Concentrated
Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Point
Source Category. The regulations contain
requirements for wastewater discharges that
must be met by new and existing CAAP
facilities discharging directly to U.S. waters.
The CWA establishes a comprehensive
program for protecting the Nation's waters.
Among its core provisions, the CWA
generally prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from a point source to waters
except as authorized by a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit.
Direct dischargers must comply with
effluent limits in NPDES permits. EPA's
NPDES regulations define a hatchery, fish
farm,  or other facility as a CAAP and
therefore subject to the NPDES permit
program.  The regulation defines a CAAP by,
among other things, the size of the operation
and frequency of discharge.

Those CAAP facilities subject to the ELGs
must develop and maintain a best
management practice (BMP) plan describing
how they will achieve the ELG
requirements. The CAAP  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. EPA did not revise the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) regulation, as it applies to
CAAPs.

EPA has produced this document to help
CAAP facility owners/operators and NPDES
permit writers to understand and comply
    with the NPDES and ELGs regulations.
    Background information about aquatic
    animal production facilities (e.g., system
    types, wastewater treatment) is available
    from EPA's Technical Development
    Document for the Final Effluent Limitations
    Guidelines and New Source Performance
    Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic
    Animal Production Point Source Category,
    available at
    http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/tdd/final.htm.
      CAAP facilities subject to the ELGs are
      defined as facilities (flow-through,
      recirculating, and net pen) that produce
      100,000 pounds or more of aquatic
      animals per year.
    EPA is continually improving its rules,
    policies, compliance programs, and outreach
    efforts, so some of the information in this
    guide might have changed since it was
    published. You can find out whether EPA
    has updated this guide by checking EPA's
    website for the CAAP ELGs at
    http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture.
     How do I use the symbols contained
     in this document?

     In many of the chapters, you will see
     symbols, which denote the following:
        •  Flow-through

        •  Recirculating

        •  Net Pen1
    1 Whenever the term net pen is used in this guidance,
    it also refers to cages that function like net pens.
EPA-821-B-05-001
1-1
March 2006

-------
                                                                      Chapter 1: Introduction
Use the symbols for flow-through,
recirculating, and net pens as a guide to
determine which BMPs and/or paragraphs
may apply to which system type. The
symbol ea denotes specific legal references.

   The permit writer's version of the
   guidance document will contain the
   following symbols:
   Permit writer begin

   Permit write rend
   Use these symbols to identify the
   beginning and ending of additional
   information or sections included
   specifically for permit writers.
Who should use this guide?

You should use this guide if you own or
operate a CAAP facility or if you are a
permit writer. It will help you to understand
the June 2004, CAAP ELGs and how it
relates to the NPDES regulations. Owners or
operators of a CAAP can use this guide to
determine if their operation is a facility
subject to the ELGs. Permit writers may use
this guidance to obtain information on the
permitting requirements for CAAPs.

Facilities that are not covered by this rule
(flow-through, recirculating, and net pen
systems that produce less than 100,000
pounds of aquatic animals per year and other
systems, such as ponds) may benefit from
using this guidance to help improve facility
operation (i.e., through feed management,
materials storage, etc.) and reduce pollutant
discharges.
   ^•P Permit writers may use this
   guidance to obtain information on
   permitting requirements for CAAPs. The
       Guidance reflects information from the
       current NPDES Program and final ELGs
       regulations (signed on June 30, 2004 and
       published in the Federal Register on
       August 23, 2004).

       The guidance assumes the permit writer
       has working knowledge of how to develop
       NPDES permits. Permit writers should
       also be familiar with applicable state
       voluntary wastewater control programs as
       well as regulatory programs, and how
       these programs relate to the federal or
       state NPDES program. Appendix I
       provides a variety of additional resources
       that permit writers may wish to use to
       increase their understanding of practices
       used at CAAP facilities. In addition, the
       guidance discusses the circumstances
       under which CAAP owners or operators
       should submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
       seek coverage under an existing NPDES
       general permit or apply for an NPDES
       individual permit.

       While this guidance is limited to the
       development and issuance of NPDES
       permits for CAAPs, it is important for the
       permit writer to recognize that  there are
       other NPDES program requirements that
       may be applicable to CAAPs. For
       example, discharges of storm water
       associated with construction activity at,
       or construction of, CAAPs that disturb
       one acre of land or more may be subject
       to NPDES storm water permit
       requirements. These requirements
       address activities associated with the
       construction of CAAPs, including
       clearing, grading, and excavation, but do
       not address discharges associated with
       the operation of the facility, which are
       addressed in the NPDES CAAP permit.
       Therefore, it is generally in the interest of
       the permitting authority and the CAAP
       operator to administer storm water
       permits for construction separately from
       NPDES CAAP permits. Another NPDES
       permitting requirement that may apply to
       a facility includes requirements for
       package plants used to treat septic waste
       at a facility. Additionally, if a facility has a
       large laboratory for fish health and
       diagnostic services, the lab part of the
       facility may be required to obtain a
       separate NPDES permit for their
EPA-821-B-05-001
1-2
March 2006

-------
                                                                    Chapter 1: Introduction
   wastewater (septic and laboratory
   wastes). These are only example of other
   types of NPDES permitting requirements
   that may apply at a facility.
Who is in charge of the CAAP
permitting program where I live -
EPA or the state?

EPA has approved most states to run their
own regulatory and permitting programs for
CAAPs. If EPA has approved your state, the
state is the permitting authority and will
issue a permit for your CAAP facility. EPA
has not approved Alaska, Idaho,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New
Mexico to permit CAAPs. In those states,
D.C., tribal lands, and in all territories
except the U.S. Virgin Islands, EPA is the
permitting authority and will issue permits
for CAAPs. Note that in some cases, EPA
may still regulate some types of CAAPs
even if your state has been delegated
NPDES permitting authority. In these cases,
the state permitting authority will direct you
to the appropriate EPA contact.

Contact information for your permitting
authority is available in Appendix A. Also
refer to "Do other laws regulate CAAPs?" in
Chapter 2 of this guide. It describes how
your state, county, or town might have
additional  legal requirements that apply to
you and that go beyond the requirements
described in this guide.
What does this guide cover?

This guide describes EPA's regulations for
CAAPs (NPDES and ELGs requirements),
which govern whether your operation is a
CAAP, whether you need a permit, and what
the permit will require. State permitting
authorities use EPA's regulations as a
    starting point but often add their own
    requirements in NPDES permits. You
    should always check with your permitting
    authority to see what the requirements are in
    your state and to find out exactly what you
    have to do. Appendix A contains
    information on how to contact your
    permitting authority.
                         Always check with
                         your permitting
                         authority to find out
                         exact requirements
                         for your facility. Your
                         state may have more
                         requirements or
                         more specific
                         requirements than
                         the CAAP
                         Regulations.
This guide also
provides
information to help
facilities develop a
BMP plan for their
facility, as required
by the CAAP
ELGs, and
describes a number
ofBMPsthat
facilities may use
to achieve the requirements of the CAAP
ELGs. The guide also provides example
forms and logs that facility owners or
operators may use to comply with the
requirements of the CAAP ELGs, as well as
the NPDES application form. Facilities not
subject to the ELGs may also use the
information in this guide to improve
practices at their facility.
       "*W  Finally, this guide provides permit
       writers with the specific permitting
       requirements for CAAPs, information
       about how CAAPs are defined, who
       must seek coverage under an NPDES
       permit, the elements of an NPDES
       permit for a CAAP, and other
       considerations when developing a
       permit.
    How should I use this guide?

    If you are a facility owner or operator, you
    can use this guide to determine how to
    comply with the requirements of the CAAP
EPA-821-B-05-001
1-3
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                     Chapter 1: Introduction
ELGs. Read Chapter 2 ("What is the CAAP
Regulation?") for basic information on the
guidelines and NPDES permitting process.
Chapter 3 ("Does the CAAP Regulation
Affect Me?") provides information about
how the CAAP regulation affects you. Read
Chapter 4 ("What Do I Need to Know About
NPDES Permits?) for guidance on applying
for a permit. Chapter 5 discusses the
requirements of an NPDES permit.

For specific guidance on complying with the
CAAP regulations, refer to the following
chapters:

   •   Chapter 6 - General Reporting
       Requirements for Flow-through,
       Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
   •   Chapter 7 - Narrative Requirements
       for Flow-through, Recirculating, and
       Net Pen Facilities
   •   Chapter 8 - Writing and Certifying a
       BMP Plan
   •   Chapter 9 - Solids Control for Flow-
       through and Recirculating Facilities
   •   Chapter 10 - Material Storage for
       Flow-through, Recirculating, and
       Net Pen Facilities
   •   Chapter 11 - Maintenance for Flow-
       through, Recirculating, and Net Pen
       Facilities
   •   Chapter 12 - Record-keeping for
       Flow-through, Recirculating, and
       Net Pen Facilities
   •   Chapter 13 - Perform Training for
       Flow-through, Recirculating, and
       Net Pen Facilities
   •   Chapter 14 - Feed Management for
       Net Pen Facilities
   •   Chapter 15 - Waste Collection and
       Disposal; Transport or Harvest
       Discharge; and Carcass Removal for
       Net Pens

Refer to the appendices for the following
information:
        •   Appendix A: State Permitting
           Authorities/Departments of
           Environmental Protection
        •   Appendix B: Natural Resources
           Agencies Associated with Fisheries
        •   Appendix C: Frequently Asked
           Questions
        •   Appendix D: Code of Federal
           Regulations (40 CFR, Parts 122.24
           and 451)
        •   Appendix E: BMP Plans
        •   Appendix F: BMP Certification
           Form
        •   Appendix G: State BMP Programs
        •   Appendix H: National Association of
           State Aquaculture Coordinators
           (NASAC), Cooperative Extension
           Services, and Sea Grant Information
        •   Appendix I: Additional Resources
        •   Appendix J: Glossary
        •   Appendix K: NPDES Permit
           Applications
        •   Appendix L: Applicability Matrix
        •   Appendix M: General Reporting
           Forms
             o  Example Written  Report -
                Participating in an INAD Study
             o  Checklist for Oral Report for
                INAD and Extralabel Drug Use
             o  Example Written  Report -
                INAD and Extralabel Drug Use
             o  Checklist for Oral Report of
                Failure or Damage to Structure
                of Containment Systems
             o  Example Written  Report -
                Failure or Damage to Structure
                of Containment Systems
             o  Checklist for Oral Report of
                Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and
                Feed
             o  Example Written  Report -
                Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and
                Feed
        •   Appendix N: Feed Conversion
           Ratios Log
        •   Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log
EPA-821-B-05-001
1-4
March 2006

-------
                                                                      Chapter 1: Introduction
   •   Appendix P: Inspection and
       Maintenance: Logs
   •   Appendix Q: Cleaning Log
   •   Appendix R: Record-keeping
       Checklist
   •   Appendix S: Employee Training Log
   •   Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log
   •   Appendix U: FDA Labeling
   •   Appendix V: SDAFS BMP Plan

If you have trouble understanding any of the
information in this guide, ask your
permitting authority for help. You may also
contact EPA's Offices of Science and
Technology (Engineering and Analysis
Division) and Wastewater Management
(NPDES Permitting Program Branch).
             EPA Contacts

  Office of Science and Technology (OST),
  Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD)
  202-566-1000

  Office of Wastewater Management (OWM)
  NPDES Permitting Program Branch
  202-564-9545
        The guide also provides permit
   writers with references for additional
   information. Permit writers may refer to
   the appendices listed in the previous
   section of this guide for additional
   information. Other good sources of
   information may be available from state
   agencies (e.g., Departments of Natural
   Resources, Agriculture, or Environmental
   Protection), Cooperative Extension
   Services, and Sea Grant.
How can I get a copy of the federal
regulations?

You can obtain a copy of the federal CAAP
regulation from any of the following:
           Appendix D of this document.
           View or download the text of the
           federal regulation as it appears in the
           Federal Register on EPA's ELGs
           website for the CAAP rule at
           http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/.
           Order the federal regulation and
           supporting documents from EPA's
           National  Service Center of
           Environmental Publications
           (NSCEP).
            National Service Center for
            Environmental Publications

      Phone:    1-800-490-9198
      Fax:       513-489-8695
      e-mail:    ncepimal@one.ent
      Web:      http://www. epa.ao v/ncepihom
      Mail:      U.S. EPA/NSCEP
                P.O. Box 42419
                Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-0419
    Your state might have other regulations that
    apply to you. Contact your permitting
    authority to find out how to get a copy of
    your state's CAAP regulations.

    Supporting documents for the CAAP
    regulation include the Technical
    Development Document and the Economic
    and Environmental Benefits Document.
    They are available from NSCEP or at
    http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture.
      In this guide, EPA has tried to explain
      the regulatory language in clear, simple
      terms. Some of the guide's explanations
      are general and might not contain all the
      details from the regulation. Contact your
      permitting authority for more information
      on the specific regulations that apply to
      you. You can find contact information for
      your permitting authority in Appendix A
      of this guide.
EPA-821-B-05-001
1-5
March 2006

-------
                                                        Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
This guide covers the requirements in the
June 2004 rule for CAAP facilities. The
regulation does not revise the current
National NPDES Permit Regulation for
CAAPs (40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C).
It does however, establish the ELGs for
CAAPs (40 CFR 451).
What is the NPDES Program?
The NPDES Program
was created under the
federal Clean Water
Act to protect and
improve water quality
by regulating point
source dischargers.
Point source
dischargers are operations that discharge
pollutants from discrete conveyances
directly into waters of the United States.
Point source dischargers are generally
regulated by NPDES permits (40 CFR
§122.2;.
A discharge, in
general, is the
flow of treated or
untreated
wastewater from
a facility to
waters of the
United States.
  The CWA defines pollutant as dredged spoil,
  solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage,
  garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical
  wastes, biological materials, radioactive
  materials, heat, wrecked or discarded
  equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and
  industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste
  discharged into water.
       keeping
       requirements)
       that the
       discharger
       must meet.
       Allows an
       operation to
       discharge
       pollutants as
       long as the
       operation meets
       the permit.
                                               A discrete
                                               conveyance, in
                                               general, is any
                                               single, identifiable
                                               way for pollutants
                                               to be carried or
                                               transferred to
                                               waters, such as a
                                               pipe, ditch, or
                                               channel.
                                                                     the requirements in
Generally, if a facility discharges pollutants
without having a permit, or has a permit but
does not meet the requirements, it is
violating the Clean Water Act. The owner or
operator of the facility could be subject to
enforcement actions such as fines.

Under the Clean Water Act, CAAPs are
defined as point source dischargers. Refer to
Chapter 3 of this document ("Does the
CAAP Regulation Affect Me?") for a
description of how EPA has defined
CAAPs.
An NPDES permit:
                          Every facility that meets EPA's definition of a
                          CAAP has a duty to apply for a permit. EPA
                          recommends that CAAP owners or operators
                          that do not discharge should contact their
                          permitting authority for assistance. For more
                          information, refer to "How do I know I am
                          covered by these regulations" in Chapter 3 of
                          this guide.
       Identifies outfall points from which a
       facility discharges wastewater to
       surface waters.
       Sets requirements to protect the
       quality of surface water (such as
       pollutant concentration limits,
       management practices, and record-
                        What are the Effluent Limitations
                        Guidelines for CAAPs?

                        ELGs are national standards for wastewater
                        discharges to surface waters and publicly
                        owned treatment works (municipal sewage
                        treatment plants). EPA develops ELGs for
EPA-821-B-05-001
                   2-1
                               March 2006

-------
                                                          Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
categories of existing sources and new
sources under the Clean Water Act. The
standards are technology-based (i.e. they are
based on the performance of treatment,
control technologies, and practices).

EPA completed ELGs for the CAAP
industry on June 30, 2004. These ELGs are
used by permitting authorities to set permit
requirements for individual facilities. The
requirements of the CAAP ELGs are
included directly into an individual permit.
In the case of CAAPs, the ELGs require
management practices and record-keeping
activities, rather than numerical limits called
"discharge limits." Your state permitting
authority may also set additional
requirements that are needed to protect
water quality or
other
requirements
that apply under
state or local
law. Appendix A
contains a list of
permitting
authorities. A
summary of the
regulation is
available in
Tables 1 through
3, at the end of
this chapter.
Why is this
regulation important?

This regulation is important in reducing
discharges of conventional pollutants
(mainly total suspended solids), non-
conventional pollutants (e.g., nutrients,
drugs, and chemicals), and to a lesser extent,
toxic pollutants (metals and PCBs) from
CAAP facilities covered by the regulation.
Note that management
practices are general
requirements (e.g., solids
control) and facilities may
choose how to achieve
them. For example,
solids control can be
achieved through feed
management and/or
proper operation and
maintenance of solids
treatment systems. The
rule does not require any
specific measures to
achieve solids control.
                              EPA estimated that implementation of the
                              ELGs will result in reducing the discharge
                              of total suspended solids by more than
                              500,000 pounds per year and discharge of
                              biochemical oxygen demand and nutrients
                              by approximately 300,000 pounds per year.
                                The term waters of the United States is defined
                                at 40 CFR 122.2. It means:
     Waters used for interstate or foreign
     commerce (e.g. Mississippi River).
     All interstate waters, including interstate
     "wetlands."
     Waters used for recreation by interstate or
     foreign travelers (for example a lake in one
     state that attracts fisherman from
     neighboring states).
     Waters from which fish or shellfish are
     taken to sell in other states or countries.
     Waters used for industrial purposes by
     industries involved in interstate commerce.
     Tributaries and impoundments or dams of
     any waters described above.
     Territorial seas.
     Wetlands adjacent to any waters described
     above.
Waters of the United States does not include:

  •  Ponds or lagoons designed and
     constructed specifically for waste treatment
     systems.
  •  Wetlands that were converted to cropland
     before December 23,  1985.

These are only examples of kinds of waters
considered waters of the United States. See the
complete regulatory definition at 40 CFR 122.2 to
see what other kinds of waters might be
considered waters of the United States.

The final regulation applies to CAAPs (that meet
the production threshold) located in the territorial
seas, contiguous zone, or ocean waters.
Although EPA did not identify any existing
facilities during the development of the
regulation, net pens (or cages) operating in the
contiguous zone or ocean waters would be
subject to the regulation at this time. Future
CAAPs (that meet the production threshold) in
ocean waters or the contiguous zone are point
sources subject to new source performance
standards and NPDES permitting requirements.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                         2-2
                               March 2006

-------
                                                       Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
The resulting improvements in water quality
will create more opportunities for swimming
and fishing, and reduce stress on ecosystems
in those waters. They could also affect other
aquatic environmental variables, such as
primary production and populations or
assemblages of native organisms in the
receiving waters of regulated facilities.
Do other laws regulate CAAPs?

Although this guide explains what you need
to do to comply with the federal CAAP
regulation, your state, county, or town might
have more requirements to address specific
circumstances. Your permitting authority
can set additional permit requirements if it
finds them necessary. For example, they
might set additional effluent limitations on a
facility to ensure attainment of state water
quality standards. State regulations must
include federal requirements, but they can
also be broader, stricter, or more specific. To
learn about regulations in your state, contact
your permitting authority. Appendix A
contains a list of permitting authorities.

Your NPDES permit might include other
federal requirements that apply to point
source discharges (e.g., requirements under
the Endangered Species Act, or resulting
from the CWA Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) program). CAAPs might also be
subject to federal requirements under the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), the Spill Prevention, Containment,
and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations,
CWA Section 403(c) Ocean Discharge
Criteria, or the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
New CAAPs may be subject to requirements
resulting from implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The following can provide technical
assistance to make sure you are complying
with all applicable requirements:
       •  Permitting authority/Departments of
          Environmental Protection -
          Appendix A
       •  National Association of State
          Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC)
          http://www.marylandseafood.org/aqu
          aculture/nasac.php - Appendix H
       •  State Sea Grant program -
          Appendix H
       •  Natural Resources Agencies
          Associated with Fisheries -
          Appendix B
       •  State Departments of Agriculture
          http ://www2.nasda. org/NASD A
       •  USDA programs (Cooperative State
          Research, Education, and Extension
          Service (CSREES), Natural
          Resources Conservation Service
          (NRCS), others); see Appendix H for
          information about state cooperative
          extension service programs
              o  General USDA programs -
                 http://www.usda.gov
              o  CSREES
                 http://www.csrees.usda.gov
              o  NRCS
                 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov
       •  Other resources in your state
    £S Final Preamble: Section XIII

    Table 1. Applicability of the CAAP ELGs
                to System Types
System Type or
Subcategory
Flow-through and
Recirculating
(Subpart A)
Net pen
(Subpart B)
Annual Production (Ib)
<100,000
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
>1 00,000
Subject to:
451.3(a)-(d)
451.11(a)-(e)
451.12-14
Subject to:
451.3(a)-(d)
451.21(a)-(h)
451.22-24
EPA-821-B-05-001
 2O
-3
March 2006

-------
                                                                                                  Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
                        Table 2. Summary of Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
General Reporting Requirements
Drugs1
1) Reporting of intention to use INADs where such use may
lead to a discharge of the drug to waters of the U.S.
2) Oral reporting of INAD 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
Failure or Damage to the Structure of Aquatic Animal Containment System
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 released to the environment as a result of the failure or damage
• Describe steps being taken to prevent a recurrence
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)
1 Reporting is not required for an INAD or extralabel drug use of a drug previously approved by FDA for a different aquatic animal species or diseases if the
INAD or extralabel use is at or below the approved dosage and involves similar conditions of use.
EPA-821-B-05-001
2-4
March 2006

-------
                                                                                       Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
                Table 2. Summary of 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)
451.11(a)
451.11(b)
451.11(c)
451.11(d)
451.11(e)
451.3(d)(2)
451.3(d)(3)
EPA-821-B-05-001
2-5
March 2006

-------
                                                                                                    Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
                                     Table 3. Summary of Requirements for Net Pen Facilities
General Reporting Requirements
Drugs2
1) Reporting of intention to use INADs where such use may
lead to a discharge of the drug to waters of the U.S.
2) Oral reporting of INAD 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
Failure or Damage to the Structure of Aquatic Animal Containment System
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 released to the environment as a result of the failure or damage
• Describe steps being taken to prevent a recurrence
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)
2 Reporting is not required for an INAD or extralabel drug use of a drug previously approved by FDA for a different aquatic animal species or diseases if the
INAD or extralabel use is at or below the approved dosage and involves similar conditions of use.
EPA-821-B-05-001
2-6
March 2006

-------
                                                                                         Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?
                           Table 3. Summary of 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 management
b) Waste collection and disposal
c) Transport or harvest discharge
d) Carcass removal
e) Materials storage
f) 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)
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)(2)
451.3(d)(3)
EPA-821-B-05-001
2-7
March 2006

-------
                                                  Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?
Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?
CAAP ELGs apply to owners and operators
of CAAP facilities that meet certain
conditions. If you produce more than
100,000 pounds annually, you may be
subject to the ELGs.

Aquaculture facilities will fall into one of
the following categories:

   •   No NPDES permit required
   •   Only NPDES permit required
   •   NPDES permit with ELGs
       requirements

If your aquatic animal operation is a CAAP
under the NPDES regulations, you must
apply for an NPDES permit. Refer to the
next two sections in this chapter for
additional information about which types of
aquaculture facilities are required to apply
for a permit (or renew their permit when
their current permit expires if they are
already permitted).

This chapter provides information about
which operations are CAAPs and subject to
NPDES permitting requirements, which are
covered under the CAAP ELGs, what to do
if you have more than one type of system at
your facility, which facilities do not need an
NPDES permit, how you know that your
facility is not a CAAP, how a facility is
defined, and what part of a facility is
regulated.
What operations are CAAPs under
the NPDES regulation?

EPA's existing NPDES regulations define
when a hatchery, fish farm, or other facility
is a CAAP facility and, therefore, a point
source subject to the NPDES permit
     program. (See 40 CFR 122.24.) In defining
     CAAP facilities, the NPDES regulations
     distinguish between warm water and cold
     water species offish and define a CAAP
     facility by, among other things, the size of
     the operation and frequency of discharge.
      The criteria described in Appendix C of 40
      CFR 122 are as follows. A hatchery, fish
      farm, or other facility is a CAAP facility if it
      grows, contains, or holds, aquatic animals in
      either of two categories: cold water species
      or warm water species.

      The cold water species category includes
      facilities where animals are produced in
      ponds, raceways, or other similar structures
      that discharge at least 30 days per year but
      does not include facilities that produce less
      than approximately 9,090 harvest weight kg
      (approximately 20,000 Ib) of aquatic animals
      per year. It also does not include facilities
      that feed less than 2,272 kg (approximately
      5,000 Ib) of food during the calendar month
      of maximum feeding.

      The warm water species category includes
      facilities where animals are produced in
      ponds, raceways, or other similar structures
      that discharge at least 30 days per year. It
      does not include closed ponds that discharge
      only during periods of excess runoff or
      facilities that produce less than 45,454
      harvest weight kg (approximately 100,000 Ib)
      of aquatic animals per year.
                                               A facility is a CAAP facility if it meets the
                                               criteria in 40 CFR 122, Appendix C1 or if it
                                               is designated as a CAAP facility by the
     1 40 CFR 122, Appendix C is available in Appendix
     D of this document.
EPA-821-B-05-001
3-1
March 2006

-------
                                                   Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?
Director2 on a case-by-case basis.

Most facilities falling under the definition of
CAAP are either flow-through, recirculating
or net pen systems. These systems discharge
continuously or discharge 30 days or more
per year as defined in 40 CFR 122.24 and
are subject to permitting depending on the
production level at the facility.

Most pond facilities do not require permits
because ponds generally discharge fewer
than 30 days per year and therefore
generally are not CAAP facilities, unless
designated by the Director.

Facilities meeting the NPDES definition of a
CAAP will still be subject to the NPDES
permit program, even if they are not subject
to the requirements of the ELGs because
their production levels are below 100,000
pounds per year.
  Under 40 CFR 122, Appendix C:

  "Cold water aquatic animals" include, but are
  not limited to, the Salmonidae family of fish;
  e.g., trout and salmon.

  "Warm water aquatic animals" include, but are
  not limited to, the Ameiuride,  Centrarchidae
  and Cyprinidae families offish; e.g.,
  respectively, catfish, sunfish and minnows.
Refer to Appendix L for a description of
which systems the NPDES regulations
cover.
     What operations are covered under
     the CAAP ELGs?

     The CAAP ELGs applies to direct
     dischargers of wastewater from these
     existing and new facilities (where
     production is defined as what leaves the
     facility):

        •   Facilities that produce at least
            100,000 pounds a year in flow-
            through and recirculating systems
            that discharge wastewater at least 30
            days a year (used primarily to raise
            trout, salmon, hybrid striped bass,
            and tilapia).
        •   Facilities that produce at least
            100,000 pounds a year in net pens or
            submerged cage systems (used
            primarily to raise salmon).

     Refer to Appendix L for a description of
     which systems are covered by the ELGs.
                                                Figure 3.1. A flow-through system
 Director means 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. In some
circumstances, EPA retains the authority to take
certain actions even when there is an approved state
program, ea Regulation: 40 CFR122.2
     What is the difference between
     NPDES and ELGs for CAAPs?

     Any facility may be designated as a CAAP
     (if it meets the NPDES regulation
     requirements outright or if the Director
     designates it as a CAAP facility) and subject
     to NPDES permitting requirements.
EPA-821-B-05-001
3-2
March 2006

-------
                                                  Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?
However, if a CAAP facility is subject to
ELGs requirements (i.e., recirculating, flow-
through, or net pen systems that annually
produce more than 100,000 pounds of
aquatic animals) then the facility's NPDES
permit will also contain ELGs requirements
specific to the system types used to produce
aquatic animals at that location. These are
minimum requirements in the NPDES
permit. A permit may contain additional
more stringent limits required to ensure
compliance with water quality standards.
What is considered a facility?

A facility is defined as all contiguous
property and equipment owned, operated, or
leased, or under control of the same person
or entity. Each system owned, operated,
leased, or under the control  of the same
person or entity that is not contiguous can
and should be treated as separate facilities;
the production threshold used in determining
if a facility is a CAAP should also be
applied separately.

j£S Regulation: 40 CFR 451
What if I have more than one type of
production system at my facility?

If you have more than one type of regulated
system (flow-through, recirculating, or net
pen) at your facility (and the combined
annual production is 100,000 pounds or
more), you must comply with the different
requirements for each system type. For
example, if you have a recirculating system
and net pens at your facility, you will need
to comply with the ELGs requirements for
both recirculating systems and net pens. For
more information about different system
types and meeting the ELGs' production
threshold, refer to the following examples.
      The following are examples of combinations of
      system types that CAAP facilities may have, and
      whether the CAAP ELGs and NPDES
      requirements apply:

        •   Recirculating - 25,000 pounds annually;
           Net pen - 80,000 pounds annually. (Both
           systems are regulated by the ELGs and
           NPDES requirements.)

        •   Flow-through - 75,000 pounds annually
           Recirculating - 50,000 pounds annually.
           (Both systems are regulated by NPDES
           requirements. If both are part of the same
           facility,  the ELGs requirements also apply.)

        •   Flow-through - 25,000 pounds annually
           Recirculating - 50,000 pounds annually.
           (Neither is regulated by the ELGs; if
           growing coldwater species or determined
           to be a  significant source of pollution to
           waters of the United States by the
           permitting authority, both are subject to
           NPDES requirements.)

        •   Flow-through - 125,000 pounds annually
           Pond- 15,000pounds annually,
           discharging fewer than 30 days per year.
           (The flow-through system is regulated
           under the ELGs and NPDES; the  pond is
           not regulated by the NPDES or ELGs
           regulations, unless the permitting authority
           determines that the pond is a significant
           source of pollution to waters of the United
           States.)

        •   Flow-through - 125,000 pounds annually
           Pond - 135,000 pounds annually and
           discharging more than 30 days per year.
           (The flow-through system is regulated
           under the ELGs and the pond is regulated
           by the NPDES regulations.)

        •   Net pen - 325,000 pounds annually
           Molluscan shellfish- 130,000pounds
           annually. (The net pen is regulated by the
           ELGs and NPDES requirements;  the
           molluscan shellfish system is not regulated
           by either unless the permitting authority
           determines it to be a significant source of
           pollution to waters of the United States.)
EPA-821-B-05-001
3-3
March 2006

-------
                                                 Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?
Figure 3.2. A recirculating system
If you have other system types in addition to
those subject to the ELGs, such as ponds or
shellfish hatcheries, those system types are
not subject to the ELGs (refer to page 3-5 of
this chapter for a list of systems that are not
subject to the ELGs). For example, if your
facility has recirculating systems and ponds,
only the recirculating systems are subject to
the ELGs if the recirculating systems meet
the annual production requirements of at
least 100,000 pounds. The requirements for
your recirculating system will appear in your
NPDES permit. The ponds at your facility
would not be subject to the ELGs
requirements. However, you may need an
NPDES permit if your ponds meet the
definition of the cold water or warm water
species category, where the ponds discharge
at least 30 days per year (40 CFR 122,
Appendix  C) or if your pond is part of a
facility that has been designated a CAAP
facility.

If you are unsure which system types at your
facility are subject to the ELGs
requirements, contact your permitting
authority.
                                              ^^^H ^^M^^^^^^^^^^H   ^^^^H
                                              Figure 3.3. A net pen system
    Are there any aquaculture facilities
    that do not need an NPDES permit?

    You do not need an NPDES permit if you
    are a facility that produces less than 9,090
    harvest weight kilograms (approximately
    20,000 pounds) per year of cold water
    species, if you feed less than 2,272
    kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of
    food during the calendar month of maximum
    feeding, or if you discharge less than 30
    days per year (40 CFR122, Appendix C).
    However, you may need an NPDES permit
    if your facility is designated as a CAAP
    facility by the Director or if your state has
    more stringent requirements than EPA.

    You do not need an NPDES permit if you
    are a facility that produces warm water
    species, using closed ponds that discharges
    only during periods of excess runoff, if you
    are a facility that produces less than 45,454
    harvest weight kilograms (approximately
    100,000 pounds) per year of warm water
    species, or if you discharge less than 30 days
    per year (40 CFR 122, Appendix C).
    However, you may need an NPDES permit
    if your facility is designated as a CAAP
    facility by the Director or if your state has
    more stringent requirements than EPA.
EPA-821-B-05-001
3-4
March 2006

-------
                                                  Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?
How do I know if I am not covered by
these regulations?

In most cases, you are not covered by the
NPDES or ELGs regulations if your
production is less than the annual production
thresholds covered by the regulations.
However, if the Director designates your
facility as a CAAP facility or if your state
has more stringent requirements than EPA,
you can be subject to NPDES permit
requirements.

Systems not covered by the CAAP ELGs
include:

    •   Closed pond systems (may be
       covered by NPDES if discharges
       occur more than 30 days per year or
       if designated as a CAAP facility by
       the Director)
    •   Molluscan shellfish (including
       nurseries)
    •   Shrimp ponds
    •   Crawfish production
    •   Alligator production
    •   Aquaria
    •   Net pens rearing native species
       released after a growing period  of no
       longer than 4 months to supplement
       commercial and sport fisheries.
What if I discharge to a POTW?
The CAAP ELGs
do not establish
national
pretreatment
standards for
facilities that meet
the criteria for a
CAAP facility (as defined in 40 CFR 122.24
and Appendix C  of 40 CFR 122) and are
indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that
discharge to a publicly owned treatment
An indirect discharger
is a facility that
discharges or may
discharge wastewaters
into a publicly-owned
treatment works.
                          works (POTW)). However, you may be
                          subject to local limit requirements.

                          National pretreatment standards are
                          established for pollutants in wastewater
                          from indirect dischargers that may 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.
                          POTWs  are required to implement local
                          treatment limits applicable to their indirect
                          dischargers to satisfy any local
                          requirements. You should communicate
                          with your POTW operator to determine any
                          local pretreatment standards that apply to
                          your facility.
                           A Publicly Owned Treatment Works
                           (POTW) is a treatment works (as defined by
                           section 212 of the CWA), which is owned by
                           a state or municipality (as defined by
                           section 502(4) of the CWA). 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 CWA, that has
                           jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to
                           and the discharges from such a treatment
                           works.
If you discharge to a POTW, contact your
permitting authority for more details.
                          What part of my CAAP is regulated?

                          The CAAP regulation applies to the
                          production areas of your facility, including:
EPA-821-B-05-001
                     3-5
                               March 2006

-------
                                                   Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?
    •   Areas where you might grow,
       maintain, or contain aquatic animals
       (e.g., raceways, tanks, or net pens).
    •   Areas where you might store raw
       materials (e.g., feed silos and storage
       areas designated for feed or drugs).
    •   Areas where you might contain
       wastes (e.g., sedimentation basins,
       quiescent zones, and settling ponds).
    •   Source water and wastewater
       conveyance systems (e.g.,  tailraces
       and headraces).

No specific guidance for land application of
waste was developed for the CAAP ELGs. If
a facility is doing land application, a good
source of information regarding land
application is EPA's Producers'
Compliance Guide for CAFOs, available at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pub s/cafo_prod_
guide  cover  and  contents.pdf
Figure 3.4. A feed storage area
EPA-821-B-05-001
3-6
March 2006

-------
                                         Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
How do I apply for an NPDES permit?

To apply for a permit, you first need to
acquire the application forms. You can get
the forms you need to apply for an NPDES
permit from your permitting authority. Some
states have made the forms available on
their websites. Check with your permitting
authority to make sure you are using the
correct forms.
 An applicant should consider requesting a
 pre-application meeting to resolve any
 questions and to seek guidance from the
 agency and or permit writer. It may be
 advantageous for the applicant, permit
 writer, and aquaculture extension specialist
 to hold joint discussion to develop BMP
 components appropriate for the specific
 facility, species, production system, and
 location under consideration.
You next need to determine what type of
permit you will be applying for. Under the
federal NPDES regulations, there are two
types of permits—general permits and
individual permits. Each permitting
authority adopts its own rules about what
types of permits operations need, so you
should contact your permitting authority for
more information.

After you determine what type of NPDES
permit to apply for, you need to complete
the application forms and submit the
required information. Refer to page 4-3 for a
discussion of the information you must
include in your permit application.

Depending on your specific facility
(existing, new, etc.), you must apply for a
renewal of your current permit or a new
permit by the required deadlines. Refer to
     page 4-3 for more information about
     deadlines for applying for NPDES permits.

     After you acquire an NPDES permit, you
     must have the permit in effect for your
     operation as long as it is an operating
     CAAP. Refer to page 4-6 for a discussion of
     situations where you can discontinue your
     NPDES coverage. Page 4-7 contains
     information about what to do if significant
     changes occur at your operation.
    What is an NPDES general permit?

    An NPDES general permit has one set of
    requirements for a group of similar types of
    facilities. For example, all CAAP facilities
    in a particular area, such as an entire state or
    a watershed within the state, might be
    covered under one general permit. The
    permitting authority sets the permit
    conditions, issues a draft permit, and
    requests comments from the public. The
    permitting authority may make changes to
    the draft permit based on the public
    comments and then issues the final permit.

    The general permit specifies what kinds  of
    operations can be covered.  Owners and
    operators  of eligible operations may then
    apply for coverage under the general permit.
    Contact your permitting authority to see if
    your facility is eligible to be covered under
    an existing general permit.

    Operators of CAAP facilities that are
    eligible for coverage under a general permit
    may notify the permitting authority that they
    want to be covered by submitting a Notice
    of Intent (NOT). If an NPDES general permit
    is available in your state and your operation
EPA-821-B-05-001
4-1
March 2006

-------
                                         Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
meets the eligibility requirements, you must
fill out an NOT and submit it to your
permitting authority to apply for coverage
under the general permit. The general permit
will tell you how to apply for coverage, the
deadline for applying, and when your
coverage will become effective.

Some general permits specify that coverage
is automatic unless notified by the
permitting authority. Coverage under other
general permits does not begin until receipt
of notification of applicability by the
permitting authority. If coverage is
automatic, EPA recommends that the
general permit specify that the facility is
authorized to discharge in accordance with
the permit after a specified waiting period
of, for example, 30 days. Having a specified
waiting period or coverage only upon receipt
of a notification of applicability will allow
the permitting authority the opportunity to
provide for meaningful public involvement
after NOIs are submitted.
  States that have developed general
  aquaculture NPDES permits include the
  following:

   •   EPA Region 10- General NPDES
       Permit for Aquaculture Facilities in
       Idaho and Associated, On-site Fish
       Processors (ID-G13-0000)
   •   Maine - General Permit for Atlantic
       Salmon Aquaculture (MEG130000)
   •   North Carolina - General Permit No.
       NCG530000
   •   Washington - Upland Fin-Fish
       Hatching and Rearing General NPDES
       Permit
What is an NPDES individual permit?

An NPDES individual permit contains
requirements designed specifically for one
CAAP facility. You must apply for an
     NPDES individual permit if any of the
     following are true:

        •   A general NPDES permit is not
            available.
        •   Your CAAP facility is not eligible to
            be covered under the general NPDES
            permit.
        •   You want an individual NPDES
            permit.
        •   Your permitting authority requires
            you to apply for an individual
            permit.

     The permitting authority may also require
     any discharger currently covered by a
     general permit to apply for and obtain an
     individual NPDES permit.

     To apply for an individual permit, you must
     fill out either NPDES Forms 1 and 2B
     (available in Appendix K) or similar forms
     required by your state. You should contact
     your permitting authority for the proper
     forms. Forms 1 and 2B may be downloaded
     from EPA's website at:
     http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/doctype.cfm7so
     rt=name&program_id=45&document_type_
     id=8.  Your state permitting authority may
     also provide the necessary application forms
     on their websites. Check with your
     permitting authority to be sure you submit
     the correct forms.

     You must complete the forms and submit
     them to your permitting authority. When
     your permitting authority receives your
     permit application, it will use the
     information you submitted to draft a permit
     for your operation. Your permitting
     authority will base your permit requirements
     on the unique conditions at  your operation.
     A collaborative effort between the farmer,
     permit writer, and an aquaculture extension
     specialist may be helpful. After a public
     comment period on the draft permit, your
EPA-821-B-05-001
4-2
March 2006

-------
                                         Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
permitting authority will modify the draft, if
necessary, and then issue your final NPDES
individual permit.
What information do I  have to include
in my NOI or permit application?

When you apply for an individual NPDES
permit, you must give the  following
information to your permitting authority, as
part of Form 2B (much of the same
information may be required as part of an
NOI for coverage under a  general permit):

   •   Contact information for the owner or
       operator of the  facility.
   •   If the facility is existing or proposed.
   •   The location and mailing address of
       your facility.
   •   The latitude and
       longitude of the
       entrance to your
       facility's
       production area.
   •   A topographic
       map of the area
       where your
Check EPA's
website at:
http://cfpub. epa. gov/
npdes/stormwater/lat
lona.cfm to find out
how to determine
the latitude and
longitude and where
to get a topographic
map for your
location.
       facility is
       located, with the
       location of the
       production area specifically marked.
       The outfall number and flow for each
       outfall from the facility.
       The total number and size of ponds,
       raceways, tanks, other rearing units,
       and similar structures at your facility.
       The name of the receiving water.
       The source of water used in your
       facility.
       The species (cold water and warm
       water) offish or aquatic animals held
       at your facility. For each species, you
       will need to provide the total weight
       produced by your facility per year in
       pounds of harvestable weight
                             (harvestable weight = gross
                             production), as well as the maximum
                             weight present at any one time.
                         •   The total pounds of food fed during
                             the calendar month of maximum
                             feeding.
                         •   The treatment systems and practices
                             you use for wastewater.

                      Your permitting authority may require more
                      information than what is listed above when
                      you apply for a permit. Check with your
                      permitting authority to make sure you are
                      submitting the correct information.

                      £^ Regulations: 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28
When do I have to get an NPDES
permit?

Your permit application deadline depends
on whether your operation is an existing
CAAP facility, a new discharger, or a new
source. Each category has a different
deadline for applying for an NPDES permit.
Read the descriptions below to determine
when you must apply for an NPDES permit.

   •   If you are an existing CAAP facility
       (already have an NPDES permit),
       you must apply to renew your
       NPDES permit at least 180 days
       before it expires. Refer to the section
       "Existing CAAP Facilities" below
       for additional information.
   •   If you are a new discharger, you
       must apply for an NPDES  permit at
       least 180 days before you plan to
       begin discharging from the CAAP
       facility. Refer to the section "New
       Dischargers" below for additional
       information.
   •   If you are a new source, you must
       apply for an NPDES permit at least
       180 days before you plan to begin
       discharging from the CAAP facility.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                 4-3
                               March 2006

-------
                                          Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
       Refer to the section "New Sources"
       below for additional information.

You are responsible for applying for NPDES
permit coverage for your facility. The
federal regulations do not require your
permitting authority to notify you that you
must apply. For an individual permit, the
permitting authority issues a permit after it
receives a complete and accurate permit
application from the facility seeking
coverage. For a general permit, the
permitting authority issues the general
permit, and operators then submit their NOIs
to be covered under the permit. In both
instances, the permitting authority is
required to provide public notification that a
permit has been drafted. In addition,
although permitting authorities are not
required to do so, many are likely to conduct
outreach to communicate who must obtain a
permit and how to  do so. Ultimately,
however, the responsibility to seek permit
coverage lies with the aquaculture facility.
Your failure to meet the permitting
deadlines described below could result in
liability under the Clean Water Act, which
may result in penalties.

Existing CAAP Facilities

Existing CAAP facilities are operations that
are already permitted under 40 CFR 122.24.
If you operate a CAAP facility that is
already permitted, you already have an
NPDES permit. You will have to reapply for
a new permit at least 180 days before your
existing permit expires. When the permitting
authority renews your permit, your permit
will include the ELGs requirements if you
meet the  production and system type
applicability requirements of the ELGs. If
you do not meet the production and system
type applicability requirements of the ELGs,
recall that other NPDES requirements may
apply to your facility.
                Existing CAAP
      (Apply for an NPDES permit at least 180
      days prior to expiration of current one)
      If you are subject to
      the CAAP ELGs,
      your new permit
      will contain these
      requirements.
If you are not subject to
the CAAP ELGs, your
new permit may or may
not contain requirements
from the CAAP ELGs.
     New Dischargers

     New dischargers are operations that are
     defined as CAAPs after the effective date of
     the rule (September 22, 2004), but are not
     new sources. A general definition of new
     discharger is found at 40 CFR 122.2.

     One example of a new discharger is a
     facility that is newly constructed, will meet
     the production threshold for a CAAP (thus
     requiring an NPDES permit), but will not
     meet the thresholds at which ELGs, and
     therefore New Source Performance
     Standards, would apply. As a new
     discharger, you must apply for a permit at
     least 180 before you plan to commence
     discharging unless permission for a later
     date is granted by the permitting authority.

     It also is possible for a facility already
     constructed and discharging to be
     considered a new discharger under the
     NPDES program. For example, if your
     facility previously was not defined as a
EPA-821-B-05-001
4-4
         March 2006

-------
                                          Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
CAAP but plans to increase the number of
aquatic animals produced so you exceed the
production threshold for definition as a
CAAP facility, you would then be
considered a new discharger for purposes of
NPDES permitting. In this case, unless a
later date is granted by the permitting
authority,  you must apply for an NPDES
permit at least 180 days before you increase
production and, therefore begin discharging
as a point  source subject to NPDES
requirements.

New Sources

A CAAP facility is a new source if
construction of the facility began after
September 22, 2004 and the CAAP ELGs
apply to the facility. Under the CWA,
construction refers to the construction of any
building, structure, or facility and to the
installation of equipment. Construction
commences if an entity either undertakes or
begins certain work as part of a continuous
on-site construction program, or enters into
contractual obligations to purchase facilities
or equipment.  If construction occurs after
the new source date, the facility will be
considered a new source if it meets any of
the following criteria:

   •   It is constructed at a site at which no
       other source is located;  or
   •   It totally replaces the process or
       production equipment that causes the
       discharge of pollutants  at an existing
       source; or
   •   Its processes are  substantially
       independent of an existing source at
       the same site.  To determine whether
       the processes are substantially
       independent, factors such as the
       extent to which the new facility is
       integrated with the existing plant;
       and the extent to which the new
       facility is engaged in the same
           general type of activity as the
           existing source should be considered.
           40 CFR 122.29(b)(l), 40 CFR 403.3
     Construction at land-based sites such as flow
     through and recirculating systems occurs
     when ground is broken, new equipment is
     delivered, or other significant changes
     occur. For net pen and cage operations,
     construction at the facility is generally
     considered the start of the timeframe for a
     new source. Construction is considered to
     include when some activity associated with
     site preparation or construction of the pens
     in the water occurs. For example:

        •   Some activity takes place at the site
           bottom or surface in preparation for
           placement of a net pen or cage.
        •  If no site bottom or surface
           preparation is necessary, net pens or
           cages are placed in the water.

     The date construction at the facility begins
     compared to the effective date of the rule is
     important. A new source determination for
     aquatic animal production facilities for
     water-based systems such as net pens will be
     based on the date at which construction
     commences. Based on individual
     circumstances, the date construction begins
     may be the date the nets, cages, or  structure,
     are placed in the water, date the nets/cages
     were purchased, or the date a binding
     contractual agreement takes place.

     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.

     If you own or operate a new source CAAP
     facility, you must apply for a permit at least
     180 days before you plan to begin
     discharging from the  CAAP facility. New
EPA-821-B-05-001
4-5
March 2006

-------
                                         Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
source permitting is subject to National
Environmental Policy (NEPA) review.
When will my NPDES permit expire?

Individual NPDES permits are usually
issued for 5-year terms and are reissued
every 5 years. You should check the
expiration date of your permit.

General NPDES permits are also usually
issued for 5-year terms. Because a general
NPDES permit is created for multiple
permittees, however, it could have been
issued several years before you submitted
your NOT. If this is the case, the general
NPDES permit might expire less than 5
years after you submit your NOT.

To reapply for a permit when it is due to
expire, you must submit a complete and
accurate new application form (for an
individual permit) or new NOT (to be
covered under a general permit) 180 days
before your permit's expiration date. For
EPA issued permits, if you have met this
deadline and your permitting authority fails
to reissue your NPDES permit before the
expiration date, the conditions of your
current NPDES permit will remain in effect
until the permitting authority acts on your
complete and accurate new application (40
CFR 122.6). Although many states have
automatic continuation, state issued permits
are subject to state law.

Some permitting authorities  might have
other deadlines or procedures for reissuing
CAAP NPDES permits. For  example, some
general permits are automatically continued
without a facility submitting a new NOT.
Check the reapplication procedures specified
     in your permit, and contact your permitting
     authority to find out exactly what you must
     do to get a new permit when your current
     permit is due to expire.
     How long should I keep my NPDES
     permit?

     You must have an NPDES permit in effect
     for your operation as long as it is an
     operating  CAAP. There are a few situations
     in which you can discontinue your NPDES
     coverage:

        •  You close your operation.
        •  You permanently change your
           operation so that it no longer is a
           CAAP (under the NPDES program).

     Under all  circumstances, you must have an
     NPDES permit in effect until you properly
     dispose of process wastewater that was
     generated at the CAAP facility and solids
     collected in a settling basin or held in a
     storage tank so that your operation no longer
     has a potential to discharge to waters of the
     United States. If your operation still has a
     potential to discharge when your permit is
     due to expire, you must reapply for a permit.
     Once you  have properly disposed of the
     collected solids,  and process wastewater so
     that there  is no longer a potential to
     discharge, you may ask your permitting
     authority to terminate your permit. Contact
     your permitting authority to find out more
     about how to terminate your permit. (You
     can find contact information for your
     permitting authority in Appendix A of this
     guide.)
EPA-821-B-05-001
4-6
March 2006

-------
                                         Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?
  If you make short-term (1-2 years)
  changes to your operation that reduce
  annual production so you no longer meet
  the definition of a CAAP facility, you may
  request changes be made to your permit.
  However, remember that the permitting
  authority can reevaluate your operation
  and add requirements at that time.
  Contact your permitting authority if you
  have any questions.
What if I make significant changes to
my operation while I have an NPDES
permit?

If you make significant changes at your
operation, under NPDES regulations and the
terms of your permit, you must contact your
permitting authority and report these
changes. Examples of significant changes
include increasing production levels (e.g.,
increasing annual production from 50,000
pounds to 175,000 pounds), changes to
structures (e.g., removing quiescent zones),
or changes to facility configuration (e.g.,
adding 10 raceways to a facility).
EPA-821-B-05-001
4-7
March 2006

-------
                                      Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?
Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?
Your NPDES permit will state what you
have to do to comply. Certain minimum
requirements must be in every NPDES
CAAP permit, and this guide describes those
minimum requirements. Your permitting
authority may include more than the
minimum requirements in your NPDES
permit. You should read your permit
carefully to find out exactly what you have
to do at your CAAP facility. Your NPDES
permit will include the following
requirements:

   •  Effluent limitations, if applicable
   •   Special conditions
   •   Standard conditions
   •  Monitoring, record-keeping, and
      reporting requirements
j£S Regulation: 40 CFR 122.41
 Remember to read your permit and check
 with your permitting authority to find out
 exactly what your permit requires. This guide
 describes the minimum requirements
 established by the federal CAAP regulations.
 Your permit might require you to do more
 than the minimum requirements described
 here, for example, to meet your state's or
 tribe's water quality standards or to comply
 with CAAP requirements specific to your
 state. See the appendix to find out how to
 contact your permitting authority.
What are the elements of an NPDES
permit for a CAAP facility?

The elements of an NPDES permit for a
CAAP are the same as those issued to other
point sources. These elements consist of a
cover page, effluent limitations, monitoring
and reporting requirements, record keeping
requirements, special conditions, and
standard conditions.
     Cover page - serves as the legal notice of
     the applicability of the permit, provides the
     authority under which it is issued, and
     contains appropriate dates and signature(s).

     Effluent limitations and standards - serves
     as the primary mechanism for controlling
     discharges of pollutants to receiving waters
     (e.g., the specific narrative or numeric
     limitations applied to the facility and the
     point of application of these limits).

     Monitoring and reporting requirements -
     identifies all of the specific conditions
     related to the types of monitoring to be
     performed, the frequencies for collecting
     samples or data, and how to record,
     maintain, and transmit the data and
     information to the permitting authority.

     Record-keeping requirements - specifies the
     types of records to be kept on-site at the
     permitted facility (e.g., inspection and
     monitoring records).

     Special conditions - in NPDES permits for
     CAAPs, special conditions may be included,
     as determined necessary by the permitting
     authority.

     Standard conditions - conditions that apply
     to all NPDES permits, such as the
     requirement to properly operate and
     maintain all facilities and systems of
     treatment and control, as specified  in 40
     CFR 122.41.

     For additional details on the elements of an
     NPDES permit, refer to the U.S. EPA
     NPDES Permit Writers' Manual (EPA-833-
     B-96-003).
EPA-821-B-05-001
5-1
March 2006

-------
                                        Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?
What effluent limitations will be
included in my NPDES permit?

Your permit will contain technology-based
effluent limitations (based on the amount of
pollutant reduction that can be achieved by
applying pollution control technologies or
practices), water quality-based effluent
limitations (based on the water quality
standards for and the condition of the
receiving water body), or both. It might also
contain additional BMPs, as needed.
  The technology-based limitations or
  requirements in a CAAP permit will be based
  on the ELG, for pollutants covered by the
  ELGs. The permit writers using best
  professional judgment (BPJ) may develop so
  called BPJ limits.

  A water quality-based effluent limitation is
  designed to protect the quality of the
  receiving water by ensuring that state or
  tribal water quality standards are met. In
  cases where a technology-based
  requirement does not sufficiently protect
  water quality, the permit must include
  appropriate water quality-based limits.

  For example, a technology-based standard
  for a CAAP facility might require the
  development of a facility BMP plan that
  includes controlling the discharge of solids.
  At some facilities, additional controls may be
  required to further reduce the discharge of
  phosphorus because of excessive nutrient
  loading in the receiving waterbody that may
  result in exceeding water quality standards.
  For these facilities, a water quality-based
  effluent limitation in the form of numeric
  phosphorus limits, such as seasonally-
  adjusted monthly maximum loads for total
  phosphorus, may be included in the permit to
  reduce the discharge of phosphorus and
  ensure that water quality standards are met.
Effluent limitations for flow-through and
recirculating facilities


As explained in detail in Chapter 2 (Table
2), the ELGs contain specific reporting
     activities and narrative requirements (i.e,
     management practices) for flow-through and
     recirculating facilities that produce at least
     100,000 pounds of aquatic animals annually.
                       Reporting is not required
                       for an INAD or extralabel
                       drug use that has been
                       previously approved by
                       FDA for a different
                       aquatic animal species
                       or diseases if the INAD
                       or extralabel use is at or
                       below the approved
                       dosage and involves
                       similar conditions of use.
The CAAP
ELGs contain
general
reporting
requirements
for the use of
certain types of
drugs. All
CAAP facilities
that are subject
to40CFR451
must notify the permitting authority of the
use of any investigational new animal drug
(INAD) and any extralabel drug use where
the use may lead to a discharge to waters of
the United States. The ELGs also contain
general reporting requirements for failure in
or damage to the structure of an aquatic
animal containment system, resulting in an
unanticipated material discharge of pollutant
to waters of the United States.
     The CAAP ELGs
     contain narrative
     requirements for
     management
     practices for flow-
     through and
     recirculating
     facilities. Under
     these
     requirements, you
     must develop and
     maintain a BMP
     plan on site that
     describes how you
     following:
                     Facilities should note
                     that the management
                     practices are general
                     (e.g., solids control)
                     and a facility may
                     choose how to achieve
                     the management
                     practice. For example,
                     solids control can be
                     achieved through feed
                     management or solids
                     disposal. EPA does
                     not specify what a
                     facility must do to
                     achieve solids control.
                                                                   will manage the
        •   Solids control
        •   Material storage
        •   Structural maintenance
EPA-821-B-05-001
5-2
                                 March 2006

-------
                                       Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?
   •   Record-keeping
   •   Training

j£S Final Preamble: Section VIII.B

Effluent limitations for net pen facilities
                  Again, reporting is not
                  required for an INAD or
                  extralabel drug use that
                  has been previously
                  approved by FDA for a
                  different aquatic animal
                  species or diseases if the
                  INAD or extralabel use is
                  at or below the approved
                  dosage and involves
                  similar conditions of use.
As explained in
detail in Table 3
of Chapter 2,
the ELGs
require
management
practices and
record-keeping
activities for net
pen facilities
that produce at
least 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals
annually.

The ELGs contain general reporting
requirements for the use of certain types of
drugs. All CAAP facilities that are subject to
40 CFR 451 must notify the permitting
authority of the use of any INAD and any
extralabel drug use where the use may lead
to a discharge to  waters of the United States.
The ELGs also contain general reporting
requirements for 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.

The ELGs contain narrative management
practice requirements for net pen facilities.
Under these requirements, you must develop
and maintain a BMP plan on site that
describes how  you will manage the
following:

   •  Feed management
   •  Waste collection and disposal
   •  Transport or harvest discharge
   •  Carcass removal
                                                   •  Material storage
                                                   •  Maintenance
                                                   •  Record-keeping
                                                   •  Training

                                                 S Final Preamble: Section VIII. C
What are special conditions?

Some NPDES permits contain special
conditions that supplement the effluent
limitations. Special conditions address
unique conditions at an operation. Typical
special conditions include, for example,
BMPs, special monitoring studies, and
stream surveys.
                                               What special conditions will be
                                               included in my CAAP NPDES permit?

                                               The ELGs do not impose any special
                                               conditions in your CAAP NPDES permit.
                                               However, your permit may contain special
                                               conditions to address local concerns. For
                                               example, where authorized, net pen facilities
                                               may be required to perform regular benthic
                                               monitoring to ensure that solids are not
                                               accumulating under the net pens and causing
                                               harm to benthic communities. Other
                                               additional requirements may address spills
                                               (e.g., petroleum), protection for endangered
                                               species and migratory birds, employee
                                               training, and groundwater monitoring or the
                                               use of liners in areas where there is the
                                               potential for a discharge to groundwater that
                                               has a direct hydrologic connection to waters
                                               of the United States. In addition, states
                                               concerned with groundwaters as waters of
                                               the state may require monitoring, liners, or
                                               other requirements based on appropriate
                                               state authority.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           5-3
                               March 2006

-------
                                      Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?
What are the standard conditions of
all NPDES permits?

Most NPDES permits contain standard
conditions, which include definitions, testing
procedures, record-keeping requirements,
penalties for noncompliance, and your
responsibilities as an NPDES permit holder.
These responsibilities include,  for example,
complying with your permit, meeting
deadlines for reapplying when  your permit is
due to expire, properly operating and
maintaining your facility, and letting the
permitting authority inspect your operation.
The standard conditions also require you to
notify your permitting authority if certain
things happen at your operation (e.g., a
significant increase in annual production or
an upset occurs). See Chapter 4 of this guide
for additional information. Carefully read
the standard conditions section of your
NPDES permit, and contact your permitting
authority if you have any questions.

j£S Regulation: 40 CFR. 122.41
        •  Feed amounts and estimates of the
           numbers and weights of aquatic
           animals in order to calculate
           representative feed conversion ratios.
           Frequency of cleaning, inspections,
           maintenance, and repairs.
        •  Net pen changes, inspections, and

           repairs.
    Refer to Appendix R for a checklist of
    record-keeping requirements. Chapter 12 of
    this document ("Record-keeping for Flow-
    through, Recirculating, and Net Pen
    Facilities") provides a more detailed
    discussion of record-keeping and refers to
    example forms in the appendices that may
    be used for record-keeping.

    £^ Final Preamble: VIII.E
What records do I  have to keep?

Your NPDES permit will require you to
keep certain records to show that you are
complying with the terms of the permit. You
must keep all the records on-site at your
operation for 5 years and you must provide
them to the permitting authority upon
request.

What are the record-keeping
requirements for all CAAPs, under the
ELGs?

If you own or operate a flow-through,
recirculating, or net pen system that
produces 100,000 pounds or more each year,
you must keep at least the following records
that document:
    What monitoring do I have to perform
    under my NPDES permit?

    The monitoring that your permitting
    authority may require as part of your permit
    depends on other conditions in your permit.
    If you are subject to ELGs, there are some
    associated monitoring requirements, as
    discussed below. If your permit includes
    numeric effluent limitations, you will be
    required to monitor to demonstrate
    compliance with those limitations. Your
    permitting authority may also require
    monitoring to characterize your discharge
    even when your permit does not include
    numeric effluent limitations. Look carefully
    at your permit, particularly the effluent
    limitations section, special conditions, and
    monitoring requirements section, to find out
    what monitoring you have to perform.
EPA-821-B-05-001
5-4
March 2006

-------
                                      Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?
What monitoring do I have to perform
under the ELGs?

Under the ELGs, you must monitor your
production systems and waste water
treatment systems for damage to structural
components. More specifically, you must do
the following:

   •   Routinely inspect production
       systems and wastewater treatment
       systems to identify and promptly
       repair damage.  [FT"

   •   Routinely inspect production
       systems to identify and promptly
       repair damage.
Example forms for tracking inspections are
available in Appendix P.
   Final Preamble: VIII. D
What do I have to report to the
permitting authority?

Your permit may require you to submit
certain reports to your permitting authority,
such as a monitoring report; an annual
report; or special reports of discharges,
changes to your operation, and other
information, such as the use of certain drugs
through INADs or extralabel prescriptions.
Read your permit carefully, and contact your
permitting authority to find out exactly what
you must report.

Chapter 12 of this document provides a list
of example forms and logs available in the
appendices that may be used to report
required information to your permitting
authority or for record-keeping.

ea Final Preamble: VIII.D
    What else do I have to report?

    The standard conditions that apply to all
    NPDES permits (refer to Chapter 4 of this
    guide for additional information) also
    include the following reporting
    requirements:
           Duty to provide information.
           must provide any information your
           permitting authority needs to find out
           if you are complying with your
           NPDES permit or to make changes
           to your permit.
           Signatory and certification
           requirements. Any applications,
           reports, or information you submit
           must be signed and certified. The
           certification must state that all the
           information you submit is true and
           complete to the best of your
           knowledge. There might be penalties
           if you knowingly submit false
           information.
           Planned changes. If you plan to
           make any changes to your CAAP
           facility that will affect your ability to
           comply with your NPDES permit,
           you have to notify your permitting
           authority as soon as possible.
           Anticipated noncompliance. You
           must notify your permitting  authority
           if you know that something is going
           to happen at your facility that would
           cause you to be out of compliance
           with your NPDES permit. Failing to
           do so could result in penalties.
           Twenty-four-hour reporting. If you
           have a discharge (or other
           noncompliance event) at your CAAP
           facility that could endanger human
           health or the environment, you must
           report it orally within 24 hours.
           Within 5 days, you must submit a
           written statement describing the
           discharge or noncompliance. Your
EPA-821-B-05-001
5-5
March 2006

-------
                                       Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?
       description must include what caused
       the discharge, when it started, how
       long it lasted, what you did to stop
       the discharge, and how you will
       prevent the problem in the future.
   •   Other noncompliance. You must
       report all instances of
       noncompliance. Each report must
       contain the information described
       above for twenty-four hour
       reporting.
   •   Other information. If you find out
       that you failed to submit any
       important facts in your application,
       or that you submitted incorrect
       information in your application or
       other reports, you must submit the
       correct information right away.

ESi Regulation: 40 CFR 122.41 (h), (k), and (l)(l),
(2), (6), (7), and (8)
    A TMDL is a calculation of the greatest
    amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can
    receive without exceeding water quality
    standards. It is the sum of the allowable
    loads of a single pollutant from all
    contributing point and nonpoint sources. The
    calculation must include a margin of safety to
    ensure that the waterbody can be used for
    the purposes the state has designated. The
    calculation must also account for seasonal
    variation in water quality. Additional
    information about TMDLs is available from
    EPA's TMDL website at
    http://www.epa.qov/owow/tmdl.
What other requirements might my
permit contain?

Your NPDES permit might also contain
requirements to address other
considerations, such as considerations to
implement requirements under the CWA
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
programs. Check with your permitting
authority if you have any questions about
these other requirements.
EPA-821-B-05-001
5-6
March 2006

-------
             Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Chapter 6:  General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through,
Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
EPA established general reporting
requirements for the use of certain types of
drugs (i.e., Investigational New Animal
Drugs (INADs), extralabel prescriptions).
EPA also established general reporting
requirements for failure in or damage to the
structure of an aquatic animal containment
system, resulting in an unanticipated
material discharge of pollutant to waters of
the United States.
What is an INAD drug?

An INAD is 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. 360bG). More specifically, INADs
are those drugs for which FDA has
authorized use on a case-by-case basis to
allow a way of gathering data for the
approval process. Quantities and conditions
of use are specified. FDA, however,
sometimes relies on the NPDES permitting
process to establish limitations on pollutant
discharges to prevent environmental harm.
Most NPDES permits, which mention drugs
and pesticides, to date have required only
reporting of the use of drugs and pesticides.

FDA may grant INAD exemptions from
approved use for establishing data to base
drug approval. Through the investigative
approval process, the sponsor agrees to
conduct laboratory and field tests with the
drug under the conditions and on the
animals proposed for approval. These data
are collected in the INAD and eventually
submitted to a new animal drug application
(NADA) to form the basis for the Center for
Veterinary Medicine's (CVM's) approval or
disapproval of the drug. Data collection for
     the drug approval includes data on the
     observed or anticipated environmental
     effects associated with the drug's use. In the
     case of drugs used on aquatic animals the
     most significant environmental effect
     associated with the drug's usage is the effect
     on the aquatic environment.
     What is extralabel use of a drug?

     Extralabel use is when a drug is not used
     according to label requirements. Extralabel
     drug use is restricted to use of approved
     animal and human drugs by, or on the order
     of, a licensed veterinarian and must be
     within the context of a valid veterinarian-
     patient relationship.

     An example of an extralabel use is injecting
     erythromycin into adult fish to treat bacterial
     infections. Since there are no current labeled
     uses of erythromycin in aquatic animals, this
     use would require a veterinarian to provide
     an extralabel prescription. Note, although
     erythromycin is under an INAD exemption
     to control bacterial kidney disease in
     salmonids, any uses other than those
     associated with the INAD study are only
     allowed as an extralabel use.
      Your veterinarian prescribes oxytetracycline
      (Terramycin) medicated feed at a dose of 3.0 g
      of drug per 100 Ib of feed for your yellow perch
      (grown in a flow-though system) that have
      been diagnosed with Aeromonas liquefaciens.
      Since Terramycin is approved for as a feed
      additive to treat salmonids and catfish for
      Aeromonas liquefaciens, when used according
      to the veterinarian's prescribed instructions,
      you do not have to report the use. Remember,
      you still are required to keep records of the
      treatment conditions as a requirement of the
      extralabel provisions developed by FDA.
EPA-821-B-05-001
6-1
March 2006

-------
             Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
What am I required to do if I use an
INAD drug?
                INAD Reporting Exemption

                Remember: you do not
                need to report an INAD use
                of a drug previously
                approved by FDA for a
                different aquatic animal
                species or disease if:

                 •   The dosage of the
                     drug is used at less
                     than or equal to the
                     approved dosage and
                 •   The use is done under
                     similar conditions.
Unless you
are exempt,
under the
general
reporting
requirements
, you must
first report
your
intention to
use INAD(s).
You 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.
   •   Dosage.
   •   Disease or condition the INAD is
       intended to treat.

Second, you must provide the permitting
authority with an oral report that you are
using INAD(s). You 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.
   •   Method of application.
   •   Reason for using the drug.

Finally, you must also provide a written
report to your permitting authority that you
are using INAD(s). You must provide a
written report to the permitting authority
within 30 days after initiating use of the
drug. The written report must identify the:

   •  Drugs used.
   •  Reason for treatment.
   •  Date(s) and time(s) of the addition
       (including duration).
   •  Method of application.
   •  Amount added.
  If using an INAD drug, you must provide
  the following to your permitting authority:

   1.  A written report within 7 days of
       agreeing to use an INAD.
   2.  An oral report no later than 7 days of
       initiating use of the drug.
   3.  A written report within 30 days after
       initiating use of the drug.
                                                Refer to Appendix M for example forms that
                                                may be used to submit this information to
                                                your permitting authority.

                                                j£S Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3
                                                What am I required to do if there is
                                                extralabel drug use at my CAAP
                                                facility?
                                                                  Extralabel Drug Use
                                                                 Reporting Exemption

                                                               Remember: you do not
                                                               need to report an extralabel
                                                               use of a drug previously
                                                               approved by FDA for a
                                                               different aquatic animal
                                                               species or disease if:

                                                                •   The dosage of the
                                                                    drug is used at less
                                                                    than or equal to the
                                                                    approved dosage and
                                                                •   The use is done under
                                                                    similar conditions
Unless you
are exempt,
you must
provide the
permitting
authority
with an oral
report of
extralabel
drug use.
You must
provide an
oral report
to the
permitting authority as soon as possible
(preferably in advance of use), but no later
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           6-2
                                March 2006

-------
             Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
than 7 days after initiating use of the drug.
The oral report must identify the:

    •   Drugs used.
    •   Method of application.
    •   Reason for using the drug.

You must also provide a written report to
your permitting authority of extralabel drug
use. You must provide a written report to the
permitting authority within 30 days after
initiating use of the drug. The written report
must identify the:

    •   Drugs used.
    •   Reason for treatment.
    •   Date(s) and time(s) of the addition
       (including duration).
    •   Method of application.
    •   Amount added.
  With extralabel drug use, you must
  provide the following to your permitting
  authority:

     1.  An oral report no later than 7
        days of initiating use of the drug.
     2.  A written report within 30 days
        after initiating use of the  drug.
Refer to Appendix M for example forms that
may be used to submit this information to
your permitting authority.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3
What am I required to do if there is a
failure in, or damage to, the structure
of an aquatic animal containment
system?

You will need to notify your permitting
authority if:

    •  There is 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 and/or
            If there is a spill of drugs, pesticides,
            or feed that results in a discharge to
            waters of the United States.
      Upon discovery of a structural failure or
      damage to a containment system or
      spill of drugs, pesticides, or feed, you
      must provide the following to your
      permitting authority:

          1.  An oral report within 24 hours of
             discovery.
          2.  A written report within 7 days of
             discovery.
     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.

     You must provide an oral report to your
     permitting authority within 24 hours of the
     discovery of any reportable failure or
     damage that results in a material discharge
     of pollutants. This report must:

        •   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.

     You must also provide a written report to
     your permitting authority within 7 days
     structural failure or damage. This report
     must:

        •   Document the cause of the failure or
            damage.
EPA-821-B-05-001
6-3
March 2006

-------
             Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities


    •   Estimate the time elapsed until the
       failure or damage was repaired.
    •   Estimate the materials released to the
       environment as a result of the failure
       or damage.
    •   Describe steps being taken to prevent
       recurrence.

In the event of a spill of drugs, pesticides or
feed that results in a discharge to waters of
the United States, you must provide an oral
report of the spill to your permitting
authority within 24 hours of occurrence and
a written report in 7 days. The report must
include:


    •   The identity of the material.
    •   The quantity spilled.

Refer to Appendix M for example forms that
may be used to submit information about
failure or damage to the structure of
containment systems and spills of drugs,
pesticides, or feed to your permitting
authority.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3
  Examples of Information to Include When
  Reporting Structural Failure

   •   Cause of the structural failure - storm
       broke a hole in 2 nets; raceway
       screens clogged and caused overflow.
   •   Time that elapsed until the failure was
       repaired - 2 hours until the nets were
       repaired; 30 minutes until the screen
       was unclogged.
   •   Amount and composition of the spill -
       2 tons of feed were washed overboard
       in heavy seas; 1,200 1.8 pound
       steelhead escaped; or 150 pounds of
       medicated feed containing Terramycin
       (0.55% oxytetracycline) spilled into a
       raceway and discharged.
   •   Steps being taken to prevent
       recurrence: routinely inspect and
       perform maintenance on nets; clean
       screens regularly to prevent clogging.
EPA-821-B-05-001
6-4
March 2006

-------
                   Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Chapter 7:  Narrative Requirements for Flow-through,
Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
EPA established narrative requirements for
flow-through, recirculating, and net pen
CAAP facilities. Under the requirements for
flow-through and recirculating facilities, you
must develop and maintain a BMP plan on
site that describes how you will achieve the
following requirements:

    •   Solids control
    •   Material storage
    •   Structural maintenance
    •   Record-keeping
    •   Training

The plan must be made available to your
permitting authority upon request.  You
must also certify that a BMP plan has been
developed. Guidance on developing and
certifying a BMP plan is available in
Chapter 8 of this document. An example
form for certifying your BMP plan is
available in Appendix F.

Under the narrative requirements for net pen
facilities, you must develop and maintain a
BMP plan on site that describes how you
will achieve the following requirements:

    •   Feed management
    •   Waste collection and disposal
    •   Transport or harvest discharge
    •   Carcass removal
    •   Material storage
    •   Maintenance
    •   Record-keeping
    •   Training

The plan must be made available to your
permitting authority upon request. You must
also certify that a BMP plan has been
     developed. Guidance on developing and
     certifying a BMP plan is available in
     Chapter 8 of this guidance. An example
     form for certifying your BMP plan is
     available in Appendix F.
     What is required for solids control?

     The following is required for solids control
     for flow-through and recirculating facilities:
           Use 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.
           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 your permitting
           authority in order to benefit the
           aquatic environment.
EPA-821-B-05-001
7-1
March 2006

-------
                    Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
                                                Specific guidance for achieving materials
                                                storage is available from Chapter 10 of this
                                                guidance. An example log for tracking spills
                                                and leaks is available in Appendix O.

                                                £^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(b) and 451.21' (e)
Figure 7.1. Cleaning out a raceway


Specific guidance for achieving solids
control is available from Chapter 9 of this
document. An example log for tracking and
calculating feed conversion ratios is
available in Appendix N.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11 (a)
What is required for materials
storage?

The following is required for materials
storage for flow-through, recirculating, and
net pen facilities:
[FT
       Ensure proper storage of drugs,
       pesticides, and feed in a manner
       designed to prevent spills that may
       result in the discharge to waters of
       the United States.
       Implement procedures for properly
       containing, cleaning, and disposing
       of any spilled materials.
     Figure 7.2. Storage container for an INAD drug
     What is required for maintenance?

     The following is required for structural
     maintenance for flow-through and
     recirculating facilities: [FT~
        •   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.

     The following is required for maintenance
     for net pen facilities:
                                                    •   Routinely inspect production
                                                       systems to identify and promptly
                                                       repair damage.
EPA-821-B-05-001
7-2
March 2006

-------
                    Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
   •   Regularly conduct maintenance of
       production systems to ensure their
       proper function.

Specific guidance for achieving maintenance
is available from Chapter 11 of this
document. Example inspection and
maintenance logs for performing
maintenance are available in Appendix P.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11 (c) and 451.21$
What is required for record-keeping?

The following is required for record-
keeping:

   •   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.

              I/

   •   Keep records documenting net pen
       changes, inspections, and repairs.
Specific guidance for record-keeping is
available from Chapter 12 of this guidance.
A checklist of the record-keeping
requirements of the CAAP ELGs is
available in Appendix R. An example log
for tracking cleaning of production systems
and/or wastewater treatment systems is
available in Appendix Q.
£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(d) and 451.21 (g)
     What is required for training?

     The following is required for training:

        •  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, frf


           Train personnel on proper operation
           and cleaning of production systems,
           including feeding procedures and
           equipment.
     Specific guidance for training is available
     from Chapter 13 of this document. An
     example log for tracking training of
     employees is available in Appendix S.

     £^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(e) and 451.21 (h)
     What is required for feed
     management?
     The following is required for feed
     management for net pen facilities: NET
           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
EPA-821-B-05-001
7-3
March 2006

-------
                    Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
       strategies approved by your
       permitting authority.

Specific guidance for feed management is
available from Chapter 14 of this guidance.
An example log for tracking and calculating
feed conversion ratios is available in
Appendix N.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21 (a)
What are additional requirements for
net pens?

The following requirements apply to net pen
facilities:
    •   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 waters of the United
       States.

Specific guidance related to the above net
pen requirements is available from Chapter
15 of this document.  An example log for
tracking carcass removal and disposal is
available in Appendix T.

ea Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21 (b), (c), (d)
EPA-821-B-05-001                             7-4                                  March 2006

-------
                                                     Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan
Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan
A BMP is a means of controlling and
reducing pollutant discharges other than
those that rely on mechanic/physical or
chemical systems. BMPs include schedules
of activities, prohibition of action,
maintenance and management procedures,
and other treatment and operating
requirements. These practices may be in
addition to or separate from physical
treatment systems.	
                  Publicly supported
                  aquaculture extension
                  specialists, fact sheets,
                  and reports are available
                  to assist with developing
                  BMP plans. These
                  resources can help
                  assure that the
                  production practices,
                  design parameters, and
                  equipment will achieve
                  the environmental
                  protection goals being
                  addressed.
Based on the
CAAP
regulation,
facility
operators must
design BMP
plans to include
a series of
practices such
as feed
management,
feed monitoring,
solids control, and material storage. BMP
plans are flexible and allow facility
operators to design measures and practices
that work within their facility management
framework.

In the context of the CAAP ELGs, the BMP
plan must include components that are
designed to minimize the discharge of solids
from the facility. The goal of the plan is to
control conventional and nutrient pollutants
in the discharge.

The CAAP facility is expected to provide
written documentation of a BMP plan and
keep necessary records to demonstrate the
implementation of the plan. This type of
regulatory structure allows individual
                                               facilities to develop a plan tailored to the
                                               unique conditions of the CAAP facility,
                                               while reducing the discharge of pollutants
                                               consistent with the goals of the CWA.
What is the goal of a BMP plan?

The goal of a BMP plan, as stated under the
narrative requirements of the ELGs, is to
describe the standard operating procedures
and BMPs used to control solids, store
materials, maintain the aquatic animal
containment structures, perform record-
keeping, train employees, monitor feeding,
collect and dispose of waste,  address
transport or harvest discharge, and remove
dead aquatic animals.
How do I write a BMP plan?

Your plan should describe how you will
comply with each required element of the
regulations. It should incorporate the
following components, depending  on the
type(s) of system at your facility:

Solids  Control

For your flow-through and/or recirculating
systems,  describe in detail how you will:
                                                   •  Perform efficient feed management
                                                      to limit feed input to the minimum
                                                      amount reasonably necessary to
                                                      achieve production goals and sustain
                                                      targeted rates of aquatic animal
                                                      growth.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           8-1
                               March 2006

-------
                                                      Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan
• Identify and
implement
procedures
for routine
cleaning of
rearine units

As part of your
BMP plan, you
should define the
term "routine,"
which can vary
during the year.
suggestions for ensuring proper storage or
drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills.
Maintenance
For vniir flnw-thrniicrh anH/nr re r,irr,ii latino
       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 your permitting
       authority in order to benefit the
       aquatic environment).
£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11 (a)

Material Storage

For your flow-through, recirculating and/or
net pen systems, describe in detail how you
will:
    •   Ensure proper storage of drugs,
       pesticides, and feed to prevent spills
       that may result in the discharge to
       waters of the United States.
    •   Implement procedures for properly
       containing, cleaning, and disposing
       of any spilled materials.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(b) and451.21(e)

Refer to the EPA Office of Pesticides
website on Pesticide Storage Resources
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/st
orage_resources.htm) or ISA's Guide to
Drug, Vaccine,  and Pesticide Use in
Aquaculture at
(http: //aquani c. org/j sa/wgqaap/druggui de/dr
ugguide.htm) for useful information or
     systems, describe in detail how you will:
           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.
     For your net pen
     systems, describe in
     detail how you will:
                          As part of your
                          BMP plan, you
                          should define the
                          terms "routinely"
                          and "regularly,"
                          which can vary
                          during the year.
       Routinely
       inspect production systems to
       identify and promptly repair damage.
    •   Regularly conduct maintenance of
       production systems to ensure their
       proper function.

ea Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(c) and 451.21(f)

Record-keeping

For your flow-through and/or recirculating
systems, describe in detail how you will:
           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.
EPA-821-B-05-001
8-2
                                March 2006

-------
                                                     Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan
   •   Keep records documenting
       frequency of cleaning, inspections,
       maintenance, and repairs.

For your net pen systems, describe in detail
how you will: [j^T
   •   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 net pen
       changes, inspections, and repairs.

ea Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(d) and 451.21 (g)

Training

For your flow-through and/or recirculating
systems, describe in detail how you will:
   •   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.

For your net pen systems, describe in detail
how you will:
   •   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 systems,
       including feeding procedures and
       equipment.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11 (e) and 451.21 (h)

Feed Management

For your net pen systems, describe in detail
how you will:
   •   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 your
       permitting authority.

Documenting efficient feed management for
EPA can be accomplished by describing the
following:

   •   Feed methods used to minimize
       solids production.
   •   Modifications made to feed
       quantities as fish production changes
       (e.g., size, health offish).
   •   Feed handling  methods used to
       reduce generation of fines.
   •   Feed formulations information for
       each life-history stage offish reared.

j£S Regulation:  40 CFR 451.21 (a)

Waste Collection and Disposal

For your net pen systems, describe in detail
how you will:
EPA-821-B-05-001
                               March 2006

-------
                                                     Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan
   •   Collect, return to shore, and properly
       dispose of all feed bags, packaging
       materials, waste rope, and netting.

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21 (b)

Transport or Harvest Discharge

For your net pen systems, describe in detail
how you will:
   •   Minimize any discharge associated
       with the transport or harvesting of
       aquatic animals (including blood,
       viscera,  aquatic animal carcasses, or
       transport water containing blood).

£^ Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21 (c)

Carcass Removal

For your net pen systems, describe in detail
how you will: U:T
   •   Remove and dispose of aquatic
       animal mortalities properly on a
       regular basis to prevent their
       discharge into waters of the United
       States.
ESi Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21 (d)

Other Information

Including a diagram or map of the facility to
illustrate the layout of the operation may be
helpful to your permitting authority. Also
include a statement certifying that the
facility manager and the individuals
responsible for implementing the BMP plan
have reviewed and endorsed the plan.

A template for developing your BMP plan is
available in Appendix E. A sample BMP
plan and a checklist of components to
     include in your BMP plan are also available
     in Appendix E.
     How do I certify my BMP plan?

     Send a signed letter to your permitting
     authority, stating that you have developed a
     BMP plan. You will need to send a letter
     every time your permit is renewed. The
     BMP certification form should include your
     name and title, name of the facility, NPDES
     number, and date the BMP plan was
     developed. An example certification form
     that may be submitted to your permitting
     authority is available in Appendix F.

     If you have any questions about certifying
     your BMP plan, be sure to check with your
     permitting authority.
EPA-821-B-05-001
8-4
March 2006

-------
                                  Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
Chapter 9:  Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating
Facilities
The ELGs regulations require facilities to
implement solids control BMPs, which are
intended to allow facilities to develop
regional or site-specific operational
measures to control the discharge of solids
and other materials. The narrative BMP
requirements also allow facilities and permit
writers to respond to state programs that are
currently working well. Some examples of
solids control management practices
include a combination of any and/or all of
the following:

   •   Feed management
   •   Solids management
   •   Solids disposal
   •   Solids storage
   •   Mortality removal and disposal
Feed Management

Feed is effectively the only major source of
aquaculture-derived nutrients, such as
nitrogen and phosphorus, and solids in flow-
through systems. Optimizing feed
management by using high quality feeds and
minimizing feed waste can reduce the
nutrients and solids generated and released
to the environment. Feed also represents the
largest single variable cost of production and
efficient use of feeds can result in cost
savings. Accurate feeding systems and
appropriate feeding levels are essential for
productivity, economic efficiency, and
protection of the environment.

Relatively short hydraulic residence times
and continuous discharge of water make
feed management an important component
in controlling the amount of nutrients and
     solids discharged from flow-through
     systems.

     For recirculating aquaculture systems, the
     loading of potential pollutants to a receiving
     body of water is not entirely related to feed
     input, but is dependent upon the
     effectiveness of waste capture and treatment
     processes within the recirculating system
     and on any additional effluent treatment
     processes used to clean the water before
     discharge. Minimizing waste feed will
     minimize the wastes that must be treated in
     the recirculating system and ultimately the
     amount of waste released to the
     environment. Feed management is only one
     factor among many in the control of
     potential pollution from recirculating
     aquaculture systems.

     Examples of Feed Management Practices

     1. Use high quality feeds and seek to
     minimize nutrient and solids discharges
     through optimization of feed formulation (in
     cooperation with feed manufacturers)
     Feeds should be formulated to meet the
     nutritional requirements of the cultured
     species and for optimum feed conversion
     ratios and retention of protein (nitrogen) and
     phosphorus. Feeds should be formulated
     using ingredients that have high dry matter
     and protein apparent digestibility
     coefficients. Formulations should be
     designed to enhance nitrogen and
     phosphorus retention efficiency, and reduce
     metabolic waste output. Feeds should
     contain sufficient dietary energy to spare
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-1
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
dietary protein (amino acids) for tissue
synthesis. Available phosphorus levels
should be slightly in excess of the dietary
requirements of the species for each life-
history stage. Efforts should be made in feed
formulation to keep total phosphorus levels
as low as possible while maintaining
appropriate available phosphorus levels.
Consult a qualified aquatic animal
nutritionist or feed manufacturer for
information regarding feed formulation.

When facility operators evaluate feed
formulations, they should consider
numerous factors including, pellet stability,
digestibility, palatability, sinking rates,
energy levels, moisture content, ingredient
quality and the nutritional requirements of
the species being grown.  Feeds should be
formulated and manufactured using high-
quality ingredients.

Pelleted feeds should be stable in water for
sufficient time so the pellets remain intact
until eaten. Feeds should be manufactured,
stored, shipped, and handled at the farm so
they contain a minimum amount of fine
particles.

In the case of feeds used in recirculating
systems, minimizing metabolic excretion of
nitrogen from amino acids catabolized to
provide metabolic energy, and minimizing
nitrogen excretion in feces from indigestible
protein is the top priority in feed
formulation. Therefore high quality feeds for
recirculating systems should have balanced
amino acid profiles, e.g., profiles that meet
but do not substantially exceed dietary
requirements for individual essential  amino
acids, and contain sufficient dietary energy
from carbohydrates and lipids to "spare"
dietary protein for tissue synthesis.

2) Use efficient feeding practices
     In flow-through and recirculating systems,
     feed can be delivered by hand, automatic
     feeders, demand feeders, or by mechanical
     feeders. Regardless of the delivery method
     or system, the amount of feed offered should
     optimize balance between growth goals and
     feed efficiency.
     Figure 9.1. Demand feeder
     The appropriate quantity of feed for a given
     species is influenced by feed formulation,
     fish size, water temperature, dissolved
     oxygen levels, carbon dioxide
     concentrations, health status, and
     management goals. Feed particle size should
     be appropriate for the  size offish in each
     rearing unit. Whenever possible, feed
     utilization should be monitored by observing
     feeding behavior or by looking for trends in
     waste feed collecting within the culture unit
     or waste feed exiting the culture unit.
                                                 Figure 9.2. Feed truck
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-2
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
Multiple feeding periods distributed over a
24-hour period will provide more uniform
water quality within a recirculating system
than a feeding schedule only offering feed
once or twice daily.
3) Calculate feed conversion ratios by using
feed and fish biomass inventory tracking
systems [FT"


Calculation of feed conversion ratios is an
essential function on all aquatic animal
farms. Monitoring long- and short-term
changes in feed conversion ratios allows
farmers to quickly identify significant
changes in feed consumption and waste
production rates.

4) Manage within the carrying capacity of
the production system [FT   1 RAS


Flowing water carries dissolved oxygen to
the culture units, receives the waste
produced in the culture unit, and carries
these wastes away from the culture unit  to
treatment units before the wastes can
accumulate to harmful and undesirable
levels. Dissolved oxygen is usually the first
water quality parameter to limit culture tank
carrying capacity, which, in simplistic terms,
is the maximum fish biomass that can be
supported at a selected feeding rate. Note
that the culture vessel volume does not
determine carrying capacity unless water
flow is in excess of all other water quality
based carrying capacity  requirements.

Impaired  water quality due to high loading
and excessively high feeding rates stresses
fish and reduces feed efficiency and
production. High loading and high feeding
rates also lead to higher levels of nutrients
and solids in the effluent. Loading and
     feeding rates within the carrying capacity of
     the production system are more efficient,
     and minimize the discharge of pollutants.

     In flow-through systems, carrying capacity
     is determined by incoming water quality and
     quantity, production goals, facility design,
     site characteristics, and species cultured. As
     such, there is no single carrying capacity
     value applicable to flow-through  systems
     and carrying capacity will vary within and
     between facilities.

     Recirculating systems, by definition, treat
     and reuse large portions of the system make-
     up water flow. Therefore, the water flow
     requirements through the culture units
     within a recirculating system can be much
     greater than the make-up water flow
     requirements that flush the system. Of
     primary importance is the removal of the
     waste metabolites: ammonia, carbon
     dioxide, and total suspended solids (TSS),
     whose production is directly proportional to
     feed load.

     Biofilters, aeration columns, and
     filters/clarifiers are unit processes used to
     control ammonia, carbon dioxide and TSS
     accumulations within recirculating systems.
     Aquacultural engineering texts and many
     other publications provide the methodology
     to design biofilters, aeration columns, and
     filters/clarifiers to treat a given flow or the
     waste metabolites produced by a given
     feeding rate. However, when a unit
     treatment process (e.g.,  biofilter or aeration
     column) is designed, the designer should
     provide the expected water quality exiting a
     culture tank within a recirculating system to
     help ensure that the design will provide safe
     water quality for the fish when reared at
     maximum carrying capacity, i.e.,  feed
     loading. Operators of recirculating systems
     should feed at rates that do not exceed the
     maximum carrying capacity of the system.
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-3
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
5) Properly store feed'[FT~


Feed storage areas should be secure from
contamination, vermin, moisture and
excessive heat. Long term storage of feed
can affect feed quality. Feed should be
rotated (use oldest feed first) and not stored
beyond the manufacturer's recommended
use date. If feed can no longer be used
because of spoilage or it has exceeded the
manufacturer's recommendations for
storage, the unusable feed should be
properly disposed to prevent water quality
impacts.

Care should be taken during feed handling
to minimize pellet damage or crushing and
reduce the creation of fine feed particles that
cannot be utilized by the fish.

6) Check feeding equipment to ensure
efficient operation [FT~


Improperly adjusted or malfunctioning
feeding equipment can over-feed or under-
feed fish and reduce feed and production
efficiency.

7) Conduct employee training in fish
husbandry and feeding methods to ensure
that workers have adequate training to
optimize feed conversion ratios [FT~
Solids Management

Fish fecal matter and waste feed are the
major constituents of total suspended solids
from culture practices in flow-through
systems. Solids allowed to settle in rearing
units degrade water quality and may irritate
fish gills leading to disease. Solids can
impact the aquatic environment and should
     be thoroughly collected prior to wastewater
     discharge.

     Flow-through system effluent is
     characterized as high volume with low
     solids concentration. This effluent
     characteristic generally limits practical and
     economical solids management to the
     capture and removal of solids using settling
     basins. Solids found in flow-through
     systems readily settle and can be managed
     with practices that rely on gravitational
     settling before water is discharged. Practices
     that increase solid particle fragmentation
     decrease settling efficiency. These particles
     are much smaller and have poor settling
     characteristics. Fish grading, harvesting, and
     other activities within raceways or ponds
     should be conducted in a manner that
     minimizes the disturbance and possible
     discharge of accumulated solids. In  rare
     situations, high levels of TSS in source
     water may warrant pretreatment systems,
     such as settling basins, to improve source
     water quality for fish culture.

     Waste feed and fish fecal matter are
     waterborne and require separation for
     efficient management of water quality
     within the recirculating system. The solids
     treatment processes in a recirculating system
     remove a portion of the feed derived waste
     solids in the recirculating water. Higher
     solids removal efficiencies result in cleaner
     water within the recirculating system.

     The paniculate wastes discharged from the
     recirculating system are contained in either a
     small but concentrated flow (such as the
     intermittent backwash from a solids capture
     unit) and/or in a more continuous flow of
     displaced water (such as an overtopping
     flow from a pump sump that is water that
     has been displaced by make-up water
     addition) that has a concentration of solids
     similar to that found in the fish culture
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-4
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
tanks. Not all recirculating systems will
have an overtopping flow, depending upon
their make-up water requirements. When the
solids are discharged, as with backwashing
water, the concentration of solids is typically
relatively high. However, if an overtopping
flow is discharged from the system, it will
be relatively small in volume compared to
the discharge from a flow-through system.

Solids can impact the aquatic environment
and should be collected as much as possible
prior to wastewater discharge. Therefore,
nearly all flow-through and recirculating
aquaculture systems use some form of solids
treatment and/or disposal to remove the
concentrated slurry  of captured biosolids. In
some cases, it may also be necessary to treat
the more dilute but relatively larger volume
system overflow before this flow is
discharged. As an alternate to on site
treatment, either of these waste flows could
be discharged to a POTW.

Examples of Solids Management
Practices

1) Design and operate rearing units for
efficient and rapid capture of solids from the
water column, incorporating fish-free
settling basins where practical [FT~
Linear rearing units designed to promote
plug flow and sufficient water velocity to
prevent the settling of solids within the
rearing unit allow the efficient capture of
solids using quiescent zones or other settling
basins. Proper facility design and
construction can be an economical means of
managing solids through settling in
designated areas, allowing for efficient
removal. Fish should be prevented from
entering quiescent zones and other settling
basins and removed as soon as possible
when found to prevent or alleviate
     resuspension and subsequent discharge of
     solids.

     Circular tanks with properly designed inlets
     and drains can remove the majority of solids
     with minimum labor for further treatment.
     Circular tanks can rapidly concentrate and
     remove settleable solids. Circular tanks are
     designed to promote a primary rotating flow
     that creates a secondary radial flow that
     carries settleable solids to the bottom center
     of the tank, making the tank self-cleaning.
     The self-cleaning attribute of the circular
     tank depends on the overall rate of flow
     leaving the bottom-center drain, the strength
     of the bottom radial flow towards the center
     drain, and the swimming motion offish. The
     factors that affect self-cleaning within
     circular tanks are also influenced by the
     water inlet and outlet design, tank diameter-
     to-depth ratio, water rotational period, size
     and density offish, size and specific gravity
     offish feed and fecal material, and water
     exchange rate.

     2) Remove solids from collection systems in
     a timely fashion [FT1 RAS
                    I—^^/

     Solids should be removed from quiescent
     zones with a frequency sufficient to prevent
     cohesion and limit release of solids-bound
     nutrients. The level of feed application,
     settling basin efficiency, and relative storage
     capacities of the basins will determine the
     removal frequency. For example, quiescent
     zones are typically cleaned at least every
     two weeks during the peak growing seasons.
     However, the frequency of solids removal
     should be determined based on factors such
     as facility discharge compliance limits,
     water quality requirements in the culture
     units, or labor availability.

     The most common method of solids removal
     from quiescent zones is by suction through a
     vacuum head. Usually, a standpipe in each
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-5
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
quiescent zone connects to a common pipe
that carries the slurry to an off-line settling
basin. Suction is provided by head pressure
from raceway water depth and gravity, or
where fall is not available, by pumps. A
flexible hose and swivel joint connects the
vacuum head to the standpipe so the vacuum
can be manipulated to clean the quiescent
zone. There are other methods used to clean
quiescent zones. For example, the standpipe
to the off-line destination may be removed
and the solids can be pushed with a broom
or squeegee device to the suction port.

Settling basins should be cleaned as
frequently as practical. A procedure or
mechanism to remove the dewatered manure
from the thickening device must be
incorporated. Sludge left too long in settling
basins becomes sticky and viscous making
removal more difficult. Sludge accumulation
may degrade water quality as nutrients are
released through bacterial or physical
degradation. Off-line and full-flow settling
basins should be harvested when storage
capacity is reached or as effluent
concentrations near compliance limits.

To clean full-flow and off-line settling
basins the inflow is usually diverted to
another settling basin and the supernatant
from the settling basin decanted. The slurry
is allowed to dry sufficiently for removal by
backhoe, front-end loader, or other
equipment. Or the slurry may be pumped
directly onto  a tank truck or manure
spreader. Other options include pumping the
slurry out of the settling basin without
diverting the  flow, similar to cleaning a
quiescent zone.

3) Remove solids rapidly, but gently
 (FT"
Rapid, effective, and gentle removal of
waste solids within a solids treatment unit is
     the best approach to use when targeting
     optimum water quality. Waste feed and fish
     manure are typically fragile and labile
     organic particles. The longer these particles
     are held within the culture system, the more
     opportunity that dissolution forces such as
     hydraulic shear and micro-organisms will
     have to disintegrate larger particles into
     much finer and more soluble particles. Finer
     particles can more rapidly leach nutrients
     and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)  and
     these components are harder to remove from
     the water column than the original intact
     fecal pellet or waste feed pellet. Thus, if unit
     processes are not installed to remove fresh
     and intact solids rapidly, then solids
     decomposition within aquaculture systems
     can degrade water quality and thus directly
     affect fish health and the performance of
     other unit processes. Products of solid
     decomposition are more  difficult to remove
     from aquacultural effluents.

     Waste solids exiting the rearing tank can  be
     removed from the bulk flow leaving the
     culture tank using a treatment unit such as
     settling basins (e.g.,  full-flow settlers, off-
     line settlers, quiescent zones, inclined [tube
     or plate] settlers, and swirl separators),
     microscreen filters (e.g.,  drum, disk, or belt
     filters), and granular media filters (e.g., bead
     or sand filters). In addition,  ozone and foam
     fractionation are water treatment processes
     that can be used in recirculating systems to
     remove dissolved organic matter.

     Conventional sedimentation and
     microscreen filtration processes are often
     used to remove solids larger than 40-100
     um. However, few processes used in
     aquaculture can remove dissolved solids  or
     fine solids smaller than 20-30  um, although
     granular media filtration has been used to
     remove these fine solids. Depending on the
     particle size distribution  and the
     concentration of solids, conventional
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-6
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
sedimentation and microscreen filtration
processes typically remove anywhere from
30-80% of the solids in the treated flow.

Significant degradation or re-
suspension/flotation of the solids matter
should be avoided, but can occur in
treatment units that have relatively
infrequent backwash cycles.  Therefore, the
best solids removal processes remove solids
from the system as soon as possible and
expose solids to the least turbulence,
mechanical shear, or micro-biological
degradation. Note that microscreen filters
and swirl separators (with a continuous
underflow) do not store solids for an
appreciable period, unlike settling basins
and most granular media filters.

Backwash of the solids capture unit will
create an intermittent solids-laden flow that
will require treatment before discharge,
unless discharged to a POTW.

Not all recirculating aquaculture systems
maintain low levels of suspended solids, as
is typically the goal in recirculating systems
used for sensitive species such as trout and
salmon. Some species may tolerate elevated
levels of suspended solids and may actually
consume the algae or micro-organisms
found in these solids. Such is the case for
some recirculating systems used for tilapia
and shrimp. Some recirculating  systems rely
on a combination "green water" or organic
detrital algae soup (ODAS), which is an
algal and activated sludge-type treatment
process, combined with settling basins or
granular media filters to treat the water. In
these instances, the rapid removal of waste
solids is not a goal because the algae and
bacteria growing in situ within the
recirculating systems may rely upon solids
degradation to treat dissolved wastes and
maintain the culture system water quality.
Total suspended solids concentrations in
     these recirculating systems can exceed 150
     mg/L. Thus, the associated waste
     management systems must consider the
     specifics of each recirculating aquaculture
     system in order to successfully achieve
     waste collection, transfer, storage, treatment,
     and utilization.

     4) Frequently remove solids from settling
     basins [FT"
     Settling basins should be cleaned as
     frequently as practical. Fish manure left too
     long in settling basins becomes sticky and
     viscous making removal difficult. Fish
     manure accumulation may degrade water
     quality and can provide a  substrate for
     bacterial growth.

     A procedure or mechanism to remove the
     dewatered manure from the settling basin
     should be incorporated in the BMP plan.

     5) Overflows from solids thickening tanks
     may require additional treatment
     Solids thickening and storage tanks will
     often discharge a supernatant/overflow,
     which will be a relatively small volume
     discharge but one that contains the highest
     concentration of wastes discharged from an
     aquaculture system. Therefore, treating the
     thickening tank overflow can reduce the
     mass load of wastes discharged.  Treatment
     can be relatively simple and inexpensive
     because low effluent volumes must be
     treated. Further removal of soluble BOD and
     ammonia may be required, and can be
     accomplished with properly designed
     aerated basins, aerobic lagoons, created
     wetlands, anaerobic filters, or other suitable
     technologies.  Alternatively, the thickening
     tank overflow could be discharged to a
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-7
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
POTW or reused beneficially for irrigation
or hydroponics.

6) When necessary, remove solids from the
recirculating system's overtopping flow (if
present)  before it is discharged /


Depending upon their make-up water
requirements, some recirculating systems
will have an overtopping flow in addition to
a concentrated backwash flow. The
concentration of solids in the overtopping
flow is typically similar to that found in the
fish culture tanks. Depending upon the
specifics of the recirculating aquaculture
system, the suspended solids in the flow
overtopping this system may require further
treatment. Waste solids can be removed
from the overtopping  flow using a treatment
unit such as settling basins (e.g., full-flow
settlers, inclined [tube or plate] settlers, and
swirl separators), microscreen filters (e.g.,
drum,  disk, or belt filters), granular media
filters  (e.g., bead or sand filters), or
dissolved air flotation systems.
Solids Disposal

Aquaculture solids, primarily consist offish
feces and uneaten feed, contain plant
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and can
often be used as a soil amendment. The
composition of the solids varies among
facilities according to feed formulation(s)
used at the facility, treatment of the solids
inside and out of the culture system, and age
of the solids.

Aquaculture solids are similar to other
animal manures. Some state or local
governments may consider the fish manure
captured in an aquaculture waste
management system an industrial or
municipal waste (i.e., not an agricultural
waste). Check with your local or state
authorities to determine your waste disposal
options.

Examples of Solids Disposal Practices

1) Disposal of solids should comply with all
applicable local and state regulations and
done in a manner that prevents the material
from entering surface or groundwaters
[FT~
 Solids disposal will be a site-specific
 practice, based on factors such as local
 regulations, soil types, topography, land
 availability, climate, and crops grown.
 Disposal options might include land
 application on agricultural lands at
 agronomic rates, storage lagoons,
 composting, and contract hauling.

    a) Land Application - Land application
    of aquacultural solids is the most
    common disposal method. Proper
    application of aquacultural solids
    provides a safe method for solids
    utilization while fertilizing crops and
    amending the soil. Fish manure in liquid
    form may be sprinkler irrigated directly
    onto agricultural land. In slurry form,
    fish manure may be pumped into a tank
    truck or manure spreader and then
    applied to agricultural land. Finished
    compost generated from aquacultural
    solids may also be applied onto
    agricultural land at agronomic rates.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                March 2006

-------
                                  Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
   Figure 9.3. Manure spreader

   b) Evaporation Ponds/Lagoons -
   Manure slurries from aquaculture
   operations may be treated in evaporation
   ponds/lagoons that can thicken and
   stabilize the manure. Evaporation
   ponds/lagoons are effective in arid
   climates only. The stabilized solids can
   then be land applied  or otherwise safely
   disposed.

   c) Composting - Thickened and
   dewatered manure may be composted.
   Composting stabilizes the solids  and
   produces a valuable soil amendment.
   Aerobic static pile composting is the
   most common method for composting
   dewatered manure. Any excess
   supernatant, leachate, or filtrate leftover
   from slurry treatment processes may
   require additional treatment. State and
   local regulations regarding composting
   should be followed.

   d) Contract Hauling - A licensed
   contract hauler can be paid to remove
   the collected solids or thickened  manure.

   e) Reed Drying Beds - Depending on
   location and the local regulations, an
   aquaculture facility may have only
   limited and costly options available for
   disposal of the thickened manure. For
   example, transportation costs may make
        sludge disposal on cropland
        uneconomical.  Disposing of the sludge
        on-site within created wetlands may be
        an attractive alternative.

        A constructed reed drying bed can
        provide on-site treatment of a
        concentrated solids discharge with an
        uncomplicated, low-maintenance, plant-
        based system. Reed drying beds are
        vertical-flow wetland systems that have
        been used over the past 20 years to treat
        thickened sludge (1-7% solids) produced
        in the clarifier underflow at wastewater
        treatment plants and have been recently
        used to treat manure from commercial
        recirculating systems. Thickened
        biosolids are loaded in sequential
        batches onto the reed drying bed every
        7-21 days. Only 2-4 inches of thickened
        biosolids are applied during a given
        application.  The 1-3 week intervals
        between applications of thickened
        biosolids allow for dewatering and
        drying, which is facilitated by the
        vegetation growing on the sand bed.
        Reed beds have been found to have a
        useful lifetime of up to  10 years.

     2) Use solids from earthen flow-through
     systems to repair embankments [FT   |

     Earthen flow-through systems accumulate
     solids in the rearing units during production.
     It is not practical or necessary to remove
     solids during production from earthen
     rearing units. When it is necessary to
     remove solids from earthen rearing units, the
     source water is diverted around or away
     from the rearing units and they are allowed
     to dry. The solids removed can be used to
     repair the embankments and other areas of
     the rearing unit. Solids should not be used to
     repair roads or other facility surfaces
     because the solids could contaminate
     storm water runoff from the facility.
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-9
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
Solids Storage

Concentrated aquaculture solids can be
stored in thickening basins that have been
designed to accommodate the build-up of
solids and hence provide some temporary
solids storage capacity. However, solid-
liquid separation becomes less effective as
sludge accumulates within these basins.
Increasing sludge depths can compromise
settling basin hydraulics and the solids
stored can rapidly ferment leading to solids
flotation and dissolution of nutrients and
organic matter. In some cases, the thickened
sludge from thickening basins is transferred
to large sludge storage structures capable of
holding months of captured and thickened
solids. Facility owners design solids storage
structures to hold the amount of solids that
they anticipate they will collect and hold at
the facility prior to final disposal (e.g., land
application). Facilities located in colder
climates may be required to hold solids for 6
months, while facilities in warmer climates
typically design storage structures to hold
solids for one month. These off-line storage
structures typically have zero overtopping
flow and store their manure slurry contents
until they can be removed for disposal.
Figure 9.4. Above ground manure storage
structure
     Examples of Solids Storage Practices

     1) Store sludge in an appropriate facility or
     container FT
     Sludge storage structures include earthen
     ponds, and aboveground or belowground
     tanks. Earthen ponds are generally
     rectangular basins with inside slopes
     (horizontal :vertical) of 1.5:1 to 3:1.
     Depending on site geology and hydrology,
     earthen ponds can have liners of concrete,
     geomembrane, or clay. Because they are
     uncovered, earthen pond design will include
     the capacity for storage of rain water as well
     as a method for removing solids. In the case
     where solids will be removed via pumping,
     the solids must be agitated to provide a
     uniform consistency. Pond agitation may be
     accomplished with hitch-type propeller
     agitators that are powered by tractors or by
     agitation pumps. Propeller agitators work
     well for large ponds, while chopper-agitator
     pumps work well for smaller ponds. Solids
     removal may also be done with heavy
     equipment, in which case, pond design
     should include ramp access (maximum slope
     of 8: 1) and suitable load capacity in the
     unloading work area.

     Sludge may also be stored in tank structures,
     above and below ground. Storage tanks are
     primarily constructed of reinforced concrete,
     metal, and wood. Reinforced concrete tanks
     may be cast-in-place, walls, foundation, and
     floor slab, or they may be constructed of
     pre-cast wall panels, bolted together, and set
     on a cast-in-place foundation and floor slab.
     Metal tanks are also widely used, with the
     majority being constructed of glass-fused
     steel panels that are bolted together. There
     are many manufactured, modular tanks
     commercially available in reinforced
     concrete and metal, as well as wood.
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-10
March 2006

-------
                                  Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
Solids degradation during storage can
produce dangerous levels of hydrogen
sulfide gas, methane and hydrogen gases,
and in tanks with little air exchange can
contain an atmosphere that includes the
aforementioned gases and is anoxic. Use
OSHA confined space guidelines when
considering all aspects of the human
interface with a solids storage structure and
take every practical precaution to prevent
harm to those working around these
structures.

State and local regulations regarding odors
from the  manure storage vessels should be
considered.
Mortality Removal and Disposal

Mortality of small numbers of cultured
species in aquaculture systems is a common
occurrence. It is also unpredictable and
highly variable among rearing units,
epizootics, and facilities. A facility may
experience chronic mortality of a few fish
per day or a catastrophic loss caused by
infectious disease or acute environmental
stress. Depending on water temperature and
species, dead fish either float or sink after
dying, with warm water fish typically
floating and cold-water fish sinking.

In flow-through systems, whether floating or
sinking, dead fish tend to accumulate on the
screens at the end of the rearing units.

In recirculating systems, sinking fish
mortalities tend to accumulate on the
exclusion screen on the bottom center drain
of circular tanks or on the outlet screen of
linear raceways. Floating fish will
accumulate on the surface of circular tanks,
where they are relatively easy to see.

The timely removal of mortalities helps
decrease the probability of spreading
     infectious organisms and the introduction of
     excess nutrients into the system.

     Examples of Mortality Removal and
     Disposal Practices

     1) Remove mortalities from rearing units on
     a regular basis I
     Mortalities should be removed from rearing
     units regularly. To accomplish this, inspect
     culture units to check for the presence of
     mortalities. Many mortalities float to the
     surface of the culture water and can be
     collected by hand or with nets.

     Mortalities accumulating on  screens prevent
     the efficient flow of water from unit to unit
     and represent a hazard for possible damage
     to the screen resulting in escape offish from
     the unit or diversion of flow  away from
     downstream units.

     Dead or moribund fish can be transported by
     flowing water to a tank drain, where they
     can accumulate against screens and restrict
     the water flow out of the culture unit. Dead
     fish should be removed from culture units as
     soon as possible to maintain  water level in
     the culture tank,  to decrease the probability
     of spreading infectious organisms, and to
     reduce water quality deterioration. Dead fish
     that sink may be difficult to detect at the
     bottom center of large circular culture tanks
     or along the bottoms of net pens that are
     deep or contain turbid water. A procedure or
     mechanisms should be identified for
     detecting and removing dead fish from the
     culture units.

     2) Follow recommended aquatic animal
     health management practices
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-11
March 2006

-------
                                   Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities
Prevention and minimization of mortalities
through proper fish health surveillance and
management are the best methods for
managing mortalities. Maintaining good
water quality can help to prevent disease
outbreaks. Most states offer diagnostic
services and treatment recommendations for
disease problems.

3) Do not discharge mortalities into
receiving waters [FTI RAS
Appropriate screens for flow-through and
recirculating systems on the outlet to
receiving waters will prevent mortalities
discharging into receiving waters. There are,
however, permitted restoration and stock-
enhancement activities where spawned
carcasses are returned to waters for nutrient
replacement.
Figure 9.5. Screened effluent pipe


4) Only use approved methods of mortality
disposal \nI  RAS
Disposal methods are site-specific and
usually governed by state or local
regulations. Disposal options could include
composting, rendering, use as fertilizer,
incineration, burial, or landfill.
EPA-821-B-05-001
9-12
March 2006

-------
                        Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Chapter 10:  Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and
Net Pen Facilities
Material Storage

It is important to properly store materials
used at aquaculture facilities to protect the
environment. Specifically, the ELGs require
that facilities ensure proper storage of drug,
pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to
prevent spills that may result in a discharge
of these materials to waters of the United
States. The ELGs also require facilities to
implement procedures for properly
containing, cleaning, and disposing of any
spilled materials.

Examples of Material Storage Practices

1) Use and store drugs and pesticides in a
manner to prevent contamination of the
environment [FT] RAS


Drugs and pesticides should be stored away
from rearing areas, feeds, and water sources,
in locations that are secure, dry, void  of
drains, water tight, well-ventilated, and not
subject to extreme temperatures. Also
consider securing the storage areas to avoid
tampering or vandalism.

Refer to EPA's Office of Pesticides website
on Pesticide Storage Resources
(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/st
orage resources.htm) or ISA's Guide to
Drug, Vaccine, and Pesticide Use in
Aquaculture
(http: //aquani c. org/j sa/wgqaap/druggui de/dr
ugguide.htm) for useful information or
suggestions for ensuring proper storage or
drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills.
      Drugs and pesticides should be used only
      when needed and only for the specific use
      indicated on the label. In some cases, drugs
      are used under an INAD exemption or
      prescribed by a veterinarian as an extralabel
      drug use. Use of these materials is regulated
      by federal and state agencies, and
      individuals are responsible for using these
      products according to label directions and
      disposing of containers and unused
      chemicals according to applicable federal
      and state regulations.
     2) Use and store feed in a manner to prevent
     contamination of the environment and to
     protect the quality of the feed
      [FT"
     Feed should be stored away from rearing
     areas and water sources, in locations that are
     secure, dry, water tight, and not subject to
     extreme temperatures.

     Storing feed properly maintains feed quality.
     To protect feed quality, store it to prevent
     insect and rodent contamination. Bacteria
     and fungi (mold) can destroy the nutritional
     value of feed and produce toxins, which may
     stress or kill fish. Keeping feed dry and
     maintaining temperatures to prevent
     condensation helps to minimize the growth
     of bacteria and molds. Follow the feed
     manufacturer's storage recommendations for
     best results.

     Handle and store feed with care to prevent
     physical breakdown of feed into fine
     particles. If fines are present in feed, they
     should be removed and disposed of
     properly.
EPA-821-B-05-001
10-1
March 2006

-------
                         Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Although most currently used formulations
are extruded pellets, which produce very
little fines, check with your feed
manufacturer to determine if they will
provide a credit and take back the fines.
Figure 10.1. Feed storage area


3) Develop a spill response and prevention
plan for drugs, pesticides, and feed (you can
also develop these plans for petroleum
products and other hazardous products that
may be found at your facility)
       RASV  NET
The best way to avoid runoff contamination
from spilled materials is to prevent the spill
from occurring. Carefully storing materials
in sound, clearly labeled containers and
regular inspection and maintenance of
equipment are key practices to prevent
spills. Materials stored outdoors should be
covered and kept on paved areas to protect
them from being mobilized by wind and
runoff. If not covered, storage areas should
be designed to drain with a slight slope
(approximately  1.5 percent) to an area that
will provide treatment prior to disposal. Use
secondary  containment, such as berms,
safety storage cabinets,  or drum containment
systems, when  storing liquids.
     State and federal laws require reporting of
     significant spills of many chemical products.
     Although the quantity of drugs and
     pesticides used and stored at CAAP facilities
     is generally small, check with state and local
     authorities for specific details about any
     chemicals that would require reporting in the
     event of a spill at your facility. A plan
     should be developed specifying response
     procedures, key staff, and phone numbers of
     regulatory authorities. All facility employees
     should be aware of the plan and the plan
     should be accessible to all employees at all
     times. Refer to Chapter 13 of this guidance
     for information about training employees in
     spill prevention.

     Spill response and prevention plans can be
     used to ensure that a facility properly
     contains, cleans, and disposes of spilled
     materials. The plan should clearly state
     measures to stop the source of a spill,
     contain the spill, clean up the spill, dispose
     of contaminated materials, and train
     personnel to prevent and control future
     spills.

     To develop the plan, first identify potential
     spill or source areas, such as loading and
     unloading, storage, and processing areas,
     and areas designated for waste disposal.

     Provide documentation of spill response
     equipment and procedures to be used,
     ensuring that procedures are clear and
     concise. Give step-by-step instructions for
     the response to spills at a particular facility.
     This spill response and prevention plan can
     be presented as a procedural handbook or a
     sign. The spill response and prevention plan
     should:

        •   Identify individuals responsible for
            implementing the plan.
        •   Define safety measures to be  taken
            with each kind of waste.
EPA-821-B-05-001
10-2
March 2006

-------
                        Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
   •   Emphasize that spills must be
       cleaned up promptly.
   •   Specify how to notify appropriate
       authorities, such as police and fire
       departments, hospitals, or publicly-
       owned treatment works for
       assistance.
   •   State procedures for containing,
       diverting,  isolating, and cleaning up
       the spill.
   •   Describe spill response equipment to
       be used, including safety and cleanup
       equipment.

The use of water for cleanup should be
strongly discouraged. Launderable or
disposable shop rags should be used for
small spills of non-volatile chemicals,  and
rags should be properly cleaned or disposed
of. Larger spills should be absorbed with
vermiculite, sawdust, kitty litter, or
absorbent "snakes." Disposal methods
depend on the hazard level of the spilled
material. Nonvolatile liquids can be cleaned
up with a wet/dry shop vacuum and
disposed of with the rest of the facility's
waste. Drains or inlets to storm sewers
should be plugged during spill remediation
to prevent off-site runoff/discharge of
pollutants.

A spill prevention and response plan must
be well planned and clearly defined so that
the likelihood  of accidental spills can be
reduced and any spills that do occur can be
dealt with quickly and effectively. Training
might be necessary to ensure that all
relevant personnel are knowledgeable
enough to follow  procedures. Equipment
and materials for  cleanup must be readily
accessible and clearly marked for personnel
to be able to follow procedures.

Remember to update the spill prevention and
response plan to accommodate any changes
in the site or procedures. It is also important
     to regularly inspect areas where spills might
     occur to ensure that procedures are posted
     and cleanup equipment is readily available.

     A spill prevention and response plan can be
     highly effective at reducing the risk of
     surface and groundwater contamination.
     However, the plan's effectiveness is
     enhanced by worker training, availability of
     materials and equipment for cleanup, and
     extra time spent by management to ensure
     that procedures are followed.

     Spill prevention and response plans are
     inexpensive to implement. However, extra
     time is needed to properly handle and
     dispose of spills, which results in increased
     labor costs.

     If you want to track spills from your facility
     for your own record-keeping, you can use
     the example tracking worksheet in Appendix
     O.

     Additional Suggestions

     1) Use and store petroleum products to
     prevent contamination of the environment
     State and federal laws require reporting of
     significant spills of petroleum products. A
     plan should be developed specifying
     response procedures, key staff, and phone
     numbers of regulatory authorities.

     Petroleum leaking from storage tanks or
     farm equipment wastes a valuable resource
     and can contaminate surface or underground
     water supplies. Petroleum products are
     highly odorous and small amounts in water
     can produce an off-flavor in aquatic animals.
     Petroleum storage in above-ground and
     underground tanks is regulated by federal
     and state agencies. Information on
     petroleum storage regulations can be
EPA-821-B-05-001
10-3
March 2006

-------
                         Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
obtained from state Departments of
Commerce, state Departments of
Environmental Quality or Protection, or
from EPA regional offices. Aquaculturists
should also implement a regular
maintenance schedule for tractors, trucks,
and other equipment to prevent oil and fuel
leaks. Used oil should be disposed of
through recycling centers.
Figure 10.2. Fuel storage

Facilities can also address spill prevention
and response for petroleum products in their
spill prevention and response plan, described
above.
EPA-821-B-05-001
10-4
March 2006

-------
                           Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net
Pen Facilities
Maintenance

Flow-through, recirculating, and net pen
systems should be well-maintained,
managed efficiently, and operated in
compliance with all applicable laws  and
regulations. This will improve long-term
economic performance and reduce
environmental impact. As such, the
following management practices are simply
part of good management.

Examples of Maintenance Practices

1) Maintain structures and equipment to
ensure staff safety and protection of the
environment [FT
Routinely inspect flow-through and
recirculating production systems and
wastewater treatment systems to identify
and promptly perform repairs or
replacement, as necessary.

Some of the system components that should
be considered for routine inspection  of flow-
through and recirculating systems include:

   •   Drains—make sure that all of the
       parts of the drain structure are
       properly functioning; look for the
       proper placement of stand pipes, dam
       boards, and animal exclusion devices
       (for example screens across pipe
       openings); check that valves  and
       other critical drain components are
       working properly; check for broken
       parts and repair when necessary.
   •   Production units—make sure that
       tanks and raceways are structurally
       sound; repair cracks as necessary; all
           plumbing components are installed
           and working properly.
        •  Life support systems—routinely
           inspect oxygen equipment, filters,
           heaters, and any other life support
           equipment used to maintain optimal
           growing conditions.
        •  Feeding equipment—test automatic
           and mechanical feeders periodically
           to ensure that they are delivering the
           proper amounts of feed; check
           demand feeders for proper operation
           and adjust as necessary; inspect all
           feed storage areas to make sure that
           the feed is not contaminated by
           foreign substances, is not easily
           accessible to rodents and insects, and
           check for excess moisture and water
           leaks to prevent mold from forming.
        •  Solids control  equipment and
           systems—check quiescent zones for
           proper function; inspect drains for
           clogging; and make sure that all
           settling basins are working properly
           and that the structures are safe and
           secure to prevent spills and
           accidental discharges of collected
           solids due to cracked or damaged
           basin structures.

     Routinely inspect net pen systems to identify
     and promptly perform repairs or
     replacement of nets.

     Some of the system components that should
     be considered for routine inspection at net
     pen facilities include:

        •  Nets—inspect for holes and physical
           damage to the  nets and make sure
           that nets are securely attached to
EPA-821-B-05-001
11-1
March 2006

-------
                            Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
       floating structures; if present,
       maintain predator control nets and
       devices to ensure proper operation.
    •  Floating  structures—inspect for
       physical  damage that may lead to
       structural failure during storms or
       periods of icing; check all mooring
       lines and anchor points for proper
       function  and physical damage.
    •  Feeding equipment—test automatic
       and mechanical feeders periodically
       to ensure that they are delivering the
       proper amounts of feed; check
       demand feeders for proper operation
       and adjust as necessary; inspect all
       feed storage areas to make sure that
       the feed is not contaminated by
       foreign substances, is not easily
       accessible to rodents and insects, and
       check for excess moisture and water
       leaks to prevent mold from forming.

An example log  for documenting routine
inspections and repairs is available in
Appendix P.

2) Periodically conduct a systematic review
of your current facility to identify any
problems that would lead to environmental
impacts; when considering modifications to
existing facility components or operations,
include a review of the type and extent of
probable environmental impacts that may
occur as a result of the new methods
3) Clearly mark all net pen sites in
accordance with the farm's permit for fixed
private aids (buoys, navigation lights, etc.)
to navigation from the U.S. Coast Guard
and appropriate state authorities; make sure
all net pen sites continue to be clearly
marked in accordance with U.S. Coast
Guard marking regulations
     4) When installing net pens and their
     associated mooring systems, give careful
     consideration to their potential impacts on
     water circulation patterns; gear deployment
     should seek to optimize circulation patterns
     and maximize water exchange through the
     pens, thereby improving fish health and
     reducing benthic impacts
     5) Design, operate, and maintain all
     holding, transportation, and culture systems
     to function as designed [FT~


     For flow-through systems, screens of
     appropriate size and strength should be
     installed at the intake from the source and
     outlet to receiving waters to prevent loss and
     escape of cultured species. Occasionally
     check screens to ensure that debris is not
     blocking them.

     For recirculating systems, barriers of
     appropriate size and strength should be
     installed on the facility discharge and on the
     make-up water entry into the facility. A
     procedure or mechanisms should also be
     identified to prevent debris from plugging
     the barriers,  thus preventing water from
     overflowing or bypassing the screens.

     6) Avoid siting facilities in areas prone to
     frequent flooding I


     Floods that overflow flow-through and
     recirculating systems result in loss of
     cultured animals and are usually
     catastrophic  for the farmer. Facilities
     adjacent to surface waters should be
     constructed to minimize the possibility of
     flood waters entering the  facility.
EPA-821-B-05-001
11-2
March 2006

-------
                           Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
7) Transfer fish (stocking, grading, transfer,
or harvest) in appropriate weather
conditions and under constant visual
supervision of at least one person; use
appropriate equipment for the weather and
cage designs; use shields or additional nets
to prevent stray fish to escape during
transfer (where necessary or appropriate)
8) Only obtain nets from a manufacturer or
supplier whose equipment design
specifications and manufacturing standards
meet generally accepted standards prevalent
in the aquaculture industry
Net design and specification should be
commensurate with the prevailing
conditions of the site. Stress tests should be
preformed on all nets with more than three
years of use in the marine environment
when the net is pulled out and cleaned. All
nets in use should be UV-protected.

9) Only obtain net pen structures from a
manufacturer or supplier whose equipment
design specifications and manufacturing
standards meet generally accepted
standards prevalent in the aquaculture
industry
Net pen structure design, specification, and
installation should be commensurate with
the prevailing conditions and capable of
withstanding the normal maximum weather
and sea conditions.

10) Install jump nets to prevent aquatic
animals from jumping out of the primary
containment net
Jump nets should be an integral part of the
primary containment net or joined to it in a
fashion that prevents aquatic animal escape
     between the primary net and the jump net.
     Jump nets should be of a height appropriate
     to the jumping ability and size of aquatic
     animals they are containing. In areas with
     extreme winters, cages may sink slightly due
     to ice loads from freezing spray. This is a
     temporary condition that abates as the ice
     melts during submergence. In areas where
     winter icing occurs regularly, bird nets
     should be exchanged for winter cover nets.
     These nets should be constructed of netting
     designed to withstand the rigors of icing and
     with mesh sizes appropriate to contain the
     aquatic animal size being reared.

     11) Secure nets to the appropriate
     attachment point, such that the attachment
     bears the strain and not the handrail of the
     cage NET
     Net weights, when used for net tensioning,
     should be installed in a manner to prevent
     chafing. A second layer of net should be
     added one foot above and below wear
     points. The use of net weights should be
     encouraged when strong currents or tides are
     present at the net pen site.

     12) Develop a preventative maintenance
     program for nets
     The program should have the ability to track
     individual nets, and schedule and document
     regular maintenance and testing. Nets that
     fail testing standards should be retired and
     disposed of properly. An example log for
     recording maintenance is available in
     Appendix P.

     13) Mooring system designs should be
     compatible with the net pen systems they
                                               secure
EPA-821-B-05-001
11-3
March 2006

-------
                           Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Mooring systems should be installed in
consultation with the net pen system
manufacturer or supplier. Mooring system
design, specification and installation should
be commensurate with the prevailing
conditions of the site and be capable of
withstanding the normal maximum
conditions likely to occur at a site.

14) Regularly inspect and adjust mooring
systems as needed
     16) Develop a preventative maintenance
     program for net pen and mooring systems
Rigging tension should be maintained to
installation standards. New components
should undergo their first inspection no later
than 2 years after deployment. A diver or
remote camera should regularly visually
inspect subsurface mooring components.
Special attention should be given to
connectors and rope/chain interfaces. Chafe
points should be  identified and subject to
more frequent inspection and removal of
marine growth. With the exception of rock
pin anchors, mooring systems should be
hauled out of the water for a visual
inspection of all components at least every 6
years. When considering what inspection
method to employ, net pen operators should
consider the relative risks and benefits
associated with the inspection method. On
sites frequently exposed to severe weather or
where it is difficult to set anchors, breaking
out anchors for visual, above-water
inspection may represent a greater risk for
mooring failure than regular underwater
inspections. An example log for recording
maintenance is available in Appendix P.

15) Shackles used in mooring systems
should be either safety shackles, wire-tied,
or welded to prevent pin drop-out
     The program should monitor maintenance of
     individual cages, and schedule and
     document regular maintenance, the nature of
     the maintenance, date conducted, any
     supporting documentation for new materials
     used, and who conducted the maintenance.
     An example log for documenting routine
     inspections and maintenance is available in
     Appendix P.

     17) Use bird nets (where appropriate) to
     cover net cages to reduce any impacts due to
     birdpredation; bird nets should be
     constructed using appropriate materials and
     mesh sizes designed to reduce  the risk of
     bird entanglement
     Contact manufacturers and suppliers of
     aquaculture netting for more information.

     18) Develop a Standard Operating
     Procedure (SOP) for all routine vessel
     operations
     Vessel operations around a net pen site can
     damage nets or the structures. All vessel
     operators should receive appropriate training
     in the operation of the vessel. The SOP
     should minimize the risk of damaging nets
     and/or mooring system components with the
     propeller of the vessel. When mooring
     barges on a permanent or semi-permanent
     basis, local current and wind patterns should
     be considered. The mooring location should
     be selected so that in the event of a vessel
     breaking  free of its moorings the chance of
     the vessel impacting a net pen system  is
     minimized.
EPA-821-B-05-001
11-4
March 2006

-------
                        Chapter 12: Record-keeping for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Chapter 12: Record-keeping for Flow-through, Recirculating, and
Net Pen Facilities
Record-keeping

Good record-keeping is the hallmark of a
well-operated aquatic animal production
facility. Keeping records can help a facility
run more efficiently and cleanly.

Examples of Record-keeping Practices

1) Develop a record-keeping system
Records, such as feeding, chemical use,
water quality, serious weather conditions,
aquatic animal inventory, and aquatic animal
culture operations facilitate improvements in
the overall efficiency of a facility.

Record-keeping is a basic business practice
and is applicable to all facilities. If a facility
already has record-keeping structures in
place, the existing structures can be directly
used or easily adapted to incorporate any
additional record-keeping requirements of
the CAAP ELGs.

Record keeping is a simple, easily
implemented, and cost effective
management tool. Complete,  well-organized
records can help ensure proper maintenance
of facilities and equipment and  can aid in
determining the causes of required repairs to
help prevent future foreseeable  disasters.

The following are important points to
remember when performing record-keeping:

   •  Records must be updated regularly.
   •  Personnel completing and
      maintaining records must be trained
      to update records correctly.
        •  Records need to be readily
           accessible.
        •  Records containing any confidential
           information must be secured
           (enforcement staff can still have
           access to these records).

     The key to maintaining records is continual
     updating. Ensure that new information, such
     as inspections of your production systems,  is
     added to existing records as it becomes
     available. In addition, update records if there
     are changes to the number and location of
     discharge points, or material storage
     procedures. You should maintain records for
     at least five years from the date of sample
     observation or action. Some simple
     techniques used to accurately document and
     report results include:

        •  Forms and logs.
        •  Field notebooks.
        •  Timed and dated photographs.
        •  Videotapes.
        •  Drawings and maps.
        •  Computer spreadsheets and database
           programs.

     Paper copies of records should be
     maintained for archival purposes;
     computerized  record-keeping tools can be
     used for trend analysis and forecasting.
     Records should be reviewed periodically to
     determine if they are useful and to provide
     insight into opportunities for improvement
     of CAAP facility operation.

     EPA encourages the use of existing record-
     keeping  systems (if available at your
     facility)  to meet the record-keeping
     requirements of the CAAP ELGs. However,
EPA-821-B-05-001
12-1
March 2006

-------
                         Chapter 12: Record-keeping for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
if you need examples of forms and logs that
help fulfill record-keeping requirements of
the CAAP ELGs, refer to the appendices
below. Some appendices contain forms and
logs for activities that are not required by the
ELGs, but that can be used to show your
facility has met other requirements of the
ELGs (e.g., showing your facility performed
employee training).

    •   Appendix M:  General Reporting
       Forms (meets the CAAP ELGs
       general reporting requirements for
       INADs and extralabel drug use;
      failure or damage to containment
       systems; and spills of drugs,
      pesticides, and feed)
    •   Appendix N: Feed Conversion
       Ratios Log (may be used to track
      feeding and to calculate FCRs;
       meets the CAAP ELGs record-
       keeping requirements for solids
       control)
    •   Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log
       (may be used to keep track of spills)
    •   Appendix P: Inspection and
       Maintenance Logs (may be used to
       keep track of when you perform
       maintenance and cleaning at your
      facility; meets the CAAP ELGs
       record-keeping requirements for
       maintenance}
    •   Appendix Q: Cleaning Log (may be
       used to document cleaning of your
      production systems and/or
       wastewater treatment systems; meets
       the CAAP ELGs record-keeping
       requirements for cleaning)
    •   Appendix R: Record-keeping
       Checklist (may be used to  make sure
      you have met the record-keeping
       requirements of the CAAP ELGs)
    •   Appendix S: Employee Training Log
       (may be used to track employee
       training)
        •   Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log
            (may be used to keep track of the
            number of carcasses removed and
            disposal methods for the carcasses)

     2) Develop a record-keeping system for
     spills I
     EPA requires you to report spills when they
     occur. EPA encourages you to keep track of
     spills at your facility. Records of past spills
     contain useful information (e.g., what
     practices worked best for a given magnitude
     and type of spill) for improving practices to
     prevent future spills. Typical items that
     should be recorded include results of routine
     inspections, and reported spills, leaks,  or
     other discharges. Records should include:

        •  The date, exact place, and time of
           material inventories, site inspections,
           sampling observations, etc.
        •  Names of inspector(s) and
           sampler(s).
        •  If applicable, analytical information,
           including date(s) and time(s)
           analyses were performed or initiated,
           analytical techniques or methods
           used, the analysts' names, analytical
           results,  and quality assurance/quality
           control results of such analyses.
        •  The date, time, exact location, and a
           complete characterization of
           significant observations, including
           spills or leaks.
        •  Notes indicating the reasons for any
           exceptions to standard record
           keeping procedures.

     Refer to Appendix O for an example log to
     track spills at your facility.
EPA-821-B-05-001
12-2
March 2006

-------
                       Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and
Net Pen Facilities
Training

The CAAP ELGs require facilities to 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. Facilities are also required
to train personnel in the following areas:

   •   Operation and cleaning of production
       systems.
   •   Operation and cleaning of
       wastewater treatment systems.
Examples of Training Practices

1) Develop and implement an employee-
training program to train relevant personnel
in spill prevention and response
Employee training programs can be
established to train employees how to
prevent and respond to spills. Employee
training programs should instill all personnel
with a thorough understanding of the
facility's Spill Response and Prevention
Plan, including BMPs, practices for
preventing spills, and procedures for
responding quickly and properly to spills.

Employees can be taught through posters,
employee meetings, courses, signs, and
bulletin boards about spill prevention and
response. Facilities may also use "in-field
training" programs, where they show
employees specific areas of the facility
     where potential spills could occur, followed
     by a discussion of site-specific BMPs
     providing solutions to spill prevention and
     response. Trained personnel can provide
     discussion to other staff within the facility.

     Advantages of an employee-training
     program are that the program can be a low-
     cost and easily implementable procedure for
     addressing spills  at aquaculture facilities.
     The program can be standardized and
     repeated as necessary, both to train new
     employees and to keep its objectives fresh in
     the minds of already trained employees. A
     training program  is also flexible and can be
     adapted as a facility's management needs
     change over time.

     Specific design criteria for implementing an
     employee-training program include:

         •   Ensuring  strong commitment and
            periodic input from senior
            management.
         •   Communicating frequently to ensure
            adequate understanding of goals and
            objectives.
         •   Using experience from past spills to
            prevent future spills.
         •   Making employees aware of BMP
            monitoring and spill reporting
            procedures.
         •   Developing operating manuals and
            standard procedures.
         •   Implementing spill drills.

     An employee-training program should be an
     on-going, yearly process. A sample
     employee training log that can be used to
     track employee-training programs is
EPA-821-B-05-001
13-1
March 2006

-------
                        Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
available in Appendix S of this document.
Refer to Chapter 10 in this guidance for
more specific information about developing
a Spill Response and Prevention Plan.

2) Develop and implement an employee-
training program to train relevant personnel
in proper operation and cleaning of
production andwastewater treatment
systems, including feeding practices and
proper use of equipment1
Employee training programs can be
established to train employees how to
properly operate and clean production and
wastewater treatment systems (only flow-
through and recirculating systems must train
employees for operating and cleaning
wastewater treatment systems), including
feeding procedures and proper use of
equipment.

Employees can be taught through posters,
employee meetings, courses, signs, and
bulletin boards about properly operating  and
cleaning production systems and wastewater
treatment systems at your facility.

General guidance for properly operating  and
cleaning some of the components found in
CAAP systems is available throughout the
remainder of this chapter.

3) Properly operate flow-through and
recirculating production systems
To properly operate production systems at
your facility to reduce solids, identify what
practices reduce solids (based on your
facility's unique design characteristics), and
     maintain those practices. For example,
     maintain minimum flows to system
     components where required to ensure the
     system is self-cleaning.

     Examples of other practices you can do to
     properly operate your systems so solids are
     reduced include the following:

        •   Avoid short-circuiting flows in the
            quiescent zones.
        •   Ensure that drainpipes and dam
            boards are working properly.
        •   Clear screens in raceways of debris.
        •   Do not exceed the carrying capacity
            of your system.
        •   Design and implement a feed
            management program.

     4) Properly clean flow-through and
     recirculating production systems
     [FT"
     When cleaning raceways or tanks at your
     facility make sure you do the following:

        •   Send cleaning water to a treatment
            system, such as an offline settling
            basins or full-flow settling basins.
        •   Clean raceways or tanks as
            frequently as necessary.
     5) Properly clean nets
1 Net pen systems are not required to train personnel
in proper operation and cleaning of wastewater
treatment systems.
     The regular cleaning of production nets
     helps to ensure a constant flow of water
     through the production area of the net pen.
     As the net pen sits in the culture area,
     marine organisms attach and grow on the
     nets. These organisms reduce the area of the
     openings. The reduction in area reduces the
     water flow through the net pen and the
     amount of dissolved oxygen available, and it
     increases the buildup of metabolic waste.
EPA-821-B-05-001
13-2
March 2006

-------
                        Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
The following practices will help facilities to
clean their nets, while minimizing the
impact of this practice on the environment:

    •   Minimize the concentration of net-
       fouling organisms that are
       discharged during events such as
       changing and cleaning nets.
    •   Remove fouled nets, transport
       ashore, air dry, and clean with
       pressure washers, if necessary.
       Avoid discharges of cleaning water
       or net-fouling organisms to open
       waters.
    •   Avoid discharges of chemicals used
       to clean nets or other gear in open
       waters.
    •   Do not use materials containing or
       treated with tributyltin.

6) Properly operate and clean quiescent
zones [FT

The following practices may help you to
properly operate your quiescent zone to
reduce solids:

    •   Ensure that the turbulence is reduced
       (for example, preventing short
       circuiting by ensuring drains and
       outlets are operating as designed)
       enough so the solids will settle in the
       quiescent zones.
    •   Prevent fish from entering quiescent
       zones by maintaining the integrity of
       the screen that separates the
       raceways and quiescent zones.

The following guidance for cleaning
quiescent zones is based on the Idaho Waste
Management Guidelines for Aquaculture
Facilities (IDEQ, n.d.).

    •   Settled solids should be removed
       regularly so they cannot become
       entrained in the wastewater flow and
       contribute to the pollutant loadings
       of the facility. Two operational
       factors associated with operating
       quiescent zones are (1) the necessity
       to clean the screens, and (2) the
       regular removal of collected solids
       from the quiescent zones.
    •   Quiescent zones should be cleaned
       as frequently as possible, in most
       cases, at least once every 2 weeks.
    •   Screens separating the rearing area
       from the quiescent zone should be
       cleaned daily to promote laminar
       flow in the settling area.

7) Properly clean and operate sedimentation
basins [FT  ] RAS ,
Solids must be removed at proper intervals
to ensure the designed removal efficiencies
of the sedimentation basin. For both off-line
settling (OLS) and full-flow settling (FFS)
basins, IDEQ recommends a minimum
harvest frequency of every 6 months.
Infrequent harvests could result in the
breakdown of solids and the release of
dissolved nutrients into the receiving waters.

For FFS basins, some facilities might batch
crop their fish so that they can all be
harvested at the same time. Then solids can
be harvested from the FFS basins when the
facility  is empty (IDEQ, n.d.).

System operators should attempt to
minimize the breakdown of particles  (into
smaller sizes) to maintain or increase the
efficiency of sedimentation basins.

The following practices may be used to
properly operate your sedimentation basin to
reduce solids and are based on the Idaho
Waste Management Guidelines for
Aquaculture Facilities (IDEQ, n.d.):
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                March 2006

-------
                        Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities
       Regularly check the depth of
       collected solids and clean out the
       basin when the sediment depth
       exceeds 50% of the design depth.
       Check pipes and basin walls for
       cracks and other damage.
       Check for solids "caking" around the
       basin drain structure to ensure proper
       draining of treated effluent.
       Check area around the outfall for
       signs of erosion and repair any
       damage.
       Check outlet pipes for clogging.
8) Properly clean and operate microscreen
filters I


Filters require cleaning to remove trapped
particles. Sprayers are used to remove
collected particles and to provide additional
filter cleaning. Filters may also be cleaned
using a periodic rinse cycle with a heated
solution.

The following practices may be used to
properly operate your microscreen filters to
reduce solids and are based on the Idaho
Waste Management Guidelines for
Aquaculture Facilities (IDEQ, n.d.):

    •  Regularly check for normal
       operation of the filter unit.
    •  Inspect all moving parts for proper
       operation.
    •  Refer to  the manufacturer's
       operation and maintenance manual
       for specific details.
    •  Check for wear or holes in
       miscroscreens.
    •  Lubricate bearings according to
       manufacturer's recommended
       schedules.
    •  Check for proper operation of wash
       pump and cleaning nozzles.
EPA-821-B-05-001                             13-4                                  March 2006

-------
                                                Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities
Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities
Feed Management

Waste feed and feces constitute the major
portion of the wastes generated by net pens.
However, because net pens operate in high-
energy, open water environments (where
they are exposed to currents, waves, and
storms), the concentration and collection of
wastes is difficult.

The most effective way to reduce the
discharge of solids from net pen systems is
effective feed management. Effective feed
management is based on two components:
waste reduction and optimal feed conversion
ratio. Waste reduction focuses on ensuring
that feed used by the farm is not lost or
discharged prior to intake by the aquatic
animal. Optimal conversion focuses on
ensuring that all feed intake offered to the
aquatic animal is actually consumed and
optimally digested and used by the aquatic
animal.

Documenting efficient feed management for
EPA may be achieved by describing the
following in your BMP plan:

    •  Feed methods used to minimize
      solids production.
    •  Modifications made to feed
      quantities as fish production changes
      (e.g., size, health offish).
    •  Feed handling methods used to
      reduce generation of fines.
    •  Feed formulations information for
      each life-history stage offish reared.
     Examples of Feed Management Practices

     1) Calculate feed conversion ratios by using
    feed and aquatic animal biomass inventory
     tracking systems
     Calculation of feed conversion ratios (FCRs)
     is an essential function on all net pen farms.
     Monitoring long- and short-term changes in
     feed conversion ratios allows farmers to
     quickly identify significant changes in feed
     consumption and waste production rates.
     Refer to Appendix N for an example log to
     calculate and track FCRs.

     2) In cooperation with feed manufacturers,
     seek to minimize nutrient and solids
     discharges through optimization of feed
    formulations
     Feeds should be formulated for optimum
     feed conversion ratios and retention of
     protein (nitrogen) and phosphorus. Feed
     formulations should consider numerous
     factors including, pellet stability,
     digestibility, palatability, sinking rates,
     energy levels, moisture content, ingredient
     quality and the nutritional requirements of
     the species being grown. Feeds should be
     formulated and manufactured using high-
     quality ingredients. Feed ingredients should
     have high dry matter and protein apparent
     digestibility coefficients. Formulations
     should be designed to enhance nitrogen and
     phosphorus retention efficiency, and reduce
     metabolic waste output. Feeds  should
     contain sufficient dietary energy to spare
     dietary protein (amino acids) for tissue
     synthesis. Feeds should be water stable for
     sufficient periods such that pellets remain
EPA-821-B-05-001
14-1
March 2006

-------
                                                 Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities
intact until eaten by fish. Questions
regarding feed formulations should be
referred to a qualified fish nutritionist or
feed manufacturer.

3) Experiment with feed formulations
designed to reduce the total environmental
impact of the feed
If experimental formulations that use
alternative protein and lipid sources are
tried, care should be taken to ensure that
digestibility is not decreased and the
nutritional needs of the species being
cultured are met. Farmers should be careful
that alternate formulations do not increase
feed conversion ratios, decrease fish growth,
and result in increased fecal waste.
4) Use efficient feeding practices
Feed can be delivered by hand, demand
feeders, automatic feeders, or by mechanical
feeders. Regardless of the delivery method
or system, the amount of feed offered should
optimize the balance between maximum
growth and maximum feed conversion
efficiency. The appropriate quantity and
type of feed for a given species is influenced
by aquatic animal size, water temperature,
dissolved oxygen levels, health status,
reproductive status, and management goals.
Feed particle size should be appropriate for
the size of aquatic animals being fed.
Feeding behavior should be observed to
monitor feed utilization and evaluate health
status.

5) Check feeding equipment to ensure
efficient operation
Improperly adjusted or malfunctioning
feeding equipment can over-feed or under-
     feed fish and reduce feed and production
     efficiency.
     Figure 14.1. Automatic feeder for net pens
     Figure 14.2. Feed handling for net pens


     6) Reduce fish stress and optimize culture
     conditions to reduce FCRs
     Facilities can reduce fish stress by avoiding
     overcrowding in production systems and
     maintaining and cleaning net pens to make
     sure adequate water can move through the
     nets. Remember to properly clean your nets
     to avoid harm to the environment.
EPA-821-B-05-001
14-2
March 2006

-------
                                                 Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities
 7) Conduct employee training in fish
 husbandry and feeding methods to ensure
 that workers have adequate training to
 optimize FCRs
Additional information about performing
training is available in "Chapter 13: Perform
Training for Flow-through, Recirculating,
and Net Pen Facilities."

8) Wherever practical,  use monitoring
technologies such as video, "lift-ups, " or
digital scanning sonar sensors to monitor
feed consumption and reduce feed waste
 NET
If automated feeding systems are used, fish
monitoring systems should, if possible, be
actively linked to feeding control systems to
provide direct control feedback to reduce
feed wastage. Even if monitoring systems
are employed, active monitoring by farm
operators should also occur to ensure that all
systems are functioning properly and aquatic
animals are behaving and feeding normally.

9) If water depths and currents allow,
regularly examine the bottom under net pens
and cages
To prevent benthic impacts from occurring,
close attention should be paid to the
presence of any waste feed and how the
benthic environment appears to be
assimilating the nutrient load. Regular
inspections by divers or video cameras can
alert farm operators to potential problems
before they become unmanageable. Also,
use information collected by third parties or
regulators to adjust management practices if
necessary.
EPA-821-B-05-001                            14-3                                 March 2006

-------
                                             Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or
                                        Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities
Chapter  15: Waste Collection and  Disposal, Transport or Harvest
Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities
The CAAP ELGs require net pen facilities
to collect and properly dispose of solid
waste (such as feed bags, packaging
materials, rope, or netting). In addition, net
pen facilities are required to minimize the
discharge associated with harvest and
transport, particularly blood, viscera, or
animal carcasses. These facilities should
also prevent the discharge of animal
mortalities by properly removing and
disposing of carcasses. The following
describes practices that may be used to
achieve these requirements.
Waste Collection and Disposal

The CAAP ELGs require facilities to
collect, return to shore, and properly dispose
of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste
rope, and netting.

Examples of Waste Collection and
Disposal Practices

1) Conduct a systematic review of your
operation; a waste management plan can be
used to effectively manage, use, and dispose
of wastes generated during production; the
plan identifies all wastes generated on a site
or from a facility
Waste management plans clearly identify all
wastes generated on a site and classify them
with respect to any risks associated with
their collection and appropriate disposal.
The waste management plan may be
designed to minimize the generation of
waste while recognizing the practical
challenges associated with marine
operations.
     Waste management plans encourage
     recycling of waste except when human or
     animal health may be compromised. In these
     cases, a clear containment and disposal
     method may be outlined. These methods and
     actions may be designed to minimize any
     human or fish health risks associated with
     the waste. Waste management plans may
     address feed bags, packaging materials,
     waste rope, and netting. Other wastes
     include aquatic animal  mortalities and
     chemical/fuel spills. These substances are
     addressed in the next section on "Carcass
     Removal" and in "Chapter 13: Perform
     Training for Flow-through, Recirculating,
     and Net Pen Facilities," respectively.

     2) Avoid the discharge  of substances
     associated with in-place pressure washing
     of nets into the waters of the United States
     NET"
     Whenever possible, use gear and production
     strategies that minimize or eliminate the
     need for on-site wash down and rinsing to
     reduce biofouling. The use of air-drying,
     mechanical, biological, and other non-
     chemical procedures to control net fouling
     are strongly encouraged. In some areas with
     high flushing rates or great depth, in-place
     net washing may be acceptable. In areas
     with high fouling rates, treatment of nets
     with anti-fouling compounds permitted by
     EPA may represent a lower environmental
     risk than frequent net washing.
EPA-821-B-05-001
15-1
March 2006

-------
                                              Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or
                                         Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities
3) Collect, return to shore, and properly
dispose of all feed bags, packaging
materials, waste rope, and netting (using
methods approved by appropriate
regulatory authorities); recycling is strongly
encouraged
4) Be proactive about minimizing all types
of solid waste generation
Facilities should review their operations and
consider whether there are alternative
practices that help reduce the use of
materials that generate solid waste. For
example, consider the use of packaging and
materials handling methods that reduce total
packaging needs.
Transport or Harvest Discharge

Facilities should properly dispose of
transport or harvest discharge (e.g., viscera,
blood) when aquatic animals are harvested.

Examples  of Transport or Harvest
Discharge Practices

1) Design and operate harvest procedures
and equipment in a fashion that reduces any
associated discharges; harvest and post-
harvest vessel and equipment clean up
procedures should minimize any wastes
discharged overboard
2) Collect and properly dispose of any
processing and harvesting waste
Facilities should dispose of processing or
harvesting waste in a manner that prevents it
from entering into waters of the United
States.
       It may be useful to keep a general
       operations log to track activities at your
       facility concerning waste disposal,
       transport or harvest discharge, and
       carcass removal. For example:

         •   9/15/04: hauled feed bags and
            waste rope to shore; disposed of
            these materials in a dumpster.
         •   10/4/04: transported aquatic
            animals (no water spilled).
     Carcass Removal

     Proper aquatic animal health management is
     the best method of managing mortalities in
     net pens and cages. Optimizing aquatic
     animal health will reduce the need to deal
     with dead fish. Even under optimal
     conditions some mortalities can occur. Net
     pens should contain and collect any
     mortalities that may occur. This facilitates
     the close monitoring of mortality rates and
     their timely removal. Severe weather may
     temporarily prevent mortality removal.
     Remove mortalities as soon as weather
     permits. Keeping records of severe weather
     days is recommended.

     An example log for tracking carcass removal
     and disposal is available in Appendix T.
     This log could be useful for facilities
     tracking aquatic animal mortalities and in
     subtracting out mortalities from calculations
     for feed conversion ratios.

     Examples of Carcass Removal Practices

     1) Weather permitting, regularly  and
     frequently collect mortalities to prevent their
     discharge to waters of the United States
                                                When collecting and removing mortalities,
                                                use methods that do not stress remaining
EPA-821-B-05-001
15-2
March 2006

-------
                                               Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or
                                          Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities
animals, jeopardize worker safety, or
compromise biosecurity. Mortalities should
only be stored and transported in closed
containers with tight fitting lids. Mortalities
should be returned to shore and disposed of
properly, using methods approved by
appropriate regulatory authorities. Facilities
may want to consider practices such as
composting as a method to treat mortalities.

As part of your facility's BMP plan, outline
the process for removing and properly
disposing of carcasses from your facility.

2) Proactively manage your aquatic animal
stocks to optimize animal health
                               NET
EPA-821-B-05-001                             15-3                                   March 2006

-------
References and Resources

-------
                                                              References and Resources
References

IDEQ. n.d. Idaho Waste Management Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality.
. Accessed
December 2004.

USEPA. 2004. Economic and Environmental Benefit Analysis of the Final Effluent  Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source
Category. EPA 821-R-04-013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.

USEPA. 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). EPA 821-R-04-012, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. .
Accessed December 2004.

USEPA. 2004. Website for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry Effluent Guidelines.
. Accessed December 2004.
EPA-821-B-05-001                          R-l                               March 2006

-------
                                                                References and Resources
Wedemeyer, G.A. ed. 2001.  Fish Hatchery Management, 2d ed., American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.

Wheaton, F.W. 1977. Aquacultural Engineering, pp. 643-679. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
NY.
EPA-821-B-05-001                          R-2                               March 2006

-------
              Appendix A

State Permitting Authorities/Departments of
        Environmental Protection

-------
                                                                                   Appendix A
State Permitting Authorities/Departments of Environmental Protection
 Alabama
 Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management
 Permit and Services Division
 Post Off ice Box 301463
 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463
 (334)271-7714
 http://www.adem.state.al.us
Colorado
Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80246
(303) 692-3500
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqhom.asp
 Alaska
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
 12006th Avenue
 Seattle, WA 98101-1128
 (206) 553-1200 or (800) 424-4EPA
 http://vosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF
Connecticut
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Water Management, Permitting,
Enforcement and Remediation Division
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(806)424-3018
http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/prgactiv.htm
 American Samoa
 No information found
Delaware
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Division of Water Resources
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 739-4860
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/
WaterResources.asp
 Arizona
 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,
 Office of Water Quality
 1110 West Washington Street
 Phoenix, AZ 85007
 Phone: (602) 771 -2300
 http://www.adeq.state.az.us
Florida
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850)-245-2118
http://www.dep.state.fl.us

Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Division  of Aquaculture
1203 Governors Square Boulevard, Fifth Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 488-4033
http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com
 Arkansas
 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
 8001 National Drive
 P.O. Box8913
 Little Rock, AR 72219
 (50!) 682-0744
 http://www.adeq.state.ar.us
Georgia
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Suite 1152 East Tower
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404-657-5947) or (888-373-5947)
http://www.gaepd.org
 California
 California State Water Resources Control Board,
 Division of Water Quality
 1001 I Street, 15th Floor
 Sacramento, CA 95814
 (916)341-5250
 http://www.swrcb.ca.qov
Guam
No information found
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                               A-l
                                   March 2006

-------
                                                                                    Appendix A
 Hawaii
 Hawaii Dept. of Health, Environmental Health
 1250 Punchbowl Street
 Honolulu, HI 96813
 (808) 586-4400
 http://www.hawaii.gov/health
 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96801
Louisiana
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Environmental Services
P.O. Box4313
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313
(225)219-3181
http://www.deg.state.la.us
 Idaho
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
 12006th Avenue
 Seattle, WA 98101-1128
 (206) 553-1200 or (800) 424-4EPA
 http://vosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF
Maine
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Land and Water Quality
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7688 or (800) 452-1942
http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwg/index.htm
 Illinois
 Illinois EPA, Bureau of Water
 1021 North Grand Ave. East, P.O. Box 19276
 Springfield, IL 62794-9276
 (217)782-3362
 http://www.epa.state.il.us/water
Maryland
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Blvd.
Baltimore, MD21230
(410)537-3000
http://www.mde.state.md.us
 Indiana
 Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
 Office of Water Quality
 100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015
 Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
 (317) 232-8603 or (800) 451-6027 (toll free: IN)
 http://www.in.gov/idem/water
Massachusetts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
One Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
(617)918-1111 or
(888) 372-7341 (New England states)
http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/mass.html
 Iowa
 Iowa Department of Natural Resources
 502 E. 9  Street, Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg.
 Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
 (515)281-5918
 http://www.iowadnr.com
Michigan
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Water Bureau
Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan St, P.O. Box 30473
Lansing, Ml 48909-7973
(517)373-7917
http://www.michigan.gov/deg
 Kansas
 Kansas Department of Health and Environment
 Bureau of Water
 1000 Southwest Jackson Street, Suite 420
 Topeka, KS 66612-1367
 (785) 296-5500
 http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/water/index.html
Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
651-297-2274 or 800-646-6247
http://www.pca.state.mn.us
 Kentucky
 Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection
 Division of Water
 14 Reilly Road
 Frankfort, KY 40601
 (502)564-3410
 http://www.water.ky.gov
Mississippi
Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of
Pollution Control, Environmental Permits Division
P.O. Box10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5171 or (888) 786-0661
http://www.deg.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/
Main Home?OpenDocument
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                               A-2
                                  March 2006

-------
                                                                                    Appendix A
 Missouri
 Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources, Water Pollution
 Control Branch, Permits Section
 P.O. Box 176
 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
 (573) 751 -3443 or (800) 361-4827
 http://www.dnr.mo.qov/env/wpp/permits/
 index.html
   New Mexico
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
   1445 Ross Avenue
   Dallas, TX 75202
   (215)665-6444
   http://www.epa.gov/region6
 Montana
 Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality, Permitting
 and Compliance Division, Water Protection Bureau
 1520 E. Sixth Avenue
 P.O. Box200901
 Helena, MT 59620-0901
 Phone: (406) 444-2544
 http://www.deg.state.mt.us/pcd/wpb/index.asp
   New York
   New York Department of Environmental
   Conservation, Division of Water
   625 Broadway
   Albany, NY 12233
   (518)402-8111
   http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow
 Nebraska
 Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
 1200 N Street, Suite 400, P.O. Box 98922
 Lincoln, NE 68509
 (402)471-2186
 http://www.deg.state.ne.us
   North Carolina
   North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural
   Resources, Division of Water Quality
   1617 Mail Service Center
   Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
   (919)733-7015
   http://www.enr.state.nc.us
 Nevada
 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection,
 Bureau of Water Pollution Control
 333 West Nye Lane, Suite 138
 Carson City, NV 89706-0851
 (775)687-9418
 http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpc/bwpc01.htm
   North Dakota
   North Dakota Health Department
   Division of Water Quality
   1200 Missouri Avenue
   P.O. Box5520
   Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
   (701)328-5210
   http://www.health.state.nd.us/wg
 New Hampshire
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
 One Congress Street, Suite 1100
 6oston, MA 02114-2023
 (617)918-1111
 or (888) 372-7341 (New England states)
 http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/newhampshire.html
   Ohio
   Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
   Division of Surface Water
   Lazarus Government Center
   122 South Front Street
   P.O. Box1049
   Columbus, OH 43216
   (614)644-2021
   http://web.epa.state.oh.us/dsw
 New Jersey
 New Jersey Department of Environmental
 Protection, Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control
 401 East State Street, P.O. 8ox 29
 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029
 (609) 633-7021
 http://www.state.ni.us/dep/dwg/nonpoint.htm
   Oklahoma
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
   1445 Ross Avenue
   Dallas, TX 75202
   (215)665-6444
   http://www.epa.gov/region6
EPA-821-B-05-001
A-3
March 2006

-------
                                                                                    Appendix A
 Oregon
 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
 811 SW Sixth Avenue
 Portland, OR 97204-1390
 (503) 229-5696 or (800) 452-4011 (in Oregon)
 http://www.deq.state.or.us
Tennessee
Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church Street
L&C Tower
21st Floor
Nashville, TN 37243
(888)891-8332
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc
 Pennsylvania
 Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection
 Office of Water Management
 16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building
 P.O. Box 2063
 Harrisburg, PA  17105-2063
 (717)787-4686
 http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wa
 termgt.htm
Texas
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
1700 North Congress Avenue
P.O. Box13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-1000
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/AC/nav/permits/
water qual.html
 Puerto Rico
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
 290 Broadway
 New York, NY 10007-1866
 (212)637-5000
 http://www.epa.qov/Reqion2/water/wpb/npdes.htm
Utah
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
Cannon Building, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)538-6146
http://waterqualitv.utah.gov
 Rhode Island
 Rhode Island Department of Environmental
 Management, Office of Water Resources
 235 Promenade Street
 Providence, Rl  02908
 (401) 222-6800
 http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/
 water/index.htm
Vermont
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Wastewater Management Division
103 South Main Street
Sewing Bldg.
Waterbury, VT 05671 -0405
(802)241-3822
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/wwmd.cfm
 South Carolina
 South Carolina Department of Health &
 Environmental Control
 2600 Bull Street
 Columbia, SC 29201
 (803) 898-3432
 http://www.scdhec.net
Virginia
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street
P.O. Box10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4000 or 1-800-592-5482 (in Virginia)
http://www.deq.state.va.us
 South Dakota
 South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
 Resources, Surface Water Quality Program
 Joe Foss Building
 523 East Capitol Avenue
 Pierre, SD 57501
 (605) 773-3351
 http://www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html
Virgin Islands
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 6roadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212)637-5000
http://www.epa.qov/Reqion2/water/wpb/npdes.htm
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                               A-4
                                  March 2006

-------
                                                                                   Appendix A
 Washington
 Washington Department of Ecology
 P.O. Box 47600
 Olympia, WA 98504
 (360)407-6413
 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html
   Wisconsin
   Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
   Bureau of Wastewater Management
   101 South Webster Street
   P.O. Box7921
   Madison, Wl 53707
   (608) 267-7694
   http://www.dnr.state.wi.us
 West Virginia
 West Virginia Department of Environmental
 Protection, Division of Water and Waste
 Management, Water Permitting Section
 601 - 57th Street
 Charleston, WV  25304
 (304) 926-0495
 http://www.dep.state.wv.us
   Wyoming
   Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
   Water Quality Division
   122 West 25th Street
   Herschler Building, 4th Floor West
   Cheyenne, WY 82001
   (307) 777-7781
   http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd
EPA-821-B-05-001
A-5
March 2006

-------
       Appendix B

Natural Resources Agencies
 Associated with Fisheries

-------
                                                                             Appendix B
Natural Resources Agencies Associated with Fisheries
 Alabama
 Alabama Department of Conservation and
 Natural Resources
 64 N. Union Street Suite 468
 Montgomery, Alabama 36130
 (334) 242-3486
 http://www.dcnr.state.al.us
Colorado
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Division of Wildlife
1313 Sherman St., Rm. 718
Denver, CO 80203
(303)866-3311
http: //wildlife.state, co. us
 Alaska
 Alaska Department Fish and Game
 P.O. Box25526
 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
 (907)465-4100
 http://www.adfa.state.ak.us
Connecticut
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Natural Resources
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3010
http://deD.state.ct.us
 American Samoa
 Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources
 American Samoa Government,
 Executive Office Building, Utulei
 Territory of American Samoa, Pago Pago,
 AS 96799
 (684) 633-4456
 http: //www.asg-gov. net
 http: //www.asg-gov. net/
 MARINE%20&%20WILDLIFE%20RESOURCES.htm
Delaware
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Division of Fish and Wildlife
89 Kings Hwy.
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 739-3441
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/index.asp
 Arizona
 Arizona Game and Fish
 2221 W. Greenway Rd.
 Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399
 (602) 942-3000
 http://www.af.state.az.us
Florida
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
http://mvfwc.com
 Arkansas
 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
 2 Natural Resources Drive
 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
 (800) 364-4263
 http: //www. aafc.state.ar. us
Georgia
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S. E.
Suite 1252 East Tower
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-3500
http://www.aadnr.ora
 California
 California Department of Fish and Game
 1416 Ninth Street
 Sacramento, California 95814
 Phone:(916)445-0411
 (916)445-0411
 http://www.dfa.ca.aov
Guam
Guam Department of Agriculture
Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources
192 Dairy Road
Mangilao, Guam 96923
(671)735-3986
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           B-l
                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix B
 Hawaii
 State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural
 Resources
 Kalanimoku Bldg.
 1151 Punchbowl St.
 Honolulu, HI 96813
 (808) 587-0400
 httD://www.hawaii.aov/dlnr
Louisiana
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
2000 Quail Drive
Baton Rouge, La. 70808
(225) 342-4500
http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/page1 .asp
 Idaho
 Idaho Fish and Game
 600 S Walnut
 PO Box 25
 Boise, ID 83707
 (208) 334-3700
 httD://fishandaame.Idaho.aov
Maine
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0017
(207) 287-7688
http://www.nnaine.aov/deD/index.shtnnl
 Illinois
 Illinois Department of Natural Resources
 James R. Thompson Center
 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 4-300
 Chicago, IL 60601
 (312)814-2070
 http://dnr.st ate.II.us/about/officeadd.htm
Maryland
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/sw index flash.asp
 Indiana
 Indiana Department of Natural Resources
 402 West Washington Street
 Indianapolis, IN 46204
 http://www.in.aov/dnr
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
251 Causeway Street, Suite 400
Boston MA 02114-2154
(617)626-1590
http://www.mass.aov/dfwele/dfw/dfw toe.htm
 Iowa
 Iowa Department of Natural Resources
 502 E. 9th Street
 Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
 (515)725-0275
 http://www.iowadnr.com
Michigan
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Fisheries Division
P.O. Box30446
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517)373-1280
http://www.michiaan.aov/dnr
 Kansas
 Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
 1020 S. Kansas Ave., Suite 200
 Topeka, KS66612
 (785)296-2281
 http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4040
(651)296-6157
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/index.html
 Kentucky
 Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Resources
 #1 Game Farm Road
 Frankfort, KY 40601
 (800)858-1549
 http://www.kdfwr.state.kv.us
Mississippi
Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks
1505 Eastover Drive
Jackson, MS 39211-6374
(601)432-2400
http://www.mdwfp.com
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                            B-2
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                              Appendix B
 Missouri
 Missouri Department of Conservation
 P. O. Box 176
 Jefferson City, MO 65102
 (800)361-4827
 http://mclc.nno.aov
New Mexico
New Mexico Game and Fish
One Wildlife Way
Santa Fe, NM 87507
(505) 476-8000
http://www.wildlife. state, nm. us
 Montana
 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
 1420 East 6th Avenue
 Helena, MT 59620-0701
 (406) 444-2535
 http://fwD.st ate.mt.us/default.html
New York
NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Office of Natural Resources and Water
Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233
(518)402-8924
http://www.dec.state.nv.us/website/dfwmr/index.html
 Nebraska
 The Nebraska Game and Park Commission
 2200 N. 33rd St.
 Lincoln, NE 68509
 (402)471-0641
 http://www.napc.state.ne.us
North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
(919)733-4984
http: //www.enr.state, nc. us
 Nevada
 Nevada Department of Conservation and
 Natural Resources
 123 W. Nye Lane, Room 230
 Carson City, NV 89706-0818
 (775) 687-4360
 http://dcnr.nv.aov
North Dakota
North Dakota Game and Fish Department
100 N. Bismarck Expressway
Bismarck, ND 58501-5095
(701)328-6300
http://af.nd.aov/
 New Hampshire
 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
 11  Hazen Drive
 Concord, NH 03301
 (603)271-3421
 http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us
Ohio
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Division of Wildlife
2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G
Columbus, OH 43229
(614)265-6300
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/default.htm
 New Jersey
 New Jersey Department of Environmental
 Protection
 Division of Fish and Wildlife
 501 E. State St., 3rd Floor
 Trenton, NJ 08625-0400
 http://www.state.ni.us/dep/faw
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
1801 N. Lincoln
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-3721
http://www.wildlifedepartment.com
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                            B-3
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix B
 Oregon
 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
 3406 Cherry Avenue NE
 Salem, OR 97303
 (503) 947-6000
 http://www.dfw.state.or.us
Tennessee
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
P.O. Box40747
Nashville, TN 37204
(615)781-6500
http: 7/www.state.tn. us/twra
 Pennsylvania
 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
 1601 Elmerton Avenue
 Harrisburg, PA 17110
 (717)705-7800
 http://www.fish.state.Da.us
Texas
Texas Parks and Wildlife Services
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish
 Puerto Rico
 Departamento de Recursos Naturales y
 Ambientales (DRNA)
 (Natural & Environmental Resources Department)
 P.O Box 9066600, Puerto de Tierra Station
 Santurce, PR 00906
 (787) 724-8774
 http://www.aobierno.pr/drna
Utah
Utah Department of Natural Resources
1594 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT84114
http://www.water.utah.aov
 Rhode Island
 State of Rhode Island Department of
 Environmental Management
 4808 Tower Hill Road
 Wakefield, Rl 02879
 (401)222-6800
 http://www.state.ri.us/dem/proarams/bnatres/fishwild
Vermont
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main Street
Center Building
Waterbury, VT 05671-0301
(802)241-3600
http://www.anr.state.vt.us
 South Carolina
 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
 Rembert C. Dennis Building
 1000 Assembly Street
 Columbia, SC 29201
 (803) 734-3886
 http://www.dnr.state.sc.us
Virginia
Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries
4010 West Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804)367-1000
http://www.daif.state.va.us
 South Dakota
 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks
 523 E Capitol
 Pierre, SD 57501
 (605) 773-3381
 http://www.sdafp.info/lndex.htm
Virgin Islands
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and
Natural Resources
Cyril E.  King Airport, 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00802
(340) 774-3320

45 Mars Hills, Frederiksted
St. Croix, US Virgin Islands 00841
(340)773-1082
http://www.dpnr.aov.vi/about. htm
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                            B-4
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix B
 Washington
 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
 Natural Resources Building
 Olympic, WA 98501
 (360) 902-2200
 http://wdfw.wa. aov
Wisconsin
Wisconsin of Department of Natural Resources
101 S Webster St
PO Box 7921
Madison Wisconsin 53707-7921
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us
 West Virginia
 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
 Wildlife Resources
 Fisheries Management
 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, E.
 Charleston, WV 25305
 (304)558-2771
 httD://www.wvdnr.aov/Fishina/Fishina.shtm
Wyoming
Wyoming Game and Fish
5400 Bishop Blvd.
Cheyenne, WY 82006
(307) 777-4600
httD://af.state.wv.us/fish/index.asD
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                             B-5
                                 March 2006

-------
       Appendix C



Frequently Asked Questions

-------
                                                                              Appendix C
Frequently Asked  Questions


What operations are covered under the CAAP ELGs?

The CAAP ELGs apply to direct discharges of wastewater from existing and new facilities in
these two categories:

   •   Facilities that produce at least 100,000 pounds a year in flow-through and recirculating
       systems that discharge wastewater at least 30 days a year (used primarily to raise trout,
       salmon, hybrid striped bass, and tilapia).
   •   Facilities that produce at least 100,000 pounds a year in net pens or submerged cage
       systems (used primarily to raise salmon).


What do the CAAP  ELGs require?

The rule requires that all applicable facilities:

   •   Develop, maintain, and certify a Best Management Practice plan that describes how the
       facility will meet the requirements of the regulation.
   •   Prevent discharge of drugs and pesticides that have been spilled and minimize discharges
       of excess feed.
   •   Regularly maintain production and wastewater treatment systems.
   •   Keep records on numbers and weights of animals, amounts of feed, and frequency of
       cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs.
   •   Train staff to prevent and respond to spills and to properly operate and maintain
       production and wastewater treatment systems.
   •   Report the use of experimental animal drugs or drugs that are not used in accordance with
       label requirements.
   •   Report failure of or damage to a containment system.

The rule requires flow  through and recirculating discharge facilities to minimize the discharge of
solids such as uneaten  feed,  settled solids, and animal carcasses.

The rule requires open water system facilities (e.g., net pens or cages in the ocean) to:

   •   Employ efficient feed management strategies to allow only the least possible uneaten
       feed to accumulate beneath the nets.
   •   Properly dispose of feed bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and netting.
   •   Limit as much as possible wastewater discharges resulting from the transport or harvest
       of the  animals.
   •   Prevent the discharge of dead animals to  waters of the U. S.

Additional information about these requirements is available from Chapters 6 and 7, and
Chapters 9 through 15  of this guidance.
EPA-821-B-05-001                            C-l                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix C


What operations are covered under the NPDES regulation?

EPA's existing NPDES regulations define when a hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a
CAAP facility and, therefore, a point source subject to the NPDES permit program. See 40 CFR
122.24. In defining CAAP facilities, the NPDES regulations distinguish between warm water
and cold water species offish and define a CAAP facility by, among other things, the size of the
operation and frequency of discharge. A facility is a CAAP facility if it meets the criteria in 40
CFR 122, Appendix C (available in Appendix D of this guide) or if it is designated as a CAAP
facility by the Director on a case-by-case basis.

Most facilities falling under the definition of CAAP are either flow-through, recirculating, or net
pen systems. These systems discharge continuously or discharge 30  days or more per year as
defined in 40 CFR part 122.24 and are subject to permitting depending on the production level at
the facility. Most pond facilities do not require permits because ponds generally discharge fewer
than 30 days per year and therefore generally are not CAAP facilities, unless designated by the
Director.

In general1, you will not be covered by the NPDES regulations if you are a facility that produces
less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 20,000 pounds) per year of cold water
species or if you feed less than 2,272 kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of food during the
calendar month of maximum feeding (40 CFR part 122, Appendix C). The NPDES regulations
also do not apply if you are a facility that produces warm water species, using closed ponds that
discharges only during periods of excess runoff or if you produce  less than 45,454 harvest
weight kilograms (about  100,000 pounds) per year of warm water species (40 CFR part 122,
Appendix C).

Facilities meeting the NPDES definition of a CAAP will still be regulated by the NPDES permit
program, even if they are not subject to the ELGs.

What is the difference between NPDES and ELGs for CAAPs?

Any facility can be designated as a CAAP (whether it meets the requirements of the NPDES
regulations outright or whether the Director designates the facility as a CAAP facility) and be
subject to NPDES permitting requirements.

However, if the ELG applies to the CAAP facility (i.e., recirculating, flow-through, or net pen
systems that annually produce more than 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals) then the facility's
NPDES permit will also contain ELGs requirements specific to the system types used to produce
aquatic animals at that location.
 Unless the Director designates your facility as requiring an NPDES permit.
EPA-821-B-05-001                            C-2                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix C
When do the ELGs take effect?
The ELGs requirements will apply during a facility's next permit cycle (i.e., when the facility's
permit is renewed).

How does EPA define a facility?

A facility is defined as all contiguous property and equipment owned, operated, or leased, or
under control of the same person or entity. Each system owned, operated, leased, or under the
control of the same person or entity that is not contiguous can and should be treated as separate
facilities; the production threshold used in determining if a facility is a CAAP should also be
applied separately.

What is annual production?

EPA defines annual production for aquatic animal production facilities as what aquatic animals
leave the facility on an annual basis. Check with your permitting authority to verify how they
define production.


What if I have more than one type of system (i.e., recirculating and net pen) at my
facility?

If you have more than one type of regulated system (flow-through, recirculating, or net pen) at
your facility (and the total annual production at any one of the systems is 100,000 pounds or
more), you must comply with the different requirements for each system type. For example, if
you have a recirculating system and net pens at your facility, you will need to comply with the
appropriate ELGs requirements for both recirculating systems and net pens. For more
information about different system types and meeting the ELGs' production threshold, refer to
Chapter 3.

If you have other system types in addition to those regulated by the ELGs, such as ponds or
shellfish hatcheries, those system types are not regulated by the ELGs. For example, if your
facility has recirculating systems and ponds, only the recirculating systems are regulated by the
ELGs if they meet the production requirements. The requirements for your recirculating system
will appear in your NPDES permit. The ELGs requirements will not apply to the ponds at your
facility. However, you may need an NPDES permit if your ponds meet the  definition of the cold
water or warm water species category,  where the ponds discharge at least 30 days per year (40
CFR part 122, Appendix C) or if your pond is part of a facility that has been designated a CAAP
facility.


What systems are not regulated by the ELGs?

The ELGs regulations will not  apply to you if you have systems other than  flow-through,
recirculating, or net pens, such as molluscan shellfish hatcheries or shrimp ponds. The
regulations also do not apply to facilities whose combined annual production for their flow-
EPA-821-B-05-001                            C-3                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix C


through, recirculating, and net pen systems is less than 100,000 pounds. Systems not covered by
the CAAP ELGs include:

   •   Closed pond systems (may be covered by NPDES if it discharges more than 30 days per
       year or it is designated as a CAAP facility by the Director)
   •   Molluscan shellfish (including nurseries)
   •   Crawfish production
   •   Alligator production
   •   Aquaria
   •   Net pens rearing native species released after a growing period of no longer than 4
       months to supplement commercial and sport fisheries


What part of my CAAP is regulated?

The CAAP regulation applies to the production areas of your facility, including:

   •   Areas where you might grow, maintain, or contain aquatic animals (e.g., raceways, tanks,
       or net pens).
   •   Areas where you might store raw materials (e.g., feed silos and storage areas designated
       for feed or drugs).
   •   Areas where you might contain wastes (e.g., sedimentation basins, quiescent zones, and
       settling ponds).
   •   Source water and wastewater conveyance systems (e.g., tailraces and headraces).


When do I have to get an NPDES permit?

Your permit application deadline depends on whether your  operation is an existing CAAP
facility, a new discharger, or a new source. Each category has a different deadline  for applying
for an NPDES permit. Read the descriptions in Chapter 4 of this guide to determine when you
must apply for an NPDES permit.


What records do I have to keep?

Your NPDES permit will require you to keep certain records to show that you are  complying
with the terms of the permit.  You must keep all the records  on-site at your operation for 5 years
and you must provide them to the permitting authority upon request. Refer to Chapter 12 for
additional information about record-keeping.


How does EPA treat proprietary/confidential information?

Disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) is restricted by statute. Pursuant to EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 2.203  and 2.211, EPA treats all information for which a claim of
confidentiality is made as confidential unless and until it makes a determination to the contrary
under 40 CFR 2.205. Facilities that want to protect certain proprietary information included in
EPA-821-B-05-001                           C-4                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                           Appendix C
their BMP plans should mark this information as CBI. Note that information from federal
facilities and discharge information from all facilities cannot be claimed as CBI. Check with
your permitting authority for process and eligibility information.

What monitoring do I have to perform under my NPDES permit?

The monitoring that your permitting authority will require as part of your permit will depend on
the other conditions in your permit. If you are subject to ELGs, there are some associated
monitoring requirements, which are routine inspections of production and wastewater treatment
systems that are discussed in Chapters 5 and 11. In addition, if your permit includes water quality
based numeric effluent limitations, you will be required to monitor to demonstrate compliance
with those limitations. Your permitting authority may also require monitoring to characterize
your discharge even when your permit does not include numeric effluent limitations. Look
carefully at your permit, particularly the effluent limitations section, special conditions, and any
specific monitoring requirements section, to determine what monitoring you have to perform.


How do I develop a BMP plan?

Your BMP plan should describe in detail how you will achieve the requirements of the CAAP
ELGs. Chapter 8 of this guidance document describes what elements you should include in your
BMP plan.


How do I certify my BMP plan?

Send a signed letter to your permitting authority, stating that you have developed a BMP plan.
You will need to send a letter every time your permit is renewed. The BMP certification form
should include your name and title, name of the facility, NPDES  number, and date the BMP plan
was developed. An example certification form that may be submitted to your permitting
authority is available in Appendix F of this guidance document. Be sure to check with your
permitting authority if you have any questions about certifying your BMP plan.


What do I do  with my BMP plan, once it has been developed?

Once you have  developed your BMP plan,  keep a copy of the plan available in case your
permitting authority requests a copy.  You should also provide copies to employees so they can
implement the BMPs.

Where can I find example forms to help me satisfy requirements  of the CAAP
ELGs (e.g., solids control) and that may be submitted to my permitting authority?

Appendices M through T contain examples forms for all requirements of the CAAP ELGs. The
example forms  are available from this document  or online at
http://www.epa.gov/guide/aquaculture.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           C-5                                March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix C


How do I contact my permitting authority?

If you are unsure how to contact your permitting authority, Appendix A contains contact
information by state.


How can I get copies of the rule or additional information?

You can get a copy of the final rule by contacting the Office of Water Resource center at 202-
566-1729 or sending them an e-mail at center.water-resource@epa.gov. You can also write or
call the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP,
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419, (800) 490-9198, http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom.
Finally, Appendix D of this document provides a copy of the federal regulations. You can get
electronic copies of the preamble, rule, and major supporting documents at
http://www.epa.gov/guide/aquaculture or in E-Docket at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Once in
the E-Docket system, select "search," then key in the docket identification number (OW-2002-
0026).

Frequently Asked Questions for Your Permitting Authority

The following are frequently asked questions that you may want to ask your permitting authority:

   •  Will additional requirements (e.g., state, local, TMDL), in addition to EPA's regulations,
      be included in my NPDES permit? If so, what are they?
   •  What regulations for my state apply to my CAAP facility?
   •  How do I know if I am complying with all federal requirements that apply to point source
      discharges?
   •  How will I know if the Director designates my facility, which does not meet the
      requirements of the NPDES regulation or the CAAP ELGs, as a CAAP?
   •  If I discharge to a POTW and have an NPDES permit, what are the pretreatment
      requirements that I must meet?
   •  What forms do I need to fill out to apply for an NPDES permit or to renew my current
      NPDES permit? Where can I obtain these forms?
   •  Is my facility eligible for an existing general NPDES permit?
   •  When do I  have to get an NPDES permit?
   •  What happens if I don't submit my application by the deadline?
   •  What do I have to do when I renew my permit?
   •  Am I considered a new source or new discharger? I don't understand the difference.
   •  What happens to my permit if I close my facility?
   •  What happens if I make significant changes (e.g., increase production level) at my
      operation?
   •  Will I need to perform monitoring?
   •  What information do I have to report to my  permitting authority?
EPA-821-B-05-001                           C-6                                March 2006

-------
 Appendix D1




40 CFR 122.24

-------
                                                                                            Appendix Dl
§ 122.24

later than 90 days after becoming defined
as a CAFO; except that
  (iii) If an operational change that
makes the operation a CAFO would not
have made it a CAFO prior to April 14.
2003, the operation has until April 13.
2006, or 90 days after becoming defined
as a CAFO, whichever is later.
  (4) New sources. New sources must
seek to obtain coverage under a permit
at least 180 days prior to the time that
the CAFO commences operation.
  (5) Operations that are designated as
CAFOs. For operations designated as a
CAFO in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this section, the owner or operator
must seek to obtain coverage under a
permit no later than 90 days after receiving
notice of the designation.
  (6) No potential to discharge. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this
section, a CAFO that has received a "no
potential to discharge" determination
in accordance with paragraph (f) of this
section is not required to seek coverage
under an NPDES permit that would
otherwise be required by this section.
If circumstances materially change at
a CAFO that has received a NPTD determination.
such that the CAFO has a
potential for a discharge, the CAFO has
a duty to immediately notify the Director.
and seek coverage under an
NPDES permit within 30 days after the
change in circumstances.
  (h) Duty to Maintain Permit Coverage.
No later than 180 days before the expiration
of the permit, the permittee
must submit an application to renew
its permit, in accordance with
§ 122.21(g). However, the permittee need
not continue to seek continued permit
coverage or reapply for a permit if:
  (1) The facility has ceased operation
or is no longer a CAFO; and
  (2) The permittee has demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the Director that
there is no remaining potential for a
discharge of manure, litter or associated
process wastewater that was generated
while the operation was a CAFO, other than
agricultural stormwater from land application
areas.

[68 FR 7265, Feb. 12, 2003]
                40 CFR Ch. I (7-1 -04 Edition)

§ 122.24 Concentrated aquatic animal
production facilities (applicable to
State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).

  (a) Permit requirement. Concentrated
aquatic animal production facilities, as
defined in this section, are point sources
subject to the NPDES permit program.
  (b) Definition. Concentrated aquatic
animal production facility means a
hatchery, fish farm, or other facility
which meets the criteria in appendix C
of this part, or which the Director designates
under paragraph (c) of this section.
  (c) Case-by-case designation of
concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities. (1) The Director may designate any
warm or cold water aquatic animal production
facility as a concentrated aquatic animal
production facility upon determining that it is a
significant contributor of pollution to waters of
the United States. In making this designation the
Director shall consider the following factors:
  (i) The location and quality of the receiving
waters of the United States;
  (ii) The holding, feeding, and production
capacities of the facility;
  (iii) The quantity and nature of the
pollutants reaching waters of the
United States; and
  (iv) Other relevant factors.
  (2) A permit application shall not be
required from a concentrated aquatic
animal production facility designated
under this paragraph until the Director
has conducted on-site inspection of the
facility and has determined that the facility
should and could be regulated
under the permit program.

[48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at  65
FR 30907, May 15, 2000]

§ 122.25 Aquaculture projects (applicable
to State NPDES programs,  see  § 123.25).
  (a) Permit requirement. Discharges
into aquaculture projects, as defined in
this section, are subject to the NPDES
permit program through section 318 of
CWA, and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 125, subpartB.
  (b) Definitions. (I) Aquaculture project
means a defined managed water area
which uses  discharges  of pollutants
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                  Dl-1
                                     March 2006

-------
                                                                                           Appendix Dl
Pt. 122,App. C

section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D), (E) and (F) of
CWA, whether or not applicable effluent limitations
guidelines have been promulgated.
See §§ 122.44 and 122.46.

               Industry Category
Adhesives and sealants
Aluminum forming
Auto and other laundries
Battery manufacturing
Coal mining
Coil coating
Copper forming
Electrical and electronic components
Electroplating
Explosives manufacturing
Foundries
Gum and wood chemicals
Inorganic chemicals manufacturing
Iron and steel manufacturing
Leather tanning and finishing
Mechanical products manufacturing
Nonferrous metals manufacturing
Ore mining
Organic chemicals manufacturing
Paint and ink formulation
Pesticides
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceutical preparations
Photographic equipment and supplies
Plastics processing
Plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing
Porcelain enameling
Printing and publishing
Pulp and paper mills
Rubber processing
Soap and detergent manufacturing
Steam electric power plants
Textile mills
Timber products processing

APPENDIX B TO PART 122 [RESERVED]

APPENDIX C TO PART 122—CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING A CONCENTRATED
AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITY
(§ 122.24)

A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a
concentrated aquatic animal production facility
for purposes of § 122.24 if it contains,
grows, or holds aquatic animals in either of
the following categories:
  (a)  Cold water fish species or other cold
                40 CFR Ch. I (7-1 -04 Edition)

water aquatic animals in ponds, raceways, or
other similar structures which discharge at
least 30 days per year but does not include:
  (1) Facilities which produce less than 9,090
harvest weight kilograms (approximately
20,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year;
and
  (2) Facilities which feed less than 2,272
kilograms (approximately  5,000 pounds) of
food during the calendar month of maximum
feeding.
  (b) Warm water fish species or other warm
water aquatic animals in ponds, raceways, or
other similar structures which discharge at
least 30 days per year, but does not include:
  (1) Closed ponds which discharge only during
periods of excess runoff; or
  (2) Facilities which produce less than 45,454
harvest weight kilograms (approximately
100,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year.
"Cold water aquatic animals'' include, but
are not limited to, the Salmonidae family of
fish; e.g., trout and salmon.
' 'Warm water aquatic animals" include, but
are not limited to, the Ameiuride,
Centrarchidae and Cyprinidae families offish;
e.g., respectively, catfish, sunfish and minnows.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                 Dl-2
                                     March 2006

-------
Appendix D2



40 CFR 451

-------
Monday,

August 23, 2004
Part II



Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 451
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Point Source Category; Final Rule

-------
51892
Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules  and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 451
[OW-2002-0026; FRL-7783-6]
RIN 2040-AD55

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards
for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal
Production Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today's final rule establishes
Clean Water Act effluent limitations
guidelines and new source performance
standards for concentrated aquatic
animal production  facilities. The
animals produced range from species
produced for human consumption as
food to species raised to stock streams
for fishing. The animals are raised in a
variety of production systems. The
production of aquatic animals
contributes pollutants such as
suspended solids, biochemical oxygen
demand, and nutrients to the aquatic
environment. The regulation establishes
technology-based narrative limitations
                          and standards for wastewater discharges
                          from new and existing concentrated
                          aquatic animal production facilities that
                          discharge directly to U.S. waters. EPA
                          estimates that compliance with this
                          regulation will affect 242 facilities. The
                          rule is projected to reduce the discharge
                          of total suspended solids by about 0.5
                          million pounds per year and reduce the
                          discharge of biochemical oxygen
                          demand (BOD) and nutrients by about
                          0.3 million pounds per year. The
                          estimated annual cost for commercial
                          facilities is $0.3 million. The estimated
                          annual cost to Federal and State
                          hatcheries is $1.1 million. EPA
                          estimates that the annual monetized
                          environmental benefits of the rule will
                          be in the range of $66,000 to $99,000.
                          DATES: This regulation is effective
                          September 22, 2004. For judicial review
                          purposes, this final rule is promulgated
                          as of 1 p.m. (Eastern time) on September
                          7, 2004 as provided at 40 CFR 23.2.
                          ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
                          docket for this action under Docket ID
                          No.  OW-2002-0026. All documents in
                          the docket are listed in the EDOCKET
                          index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
                          Although not listed in the index, some
                          information is not publicly  available,
i.e., confidential business information or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Water docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public  Reading  Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Water
Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information contact Marta
lordan at (202) 566-1049.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply To Me?

  Entities that directly discharge to
waters of the U.S. potentially regulated
by this action include:
Category
Facilities engaged
following sectors
n concentrated aquatic animal production, which may include the
Commercial (for profit) and Non-commercial (public) facilities.
Examples of regulated enti-
ties and SIC Codes
0273 — Animal Aquaculture.
0921 — Fish Hatcheries and
Preserves.
Examples of regulated enti-
ties and NAICS codes
112511 — Finfish Farming
and Fish Hatcheries.
112519— Other Animal
Aquaculture.
  This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria listed at 40 CFR
part 451 of today's rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed for information in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This
Document and Other Related
Information?

  1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0026.
The official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in
                          this action, any public comments
                          received, and other information related
                          to this action. Although a part of the
                          official docket, the public docket does
                          not include Confidential Business
                          Information (CBI) or other information
                          whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
                          The official public docket is the
                          collection of materials that is available
                          for public viewing at the Water Docket
                          in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
                          EPA West, Room B102, 1301
                          Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
                          DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
                          Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
                          4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
                          excluding legal holidays. The telephone
                          number for the Public Reading Room is
                          (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
                          number for the Water Docket is (202)
                          566-2426.  Every user is entitled to copy
                          266 pages per day before incurring a
                          charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents
                          a page for each page over the page limit
                          plus an administrative fee of $25.00.
                            2. Electronic Access. You may access
                          this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the "Federal Register" listings at
http ://www. epa .gov/fedrgstr/.
  An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA's
electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
to view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in
the system, select "search," then key in
the appropriate docket identification
number. Although not all docket
materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any
of the publicly available docket
materials through the docket facility
identified in section B.I.

C. What Other Information Is Available
To Support This Final Rule?

  The major documents supporting the
final regulations are the following:

-------
              Federal  Register/Vol. 69,  No. 162/Monday, August  23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                        51893
  • "Technical Development Document for
the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Point Source Category" [EPA-821-R-04-012]
referred to in the preamble as the Technical
Development Document (TDD). The TDD
presents the technical information that
formed the basis for EPA's decisions in
today's final rule. The TDD describes, among
other things, the data collection activities, the
wastewater treatment technology options
considered by the Agency as the basis for
effluent limitations guidelines and standards,
the pollutants found in wastewaters from
concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities, the estimates of pollutant removals
associated with certain pollutant control
options, and the cost estimates related to
reducing the pollutants with those
technology options.
  • "Economic and Environmental Benefit
Analysis of the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production
Point Source Category  [EPA-821-R-04-013]
referred to in this preamble as the Economic
and Environmental Benefit Analysis or
EEBA. This document presents the
methodology used to assess economic
impacts, environmental impacts and benefits
of the final rule. The document also provides
the results of the analyses conducted to
estimate the projected impacts and benefits.
  Major supporting documents are
available in hard copy from the National
Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP,
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
45242-2419, (800) 490-9198,
www.epa.gov/ncepihom. You can obtain
electronic copies of this preamble and
rule as well as major supporting
documents at EPA Dockets at
www.epa.gov/edocket and at
www.epa .gov/guide/aquaculture.

D. What Process Governs Judicial
Review for Today's Final Rule?
  Under Section  509(b)(l) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), judicial review of
today's effluent limitations guidelines
and standards may be obtained by filing
a petition for review in the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals within
120 days from the date of promulgation
of these guidelines and standards. For
judicial review? purposes, this final rule
is promulgated as of 1 pm (Eastern time)
on September 7, 2004 as provided at 40
CFR 23.2. Under  section 509(b)(2) of the
CWA, the requirements of this
regulation may not be challenged later
in civil or criminal proceedings brought
by EPA to enforce these requirements.

E. What Are the Compliance Dates for
Today's Final Rule?
  Existing direct dischargers must
comply with today's limitations based
on the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT),
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT), and the best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT) as soon as their National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits include such
limitations. Generally, this occurs when
existing permits are reissued. New
direct discharging sources must obtain
an NPDES permit for the discharge and
comply with applicable new source
performance standards (NSPS) on the
date the new sources begin discharging.
For purposes of NSPS, a source is a new
source if it commences construction
after September 22, 2004.

F. How Does EPA Protect Confidential
Business Information (CBI)?
  Certain information and data in the
record supporting the final rule have
been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA
has not included these materials in the
record that is available to the public in
the Water Docket. Further, the Agency
has withheld from disclosure some data
not claimed as CBI because release of
this information could indirectly reveal
information claimed to be confidential.
To support the rulemaking while
preserving confidentiality claims, EPA
is presenting in the public record
certain information in aggregated form,
masking facility identities, or using
other strategies.

Table of Contents
I. General Information
  A. Does This Action Apply to  Me?
  B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document
    and Other Related Information?
  C. What Other Information Is Available To
    Support This Final Rule?
  D. What Process Governs ludicial Review
    for Today's Final Rule?
  E. What Are the Compliance Dates for
    Today's Final Rule?
  F. How Does EPA Protect CBI?
II. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
    Used in This Document
III. Under What Legal Authority Is This Final
    Rule Issued?
IV. What Is the Statutory and Regulatory
    Background to This Rule?
  A. Clean Water Act
  B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
  C. Clean Water Act Requirements
    Applicable to CAAP Facilities
V. How Was This Final Rule Developed?
  A. September 2002 Proposed Rule
  B. December 2003 Notice of Data
    Availability
  C. Public Comments
  D. Public Outreach
VI. What Are Some of the Significant
    Changes in the Content of the Final Rule
    and the Methodology Used To Develop
    it?
  A. Subcategorization
  B. Regulated Pollutants
  C. Treatment Options Considered
  D. Reporting Requirements
  E. Costs
  F. Economic Impacts
  G. Loadings
  H. Environmental Assessment and Benefits
   Analysis
VII. Who Is Subject to This Rule?
  A. Who Is Subject to This Rule?
  B. What if a facility uses more than one
   production system?
  C. What Wastewater Discharges Are
   Covered?
VIII. What Are the Requirements of the Final
   Rule and the Basis for These
   Requirements?
  A. What Technology Options Did EPA
   Consider for the Final Rule?
  B. What Are the Requirements for the
   Flow-Through and Recirculating
   Systems Subcategory?
  C. What Are the Requirements for the Net
   Pen Subcategory?
  D. What Monitoring Does the Final Rule
   Require?
  E. What Are the Final Rule's Notification,
   Recordkeeping, and Reporting
   Requirements?
IX. What Are the Costs and Economic
   Impacts Associated With This Rule?
  A. Compliance Costs
  B. Economic Impacts
  C. What Do the Cost-Reasonableness
   Analyses Show?
X. What Are the Environmental Benefits for
   This Rule?
  A. Summary of the Environmental Benefits
  B. Non-Monetized Benefits
  C. Monetized Benefits
XI. What Are the Non-Water Quality
   Environmental Impacts of This Rule?
  A. Air Emissions
  B. Energy Consumption
  C. Solid Waste Generation
XII. How Will This Rule Be Implemented?
  A. Implementation of Limitations and
   Standards for Direct Dischargers
  B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
  C. Variances and Modifications
  D. Best Management Practices
  E. Potential Tools To Assist With the
   Remediation of Aquaculture Effluents
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
  A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
   Planning and  Review
  B. Paperwork Reduction Act
  C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
  D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  E. Executive Order 13132:  Federalism
  F. Executive Order 13175:  Consultation
   and Coordination With Indian Tribal
   Governments
  G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
   Children From Environmental Health
   and Safety Risks
  H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
   Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
   Distribution, or Use
  I. National Technology Transfer and
   Advancement Act
  }. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
   To Address Environmental lustice in
   Minority Populations and Low-Income
   Populations
  K. Congressional Review Act

II. Definitions, Acronyms, and
Abbreviations Used in This Document

  Act—The Clean Water Act.

-------
51894
Federal  Register/Vol.  69, No. 162/Monday,  August  23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
  Agency—U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
  AWQC—Ambient water quality criteria.
  BAT—Best available technology
economically achievable, as defined by
section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
  BCT—Best conventional pollutant control
technology, as defined by section 304(b)(4) of
the Act.
  BMP—Best management practice, as
defined by section 304(e) of the Act.
  BODs—Biochemical oxygen demand
measured over a five day period.
  BPJ—Best professional judgment.
  BPT—Best practicable control technology
currently available, as defined by section
304(b)(l) of the Act.
  CAAP—Concentrated aquatic animal
production.
  CBI—Confidential business information.
  CFR—Code of Federal Regulations.
  CWA—33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq., as
amended.
  Conventional  Pollutants—Constituents of
wastewater as determined by Section
304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations),
i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical
oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil
and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
  Daily Discharge—The discharge of a
pollutant measured during any calendar day
or any 24-hour period that reasonably
represents a calendar day.
  Daily Maximum Limit—the highest
allowable "daily discharge".
  Direct Discharger—A facility that
discharges or may discharge treated or
untreated wastewaters into waters of the
United States.
  DMR—Discharge monitoring report;
consists of the reports filed with the
permitting authority by permitted dischargers
to demonstrate compliance with permit
limits.
  DO—Dissolved oxygen.
  ELG—Effluent limitations guidelines.
  EQIP—Environmental Quality Incentives
Program.
  Existing source—For this rule, any facility
from which there is or may be a discharge of
pollutants, the construction of which is
commenced before September 22, 2004.
  Extralabel drug use—Actual use or
intended use of  a drug in an animal in a
manner that is not in accordance with the
approved label.  The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act allows veterinarians to
prescribe extralabel uses of certain approved
animal drugs and approved human drugs for
animals under certain conditions. These
conditions are spelled out in Food and Drug
Administration regulations at 21 CFR Part
530. Among these requirements are that any
extralabel use must be by or on the order of
a veterinarian within the context of a
veterinarian-client-patient relationship, must
not result in violative residues in food-
producing animals, and the use must be in
conformance with the regulations. A list of
drugs specifically prohibited from extralabel
use appears at 21 CFR 530.41.
  Facility—All contiguous property and
equipment owned, operated, leased, or under
the control of the same person or entity.
  FAO—United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization.
                              FCR—Feed conversion ratio.
                              PDF—Fundamentally different factor.
                              FFDCA—Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
                            Act, 21 U.S.C. 301, etseq., as amended.
                              FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
                            Rodenticide Act.
                              FR—Federal Register.
                              FTE—Full Time Equivalent Employee.
                              FWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
                              INAD—Investigational new animal drug. A
                            new animal drug (or animal feed containing
                            a new animal drug) intended for testing or
                            clinical investigational use in animals. Food
                            and Drug Administration regulations limit
                            the conditions under which such drugs may
                            be used. 21 CFR 511, 514.
                              Indirect Discharger-A facility that
                            discharges or may discharge wastewaters into
                            a publicly-owned treatment works.
                              JSA/AETF—Joint Subcommittee on
                            Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluents Task
                            Force.
                              lb(s)/yr—pound(s) per year.
                              NAICS—North American Industry
                            Classification System. NAICS was developed
                            jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to
                            provide new comparability in statistics about
                            business activity across North America.
                              NEPA—National Environmental Policy
                            Act, 33 U.S.C. 4321, etseq.
                              NMFS—National Marine Fisheries Service.
                              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 CWA.
                              NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation
                            Service.
                              Nonconventional Pollutants—Pollutants
                            that are neither conventional pollutants
                            listed at 40 CFR 401 nor toxic pollutants
                            listed at 40 CFR 401.15 and Part 423
                            Appendix A.
                              Non-water quality environmental impact—
                            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.
                              NRDC—Natural Resources Defense
                            Council.
                              NSPS—New Source Performance
                            Standards.
                              NTTAA—National Technology Transfer
                            and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
                              OMB—Office of Management and Budget
                              Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains  and
                            other conduits from which a facility
                            discharges effluent into receiving waters.
                              Pass through—a discharge that exits a
                            POTW into waters of the United States in
                            quantities or concentrations that alone or in
                            conjunction with discharges from other
                            sources, causes a violation of any
                            requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit
                            (including an increase in the magnitude or
                            duration of a violation).
                              PCB—Polychlorinated biphenyls.
                              POC—Pollutants of Concern. Pollutants
                            commonly found in aquatic animal
                            production wastewaters. Generally,  a
                            chemical is considered as a POC if it was
                            detected in untreated process wastewater at
                            5 times a baseline value in more than 10%
                            of the samples.
                              Point Source—Any discernable, confined,
                            and discrete conveyance from which
pollutants are or may be discharged. See
CWA Section 502(14).
  POTW(s)—Publicly owned treatment
works. It is a treatment works as defined by
Section 212 of the Clean Water Act that 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 Treatment Plant. The
term also means the municipality as defined
in Section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act,
which has jurisdiction over the Indirect
Discharges to and the discharges from such
a treatment works.
  Priority Pollutant—One hundred twenty-
six compounds that are a subset of the 65
toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants
outlined pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA.
40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A.
  PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing
sources of indirect discharges, under Section
307(b) of the CWA, applicable to indirect
dischargers that commenced construction
prior to the effective date of a final rule.
  PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new
sources under Section 307(c) of the CWA.
  QUAL2E—Enhanced Stream Water Quality
Model.
  RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
601, et. seq.
  SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public
Law 104-121.
  SIC—Standard Industrial Classification, a
numerical categorization system used by the
U.S. Department of Commerce to catalogue
economic activity. SIC codes refer to the
products or groups of products that are
produced or distributed, or to services that
are provided, 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.
  TDD—Technical Development Document.
  TSS—Total Suspended Solids.
  U.S.C.—United States Code.
  UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, 2 U.S.C.  1501.
  USDA—United States Department of
Agriculture.

III. Under What Legal Authority Is This
Final Rule Issued?
  The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is promulgating these
regulations under the authority of
Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402,
and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342,
and 1361.

IV. What Is the Statutory and
Regulatory Background to This Rule?

A. Clean Water Act
  Congress passed the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (1972), also
known as the Clean Water Act (CWA),

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                      51895
to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters." (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)).
The CWA establishes a comprehensive
program for protecting our nation's
waters. Among its core provisions, the
CWA prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from a point source to waters
of the U.S. except as authorized by a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
The CWA also requires EPA to establish
national technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
(effluent guidelines or ELG) for different
categories of sources, such as industrial,
commercial and public sources of
waters. Effluent guidelines are
implemented when incorporated into an
NPDES permit. Effluent guidelines can
include numeric and narrative
limitations, including Best Management
Practices, to control the discharge of
pollutants from categories of point
sources.
  Congress recognized that regulating
only those sources that discharge
effluent directly into the nation's waters
may not be sufficient to achieve the
CWA's goals.  Consequently, the CWA
requires EPA  to promulgate nationally
applicable pretreatment standards that
restrict pollutant discharges from
facilities that  discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to
publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs). (See Section 307(b) and (c), 33
U.S.C. 1317(b) & (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established
only for those pollutants in wastewater
from indirect dischargers that may 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 must
develop local treatment limits
applicable to their industrial indirect
dischargers. Any POTWs required to
develop a pretreatment program must
develop local limits to implement the
general and specific national
pretreatment standards. Other POTWs
must develop local limits to ensure
compliance with their NPDES permit for
pollutants that result in pass through or
interference at the POTW. (See 40 CFR
403.5). Today's rule does not establish
national pretreatment standards for this
category, which contains very few
indirect dischargers, because the
indirect dischargers would be
discharging 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 pollutants
in amounts needing regulation. In the
event of pass through that causes a
violation of a POTW's NPDES limit, the
POTW must develop local limits  for its
users to ensure compliance with its
permit.
  Direct dischargers must comply with
effluent limitations in NPDES permits.
Technology-based effluent limitations in
NPDES permits are derived from
effluent limitations guidelines and new
source performance standards
promulgated by EPA, as well as
occasionally from best professional
judgment analyses. Effluent limitations
are also derived 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.
  EPA promulgates national effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
major industrial categories generally for
three classes of pollutants: (1)
Conventional pollutants (i.e., total
suspended  solids, oil and grease,
biochemical oxygen demand, fecal
coliform, 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) Nonconventional pollutants (e.g.,
ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and
phosphorus). EPA considered the
discharge of these classes of pollutants
in the development of this rule. EPA is
establishing BMP requirements for the
control of conventional, toxic and
Nonconventional pollutants. EPA
considers development of four types of
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for direct dischargers. The
paragraphs below describe those
pertinent to today's rule.

1. Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT)—Section
304(b)(l)oftheCWA
  EPA may promulgate BPT effluent
limits for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. For toxic
pollutants, EPA typically regulates
priority pollutants, which consist of a
specified list of toxic pollutants. In
specifying 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. (See CWA
304(b)(l)(B)). Traditionally, EPA
establishes BPT effluent limitations
based on the average of the best
performance of facilities within the
industry, grouped to reflect various
ages, sizes, processes, or other common
characteristics. Where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate,
EPA may establish limitations based on
higher levels of control than 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.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of
the CWA
  The  1977 amendments to the CWA
required EPA to identify additional
levels of effluent reduction for
conventional pollutants associated with
BCT technology for discharges from
existing industrial point sources.  In
addition to other factors specified in
Section 304(b)(4)(B),  the CWA requires
that EPA establish BCT limitations after
consideration of a two-part "cost-
reasonableness" test. EPA explained its
methodology for the development of
BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR
24974).
  Section 304(a)(4) designates the
following as conventional pollutants:
Biochemical oxygen demand measured
over five days (BODs), total  suspended
solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any
additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease
as an additional conventional pollutant
on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

3. Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT)—
Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA
  In general, BAT effluent limitations
guidelines represent the best
economically achievable  performance of
facilities in the industrial subcategory or
category. The CWA establishes BAT as

-------
51896
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
a principal national means of
controlling the direct discharge of toxic
and nonconventional 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, non-water quality
environmental impacts including energy
requirements, economic achievability,
and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate. The
Agency retains considerable discretion
in assigning the weight to be accorded
these factors. Generally, EPA determines
economic achievability on the basis of
total costs to the industry and the effect
of compliance with BAT limitations on
overall industry and subcategory
financial conditions. As with BPT,
where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect
a higher level of performance than is
currently being achieved based on
technology transferred from a different
subcategory or category. BAT may be
based upon process changes or internal
controls,  even when these technologies
are not common industry practice.

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 (i.e.,
conventional, nonconventional, and
priority pollutants). In establishing
NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the
effluent reduction, any non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
  Section 304(m) of the CWA requires
EPA every two years to publish a plan
for reviewing and revising existing
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards and for promulgating new
effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990,
EPA published an Effluent Guidelines
Plan (see 55 FR 80) in which the Agency
established schedules for developing
new and revised effluent guidelines for
several industry categories. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., and
Public Citizen, Inc., challenged the
Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District
                          of Columbia, (NRDC et al v. Leavitt, Civ.
                          No. 89-2980). On January 31, 1992, the
                          court entered a consent decree which,
                          among other things, established
                          schedules for EPA to propose and take
                          final action on effluent limitations
                          guidelines and standards for several
                          point source categories. The amended
                          consent decree requires EPA to take
                          final action on the Concentrated Aquatic
                          Animal Production (CAAP) effluent
                          guidelines by June 30, 2004.
                          C. Clean Water Act Requirements
                          Applicable to CAAP Facilities
                            EPA's existing National Pollutant
                          Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
                          regulations define when a hatchery, fish
                          farm, or other facility is a concentrated
                          aquatic animal production facility and,
                          therefore, a point source subject  to the
                          NPDES permit program. See 40 CFR
                          122.24. In defining "concentrated
                          aquatic animal production (CAAP)
                          facility," the NPDES regulations
                          distinguish between warmwater and
                          coldwater species of fish and define a
                          CAAP facility by, among other things,
                          the size of the operation and frequency
                          of discharge.
                            A facility is a CAAP facility if it meets
                          the criteria in 40 CFR 122 appendix C
                          or if it is designated as a CAAP facility
                          by the NPDES program director on a
                          case-by-case basis. The criteria
                          described in appendix C are as follows.
                          A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility
                          is a concentrated aquatic animal
                          production facility  if it grows, contains,
                          or holds aquatic animals in either of two
                          categories: cold water species or warm
                          water species. The cold water species
                          category includes facilities where
                          animals are produced in ponds,
                          raceways, or other similar structures
                          that discharge at least 30 days per year
                          but does not include facilities that
                          produce less than approximately 20,000
                          pounds per year or facilities that feed
                          less than approximately 5,000 pounds
                          during the calendar month of maximum
                          feeding. The warm  water species
                          category includes facilities where
                          animals are produced in ponds,
                          raceways, or other similar structures
                          that discharge at least 30 days per year,
                          but does not include closed ponds that
                          discharge only during periods of excess
                          runoff or facilities that produce less
                          than approximately 100,000 pounds per
                          year. 40 CFR part 122, appendix C.
                          Today's action does not revise the
                          NPDES regulation that defines CAAP
                          facilities.
                            Most facilities falling under the
                          definition of CAAP are either flow-
                          through, recirculating or net pen
                          systems. These systems discharge
                          continuously or discharge 30 days or
more per year as defined in 40 CFR part
122 and are subject to permitting
depending on the production level at
the facility. Most pond facilities do not
require permits because ponds generally
discharge fewer than 30 days per year
and therefore generally are not CAAP
facilities unless designated by the
NPDES program director. The NPDES
program director can designate a facility
on a case-by-case basis if the director
determines that the facility is a
significant contributor of pollution to
waters of the U.S.

V. How Was This Final Rule
Developed?
  This section describes the background
to development of the proposal, the
proposed rule, EPA's data collection
effort, and changes to the proposal EPA
considered based on new information
and comments on the proposal.

A. September 2002 Proposed Rule
  EPA started work on these effluent
guidelines in January 2000. EPA relied
on a federal interagency group known as
the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
as a primary contact for information
about the industry. The Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
authorized by the National Aquaculture
Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 1198, 16 U.S.C.
2801, et seq, operates under the
National Science and Technology
Council of the  Office of Science and
Technology in the Office of the Science
Advisor to the  President. The National
Aquaculture Act's purpose is to promote
aquaculture in the United States to help
meet its future food needs and
contribute to solving world resource
problems. The Act provides for the
identification of regulatory constraints
on the development of commercial
aquaculture, and for development of a
plan identifying specific steps the
Federal Government can take to remove
unnecessarily burdensome regulatory
barriers  to the initiation and operation
of commercial  aquaculture ventures. It
also directs Federal agencies with
functions or responsibilities that may
affect aquaculture to perform such
functions or responsibilities, to the
maximum extent practicable, in a
manner  that is consistent with the
purpose and policy of the Act. The Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture
established the Aquaculture Effluents
Task Force (AETF) to work with EPA to
provide  information and expertise for
the development of this rule. The AETF
became an instrumental group
providing input and comments to EPA.
The AETF consists of members from
various Federal agencies, State
governments, industry, academia, and

-------
             Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                     51897
non-governmental (environmental)
organizations.
  EPA used the information provided
by the AETF and conducted its own
research for this rulemaking effort. EPA
also relied on the 1998 Census of
Aquaculture conducted by the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
provide information on the size and
distribution of facilities in the industry.
The Census also provided some basic
information on the revenues and prices
realized by aquatic animal producers.
This information became a primary
resource for describing the industry.
  Because of limitations in the Census
data, EPA conducted its own survey of
the aquatic animal production industry.
EPA adopted a two-phase approach to
collecting data from aquatic animal
producers. In the first phase, EPA
distributed a "screener" survey. EPA
designed this survey to  collect very
basic information from all known
aquatic animal producers including
public facilities regardless of size,
ownership, or production system. EPA
mailed the survey to approximately
6,000 potential aquatic animal
producers in August 2001. The survey
consisted of 11 questions asking for
general facility information. EPA used
the information collected to refine the
profiles of the industry with respect to
the production systems in use and the
type of effluent  controls in use. The
screener survey, AETF information, and
Census data became the primary sources
for the proposed rule.
  EPA based the limitations and
standards for the proposed rule on the
analysis of technologies to achieve
effluent reductions using model aquatic
animal production facilities. Each of
these model facilities represented a
different segment of the population
corresponding to a particular
production system type, size range (in
terms of annual pounds of aquatic
animals produced), and species
produced.
  EPA evaluated the economic impact
of each regulatory option it considered
for the proposed effluent limitations and
new source performance standards
based on the revenues and production
cost information available from the
USDA Census of Aquaculture along
with EPA's own engineering cost
estimates for the pollution control
technologies being considered. After
determining revenues and compliance
costs for each model facility, EPA used
a compliance cost-to-revenue ratio as a
predictor of potential economic impacts
for the different model facilities. EPA
used this economic analysis in its
evaluation of whether it should limit the
application of the national limitations
and standards by size of production.
  On September 12, 2002, EPA
published the proposed rule (see 67 FR
57872). The proposed limitations and
standards applied only to new and
existing CAAP facilities that discharge
directly to waters  of the United States.
EPA proposed requirements for three
subcategories for this industry: flow-
through, recirculating, and net pen
systems. Flow-through and recirculating
production systems are land-based.  Net
pens, by contrast,  are located in open
water.
  EPA based the proposed requirements
for the recirculating and flow-through
subcategories on effluent control
technologies that remove suspended
solids from the animal production water
prior to  discharge. The technologies
considered include quiescent zones,
settling basins (including off-line
settling basins, full flow settling basins,
and polishing settling basins) and
filtration technology. EPA proposed to
establish limitations on the
concentration of Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) in the discharges from
these facilities based on its preliminary
assessment of the  performance achieved
by the various control technologies. In
the case of recirculating systems, EPA
based the proposed TSS limitations on
solids polishing or secondary solids
removal technology. For flow-through
systems, EPA based the proposed TSS
limitations on primary or secondary
solids settling technologies depending
on the production level of the facility
(i.e., primary for 100,000-475,000 Ibs/yr
and secondary for >475,000 Ibs/yr).  In
addition to numeric limits, EPA also
proposed to require these facilities to
implement operational measures so-
called—Best Management Practices
(BMPs)—to reduce the discharge of
pollutants and develop a BMP plan  to
document these practices. Depending on
the type and size of the facility, the plan
would have required a facility to
identify and implement practices that
controlled, for example, the discharge of
solids and ensured the proper storage
and disposal of drugs and chemicals.
  EPA based the proposed requirements
for net pen facilities on requirements to
reduce the amount of solids, mainly
feed, being added directly into waters of
the U.S. The proposal required net pen
facilities to develop and implement
BMPs to address the discharge of solids
including the requirement to conduct
active feed monitoring to minimize the
amount of feed not eaten and thus
discharged to the aquatic environment.
Other proposed requirements included
adoption of practices to ensure proper
storage and disposal of drugs and
chemicals. In addition, EPA proposed
that net pen facilities prevent the
discharge of solid wastes such as feed
bags, trash, net cleaning debris, and
dead fish; chemicals used to clean the
nets, boats or gear; and materials
containing or treated with tributyltin
compounds. Further requirements were
designed to minimize the discharge of
blood, viscera, fish carcasses or
transport water containing blood
associated with the transport or
harvesting of fish.

B. December 2003 Notice of Data
Availability
  On December 29, 2003, EPA
published a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) at 68 FR 75068. In the NODA,
EPA summarized the data received
since the proposed rule and described
how the Agency might use the data for
the final rule. The NODA also discussed
the second phase of data collection, a
detailed survey, which EPA conducted
in 2002. The detailed survey was mailed
to a stratified sample population of
facilities identified from the screener
survey. EPA received responses  from
203 facilities. The surveyed population
included a statistically representative
sample of facilities that reported
producing aquatic animals with  flow-
through, recirculating and net pen
systems. EPA also surveyed a small
number of facilities that would not have
been subject to the proposed
requirements. EPA's objective was to
further verify the assumptions on which
it had based its preliminary decision to
exclude these facilities from the  scope
of the final rule.
  The detailed data collected through
this survey allowed EPA to revise the
methods used for the proposed rule to
estimate costs and economic impacts.
EPA developed facility-specific costs
and economic impact assessments for
each surveyed facility based on the
detailed information provided in the
survey responses. The detailed
information included production
systems, annual production, and control
practices and technologies in place at
the facility.
  The detailed responses to the second
survey provided EPA with better
information on the baseline level of
control technologies and operational
measures in use at CAAP facilities.
Based on this understanding, EPA
described two modified options  in the
NODA that EPA was considering for the
final rule. These options  reflected the
same technologies and practices
considered for the proposed regulation,
but reconfigured the combinations of
treatment technologies and practices
into revised regulatory options.

-------
51898
Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules  and Regulations
  EPA visited 17 additional sites and
sampled at one facility in response to
issues raised in the comments. The
NODA discussed the post-proposal data
including site visits and additional
sampling. The results of EPA's analyses
of the data were also presented in the
NODA. EPA solicited comment on the
new data and the conclusions being
drawn from them.

C. Public Comments
  EPA has prepared a "Comment
Response Document" that includes the
Agency's responses to comments
submitted on the proposed rule and the
notice of data availability. All of the
public comments, including supporting
documents, are available for public
review? in the administrative record for
this final rule, filed under docket
number OW-2002-0026.
  The comment period  on the proposed
rule closed on January 27, 2003. EPA
received approximately 300 comments,
including form letters. EPA received
comments from sources including the
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture—
Aquaculture Effluents Task Force (JSA/
AETF), industry trade associations,
Federal  and State agencies,
environmental organizations, and
private citizens. For the NODA, EPA
received 20 comments between
December 29, 2003 and  February 12,
2004.

D. Public Outreach
  As part of the development of the
proposed rule and today's final rule,
EPA has conducted outreach activities.
EPA met with affected and interested
stakeholders through site visits and
sampling trips to obtain information on
operating and waste management
practices at CAAP facilities. EPA met
numerous times with members of the
JSA/AETF and conducted outreach with
small businesses during the SBREFA
process.
  EPA conducted three  public meetings
to discuss the proposed rule during the
public comment period for the proposed
rule. EPA has participated in the
industry's conferences to update
participants on the progress and status
of the rule. EPA also held several
meetings with other federal agencies to
discuss  issues that  potentially affect
their mission, programs, or
responsibilities.
  Moreover, EPA maintains a website
that posts information relating to the
regulation. EPA provided supporting
documents for the proposed rule on the
site. The documents included the
Technical Development Document, the
Draft Guidance for  Aquatic Animal
Production Facilities to  Assist in
                          Reducing the Discharge of Pollutants,
                          and the Economic and Environmental
                          Impact Analysis. These documents used
                          to support the proposed rule and the
                          final supporting documents are
                          available at www.epa.gov/guide/
                          aquaculture.

                          VI. What Are Some of the Significant
                          Changes in the Content of the Final
                          Rule and the Methodology Used To
                          Develop It?
                           This section describes some of the
                          major  changes that EPA made to the
                          final rule from that it proposed. This
                          section also describes differences in the
                          methodology EPA used in evaluating its
                          options for the final rule.
                          A. Subcategorization
                           The proposed regulation included
                          limitations and standards for three
                          subcategories: Flow-through systems,
                          recirculating systems and net pens. The
                          final rule establishes limitations and
                          standards for the same systems but for
                          only two subcategories: A flow-through
                          and recirculating systems subcategory
                          and a net pens subcategory. The
                          recirculating and flow-through systems
                          are combined into one subcategory
                          instead of two separate subcategories.
                           As previously noted, flow-through
                          and recirculating systems are both land
                          based  systems that typically discharge
                          continuously, but can occasionally
                          discontinue discharges for short periods
                          of time. The principal distinguishing
                          characteristic between these two
                          systems is the degree to which water is
                          reused prior to  its discharge, with
                          recirculating systems typically
                          discharging lower volumes of
                          wastewater. In the proposal, EPA
                          distinguished recirculating systems
                          from flow-through systems by
                          describing a recirculating system as one
                          that typically filters with biological or
                          mechanically supported filtration and
                          reuses the water in which the aquatic
                          animals are raised. Net pen systems, by
                          contrast, are located in open water and
                          have distinctly different characteristics
                          from either recirculating or flow-
                          through systems.
                           EPA received a number of comments
                          on the distinction between flow-through
                          and recirculating systems described in
                          the proposed rule. Because some flow-
                          through systems also reuse their
                          production water, commenters did not
                          believe EPA had adequately
                          distinguished recirculating systems
                          from flow-through systems. Some
                          commenters encouraged EPA to use
                          hydraulic retention time as a basis for
                          distinguishing between flow-through
                          and recirculating systems. However,
                          EPA's review of available data showed
that there is no clear dividing line
between the hydraulic retention time in
a system that was considered a
recirculating system and one that was
considered a flow-through system. EPA
examined the aquatic animal production
literature for alternatives for
distinguishing recirculating systems and
flow-through systems. Given the
difficulty in distinguishing certain flow-
through facilities from recirculating
ones, EPA considered whether it should
combine the two subcategories into one
subcategory. EPA discussed this in the
NODA and solicited comment on this
option.
  While some commenters opposed
combining these two subcategories, EPA
has decided to combine flow-through
and recirculating systems for the
purpose of establishing effluent
limitations guidelines for the following
reasons. First, as some commenters
recognized, both flow-through and
recirculating systems may reuse water
and employ similar measures to
maintain water quality including
mechanical filtration. Second, the
characteristic of wastewater discharged
from facilities that are identified as
recirculating systems that are similar to
the wastewater from the off-line or
solids treatment units at flow-through
systems. Both waste streams are
characterized by high levels of
suspended solids, which can be
effectively treated through properly
designed and operated treatment
systems employing either settling
technology combined with effective feed
management or  a carefully controlled
feed  management system alone.
Therefore, EPA decided that the same
requirements should apply both to
wastewater discharged from
recirculating production systems and
wastewater discharged from off-line
solids treatment units at flow-through
facilities. Moreover, EPA had based the
proposed limits for both of these waste
streams on the same data set. For the
foregoing reasons, EPA has concluded
that this change in the organization of
the final rule does not substantively
change the requirements.
  Commenters also pointed to
differences in BMPs employed at the
different production systems. EPA
recognizes that there are differences
between recirculating systems and flow-
through systems. EPA has concluded,
however, that the control technology
selected as the basis for the final
narrative limitations will effectively
remove pollutants from both systems to
the same degree. Further, the BMP
requirements in the final rule for this
subcategory are  flexible enough to
accommodate differences in the specific

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No. 162/Monday, August  23,  2004/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                     51899
practices appropriate for the two types
of production systems. Finally,
commenters were concerned that
collapsing these two systems into one
subcategory could be interpreted as
indicating that EPA favors recirculating
systems over flow-through systems and
implying that flow-through systems
should be modified to become
recirculating systems. This certainly is
not EPA's intention and the Agency is
not suggesting that recirculating systems
should replace existing flow-through
systems or be given a preference in the
construction of new systems. The
primary reason  to collapse these two
systems into one subcategory is to
eliminate redundancy in the CFR.

B. Regulated Pollutants
  There are a number of pollutants
associated with discharges from CAAP
facilities. CAAP facilities can have high
concentrations of suspended solids and
nutrients, high BOD and low dissolved
oxygen levels. Organic matter is
discharged primarily from feces and
uneaten feed. Metals, present in feed
additives or from the deterioration of
production equipment, may also be
present in CAAP wastewater. Effluents
with high levels of suspended solids,
when discharged into receiving waters,
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,
thus  reducing photosynthetic activity.
Suspended particles can damage fish
gills, increasing the risk of infection  and
disease. Nutrients are discharged mainly
in the form of nitrate, ammonia and
organic nitrogen. Ammonia causes two
main problems in water. First, it is toxic
to aquatic life. Second, it is  easily
converted to nitrate which may increase
plant and algae  growth.
  Some substances, like drugs and
pesticides, that  may be present in the
wastewater may be introduced directly
as part of the aquatic animal production
process. An important source of the
pollutants potentially present in CAAP
wastewater is, as the above discussion
suggests, the feed used in aquatic
animal production. Feed used at CAAP
facilities contributes to pollutant
discharges in a number of ways: by-
product feces, ammonia excretions and,
most directly, as uneaten feed (in
dissolved and particulate forms).
Moreover, the feed may be the vehicle
for introducing  other substances into the
wastewater, like drugs. For example,
medicated feed may introduce
antibiotics into  the wastewater.
  In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to
establish numeric limitations for only a
single pollutant—total suspended solids
(TSS)—while controlling the discharge
of other pollutants through narrative
requirements. Following proposal, EPA
reevaluated the technological basis for
the numerical limits for TSS and
determined that it would be more
appropriate to promulgate qualitative
TSS limits, in the form of solids control
BMP requirements, that could better
respond to regional and site-specific
conditions and accommodate existing
state programs in cases where these
appear to be working well (see Section
VIII.B. for further discussion). EPA is
thus not promulgating numerical
limitations for TSS or other pollutants.
  EPA is instead establishing narrative
effluent limitations requiring
implementation of effective operational
measures to achieve reduced discharges
of solids and other materials. For the
final rule, as it did at proposal, EPA has
also developed narrative limitations that
will address a number of other
pollutants potentially present in CAAP
wastewater. These narrative limitations
address spilled materials (drugs,
pesticides and feed), fish carcasses,
viscera and other waste, excess feed,
feed bags, packaging material and
netting.
  EPA's decision to not establish
national numeric limits for TSS  will not
restrict a permit writer's authority to
impose site-specific permit numeric
effluent limits on the discharge of TSS
or other pollutants in appropriate
circumstances. For example, a permit
writer may establish water quality-based
effluent limits for TSS (see 40 CFR
122.44(d) or regulate TSS (by
establishing numeric limits) as a
surrogate for the  control of toxic
pollutants (see 40 CFR 122.44(e)(2)(ii))
where site-specific circumstances
warrant. The permit writer may  also
issue numeric limits in general permits
applicable to classes of facilities. In fact,
one of the bases for EPA's decision not
to establish uniform national TSS limits
is the recognition that a number of
states, particularly those with
significant numbers of CAAP facilities,
already have general permits with
numeric limits tailored to the specific
production systems, species raised, and
environmental conditions in the state,
and these permits seem to be working
well to minimize discharges of
suspended solids (see DCN 63056). EPA
believes there would be minimal
environmental gain from requiring these
states to redo their General Permits to
conform to a set of uniform national
concentration-based limits that in most
cases would not produce significant
changes in control technologies  and
practices at CAAP facilities.
  In the final rule, EPA is also not
establishing numeric limits for any drug
or pesticide, but is requiring CAAP
facilities to ensure proper storage of
drugs, pesticides and feed to prevent
spills and any resulting discharges of
drugs and pesticides. EPA is also
establishing a requirement to implement
procedures for responding to spills of
these materials to minimize their
discharge  from the facility. EPA's survey
of this industry indicated that many
CAAP facilities currently employ a
number of different measures to prevent
spills and have established in-place
systems to address spills in the event
they occur. EPA is thus establishing a
requirement for all facilities to develop
and implement BMPs that avoid
inadvertent spills of drugs, pesticides,
and feed and to implement procedures
for properly containing, cleaning and
disposing of any spilled materials  to
minimize  their discharge from the
facility. The effect of these requirements
will be to  promote increased care in the
handling of these  materials.
  Some commenters  suggested that EPA
regulate certain other pollutants or
substances that may be discharged from
these production systems. For this rule,
EPA evaluated control of some of these.
For example, EPA evaluated the
application of activated carbon
treatment to remove compounds such as
antibiotic  active ingredients from
wastewater prior to discharge. For the
reasons discussed in  Section IX.A,
however, EPA is not basing any
pollutant limitations on the application
of this technology.

C. Treatment Options Considered
  EPA evaluated three treatment
options as the basis for BPT/BCT/BAT
proposed  limitations for the flow-
through and recirculating subcategories
and three  options for the net pen
subcategory. For flow-through and
recirculating systems, EPA proposed a
numeric limitation for TSS. For Option
1, the least stringent option, EPA
considered TSS limitations based  on
primary settling as well as the use of
BMPs to control the discharge of solids
from the production system. The second
treatment option (Option 2) considered
by EPA for establishing TSS limitations
was based on Option 1 technologies
plus the addition  of reporting
requirements if INAD or extralabel drug
use were used in the production
systems, plus the  implementation  of
BMPs to ensure proper storage, handling
and disposal of drugs and chemicals
and the prevention of escapes when
non-native species are produced. EPA
based limitations  for  the most stringent
option (Option 3)  on primary settling

-------
51900
Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
and the addition of secondary solids
settling, in conjunction with BMPs, to
control the discharge of solids from the
production system. This option also
included BMPs to control drugs,
chemicals and non-native species and
the reporting of drugs. For New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA
considered the same three options.
  EPA evaluated three treatment
options for the net pen subcategory. The
least stringent option, Option 1,
required feed management and
operational BMPs for solids control.
Option 2 consisted of the same practices
and technology as Option 1 plus a BMP
plan to address drugs, chemicals,
pathogens, and non-native species and
general reporting requirements for the
use of certain drugs and chemicals.
Option 3, the most stringent option,
included the requirements of the first
two options as well as active feed
monitoring to control the supply of feed
in the production units. Many existing
facilities use active feed or real time
monitoring to track the rate of feed
consumption and detect uneaten feed
passing through the nets. These systems
may  include the use of devices such as
video cameras, digital scanning sonar
detection, or upwellers, in addition to
good husbandry and feed management
practices. These systems and practices
allow facilities to cease feeding the
aquatic animals when a build-up of feed
or over-feeding is observed. EPA
considered the same treatment options
for NSPS.
  The NODA described two additional
options that EPA was considering for
flow-through and recirculating systems,
but did not identify any new options for
net pens. These two options contained
the same treatment technologies and
practices described in the three options
considered for the proposed rule but in
slightly different combinations.
  The NODA Option A included
primary solids treatment, a reporting
requirement for the INAD and extralabel
drug uses, and the implementation of
BMPs to control drugs and chemicals. In
addition to Option A requirements,
Option B included secondary solids
removal treatment or, alternatively, the
implementation of BMPs for feed
management, and solids handling to
control the discharge of solids.
  As previously explained, for flow-
through or recirculating systems, today's
final rule does not establish numeric
limitations for total suspended solids
(TSS) but does include narrative
limitations requiring the solids control
measures and operational practices
described as part of Option B for BPT/
BCT/BAT limitations and NSPS. These
include requirements to minimize the
                          discharge of solids. It also requires
                          facilities to develop and implement
                          practices designed to prevent the
                          discharge of spilled drugs and
                          pesticides, inspection and maintenance
                          protocols designed to prevent the
                          discharge of pollutants as a result of
                          structural failure, training of personnel,
                          various recordkeeping requirements,
                          and documentation of the
                          implementation of these requirements
                          in a BMP plan which is maintained on
                          site and available to the permitting
                          authority upon request.
                            For net pens, the final rule establishes
                          non-numeric, narrative limitations that
                          are similar to those adopted for flow-
                          through and recirculating systems.
                          Thus, the limitations require
                          minimization of feed input, proper
                          storage of drugs, pesticides and feed,
                          routine inspection and maintenance of
                          the production and wastewater
                          treatment systems, training of
                          personnel, and appropriate
                          recordkeeping. Compliance with these
                          requirements must be documented in a
                          BMP plan which describes how the
                          facility is minimizing solids discharges
                          through feed management and how it is
                          complying with prohibitions on the
                          discharge of feed bags and other solid
                          waste materials. Further, net pens must
                          minimize the accumulation of uneaten
                          feed beneath the pens through active
                          feed monitoring and management
                          strategies.

                          D. Reporting Requirements
                            EPA's proposed rule would have
                          required permittees to report the use of
                          INADs and extralabel use of both drugs
                          and chemicals. In the final rule, EPA is
                          modifying the proposed requirement, by
                          deleting the reporting requirements for
                          chemicals, including pesticides, and by
                          further limiting the reporting
                          requirement for drugs, as described
                          below. EPA used the term "chemicals"
                          in the proposed rule to refer to
                          registered pesticides.
                            EPA's decision not to include
                          pesticides in the final reporting
                          requirements is based on the language
                          in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
                          and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
                          regulations that implement the statute.
                          FIFRA Section 5 authorizes EPA to
                          allow field testing of pesticides under
                          development through the issuance of
                          Experimental Use Permits. Further,
                          FIFRA Section 18 authorizes EPA to
                          allow States to use a pesticide for an
                          unregistered use for a limited time if
                          EPA determines that emergency
                          conditions exist. Under both of these
                          provisions the applicant is required to
                          submit information concerning the
                          environmental risk associated with the
pesticide use as part of the application
for the permit or exemption. Also in
both cases the permittee or the State or
Federal authority must report
immediately to EPA any adverse effects
from the use. Prior to issuing an
emergency exemption, EPA is required
to determine that the exemption will not
cause unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment (see 40 CFR
166.25(b)(l)(ii)) and that the pesticide is
likely to be used in compliance with the
requirements imposed under the
exemption (see 40 CFR 166.25(b)(l)(iii)).
EPA's regulation further specifies that
the applicant for an emergency
exemption must coordinate with other
affected State or Federal agencies to
which the requested exemption is likely
to be of concern. The application  must
indicate that the coordination has
occurred, and any comments provided
by the other agencies must be submitted
to EPA with the application (see 40 CFR
166.20(a)(8)).
  In contrast, the FDA's regulations for
Investigative New Animal Drugs
(INADs) exempt INADs from  the
requirement to conduct an
Environmental Assessment (see 21 CFR
25.20 and 25.33). As a policy matter,
FDA encourages INAD sponsors to
notify permitting authorities of the use
of an INAD. There is, however, no
requirement that the sponsors comply.
Therefore, EPA  considers the reporting
of INADs in today's regulation necessary
to ensure that permit writers  are aware
of the potential  for discharge  of the
INAD and can take action as necessary
in authorized circumstances.
  EPA is providing an exception to the
requirement to report INAD use. When
an INAD has already been approved for
use in another species or to treat another
disease and is applied at a dosage that
does not exceed the approved dosage,
reporting is not  required if it will  be
used under similar conditions. The
requirement that the use be under
similar conditions is intended to limit
the exception to cases where  the INAD
use would not be expected to produce
significantly different environmental
impacts from the previously approved
use. For example, use of a drug that had
been previously approved for a
freshwater application as an INAD in a
marine setting would not be considered
a similar condition of use, since marine
ecosystems may have markedly different
vulnerabilities than freshwater
ecosystems. Similarly, the use of a drug
approved to treat terrestrial animals as
an INAD to treat aquatic animals would
not be considered a similar condition of
use. In contrast, the use of a drug  to treat
fish in a freshwater system that was
previously approved for a different

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday, August  23, 2004/Rules  and  Regulations
                                                                      51901
freshwater species would be considered
use under similar conditions. EPA has
concluded that when a drug is used
under similar conditions it is unlikely
that the environmental impacts would
be different than those that were already
considered in the prior approval of the
drug.
  CAAP facilities must also report the
use of extralabel drugs. However, as
with INADs, reporting is not required if
the extralabel use does not exceed the
approved dosage and is used under
similar conditions. EPA anticipates that
most extralabel drug use will not require
reporting, but wants to ensure that
permitting authorities are aware of
situations in which a higher dose of a
drug is used or the drug is used under
significantly different conditions from
the approved use. It is also possible that
drugs approved for terrestrial animals
could be used to treat aquatic animals
as extralabel use drugs.
  For the final rule, the timing and
content of reporting requirements
related to the use of INADs and
extralabel drugs are similar to the
proposed requirements. EPA requires
both oral and written reporting. The
final rule has an added requirement that
the CAAP facility report the method of
drug application in both the oral report
and the written report. EPA has
concluded that both oral and written
reports are reasonable requirements
because the oral report lets the
permitting authority know of the drug
use sooner than the written report, thus
facilitating site-specific action if
warranted. The written report provides
confirmation of the use of the drug and
more complete information for future
data analysis and control measures.
Today's regulation also adds a
requirement that CAAP facilities  notify
the permitting authority in writing
within seven days after signing up to
participate in INAD testing. Advance
notice prior to  the use of the INAD
allows the permitting authority to
determine whether additional controls
on the discharge of the INAD during its
use may be warranted.
  Finally, today's regulation includes a
requirement to report any spill of drugs,
pesticides or feed that results in a
discharge to waters of the U.S. Facilities
are expected to implement proper
storage for these products and
implement procedures for the
containing, cleaning and disposing of
spilled material. If the spilled material
enters the production system or
wastewater treatment system it can be
assumed that the material will reach
waters of the U.S. EPA considers
reporting of these events necessary to
alert the permitting authority to
potential impacts in the receiving
stream. Facilities are expected to make
an oral report to the permitting
authority within 24 hours of the spill's
occurrence followed by a written report
within 7 days. The report shall include
the identity of the material spilled and
an estimated amount.
  EPA has concluded that today's
reporting requirements are appropriate
because they make it easier for the
permitting authority to evaluate what
additional control measures on INADs
and extralabel drug use may be
necessary to prevent or minimize harm
to waters of the U.S. and to respond
more effectively to any unanticipated
environmental impacts that may occur.
Because neither of these classes of drugs
has undergone an environmental
assessment for the use being made of
them, EPA is ensuring that the
permitting authority is  aware of their
use and if warranted can take  site
specific action.
  Today's reporting requirements are
authorized under several sections of the
CWA. Section 308 of the CWA
authorizes EPA to require point sources
to make such reports and "provide such
other information as [the Administrator]
may  reasonably require." 33 U.S.C.
1318(a)(A). Section 402(a) of the Act
authorizes EPA to impose permit
conditions as to "data and information
collection, reporting and such other
requirements as [the Administrator]
deems appropriate." 33 U.S.C.
1342(a)(2). It is well established that
these provisions justify EPA's
establishing a range of information
disclosure requirements. Thus, for
example, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit concluded that the Agency's
data  gathering authority was not limited
to information on toxic pollutants
already identified by the Agency in a
permittee's discharge. EPA regulations
required permit applications to include
information on toxic pollutants that an
applicant used or manufactured as an
intermediate or final product or
byproduct.  In the court's view, EPA
could reasonably determine that it could
not regulate effectively without
information on such pollutants because
they could end up  present in the
permittee's discharge. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 822
F.2d 104, 119 (DC Cir. 1987). The same
is true for certain INADs and extralabel
drug use that may end up as pollutants
discharged to waters of the U.S.
  Under the proposed rule, the
operators of facilities subject to the rule
were to certify that they had developed
a BMP plan that met the requirements
in the regulation. EPA continues to view
BMPs as effective tools to control the
discharge of pollutants from CAAP
facilities and is establishing narrative
requirements based on the use of BMPs
as the basis of today's regulation. EPA
has also retained the requirement for a
BMP plan. The BMP plan is a tool in
which the facility must describe the
operational measures it will use to meet
the non-numeric effluent limitations in
the regulation. Upon incorporation of
today's requirements into an NPDES
permit, the CAAP facility owner or
operator will be expected to develop
site-specific operational measures that
satisfy the requirements. The final rule
requires CAAP facilities to develop a
BMP plan that describes how the CAAP
facility will comply with the narrative
requirements and that is maintained at
the CAAP facility. The CAAP facility
owner or operator must certify in
writing to the permitting authority that
the plan has been developed. In EPA's
view, a BMP plan, as a practical matter,
can assist facilities  in achieving
compliance with the non-numeric
limitations. It can also assist regulatory
authorities in verifying compliance with
the requirements and modifying specific
permit conditions where warranted.  As
explained earlier in this section, EPA
has concluded Section 308 clearly
authorizes it to require this information.
Of course, irrespective of the content of
the plan, a facility must still comply
with the narrative limitations.
  In conjunction with the requirement
to inspect and  provide regular
maintenance of CAAP production and
treatment systems to prevent structural
damage, EPA is including a reporting
requirement associated with failure of
the CAAP containment structure and
any resulting discharges. EPA is
requiring CAAP facilities to report any
failure of or damage to the structural
integrity of the containment system that
results in a material discharge of
pollutants to waters of the U.S. For net
pen systems, for example, failures might
include physical damage to the predator
control nets or the nets containing the
aquatic animals, that may result in a
discharge of the contents of the nets.
Physical damage might include
abrasion, cutting or tearing of the nets
and breakdown of the netting due to rot
or ultra violet exposure. For flow-
through and recirculating systems, a
failure might include the collapse of, or
damage to, a rearing unit or wastewater
treatment structure; damage to pipes,
valves, and other plumbing fixtures; and
damage  or malfunction to screens or
physical barriers in the system, which
would prevent the unit from containing

-------
51902
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
water, sediment, and the aquatic
animals. The permitting authority may
further specify in the permit what
constitutes a material discharge of
pollutants that would trigger the
reporting requirements. The permittee
must report the failure of the
containment system within 24 hours of
discovery of the failure. The permittee
must notify the permitting authority
orally and describe the cause of the
failure in the containment system and
identify materials that were discharged
as a result of this failure. Further, the
facility must provide a written report
within seven days of discovery of the
failure documenting the cause, the
estimated time elapsed until the failure
was repaired, an estimate of the material
released as a result of the failure, and
steps being taken to prevent a
reoccurrence.

E. Costs
  At proposal, EPA used a model
facility approach to estimate the cost of
installing or upgrading wastewater
treatment to achieve the proposed
requirements. As described in the
preamble to the proposed regulation (67
FR 57872), EPA developed 21 model
facilities (based on the USDA's Census
of Aquaculture and EPA's  screener
survey)  characterized by different
combinations of production systems,
size categories, species and ownership
types. EPA developed regulatory
technology options based on screener
survey responses, site visits, industry
and other stakeholder input, and
existing permit requirements.
  EPA estimated the  cost for each
option component for each model
facility.  We then calculated costs for
each regulatory option at each model
facility based on model facility
characteristics and the costs of the
option's technologies or practices
corresponding to the  option.
  EPA estimated frequency factors for
treatment technologies and existing
BMPs based on screener survey
responses, site visits, and sampling
visits. Baseline frequency factors
represented the portion of the facilities
represented by a particular model
facility that would not incur costs to
comply  with the proposed requirements
because they were already using the
technology or practice. EPA adjusted the
component cost for each model  facility
to account for those facilities that
already have the component in-place.
Subsequently, EPA derived national
estimates of costs by  aggregating the
component costs applicable to each
model facility across  all model facilities.
  EPA's detailed surveys captured
information on the treatment in-place at
                          the facility and other site-specific
                          information (such as labor rates). EPA
                          obtained additional cost information
                          from data supplied from public
                          comments and site visits. With the new
                          data, EPA revised the method to
                          estimate compliance costs. Instead of a
                          model facility approach, EPA used a
                          facility-level cost analysis based on the
                          available facility-specific data contained
                          in the detailed survey responses. We
                          applied statistically-derived survey
                          weights instead of the frequency factors
                          used at proposal to estimate costs to the
                          CAAP industry as a whole.
                            For proposal, EPA used national
                          averages for many of the cost elements,
                          such as labor rates and land costs. In its
                          analysis for the final regulation, EPA
                          used facility specific cost information,
                          such as labor rates, to determine the
                          costs associated with implementing the
                          regulatory options. When facility
                          specific rates were not available, EPA
                          used national averages for similar
                          ownership types of facilities (i.e., non-
                          commercial and commercial ownership)
                          to determine managerial and staff labor
                          rates. EPA revised estimates for all labor
                          costs using the employee and wage
                          information supplied in the detailed
                          surveys. For those facilities indicating
                          they use unpaid labor for part of the
                          facility operation, we used wages for
                          similar categories (i.e., managerial or
                          staff) supplied by that facility to
                          estimate costs associated with
                          implementing the regulatory options.
                            Comments also suggested that EPA's
                          assumed land costs were too low at
                          proposal; EPA assumed national average
                          land values for agricultural land. EPA
                          revised its estimates for land costs when
                          determining the opportunity costs of
                          using land at a facility if structural
                          improvements were evaluated that
                          required use of facility land that was not
                          currently in use by the CAAP
                          operation's infrastructure (e.g., occupied
                          by tanks, raceways, buildings, settling
                          basins, etc.). When evaluating the cost
                          of land for the revised analyses, EPA
                          used land costs of $5,000/acre, which is
                          twice the median value for land
                          associated with aquaculture facilities
                          surveyed in the U.S.  (seeDCN 63066).
                          EPA used this conservative estimate
                          because the only facilities that required
                          structural improvements in the options
                          evaluated were non-commercial
                          facilities, for which land value estimates
                          were not available.
                            EPA considered several technology-
                          based options to determine the technical
                          and economic feasibility of requiring
                          numeric TSS limits for in-scope CAAP
                          facilities. EPA's analysis of the detailed
                          survey revealed that over 90% of the
                          flow-through and recirculating system
facilities currently had at least primary
settling technologies in-place. EPA
performed a cost analysis for the
facilities without primary settling using
the facility-specific configuration
information provided in the detailed
survey. EPA also evaluated facilities
with primary settling in-place by
comparing actual (i.e., DMR data) or
estimated TSS effluent concentrations to
the proposed limits. For those facilities
not meeting the proposed TSS limits,
EPA also evaluated the implementation
of additional solids controls, including
secondary solids polishing and feed
management.
  For facilities with no solids control
equipment, we estimated the costs for
primary solids control. EPA evaluated
each facility to identify the
configuration of the existing treatment
units and what upgrades would be
required.
  EPA also used industry cost
information provided through public
comment and the detailed survey to
estimate costs for design and
installation of primary settling
equipment for effective settling of
suspended solids. For example, we used
the facility-level data included in the
detailed survey responses to place and
size the off-line settling basins on the
facility site.
  EPA classified each facility's
wastewater treatment system based on
the description provided in its survey
response and available  monitoring data,
including DMR data. We assumed that
treatment technologies  indicated by a
facility on the detailed  survey are
properly sized, installed, and
maintained. EPA estimated facility-
specific costs for each of the responding
direct dischargers and used these
estimates as the basis for national
estimates. Because the survey did not
collect information about many specific
parameters used in individual facilities'
production processes and treatment
systems, EPA supplemented the facility-
specific information with typical
specifications or parameters from
literature, survey results, and industry
comments. For example, EPA assumed
that facilities have pipes of typical sizes
for their operations.
  As a consequence of such
assumptions, a particular facility might
need a different engineering
configuration from those modeled if it
installed equipment that varies from the
equipment or specifications we used to
estimate costs. EPA nonetheless
considers that costs  for these facilities
are generally accurate and
representative, especially industry-
wide. EPA applied typical specifications
and parameters representative of the

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday, August  23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                      51903
industry to a range of processes and
treatment systems. We contacted
facilities to get site-specific
configuration information where
possible.
  In revising cost estimates, EPA paid
particular attention to:
  1. Size of tanks, raceways, and culture
units;
  2. Labor rates;
  3. Treatment components in place;
  4. BMPs and plans in place;
  5. Daily operations at the facility.
  Site visits and analysis of the detailed
surveys indicated that raceways and
quiescent zones are cleaned as
necessary to maintain system process
water quality.
  In evaluating facilities for the need to
use additional solids controls, EPA first
checked for evidence of a good feed
management program. If the facility
reported they practice feed
management, EPA looked for evidence
of solids management and good
operation of the physical plant,
including regular cleaning and
maintenance of feed equipment and
solids collection devices (e.g., quiescent
zones, sedimentation basins, screens,
etc.). To evaluate the effectiveness of a
facility's solids control practices, we
calculated feed conversion ratios (FCRs)
using pounds of feed per pound of live
product (as reported in the detailed
survey)  and considered existing solids
control equipment. We assumed
facilities lacking evidence of good feed
management or solids control programs
would incur additional costs to improve
or establish them.
  EPA estimated FCRs from data in the
detailed survey and follow-up with
some facilities and compared FCRs for
groups of facilities (i.e., combinations of
ownership, species and production
system types such as commercial trout
flow-through facilities or government
salmon  flow-through facilities). We
found a wide range of FCRs (reported by
facilities in their detailed surveys,
which were validated by call backs to
the facility) among apparently similar
facilities within ownership-species-
production system groupings.
  For example, we had good data for 24
of 60 government trout producers using
flow-through systems. They reported a
range of FCRs of 0.79 to 1.80 with a
median FCR of 1.30. If an individual
facility's reported FCR was significantly
greater than the median, EPA further
evaluated the facility to ascertain the
reason for the higher FCR. Facilities that
produce larger fish, such as broodstock,
might have higher FCRs because the
larger fish produce less flesh per unit of
food. Facilities with fluctuating water
temperatures could also be less efficient
than facilities with constant water
temperatures. We did not apply costs for
solids control BMPs for facilities with
reasonable explanations for the higher
FCRs. We evaluated facilities that did
not report FCRs or provide enough data
for an estimate by using a randomly
selected FCR, which is described in
Chapter 10 of the Technical
Development Document (DCN 63009).
  For those facilities that required
additional solids controls, EPA
evaluated both feed management and
the installation of secondary solids
polishing technologies. EPA received
comments on the use of microscreen
filters and EPA agrees with concerns
raised in comments that the cost
associated with enclosing the filter in a
heated structure would be prohibitive.
EPA found that the effective operation
of microscreen filters requires that they
be enclosed in heated buildings to
prevent freezing when located in cold
climates. EPA's revised estimates of
costs for secondary solids polishing are
not based on the application of
microscreen filters unless the detailed
survey response indicated that such a
structure existed at the site. When the
detailed survey did not indicate a
structure at the site, EPA estimated costs
for a second stage settling structure
rather than a microscreen filter.  Based
on data from two of EPA's sampling
episodes at CAAP facilities, this
technology will achieve the proposed
limits for TSS.
  We also considered the use of
activated carbon filtration to treat
effluent containing drug or pesticide
active ingredients from wastewater, but
rejected controls for these materials.
Research indicates that this technology
is effective at treating these compounds,
and at least one aquatic animal
production facility installed this
technology for water quality reasons.
EPA estimated the costs for activated
carbon treatment as a stand-alone
technology. We estimated costs on a
site-specific basis for facilities which
reported using drugs and then added
these costs for the different regulatory
options considered to assess the
economic achievability of this
technology. A detailed discussion of
how EPA  estimated costs is available
from the public record (DCN 62451).
EPA considers these costs to be
economically unachievable or not
affordable on a national scale. However,
EPA is aware of at least one facility
currently using this technology, and
notes that it is an effective technology
for removing drug compounds from
wastewater.
  EPA estimated the costs to develop
and implement escape management
practices at facilities where (1) the
cultured species was not commonly
produced or regarded as native in the
State, (2) the facility was a direct
discharger, and (3) the species was
expected to survive if released. (In
contrast, producers of a warm water
species in a cold climate, such as tilapia
producers in Minnesota or Idaho, would
not incur costs for this practice.) Costs
for escape prevention include staff time
for production unit and discharge point
inspections and maintenance of escape
prevention devices. We applied these
costs to facilities that installed
equipment conforming with State
requirements for facilities producing
non-native species (identified by the
State). Management time includes
quarterly production unit and discharge
point inspections, eight hours a year to
review applicable State and Federal
regulations, and quarterly staff
consultations.
F. Economic Impacts
  There are a number of changes made
to the costing and economic impact
methods used for  the final rule. EPA
used data from the detailed survey to
project economic  impacts for the final
rule, in contrast to the screener data and
frequency factors  used for the proposed
rule. For existing commercial
operations, EPA assessed the number of
business closures  among regulated
enterprises, facilities, and companies by
applying market forecasts and using a
closure methodology that compares
projected earnings with and without
incremental compliance costs for the
period 2005 to 2015. Other additional
analyses include an analysis of
moderate impacts by comparing annual
compliance costs  to sales, an evaluation
of financial health using a modified U.S.
Department of Agriculture's four-
category (2 x 2) matrix approach, and an
assessment of possible impacts on
borrowing capacity. For new
commercial operations, EPA evaluates
whether the regulatory costs will result
in a barrier to entry among new
businesses. For noncommercial
operations, EPA evaluated impacts
using a budget test that compares
incurred compliance costs to facility
operating budgets. Additional analyses
investigate whether a facility could
recoup increased compliance costs
through user fees  and estimated the
associated increase.
  For today's final regulation, EPA
modified its forecasting models to
include certain data for recent years that
became available after the Agency
published its NODA (see 68 FR 75068-
75105). This and other details about
how EPA developed its economic

-------
51904
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
impact methodologies is presented in
this preamble and in the Economic and
Environmental Benefit Analysis of the
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Concentrated
Aquatic Animal Production Industry
("Economic and Environmental Benefit
Analysis"), available in the rulemaking
record.

G. Loadings
  To estimate the baseline discharge
loadings and load reductions for the
proposed rule, EPA used the same
model facility approach as used to
estimate the compliance costs. Briefly,
EPA first estimated pollutant loadings
for untreated wastewater based on
several factors for each model facility.
As previously noted, feed used at CAAP
facilities contributes to pollutant
discharges in three ways: By-product
feces, dissolved ammonia excretions,
and uneaten feed (in dissolved  and
particulate forms). These byproducts of
feed contribute to the pollutant load in
the untreated culture water. EPA then
used typical efficiency rates of removing
specific pollutants from water to
estimate load reductions for the
treatment options and BMPs. EPA
estimated frequency factors for
treatment technologies and existing
BMPs based on screener survey
responses, site visits, and sampling
visits. The occurrence frequency of
practices or technologies was used to
estimate the portion of the operations
that would incur costs. Using the same
frequency factors for technologies in
place that were used to estimate costs,
EPA estimated the baseline pollutant
loads discharged, then calculated load
reductions for the options.
  As described in the NODA, EPA
revised the  loadings approach to
incorporate facility-level information
using data primarily from the detailed
surveys. EPA also incorporated
information included in comments
concerning appropriate feed conversion
ratios (FCRs).
  EPA based its estimates of pollutant
loads on the reported feed inputs
included in the detailed surveys. EPA
used the annual feed input and feed-to-
pollutant conversion factors described
in the TDD  and DCN 63026 to calculate
raw pollutant loads. EPA then analyzed
each facility's detailed survey response
to determine the treatment-in-place at
the facility. Using published literature
values to determine the pollutant
removal efficiencies for the types of
wastewater treatment systems used at
CAAP facilities, EPA calculated a
baseline pollutant load discharged from
each surveyed facility. EPA used these
pollutant removal efficiencies and raw
                          pollutant loads to estimate the baseline
                          loads. EPA validated the baseline load
                          estimates with effluent monitoring data
                          (DCN 63061).
                            For today's regulation, EPA evaluated
                          secondary solids removal technologies
                          and feed management. EPA assessed
                          whether improved feed management in
                          addition to primary solids settling might
                          be as effective at reducing solids in the
                          effluent as secondary settling. EPA
                          found that feed management was the
                          lower cost option compared to
                          secondary solids removal technology.
                          (As  discussed in more detail below at
                          VIII.B., EPA has now concluded that a
                          rigorous feed management program
                          alone will achieve significant reductions
                          in solids at CAAP facilities.)
                            Pollutant removals associated with
                          feed management result from more
                          efficient feed use and less wasted feed.
                          For  its evaluation, EPA used feed
                          conversion rates as a surrogate for
                          estimating potential load reductions
                          resulting from feed management
                          activities. 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.
                            Based on the information in the
                          detailed surveys, EPA calculated FCRs
                          for 69 flow-through and recirculating
                          system facilities. 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, to enable EPA to estimate
                          a FCR, EPA randomly assigned a FCR.
                            EPA attempted to capture and account
                          for as much of the variation as possible
                          when 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 target maximum weight gain
                          over a low FCR in determining their
                          optimal 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 place as great an
emphasis on maximum growth.
However, EPA expects that all facilities,
regardless of production goals, can
achieve substantial reductions in
pollutant discharges over uncontrolled
levels by designing and implementing
an optimal feed input management
strategy, including appropriate
recordkeeping and documentation of
FCRs.
  The process for the random
assignment of FCRs to facilities with
incomplete information included:
  • EPA grouped facilities by
ownership, species, and production
  • FCRs were estimated for each
facility with sufficient data within a
group
  • 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.
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. 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. 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.
  • 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.
  • To account for variation  in FCRs
based on factors such as water
temperature, EPA only costed additional
feed management practices at a facility
when the reported or randomly assigned
FCR was within the upper 25% of the
inter-quartile range. This was
considered to be an indication of
potential improvement in feed
management.
  • For some combinations of
ownership, species, and production,
there was not sufficient data to do the
quartile analysis. In these cases,  data

-------
             Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                     51905
from a similar grouping of ownership,
species, and production was used.
  If a facility's FCR was in the upper
25% of the inter-quartile range or did
not currently have secondary settling
technologies in place, EPA assumed the
facility would need to improve feed
management practices. The
improvement in feed management
practices would result in increased costs
due to increased observations and
recordkeeping and in pollutant load
reductions resulting from less wasted
feed.
  The approach for estimating the
loadings for the final rule has not
changed significantly from the approach
taken in the NODA. In estimating the
loadings and removals for the final rule,
EPA considered incidental removals  or
removals gained from the control of
solids through narrative limitations. As
part of the loadings analysis, EPA
considered incidental removals of
metals, PCBs and one drug,
oxytetracycline.
  Metals may be present in CAAP
effluents from a variety of sources. Some
metals are present in feed (as federally
approved feed additives), occur in
sanitation products, or may result from
deterioration of CAAP machinery and
equipment. EPA has observed that many
of the treatment measures used in the
CAAP industry provide substantial
reductions of most metals. The metals
present are generally 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 at federally
approved concentrations 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
(Snowden, 2003).
  EPA estimated metals load reductions
from facilities that are subject to the
final rule (seeDCN 63011). The metals
for which load reductions are analyzed
are those which were present above the
detection levels in the wastewater
samples collected from CAAP facilities
during EPA's sampling for this
rulemaking. EPA used the net
concentrations of the metal in the
wastewater to estimate these loads. EPA
estimated these load reductions as a
function of TSS loads using data
obtained from the four sampling
episodes. For this analysis, EPA first
assumed that non-detected samples had
the concentration of half 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 mg of metal per kg of
TSS) based on the calculated net
concentrations. EPA removed negative
and zero ratios from the samples.
Finally, basic sample distribution
statistics were calculated to derive the
relationship between TSS and each
metal.
  EPA calculated estimated load
reductions of PCBs from regulated
facilities 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 the feed was eaten,
and that 90% of the feed 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. Due to a
lack of sampling data, EPA used a
maximum level of 2|j,g/g, the FDA limit
on PCB concentrations in fish feed, to
estimate the maximum amount of PCBs
that could possibly be in the TSS. This
maximum possible discharge load in the
TSS was estimated to be 21% of the
PCBs in the feed. EPA considers this
estimate to provide an upper bound on
the amount of PCBs discharged from
CAAP facilities, and the amount
potentially removed by the rule.  Even
so, the estimates are quite low (0.52
pounds of PCBs discharged in the
baseline). CAAP facilities are not a
significant source of PCB discharges to
waters of the U.S. (seeDCN 63011).
  EPA estimated the pollutant load of
oxytetracycline discharged from in-
scope CAAP facilities using data from
EPA's detailed survey of the CAAP
Industry. EPA first determined facility
specific amounts of oxytetracycline
used by each CAAP facility. For  those
facilities that reported using medicated
feed containing 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 then estimated
the amount of oxytetracycline that was
reduced at facilities in which feed
management practices were applied in
the cost and loadings analyses. 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.
  As part of a sampling episode, EPA
also performed a preliminary study to
develop a method to measure
oxytetracycline in effluent from CAAP
facilities. EPA took samples to analyze
the effluent from a CAAP facility that
produces trout during a time period in
which oxytetracycline, in medicated
feed, was being used to treat a bacterial
infection in some of the animals at the
facility.  Results of the study indicate
that oxytetracycline can be stabilized in
samples when preserved with
phosphoric acid and maintained below
4 °C prior to analysis. The method
found levels of oxytetracycline to range
from <0.2 |-ig/L (which was the method
detection limit) in the supply and
hatchery effluent to 110 (ig/L in the
influent to the offline settling basin. The
level detected in the combined raceway
effluent was 0.95 (ig/L. See the analysis
report (DCN 63011) for additional
information.

H. Environmental Assessment and
Benefits Analysis

  EPA's environmental assessment and
benefits analysis for the proposed rule
consisted of two efforts. First, EPA
reviewed and summarized literature it
had obtained regarding environmental
impacts of the aquaculture industry,
focusing particularly  on segments of the
industry in the scope of the  proposed
rule. Second, EPA used estimates of
pollutant loading reductions associated
with the proposed requirements to
assess improvements to water quality
that might arise from  the proposed
requirements, and monetized benefits
from these water quality improvements.
  EPA's approach to the  environmental
assessment and benefits analysis for the
final rule is similar to the approach for
the proposed rule, except that EPA has
incorporated new data, information, and
methods that were not available at the
time of proposal, particularly those
sources  described in Section V of this
Preamble. For example, literature,
discussions, and data submitted by
stakeholders both through the public
comment process on the  proposed rule
as well as at other forums were
considered. EPA also used facility-
specific data provided by or developed
from the detailed survey responses. EPA
has updated and revised its  summary of
material relating to environmental
impacts of CAAP facilities in Chapter 7
of the Economic and Environmental
Benefit Analysis for today's final rule
(DCN 63010). EPA's revised benefits
analysis are  described in both Section X
of this Preamble as well as in Chapter
8 of the Economic and Environmental
Impact Analysis (DCN 63010).

-------
51906
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
VII. Who Is Subject to This Rule?
  This section discusses the scope of
the final rule and explains what
waste-waters are subject to the final
limitations and standards.

A. Who Is Subject to This Rule?
  Today's rule applies to commercial
(for-profit) and non-commercial
(generally, publicly-owned) facilities
that produce, hold or contain 100,000
pounds or more of aquatic animals per
year. Any 12 month period would be
considered a year for the purposes of
establishing coverage under this rule.
  While facilities producing fewer than
100,000 pounds of aquatic animals per
year are not subject to this rule, in
specific circumstances they may require
NPDES permits that include limitations
developed on a BPJ basis. An aquatic
animal production facility producing
fewer than 100,000 pounds of aquatic
animals per year will be subject to the
NPDES permit program if it is a CAAP
as defined in 40 CFR  122.24. As
explained in the  proposed rule, EPA
limited the scope of the regulation it
was considering  to facilities that are
CAAPs above this production threshold.
  The Agency  concluded that facilities
below the threshold would likely
experience significant adverse economic
impacts if required to comply with the
proposed limitations. EPA concluded
that these smaller CAAP facilities would
have compliance costs in excess of 3
percent of revenues. Further, smaller
CAAP facilities account for a smaller
relative percentage of total CAAP TSS
discharges and only limited removals
would be obtained from the proposed
BPT/BCT/BAT control. 67 FR 57872,
57884. Other types of facilities also not
covered by today's action include closed
pond  systems (most of which do not
meet the regulatory definition of a
CAAP facility), molluscan shellfish
operations, including nurseries,
crawfish production,  alligator
production, and  aquaria and net pens
rearing native species released after a
growing period of no  longer than 4
months to supplement commercial and
sport  fisheries. This last exclusion
applies primarily to Alaskan non-profit
facilities which raise  native salmon for
release into the wild in flow-through
systems and then hold them for a short
time in net pens  preceding their release.
The flow-through portions of these
facilities are within the scope of the
rule, if they produce 100,000 pounds or
more  per year, but the net pen portions
would be excluded from regulation.
EPA determined for the types of
excluded systems or production
operations listed above either that they
                          generate minimal pollutant discharges
                          in the baseline or that available
                          pollutant control technologies will
                          reduce pollutant loadings from these
                          operations by only minimal amounts.
                          For further explanation, see the
                          proposal at 67 FR 57572, 57885-86.
                            Facilities that indirectly discharge
                          their process wastewater (i.e., facilities
                          that discharge to POTWs) are also not
                          subject to today's rule. EPA did not
                          propose and is not establishing
                          pretreatment standards for existing or
                          new indirect sources. As explained
                          above, the bulk of pollutant discharges
                          from CAAP facilities consists of TSS
                          and BOD. POTWs are designed to treat
                          these conventional pollutants.
                          Moreover, CAAP facilities discharge
                          nutrients in concentrations lower in
                          full-flow discharges, and similar in off-
                          line settling basin  discharges, to
                          nutrient concentrations found in human
                          wastes discharged to POTWs. EPA has
                          concluded that the POTW removals of
                          TSS would achieve equivalent nutrient
                          removals to those obtained by the
                          options considered for this rulemaking
                          for direct dischargers. EPA, therefore,
                          concluded that there would be no pass
                          through of TSS or  nutrients needing
                          regulation. Indirect discharging facilities
                          are still subject to the General
                          Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403)
                          and any applicable local  limitations.
                          EPA has also determined that there are
                          few indirect dischargers in this
                          industry.

                          B. What If a Facility Uses More Than
                          One Production System?
                            EPA has found that several detailed
                          survey respondents are operating more
                          than one type of production system. A
                          facility is subject to the rule if the total
                          production from any of the regulated
                          production systems meets the
                          production threshold. The facility
                          would need to demonstrate compliance
                          with the management practices required
                          for each of the regulated production
                          systems  it is operating.

                          C. What Wastewater Discharges Are
                          Covered?
                            This rule covers wastewaters
                          generated by the following operations/
                          processes: Effluent from flow-through,
                          recirculating and net pen facilities. The
                          flow-through and recirculating
                          subcategory (Subpart A) applies to
                          wastewaters discharged from these
                          systems.
                            The type of production system
                          determines the nature, quantity, and
                          quality of effluents from CAAP
                          facilities. Flow-through systems
                          commonly use raceways  or tanks and
                          are characterized by continual flows of
relatively large volumes of water into
and out of the rearing units. Some flow-
through systems discharge a single,
combined effluent stream with large
water volumes and dilute pollutant
concentrations. Other flow-through
systems have two or more discharge
streams, with the process water in
which the fish are raised as  the primary
discharge. This discharge, referred to as
raceway effluent or bulk flow, is
characterized by a large water volume
and dilute pollutant concentrations. The
secondary discharges from flow-through
systems with multiple discharges result
typically from some form of solids
settling through an off-line settling basin
(OLSB)  or other solids removal devices.
The discharges  from off-line settling
basins or solids removal devices have
low water volumes and more
concentrated pollutants. The
supernatant from the OLSB  may be
discharged through a separate outfall or
may be recombined prior to discharge
with the raceway effluent.
  Recirculating systems may also have
two waste streams: Overtopping
wastewater and filter backwash.
Overtopping is a continuous blowdown
from the production system to avoid the
buildup of dissolved solids  in the
production system, and filter backwash
is generated by  cleaning the filter used
to treat the water that is being
recirculated back to the production
system. Overtopping wastewater is
usually small in volume (a fraction of
the total system volume on a daily basis)
and has higher TSS concentrations than
a full flow discharge. Filter backwash
wastewater is typically low  in volume
and is as concentrated as wastewater
from similar devices at flow-through
systems.
  Net pen systems are located in open
waters and thus are characterized by the
flow and characteristics of the
surrounding water body and by the
addition of raw materials to the pens
including feed,  drugs and the excretions
from the confined aquatic animals.
VIII. What Are  the Requirements of the
Final Regulation and the Basis for
These Requirements?
  This section describes, by
subcategory, the options EPA
considered and selected as a basis for
today's rule. For each subcategory, EPA
provides a discussion, as applicable, for
the options considered for each of the
regulatory levels identified in the CWA
(i.e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS). For a
detailed discussion of all technology
options considered in the development
of today's final rule, see the  proposal
(see 67 FR 57872), the NODA (see 68 FR
75068) or Chapter 9 of the Technical

-------
             Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                     51907
Development (TDD) for today's final
rule.
  Based on the information in the
record for the final CAAP rule, EPA has
determined that the selected technology
for the flow-through and recirculating
systems subcategory and the net pens
subcategory are technically available.
EPA has also determined that the
technology it selected as the basis for
the final limitations or standards has
effluent reductions commensurate with
compliance costs and is economically
achievable for the applicable
subcategory. EPA also considered the
age, size, processes, and other
engineering factors pertinent to facilities
in the scope of the final regulation for
the purpose of evaluating the
technology options. None of these
factors provides a basis for selecting
different technologies from those EPA
has selected as its technology options
for today's rule (see Chapter 5 of the
TDD for the final rule for further
discussion of EPA's analyses of these
factors).
  As previously explained, EPA
adopted a production threshold  cutoff
as the principal means of reducing
economic impacts on small businesses
and administrative burden for control
authorities associated with the
treatment technologies it considered.
EPA notes that certain direct dischargers
that are not subject to today's effluent
limitations or standards will still require
a NPDES discharge permit developed on
a case-by-case basis if they are CAAPs
as defined in 40 CFR 122.24.
  The new source performance
standards (NSPS) EPA is today
establishing represent the greatest
degree of effluent reduction achievable
through the best available demonstrated
control technology. In selecting its
technology basis for today's new source
performance standards  (NSPS), EPA
considered all of the factors specified in
CWA section 306, including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions. EPA used
the appropriate technology option for
developing today's standards for new
direct dischargers. The new source
technology basis for both subcategories
is equivalent to the technology bases
upon which EPA is setting BPT/BCT/
BAT (see Chapter 9 of the EEBA). EPA
has thoroughly reviewed the  costs of
such technologies and has concluded
that such costs do not present a barrier
to entry. The Agency also considered
energy requirements and other non-
water quality  environmental impacts for
the new source technology basis and
found no basis for any different
standards from those selected for NSPS.
Therefore, EPA concluded that the
NSPS technology basis chosen for both
subcategories constitute the best
available demonstrated control
technology. For a discussion on the
compliance date for new sources, see
section I.E. of today's final rule.
A. What Technology Options Did EPA
Consider for the Final Rule?
  Among the options EPA considered
for the final rule for flow-through and
recirculating systems in addition to the
options presented in the proposed rule
were (i) establishing no national effluent
limitations (ii) establishing limitations
and BMPs based on technology options
A and B,  and (iii) establishing narrative
limitations based on BMPs only. Based
on analysis presented in the NODA,
EPA focused it analysis on these latter
three options. For net pens, EPA
considered three options: no national
requirements, requirements equivalent
to those proposed but for new sources
only, and essentially the same
requirements for existing and new
sources as those in the proposed rule.

B.  What Are the Requirements for the
Flow-Through and Recirculating
Systems Subcategory?
  The following discussion explains the
BPT/BCT/BAT limitations and NSPS
EPA is promulgating for flow-through
and recirculating system facilities.

l.BPT
  After considering the technology
options described in the previous
section and the factors specified in
section 304(b)(l)(B) of the CWA, EPA is
establishing nationally applicable
effluent limitations guidelines for flow-
through and recirculating system CAAP
facilities  producing 100,000 pounds or
more of aquatic animals per year for the
reasons noted above at VIII.A.
  EPA based the final requirements on
production and operational controls that
include a rigorously implemented feed
management program. Programs of
production and operational controls that
include feed management systems,
proper storage of material and adequate
solids controls, and proper operation
and maintenance are in wide use at
existing flow-through and recirculating
system facilities. Based on the detailed
survey results, EPA estimates that such
programs are currently used at 61 flow-
through and recirculating facilities out
of 242 total facilities. The costs of
effluent removals associated with the
evaluated practices are reasonable. The
cost per pound of pollutant removed is
$2.77 as measured using the higher of
the removals for either BOD or TSS at
each facility. (The removals for these
parameters are not summed because of
possible overlap and double counting.)
  Based on its review of the data and
information it obtained during this
rulemaking, EPA has concluded that the
key element in achieving effective
pollution control at CAAP facilities is a
well-operated program to manage
feeding, in addition to good solids
management. Feed is the primary source
of TSS (and associated pollutants) in
CAAP systems, and feed management
plans are the principal tool for
minimizing accumulation of uneaten
feed in CAAP wastewater. Excess feed
in the production system increases the
oxygen demand of the culture water and
increases solids loadings. In addition,
solids from the excess feed usually
settle and are naturally processed with
the feces from the fish. Excess feed and
feces accumulate in the bottom of flow-
through and recirculating systems or
below net pens. Ensuring that the
aquatic animal species being raised
receive the quantity of feed necessary
for proper growth without overfeeding,
and the resulting accumulation of
uneaten feed, is a challenging task.
Achieving the optimal feed input
requires properly designing a site-
specific feeding regimen that considers
production goals, species, rearing unit
water quality and other relevant factors.
It also requires careful observation of
actual feeding behavior, good record
keeping, and on-going reassessment.
  After full examination of the data
supporting EPA's model technology,
EPA has decided not to establish
numerical TSS limitations. While the
model technology will effectively
remove solids to a very  low level, EPA's
data show wide variability, both
temporally and across facilities, in the
actual TSS levels achieved. EPA thus
does not have a record basis for
establishing numeric TSS limitations
derived from  its data set that are
appropriate for all sites under all
conditions. EPA believes that
establishing a uniform numeric TSS
limitation would result in requirements
that are too stringent  at  some sites and
not stringent enough  at  others. This is
because feed management, while an
effective pollution reduction technology
for this industry, is not amenable to the
same level of engineering process
control as traditional treatment
technologies used in  other effluent
guidelines. The basis for this conclusion
is further explained below.
  Clean Water Act sections 301(b)(l)(A)
and 301(b)(2) require point sources to
achieve effluent limitations  that require
the application of the BPT/BCT/BAT
selected by the Administrator under
section 304(b). Customarily, EPA
implements this requirement through
the establishment of numeric effluent

-------
51908
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
limitations calculated to reflect the
levels of pollutant removals that
facilities employing those technologies
can consistently achieve. EPA
traditionally uses a combination of
sampling data and data reported in
discharge monitoring reports from well-
operated systems employing the model
technology to calculate numeric effluent
limitations.
  In the proposed rule and the NODA,
EPA used a similar approach to
calculate numeric effluent limitations
for TSS from a partial data set composed
of well operated CAAP facilities
employing a combination of wastewater
treatment and management practices to
reduce TSS concentrations in the
discharged effluent. To reduce TSS
discharge levels, the facilities examined
by EPA used settling ponds  and a
number of different techniques,
including feed management programs
and periodic solids removal from both
the culture water and settling ponds.
  EPA's examination of well-operated
facilities also identified several facilities
using feed management and other
operational and management controls
alone that were achieving the same low
levels of TSS discharge as facilities
using settling ponds in combination
with good feed management.
  Based on EPA's examination of the
data in its record, the Agency has
concluded that a combination of settling
technology and feed management
control practices or rigorous feed
management control and proper solids
handling practices alone will achieve
low levels of TSS. Operational measures
like a feed management system,
however, are not technologies that
reflect the same degree of predictability
as can be expected  from wastewater
treatment technology based  on chemical
or other physical treatment. While EPA
is confident that its chosen technology
can consistently achieve BPT treatment
levels of solids removal, the Agency
recognizes that feed management
systems may not have the precision or
consistently predictable performance
from site to site that come with the
traditional wastewater treatment
technologies. The record confirms that
there is variability in results associated
with the use of feed management
systems and other operational measures
to control solids. Thus, EPA determined
that it should not establish specific
numeric TSS limitations based on the
model technology. This conclusion is
supported by a number of commenters
who maintained that consistently
achieving the proposed TSS levels
would require installation of additional
settling treatment structures, with little
additional environmental benefit.
                            EPA's decision not to set uniform
                          numeric TSS limitations based on
                          rigorous feed management and good
                          solids management is further supported
                          by its analysis of measured or predicted
                          TSS concentrations at facilities
                          employing this technology. EPA's
                          effluent monitoring data show
                          differences in the measured TSS
                          concentration in discharges at facilities
                          employing feed management programs
                          from the predicted TSS concentration
                          levels derived using EPA's calculation
                          from the data on feed used at BPT/BAT
                          facilities. For this comparison, EPA
                          calculated a TSS concentration that
                          could be achieved through feed
                          management plans using the data on
                          feed and fish production at surveyed
                          facilities. EPA then compared these
                          concentrations, where available, with
                          the actual TSS  levels reported by those
                          facilities in their discharge monitoring
                          reports. The differences between the
                          calculated TSS levels and reported
                          levels may result from differences in
                          application of feed management
                          practices, variation in the flows or
                          dilution of the  effluent.
                            EPA recognizes that it would be
                          feasible to calculate numeric effluent
                          limitations for TSS based on treatment
                          technologies alone, i.e., eliminating best
                          management practices from the
                          technology basis for today's rule. EPA
                          did not employ this approach for three
                          reasons. First, EPA has determined that
                          primary treatment in the form of
                          quiescent zones in the culture water
                          tanks and settling ponds by themselves
                          are not the best technology available for
                          treating TSS. Instead, rigorous feed
                          management in conjunction with good
                          solids handling practices constitutes a
                          better technology for controlling this
                          pollutant. Second, EPA is concerned
                          that establishing numeric limitations for
                          TSS based on primary and secondary
                          settling may not be a practicable
                          technology. Commenters pointed out
                          that site and  land availability
                          constraints might limit their ability to
                          install the additional treatment needed
                          to achieve TSS limitations. Third, EPA
                          believes based  on its analysis of the
                          data, that comparable discharge levels
                          can be  achieved using feed management
                          and other management practices alone
                          as can be achieved using these practices
                          in combination with settling
                          technologies. Thus, while settling
                          technology may be amenable to more
                          precise control, EPA believes that the
                          overall environmental benefits of this
                          technology relative to rigorous feed and
                          solids handling management alone are
                          negligible.
                            EPA is further concerned that
                          establishing a numeric limit for TSS
could provide an incentive for facilities
to achieve the limit through dilution
and would not reduce the pollutant
loads discharged to receiving streams.
While dilution is generally prohibited as
a means of achieving effluent
limitations, this prohibition is harder to
enforce at CAAP facilities than in most
other systems because the flow of
culture water is dependent on a wide
range of factors and is highly variable
from one facility to another. Thus it
would be impossible for regulatory
authorities to determine if water use
was being manipulated to dilute TSS
concentration. Due to variations in
water use from facility to facility, EPA
also decided not to establish mass-based
numeric TSS limitations on a national
basis. Solids control operational
measures such as feed management and
the requirement to focus on the proper
operation of existing solids control
structures are expected to achieve
reductions in the TSS concentrations
and at the same time reduce the TSS
loadings being discharged. This
approach is supported by DMR data
from facilities in Idaho  which have had
to comply with feed management BMP
requirements in their general permit.
This data demonstrates that improved
performance can be achieved through
BMPs (DCN 63012).  A comparison of
DMR data from Idaho prior to the
issuance of a general permit in calendar
year 1999 with data  following
compliance with the general permit
indicates that 64 percent of the facilities
have reduced the TSS loads discharged
from the facility with an average TSS
reduction of 75 percent.
  For these reasons, EPA has expressed
effluent limitations in this rule in the
form of narrative standards, rather than
as numeric values. EPA has a legal
authority to do so. The  CWA defines
"effluent limitation" broadly, and EPA's
regulations reflect this as well. Each
provides that an effluent limitation is
"any restriction" imposed by the
permitting authority on quantities,
discharge rates and concentrations of a
pollutant discharged into a water of the
United States. CWA section 502(11)
(emphasis supplied); 40 CFR 122.2
(emphasis supplied). Neither definition
requires an effluent limitation to be
expressed as a numeric limit. The DC
Circuit observed, "Section 502(11)
defines 'effluent limitation' as 'any
restriction' on the amounts of
pollutants, not just a numerical
restriction."  NRDCv. EPA, 673 F.2d
400, 403 (DC Cir.) (emphasis in
original), cert, denied sub nom.
Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 459 U.S.
879 (1982). In short, the definition of

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      51909
"effluent limitation" is not limited to a
single type of restriction, but rather
contemplates a range of restrictions that
may be used as appropriate. EPA has
concluded that it is appropriate to
express today's BPT/BCT/BAT
limitations in non-numeric form. These
narrative limitations reflect a technology
demonstrated to  achieve effective solids
removals while still giving facilities
flexibility in determining how to meet
them.
  Today's BPT regulation requires
CAAP facilities to comply with
specified operational and management
requirements—best management
practices (BMPs)—that will minimize
the generation and discharge of solids
from the facility. These requirements are
non-numeric effluent limitations based
on the technologies EPA has determined
are BPT.
  The final regulation requires adoption
of specified solids  control  practices.
See, e.g., §451.11(a) and §451.21(a).
Thus, to control the discharge of solids
from flow-through and recirculating
system facilities, the final rule requires
minimizing the discharge of uneaten
feed through a feed management
program. See §451.11(a) of this  rule.
Complying with  this limitation will
require a CAAP facility to  identify
feeding practices which optimize the
addition of feed to achieve production
goals while minimizing the amount of
uneaten feed leaving the rearing unit.
Such a program should include
practices such as periodic  calibration of
automatic feeders,  visual observation of
feeding activity and discontinuation of
feeding when the animals  stop eating.
The rule also requires that CAAPs
maintain records of feed inputs  and
estimates of the numbers and weight of
aquatic animals in order to calculate
representative feed conversion ratios.
See§451.11(a)(l) of this rule.
Development of feed conversion ratios
is a key component in a properly
functioning feed management system
because it allows the facility to calibrate
more accurately the feeding needs of the
species being raised. This, in turn, will
result in further improvement in control
of solids at the operation.
  In addition to feed management, EPA
also requires flow-through and
recirculating system facilities  to identify
and implement procedures for routine
cleaning. See §451.11(a)(2). This will
ensure that CAAP facilities develop
practices to minimize the build-up and
subsequent discharge of solids from the
rearing units. The facility must also
identify procedures with respect to
harvesting, inventorying and grading of
fish so as to minimize disturbance and
discharge of solids from the facility
during these activities.
  The final rule also provides that
facilities must remove dead fish and fish
carcasses from the production system on
a regular basis and dispose of them to
avoid the discharge to waters of the U.S.
§451.11(a)(3). EPA is establishing an
exception to this requirement when the
permit writer authorizes a discharge to
benefit the aquatic environment. The
following example explains one
circumstance in which a permit writer
could authorize such a discharge. There
are a number of federal, state, and tribal
hatcheries that are raising 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. The exception
would apply in these circumstances if
the permitting authority determines that
the addition of fish carcasses to surface
water will improve water quality.
  Facilities must also implement
measures that address material storage
and structural maintenance.  In the case
of material storage, EPA is requiring
facilities to identify and develop
practices to prevent inadvertent spillage
of drugs, pesticides, and feed from the
facility. §451.11 (b). This would include
proper storage of these materials. EPA is
also requiring facilities to identify
proper procedures for cleaning,
containing and disposing of any spilled
material. EPA's assessment, based on
site visits and sampling visits, indicates
that facilities may have varying degrees
of spill prevention procedures and
containment and structural maintenance
practices to address these requirements.
  The final rule also includes a
requirement that facilities inspect and
provide regular maintenance of the
production system and the wastewater
treatment system to ensure that they are
properly functioning. §451.11(c). One
area of concern addressed by this
requirement is the potential
accumulation of solids (especially large
solids such as carcasses and  leaves) that
could clog 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. Proper maintenance should
ensure that screens are regularly
inspected and cleaned.
  The final rule also requires that
facilities conduct routine inspections to
identify any damage to the production
system or wastewater treatment system
and that facilities repair this damage
promptly. EPA has not specified any
design requirement for structural
components of the CAAP facility.
Rather, it has adopted the requirement
that facilities identify practices that will
ensure existing structures are
maintained in good working order.
Flow-through and recirculating facilities
are also required to keep records as
described previously and to conduct
routine training for facility staff on spill
prevention and response.
  As discussed further below, in the
final rule, EPA is not establishing
numeric limits for any drug or pesticide
but is requiring CAAP facilities to
ensure proper storage of drugs,
pesticides and feed to prevent spills and
any resulting discharge of spilled drugs
and pesticides. EPA is also establishing
a requirement to implement procedures
for responding to  spills of these
materials to minimize their discharge
from the facility. See§451.11(c)(2) of
this rule. Facilities must also train their
staff in spill prevention and proper
operation and cleaning of production
systems and equipment. See §451.11(e)
of this rule. The detailed survey did not
provide information about spill
prevention, but during site visits and
sampling visits EPA identified
containment systems and practices.
EPA's site visit information indicated
that CAAP facilities currently employ a
number of different measures to prevent
spills and some have established in-
place systems to address spills in the
event they occur.  The effect of this
narrative limitation will be to promote
increased care in the handling of these
materials. Its  adoption as a regulatory
requirement provides an additional
incentive for facility operators currently
employing effective spill control
measures to continue such practices
when handling drugs and pesticides.
Moreover, because EPA has adopted the
same requirements for existing and new
sources (see discussion below), this will
ensure that new sources employ the
same highly protective measures as
existing sources have employed
successfully to protect against spills.
  Today's regulation does not include
any requirements specifically
addressing the release of non-native
species. The final regulation, however,
includes a narrative effluent limitation
that requires facilities to implement
operational controls that will ensure the
production facilities and wastewater
treatment structures are being properly
maintained. Facilities must conduct
routine inspections and promptly repair
damage to the production systems or
wastewater treatment units. This
requirement,  described in more detail in

-------
51910
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
Section VLB., will aid in preventing the
release of various materials, including
live fish.
2. BAT
  EPA is establishing BAT at a level
equal to BPT for the flow-through and
recirculating system discharge
subcategory. For this subcategory, EPA
did not identify any available
technologies that are economically
achievable for the subcategory 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 toxic or
nonconventional pollutants that would
be economically achievable on a
national basis do not exist beyond those
already considered.
3. BCT
  EPA evaluated conventional pollutant
control technologies and did not
identify a more stringent technology for
the control of conventional pollutants
for BCT limitations that would be
affordable than the final requirements
considered. Other technologies for the
control of conventional pollutants
include biological treatment, but this
technology is not affordable for the
subcategory  as a whole. Consequently,
EPA has not promulgated BCT
limitations or standards based on a
different  technology from that used as
the basis  for BPT limitations and
standards.

4. NSPS
  After considering the technology
options described in the proposal and
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, see Section IX
for more discussion of the barrier to
entry analysis. 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 or other pollutants
that would be generally affordable
beyond those already considered.
  EPA determined that NSPS equal to
BAT will not present a barrier to entry.
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 would be
                          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.

                          C. What Are the Requirement for the Net
                          Pen Subcategory?
                            The following discussion explains the
                          BPT/BAT/BCT limitations and NSPS
                          EPA is promulgating for Net Pen
                          Systems.
                          l.BPT
                            After considering the technology
                          options described in the proposal and
                          the factors specified in Section
                          304(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Water Act, EPA
                          is establishing nationally applicable
                          effluent limitations for net pen facilities
                          producing 100,000 pounds or more of
                          aquatic animals per year. Today's BPT
                          regulations requires CAAP net pen
                          systems, like CAAP flow-through and
                          recirculating systems, to comply with
                          specified operational practices and
                          management requirements. These
                          requirements are non-numeric effluent
                          limitations based on technologies EPA
                          has evaluated and determined are cost-
                          reasonable, available technologies.
                            Based on the detailed survey results,
                          EPA estimates that such programs are
                          currently in use at most or all the net
                          pen systems. As a result, the cost to
                          facilities of meeting the BPT
                          requirements is very low.  To EPA's
                          knowledge, all existing net pen facilities
                          that are currently covered by NPDES
                          permits are subject to permit
                          requirements comparable  to today's
                          limitations. Therefore, EPA concludes
                          that the BPT limits are both technically
                          available and cost reasonable for the net
                          pen subcategory.
                            EPA rejected the establishment of
                          numeric effluent  limitations for net pens
                          for obvious reasons. Because of the
                          nature of the facilities, net pens cannot
                          use physical wastewater control systems
                          except at great cost. Located in open
                          waters, nets are suspended from a
                          floating structure to contain the crop of
                          aquatic animals. Nets are periodically
                          changed to increase the mesh size as the
                          fish grow in order to provide more water
                          circulating inside the pen. The pens are
                          anchored to the water body floor and
                          sited to benefit from tidal  and current
                          action to move wastes away from, and
                          bring oxygenated water to, the pen. As
                          a result, these CAAP facilities
                          experience a constant in- and out-flow
of water. Development of a system to
capture the water and treat the water
within the pen would be prohibitively
expensive. EPA, therefore, rejected
physical treatment systems as the basis
for BPT limitations. Instead, EPA is
promulgating narrative effluent
limitations.
  As was the case with flow-through
and recirculating systems, feed
management programs are a key element
of the promulgated requirements for the
reasons explained above and in the
proposal at 67 FR 57872, 57887.
Consequently, for the control of solids,
the final regulation requires that net pen
CAAP facilities minimize the
accumulation of uneaten feed beneath
the pen through the use of active feed
monitoring and management practices.
§451.21(a). These strategies may
include either real-time monitoring (e.g.,
the use of video monitoring, digital
scanning sonar, or upweller systems);
monitoring of sediment quality beneath
the pens; monitoring of the benthic
community beneath the pens; capture of
waste feed and feces; or the adoption of
other good husbandry practices, subject
to the permitting authority's approval.
  As noted, feed  management systems
are effective in reducing the quantity of
uneaten feed. Facilities should limit the
feed added to the pens to the amount
reasonably necessary to sustain an
optimal rate of fish growth. In
determining what quantity of feed will
result in minimizing the discharge of
uneaten feed while at the same time
sustaining optimal growth, a facility
should consider,  among others, the
following factors: The types of aquatic
animals raised, the method used to feed
the aquatic animals, the facility's
production and aquatic animal size
goals, the species, tides and currents,
the sensitivity of the benthic community
in the vicinity of the pens, and other
relevant factors. In some areas, deep
water and/or strong tides or currents
may prevent significant accumulation of
uneaten feed such that active feed
monitoring is not needed. Several states
with significant numbers of net pens
(e.g., Washington, Maine) already
require feed management practices,
which may include active feed
monitoring, to minimize accumulation
of feed beneath the pens. Facilities will
need to ensure that whatever practices
they adopt are consistent with the
requirements of their state NPDES
program.
  In order to implement a feed
management system, the facility must
also track feed inputs by maintaining
records documenting feed and estimates
of the numbers and weight of aquatic
animals in order  to calculate

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                      51911
representative feed conversion ratios.
§451.21(g). As previously explained,
development of feed conversion ratios
are a necessary element in any effective
feed management system.
  Real-time monitoring represents a
widely-used business practice that is
employed by many 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
for the obvious reason that ocean water
is continuously flowing in and out of
the net pens.  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.
  The final rule includes a narrative
limitation requiring CAAP net pen
facilities to collect, return to shore, and
properly dispose of all feed bags,
packaging materials, waste rope and
netting. §451.21(b). This will require
that 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.
EPA is also requiring that net pens
minimize  any discharges associated
with the transporting or harvesting of
fish, including the discharge of blood,
viscera, fish carcasses or transport water
containing blood. §451.21(c). During
stocking or harvesting of fish, some may
die. The final limitations require
facilities to remove and dispose  of dead
fish properly on a regular basis to
prevent discharge. 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. 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.
  The final regulations also require net
pen facilities to ensure the proper
storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to
avoid spilling these materials and
subsequent discharge. See § 451.21(e)(l)
of this rule. Facilities must also
implement procedures for properly
containing, cleaning and disposing of
any spilled material. See §451.21(e)(2)
of this rule. As previously discussed,
excess feed may present a number of
different environmental problems.
Preventing spills of feed is consequently
important. Additionally, net pens may
use different pesticides and drugs in
fish production. Preventing their release
is similarly important. The final
regulation also includes  a narrative
limitation, similar to that for CAAP
flow-through and recirculating systems,
requiring that net pen facilities
adequately train facility personnel in
how to respond to spills and proper
clean-up and disposal of spilled
material. See §451.21(h) of this rule.
  Next, the final regulation requires
regular inspection and maintenance of
the net pen § 451.21(f). This would
include any system to prevent predators
from entering the  pen. 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. Given
the economic incentive to prevent the
loss of production, 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. Most
net pen facilities are already doing these
inspections. However, in evaluating this
technology option, EPA estimated costs
for increased inspections at every net
pen facility in order to ensure that costs
are not underestimated.
  Like the final BPT limitations for
flow-through and recirculating systems,
the BPT limitations for net pens do not
include any requirements specifically
addressing the release of non-native
species. The final regulation, however,
includes a narrative effluent limitation
that requires facilities to implement
operational controls that will ensure the
production facilities and wastewater
treatment structures are being properly
maintained. Facilities must conduct
routine inspections and promptly repair
damage to the production systems or
wastewater treatment units. EPA
included this requirement to ensure
achievement of the other BPT
limitations for net pens such as the
prohibition on the discharge of feed
bags, packaging materials, waste rope
and netting at net pens, and the
requirement to minimize release of
solids, fish carcasses and viscera. This
requirement will also aid in preventing
the release of other materials including
live fish.

2. 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
achievable that would achieve  more
stringent effluent  limitations than those
considered for BPT. Because of the
nature of the wastes generated  from
CAAP net pen facilities, EPA did not
identify any advanced treatment
technologies or practices to remove
additional toxic and nonconventional
pollutants that would be economically
achievable on a national basis beyond
those already considered.

3.BCT

  EPA evaluated conventional pollutant
control technologies and did not
identify a more stringent technology for
the control of conventional pollutants
for BCT limitations than the final
requirements considered. Consequently,
EPA has not promulgated BCT
limitations or standards based on a
different technology from that used as
the basis for BPT limitations and
standards.

4. NSPS

  After considering the technology
requirements described previously
under BPT, 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 that
would be generally affordable beyond
those already considered.
  Although siting is not specifically
addressed with today's standards,
proper siting of new facilities is  one
component of feed management
strategies designed to minimize  the
accumulation of uneaten feed beneath
the pens and any associated adverse
environmental effects. When
establishing new net pen CAAP
facilities, consideration of 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. It also minimizes the concentration
of pollutants below the nets. In
implementing today's rule for new net
pen operations, facilities and permit
authorities should 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. The overall impacts from  the
effluent limitations guidelines on new
source net pens are 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

-------
51912
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
same pollution control equipment in an
existing facility.
  Although EPA is not establishing
standards of performance for new
sources for small cold water facilities
(i.e., those producing between 20,000
and 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals
per year), such facilities would be
subject to existing NPDES regulations
and BPT/BAT/BCT 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 most often 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 pen typically holds
100,000 pounds of aquatic animals or
more. In reviewing 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, those with 100,000
pounds or more per year will be subject
to the new source requirements
established for net  pens as well as
NPDES permitting.

D. What Monitoring Does the Final Rule
Require?

  The final rule does not require any
effluent monitoring. In the case of net
pen facilities, however, it does require
CAAPs to adopt active feed monitoring
and management practices that will
most often include measures  to observe
the addition of feed to the pen. Net pen
facilities subject to today's rule must
develop and implement active feed
monitoring and management strategies
to minimize the discharge of solids and
the accumulation of uneaten  feed
beneath the pen. Many existing net pen
facilities use a real-time monitoring
system such as video cameras, digital
scanning sonar, or upweller systems to
accomplish this. With a real-time
monitoring system, when uneaten feed
is observed falling beneath the pen
feeding should stop. Depending on the
location and other site-specific factors at
the facility, a facility may adopt other
measures in lieu of real time
monitoring. These may include
monitoring of sediment or the benthic
community quality beneath the pens,
capture of waste feed and feces or other
                          good husbandry practices that are
                          approved by the permitting authority.

                          E. What Are the Final Rule's
                          Notification, Recordkeeping, and
                          Reporting Requirements?
                            The final rule establishes
                          requirements for reporting the use of
                          spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that
                          result in a discharge to waters of the
                          U.S. by CAAP facilities. This provision
                          ensures that, any release of spilled
                          drugs, pesticides and feed to waters of
                          the  U.S. are reported to the permitting
                          authorities to provide them with
                          necessary information for any
                          responsive action that may be
                          warranted. This will allow regulatory
                          authorities to reduce or avoid adverse
                          impacts to receiving waters associated
                          with these spills. EPA is requiring that
                          any spill of material that results in a
                          discharge to waters of the U.S. be
                          reported orally to the permitting
                          authority within 24 hours of its
                          occurrence. A written report shall be
                          submitted within 7 days. Facilities are
                          required to report the identity of the
                          material spilled and an estimated
                          amount.
                            EPA is retaining for the final rule the
                          proposed requirement that CAAP
                          facilities report to the Permitting
                          Authority whenever they apply certain
                          types of drugs under the following
                          conditions. First, the permittee must
                          report drugs prescribed by a
                          veterinarian to treat a species or a
                          disease when prescribed for a use which
                          is not an FDA-approved use (referred to
                          as "extralabel drug use") as described
                          further below. Second, the permittee
                          must report drugs being used in an
                          experimental mode under controlled
                          conditions, known as Investigative New
                          Animal Drugs (INADs). In EPA's view,
                          notifying the Permitting Authority is
                          necessary to ensure that any potential
                          risk to the environment resulting from
                          the use of these drugs can be addressed
                          with site-specific remedies where
                          appropriate. EPA strongly encourages
                          reporting prior to use where feasible, as
                          this provides the Permitting Authority
                          with the opportunity to monitor or
                          control the discharge of the drugs while
                          the  drugs are being applied. EPA has not
                          made this an absolute requirement,
                          however, in recognition of the fact that
                          swift action on the part of veterinarians
                          and operators is sometimes necessary to
                          respond to and contain disease
                          outbreaks.
                            The reporting requirement applies to
                          the permittee and imposes no obligation
                          on the prescribing veterinarian. The
                          reporting requirement for extralabel
                          drug use is not in any way intended to
                          interfere with veterinarians' authority to
prescribe extralabel drugs to treat
aquatic animals or other animals in
accordance with FFCDA and 40 CFR
Part 530. This reporting requirement is
promulgated to ensure that permitting
authorities are aware of the use at
CAAPs of extralabel drugs when such
use may result in the release of the drug
to waters of the U.S. Because the use is
likely to involve  adding the drug
directly to the rearing unit, EPA believes
there is a probability that these drugs
may be released to waters of the U.S..
  The regulation requires that a
permittee  must provide a written report
to the permitting authority within seven
days of agreeing to participate in an
IN AD study and  an oral report
preferably in advance of use, but in no
event later than seven days after starting
to use the  INAD.  The first written report
must identify the drug,  method of
application, the dosage and what it is
intended to treat. The oral report must
also identify the  drug, method of
application, and  the reason for its use.
Within 30 days after the use of the drug
at the facility, the permittee must
provide another written report to the
permitting authority describing the
drug, reason for treatment, date and
time of addition, method of addition
and total amount added.
  EPA has similar reporting
requirements for extralabel drug use
except that EPA is not requiring a
written report in advance of use.
  The reporting requirement applies
only to those drugs that have not been
previously approved for their intended
use. Reporting would not be required for
EPA registered pesticides and FDA
approved  drugs for aquatic animal uses
when used according to label
instructions. Reporting would only be
required for INAD drugs and drugs
prescribed by a veterinarian for
extralabel uses. Because these classes of
drugs have not been fully evaluated by
FDA for the potential environmental
consequences of the use being made  of
them EPA considers reporting ensures
the permitting authority has enough
information to make an informed
response if environmental problems do
occur. EPA has included an exception to
the reporting requirement for cases
where the INAD  or extralabel drug has
already been approved under similar
conditions for use in another species or
to treat another disease and is applied
at a dosage that does  not exceed the
approved  dosage. The requirement that
the use be under similar conditions is
intended to limit the exception to cases
where the INAD  or extralabel drug use
would be expected to produce
significantly different environmental
impacts from the previously approved

-------
             Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                     51913
use. For example, use of a drug that had
been previously approved for a
freshwater application, as an INAD in a
marine setting would not be considered
a similar condition of use, since marine
ecosystems may have markedly different
vulnerabilities than freshwater
ecosystems. Similarly, the use of a drug
approved to treat terrestrial animals
used as an INAD or extralabel drug to
treat aquatic animals would not be
considered a similar condition  of use. In
contrast, the use of a drug to treat fish
in a freshwater system that was
previously approved for a different
freshwater species would be considered
use under similar conditions. EPA has
concluded that when a drug is used
under similar conditions it is unlikely
that the  environmental impacts would
be different than those that were already
considered in the  prior approval of the
drug.
  The reporting requirements with
respect to INADs are not burdensome.
FDA regulations require that the
sponsor of a clinical investigation of a
new  animal drug submit to the  Food
and Drug Administration certain
information concerning the intended
use prior to its use. Therefore, this
information will be readily available to
any CAAP facility that participates in an
INAD investigation. Having advance
information will enable the permitting
authority to determine whether
restrictions should be imposed on the
release of such drugs.
  EPA is also requiring all CAAP
facilities subject to today's regulation to
develop and maintain a Best
Management Practices plan on  site. This
plan must describe how the permittee
will achieve the required narrative
limitations. The plan must be available
to the permitting authority upon
request.  Upon completion of the plan,
the permittee must certify to the
permitting authority that a plan has
been developed.
  The proposal included a requirement
to implement escape prevention
practices at facilities where non-native
species are being produced. EPA
received comments supporting such
controls to prevent the release of non-
native species. EPA also received
comments arguing against controls in
this regulation because other authorities
are already dealing with non-native
species,  and because of the complexities
of determining what is a non-native
species and when such species may
become  invasive. For example, species
raised by Federal and State authorities
for stocking may not be "native," but
would not generally impose a threat  if
escapes  occurred.
  Today's regulation does not include
any requirements specifically
addressing the release of non-native
species. The regulation, however,
includes a requirement for facilities to
develop and implement BMPs to ensure
the production and wastewater
treatment systems are regularly
inspected and maintained. Facilities are
required to conduct routine inspections
and perform repairs to ensure proper
functioning of the structures. EPA
included this requirement to promote
achievement of BPT/BAT limitations on
the discharge of feed bags, packaging
materials, waste rope and netting at net
pens, and on the discharge of solids,
including fish carcasses and viscera at
all facilities. This requirement,
described in more detail in Section
VI.D, will also aid in preventing the
release of other materials, including live
fish.
  The final regulation also includes a
requirement for facilities to report
failures and damage to the  structure of
the aquatic animal containment system
leading to a material discharge of
pollutants. EPA realizes that most CAAP
facilities take extensive measures to
ensure structural integrity is
maintained. Nonetheless, failures do
occur with potentially serious
consequences to the environment. The
failure of the containment system can
result in the release  of sediment, fish
and fish carcasses which, depending on
the magnitude of the release, can have
significant impacts on the environment.
For net pen systems, failures include
physical damage to the predator control
nets or the nets containing the aquatic
animals, which result in a discharge  of
the contents of the nets. Damage
includes abrasion, cutting or tearing  of
the nets and breakdown of the netting
due to rot or ultra-violet exposure. For
flow-through and recirculating systems,
a failure includes a collapse or damage
of a rearing unit or wastewater treatment
structure; damage to pipes, valves, and
other plumbing fixtures; and damage or
malfunction to screens or physical
barriers in the system, which would
prevent the unit from containing water,
sediment, and the aquatic animals. In
the event of a reportable failure as
defined in the NPDES permit, EPA is
requiring CAAP facilities to report to the
permit authority orally within 24 hours
of discovering a failure and to follow the
oral report with a written report no later
than seven days after the discovery of
the failure. The oral report must include
the cause of the failure and the materials
that have likely been released. The
written report must  include a
description of the cause of the failure,
the time elapsed until the failure was
repaired, an estimate of the types and
amounts of materials released and the
steps that will be taken to prevent a
recurrence. Because the determination
of what constitutes damage resulting in
a "material" discharge varies from one
facility to the next, EPA encourages
permitting authorities to include more
specific reporting requirements defining
these terms in the permit. Such
conditions might recognize variations in
production system  type and
environmental vulnerability of the
receiving waters.
  Today's regulation requires record-
keeping in conjunction with
implementation of a feed management
system. As previously explained, EPA is
requiring flow-through, recirculating
and net pen CAAP  facilities subject to
today's regulation to keep records on
feed amounts and estimates of the
numbers and weight of aquatic animals
in order to calculate representative feed
conversion ratios. The feed amounts
should be measured at a frequency that
enables the facility to estimate daily
feed rates. The number and weight of
animals contained  in the rearing unit
may be recorded less frequently as
appropriate.
  Flow-through and recirculating
facilities subject to  today's requirements
must record the dates and brief
descriptions of rearing unit cleaning,
inspections, maintenance and repair.
Net pen facilities must keep the same
types of feeding records as described
above and record the dates and brief
descriptions of net  changes, inspections,
maintenance  and repairs to the net pens.

IX. What Are the Costs and Economic
Impacts Associated With This Rule?
  This section discusses the costs and
economic impact of the rule
promulgated today.

A. Compliance Costs
  The information  below describes the
rule's costs and how EPA determined
these costs. A more detailed discussion
of how EPA estimated compliance costs
is included in the Technical
Development Document (EPA-821-R-
04-012) and the discussion of the
economic impacts is included in the
Economic and Environmental Benefits
Analysis report (EPA-821-R-04-013).
Both of these documents can be found
on EPA's Web site, www.epa.gov/ost/
guide/aquaculture.
1. How Did EPA Estimate the Costs  of
Compliance With the Final Rule?
  EPA estimated costs associated with
regulatory compliance for the options it
considered to determine the economic

-------
51914
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
impact of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards on the
aquaculture industry. The economic
impact is a function of the estimated
costs of compliance to achieve the
requirements. These costs may include
initial fixed and capital costs, as well as
annual operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Estimation of these costs
began by identifying the practices and
technologies that could be used as a
basis to meet particular requirements.
EPA estimated compliance costs for
each facility, based on the specific
configuration of the facility as provided
in the detailed survey and the
implementation of the practices or
technologies to meet particular
requirements.
  EPA developed cost estimates for
capital, land, annual O&M, and one-
time fixed costs for the implementation
of the different best management
practices and treatment technologies
targeted under the regulatory options.
EPA developed the cost estimates from
information collected from the detailed
survey, site visits, sampling events,
published information, vendor contacts,
industry comments, and engineering
judgment. EPA estimates compliance
costs in 2001  dollars that it converted to
2003 dollars using the Engineering
News Record construction cost index.
All costs presented in this section are
reported in pre-tax 2003 dollars, unless
otherwise indicated.
  The final regulation requires facilities
to adopt various management practices
to control pollutant discharges and
incorporate these practices in a BMP
plan. The detailed survey provided
information on the use of BMPs at each
surveyed facility. In its analyses, EPA
estimated the costs associated with
implementing various types of BMPs.
As explained above, EPA has concluded
that BMPs are an effective tool for
controlling pollutant discharges. EPA
assumed no additional costs for
compliance for a facility for particular
BMPs when the facility indicated that it
had comparable BMPs in place, or EPA
found strong evidence that such BMPs
were already being implemented at the
facility. For example, facilities reporting
the use of drugs and pesticides that are
located in Washington or Idaho were
not costed for drug and pesticide BMPs
because the general permits in these
states require facilities to implement
BMPs related to drugs and pesticides
that are at least as stringent as these
required by today's rule.
  EPA is requiring each facility to
develop a BMP plan that describes the
practices and strategies it is using to
comply with narrative limitations
addressing solids control, including
                          feed management, materials storage (i.e.,
                          spill containment), structural
                          maintenance, recordkeeping, and
                          training. For net pen facilities, the BMP
                          plan must also document provisions for
                          complying with narrative limitations
                          related to waste collection and disposal,
                          minimization of discharges associated
                          with transport or harvest, and carcass
                          removal. EPA found that the net pen
                          facilities responding to the detailed
                          survey generally have operational
                          measures in place that address these
                          requirements.
                            The costs associated with BMP plan
                          development include a one-time labor
                          cost of 40 hours for management staff
                          training and time to develop and write
                          the plan. The plan that EPA costed
                          included time for the manager to (1)
                          identify all waste streams, wastewater
                          structures, and wastewater and manure
                          treatment structures at the site, (2)
                          identify and document standard
                          operating procedures for all BMPs used
                          at the facility, and (3) define
                          management and staff responsibilities
                          for implementing the plan. EPA
                          assumed that each employee at a facility
                          would  incur a one time cost of 4 hours
                          for initial BMP plan review?. EPA
                          included an annual cost for four hours
                          of management labor to maintain the
                          plan and eight hours of management
                          labor and 4 hours  for each employee for
                          training and an annual review of BMP
                          performance. EPA included the cost of
                          developing solids control, spill
                          prevention, and structural maintenance
                          components of the BMP plan in the
                          estimates for all appropriate facilities.
                          EPA also included recordkeeping and
                          training costs as a part of annual
                          operation and maintenance activities for
                          the BMP components.
                            One part of the solids control
                          component of the BMP plan is feed
                          management. Based on feed and
                          production data reported in the surveys,
                          EPA evaluated the effectiveness of a
                          facility's feed management programs.
                          EPA calculated feed conversion ratios
                          (FCRs)  using pounds of feed per pound
                          of live product. These calculated FCRs
                          were compared for groups of facilities
                          (i.e., combinations of ownership,
                          species and production system types
                          such as commercial trout flow-through
                          facilities or government salmon flow-
                          through facilities). EPA found a wide
                          range of FCRs (reported by facilities in
                          their detailed surveys, which were
                          validated by call backs to the facility)
                          among apparently similar facilities
                          within ownership-species-production
                          system groupings.
                            For example, EPA had good data for
                          24 of 60 government trout producers
                          using flow-through systems. They
reported a range of FCRs of 0.79 to 1.80
with a median FCR of 1.30. If an
individual facility's reported FCR was
significantly greater than the median,
EPA further evaluated the facility to
ascertain the reason for the higher FCR.
Facilities that produce larger fish, such
as broodstock, might have higher FCRs
because the larger fish produce less
flesh per unit of food. Facilities with
fluctuating water temperatures could
also be less efficient than facilities with
constant water temperatures. EPA
assumed facilities lacking evidence of
good feed management  practices (based
on the calculated FCR) would incur
additional costs to improve or establish
them. However, EPA did not apply costs
for feed management BMPs for facilities
with reasonable explanations for the
higher FCRs because EPA assumed such
facilities were already optimizing feed
input or would be able to do  so at
reasonable cost.
  EPA evaluated facilities that did not
report FCRs or provide  enough data for
an estimate by assigning each facility a
random FCR between the first and third
quartiles of the FCR distribution of the
group of facilities (i.e., combinations of
ownership, species, and production
systems) where it was classified. For its
analysis, EPA estimated target FCRs for
each group as the 25th percentile value
of the category. EPA used these target
FCRs in its costing and  loadings
analyses, but does not intend to set any
specific FCR targets at facilities (see
DCN 62467). These facilities  were
assigned costs associated with feed
management BMPs in the same manner
as facilities with calculated FCRs.
  Costs  for the feed management BMP
component include staff time for
recordkeeping for feed delivery and
daily feeding observations. Management
activities associated with the feed
management practices were weekly data
reviews of feeding records, regular
estimates of changes to  feeding regimes
for each group of aquatic animals, and
staff consultations about feeding. For
facilities that reported using drugs or
pesticides, EPA evaluated costs for (1)
storage containment, (2) spill prevention
planning and training, and (3) reporting
of INAD and extralabel  drug uses. For
storage containment, EPA evaluated the
amount of product stored onsite and
estimated containment  structure costs
specifically for the facility. This capital
cost was for the purchase of
commercially available drum storage
units and pesticide cabinets that will
contain  spills in the event of leakage or
accidental spills. EPA also estimated the
costs for management to develop a spill
prevention plan, which is included in
the facility BMP plan, and  annual staff

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday, August  23,  2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       51915
training at the facility (8 hours/year for
managers and 4 hours/year for each
employee). EPA assumed that reporting
to the appropriate regulatory authority
would occur 6 times per year for
facilities reporting using INAD or
extralabel drug uses. The reporting for
each occurrence includes 20 minutes for
an oral report  and 1 hour for a written
report. EPA considers these costing
assumptions to be conservative and may
overstate actual reporting frequency.
  In addition, EPA estimated costs for
inspections in order to maintain the
structural integrity of the aquatic animal
containment system. The costs include
regular inspections of rearing units,
solids storage  units, and drug/pesticide
storage units. EPA considers the aquatic
animal containment system to include
any physical barriers and practices used
to prevent the release of materials  from
the containment system. For flow-
through and recirculating facilities, the
containment system includes
wastewater treatment, for example,
quiescent zones  or settling basins,  in
addition to the rearing units and storage
units. For net pens, the containment
system includes the use of double  nets
or other techniques that may be used to
deter predators. EPA also included costs
for reporting of structural failure or
damage to the containment system that
results in a material discharge of
pollutants to waters of the U.S.
  For net pen  systems, failures include
physical damage to the predator control
nets or the nets containing the aquatic
animals, which result in a discharge of
the contents of the nets. Damage
includes abrasion, cutting or tearing of
the nets and breakdown of the netting
due to rot or ultra violet exposure. For
flow-through and recirculating systems,
a failure includes a collapse or damage
of a rearing unit or wastewater treatment
structure; damage to pipes, valves, and
other plumbing fixtures; and damage or
malfunction to screens or physical
barriers in the system, which would
prevent the unit from containing water,
sediment, and the aquatic animals. The
rule provides the permitting authorities
may specify what constitutes damage
and/or a material discharge on a site-
specific basis for the purposes of
triggering the reporting requirement.
Based on available information related
to containment system failures in the
past, flow-through and recirculating
facilities have had less incidences of
failures than net pen facilities.
Therefore, EPA estimated that 10
percent of the flow-through and
recirculating facilities would incur a
cost associated with the reporting of the
failure whereas, for costing purposes, all
net pen facilities were assumed to
experience a failure. Again, EPA
believes these assumptions are
conservative and may overestimate the
frequency of reportable failures.
  EPA revised estimates for all labor
costs using the employee and wage
information supplied in the detailed
surveys. For those  facilities indicating
they use unpaid labor for all or part of
the facility operation, or that did not
supply useable wage information, EPA
used average State or regional wages for
both staff and  management labor.
Separate estimates were used for
commercial and non-commercial
facilities.

2. What Are the Total National Costs?
  Tables IX-1 and IX-2 summarize
numbers of affected facilities and total
annualized costs for today's final
regulation. EPA estimates that a total of
242 facilities will be affected by today's
final regulation. These counts include
two non-profit flow-through facilities in
Alaska producing 100,000 Ib/year or
more that did not receive a detailed
questionnaire. More information is
provided in the rulemaking record (DCN
63065). Table IX-1  summarizes the
estimated number and type of facilities
affected by the rule, based on the
production threshold of 100,000 Ib/year.
These 242 facilities consists of 101
commercial facilities and  141
noncommercial facilities;
noncommercial facilities include
Federal, state, Alaskan non-profit, and
Tribal hatcheries. Of the 101
commercial facilities, 32 are projected  to
be unprofitable prior to the final rule
(i.e., baseline closures) under cash flow
analysis. EPA did not identify any
academic/research facilities in the
detailed questionnaire that produced
100,000 Ibs/yr or more.
  The estimated cost for this rule is $1.4
million per year (pre-tax, 2003 dollars).
Noncommercial facilities account for
about 81 percent of the total cost of the
rule. These estimated total costs reflect
aggregate compliance costs incurred by
facilities that produce 100,000 Ib/year  or
more and will be affected  by today's
final regulation. EPA's total cost
estimates do not include costs that are
incurred by the 32 commercial facilities
that are considered baseline closures. To
the extent that some projected baseline
closures remain open and incur costs
under this rule, despite analysis
showing unprofitability in the baseline,
national compliance costs, pollutant
load reductions and potential benefits
would be higher than projected.
       TABLE IX-1 .—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES WITH  PRODUCTION 100,000 LBS/YR OR MORE
Organization
Commercial
Noncommercial3 	

Total 	
Baseline clo-
sures1
32 (28)
NA (NA)

32 (28)
Not baseline
closures2
69 4 (69)
141 (141)

210 (210)
Total
101 (97)
141 (141)

242 (238)
                                                                                 Estimated number of facilities (see note)
  Note: Numbers in (parentheses) are facilities that are determined not to be in compliance with final rule requirements at the time this final rule
is signed by the EPA Administrator.
  NA: EPA does not determine closures for noncommercial facilities.
  1 Projected baseline closures are estimated using cash flow analysis. When net income analysis is assumed for earnings, the number of com-
mercial baseline closures increases  to 43. Baseline closures would not be projected to incur costs for a new rule in accordance with  EPA's
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (USEPA,  EPA 240-R-00-003). Baseline closures (based on cash flow) are therefore not included
in estimates of costs for this rule.
  2Total costs and economic impacts for this rule are estimated using incremental compliance costs incurred by the facilities that are not base-
line closures and not in compNance with the rule at time of final signature (i.e., 210 facilities are expected to incur costs under this rule: 69 com-
mercial and 141 noncommercial facilities).
  3 Noncommercial facilities include those operated by States, Tribes, the Federal Government, and Alaskan Non-Profits.
  4 Includes two facilities that are projected to be  baseline closures using discounted cash flow analysis but are characterized by EPA as "Not
Baseline Closures" due to unique facility-specific evidence associated with production, fish type, scale, and financial  data (as outlined in DCN
20500 in the confidential record for this  rule).

-------
51916
Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                              TABLE IX-2.—NATIONAL COSTS: TOTAL BY SUBCATEGORY
Production system

Flow-through and Recirculating Systems

Net Pen 	

Total ore-tax1 	
Owner

Commercial
Noncommercial2 	
Commercial 	
Noncommercial 2

Pre-tax
annualized
costs ($000,
2003 dollars)
Final option
$256
$1,149
$36
$0
$1.442
  Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
  1 Total annual post-tax cost for the final option is $1,362.
  2 Noncommercial facilities include those operated by State, Federal, Alaska nonprofit, and Tribal facilities.
B. Economic Impacts
  This section discusses the economic
effects associated with the final rule.

1. How did EPA Estimate Economic
Effects?
  Existing Commercial Facilities. EPA
uses several measures to evaluate
possible impacts on existing commercial
facilities. These measures examine the
possibility of business closure and
corresponding direct impacts on
employment and communities and
indirect and national impacts associated
with closures. EPA also evaluates
potential moderate impacts short of
closure, as well as changes in financial
health and borrowing capacity.
  To evaluate impacts to commercial
facilities, EPA conducts a closure
analysis that compares projected
earnings, with and without cost of
compliance with the final regulation for
the period 2005 to 2015. For this rule,
EPA used discounted cash flow and net
income to estimate earnings for closure
analysis. The difference between cash
flow and net income is depreciation
(cash flow equals net income plus
depreciation). Analysis using net
income is more likely to identify
baseline closures and could demonstrate
additional regulatory closures
associated with the rule. Table IX-3.5
presents closure results obtained using
both discounted cash flow and net
income. All other analytical results (for
example, other measures of economic
impacts, costs and benefits) presented in
this final action reflect discounted cash
flow as the  basis for earnings. EPA also
examines the effects of attributing a
wage rate to unpaid labor and found
that imputing costs for unpaid labor and
management would not change the
projected economic impacts of the rule.
  Closure analysis assumes that (1)
producers are unable to pass on the
costs of incremental pollution control to
consumer through higher prices and (2)
costs and earnings are discounted
                          assuming a 7 percent real discount rate
                          to account for the time value of money
                          and place earnings and costs on a
                          comparable basis. EPA considers that
                          the rule will result in a facility closure
                          if a facility shows (1) positive
                          discounted cash flow (or net income)
                          without the rule and (2)  negative
                          discounted cash flow (or net income)
                          with the rule for two out of three
                          forecasting scenarios. The forecasting
                          methods give a range of  trends: (1)
                          Optimistic or upward (USDA CPI Food
                          at Home, Fish and Seafood Sector), (2)
                          pessimistic or downward (weighted
                          average, based on facility production, of
                          USDA trout price data or U.S.
                          Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
                          Statistics, Fish PPI, Producer Price
                          Index—Unprocessed and packaged fish,
                          not seasonally adjusted), and (3) neutral
                          or no change (average of 1999-2001
                          earnings collected in the detailed
                          questionnaire). In an effort to evaluate
                          the effects of relying on  two out of three
                          forecasts to define closures, EPA also
                          analyzed closures using  a more
                          conservative assumption whereby
                          closures are defined as occurring when
                          negative earnings are projected under
                          only one of three forecast scenarios.
                            EPA does not assess potential for
                          closure under the rule if a facility is
                          projected to have negative earnings
                          under baseline conditions (i.e., baseline
                          closure). Baseline closures are defined
                          as facilities that are projected to have
                          negative earnings under 2 or 3 of the
                          forecasting methods before they incur
                          pollution control costs (i.e., baseline
                          closures). EPA's standard methodology
                          when using forecasts in  closure models
                          is to  use a "weight of evidence"
                          approach across a set of reasonable
                          assumptions regarding future industry
                          behavior. This allows EPA to recognize
                          uncertainty in the forecasts without
                          placing undue emphasis on any one set
                          of "timing and initial conditions".
                          Using this methodology, EPA
                          determined that 32 out of 101
commercial facilities are baseline
closures, assuming discounted cash
flow for earnings. When EPA adopts net
income as the basis for earnings,
baseline closures are projected to be 43.
When EPA projects closures based on
negative earnings in one out of three
forecasts, baseline closures are projected
to be 34. EPA notes that this type of
analysis identifies candidates for
closure; information on facility-level
costs and earnings may be too uncertain
to allow precise prediction of which
operations will actually close, in the
absence of the rule.
  In addition to its closure analysis,
EPA also prepared additional analyses
to assess potential effects, short of
closure, on existing businesses,
including an analysis of additional
moderate impacts using a sales test, an
evaluation of financial health using an
approach similar to that used by USDA,
and an assessment of possible impacts
on borrowing capacity. Use of these
measures has the advantage that they
mirror analyses that investment and
lending institutions perform to evaluate
industries and businesses.
  First, to assess whether there are
additional moderate impacts to
facilities, EPA uses a sales test to
compare the pre-tax annualized cost of
the final rule to the revenues reported
for facilities that passed the baseline
closure analysis. EPA considers that
facilities show additional moderate
impacts if they are not projected to  close
but incur compliance costs in excess of
5 percent of facility revenue; this
threshold is consistent with threshold
values established by EPA in previous
regulations and is determined to be
appropriate for this rulemaking.
  Second, EPA calculates impacts on
financial health at the company level
using USDA's  2x2 matrix (i.e., four-
level) categorization of financial health
based on a combination of net cash
income and debt/asset ratios. The
categories are favorable, marginal

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      51917
solvency, marginal income, and
vulnerable. EPA considers any change
in financial health category as an impact
of the rule.
  Finally, EPA performs a credit test by
calculating the ratio of the pre-tax
annualized cost of an option and the
after-tax Maximum Feasible Loan
Payment (MFLP) (i.e., 80 percent of
after-tax cash flow). EPA identified
companies with a ratio exceeding 80
percent of MFLP as being impacted by
this rule (i.e., the test threshold is
therefore actually 64 percent of the
after-tax cash flow).
  For the purposes of EPA's analysis,
the Agency assumes (1) no growth in
production to offset incremental costs
and (2) that the costs of the rule are not
passed on to consumers. The facility
must absorb all increased costs. If it
cannot do so and remain in operation,
all production is assumed lost. EPA's
assumption of no cost pass through is a
conservative approach to evaluating
economic achievability among regulated
entities. To evaluate market and trade
level impacts, EPA assumes all costs are
shifted onto the broader market level  as
a way of assessing the upper bound of
potential impacts.
  The Economic and Environmental
Benefit Analysis, available in the
rulemaking record, provides more detail
on EPA's analysis (DCN 63010).
  Noncommercial Facilities. For today's
final rule, EPA collected information  on
how U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
State agencies make decisions about
operating or closing public hatcheries.
EPA confirmed that public hatcheries
close; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
hatchery system once had as many as
250 hatcheries and it now operates
fewer than 90 facilities. Closures may
result from funding cuts (e.g., Mitchell
Act Funds and the Willard National
Fish Hatchery or General Funds for
State Hatcheries) or revision of a
program's mission and goals (e.g.,
increase focus on endangered species
versus provision of recreational
services). Closures may also result from
water quality impacts associated with
aquaculture activities. The costs of
upgrading pollution control at public
hatcheries are not generally the primary
reason for closure, but costs may tip the
balance of a particular hatchery toward
a closure decision. See the Economic
and Environmental Benefits Analysis
(DCN 63010) for more details.
  In the absence of well defined tests for
projecting public facility closures, EPA
compares pre-tax annualized
compliance costs to 2001 operating
budgets for public facilities ("Budget
Test"). For the purposes of this analysis,
costs exceeding 5 percent and 10
percent are assumed to signal potential
"moderate" and "adverse" impacts,
respectively. EPA examines the ability
of State-owned hatcheries to recoup
compliance costs through increases in
funding derived solely from user fees.
All States and the District of Columbia
have fishing license fees for residents.
The license fees are not raised every
year even though costs increase through
inflation. Instead, when fees are raised
or a fish stamp instituted, the
incremental or new fee is usually a
round number such as $3, $5, or  $10. A
$3 to $5 hike in State fishing license
fees translates into an increase in fees of
about 20 percent to 35 percent.
Although all States report having fishing
license fees, if a state hatchery reports
no funding from user fee  sources, EPA
considers that facility to be unable to
recoup increased costs through
increased funding from user fees.
  More detailed information is provided
in the Economic and Environmental
Benefit Analysis and the rulemaking
record.
  New Commercial Facilities. To assess
effects on new businesses, EPA's
analysis considers the barrier that
compliance costs due to the effluent
guidelines regulation may pose to entry
into the industry. In general, it is less
costly to incorporate waste water
treatment technologies as a facility  is
built than it is to retrofit existing
facilities. Therefore, where a rule is
economically achievable  for existing
facilities, it will also be economically
achievable for new facilities that can
meet the same guidelines at lower cost.
Similarly, even where the cost of
compliance with a given technology is
not economically achievable for an
existing source, such technology may be
less costly for new sources and thus
have economically sustainable costs.  It
is possible, on the other hand, that to
the extent the up-front costs of building
a new facility are significantly increased
as a result of the rule, prospective
builders may face difficulties in raising
additional capital.  This could present a
barrier to entry. Therefore, as part of its
analysis of new source standards, EPA
evaluates barriers to entry. If the
requirements promulgated in the final
regulation do not give existing operators
a cost advantage over new source
operators, then EPA assumes new
source performance standards do not
present a barrier to entry  for new
facilities.
  EPA's analysis includes all
commercial facilities within scope of
the rule, including those that are
baseline closures. EPA examines the (1)
proportion of commercial facilities  that
incur no costs, (2) proportion of
commercial facilities that incur no land
or capital costs, and (3) ratio of
incremental land and capital costs to
total company assets. The cost to asset
ratio is calculated using company data
because asset data were collected only
at the company level; company impacts
cannot be extrapolated to the national-
level because sampling weights are
based on facilities, not companies. EPA
calculates the ratio for each company
and uses the average of the ratios. More
information is provided in the
Economic and Environmental Impact
Analysis available in the rulemaking
record.
2. What Are the Results of the Economic
Analysis?
  Existing Commercial Facilities. Table
IX-3 shows the impacts on commercial
operations from today's regulation. As
shown, EPA projects no facility closures
as a result of the final rule under the
cash flow analysis. No closures are
projected for enterprises or companies.
Correspondingly, there are no
employment and other direct and
indirect impacts estimated for this rule
as a consequence of closures using cash
flow analysis and negative earnings in
two of three forecast scenarios. When
the closure analysis is conducted using
net income as a basis for earnings, EPA
projects two closures out of 58
commercial facilities (see Table IX-3.5).
When the closure analysis is conducted
using only one of three forecast
scenarios, EPA also identifies two
closures out of 67 commercial facilities
(see Section IX.B.I for discussion of
forecast methods). Based on these
results, EPA concludes that the final
rule option is economically achievable.
EPA notes that all other analytical
results (for  example other measures of
economic impacts, costs) presented in
this final action reflect discounted cash
flow as the  basis for earnings; EPA's
analyses indicate that use of net income
will not materially change results.
  EPA expects some operations will
incur moderate impacts, short of
closure, based on an analysis that shows
that some operations will incur
compliance costs in excess of 5 percent
of annual revenue. For the final
regulation,  4 of 69 commercial facilities
incur costs  greater than 5 percent of
sales, affecting about 5 percent of
regulated facilities in the flow-through
and recirculating subcategory; no
additional facilities have costs
exceeding 3 percent of revenues. No
commercial facilities have costs that
exceed 10 percent of annual revenue.
EPA's analysis shows no expected
change in financial health. One
company fails the USDA credit test as

-------
51918
Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
a result of the final regulation. These
results are based on data from
companies represented in the Agency's
detailed questionnaire. These results
further support EPA's conclusion that
the final options are economically
achievable for commercial facilities (and
companies). More information is
provided in the Economic and
Environmental Benefit Analysis
available in the rulemaking record  (DCN
63010)
  Noncommercial Facilities. Table IX-3
also shows the impacts on
noncommercial  operations from today's
regulation. Four facilities incur costs
exceeding 10 percent of budget. EPA
assumes that those facilities that  face
costs exceeding  10 percent of their
budget would be adversely affected by
the final regulation. None of these
facilities report the use of user fee
funds. These results indicate that 3
percent of all non-commercial
operations may be adversely affected by
                           the final option. Under EPA's assumed
                           criteria for determining economic
                           achievability, these operations may be
                           vulnerable to closure.
                             Twelve facilities incur costs
                           exceeding 5 percent of annual budgets
                           under the final rule. These results
                           indicate that an additional 6 percent of
                           all non-commercial operations (not
                           counting those adversely affected)
                           would experience some moderate
                           impact, short of closure, associated
                           under this final rule.  Some of these
                           facilities report the use of user fees
                           revenues, implying potential flexibility
                           in meeting the incremental costs.
                             No in-scope Alaskan nonprofit
                           facilities responded to EPA's detailed
                           questionnaire, but EPA did identify two
                           in-scope facilities based on screener
                           data. These facilities  were costed using
                           screener data and economic  impacts
                           were projected based on publicly
                           available revenue data for 2001. Neither
facility is projected to incur costs greater
than 3 percent of revenues.
  Given that the results of EPA's
analysis project that a small share of
regulated noncommercial facilities may
incur costs exceeding 10 percent of
budget, estimated at 3 percent of
facilities, the Agency has determined
that these final technology options to be
economically achievable for
noncommercial facilities. For more
information, see the Economic and
Environmental Benefit Analysis
available in the rulemaking record.
  New Commercial Facilities. EPA
estimated that about 4 percent of
regulated facilities do not incur any
costs under the final regulation, and
about 76 percent of facilities incur no
land or capital costs. The incremental
land and capital costs, where they were
incurred, represented less than 0.2
percent of total assets. This final
regulation should therefore not present
barriers to entry for new businesses.
               TABLE IX-3.—ECONOMIC  IMPACTS: EXISTING COMMERCIAL & NONCOMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
Threshold test
Number of in-
scope facilities
in the
Analysis 1
Impacts pro-
jected under
final option
                                                  Commercial Operations
Closure Analysis (discounted cash flow)2 	
Sales test >3% (facility level) 	
Sales test >5% (facility level)
Sales test >10% (facility level)
Change in Financial Health (Company level)3 	
Credit test >80% (Comoanv leveh3 	
69
69
69
69
34
34
0
4
4
0
0
1
                                                 Noncommercial Facilities6
Budget test >3% (all facilities) 	
State owned only (# with user fees)5
Federal owned only
Alaskan Non-Profit4 	
Budget test >5% (all facilities) 	
State owned only (# with user fees)5
Federal owned only
Alaskan Non-Profit4 	
Budget test >10% (all facilities) 	
State owned only (# with user fees)5
Federal owned only
Alaskan Non-Profit4 	
141
106
33
2
141
106
33
2
141
106
33
2
19
12 (8)
7
0
12
8 (8)
4
0
4
0 (0)
4
0
  Source: Estimated by USEPA using results from facility-specific detailed questionnaire responses, see Chapters.
  1 There are 101 in-scope commercial facilities, represented by 34 unweighted companies. Of the 101 facilities, 32 are baseline closures, as-
suming cash flow analysis, leaving 69 commercial facilities that can be analyzed. Closure analysis and sales test are performed at facility level;
financial health and credit tests performed at company level; and all noncommercial tests performed at facility level.
  2 Closure analysis results obtained using discounted cash flow and closure defined as negative earnings in two of three forecast scenarios.
See Table IX-3.5 for results under different assumptions.
  3 Analysis performed at the company level. The statistical weights, however, are developed on the basis of facility characteristics and therefore
cannot be used for estimating the number of companies.
  4Two Alaska non-profit organizations are within the scope of this rule, but did not receive a detailed survey. They were costed using screener
survey data. Economic impacts were calculated using publically available information.
  5 Some State-owned facilities reported that they relied, in part, on funds from State user fee operations. These numbers are reported in paren-
thesis and are included in the overall numbers as well.
  6 There is a potential for a small number of Tribal facilities to be present within the population of non-commercial facilities, despite the absence
of a line item for  Tribal facilities above. In its screener survey which was a census of the industry, EPA identified a number of Tribal facilities that
might be subject  to the proposed rule for the CAAP category (DCN 51401). However, all of the tribal facilities represented by the detailed survey
were determined  to not be in scope.

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      51919
  Because the detailed survey is a
sample, there is uncertainty associated
with the conclusion that there are no
tribal facilities in scope for the final
rule. For this reason, EPA believes there
may be a few in-scope tribal facilities
that have not been analyzed. As part of
the analyses conducted prior to the
NODA, based on the screener data, EPA
estimated impacts for tribal facilities
producing between  20,000 and 100,000
pounds per year for Option B (more
costly than the final option). These
results are for facilities that are not
within the scope of the final rule, but
they provide evidence that the final rule
is expected to be economically
achievable for tribal facilities.
           TABLE IX-3.5.—CLOSURE ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL FACILITIES UNDER DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS

Closure Analysis (discounted cash flow)2
Closure Analysis (Net Income)2
Closure Analysis (one out of three forecasts')3 	
Number of in-
scope facilities
in the
analysis 1
69
58
67
Closures pro-
jected under
final option
0
2
2
  1 There are 32, 43, and 34 baseline closures projected under discounted cash flow, net income and one out of three forecasts respectively.
Baseline closures are not analyzed for regulatory closure and therefore subtracted from the 101 in-scope facilities.
  2 Discounted cash flow and net income are two different assumptions used to estimate earnings under closure analysis (see Section IX.B.1 for
details). Closures defined as occurring when negative earnings are projected under at least two of three forecast methods.
  3 Analysis assumes earnings estimated using cash flow and closure defined, more conservatively, as occurring when negative earnings are
projected under only one of three forecast methods.
3. What Are the Projected Market Level
Impacts?

  EPA was not able to prepare a market
model analysis for this rule because of
the complex interaction between
commercial and non-commercial
operations (e.g., trout are raised
commercially, but also for restoration
and recreation), wild catch accounts for
a large share of the market for some
species, and USDA Census data indicate
that there is a high degree of
concentration of specific species, such
as trout and some other food fish.
Literature on estimated measures of
elasticity of supply and demand is
limited and exist for only a  few species,
such as catfish which are not covered by
this regulation. The Agency does
therefore not report quantitative
estimates of changes in overall supply
and demand for aquaculture products
and changes in market prices. For more
information, see Chapter 3.6 of the
Economic and Environmental Benefit
Analysis for the proposed rulemaking
available in the docket (DCN 63010).
However, EPA does not expect
significant market impacts as a result of
today's final rule because economic
impacts are expected to be low (see
discussion above) and the overall cost of
the rule is low, as compared to the total
value of the U.S. aquaculture industry.
Long-term shifts in supply associated
with this rule are unlikely given
expected continued competition from
domestic wild harvesters and low-cost
foreign suppliers. For additional
information, see the Economic and
Environmental Impact Analysis
available in the rulemaking record.
4. What Are the Potential Impacts on
Foreign Trade?
  Foreign trade impacts are difficult to
predict, since agricultural exports are
determined by economic conditions in
foreign markets and changes in the
international exchange rate for the U.S.
dollar. In addition, for today's final rule,
EPA was not able to perform a market
model analysis for this rule and did not
obtain quantitative estimates of changes
in overall supply and demand for
aquaculture products and changes in
market prices, as well as changes in
traded volumes including imports and
exports.
  Nevertheless, EPA believes that the
impact of this final rule on U.S.
aquaculture trade will not be significant.
Because of the relatively small market
share of U.S. aquaculture producers in
world markets, EPA believes that long-
term shifts in supply associated with
this rule are unlikely given expected
continued competition from domestic
wild harvesters and already lower-cost
foreign suppliers in China and other
Asian nations. Under a scenario that
assumes the total costs of the rule are
absorbed by the domestic market, EPA
estimates that U.S. aquaculture prices
would rise by slightly more than 1 cent
per pound. Under the alternative
assumption that all costs are born by
facility operators, impacts are projected
to be small and would not significantly
affect production (see Section IX.B.2).

5. What Are the Potential Impacts on
Communities?
  The communities where aquaculture
facilities are located may be affected by
the final regulation if facilities cut back
operations. However, EPA projects no
commercial facility closures as a result
of this rule, assuming discounted cash
flow (two closures are projected using
net income as shown in Table IX—3.5),
indicating minimal likelihood of
measurable impacts on (1) direct losses
in commercial production, revenue, or
employment; and (2) local economies
and employment rates. Should some
facilities cut back operations as a result
of this final regulation, EPA cannot
project how great these impacts would
be as it cannot identify the communities
where impacts might occur. Under a
scenario that assumes the total costs of
the rule are absorbed by the domestic
market, EPA estimates that U.S.
aquaculture prices would rise by
slightly more than 1 cent per pound.
(See EPA's Economic and
Environmental Benefit Analysis.)
  Closures of non-commercial facilities
could also result in employment
impacts on communities. EPA projects
four noncommercial facilities, with a
total employment of 16 employees
could experience impacts such that they
would be vulnerable to closure (i.e.,
costs exceed 10 percent of annual
budget). The communities in which
these facilities are located could
experience moderate impacts, but, as
noted in Section IX.B.2, environmental
compliance costs are generally a
contributing rather than the deciding
factor in closure decisions. EPA
therefore does not expect significant
impacts on communities as a result of
today's final rule.
C. What Do the Cost-Reasonableness
Analyses Show?
  EPA performed an assessment of the
total cost of the final rule relative to the
expected effluent reductions. EPA based
its "cost reasonableness" (CR) analysis
on estimated costs, loadings, and

-------
51920
Federal  Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
removals. See EPA's Development
Document in the rulemaking record for
additional details.
  Table IX.4 shows the cost-
reasonableness values for conventional
pollutants. EPA estimates BOD and TSS
removals for each facility for each
                          option. Because BOD can be correlated
                          with TSS, EPA selected the higher of the
                          two values (not the sum) to avoid
                          possible double-counting of removals.
                          For the Flow-through and Recirculating
                          Systems Subcategory, cost-
                          reasonableness is $2.77/lb. Cost-
                    reasonableness is undefined for the Net
                    Pen Subcategory systems because these
                    facilities have adequate treatment to
                    achieve requirements for pollutants (i.e.,
                    no incremental removals are estimated
                    for these facilities).
                                TABLE IX-4— COST-REASONABLENESS: BOD OR TSS
Subcategory
Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
Net oen 	
Pre-tax
annualized
costs
($2003)
$1 405 866
$35.640
BOD or TSS
removals
(Ib)1
506 839
0
Cost-reason-
ableness
($2003/pound)
$277
Undefined
  1 EPA determines the higher of BOD or TSS mass removal for each facility and then aggregates pounds across facilities.
  Undefined: Facilities in this group are not projected to achieve incremental removals of the pollutants in this table (i.e., no incremental remov-
als are estimated).
X. What Are the Environmental
Benefits for This Rule?

A. Summary of Environmental Benefits
  Today's final action does not establish
numeric limits for total suspended
solids (TSS) or other pollutants from
flow-through and recirculating systems.
It establishes BMPs for solids control,
materials storage, structural
maintenance, recordkeeping, and
training. The final rule also requires the
permittee to develop a BMP plan on-site
describing how the permittee will
achieve the BMP requirements and
make the plan available to the
permitting authority upon request. The
facilities are also to maintain the
structural integrity of the aquatic animal
containment system. The final rule  also
establishes BMP requirements for net
pen systems that address feed
management, waste collection and
disposal, discharges associated with
transport and harvest, carcass removal,
materials storage, structural
maintenance, recordkeeping, and
training. Net pen facilities are to
develop and maintain a BMP plan on-
site describing how the permittee is to
achieve the BMP requirements. The
permittee must make the plan available
to the permitting authority upon
request. Both the flow-through and
recirculating and net pen subcategories
have reporting requirements for  (1)  the
use of INADs and extralabel drugs use,
(2) failure or damage to the structural
integrity of the aquatic animal
containment system, and (3) spills of
drugs, pesticides and feed which result
in discharge of pollutants to waters  of
the U.S. The requirements, according to
EPA loadings estimates, will reduce
facility discharges of TSS, total nitrogen
(TN), total phosphorus (TP), and
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
EPA has also estimated reductions for
                          metals and some feed contaminants as
                          a result of these final requirements. EPA
                          could not quantify baseline or regulated
                          loads for drugs and pesticides.
                            These requirements and loading
                          reductions (TSS, TN, TP, BOD, metals,
                          and feed contaminants) could affect
                          water quality, the uses supported by
                          varying levels of water quality, and
                          other aquatic environmental variables
                          (e.g., primary production and
                          populations  or assemblages of native
                          organisms in the receiving waters of
                          regulated facilities). These impacts may
                          result in environmental benefits, some
                          of which have quantifiable, monetizable
                          value to society. For today's final action,
                          EPA has only monetized benefits from
                          water quality improvements resulting
                          from reductions in TSS, TN, TP, and
                          BOD.

                          TABLE  1.—SUMMARY  OF   ENVIRON-
                             MENTAL BENEFITS OF FINAL RULE
                             Type of benefit
                          Improved water qual-
                            ity from reduced
                            TSS, TN, TP, and
                            BOD loadings due
                            to improved solids
                            control, including
                            feed management
                          Reduced inputs to re-
                            ceiving water of
                            metals and feed
                            contaminants
                          Reduced inputs of
                            drugs and pes-
                            ticides
                          Reduced inputs of
                            materials as a re-
                            sult of structural
                            maintenance and
                            material storage re-
                            quirements
  Monetized value
      ($2003)
$66,000-$99,000
not monetized



not monetized


not monetized
B. Non-Monetized Benefits

1. Metals and Other Additives and
Contaminants
  CAAP facilities may release metals
and other feed additives and
contaminants to the environment in
limited quantities; proper management
of solids and other management
practices may reduce environmental
risk from these releases. Trace amounts
of metals are added to feed in the form
of mineral packs to ensure that the
essential dietary nutrients are provided.
In general, FDA establishes safety limits
for feed additives and must address
environmental safety concerns
associated with such  additives under
the requirements of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFD&CA) and
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Trace amounts of metals may
also be present as feed contaminants.
Metals may also be introduced into the
environment from CAAP machinery,
equipment, and structures (e.g., net pens
treated with antifouling copper
compounds). Other feed additives may
include FDA-approved compounds used
to improve the coloring of fish flesh.
Organochlorine contaminants such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) also
may be present as trace residues
regulated by FDA in some fish feeds.
  EPA estimates that today's final rule
will reduce total suspended solids (TSS)
released by CAAP facilities by about
half a million pounds per year. Metals
and other feed contaminants that may
be released to the environment from
CAAP facilities are in large part
associated with waste solids. EPA
estimates that reductions in TSS will be
accompanied by incidental removals of
metals and PCBs. EPA estimated metal
reductions of approximately 2,700
pounds per year nationally and a
maximum of PCB reductions of 0.04 Ibs

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No. 162/Monday, August  23,  2004/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                     51921
per year. For further discussion of
metals and other feed additives and
contaminants, see the Economic and
Environmental Impact Analysis and
Technical Development Document for
this final rule (DCNs  63010 and 63009).

2. Drugs and Pesticides
  CAAP facilities employ drugs and
pesticides for a variety of therapeutic
and water treatment purposes. Facilities
release treated waters that may contain
residual amounts of drugs, pesticides,
and their byproducts directly to the
environment. Drugs used for therapeutic
purposes are regulated by FDA. Prior to
approving drugs for use, FDA must
evaluate the environmental safety of
animal drugs  as required by FFDCA and
NEPA. While FDA is required to
consider environmental impacts of
approved and investigational drugs
under these authorities, the
environmental safety of drugs used
under FDA's "investigational new
animal drug" (INAD) program may not
be fully characterized. The INAD
program is an important mechanism
that enables the collection of data that
can be used to characterize and
establish the environmental safety of
new drugs. For compilations of
technical literature supporting FDA's
environmental assessments of
therapeutants used at CAAP  facilities,
see the FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine (CVM) Web site
(www.fda.gov/cvm). It should be noted
that FDA environmental assessments are
not site-specific and may not cover all
discharge scenarios (e.g., multiple
dischargers to a single receiving water)
or applications (e.g., extralabel
applications of drugs). For additional
discussion of this topic, see Chapter 7
of EPA's Environmental Impact
Analysis for this final rule.
  Today's final rule requires the proper
storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to
prevent spills that may result in a
discharge from CAAP facilities. For
reasons explained in  Section VI.G
(Loadings)  of this Preamble, EPA has
not quantified expected reductions in
the release of drugs and pesticides to the
environment nor environmental benefits
that might result. Today's final rule also
requires CAAP facilities to report to
permitting authorities whenever an
investigative drug or  an extralabel drug
is used in amounts exceeding a
previously approved  dosage, as
described above in Section VIII.E. This
requirement is expected to better enable
permitting authorities to monitor the
potential for environmental risks that
could result from such uses.  EPA has
not quantified benefits that might arise
as a result of this requirement.
C. Monetized Benefits

1. Case Study Framework
  As was done for EPA's proposed rule,
EPA estimated monetized benefits of the
regulation based on predicted
improvements in water quality in the
receiving waters of facilities that were
expected to have load reductions as a
result of the rule. EPA's water quality
modeling for today's final action differs
from the proposal modeling, however,
in that for the final rule, more detailed,
facility-specific operational and
environmental data were obtained, both
from information provided by facilities
on the detailed surveys as well as other
sources. This more detailed data
provided EPA with a better basis for
developing representative case studies
on which to perform water quality
modeling and valuation and for
extrapolating from case studies to a
national benefit estimate.
  To select a set of representative case
studies from among the facilities for
which EPA had detailed data, EPA
assumed that three factors primarily
drive water quality improvements  at any
given facility: (1) The magnitude of
pollutant load reductions under the
final rule, (2)  effluent pollutant
concentrations at baseline (prior to
regulatory reductions), and (3) the ratio
of facility effluent flow to receiving
water streamflow ("dilution ratio"). EPA
then created categories based on
combinations of values (low and high)
for each of these factors. For example,
the "LLL" category means facilities with
"low" pollutant reductions under the
final rule, "low" baseline effluent
concentrations, and "low" dilution
ratios; this category is expected to
experience the smallest benefits of the
final regulation. In this manner, eight
categories were created (LLL, LLH, LHL,
LHH,  HLL, HLH, HHL, HHH; see Table
2). EPA then assigned all detailed
survey facilities with non-zero load
reductions in the scope of the final rule
to an appropriate category based on the
three factors described above. For more
details on the categorization procedure,
see Chapter 8 of the Economic and
Environmental Impact Analysis for
today's final action [DCN 63010].
  EPA then developed a "case study"
for one facility in each of the five
categories expected to experience the
greatest water quality improvement
(EPA did not  develop case  studies for all
categories partly because of resource
constraints). EPA multiplied the
estimated benefits for each case study
by the total number of facilities assigned
to that category to estimate a total
national benefit for that category. No
benefits were estimated for the three
categories for which case studies were
not developed. Benefits for these
categories are expected to be small
relative to those included in the
analysis. The total national benefit
estimate was estimated as the sum of
benefits for all categories.

2. Economic Valuation Method
  Economic research indicates that the
public is willing to pay for
improvements in water quality and
several methods have been developed to
translate changes in water quality to
monetized values, as noted in EPA's
"Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses (EPA-240-R-00-003, 2003;).
At proposal, EPA based the  water
quality benefits monetization on results
from a stated-preference survey
conducted by Carson and Mitchell
(1993) (DCN 20157). We divided
household willingness-to-pay (WTP)
values for changes in recreational water
"use classes" by the number of "water
quality index" points (an index based
on water quality variables; see below) in
each use class. We assigned a portion of
the value for each unit change to
achieving the whole step. Recently, EPA
developed an alternative approach, also
based on Mitchell and Carson's work.
Mitchell and Carson also expressed
their results as an equation relating a
household's WTP for improved water
quality to the change in the  water
quality index and household income.
An important feature of this approach is
that it is less sensitive to the baseline
use of the water body. This approach is
also consistent with economic theory in
that it exhibits a declining marginal
WTP for water quality (see more
information on this approach in DCNS
40138 and 40595). While caution must
be used in manipulating valuations
derived from stated preference surveys,
this valuation function approach helps
address some concerns about earlier
applications of the water quality
benefits monetization method. (See DCN
40595 for a more detailed discussion).
3. Water Quality Modeling
  As was done for the proposed rule,
EPA applied the Enhanced Stream
Water Quality Model (QUAL2E, http://
www.epa.gov/waterscience/wqm/) to
simulate changes in receiving water
quality resulting from reductions in
TSS, BOD, total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus estimated by EPA to result
from the regulatory requirements of this
final rule. QUAL2E is a one-
dimensional water quality model that
assumes steady state  flow but allows
simulation of diurnal variations in
temperature, algal photosynthesis, and
respiration. The model projects water

-------
51922
Federal  Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
quality by solving an advective-
dispersive mass transport equation.
Water quality constituents simulated
include conservative substances,
temperature, bacteria, BODs, DO,
ammonia, nitrate and organic nitrogen,
phosphate and organic phosphorus, and
algae.
  Resource and data limitations
constrained the number of QUAL2E
applications that could be performed.
EPA developed a QUAL2E case study
for the following categories: LHL, LHH,
HLH, HHL, and HHH. EPA did not
prepare case studies for the LLL, LLH,
and HLL  categories because (a) no
facilities  were in the HLL category and
(b) EPA focused modeling resources on
categories expected to represent a larger
proportion of benefits. Water quality
improvements for facilities in the LLL
and LLH  categories were expected to be
smaller than the improvements for the
facilities  in the other categories.
4. Calculation of "Water Quality Index"
  Simulated water quality changes for
each case study must be translated into
a composite "index" value for the
monetization method described in
Section X.B.2 above. EPA more recently
developed a six-parameter WQJ ("WQI-
6") based on TSS, BOD, DO, FC, plus
nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4). The
new index more completely reflects the
type of water quality changes that will
result from loading reductions for TSS,
total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus
(TP), and BOD. Final rule benefits
presented here were estimated on the
basis of WQI-6.

5. Estimated National Water Quality
Benefits
  EPA monetized water quality benefits
for each of the 5 QUAL2E case studies
performed (Table 2). Using the methods
described above, the Agency estimates
that the total national benefit from water
quality improvements arising from TSS,
BOD, TN, and TP reductions from this
rule are $66,000—$99,000. This range
reflects varying assumptions that  the
Agency implemented to reflect some
sources of uncertainty. Furthermore,
this range of water quality-based
benefits of this regulation may be
uncertain for several reasons including:
  •  EPA  did not estimate benefits for
the facilities in the LLL and LLH
extrapolation categories. However, it is
not expected that inclusion of these
facilities  would greatly increase
monetized water quality benefits.
  •  EPA's monetization method mainly
captures  benefits for recreational uses of
the streams. Economic research
indicates that there are significant "non-
use" values associated with some
                          dimensions of water quality. Analysis
                          using monetization methods that fully
                          captures non-use values could increase
                          the estimated benefits for this rule if it
                          significantly affects these dimensions.
                          EPA does not have enough information
                          to determine if this is the case.
                            • Other receiving water impacts are
                          not captured in the QUAL2E modeling,
                          such  as build-up  of organic sediments in
                          stream channels.  Research included in
                          the administrative record for today's
                          final  action documents that such
                          accumulations can impair aquatic
                          ecosystems. Benefits from reducing
                          these effects are not captured in EPA's
                          analysis of water  quality-based benefits
                          of today's final action.

                          TABLE 2.—EXTRAPOLATED TOTAL NA-
                            TIONAL  WATER  QUALITY   BENEFIT
                            ESTIMATE,  FINAL OPTION
A
Extrapolation category
LLL-LLH
LHL-LHH 	
HLL-HLH
HHL-HHH

Total

B
Total national
benefit for ex-
trapolation cat-
egory
($2003)
not estimated
$2,126-$5,330
$6591-$12031
$57497-$81 255

$66214-$98616

                            In general, however, the relatively
                          small recreational benefits projected for
                          the rule suggest that non-monetized
                          benefits categories are likely to be small
                          as well.

                          XI. What Are the Non-Water Quality
                          Environmental Impacts of This Rule?
                            Under Sections 304(b) and 306 of the
                          Clean Water Act, EPA may consider
                          non-water quality environmental
                          impacts (including energy requirements)
                          when developing effluent limitations
                          guidelines and standards. Accordingly,
                          EPA has considered the potential
                          impact of today's final regulation on air
                          emissions, energy consumption, and
                          solid waste generation.

                          A. Air Emissions
                            With the implementation of feed
                          management, the final rule decreases
                          the amount of solid waste generated and
                          land applied from CAAP facilities. Land
                          application is a common waste disposal
                          method in the CAAP industry; therefore,
                          the amount of ammonia released as air
                          emissions would be expected to
                          decrease as the quantity of waste
                          applied to cropland decreases. EPA
                          estimates the decrease in ammonia
                          emissions to be 8,182 pounds of
                          ammonia per year. This is a decrease of
                          about 8 %  over the ammonia emissions
presently estimated for the industry. For
additional details about air emissions
from CAAP facilities, see Chapter 11 of
the TDD.

B. Energy Consumption
  EPA estimates that implementation of
today's rule would result in a net
decrease in energy consumption for
aquaculture facilities. The decrease
would be based on electricity used
today to pump solids from raceways to
solids settling ponds, which will no
longer be generated, from wastewater
treatment equipment. EPA determined
that the decrease in energy consumption
for flow-through and recirculating
systems is estimated at 4,900 kilowatt-
hour (kW-h). This represents about 1.3
x 10 ~7 percent of the national generated
energy.

C. Solid Waste Generation
  EPA estimates that implementation of
today's rule would result in an
estimated reduction of 2.3 million
pounds of sludge, on a wet basis
(assuming 12 percent solids) for flow-
through and recirculating facilities. This
reduction is due to feed management
that results in less solid waste
generated.
XII. How Will This Rule Be
Implemented?
  This section helps permit writers and
CAAP facilities implement this
regulation. This section also discusses
the relationship of upset and bypass
provisions, variances, and modifications
to the final limitations and standards.
For additional implementation
information, see Chapter 2 of the
Technical Development Document for
today's rule.

A. Implementation of Limitations and
Standards for Direct Dischargers
  Effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards act
as important mechanisms to control the
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States. These limitations and
standards are applied to individual
facilities through NPDES permits issued
by the EPA or authorized States under
Section 402 of the Act.
  In specific cases, the NPDES
permitting authority may elect to
establish technology-based permit limits
for pollutants not covered by this
regulation. In addition, where State
water quality standards or other
provisions of State or Federal law
require limits on pollutants not covered
by this regulation (or require more
stringent limits  or standards on covered
pollutants in order to attain and
maintain water quality standards), the

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                      51923
permitting authority must apply those
limitations or standards. See CWA
Section 301(b)(l)(C).
  The final regulation establishing
narrative limitations for the flow-
through and recirculating system and
net pen subcategories requires that a
point source must meet the prescribed
limitations expressed as operational
practices or "any modification to these
requirements as determined by the
permitting authority based on its
exercise of its best professional
judgment." Sections 451.11 and 451.21.
This provision authorizes the permitting
authority to tailor the specific NPDES
permit limits that implement the
guideline limitations to individual sites.
As previously explained,  the final
narrative requirements, in many cases,
require achievement of environmental
end points. There may be circumstances
which require some modification to
these requirements to best accomplish
these environmental end points, or to
accommodate specific circumstances at
a particular site. The provision allows
the permitting authority to address  such
situations by incorporating in the
NPDES permit specific tailored
conditions that accomplish the intent of
the narrative limitations. The CWA
recognizes that it should provide
mechanisms for addressing certain
unique, site-specific situations in the
guidelines regulation. Here, EPA has
provided upfront in this rule such a
mechanism.

1. What Are the Compliance Dates for
Existing and New Sources?
  New and reissued NPDES permits to
direct dischargers must include these
effluent limitations unless water quality
considerations require more stringent
limits, and the permits must require
immediate compliance with such
limitations. If the permitting authority
wishes to provide a compliance
schedule,  it must do so through an
enforcement mechanism.
  New sources must comply with the
new source standards (NSPS) of this
rule when they commence discharging
CAAP wastewater. Because the final
rule was not promulgated within 120
days of the proposed rule, the Agency
considers  a discharger to be a new
source if its construction commences
after September 22, 2004.

2. Who Does Part 451 Apply To?
  In Section VI. A. of this preamble  and
Chapter 2  of the TDD, EPA provides
detailed information on the
applicability of this rule. 40 CFR part
451 will apply to existing and new
concentrated aquatic animal production
facilities that produce  100,000 pounds
or more of aquatic animals per year in
flow-through, recirculating, and net pen
systems. There is an exception for net
pen systems rearing native species
released after a growing period of no
longer than 4 months to supplement
commercial and  sport fisheries.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
  A "bypass" is  an intentional diversion
of the streams from any portion of a
treatment facility. An "upset" is an
exceptional incident in which there is
unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology-based
permit effluent limitations because of
factors beyond the reasonable control of
the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets for
direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR
122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect
dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and
403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications
  While the  CWA requires application
of effluent limitations established
pursuant to section 301 to all direct
dischargers,  the statute also provides  for
the modification of these national
requirements in a limited number of
circumstances. Moreover, the Agency
established administrative mechanisms
to provide an opportunity for relief from
the application of the national effluent
limitations guidelines for categories of
existing sources  for toxic, conventional,
and nonconventional pollutants.

1. Fundamentally Different Factors
Variances
  EPA will develop effluent limitations
or standards different from the
otherwise applicable requirements if an
individual discharging facility is
fundamentally different with respect to
factors considered in establishing the
limitation of standards applicable to the
individual facility. Such a modification
is known as  a "fundamentally different
factors" (PDF) variance.
  Early on, EPA, by regulation provided
for the PDF modifications from the BPT
effluent limitations, BAT limitations for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants
and BCT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers.  PDF
variances for toxic pollutants were
challenged judicially and ultimately
sustained by the  Supreme Court.
(Chemical Manufacturers Assn v.
NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
  Subsequently,  in the Water Quality
Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301 (n) of the Act explicitly to
authorize modifications of the otherwise
applicable BAT effluent limitations or
categorical pretreatment standards for
existing sources  if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to
the factors specified in Section 304
(other than costs) from those considered
by EPA in establishing the effluent
limitations or pretreatment standard.
Section 301(n) also defined the
conditions under which EPA may
establish alternative requirements.
Under  Section 301(n), an application for
approval of a PDF variance must be
based solely on (1) information
submitted during rulemaking raising the
factors that are fundamentally different
or (2) information the applicant did not
have an opportunity to submit. The
alternate limitation or standard must be
no less stringent than justified by the
difference and must not result in
markedly more adverse non-water
quality environmental impacts than  the
national limitation or standard.
  EPA  regulations at 40 CFR Part 125,
Subpart D, authorizing the Regional
Administrators to establish alternative
limitations and standards, further detail
the substantive criteria used to evaluate
PDF variance requests for direct
dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d)
identifies six factors (e.g., volume of
process wastewater, age and size of a
discharger's facility) that may be
considered in determining if a facility is
fundamentally different. The Agency
must determine whether, on the basis of
one or  more of these factors, the facility
in question is fundamentally different
from the  facilities and factors
considered by EPA in developing the
nationally applicable effluent
guidelines. The regulation also lists four
other factors (e.g., infeasibility of
installation within the time allowed or
a discharger's ability to pay) that may
not provide a basis for an PDF variance.
In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)  (3),
a request for limitations less stringent
than the national limitation may be
approved only if compliance with the
national limitations would result in
either (a) a removal cost wholly out of
proportion to the removal cost
considered during development of the
national limitations, or (b) a non-water
quality environmental impact
(including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the
impact considered during development
of the national limits.
  The legislative history of Section
301 (n)  underscores the necessity for the
PDF variance applicant to establish
eligibility for the variance. EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(l) are
explicit in imposing this burden upon
the applicant. The applicant must show
that the factors relating to the discharge
controlled by the applicant's permit
which  are claimed to be fundamentally
different are, in fact, fundamentally

-------
51924
Federal Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August  23,  2004/Rules  and Regulations
different from those factors considered
by EPA in establishing the applicable
guidelines. In practice, very few PDF
variances have been granted for past
ELGs. An PDF variance is not available
to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.
  Facilities must submit all PDF
variance applications to the appropriate
Director (defined at 40 CFR 122.2) no
later than 180 days from the date the
limitations or standards are established
or revised (see CWA section 301(n)(2)
and 40 CFR 122.21(m)(l)(i)(B)(2)). EPA
regulations clarify that effluent
limitations guidelines are "established"
or "revised" on the date those effluent
limitations guidelines are published in
the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 122.21
(m)(l)(i)(B)(2)). Therefore, all facilities
requesting PDF variances from the
effluent limitations guidelines in today's
final rule must submit PDF variance
applications to their Director (as defined
at 40 CFR 122.2) no later than February
21, 2005.

2. Economic Variances
  Section 301 (c) of the CWA authorizes
a variance from the otherwise applicable
BAT effluent guidelines for
nonconventional pollutants due to
economic factors. The request for a
variance from effluent limitations
developed from BAT guidelines must
normally be filed by the discharger
during the public notice period for the
draft permit. Other filing time periods
may apply, as specified in 40 CFR
122.21(1)(2). Specific guidance for this
type of variance is available from EPA's
Office of Wastewater Management.

D. Best Management Practices
  Sections  304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and
501(a) of the CWA authorize the
Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part
of effluent limitations guidelines and
standards or as part of a permit. EPA's
BMP regulations are found at 40 CFR
122.44(k).  Section 304(e) of the CWA
authorizes EPA to include BMPs in
effluent limitations guidelines for
certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for
the purpose of controlling "plant site
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, and drainage from raw
material storage." Section 402(a)(l) and
NPDES regulations [40 CFR 122.44(k)]
also provide for best management
practices to control or abate the
discharge of pollutants when numeric
limitations and  standards are infeasible.
In addition, Section 402(a)(2), read in
concert with Section 501(a), authorizes
EPA to prescribe as wide a range of
permit conditions as the Administrator
deems appropriate in order to ensure
compliance with applicable effluent
                          limitations and standards and such
                          other requirements as the Administrator
                          deems appropriate.

                          E. Potential Tools To Assist With the
                          Remediation of Aquaculture Effluents

                            A potential option to assist land
                          owners with aquaculture effluent
                          quality is the Environmental Quality
                          Incentives Program (EQJP). This is a
                          voluntary USDA conservation program.
                          EQJP was reauthorized in the Farm
                          Security and Rural Investment Act of
                          2002 (Farm Bill 2002). The Natural
                          Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
                          administers EQIP funds.
                            EQIP applications are accepted
                          throughout the year. NRCS evaluates
                          each application using a state  and
                          locally developed evaluation process.
                          Incentive payments may be made to
                          encourage a producer to adopt land
                          management, manure management,
                          integrated pest management, irrigation
                          water management and wildlife habitat
                          management practices or to develop a
                          Comprehensive Nutrient Management
                          Plan (CNMP). These practices would
                          provide beneficial effects on reducing
                          sediment and nutrient loads to those
                          aquaculture operations dependent on
                          surface water flows. In addition,
                          opportunities exist to provide EQIP
                          funds to foster the adoption of
                          innovative cost effective approaches to
                          address a broad base of conservation
                          needs, including aquaculture effluent
                          remediation. NRCS does not at present
                          have standards that apply specifically to
                          waste handling at aquaculture facilities,
                          thus EQIP funds for  aquaculture projects
                          would only apply to practices related to
                          other agricultural aspects of a  facility
                          such as CNMPs for the land application
                          of solids.

                          XIII. Statutory and Executive  Order
                          Reviews

                          A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
                          Planning and Review

                            Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR
                          51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency
                          must determine whether the regulatory
                          action is "significant" and therefore
                          subject to OMB review? and the
                          requirements of the Executive Order.
                          The Order defines "significant
                          regulatory action" as one that  is likely
                          to result in a rule that may:
                            (1) Have an annual effect on the
                          economy of $100 million or more or
                          adversely affect in a material way the
                          economy, a sector of the economy,
                          productivity, competition, jobs, the
                          environment, public health or safety, or
                          State, local or tribal governments or
                          communities;
  (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
  (3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
  (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
  Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this rule  is a "significant regulatory
action." As such, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented
in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
  The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management  and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable  until
OMB approves them.
  EPA has several special reporting and
monitoring provisions in this regulation
as previously explained. The provisions
include reporting requirements (1) for
the use of INAD or extralabel drug uses;
(2) for failure or damage to the
containment system (including the
production system(s) and all the
associated storage and water treatment
systems)  that results in a material
discharge of pollutants to waters  of the
U.S; and  (3) for spills of drugs,
pesticides or feed. Section 308(a) of the
CWA authorizes the Administrator to
require the owner or operator of any
point source to file reports as required
to carry out the objectives of the Act.
This ELG requires reporting in the event
that drugs are used which are either
under a conditional approval as an
Investigative New Animal Drugs
(INADs) or are prescribed by a licensed
veterinarian for treatment of a disease or
a species that is outside the approved
use of the specific drug, referred to as
extralabel drug use, unless the INAD or
extralabel drug use is under similar
conditions and dosages as a previously
approved use. EPA believes this
reporting requirement is appropriate for
these classes of drugs, because they
have not  undergone the same degree of
review with respect to their
environmental effects as approved
drugs. The final regulation also requires
reporting when the facility has a failure
in the structural integrity of the aquatic
animal containment systems that results
in a material discharge  of pollutants.
EPA believes this reporting is necessary

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                     51925
to alert the permitting authority to the
release of large quantities of material
from these facilities. The rule also
allows the permitting authority to
specify in the permit what constitutes
damage and/or material discharge of
pollutants for particular facilities based
on consideration of relevant site-specific
factors.
  Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review? instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; search data
sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit
or otherwise disclose the information.
EPA estimates that the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements included in
today's regulation will result in a total
annual burden of 45,000 hours and cost
$808,000.
  An agency may not conduct or
sponsor,  and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it  displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
Agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved
information collection requirements
contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
  The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of 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 purposes of assessing the impacts
of today's rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
that is primarily engaged in
concentrated aquatic animal production,
as defined by North American Industry
Classification (NAIC) codes 112511 and
112519, with no more than $0.75
million in annual revenues; (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; 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.
  After considering the economic
impacts of today's final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities directly regulated by
the final rule are primarily commercial
businesses that fall within the NAIC
codes for finfish farming, fish
hatcheries,  and other aquaculture. The
Small Business Administration size
standard for these codes is $0.75 million
in annual revenues. Among the costed
facilities, EPA identified 38 facilities
belonging to small businesses or
organizations.  Of the 38, 37 facilities are
owned by small businesses and  1 is an
Alaskan facility operated by a small
non-profit organization that is not
dominant in its field. For the purposes
of the RFA, Federal, and State
governments are not considered small
governmental jurisdictions, as
documented in the rulemaking record
(DCN 20121). Thus, facilities owned by
these governments are not considered
small entities,  regardless of their
production levels. EPA identified no
public facilities owned by small local
governments. No small organization is
projected to incur impacts. Of the 101
commercial facilities, 37 (37 percent)
are owned by small businesses. Under
EPA's closure analyses no small
business is  projected to close as a result
of the final  rule, assuming discounted
cash flow (two small business closures
are projected using net income). In
addition to  considering the potential for
adverse economic impacts, EPA also
evaluated the possibility of other, more
moderate financial impacts. Expressed
as a comparison of compliance costs to
sales, only 4 facilities belonging to small
businesses  (11 percent of small
businesses, and 4 percent of commercial
facilities) are likely to incur costs that
exceed 3 percent of sales. One small
business fails the USDA credit test.
  Although this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial  number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless designed the rule to
reduce the impact on small entities. The
scope of the final rule is restricted to
CAAP facilities that produce 100,000
Ibs/year or more. This  means that of the
approximately 4,000 aquaculture
facilities nationwide, as identified by
USDA's Census of Aquaculture, EPA's
final regulation applies to an estimated
101 commercial facilities or
approximately 2.6 percent of all
operations.  Among commercial
facilities, EPA identifies 38 facilities (37
percent of in-scope facilities) as small
businesses using SBA's definition.
Finally, EPA based the final rule on a
technology option that has lower costs
and fewer impacts (including impacts
on small businesses) than several other
technology options that were considered
as possible bases for the final rule.
  EPA conducted outreach to small
entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review? Panel prior to
proposal to obtain the advice and
recommendations of representatives of
the small entities that potentially would
be subject to the rule's requirements.
The Agency convened the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel on
January 22, 2002. Members of the Panel
represented the Office of Management
and Budget, the Small Business
Administration, and EPA. The Panel
met with small entity representatives
(SERs) to discuss the potential effluent
guidelines and, in addition to the oral
comments from SERs, the Panel
solicited written input. In the months
preceding the Panel, EPA conducted
outreach with small entities that would
potentially be affected by this
regulation. On January 25, 2002, the
SBAR Panel sent some initial
information for the SERs to review? and
provide comment on. On February 6,
2002, the Panel distributed additional
information to the SERs for their review?.
On February 12 and 13, the Panel met
with SERs to hear their comments on
the information distributed in these
mailings. The Panel also received
written comments from the SERs in
response to the discussions at this
meeting and the outreach materials. The
Panel asked SERs to evaluate how they
would be affected and to provide advice
and recommendations regarding early
ideas to provide flexibility. See Section
8 of the Panel's Report (DCN 31019) for
a complete discussion of SER
comments. The Panel evaluated the
assembled materials and small-entity
comments on issues related to the
elements of an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. A copy of the
Panel's report is included in the
rulemaking docket. EPA provided
responses to the Panel's most significant
findings in the Notice of Proposal
Rulemaking (67 FR 57918-57920). In
general, the requirements of this final
rule address the concerns raised by
SERs and are consistent with the Panel's
recommendations.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of

-------
51926
Federal Register/Vol.  69,  No. 162/Monday, August  23,  2004/Rules  and Regulations
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions  of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law.  Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or  uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
  EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. The
total annual cost of this rule is estimated
to be $1.4 million. Thus, today's rule is
not subject to the requirements of
Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
  Executive Order 13132, entitled
"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999),  requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
"meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications." "Policies that have
federalism implications"  is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
                          the States, or on the distribution of
                          power and responsibilities among the
                          various levels of government."
                            This rule does not have Federalism
                          implications. It will not have substantial
                          direct effects on the States, on the
                          relationship between the national
                          government and the States, or on the
                          distribution of power and
                          responsibilities among the various
                          levels of government, as specified in
                          Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates
                          that, when promulgated, these revised
                          effluent guidelines and standards will
                          be incorporated into NPDES permits
                          without significant additional costs to
                          authorized States.
                            Further, the revised regulations would
                          not alter the basic State-Federal scheme
                          established in the Clean Water Act
                          under which EPA authorizes States to
                          carry out the NPDES permitting
                          program. EPA expects the revised
                          regulations to have little effect, if any,
                          on the relationship between, or the
                          distribution of power and
                          responsibilities among, the Federal,
                          State and local governments. Thus,
                          Executive Order 13132 does not apply
                          to this rule.

                          F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
                          and Coordination With Indian Tribal
                          Governments
                            Executive Order 13175, entitled
                          "Consultation and Coordination with
                          Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR
                          67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
                          to develop an accountable process to
                          ensure "meaningful and timely input by
                          tribal officials in the development of
                          regulatory policies that have tribal
                          implications." "Policies that have tribal
                          implications" is defined in the
                          Executive Order to include regulations
                          that have substantial direct effects on
                          one or more Indian tribes, on the
                          relationship between the Federal
                          government and the Indian tribes, or on
                          this distribution of power and
                          responsibilities between the Federal
                          government and Indian tribes."
                            The final rule does not have tribal
                          implications. It will not have substantial
                          direct effects on tribal governments, on
                          the relationship between the Federal
                          government and Indian tribes, or on the
                          distribution of power and
                          responsibilities between the Federal
                          government and Indian tribes, as
                          specified in Executive Order 13175. The
                          Executive Order provides that EPA must
                          ensure meaningful and timely input by
                          tribal officials in the development of
                          regulatory policies that have tribal
                          implications. EPA's rulemaking process
                          has provided that opportunity for
                          meaningful and timely input. EPA first
                          published a notice of proposed
rulemaking for CAAPs in September
2002, requesting comment on the
proposal. In December 2003, EPA issued
a Notice of Data Availability describing
options for changes to the proposed
rule. As noted, EPA identified a number
of tribal facilities in its screener survey,
however further  evaluation did not
identify any in-scope tribal facilities
based on subsequent evaluation of the
detailed survey information from a
sample of these facilities. Thus EPA has
not had a basis to have any formal
consultation with Tribal officials. EPA
has however concluded that the final
rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian Tribes, will
not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, nor pre-empt tribal law.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
  Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(l) Is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health and safety effects
of the planned rule on children, and
explain why the  planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
  This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant rule under E.O.
12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
  This rule is not a "significant energy
action" as defined in Executive  Order
13211, "actions concerning Regulations
that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355 (May
22,  2001)) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
As part of the Agency's consideration of
non-water quality impacts, EPA has
estimated the energy consumption
associated with today's requirements.
The rule will result in a net decrease in
energy consumption for flow-through
and recirculating systems. The decrease
would be based on electricity used
today to pump solids from raceways to
solids settling ponds, which will no
longer be generated, from wastewater
treatment equipment. EPA estimated the
decrease in energy consumption for

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      51927
flow-through and recirculating systems
at 4,900 kilowatt-hour (kW-h).
Comparing the annual decrease in
electric use resulting from the final
requirements to national annual energy
use, EPA estimates the decrease to be
1.3 x 10~7 percent of national energy
use. Therefore, we conclude that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
  As noted in the proposed rule,
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law
104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
  Today's rule does not  establish any
technical standards, thus NTTAA does
not apply to this rule.

/. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
  The requirements of the
Environmental lustice Executive Order
are that EPA will review the
environmental effects of major Federal
actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. For
such actions, EPA reviewers will focus
on the spatial distribution of human
health, social and economic effects to
ensure that agency decision makers are
aware of the extent to which those
impacts fall disproportionately on
covered communities. This is not a
major action. Further, EPA does not
believe this rulemaking will have a
disproportionate effect on minority or
low income communities because the
technology-based effluent limitations
guidelines are uniformly applied
nationally irrespective of geographic
location. The final regulation will
reduce the negative effects of
concentrated aquatic animal production
industry waste in our nation's waters to
benefit all of society, including minority
and low-income communities. The cost
impacts of the rule should likewise not
disproportionately affect low-income
communities given the relatively low
economic impacts of today's final rule.

K. Congressional Review Act
  The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a "major rule" as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective September 22, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 451
  Environmental protection,
Concentrated aquatic animal
production, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
  Dated: June 30, 2004.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
• For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended by
adding part 451 to read as follows:

PART 451—CONCENTRATED
AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.
451.1  General applicability.
451.2  General definitions.
451.3  General reporting requirements.
Subpart A—Flow-Through and
Recirculating Systems Subcategory
451.10  Applicability.
451.11  Effluent limitations attainable by the
    application of the best practicable
    control technology currently available
    (BPT).
451.12  Effluent limitations attainable by the
    application of the best available
    technology economically achievable
    (BAT).
451.13  Effluent limitations attainable by the
    application of the best conventional
    technology (BCT).
451.14  New source performance standards
    (NSPS).
Subpart B—Net Pen Subcategory
451.20  Applicability.
451.21  Effluent limitations attainable by the
    application of the best practicable
    control technology currently available
    (BPT).
451.22  Effluent limitations attainable by the
    application of the best available
    technology economically achievable
    (BAT).
451.23  Effluent limitations attainable by the
    application of the best conventional
    technology (BCT).
451.24  New source performance standards
    (NSPS).
  Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 etseq., 136-136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671,
21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 etseq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,
1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and
(e), 1361; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f,
300g, 300g-l, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-J, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300J-2, 300J-3, 300J-4. 300J-9,
1857 etseq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048; E.O. 11735, 38 FR
21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., 973.

§451.1  General applicability.
  As defined more specifically in each
subpart, this Part applies to discharges
from concentrated aquatic animal
production facilities as defined at 40
CFR 122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR
Part 122. This Part applies to the
discharges of pollutants from facilities
that produce 100,000 pounds or more of
aquatic animals per year in a flow-
through, recirculating, net pen or
submerged cage system.

§451.2  General definitions.
  As used in this part:
  (a) The general definitions and
abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 apply.
  (b) Approved dosage means the dose
of a drug that has been found to be safe
and effective under the conditions of a
new animal drug application.
  (c) Aquatic animal containment
system means a culture or rearing unit
such as a raceway, pond, tank,  net or
other structure used to contain, hold or
produce aquatic animals. The
containment system includes structures
designed to hold sediments and other
materials that are part of a wastewater
treatment system.
  (d) Concentrated aquatic animal
production facility is defined at 40 CFR
122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR Part
122.
  (e) Drug means any  substance defined
as a drug in section 201(g)(l) of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(21  U.S.C. 321).
  (f) Extralabel drug use means a drug
approved under the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act that is not used in
accordance with the approved label
directions, see 21  CFR part 530.
  (g) Flow-through system means a
system designed to provide a
continuous water flow to waters of the
United States through chambers used to
produce aquatic animals. Flow-through
systems typically use rearing units that
are either raceways or tank systems.

-------
51928
Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
Rearing units referred to as raceways are
typically long, rectangular chambers at
or below grade, constructed of earth,
concrete, plastic, or metal to which
water is supplied by nearby rivers or
springs. Rearing units comprised of tank
systems use circular or rectangular tanks
and are similarly supplied with water to
raise aquatic animals. The term does not
include net pens.
  (h) Investigational new animal drug
(INAD) means a drug for which there is
a valid exemption in  effect under
section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(j), to
conduct experiments.
  (i) New animal drug application is
defined in 512(b)(l) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C
360b(b)(l)).
  (j) Net pen system means a stationary,
suspended or floating system of nets,
screens, or cages in open 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 submerged  cages rely on tides
and currents to provide a continual
supply of high-quality water to the
animals in production.
  (k) Permitting authority means EPA or
the State agency authorized to
administer the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
permitting program for the receiving
waters into which a facility subject to
this Part discharges.
  (1) Pesticide means any substance
defined as a "pesticide" in section 2(u)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act  (7 U.S.C. 136(u)).
  (m) Real-time feed  monitoring means
a system designed to  track the rate of
feed consumption and to detect uneaten
feed passing through the nets at a net
pen facility. These systems may rely on
a combination of visual observation and
hardware, including, but not limited to,
devices such as video cameras, digital
scanning sonar, or upweller systems
that allow facilities to determine  when
to cease feeding the aquatic animals.
Visual observation alone from above the
pens does not constitute real-time
monitoring.
  (n) Recirculating system means a
system that filters and reuses water in
which the 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.

§451.3  General reporting requirements.
  (a) Drugs. Except as noted below, a
permittee subject to this Part must
notify the permitting authority of the
                          use in a concentrated aquatic animal
                          production facility subject to this Part of
                          any investigational new animal drug
                          (INAD) or any extralabel drug use where
                          such a use may lead to a discharge of
                          the drug to waters of the U.S. Reporting
                          is not required for an INAD or extralabel
                          drug use that has been previously
                          approved by FDA for a different species
                          or disease if the INAD or extralabel use
                          is at or below the approved dosage and
                          involves similar conditions of use.
                            (1) 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 use, the dosage, and
                          the disease or condition the INAD is
                          intended to treat.
                            (2) For INADs and extralabel drug
                          uses, 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 that drug. The oral
                          report must identify the drugs used,
                          method of application, and the reason
                          for using that drug.
                            (3) For INADs and extralabel drug
                          uses, the permittee must provide a
                          written report to the permitting
                          authority within 30 days after initiating
                          use of that 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.
                            (b) 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  U.S. In
                          accordance with the following
                          procedures, any permittee  subject to this
                          Part must  notify the permitting
                          authority when there is a reportable
                          failure.
                            (1) 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) 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 this failure.
                            (3) The permittee must provide a
                          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 reccurrence.
  (c) 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
shall include the identity and quantity
of the material spilled.
  (d) Best management practices (BMP)
plan. The permittee subject to this Part
must:
  (1) Develop and maintain a plan on
site describing how the permittee will
achieve the requirements of § 451.11 (a)
through (e) or §451.21(a) through (h), as
applicable.
  (2) Make the plan available to the
permitting authority upon request.
  (3) The permittee subject to this Part
must certify in writing to the permitting
authority that a BMP plan has been
developed.

Subpart A—Flow-Through and
Recirculating Systems Subcategory

§451.10 Applicability.
  This subpart applies  to the discharge
of pollutants from a concentrated
aquatic animal production facility that
produces 100,000 pounds or more per
year of aquatic animals in a flow-
through or recirculating system.

§451.11 Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
  Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must meet
the following requirements, expressed
as practices (or any modification to
these requirements as determined by the
permitting authority based on its
exercise of its best professional
judgment) representing the application
of BPT:
  (a) Solids control. The permittee must:
  (1) 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.
  (2) In order to minimize the discharge
of accumulated solids from settling
ponds  and basins and production
systems, identify and implement
procedures for routine cleaning of

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  69, No.  162/Monday,  August 23, 2004/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                      51929
rearing units and off-line settling basins,
and procedures to minimize any
discharge of accumulated solids during
the inventorying, grading and harvesting
aquatic animals in the production
system.
  (3) Remove and dispose of aquatic
animal mortalities properly on a regular
basis to prevent discharge to waters of
the U.S.,  except in cases where the
permitting authority authorizes such
discharge in order to benefit the aquatic
environment.
  (b) Materials storage. The permittee
must:
  (1) 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 U.S.
  (2) Implement procedures for properly
containing, cleaning, and disposing of
any spilled material.
  (c) Structural maintenance. The
permittee must:
  (1) Inspect the production system and
the wastewater treatment system on a
routine basis in order to identify and
promptly repair any damage.
  (2) Conduct regular maintenance of
the production system and the
wastewater treatment system in order to
ensure that they are properly
functioning.
  (d) Recordkeeping. The permittee
must:
  (1) In order to calculate representative
feed conversion ratios, maintain records
for aquatic animal rearing units
documenting the feed amounts and
estimates of the numbers and weight of
aquatic animals.
  (2) Keep records documenting the
frequency of cleaning, inspections,
maintenance and repairs.
  (e) Training. The permittee must:
  (1) In order to ensure the proper
clean-up  and  disposal of spilled
material adequately train all relevant
facility personnel in spill prevention
and how  to respond in the event of a
spill.
  (2) Train staff on the proper operation
and cleaning of production and
wastewater treatment systems including
training in feeding procedures and
proper use of equipment.

§451.12   Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
  Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must meet
the following requirements representing
the application of BAT: The limitations
are the same as the corresponding
limitations specified in §451.11.
§451.13  Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best conventional
technology (BCT).
  Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must meet
the following requirements representing
the application of BCT: The limitations
are the same as the corresponding
limitations specified in §451.11.

§451.14  New source performance
standards (NSPS).
  Any point source subject to this
subpart that is a new source must meet
the following requirements: The
standards are the same as the
corresponding limitations specified in
§451.11.

Subpart B—Net Pen Subcategory

§451.20  Applicability.
  This subpart applies to the discharge
of pollutants from a concentrated
aquatic animal production facility that
produces 100,000 pounds or more per
year of aquatic animals in net pen or
submerged cage systems,  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.

§ 451.21  Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
  Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must meet
the following requirements, expressed
as practices (or any modification to
these requirements as  determined by the
permitting  authority based on its
exercise of its best professional
judgment) representing the application
of BPT:
  (a) Feed management. 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.
These strategies must minimize the
accumulation of uneaten  food beneath
the pens  through the use of active feed
monitoring and management practices.
These practices 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 the pens;
capture of waste feed and feces; or other
good husbandry practices approved by
the permitting authority.
  (b) Waste collection and disposal.
Collect, return to shore, and properly
dispose of all feed bags, packaging
materials, waste rope and netting.
  (c) Transport or harvest discharge.
Minimize any discharge associated with
the transport or harvesting of aquatic
animals including blood, viscera,
aquatic animal carcasses, or transport
water containing blood.
  (d) Carcass removal. Remove and
dispose of aquatic animal mortalities
properly  on a regular basis to prevent
discharge to waters of the U.S.
  (e) Materials storage.
  (1) 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 U.S.
  (2) Implement procedures for properly
containing, cleaning, and disposing of
any spilled material.
  (f) Maintenance.
  (1) Inspect the production system on
a routine basis in order to identify and
promptly repair any damage.
  (2) Conduct regular maintenance of
the production system in order to
ensure that it is properly functioning.
  (g) Recordkeeping.
  (1) In order to calculate representative
feed conversion ratios, maintain records
for aquatic animal net pens
documenting the feed amounts and
estimates of the numbers and weight of
aquatic animals.
  (2) Keep records of the net changes,
inspections and repairs.
  (h) Training. The permittee must:
  (l) In order to ensure the proper
clean-up  and disposal of spilled
material adequately train all relevant
facility personnel in spill prevention
and how  to respond in the event of a
spill.
  (2) Train staff on the proper operation
and cleaning of production systems
including training in feeding procedures
and proper use  of equipment.

§451.22  Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
  Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the application
of BAT: The limitations are the same as
the limitations specified in §451.21.

§451.23  Effluent limitations attainable by
the application of the best conventional
technology (BCT).
  Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent

-------
51930       Federal Register/Vol. 69, No.  162/Monday, August 23, 2004/Rules  and Regulations


limitations representing the application   §451.24  New source performance         standard is the same as the limitations
of BCT: The limitations are the same as    standards (NSPS).                       specified in §451.21.
the limitations specified in § 451.21.       Any point source subject to this
                                      subpart that is a new source must meet   [tK Uoc' 04-155JO ^a 8-20-04, 8.45 amj

                                      the following requirements: The         BILLING CODE

-------
   Appendix E1



BMP Plan Template

-------
                                                                             Appendix El
                               BMP Plan Template

You may want to use the following BMP plan template when writing your BMP plan. Fill in the
sections marked in blue and/or italics.

                               Aquaculture Facility Name
                                     Prepared: Date
                            NPDES Number: # for your facility
                          Facility Manager: name, phone number
A. Description of Facility

Provide a description of your facility. This description may include the following types of
information:

    •  Type of fish produced
    •  Annual amount offish produced
    •  When the facility was constructed
    •  What type of systems (e.g., flow-through) are used at the facility
    •  Information about the systems (12 feet long raceways,  etc.)
    •  Number of discharge points

B. Water Source

Include a description of the source of the water at your facility. This description may include the
following information:

    •  Type of source - stream, ground, spring, etc.
    •  Name of the source (e.g., Upper Spring)
    •  If available, information about the quality of the water source (e.g., low in TSS)
    •  How the water arrives at the facility (e.g., ditch)
    •  Anything your facility does to treat incoming water (e.g., an inflow trash rack screen is
       used to catch vegetation from the spring and ditch prior to entering the facility. The trash
       rack screen is cleaned at least daily to prevent vegetation from affecting the water flow to
       facility)

C. Treatment System(s) Used

Describe the treatment systems used at your facility. This description may include the following
information:

    •  Type of treatment system
    •  Design flow
    •  Normal operation
EPA-821-B-05-001                           El-1                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix El
    •   Cleaning procedures
    •   Maintenance procedures

D. Other Information

Provide any other additional information that might be useful to your permitting authority (e.g.,
additional information about how water flows into your facility or about oxygen recharge). In
the following sections, describe in detail how you will achieve the specific requirements of the
CAAP ELGs. Where helpful, you might attach example logs/forms used at your facility to
physically show your permitting authority how you are complying with the CAAP ELGs.
E. Solids Control
                                                 f	
                                                 I FT
FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS l_—

    1.  Efficient feed management (to limit feed input to the minimum amount reasonably
       necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal
       growth).

       Describe the practices your facility uses to achieve efficient feed management. A form for
       tracking and calculating feed conversion ratios is available in Appendix N of the BMP
       Guidance.
    2.  Procedures for routine cleaning of rearing units and offline settling basins.

       Describe the cleaning procedures used. Also describe how your facility defines
       "routine. " An example log to track cleaning is available in Appendix Q of the BMP
       Guidance.
    3.  Procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals (that minimize
       discharge of accumulated solids).

       Describe the procedures used.
    4.  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 your permitting
       authority in order to benefit the aquatic environment).

       Describe the procedures for removal and disposal. A form for tracking carcass removal
       and disposal is available in Appendix T of the BMP Guidance.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           El-2                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix El
F. Material Storage
                                                          [FT
FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING AND/OR NET PEN SYSTEMS l_
A form for tracking spills and leaks at your facility is available in Appendix O of the BMP
Guidance.

   1. Proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills that may result in the
      discharge to waters of the United States.

      Describe the practices used.
   2.  Procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials.

       Describe the procedures used.
EPA-821-B-05-001                            El-3                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix El
G. Maintenance

Forms for tracking inspection and maintenance are available in Appendix P of the BMP
Guidance.

                                                (FT
FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS L!—

   1. Routinely inspect production systems and wastewater treatment systems to identify and
      promptly repair damage.

      Describe the routine inspections performed. Also describe how your facility defines
       "routine."
   2.  Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems
       to ensure their proper function.

       Describe the regular maintenance performed. Also describe how your facility defines
       "regular."
NET PEN SYSTEMS
                  NET
   1.  Routinely inspect production systems to identify and promptly repair damage.

       Describe the routine inspections performed. Also describe how your facility defines
       "routine."
   2.  Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems to ensure their proper function.

       Describe the regular maintenance performed. Also describe how your facility defines
       "regular."
EPA-821-B-05-001                           El-4                                March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix El
H. Record-keeping

Use the checklist in Appendix R of the BMP Guidance to ensure that you are meeting the record-
keeping requirements of the CAAP ELGs.

                                                [FT   I RAS-v/
FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS L-—I

   1.   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.

       Describe the records your facility keeps for documenting feed amounts and estimates of
       aquatic animals for calculating FCRs. A form for tracking and calculating FCRs is
       available in Appendix N of the BMP Guidance.
   2.  Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs.

       Describe the records your facility keeps to document this. Appendix P of the BMP
       Guidance contains forms for tracking inspection, maintenance, and repairs; Appendix Q
       of the BMP Guidance contains a form for tracking cleaning.
NET PEN SYSTEMS
    1.   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.

       Describe the records your facility keeps for documenting feed amounts and estimates of
       aquatic animals for calculating FCRs. A form for tracking and calculating FCRs is
       available in Appendix N of the BMP Guidance.
   2.  Keep records documenting net pen changes, inspections, and repairs.

       Describe the records your facility keeps to document this. Appendix P of the BMP
       Guidance contains forms for tracking inspection, maintenance, and repairs.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           El-5                                March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix El



I. Training

Appendix S of the BMP Guidance contains a log for tracking employee training.

                                                 	
                                                 fpr  "I MS
FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS I  ^ v

    1.  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.

       Describe the procedures for training personnel in spill prevention and response.
   2.  Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment
       systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment.

       Describe the procedures for training personnel on proper operation and cleaning.
NET PEN SYSTEMS
    1.  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.

       Describe the procedures for training personnel in spill prevention and response.
   2.  Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production systems, including
       feeding procedures and equipment.

       Describe the procedures for training personnel on proper operation and cleaning.
EPA-821-B-05-001                            El-6                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix El
J. Feed Monitoring

NET PEN SYSTEMS
    1.  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.

       Describe the practices your facility uses to achieve efficient feed management. A form for
       tracking and calculating feed conversion ratios is available in Appendix N of the BMP
       Guidance.
   2.  Minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens through active feed monitoring
       and management strategies approved by your permitting authority.

       Describe practices and management strategies to minimize uneaten feed beneath net
       pens.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           El-7                                March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix El
K. Waste Collection and Disposal
NET PEN SYSTEMS
                  NET
    1.  Collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste
       rope, and netting.

       Describe practices to accomplish this.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           El-8                                March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix El
L. Transport or Harvest Discharge
NET PEN SYSTEMS
                  NET
    1.  Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic animals
       (including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing blood).

       Describe practices used to accomplish this.
EPA-821-B-05-001                            El-9                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix El
M. Carcass Removal

NET PEN SYSTEMS
    1.   Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent
       their discharge into waters of the United States.

       Describe procedures for removing and disposing of aquatic animal mortalities.
       Appendix  T of the BMP Guidance contains a log for tracking carcass removal and
       disposal.
EPA-821-B-05-001                          El-10                               March 2006

-------
                                                                                  Appendix El
N. Diagram or Map

A diagram/map of the facility is helpful to illustrate the layout of the operation.


O. Review and Endorsement of the BMP Plan

We, the facility manager and the individuals responsible for implementing the BMP plan, have
reviewed and endorsed this BMP plan.
              (Facility Name)
       (NPDES #)
       (Facility Manager - Printed Name)
(Facility Manager - Signature)
       (Other Individual - Printed Name & Title)
(Other Individual - Signature)
       (Other Individual - Printed Name & Title)
(Other Individual - Signature)
       (Other Individual - Printed Name & Title)
(Other Individual - Signature)
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                            El-11
                          March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix El
P. Certifying the BMP Plan with the Permitting Authority

Once your BMP plan has been developed and the facility manager and individuals responsible
for implementing the BMP plan have reviewed and endorsed the plan, you must do the
following:

   1.  Keep a copy of the BMP plan in your records. The plan must be made available to the
       permitting authority upon request.

   2.  Send a signed letter/form to your permitting authority stating that you have developed a
       BMP plan. The letter/form should include your name and title, name of the facility,
       NPDES number, and date the BMP plan was developed. An example certification form
       that may be submitted to your permitting authority is available in Appendix F of the BMP
       Guidance.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           El-12                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                     Appendix El

             BMP Plan Checklist for Flow-Through and Recirculating Facilities

This checklist may be used to ensure that all required components are included in your BMP plan.

FACILITY DESCRIPTION
    d   A short description of your facility.

SOLIDS CONTROL
    Q   Description of feed management/feeding strategies that limit feed input to achieve production
         goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth, while minimizing potential discharges
         of uneaten feed /waste products to waters of the U.S.
    d   Description of procedures for routine* cleaning of rearing units and offline settling basins.
    d   Description of procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals that
         minimize discharge of accumulated solids.
    d   Description of the process for removing and disposing of aquatic animal mortalities on a regular
         basis to prevent discharge to waters of the United States, except where authorized by the
         permitting authority in order to benefit the aquatic  environment.

MATERIAL STORAGE
    d   Description of procedures /practices 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, and feed
         to waters of the United States.
    d   Procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials.

STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE
    Q   Description of routine* procedures for inspecting production systems and wastewater treatment
         systems to identify and promptly repair damage.
    d   Description of regular* procedures for conducting maintenance of production systems and
         wastewater treatment systems to ensure their proper function.

RECORD-KEEPING
    d   Description of how you will maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed
         amounts and estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals to calculate FCRs.
    Q   Description of how you will keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections,
         maintenance, and repairs.
TRAINING
    d   Description of procedures for training all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to
         respond to a spill to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials.
    d   Description of procedures for training personnel on proper operation/cleaning of production
         and wastewater treatment systems (includes feeding procedures and proper equipment use).

CERTIFICATION
    Q   Sent a letter to your permitting authority, certifying that a BMP Plan was developed for your
         facility. Refer to Appendix F for an example of a certification letter.

* Be sure to define "routine" and "regular" (which can vary during the year) in your BMP Plan.


EPA-821-B-05-001                              El-13                              March 2006

-------
                                                                                     Appendix El

                          BMP Plan Checklist for Net Pen Facilities

This checklist may be used to ensure all required components are included in your BMP plan.

FACILITY DESCRIPTION
    d   A short description of your facility.

FEED MANAGEMENT
    Q   Description of feed management/feeding strategies that limit feed input to achieve production
         goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth, while minimizing potential discharges
         of uneaten feed /waste products to waters of the U.S.
    Q   Description of using active feed monitoring and management strategies (approved by the
         permitting authority) to minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens.

WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL, TRANSPORT OR HARVEST DISCHARGE, CARCASS REMOVAL
    d   Description of how you will make sure to collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all
         feed bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and netting.
    d   Description of practices to minimize discharge associated with transport or harvesting of aquatic
         animals (including blood, viscera, carcasses, or transport water containing blood).
    d   Description of procedures to ensure removal and disposal of aquatic animal mortalities properly
         on a regular basis to prevent their discharge into water of the U.S.

MATERIAL STORAGE
    Q   Description of procedures /practices to ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to
         prevent spills that may result in discharge to waters of the U.S.
    Q   Procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials.

MAINTENANCE
    Q   Description of routine* procedures for inspecting production systems to identify/repair damage.
    Q   Description of regular* procedures for conducting maintenance of production systems to ensure
         their proper function.

RECORD- KEEPING
    d   Description of how you will maintain records documenting feed amounts and estimates of
         numbers and weights of aquatic animals to calculate FCRs.
    d   Description of how you will document net changes, inspections, and repairs.
TRAINING
    d   Description of procedures for training all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to
         respond to spills to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials.
    d   Description of procedures for training personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production
         systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment.

CERTIFICATION

    Q   Sent a letter to your permitting authority, certifying that a BMP Plan was developed for your
         facility. Refer to Appendix F for an example of a certification letter.

* Be sure to define "routine" and "regular"  (which can vary during the year) in your BMP Plan.

EPA-821-B-05-001                              El-14                              March 2006

-------
  Appendix E2



Example BMP Plan

-------
                                                                             Appendix E2


                                Example BMP Plan

                                   3M & LJ Fish Farm
                              Prepared: September 30, 2004
                              NPDES Number: ID 1234567
                        Facility Manager: Bob  Smith, 555-987-6543

[Note: this is an example BMP Plan and is not based on an actual facility.]

A. Description of Facility

3M & LJ's Fish Farm produces approximately 250,000 pounds of rainbow trout annually. The
facility was originally constructed in 1976. It expanded in 1997 to include an off-line settling
pond system. The facility currently has 12 100-foot long raceways, a small hatchery building, an
office/shop, and an OLS pond for waste treatment (see Figure 1). The fish farm is located near
Boise, Idaho. The facility has a non-consumptive water right for 14 cfs of water from Upper
Springs. The facility has two discharge points, both of which go into Upper Creek.

B. Water Source

3M & LJ Fish Farm uses water from Upper Spring, which is a pure spring source with TSS
levels generally measured at less than 2.0 mg/L (see historic DMRs). Aquatic vegetation grows
around the spring head and the ditch leading to the raceways. An inflow trash rack screen at the
facility is used to catch vegetation from the springs and ditch prior to entering the facility. The
trash rack screen is cleaned at least daily to prevent vegetation from affecting the water flow to
the facility. The spring and head ditch is manually cleaned twice a year to prevent build up of
aquatic vegetation. The  ditch  has an adjustable head gate that controls the water flow to the
facility from the  spring area. The spring provides  a constant supply of water to the facility and
the water temperature remains nearly constant at 65 °F (± 20 °C).

C. Treatment System(s) Used

3M & LJ Fish Farm uses quiescent zones to capture solids in the production raceways. Solids are
periodically removed and sent to an offline settling (OLS) pond for dewatering. Supernatant
from the OLS pond discharges to Upper Creek.

At the downstream end of each raceway is a 20-foot long quiescent zone. The quiescent zone
distance meets the minimum design criteria set forth in the Idaho Waste Management Guidelines
for Aquaculture Operations for quiescent zone length. Each quiescent zone has a wastewater
drain line connection that allows each to be vacuumed individually. The vacuum  hose is attached
to a slotted pipe that is 2 ft. long that serves a vacuum head. Floats are attached to the vacuum
hose to prevent the hose  from  stirring up solids during cleaning events. Gravity transports the
wastewater from the quiescent zone to the OLS pond for treatment and storage of settled solids.
The delivery rate of wastewater to the OLS pond from the raceway or quiescent zone cleaning is
200 gpm.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           E2-1                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix E2
  The hatchery building is where trout eggs are hatched and the fish are raised up to a size where
  they can be moved outdoors to the production raceways to finish growing to market size. The
  troughs and small raceways in the hatchery building all have screened quiescent zones at their
  downstream ends.

  The troughs, small raceways,  and their corresponding quiescent zones are cleaned daily.  The
  troughs and raceways all have a separate drain line that allows the cleaning wastewater to be
  diverted to the OLS pond. Water flow has been measured for the trough and small raceway
  quiescent zone drains and is 30 gpm and 75 gpm, respectively. Quiescent zone cleaning flows
  are recorded and used in the calculations for the discharge from the OLS pond. Water used in the
  hatchery building is diverted from the influent ditch below the weir and is discharged to the head
  ditch above the first raceways (see Figure 1).

  The OLS pond has a design flow of 300 gpm. The dimensions of the OLS pond are 30 ft by 30 ft
  (surface area of 900 sq ft). The pond slopes to a maximum depth of 3.5 ft.  Wastewater comes
  into the OLS pond from the gravity flow system pipe that spills onto the access ramp. This helps
  to distribute the flow across the width of the settling pond. Water leaves the pond through an 8
  in. standpipe. The standpipe is attached to a 90° elbow that can swivel inside the pond. There is a
  collar around the standpipe that causes the water that is discharged to be pulled from 20 in.
  below the pond surface. The collar prevents floating materials from washing out of the pond. The
  water leaving the pond goes back to a box with a calibrated v-notched weir. The weir is used to
  verify flow rates through the OLS pond during cleaning events.

  D. Other Information

  3M & LJ Fish Farm uses an influent weir to measure flow for the facility. The weir is a
  calibrated suppressed rectangular weir and is located downstream from the trash rack screen to
  prevent debris from interfering with weir measurements. The weir is calibrated annually.  The
  weir face and box area  is swept clean prior to any measurements being  taken. The staff gauge is
  placed along the weir box wall six times the head distance upstream of  the weir crest. The weir
  has a 3/16 in. blade crest that  falls off to a 45° angle to allow water to spring free of the blade.  If
  the blade is nicked, bent, or rounded it is replaced.  Weir calibration and testing curve validation
  are conducted annually. Immediately below the catch pool for the weir  is the influent fish screen
  used to prevent fish from swimming out of the rearing areas and into the springs.

  The raceways are grouped in four sections of three units and the groups are operated in series
  (see Figure 1). There is approximately 2.5 ft of drop between the first and second use raceways
  to allow for passive oxygen recharge of the raceway water. There is 3.5 ft of drop between the
  second and third raceway use. There is a 4.0 ft drop between the third and fourth raceway use.
  Between raceway sections the water falls onto a splashboard before entering the next lower
  section. The purpose of this splashboard  is to break up the water stream leaving the upper
  raceway and expose as much  surface area of the water to open air as possible to maximize the
  replenishment of dissolved oxygen levels in the raceway waters. After the fourth and final use,
  water falls 3.5 ft to a concrete pad before flowing into the tail ditch and off of the facility into
  Upper Creek, which accomplishes the same goal as the splashboards between raceway sets (i.e.,
  it maximizes DO levels for wastewater entering Upper Creek).
EPA-821-B-05-001                             E2-2                                  March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix E2
  E. Solids Control

     1.  Efficient feed management (to limit feed input to the minimum amount reasonably
        necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal
        growth).

  3M & LJ Fish Farm recognizes that fish feed management is critical in operating an
  environmentally friendly and profitable fish farm. Approximately 250,000 Ib of trout are
  produced per year on about 300,000 Ib of feed, at a conversion rate of 1.2. Feed used is
  produced from Best Feed for Fish and generally is composed of 42% protein, 16% fat, < 8% ash
  and less than 1.3% phosphorus. Feed contents change based on availability of constituents to the
  feed manufacturer. 3M & LJ Fish Farm keeps  records of each shipment of feed received from the
  manufacturer, including the quantity and proximate analysis.

  3M & LJ Fish Farm uses commercially available sinking  extruded diets to feed our fish. Using
  extruded diets leads to the best feed conversion ratios, which minimizes the amount of waste
  generated by the facility. Specific quantities of feed are fed through demand feeders on each
  outdoor raceway depending on the quantity, size, and condition of the fish in that raceway.
  There are two demand feeders on each raceway. Demand feeders allow the fish to decide how
  much food they need and when they want to feed. This maximizes feeding opportunity and
  lowers feed conversions by providing a steady, stress free, feeding environment with little waste.
  Demand feeders are filled, at most, daily or as necessary.  Prior to each filling, the feeders are
  also inspected for proper operation. Fish in the hatchery building are fed by hand several times
  per day.

  Employees observe the feeding behavior of the fish throughout each shift. Fish that are not
  feeding well have their feed restricted until they are again feeding normally to prevent feed from
  being wasted and discharged.

  When feeding the fish, our facility records the amount fed and estimates the number and weight
  of the trout being fed. From this information, we have been able to calculate FCRs to better
  manage feeding at our facility. Records of this information are kept in our office and are
  available upon request by contacting the facility manager. An example of the form we use is
  attached.

     2.  Procedures for routine cleaning of rearing units and offline settling basins.

  Quiescent zones are vacuumed every two weeks and  prior to fish grading or harvesting events.
  The screens in front of the quiescent zones are cleaned daily to remove moss (algae) and dead
  fish.  Screens are cleaned to facilitate settling of biosolids from the raceway and to prevent
  blowouts, which occur when the screen is clogged and breaks from the water pressure. Fish that
  get into the quiescent zones are removed promptly when discovered. The troughs, small
  raceways, and their corresponding quiescent zones in the  hatchery are cleaned daily.

  Raceways above the quiescent zones are vacuumed before scheduled fish inventorying, grading
  or harvesting events.
EPA-821-B-05-001                             E2-3                                   March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix E2
  The raceways are screened to prevent avian predators from eating the fish. The netting reduces
  indirect mortality from predators by reducing the incidence of disease at the facility. Healthy fish
  consume feed better, which prevents uneaten feed from going to waste, and are more active in
  the raceway, which allows accumulated biosolids to move more readily down the raceway to the
  quiescent zones, facilitating cleaning and faster removal of biosolids.

  The OLS pond is harvested twice annually, in the spring and fall. When the OLS pond is
  harvested, the water in the pond is slowly decanted by removing the collar from around the
  standpipe and slowing rotating the standpipe on the 90° elbow to gradually lower the water level
  in the pond. Once the pond is decanted, a tractor is driven into the pond and the slurry is stirred
  to a uniform consistency to allow for pumping. The sludge is pumped from the OLS pond into a
  "honey wagon," which takes it to a field for land application. Solids content of the slurry varies
  between 6 % and 12 %.

  Sludge and slurry that have been collected in the  OLS pond are recycled by land application to
  nearby cropped fields. Farmers that accept the slurry agree to disc it under within 24 hours of
  application and prior to any irrigation water being applied to the field.  All land application is
  done in such a manner as to prevent the materials from entering surface or groundwaters. The
  dates, locations, and amounts of slurry that are taken offsite for land application are kept in a
  record.

  Examples of the forms we use to track cleaning and land application of waste are attached.
  Records of this information are kept in our office and are available upon request by contacting
  the facility manager.

     3.  Procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals (that minimize
         discharge of accumulated  solids).

  Raceways above the quiescent zones are vacuumed before any scheduled  inventorying, grading,
  or harvesting events to prevent unnecessary disturbance and subsequent discharge of biosolids
  from the raceways.

     4.  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 your permitting
         authority in order to benefit the aquatic environment).

  Raceways at our facility are screened to prevent avian predators from eating the fish. This
  benefits the waste management on the farm by reducing direct mortality to injured fish. The
  netting reduces indirect mortality  by reducing the incidence of disease at the facility. When fish
  mortality does occur,  carcasses are promptly removed (at a minimum - daily). Fish carcasses  are
  typically composted on site. Mortalities from the hatchery are also disposed of with the raceway
  mortalities. In the event of a significant problem that leads to a large number of mortalities, a
  local rendering company is called to haul the mortalities away.
EPA-821-B-05-001                             E2-4                                   March 2006

-------
                                                                                 Appendix E2
  Mortalities generally range from 1% to 7% offish on hand, now that the raceways are screened,
  and depending on the disease and timing of the disease outbreak.

  Our facility tracks carcass removal to improve facility management. When we encounter fish
  mortalities, we record the number offish that died, their approximate weight, the group/age, and
  how we disposed of them. Records of this information are kept in our office and are available
  upon request by contacting the facility manager. An example of the form we use is attached.

  F. Material Storage

     1.   Proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills that may result in the
         discharge to waters of the United States.

  To ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed at 3M & LJ Fish Farm, employees have
  been instructed on the importance of proper handling of these substances through the facility-
  training program.

  Bagged feeds are stored in the shop area and are used on a "first in, first out" basis to prevent
  lengthy storage of feed. Use of fresh diets improves dietary efficiency.  No feed is used if it has
  exceeded the storage period recommended by the manufacturer. This rarely occurs, but when
  outdated feed is found, it has to be taken to the local landfill for disposal. The largest diets are
  purchased in bulk and stored in feed bins. Feed can be poured from the bins and fines screened
  off before the feed is put in the demand feeders. All fines are collected and sent back to the
  manufacturer for repelleting. Since converting to extruded pellets, the volume of fines is
  typically less than 50 Ib per month. All the demand feeders are set up with a windshield to
  prevent the undesired release of feed on windy days.

  All drugs, disinfectants,  chemicals, and pesticides are stored in a cabinet in the office building in
  their original containers. The chemical cabinet is in a dry well-ventilated place, away from water,
  and with no floor drains. Employees have been instructed to keep container lids secure at all
  times. All liquid materials at our facility are stored in a containment system to prevent possible
  spills from running off.  Every month, we inspect and maintain the storage areas and equipment
  to prevent spills.

     2.   Procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials.

  3M & LJ Fish Farm has developed a spill response and prevention plan to ensure that our facility
  properly contains, cleans, and disposes of spilled materials. The plan provides details on
  measures to stop the source of a spill, contain the spill, clean up the spill, dispose of
  contaminated materials,  and train personnel to prevent and control future spills. The plan is
  reviewed during our required annual employee-training program.

  Our spill response and prevention plan is a procedural handbook that identifies individuals
  responsible for implementing the plan; defines safety measures to be taken with each kind of
  waste; emphasizes that spills must be cleaned up promptly; specifies how to notify appropriate
  authorities, such as the fire department for assistance; states procedures for containing, diverting,
EPA-821-B-05-001                              E2-5                                    March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix E2
  isolating, and cleaning up the spill; and describes spill response equipment to be used, including
  safety and cleanup equipment.

  Our plan encourages the use of shop rags (for small spills) and absorbent snakes (for large
  spills), rather than water. For non-hazardous materials, we would send the rags out for cleaning
  and throw away the absorbent snakes. For hazardous materials, we would dispose of the cleanup
  materials according to our state's guidelines. A copy of the plan is kept in our office and is
  available upon request by contacting the facility manager.

  We also keep track of information about any spills at our facility to try to prevent any future
  spills. This information is kept with other records for the facility in the office. An example of the
  form we use to track spills is attached.

  G. Maintenance

     1. Routinely inspect production systems and wastewater treatment systems to identify and
        promptly repair damage.

  We inspect the raceways and quiescent zones every day. More specifically, we check that all of
  the drain structure parts are functioning properly; that valves and other critical drain components
  are working properly; and that there are no broken parts. If any parts are broken, we repair them
  immediately. We check the raceways to make sure they are structurally sound; repair cracks as
  necessary; and check that all plumbing components are installed and working properly. Finally,
  we check the quiescent zones for proper function; inspect drains for clogging; and make sure that
  all settling basins are working properly.

  We also check equipment used at the facility every day. We routinely inspect  oxygen equipment,
  filters, and heaters that maintain  optimal growing conditions in the hatchery. We also test the
  demand automatic feeders periodically (weekly) to ensure they are delivering  the proper amounts
  of feed; check demand feeders for proper operation and adjust as necessary; and inspect all feed
  storage areas to make sure the feed is free from rodents and insects and that no excess moisture
  or water leaks are present to prevent mold.

  We keep track of the inspections of production and wastewater treatment systems at our facility
  in a log. Records of this information are kept in our office and are available upon request by
  contacting the facility manager. An example of the log is attached.

     2. Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems
        to ensure their proper function.

  We perform  maintenance of parts and equipment when our routine inspections determine that a
  repair is necessary. We also perform maintenance on equipment that requires periodic
  maintenance or adjustment, based on the manufacturer's recommendations. For example,
  demand feeders need to be constantly adjusted to the conditions of the facility to maximize
  feeding efficiency. Employees immediately correct any feeders discovered to  be out of
  adjustment (feeding too freely or jammed up). We record maintenance in the same log where we
EPA-821-B-05-001                             E2-6                                   March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix E2
  record inspections of production and wastewater treatment systems. An example of this form is
  attached.

  H. Record-keeping

     1.  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.

  We keep records in the office of the amount of feed we feed our fish daily. We also record
  estimates of the number and weight of trout at our facility at the same time we feed the fish.
  From this information, we have been able to calculate FCRs to better manage feeding at our
  facility. All records are maintained and updated  as information is collected. For example, feeding
  records are updated daily. All records  are available upon request by contacting the facility
  manager. Examples of the forms we use are attached.

     2.  Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections,  maintenance, and repairs.

  We keep records in the office of the frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance,  and repairs
  at our facility. All records are maintained and updated as information is collected.  All records
  are available upon request by contacting the facility manager. Examples of the forms we use are
  attached.

  I. Training

     1.  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.

  All new employees are required to attend training on spill  prevention and response. Current
  employees must attend refresher training once every year. Our facility  has developed a spill
  prevention and response plan, which is covered at employee training. The plan was described in
  more detail in Section F above. The plan is kept in our office, is accessible to all employees, and
  is available upon request by contacting the facility manager. We also keep Material Safety data
  sheets for all chemicals used at the facility within a binder in the chemical cabinet. Employees
  have been trained on how to use these sheets.

     2.  Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment
        systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment.

  All new employees are required to attend training on proper operation  and cleaning of production
  systems and wastewater treatment systems at our facility. Management reviews employee
  performance in operating the facility and provides additional training for those not operating the
  facility according to the Standard Operating Procedures.
EPA-821-B-05-001                             E2-7                                   March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix E2
  J. Diagram or Map

  A diagram/map of the facility (to illustrate the layout of the operation) is included at the end of
  the BMP plan as Figure 1.

  K. Review and Endorsement of the BMP Plan

  We, the facility manager and the individuals responsible for implementing the BMP plan, have
  reviewed and endorsed this BMP plan.
               (Facility Name)                                    (NPDES #)
         (Facility Manager - Printed Name)                     (Facility Manager - Signature)
         (Other Individual - Printed Name & Title)                (Other Individual - Signature)
  L. Certifying the BMP Plan with the Permitting Authority

  A copy of the BMP plan is kept in our office. It is available to any employee at our facility, EPA,
  and any state environmental agency upon request by contacting the facility manager.

  A signed letter has been sent to our permitting authority stating that our facility has developed a
  BMP plan.
EPA-821-B-05-001                             E2-8                                   March 2006

-------
                                                                              Appendix E2
 Upper Springs
                      Weir
                     Hatchery/Office/Shop
            Upper
            Creek
                     Raceway Discharge
                                OLS Discharge
Quiescent Zone
Cleanout Drains
                       Figure 1: Facility Diagram of 3M & LJ Fish Farm
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           E2-9
                    March 2006

-------
                                                                       Appendix E2
                        Feed Conversion Ratios Log
  Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm
NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567
  Instructions: Fill in this form with feeding information so as to keep track of feeding
  and to calculate/track feed conversion ratios. FCRs are calculated with the following
  equation:

                             Dry weight of feed applied
                             Wet weight of fish gained
Date
(start date
end date)
3/1/04
10/1/04










Description of
Group
Rainbow trout
stackers





Total Feed
Amounts
(Estimate)
20,775 Ibs





Weights of
Animals
(start weight
end weight)
100 Ibs
17,528 Ibs










Weight
Gained
17,428 Ibs





Calculated
FCR
1.19





EPA-821-B-05-001
                                      E2-10
                             March 2006

-------
                                                                         Appendix E2
                                  Cleaning Log
  Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm
                                NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567
  Instructions: Record all cleaning performed on production and/or wastewater system
  components.
    Date
  Cleaned
Cleaner
Initials
   Description of
 Component Cleaned
         Notes About Cleaning
   10/1/04
  ML
QZ raceways 1-10
Cleaned QZs and dam boards; checked and
cleaned screens, removing moss and dead fish.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                        E2-11
                                                               March 2006

-------
                                                                   Appendix E2
                     OLS WASTE LAND APPLICATION LOG
 Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm
NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567
 Instructions: Record information about land application of OLS waste in the form
 below. This is an example of a state requirement that is not required by the ELGs.
Date
10/1/04






Initials
ML






Location
Crop Field 1






Nutrient Analysis
2.5%% nitrogen
3.0% phosphorus
0.1% potassium
5.0% calcium
1.0% magnesium






Volume Applied
10,000 gallons






Notes
No problems
encountered.






EPA-821-B-05-001
                                     E2-12
                            March 2006

-------
                                                                     Appendix E2
                           CARCASS REMOVAL LOG






 Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm           NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567




 Instructions: Record all mortalities observed on a daily basis.
Date
10/1/04






Initials
ML






System/Group
of Animals
Rainbow trout
- Rl-12






#of
Mortalities
20






Approx.
Weight
lllbs






Disposal
Method
Composted






Notes
All from R4; appear
to be from an
infection - closely
monitoring
remaining fish






EPA-821-B-05-001
                                      E2-13
March 2006

-------
                                                                                                          Appendix E2
                                         EXAMPLE SPILLS AND LEAKS LOG






Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm            NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567




Instructions: Fill in this form with information about any spills or leaks.
Date
(mm/dd/
yy)
10/4/04



Spill or
Leak
Spill



Location
(as indicated
on a site
map)
Hatchery
floor



Type of Material &
Quantity
Formalin



Source
(if known)
Storage
drum



Reason
Top was not secured
and the drum was
knocked over



Amount of
Material
Recovered
20 gallons



List of
Preventative
Measures Taken
Spoke to all
employees about
the importance of
securing lids to
storage containers



Initials
ML



Instructions: Use this page to enter any important notes about the spills from the previous sheets.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                       E2-14
March 2006

-------
                                                                                                                                   Appendix E2
   Date of spill or
  leak (mm/dd/yy)
                                                         Notes
 10/4/04
All employees have been instructed on the importance of securing container lids. Employees were also instructed to double-check
that container lids are secured before proceeding with applications.	
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                                    E2-15
                                                                                                             March 2006

-------
                                                                   Appendix E2
                         STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE
                     INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG

 Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm           NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567

 Production or Wastewater Treatment System: Raceway 1

 Instructions: Fill in all routine inspections and regular maintenance of production
 systems and wastewater treatment systems in the table below. Use a separate form for
 each production system and/or wastewater treatment system.
Date
Inspected
10/1/04







Inspector
Initials
ML







Notes
(Note any problems found and maintenance performed)
The screens at the end of raceways 5 and 7 were loose; secured
the screen.







Date
Maintenance
Performed
10/2/04







EPA-821-B-05-001
                                    E2-16
March 2006

-------
     Appendix F



BMP Certification Form

-------
                                                                           Appendix F





                            BMP Certification Form
Facility Name:	      NPDES Permit Number:.




Printed Name:	
Title (owner, operator, etc.):.
Date the BMP Plan was developed:.
I certify that a BMP plan was developed for:_
                                                   (name of facility)







A copy of the BMP plan is available for inspection at the following address:
Signature:	      Date:.
 Note: This is only an example of what a certification form could look like.
EPA-821-B-05-001                          F-l                                March 2006

-------
    Appendix G



State BMP Programs

-------
State BMP Programs
                                                                             Appendix G
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 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.

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.

Arizona

Arizona Aquaculture BMPs addresses
treatment and discharge of aquaculture
effluents containing nitrogenous wastes and
closing of aquaculture facilities when they
cease operation  (Fitzsimmons, 1999).

Use of 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). The BMPs are
available at:
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/bmps.html.

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.).
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          G-l
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                              Appendix G
Florida

Florida's aquaculture certificate of
registration and BMP program requires any
person engaging in aquaculture to be
annually certified by the Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services and
to follow BMPs established by the
Department (Chapter 597, Florida
Aquaculture Policy Act, Florida Statutes).
Aquaculture Best Management Practices, a
manual prepared by the department,
establishes BMPs for aquaculture facilities
in Florida. By legislative mandate, the
BMPs in the manual are intended to
preserve environmental integrity, while
eliminating cumbersome, duplicative, and
confusing environmental permitting and
licensing requirements. When these BMPs
are followed, aquaculturists meet the
minimum standards necessary for protecting
and maintaining offsite water quality and
wildlife habitat (FDACS, 2000). Additional
information is available from Florida's
Division of Aquaculture website at
http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com.

Georgia

Agriculture enterprises such as fish farms
are required to conduct activities consistent
with Best Management Practices (BMP's)
established by the Georgia Department of
Agriculture. BMP's are management
strategies for control and abatement of
nonpoint source pollution resulting from
agriculture. The manual Agricultural Best
Management Practices for Protecting Water
Quality in Georgia provides information  on
using and maintaining BMP's. The manual
is available from the Georgia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission (Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, 2003).
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. A copy of the
manual is available at:
http://www.ctsa.org/upload/publication/CTS
A 148631672853284080260.pdf.

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.).  The manual
is available for download at:
http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/prog issues
/agri culture/aquaculture. cfm.

Louisiana

The LSU AgCenter has published a
guidance manual, Kquaculture Production
Best Management Practices (BMPs), which
provides a list of BMPs that can help
producers to conserve soil and protect water
and air resources by reducing pollutants.
The manual is available at
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/environment
/conservation/bmps/aquaculture+production
+best+management+practices.htm.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           G-2
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                              Appendix G
Missouri

Missouri has published the following
guidance document to answer typical
questions that aquaculture facility owners or
operators may have: Missouri Aquaculture
Environmental and Regulatory Guide: A
Guide to Regulatory Compliance, Sources of
Information and Assistance and Answers to
Environmental Questions for Aquaculture
Businesses in Missouri. The guide provides
basic information about regulatory
requirements and suggestions for protecting
operators and owners of aquaculture
facilities, their workers and the environment
through pollution prevention. Each guide
sheet in the publication deals with a separate
issue, such as pollution prevention, dead fish
disposal, backflow prevention, drug use, and
preventing fish diseases. A copy of the guide
is available at:
http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub513.PDF.

Ohio

The Ohio Pond Management Handbook,
created by the Department of Natural
Resources' Division of Wildlife, provides
guidance to pond or small lake owners on
pond management issues. Owners of new
ponds, owners of old ponds, or landowners
who plan to build a pond are given guidance
on how to best manage fish stocks, aquatic
vegetation, fish health, and surrounding
pond wildlife (Ohio DNR,  1996). The guide
is available for download at:
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/PDF/pon
dmgt.pdf.

West Virginia

West Virginia University, Extension Service
has developed a guide, as part of their
Aquaculture Information Series, for
managing aquaculture waste entitled Waste
Management in Aquaculture. The guide
discusses BMPs, and their associated costs,
that may be used to reduce aquaculture
waste. A copy of the guide is available at:
http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/
waste02.pdf Other aquaculture-related fact
sheets and documents are available at:
http://www.wvu.edU/~agexten/aquaculture/f
actsht.htm.

Wisconsin

As of July 2005, the University of
Wisconsin is finishing completing a draft
version of a BMP user manual for
aquaculture for Wisconsin and the Great
Lakes Region. The draft document will be
reviewed by various agencies before it is
made available to the public.

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, 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).
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          G-3
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix G
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 offish 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).

References

ABOFGA.  No Date.  Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for Baitfish and
Ornamental Fish Farms. Arkansas  Bait and
Ornamental Fish Growers Association, in
cooperation with the University of Arkansas
at Pine Bluff, Aquaculture/Fisheries Center.

Boyd, C.E.  1999. Codes of Practice for
Responsible Shrimp Farming.  Global
Aquaculture Alliance, St. Louis, Missouri.
48 pages. Copies of this publication are
available by contacting the Global
Aquaculture Alliance at P.O. Box 510799,
St. Louis, Missouri, 63151-0799, 314-416-
9500, Fax: 314-416-9500, E-mail:
homeoffice@gaalliance.org. Web page:
http://www.GAAlliance.org.

DEQ. No Date. Idaho Waste Management
Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations.
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality.
Available for download at
.  Accessed
September 2004.

FDACS. 2000. Aquaculture Best
Management Practices. Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Division of Aquaculture, Tallahassee,
Florida.

Fitzsimmons, K. 1999. Draft: Arizona
Aquaculture BMPs.  Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality. Available for
download at
.
Accessed September 2004.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
2003. A Summary of Georgia's Licenses and
Permits for Aquaculture.
.
Accessed October 2004.

Howerton, R. 2001. Best Management
Practices for Hawaiian Aquaculture. Center
for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture,
University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension
Services, Publication No. 148.
.
Accessed September 2004.

Jahncke, M.L, T.I.J.  Smith, andB.P,
Sheehan. 1996. The Hybrid Striped Bass
Industry: From Fish Farm to Consumer.
Preparation of this brochure was supported
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          G-4
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix G
by the 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.

Ohio DNR. 1996. Ohio Pond Management
Handbook. Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Wildlife.

-------
               Appendix H

  National Association of State Aquaculture
Coordinators (NASAC), Cooperative Extension
     Services, and Sea Grant Information

-------
                                                                             Appendix H
National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC),
Cooperative Extension Services, and Sea Grant Information
Since this guidance document was
completed, contacts for NASAC,
Cooperative Extension Services and Sea
Grant Programs may have been updated. If
any of the links do not work, please visit the
following websites for updated contacts:

NASAC
http: //www .marylandseafood. org/aquaculture/na
sac.php

Cooperative Extension
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state
_partners.html

Sea Grant
http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org

ALABAMA

NASAC

John Gamble
Marketing & Economics Division
Department of Agriculture and Industries
PO Box 3336
Montgomery AL 36109-0336
(334)240-7245
(334)240-7270 FAX
ageconadm@agi. state, al. us

Jimmy Carlisle
Catfish, Poultry and International Trade
Divisions
Alabama Farmers Federation
PO Box 11000
Montgomery AL 36191-0001
(334)613-4214
(334)284-3957 FAX
1carlisle@alfafarmers.org

Cooperative Extension

The Department of Fisheries and Allied
Aquaculture is responsible for extension
activities in aquaculture production and
marketing, managing fish populations in
large and small impoundments, aquatic
ecology, and recreational fisheries.
Department experts work with county
extension agents throughout the state to
conduct educational programs and provide
up-to-date, practical information to
interested clients. More information about
the Department is available at:

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/faa/extension

Sea Grant

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
(MASGC) is an organization of nine
universities and laboratories dedicated to
activities that foster the conservation and
sustainable development of coastal and
marine resources in Mississippi  and
Alabama. Additional information about
MASGC is available at:

http: //www .masgc. org

ALASKA

NASAC
Guyla McGrady
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Land
550 W 7th Ave, Suite 900C
Anchorage AK 99501-3577
907-269-8543
907-269-8913 FAX
guvla mcgradv@dnr.state.ak.us

Cynthia Pring-Ham
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P O Box 25526
Juneau AK 99802-5526
(907)465-6150
(907)465-4168 FAX
cvnthia  prina-ham@fishaame.state.ak.us
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                         H-l
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                              Appendix H
Cooperative Extension

The University of Alaska Fairbanks
Cooperative Extension has had aquaculture-
related initiatives through its 4-H programs.
Information about University of Alaska-
Fairbanks Cooperative Extension efforts can
be found at:
http://www.uaf.edu/coop-ext

Sea Grant

The Marine Advisory Program (MAP)
works to promote positive development, use
and conservation of Alaska's aquatic and
marine resources. The Aquaculture section
of the MAP attempts to promote the
aquaculture industry in Alaska through
improvement of species diversity,
production, quality, management, marketing
opportunities, and public awareness of the
industry. More information about the Marine
Advisory Program can be obtained at:

http://www.uaf.edu/map/about.html

AMERICAN  SAMOA

NASAC

Ta'alo P. Lauofo
Department of Agriculture
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Cooperative Extension

American Samoa Community College's
Cooperative Extension Service offers
community-based educational programs and
projects to enhance individual and group
decision-making towards improved living.
Extension works closely with farmers,
homemakers and youth, as well as
government and civic agencies. The
extension agents use discoveries made by
the research division to improve the quality
of life for individuals and the community.
Extension programs are offered in
agriculture, consumer family sciences, 4-H
youth, and forestry. No specific information
concerning aquaculture for the state's
cooperative extension service was found.
Specific information about the cooperative
extension service is available at:

http: //www .ascc. as/academicssupportcnrp .htm

Sea  Grant

American Samoa Community College does
have a Sea Grant Program. However, no
information or website was available.

ARIZONA

NASAC

Richard Wilier
Department of Agriculture
1688 West Adams
Phoenix AZ 85007-2617
(602)542-4293
(602)542-4290 FAX
rwiller@azda.gov

Cooperative Extension

The University of Arizona Cooperative
Extension Service acts as a conduit for
information on aquaculture issues.
Information available at this website
includes links to publications, educational
activities including the high school
aquaculture program, and other resources
within the State. Additional information
about University of Arizona Aquaculture is
available at:

http: //ag .arizona. edu/azaqua

Sea  Grant

There is no Sea Grant Program for the State
of Arizona.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-2
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
ARKANSAS
Cooperative Extension
NASAC

Ted McNulty
Arkansas Development and Finance Authority
423 Main Street Suite 500
Little Rock AR 72203
(501)682-5849
(501)682-5893 FAX
tmcnultytaadfa. state, ar. us

Cooperative Extension

The Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff hosts
information on Extension activities. The
Center provides educational materials such
as newsletters, videos, demonstrations and
training. Some specialized programs have
included publication of the quarterly
newsletter "Aquaculture Aquafarming," and
development of Spanish-English training
curriculum and training. The goal of the
Center is to provide relevant, timely
information through research and extension
programs. Further information about the
Aquaculture/ Fisheries Center can be
obtained at:

http://www.uaex.edu/aqfi

Sea Grant

Arkansas does not have a Sea Grant
Program.

CALIFORNIA

NASAC

Bob Hulbrock
Department of Fish and Game
1812 Ninth Street
Sacramento CA 95814
916-445-4034
916-445-4044 FAX
rhulbrock@dfa.ca.aov
The University of California, Davis Animal
Science Extension is linked to about 30
county-based Cooperative Extension
livestock and dairy farm advisors. The
campus-based specialists are responsible for
the program areas of waste management,
livestock systems management, aquaculture,
and dairy management and health. The
Animal Science Extension provides
Aquaculture Document Database, an online
source for documents related to Aquaculture
both in California and throughout the United
States. Information about the Animal
Science Extension is available at:

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/extension/Aqu
aculture.htm

Sea Grant

The California Sea Grant College program
focuses its work on aquaculture issues of
research and development. Abstracts of
research documents pertaining to this
subject are available online. The Southern
California Sea Grant has identified
aquaculture as a research need and places
development of aquaculture as a topic under
the "Urban Coasts" theme. More
information about the California Sea Grant
College program's aquaculture research is
available at:

http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/
SgResearchIndx.html

Information about the Southern California
Sea Grant can be found at:

http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-3
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
COLORADO

NASAC

Jim Rubingh
Department of Agriculture
700 Kipling Suite 4000
Lakewood CO 80215-8000
(303)239-4117
(303)239-4125 FAX
1im.rubingh@ag.state.co.us

Cooperative Extension

The Colorado State University Extension
has one aquaculture expert within the faculty
of the College of Natural Resources, who
has expertise about both sport fishing pond
management and fish farming. More
information about the Colorado State
University Extension can be found at:

http://www.ext.colostate.edu

Sea Grant

Colorado does not have a Sea Grant
Program.

CONNECTICUT

NASAC

David Carey
Bureau of Aguaculture & Laboratory
Connecticut Department of Agriculture
PO Box 97
Milford CT 06460
(203)874-0696
(203)783-9976 FAX
DEPT.AGRIC@SNET.NET

Cooperative Extension

The University of Connecticut Cooperative
Extension seeks to strengthen profitability
and to increase agriculture as a major sector
in the State economy. Work is done in a
variety of areas, including aquaculture, to
update production and improve management
skills. Additional information about the
University of Connecticut Cooperative
Extension is located at:

http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces

Sea Grant

Connecticut Sea Grant seeks to create
possibilities within the State for new jobs
through sustainable, environmentally
friendly intensive aquaculture. The Sea
Grant promotes research projects to further
this end. Additional information about
Connecticut Sea Grant College's
aquaculture initiatives can be found at:

http://www.seagrant.uconn.edu/aqua.htm

DELAWARE

NASAC

Bruce Walton
Department of Agriculture
2320 South Dupont Highway
Dover DE 19901-5515
(302)698-4503
(302)697-4463 FAX
brucew@state.de.us

Cooperative Extension

The University of Delaware Cooperative
Extension provides local communities with
information  on agricultural issues, financial
tools, and other community educational
materials. No information concerning
aquaculture for the state's cooperative
extension service was available for
Delaware. Complete information about the
University of Delaware Cooperative
Extension can be found at:

http: //ag .udel. edu/extension
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           H-4
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                 Appendix H
Sea Grant

The University of Delaware Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Service acts as a source of
information-sharing among researchers,
resource managers, business people and
private citizens in an effort to foster the wise
use, conservation, and development of
marine resources. More information about
the University of Delaware Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Service's programs in
aquaculture is available at:

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/mas/aquaculture/aqu
aculture.html

FLORIDA

NASAC

Sherman Wilhelm
Florida  Department of Agriculture
Division of Aquaculture
1203 Governor's Square Blvd. Fifth Floor
Tallahassee FL 32301
(850)488-4033
(850) 410-0893 Fax
wilhelstadoacs.state.fl.us
http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com

Cooperative Extension

The Institute  of Food and Agricultural
Sciences serves as the coordinating body for
Extension Service activities and
information. The Extension Service is a
partnership of county, state, and federal
government, which serves the citizens of
Florida by providing information and
training on a wide variety  of topics.  This site
provides contact information for experts
specializing in fisheries, aquaculture and
pond management, and also has links to
relevant publications. More information
about extension activities of the Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences is available
at:

http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/ExtensFac.htm
Sea Grant

Florida Sea Grant College efforts in
aquaculture seek to promote sustainable
production of aquatic species through
education and research. Further details of
Florida Sea Grant College efforts can be
found at:

http://www.flseagrant.org

GEORGIA

NASAC

Ted Hendrickx
Wildlife Resources Division - Fisheries
2123 US Highway 278 SE
Social Circle GA 30025
770-918-6418
706-57-3040 FAX
ted hendrickxtadnr.state.ga.us

Cooperative  Extension

The Warnell  School of Forest Resources
serves as the  conduit for information about
forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation
for the State of Georgia. One goal of the
Warnell School is to provide information to
the citizens of Georgia and the US  so that
they might be able to reach informed
decisions about personal objectives and
societal issues involving forestry and forest
products, wildlife,  aquaculture and fisheries
and related natural resources. Aspects of
these efforts include: education through
technology transfer, translation and
synthesis of research results and other
information, discussion and explanation of
public policy issues and science-based
evaluations and recommendations. Further
information about the Warnell School of
Forest Resources can be found at:

http://www.forestry.uga.edu
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                            H-5
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
Sea Grant

The University of Georgia Sea Grant
College collaborates with the University of
Georgia Marine Extension Service to
provide information about current research
in aquaculture. Additional information about
the Georgia Sea Grant College is available
at:

http://www.marsci.uga.edu/gaseagrant

GUAM

NASAC

Jeff Tellock
Guam Department of Commerce
Guam Aquaculture Development & Training
102 M Street
Tiyan GU 96913
(671)734-3011/7327
(671)477-9031 FAX

Cooperative Extension

The University of Guam's Cooperative
Extension Service focuses on agriculture
and natural resources. No specific
information related to aquaculture from the
state's Cooperative Extension Service was
found. Additional information about the
Service is available at:

http://www.uog.edu/cals/site/extension.html

Sea Grant

The mission of the University of Guam's
Sea Grant Program is to optimize the
sustainable use of the ocean's resources, to
protect the delicate ecosystems that exist and
to prevent any hazards and degradation of
the natural resources  through research,
education, and advisory support; to increase
our understanding of the balance of
sustainability and protection of the
environment that exist within the Western
Pacific region; and to make significant
contributions for the benefit of Guam, the
Western Pacific, and the Nation. No website
was available for the University of Guam's
Sea Grant Program.

HAWAII

NASAC

John Corbin
Aquaculture Development Program
Department of Land and  Natural Resources
1177 Alakea Street Room 400
Honolulu HI 96813
(808)587-0030
(808)587-0033 FAX
info@hawaiiaquaculture.org

Cooperative Extension

The University of Hawai'i Center of
Tropical Agriculture and Human  Resources
conducts research and provides the public
with information on a variety of topics
including community development,
environmental issues, and commercial
production. Aquaculture is listed  as one area
of focus, but further details of programs and
research were not found on the website.
More information about the University of
Hawai'i Center of Tropical Agriculture and
Human Resources is located at:

http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ctahr2001/Extensio
n/ExtMain.html

Sea Grant

Promotion of sustainable aquaculture is one
research goal of the Sea Grant in  Hawaii.
More information about the University of
Hawaii Sea Grant is available at:

http: //www. soest .hawaii. edu/SEAGRANT
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           H-6
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix H
IDAHO

NASAC

Dan Crowell
Division of Animal Industries
Department of Agriculture
PO Box 7249
Boise ID 83707
(208)332-8540
(208)334-4062 FAX
dcrowellPagri.state.id.us

Cooperative  Extension

The Aquaculture Research Institute provides
students with educational and research
opportunities relating to aquaculture and
serves as an active educational outreach
program within the state of Idaho. The
Institute promotes, supports, and coordinates
aquaculture  research activities at the
University of Idaho and throughout the state.
Additional information about the Institute
can be found at:

http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/aquaculture

Sea Grant

Idaho does not have a Sea Grant program.

ILLINOIS

NASAC

Ms. Delayne Holsapple Reeves
Department of Agriculture
State Fairgrounds
PO Box 19281
Springfield IL 62794-9281
(217)524-9129
(217)524-5960 FAX
dreeves@agr.state.il. us

Cooperative  Extension

No specific information related to
aquaculture  from the state's Cooperative
Extension Service was found. Complete
information about the Illinois Cooperative
Extension is available at:

http: //www .extension .uiuc. edu

Sea Grant

The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College
initiatives in aquaculture focus on the
promotion and profitability of the industry in
the two states. Outreach efforts include
education, training, and promotion of
research. Additional information about the
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College can be
found at:

http://www.iisgcp.org

INDIANA

NASAC

Paul Brown
Purdue  University
1159 Forestry Building
West Lafayette IN 47907-1159
(765)494-4968
(765)496-2422 FAX
pb@fnr.purdue.edu

Cooperative Extension

No specific information related to
aquaculture from the state's Cooperative
Extension Service was found. Further
information about the Purdue Extension can
be found at:

http://www.ces.purdue.edu

Sea Grant

The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College
initiatives in aquaculture focus on the
promotion and profitability of the industry in
the two states. Outreach efforts include
education, training, and promotion of
research. Additional information about the
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           H-7
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                 Appendix H
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College can be
found at:

http://www.iisgcp.org

IOWA

NASAC

Joe Morris
Department of Ecology
Iowa State University
124 Science II
Ames IA 50011
(515)294-4622
(515)294-7874 FAX
1emorris@ia.state.edu

Cooperative Extension

Iowa State University (ISU) Extension to
Agricultural and Natural Resources provides
information through its research and
specialists about many topics including
aquaculture. Links related to aquaculture
include information about research
initiatives and facilities and details about
other organization and consortiums in the
State or within the region. More information
about ISU Extension to Agricultural and
Natural Resources is available at:

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag/topics.html

Sea Grant

Iowa does not have a Sea Grant Program.

KANSAS

NASAC

Troy Amspacker
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks
Milford Fish Hatchery
3100 Hatchery Drive
Junction City KS 66411
(785)238 2638
(785)238-1369 FAX
trova@wp.state, ks. us
Cooperative Extension

K-State research provides information about
aquaculture through its research specialists
and publications. The K-State Extension
lists aquaculture resources under their topic
of farm ponds. The website has links to
regional resources on aquaculture.
Additional information about K-State
research can be found at:

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/root/coreResources.htm

Specific information about K-State
Aquaculture is located at:

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/neao/aquaculture.htm

Sea Grant

Kansas does not have a Sea Grant Program.

KENTUCKY

NASAC

Angela Caporelli
Kentucky Department of Agriculture
100 Fair Oaks Lane 5th floor
Frankfort KY 40601
(502)564-4983  ext 259
(502)564-0303  FAX
angela.caporelli@ky.gov

Cooperative Extension

The Cooperative Extension at the University
of Kentucky makes available information
relevant to aquaculture activities in the
State. This information includes new reports
of aquaculture projects in the State; details
of events in different counties (e.g., shrimp
farming events; and access to specialists.
The Kentucky State University Aquaculture
Program aids the extension through its
research and specialists. Complete
information about the Cooperative
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                            H-8
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
Extension Service is located at:

http: //www .ca.uky. edu/ce s/index.htm

Further details of the Kentucky State
University Aquaculture Program can be
found at

http: //www .ksuaquaculture.org

Sea  Grant

Kentucky does not have a Sea Grant
Program.

LOUISIANA

NASAC

Roy Johnson
Department of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 3334
Baton Rouge LA 70821-3334
225-922-1280
504-922-1289 FAX
roy jtaidaf.state.la.us
www.ldaf.state.la.us

Cooperative Extension

The LSU AgCenter provides information
about Cooperative Extension activities in
Louisiana. Research and publications about
aquaculture in Louisiana are available
through the Center's website. Additional
information about the LSU AgCenter is
available at:

http://www.lsuagcenter.com

Sea  Grant

The Louisiana Sea Grant, a participant in a
30-institution partnership, promotes
responsible stewardship of marine and
coastal resources through its program
efforts. The Louisiana Sea Grant Program
does not have a specific focus  in
aquaculture. Further information about the
Louisiana Sea Grant College can be
obtained at:

http://www.laseagrant.org

MAINE

NASAC

John W. Sowles
Ecology Division
Maine Department of Marine Resources
P.O. Box 8
West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575-0008
(207) 633-9518
(207) 633-9579 FAX
1ohn.sowles@maine.gov

Cooperative Extension

The University of Maine Marine Extension
Team is a cooperative effort between the
University of Maine Cooperative Extension
and the Maine Sea Grant College. The
Marine Extension Team focuses on many
aspects of aquaculture. The University of
Maine Cooperative Extension can be
accessed at:

http://www.umext.maine.edu

Sea Grant

The Maine Sea Grant College seeks to be a
leader in marine science and education
through its research and programming. A
number of aquaculture programs continue to
receive attention from the Maine Sea Grant.
The Maine Sea Grant also cooperates with
the Maine Marine Extension Team to
conduct research and information sharing.
Information about the Maine Sea Grant is
located at:

http: //www. seagrant .umaine. edu
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-9
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
MARYLAND

NASAC

Karl Roscher
Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis MD 21401-7080
(410)841-5724
(410)841-5970 FAX
roschekrtamda. state, md. us

Cooperative Extension

The University of Maryland Cooperative
Extension Service does not focus
specifically on aquaculture but does provide
a wide range of information on other issues
in resource management. Further
information  about the Cooperative
Extension can be found at:

http://www.agnr.umd.edu/MCE/index.cfin

Sea Grant

The Maryland Sea Grant College focuses on
marine research and education, with a
concentration on the Chesapeake Bay,
including aquaculture. Specialists at the
Maryland Sea Grant Program are working to
evaluate the economic efficiency of
commercial  fmfish and shellfish
aquaculture. Through Aquaculture Action, a
teaching program, Sea Grant hosts
workshops for educators to create a network
of "aquaculture educators." Additional
details about the Maryland Sea Grant
Program can be found at:

http: //www .mdsg .umd. edu/index.html
MASSACHUSETTS

NASAC

Scott Scares
Massachusetts Dept of Food and Agriculture
251 Causeway Street
Suite 500
Boston MA 02114-2151
617-626-1730
617-727-1850 FAX
scott.soarestastate.ma.us
http://www.mass.gov/dfa/aquaculture

Cooperative Extension

The UMass Extension Service Division of
Fish, Wildlife, and Biodiversity
Conservation provides a variety of outreach
and research and training efforts related to
marine aquaculture. Further information
about the UMass Extension is available at:

http://www.umass.edu/nrec

Sea Grant

WHOI Sea Grant provides an academic and
research  environment for addressing the
revitalization of national fisheries and the
development of sustainable aquaculture. The
MIT Sea Grant provides educational
resources on aquaculture through its K-12
curriculum at the fmfish hatchery. WHOI
Sea Grant information is located at:

http://www.whoi.edu/seagrant

Information on the MIT Sea Grant can be
found at:

http://web.mit.edu/seagrant
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-10
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
MICHIGAN


NASAC

Nancy Frank
Michigan Department of Agriculture
Animal Industry Division
PO Box 30017
Lansing MI 48909
(517)373-1077
(517)373-6015 FAX
frankn@michigan.gov


Cooperative Extension


The Michigan State University Extension
has links to research publication focused on
aquaculture in the State and throughout the
Nation.  Complete details of extension
programs can be found at:


http://www.msue.msu.edu/portal


Sea Grant


The Michigan Sea Grant promotes
protection and sustainable use of the aquatic
environment in the Great Lakes region.
Aquaculture is a major initiative of the Sea
Grant members in this region. Further
information  about the Michigan Sea Grant
and its fisheries program can be found at:


http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu


MINNESOTA


NASAC

Ying Ji
Department of Agriculture
90 W Plato Boulevard
St Paul MN 55107
(651)296-5081
(651)296-6890 FAX
yingjita state.mn.us


Cooperative Extension


The University of Minnesota Extension
Service  serves as a link between Minnesota
communities and the university. No specific
information related to aquaculture for the
state's Cooperative Extension Service was
found. Further information about the
University of Minnesota Extension Service
and publications about aquaculture can be
found at:


http://www.extension.umn.edu


Sea Grant


Minnesota Sea Grant uses research and
public education to further the state's coastal
environment and economy.  Sea Grant acts
as a conduit for information among user
groups, including industry, management
agencies, and research scientists.
Aquaculture is a major outreach topic, and
information is available on beginning fish
farming operations and aquaculture business
structure. Additional information about
Minnesota Sea Grant is available at:


http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/index.html


Aquaculture outreach information can be
found at:


http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/aqua/index.html


MISSISSIPPI


NASAC

Gene Roberston
Department of Agriculture and Commerce
PO Box 1609
Jackson MS 39215-1609
(601)359-1102
(601)359-1174 FAX
genetamdac. state, ms. us


Cooperative Extension


MSUcares (Coordinated Access to the
Research and Extension  System)  is a joint
effort between the Mississippi State
University Extension Service and the
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-ll
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station (MAFES). MSUcares
provides information about aquaculture for
residents of the state. More information
about MSUcares is available at:

http ://msucares .com

Sea Grant

The Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium (MASGC) is an organization of
nine universities and laboratories dedicated
to activities that foster the conservation and
sustainable development of coastal and
marine resources in Mississippi and
Alabama. Additional information about
MASGC is available at:

http://www.masgc.org


MISSOURI

NASAC

Bart Hawcroft
Market Development Division
Missouri  Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
1616 Missouri Blvd
Jefferson City MO 65102
(573)526-6666
1-800-419-9139 (573)751-2868 FAX
bart.hawcroft@mda.mo.gov

Cooperative Extension


The Missouri Watershed Information
Network's Aquaculture Center provides
links to information pertaining to
aquaculture in Missouri. Additional
information about the Aquaculture Center
can be found  at:

http://outreach.missouri.edu/mowin/Training/aq
uaculture.html

Sea Grant
Missouri does not have a Sea Grant
Program.
MONTANA


NASAC

Angie DeYoung
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Development Division
PO Box 200201
Helena MT 59620-0201
(406)444-2402
(406)444-9442 FAX
adeyoungta state, mt. us
http://agr.state.mt.us/dept/agDevDiv.asp


Cooperative Extension


The Montana Cooperation Extension
program  is an educational resource with the
aim of providing research-based knowledge
to strengthen the social, economic and
environmental well being of individuals,
communities, and agricultural enterprises.
This extension service does not have a
particular focus on aquaculture. Further
details of the Montana Cooperation
Extension program can be found at:


http: //extn .msu .montana. edu


Sea Grant


Montana does not have a Sea Grant
Program.


NEBRASKA


NASAC

Ag Promotion and Development
Department of Agriculture
PO Box 94947
Lincoln NE 68509-4947
(402)471-4876
(402)471-2759 FAX
agpromtaagr. state, ne. us


Cooperative Extension


The University of Nebraska Lincoln
Cooperative Extension Service provides
public information about current research
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-12
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
efforts, offers training, and seeks to maintain
educational resources about a variety of
topics. Publications related to aquaculture
are available at this site. More information
about the University of Nebraska Lincoln
Extension Service is located at:

http://www.extension.unl.edu

Publications may be searched at:

http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs

Sea Grant

Nebraska does not have a Sea Grant
Program.

NEVADA

NASAC

No Program

Cooperative Extension

The University of Nevada Cooperative
Extension provides local citizens with
information for improving their lives and
local surroundings. No  specific information
related to aquaculture for the state's
Cooperative Extension  Service was found.
Additional information about the University
of Nevada Cooperative Extension is
available at:

http://www.unce.unr.edu

Sea Grant

Nevada does not have a Sea Grant Program.
NEW HAMPSHIRE

NASAC

J-J Newman (Joyce)
University of New Hampshire Sea Grant Division
Kingman Farm
Durham NH 03824
(603)749-1565
(603)743-3997 FAX
11.newman@unh.edu

Cooperative Extension

UNH Aquaculture extension programs have
the goals of assisting both potential and
existing aquaculture operations with all
aspects of the business including: species
identification, broodstock care, nutrition,
disease, systems design, marketing,
permitting and business plans. Extension
staff work closely with the aquaculture
research community to highlight the most
recent industry technologies. Further
information of UNH Fisheries/Aquaculture
programs is available at:

http: //www .ceinfo .unh. edu

Sea Grant

The New Hampshire Sea Grant promotes
research and education about aquatic
resources. Sea Grant aquaculture extension
programs are designed to aid potential and
existing aquaculture operations in areas such
as site and species evaluation, culture
techniques, nutrition, health management,
systems design, marketing, permitting, and
business plans for a full range of finfish,
shellfish, and seaweed operations. Complete
information about the New Hampshire Sea
Grant is available at:

http://www.seagrant.unh.edu/index.html
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-13
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                              Appendix H
NEW JERSEY

NASAC

Linda O' Dierno
Fish and Seafood Development
Department of Agriculture CN 330
Trenton NJ 08625
(609)984-6757
(609)633-7229 FAX
linda.odiernotaag. state, nj. us

Cooperative Extension

The Rutgers Cooperative Extension
aquaculture programs are focused on
providing information about seafood
productions in the state of New Jersey.
Further details of the Rutgers Cooperative
Extension program can be found at:

http://www.rce.rutgers.edu

Sea Grant

The New Jersey Sea Grant College, a part of
the New Jersey Marine Sciences
Consortium, provides training, research and
educational materials focused on the marine
environment in New Jersey. This Sea Grant
has no specific programs in aquaculture.
Further details of the New Jersey Sea Grant
College are located at:

http://www.njmsc.org/Sea Grant/About SeaGra
nt.htm

NEW MEXICO

NASAC

Mike Sloane
New Mexico Department of Game & Fish
PO Box 25112
Sante Fe NM 87504
505-476-8055
505-476-8131 FAX
msloanetastate.nm.us
Cooperative Extension

The Cooperative Extension at New Mexico
State University provides educational
outreach to New Mexico's citizens.
Although no current programs in
aquaculture exist, publications on this topic
can be found at this website. Further
information from New Mexico State
University's Extension Service can be found
at:

http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu/ces

Sea Grant

New Mexico does not have a Sea Grant
program.

NEW YORK

NASAC

Philip Hulbert
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road Room 522
Albany NY 12233-4753
518-402-8920
518-485-5827 FAX
pxhulber@qw.dec.state, nv. us

Cooperative Extension

The Cornell Cooperative Extension
Programs in Fish and Wildlife Biology
provide information specific to fisheries
management. Details of aquaculture
programs are on a case-by-case basis. An
example of a county-based aquaculture
program is  Suffolk County. Through its
research and educational and training
programs, the Suffolk County office  of the
Cooperative Extension seeks to improve the
quality of aquaculture in this county  of New
York. More information about Cornell
Cooperative Extension Programs can be
found at:
http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/EXT/ext/fish&wildli
fe.htm
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-14
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
Suffolk Country information is available at:

http://www.cce.cornell.edu/counties/Suffolk/MA
Rprograms/Aquaculturemain.htm

Sea Grant

The New York Sea Grant conducts research
on a variety of topics related to marine
ecosystems. Information about aquaculture
and the New York Sea Grant was not
available. Additional information about New
York's Sea Grant program is available at:

http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu

NORTH CAROLINA

NASAC

Debra Sloan
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 1475
Franklin, NC 28744
(828)524-1264
(828)524-1264 FAX
debrasloan@earthlink.net
http://www.aar.state.nc.us/aauacult
Cooperative Extension

North Carolina State University (NCSU)
North Carolina Agricultural and Technical
State University (NC AT&T) Cooperative
Extension provides information about ponds
and aquaculture. NCSU/NC A&T
Cooperative Extension is located  at:

http: //www .ces .ncsu. edu/copubs/ag/aqua

Sea Grant

The North Carolina  Sea Grant College
program directs research and information
sharing about issues in coastal and marine
resources. Aquaculture is one of the theme
areas for the NC Sea Grant. The North
Carolina Sea Grant College Program can be
accessed at:

http: //www .ncsu. edu/seagrant

NORTH DAKOTA

NASAC

No Aquaculture Program

Cooperative Extension

The North Dakota State University (NDSU)
Extension Service offers its citizens
information and other educational resources.
Aquaculture has become a topic of focus at
the Carrington Research Extension, where
economic development is the goal. Reports
of the aquaculture program at the Carrington
Research Extension are available at its
website. Additional  information about the
NDSU Extension can be found at:

http://www.ext.nodak.edu

The Carrington Research Extension can be
found at:

http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/carringt

Sea Grant

North Dakota does not have a Sea Grant
Program.

OHIO

NASAC

Laura Tiu
Ohio State University Piketon Research Center
1864 Shyville Rd.
Piketon OH 45661-9749
740-289-2071
740-289-4591 FAX
tiu.2@osu.edu
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-15
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix H
Cooperative Extension

Providing aquaculture practitioners with
information on topics such as fish culture
methods, nutritional requirements,
aquacultural system design and
management, species selection and water
quality management. Further information
about the Ohio State Extension Aquaculture
Program is available at:

http: //piketon. osu. edu/aqua

Sea Grant

As a part of the Lake Erie Programs, the
Ohio Sea Grant College offers publications
and research initiatives focused on many
topics in aquaculture. Additional
information about the Ohio Sea Grant
program can be found at:

http://www.sg.ohio-state.edu

OKLAHOMA

NASAC

Mitch Broiles
Oklahoma Department  of Agriculture
2800 N Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City OK 73105
405-522-6131
405-522-0756  FAX
mbroilestaoda.state.ok.us

Cooperative Extension

Oklahoma State University (OSU)
Cooperative Extension's publications
database, has links to a wide range of
aquaculture documents.  The  Extension's
Water Quality Team maintains a group of
experts in the field of aquaculture and pond
maintenance. Specifically, the OSU
Extension's Southern District and expert
Marley Beem maintain a site dedicated to
aquaculture education.
Publications, contact information, and
aquaculture resources from the Southern
District are found at:

http://osuextra.okstate.edu.
http://biosystems.okstate.edu/waterquality/wqtea
m.htm, and
http://dasnr.okstate.edu/oces/sedistrict.
respectively.

Sea Grant

Oklahoma does not have a Sea Grant
Program.

OREGON

NASAC

Dalton Hobbs
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Development and Marketing Division
1207 NW Naito Parkway
Suite 104
Portland OR 97209-2832
503-872-6600
503-872-6601  FAX
dhobbstaoda.state.or.us

Cooperative Extension

No information concerning aquaculture for
the state's cooperative extension service was
available for Oregon. Additional
information about Oregon State University's
Extension Service can be found at:

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/index.php

Sea Grant

Research of the Oregon Sea Grant College is
focused on promotion and sustainability of
aquatic resources in the Northeast. Research
in sustainable aquaculture is one initiative of
this Sea Grant program. Complete
information about the Oregon Sea Grant
College can be obtained at:

http://seagrant.orst.edu
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-16
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix H
PENNSYLVANIA
Sea Grant
NASAC

Kyle Nagurny
Agriculture Development
Department of Agriculture
2301 N Cameron Street
Harrisburg PA 17110-9408
(717)787-2376
(717)787-5643 FAX
knagurnytastate.pa.us

Cooperative Extension

No information concerning aquaculture for
the state's Cooperative Extension Service
was available for Pennsylvania.

Sea Grant

The Pennsylvania Sea Grant has programs
dedicated to promoting research in
aquaculture in the Lake Erie region. Further
details of Pennsylvania Sea Grant programs
can be found at:

http://www.pserie.psu.edu/seagrant/seagindex.htm

PUERTO RICO

NASAC

Jaime Gonzalez Azar
Fisheries Development Program
Department of Agriculture
PO Box 10163
San Juan PR 00908-1163
(809)724-4911
(787)725-7884 FAX

Cooperative Extension

Although the University of Puerto Rico has
an Agricultural Extension Service, no
specific information related to aquaculture
was found. A current website was also
unavailable.
The University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant
College Program is an educational program
devoted to the conservation and sustainable
use of coastal and marine resources in
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the
Caribbean region. Their mission is two-fold:
to conduct scientific research in the areas of
water quality, fisheries and mariculture,
seafood safety, marine recreation and coastal
tourism, coastal hazards and coastal
communities economic development; and to
apply their scientific knowledge to solve a
variety of problems that communities face
every day. For over two decades the
University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College
Program has been working to promote
sustainable development and the wise use of
marine resources in Latin America and the
Caribbean region. Complete information
about the University of Puerto Rico Sea
Grant College Program is available at:

http: //seagrant.uprm. edu

RHODE ISLAND

NASAC

Michelle Burnett
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management
Office of Marine  Fisheries
3 Fort Wetherill  Rd
Jamestown, RI 02835
401-423-1946
401-423-1925 FAX
michelle.burnett@dem. state, ri. us
Dave Alves
Oliver Stedman Government Center
4808 Tower Hill  Rd
Wakefield RI 02879
401-783-3370
401-783-3767 FAX
dalvestacrmc. state, ri. us
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           H-17
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix H
Cooperative Extension

The Rhode Island Cooperative Extension
program in Aquaculture Biotechnology and
Fishing seeks to increase local aquaculture
through economically- and environmentally-
beneficial technologies systems. The Rhode
Island Cooperative Extension program in
Aquaculture Biotechnology and Fishing
website is:

http: //www .uri. edu/ce/aquaculture .html

Sea Grant

The Rhode Island Sea Grant Sustainable
Fisheries Extension Program seeks to
revitalize and stabilize the Nation's
Fisheries through applied research, outreach,
and education. The program provides a link
between researchers, commercial and
recreational fishermen, and regulators by
bringing scientific and technical information
to user groups, and in turn informing
researchers of user needs and priorities.
Fisheries Extension deals with capture
fisheries, aquaculture, and seafood safety
and quality. Information about the Rhode
Island Sea Grant can be found at:

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu

SOUTH CAROLINA

NASAC

Gerry Bonnette
South Carolina Department of Agriculture
PO Box 11280
Columbia SC 29211-1280
803-734-2218
803-734-0325 FAX
abonnett@scda.sc.gov
Cooperative Extension

Clemson's Aquacultural Water Resources
website provides links to a variety of
information sources including publications,
meetings, contacts, and research. Links to
Clemson Aquacultural Water Resources can
be found at:

http://www.clemson.edu/waterquality/waterres/a
qwr.htm

Sea Grant

The South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
provides a program of research, education,
extension, and training to increase economic
opportunities and conservation of coastal
and marine resources for citizens of South
Carolina. Complete information about the
SC Sea Grant Consortium can be found at:

http://www.scseagrant.org

SOUTH DAKOTA

NASAC

Jon Farris
South Dakota Department of Agriculture
Division of Agricultural Development
Foss Building
523 E Capitol
Pierre SD 57501-3182
(605)773-5436
(605)773-3481 FAX
Ion.farrista state.sd. us

Dennis Unkenholz
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and
Parks
521 E Capitol
Pierre SD 57501
(605)773-4508
(605)773-6245 FAX
dennis.unkenholz@state.sd.us
Cooperative Extension

South Dakota State University's Extension
Service is the primary outreach facility of
the University. It serves the people of South
Dakota by helping them apply scientific
knowledge to improve their lives. No
information on aquaculture-related programs
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           H-18
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
is available for this Extension. Additional
information about South Dakota State
University's Cooperative Extension is
located at:

http://sdces.sdstate.edu

Sea Grant

There is no Sea Grant Program for the State
of South Dakota.

TENNESSEE

NASAC

Robert Beets
Tennessee Department of Agriculture
Market Development Division
P O Box 40627
Nashville TN 37204
615-837 5517
615-837 5194 FAX
robert.beetstastate.tn.us

Cooperative Extension

The Center for Profitable Agriculture is a
partnership between the Tennessee Farm
Bureau and the University  of Tennessee
Institute of Agriculture. The Center provides
information about the development of the
aquaculture industry in Tennessee. Further
information about aquaculture initiatives
from the Center for Profitable Agriculture
can be found on the University of Tennessee
Extension's web site at:

http: //www .utextension .utk.edu/departments

Sea Grant

There is no Sea Grant Program in
Tennessee.
TEXAS

NASAC

Susan Dunn
Institutional and Produce Marketing
Texas Department of Agriculture
PO Box 12847
Austin TX 78711
(512)475-1665
(512)463-7843 FAX
susan.dunntaagr.state.tx.us

Bob Blumberg
General Land Office
1700 N Congress Avenue
SFA Building Room 710
Austin TX 78701-1495
(512)463-5028
(512)463-5098 FAX
Cooperative Extension

The Texas A&M Cooperative Extension
offers practical, educational information as a
result of university research. No specific
information related to aquaculture from the
state's Cooperative Extension Service was
found. Texas A&M Cooperative Extension
information can be found at:

http://texasextension.tamu.edu

Sea Grant

Texas Sea Grant provides outreach through
two efforts: the Marine Advisory Service
(MAS) and the Marine  Information Service
(MIS). The Texas Sea Grant has specialists
who deal with issues including aquaculture,
fisheries, environmental quality, marine
business management, marine education,
and seafood science, technology and marine
policy. Further information about the Texas
Sea Grant College Program can be found at:

http: //texas-sea-grant .tamu. edu
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-19
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix H
UTAH

NASAC

Kent Hauck
Utah Department of Agriculture & Food
P.O. Box 146500
Salt Lake City UT 84114-6500
(801)538-7029
(801)538-7169 FAX
khauck@utah.gov

Cooperative  Extension

No specific information related to
aquaculture from the state's Cooperative
Extension Service was found. Further
information about initiatives from the Utah
State University Extension Service is
located at:

http: //extension .usu. edu

Sea Grant

Utah does not have a Sea Grant Program.

VERMONT

NASAC

Denise Russo
Vermont Department of Agriculture
116 State Street  Drawer 20
Montpelier VT 05620-2901
(802)828-3829
(802)828-3831 FAX
drussotaagr.state.vt.us

Cooperative  Extension

The University of Vermont's Extension
seeks to help build vital, sustainable rural
communities and families through
educational programs. Additional
information about the University of
Vermont Extension is available at:

http://www.uvm.edu/extension
Sea Grant

The Lake Champlain Sea Grant Program
provides a variety of scientific research and
activities that lead to improved
understanding, use, and management of the
Lake Champlain ecosystem. Information
about aquaculture through the Lake
Champlain Sea Grant was not found.
Additional information about the Lake
Champlain Sea Grant is available at:

http: //www .uvm. edu/~seagrant

VIRGINIA

NASAC

T. Robins Buck
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
1100 Bank Street Suite 210
Richmond VA 23219
(804)371-6094
(804)371-2945 FAX
robins.buck@vdacs.virainia.gov

Cooperative Extension

The Southwest Virginia Aquaculture
Research and Extension Center seeks to aid
the public with sustainable recirculating
aquaculture and high value alternative
horticulture opportunities in southwest
Virginia through research, extension, and
education programs. More information from
the Southwest Virginia Aquaculture
Research and Extension Center is located at:

http://www.vaes.vt.edu/saltville

Sea Grant

The Virginia Sea Grant Program is a
consortium of research organizations that
focuses on protection and use of marine and
freshwater resources in the State.
Development of sustainable aquaculture is a
key research initiative from this program.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-20
                                March 2006

-------
More information about the Virginia Sea
Grant is available at:

http://www.virginia.edu/virginia-sea-grant

VIRGIN ISLANDS

NASAC

Arthur Petersen, Jr.
Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture
Estate Lower Love
Kingshill, St. Croix VI 00850
(340)778-0991
(340)778-3101

Cooperative Extension

The University of the Virgin Islands (UVI)
Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural
Experiment Station (AES) is located on the
St. Croix Campus of the University of the
Virgin Islands. AES is part of the Research
and Public Service Component.

AES conducts basic and applied research to
meet the needs of the local agricultural
community in increasing production,
improving efficiency, developing new
enterprises, preserving and propagating
germplasm unique to the Virgin Islands, and
protecting the natural resource base. AES
has a research program for aquaculture.

Information about the UVI Cooperative
Extension Service is available at:

http://rps.uvi.edu/CES

Additional information about AES is
available at:

http://rps.uvi.edu/AES/aes home.html

Sea Grant

The Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service
(VIMAS), a part of the University of Puerto
                                Appendix H


Rico Sea Grant College Program, is located
within the Center for Marine and
Environmental Studies (CMES) at UVI.
VIMAS was established on the St. Thomas
campus of UVI in 1984 and later expanded
to include agents on St. Croix. No specific
information related to aquaculture for the
Virgin Islands' Cooperative Extension
Service was found. Additional information
about VDVIAS is available at:

http://rps.uvi.edu/VIMAS

WASHINGTON

NASAC

Dan Swecker, Senator
Washington State Aquaculture Coordinator
10420 173rd Ave. SW
Rochester WA 98579
360-273-5890
360-273-6577 FAX
dan@wfga.net

Cooperative Extension

Washington State University Cooperative
Extension offers non-credit education and
degree opportunities to people throughout
the state. Cooperative Extension builds the
capacity of individuals, organizations,
businesses and communities, empowering
them to find solutions for local issues and to
improve their quality of life.  WSU
Cooperative Extension offers some
aquaculture publications at:

http://pubs.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/index.html

Additional information about the WSU
Cooperative Extension is available at:

http://ext.wsu.edu
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          H-21
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                                Appendix H
Sea Grant

Washington Sea Grant Program brings
researchers, regulatory agencies and
industry together to keep Washington-raised
aquatic species available for sale as food
products. Through research, education, and
information sharing, Washington State
aquaculture continues to be productive.
Further information about the Washington
Sea Grant Program can be found at:

http://www.wsg.washington.edu

WEST VIRGINIA

NASAC

Rob Nichols
West Virginia Department of Agriculture
1900 Kanawha Boulevard,  East
Charleston  WV 25305
(304)558-2208
(304)558-3594 FAX
rnichols@ag.state, wv. us

Cooperative Extension

The WVU Extension Service has established
a website dedicated to promoting education,
technical support, and cooperative resources
related to the aquaculture industry.
Additional resources from the WVU
Extension Service are available at:

http: //www .wvu. edu/~agexten/aquaculture

Sea Grant

West Virginia does not have a Sea Grant
Program.
WISCONSIN

NASAC

Will H. Hughes
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade &
Consumer Protection
Division of Agricultural Development
2811 Agriculture Drive
Madison, WI 53708-8911
608-224-5142
Fax: 608-224-5110
will, hughestadatcp. state, wi. us

Cooperative Extension

Through its programming and collaborative
relationships with the UW universities and
colleges, the 72 Wisconsin counties, and
countless local, state, and federal agencies
and groups, Extension provides a spectrum
of lifelong learning opportunities for
Wisconsin citizens. Extension education
applies university research, knowledge and
resources to the needs of Wisconsin citizens.
Aquaculture is a topic of interest for the
Wisconsin Extension. Further information
about University of Wisconsin's Extension
can be found at:

http://www.uwex.edu

Sea Grant

The Wisconsin Sea Grant provides
information on research and publications
pertaining to aquaculture. Through these
efforts as well as initiatives in technology
transfer and outreach, Wisconsin Sea Grant
acts to promote sustainable use of aquatic
resources in the Great Lakes and the Oceans.
Additional  information about Wisconsin's
Sea Grant Programs can be found at:

http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/index.asp
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           H-22
                                March 2006

-------
                                                                              Appendix H
WYOMING

NASAC

Wyoming Business Council
Division of Agriculture and Timber
2219 Carey Avenue
Cheyenne WY 82002-0100
(307)777-6577
(307)777-6593 FAX
wdata state.wy.us

Cooperative Extension

The University of Wyoming Cooperative
Extension offers access to information and
research on a variety of topics related to
community life in the State. Additional
information about aquaculture through this
Extension was not found. The University's
Extension can be accessed at:

http: //uwadmnweb .uwyo. edu/UWce s

Sea  Grant

Wyoming does not have a Sea Grant
Program.
EPA-821-B-05-001                           H-23                                 March 2006

-------
     Appendix I



Additional Resources

-------
Additional Resources
                                                                                          Appendix I
The following resources may provide useful
information to owners and operators of aquatic animal
production facilities.

EPA Programs and Information

CAAP Final Rule Web Page
This website provides access to the text of the rule and
preamble, supporting/guidance documents.
http: //epa. gov/guide/aquaculture
      U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers'
Manual, EPA 833-B-96-003, December 1,1996.
You may download individual chapters or the
entire document at:
http://cfpub.epa.qov/npdes/writermanual.cfm7proq

NPDES Permit Program Basics
This Web site provides basic permitting tools and
information.
http://cfpub.epa.qov/npdes/home.cfm7proqram id
=45
Permit Compliance System
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs overview.htm
1#PCS

Source Water Protection Programs
EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water,
Source Water Protection.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html

TMDL Programs
EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
TMDL Program.
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/index.html


USDA Programs and Information

Land Grant Universities
This website provides directory of land grant
universities. Click on a state link to reach a list of land
grant university web sites.
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partn
ers.html

USDA Agricultural Research Service
http://www.ars.usda.gov

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS)
http://www.aphis.usda.gov

USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES)
http://www.csrees.usda.gov

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)
http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA NRCS Conservation Programs
Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
Agricultural Management Assistance Program,
Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs

USDA Regional Aquaculture Centers

    •  Center for Tropical and Subtropical
       Aquaculture: http://www.ctsa.org
    •  North Central Regional Aquaculture
       Center: http://www.ncrac.org/
    •  Northeastern Regional Aquaculture
       Center:
       http://www.agnr.umd.edu/AGNPJ3irectory/Se
       ction.cfm?SN=%208.13
    •  Southern Regional Aquaculture Center:
       http://www.msstate.edu/dept/srac
    •  Western Regional Aquaculture Center:
       http://www.fish.washington.edu/wrac
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                 1-1
                                     March 2006

-------
                                                                                               Appendix I
Other Resources

American Fisheries Society
http://www.fisheries.org

American Tilapia Association
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ata.html

AquaFeed.com
http://www.aquafeed.com

Aquaculture Engineering Society
http://www.aesweb.org

Aquaculture Magazine
http://www.aquaculturemag.com

Aquaculture Network Information Center
(Aquanic)
http://www.aquanic.org

Atlantic Salmon Federation
http://www.asf.ca

Controlling Birds at Aquaculture Facilities
http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uhl20.pdf

Freshwater Institute
http://www.freshwaterinstitute.org

Global Aquaculture Alliance
http://www.gaalliance.org

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/jsa/index.htm

Maryland Department of Agriculture, Directory of
State Aquaculture Coordinators and Contacts
http://www.marylandseafood.org/aquaculture/nasac.php

National Aquaculture Association
http://www.nationalaquaculture.org

National Association of State Aquaculture
Coordinators
http://www.agr.state.nc.us/aquacult/NASAC.html

National Fisheries Institute
http://www.nfi.org
National Marine Fisheries Service
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov

National Sea Grant Library
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/index.html

NOAA Aquaculture Information Center
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/frontpage.htm

Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association
http://www.pcsga.org

Pacific Shellfish Institute
http://www.pacshell.org

Sea Grant
http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse
http://www.seaweb.org/resources/sac

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Fact Sheets
http ://srac .tamu. edu

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
http://www.usace.army.mil

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM)
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/default.html

U.S. Trout Farmers Association
http://www.ustfa.org
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                   1-2
                                       March 2006

-------
Appendix J



 Glossary

-------
Glossary
                                                                               Appendix J
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.

Anaerobic:  Characterized by the absence of
molecular oxygen, or capable of living and
growing in the absence of oxygen, such as
anaerobic bacteria.

Aquaculture: The propagation and rearing
of aquatic species in controlled or selected
environments.

Aquatic animal production: The
production of aquatic animals under
controlled or semicontrolled conditions.

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
sub category.

Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (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 practices:  Schedules of
activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other
management practices that prevent or  reduce
pollution (Title 40 CFR Part 122.2).

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
sub category.

Biosolids: Waste material from an
aquaculture operation, primarily fish manure
and uneaten feed.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           J-l
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix J
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.

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 Director designates as
such on a case-by-case basis, and must apply
for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit.

   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 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.

   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.

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 guidelines (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)).

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: Any facility from which
there is or may be a discharge of pollutants,
the construction of which is commenced
before September 22, 2004.

Extralabel use: The use of a drug in any
way that is not in accordance with approved
labeling. Extralabel use may be allowed
under specific conditions.

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
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           J-2
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix J
ratio of the weight of feed applied to the
weight of the fish produced.

Flow-through systems: 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.

Groundwater: Water in a saturated zone or
stratum beneath the  surface of land or water.

Indirect discharger: A facility that
discharges or may discharge wastewaters
into a publicly owned treatment works.

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 pens and cage systems: A culture
system that uses suspended or floating
systems to culture fish or shellfish. 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.

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.

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.

Permitting authority: The agency
authorized to administer the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permitting program in a state or territory.

Point source: Any discernible, confined,
and discrete conveyance from which
pollutants are or may be  discharged. See
Clean Water Act section 502(14).

Ponds: Culture systems characterized by
hydraulic retention times sufficiently long to
allow natural processes to reduce metabolic
waste concentrations. Commonly used to
culture warm water fish, such as channel
catfish.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                           J-3
                               March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix J
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.

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.

Recirculating systems: 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. These systems are highly intensive
and require biological treatment within the
system to prevent ammonia from
accumulating to harmful levels.

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.

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.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                          J-4
                               March 2006

-------
         Appendix K1



NPDES Permit Applications: Form 1

-------
Please print or type in the unshaded areas only
(fill—in areas are spaced for elite type, i.e., 12 characters/inch).
                                                       Form Approved.  OMB No. 2040-0086.
   FORM
 GENERAL
             &EPA
             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTfON AGENCY
                  GENERAL INFORMATION
                      Consolidated Permits Program
             (Read the "General Instructions" before starting.)
                                                                                                    I. EPA I.D. NUMBER
       LABEL ITEM'S"
 I. EPA I.D. NUMBER  s
 \  \  \   \   \  \
-III. FACILITYXNAME
 \   \   \   \   \   \
«   \  \   \  \  \   X
    FACILITY
    MAILING ADDRESS,
                                                                                      \
\
                                  \   PLEASE PLACE LABEL IN  THIS SPACE
 VI  FACILITY
     LOCATION
                                                                                         GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
                                                                                 If a preprinted label has been provided, affix
                                                                                 it in the designated space. Review the inform-
                                                                                 ation carefully; if any of it is  incorrect, cross
                                                                                 through it and enter the  correct  data in the
                                                                                 appropriate fiil—in area below. Also, if any of
                                                                                 the preprinted data is absent  (the area to the
                                                                                 left  of the label space lists  the  information
                                                                                 that should appear}, please provide it in the
                                                                                 proper  fill—in area(s) below.  If the  label  is
                                                                                 complete and correct, you need not complete
                                                                                 Items  I,  III,  V, and VI (except  VI-B which
                                                                                 must be  completed regardless). Complete all
                                                                                 items if no label  has been provided.  Refer to
                                                                                 the  instructions  for  detailed  item  descrip-
                                                                                 tions and  for the legal authorizations under
                                                                                 which this data is collected.
 II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS
  INSTRUCTIONS:  Complete A through J to determine whether you need to submit any permit application forms to the EPA. If you answer "yes" to arty
  questions, you must submit this form and the supplemental form listed in the parenthesis following the question. Mark "Y," in the box in the third column
  if the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no" to each question, you need not submit any of these forms. You may answer "no" if your activity
  is excluded from permit requirements; see Section C of the instructions. See also, Section D of the instructions for definitions of botd-faced terms.
                SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
                                                          MARK 'X'
                                                                                        SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
                                                                                                                                   MARK 'X'
  A. Is  this facility  a publicly  owned  treatment  works
     which results in a discharge to waters of  the U.S.?
     (FORM2A)
                                            B. Does or will this facility  (either existing or proposed)
                                               include a concentrated animal feeding operation or
                                               aquatic animal production facility which results in a
                                               discharge to waters of the U.S.? (FORM 28)
  C. Is this  a facility  which currently results in discharges
     to  waters  of  the U.S. other  than  those described  in
     A or B  above? (FORM 2C)	
                                            D. Is this a proposed facility (other than those described
                                               in A or B above) which will result in a discharge to
                                               waters of the U.S.? (FORM 2D)	
  E.  Does or will  this facility treat, store, or dispose of
     hazardous wastes? (FORM 3)
  G. Do you  or will you inject at this facility any produced
     water or other fluids which are brought to the surface
     ir> connection with conventional oil or natural gas pro-
     duction, inject fluids used for enhanced recovery of.
     oil or natural gas, or inject fluids  for storage of liquid
     hydrocarbons? (FORM 4i
                                            F. Do you or will you inject at this facility industrial or
                                               municipal effluent below the lowermost stratum con-
                                               taining,  within  one quarter  mile of the well  bore,
                                               underground sources of drinking water? (FORM 4)
                                            H. Do you or wilt you inject at this facility fluids for spe-
                                               cial processes such as mining of sulfur by the Frasch
                                               process, solution mining of minerals, in situ combus-
                                               tion  of fossil fuel, or recovery  of geothermal energy?
                                               (FORM 4!
     Is  this facility a proposed stationary source which is
     one of the 28  industrial categories listed  in the in-
     structions and which  will potentially emit 100 tons
     per year of  any air  pollutant  regulated under the
     Clean Air Act  and  may  affect  or  be  located in an
     attainment area? (FORM 5)
                                               fs  this facility a proposed stationary source which PS
                                               NOT one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the
                                               instructions and which will potentially emit 250 tons
                                               per year of any air pollutant regulated under the Clean
                                               Air Act and may affect or be located in an attainment
                                               area? (FORM  5)
                              A. NAME & TITLE (lost, first. & title)
                                          I
   FACILITY TRAILING ADDRESS
 VI. FACILITY LOCATION
                  A. STREET, ROUTE NO. OR OTHER SPECIFIC IDENTIFIER
 t 5 j 1 6
                             B. COUNTY NAME
                              I   I   I   1   I   I
          C. CITY OR TOWN
T	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
                                                                              O.STATE
                                                                                         E. ZIP CODE
                                                                                        —i—i—r~i—
                                                                           F. COUNTY CODE
                                                                               llf known)
EPA  Form  3510-1  (8-90)
                                                                                          CONTINUE ON REVERSE

-------
CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT
 VII. SIC CODES !4-digir, in order of priority!^
                                                                                                  B. SECOND
                                                                         i—i—r
               (specify/
                                                                                   (specify)
                              C. THIRD
                                                                                                  D. FOURTH
 VIII. OPERATOR INFORMATION
                                        i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i  i   i   i   i   r
                                                           T~I—i—r
B.  Is the name listed in
   Item VIII-A also the
   owner?

 LH YES  LD NO
  66
                                E. STREET OR P.O. BOX
                                                   1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
                                                                                                  IX. INDIAN LAND
                             F. CITY OR TOWN
                                                                                                  Is the facility located on Indian lands'

                                                                                                      CD YES      CD NO
 X. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS
       C. ST«ATUS OF OPERATOR (Enter the appropriate latter into the answer box; if "Other", specify.)
                                                                                                         D. PHONE (area code & no.)
   F = FEDERAL
   S = STATE
   P = PRIVATE
M = PUBLIC (other than federal or state)
O * OTHER (specify)
      A. NPDES (Discharges to Surface Water)
           T—i—i—i—i—;—i—i—i—i—i—r
                           D. PSD (Air Emissions from Proposed Sources)
                                  i—i—i—i—i—i—i—rn—i—i—r
      B. uic (Underground Injection of Fluids)
                                     E. OTHER (specify)
                                  i—i—r
                                                            i—i—r
                                                                                   i—i—r
    U
                                                                                            (specify)
           c. RCRA (Hazardous Wastes)
                                     E. OTHER (specify)
  Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond property bounderies. The map must show
  the outline of the facility, the location of each of  its existing and proposed intake and discharge structures, each of its hazardous waste
  treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, and each well where it injects fluids underground. Include all springs, rivers and other surface
  water bodies in the map area. See instructions for precise requirements.
 XII. NATURE OF BUSINESS (provide a brief description]
  XIII. CERTIFICATION (see instructions)
   I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and aft
   attachments and that, based  on my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible for obtaining the information contained in  the
   application, I believe that the information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting
   false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
  A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE (fvpe Or print)
  COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
 EPA  Form  3S10-1 (8-90)

-------
&EPA
                United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
                Office of
                Enforcement
                Washington, DC 20460
EPA Form 3510-1
Revised August 1990
                Permits Division
Application  Form  1  -  General
Information

Consolidated Permits Program
                   This form must be completed by all persons applying for
                   a permit under EPA's Consolidated Permits Program. See
                   the general instructions to Form 1 to determine which
                   other application forms you will need.

-------
               DESCRIPTION OF CONSOLIDATED
                 PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS
                   FORM 1 PACKAGE
                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Consolidated Permit Application Forms are:

  Form 1 — General Information (includedin this part)',

  Form 2 — Discharges to Surface Water (NPDES Permits);

   2A. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Reserved — not included in
   this package),

   2B. Concentrated  Animal Feeding Operations and Aquatic Animal
   Production Facilities (not included in this package),

   2C. Existing Manufacturing, Commercial, Mining, and Silvicultural
   Operations (not included in this package), and

   20.  New Manufacturing, Commercial,  Mining,  and Silvicultural
   Operations (Reserved — not included in this package);

  Form  3 —  Hazardous  Waste  Application Form (RCRA  Permits —
  not included in this package);

  Form  4 — Underground  Injection of  Fluids (UIC Permits —  Re-
  served — not included in this package); and

  Form  5 — Air Emissions in Attainment Areas  (PSD Permits —  Re-
  served — not included in this package),
Section A. General Instructions

Section B. Instructions for Form 1

Section C. Activities Which Do Not Require Permits

Section D. Glossary

Form 1 (two copies)
                                             SECTION A - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Who Must Apply

With the exceptions described in Section C of these instructions, Fed-
eral laws prohibit you from conducting any of the following activities
without a permit.

NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  Under the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.  1251).  Discharge of pollutants into the
waters of the United States.

RCRA (Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.  6901).
Treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes.

UIC (Underground Injection  Control Under the  Safe Drinking Water
Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f). Injection of fluids underground by gravity flow
or pumping.

PSD  (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Under the Clean Air
Act, 72 U.S.C. 7401). Emission of an air pollutant by a new or modi-
fied facility in or near an area which has attained the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for that pollutant.

Each  of the above permit programs is operated in any particular State
by either the United States Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA)
or by an approved State agency. You must use this application form to
apply for a permit for those programs administered by EPA. For those
programs administered by  approved States, contact the State environ-
mental agency for the proper forms.

If you have any questions about whether you need a permit under any
of the  above programs, or if you need information as to whether a
particular program  is administered by EPA or a State agency, or if you
need  to obtain application forms, contact your  EPA Regional office
(listed in Table  1).

Upon  your  request, and based upon  information supplied by you,
EPA  will determine whether you are required to obtain a permit for
a particular facility. Be sure  to contact EPA if  you  have  a question,
because  Federal laws provide  that  you may be heavily  penalized if
you do not apply for a permit when a permit is required.

Form  1  of the EPA consolidated application forms collects  general
information applying to all programs. You must fill out Form 1 regard-
less of which permit you are applying for. In addition, you must fill
out one of the supplementary forms (Forms 2 — 5) for each permit
needed under each of  the above programs.  Item II of Form 1 will
guide you to the appropriate supplementary forms.

You should note that there are certain exclusions to the permit  require-
ments listed above. The exclusions are described  in detail in Section C
of these instructions. If your activities are excluded from permit re-
quirements then you do not  need to complete and return any forms.
  NOTE: Certain activities  not  listed above  also are subject to EPA
  administered environmental  permit requirements. These include per-
  mits for  ocean dumping, dredged or fill material  discharging, and
  certain types of air emissions. Contact your EPA Regional office for
  further information.
Table  1. Addresses of EPA Regional Contacts and  States Within the
Regional Office Jurisdictions

REGION I

  Permit Contact,  Environmental and Economic  Impact  Office, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency, John F. Kennedy Building, Bos-
  ton, Massachusetts 02203, (617) 223-4635, FTS 223-4635.
   Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New  Hampshire, Rhode Island,
   and Vermont.

REGION II

  Permit Contact,  Permits Administration Branch,  Room 432, U.S.
  Environmental Protection  Agency, 26  Federal Plaza,  New  York,
  New York 10007, (212) 264-9880, FTS 264-9880.
   New Jersey, New York, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

REGION III

  Permit Contact (3 EN 23),  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  6th  & Walnut  Streets, Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania  19106,  (215)
  597-8816, FTS 597-8816.
   Delaware, District  of  Columbia,  Maryland, Pennsylvania,  Virginia,
   and West Virginia.

REGION IV

  Permit Contact,   Permits Section,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
  Agency, 345  Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404)
  881-2017, FTS 257-2017.
   Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,  North Carolina,
   South Carolina, and Tennessee.

REGION V

  Permit Contact (SEP),  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 230
  South Dearborn  Street, Chicage, Illinois 60604,  (312) 353-2105,
  FTS  353-2105.
   Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
                                                                  1-1

-------
                                       SECTION A - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (continued)
Table 1 (continued)

REGION VI

 Permit Contact  (6AEP),  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
 First International Building, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270,
 (214) 767-2765, FTS 729-2765.
   Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

REGION VII

 Permit  Contact,  Permits  Branch, U.S.  Environmental Protection
 Agency,  324 East 11th Street,  Kansas City, Missouri 64106,  (816)
 758-5955, FTS  758-5955.
   Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

REGION VIII

 Permit Contact (8E—WE), Suite 103, U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency,  1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80295, (303) 837-
 4901, FTS 327-4901.
   Colorado,   Montana,  North  Dakota,  South  Dakota, Utah, and
   Wyoming.

REGION IX

 Permit Contact, Permits Branch (£—41, U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, 215 Fremont Street,  San  Francisco, California 94105,
  (415) 556-3450, FTS 556-3450.
   Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,  Guam, American Samoa, and
   Trust Territories.

REGION X

 Permit  Contact  (M/S 5211, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
  1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington  98101,  (206) 442-7176,
  FTS 399-7176.
   Alaska, Idaho,  Oregon, and Washington.
Where to File

The application  forms should  be mailed  to the EPA Regional office
whose Region includes the State in which the facility is located (see
Table 1).

If the State in which the facility is located administers a Federal permit
program under which you need a permit, you should contact the appro-
priate State agency for the correct forms. Your EPA Regional office
(Table 1) can tell  you to whom to apply and can provide the appro-
priate address and phone number.
When to File

Because of statutory requirements, the deadlines for filing applications
vary according to the type of facility you operate and the type of per-
mit you need. These deadlines are as follows:1
 Table 2. Filing Dates for Permits

    FORM (perm it)
WHEN TO FILE
  2A(NPDES)	180 days before your present NPDES per-
                         mit expires.
  2B(NPDES)	180 days before your present NPDES per-
                         mit expires2, or  180 days prior  to start-
                         up if you are a new facility.
  2CINPDES)	180 days before your present NPDES per-
                         mit expires2.
  ID(NPDES)	180 days prior to startup.
  ^(Hazardous Waste). .. .Existing  facility:   Six months  following
                         publication of  regulations listing  hazard-
                         ous wastes.
                         New facility: 180  days before commencing
                         physical construction.
                                    Table 2 (continued)

                                     4(UIC)	A  reasonable  time prior  to  construction
                                                             for new wells; as directed by the Director
                                                             for existing wells.
                                     S(PSD)	Prior  to commencement of construction.

                                     1 Please  note that some of these forms are  not yet available for use
                                     and are listed as "Reserved" at the beginning of these instructions.
                                     Contact your EPA Regional  office for information on current appli-
                                     cation requirements and forms;

                                     z If your present permit expires on or before November 30, 1980, the
                                     filing date  is the date on which your permit expires. If your permit
                                     expires during the period December  1, 1980 — May 31, 1981, the fil-
                                     ing date is 90 days before your  permit expires.

                                    Federal regulations provide that you  may not begin to construct a
                                    new source in the NPDES program, a new hazardous waste management
                                    facility, a new injection well, or  a facility covered by the PSD program
                                    before the issuance of a permit under the applicable program. Please
                                    note that if you are required to  obtain a permit before beginning con-
                                    struction,  as  described above, you may need to submit your permit
                                    application well in advance of an applicable deadline listed in Table 2.
                                    Fees

                                    The U.S. EPA does not require a fee for applying for any permit under
                                    the consolidated permit programs. (However, some States which ad-
                                    minister one  or more of these programs require fees for the permits
                                    which they issue.)
                                    Availability of Information to Public

                                    Information contained in these application forms will, upon request,
                                    be made available to the public for inspection and copying. However,
                                    you may request confidential treatment for certain information which
                                    you submit  on certain supplementary forms. The specific instructions
                                    for each supplementary form state what information on the form, if
                                    any, may be claimed  as confidential and what procedures govern the
                                    claim. No information on Forms 1 and 2A through 2D may be claimed
                                    as confidential.
                                    Completion of Forms

                                    Unless otherwise specified in instructions to the forms, each item in
                                    each form must be answered. To indicate that each item has been con-
                                    sidered, enter  "NA," for not applicable, if a particular item does not
                                    fit  the circumstances or characteristics of  your facility or activity.

                                    If you have previously submitted information to EPA or to an approved
                                    State agency which answers a question, you may either repeat the in-
                                    formation in the space provided or attach a copy of the previous sub-
                                    mission. Some items in the form require narrative explanation. If more
                                    space is necessary to answer a question, attach a separate sheet entitled
                                    "Additional Information."
Financial Assistance for Pollution Control

There are a number of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants available
to firms and communities for pollution control expenditures. These are
provided by the Small  Business Administration, the Economic Devel-
opment Administration, the Farmers  Home  Administration, and the
Department  of  Housing and Urban Development. Each EPA Regional
office (Table 1) has an economic assistance coordinator who can pro-
vide you with additional information.

EPA's construction grants program under Title II of the  Clean Water
Act is an  additional source of assistance to publicly owned treatment
works. Contact your EPA Regional office for details.
                                                                   1-2

-------
                                      SECTION B - FORM 1 LINE-BY-LINE INSTRUCTIONS
This form must be completed by all applicants.
Completing This Form

Please type or print in the unshaded areas only. Some items have small
graduation  marks in the fill—in spaces. These marks indicate the num-
ber of characters that may be entered into our data system. The marks
are spaced at 1/6" intervals which accommodate elite type (12charac-
ters per inch).  If you use another type you may ignore the marks. If
you print, place each character between the marks. Abbreviate if neces-
sary to  stay within the number  of characters  allowed  for  each item.
Use one space for breaks  between words,  but not for punctuation
marks unless they are needed to clarify your response.
Item I

Space is provided at the upper right hand corner of Form 1 for inser-
tion of  your EPA Identification Number. If you have an existing facil-
ity, enter your Identification Number. If you don't know your EPA
Identification Number, please contact your EPA Regional office (Table
1), which will provide you with your  number. If your facility is new
(not yet constructed), leave this item blank.
Item II

Answer each question to determine which supplementary  forms you
need to fill out.  Be sure to check the glossary  in Section  D of these
instructions for the  legal definitions of the bold faced words. Check
Section C  of  these  instructions to  determine  whether your activity
is excluded from permit requirements.

If you answer "no" to every question, then you do not need a permit,
and  you do not need to complete and  return any  of these forms.

If you answer "yes" to any question, then you must complete and file
the supplementary form  by the deadline  listed  in Table 2  along with
this  form.  (The applicable form number follows each question and is
enclosed in parentheses.)  You need not submit a supplementary form if
you  already have a permit under  the  appropriate Federal program,
unless your permit is due to expire and you wish to renew your permit.

Questions (I) and (J) of Item II refer to major new or modified sources
subject  to  Prevention of Significant  Deterioration  (PSD) requirements
under the  Clean  Air Act. For the purpose of the PSD program, major
sources are defined as: (A) Sources listed in Table 3 which have the po-
tential to emit 100 tons or more per year emissions; and (B) All other
sources with  the potential to  emit 250  tons  or  more per year. See
Section C  of  these instructions for discussion of exclusions of certain
modified sources.

Table 3. 28 Industrial Categories Listed in Section 169(1) of the Clean
Air Act of  1977

Fossil fuel—fired steam generators of more than 250  million  BTU per
  hour heat input;
Coal cleaning plants (with thermal dryers);
Kraft pulp mills;
Portland cement plants;
Primary zinc smelters;
Iron and steel mill plants;
Primary aluminum ore reduction plants;
Primary copper smelters;
Municipal  incinerators capable  of  charging more than 250 tons of re-
  fuse per day;
Hydrofluoric acid plants;
Nitric acid plants;
Sulfuricacid plants;
Petroleum  refineries;
Lime plants;
Phosphate  rock processing plants;
Coke oven batteries;
Sulfur recovery plants;
Carbon black plants (furnaceprocess);
Primary lead smelters;
Fuel conversion plants;
Sintering plants;
Secondary metal  production plants;
Chemical process plants;
Fossil fuel  boilers  (or combination thereof) totaling more than 250
  million BTU per hour heat input;
Table 3 (continued)

Petroleum  storage and transfer units with a  total storage capacity
 exceeding 300,000 barrels;
Taconite ore processing plants;
Glass fiber processing plants; and
Charcoal production plants.
Item III

Enter the facility's official or legal name. Do  not use a colloquial
name.
Item IV

Give the name, title,  and work  telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application and who can be contacted by reviewing
offices if necessary.
Item V

Give the complete mailing address of the office where correspondence
should be sent. This often  is not the address used to designate the lo-
cation of the facility or activity.
Item VI

Give the address or location of the faciMty identified in Item III of this
form. If  the facility lacks a street name or route number, give the most
accurate  alternative geographic  information  (e.g., section number or
quarter section number from county records or at intersection of fits.
425 and 22).
Item VII

List,  in descending order of  significance, the four 4—digit  standard
industrial  classification  (SIC)  codes which best describe  your facility
in terms of the principal products or services you produce or provide.
Also, specify each classification in words. These classifications may dif-
fer from  the  SIC codes describing the operation generating the dis-
charge, air emissions, or  hazardous wastes.

SIC code  numbers are descriptions which  may be found  in the "Stan-
dard  Industrial Classification Manual"  prepared by the Executive Of-
fice of the President,  Office of  Management and Budget, which  is
available  from the  Government  Printing Office,  Washington,  D.C.
Use the current edition  of the manual. If you have any questions con-
cerning the appropriate SIC code for your facility, contact your EPA
Regional office (see Table 1).
Item VIII-A

Give the name, as it is legally referred to, of the person, firm, public
organization, or any other entity which operates the facility described
in this application. This may or may not be the same name as the fa-
cility.  The operator of the  facility is  the legal entity which controls
the facility's operation rather than the plant or site manager. Do not
use a colloquial name.
Item VIII-B

Indicate whether the entity which operates the facility also owns it
by marking the appropriate box.
Item VIII-C

Enter the appropriate letter to indicate the legal status of the operator
of the facility. Indicate "public" for a facility solely owned by local
government/"*) such as a city, town, county, parish, etc.
ItemsVIII-D-H

Enter the telephone number and address of the operator identified  in
Item VIII-A.
                                                                     1-3

-------
                                SECTION B -FORM 1 LINE-BY-LINE INSTRUCTIONS (continued)
Item IX

Indicate whether the facility is located on Indian Lands.


Item X

Give the number of  each  presently effective permit issued to the fa-
cility for each program or, if you have previously filed an application
but have not yet received a permit, give the number of the application,
if any. Fill in the unshaded area only. If you have more than one cur-
rently effective permit for your facility under a particular permit pro-
gram, you  may list additional permit  numbers on a separate sheet of
paper. List any relevant environmental Federal  (e.g., permits under the
Ocean Dumping Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or the Surface
Mining Control and  Reclamation Act), State (e.g.. State permits for
new air emission sources in  nonattainment areas under Part D of the
Clean Air Act or State permits under  Section 404 of the  Clean Water
Act), or local permits or applications under "other."


Item XI

Provide a topographic map or maps of the area extending at least to
one mile beyond the property boundaries of the facility which clearly
show the following:

  The legal boundaries of the facility;

  The location and serial number of each of your existing and proposed
  intake and discharge structures;

  All hazardous waste  management facilities;

  Each well where you inject fluids underground; and

  All  springs and surface  water  bodies in  the area, plus all drinking
  water wells within 1/4 mile of the facility which are  identified in the
  public record or otherwise known to you.

If an intake or discharge  structure, hazardous waste disposal  site, or
injection well associated with the facility is located more than one mile
from the  plant, include it on the map, if possible. If not, attach addi-
tional sheets describing  the  location of the structure, disposal site, or
well, and identify the U.S.  Geological Survey (or other) map corres-
ponding to the location.

On each  map, include the map scale, a meridian arrow showing north,
and  latitude and longitude at the nearest  whole second. On all maps of
rivers, show the direction of the current,  and in tidal waters, show the
directions of the ebb and flow tides. Use a 7-1/2 minute series map
published  by the U.S. Geological  Survey, which  may  be obtained
through  the U.S.  Geological Survey  Offices listed  below. If a 7-1/2
minute series  map has not been published for your facility site, then
you may use a 15 minute series map from the U.S. Geological Survey.
If neither a 7-1/2 nor 15 minute series map has been published for your
facility site, use a plat map or other appropriate map, including all the
requested  information;  in this case, briefly describe land uses in the
map area (e.g., residential, commercial).

You may trace your map from a geological survey chart, or other map
meeting  the above specifications. If you  do, your map should bear a
note  showing the  number or title  of  the map or chart it was traced
from.  Include  the names of  nearby  towns, water  bodies, and other
prominent points. An example of an acceptable location map is shown
in Figure 1—1 of these instructions. (NOTE: Figure 1—1 is provided for
purposes  of illustration only, and  does  not represent any actual fa-
cility.)
  U.S.G.S. OFFICES
                                     AREA SERVED
  Eastern Mapping Center
  National Cartographic Information
   Center
  U.S.G.S.
  536 National Center
  Reston, Va. 22092
  Phone No. (703) 860-6336
Ala., Conn.,  Del., D.C.,  Fla.,
 Ga.,  Ind., Ky.,  Maine,  Md.,
 Mass., N.H.,  N.J., N.Y., N.C.,
 S.C., Ohio, Pa., Puerto Rico,
 R.I., Tenn.,  Vt., Va., W. Va.,
 and Virgin Islands.
                                     Item XI (continued)

                                       Mid Continent Mapping Center
                                       National Cartographic Information
                                       Center
                                       U.S.G.S.
                                       1400 Independance Road
                                       Rolla, Mo. 65401
                                       Phone No. (314)341-0851

                                       Rocky Mountain Mapping Center
                                       National Cartographic Infomation
                                       Center
                                       U.S.G.S.
                                       Stop 504, Box 25046 Federal Center
                                       Denver, Co. 80225
                                       Phone No. (303) 234-2326

                                       Western Mapping Center
                                       National Cartographic Information
                                       Center
                                       U.S.G.S.
                                       345 Middlefield Road
                                       Menlo Park, Ca. 94025
                                       Phone No. (415) 323-8111
                                     Ark.,  III.,  Iowa,  Kans.,  La.,
                                      Mich.,  Minn.,  Miss.,  Mo.,
                                      N. Dak., Nebr., Okla., S. Dak.,
                                      andWis.
                                     Alaska, Colo., Mont., N. Mex.,
                                     Tex., Utah, and Wyo.
                                     Ariz.,  Calif.,  Hawaii,  Idaho,
                                      Nev., Oreg., Wash., American
                                      Samoa,   Guam,  and  Trust
                                      Territories
                                     Item XII

                                     Briefly describe the nature of your business (e.g., products produced
                                     or services provided).
Item XIII

Federal  statues provide for severe penalties for submitting false inform-
ation on this application form.

18 U.S.C. Section  1001 provides that "Whoever, in any matter within
the jurisdiction of any department  or  agency  of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up  by any trick,
scheme, or device  a material fact,  or makes or uses any false writing
or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudu-
lent  statement  or  entry, shall  be fined not more than $10,000 or im-
prisoned not more  than five years, or both."

Section  309(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act and Section 113(c)(2) of the
Clean Air Act each provide  that "Any  person who knowingly makes
any  false statement, representation,  or certification  in any applica-
tion, . . . shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of no more than
$10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both."

In addition. Section 3008(d)(3) of  the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act provides for a fine up to  $25,000 per day or imprisonment
up to one year, or both, for a first conviction for making a false state-
ment in any application under the  Act, and for double these penalties
upon subsequent convictions.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE  THIS APPLICATION TO BE
SIGNED AS FOLLOWS:

  A.  For a corporation, by a principal executive officer of  at least the
  level of vice president. However, if  the only activity in  Item II which
  is marked "yes"  is Question G, the officer may authorize a person
  having responsibility for the overall operations of the well  or well
  field to sign the certification. In that case, the authorization must be
  written and submitted to the permitting authority.

  B.  For partnership or sole proprietorship, by a general partner or the
  proprietor, respectively; or

  C.  For a municipality.  State,  Federal, or other public  facility, by
  either  a principal  executive  officer or ranking elected official.
                                                                    1-4

-------
                                  SECTION C - ACTIVITIES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE PERMITS
I.  National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System  Permits  Under
the Clean Water Act. You are not required to obtain an NPDES permit
if your discharge  is in one of the following categories, as provided by
the Clean  Water Act (CWA) and by the NPDES regulations (40 CFR
Parts  122—125). However, under Section 510 of CWA a discharge ex-
empted from the federal NPDES requirements may still be regulated
by a State authority; contact your State environmental agency to de-
termine whether you need a State permit.

 A. DISCHARGES FROM VESSELS. Discharges of sewage from ves-
 sels, effluent  from properly  functioning marine engines,  laundry,
 shower, and galley sink wastes, and any other discharge incidental to
 the  normal operation  of  a vessel do  not require NPDES permits.
 However, discharges of rubbish, trash,  garbage, or other, such  mater-
 ials discharged overboard require permits, and so do other discharges
 when the vessel is  operating in a capacity other than as a means of
 transportation, such as when the vessel is being used as an energy or
 mining facility, a storage facility,  or a seafood processing facility, or
 is secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone, or waters of the
 United  States for the  purpose of mineral or oil  exploration  or de-
 velopment.

 B.  DREDGED OR FILL  MATERIAL. Discharges of dredged or fill
 material  into waters of the United States do not need NPDES permits
 if the dredging or filling is authorized by a permit issued by the U.S.
 Army Corps of Engineers  or an  EPA approved State under Section
 404 of CWA,

 C. DISCHARGES INTO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
 (POTW). The  introduction of sewage, industrial wastes, or other pol-
 lutants  into  a POTW  does not need an NPDES permit. You must
 comply  with  all  applicable  pretreatment  standards promulgated
 under Section 307(b) of CWA, which may be included in the  permit
 issued to the  POTW.  If you have a plan or an agreement to  switch
 to  a POTW in the future, this does not relieve you of the obligation
 to  apply  for and receive an  NPDES permit until you  have stopped
 discharging pollutants into waters of the United States.

 (NOTE:  Dischargers into privately owned treatment works do not
 have to apply for or obtain NPDES permits except as otherwise re-
 quired by the EPA Regional Administrator. The owner  or operator
 of the treatment works itself, however, must apply for a permit and
 identify  all users  in its application. Users so  identified  will receive
 public notice of actions taken on the permit for the treatment works.)

 D. DISCHARGES  FROM  AGRICULTURAL AND  SILVICULTUR-
 AL  ACTIVITIES. Most discharges from  agricultural and  silvicultural
 activities to waters of  the United States do not require NPDES per-
 mits. These include runoff from orchards, cultivated crops, pastures,
 range lands, and forest lands.  However, the discharges listed below
 do require NPDES permits. Definitions of the  terms listed below are
 contained in the Glossary section of these instructions.

    1.  Discharges  from  Concentrated  Animal  Feeding  Operations.
    (See Glossary for definitions of "animal feeding operations" and
   "concentrated animal feeding operations." Only the latter require
   permits.)

   2.  Discharges  from  Concentrated  Aquatic  Animal  Production
   Facilities. (See Glossary for size cutoffs.)

   3.  Discharges  associated  with approved  Aquaculture  Projects.

   4. Discharges  from Silvicultural Point Sources. (See Glossary for
   the definition  of "silvicultural point source.") Nonpoint  source
   silvicultural  activities are excluded from  NPDES permit require-
    ments.  However, some of these activities, such as stream crossings
   for roads,  may  involve point source  discharges of dredged or fill
    material which may require a  Section 404  permit. See 33  CFR
   209.120.

  E. DISCHARGES  IN  COMPLIANCE WITH  AN ON-SCENE CO-
  ORDINATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS.
II.  Hazardous Waste Permits Under  the  Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. You may be excluded from the requirement to obtain
a permit under  this program if you fall into one of the following
categories:

  Generators who accumulate their own hazardous waste on—site for
  less than 90 days as provided in 40 CFR 262.34;

  Farmers who dispose of hazardous waste pesticide from their own use
  as provided in 40 CFR  262.51;

  Certain persons treating, storing, or disposing of small  quantities of
  hazardous waste as provided in 40 CFR 261.4 or 261.5; and

  Owners and operators of totally enclosed treatment  facilities as de-
  fined in 40 CFR 260.10.

Check  with your Regional  office  for details. Please note that even if
you are excluded from  permit requirements, you may  be required  by
Federal regulations to handle your  waste in a particular manner.
III. Underground Injection Control  Permits Under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. You are not required to obtain a permit under this program
if you:

  Inject into existing wells used to enhance recovery of oil and gas or
  to store hydrocarbons (note, however,  that these underground injec-
  tions are regulated by Federal rules); or

  Inject into or above a stratum which contains, within 1/4 mile of the
  well  bore, an underground source  of drinking water (unless your in-
 fection is the type identified in  Item II-H, for which you do need a
 permit). However, you must notify EPA of your injection and submit
  certain required information on forms supplied  by the Agency, and
  your operation may be phased out if you are a generator of hazardous
  wastes or a  hazardous waste management facility which uses wells
  or septic tanks to dispose of hazardous waste.
IV. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits Under the Clean
Air Act. The PSD program applies to newly constructed or modified
facilities (both of which  are referred to as "new sources") which in-
crease air emissions. The  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 exclude
small new sources of air emissions from the PSD review program. Any
new source in an industrial category listed  in Table  3 of these instruc-
tions whose potential to  emit is less than 100 tons per year is not re-
quired to get a PSD permit. In addition, any new source in an industrial
category not listed in Table 3 whose potential to emit is less than 250
tons per year is exempted from the PSD requirements.

Modified sources which  increase their net emissions (the difference
between the total emission increases and  total emission decreases at.
the source) less than the significant amount  set forth in EPA regulations
are also exempt from PSD requirements. Contact your  EPA Regional
office (Table 1) for further information.
                                                                    1-5

-------
                                                      SECTION D - GLOSSARY
NOTE: This Glossary includes terms used in the instructions and in Forms 1, 2B, 2C, and 3. Additional terms will be included in the
future when other forms are developed to reflect the requirements of other parts of the Consolidated Permits Program. If you have
any questions concerning the meaning of any of these terms, please contact your EPA Regional office (Table 1).
ALIQUOT means a sample of specified volume used to make up a total
composite sample.
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION means a lot or facility (other than
an aquatic animal production facility) where the following conditions
are met:

  A.  Animals (other than aquatic animals) have been, arfe, or will be
  stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or
  more in any 12 month period; and

  B.  Crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post—harvest residues are not
  sustained  in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot
  or  facility.

Two or  more animal feeding operations under common ownership
are a single animal feeding  operation if they adjoin  each other or if
they use a common area or system for the disposal of wastes.
ANIMAL  UNIT means a unit of measurement for any animal feeding
operation  calculated by adding the following numbers: The number of
slaughter and feeder  cattle multiplied by 1.0; Plus the number of ma-
ture dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4; Plus the number of swine weighing
over 25 kilograms (approximately 55pounds) multiplied by 0.4; Plus
the number of sheep multiplied by  0.1; Plus the  number of horses
multiplied by 2.0.
APPLICATION means the EPA standard national forms for applying
for a permit, including any additions, revisions, or modifications to the
forms; or forms approved by EPA for use in approved States, including
any approved modifications or revisions. For  RCRA, "application"
also means "Application, Part B."
 APPLICATION, PART A means that part of the Consolidated Permit
 Application  forms which a  RCRA permit applicant must complete to
 qualify for interim status under Section 3005(e) of RCRA and for con-
 sideration for a permit. Part A  consists of Form 1  (General Informa-
 tion) and Form  3 (Hazardous Waste Application Form).
APPLICATION,  PART B means that part of the application which a
RCRA permit applicant must complete to be issued a permit. (NOTE:
EPA is not developing a specific form for Part B of the permit appli-
cation, but an instruction booklet explaining  what information must be
supplied is available from the EPA Regional office.)
 APPROVED  PROGRAM or APPROVED  STATE means a State pro-
 gram which has been  approved  or authorized by EPA under 40 CFR
 Part 123.
 AQUACULTURE  PROJECT  means a  defined  managed water  area
 which uses discharges of pollutants into that designated area for the
 maintenance  or production  of harvestable freshwater, estuarine, or
 marine plants or animals. "Designated area" means the portions of the
 waters of the  United States within which  the applicant plans to con-
 fine the cultivated species, using a method of plan or operation (includ-
 ing, but not limited to, physical confinement) which, on the basis of
 reliable scientific evidence, is expected to ensure the specific individual
 organisms comprising an aquaculture crop will enjoy increased growth
 attributable to the discharge of pollutants and  be harvested within a
 defined geographic area.
 AQUIFER means a geological formation, group of formations, or part
 of a formation that is capable of yielding a significant amount of water
 to a well or spring.
 AREA  OF  REVIEW means the area surrounding an injection well
 which is described according to the criteria set forth in 40 CFR Section
 146.06.
AREA PERMIT means a UIC permit applicable to all or certain wells
within a geographic area, rather than to a specified well, under 40 CFR
Section 122.37.
ATTAINMENT AREA means, for any air pollutant, an area which has
been designated  under Section  107 of the Clean Air  Act as having
ambient air quality levels better than any national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard for that pollutant. Standards have been set
for sulfur oxides, participate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monox-
ide,  ozone,  lead, and hydrocarbons. For purposes of the Glossary,
"attainment  area" also  refers to "unclassifiable area," which means,
for any pollutants, an area designated under Section 107  as unclassi-
fiable with respect to that pollutant due to insufficient information.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) means schedules of actjvi-
ties, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other man-
agement practices to  prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the
United States. BMP's  include treatment requirements, operation proce-
dures,  and practices  to control  plant site runoff,  spillage or leaks,
sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING  TEST means any  test which includes
the use of aquatic algal, invertebrate, or vertebrate species to measure
acute or chronic toxicity, and  any biological or chemical measure of
bioaccumulation.
BYPASS means the intentional diversion of wastes from any any por-
tion of a treatment facility.
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION means an animal
feeding operation which meets the criteria set forth in either (A) or (B)
below or which the Director designates as such on a case—by—case
basis:

  A. More than  the numbers of animals specified in any of the follow-
  ing categories are confined:

    1. 1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle,

    2. 700 mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry cows),

    3. 2,500 swine each weighing over 25 kilograms (approximately
   55 pounds).

   4. 500 horses,

   5,10,000 sheep or lambs,

    6. 55,000 turkeys,

    7. 100,000 laying hens or broilers (If the facility has a continuous
   overflow watering),

    8. 30,000  laying hens or broilers (if the facility has a liquid manure
   handling system), „

   9. 5,000 ducks, or

  10. 1,000 animal  units; or

  B. More than  the following numbers and types of animals are con-
  fined:

    1. 300 slaughter or feeder cattle,

    2. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry cows),

    3. 750 swine each weighing over 25 kilograms (approximately 55
   pounds),

   4. 150 horses.
                                                                  1-6

-------
                                                 SECTION D - GLOSSARY (continued)
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION (continued)

   5. 3,000 sheep or lambs,

   6. 16,500 turkeys,

   7. 30,000 laying  hens or broilers (if the facility has continuous
   overflow watering),

   8. 9,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has a liquid manure
   handling system),

   9. 1,500 ducks, or

  10. 300 animal units; AND

   Either one of the following conditions are met: Pollutants are dis-
   charged  into waters of the United States through a manmade ditch,
   flushing system or  other similar  manmade  device  ("manmade"
   means constructed by man and used for the purpose of transporting
   wastes); or Pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the
   Unites States which originate outside of and  pass over, across, or
   through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the
   animals confined in the operation.

   Provided,  however, that no animal feeding operation is a concen-
   trated animal  feeding operation as defined above if such animal
   feeding operation discharges only in the event of a 25 year, 24 hour
   storm event.
CONCENTRATED  AQUATIC  ANIMAL  PRODUCTION  FACILITY
means a hatchery, fish farm, or other facility which contains, grows or
holds aquatic animals in either of the following categories, or which the
Director designates as such on a case—by—case basis: ,

  A. Cold water fish species or other cold water aquatic animals includ-
  ing, but not limited to, the  Salmonidae family of fish(e.g., trout and
  salmon) in ponds, raceways or other similar structures which dis-
  charge at least 30 days per year but does not include:

    1. Facilities  which produce less than 9,090 harvest weight kilograms
    (approximately 20,000 pounds) of aquatic  animals per year; and

    2. Facilities which feed less than 2,272  kilograms (approximately
    5,000  pounds) of food during the  calendar month  of maximum
    feeding.

  B. Warm water fish species or other warm  water  aquatic animals
  including,  but  not limited to, the Ameiuridae, Cetrarchidae, and
  Cyprinidae families of fish (e.g.,  respectively, catfish, sunfish, and
  minnows)  in  ponds, raceways, or  other similar structures which dis-
  charge at least 30 days per year, but does not include:

    1. Closed ponds which discharge only during periods of excess run-
    off; or

    2.  Facilities which produce less than 45,454  harvest weight kilo-
    grams  (approximately 100,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year.
CONTACT COOLING WATER means water used to reduce tempera-
ture which comes into contact with a raw material, intermediate pro-
duct, waste product other than heat, or finished product.
CONTAINER means any portable device  in which a material is stored,
transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled.
CONTIGUOUS ZONE means the entire zone established by the United
States under article 24 of the convention of the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone.
CWA means  the  Clean  Water Act  (formerly referred to the Federal
Water  Pollution Control Act) Pub. L. 92—500, as amended by  Pub.
L. 95-217 and Pub. L. 95-576, 33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq.
 DIKE  means any embankment or ridge of either natural or manmade
 materials used to prevent the  movement of  liquids, sludges, solids, or
 other materials.
DIRECT DISCHARGE means the discharge of a pollutant as defined
below.
DIRECTOR  means the EPA Regional  Administrator or the  State Di-
rector as the context requires.
DISCHARGE (OF A POLLUTANT) means:

 A.  Any  addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to
 waters of the United States from any point source; or

 B. Any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the
 waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from  any point source
 other than a vessel or other  floating craft which  is being  used as a
 means of transportation.

This definition includes  discharges into waters of  the United States
from: Surface runoff which is collected  or channelled by man; Dis-
charges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by a State,
municipality, or other  person which do not lead to POTW's; and Dis-
charges  through  pipes, sewers, or  other conveyances,  leading  into
privately owned treatment works. This term does not include an ad-
dition of pollutants by any indirect discharger.
DISPOSAL (in  the RCRA program) means the discharge, deposit, in-
jection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or  placing of any hazardous waste
into or on any land or water so that the hazardous waste or any constit-
uent of it may enter the environment or be emitted into the  air or
discharged into any waters, including ground water.
DISPOSAL FACILITY means a facility  or part of a facility at which
hazardous waste is intentionally placed  into  or on land or water, and
at which hazardous waste will  remain after closure.
EFFLUENT  LIMITATION  means  any restriction  imposed by  the
Director on quantities,  discharge rates, and concentrations of  pollu-
tants which  are  discharged from  point sources  into waters of the
United  States,  the waters of the  continguous zone, or the ocean.
EFFLUENT  LIMITATION GUIDELINE means a regulation published
by the Administrator under Section 304(b) of the Clean Water Act to
adopt or revise effluent limitations.
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY   (EPA)  means  the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER means the number assigned by EPA
to each generator, transporter, and facility.
EXEMPTED AQUIFER means an aquifer or its portion that meets the
criteria  in the definition of USDW, but which has been exempted ac-
cording to the procedures in 40 CFR Section 122.35(b).
EXISTING  HWM  FACILITY means a Hazardous Waste Management
facility  which was in operation, or for which construction  had  com-
menced, on or before October 21, 1976. Construction had commenced
if (A) the owner or operator had obtained all necessary Federal, State,
and  local preconstruction approvals or permits, and either (B1) a con-
tinuous on—site,  physical construction program had begun, or (B2)
the owner or operator had entered into contractual obligations, which
could not be cancelled  or modified without substantial  loss, for con-
struction  of the  facility to be completed within  a  reasonable  time.

  (NOTE: This definition reflects the literal language of the statute.
  However,  EPA believes that amendments to RCRA now in conference
  will shortly be enacted and will change the date for determining  when
  a facility is an "existing facility" to one no earlier than May of 1980;
  indications are the conferees are considering October  30, 1980.
  Accordingly, EPA  encourages every owner or operator of a facility
  which was built or under construction as of the promulgation date of
  the RCRA program regulations to file Part A of its permit application
  so that it can be quickly processed for interim status when the change
  in  the law takes effect. When those amendments are enacted, EPA will
  amend this definition.)
                                                                          EXISTING SOURCE  or  EXISTING  DISCHARGER (in the NPOES
                                                                          program! means any source which  is not a  new source or a new dis-
                                                                          charger.
                                                                    1-7

-------
                                               SECTION D - GLOSSARY (continued)
EXISTING  INJECTION WELL means an  injection well other than a
new injection well.
FACILITY  means any HWM facility, UIC underground injection well,
NPDES point source, PSD stationary  source, or any other facility or
activity  (including land or  appurtenances thereto)  that is  subject to
regulation under the RCRA,  UIC, NPDES, or PSD programs.
FLUID means material or substance which flows or moves whether in
a sernisolid, liquid, sludge, gas, or any other form or state.


GENERATOR means any person by site, whose act or process produces
hazardous waste identified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261.


GROUNDWATER  means water below the land surface in a zone of
saturation.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE means any of  the substances designated
under 40 CFR Part  116 pursuant to  Section 311  of CWA.  (NOTE:
These substances are listed in  Table 2c—4 of the instructions to Form
2C.)
HAZARDOUS WASTE means a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR
Section 261.3 published May 19, 1980.
HAZARDOUS WASTE  MANAGEMENT FACILITY (HWM  facility!
means  all contiguous land,  structures, appurtenances,  and improve-
ments on the land, used  for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous
wastes. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal
operational units (for example, one or more landfills, surface impound-
ments, or combinations of them).
IN OPERATION means a facility which is treating, storing, or disposing
of hazardous waste.
INCINERATOR (in  the  RCRA program)  means an  enclosed device
using controlled flame combustion, the primary purpose of which is to
thermally break down hazardous waste.  Examples of incinerators are
rotary kiln, fluidized bed, and liquid injection incinerators.
 INDIRECT DISCHARGER  means a nondomestic discharger introduc-
 ing pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works.
INJECTION WELL means a well into which fluids are being injected.
 INTERIM  AUTHORIZATION means approval by  EPA of a State
 hazardous waste program which has met the requirements of Section
 3006(c) of RCRA and applicable  requirements of 40 CFR Part 123,
 Subparts A, B, and F.
 LANDFILL means a disposal facility or part of a facility where hazard-
 ous waste is placed in  or on  land and which is not a land treatment
 facility, a surface impoundment, or an injection well.
LAND TREATMENT  FACILITY (in the RCRA program) means a
facility or part of a facility at which hazardous waste is applied onto or
incorporated  into the soil surface; such facilities  are disposal facilities
if the waste will remain after closure.
 LISTED  STATE  means  a  State  listed  by the Administrator under
 Section 1422 of SDWA as needing a State UIC program.
MGD means millions of gallons per day.
MUNICIPALITY means a city, village, town, borough, county, parish,
district, association, or other public body created by or under State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes,
or other wastes, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organ-
ization, or  a  designated  and  approved management agency  under
Section 208 of CWA.
NATIONAL  POLLUTANT  DISCHARGE  ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES) means the national program for issuing modifying, revoking
and  reissuing, terminating,  monitoring, and  enforcing permits and
imposing and enforcing  pretreatment  requirements,  under Sections
307, 318,  402,  and 405 of CWA. The term includes an approved
program.
NEW  DISCHARGER means any building, structure, facility, or instal-
lation: (A) From which there is or may be a new or additional discharge
of pollutants at a site at which on October 18, 1972, it had never dis-
charged pollutants;  (B) Which has never received a finally effective
NPDES permit for discharges at that site; and  (C) Which is not a "new
source." This definition  includes  an  indirect  discharger  which com-
mences discharging into waters of the United States. It also  includes
any existing mobile point source, such as  an  offshore  oil drilling rig,
seafood processing vessel, or  aggregate plant  that begins discharging
at a location for which it does not have an existing permit.
NEW HWM FACILITY means a Hazardous Waste Management facility
which  began  operation  or  for which  construction commenced after
October 21, 1976.
NEW INJECTION  WELL means a  well which begins injection after a
UIC program for the  State in which the  well is located is approved.
NEW SOURCE (in the NPDES program) means any building, structure,
facility, or installation from which there  is or  may be a discharge of
pollutants, the construction of which commenced:

  A. After promulgation of standards of performance under Section
  306 of CWA which are applicable to such source; or

  B. After proposal of  standards of performance in accordance with
  Section  306 of CWA which are applicable to such source, but only if
  the standards are promulgated in accordance with Section 306 within
  120 days of their proposal.
NON-CONTACT  COOLING WATER means  water used to reduce
temperature which does not come into direct contact with  any  raw
material, intermediate  product, waste product  (other than heat), or
finished product.
                                                                         OFF—SITE means any site which is not "on—site."
ON—SITE  means on the same or geographically  contiguous property
which may be divided by public or private rightfej—of—way, provided
the entrance and exit between the properties is at a cross—roads inter-
section,  and  access  is  by  crossing as opposed  to going  along, the
rightfW—of—way. Non—contiguous properties owned by the same per-
son, but connected by a right—of—way which  the person controls and
to which the public does  not have access, is  also considered on—site
property.
OPEN BURNING  means the combustion of any material without the
following characteristics:

  A. Control of combustion air to maintain adequate temperature for
  efficient combustion;

  B. Containment  of the combustion—reaction in an enclosed device
  to provide sufficient residence time and mixing for complete com-
  bustion; and

  C. Control of emission of the gaseous combustion products.

(See also "incinerator"and "thermal treatment").
                                                                         OPERATOR  means the person responsible for  the overall operation
                                                                         of a facility.
 OUTFALL means a point source.


 OWNER means the person who owns a facility or part of a facility.
                                                                   I-E

-------
                                                SECTION D - GLOSSARY (continued)
PERMIT means an authorization, license, or equivalent control docu-
ment  issued by EPA or an approved State  to implement the require-
ments of 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124.
PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION  (in the RCRA program! means excava-
tion, movement of earth, erection of forms or structures,  or similar
activity to prepare a HWM facility to accept hazardous waste.
PILE  means any noncontainerized accumulation of solid, nonflowing
hazardous waste that is used for treatment or storage.
POINT SOURCE means any discernible, confined, and discrete convey-
ance, including but not  limited to any pipe,  ditch, channel, tunnel,
conduit,  well, discrete fissure,  container,  rolling stock, foncentrated
animal feeding operation, vessel or other floating craft from which pol-
lutants are or may be discharged.  This term does  not  include return
flows from irrigated agriculture.
POLLUTANT means  dredged  spoil,  solid waste, incinerator residue,
filter  backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical
waste, biological materials, radioactive materials (except those regulated
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended [42 U.S.C. Section
2011  et seq.JI. heat, wrecked or discarded  equipment, rocks, sand,
cellar dirt and  industrial, municipal,  and agriculture waste discharged
into water. It does not mean:

  A. Sewage from vessels; or

  B. Water, gas, or other material which is  injected into a well to facili-
  tate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association, with oil
  and gas production and disposed of in a  well, if the well used either
  to facilitate production or  for  disposal purposes  is approved by
  authority of the  State  in which the well is  located, and if the State
  determines that the injection or disposal will  not result in the degrada-
  tion of ground or surface water resources.

  (NOTE: Radioactive materials covered by the Atomic Energy Act are
  those  encompassed in  its definition of source, byproduct, or special
  nuclear materials. Examples of materials  not covered include radium
  and accelerator produced isotopes.  See Train v.  Colorado Public
  Interest Research Group, Inc., 426 U.S. 1  [1976].)
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION  (PSD) means
the national permitting program under 40 CFR  52.21 to prevent emis-
sions of certain pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act from signi-
ficantly deteriorating air quality in attainment areas.
PRIMARY INDUSTRY CATEGORY means any industry category list-
ed  in  the  NRDC  Settlement Agreement (Natural Resources Defense
Council v.  Train, 8 ERC2120 [D.D.C.  1976], modified 12ERC 1833
[D.D.C. 1979]).
 PRIVATELY  OWNED TREATMENT  WORKS means any device or
 system  which is:  (A)  Used to treat wastes from any facility whose
 operator is not  the operator of the treatment works; and (B) Not a
 POTW.
 PROCESS WASTEWATER means any water which, during manufactur-
 ing or processing, comes into direct contact  with or results from the
 production or use of any raw material, intermediate  product, finished
 product, byproduct, or waste product.
 PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS or POTW means any de-
 vice or system used in  the treatment (including recycling and reclama-
 tion) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature which
 is owned by a State or municipality. This definition includes any sew-
 ers, pipes,  or other conveyances only  if they convey wastewater to a
 POTW providing treatment.
 RENT means use of another's property in return for regular payment.
 RCRA means the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976  (Pub. L. 94—580, as amended
 by Pub. L. 95-609, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 etseq.).
ROCK CRUSHING AND GRAVEL WASHING FACILITIES are facil-
ities which process crushed and broken stone, gravel, and riprap (see
40  CFR Part 436, Subpart B, and the effluent limitations guidelines
for these facilities).
SDWA means the Safe  Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 95—523, as amend-
ed by Pub. L. 95-1900, 42 U.S.C. Section 300[f] et seq.l.
SECONDARY INDUSTRY CATEGORY means any industry category
which is not a primary industry category.
SEWAGE FROM VESSELS means human body wastes and the wastes
from  tiolets and  other receptacles intended to  receive or retain  body
wastes that are discharged from vessels and regulated under Section 312
of CWA, except that with respect to commercial vessels on the Great
Lakes this term includes graywater. For the purposes of this definition,
"graywater" means galley, bath, and shower water.
SEWAGE SLUDGE means the solids, residues, and precipitate separat-
ed from  or created in sewage by the unit processes of a POTW. "Sew-
age" as used in this definition means any wastes, including wastes from
humans,  households, commercial establishments, industries, and storm
water  runoff, that are discharged to  or  otherwise enter a publicly
owned treatment works.
 SILVICULTURAL  POINT SOURCE means any discernable, confined,
 and discrete conveyance related to rock crushing,  gravel washing, log
 sorting, or log storage facilities which are operated  in connection with
 silvicultural activities and  from which pollutants are discharged into
 waters  of the  United States.  This term does  not include nonpoint
 source silvicultural  activities such as nursery  operations, site prepara-
 tion, reforestation  and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, pre-
 scribed burning,  pest and fire control,  harvesting  operations, surface
 drainage,  or road construction and maintenance from which  there is
 natural runoff. However, some of these activities (such as stream cross-
 ing for roads) may  involve point source discharges of dredged  or fill
 material which may require a  CWA Section 404 permit. "Log sorting
 and log storage facilities" are facilities whose discharges result from the
 holding of  unprocessed  wood, e.g., logs or roundwood with  bark or
 after removal of bark in  self—contained  bodies of water (millponds or
 log ponds)  or stored on land where water is applied intentionally on
 the logs (wet decking). (See 40 CFR Part 429, Subpart J, and the efflu-
 ent limitations guidelines for these facilities.)
 STATE means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam,
 the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto Rico, the Virgin  Islands, American
 Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (exceptin the case of
 RCRA}, and  the Commonwealth of  the  Northern Mariana  Islands
 (except in the case of CWA).
 STATIONARY  SOURCE (in  the PSD program) means any building,
 structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pol-
 lutant regulated under the Clean Air Act. "Building, structure, facility,
 or  installation" means any grouping of pollutant—emitting activities
 which are  located on  one or  more contiguous or adjacent  properties
 and which are owned  or operated by the same person  (or by persons
 under common control).
 STORAGE  (in the RCRA program) means the holding of hazardous
 waste for a  temporary period at the end of which the hazardous waste
 is treated, disposed, or stored elsewhere.
 STORM WATER RUNOFF means water discharged as a result of rain,
 snow, or other precipitation.
 SURFACE  IMPOUNDMENT or IMPOUNDMENT means a facility or
 part of a facility which is a natural topographic depression, manmade
 excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials (a/-
 though it may be lined with manmade materials), which is designed to
 hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids,
 and which is not an injection well. Examples of surface impoundments
 are holding, storage, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and  lagoons.
TANK (in the RCRA program) means a stationary device, designed to
contain an accumulation of hazardous waste which is constructed pre-
marily of non—earthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic)
which provide structural support.
                                                                    1-9

-------
                                                 SECTION D - GLOSSARY (continued)
THERMAL TREATMENT  (in the RCRA program) means the  treat-
ment of hazardous waste in  a device which uses elevated temperature as
the primary means to change the chemical, physical, or biological char-
acter or  composition  of  the  hazardous waste.  Examples  of thermal
treatment processes are incineration, molten salt, pyrolysis, calcination,
wet air oxidation, and microwave discharge. (See also "incinerator"and
"open burning").
TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT FACILITY (in the RCRA pro-
gram) means a facility for the treatment of hazardous waste which is di-
rectly connected to an  industrial production process and which is con-
structed and operated  in  a manner which  prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into the environment dur-
ing treatment.  An example is a pipe in which waste acid is neutralized.
TOXIC POLLUTANT means any pollutant listed as toxic under Section
307(a)(1)of CWA.
TRANSPORTER (in the RCRA program) means a person engaged in
the off—site transportation of hazardous waste by air, rail, highway, or
water.
TREATMENT (in the RCRA program) means any method, technique,
or process, including neutralization, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character  or  composition of any  hazardous
waste so as to neutralize such waste, or so as to recover energy or ma-
terial resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste non—haz-
ardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or
amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in  volume.
UNDERGROUND INJECTION means well injection.
UNDERGROUND SOURCE OF  DRINKING WATER or USDW means
art aquifer or its portion which is not an exempted aquifer and:

  A. Which supplies drinking water for human consumption; or

  B. In which the ground water contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l  total
  dissolved solids.
 UPSET means an exceptional  incident in which there is unintentional
 and temporary noncompliance with technology—based permit effluent
 limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the
 permittee. An upset  does  not include noncompliance  to the extent
 caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities,
 inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or care-
 less or improper operation.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES means:

  A. All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may
  be  susceptible  to use  in interstate or foreign commerce, including
  all waters which are subject  to the ebb and flow of the tide;

  B. All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

  C. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
  intermittent streams),  mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,  sloughs, prairie
  potholes, wet  meadows, playa lakes,  and natural  ponds,  the  use,
  degradation, or destruction of which would or could affect interstate
  or foreign commerce including any such waters:

   1. Which are or could be  used by interstate or  foreign travelers for
   recreational or other purposes,

   2. From  which fish  or shellfish are  or could be taken and sold in
   interstate or foreign commerce,

   3. Which  are used or could be used  for industrial  purposes by in-
   dustries in interstate commerce;

  D.  All  impoundments  of waters otherwise defined as waters of the
  United States under this definition;

  E.  Tributaries  of waters identified in  paragraphs (A) —  (D) above;

  F. The territorial sea; and

  G.  Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves
  wetlands) identified in  paragraphs (A) — (F) of this definition.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons design-
ed to meet requirement of CWA (other than coo/ing ponds as defined
in 40  CFR  Section 423.1 Km)  which also meet the criteria of this
definition) are not waters of the United States. This exclusion applies
only to manmade bodies of water which  neither were originally created
in waters of the  United  States (such as a disposal area in wetlands) nor
resulted  from the impoundments of waters  of  the United States.
WELL INJECTION or UNDERGROUND INJECTION means the sub-
surface emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled, or driven well;
or through a dug well, where the depth of the dug well is greater than
the largest surface dimension.
WETLANDS  means those areas that  are  inundated  or  saturated  by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to sup-
port, and that under normal circumstances do support, a  prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wet-
lands  generally  include  swamps,  marshes,  bogs,  and similar areas.
                                                                    1-10

-------
FIGURE 1-1

-------
          Appendix K2



NPDES Permit Applications: Form 2B

-------
7260      Federal  Register/Vol.  68, No. 29/Wednesday, February  12, 2003/Rules and  Regulations
                                                  APPENDIX - FORM 2B
                                                                                                            Form Approved
                                                                                                        OMB No, 2040-0250
                                                                                                     Approval expires 12-15-05
                   FORM
                    2B
                   NPDES
                                             EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from hum 1 of Form 1)
                              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA                 APPLICATIONS FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER
             CONCENTRATED ANIMAL, FEEDING OPERATIONS AND AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION
                                            FACILITIES
              I.  GENERAL INFORMATION
                Applying for: Individual Permit d  Coverage Under General Permit
              A. TYPE OF BUSINESS
                 1. Concentrated Animal Feeding
                   Operation (complete items B, C,
                   D, and Section II)

                 2. Concentrated Aquatic Animal
                   Production Facility (complete
                   items B, C, and section III)
                                                          B.  CONTACT INFORMATION
Owner/or
Operator Name: 	
Telephone: ( 	)
Address:	
Facsimile: (	)
City: 	
                                State: __ Zip Code:
                                                                                                     C. FACILITY
                                                                                                 OPERATION STATUS
                                                                Q 1. Existing Facility

                                                                I_J 2. Proposed Facility
              A. FACILITY INFORMATION
              Name:	
              Address:
              City: 	
              County:
                      State:
               Latitude:
                    Telephone: (  	 )
                     Facsimile: ( 	 )
                   	  Zip Code:  	
                                                Longitude:
              If contract operation: Name of Integrator:
                               Address of Integrator:
              II. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS
              A. TYPE AND NUMBER OF ANIMALS
              l.TYPE
              Q Mature Dairy Cows
              Q  Dairy Heifers
              Q  Veal Calves
              Q  Cattle (not dairy or
                 veal)
              Q  Swine (55 Ib. or over)
                 Swine (under 55 Ib.)
              Q  Horses
              Q  Sheep or Lambs
                                               2. ANIMALS
       NO. IN OPEN
      CONFINEMENT
       NO. HOUSED
       UNDER ROOF
                                                                       B. Manure, Litter and/or Wastewater Production and Use
a)  How much manure, litter and wastewater is generated
   annually by the facility? 	  tons 	
   gallons
b)  If land applied how many acres of land under the
   control of the applicant are available for applying the
   CAFOs  manure/litter/wastewater? 	
   acres
c)  How many tons of manure or litter, or gallons of
   waste-water produced by the CAFO will be
   transferred annually to other persons? tons/gallons
   (circle one)
            EPA Form 3510-28(12-02)

-------
Federal Register/Vol.  68,  No.  29/Wednesday, February  12, 2003/Rules and Regulations
                                                                          7261
                                                                                               Form Approved
                                                                                           OMB No, 2040-0250
                                                                                        Approval expires 12-15-05
  Q  Turkeys
  Q  Chickens (Broilers)
  Q  Chickens (Layers)
  Q  Ducks
  Q  Other
     Specify
  3. TOTAL ANIMALS
  C. Q TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
  D.  TYPE OF CONTAINMENT, STORAGE AND CAPACITY
  1. Type of Containment
       Lagoon
  Q    Holding Pond
       Evaporation Pond
  Q    Other: Specify
      Total Capacity (in gallons)
  2. Report the total number of acres contributing drainage:
  3. Type of Storage
  Q    Anaerobic Lagoon
       Storage Lagoon
       Evaporation Pond
  Q    Aboveground Storage Tanks
       Belowground Storage Tanks
       Roofed Storage Shed
       Concrete Pad
 Q    Impervious Soil Pad
 Q    Other: Specify
Total Number, of
     Days
EPA Form 3510-28(12-02)

-------
7262       Federal  Register/Vol.  68,  No. 29/Wednesday,  February 12,  2003/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                                                                   Form Approved
                                                                                                              OMB No, 2040-0250
                                                                                                          Approval expires 12-15-05
               E. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

                  A.  Has a nutrient management plan been developed?  D Yes  D No

                  B.  Is a nutrient management plan being implemented for the facility? D Yes   D No

                  C.  If no, when will the nutrient management plan be developed? Date:  	

                  D.  The date of the last review or revision of the nutrient management plan.  Date: 	
                  E.  If not land applying, describe alternative use(s) of manure, litter and or wastewater:
               F.  LAND APPLICATION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
                  Please check any of the following best management practices that are being implemented at the facility to control runoff and
                  protect water quality:

                  Q Buffers   U Setbacks   Q Conservation tillage   Q Constructed wetlands   Q Infiltration field   Q Grass filter
                  Q Terrace
               III. CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
               A. For each outfall give the maximum daily flow, maximum
                  30- day flow, and the long-term average flow.
                                 B.  Indicate the total number of ponds, raceways, and similar
                                     structures in your facility.
               1. Outfall
               No.
2. Flow (gallons per day)
                                                                       1. Ponds
                                  a.
                              Maximum.
                                Daily
         b.
      Maximum
       30 Day
                                2. Raceways
                                                                                                            3. Other
Long Term
 Average
C. Provide the name of the receiving water and the source of
   water used by your facility.
                                                                       1. Receiving Water
                                                            2. Water Source
               D. List the species offish or aquatic animals held and fed at your facility. For each species, give the total weight produced by
                  your facility per year in pounds of harvestable weight, and also give the maximum weight present at any one time.
                                1. Cold Water Species
                                                  2. Warm Water Species
                       a. Species
    b. Harvestable Weight
    (pounds)
                     a. Species
                                              (1)
                                          Total Yearly
                       (2)
                    Maximum
                           b. Harvestable Weight
                           (pounds)
                                             (1)
                                         Total Yearly
                                              (2)
                                           Maximum
               E.  Report the total pounds of food during the calendar month
                  of maximum feeding.
                                                                       1. Month
                                                                                                  2. Pounds of Food
             EPA Form 3510-2B (12-02)

-------
Federal Register/Vol.  68, No.  29/Wednesday,  February 12, 2003/Rules and  Regulations      7263
                                                                                     Form Approved
                                                                                 OMB No, 2040-0250
                                                                              Approval expires 12-15-05
IV. CERTIFICATION
/ certify under penalty of law that 1 have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application
and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I
believe that the information is true accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
A. Name and Official Title (print or type)
C. Signature
B. Phone No. ( )
D. Date Signed
EPA Form 3510-2B (12-02)

-------
7264      Federal Register/Vol. 68,  No. 29/Wednesday, February 12, 2003/Rules and Regulations
                                                                                                Form Approved
                                                                                             OMB No, 2040-0250
                                                                                          Approval expires 12-15-05
                                                     INSTRUCTIONS
GENERAL
This form must be completed by all applicants who check "yes" to
Item II-B in Form 1. Not all animal feeding operations or fish farms are
required to obtain NPDES permits. Exclusions are based on size. See
the description of these statutory and regulatory exclusions in the General
Instructions that accompany Form 1.
For aquatic animal production facilities, the size cutoffs are based on
whether the species are warm water or cold water, on the production
weight per year in liarvestable pounds, and on the amount of feeding in
pounds of food (for cold water species). Also, facilities which discharge
less than 30 days per year, or only during periods of excess runoff (for
warm water fish) are not required to have a permit.
Refer to the Form ! instructions to determine where to file this form.
Item I- A
See the note above and the General Instructions which accompany Form
1 to be sure that your facility is a "concentrated animal feeding
operation" (CAFO).
Item I-B
Use this space to give owner/operator contact information.
Item I-C
Check "proposed" if your facility is not now in operation or is expanding
to meet the definition of a CAFO in accordance with the information
found in the General Instructions that accompany Fonn 1 .
Item I-D
Use this space to give a complete legal description of your facility's
location including name, address, and latitude/longitude. Also, the if a
contract grower, the name and address of the integrator.
Item II
Supply all information in item II if you checked (1) in item I-A.
Item 1 1- A
Give the maximum number of each type of animal in open confinement or
housed under roof (either partially or totally) which are held al your
facility for a total of 45 days or more in any 1 2 month period. Provide the
total number of animals confined at the facility.
Item II-B
Provide the total amount of manure, litter and wastewater generated
annually by the facility. Identify if manure, litter and wastewater
generated by the facility is to be land applied and the number of acres,
under the control of the CAFO operator, suitable for land application. If
the answer to question 3 is yes, provide the estimated annual quantity of
manure, litter and wastewater that the applicant plans to transfer off-site.
Item I I-C
Check this box if you have submitted a topographic map of the
geographic area in which the CAFO is located showing the specific
location of the production area.








Item II-D
1 , Provide information on the type of containment and the capacity of the
containment structure (s).
2. The number of acres that are drained and collected in the containment
structure (s).
3. Identify the type of storage for the manure, litter and/or wastewater.
Give the capacity of this storage in days and gallons or tons.
Item II-E
Provide information concerning the status of the development and
implementation of a nutrient management plan for the facility. In those
cases where the nutrient management plan has not been completed,
provide an estimated date of development and implementation. If not
land applying, describe the alternative uses of the manure, litter and
wastewater (e.g., composting, pelletizing, energy generation, etc.).
Item ll-l
Check any of the identified conservation practices that are being
implemented at the facility to control runoff and protect water quality.
Item III
Supply ail information in Item III if you checked (2) in Item I-A.
Item II I-A
Outfalls should be numbered to correspond with the map submitted in
Item XI of Form 1 . Values given for flow should be representative of
your normal operation. The maximum daily flow is the maximum
measured flow occurring over a calendar day. The maximum 30-day
flow is the average of measured daily flow over the calendar month of
highest flow. The long-term average flow is the average of measure daily
flows over a calendar year.
Item III H
Give the total number of discrete ponds or raceways in your facility.
Under "other," give a descriptive name of any structure which is not a
pond or a raceway but which results in discharge to waters of the United
States.
Item Ill-C
Use names for receiving water and source of water which correspond to
the map submitted in Item XI of Form 1 .
Item 11 I-D
The names offish species should be proper, common, or scientific names
as given in special Publication No. 6 of the American Fisheries Society.
"A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United
States and Canada." The values given for total weight produced by your
facility per year and the maximum weight present at any one time should
be representative of your normal operation.
Item III-E
The value given for maximum monthly pounds of food should be
representative of your normal operation.
Item IV
The Clean Water Act provides for severe penalties for submitting false
information on this application form.
Section 309(C)(2) of the Clean Water Act provides that "Any person
who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification
in any application. ..shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of no
more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or
both."

Federal regulations require the certification to be signed as follows:
A. For corporation, by a principal executive officer of at least the level
of vice president.
B. For a partnership or sole proprietorship, by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively; or
C. For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public facility, by either
a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.





Paper Reduction Act Notice
The Public reporting burden fur this collection of information
estimated to average 4 hours per response. The estimate includes
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information to the chief, Information Policy Branch (PM-223),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, and the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington,
D.C. 20503, marked Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.
            EPA Form 3510-28(12-02)
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

-------
   Appendix L



Applicability Matrix

-------
                                                                                                     Appendix L
APPLICABILITY MATRIX
    System Type
Species
 Type
(Water)
Discharge >
  than 30
 Days Per
   Year?
Annual Production of
  Aquatic Animals
 Maximum
Feeding is >
than 5,000 Ib
 (2,272 kg)?
NPDES/
 ELGs
Applies?
 NPDES
Applies?1
                                                 > 20,000 Ib (9,090 kg)
                                                 < 20,000 Ib (9,090
                                                > 100,000 Ib (45,454 kg)
                                                < 100,000 Ib (45,454
                                                 > 20,000 Ib (9,090 kg)
                                                 < 20,000 Ib (9,090
                                                > 100,000 Ib (45,454 kg)
                                                < 100,000 Ib (45
                                                 > 20,000 Ib (9,090 kg)
                                                 < 20,000 Ib (9,090
                                                 > 20,000 Ib (9,090 kg)
                                                 < 20,000 Ib (9,090
 Alligator ponds,
 molluscan
 shellfish, lobster
 cages and pounds
 crawfish, indirect
 dischargers, or
 Alaskan flow-
 through2
 Flow-through or
 Recirculating
               Yes
                        Cold
 	o—	I	I	I	I	I	^^^_
 The Director may designate a facility as a CAAP facility on a case-by-case basis, even if the facility does not meet the
discharge, annual production, and feed requirements of the NPDES regulations.

2 These types of systems are exempt from the CAAP ELGs. They may be regulated by the NPDES regulations if they meet
the discharge, annual production, and feed requirements of the NPDES regulations, or if the Director designates them (on a
case-by-case basis) as CAAP facilities  or other types of facilities requiring an NPDES permit.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                      L-l
                                                                              March 2006

-------
       Appendix M1

   Example Written Report
Participating in an INAD Study

-------
                                                                     Appendix Ml
                  EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR AGREEING
                     TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INAD STUDY
            (Submit a written report to your permitting authority within
          7 days of agreeing or signing up to participate in an INAD study)
Facility Name:_
NPDES Permit Number:
Name of person submitting this report:.
Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:.
* Instructions: A form/table like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to
fulfill the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted within 7 days of
agreeing to participate in an INAD study. Check with your permit and permitting
authority for exact reporting requirements. The first row is an example row.
Date Initiating
INAD Study
Participation
09/09/04



Name of INAD
Drug Used &
Dosage
Oxytetracycline



Disease or Condition
Intended to Treat
For controlling
columnaris in walleye



Method of Application
bll Medicated feed
LJ Injection
d Bath treatment
Q Other:


d Medicated feed
LJ Injection
[J Bath treatment
[J Other:


LJ Medicated feed
LJ Injection
d Bath treatment
[J Other:


d Medicated feed
LJ Injection
[J Bath treatment
[J Other:


* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other
types of existing written reports if available.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                     Ml-1
                               March 2006

-------
       Appendix M2

 Checklist for Oral Report for
INAD and Extralabel Drug Use

-------
                                                                       Appendix M2
    CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT FOR IN AD AND EXTRALABEL DRUG USE
                  (Provide an oral report to your permitting authority
                    within 7 days after initiating use of the drug)

* Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your
permitting authority. It can be used to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting
requirements of the ELGs. The first row is an example row.

Reported to
Permitting
Authority?


0

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

Name of Drug (INAD &
Extralabel) Used &
Reason for Use

Extralabel: Erythromycin

Treat bacterial infections









Method of
Application


Injection










First Date
of Drug
Use


09/09/04









Date Oral
Report
Submitted
to Permitting
Authority

09/10/04










Initials


MJ









* Note: This checklist is only an example of a checklist that facilities could use to track oral reporting
Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                      M2-1
March 2006

-------
       Appendix M3

   Example Written Report
INAD and Extralabel Drug Use

-------
                                                                         Appendix M3
        EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR INAD AND EXTRALABEL DRUG USE
                  (Submit a written report to your permitting authority
                      within 30 days after initiating use of the drug)
   Facility Name:_
NPDES Permit Number:
   Name of person submitting this report:.
   Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:.
   * Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill
   the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted within 30 days after initiating
   use of an INAD or extralabel drug. Check with your permit and permitting authority
   for exact reporting requirements. The first row is an example row.
Name of Drug &
Reason for Use
Oxytetracycline
For control of
columnaris in
walleye



Date and
Time of
Application
(start date/time
end date/time)
09/09/04
10:00 AM
09/13/04
10:00 AM






Duration
5
consecutive
days



Method of Application
bll Medicated feed
LJ Injection
Q Bath treatment
Q Other:


LJ Medicated feed
LJ Injection
d Bath treatment
Q Other:


LJ Medicated feed
LJ Injection
d Bath treatment
Q Other:


LJ Medicated feed
LJ Injection
d Bath treatment
Q Other:


Total
Amount of
Active
Ingredient
Added
1 g/lb as sole
ration



Total
Amount of
Medicated
Feed
Added**
501bs



 This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types of
 existing written reports if available.
'* Applies only to drugs applied through medicated feed.
   EPA-821-B-05-001
                                        M3-1
                            March 2006

-------
         Appendix M4

   Checklist for Oral Report of
Failure or Damage to the Structure
    of Containment Systems

-------
                                                                       Appendix M4
                  CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT OF FAILURE OR
            DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS

  (Provide an oral report to your permitting authority within 24 hours of the discovery of
    any reportable failure or damage that results in a material discharge of pollutants)

* Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your permitting
authority. It can be used as a checklist to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting
requirements of the ELGs. Use the following table to track failure or damage to the
structure of your containment systems. The first row is an example row.
Reported to
Permitting
Authority?
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Cause of the Failure or Damage in
the Containment System
Storm/wave damage to net pen









Materials Released to
the Environment
1,000 Coho salmon









Date of
Release
09/08/04









Date Oral
Report
Submitted
to Permitting
Authority
09/09/04









Initials
MJ









* Note: This checklist is only an example of a checklist that facilities could use to track oral reporting
Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                      M4-1
March 2006

-------
         Appendix M5

     Example Written Report
Failure or Damage to the Structure
    of Containment Systems

-------
                                                                        Appendix M5
Facility Name:_
 EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR FAILURE OR DAMAGE
    TO THE STRUCTURE OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS
 (Submit a written report to your permitting authority within
        7 days of discovery of the failure or damage)

	      NPDES Permit Number:	
Name of person submitting this form:_
Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:.
* Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill the
ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted with 7 days of the discovery of a failure
or damage to the structure of containment systems at your facility. The first row is an
example row. Check with your permit and permitting authority for exact reporting
requirements.
Cause of the
Failure or
Damage
Broken raceway
screen at
quiescent zone
and on
standpipe




Date
Failure or
Damage
was
Discovered
09/10/04




Time Elapsed
Until the
Failure or
Damage was
Repaired
30 minutes




Materials Released to
the Environment from
the Failure or Damage
(Estimate)
1,000 fish - Coho salmon
fingerlings




Steps Being Taken to Prevent
Reoccurrence
1. Secure standpipe screen with
pipe clamps.
2. Inspect clamps weekly for signs
of corrosion or deterioration.
3. Replace clamps as necessary.
4. Inspect QZ screens weekly for
signs of deterioration.
5. Replace screens as necessary.




* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types of
existing written reports if available.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                       M5-1
                                                            March 2006

-------
          Appendix M6

    Checklist for Oral Report of
Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed

-------
                                                                           Appendix M6
                     CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT OF SPILLS OF
                           DRUGS, PESTICIDES, AND FEED
                   (Provide an oral report to your permitting authority
                 within 24 hours of any spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed)

  * Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your permitting
  authority. It can be used as a checklist to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting
  requirements of the ELGs. Use the following table to track multiple spills throughout the
  year. The first row is an example row.
Reported to
Permitting
Authority?
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Name of Material Spilled
(Drugs, Pesticides, or Feed)
Oxytetracycline medicated feed;
broken bag spilled onto ground









Quantity
Spilled
501bs









Date of Spill
09/09/04









Date Oral
Report
Submitted
to Permitting
Authority
09/10/04









Initials
MJ









* Note: This checklist is only an example of a checklist that facilities could use to track oral reporting. Facilities
may use existing record systems if available.
 EPA-821-B-05-001
                                         M6-1
March 2006

-------
          Appendix M7

      Example Written Report
Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed

-------
                                                                         Appendix M7
                     EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR SPILLS OF
                           DRUGS, PESTICIDES, AND FEED
                (Submit a written report to your permitting authority within
                     7 days of any spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed)
   Facility Name:_
NPDES Permit Number:
   Name of person submitting this form:_
   Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:.
   * Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill
   the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted with 7 days of a spill. The first
   row is an example row. Check with your permit and permitting authority for exact
   reporting requirements.
Name of Material Spilled
(Drugs, Pesticides, or
Feed)
Oxytetracycline medicated
feed





Quantity Spilled
501bs





Where Spilled and Action
Taken
Bag of medicated feed broke when
being moved from a pallet in the feed
storage area. Contents spilled onto
the floor. Swept up spilled feed and
placed material in a plastic container
for future use.





Date Spilled
9/10/04





* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types
of existing written reports if available.
   EPA-821-B-05-001
                                         M7-1
                            March 2006

-------
       Appendix N



Feed Conversion Ratios Log

-------
                                                                    Appendix N
                       FEED CONVERSION RATIOS LOG
          FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of feeding and to
calculate/track feed conversion ratios. The first row is an example row. FCRs are
calculated with the following equation:

                           Dry weight of feed applied
                           Wet weight of fish gained
Date
(start date
end date)
^^^H,
3/20/04
10/21/04












Description of Group
Brooktrout stackers for
Potomac River






Total Feed
Amounts
(Estimate)
5,275 Ibs






Weights of
Animals
(start weight
end weight)
100 Ibs
4,800 Ibs












Weight
Gained
4,700 Ibs






Calculated
FCR
1.12






EPA-821-B-05-001
                                     N-l
March 2006

-------
                                                                                           Appendix N
Date
(start date
end date)
















Description of Group








Total Feed
Amounts
(Estimate)








Weights of
Animals
(start weight
end weight)
















Weight
Gained








Calculated
FCR








* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking feeding and calculating FCRs could look like.
Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
  EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                  N-2
March 2006

-------
    Appendix O



Spills and Leaks Log

-------
                                                                                                                 Appendix O
                                                 SPILLS AND LEAKS LOG
  Facility Name:_
NPDES Permit Number:
  * Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of spills or leaks at your facility. You are not required to submit this
  form to your permitting authority. The first row is an example row.
Date
(mm/dd/
yy)
09/10/04



Spill or
Leak
Spill



Location
(as indicated
on a site
map)
Hatchery
floor



Type of Material &
Quantity
Formalin



Source
(if known)
Storage
drum



Reason
Top was not secured
and the drum was
knocked over



Amount of
Material
Recovered
20 gallons



List of Preventative
Measures Taken
Spoke to all employees
about the importance of
securing lids to storage
containers



Initials
MJ



EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                           0-1
                                                          March 2006

-------
                                                                                                                                             Appendix O
Date
(mm/dd/
yy)






Spill or
Leak






Location
(as indicated
on a site
map)






Type of Material &
Quantity






Source
(if known)






Reason






Amount of
Material
Recovered






List of Preventative
Measures Taken






Initials






  * Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking spills and leaks could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                                          0-2
March 2006

-------
                                                                                                                                    Appendix O
Instructions: Use this page to enter any important notes about the spills from the previous sheets.
  Date of spill or leak
     (mm/dd/yy)
                                                         Notes
 09/10/04
All employees have been instructed on the importance of securing container lids. Employees were also instructed to double-check that
container lids are secured before proceeding with applications.	
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                                     0-3
                                                                                                              March 2006

-------
            Appendix P1

Example Inspection and Maintenance Log
 Flow-through and Recirculating Systems

-------
                                                                Appendix PI
                       STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE
              EXAMPLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG
              FLOW-THROUGH AND RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS
Facility Name:_
NPDES Permit Number:
Production or Wastewater Treatment System:,
* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of routine inspections and
regular maintenance of your production systems and wastewater treatment systems.
Use a separate form for each production system and/or wastewater treatment system.
Make sure you defined the terms "routine" and "regular" in your BMP plan. The first
row is an example row.
Date
Inspected
09/10/04
09/25/04






Inspector
Initials
MJ
MJ






Notes
(Note any problems found and maintenance performed)
The screen at the end of raceway 2 was loose. Secured the
screen to prevent it from completely coming loose.
Inspected screens in raceways. All screens were found to be in
good condition.






Date
Maintenance
Performed
09/12/04
N/A






EPA-821-B-05-001
                                  Pl-1
                          March 2006

-------
                                                                                       Appendix PI
Date
Inspected










Inspector
Initials










Notes
(Note any problems found and maintenance performed)










Date
Maintenance
Performed










* Note: This is only an example of what a maintenance log could look like. Facilities may use existing record
systems if available.
  EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                Pl-2
March 2006

-------
            Appendix P2

Example Inspection and Maintenance Log
          Net Pen Systems

-------
                                                                 Appendix P2
                              MAINTENANCE
              EXAMPLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG
                            NET PEN SYSTEMS
Facility Name:_
NPDES Permit Number:
Production System:,
* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of routine inspections and
regular maintenance of your production systems. Use a separate form for each
production system. Make sure you defined the terms "routine" and "regular" in your
BMP plan. The first row is an example row.
Date
Inspected
09/10/04
09/25/04






Inspector
Initials
MJ
MJ






Notes
(Note any problems found and maintenance performed)
During a routine inspection, divers discovered a small hole in
net pen 3; patched the hole.
Inspected nets - all were in good condition






Date
Maintenance
Performed
09/10/04
N/A






EPA-821-B-05-001
                                   P2-1
                          March 2006

-------
                                                                                        Appendix P2
Date
Inspected











Inspector
Initials











Notes
(Note any problems found and maintenance performed)











Date
Maintenance
Performed











* Note: This is only an example of what a maintenance log could look like. Facilities may use existing record
systems if available.
  EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                P2-2
March 2006

-------
 Appendix Q



Cleaning Log

-------
                                                                    Appendix Q
                              CLEANING LOG
          FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS
Facility Name:.
                               NPDES Permit Number:
* Instructions: This example form may be used to track cleaning of your production
systems and/or wastewater treatment systems. The first row is an example row.
 Date
Cleaned
Cleaner
Initials
   Description of
 Component Cleaned
          Notes About Cleaning
9/10/04
  MJ
QZ raceways EB 1-5
Cleaned QZs and dam boards; checked and cleaned
screens.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                           Q-l
                                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                                  Appendix Q
  Date
Cleaned
Cleaner
Initials
   Description of
Component Cleaned
Notes About Cleaning
* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking cleaning of production systems and wastewater
treatment systems could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                Q-2
                                                          March 2006

-------
      Appendix R



Record-keeping Checklist

-------
                                                                              Appendix R

                            RECORD-KEEPING CHECKLIST


* Instructions: Use the following checklist to make sure you meet all the record-keeping
requirements of the CAAP ELGs. You do not need to submit this to your permitting authority.

Q 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 (can use the form in Appendix N to fulfill this requirement).

d Records documenting frequency of cleaning (can use the form in Appendix Q to fulfill this
   requirement).

Q Records documenting frequency of inspections, maintenance, and repairs (can use forms in
   Appendix P to fulfill this requirement).


* Use the following checklist to see what other record-keeping forms can be used to show your
permitting authority that you are meeting the reporting and BMP plan requirements of the CAAP
ELGs (e.g., solids control, training). The following forms are not required.

Q INAD - 7 Day Written Report (Appendix M)

Q INAD and Extralabel - 7 Day Oral Report (Appendix M)

Q INAD & Extralabel - 30 Day Written Report (Appendix M)

Q Failure or Damage to the Structural Integrity of Containment Systems - 24 Hour Oral Report
   (Appendix M)

Q Failure or Damage to the Structural Integrity of Containment Systems - 7 Day Written Report
   (Appendix M)

Q Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed - 24 Hour Oral Report (Appendix M)

Q Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed - 7 Day Written Report (Appendix M)

Q Material Storage: Spills and Leaks Log (Appendix O)

Q Cleaning Log (Appendix Q)

Q Employee Training Log (Appendix S)

Q Carcass Removal (Appendix T)

* Note: This checklist is only for tracking record-keeping at your CAAP facility. Facilities may use existing
record systems if available.


EPA-821-B-05-001                            R-l                                 March 2006

-------
     Appendix S



Employee Training Log

-------
                                                                          Appendix S
                           EMPLOYEE TRAINING LOG
Facility Name:_
NPDES Permit Number:
* Instructions: This example form may be used to track employee training at your
facility.
Employee Training
Completed Bv:
Title:
Date:

Instructions: Describe the employee-training program for your facility below. The program should, at a
minimum, address spill prevention and response, and proper operation and cleaning of production and
wastewater treatment systems. Provide a schedule for the training program and list the employees who
attend the training sessions.
Training Topics
Spill Prevention
and Response
Operation and
Cleaning of
Systems
Feeding
Procedures
Other Topics
(list):
Other Topics
(list):
Brief Description of the
Training Program and
Materials





Schedule for
Training
(list dates)





Participants





* Note: This is only an example of what an employee training log could look like. Facilities may use
existing record systems if available.
EPA-821-B-05-001
                                        S-l
                             March 2006

-------
    Appendix T



Carcass Removal Log

-------
                                                                 Appendix T
                         CARCASS REMOVAL LOG
          FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS
Facility Name:.
NPDES Permit Number:
* Instructions: This example form may be used to track carcass removal from your
production systems and/or wastewater treatment systems. The first row is an example
row.
Date
9/10/04






Initials
MJ






System/Group of
Animals
Brooktrout - Rl^






#of
Mortalities
10






Approx.
Weight
61bs






Disposal
Method
Composting






Notes
All from R2;
appear to be from
some type of
infection - closely
monitor
remaining fish






EPA-821-B-05-001
                                   T-l
                           March 2006

-------
 Date
Initials
System/Group of
    Animals
   #of
Mortalities
Approx.
Weight
Disposal
Method
                                                                                        Appendix T
Notes
* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking carcass removal from your production systems
and/or wastewater treatment systems could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
  EPA-821-B-05-001
                                                T-2
                                                                              March 2006

-------
 Appendix U



FDA Labeling

-------
                                                                         Appendix U
          FDA: LABELS FOR NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR AQUACULTURE

In some cases as part of the approval process for new animal drugs, FDA may decide to
include information on labels for individual aquaculture drugs in order to address the
potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the drug. Drug labels may also
require the user to inform the appropriate NPDES permitting authority prior to the first
use of the drug. This is necessary because FDA must approve drugs for use on a
nationwide basis without in-depth consideration of wastewater treatment (e.g., settling
ponds) at individual facilities and local site-specific conditions such as dilution and
degradation in receiving waters. The reporting requirement insures that there is
appropriate oversight to determine whether effluent discharge limits are needed at
individual aquaculture facilities when FDA has determined that release of a drug has the
potential to cause effects on organisms in receiving waters at some locations.

Label information on aquaculture drugs may include identification of acute and chronic
water quality "benchmarks" derived to address and help mitigate potential adverse effects
on aquatic life resulting from drug use. These benchmarks are meant to assist NPDES
permitting authorities  make determinations on whether discharge limits are needed and
help them set these limits, if they are needed (see below). In developing such benchmarks,
FDA relies on toxicity and environmental fate information collected and generated
through an environmental assessment process that is part of the overall drug approval
process (Note: Environmental Assessment documents for veterinary drugs are available
through the following  FDA website: http: / /fda.gov/cvm/ea.htm). FDA's technical
process for deriving water quality benchmarks is similar to that used by the U.S. EPA to
develop numerical water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life
(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife.htmltfguide).

Under EPA's NPDES regulations, NPDES permits must include limits necessary to achieve
water quality standards under section 303 of the Clean Water Act.  40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(l).
In cases where a State has not established a water quality criterion for a specific chemical
pollutant but has established a narrative criterion (i.e, "no toxics, in toxic amounts"), the
permitting authority must establish an effluent limit for a new animal drug if it is present
in an effluent in concentrations that cause or has a reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excursion above a narrative criterion. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(l)(i). In
developing such limits, the permitting authority may use a calculated numeric water
quality criterion derived by one of several methods, supplemented with other relevant
information which may include "information about the pollutant from the Food and Drug
Administration" 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(l)(vi)(A). Water quality benchmarks and other
information on drug labels will alert users of the potential adverse effects of drug use on
aquatic life in receiving waters. This information will also provide a mechanism for
alerting permit writers of the potential need to formally establish facility-specific numeric
effluent limitations for aquaculture drug products as well as necessary information for
complying with § 122.44(d).
EPA-821-B-05-001                           U-l                                March 2006

-------
                                                                         Appendix U
Additional Information

Charles E. Eirkson III
Environmental Safety Team, HFV-103
Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation
Center for Veterinary Medicine
301-827-6653
ceirkson@cvm.fda.gov
EPA-821-B-05-001                           U-2                                March 2006

-------
  Appendix V



SDAFS BMP Plan

-------
                                                                      Appendix V

    BMP PLAN FOR STATE FISH HATCHERIES (DEVELOPED BY THE SOUTHERN
     DIVISION OF AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (SDAFS) AQUACULTURE
                           TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

(Italicized text will need to be re-worded to describe each individual hatchery, and areas
left blank and/or underlined will have to be filled in and may need to be updated
occasionally.)

                     SDAFS Aquaculture Technical Committee
                                  BMP PLAN
                         FOR STATE FISH HATCHERIES
Dated:	

Facility Name:      	
Facility Address:   	
NPDES Number and Expiration Date:  	
Hatchery Superintendent:	
Phone number:	
Email address:	

1) INTRODUCTION:
The [fill in the name of your hatchery] fish hatchery operates under the NPDES permit
number referenced above. The NPDES permit is issued by [fill in the US EPA or a state
agency such as DENR, Division of Water Quality). The contact person at the permit issuing
authority is	and the contact phone number is	
or they can be contacted by email at	the mailing address for the
permitting authority is	
	. The hatchery
typically produces the following types of fish, in approximately these numbers of fish and
pounds of fish per year.
Species of Fish



Number of Fish



Pounds of Fish



[THIS FACILITY DESCRIPTION MAY BE TAKEN FROM ANOTHER SOURCE SUCH AS
YOUR NPDES PERMIT] The hatchery consists of indoor raceways in the hatchery building and a
series of re-use raceways in six parallel rows providing 46 individual outdoor culture tanks or
raceways (see attached facility layout diagram). Raceways are typically 100 feet long by 8 feet wide
with the first or up-stream row being twelve raceways across and each raceway being 4 feet wide.
 EPA-821-B-05-001                         V-l                              March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix V

Water is supplied through an underground pipe from a surface intake from the Wild River. Water
flow is typically between 2,000 and 5,000 gallons per minute. The primary water discharge point is
the outflow pipe from the lower raceway, but water can be discharged at nine locations upstream of
the main water discharge point during quiescent zone cleaning. Incoming water passes through a
screen at the intake and is not chemically treated or aerated before use.

2) REPORTING
The following reporting is undertaken to meet Effluent Limitations Guidelines:
1) When we sign up for participation in an INAD study of a reportable drug (i.e. the drug
may be discharged and is not a use similar to an approved use), we submit a written
report, which identifies the method of use, the dosage and the disease or condition being
treated, to the permitting authority within seven days.

2) When we use a reportable drug an oral report is given to the permitting authority
within 7 days of the use.  The report includes the drug used, method of application and
the reason for using the drug.  A written report is sent to the permitting authority within
30 days of the use and the report includes the reason for treatment, date(s) and time(s) of
the addition (including duration), method of application and the amount added.

3) In the event of damage to or failure of a hatchery structure that results in a discharge
of pollutants, an oral report is given to the permitting authority within 24 hours. The
oral report describes the cause of the failure or damage and identifies the materials
released.  A written report is sent to the permitting authority within 7 days of the
problem and the written report documents the cause, the estimated time elapsed until the
problem was repaired, and estimates the material released, and steps being taken to
prevent a recurrence.

4) In the event of a spill of drugs, pesticides or feed that results in a discharge, an oral
report is given to the permitting authority within 24 hours.  The oral report describes the
identity and quantity of the material spilled. A written report is sent to the permitting
authority within 7 days of the spill and the written report describes the identity and
quantity of the material spilled.  Spills that are contained before they discharge to waters
of the U.S. are not subject to this reporting requirement.

5) This BMP plan is finalized and being implemented at the fish hatchery. The permittee
sent a letter on [fill in date] certifying that a BMP plan has been implemented and is
available to the permitting authority upon request.

3) SOLIDS CONTROL
A) High quality feed is utilized to minimize waste. Periodically the feed formulation and
manufacturing process are assessed so that the most appropriate feed is used. Feed is either
applied by hand with feed being distributed via scoop from a bucket, by belt feeder or by blower from
a truck mounted automatic feeder.  The feed contract specifies a high quality, extruded commercial
floating trout feed with a minimum protein content of'42% and minimum 16% fat content for all
trout grower and finisher feeds. Feeding is adjusted to meet requirements of the fish based
 EPA-821-B-05-001                          V-2                                March 2006

-------
                                                                               Appendix V

on the number of fish, size of the fish, feeding response of the fish, and the temperature of
the water. Feed consumption is visually monitored and when the floating feed is not
readily consumed by the fish the feed rate is adjusted to prevent overfeeding either during
that feeding or for the next feeding that is to occur.

B) Fish inventories are continuously updated based on stocking rates, records of
mortalities and fish growth. The following measures are taken to minimize solids
discharge during grading, harvesting and inventorying of fish: 1) fish are not fed for 24
hours before handling, and 2) screens and quiescent zones are cleaned before fish are
handled (etc).  Raceways are stocked with proper numbers of fish to facilitate movement
of solids through the raceway system.  Feed rates are adjusted weekly based on fish inventory
and other considerations mentioned above.  Fish inventory is reported monthly. We use feeding
records and inventory records to calculate feed conversion on a monthly and annual basis. Feed
conversion ratios are reported in monthly and annual reports.  A physical inventory of the fish
based on weight offish in each raceway and size (from sub-sampling) of the fish is conducted as
needed,  but at least once each year.

C) There is a perimeter fence around the raceways to keep wildlife from capturing and removing
fish. Quiescent zones are maintained in the downstream end of each raceway by screening the fish
out of the area. Quiescent zones are four feet long and are cleaned at least once weekly on a rotating
basis. Solids from each quiescent zone are brushed out and flushed through the discharge system to
the stream through the drain at the bottom of each quiescent zone.  No more than one section of
quiescent zones (one fourth of the facility) is cleaned each day.

D) Two settling ponds collect solids during cleaning of the quiescent zones. Solids are removed
from the settling ponds every other month by a septic tank pump truck, and land applied at
agricultural rates.

E) Trout mortalities are collected from each raceway at least twice per week. The carcasses
are disposed of on site well away from receiving waters so that there is no  chance of
mortalities making their way to receiving waters. Mortalities are collected before they
deteriorate and discharge back to the river.

A disposal log is maintained at the hatchery and updated each time solids (typically dead fish) are
removed. The log contains:
       1.  date of disposal
       2.  area where solids were applied
       3.  amount of solids applied
       4.  initials of applicator

4) MATERIALS  STORAGE
A)  Employees are trained in proper handling and storage of materials used in the hatchery.  The
facility maintains a list of all materials that require special handling in the hatchery together with
relevant MSDS sheets. A spill response plan is  attached as Appendix A. Particular materials of
concern are:
    •  Feed in bags

 EPA-821-B-05-001                            V-3                                  March 2006

-------
                                                                            Appendix V
   •  Bulkfeed
   •  Medicated feed
   •  Therapeutants (formalin, salt, anesthetics, etc.)
   •  Fuels and lubricants
   •  Disinfectants

B) New employees and existing staff are trained to avoid any spills that could enter public
waters,  and properly dispose of spilled substances. The hatchery superintendent
schedules training on an annual basis to update hatchery staff. The training addresses
each of the types of materials of concern listed above (Appendix A, Spill Response Plan).

5) STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE
A) New employees and existing staff are trained to be alert to leakage from or
deterioration of production and waste storage facilities when feeding or working around
the raceways. When any malfunctioning of facilities is  observed it is immediately reported
to the superintendent who takes appropriate action to correct the situation.  In addition, as
part of the annual training, an annual inspection of production and waste storage facilities
is conducted.

B) Maintenance of intake screens, raceway screens, LHOs and other facility si/stems is done
on a daily basis (as described by the manufacturer's specifications if available) during
feeding and other activities.  Feed storage bins and areas are kept clean and pest free on a
daily basis. A notebook that lists maintenance on vehicles and equipment is maintained on site.

6) RECORD KEEPING
A) Feeding records are maintained daily and feed usage is summarized and reported
monthly.  Monthly reports are stored for a period of at least five years. Monthly reports are
compiled into an annual report, which summarizes production and feeding data including FCR,
total feed usage, and total production in numbers and pounds offish. All records are available
on site upon request.

B) Forms that track cleaning, inspections, maintenance, waste disposal, training and
repairs are kept on site, compiled on an annual basis and kept with the annual reports.

7) TRAINING
A) Once each year, during January, the hatchery superintendent arranges a half-day training
session for all employees at the hatchery. During  the training session, the BMP plan is
reviewed in detail and each section is discussed. Other operational plans such as the fire exit
plan, safety plan, spill response plan, stocking procedures and hatchery operational procedures are
also reviewed.

B) Each new employee at the hatchery is given an orientation that includes a detailed
review of  and training in the BMP plan.  This training is conducted within the first two
weeks that the employee is on the job.
 EPA-821-B-05-001                           V-4                                March 2006

-------
                                                                             Appendix V

8) FACILITY LAYOUT DIAGRAM
A layout diagram of the hatchery facility is attached indicating where water intakes are
located, where water discharges are located, where feed and chemical storage is located,
where culture facilities are located, and where waste storage facilities (including disposal
for fish carcasses) are located.
 EPA-821-B-05-001                          V-5                                 March 2006

-------
                                                                           Appendix V

APPENDIX A -- SPILL RESPONSE PLAN

1) IMMEDIATE RESPONSE
   •  Don't panic.  Call 911 if public safety is threatened. Get help on site and call for
      more help if necessary.
   •  Define the problem (leaking valve, broken container, overflow, etc.).
   •  Assess risks (where will spill go and will it enter your water discharge).
   •  Keep people safe. Away from the spill, upwind or evacuate as necessary.
   •  Stop the source of spill if possible, safe and necessary.
   •  Stop sources of ignition if relevant (shut off motors, engines, no-smoking, etc.).
   •  Contain the spill if safe and possible.
         o  Collect the spill in a bucket or drip pan.
         o  Block the spill from spreading or getting into the water (build dike or block
            with sandbags, etc.).
   •  Call for help.
2) STABILIZATION
   •  Clean up the spill safely if you can or arrange for a contractor to clean it up.
   •  Log the spill, and review Spill Response plans and update as needed.
3) IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS AND CONTACT INFORMATION
   •  911
   •  Agency Contacts
         o  Hatchery Superintendent - Home	 Work	
         o  Production Coordinator -Home	 Work	
         o  Regional Supervisor - Home	 Work	
         o  Program Coordinator - Home	 Work	
   •  NPDES Permit Liaison: Name	 Phone Number	
   •  Other Government Agencies, Local Officials, and Neighboring Facilities.
4) PREVENTION
Preventative measures and procedures are listed below.
   •  Chemical storage room or cabinet with lip to prevent spills in storage room.
   •  Containment barrier around fuel tanks, and overfill protection on generator tank.
   •  Material Safety Data Sheets are maintained for all chemicals used.
   •  Security fence, locks, and lights.
   •  Inspection logs and procedures.
   •  Labeling of tanks and containers.
   •  Diagram of site, storage areas, and exit plans.
5) PREPAREDNESS
   •  Available equipment and supplies that can be used to control spills:
         o  Shovels and brooms
         o  Empty buckets and drums
         o  Plastic sheeting and plastic bags
         o  Sand bags and absorbent materials
   •  Spill containment materials are located in the feed storage room.
   •  Annual training and new employee training includes spill response training.

 EPA-821-B-05-001                          V-6                                March 2006

-------