DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
RECOMMENDED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
for the
FISH HATCHERIES AND FARMS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Eckardt C. Beck
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Planning and Standards
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Hater and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Russell E. Train I 28
Administrator I 29
Andrew w. Briedenbach, Ph.D. I 31
Assistant Administrator for I 32
Water and Hazardous Materials | 33
35
36
37
Robert B. Schaffer I 39
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division | 40
Donald F. Anderson
Project Officer
February 1977
7
48
49
SO
-------
REVIEW NOTICE 2
This document presents conclusions and recommendations of a 6
study conducted for the Effluent Guidelines Division, United 6
States Environmental Protection Agency, in .support of draft 7
recommendations providing effluent limitations guidelines 7
a.nd new source performance standards for the fish hatcheries 9
and farms point source category. ~" 9
The draft conclusions and recommendations of this document 11
may be subject to revisions during the document review 12
process and, as a result, the draft recommendations for 12
effluent limitations as contained within this document may 13
be superseded by revisions prior to formal .proposal and 14
final promulgation of the regulations in the Federal IS
Register as required by the Federal Mater Pollution Control 15
Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). 15
-------
ABSTRACT 53
This document presents the findings in revised draft form of | 56
' study of the fish hatcheries and farms industry for the I 57
purpose of developing effluent limitations guidelines, | 58
Federal standards of performance, and pretreatment standards 59
for the industry, to implement Sections 30*(b) and 306 of 59
the Federal Hater Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 60
(the -Act"). 60
Effluent limitations guidelines are set forth for the degree 62
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of 63
the "Best Practicable Control Technology currently 63
Available," and the "Best Available Technology Economically 64
Achievable," which must be achieved by existing point 64
sources by July 1. 1977, and July 1, 1983, respectively. 6U
The "Standards of Performance for New Sources" set forth the 65
degree of effluent reduction which is achievable through the 66
application of the best available demonstrated control 66
technology, processes, operating methods, or other 67
alternatives. The draft recommendations require that the | 68
native fishflow-through culturing systems segment of the I 69
industry provide by July 1, 1977, vacuum cleaning of 1 70
culturing units, sedimentation of their cleaning waste flow 71
with sludge removal or an equilivant treatment technology to 72
reduce pollutants to~the levels specified herein before dis- 72
charge to navigable waters. For the native fishpond 7U
culturing systems segment of the industry, the 1977 75
requirements are settleable solids reduction through 75
Controlled discharge of pond draining water or an equilivant 76
treatment technology to reduce settleable solids to the 77
'levels specified in"" this document. The non-native fish 78
culturing systems segment of the industry is required to 78
achieve no discharge of biological pollutants through 79
filtration and disinfection, land disposal or an equilivant 80
technology by July 1, 1977. The 1983 requirements and new 81
source performance standards for all three segments of the 81
industry are the same as the 1977 requirements. 82
Supportive data and rationale for development of the draft I 8U
recommendations for effluent limitations guidelines and | 85
standards of performance are contained in this report. 85
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IREVIEW NOTICE
ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
I.
II.
III.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Legal Authority
Existing Point Sources
New Sources
Summary and BAasis of Proposed EFfluent
Limitations Guideslines for Existing So
and Standares of Performance and Pretreat-
ment standards for New sources
General Methodology
NATIVE FISH - GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE IND
Industry Growth
Types of Facilities
Location of Facilities
Fish Cultured
Raw Materials
Production Process
NON-NATIVE FISH - GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
INDUSTRY
Industry Growth
Types of Facilities
Location of Facilities
Raw Materials
Production Process
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION FACTORS OR VARIABLES
Product
Waste Generated
Native Fish Culturing
Non-Natibve Fish Culturing
Treatability of Wastewater
Native Fish Culturing
Non-Native Fish Culturing
| 88
Page
rces
ISTRY
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
INDUSTRY | 122
CONSIDER]
123
125
126
127
128
129
130
ED | 1
132
133
130
135
136
137
138
31
-------
Production Process
Native Pish Cul taring
Han-Native Pish Col taxing
Facility Sixe and Age
Native Pish Cul taring
Non -Native Pish Cul taring
Geographic . Locat ion
Native Pish Cul taring
Non-Native Pish Cul tu ring
Saw Materials
Native Pish Cul taring
Non -Native Pish Cul taring
Subcategorization
V. HASTE CHARACTERISTICS
NATIVE PISH
Oxygen and Oxygen-Demanding Constituents
Solids
Nutrients
Bacteria
NON-NATIVE PISH
Oxygen Demanding Constituents, Solids,
Nutrients, and Flow
Biological Pollutants
Bacteria
Protoxoan Parasites
Helminthic Diseases and Snail Hosts
Molluscs
Copepods
Pish
VI. SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS WSTEUATER
PARAMETERS OP POLLUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Selected Parameters
Rationale
Solids
1. Suspended Solids
2. Settable Solids
Ammonia Nitrogen
Bacteria (Fecal Col i form)
Flows
VII. CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY CURRENT STANDARD
OP PRACTICE
Native Fish Flow- thru Cul taring Systems
Native Fish Pond culturing Systems
Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems
IN- PLANT CONTROL MEASURES
Native Fish Flo**- thru Culturing Systems
Hater Conservation
139
1*0
112
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
1 57
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
170
171
172
173
17«
17S
176
177
178
' 7»
181
183
18S
187
-------
Feeding Practices
Cleaning Practices
Pish Distribution
Native Pish POnd Culturing Systems
Hater Conservation
Feeding Practices
Cleaning Practices
Fish Distribution
Pond Draining and Harvesting Practices
Non-Native Pish Culturing Systems
Hater Conservation
Feeding Practices
Pond Draining and Harvesting Practices
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Native Fish Flow-thru Culturing System
Native Fish Pond Culturing Systems
Draining at a Controlled Rate
Draining Through Another POnd
Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems
Chlorinatioa
Filtration and Ultraviolet Disinfection
No Dishcarge (Land Disposal)
VIZZ. COST, ENERGY, AND OTHER NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODOCTZON
NATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
Alternative A Settling of Cleaning Flow
Alternative B Vacuum Cleaning
ALternative C Settling of Entire Flow
Without Sludge Removal
Alternative D Settling of Entire Flow
With Sludge Removal
Alternative E Stabilization Ponds
Alternative F Aeration and Settling (5 hrs)
Alternative G Aeration and Settling (10 hrs)
Alternative H Recondidtion
Cost of Acheiving Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA)
Cost of Achieving Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BATEA)
Cost of Achieving New source Performance
1B9
190
191
192
193
19U
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
Settling of Cleaning Flow j 20u
Vacuum Cleaning j 205
Settling of Entire Flow Without sludge Removal | 206
Settling of Entire Flow with Sludge Removal j 207
Stabilization Ponds j 208
Aeration and Settling (5 hours) j 209
Aeration and Settling (10 hours) j 210
Reconditioning j 211
212
213
210
215
216
217
218
Summary ( 219
221
222
223
22«
225
226
227
228
229
2 JO
231
232
233
23«
215
236
237
238
-------
Standards (NSPS)
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment Requriements
CPRETREAT)
NATIVE PSB POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
Cost of Achieving best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BATEA)
Cost of Achieving New scarce Performance
Standards (NSPS)
Cost of Achieving Pretreatnent Requirements
(PRETREAT)
NON-NATIVE FISH COLTURIRG SYSTEMS
Alternative A Chlorination
Alternative B Filtration and Ultraviolet
Disinfection
Alternative C NO Discharge with Land
Disposal
Cost of Achieving Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA)
Cost of Achieving Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BATEA)
Cost of Achieving New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment Requirements
(PRETREAT)
SUMMARY
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
IX. EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE | 268
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL 269
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 270
INTRODUCTION 271
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL 272
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 273
Native Fish Flow-thru Culturing Systems 274
Native Fish Pond Culturing Systems 275
Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems | 276
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY j 277
Native Fish Flow*thru Culturing Systems j 278
Native Fish Pond Culturing Systems J 279
Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems j 280
X. EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
INTRODUCTION
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Native Fish Flow-thru Culturing Systems
282
283
284
28S
286
287
288
-------
292
293
294
JJf
296
297
296
Native Fish Pond Culturing Systems I 289
Ron-Native Fish Culturing Systems I 290
XI. HEW SOURCE PERFOMRAHCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Native Fish Flow-thro Culturing Systems
Native Fish Pond Culturing Systems
Non- Native Fish Cult or ing Systems
MX. PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY I 300
Mil. REFERENCES I 302
XIV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I 30*
XV. GLOSSARY
DEFINITIONS
SYMBOLS
-------
LIST OP TABLES j
Tablc
Page
1-1 Waste Characteristics-Native Fish I 31$
Culturing Systems ] 317
Level I Effluent Limitations July 1, 1977 | 319
I-evel II Effluent Limitations - July 1. 1983, I 321
And Level III Effluent Limitations Hew Sources | 322
Trout Production At Pederal And state I 32ft
Hatcheries Projected Through the Year 2000 I 325
(Prom Reference 244) j 326
111*2 Harm-Hater Pish Production at Pederal and State I 328
Hatcheries Projected Through The Year 2000 I 329
(Prom Reference 244) | 330
III-3 Geographic Distribution Of State, Federal And I 332
Private Pish-Culturing Facilities In The United I 333
States That Rear Native Pish j 334
III- 4 Native Fishers Cultured in The United states | 336
III-5 Chemicals Used For Control Of Infectious Diseases I 338
Of Pishes And for Other Fish Proudction Related I 339
Reasons [ 340
V-1 Oxygen- Demanding Characteristics of Effluents I 3*2
Prom Flow-Thru Facilities Culturing Native Fish | 3«3
V-2 Oxygen-Demanding Characteristics of Effluents I 345
Prom Cnlturing Ponds Being Drained During Fish I 346
Harvesting Activities j 3*7
V-3 Solids Characteristics of Effluents From Flow j 349
Thru Facilities Cult curing Native Fish 1 350
V-4 Solids Characteristics Of Effluents Prow I 352
Culturing Ponds Being Drained During Fish 1 353
Harvesting Activities j jsft
V-5 Nutrient Characteristics of Effluents From I 356
Flow-Thru Facilities Culturing Native Fish | 357
V-6 Nutrient Characteristics of Effluents From \ 359
Culturing Ponds Being Drained During Fish I 360
Harvesting Activities 361
-------
f-7
v-e
V-9
VII- 1
VII- 2
VII- 3
VII- 4
VII-5
VII-6
VII- 7
VII- 8
VII- 9
VII-10
VII- 1 1
VII- 12
VII- 13
VTI-14
VII-15
Sources Of Col if or n Bacteria In A Colorado
Trout Hatchery
Salmonella Isolations Prom A Florida
Tropical Pish Para (November 12-16, 1973)
Bacterial Densities- Florida Tropical Pish
Farm (November 12-16, 1973)
Settling Of Cleaning Hastes Removal Efficiency
Settling Of Cleaning Hastes Effluent
Characteristics
Settling Of Entire Plow without Sludge
Removal, Removal Efficiency
Settling Of Entire Plow Without Sludge
Removal, Effluent Characteristics
Settling Of Entire Plow with Sludge Removal,
Removal Efficiency
Settling Of Entire Plow With Sludge Removal,
Effluent Characteristics
Stabilization Ponds, Removal Efficiency
Stabilization Ponds, Effluent Characteristics
Dworshak Pilot Plant Influent Filter Normal
Overflow Characteristics
Aeration and settling (5 hour) Removal
Efficiency
Aeration and Settling (5 hour) Effluent
Characteristics
Pilot Plant Treating Mixture Of Filter
Normal Overflow and Backwaehing Water
Aeration And Settling (10 hour) Removal
Efficiency
Aeration And Settling (10 hour) Effluent
Ch a r acte r ist ics
Reconditioning Removal Efficiency
i 363
| 364
1 366
| 367
I 369
| 370
| 372
| 374
| 375
| 377
I 378
I 380
I 381
I 383
| 384
| 386
| 387
| 389
| 391
{ 393
j 394
1 396
1 397
| 399
1 «oo
I 402
| 403
| 405
1 406
I 408
I 409
I 411
-------
VII-16 Reconditioning Equivalent Effluent I 413
Characteristics j 414
VIZ-17 Comparison Of The Effluent Characteristics I 416
From Native Fish Pond Colturing Systems ] 417
VII-18 Comparison Of Bflfuent Characteristics | 419
During Draining of Native Fish-Pond J 420
Cultaring Systems 1 421
VII-19 Pollutant Load Achievab le Thru Alternate J 423
Treatment Technologies j 424
VII1-1 Native Fish Flow-Thru Culturing Systems I 426
Alternative A, Cost Estimate j 427
VIII-2 Native Fish Flow-Thru Culturing Systems | 429
Alternative B, Cost Estimate j 430
VIII-3 Native Fish Flow-Thru Culturing Systems I 432
Alternative C, Cost Estimate j 433
VIII-4 Native Fish Flow-Thru Colturing Systems I 435
Alternative D, Cost Estimate | 436
VIII- 5 Native Fish Flow-Thru Culturing Systems | 43B
Alternative E, cost Estimate | 439
VIII- 6 Native Fish Flow-Thru Culturing Systems I 441
Alternative F, Cost Estimate | 442
VIII-7 Native Fish Flow-Thru Culturing Systems I 444
Alternative G, Cost Estimate j 445
VIII-8 Native Fish Flow-Thru Culturing Systems | 447
Alternative H, Cost Estimate j 448
VIII-9 Native Fish Pond Culturing Systems I 450
Alternative A, Cost Estimate j 451
VIII-10 Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems I 453
Alternative A, Cost Estimate I 45«
VIII-11 Won-Native Fish Culturing Systems I 456
Alternative B, Cost Estimate j 457
VIII-12 Non-Native Fish Culturing Systema | 459
Alternative C, cost Estimate j 460
VIII-13 Cost Estimates For Alternate Treatment I 462
-------
Technologies | 463
VIXX-U Sludge Volumes-Hative Fish Flow-Thru I «65
Culturing System Alternatives | *66
-------
LIST OF FIGURES | 469
Figure Ho. Page | 47;
XXX-1 Types of Water-Flow Systems Used in I »7«
Fish Coltaring | 475
III-2 . Typical Native Fish-Cult or ing Process I «77
Diagram | «7B
III-3 Non-Native Fish Caltoring Process I *80
Diagram | «81
V-1 BOD Production and DO Uptake Bates I a 83
Versus Fish Size |139) j 48U
-------
SECTION Z | 487
CONCLUSIONS 489
For the purposes of establishing effluent limitation | 492
guidelines and standards of performance, the fish culturing j 493
industry ha"S been divided into three subcategories, based on 494
product, waste generated, treatability of wastewater, and 494
culturing process. Other factors, including .facility sice I 496
and age, geographic location, and raw Materials, were j 497
considered but do not justify further subcategorization. 497
The subcategories are: 498
1. Native Pish Plow-Through Culturing Systems 500
2. Native Pish Pond Culturing Systems 502
3. Non-Native Pish Culturing Systems SOU
Data were summarized to arrive at waste characteristics for | 506
each subcategory. Haste characteristics for the native fish j 507
subcategories are shown in Table 1-1. 508
Non-native fishes are cultured in pond systems. Therefore, I 510
with the exception of biological pollutants, waste | 511
characteristics are the same as for native fish pond 512
culturing systems. 512
'he current standard of practice in the native fish I 514
ulturing industry is no treatment of wastewater discharges. | 515
An estimated 12 percent of the flow-through systems and 1 516
percent of the pond~~culturing systems provide treatment. In 517
non-native fish culturing, an estimated £0 percent of the 518
operations discharge to municipal sewage treatment 518
facilities, an estimated 33 percent discharge into surface 519
waters without treatment, and an estimated 7 percent use 520
land disposal "to achieve no discharge of wastewaters into 521
surface waters.
Technology is available to improve the quality of discharges I 523
from fish culturing facilities. Zn-plant control measures | 524
can be incorporated to reduce the level of pollutants 525
discharged. Eight treatment methods, providing different 526
levels of pollutant reduction, have been identified for 527
flow- through systems culturing native fish. Three control 527
and treatment methods have been identified for native fish 528
pond culturing systems, and three have teen identified for 529
non-native "fish culturing. Cost estimates for alternatives 530
in each subcategory have been made and are summarized in 531
Table VIZI-20. " 531
-------
is concluded that vacuum cleaning and settling of the 533
cleaning pastes with sludge renewal are two technologies 534
that will achieve the draft recommended effluent limitations 536
for the subcategory Native FishFlow-through cult or ing 537
systems. Either of these technologies can remove 90 percent 537
of the settleable solids and 60 percent of the suspended 538
solids from the cleaning wastewaters. 539
*
£he draft recommended effluent limitations for the native | 541
fish--Pond Culturing Systems subcategory can be achieved by 542
control of draining discharges such as: (a) draining at a 543
controlled rate; (b) draining through another rearing pond 544
or settling pond; or~(c) harvesting without draining. Each 545
of these measures can remove at least 40 percent of the 546
settleable solids. 546
Jt is also concluded that filtration and disinfection or no | 548
wastewater discharge with land disposal are two technologies 549
that will meet the draft recommended effluent limitations | 550
for the Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems subcategory. | 551
These technologies will eliminate the discharge of 552
biological pollutants. 552
-------
565
567
568
569
SECTION II | 555
RECOMMENDATIONS 557
Presented herein are the draft recommended effluent | 560
limitations guidelines for the fish culturing industry. { 561
Limitations written in terms of daily or thirty-day values 562
will be monitored for compliance with 24-hour composite 563
sampling. Limitations written in terms of instantaneous 56U
values should be monitored for compliance with grab 564
sampling. Maximum one-day values have been computed from
available data to be J..3 times the thirty-day value. The
treatment systems recommended accomplish pollutant removals
through entirely physical means and thus are considered
stable processes. 569
It is recommended that the Best Practicable Control I 571
Technology Currently Available (BPCTCA) be implemented by | 572
the fish culturing industry on or before July 1, 1977. It 573
is further recommended that the effluent limitations 574
indicated in Table II-1 be adopted as Level I, II and III 575
technology achievable through the implementation of BPCTCA. 575
Finally, it should be noted that htis development documet is
being circulated in a revised draft form, superseding the
April "~197» draft development document. THis document is to
*>e used as guidance by NPDES permit authorities unitl such
Line that a decision can be made on formal rulemaking, and
in assessment can be made on this documents technical
adequacy based upon public comments.
577
57B
580
581
582
582
583
-------
SECTION XXI 586
INTRODUCTION 588
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 591
Leoal Authority 593
Existing Point sources Section 301(b) of the Act requires I 595
the achievement by not later than July 1, 1977, of effluent j 596
limitations for point sources, other than publicly-owned 597
treatment works, which gequire the application of the beet 598
practicable control technology currently available as 599
defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b) of 600
the Act. Section 301(b) also requires the achievement by 601
not later than July 1* 1983, of effluent limitations for 601
point sources, other than publicly-owned treatment works, 602
which ~" require the application of the best available 603
technology economically achievable which will result in 6On
reasonable further progress toward the national goal of 605
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as determined 606
in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator 606
pursuant to section 304(b) of the Act. 607
Section 304 (b) of the Act requires the Administrator to I 609
publish regulations providing guidelines for effluent j 610
limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction 611
attainable through "the application of the best practicable 612
control technology currently available and the degree of 613
effluent reduction attainable through the application of the 6 in
best control measures and practices achievable including 61 a
treatment techniques, process and procedural innovations, 615
operating methods and other alternatives. The draft | 616
recommendations herein set forth effluent limitations, j 617
pursuant to section 304 (b) of the Act, for the fish 618
hatcheries and farms point source category. As such, it | 614
covers only facilities in the Continental United States that 619
culture or hold native or non-native species for either 620
release or market. ~It does not address fish piers, fish 620
outs, fishing preserves, frog farms, oyster beds, 621
mariculture, or aquaculture facilities as covered by Section 622
318. " *«
New Sources Section 306 of the Act requires the j 62*
achievement by new sources of a Federal standard of j 625
performance providing for the control of the discharge of 626
pollutants which reflects the greatest degree of effluent 627
reduction which the Administrator determines to be achiev- 627
able through application of the best available demonstrated 628
-------
control technology, processes, operating methods, or other 629
alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard 630
permitting no discharge of pollutants. 631
Section 307 (c) of the Act requires the Administrator to | 633
promulgate pretreatment standards for new sources at the j 63U
same time that standards of performance for new sources are 635
promulgated pursuant to section 306. 636
Section 304 (c) of the Act requires the Administrator to I 638
Issue to the States and appropriate water pollution control j 639
agencies ~ information on the processes, procedures or 640
operating methods" which result in the elimination or 641
reduction of the discharge of pollutants to implement 6U2
standards of performance under section 306 of the Act. This 6U2
Development Document provides, pursuant to section 304 (c) of 643
the Act, information on such processes, procedures or 644
operating methods. 6UU
summary and Basis of Proposed Effluent Limitations | 646
Guidelines for Existing Sources and Standards of 648
Performance and Pre treatment Standards for New 650
sources 652
General Methodology The draft recommendations for I 654
effluent limitations and standards of performance proposed | 655
herein were developed in the following manner. The point 656
source category was first studied for the purpose of 657
determining whether separate limitations and standards are 657
appropriate for different segments within the category. 658
This analysis included a determination of whether 654
differences ~"in raw material used, product produced, 660
Manufacturing process employed, age, size, wastewater 661
constituents and other factors require development of 661
separate limitations and standards for different segments of 662
the point source category. The raw *aste characteristics 663
for each such segment were then identified. This included 66u
an analysis of~fa) the source, flow and volume of water used 665
in the process employed and the sources of waste and 666
wastewaters in the operation, and (fc) the constituents of 667
all wastewaters. The constituents of the wastewaters which 668
B ^ A w««»^^ w«» *»^«^ w v *»v ^»« i -
should be subject to effluent limitations and standards of | 669
performance were identified. 6b<*
The control and treatment technologies existing within each | 671
segment were identified. This included an identification of 672
each distinct control and treatment technology, including 673
both "in-plant and end-of-process technologies, which are 67u
existent or capable of being designed for each segment. It 675
also included an identification. In terms of the amount of 676
-------
constituents and the chemical, physical and biological 677
characteristics of pollutants, of the effluent level 677
resulting from the application of each of the technologies. 678
The problems, limitations and reliability of each treatment 679
'and control technology were also identified. Zn addition, 680
the non-water quality- environmental impacts, such as the 681
effects of the application of such technologies upon other 682
pollution problems, including air, and solid waste, were 683
identified. The energy requirements of each control and 68u
treatment technology were determined &B well as the cost of 685
the application of such technologies. ~~ 685
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in (687
order to determine what levels of technology constitute the ) 688
best practicable control technology currently available", 689
the "best available technology economically achievable1* and 690
the "best available" demonstrated control technology, 691
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives." In 692
identifying such technologies, various factors were 693
considered. These included the total cost of application of 693
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to 691
be achieved from such application, the age of equipment and 695
facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering 696
aspects of" the application of various types of control 697
techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental 698
impact (including energy requirements) and other factors. 699
The basis for development of the effluent limitations I 701
presented in this document consists of review and evaluation ] 702
?f available literature; EPA research information; Bureau of 703
3port Fisheries and Wildlife information; monitoring data 704
from State Fish and Game Departments: consultant reports on 705
fish hatchery design; water pollution studies by government 706
agencies; interviews with recognized experts and trade 706
associations; and analysis and evaluation of permit 707
application data provided by the industry under the National | 70S
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System peeBtttpfopfram of the | 710
Act. From these sources general information was obtained on 1 7 11
2055 fish hatcheries and farms. Detailed information on 7ij
waste water characteristics, treatment technology and 7i«
specific processes associated with fish culturing activities 7 is
was gathered from the following sources. 7 15
1. On-site inspections of 50 facilities including 21 717
~ warm-water fish operations, 22 salmon id operations, 7m
and 7 non-native fish operations to identify 7i<*
potential subcategories, exemplary operations, 720
pollution control practices, equipment, and costs. 721
-------
2. Water quality studies at 8 government and 2 723
~~ commercial facilities to determine waste water 724
characteristics and effectiveness of control and 725
treatment technology employed ty the industry. 726
3. Applications to the EPA for NPDES permits (formerly | 728
~ the Corps of Engineers Refuse Act Permit Program j 729
(RAPP)) were obtained for .191 fish culturing | 730
operations and provided data on""the characteristics 731
of intake and effluent water, water" usage, waste 732
water treatment and control practices, production, 732
species reared, raw materials and culturing 733
process. 733
ft. Published and unpublished technical reports from 735
~ government agencies or the industry, personal and 736
telephone interviews or meetings with trade 737
association, regional EPA personnel, .fish hatchery 738
managers and consultants. 738
information was compiled by data processing techniques and | 740
analyzed .for the following: j 7U1
1. Identification of distinguishing features that 743
~ could potentially orovide a basis for 744
subcategorization of the industry. These features 745
included differences or similarities in methods of 746
holding, culturing and harvesting fish, the impact 746
of variations in the size, age and geographic 747
location of facilities, and the changes in water 748
quality or treatabillty of wastes caused by 749
variations in the raw materials used to culture 749
various species of fish. 750
2. Determination of water quality and waste 752
~" characteristics for each potential subcategory 753
including the volume of water used, the sources of 75<*
pollution, and the type and quantity of 75«»
constituents in the waste waters. 755
3. Identification of constituents which are 757
" characteristic of the industry and present in 758
measurable quantities, "thus being 2°llutants 75'
subject to effluent limitations, guidelines and 760
standards. 76°
The reliability of the reported RAPP data was verified by j 762
sampling and analysis at ten fish culturing facilities. | 763
Included were 2 commercial non-native facilities, 5 76u
government operated pond culturing facilities and 3 765
-------
government operated salmonid operations. As a result of the 766
on-site studies, selected effluent characteristic data from 766
'NPDES (RAPP) applications were omitted from the analysis and I 767
.not included in prepared summary tables. j 768
Although »ost of the data reviewed, evaluated and I 770
incorporated £jn this report are from government facilities, j 771
a comparison with available data from commerical 772
(private-owned) operations showed that .fish culturing 773
processes and waste water characteristics were not 773
substantially different. 77u
The pretreatment standards for new sources proposed herein I 776
are intended to be complementary to the pretreatment j 777
standards proposed f_or existing sources under 40 CFR Part 778
128. The bases "for such standards are set forth in the 779
Federal Register of July 19, 1973, 38 PR 19236. The 780
provisions of Part 128 are equally applicable to sources 780
which would constitute "new sources" under section 306 if 781
they were to discharge pollutants directly to navigable | 782
waters. " j 782
This guidance document for use in establishing achievable I 780
effluent limitations for use in NPDES permits is intended to (785
satisfy all the requirements of the Act as it pertains to j 787
the previously described fish culturing source category. 788
Fundamental differences in the methods of obtaining, 789
holding, culturing and distributing of species necessitates 789
separate discussion for native and non-native fish. 790
NATIVE FISH* - GENERAL DESCRIPTION CF THE INDUSTRY 792
Industry Growth 79a
The development of native fish-culturing activities in the | 796
United states since the turn of the century has been j 797
phenomenal. In 1900 the Federal Government operated 34 798
fish hatcheries and fish-collecting stations and it was 799
estimated that there were about the same number of state 900
hatcheries (242). In subsequent years the number of 800
government owned and operated hatcheries increased rapidly. 83i
By 1948 nearly 500 more state hatcheries were in operation 80;
and the federal units had increased to 97. During the past 80\
25 years, many of the smaller and less efficient hatcheries «0»
have been replaced by larger modern facilities J244). In 80S
1974. according to data compiled by the National Task Force 80S
on Public Fish Hatchery Policy, there were 515 fish- 806
culturing facilities operated by governmental agencies. of 80?
this total, 425 were"" state and 90 were federal fish 8ua
hatcheries. It has been estimated that government 808
facilities produce more than 14,965 metric tons (33 million 809
-------
pounds) of salmon id fishes (salmon and trout) and 660 metric 810
tons (1.5 million pounds) of other native species, such as 811
catfish and sunfish, annually J260,27*). 812
Similar development has occurred in privately-owned fish I 81 u
production facilities, often referred to as fish farms. | 815
Private fish farming began in the United states during the 816
1930*8 and by the mid 1950*s the industry was fairly well 817
developed and widespread (31). The principal type of fish 818
cultured at farms in the western and northern sections of 819
the United States was trout (59) while in the central and 820
southern areas the major efforts were directed at culturing 820
buffalo fish usually in combination with catfish, crappie 821
and bass "(96). 821
About 1963 there was a change in the central and southern I 823
fish farming activities. Nearly 80 percent of the land ) 824
under "pond cultivation for raising buffalo fish was 825
converted to the raising of catfish and minnows (31). 826
During the 10 years that followed (1963 to 1973), fish farm | 828
production continued to experience substantial growth. | 829
Unfortunately many private farmers guard their production 830
information, resulting in only fragmentary data on the fish- 8Ji
farming industry. Nevertheless, the importance of private 832
enterprise in producing marketable fish can be illustrated. 833
For example, private fish farms in Idaho annually produce 83«
about the same poundage of trout as all the federal fish 81*
hatcheries in the United States combined (135). It has been 835
estimated that these private hatcheries produced 6,800 8Jt>
metric tons (15 million pounds) of trout each year primarily 8J7
for consumption (268), and reportedly have potential for ad- 817
ditional development (23) . Fish farms raising catfish have 8 la
shown similar growth. In the southern United States 8!*
privately-owned catfish farms produced 12,250 metric tons 8«0
(27 million pounds) in 1968 and projections indicate that §»
these farms have a potential of producing more than 50,800 '
metric tons (112 million pounds) by 1975 (122). '
In a cooperative study with the 50 states, the Bureau of |
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Department of the | *
Interior, published information on the potential growth of «
the native fish-culturing industry in the United States »
(2U4). This national survey concluded that during 1965,
federal and state hatcheries produced nearly 250 million
trout, from fry to catchables, weighing almost 8,165 metric «
tons (18 million pounds). By the year 2000, it is estimated
that trout production in government-owned and operated
hatcheries will more than double to 505 million fish per
year weighing nearly 17,2*0 metric tons (38 million pounds)
-------
[Table III-1]. This 9,070 metric tons (20 million pounds) 853
increase would mean an average annual production rate of 30 854
to US metric tons (65,000 to 100,000 pounds) of fish per 855
hatchery. However 300 additional hatcheries will have to be 856
constructed to Meet this estimate. 856
The potential hatchery production of warm-water fish was j 858
also estimated in the cooperative national survey. In 1965 j 859
the annual production of warm-water fish by state and 860
federal hatcheries was about 1.2 billion and by the year 861
2000 the annual production is estimated to approach 2 862
billion [Table III-2]. 862
As part of the national survey, an effort was made by the j 864
Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI, to obtain present and j 865
future production capabilities of private hatcheries and 866
fish farms. Only 97 operations supplied information and the 867
data are not presented in this document because of their 868
incompleteness. 868
Types of Facilities
870
Perhaps the most striking difference in native fish-rearing | 872
facilities is related to water-flow patterns. Fish can be j 873
reared in closed ponds which typically discharge less than 874
30 days per year or only during periods of excess runoff. 875
Another operation, the open pond, usually has a continuous 876
overflow. A third type of operation, the flow-through | 878
system, consists of a single or series of rearing which are | 879
typically raceways that have inverted trapezoidal cross- j 879
sections. The fish are concentrated in these raceway j B80
culturing units through which a continuous flow of water | 88i
passes. Uneaten food and fish excreta are routinely removed 882
from most types of flow-through" rearing units by various 883
types of cleaning practices. A fourth type of rearing 88*
process relies upon reconditioned and Recycled water for use I 885
mostly in raceway culturing units. Surveys (34) have j 886
revealed that reconditioning is becoming more attractive j 80?
because: (a) many water supplies are too cold and must be 888
heated, thus on a once-through basis all the heat remaining 889
is wasted: and (b) many areas do not have sufficient water 889
supplies to rear a full capacity of fish during dry months. 890
In addition, reconditioning is attractive in operations 89'
where source water must be disinfected to control diseases. 89;
Figure III-l diagrammatically shows the four systems 89 J
described. Many operations do not limit their activities to 89*
the use of just one of these confinement methods for their 89«
fish-culturing processes. For example, typical cold-water «9«
or salmcnid fish hatcheries have propagation facilities that 89f
include holding ponds, rearing tanks and raceways (139). 897
-------
Even the warm-water fish cult or ing operations such as 898
catfish farms are beginning to expand their facilities 899
beyond the strictly pond-type system of rearing. They are 899
beginning to construct and stock raceways because this 900
production process offers ease in harvesting fishes, greater 901
carrying capacity and other distinct advantages over the 902
pond systems (205) . The blending of production processes is 903
even wore evident in hatcheries or farms that have multiple 904
water sources allowing them to rear warm-water and 90«*
cold-water fishes. 90U
Location of Facilities I 906
Hatcheries specializing in the rearing of salmonid fishes j 908
are concentrated in the northwest region of the United j 909
States "(176) where the volume of cool water (about 10°C or 910
50°F) for culturing is abundant and inexpensive. However, 911
cold-water hatcheries are not limited to the west. 912
Considerable numbers of salmonid hatcheries are located in 913
the Great Lakes area, along the northeast Atlantic states, 913
and in the mountains of the mid-coastal and southeastern 914
states "(Table ZZI-3]. On the other hand, warm-water fish 915
culturing operations are concentrated in, but not limited 916
to, the central-southern section of the United States where 917
climate, water temperatures and other physical conditions 917
are conducive to the pond rearing of such types of fish as 918
minnows, sunfish and catfish (31,87,121,223). 919
Fish farms and hatcheries are generally located in rural I 921
areas. some occupy several hundred acres while others may | 922
be contained within a single building or even a portable 923
shed with an incubator and a water supply. A warm-water 92«
hatchery often appears to be much larger than a trout or 925
salmon hatchery. This is because of the larger acreage of 925
ponds used for natural spawning and rearing of warm-water 926
fishes. At federal facilities the average cold-water fish 927
hatchery includes about 60 hectares (150 acres) of land 929
while the average warm-water hatchery is 8 hectares (20 929
acres) larger (2U«).
If wastewater treatment is deemed necessary at these
facilities, there is generally sufficient acreage to permit
the installation of adequate treatment systems. Those with
spatial limitations,"such as those located in narrow canyons
along the Snake River, either have other land available they
can purchase or can implement in-clant control measures
and/or less land intensive treatment methods such as high-
rate tube settlers in combination with vacuum cleaning
systems to meet standards set forth in this document. Most
hatcheries are built on flat to moderately rolling terrain.
93'
939
936
937
938
939
900
-------
In Many localities the most economical and desirable site 941
cannot be used because the land is subject to flooding. In 9«2
other localities the type of soil" nay present a major 943
problem in site selection for earthen raceways, ponds or 9«a
impoundments. A potential farm or hatchery location may be 9uu
rejected if soils allow excessive seepage or adversely 9*5
affect water guality and subsequently interfere with the 9U6
fish-rearing process. 946
Fish Cultured 9U8
A review of available literature (Section XIII] produced a ( 950
list of 83 species of native fishes cultured in the United j 951
States. For the sake of simplicity, these species were 952
placed into two major groups, cold-water and warm-water 953
fishes. Because of similarities in production and for 954
convenience, cool-water fishes such as pike and walleye were 954
included in the warm-water fish group (Table III-4). 955
Raw Materials 957
A basic raw material required by all fish-production | 959
facilities is water. The source of water used in fish farms j 960
or hatcheries may be from streams, ponds, springs, wells or 961
impoundments that store surface runoff. Regardless of which 962
source is used, the supply must be available in sufficient 963
quantity to maintain a minimum design flow and to 964
periodically or continuously flush out organic wastes. 964
Because water is the medium in which the fishes are | 966
cultured, the successful operation of a fish farm or J 967
hatchery is dependent upon the Duality as well as the 968
quantity. Preferably, the water should be moderately hard, 969
have a pH of 7 to 8, and be suitable in temperature to 970
promote rapid fish growth. It should be clear, with a high 970
oxygen content and free from noxious gasses, chemicals, 97 i
pesticides or other materials that may be toxic to fish 972
(39, 59,
Except for temperature, water quality requirements for the | 97*
propagation of warm-water fishes are much the same as for | 97s
trout and salmon. For a discussion of optimum temperatures ?>»
for cold- and warm-water cultures, the reader is directed to 977
such publications as Inland Fisheries Management (41), 978
Culture and Diseases of Game Fishes (59) and Textbook of 974
Fish Culture (115). *9a
Another raw material required for some fish-cult or ing | 982
activities is prepared feed. Operations engaged in j 98 J
intensive culturing, hold and rear fish at densities that 99«
-------
require routine feeding with prepared food. fit her
operations rear fish at densities more similar to those
enjoyed toy wild fish. These non-intensive culturing
operations typically rely on natural foods existing in
earthen ponds (59) which may or may not be stimulated prior
to stocking as dicussed below. ~~
Feeding prepared foods was once considered a simple task and
was usually assigned to the least-experienced fish
culturist. The chore consisted of merely feeding all that
the fish would consume, and then a little more to assure an
abundant supply (186). Economics, pollution and other
factors have caused revolutionary changes in feeding.
In many fish hatcheries, diets have progressed from all-meat
mixtures, to bound mixtures of meats and dry meals, to
pelTetized diets fed with periodic meat allowances, and
recently to exclusive feeding of moist or dry pelletized
feed J27, 46, lid, 136, 143, 146, T58, 176, 186, 187, J88,
215, 216, 259). Currently, the 515 state and federal fish
hatcheries operating in the United States use an average of
44 percent pregared pellets or other dry feeds; the
remaining 56 percent is primarily fish or meat offal (109).
No statistics are available on feeding |>ractices for the
private sector of the industry, but from visits to several
of these operations it appears that they have made similar
adjustments in feeding.
fhe quantity of feed per fish is also an important variable
n maintaining a hatchery or farm. The amount of feed
required'is a function of the fish size, activity, and water
temperature (185,186).~ In salmonid hatcheries, it is
generally less than 5 percent of the body weight per day for
any individual fish and averages between 1.0 and 2.5 percent
in a typical hatchery (139). In catfish hatcheries and
other warm-water facilities that require feeding, it is
usually 5 percent of the body weight per day for any
individual fish under two months old and 3 percent for older
fish (45). ~"
In fish-culturing facilities that use commercially prepared
feed, young fish are fed dry mash which floats, while older
"fish and adults in ponds or raceways are fed pelleted food
(186). Feeding may be manual or mechanical (99) and varies
in frequency from daily for salmonid fcroodfish, to twice
daily for catfish (45) , "to hourly feedings for fry
(40,81,103,186) .
A third raw material required for some fish-culturing
operations is fertilizer. As previously stated, some warm-
985
985
986
I 987
I 988
j 988
990
991
992
993
99U
994
996
997
998
999
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1006
1007
1007
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
101«
101*
1015
1016
1017
1017
1070
1021
1022
102J
102i
102*
1026
1027
-------
vater hatcheries and farms rely upon natural foods existing
In earthen ponds. "These fish foods are often produced by
artificial fertilization of ponds. The fertilizer is
lissolved in the pond water and the nutrients from the
fertilizer stimulate a growth of algae. These tiny plants
may be eaten by protozoans, which, along with the algae, are
eaten "by water fleas and other invertebrates. The
invertebrates are eaten by the young °* game fishes or by
forage fishes which, in turn, become the £rey of larger
fishes <59). Thus, the nutrient-rich material introduced
into the pond during artificial fertilization is
subsequently converted into kilograms of fish.
In addition to stimulating the growth of fish-food organisms
and thus increasing fish production, pond fertilization has
two other desirable effects. First, it makes possible a
standard maximum rate of stocking fish. Second, it
stimulates the growth of phytoplankton, reducing light
penetration, thus preventing the growth of submerged water
weeds. Pond fertilization with manure instead of an
inorganic Fertilizer may have certain undesirable effects.
Such practice often causes bacterial contamination of pond
water, fish and receiving water into which ponds are drained
during fish harvesting activities. Davis (59) and Huet
(115) have published detailed descriptions on the techniques
and results of proper fish-pond fertilization.
A fourth raw material used by most fish culturing operations
is treatment chemicals. These chemicals are used
specifically for water treatment or for disease control. A
list of some of the" chemicals used in fish culturing
operations and the typical dosage used in fish propagation
activities are shown in Table III-5.
Production Process
Typical fish-hatchery operations are done in 8 to 9 basic
steps, consistent with the species, size and growth of the
fish, "in some hatcheries broodfish are harvested from the
brood ponds and stripped £f eggs and milt. The eggs and
milt are mixed in pans to induce egg fertilization. Then
the eggs are incubated in a nursery basin in the controlled
environment of an enclosed hatchery building. Prom the
nursery basin, fry are placed in rearing troughs.
Fingerlings are transferred to raceways, or in some cases,
into flow-through" ponds for fingerling rearing. Young
fishes are then moved to the main rearing units and raised
to marketable or releasable size (59).
1028
1029
1030
1030
1031
1032
1033
103tt
1035
1035
1036
1037
1039
1040
10U1
1042
1043
1044
1005
1046
1047
1048
1050
1051
1052
1054
1055
1056
1057
1057
1058
1060
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1067
1066
1069
1070
1071
1071
-------
In other fish hatcheries or fish farvs, cultnring techniques
are often quite different because the Jbasic unit is a pond
rather than a flow-through raceway unit (29, 42, 64, 95,
160, 162, 180, 163, 193, 214, 222, 239, 255). Instead of
harvesting brood fish and stripping eggs and u.lt by hand,
the fishes are usually allowed to spawn naturally. Zn sone
operations the young are reared in ponds under Much the sane
conditions 'as those enjoyed by wild fishes (59,160). Still
other fish-culturing facilities limit their activities to
the pond rearing of young fishes to Maturity for release or
sale. Hatchery and farm methods or designs May vary, but
the basic facilities and rearing Methods have been
universally adopted [Figure III-2],
NON-NATIVE FISH - GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
Industry Growth ""
The non-native fish industry in the United States began in
Florida in 1929 and has experienced tremendous growth since
World War II (56) . The annual growth of the number of
family-owned ornamental fishes, for example, in the gears
1969 to 1972 has varied between 15 and 23 percent (25).
It has been estimated that between the years 1968 and 1974,
the total population of family-owned pet fishes will
increase from 130 million to 340 Million (206) , ornamental
fishes sales will rise from 150 million dollars to 300
million dollars (206) , combined sales of ornamental fish and
accessories will increase from 350 Million dollars to 750
Million dollars (206) , and total live fish imported may rise
from 64.1 million fish to more than 137 million fish (196).
It has been estimated that More than 1,000 species of
ornamental fishes are imported into the United States each
year (133," 195) . For the single month of October 1971, it
was reported that 582 species, representing 100 families,
were imported (197). Of these,~365 were freshwater species
and 217 were marine species. Fifteen species were imported
in quantities exceeding 100*000 individuals. Because the
list of ornamental fishes imported and cultured is
constantly changing, it is not included in this report. The
product of ornamental non-native .fish cultaring facilities
is usually pet fish, although a few species used for
scientific experimentation are produced (56).
The growth potential of the non-native fish industry
Involved with food, sport, and biological control species is
more difficult~*to predict. There are reasons for thinking
the industry will grow and other, perhaps more compelling
reasons for thinking it will decline. Reasons for believing
1
1
1
1073
107U
1075
1077
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1083
1084
1086
1088
1090
1091
1092
1093
1093
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1099
1100
1101
1103
10U
105
106
107
109
108
0?
10
11
12
12
1U
15
16
17
18
-------
the industry will grov include the fact that several large 118
companies are interested in culturing and selling grass carp 119
to control the growth of nuisance aquatic plants and a 120
similar interest in silver carp is expected to follow (54). 121
Furthermore, a recent book on aquaculture (17) may stimulate 122
United States fish culturists to attempt rearing many 123
species of exotic fishes as food fishes (52). ~" 123
Conversely, reasons exist for believing the industry will I 125
decline. For example, interest in Tilapia farming in j 126
Florida is not growing rapidly, perhaps in part due to State 127
restrictions on culture and possession of all species of 128
this genus (54) . For similar reasons, Tilapia farming 128
interest is not growing in Louisiana (9). If problems of 129
over-production of stunted populations, lack of consumer 130
demand as food, and deleterious competition with valuable 131
native sport fish become widely known, interest in Tilapia 131
farming will probably decline. 132
The American Fisheries Society has officially adopted a I 134
position opposed to the introduction of all non-native fish j 135
species prior to careful experimental research and approval 136
by an international, national, or regional agency having 137
jurisdiction over all the water bodies which might be 138
affected (4). 138
In a similar vein, the Sport Fishing Institute officially I no
adopted a resolution urging the U. S. Department of the j iti
Interior~to prohibit the importation into the United States, i«2
except for well-controlled scientific study purposes, of all i»3
exotic fishes other than~~tnose that can be proven to lack M*
harmful ecological effects upon the natural aquatic i»5
environments of the United States and the native flora and i»S
fauna found therein (231). '«
Both these organisations have a substantial amount of J '
Influence on fisheries biologists nationwide and have helped | i««
alert state officials to the dangers of introducing harmful 'to
species, particularly those £elated to the carp. Due to the iM
growing awareness of problems associated with non-native »s:
species and the growing number of~state and .federal laws «*i
prohibiting various species, enthusiasm for culturing non- 'M
native species of sport, food, and biological control fishes '*>
may decline. '*
There are essentially three types of ornamental fish |
production .facilities: importers, ornamental fish farmers, )
-------
and facilities which both import and cultivate ornamental 1160
fish. " 116°
facilities which are strictly importers typically unpack the I 1162
ish, acclimate them for 3 to 21 days, and sometimes treat | 1163
them 'with dilute formalin ox other chemicals before 116U
reshipping them (191). . 116<*
Ornamental fish farmers ordinarily do not import fish from I 1166
outside the country but rely primarily on stocks already | 1167
being cultured in Florida and are usually relatively small 1168
operators. A recent report (25) divides small ornamental 1169
fish farms into two groups: 1169
Group Z includes ornamental fish farmers that have 25 to 40 I 1171
acres of land, 8 to 12 employees, and produce about 60 | 1172
species of fish. Some farmers in this group do import fish 1173
(219), but the percentage imported is relatively small (25). 117U
Group XI includes ornamental fish farmers that have less I 1176
than 25 acres, employ 1 to 3 people, and produce 20 to 25 j 1177
species of fish. £t is estimated that there are about 120 1178
small farmers in these groups in Florida (25). 1179
The same report states that large ornamental fish farmers I 11B1
typically import fish to increase the volume and variety of | 1182
their product. The largest farms typically import from 25 1183
to 50 percent "of their £roduct and purchase considerable 118U
quantities of fish from the smaller .farmers. For example, 1185
there are 27 operations in the Tampa area alone that do not 1186
hip fish themselves, but sell all of their product to other 1187
fish farmers (10). 1187
The types of facilities producing non-native carp-related I 1189
species (grass carp, silver carp, fcighead carp, and black | 1190
carp) and Tilapia are similar in general characteristics to 1191
those of pond-cultured native fish. 1191
Location of Facilities
Breeding and culturing of ornamental fish on a commercial
basis is worldwide, but the largest single breeding center | 1 96
is Florida (10). It was estimated that 90 percent of the 97
production of ornamental fish in the Onited States in 1970 I M
was in Florida (25), the location of about 150 facilities 1 99
(217). In 1972, 150 million ornamental fish (53 million JJJJ
imported, 97 million bred in the state), weighing 10,200 200
metric tons (11.25 million pounds), were shipped from 120
Florida (25). wo
119)
-------
Indoor production of non-native ornamental fishes by small I 1203
facilities and even advanced hobbyists occurs throughout the ] 120U
country but""most of £he outdoor production is in Florida. 1205
There is at least one ornamental .fish farmer utilising 1206
outdoor production ponds in Louisiana (63), and &here are 1207
'one small outdoor operations in Texas which use warmvater 1208
springs occurring along.a linestone fault line which extends 1208
from Austin through San Antonio, Texas (7). some former 1209
outdoor production facilities in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1210
(179), and various garts of California (123,191) have 1211
reportedly ceased production. 1211
Production of non-native sport fishes has not been I 1213
widespread, although the common carp was originally brought j 12iu
to this country in 1877 based partially on claims that it 1215
would be a good sport fish "(136). Just as these claims 1216
later proved to be false, early claims that Tilapia would be 1217
a good sport fish in Florida (55) and Puerto Rico (77) 1217
proved to be exaggerated. 1218
The farming of various species of Tilacia as food fish is I 1220
widespread around the world (100). There is evidence that | 1221
Tilapia was cultured in Egypt as early as 2500 B.C. (118), 1222
and some species are still considered to be promising food 1223
fish for underdeveloped'nations ^100). Tilapia are being 122<*
cultured in the United States in Texas (49, 199), California 1225
(149,229), Louisiana (100), North Carolina (53), Nebraska 1226
(106), and Alabama (100); but production is often 1226
experimental or on a small scale. In spite of state 1227
restrictions, ?ear of introductions, disenchantment with 1228
sportfish qualities, and over population of stunted fish, 1229
dealers in Arizona, Mississippi, and Texas continue to be 1230
listed as suppliers of Tilapia (79). 1^30
The production of non-native relatives of the common carp j 1232
currently appears to be centered in Arkansas and Missouri, j 123)
with interest in polyculture of native channel catfish with 12J«
non-native cyprinids (the grass carp, ctenopharvngodon 12JS
idella; silver carp, Hvpophthalmichthvs molitrix; bighead U3«
carp. Aristichthvs nobilis; and black carp Mvlopharvnqodon 12J»
piceus) increasing only in Arkansas (229). Grass carp and UJ«
more recently, silver carp, are for sale by culturists in Ulft
Arkansas, Minnesota, and Virginia (54). Arkansas has UJ»
stocked the grass carp widely in the state, including in U»:
several large lakes (14). They are for sale from dealers in U«»
Missouri and Ohio (79), and experiments with this species H«'
continue in Louisiana (9), Arkansas (153), and Florida (53), '2«.
even though 4.0 states have now banned them (53). 1 2« l
-------
filver carp, although not good as food, are being cultured I 12*5
n Arkansas in experiments to determine if they are good j 12*6
biological filters" for use in sewage treataent (153). A 12<»7
private fish farmer in Arkansas recently imported 100,000 12U8
silver carp (147) 12<*8
The bighead carp is cultured in the Sacramento, California j 1250
area and sold live in Chinatown, San Francisco, as food fish | 1251
(147)7 and at least one private fish farm in Arkansas has 1252
had a stock of bighead carp under culture for three years 1253
(153). Another Asian" carp, the black carp, has been 125tt
cultured by at least two private fish farmers in Arkansas 1255
(153,229). 1255
Raw Materials 1257
The basic raw materials used to produce non-native J 1259
ornamental fishes are high quality water similar to that | 1260
described for native fish culture except that high water 1261
temperatures (ideally 22 to 24«C or 72 to 76«F) are 1261
required, fish food, pond fertilizer, and various water 1262
treatment chemicals (10). 1262
?rnamental fish food used includes mash, frozen food, live I 126U
ood and dry food (222). Dry food is composed of fish meal, | 1265
shrimp meal, crab meal, blood meal, salmon-egg meal, pablum, 1266
clam meal, beef meal, Daphnia. and fish roe (10). Some fish 1267
food used in outdoor ponds consists of about one part fish 1268
meal mixed with two parts oatmeal in addition to meat scrap 1269
and cotton-seed oil (222). Some pet fish farms utilize com- 1269
mercial palletized food similar to that used in food fish 1270
culture, and others use bulk fish flakes from Germany (137). 1271
Many large ornamental fish farms make a wet mash for indoor 127;
feeding, using various~mixtures of lean ground beef heart, a 1271
more expensive fish meal, cooked spinach, and cooked liver i2Jt
(222). Other ingredients used in some wet mashes include U*s
oatmeal, shrimp, and egg yolk. Cooked foods utilized I2^s
include chicken, turkey, fish, beef liver, muscle meats, U^
fish roe, minced clam, boiled shrimp, lobster, and crab iJ|>
(10). Live organisms used as pet fish food include brine U»«
shrimp, Daphnia, water boatman, midge larvae, glass worms, iJ»«
Gammarua. microworms, fairy shrimp, snails, meal worms, 1JJ«
infusoria, and earthworms (10). ornamental fishes cultured u«.
in Hong Kong and other £arts of the orient are fed ^-'
tubificids and other worms grown in human sewage (93). '*
AS in some other types of warm-water fish culture,
fertilizer is sometimes added to ornamental fish ponds to
encourage the" natural production of planktonic fish food.
Sheep manure (a possible source of .fecal bacteria) and U
-------
cottonseed meal are listed as common fertilizers J212). 1268
Chemicals used as raw Materials for water treatment and 1288
disease control in fish culture were previously listed in 1289
Table ZZZ~5. Raw Materials used in the production of non- 1290
native food, sport, and biological control fish are similar 1291
bo those listed for native iipecies. 1292
Production Process 129U
There are two basic types of ornamental fish production | 1296
processes, that used for outdoor breeders, primarily live- j 1297
bearers, and~that used for indoor breeders, primarily egg- 1298
layers (192, 221). Different species of fish require 1299
slightly different culturing techniques, but the basic non- 1300
native fish production process follows the flow diagram 1300
outlined in Figure ZZI-3. 1301
Outdoor breeding is possible with most live-bearers and with I 1303
some egg laying species. Zn the major production areas in j 130U
central Florida, dirt ponds are prepared for a new crop by 1305
being pumped dry and treated with hydrated lime. The ponds 1306
refill in a few days through~infiltration (221). Ponds are 1307
then fertilized with substances such as cottonseed meal and 1308
sheep manure and allowed to remain dormant, except for the 1309
addition of live Daphnia. for about three weeks (10). The 1309
£ond is then full of planktonic fish food and ready to be 1310
stocked with fish. One strain of fish is introduced and 5 1311
to 12 months later the fish are ready to be harvested (10, 1312
221). Zn some cases, the strain remains productive and 1313
repeated spawning allows the pond to stay in production 1314
without drainage for up to 5 years (221). 131 a
ihile the fish are in ponds, weed control is accomplished j 1316
with chemicals (10). Zn the past, dangerous chemicals such j 1317
as arsenic compounds have been used (10); wide-spread 1318
recognition of the dangers of such chemicals has hopefully 1319
eliminated their use. Some fishes are brought inside during 1320
the cold periods, while relatively warm well water is 1321
sometimes routed through outdoor ponds to help regulate the 1321
temperature. The fish are harvested by trapping and brought 1322
Inside for preshipment holding. During this time they are 1323
sometimes medicated with dilute chlorine or various 132»
commercial chemicals (192) firior to packing and shipment. 1325
Zndoor breeding is done in tanks where after spawning the j 1327
adults of many species are separated from the eggs (10). | 1328
The fry may then be cultured in vats or outside in ponds. 1329
Many of the egg-layers are sold prior to November to avoid 1330
problems of low temperatures,'while others are more tolerant 1331
and can be retained outside until spring (221). 1331
-------
The process used in the cultaring of non-native food, sport, I 1333
and biological control fishes are generally similar to those | 1334
listed for the pond culture of native fish. However, grass 1335
and silver carp are produced in the (kiited States by 1336
artificial spawning Methods, whereas Tilaoia production is 1337
from natural spawning in ponds (54). 1337
-------
SECTION IV I 1340
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 1342
In developing draft recommendations effluent limitations and I 1345
standards of performance for a particular industry, a | 1346
judgement must be made by £he Environmental Protection 1347
Agency as to whether effluent limitations and standards are 1348
appropriate for different segments or subcategories within 1349
the industry. 13*9
To determine whether subcategorisation was necessary, the I 1351
following factors or variables were considered. I 1352
1. Product
2. Hastes Generated 1
3. Treatability of Wastewater 1358
4. Product Process J360
5. Facility Sise and Age J362
6. Geographic Location 136«
2- Raw Materials 1366
FACTORS OF VARIABLES CONSIDERED 1368
Product 137°
The products of the fish-culturing industry are native and | 1372
non-native fish. Native fish are cultured in fish farms or | 1373
hatcheries throughout the United States to be subsequently 1374
marketed (sold for consumption or bait) or released (fish 1375
stocking). Non-native fish are imported into the United 1376
states to be used principally by the aquarium industry. 1377
The principal product of native fish-culturing activities in I 1379
the United States is mature fish. State and Federal | 1380
hatcheries rear fish for release to public waterways. Most 1381
privately-owned hatcheries or £arms rear fish for commercial 1382
distribution, primarily for consumption. Although mature 1383
fish themselves are the major hatchery product, fish eggs or 138«
fingerlings may also be sold to others for rearing. Other 138«
operations include rearing broodfish for breeding and 1385
marketing and selling fish eggs for consumption or bait. 1386
The product of non-native fish culturing is also mature j 1388
fish. Instead of being released to public waterways or sold 1389
for consumption or bait, non-native species are principally | 1390
imported by the aquarium industry for sale as ornamental 1391
fish. 1391
-------
All imported fish have the potential for introducing harmful | 1394
biological pollutants into native ecosystems 155,133,233). 1395
Further no re, Major differences in holding, culturing and 1396
harvesting of different species of fish warrents 1397
subcategorication of the industry into native and non-native 139B
fish. 1398
Wastes Generated 1»°°
Native Pish CulturinaThe principal type of waste generated | 1H02
byfish hatcheries or farms is organic Material. Through 1403
the process of decomposition, these wastes reduce dissolved 140 a
oxygen levels and increase biochemical oxygen demand, 1405
chemical oxygen demand? in addition to nitrogen and 1405
phosphorus levels. Particles of waste not dissolved within 1406
the hatcheries increase the levels of suspended and 1407
settleable solids in the effluent while the portion entering 1408
solution will elevate the total dissolved solids level 1409
(109). 11»09
Wastes generated from fish hatcheries or farms are often I 1411
intermittent and directly related to housekeeping. Rearing | 1412
ponds and raceways are cleaned typically at intervals 1413
varying from "daily to monthly or longer. When the 1414
facilities are being cleaned, the effluent can contain fecal 1415
wastes, unconsuned food, weeds, algae, silt, detritus, 1415
chemicals and drugs and can produce a major pollution 1416
problem (28,139). Conversely, these same hatcheries or 1417
farms may discharge low amounts of wastes during normal 1U18
operations. 1(n8
While these operational differences require that special I 1420
attention should be given to evaluating the increase in | l»2i
wastes generated during cleaning operations, it does not 1422
appear that sufficient variability exists to subcategorixe 1423
the industry on the basis of the type of wastes generated. 1«2«
Non-Native Fish CulturinaWith the exception of introducing I i«26
new harmful biological pollutants into native ecosystems the | 1427
wastes generated by non-native £ish culturing are similar to M29
those generated by native fish culturing. subcategorication i«JO
beyond native and non-native (imported) fish production is i«n
not necessary. '*''
Treatabilitv of Wastewater !*JJ
Native Pish CulturinaConventional waste treatment methods | i«3S
are capabTe~of reducing the levels of pollutants in fish- | »«J6
farm" and hatchery wastewaters. Plant scale sedimentation i«3J
systems have been operated at several hatcheries and have i«JB
-------
proven effective in removing that portion of the pollutant 1439
load associated with the settleatle solids (113.235). 1439
Treatability studies have been conducted to determine the 1440
pollutant removal efficiency of sedimentation 1441
(113,1*0,251,258). aeration and settling (130,131). ]««2
'stabilization ponds (HO), and reconditioning-recycle 1442
systems employing several methods of secondary waste 1«43
treatment (159> . findings indicate that technology is 1444
available to accomplish a wide range of efficiencies in 1445
removing settleable and suspended solids from fish culture 1146
wastewaters. 1*06
Although slog organic loadings do occur in facilities where | 1448
intermittent cleaning is practiced, study results show that | 1449
treatment efficiency is not impaired and in some cases 1450
increases "during cleaning (113,130,131,235). Shock 1*51
hydraulic loadings occur at some operations during cleaning 1452
and should be carefully considered in the design of 1453
treatment facilities. In view of the fact that fish farm 1454
and hatchery effluents are amenable tc treatment, it does 1454
not appear that further division of the native fish- 1455
culturing industry is warranted on the basis of treatability 1456
of wastewater. 1456
Non-Native Fish CulturingThe rationale given above for I 1458
nativeflshTulturing is applicable to non-native fish I 1459
culturing. The additional treatment technologies used in 1460
non-native fish culture, including dry wells, holding 1461
reservoirs, ultraviolet disinfection, and chlorination, are 1462
alternatives applicable to effluents for any non-native fish 1463
production facility and thus farther sabcategorization of 1464
|the non-native fish industry is not justified. 1464
Production Process M66
Native Fish CulturingBasically, fish hatcheries and farms | 1468
Iredesigned to control the spawning, hatching and/or 1469
Fearing of confined fish. However, fundamental differences 1470
exist in the methods employed in the artificial propagation 1471
of cold- and warm-water fishes. Typically cold-water fish 1472
are cultured in raceways through which large volumes of 1473
water flow, while warm-water fish are pond cultured. 1473
tecause the production process and resulting waste loads 1474
ischarged from flow-through and pond fish-rearing 1475
facilities may be substantially different, the need for 1476
sabcategorization is indicated.
Non-Native Fish CulturingRaceway or other continuous flow | 1478
facilities are not necessary for non-native fish species 1479
being cultured at present. Production is typically in 1480
-------
static outdoor ponds or indoor tanks [Figure III-3], giving
no reason to subcategorize based on slight differences in
production processes.
Facility Site and Age
native Pish CulturinqThe size of fish-culturing operations
in the United States varies from facilities capable of
producing a few kilograms of fish per year to facilities
that produce several hundred thousand kilograms. Both snail
and large fish-culturing operations say, at certain times
and under specific conditions, discharge poor quality water
into receiving streams, thus the pollution potential of the
industry is not strictly size dependent (232).
During the past 25 years many of the smaller and less
efficient fish-culturing operations have been replaced by
larger, modern facilities (244). This general practice of
modernizing rearing units, coupled with similarities of
waste characteristics from f ish-culturing .facilities of
varying sizes, indicates that subcategorization of the
native fish-culturing industry on the basis of facility size
or age would not be meaningful. Size may be a special
consideration with regards to treatment cost. This matter
will be discussed in Section VIII of this document.
Non-Native Fish CulturinaThe rationale above is also true
for non-native fish production. The basic non-native
ornamental fish production unit is a tank or a relatively
small outdoor pond for large as well as small facilities.
Production facilities for non-native sport, food, and
biological control species are usually small, primarily due
to regulations and fear of introducing harmful biological
pollutants.
There are no substantial differences in facilities based on
age because non-native fish culturing is a new industry that
had Its beginning in the United states in 1929 (56).
Geographic Location
Native Fish CulturinaCold-water fish hatcheries are
concentrated in, but not limited to, the northwest region of
the United States. Warm-water fish culturing facilities are
primarily located in the central-southern and southeastern
section of the country.
The specific location of these fish farms and hatcheries is
determined by such factors as availability of water,
climatic conditions, terrain, and soil types. Geographical
1481
1482
1482
1484
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1492
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1498
1499
1501
1503
1503
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1510
1510
1512
1513
1514
1516
1518
1519
1520
1521
1521
1523
152U
1525
-------
location of a fish culturing operation nay determine the 1526
degree of success in rearing certain species of fish, or it 1527
may influence the selection of waste treatment equipment, 1528
but it does not substantially alter the character of the 1529
twastewater or its treatability. Therefore, 1529
Uubcategorization according to location is not indicated. 1530
Non-Native Fish CulturinqThe rationale given above for I 1532
native fish production is also true for non-native fish, j 1533
Because Indoor producers typically do not discharge into 153U
navigable waters' and because outdoor producers occur 1535
primarily in the South, there is no need for further 1536
subcategorication on the basis of geographic location. 1536
Raw Materials 1538
native rish CulturinqRaw Materials used for fish I I5ao
propagation operations include water, feed, fertilizer and j 15
-------
SECTION V | 1574
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 1576
wastewaters from fish culturing activities may contain j 1579
iStabolic waste products, residual food, algae, detritus, | 1580
pathogenic" bacteria. ' parasites, chemicals and drugs 1581
(28,109,139). Major consideration is given to metabolic and 1582
uneaten food wastes because these pollutants are 1583
characteristic of most fish culturing waste discharges while 1583
the other substances named above are often discharged ibBU
sporadically (23, 109,139). The rate and concentration of 1585
walte discharged* from a fish culturing facility are 586
dependent upon such factors as feeding, fish sise. loading 1587
densities wd water supply (26,103,139,1*0.170,207). 587
Because of the numerous combinations of these variables. 1588
typical waste characteristics were computed from the results 1589
of several independent studies. Values cited in this 1590
section were determined for sampling that ranged from single 1591
grab samples to 24-hour composite samples consisting of 1592
portions collected at hourly intervals. These values 1592
reflect the daily waste production for the fish culturinq 1593
industry. ~ 159J
Organic wastes usually cause such water quality changes as I 1595
Feduction in the dissolved oxygen concentration and increase | 1596
in the level of oxygen demanding materials, solids and 1597
nutrients (109.159). These and other waste characteristics 1598
are discussed below for native and non-native fish culturing 1599
activities. 15"
NATIVE FISH
10UJ
IV "» * * v mm S^^^SmS^ - -
Oxygen and Oxygen-Demanding Constituents
Aside from the presence of waste products, the most j 1605
Important single factor affecting the number of fish that | 606
canbe held in the restricted space of a pond, raceway or 607
other culturing facility is the concentration of dissolved 1608
oxygen (DO) in the water (59). It is generally agreed that ibO*
for qood growth and the general well-being of cold- and 60^
warm-water fishes, the DO concentration should net be less 16 jo
thaT 6 and 5 ig/1, respectively <2u5). Under extreme 6"
coalitions, the DO*may be lower for short periods Provided j 2
the water quality is favorable in all other respects; ijii
H^~* L shouldnever be less than * mg/1 (2*5). .To 1*11
or ..ln these oxygen levels, some fish hatcheries 6 .
and farms must rely upon artificial aeration devices.
-------
As water passes through a fish rearing unit, the DO may be
reduced (105). The change in DO concentration is mainly due
to direct fish uptake and partly due to atmospheric losses
and benthal oxygen demand (105,139).
Gigger and Speece (86) reported that small fish excrete more
oxygen demanding wastes and directly use more oxygen per
kilogram of fish than large fish do. Liao (139) graphically
expressed this relationship for salmonid fishes by showing
that as fish size increases from 16.5 -to ,21.6 cm (6.5 to 8.5
in.), the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) production and
oxygen uptake per kilogram both decrease [Figure V-l].
£n terms of a daily oxygen reduction rate per kg of fish
being cultured, the decrease in water passing through a
typical fish hatchery ranges from 0.2 to 1.7 kg with an
average of 0.7 kg of oxygen used for each 100 kg of fish
(139).
Accumulation and decomposition of waste feed, fish excreta
or other organic matter in a cultnring facility may reduce
the amount of oxygen available to the fish. Usually this
loss of oxygen is expressed in terms of concentrations or
exertion rates of biochemical oxygen demand (BOO) or
chemical oxygen demand (COO). The oxygen demanding
materials in certain types of warm- and cold-water fish
culturing facilities were compared in Table V-l. Findings
showed that raceway and open pond systems culturing fishes
produce an average net increase in BOD of 3 to 4. mg/1 during
normal operations. The corresponding net increase in COO
for these culturing facilities averages 16 to 25 mg/1.
Wastewater samples collected at the raceway outlet during
cleaning operations showed a marked increase in the con-
centration of oxygen demanding materials discharged. Liao
7l39) reported that the average BOD concentration increased
from 5.4 to 33.6 mg/1 during cleaning activities at salmonid
fish hatcheries. Other studies by Dydek J69) have shown
similar results. Dydek reported that the average BOD
concentration increased from 6.4 to 28.6 mg/1 during raceway
cleaning at the four federal fish hatcheries he evaluated.
Results shown in Table V-l reflect this trend for raceway-
type fish cultures. ""
During normal operations, open pond systems used exclusively
for rearing warm-water fish had BOD and COD characteristics
(concentrations and loads) quite similar to those reported
in wastewaters £rom cold-water fish culturing facilities
(raceways). Ho cleaning operation data are presented in
Table VI for open ponds because these types of facilities
1617
1618
1619
1620
1622
1623
162U
1625
1626
1627
1627
1629
1630
1631
1632
1632
163Q
1635
1636
1637
1636
1638
1639
16«0
1611
16it2
1642
16«»3
16«S
16«5
16*6
16« 1
16«8
1649
16SJ
16W
1656
-------
are usually earthen ponds that are not condusive to routine 1659
cleaning. 1659
Harm-water fish are cultured in closed earthen ponds also I 1661
768). As previously discussed for open ponds, cleaning is j 1663
not routinely practiced for various reasons including prac- 1663
ticality, Manpower, tine and need. If done at all, pond 166U
cleaning operations are usually accomplished in conjunction 1665
with fish harvesting. therefore, waste characteristics 1666
shown in Table V-2 reflect conditions that exist when either 1667
open or closed ponds are being drained to aid in fish 1667
harvesting. 1667
Generally, pond-reared fish are harvested during the fall, I 1669
following a spring and summer rearing period. In practice, | 1670
the'water level i.s drawn down to a suitable depth for 1671
wading. This activity is usually Deferred to as pre-harvest 1672
draining. The fish are then harvested with nets and in many 1673
operations the pond is then drained completely. The latter 167u
activity is termed post-harvest draining. 1674
From a literature search supplemented with field studies by I 1676
the Environmental Protection Agency (74), typical pond j 1677
wastewaters from facilities culturing native fish have been 1678
characterized [Table V-2]. These studies showed that 1679
wastewaters discharged during "draining activities had 1680
average BOD and COD concentration of 5.1 and 31 mg/1, 1680
respectively. in terms of waste loads, the draining 16B1
wastewaters had 2.2 kg of BOD and 6.2 kg of COD for each 100 1682
kg of fish being cultured. ~ 1682
Solids i«»
Several sources contribute to the increase in the | 1686
concentration of solids as water flows through a fish j ita>
culturing facility. The unnaturally high density of fish 1648
confined in the raceway facility leads to rapid accumulation i»M
of metabolic by-products and the buildup of particulate IM«
fecal matter (28). Speece (226) and Liao (139) cited this it«3
as a major contributor to the accumulation of solids in some *»«'
fish culturing facilities. They shewed that there is a »«;
correlation between the amount of solids produced by '»!
hatcheries and the amount of food fed; for every 0.45 kg '«
(1.0 Ib) of feed consumed, 0.14 kg (0.3 Ib) of suspended '*
solids are excreted by the fish. when feed is not i»**>
completely consumed, it is not only wasteful and costly, but i»«»
it also contributes to the effluent BOD and suspended solids 't«<
concentrations (139). In addition, the cleaning of algae, '
silt and detritus from ponds and raceways produces periodic »»«
discharges of additional solids. '»"
-------
Table V-3 shows that under normal operating conditions
raceways and open ponds produce slightly different
quantities" of solids. The net increase in suspended solids
in raceway facilities is 3.7 mg/1 while in open pond
facilities the increase is greater at 9.7 mg/1. Results
ralso chow that the net increase in settleable solids is very
low, averaging <0.1 ml/1 in raceways and open ponds.
Settleable solids are'defined as the volume of solids that
s*ettle within one hour under quiescent conditions in an
Xmhoff Cone (234). Dissolved solids in raceway facilities
showed a net change (effluent minus influent) ranging fron
minus (-) 183 to 116 mg/1 with an average value of 12 mg/1.
The minus value"* is assumed to reflect the decrease in
dissolved solids caused by "biological uptake. Dissolved
solids in open pond cultaring facilities showed a net
average increase of 22 mg/1, nearly twice the increase
reported for raceway operations. In part, this may be due
to the fact that accumulated waste solids are intermittently
flushed from raceway rearing facilities during cleaning
while in surveyed pond facilities waste solids are left to
digest and solubilize.
During cleaning operations in raceway facilities, the
accumulation of waste feed, fish feces, algae and other
detritus is removed from the culturing facility. Table V-3
shows that the average suspended solids concentration
increases more than 16 times, from a net change of 3.7 to
61.9 mg/1, during cleaning activities. The net change in
settleable solids increased more than twenty times from <0.1
to 2.2 ml/1. Based upon data reported by Liao (139) , there
is no net change in the dissolved solids concentration when
comparing normal operation effluent characteristics with
cleaning-water characteristics.
Effluent characteristics reported by Dydek (69) and Liao
7l39) demonstrate that the previously discussed increases in
solids and" the data shown in Table V-3 are typical. Dydek
reported that average suspended solids concentrations
increased from 22 to 74 mg/1 during raceway cleaning
activities at three Federal fish hatcheries. Liao (139)
reported suspended solids ranged from 0 to 55 mg/1 during
normal operations and ranged from 85 to 104 mg/1 during
cleaning activities. This was an average net increase of 89
mg/1 of suspended solids during cleaning. Liao addressed
the pollution potential of solids by pointing out that his
studies showed nearly 90 percent of the suspended solids
removed from raceways during cleaning operations become
settleable under optimum conditions. Be concluded that ". .
. most of the [suspended] solids Contained in the cleaning
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1706
1707
1706
1706
1709
1710
1711
1712
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1717
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1724
1725
1726
1727
1727
1729
1730
1731
1732
1732
1733
173«
1735
1736
1737
1737
1738
1739
17*0
-------
water will immediately deposit on the stream bottom below
the hatchery."
Although data are not available to evaluate the solids
characteristics in cleaning wastes from raceway systems used
exclusively for %'armwater fish cultures, it is expected that
they do not differ appreciably from cold-water operation
cleaning wastes. The daily waste loads for solids reported
in the literature substantiate this similarity. In terms of
weight. Table V-3 shows that raceway culturing units
discharge an average of 2.6 kg of suspended solids per 100
kg of fish on hand per day. Ponds with continuous overflow
(open ponds)" discharge slightly greater solids loads
averaging 3.1 kg of suspended solids per 100 kg of fish on
hand per day [Table V-3 ].
Solids are also discharged directly into receiving streams
when earthen ponds are drained to harvest fish. To evaluate
the pollution optential of these wastewaters several studies
were reviewed and additional sampling was conducted (74).
The data were compiled and are .summarized in Table V-4.
Findings showed that during harvest draining, £Onds
contributed from 4 to 470 mg/1 of suspended solids. The
variation was caused by the fact that solids are strongly
influenced' by such factors as sediment type and algae. On
the average, draining was tew ate r contained 157 mg/1 of
suspended solids of which 5.5 ml/1 were settleable. In
terms of waste loads, the draining wastewater produced 23.5
kg of suspended solids per 100 kg of fish cultured.
Nutrients
In fish culturing facilities, uneaten feed and fish excreta
accumulating in the raceways and ponds are rich sources of
nutrient pollutants. The nitrogen content, for example, of
dried feces has been measured as 5.8 percent for carp and
7.3 percent for sunfish (86). As this fecal matter
decomposes in the water system, organic nitrogen may be
changed into ammonia by bacteria (124). In an open or flow-
through "system there is usually sufficient water flow to
dilute toxic levels of ammonia to harmless concentrations of
<0.5 mg/1 (28,35,210,272). However, in some open and many
closed systems, such as a recycle facility, ammonia
accumulation is often a ma^or problem J14«,145). It has
been demonstrated that fish exposed to ammonia con-
centrations of 1.6 mg/1 for six months have reduced stamina,
reduced growth, suffer extensive degenerative changes to
gill and liver tissue and are more susceptable to bacterial
gill disease (210). The literature shows that the ammonia
concentration in fish hatchery wastewaters is erratic but on
17U2
1742
174U
1745
1746
1746
1747
1749
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1753
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1765
1767
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1773
177*
177'j
I77o
1777
1778
1779
1779
1783
1781
1782
1783
178<«
-------
an average it
(36,113,139,2*7,272) .
ranges from
0.2
to
0.6
mg/1
Given sufficient tine and proper conditions, organic
nitrogen and phosphorus in waste feed and fish excreta will
be oxidised to nitrate and phosphate. Table V-5 shows that
under normal operating conditions, gaceway and open pond
systems produce similar concentrations of nutrients. On the
average there is"~a net increase in total ammonia-nitrogen of
about 0.5 mg/1, and in total fhosphate |POf»-P) of 0.05 to
0.09 mg/1. On the other hand the nitrate- gitrogen (NO3-N)
concentration decreases on the average of 0.7 to 0.22 mg/1
as water flows through the fish culturing facility. This
net loss of nitrate is assumed to te caused primarily by
biological uptake in phytoplankton and periphyton growths
that commonly occur in raceways and ponds through which the
nutrient-rich waters flow.
During cleaning operations in raceways there is a change in
the concentrations of certain forms of nutrients in the fish
culturing facility wastewater. The net change in total
ammonia-nitrogen was reported to be an Increase from 0.49 to
0.52 mg/1, nitrate-nitrogen increased from minus (-) 0.17 to
0.6U mg/1, total Jcjeldahl nitrogen fTKN), which includes
ammonia and organic nitrogen, increased from 0.74 to 1.15
mg/1 and total pholphate increased .from 0.09 to 0.38 mg/1.
As previously discussed, open ponds are not routinely
cleaned; therefore, nutrient data are not available for pond
cleaning operations. However, a comparison of the nutrient
waste loads produced in'either raceway or open pond culture
discharges shows a similarity in nutrient characteristics
("Table V-5]. An average range of 0.06 and 0.07 kg of
nitrate-nitrogen per 100 kg of .fish on hand per day are
discharged by raceways and open ponds, respectively.
Further similarity in nutrient characteristics of
wastewater s is shown by the fact that both of these
continuous flow facilities produce 0.03 kg of phosphate per
100 kg of fish on hand per day.
A review of available data from various State agencies, the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and wildlife and the Environmental
Protection Agency shows that when earthen ponds are drained
to harvest fish, nutrients are discharged into receiving
waters. The ponds studied were in Oklahoma, Missouri,
Georgia, Alabama, California, Ohio, Minnesota, Kansas and
Arkansas. A summary of the results are presented in Table
V-6. These" studies showed that, during draining.
wastewatiers contained an average of 0.39 mg/1 total
ammonia-nitrogen, 0.78 mg/1 of total kjeldahl nitrogen, 0.41
mg/1 of nitrate-nitrogen and 0.13 mg/1 of total phosphate.
1784
1784
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1794
1795
1796
1797
1797
1799
1800
1801
1802
1802
1803
1804
1805
1805
1806
1808
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1813
1814
1814
1816
1817
1817
1818
1819
1819
1920
1821
18J1
1822
1822
-------
In terms of waste loads, the harvest wastewaters contained
b".04 kg of both nitrate and phosphate and 0.35 kg of ammonia
per 100 kg of fish on hand.
Although nutrient levels in fish cnlturing wastewaters may
occasionally be sufficient to stimulate algal growths, this
condition is likely to occur only when the hatchery dis-
charge constitutes the major portion of the receiving water
flow.
Bacteria
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department
of the Interior, established a water quality monitoring
program in 1971 at 23 of its fish hatcheries including 3
warm-water fish hatcheries. The monitoring studies were
conducted over a period of one calendar year with sampling
usually done on a monthly basis. Ihese studies included
the evaluation of colijform bacterial densities in the inflow
or source water and the overflow water of the hatcheries.
From these data, net changes in the bacterial densities were
calculated (outflow values minus inflow or source water
values) . The data showed that coldwater fish"hatcheries had
a mean net~incxease in total coliform of 170 per 100 ml of
water and a mean net increase in fecal coliform of 28 per
100 ml of water. Studies at one of the warm-water fish
culturing facilities showed a mean net increase of 58,000
and .4,800 per 100 ml of water for total and fecal coliform
bacteria, respectively (273). The suspected source of
contamination was manure.
A special study was done in conjunction with the preparation
of this document to determine if coliform bacteria are
harbored in the intestinal tract of fish and to determine
the source of the coliform bacteria contamination [Table" v-
7]. Findings showed that large densities of non-fecal
coliform bacteria are present in the gut of trout being
cultured in a fish hatchery. The average (log mean) density
of total coUform bacteria found in the gut of 15 rainbow
trout examined was >2.S million per 100 gm of fecal matter.
No fecal coliform bacteria were isolated (value expressed as
<20 in Table V-7). Examination of fish feed (commercially
prepared pellets) and intake or hatchery source water showed
total coliform bacterial densities (log mean) of 9,000 per
100 grams and" 52 per 100 ml of water, respectively. No
fecal coliform were isolated from the feed samples while the
hatchery intake water contained a range of <2 to .11 fecal
coliforms per 100 ml of water. Examination of the hatchery
effluent revealed that wastewaters contained a log mean of
4,100 total coliform bacteria and 6 fecal coliform bacteria
1824
182U
1824
1827
1828
1828
1829
1829
1831
1833
1834
1835
1836
1836
1837
1838
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1846
1848
18U9
1850
1850
1851
185?
185)
185*
185*
1955
1856
1856
1857
185«
1858
1 8<>9
1960
1861
-------
per 100 ml of water. It was coneladed from this study that 1863
fecal coliform bacteria originated from the hatchery source 186
-------
culturing facilities are not unlike concentrations
discharged from warm-water native fish culturing facilities.
This assumption is based on the fact that the production
Srocesses involved are either very similar (in the case of
non-native apart, food, and biological control species) or
similar but scaled down Jin the case of the ornamental fish)
to processes used in. some types of native fish culturing
operations.
Biological Pollutants
A concern has been voiced by many authorities that severe
environmental degradation might be the result of discharges
of bacteria, parasites or other harmful organisms contained
in the effluents of non-native fish production facilities
13.16.19,51, 57,92,165.177.19«, 195,198.208,233,238).
Aquatic environments in the United States are already
stressed by pollution and physical alteration by man.
Additions of foreign parasites, pathogens, predators, or
species which might compete more favorably than native
species for habitat or food represent a serious additional
threat to the native aquatic environment (57) . Experts on
the subject have suggested that the introduction of any
harmful non-native organism into the environment should be
considered a form of pollution and that these organisms
should be referred to as biological pollutants (55,133,198).
This approach is born out by past history of problems
brought about by the introduction of undesirable species.
In addition to the well publicized harmful effect of some
fish introductions, many fish and shellfish parasites have
been introduced from continent to continent and have caused
economic losses, especially in stocks of game fish and
shellfish (56,209).
Any introduced host, including those passing a
aniasi-quarantine by being held in facilities for a period of
time, often retains the ability to introduce parasites into
new localities (57). Various chemical and physical
treatments are not always~successful (57) . Increased paras-
itism of local fish has occurred following the introduction
of a non-native fish in at least one American river (60) .
The presence of various biological pollutants discharged
varies greatly depending on the individual pond and method
of operation. In some cases, the entire pond and all its
contents, including fish, have been discharged directly into
navigable waters (55). In other cases the fish are kept in
the pond but the water, containing bacteria and possibly
1905
1905
1906
1907
1907
1908
1908
1908
1910
1912
1913
191»
191U
1916
1917
1917
1918
1919
1919
1921
1921
1922
1922
1923
1925
1925
1926
1927
1927
1928
1928
1930
1932
1933
1931*
1935
1936
1937
1939
19UO
19U1
19«»2
19UU
-------
other biological pollutants,
waters.
is discharged into navigable
Thus, the existing and potential problems of biological con-
"aminants in discharges fron non-native fish culturing
facilities warrant the enforcement of strong import controls
and strict wastewater discharge regulations.
The discussion of probable or possible as well as confirmed
biological contaminants in discharges from non-native fish
culturing facilities is appropriate for the following
reasons: ~
1. There is evidence that non-native fish may serve as
~~ carriers of human pathogens [Table V-8*). The
relatively small number of previous reports refer-
ring to biological contaminants in non-native fish
culturing effluents per se is probably a reflection
of the relatively small amount of attention which
has been given to that source.
2. inspections of shipments of fish by the United
~~ states Public Health service are visual (202).
3. There is a serious threat to the environment and
~ human health in the United States by some of the
constituents.
4. From a sanitary point of view* the safest approach
~" is to consider water from unknown sources as
contaminated until proven otherwise (212).
5. At present, non-native fishes and import water come
~" from countries where sanitary conditions are known
to be poor 13), and the fishes are often fed food
grown on human sewage (9 3). These facts greatly
increase the probability of contamination.
BacteriaFish from overseas often arrive in unhealthy
condition (33,290). Some individuals will sell poor
quality, sick fish at reduced rates J24); one of the largest
American dealers has reported to the United States Congress
that about 60 percent of all imported tropical fishes die
within 30 days and that most have parasitic
Ichthyopthiriasis (XCH) or fungus infections (236).
Although aquarium fishes in good condition can live
compatibly in a large water system containing a high
bacterial density "(108), fishes stressed by infections and
crowded conditions in shipment have less resistance to
bacteria and thus are more likely to become vectors of
19U6
1946
1948
1949
1950
1951
1954
1954
1955
1955
1958
1959
1959
1960
1962
1962
1963
1965
1966
1969
1970
1970
1972
1973
1974
1976
1977
1971
1979
1971
19t'
19S4
19tt
1940
1««0
1991
-------
bacterial diseases. In addition to feeing carried into navi-
gable waters by the effluent water itself, bacteria may be
carried to the outside environment in fish intestines
(155,209), body aline (155,166), and in uneaten fish food
(227,241).
Helminthic Diseases and.Snail HostsThe helminthic diseases
of aan which are carried by fishes include those caused by
three types of parasitic worms: flukes (trematodes) ,
tapeworms (cestodes) , and ronndworms (nematodes).
These diseases are not established in a body of water unless
the proper combination of the parasitic worms, intermediate
snail fish and other fish hosts are all present.
Introductions of undesirable molluscs, including snails
which can serve as intermediate hosts for helminthic
diseases, have been a worldwide problem (56). Such snails
can and do accompany fish as "hitchhikers" in shipments to
the United States (56) and some of the dangerous snails have
been widely distributed by the tropical fish industry (208).
Immature snails and eggs are quite small and might easily
accompany a shipment of fishes from Puerto Rico or other
areas without notice (152). In this manner non-native
snails which are carriers of human diseases might be intro-
duced into fish ponds in the O.S. and gain access to
navigable waters through the effluent (152).
The snails Melanoides tuberculatus and Tarebia oranifera.
are carriers of many important helmintic diseases and have
been sold inadvertently with tropical fish (173). These and
other snails are often produced and held by the same faci-
lities which produce and hold fish. It is known that a
Tampa tropical fish dealer was reponsitle for contaminating
Lithia Brings, Florida, with T. aranifera (173).
Melanoides tuberculatus is now rapidly being spread around
the country (163) and has been reported from Texas (67),
Arizona (67), California (60), and Nevada (16U). It is
thought that most introductions are the direct or indirect
result of its presence in~the tropical fish trade (58,173).
Discharges from non-native fish culturing facilities would
contain biological pollutants which might result in the
spread of helminthic diseases if they contained any of the
following:
1. free swimming cercariae of the parasite:
~2. fishes infected by the parasite;
1992
1993
1994
1995
1995
| 1998
1998
1999
2000
| 2002
j 2004
200U
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
2012
2013
201U
2014
2015
2015
2018
2018
2020
2020
2022
2022
2023
202S
2026
2027
2028
2028
20 31
20)2
2033
203)
2035
2037
-------
3. snails carrying the parasite;
J. other intermediate hosts carrying the parasite.
The parasites could then infect nan directly or could gain
establishment in other final hosts such as dogs, cats, or
birds. The latter could serve as "reservoir" carriers in
establishing the disease and man could be infected at a
later date. There is at least one case recorded in the
literature where the total life cycle has been established
in an American stream (172). ""
MolluscsZn addition to acting as carriers of helminthic
diseases* snails and other molluscs discharged with non-
native farm effluents may be classified as biological
pollutants if they harm the native ecosystem by causing the
eradication of desirable native species of molluscs or
fishes through predation or competition (117,139,163,164).
About 10 percent of the species of volluscs in this country
are considred "endangered" (by extinction) species, and
further dispersal of non-native molluscs will probably cause
further damage (117).
The mollusc pests most likely to be associated with non-
native fish farming (and therefore the most likely
constituents in the wastewater) include Marisa. Corbicula
and Melanoides "" tuberculatos (8,133,163,
164.172,174,203,225) .
CopepodaIt is known that harmful parasitic copepods were
introduced to the west coast with imports of seed oysters
from Japan (209), and there is evidence that fishes may also
act as carriers (261). Learnea infestations were not
recorded in the fishes of Moapa River, Nevada, prior to
1941. Since that time these parasites have been introduced
with fishes non-native to the area and a native species of
fish, Gil a. has been afflicted with a high incidence of
parasitism (261) . The introduction of a non-native fish,
Poecilia mexicana. into the Moapa Fiver Hater District
springwas followed by heavy infestations of Learnea on
another native species of fish (261).
FishNon-Native fishes are released from fish farms
following ways (55):
in the
1. Through unscreened effluent pipes
2. Pumping out "contaminated" (with mixed species)
ponds.
3. Floods
4. Purposeful discharge of stocks which have been over-
produced in relation to demand.
2039
2041
2044
2044
2046
2046
2047
2048
2048
2050
2051
2052
2053
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2057
2059
2060
2061
2061
2062
2064
2065
206f>
2067
2068
2069
2069
2070
2071
2072
2071
2071
2075
| 207*
2079
20H
20(2
20M
2017
-------
5. Dumping of Illegal stocks
2089
A consideration of some species of fish as biological I 2092
oollutants is warranted by the fact that fish introductions | 2093
have often turned out to be harmful to the environment 2094
<30. 56, 133,175). The walking catfish, Cl arias batrarchua 2095
(50.55) and the common carp (136) present veil known 2095
examples of the deleterious effect that undesirable fish 2096
species can have in American aquatic habitats. 2097
Due to their low value as sport fish, competition with I 2099
valuable species, and destruction of necessary as well as | 2100
nuisance 'plants, several authorities have suggested the 2101
grass carp, Ctenopharvnqodon i del la (56,133), and species of 2102
Tilapia (55,56) could also become biological pests of large 2103
magnitude. 2103
-------
SECTION VI | 2106
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 2108
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 2111
Selected Parameters 2113
The unnaturally high density of confined fish in many j 2115
culturing facilities leads to changes in the chemical, j 2116
physical and biological properties of the process 2117
wastewaters. Major wastewater parameters of pollutional 2118
significance for the fish culturing industry include: 2118
Solids
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform
2120
2122
212U
2126
2128
in addition, biological pollutants (as described in the I 2130
previous section) are considered to be of pollutional | 2131
significance in non-native .fish culturing operations. 2132
On the basis of an extensive literature search, review and | 2134
evaluation of Refuse Act Permit Application data, EPA data, | 2135
industry data, personal communications and visits or studies 2136
at various fish- culturing facilities it was determined that 2137
no deleterious pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides) 2138
exist in the wastes discharged from a fish-culturing 2139
facility. ~ 2139
Rationale 2141
Within a fish culturing operation, temperature is important I 2 in 3
because it influences fish metabolism, feeding and growth j 214U
rates, disease £esistance, and even the species that can be 2145
cultured (86). Excessively high or low temperatures can be 2146
detrimental to the successful operation of a fish hatchery 2147
or from (41,59). There are certain instances when 2148
temperature of waste water from a calturing facility can be 2149
in excess of water quality standards. This is not generally 2150
the rule and therefore temperature was not considered a 2150
major waste water pollutant to be limited nationwide for 2151
this ^ndustry. Similarily, pH was not considered a 2153
significant parameter in fish-culturing waste waters because 2154
it must remain at levels found in high-quality water for 2154
successful fish rearing. 2155
-------
The maximum concentration of ammonia recommended to protect I
fish from chronic damage to normal growth and reproduction |
is 1?5 mg/1 total ammonia as H (245). Because fish
culturing facilities typically discharge about 0.5 mg/1 of
total ammonia (Tables V-5 and V-6) . this parameter was not
considered a major pollutant. Other forms of nitrogen
(nitrite and nitrate) . and various forms of phosphorus are
not. included in the present effluent limitation guidelines
because removal of nutrients at such dilute concentrations
Trables V-5 and V-6) is economically and technically
infeasible with currently available treatment processes.
Furthermore, the need for advanced treatment technology
specifically designed for nutrient removal has not been
demonstrated at this time.
A brief discussion of oxygen demanding characteristics of
fish culture wastes appears necessary because biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COO) and total
organic carbon (TOC) are commonly reported pollution
parameters in water quality studies. The following
discussion is based upon the BCD because there are
sufficient data on this parameter to assess the
environmental impact of the oxygen demanding pollutants
contained in fish cultnring waste waters.
Because of the dilute nature of fish culturing wastes,
dissolved oxygen (DO) £roblems seldom occur in receiving
streams, with the exception of cleaning wastes, a typical
salmonid hatchery discharge has a BOD of 5.0 mg/1 (Table V-
1). The potential effect of this concentration on DO is
test " illustrated by oxygen sag analysis using the
Streeter-Phelps equation (270).
Assuming the most critical condition to be the case where
the hatchery discharge makes up the entire flow of the
receiving stream, an estimate of the minimum DO
concentration may be calculated. With DO saturation equal
to 10 mg/1, initial DO deficit Da equal to 2 mg/1, rate of
self purification f - 3.0, initial BCD La « 5 mg/1 and rate
of deoxygenation k - 0.2, the critical DO deficit DC xs
determined by first calculating the time tc at which DC
occurs.
2157
2158
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2164
2165
2166
2166
2167
2168
2168
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2174
2175
2175
2176
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2183
| 2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2189
2190
2191
2191
-------
The critical deficit DC is less than the initial deficit Da.
This indicates that the equations are not valid for a waste
with an initial JJOD La of 5 mg/1. Apparently the rate of
elf purification or reoxygenation is greater than the rate
of deoxygenation. Thus .a true oxygen sag does not occur and
the" DO concentration immediately begins to increase
downstream from the hatchery. For a hatchery discharging an
initial BOD La of 5 mg/1 with the conditions previously
f escribed , the minimum DO occurs at the hatchery outfall and
s 10 mg/l minus 2 "g'1 « 8 mg/1.
Performing the same calculation for La * 10 mg/1 yields DC »
5.5 mg/1 indicating that a true oxygen sag does occur. The
minimum DO~then equals 10 mg/1 minus 2.5 mg/1 * 7.5 mg7l.
This oxygen sag analysis shows a negligible environmental
impact.
Studies done by the EPA during the development of this
document showed that the BOD was closely correlated to
accumulated particulate matter in the f ish-culturing
facility. Therefore, Tf discharges of suspended and
settleable solids are controlled , there will be a
concimitant reduction in the oxygen demanding materials.
For these reasons, BOD, COD
major or meaningful pjollutant
fish-culturing waste waters.
and TOG were not considered
parameters for evaluating
Chemicals and drugs used by fish culturists for water
treatment or disease control are extremely variable as shown
by the partial list presented in Table III-5. These
materials were not included as major pollutants because
there are insufficient data upon which to base effluent
limitations and standards. ""
The justification for the selection of the wastewater
parameters .for the fish-culturing industry is given below.
Additionally* there is a brief discussion on suggested
analytical methods for many of these £arameters.
SolidsTwo types of analyses for determining the
concentrations of solids are significant in the fish-
culturing industry. They are suspended and settleable
solids. ~
1. Suspended Solids--This parameter measures the suspended
material that can be removed from the wastewater s by
laboratory filtration but does not include coarse or
floating matter than can be screened or settled out readily
f234). Because fish hatchery waste waters contain dilute
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
2194
2195
2197
2197
2199
2200
2201
2201
2202
2203
2205
2207
2207
2208
2208
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
22 la
2216
2217
2217
2219
2223
222:
2222
222)
222)
222S
2224
22.'
2213
221'
22J'
22 tJ
221*
J2M
221*
221'
22M
-------
concentrations of suspended solids (usually <10 Kg/1), the
analyst should use the standard ' method recommended for
determining low concentrations. Basically, the Method
requires an increase in the volume of waste water filtered.
The volume selected is dependant upon the amount of residue
that accumulates on the filter. For example* to accurately
determine a concentration of 20 to 20,000 mg/1 suspended
solids, the analyst must filter 100 ml of waste water (73).
To determine suspended solids levels from 5 to 20 mg/1, a
volume of 500 ml must be filtered (278). concentrations
less than 5 mg/1 can be determined with equal "precision by
increasing the volume of waste water filtered and using the
analytical techniques described in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th Edition, 1971,
American Public Health Association J23«), or Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA, 1971, Analytical
Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Suspended solids may kill fish and shell fish by causing
abrasive injuries, by clogging the .gills and respirating
passages of various aquatic fauna (151); while in
suspension, solids are not only aesthetically displeasing
but they increase the turbidity of the water, reduce light
penetration and impair the photosynthetic activity of
aquatic plants.
2. settleable SolidsThe settleable solids test (234)
Involves the quiescent settling of a liter of wastewater in
Ian Imhof? Cone for one hour, with appropriate handling
(scraping of the sides, etc.). The method is simply a
measurement of the amount of material one might expect to
settle under quiescent conditions. It is especially
applicable to the analysis of wastevaters being treated by
such methods~as screening and sedimentation for it not only
defines the efficiency' of the systems, in terms of
settleable material, but provides a reasonable estimate of
the amount of deposition that might take place under
quiescent conditions in the receiving water after discharge
of the effluent (139,142).
The settleable solids in fish culturing waste waters include
both organic and inorganic materials. The inorganic
components include sand, silt and clay. The organic
fraction is primarily fish feces and uneaten feed. These
solids settle out rapidly forming a bottom deposit of both
organic and inorganic solids. They may adversely affect
receiving water fisheries by covering the bottom of the
stream or lake with a blanket of material that destroys the
bottom fauna or covers spawning grounds. Deposits
containing organic materials may deplete bottom oxygen
2239
2240
2241
2241
2242
2244
2245
2245
2246
2248
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2253
I 2255
I 2256
2256
2257
2258
2259
2259
| 2261
j 2262
2263
226Q
2265
2265
2266
2267
2269
22*3
220*
2273
2273
| 227:
2276
22^7
2279
2279
22SJ
228:
-------
supplies and produce hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, 2283
methane and other noxious gases. 2283
Bacteria I Fecal col if or ml It is common practice in water I 2285
quality surveys to Measure the fecal ooliform density to | 2286
evaluate" the sanitary 'significance of certain wastewaters. 2287
These baeteria can be identified and enumerated by either of 2288
two reliable techniques (23«), the MPN or the milipore 2289
filter Method. Fecal coliform bacteria are present in the 2289
ant of all warm-blooded animals. The presence of these 2290
bacteria at densities significant Jusually a density of 200 2292
organisms/lOCfml or more) is a good indication of the 2293
probable presence of* pathogens (38.119). Although fecal 2294
coliform bacteria are not expected to be produced by fish 2295
(6,78,84,85,120,154,237,253). it has been shown that these 2296
bacteria are present in some fish culturing facilities 2296
because of contaminated source water or Manure used to 2297
fertilize ponds. Evidence has also shown that if the 2298
culturing water is~"contaminated by either of these sources, 2299
the bacteria accumulate in the fish. However, effluent 2300
limitations set forth in this document are based upon net 2300
values foutflow minus inflow). Therefore, only operations I 2302
that use manure to fertilize culturing water should be | 2303
required to control fecal coliform bacteria in waste waters 2303
to Minimize the possible presence of pathogens. 230U
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
2307
2309
CURRENT STANDARD OF PRACTICE
Although treatment is not normally provided for native fish
culturing facilities exceptions occur in both flow-through
and" pond subcategories where settleafcle solids removal is
the Most coalmen type of waste treatment. The most common
control method used for non-native fish cultoring facilities
is to discharge wastewaters into municipal sewage systems.
Current practice ID flow-through, pond, and non-native fish
operations is discussed separately. The type, frequency and
relative water quality of discharges are presented.
Estimates are made of the percentage of fish cultaring
facilities providing a specific type of treatment.
Native Pish Flow-Through Culturing Systems
Cold-water fish are usually reared in flow-through systems.
Discharges from these culturing units include the continuous
normal flow"and the intermittent cleaning flow. The normal
continuous discharge from fish culturing units is of a
relatively constant quality. The flow rate may vary
depending primarily upon size of the operation and fish
load. It is estimated that approximately 12 percent of the
Industry "provides treatment of the normal continuous
lischarge. Of this figure an estimated 5 percent remove
settleable solids by discharging through a rearing pond at
the end of the hatchery flow scheme. Another 5 percent
provide a settling basin which acts solely as a treatment
unit. The remaining 2 percent remove 80-90 percent of the
BOD through~secondary treatment or equivalent methods. This
latter group is made up almost entirely of those systems
which treat in conjunction with recycle reconditioning
hatcheries.
The intermittent cleaning discharge is greater in BOD,
suspended and settleable solids and nutrient concentration
than the continuous flow." A steel tristle broom or scraping
tool is usually used during cleaning resulting in the
resuspension and discharge of accumulated waste solids. The
frequency of cleaning varies widely. It is estimated that 5
percent of the flow-through culturing operations treat the
cleaning flow. In most cases the treatment provided is
sedimentation although an estimated one percent of the flow-
through systems provide secondary or equivalent treatment of
the cleaning flow along with the normal flow. An estimated
2312
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2325
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2340
2342
23«J
2344
2345
2346
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
-------
one-tenth of one percent remove accumulated waste solids
with the use of a suction device thus* in effect, treating
the cleaning flow.
Fish Poi
Systems
Harm-water fish are usually reared in ponds. Typically*
f"ish are reared in ponds over one or two seasons and then
harvested" for stocking or market. Discharges from ponds
usually occur in two ways. First, there are ponds which
have a continuous discharge. Second, the pond volume may be
discharged during or after harvesting. In addition,
intermittent discharges may occur as a result of
overfilling, flooding or flushing of algal blooms. Closed
ponds are defined bereln'as those that operate without a
continuous discharge.
Closed ponds typically have a discharge only during
harvesting. Exceptions occur in cases where harvesting is
accomplished "without draining the pond. In some operations
draining for harvesting is usually begun fcy discharging the
lowest quality water first (97) . This water from the bottom
of the pond often contains high concentrations of suspended
and settleable solids and may be low in dissolved oxygen.
Discharges from harvesting of closed ponds may occur from
once to several "times annually, depending upon water
temperature and species of fish reared. The rate at which
water is drained may vary greatly depending on the size of
the fiond outfall pipe. The type of drain outlet also varies
with the great majority of ponds included in the following
two categories: a) water drained from the bottom of the
pond; or b) water drained"from the surface of the pond over
dam boards. It is estimated that less than one percent of
the closed ponds which discharge during harvesting provide
any treatment of the discharge. Of those with treatment,
most remove settleable solids by discharging the flow
through another pond.
Ponds with a continuous discharge, referred to herein as
open ponds, may have as many as two distinct types of
discharges: af water drained during harvesting; and b) the
normal continuous overflow. Discharges from open ponds
during harvest occur in the same manner as closed ponds.
The frequency and character of these discharges is the same
as set forth for closed ponds. As in the case of closed
ponds, it is estimated that less than one percent of the
open ponds provide any treatment during harvesting.
Treatment consists "of settleatle solids removal by
discharging the flow through another pond.
2351
2352
2352
235U
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2360
2361
2362
2363
2363
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2370
2371
2372
2373
2373
237U
2375
2376
2377
2378
2378
2379
2380
2303
2J82
2J8I
238»
2JeS
2387
2387
2388
2389
2390
2390
-------
he continuous discharge from open ponds does not usually
actuate markedly in quality. The flow discharged may vary
root several liters £er minute to several million liters per
day at different culturing facilities. Most ponds are
onlined; it is estimated-that for greater than 99 percent of
the facilites, removal of settleable solids is inherent in
that the continuous discharges are from quiescent ponds
which act as settling basins.
fon-1
Systems
Non-native fish are primarily cultured in closed pond
systems. Discharges from these culturing units include
short duration continuous discharges during periods when
water temperature must be controlled and intermittent
draining discharges related to fish harvesting activities.
Fish harvesting occurs at intervals ranging from once every
six months to three years. Although chemical and physical
characteristics of these discharges are similar in quality
to the overflow and draining discharges from native fish
pond cultures, non-native fish culturing discharges require
control to eliminate biological pollutants.
The current standard of practice is to discharge wastewaters
into municipal sewage treatment facilities, no discharge
(via "land disposal), and to discharge wastewaters directly
into navigable waters with no treatment. An estimated 60
oercent of the existing non-native fish culturing facilities
Sischarge their waste into municipal sewage treatment
systems rather than into navigakle waters directly
(91,123.127,191,230,254). This group is primarily composed
of importers, distributors, and breeding facilities outside
the State of Florida. The next most commonly used control
method, especially in Florida, is no discharge with land
disposal" (12,»3,101,102,179,218). About seven percent of
the non-native fish culturing facilities use this method.
An estimated 33 percent of non-native fish culturinq
facilities discharge without treatment or control measures:
these appear to be common primarily for dirt pond facilities
in the Tampa and Lakeland areas of Central Florida, although
a few other direct discharges have occurred in south
Florida, Texas, Arkansas, California, and Louisiana.
IN-PLANT CONTROL MEASURES
Operating parameters such as water use, feeding, cleaning,
fish distribution, and harvesting are all variables
affecting the quality of water discharged. It is recognized
that each of these variables is closely related to fish
quality and production, each of vital interest to the
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2397
2398
2000
2402
2403
2401
2405
2405
2406
2407
2408
2408
2409
2410
2412
2*1 3
241U
2415
2«16
2416
2U17
2018
2« 19
2419
2t20
-------
hatchery Manager (59,139). This section will present
changes in hatchery or farm operations which may be applied
to Minimise* water pollution without compromising fish
quality or level of production. The in-plant control
easures described are not Mandatory but are available,
along with the treatment technology presented .later in this
section, for reduction of pollutant loads discharged.
native Fish Flow-Through Culturinq System
Hater conservationWater use requirements for the
successful rearing of fish have been studied extensively
(190,258). ""The carrying capacity of fish farms or
hatcheries is limited by oxygen consumption and the
accumulation of metabolic products (10U). The primary goal
in fish cultaring is to produce the highest quality fish
possible with the available water resource, in addition, at
some farms and hatcheries the goal includes producing the
greatest number of quality fish possible.
Another goal in fish culturing should be to minimize the
pollutants discharged into the receiving water. Most fish
rearing facilities operate at considerably less than
capacity during much of the year. It is during this period
that discharges could be significantly reduced. This in
turn would allow treatment systems to operate more
efficiently, thus decreasing the discharge of pollutants.
Reduction of water use during periods of low production need
not be inconsistent with the primary goal in fish culturing.
Fish culturists do not yet know what the ideal rearing space
should be relative to the amount of available water (258) .
However, it has been demonstrated that the rate of growth or
food conversion of rainbow trout was not affected as the
density increased from less than 16 kilograms of fish per
cubic meter of water (1 lb/ft») to 90 kilograms per cubic
meter 15.6 lb/ft«) during a 10 month period (190).
Permits issued by EPA under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) require that treatment facilities
be operated efficiently throughout the year. Reducing water
usage will Minimize the quantity of pollutants reaching the
receiving water by allowing treatment facilities to operate
at MaxiMum efficiency. Sufficient data however do not exist
to adequately quantify" the degree of pollutant reduction
attainable by water conservation practices. Therefore,
water conservation is presented only as an in-plant control
measure available to the fish culturist.
2«34
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2442
2444
2445
2446
2447
2447
2448
2449
2450
2450
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2456
2457
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2465
2466
2468
2469
2470
2472
2473
247(1
247u
247b
2U77
2477
-------
,^>. PracticesFeeding practices have been studied
extensively and many hatchery managers now believe that fish
growth is very nearly independent of feeding levels above a
minimum. Feeding amounts oireater than this minimum only
increases the cost and conversion ratio* (40,125,189).
Feeding levels greater than the minimum results in residual
food which fcas been recognised as a source of pollutants
discharged from fish hatcheries (139).
Feeding practice has been found to be a major operating
factor related to pollutant production. "Proper feeding
means that the time and amount of food fed must be properly
determined so that" most food will be eaten, resulting in
little or no food residual. This practice is an economical
one since improper feeding does not improve fish growth, and
results in higher operating costs as well as higher
pollutant production rates. Scheduling is an important
factor as it was observed that when the fish were not really
hungry, they did not chase food. As a result, most foods
released in the water settled out and finally became
pollutants. The amount and time of feeding vary with water
temperature, fish species and size, and type of food. For
each hatchery these factors can be experimentally
determined. Therefore, it is suggested that both time and
amount of feeding be optimised for each hatchery." (139)
Similarly to water conservation, the pollutant reduction
attainable by the implementation of good feeding practices
may not be quantified even on a subcategory wide basis.
This is due to the current wide degree of variance in
?eeding practices.
Cleaning PracticesPeriodic cleaning of flow-through
rearing units is necessary to remove solid wastes consisting
primarily of uneaten food and paniculate fecal matter. If
allowed to accumulate, the decomposition of these solids
could place unnecessary and harmful stress upon the fish.
The frequency and method of cleaning have a significant
effect upon effluent quality and pollutant load reaching the
receiving water.
The settleable material which accumulates from fish rearing
activities will slowly digest and release pollutants in the
soluble and colloidal form (235). The time necessary for
solubilization to occur varies inversely with temperature
and is thought to be in the range of two to three weeks for
flow-through facilities <169). In reviewing the literature,
definitive information was not found to support requirements
for precise cleaning intervals for various water
temperatures. However, based upon the recognition that
2479
2480
2481
2482
2482
2483
248U
2485
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2492
2493
249U
2495
2496
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2502
2503
250U
2505
2506
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
251 J
25in
25i«
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2520
2521
2522
2522
-------
organic solids digest through bacterial action releasing
lollutants. it is reasonable to limit the interval between
cleanings. The information available suggests that cleaning
Svery two or three weeks will result in the removal of
settled pollutants prior to appreciable digestion and
discharge.
Cleaning methods vary based upon facility design or
preference of the individual hatchery manager. Factors
affecting selection of the cleaning method appear to be
manpower, time requirements, fish health and. to a lesser
degree, water pollution control. The method of cleaning may
affect both the total load and concentration of pollutants
reaching the receiving water.
The most common method of cleaning is to resuspend the
settled solids and flush them out of the culturing unit into
the receiving water. Usually a long handled steel bristle
broom is used to resuspend the settled solids. Slime
growths on the walls of lined rearing units are removed with
a scraping tool known as a Kinney broom. This method of
cleaning while the most common is probafcly the hardest on
the fish and has been strongly condemned (59). The
accumulated waste material often has a high oxygen demand
and may contain toxic products such as ammonia. The
conditions existing during and resulting from this type of
cleaning are thought to have been the cause of serious
mortalities at many fish cultnring operations (59).
A variation of the brush-down method of cleaning involves
the use of a current carried scraping device followed by a
brief period of manual brushdown to dislodge and resuspend
settled solids and slime material. While possibly reducing
the man hours required for cleaning, this method appears to
have all the disadvantages of the brush-down method.
feveral types of self-cleaning rearing units have been
eveloped 137.168). These are designed to «llf late the
necessity of periodic cleaning and associated fish stress.
There are contradictory views, however, concerning the
desirability of self-cleaning systems. The rectangular
circulating rearing unit has reportedly been used to rear
more disease-free fish than any other type of culturing unit
tested (37). on the other hand, it has been reported that
certain diseases found in Chinook salmon culture in
susceptible areas of Washington are universally more severe
in self-cleaning type units (263).
self-cleaning systems are designed to operate in one of two
ways. Either waste solids are continuously flushed from the
2523
2525
2526
2527
2527
2527
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2533
2534
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2541
2542
2543
254U
2545
2545
2546
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2552
| 2554
| 2555
2SS6
2557
2559
2550
2559
2560
2561
2562
2562
| 2564
I 2565
-------
system with the normal flow or they are Moved by the water
current to a point where their removal from the system can
be accomplished by simply opening a valve. Each of these
systems will have a different effect on water quality. In
the first case, the -normal effluent quality would be
expected to deteriorate slightly in comparison to a
periodically cleaned system. The advantage of this system*
in terms of water pollution control* is the elimination of
slug loads and high concentrations of pollutants associated
with cleaning. In the second case, cleaning wastes are
discharged in such a way that the fish are subjected to a
minimum of stress and the normal effluent quality is not
allowed to'deteriorate. Slug loads cf pollutants, however,
reach the receiving water when waste solids are discharged.
Another method of cleaning involves the use of a suction
device to pump or vacuum the solids out of the rearing unit.
Vacuum cleaning is presented later in this section as a
treatment alternative but is also discussed here because xt
Is a distinct method of cleaning and as such may be
considered an in-plant control measure. This method has
been described as the best and most logical way to remove
excrement and other filth without causing injury to the fish
or exciting them unduly 159). In vacuuming, the settled
solids may be removed without stirring the material and
causing the release of toxic products. The total volume of
water used in vacuum cleaning may be considerably less than
±s used in other methods of cleaning.
Currently the equipment used in vacuum cleaning consists of
an efficient suction pump, a section of long flexible hose
and a metal vacuum head and handle. Portable trailer
mounted units have been used in conjunction with a
wastewater collection pipeline with waste receptacles
adjacent to each rearing unit. wastewater flows to a
central collection sump from which it is pumped for
treatment"" and disposal i!28). For many fish farms or
hatcheries it may be possible to pump cleaning wastes to a
tank truck which in turn would spread the material on nearby
farmland or discharge to a municipal waste treatment system
for disposal. On-site dewatering otters the opportunity for
reuse of the solids as a fertilizer on hatchery or nearby
private property.
Vacuum cleaning appears to be the best method of cleaning
consistent with fish culturing and water pollution control
objectives. Its effectiveness in terms of pollutant
reduction is presented in the next section under treatment
technology. Disadvantages of this method include the
possible inability of suction devices to remove attached
2566
2567
2570
2570
2571
2572
2573
257U
2575
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2581
2582
2583
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2592
2593
2595
2596
2597
2598
259<»
2599
2600
2601
2602
260 1
260!
26C«
260S
260^
| 2607
| 2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
-------
alines, the increase in man hours required, and additional
energy requirements for cleaning. These disadvantages may
be design problems which could be overcome as suction
devices are perfected and gain widespread use by the
industry.
Fish DistributionAnother operating variable affecting
effluent quality is fish distribution. At similar loading
rates, large fish are more effective than small fish at
keeping waste solids in suspension. Similarly with fish of
equal size at a given temperature, units which are heavily
loaded pass a greater percentage of the total settleable
solids generated than units more lightly loaded. In
addition, at some facilities the lower 10 percent of the
culturing unit may be screened off and used to accumulate
settleable "solids (276). Thus, the hatchery manager has
some degree of flexibility in determining whether settleable
solids will be discharged with the normal or cleaning flows.
Depending upon the type of cleaning method employed, fish
distribution may be a significant factor affecting effluent
quality. It may be possible to distribute fish such that
some units would pass most of the settleable solids while
other units would act as settling basins. For example, in a
hatchery using the vacuum method of cleaning, fish dis-
tribution could play an important role in determining the
percent of settleable solids which are carried from the
hatchery with~the normal flow and the percent which are
retained and removed during cleaning.
The points discussed above concerning fish distribution
should not be misinterpreted with respect to the primary
goal of the fish production industry that of producing
the highest quality fish possible. It is intended that only
those fish distribution schemes consistent with production
of a high quality product be used to minimize the level of
pollutants discharged. Effectiveness, in terms of pollutant
reduction, of various fish distribution schemes is not
documented.
Native Fish Pond Guitar ing Systems
Water ConservationThe water conservation discussion
presented for ^low-through culturing systems applies to
lined pond operations with continuous overflow. However,
warm-water pond culturing requires water for certain other
reasons. In pond culturing water flow is not generally as
critical because it is usually not depended upon to supply
oxygen or remove waste products. Father its function is
normally to"" maintain the desired water level in the
2613
261<4
261<4
2615
2615
I 2617
j 2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2623
262U
2625
2626
2627
| 2629
j 2630
2631
2632
263tt
2630
2635
2636
2637
2637
| 2639
| 26«0
26*1
-------
cult or ing unit. In some cases, it may be possible that flow
could be reduced or that open ponds could operate just as
-effectively if they were closed. Each of these possi-
b_ilities would reduce the load of pollutants discharged.
Feeding PracticesIn -pond culture, feeding Bay or may not
be £racticed depending upon such factors as species of fish
being cultured. For those species not fed a prepared
ration, ponds are usually fertilized to stimulate the
production of zooplankton. Fertilization in excess of the
assimilative capacity of the pond nay result in water
quality degradation. Where feeding is practiced, the
discussion concerning feeding practices in flow-through
operations is "pertinent. The amount and scheduling of
feeding should.be optimized for each hatchery such that
excess feeding is eliminated.
Cleaning Practi cesUsually only those fish farms and
hatcheries with lined ponds or raceways practice cleaning.
Therefore, "points discussed under flow-through culturing
systems concerning frequency and method of cleaning are
applicable to lined pond operations.
Fish DistributionControl of pollutants through fish
distribution practices would only be effective in ponds that
are cleaned routinely. Reference is made to the discussion
of fish distribution under flow-through culturing operations
because the same technologies apply.
Pond Draining and Harvesting PracticesDuring fish
harvesting pollutants are discharged as individual ponds are
drained. In-pi ant control measures may be taken to reduce
the load of pollutants discharged. These measures, aimed
primarily at reducing the suspended and settleable solids
concentrations, include: a) control discharge rate to
allow settling in the pond; b) discharge through another
rearing pond at controlled rate; and c) harvest without
draining. While each of these measures is worthy of careful
consideration it is recognized that each is not practical
for all pond culturing facilities. A discussion of each
alternative is given below.
Settleable solids removal may be accomplished in the pond
being drained by controlling the draining rate. This would
require~a surface draining system such that clearer water
can be decanted from the surface of the pond. In addition,
control would be possible only in cases where harvesting is
accomplished in the pond as by seining. After harvesting is
completed the remaining water in the pond should be retained
to allow settling and the resultant clear water then
2657
2658
2658
2659
2661
2662
2663
266U
2665
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2669
2671
2672
2673
267U
2674
2676
2677
2678
2679
2679
2681
2682
2683
268U
2685
2686
2686
2687
2609
2690
I 26V
| 26*)
2696
2697
2697
2698
-------
decanted. This practice would no doubt increase the length
of time required for draining and harvesting. However, it
would alleviate water pollution by providing an estimated 40
percent reduction in the settleable solids discharged.
Discharging draining water through another rearing pond at a
controlled rate offers another alternative Method for
removing settleable solids. An estimate of BO percent
settleable solids removal is considered conservative for
this alternative. As draining progresses, settleable solids
can be monitored.' When settleable solids appear in the
discharge, the flow can be diverted through another rearing
pond or settling pond. At many hatcheries, elevations are
such that flow can not be diverted by gravity as described
and pumping is necessary.
Harvesting without draining may be a viable alternative in-
plant control measure at some facilities. This practice is
now used on ~a limited scale and completely eliminates the
discharge of pollutants during harvesting. The practicality
of harvesting without draining may depend on soil type and
disease problems experienced. Where pervious soils exist
all water may be lost through seepage before refilling and
restocking of the pond is desired. This could allow time
for tilling and other measures aimed at rejuvenating the
pond and reducing disease potential.
Lve Fish Culturino Systems
Hater conservationBecause non-native fish are pond or tank
cultured* water conservation measures described for native
fish pond culture are applicable. Specifically, the
discharge from" open ponds may be reduced or eliminated
altogether: each of these measures would reduce the load of
pollutants discharged. In addition, recycle systems are
becoming more common and result in considerable water
conservation.
Feeding PracticesSome non-native fish are fed prepared
rations in much the same manner as »any pond cultured native
fish. The feeding rate, however, is usually determined
visually rather than as a percentage of body weight. Thus,
excess feeding and the resultant increase in pollutant load
could easily occur. The amount and scheduling of feeding
should be optimized for each hatchery such that excess
feeding'is eliminated.
Pond Draining and Harvesting PracticesControl of
discharges during pond draining and harvesting may be
accomplished by the methods described for native fish pond
2699
2700
2701
2701
2703
27 OU
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2711
2713
271 a
2715
2716
2717
2718
2718
2719
2720
2721
2723
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2729
2730
27JO
273^
2731
273«
271S
2716
2736
2737
27J7
273*
2740
2741
-------
cultaring. In addition, the harvesting technique used for
non-native fish has a direct bearing on the control of
draining discharges. A common practice in non-native fish
pulturing" is to harvest by trapping. In this way draining
ay be delayed on til after harvesting jLs completed* thus
allowing draining to be carried out in such a way that the
discharge of pollutants can be minimized. By slowly
draining the pond from the surface, solids can be settled in
the pond. The reduction of solids will ultimately improve
the efficiency of subsequent treatment needed for the
removal of biological'pollntants.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Eight methods of treatment have been documented in the
literature and are available for reducing the discharge of
pollutants " from native fish flow-through culturing
facilities. Two methods are presented for treatment of
discharges from native fish pond culturing operations. In
addition, three technologies have teen identified for
control of pollution from non-native fish culturing units.
Included are technologies based on bench studies, £ilot
plant studies and full scale operation. The levels of
technology are described in the order of the least to the
most efficient. Additionally, the problems, limitations and
reliability of the treatment methods are discussed as well
as an estimate of time necessary for the implementation of
each level of technology. The treatment methods described
are not mandatory however the" referenced studies indicate
the degree of effluent reduction attainable by each method.
Compliance with the effluent limitations presented in
Sections IX and X is mandatory. The control and treatment
measures used to accomplish the limitations is at the
disgression of the individual discharger.
native Fish Flow-Through Culturing Systems
A. settling of Cleaning Flowcleaning wastes consist
primarily of settleable solids which accumulate in the
rearing units, "simple settling will remove most of this
material. Bench tests have revealed that 78-93 percent of
the settleable solids can be removed [Table VII-1] in 30
minutes of quiescent settling in an Imhoff Cone
(76,113,251). Plant scale studies have shown that UO
percent of the" settleable solids are removed after 3.9
minutes of settling (113). For continuous flow plant scale
application, a conventional settling tasin firoperly designed
and operated will provide settleafcle solids removals of 90
percent. A surface overflow rate of 26 liters per minute
per square meter ^0.7 gpm/sq ft) has been used in
2742
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2746
2747
2746
2750
2750
2752
2754
2755
2756
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2770
2771
2771
2773
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2780
2785
2786
-------
conventional settling resulting in .90 percent removal of
suspended solids from cleaning Wastes (235) . Where the
necessary land area is not available, high rate sedimenta-
tion units including plate separators and tube settlers may
find application.
Plant A is considered exemplary with respect to treatment
process although the settling time provided is considerably
less than optimum."" Settleable solids removal efficiency
therefore is much ^ess than may be attained by a more
conservatively designed settling basin.
has been reported that cleaning discharges nay account
or 15 to 25 percent of the total BOD load from a hatchery
(69,1*82). Other studies have shown that cleaning discharges
account for'j.S percent of the total suspended solids load
(277). For purposes of estimating efficiencies of treatment
alternatives it is assumed that 20 percent of the BOD and
suspended solids loads from flow-through systems is dis-
charged during cleaning. Table VTI-1 indicates the
percentage removal of various pollutants attained through
simple settling ~~of the cleaning .flow. Raw waste
characteristics (previously presented in Chapter V), removal
efficiency and final effluent characteristics of the
cleaning .flow are presented in Table VIZ- 2. In terms of the
entire was*te loads, sedimentation of the cleaning flow would
result in an estimated 1,5 percent reduction of BOO,
suspended solids and phosphate loads and a five percent
reduction in the total nitrogen load. Z*n addition slug
of pollutants would be eliminated.
The removal efficiencies indicated in Table VII-2 would be
expected to decrease if settled solids were allowed to
accumulate~*and digest in the settling basin (169,235). For
this reason, provisions should be made for the periodic
removal of settled solids. The suggested maximum time
interval between solids removal is two to three weeks.
Another problem, requiring consideration during design, is
the intermittent~"hydraulic .loads on the settling basin. To
operate at maximum efficiency, the settling basin should
receive a relatively constant flow of "clean ing water.
Sludge handling and disposal could be a major problem if not
adequately evaluated and designed into the treatment system.
{Several possibilities for sludge disposal include but are
not limited to: a) hauling with direct application of wet
sludge to agricultural land; b) on-site dewatering and land
application or distribution as garden fertiliser: and c)
discharge or hauling of wet sludge to a municipal waste
disposal system.
2787
2788
2788
2789
2789
2791
2792
2794
2795
2795
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2802
2803
280u
2805
2806
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2810
2811
2913
28 1«
2815
2816
28 1 6
28 1 7
2618
281*
2820
| 282 J
282 S
2826
2*2 7
2828
2829
2829
-------
The tine for the industry to implement this level of
technology is estimated to be 28 months. This includes the
following time Intervals:
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
ft Design
Accept Bids C
Award Contract
Construction
Operation Adjustment Period
6 months
6
6
2 «
6 «
B. vacuum Clean!ngCleaning wastes can te removed directly
from the rearing units with a suction device similar to
swimming pool vacuum equipment. The waste settleable solids
can be removed from the cleaning flow by means of a batch
settling operation. Land requirements though not extensive
must be considered." After settling the supernatant can be
decanted and the solids pumped into a tank truck for land
disposal or allowed to air dry in place. At a hatchery
considered exemplary of this technology, cleaning wastes are
discharged to seepage ponds where the liquid percolates and
the solids are retained (126).
The removal efficiencies and the resultant effluent quality
Ire the same as those presented for settling [Tables VII-1
ind VII-21. In terms of the entire waste load, it is
.stimated that the suspended solids and BOD load reduction
resulting from the implementation of vacuum cleaning would
be 15 percent.
The possible problems associated with vacuum cleaning do not
appear to be great. Vacuum cleaning devices may not be
effective in some cases in removing attached algal slimes
from rearing units. This may be a design problem that can
be resolved as cleaning devices are perfected or it may be
necessary for additional hours to be spent in manual
scraping. certainly additional man-hours would be required
in the maintenance of vacuum equipment as compared to
equipment used in conventional cleaning methods. Sludge
handling and disposal'could also become problems and should
be carefully considered by the design engineers, several
possibilities for sludge disposal include butare not
limited to: a) hauling with direct application of wet
Sludge to agricultural land; b) on-site dewatering and land
application or distribution as garden fertilizer; and c)
discharge or hauling of~wet sludge to a municipal disposal
system.
2831
2832
2832
2834
2836
2838
2800
2842
2844
2846
2848
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2856
2857
2857
2858
2859
2859
2861
2862
2863
286U
2865
2865
28t>7
2668
28^0
217;
2178
2 SCO
2880
-------
Time required for the implementation of vacuum cleaning is
estimated to be 24 months. The following tine intervals are
included:
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
"5 Design
Accept Bids 6
Award Contract
Construction
Operation Adjustment Period
4 months
6 »
6 «
4
2
C. Settling of Entire Flow Without Sludge RemovalSettling
has been used to treat the entire flow from fish hatcheries
(75,182,1*84,235). The simplest method, although not the
most efficient, is to settle in an earthen pond or lagoon.
Solids are allowed to settle and decompose through bacterial
action. Many hatcheries use brood stock holding Dpnds or in
some cases rearing ponds for settleable solids removal.
Plant scale treatment results for three hatcheries have been
documented and are presented with results of two bench
studies [Table VII-3]. Plant F, which operated for a time
without sludge removal is "considered the exemplary plant
using this technology.
From the data available, it is reasonable to expect a 45
percent removal of suspended solids and a 90 percent removal
of settleable solids with a properly designed and operated
settling basin. Removal efficiencies .for other pollutants
and the resultant effluent characteristics are indicated
[Table VII-4]. Effluent concentrations are expected to be
constant in terms of settleable solids with possibly slight
increases in suspended solids as a result of cleaning. The
slug loads currently discharged during cleaning, however,
would be eliminated.
The ultimate disposal of accumulated solids is thought to be
the major operating problem. Perhaps once or twice per year
solids removal would be necessary to maintain treatment
efficiency. This~material could be hauled wet for land
application or in some cases allowed tc dry in place before
disposal. Thus two settling basins operating in parallel
may be necessary to maintain treatment during solids
disposal.
The estimated time necessary for the implementation of this
level of technology is 25 months. Included are the
following time periods;
2882
2883
2883
2885
2887
2889
2891
2893
2895
2897
2899
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2910
2913
2913
291U
2916
2917
2917
2918
2920
2920
2921
2923
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2930
2932
2933
2933
-------
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6 "
Engineering Evaluation 6 «
* Design
Accept Bids ft 2 «
Award Contract
Construction 4 »
Operation Adjustment Period 1 "
D. Settling of Entire Flow with Sludge RemovalRemoval
efficiencies accomplished with settling are improved when
sludge is removed from the settling basin before bacterial
decomposition releases soluble pollutants (169,235). Two
ethods of sludge removal are applicable. First, sludge may
be removed mechanically from concrete clarifiers as is the
practice in the treatment of municipal wastes. The
treatment process continues uninterrupted during sludge
removal. Second, if additional land is available dual
earthen settling basins May be operated in parallel. One
basin nay then be taken out of service while dewatering and
sludge removal take place. The other basin remains in
service treating the entire flow. This procedure is
followed until both basins are clean. Where land is at a
premium, high rate sedimentation (265,266) using plate
separators or tube settlers may find application.
Removal efficiencies obtained using this level of technology
are presented in Table VZI-5. Plant F is considered the
Exemplary plant using this technology. Projecting these
Uata [Table VIZ-5] a properly designed and operated settling
basin will accomplish the removal efficiencies shown in
Table VII-6. The efficiencies indicated are attainable only
with the removal of accumulated solids prior to measurable
digestion and solubilixation. Available information
suggests that sludge removal would be necessary at about two
week intervals (169,246).
Sludge handling and disposal is recognized as the major
problem associated with the irplementation of this
technology. For a hatchery with a flow of 37,850 »»/day (10
mgd) that removes 10 mg/1 of suspended solids, an estimated
sludge volume, assuming 90 percent moisture, of about 3.785
m>/day (1,000 gpd) could be expected. Possibilities for
sludge disposal are: a) hauling with direct application of
wet sludge to agricultural land; b) on-site dewatering and
land application or distribution as garden fertilizer; and
c) discharge or hauling of wet sludge to a municipal waste
disposal system.
I
2935
2937
2939
2941
2943
2945
2947
2949
| 2951
I 2952
2953
2954
295U
2955
2956
2957
2957
2953
2959
2960
2961
2961
2962
2962
2964
2966
2967
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2972
297S
297t>
2977
2978
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2982
-------
Another problem at some hatcheries way be shock hydraulic I 2984
loadings to the settling basin during raceway cleaning. } 2985
Pish farms or hatcheries operated with an increase in water 2986
flow during cleaning may experience a reduction in settling 2987
efficiency due to short circuiting. This could be a 2988
particular problem in smaller operations where the increased 2988
flow during cleaning of one unit may be a significant 2989
percentage of the total flow. 2990
It is estimated that 28 months would be required for the I 2992
industry to implement settling with sludge removal. The 1 2993
time intervals are estimated as follows; | 2994
Obtain Funding 6 months 2996
Acquire Land 6 ** 2998
Engineering Evaluation 6 " | 3000
£ Design 3002
Accept Bids 6 2 « 3004
Award contract 3006
Construction 6 ** 300 B
Operation Adjustment Period 2 " | 3010
E. Stabilization PondsStabilization ponds are probably I 3012
one of the simplest methods available for treating fish ] 3013
wastes. The use of rearing ponds for waste stabilization is 3014
not uncommon in fish culturing operations. Usually brood 3015
stock ponds are used and only the normal hatchery discharge 3016
Is routed through the pond. The effectiveness of 3017
stabilization ponds for treatment" of the entire flow has 3018
been studied and documented (140). Four rearing ponds of 3018
about 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres) each with an average water 3019
depth of about 2.5 m 18.2 ft) were selected for the study. 3020
Excluding tests one and two £.Table VZI-7], the average 3021
detention time in the ponds was 3.8 days and the average BOD 3022
loading was 54.2 kg BOD/hectare-day (48.4~lb BOD/acre-day) . 3023
Actual plant scale operating data indicate 90 percent | 3025
removal of settleable solids* and about 60 percent removal j 3026
of BOD and suspended solids for stabilization ponds operated 3027
at detention times and loading rates similar to those shown 3029
in Table VII-7. The determinations made indicate that 30)3
stabilisation ponds are highly efficient in removing 30 JO
nutrient pollutants, nitrogen and phosphorus. Removal 3031
efficiencies and the resultant effluent quality are 30 J 2
presented In Table VXI-8. ~" These figures are based on a 303)
stabilization pond with a detention time of three" to four 303)
days, a loading rate of approximately 56.0 kg BOD/hectare- 30J«
day (50 Ibs BOD/acre-day) and are independent of whether or 3035
not fish are in the pond. 30IS
-------
Two potential problems do exist in the use of stabilization
Monds. First, over a period of many years some accumulation
f solids can be expected. It may therefore become
necessary to dewater the pond and dispose of the solids.
Such an undertaking could represent a major expenditure in
terms of cost and manpower. The other potential problem
involves the assimilation of nutrients within the pond. The
nutrient removals indicated in Table VII-7 are probably a
result of uptake by algae and other plants in the
stabilisation pond. Eventually, conditions may occur
causing an algae die off and subsequent release of nutrients
into the receiving water.
Land requirements for stabilization ponds may rule out their
application at «any hatcheries. However, in cases where
existing rearing units may be used for waste treatment,
implementation of this treatment technology could be
accomplished in a minimum time period. Assuming land
acquisition is necessary, implementation time is estimated
at 25 months. An estimated implementation schedule is
presented below:
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
£ Design
Accept Bids S
Award Contract
Construction
Operation Adjustment Period
6 months
6 »
4 «
6
1
F. Aeration and Settling ^5 hours)Aeration and settling
has been studied on pilot scale for treating discharges from
fish hatcheries .£130,131). A pilot plant was operated
during April and May of 1970 at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Dworshak National Fish Hatchery in Idaho. The
Dworshafc hatchery is a recycle facility in which water is
reconditioned and recycled through the hatchery.
Approximately 10 percent of the reconditioned water is
wasted from the system. During the test, the pilot plant
treated a portion of the 10 percent ««?*« 8^"a";
Characteristics of influent to the pilot plant (Table VII-9]
are nearly identical to characteristics of single-pass
hatchery effluent.
TABLE VII-9
DWORSHAK PILOT PLANT INFLUENT
FILTER NORMAL OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS*
Concentration
Pollutants
3037
3038
3039
3040
30U1
30U1
3042
3043
304U
3045
3046
3046
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3052
3053
3053
3055
3057
3059
3061
3063
3065
3067
3069
3071
3072
307J
307»
307%
3076
3076
3077
3078
3018
3079
3083
3080
| 3082
| 308!
308*
308?
3088
-------
BOD
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Total volatile Solids
NH3-N
N03-N
P04-P
5. a
12.6
76
25
1.1
1.8
0.8
Characteristics are average of pilot plant influent
~ concentrations with pilot plant operating at detention
times between 1.2 and 6.6 hours. Data are from
Reference 131.
Nine tests were made with the pilot plant operating at
detention times between three and seven hours. Results of
these tests are presented in Table VII-10. At a total
detention time of five~hours the removal efficiencies in
Table VII-11 would be expected. Applying these efficiencies
to the average raw waste concentration of a single-pass
hatchery would result in the effluent characteristics in
Table VII-11.
Por plant scale operation a three cell system could be used
consisting of one aeration cell and two settling cells.
During the pilot £lant testing, under the conditions
previously described, the air supply ranged from 970 to
2,020 cc/liter (0.13 to 0.27 f t'/gal.) (130). To permit
sludge handling, with some degree of convenience, settling
basin design should consider the necessity for sludge
removalT This may be accomplished with a single concrete
clarifier with mechanical sludge removal or with two earthen
settling basins designed for alternate debater ing and sludge
removal.
Surges on the system resulting from increased organic
loading and possible increased hydraulic loading during
cleaning may be a problem. The pilot plant treated both
filter normal overflow [Table VII-9] and a mixture of filter
normal overflow and backwashing water [Table VII-12]. At
the increased pollutant concentrations of the combined
influent, treatment efficiency was not impaired [Table VII-
12].
3090
3092
309U
3096
3098
3100
3102
310«
3106
3107
3108
3108
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3111
3115
3115
3117
3118
31M
3120
3121
3121
3122
JU )
312*
n
n
-------
The tine required for implementation of aeration and I 3130
settling ^5 hours) is estimated at 32 months. Time j 3135
intervals comprising this geriod are estimated below. j 3136
Obtain Funding ' 6 months 3138
Acquire Land 6 « 31»0
Engineering Evaluation 8 « | 3142
ft Design 3144
Accept Bids S 2 « 3146
Award Contract 3148
Construction 8 " 3150
Operation Adjustment Period 2 * (3152
G. Aeration and Settling flO hours)Aeration and settling | 315U
with a total detention time of approximately 10 hours was { 3155
studied on pilot scale at the Seward Park Game Fish Hatchery 3156
in Seattle, Washington from November 22, 1969 to January 21, 3157
1970 (130). During this period ten tests were made in which 3158
the total detention time ranged from 8.9 to 12 hours and 3159
averaged 10.2 hours. Aeration time averaged 1.9 hours and 3160
settling time averaged 8.3 hoars. The aeration rate ranged 3160
from 1,800 to 2,470 cc/liter (0.24 to 0.33 ftVgal.) and 3161
averaged 1.950 cc/ liter (0.26 ft'/gal.). 3162
The BOD and COD removal efficiencies are presented in Table I 3164
VII-13. Applying the removal efficiencies to average raw j 3165
waste characteristics of single-pass hatcheries the effluent 3166
characteristics indicated in Table VTI-14 would be expected 3167
from a system operating with a total detention time of 10 3168
hours. 3168
Configurations for plant scale operation, and possible J 3170
operating problems, would be the same as for the 5-hour | 3171
system previously described. The estimated time necessary 3172
for implementing this technology .is 32 Months. Time J17J
intervals for the various steps of implementation are I JU«
estimated below. I 317a
Obtain Funding 6 months H'»
Acquire Land 6 « , VIJ
Engineering Evaluation 8 " ' ! .
6 Design J'J*
Accept Bids G 2 \
Award Contract J;"
Construction 8 " . ,!!H
Operation Adjustment Period 2 | mo
ReconditioningReconditioning refers to fish rearing | 3192
systemsinwhich water is treated and recirculated through | 39J
the hatchery." A fraction of the total flow is wasted from
-------
the system to prevent a buildup of ammonia nitrogen and
replaced with an equal flow of source water. Reconditioning
systems have been used primarily for reasons other than
pollution control. Several reasens for installing water
reconditioning equipment include: a) source water requiring
sterilisation: b) insufficient flow of source water
available; and c) temperature control for increased
prod uction.
Reconditioning water for fish rearing requires the
replenishment of oxygen and the removal of carbon dioxide
and ammonia (36). Oxygen replenishment and carbon dioxide
removal are usually accomplished by violent aeration.
Bacterial nitrification is said to offer the most ^radical
and economical method of ammonia removal (36). Several
methods of treatment for reconditioning were tested at
Foreman, Montana J159). Pilot reconditioning systems were
operated using activated sludge, extended aeration and
trickling filtration, all common methods of secondary
waste water treatment. Two nitrification filters referred to
as "upflow filter" and "new upflow filter" were also tested
on pilot scale. Each of these systems was operated as a
ten-pass reconditioning system resulting in the
recirculation of 90 percent of the water while 10 percent is
wasted from the system. Results of the Bozeman pilot
studies are presented in Table VII-15. From these data it
is concluded that the removal efficiencies and effluent
characteristics indicated in Table VII-16 are achievable
with a ten-pass reconditioning system.
Possible problems with reconditioning systems center on the
high degree of reliance on mechanical equipment. Pumping,
sterlization and aeration are all vital parts of the system
and should where used be backed up ty standby units and an
alternate power supply. The man-hours necessary for the
proper maintenance of a reconditioning system would probably
be several times that of a single-pass system.
The estimated time for implementation of reconditioning
technology is 52 months. Time intervals for the 'various
steps of implementation are estimated telow:
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
1 Design
Accept Bids 6
Award Contract
Construction
Operation Adjustment Period
12
6
12
16
«
months
H
3195
3195
3196
3197
3196
3198
3199
3199
3201
3202
3203
320U
3205
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3213
3214
3215
3216
3216
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3223
322*
3226
322^
3229
3231
32)'
3235
3237
3239
32
-------
pative Fish Pond Culturinq Systems
his subcategory applies to both open and closed ponds.
typically, the removal of settleable solids is inherent in
ponds because the intermittent or continuous overflow is
from a quiescent water'body which acts as a settling basin.
For this reason the following discussion is limited to
control and treatment technologies needed to reduce
pollutants"discharged during £ond draining activities.
The treatment technologies presented below have previously
been discussed to some extent as in-plant control measures.
Where significant modification of pond outlet structures or
?low schemes is necessary, the control is considered a
treatment technology and addressed here, in addition to the
two alternatives presented, a third control measure,
harvesting without draining, may be implemented without
material modification of pond outlet structures or flow
schemes. ~ Therefore, harvesting without draining is
considered solely an in-plant control measure.
raining at a Controlled RatePonds that are gartially
rained before fish are harvested can be drained from the
surface to allow settling of solids within the pond. in
many cases this" will require the modification of outlet
structures. To continue the control of settleable solids,
fish harvesting can be accomplished in the pond by such
methods as seining. After "fish have been removed, pond
*ter can be retained to allow additional settling of
pOlids. Later the supernatant can be carefully decanted to
avoid resuspension and~the subsequent discharge of settled
solids. "
With respect to treatment efficiency, settleable solids
values shown in Table VII-17 are representative for the
industry"and can be reduced by an estimated 10 percent if
the previously described procedures are followed. This
estimate is thought to be conservative inasmuch as simple
settling can remove more than 90 percent of the settleable
solids. Table VII-18 shows two important facts. First, it
indicates" that settleable solids can be controlled when
ponds are drained from the surface at a controlled rate.
Second, it shows that water quality stays essentially
constant during much of the draining procedure, dete-
riorating in quality just prior to harvest.
Problems and limitations inherent in this technology are
three-fold. First, additional man-hours are required for
harvesting, "second harvesting in the pond is considered by
some fish culturists to cause higher Iteh mortality. Third,
3245
32*7
32U8
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3260
3261
3262
3262
3265
3265
3267
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3273
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3279
3280
3281
3281
3283
3283
3284
3286
3287
3288
3289
-------
these harvesting techniques nay £equire reconstruction of
pond outlets and harvesting sumps as well as major
Modification of piping.
The estimated implementation time for this technology is IS
months. Time increments included in this estimate are as
follows: ~~
Obtain Funding
Engineering Evaluation
ft Design
Accept Bids ft
Award Contract
Construction
Operation Adjustment Period
6 months
3 "
1 «
4
Draining Through Another PondIn some fish culturing
facilities draining through another pond may not be solely
an in-plant control measure. Where another pond is not
available, construction of an earth settling basin for batch
settling may be necessary. Where other ponds do exist and
draining water cannot be treated by gravity discharge,
pumping may be necessary.
Draining through an existing rearing pond or a new settling
pond can result in the removal of 80 percent of the
settleable solids. This is considered a conservative figure
because simple settling"can remove greater than 90 percent
of the settleable solids.
Problems involved with this technology include land
requirements where additional pond construction is
necessary, mainte. -ance where gumping equipment is used, and
additional man-hours required for harvesting.
The estimated time required for implementation is 22 months.
This estimate assumes that land must be acquired and a
settling pond constructed.
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
ft" Design
Accept Bids ft
Award Contract
Construction
Operation Adjustment Period
Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems
6 months
6 "
a «
a
1
3290
3291
3291
3293
3294
3290
3296
3298
3300
3302
330U
3306
3308
3310
3311
3312
3313
331U
3315
3315
3317
3318
3319
3320
3320
3322
3323
332*
3325
3327
3328
3)28
33)0
)))2
33J«
3)16
33)«
33«0
33«2
33*6
-------
Treatment of wastewater from the non-native subcategory is
pined primarily at the control of biological pollutants.
Because non-native fish are pond cultured, two assumptions
can be made regarding the water quality of discharges with
respect to pollutants 'other than biological pollutants.
First, open ponds operate as stabilization ponds settling,
digesting and assimilating pollutants such that the water
discharged is of a quality similar to overflow from native
fish pond culturing facilities. Second, discharges during
draining and harvesting activities (where harvesting is
accomplished by seining) are similar in quality to draining
discharges from native fish operations and are characterized
by high concentrations of suspended and settleable solids
without appreciable change in~the level of oxygen demanding
pollutants. Because of the public health significance of
any of the biological pollutants from non-native
operations, sludge must not be applied to lands where crops
are raised for human consumption. The three alternatives
presented in this "section are discussed in order of
increasing efficiency in the removal of biological
pollutants. Treatment for the removal of biological
pollutants cannot be quantified due to monitoring
limitations. comparison of the treatment alternatives
presented here is based on known information with respect to
removal of biological pollutants.
ChlorinationChlorination is a disinfection method in |
widespreaduse for treating water and wastewater. |
Presently, Chlorination is used in treating discharges from
non-native fish culturing facilities and for in-plant
disease control (33,102).
Biological pollutants in pond drainage waters can be |
controlled by batch Chlorination. After harvesting, the |
pond is charged with granular chlorine to a dosage of 20
mg/1. After a minimum of 2U-hours and when no chlorine
residual remains the pond can be drained without risk of
biological contamination of surface waters.
Several problems and limitations are associated with
Chlorination. To insure effective disinfection, adequate
contact time and regular monitoring of chlorine residual is
necessary. Batch treatment would be most common, however,
were continuous Chlorination used, preventive maintenance
would be necessary for reliable equipment operation. A
constant supply of chemicals is required. In addition,
improper management of chlorine is hazardous to humans and
to living organisms in the receiving water (267). The
primary limitation of Chlorination is that larger resistant
organisms are not killed.
3349
3350
3351
3351
3352
3353
335U
3355
3356
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3361
3362
3363
3364
336U
3366
3367
3368
3369
3369
3371
3372
3373
337t»
3374
337o
3377
J7«
ne
p«
M »
1» t
M.
)« *
JSC
3
)
3
-------
The tine required for the implementation of chlorination is | 3392
estimated at 8 Months. Land requirements are negligible, I 3393
thus the following estimated time intervals do not include a ( 3394
period for land aquTsition. t 3394
Obtain Funding 2 months
Engineering Evaluation 2 "
ft Design
Accept Bids S 1 »
Award Contract
Construction 2 *
Operation Adjustment Period 1
Filtration and Ultraviolet DisinfectionThis treatment
alternative consists of filtration followed by ultraviolet
(OV) disinfection. Ultraviolet disinfection is discussed as
the method of disinfection; however, it is recognised that
other effective means of disinfection are available
including but not necessarily limited to chlorination and
ozonation." Filtration is presently used in a number of non-
native fish" farms. Types of filter media in use include
diatomacious earth, sand, gravel and activated charcoal
(44,62,218,229). In the case of granular media, a coagulant
may be added as the water enters the filter, and the filter
acts as a contact coagulation bed (5).
Filtration is an effective means of removing the larger and
more resistant biological pollutants which may not be
destroyed by disinfection alone. Sand filtration traps most
spores and bacteria (44). A diatomaceous earth filter used
on a large Florida non-native fish farm removed all
particles and organisms larger than a few microns (218).
This would include most parasites (111,112) and the solids
^suspended and settleable) which have been identified as
major waste~water pollutants.
Ultraviolet (UV) light or short wave length irradiation is
used to disinfect water in non-native fish cultnring
facilities" (21,218) in some large public aquaria (61,108),
and in research facilities (108). Presently UV is used as
an in-plant disease control measure but could be applied as
an end-of-process treatment method. In UV disinfection a
film of water, up to about 120 mm thick, is exposed to light
from low-pressure mercury vapor lamps. The short wavelength
irradiation is believed to destroy the nucleic acids in
bacterial cells (5).
The effectiveness of UV disinfection in reducing biological
pollutants has been documented. An ultraviolet system at a
non-native fish culturing facility reduced total coiiforms
3396
3398
3400
3402
3404
3406
3408
3410
3411
3412
3413
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3418
3419
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3425
3426
3427
3427
3429
3430
3431
3432
343)
3434
3434
3435
3436
3436
3438
3439
3440
-------
from 350 per ! to 2-5 per ml (21). At the Steinhart
Aquarium, five months of operation without OV resulted in a
miildup of bacteria in the aeration tank to 4,0,000 per ml;
after one day of UV, the level was reduced to 57 per ml
(108). Spores are more resistant to UV than vegetative
cells (5), feowever, standard OV doses of 35,000 miHi-watt-
seconds kill spores of the bacterium Mvxosoma cerebralis. a
form resistant to chemical treatment (111,112). Larger
biological contaminants such as copepods, snails, fish or
fish gill parasites are not killed by OV irradiation
(61,108).
Therefore, effective control of biological pollutants may be
accomplished with filtration followed by disinfection.
Filtration removes the larger more resistant biological
pollutants as well as removing essentially all suspended
solids. Disinfection then kills the small organisms which
may have passed through the filter.
Several problems and limitations exist in filtration
followed by OV disinfection. With respect to filtration two
major problems must be considered. First, filter backwash
water is contaminated with biological pollutants and must be
disposed of properly to insure no contamination of surface
or ground waters. Second, filters may clog when suspended
solids concentrations become excessive due to algal blooms
or pond draining. Maintenance of associated mechanical
equipment is necessary.
Furthermore, the following problems and limitations are
associated with the use of OV disinfection. Effectiveness
is dependent upon energy delivery to the entire volume of
water to be disinfected. The main limitation is that not
all biological pollutants are destroyed by irradiation but
these organisms will be removed by filtration as discussed
previously. Mechanical problems, including lamp burn out
and power failures, would result in interruption of
treatment. Periodic and preventative maintenance would also
be necessary.
Time required for the implementation of filtration followed
by OV disinfection is 27 months as estimated below:
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
£ Design
Accept Bids S
Award Contract
Construction
6 months
6 «
6 «
1 »
6 «
3441
3442
3443
344U
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3448
3448
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
| 3457
| 3458
3459
3460
3461
3463
3464
3464
3465
| 3467
j 3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
347]
347(»
J475
3415
J 3477
j 3478
34BO
3«82
| 3«6
-------
Operation Adjustment Period 2 "
Ho discharge gland Disposal)No discharge as discussed here
refers to land disposal such that no discharge of waste
water exists to surface water. No discharge is presently
practiced at both large (218) and very small (a3) non-native
fish farms and, assuming that control technology is
required, is the Method most often recommended by
representatives of the industry Jll,12,43,89,90,101.192,220)
and other authorities (48,55,56,204,233,267). There is a
trend toward increased water reuse thus reducing the volume
of water for disposal. Four methods of land disposal are
currently used to achieve no discharge; irrigation, dry
wells, percolation ponds and drainfields used in conjunction
with septic tanks. Land disposal is operational at large
and small non-native facilities (43,218). Dry wells are
most common in extreme southern Florida (101). Percolation
ponds are typically shallow earth ponds constructed in
pervious soil and are in use in the Tampa Bay area of
Florida (179) ." Septic tanks with drainfields are in use for
the disposal of effluents "from non-native fish culturing
facilities in the Tampa Bay (12) and Kiami (102) areas of
Florida.
Biological pollutants are removed fcy the natural filtering
action of the soil such that disinfection or other treatment
is not considered necessary prior to land disposal. However
in cases where a shallow around water table or adjacent
surface water exist, local authorities may require further
treatment to protect water quality.
Problems associated with this technology include land
requirements and flooding. Additional land may be necessary
for the implementation of this technology. When percolation
ponds are used they must be protected against flooding to
prevent escapement of biological pollutants during peak
flood or hurricane periods. Three foot dikes have been
reported as sufficient in the main production area of
southern Florida (192,204). Finally, land disposal may not
be possible in some areas where near surface aquifers and
sandy soils limit availability of sites.
The estimated time required for the implementation of no
discharge is 18 months. The following estimated time
intervals are included:
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
£ Design
6 months
6
2
3494
3496
3497
3498
3499
3499
3500
3501
3502
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3512
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3518
3520
3521
352«
352«
3525
3526
3526
3528
3529
3529
3531
3532
| 3532
3534
3536
| 3538
35«0
-------
Accept Bids S 1 35U2
Award Contract 35<4<*
Construction 2 3546
gpctration Adjustment Period 1 | 3548
Summary 3550
The waste loads achievable through the treatment I 3552
technologies described are summarized in Table VXI-19. | 3553
-------
SECTION VIII I
COSTS* ENERGY AMD NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS 3558
INTRODUCTION 3561
The control and treatment technologies that can be adopted I 3563
to reduce waste loads from the fish cniltaring industry were | 356a
presented in Section VII. The purpose of this section is to 3565
examine the treatment alternatives .in terms of their costs, 3566
energy requirements, and impact on the non- water quality 3567
aspects of the environment. Alternatives that have a 3567
variety of flow schemes are designated by a letter followed 3568
by a number (e.g. A-l. A-2. etc.). Cost information is 3569
presented for each alternative by sufccategory as follows: 3570
ye pjsh Flow-Through Cultorinq Systems 3572
A-l Settling of Cleaning Flow (pumping to new I 357«
" gond) I 3575
A.2 settling of Cleaning Flow (gravity flow to 3577
"" _ Existing pond) 3578
A-3 Settling of Cleaning Flow (gravity flow to 3580
new _ pond) 3591
B -- Vacuum Cleaning 358J
C-! settling of Entire Flow without Sludge
"" Removal _ (pumping to new pond)
c-2 Settling of Entire Flow without Sludge 35M
" Removal _ (gravity flow to new pond) ***
D-l Settling of Entire Flow with Sludge Removal JS«'
"" _ (pumping to new pond) J%*'
D-2 Settling of Entire Flow with Sludge Removal !*«
~ _ (gravity flow to new pond) "
E Stabilisation Ponds
F Aeration and Settling (5 hr)
G Aeration and Settling (10 hr)
H Reconditioning
-------
Native Pish -- Pond Culturinq Systems
A-l Draining at controlled Rate (new outlet
"" structure)
^^
A.2 Draining at Controlled Rate (existing outlet
"" _ structure
B Draining Through Another Pond
C Harvesting Without Draining
Mon-Native Fish
A Chiorination
B Filtration and Disinfection
C No Discharge With Land Disposal
In each case, the generation of costs has required the
adoption of various assumptions about typical sixe
operations,* existing treatment technology, levels of
production and many other conditions. Two general
assumptions have been made concerning land and power costs
for all subcategories; land costs have been calculated at
$2,000 per acre and power costs have been calculated at
SO.025 per kilowatt-hour. For each alternative an attempt
has been made to state explicitly the major assumptions in
order to improve comprehension and provide the basis tor
subsequent review and evaluation.
NATIVE FISH FLOW-THROUGH CULTDRING SYSTEMS
Eight levels of control and treatment technology have been
Identified. Base level of practice is assumed to be
once-through flow, with no treatment. All costs and effects
are evaluated using the base level of practice as «ero cost.
Cost figures are based upon September 1973 information.
Climate, process characteristics, and age of facility were
not considered meaningful for the purposes of Making cost
distinctions. Si«e, however, was considered significant and
costs were developed for four scales of operation: 3,785;
37,850; 9tt,600 and 378,500 m»/day (1, 10, 25 and 100 mgd)
facilities. Based on information from commercial and
government fish operations (268.275) the following
capacities were used in estimating the cost per pound of
fish for this subcategory:
3605
3607
3608
3610
3611
3613
3615
3617
3619
3621
3623
3625
3626
3627
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3633
3635
3637
3638
3619
3641
36*3
Hatchery Flow
Fish Produced
36*7
36«7
36*3
-------
/day
3,785
37,850
94,600
378.500
gd
1
10
25
100
5,150
51,500
128,750
515.000
Ih
11.450
114,500
286,250
1,145,000
Several other assumptions specific to this sobcategory are
made. First, an estimated 70 percent of the facilities are
assumed to be able to discharge wastewater to a settling
basin by gravity flow. Second, it is assumed that half of
these gravity-flow operations could use an existing pond for
their settling basin while the other half would be required
to redesign an existing pond or construct a new settling
basin. Third, an estimated 20 percent of the industry does
not have an existing pond they would take out of production,
or they have other land constraint problems. Fourth, an
estimated 10 percent of the flow-through systems would
require pumping and major piping modifications in order to
discharge wastewaters into a settling basin. Fifth, sludge
handling costs are estimated at S0.62/m* (S0.80/yd*) to
remove and $5.44/m ton (S6/ton) for disposal.
The cost estimates also rely on a number of detailed
assumptions that are detailed in a supplement to this
document. *"
Alternative A-l Settling of Cleaning Flow (pumping
new pond) ""
to
This alternative applies to operations that require pumping
to operate treatment facilities at elevations above flood
levels. Cost estimates for Alternative A-l are presented in
Table VIII-1.~ In addition to the previously stated general
assumptions, estimates are based on the construction of an
earth settling basin with a 1 hr detention time and depth of
1.8 m (6 ft).
Alternative A-2. Settling of Cleaning Flow (gravity flow
to existing pond)
This alternative applies to operations that have an existing
pond to use for settling of cleaning flow. Gravity flow to
the existing pond is assumed also.
The loss of income caused by taking a pond out of production
"(reducing total fish production) tc be used for a settling
basin was not considered in the cost estimates presented for
alternative A-2 in Table VIII-2.
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3671
3672
3674
3675
3675
3677
3677
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
368*
368*
3686
3686
3688
3684
3690
3692
3693
369*
369U
-------
Alternative A-3, Settling of Cleaning
o new pond)' ""
(gravity flow
This alternative applies to operations that mat construct
an earth settling basin'with a 1 hr detention time and depth
of 1.6 2* ft) Flow of cleaning wastewater into the basin
is assumed to be by gravity. Cost estimates for Alternative
A-3 are presented in Table VXXI-3.
Alternative B Vacuum Cleaning
In computing the cost estimates for Alternative B [Table
VIII-], it was assumed that settled solids would be pumped
from the culturing units directly to a hatch settling basin
such that intermediate pumping would not be necessary. The
pumping rate during vacuuming was" estimated at 3.2 I/sec (50
gpm).
Alternative C-l Settling of Bitirc
Removal jumping to a new pond)
Flow Without Sludge
The estimated costs of Alternative C-l are indicated in
Table VIII-5. For purposes of the cost estimated it is
assumed that ~~ two earth settling fcasins, operated in
parallel* would provide a total detention time of two hours
with a depth of 1.8 m (6 ft). Although no attempt would be
made to remove sludge before bacterial decomposition takes
'Olace, it is recognised that, over the long term, sludge
emoval would be necessary at six-month to one-year
intervals. The operation and maintenance cost far sludge
handling assumed a removal interval of six months.~
Alternative C-2 Settling of Entire Flow Without Sludge
Removal ^gravity flow to new pond)
This alternative applies to operations that can rely upon
gravity £low to discharge wastewater into the settling
basin, ""other assumptions are the same as those described
for Alternative C-l. The ~ estivated costs of this
Alternative are tabulated in Table viil-6.
Alternative D-l Settling of
Removal _£pumpTng to a new pond)
Entire
Lth Sludge
The estimated costs of this alternative are tabulated in
Table VXXI-7. Similar to the previous alternative, costs
for Alternative D-l are estimated for two earth settling
basins, operated in parallel, j>rcviding a total detention
time of two hours with a depth of 1.8 m J6 ft). Sludge is
removed before bacterial decomposition has the opportunity
3696
3696
3698
3699
3700
3701
3701
3703
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3709
3711
3712
371*
3715
3716
3717
3718
3718
3719
3720
3721
3721
3723
3724
3726
3727
3728
3729
3729
37J1
3732
373«
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
-------
to affect effluent water quality. It is estimated that
during the coarse of a year, sludge would be removed twelve
tines. ""
Alternative D-2 Settling of Entire
Removal ^gravity flow to new pond)
With
This alternative applies to operations that can rely upon
gravity £low to discharge wastewater into the settling
basin. Sludge is renoved periodically. Other assumptions
are the same as those described for Alternatives C-l and D-
1. The estimated costs of this alternative are tabulated in
Table VII1-8.
Alternative B Stabilisation Ponds
The costs of implementing Alternative E have been estimated
and are presented in Table VI11-9. Estimates are based on
dual earth stabilization ponds operated in parallel with a
total detention time~~of four days and a depth of 2.4 m (8
ft).
Alternative F Aeration and Settling ^5 hrl
Cost estimates for Alternative f are indicated in Table
VIII-10. Estimates are based on an aeration time of 1-1/2
far followed* by 3-1/2 hr of settling. The aeration basin was
assumed to be of earth construction 3.7 m (12 ft) deep. Two
earth settling basinsT 1-8 m (6 ft) deep, operating in
parallel were assumed. The assumed air supply was 1.9
liters of air per liter of aeration tank volume (0.2S cu
ft/gal.).
Alternative G Aeration and Settling flO hr)
Estimated costs for Alternative G are presented in Table
VIII-11. All assumptions are identical to Alternative F
with the exception of detention time. Alternative G is
based on 2 hr aeration followed by 6 hr settling.
Alternative H Reconditioning
Cost estimates for Alternative B are presented in Table
VTII-12. The estimates are based on a ten-pass
reconditioning system receiving 10 percent makeup water and
wasting 10 percent from the system. costs for settling
assumed the use of a concrete clarifier with mechanical
sludge removal. Filtration figures assume a 1.5 m (5 ft)
filter media depth and a loading rate of 1.4 Ips/m* (2
3739
3740
3740
3742
3743
37U5
3706
3747
3748
3749
3749
3750
3751
3753
375U
3755
3756
3756
3758
3760
3761
3762
3763
376U
3765
3766
3766
3768
3770
3771
3772
3771
3777
3776
3779
3780
)780
3781
378:
-------
gpm/ft*)
time.
Reaeration is estimated for 10 minutes detention
f Achieving Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available IBPCTCA)
The BPCTCA has been recommended as either of two
technologies settling of the cleaning flow with sludge
removal (Alternative A) or vacuum cleaning of the culturing
units (Alternative B). The costs of achieving BPCTCA are
presented in Tables VIII-1 through VIII-a.
Cost of Achieving
Achievable fBATZA)
Beet Available Technology Economically
The BATEA technology is the same as BPCTCA. The costs of
achieving BATEA are presented in Tables vixx-l through VJII-
«. ~
Cost of Achieving Mew Source Performance Standards INSPS1
The RSPS technology is the sane as BATEA. The cost of
implementing NSPS is also presented in Tables VXXX-1 through
Cost of Achieving Pre treatment Reguir events IPRETREAT)
Pretreatment of wastewaters front native fish culturing
facilities is not Accessary. Therefore the costs are zero
(for achieving pre treatment requirements for existing and new
sources. ~"
NATIVE FISH POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
The effluent limitations for BPCTCA for pond culturing
systems can be met by at least three technologies which are:
a) draining from the surface at a controlled rate to allow
settling in the pondT b) draining through another pond; and
c) harvesting without draining. The base level of practice
in the industry is no control.
Depending on the particular circumstances of the operation*
any one of these three methods might provide the least cost
method of achieving the BPCTCA limitations. In some
instances, the topography and land availability will allow
the construction of a gravity-fed earthen settling basin at
an elevation below all of the production j>onds. In other
cases, the proprietor nay find it least costly to convert a
production pond for use as a settling pond. Some ponds are
constructed in such a way that harvesting without draining
3783
3763
3765
3786
3768
3789
3790
3791
3791
3793
379*
3796
3797
3797
3799
3801
3802
3802
380«
3806
3807
3808
3808
3810
3812
3811
381«
38»S
3816
381«
3119
3820
3821
3822
3823
382*
382*
382*
-------
is already practiced or could readily be adopted. 3826
Harvesting without draining is a .possibility in shallow 3827
ponds and those that have feeding areas that can be readily 3828
closed off from the rest of the pond. Finally, in many 3828
?ases, the least cost approach toward achieving the BPCTCA I 3829
imitations may be the construction of a new outlet j 3830
structure that allows controlled draining from the pond 3831
surface. 3831
Costs have been estimated for the construction of a new I 3833
outlet structure [Table VIII-13] and for operations already j 3834
using dam boards {.Table VI11-14]. Costs have been developed 3835
on the basis of a 0.405 hectare (1 acre) pond producing 3836
1,910 kg (2,000 Ib) of fish per year. The costs are based 3837
on construction or existing concrete outlet structure that 3838
allows controlled draining by means of dam boards. These 3838
costs represent the largest expenditure a pond cultnring 3839
facility would incur in order to corply with BPCTCA. 3840
Under certain circumstances, it may fce possible to achieve I 3843
the BPCTCA limitations by converting a production pond into | 3843
a settling pond. This alternative would only be considered | 3844
where it is possible to transport draining waters to the 3844
settling pond by gravity. Assuming that gravity flow is 3846
possible, a cost estimate for BPCTCA has been prepared. The 3847
only costs associated with this alternative are (1) those'of 3847
providing ditches to carry the water from the production 3848
ponds to the settling ponds, and {2) the net loss to the 3848
farm incurred by removing one pond from production. To be 3850
consistent with the cost estimates for the other 3850
alternatives, the typical operation is assuoed to consist of 3851
ten 1 acre production pondsT one of these ten ponds is 3851
assumed to be converted into a settling pond. To collect 3853
the drainage water from the nine production ponds for flow 3853
into the settling pond, it is assumed that 2,000 ft of ditch 385u
3 ft wide at the bottom is required. 385<*
Given these assumptions, the estimate costs for achieving | 3856
the BPCTCA limitations for those operations that can use j 3857
gravity flow to a converted production pond for settling | 3858
appear in Table VIII-15. 3856
Depending on the topography and the size and bottom | 3860
characteristics of the ponds, harvesting without draining j 3861
may be the most desirable way to achieve the BPCTCA | 3861
limitations, goats for this alternative have been developed j 3862
assuming that partial draining and seining of fish for 3862
harvesting are practicable. Again, a 0.405 hectare (1 acre) 3864
pond producing 910 kg (2,00"o Ib) of fish per year has been 3865
assumed for the purpose of estimating costs. 3865
-------
£e coat estimates for BPCTCA using the harvesting without
aining approach appear in Table VIII-16. Further
assumptions implied by the costs are: (1) prior to
harvesting, the pond is drained to a depth of about 3 ft;
<2) 300 ft of 8 ft seine is required to harvest" the acre
pond; J3) the seine can be pulled by an electric hoist
attached to a standard pickup truck; J«) cultorist has truck
available; J5) the typical operation consists of ten 1 acre
ponds.
Cost of Achieving Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BATEA)
The BATEA is the same as BPCTCA. The incremental costs of
achieving BATEA above those of BPCTCA are sero.
Cost of Achieving New Source Performance standards CNSPS)
The HSPS requirements are identical to BPCTCA. Costs to
achieve NSPS may be somewhat less than those for BPCTCA for
existing sources but not by an appreciable amount.
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment Reguirements IPRETREAT)
Should waters f rom native fish pond cult or ing systems be
discharged to a municipal system, they would require no
pretreatment. The cost of oretreatment would be sero.
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
Alternative A Ch1orination
The cost for chlorination is developed on the basis of batch
treatment of a typical pond 18 m x 7.6 m x 1.8 m deep (60 ft
x 25 ft x 6 ft). Frequency of draining depends upon many
factors, including type of fish being cultured and the
ability of the pond to sustain production. For cost
purposes it has been assumed that the pond is drained" an
average of once per year. Finally, the costs of control per
unit of production are £eported on the basis of 10,000 fish
per typical pond per year. It is assumed that stocks of
granular chlorine can be stored*" in existing areas not
requiring investment for storage facilities. The cost
estimates for Alternative A are presented in Table VI11-17.
Alternative B Filtration and Disinfection
Costs for this technology have been developed on the basis
of a system combining a standard swimming pool type
diatomaceous earth filter with an ultraviolet purifier. The
3667
3668
3868
3869
3869
3870
3871
3672
3672
3874
3875
3877
3878
3880
3882
3883
388U
3886
3888
3889
3890
3892
389«
3896
3897
3896
3899
3900
3900
1901
J902
)903
390«
3904
3905
3907
3909
3910
3911
-------
cultaring system consists of ten £onds with an average size
of 18 m x 7.6 x 1.8 m deep (60 f t x 25 ft x 6 f t). Ponds
are assumed to be drained once per year and to have an
annual production of 10(000 fish per pond. For purposes of
7low rate it AS assumed that only one pond is drained at any
time and that the draining takes place over a 24 hr period.
Due to the relative snail size of the proposed treatment
system, no costs are assigned to the .space occupied by the
control equipment. The estimated costs for a diatomaceous
earth filter system for a ten-pond non-native fish cultoring
operation are presented in Table VXII-18.
Alternative C £o Discharge with Land Disposal
The viable approaches to land disposal are the application j
of pond drainage water to the land at irrigation rates or at |
pond percolation rates depending on the availability of land
and the local soil drain alternatives employing conservative
assumptions about soil characteristics.
The cost estimates have been developed for the same typical I
ten- opnd system assumed in Alternative B. In the case of |
the irrigation alternative, a one-day application of 631 cu
m per hectare (67,500 331./acre) ten times per year has been
assumed. This rate is equivalent to about 63.5 cm (25 in.)
of water per year and would allow the drainage of each of
the ten ponds once per year. Approximately 0.405 hectare
lone acre) of land would be required.
The infiltration-percolation alternative requires the
presence of deep, continuous deposits of coarse-textured
soils without impermeable barriers: the soil must have high
hydraulic conductivity to permit rapid movement of applied
liquids. Systems have been operated for secondary effluent
with application rates as high as 61 m (200 ft) of water per
year. In some cases rates have been as low as 21 m (70 ft)
of water per year for primary effluents. for purposes of
cost estimation, an application rate of 30 m (100 ft) per
year has been assumed. This rate translates to an
application of 3 m (10 ft) per draining. The infiltration-
percolation rate for each pond draining would be 3 m (10 ft)
and a percolation pond of about 0.1 hectare (0.25 acre) size
would be necessary.
Based on these assumptions, the costs for the two
alternative methods of land disposal appear in Table VIII-
19.
Cost of Achieving Best Practicatl* Control Technology
Currently Available IBPCTCA)
3912
3913
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3920
3922
3924
3925
3926
3927
392B
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3936
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3942
3943
3949
3946
3946
39«7
39«8
39*9
t 3952
3952
3954
3955
-------
The BPCTCA has been recommended as no discharge of
biological pollutants. The BPCTCA is to be achieved by
filtration and disinfection or by land disposal via an irri-
gation or an infiltration-percolation system. The costs for
these systems appear in.Tables VIII-18 and VIII-19.
Cost of Achievinq
Achievable IBATEAi
Best Available Technology Economically
The BATBA is the same as BPCTCA. Therefore, the costs of
achieving BATEA above those of achieving BPCTCA are zero.
Cost of Achieving Hew Source Performance standards CNSPS1
The NSPS technology is the same as BPCTCA. The costs of
NSPS appear in Tables viii-18 and VIII-19 presented earlier.
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment Requirements CPRETREAT)
Hastewater discharges to publicly owned treatment works from
operations holding or culturing non-native fishes vary from
a few liters to thousands of liters per day. It is
estimated that the capital cost for gretreatment at indoor
rearing facilities with less than 285 liters (75 gal.) of
wastewater discharged per hour is SI,500.
Pretreatment consists of filtration and disinfection as
described in Section VII of this document. For small
operations the annual operation, maintenance, and energy
costs are estimated to be less than $200. For larger
outdoor facilities (pond cnlturing operations) the costs of
Ijretreatment are the same as shown in Table VIII-18.
SUMMARY
To facilitate comparison, the costs for each treatment
alternative discussed in this section are summarized by
subcategory In Table VXII-20.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OP ALTERNATIVE TRIATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Pish production is a very low energy consuming industry.
The only energy consumed at most operations is that required
for building heating and lighting. Some facilities use well
water requiring energy to operate Dumping equipment. The
great majority of fish culturing facilities, however, use
surface water that flows by gravity through rearing units.
Automatic feeding equipment that requires very small amounts
of energy is sometimes used. Manual feeding is usually
3957
3958
3958
3959
3960
3962
3963
| 3965
| 3966
3968
| 3970
j 3971
3973
| 3975
I 3976
3977
3978
3978
3979
I 3981
) 3982
3983
3984
3989
3985
3987
I 3989
I 3990
3990
3992
399a
3995
3996
3997
3998
3998
3999
000
-------
accomplished by walking or driving along the edge of the
culturing units and broadcasting feed by hand.
Annual energy and power costs have been estimated [Tables
VIII-1 through 19] for the alternatives presented for each
subcategory. For gative fish flow-through cult or ing
systems Alternatives A through E, cower costs are composed
almost entirely of energy consulted in puaping grior to
treat vent. Alternatives A or B were selected as BPCTCA and
both have very low pumping costs because only a fraction of
the flow is treated. Energy requirements for Alternatives
P, G and H are high due to the dependence upon mechanical
equipment.
For native fish-pond culturing systems, annual energy and
power costs are sero (Table VIII-13J. Energy and power
requirements for non-native fish culturing system
alternatives are negligible [Table VIII-17 to Table VIII-
193.
A comparison of the incremental energy requirements of the
treatment technologies for the flow-through operations with
overall energy consumption can illustrate this point best.
Table VIII-21 presents the energy requirements of the
various control technologies in terms of BTUfs per pound of
fish produced. Table VIII-2 2 converts these figures to BTU
per capita per year by assuming an annual production rate of
20 million pounds for the entire flow-through fish culturing
industry and a O. S. population of 200 million persona. it
is apparent from Table VIII-22 that with an existing level
of per capita energy consumption equal to 340 million BTU's
per year. the incremental requirements for achieving
pollution control are relatively insignificant. Because the
controls for the native pond and non-native operations
require considerably less total energy than those for the
native flow-through operations, the energy requirements for
those categories will be even more insignificant.
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Non-water quality aspects for each alternative treatment
technology have been identified and discussed in Section
VII. Sludge disposal is the only non-water quality
consideration of significance in terms of environmental
impact.
fludge resulting from treatment alternatives for the native
ish flow-through subcategory is primarily organic in nature
and high in oxygen demanding constituents. On the other
hand, sludge from pond draining in the native and non-native
001
002
004
4005
006
007
4008
4008
4009
4010
4011
4011
4013
4014
4015
4016
4016
4018
4019
4020
4022
4022
4023
4024
402S
4026
4027
4028
4029
4011
4011
4012
4011
401J
491)
) 491'
| 4919
49 14
4943
049
| 494;
I 4041
404*
434*
-------
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
U069
U071
U073
The effluent limitations which must re achieved by July 1,
T977, specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through application of the Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available JBPCTCA). The Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available i.s
generally based upon the average of the best existing
performance by plants of various sizes, ages and unit
processes within the industry. This average is not based
upon a broad range of plants within the fish culturing
industry, but upon performance levels achieved by exemplary
plants. In industrial categories where present control and
treatment practices are uniformly inadequate, a higher level
of control than any currently in place may be required if
the "technology to achieve such higher level can be
practicably applied by July 1, 1977.
In establishing BPCTCA effluent limitations, consideration
must also be given to:
I-
2.
3.
J*.
5.
6.
The total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be
achieved from such applicaticn;
The aqe and size of equipment and facilities
involved;
The processes employed;
The engineering aspects of the application
various types of control techniques;
Process changes;
of
Non-water quality environmental
energy requirements).
impact ^including
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of manufacturing
processes, but it includes control technologies within the
process itseTf when the latter are considered to be normal
practice within an industry. A further consideration is the
degree of economic and engineering reliability which must be
established for the technology to te ^currently available."
U076
U077
l»078
U079
UC90
ttOSO
UQ81
U082
U083
408U
«085
U085
4086
U087
U087
U090
U090
«092
U09u
U097
U099
all*
9131*
07
-------
As a result of demonstration projects, pilot giants, and U116
general use, there must exist a high degree of confidence in uii7
the engineering and economic practicability of the tech- a 117
nology at the time of commencement of construction or a 118
Installation of the control facilities. 0119
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTPOL | 4121
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 4123
Native Fish - Flow-Through Culturing Systems 41.15
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for | 4127
the £low-through systems subcategory of the fish culturing j U128
industry can be achieved by sedimentation of the cleaning 4129
flow with sludge removal, vacuum cleaning .of the culturing 4130
units or an equivalent control and treatment practice. 4130
A description and discussion of sedimentation and vacuum 4132
cleaning is included in Section VII of this document. 4133
Settleable solids limitations discussed below apply to a_ll 4135
discharges from flow-through fish culturing units Including 4135
cleaning or draining after the fish have been removed. 4136
Effluent characteristics achievable through implementation 4137
of BPCTCA are as follows: 4138
Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitation* | 4141
Suspended Solids Maximum for any one day = 2.9 | mu3
kg/100 kg of fish on hand/day j 4iu«
Maximum average of daily values | uiu&
for any period of thirty consec- j 4147
utive days = 2.2 kg/100 kg of j 4ms
fish on hand/day I «»i«9
Maximum instantaneous = 15 mg/1 | <»151
Settleable Solids Maximum average of daily values | «M5J
for any period of thirty consec- | «'S<4
utive days = <0.1 ml/1 | »iS5
Maximum instantaneous =0.2 ml/1 | <*157
a 159
*Eftluent limitations are net values
Native Fish Pond Cultvirinq Systetrs
Draining discharges from both open and closed ponds are
subject to effluent limitations for the pond culturinq
-------
subcategory. The Best Practicatle Control Technology
Currently Available includes such in-plant controls as: a)
draining from the surface at a controlled rate to allow
settling in the pond; b) draining at a controlled rate
through an existing rearing pond or a settling pond; or c)
harvest without draining. These measures and effluent
disinfection as needed can be used to achieve the following
effluent characteristics:
Effluent Characteristic
Settleable Solids
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Effluent Limitation*
Maximum instantaneous concen-
tration during draining period
= 3.3 ml/I
Maximuir concentration = 200
organisirs/100 ml .This
effluent limitation applies
only to operations that use
manure to fertilize ponds.
* Effluent Limitations are net values
Non-Native Fish Culturinq Systems
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for
the non-native fish culturing industry is no discharge of
biological pollutants, achieved by filtration and
disinfection, by the use of land disposal practices
described in Section VII, or by~"an equivalent control and
treatment technology. ~"
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Native Fish Flow-Through Culturinq Systems
The effluent limitations discussed in this section apply to
raceway fish culturing operations. Although a general
description of this flow-through system appears elsewhere in
this document, a brief description is repeated here for
clarification.
In these systems the fish are confined at very high density
Taverage holding capacity is 7 lb fish/gpm) in a culturing
unit usually referred to as a raceway. Freshwater is
introduced at the head end of a single pool or series of
several pools and is continuously discharged. Typically,
the pools are lined and usually 10 to 30 feet wide and 60 to
100 .feet long. The flow to volume ratio is usually high;
4168
4169
4170
4170
4171
4172
4172
4172
4175
4177
4179
j 4181
4183
4185
4186
4187
4188
4190
4191
4 194
| 4196
j 4197
4197
4198
4199
4199
4201
4203
| 4205
4207
4207
420«
| 4210
j 421 1
u21 3
421 3
4215
4215
421 7
-------
for example, in many operations these pools receive 760
3,800 liters <200 to 1,000 gal.) per minute of water.
to
I^n raceway systems, the fish being cultured are dependent
upon the flow of water to supply oxygen and remove metabolic
waste products. Most systems allow the heavier waste solids
to accumulate in the culturing unit.
£n order to prevent chemical or biological degradation of
the culturinq water and ultimately harm the fish being
cultured, these solids pollutants are removed periodically.
The various cleaning techniques are discussed in detail in
Section VII of 1:his document. A pollution problem arises
when these cleaning wastes containing solids are discharged
directly into a stream or other type of receiving water.
Thus, the technologies discussed in this section apply to
wastes generated during cleaning operations in flow-through
culturing systems.
sedimentation of the cleaning flov» with sludge removal or
vacuum cleaning of the culturing units are judged to be
methods of achieving the BPCTCA limitations because they are
being practiced by exemplary hatcheries within the industry.
A factor of 1.3 was developed in determining maximum one-day
effluent limitations s_ince sedimentation is considered a
stable process not subject to wide variations in treatment
efficiency. There are no data available to substantiate
that either the age or size of hatchery facilities justify
special consideration for different effluent limitations.
On the other hand, culturinq processes are different and
subcategories have been established .for flow-through and
pond culturing systems. Process changes are not necessary
in the implementation of BPCTCA. "~
At some hatcheries it may be possible to meet the Level I
guidelines solely through implementation of the in- plant
control measures discussed in Section VII.
The engineering design and operation of sedimentation
facilities is well defined. Design criteria may be
developed by using the fish waste in question and employing
established bench scale testing procedures. The operation
of sedimentation facilities or vacuum cleaning devices is
not. complex and should require only minimum training of
hatchery personnel. **
Thf» major non-water quality environmental impact from the
implementation of BPCTCA will be sclids disposal. Sludge
must be removed periodically from the settling basin.
U218
«220
U221
1223
4223
U225
U226
U227
U228
«*230
U2JO
U231
4232
U233
U233
U235
«236
«237
4239
4239
4242
42U2
U2
-------
Solids disposal may be accomplished as described in Section U263
IX* U263
Native Fish Pond Culturino'Systems a265
Ihe effluent limitations discussed in this section apply to I H267
both open and closed pond culturing systems. Although a I i*269
general description of these systetrs appears elsewhere in U269
this document a brief description is repeated here for <4270
clarification. U27Q
Closed ponds are defined in this document as fish culturinq j U272
facilities that discharge waste waters less than 30 days per U273
year, open ponds are defined as tish culturing facilities U27u
that have an intermittent overflow or wastewater discharge U275
of more than 30 days per year and fish ponds that have a U27&
continuous overflow. TO further clarify and separate the U277
open-pond system from the previously described flow-through U278
system (raceway) the following fundamental differences a 279
should be considered: " U279
1. Open ponds are usually earthen and not conducive to I U2*n
routine cleaning. U282
2. Ponds have a lower flow to volume ratio than raceways. | u23<*
.3. Ponds vary in size from O.U to 0.8 hectares (1 to 2 U286
acres) to 16 hectares (UO acres) or larger. «287
l«». Fish density is much lower than in raceways. Most fish u2Q0
farmers that feed their fish expect to produce 1,500 to <*2q'
2.000 Ib of fish per acre, if the fish are not fed, a u29'
pond will produce approximately JOO Ib/acre. »29J
5. Fish are grown by the batch method in which they are not 2 »>
sorted, handled or moved between stocking and
harvesting.
The effluent characteristics of pond overflow are similar to I
the normal discharge from raceways and these waste waters ;«>
are usually of high quality (fish arc teing grown in the j.
process water) . A problem of pollution arises when the
ponds are being drained during such activities as fish
harvesting or pond cleaning. Thus, the technologies
discussed in this section apply to wastes generated during
pond draining. J3
The BPCTCA for pond culturing systerrs is in-plant control by | « J >
one of the following measures: a) draining from the surface I uJJ'
at a controlled rate to allow settling in the pond; b) ajJ-
-------
draining at a controlled rate throuah an existinq rearing
pond or a settling pond, or c) harvesting without draining.
Each of these measures will provide some reduction in the
settleable solids discharged. Because control of draining
discharges is not presently practiced, "the following
assumptions are included in the rationale for BPCTCA.
First, draining from the surface at a controlled rate can
accomplish a 40 percent removal of settleable solids. Much
of this £emoval may be accomplished after harvesting by
allowing settling before the remaining water is discharged.
In some cases this may £equire a change in harvesting
procedures.
Second, draining at a controlled rate through an existing
rearing pond or settling pond can accomplish an 80 percent
removal of settleable solids. Typically, rearing ponds
provide detention times measured in days rather than hours.
Therefore, settleable solids removal efficiency would be
expected to approach 100 percent and the assumed 80 percent
removal efficiency is considered conservative.
Third, harvesting without draining can eliminate the
discharge of settleable solids and other pollutants. When
draining is required after harvesting is completed, ponds
can be drained from the surface very slowly to insure
settling within the pond. Some discharge of settleable
solids may occur; however, an estimate of _80 percent
reduction is considered conservative. Where porous ;soil
exists, water may be allowed to seep into the groundwater or
nearby surface water. Thus, no settleable solids are
released when harvesting is accomplished without draining,
and very low levels of settleable solids are released when
post-harvest draining is necessary.
Rationale are not available justifying the establishment of
different effluent guidelines based on size or age of
hatchery facilities. Subcategories have been established
based on cult ur ing processes for flow-through and pond
culturing systems. Harvesting procedures will not require
changing in most cases for implementation of BPCTCA.
with respect to the engineering aspects of the application
of BPCTCA. two factors will require consideration. First,
pumping of the turbid portion of the draining discharge may
be necessary"" to implement draining through an existing
rearing pond or ""settling £ond. Second, discharge and
harvesting structures may require jignificant modification
to allow controlled surface draining and harvesting in the
pond. Where such modification is necessary, these measures
4309
4310
4311
1312
4312
4313
U315
U316
4317
431fl
4?'. 9
U319
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4315
0316
43J7
4338
4339
| u3oi
j 43<»
-------
are considered treatment alternatives and are discussed
under Treatment Technology, Section VII. ~
Non-Native Fish Caltaring Systems
No discharge of biological pollutants can be achieved by
filtration and disinfection or by direct land disposal of
process wastewater. Either of these technologies or other
equivalent technologies are judged to be BPCTCA. This level
of technoloay is practical .because many of the exemplary
facilities in the industry are practicing this method of
disposal. The concepts are proven, available for
implementation and, in some cases, enhance production.
Process changes in the industry are usually minor and should
not affect the practicability of BPCTCA.
There is no evidence that different effluent limitations are
justified on the basis of variations in the age or size of
culturing facilities. Competition and general Improvements
in production concepts have resulted in modernization of
facilities throughout the industry. This, coupled with the
similarities of wastewater characteristics for plants of
varying size and the relatively low flow rates required,
substantiates that no discharge of biological pollutants is
practical. ~
All plants in the industry use similar production methods
and have similar wastewater. characteristics. There is no
evidence that operation of any current process or subprocess
will substantially affect capabilities to implement Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available.
At many localities land disposal facilities can be installed
at the lowest elevations of the production facility,
enabling the use of gravity for water transport. In others,
small amounts of energy are now required to pump ponds dry
and would be required to distribute wastewater or filter
backwash to the land disposal area. In the latter case,
land disposal might increase the energy use, but the small
increase would be justified by the benefits of no discharge
of pollutants and the fact that other treatment methods
require~more energy use.
4356
4356
4358
4360
U361
4362
U36U
4165
4256
a 367
4368
a 36 9
a 36 9
4371
U372
4373
U37U
4375
4376
U377
4378
"378
4380
4 38 1
4332
438.1
«33u
4386
4387
«388
4189
4)90
«J9i
4)91
«n
-------
SECTION X
U397
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
U399
UUOO
auoi
The effluent limitations which must te achieved by July lf
1983, specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through application of the best available technoloqy
economically achievable (BATEA) . The BATEA is to be based
on the very best control and treatment technoloqy employed
within the fish culturing industry or tased~upon technoloqy
which is readily transferable to the industry. Because
limited data exist on the full-scale operation of exemplary
facilities, jjilot studies and short-terir plant scale studies
are also used for assessment of BATEA.
Consideration must be given to -the following in
BATEA:
1. The total cost of achieving the effluent
~~ resulting f_rom application of EATEA;
determining
reduction
The age and size of equipment and facilities
involved;
3.
u.
The processes employed;
The engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques;
5. Process changes;
£. Non-water quality environmental
energy requirements).
impact (including
In contrast to BPCTCA, BATEA assesses the availability of
in-processrocess controls and additional treatment
techniques employed at the end of a production process.
The BATEA is the highest degree of control technology that
has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be capable of
being designed for plant scale operation up to and including
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. This level
of control is intended to be the top-cf-the-line of current
technology subject to ^imitations imposed by economic and
engineering feasibility. The BATEA may be characterized by
some technical risks with respect to performance and
certainty of costs. Some further industrially sponsored
I uuou
j UU05
UU06
UU07
uur a
UU09
UU09
UU10
UU1 1
UU12
I uuiu
| UUIU
I UU16
j UU17
| UU19
| UU20
UU22
UU2U
UU25
UU27
Uu2<»
UUJO
uu]?
UU}4
UU )6
UU )7
<44 J8
UU J9
U44Q
UUQ 1
UU*2
U uu )
U U44
-------
develop.-nent work
necessitated.
prior to its application may be
(44 ltd
UUUU
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY | UUU7
ACHIEVABLE
Native Fish Flow-Through Culturinq Systems*
The effluent limitations for BATEA are the same as those
established for BPCTCA as developed in Section IX.
Native Fish Pond Culturinq Systeirs
The effluent limitations for BATEA are the same as
established for BPCTCA as developed in Section IX.
Non-Native Fish Culturinq Systems
The effluent limitations for BATEA are the same as those |
established for BPCTCA as developed in Section IX. |
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Native Fish Flow-Through Culturinq Systems
The BATEA has been chosen to be the same as the BPCTCA in
Tight of £he disproportionate cost required to implement
higher levels of £Ollutant removals. Specifically, the
costs of settling the entire hatchery flow as well as
'biological treatment and reconditioning/reuse were found to
be prohibitively high "in light of the low pollutant
concentrations remaining after application of BPCTCA.
Native Fish Pond Culturinq Systeirs
The BATEA has been chosen to be the saire as the BPCTCA in
Tight of the disproportionate cost required to implement
higher levels of pjollutant removals. Specifically, the
additional incremental costs for traditional secondary
biological treatment methods were fcund to be prohibitively
high in light of the low pollutant concentrations reamining
after application of BPCTCA.
Non-Native Fish Culturinq Systems
The BATEA has been chosen to te the same as the BPCTCA in
Tight of the disproportionate cost required to implement
higher levels of pollutant removals. Specifically, the
additional incremental costs for traditional secondary
biological treatment were found to te prohibitively~~high in
UUU9
UU51
4U52
UU5U
those | 4US6
I
UU59
IIU61
UU62
UU6U
UU66
UU68
4U69
UU71
1*471
4472
<407 1
UU7 J
4475
77
78
0
« 1
89
90
-------
light of the low pollutant concentrations (biological and | ua^j
solids) remaining atter disinfection and filtration. | uu93
Moreover, where properly implemented, there should be no | uugu
discharge from land disposal. | UU95
-------
SECTION XX
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4498
500
This level of technology is to be achieved by new sources.
The term "new source" is defined in the Act to mean "any
source, the construction of which is commenced after
publication of proposed regulations prescribing a standard
of performance". New source performance standards are
evaluated by adding to the consideration underlying the
identification of BPCTCA, a determination of what higher
levels of £0llution control are available through the use of
improved production processes and/or treatment techniques.
Thus, in addition to considering the best in-plant and end-
of-process control technology, new. source performance
standards are based upon an analysis of how the level of
effluent may be reduced by changing the production process
itself. Alternative processes, operating methods or other
alternatives are considered. However, the end result of the
analysis identifies effluent standards which reflect levels
of control achievable through the use of improved production
processes (as well as control technology), rather than
prescribing a particular type of process or technology which
ttust be employed. A further determination made for new
source performance standards is whether a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants is practicable.
The following factors were considered with respect to
production processes analyzed in assessing new source
performance standards:
The type of process employed and process changes.
Operating methods.
Batch as opposed to continuous operations.
Use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw
~" materials,, and
£. Recovery of pollutants as byproducts.
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Native Fish Flow-Through Culturing Systems
The effluent limitations for new sources are the same as for
BPCTCA as developed in Section X.
Native Fish Pond Culturing Systems
The effluent limitations for new sources are the same as for
BPCTCA as developed in Section IX.
I-
I:
4.
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4520
4521
4523
452a
4525
4528
4530
4532
4535
45)5
4417
| 45*3
*
4S46
I 45*8
4549
-------
Non-Native Flan Culturine Systems 4551
The effluent limitations for new sources are tbe sane as for | 4553
gPCTCA as developed in Section XX. 4554
-------
SECTION XIZ
PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
4557
4559
Native Fish Subcateoories (Clow-through and pond facilities) 4562
Constituents in discharges from native fish cultoring I 4564
facilities are compatible with domestic wastes treated in a j 4564
well designed and operated publicly owned activated sludge 4565
or trickling filter wastewater treatment plant. No 4566
deleterious substances are discharged in concentrations that 4566
would adversely affect the operation of biological, chemical 4567
or physical treatment systems. Host" wastes from fish 4568
culturing facilities are organic in nature and pollutants 4568
are not present in concentrations that require pretreatment. 4569
Pollutant concentrations in discharges from native fish | 4571
culturing operations typically are much less than those j 4571
found in secondary effluent from domestic waste treatment | 4572
facilities. Therefore* because fish hatcheries usually 4573
discharge large flows, hydraulic overloading or a reduction 4573
in treatment efficiency could be possible when hatchery 457U
discharges are treated in combination with municipal wastes 4574
in a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) which does not 4575
Have adequate hydraulic capacity. Cn the other hand, sludge 4577
resulting from on-site treatment of fish wastes could be 4577
discharged to a municipal treatment system and treated 4578
tuccessfully. 4578
Non-native Fish Subcateoorv (imported fishes) 4580
Biological pollutants in discharges from non-native fish | 4582
holding or culturing facilities are considered incompatible 4583
and cannot be introduced into a publicly owned treatment 458*4
works without pretreatment by filtration and disinfection 458^
unless such public treatment works are designed, constructed 4586
and operated to remove biological pollutants. ~~ 4586
In most instances pretreatment will consist of filtration | 4588
only, because publicly owned treatment works typically j 4589
provide disinfection. 4589
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
I 4592
4594
1. Willoughby, H., LarsSen, H. N., and Boven, J. T., -The
Pollutional Effects of Pish Hatcheries.- American
Fishes and O.S. Trout News 17(3) :l-3, 1972.
2. O.S. Department of Interior. Effluent study of
Tishomingo National Fish Hatchery. Unpublished
report. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 1973.
2. Amend, Donald F., Western Fish Disease Laboratory,
Seattle, Washington. Personal Communication
(Letter) to Roy £rwin. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C., JMarch 15, 1973).
4.. American Fisheries Society. "Position of American
Fisheries Society on Introductions of Exotic
Aquatic Species." Transactions American Fisheries
Society 102(1) S274-276. 1973.
£. American Water Works Association. Hater Quality
and Treatment. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, N.Y., 654 pp, 1971.
>. Amyot, J. A. "Is the Colon Bacillus a Normal
Habitant of Intestines of Fishes?" American
Journal Public Health. 27;400-418. 1901.
7. Anderson, Roger. Texas A. and M. University,
College Station, Texas. Personal Communication
(Letter) to Hoy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency* Washington, D. C., December 4, 1973.
B. Anonymous. "A Pesky, Fast-multiplying Chinese
Clam." Water and Mastes Engineering. April
1973:14.
9. Avault, James. Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. Personal Communication (Telecon)
to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C., November 12, 1973.
10. Axelrod, H., "Exotic Tropical Fishes." T. F. B.
Publications, Jersey City, New Jersey. C3.00-
C4B.OO.
4598
4599
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4616
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
462«
4625
4625
4626
«627
«628
4629
4629
4630
4631
4632
4632
4633
<*63«
4635
4635
463o
-------
11'
Axel rod- Herbert. T. F. H. Publications, Neptune,
Sew Jersey? £erional communication (Letter) to Foy
irwin. Environmental'Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., August 31, 1973.
Axelrod, Herbert. T. F. H. Publications, Neptune.
New Jersey Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy
irwin. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., November 13, 1973.
13.
16.
18.
Sullivan. Carl R. 8P°r* Fish}ng4.4rtri ^tcr»
waahinoton. D.C. Personal Communication (Letter)
to Robert Schneider, National field Investigations
center. Environmental Protection Agency. Denver,
Colorado* June 11, 1974.
Bailev. Bill. "Grass Carp Update 1973."
f JreSntation at session »]. American Fisheries
s£"S?y JnmEl Meeting, Orlando, Florida, September
1H, 1973.
Bailey, Reeve M. "A List of Common and Scientific
Name^f Fishes from the United states and Canada."
Special "publication No. 6, 3rd ed., American
Fisheries Society, Washington, D. C., 150 pp.,
1970.
Bailey. William M. . Meyer. Fred P., Martin, J. Mago
*nd Srav D. Leroy. "Farm Fish Production in
Arkansas During 1972."" Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Stuttgart, Arkansas. 16 pp, 1973.
Barber. Yates. Department of Interior, Washington,
D? cT Persloal gommunication
-------
22.
23.
25.
26.
27-
28.
29.
30,
to Boy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., January 4, 191*3.
Beaver, Paul. Tulane University Medical School*
New Orleans, Louisiana. Personal communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C.,"January 4, 1974.
Bettnice, Robert J. Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Personal Communication (verbal)
to John Hale, National Field Investigations Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado,
September 1973.
Blaesing, Ken. Chicago, Illinois. Personal
communication ^Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. , September 13,
1973.
Bower, T. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and wildlife,
Washington, D.C. Personal Communication (Telecon)
to Robert Schneider, National Field Investigations
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado, 1974.
Bodien, Danforth 6. Salmonid Hatchery Wastes."
Federal Water Duality Administration, Department of
Interior, Portland, Oregon, 51 pp, October 1970.
Boozer, D. "Tropical Fish Farming." American Fish
Farmer. 4-5: July 1973.
Boozer, D. "Exploratory Survey of the Tropical
Fish Industry in Florida." Trade Magazine of
Florida Tropical" Fish Farms Association. [_In
Press], 1973.
Brisbin, K. J. Pollutional Aspects of Trout
Hatcheries in British Colurntia. Report Prepared
for the British Columbia Department of Recreation
and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Branch,
Victoria, B.C. Canada, 102 pp, 1971.
Brockway, D. R. "Fish Food Pellets Show Promise."
Progressive Fish Culturist 15(2):92-93, 1953.
Brockway, Donald R. "Metabolic Products and Their
Effects." Progressive Fish Culturist 21 (3):127-129,
1950.
4677
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4686
4688
4689
U690
4690
4691
4692
4693
469U
4695
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
U703
470*
4705
4706
U706
707
709
739
7 10
<*>!,}
711
712
71 J
716
71 7
| «717
-------
31.
32.
13,
35
36.
37,
38.
39-
40,
41,
31(l):38-43. 1969
24. 28
Buettner, Howard J. -Fish Farming in ----- nf
central states - Species. Acreage and Number of
F«mSs.-S Current Fisheries statistics No. 6038.
Statistics and Market News Dxvision. National
oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. U.S.
Department of Commerce. Washington. D. C.. 20 pp.
November 1972.
S. "Paddlefish Cultivation
Fish Farmer 4(6):4-6. 1973.
. Guppy Gardens. Lakeland. Florida.
erl uiiSaiions (Verbal) to Roy loan.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington. D. C..
September 12, 1973.
State University, Las Cruces,
0W«****^l»f »w^ -- *»«*%
New Mexico. 12 ppg. June 1970.
R E. "Effects of Accumulated Exercretory
K. &. «" . _ . , a_ Research
Washington, D.C., 12 pp. 1964.
Burrows, R. B.
and Combs. B. D. -Controlled
N Progressive
Fish culturist, April 1970
sa
Pennsylvania. 974 pp.1968
4719
4720
4720
4721
4722
4723
4723
4724
4725
4726
U727
4727
4728
4729
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4741
47U2
| 47U3
I 4744
I 474 S
| 4745
4746
| 47«8
I B7«8
1*7*9
| 4750
4751
4752
Of Microbiology. 19th |
4756
-------
Construction in Pennsylvania.0
Culturist 33(2);86-94, 1971.
Progressive
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Buterbaugh, G. L. and Willoughty, H. "A Feeding
Guide for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout."
Progressive Fish Culturist 29<4): £10-215, 1967.
Calhoun, Alex. "Inland Fisheries Management. The
Resources Agency of California* Department of Game
and Fish, Sacramento, California, 546 pp, 1966.
Canfield, H. L. "Artificial Propagation of Those
Channel Cats." Progressive Fiah Culturist 9(1):27-
30, 19477
Carter, Jin. Lakeland, Florida. Personal
communication .{Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, JJ.C., September 11,
1973.
Chambers, Cecil. National Environmental Research
Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Personal Communication (Nemo) to
Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., March 16, 1973.
Chapman, S. R., Chesness, J. L. and Mitchell, R. B.
Design and Operation of Earthen Raceways for
Channel Catfish Production." transactions of the
Joint Meeting of the Southeast Region, Soil
Conservation Society of America and Southeast
American Society of Agricultural Engineering,
Jacksonville, Florida, 10 pp, January 1971.
Cheshire, W. F. and Stelle, K. L. "Hatchery
Rearing of Walleyes Osing Artificial Food."
Progressive Fish Culturist 34 (2):96-99, 1972.
Mudrak, Vincent A. -Design and Operation of
Hatchery Effluent Treatment Facilities in
Pennsylvania?" (MimeoJ. Proceeding of Northeast
Chapter of the American Fisheries Society and
Conservation Engineers Joint session, 1973, 12 pp.
Co11well, Rita. University of Maryland, College
Park, Maryland. Personal communication (Telecon)
to Roy" Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. ,""November 12, 1973.
-------
51.
52.
53.
5U.
Cooper, Billy. Houston, Texas. Personal
communication _fTelecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
"Agency* Washington, D. C., Hovember 5,
Protection
1973,
Courtenay, W. ' R. "Florida's Walking
Ward's Bulletin 10(69) :l-2. 1970.
Catfish.*
Courtenay, W. R
Raton, Plorida.
Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Personal Communication (Letter) to
Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
55.
56,
57.
58,
59,
60,
Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agenc
Washington. O. C., December 20, 1972.
Courtenay, W. R. "(Review of) Aquaculture,
Farming and Husbandry of Freshwater and Mar
Organisms?" By J. E. Bardecb, et al., Copeia. 1
(4): 826-828, 1973.
Courtenay, W. R. Plorida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, Florida. Personal Communication (Verbal) to
Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. , September 13, 1973.
Courtenay, W. R.
Raton, Florida.
Florida Atlantic University, Boca
rsona 1 Coirtnunication (Letter) to
Agency,
_ Person
Roy Zrwin, Environmental Protection
Washington, D. C., November 7, 1973.
Courtenay, W. R., et al. "Exotic Fishes in Fresh
and Brackish Waters of Florida." Biological
conservation (In Press) 1973.
Courtenay, W. R. and Robins, C. R. "Exotic Aquatic
Organisms in Florida with Emphasis on Fishes: A
Review and Recommendations." Transactions American
Fisheries Society 102 (1):1-12, 1973.
Crane, John. Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington. Personal communication (Letter) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
O. C., March 14, 1973.
Davis, George. Philadelphia Academy of Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Personal communication
(Telecon) to "Roy Irwin. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C., December iu, 1973.
Davis, H. S. Culture and Diseases of Game Fishes.
University of California Press, Berkley and Los
Angeles, California. 332 pp, 1953.
J
4800
4801
4802
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4813
481U
4815
4816
4817
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4821
4822
4823
4824
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4832
48JJ
483*
483S
4836
«B3b
483^
4838
14834
U839
-------
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Deacon, Jim. University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
Nevada. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., December 3, 1973.
Dempster, Robert. Bteinhart Aquarium, San
Francisco, California. Personal communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. , Octoter 11, 1973.
Dempster, Robert. steinbart Aquarium, San
Francisco, California. Personal communication
(Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. , October 16, 1973.
Dick, Wesley. Ozone Pet Supply Company, Lacomb,
Louisiana. Personal communication (Telecon) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., December 3, 1973.
68,
69.
70,
71,
Dobie, John. -Walleye Pond
Minnesota.- Progressive Fish Culturist 18(2) : 51-57,
1956.
Dobie, J. R.» Meehan, O. L. and Washbura, G. N.
Propagation of Minnows and Other Bait Species.-
CircSir NO. 12, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, O. S. Department of Interior, Washington,
D.C., 13 pp., 19U8.
Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting Engineers. A
study to Determine Percentages of BOD and suspended
solids in Fish Hatchery Effluent During Raceway
Cleaning. Seattle, Washington, May 1974.
Dundee, Dee. Louisiana State University, New
Orleans, Louisiana. Personal Communication
rrelecon) to"Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C., December 14, 1973.
Dupree, H. K. -Evaluation of an oxidation Pool to
£5o~ wastes in a Closed System for Raising Fish. «
Factors" Affecting The Growt£ |nd ^0;^°" ||
Channel Catfish in Raceways. Technical Assistance
Project No. 15-16-0008-571, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and wildlife, 0. s. "P"*"*nt of
Interior, Washington, D.C. , pp. 49-62, 1972.
Dydek, S. Thomas. -Treatment of
Effluents." Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
I
4841
4842
48U3
4843
4844
4845
4846
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4855
4856
4857
4858
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4863
4860
4866
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4872
87)
487«
87b
876
(*877
4877
4878
878
879
880
881
-------
22.
73.
74.
I5-
76,
27-
78.
79.
80
81.
U.S. Department of Interior, Albuquerque. New
Mexico* 20 pp, 1972.
Ballanger, Dwight. Environnental Protection Agency
Analytical Quality Control laboratory, Cincinnati'
Ohio. Personal Communi cation JTelecon) to Robert
Schneider, National Field Investigation Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado,
June 27, 1974.
Environmental Protection Agency. "Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Mater and Hastes." Analytical
Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1971.
Environmental Protection Agency. Field Sampling.
Conducted by National Field Investigations Center.
Denver, Colorado. September 23 to October 6, 1973.
Environmental Protection Agency. Field Sam pi in a
Conducted by National Field Investigations Center!
Denver, Colorado, November 13 and 14. 1973.
Environmental Protection Agency. Field Sampling
and Settleafcility Test. Conducted by National
Field Investigations Center, Denver, Colorado,
November 19 and 20, 1973.
Erdman, Don. -Introduced Exotics." Presentation
at Session 3, American Fisheries Society Annual
Meeting, Orlando, Florida, September 13, 1973.
Erickson, David. Clear Springs Trout Company.
Buni, Idaho. Personal Cotrmunication (Verbal) to
Robert Schneider, National Field Investigations
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado, 1974.
, ,T- p- * and McDermott, L. A.
Bacteriological Studies of Fresh-water Fish. I.
Isolation of Aerobic Bacteria from Several Species
of Ontairo Fish." Canadian" Journal Microbiology
7:375-380, 1961. **
Fair, Gordon M. and Geyer, John c. Mater Supply
and Haste-Hater Disposal. John Hi ley and Sons,
Inc., New York. 973 pp, 1954.
Fish Farming Industries.
Press), 1979.
Buyer's Guide.
v
4882
4882
4683
48BU
4885
4886
4886
4887
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
489U
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4902
4903
4 90 a
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4'
4'
ft
4
10
1 1
12
» I
v
| «9
91
Q91
91
922
4922
49; J
-------
42.
83,
84.
85.
86.
87.
88,
89.
90.
91.
Freeman, R. I., Baskell, D. C., Longacre, D. C. and
Stiles* E. w. "Calculations of Amounts to Peed in
Trout Hatcheries." Progressive Pish Culturist
29(4):194-202* 1967.
Fri, Robert P. "Porn and Guidelines Regarding
Agricultural and Silvicultural Activities.
Pollutant Discharge Elimination." Federal Register
38 (128): 18001-2, July 1973.
Geldreich* E. E. "Sanitary Significance of Pecal
Coliforms in the Environment." Water Pollution
Control Research Series WP- 2 0-3, Cincinnati Mater
Research Laboratory* U.S. Department of Interior,
Cincinnati, Ohio* 122 pp, November 1966.
Gibbons* H. E. "Lactose Fermenting Bacteria from
the Intestinal Contents of Some Marine Pishes.
Contributions Canadian Biology and Fisheries 8:291-
300* 1934.
Gibbons* N. E. "The Slime and Intestinal Flora of
Some Marine Fishes." contributions Canadian
Bio logy" and Fisheries 8:275-291, 1934.
Gigger* R. P. and Speece* R. E. "Treatment of Pish
Hatchery Effluent for Recycle." Technical Report
No. 67, New Mexico State University* Las Cruces,
New MexicoT 19 pp* 1970.
Giudice* J. J. "The Culture of Bait Pishes."
[Unpublished Report]. Fish Fanning Experiment
Station* Bureau"~of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Department of Interior, Stuttgart* Arkansas, 15 pp,
1960.
Glantz, P. J. and Rrantz* G. E. Escherichia coli
Serotypes Isolated from Fish and Their Environment.
Health Laboratory Science 2:54-63, 1965.
Goldstein* Robert. Applied Biology* Inc., Decatur*
Georgia. Personal Communication (Verbal) as a
report of the Disease Committee, PIJAC at the
annual APPMA meeting, Atlanta, Georgia,
1973.
June 7,
Goldstein* Robert. Applied Biology, Inc., Decatur,
Georgia. Personal Communication (Verbal) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency* Washington*
D.C., June 8* T973.
4924
4925
4926
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4930
4931
4932
4933
493U
4935
4935
4936
4937
U938
4939
4939
49UO
4901
U9U2
49U3
U94(i
4996
«947
4947
49SO
49S1
44S I
-------
22.
93.
95.
96,
Goldstein. Robert. Applied Biology. Inc., Decatur,
Georgia. Personal communication (Letter) to Roy
irwin. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., November 8, 1973.
Graham. Lane. University of Manitoba, Vinipeg,
Canada. Personal Communication to Roy Zrwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. ,
March 5, 1973.
Gratzek, John. University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia. Persona 1 communication (Telecon) to Roy
irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., March 5. 1973.
Gray, D. L. "The Biology of Channel Catfish
Production." Circular No. 535, Agricultural
Extension Service, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 16 pp.. 1970.
Green, B. L. and Mullins. T. "Use of Reservoirs
for Production of Fish in the Rice Areas of
Arkansas. Special Report Bo. 9, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 13 pp.. 1959.
27,
98,
99,
Greenland. Donald. Fish Farming ^
Station, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and ,
Stuttgart." Arkansas. Personal communication
(Verbal) to Robert Schneider, National Field
Investigations Center. Environmental Protection
Agency. Denver, Colorado, November 20, 1973.
Griffiths. F. P. "A Review of the Bacteriology of
Fresh Marine Fishery Products." Food Research
. 1937.
100.
101,
Grixxell. R. A.. Jr.. Sullivan, £. G. and Dillon,
O. ".. Jr. "Catfish Farming: An Agricultural
Enterprise.** ~ Unpublished Report. Soil
conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.c. 16 pp, 1968.
Guerrero. R. Tilapia Cultured at Auburn. The
American Fish Farmer £May]. PF 12-13. 1973.
Hanan, John. Sunlan Aquatic Nurseries, Miami,
Florida. Personal com muni cation (Telecon) to Roy
irwin. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.
D.C.. November 6, 1973.
I
U967
4968
4969
ft 96 9
4970
4971
4972
4973
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4981
4982
4983
498U
4985
4986
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4991
4992
4993
«99«
4*9*
4995
997
999
SOOJ
SOJ i
50J I
500«
50-5 >
500t
5037
5007
-------
102,
103,
104.
105,
106,
107.
^08.
109,
110.
Hanan, John. Sunlan Aquatic Nurseries, Miami,
Florida. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency* Washington,
D.C., Hoveaber It, 1973.
Harris, J. R. 1972. "Pollution Characteristics of
Channel Catfish Culture." Environmental Health
Engineering Department, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas. [Unpublished MS Thesis] 94 pp.,
1972.
Haskell, David C. "Height of Fish Per Cubic Foot of
Water In Hatchery Troughs and Ponds." The
Progressive Fish Culturist. July, 1955.
Haskell, D. C. , Davies, R. O. and Rechahn, J.
Factors in Hatchery Pond Design." New York Fish
and Game Journal 2<2) :112-129, 1960.
Heffernan, Bernard. "Fish Farming Industries, Mt.
Morris, Illinois." Personal Communication (Letter)
to Roy "irwin. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. , November 16, 1973.
Hendricks, C. W. "Enteric Bacterial Growth Rates in
River Water." Applied Microbiology. 214:168-174,
August'l 972.
Herald, E. , R. Dempster, and Hunt, M. , "Ultraviolet
Sterilization of Aquarium Water." Aquarium Design
Criteria, a special edition of Drum and Croaker.
U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. pp
57-71, 1970.
Hinshaw, Russell N., "An Evaluation of Fish
Hatchery Discharges." Division of wildlife
Resources, Utah Department of Natural Resources,
Salt Lake City, Utah. 214 pp., 1972.
Hoffman, Glenn, "Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory,
Lee town. West Virginia." Personal communication
(Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. , January 19, 1973.
Ill,
5009
S010
5011
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5015
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
502U
5025
5026
5027
5027
5028
5029
5030
5030
5031
5032
5033
503«*
5035
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
503«
50«0
Hoffman, Glenn, Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory,
Leetown, West Virginia. Personal Communication
(Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection j
50*2
SO* 3
50« )
50mi
Agency, Washington, D.C. , November 9, 1973.
50*6
50»7
50U7
50U8
-------
112,
113.
Buber, R. T. and Valentine* J. T., Analysis and
Treatment of Fish Hatchery Effluents [Unpublished
Report], Lamar National Pish Hatchery Development
Center, Lamar, Pennsylvania. 6 pp., 1971.
Bublou, W. F., Oregon Pellets.
Culturist 25 (hio., pp. 1-22, January 1973.
Johnson, 6. A*, "Isolation of Bacilus Coli Communis
from the Alimentary Tract of Fish And The
Significance Thereof." Journal Infectious Disease
12348-354, 1904.
Johnson, M. C., "Food-Fish Farming in the
Mississippi Delta." Progressive Fish Culturist
21 (4):154-1607 1959.
Jones, W. G., "Market Prospects for Farm Catfish
Production. Presented at the Commercial Fish
Farming Conference, University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia. 24 pp., 1969. ~
5049
5050
5051
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5071
5072
5073
S07<»
5075
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5010
504 J
594 )
504*
508*.
5086
5087
5087
5090
-------
122
123.
125
126
127
128,
129,
130,
131,
Judge, Greg* Long Beach Fisheries, California.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Xrwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
Decenber 5, 1973.
Kawamoto, N. Y. , "The Influence of Excretory
Substances of Fishes on Their Own Growth."
Progressive Fish Culturist 23: 2. 70-75, 1961.
Kennamer, E. F., Bait Minnows. Bulleting of Auburn
University and U.S. Department of Agriculture
Extension Service, Auburn, Alatama. » pp, 1961.
Kilgen, Ronald H. and R. Oneal Smit Herman. "Food
Habits of the White Amur Stocked in Ponds Alone and
in Combination with other Species." Progressive
Fish Culturist 33(3) : 121-127, 1971.
Klein, Arthur, Connecticut Tropicals, Millford,
Connecticut. Personal Coirirunication (Telecon) to
Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, O.C. , December 3, 1973.
Klingbiel, John. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Personal
communication (Telecon) to James C. Pennington,
National Field Investigations Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado, November 28,
1973.
Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting Engineers., "A
Study of Salmonid Hatchery Waste Water Control for
the Platte Hatchery in Michigan." Seattle,
Washington, May, 1970.
Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting Engineers. "A
Process Design for Effluent Treatment Facilities at
Spring Creek and Bonne vi lie Salmonid Hatcheries."
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. August, 1970.
Lachner, E. A., C. R. Robins, and W. R. Courtenay.
Exotic Fishes and other Aquatic Organisms
Introduced" into North America." Smithsonian
contributions to Zoology 59:1-29, 1970.
La Rocque, A.
White Lake,
19:40, 1965.
"Changes
Ontario,
in the
After
Mollusca
30 Years."
Fauna of
Sterkiana
5089
5090
5091
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5111
5112
5112
5113
51M
5115
5116
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
512J
512*
512S
I
5127
j 5128
| 5128
5129
-------
132,
133.
13*.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
1*0.
1U2,
Larsen, Howard N. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, Department of Interior, Washington, D. C.
Personal ~~ communication jVerbal) to Robert
Schneider, National Field investigations Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado.,
September 13, 1973.
Laycock, George. The Alien Animals. Natural
History Press, New York, New York. 240 pp., 1966.
Levey, Allan. Wardley Products Company, Inc.,
Se caucus, gew Jersey. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, C.C., December 11, 1973.
Lewis, U. M., R. Heidi nger and M. Konikoff.,
Artificial Feeding of Yearling and Adult
Largemouth Bass." Progressive Fish Culturist
31 (l):«H»-»6, 1969.
Liao, Paul B. "Pollution Potential of Salmon id Fish
Hatcheries." Water and Sewage Works 117, 1970.
Liao, Paul B. "Salmonid Hatchery Wastewater
Treatment." Water and Sewage Works 117(12):438-
443, 1970.
Liao, Paul B. "Water Requirements of Salmonids."
Progressive Fish Culturist 33 (4) :210-215, 1971.
Liao, Paul B. Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting
Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Personal
communication llelecon) tc Robert Schneider,
National Field Investigations Center, Environmental
frotection Agency, Denver, Colorado, September 27,
973.
Lindsey, J. F. "Pelleted Dry Food as a Total Diet
for Trout." Hew York fish and Game Journal
7(1):33-38, 1960.
Lloyd, R. "The Toxicity of Ammonia to Rainbow
Trout." Water and Waste Treatment Journal 8(6):278,
1961.
Lloyd, R. and Herbert, D.W.M., "The Influence of
C02 on the Toxicity of On-Ionized Ammonia to
Rainbow Trout." Ann. Acclied Biology 48:339,
1962.
5130
5131
5132
5133
5133
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5150
5151
5152
5153
515U
5155
5156
5157
5157
5158
5158
5159
5160
5161
5161
5163
j 51t>4
J 516«
5166
5167
5168
| 5168
5169
I
-------
143
145
147.
148.
U9.
150,
151.
152.
Locke, O. O. and Linscott, £. p., "A Mew Dry Diet
for Landlocked Atlantic Salmon and Lake Trout.11
Progressive Fish Guitarist 31(1):3-10, 1969.
Lynne, S. Y«, Washington, D. C. Personal
communication jTelecon) to Roy Irvin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., November 5,
1973.
Haar, A., et al. "Pish Culture in Central East
Africa." FAO, Rome. 158 pp., 1966.
MaCamon, George, California Game and Fish,
Sacramento, California. Personal Commun i ca tion
(Telecon) to Roy Irvin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. October 10, 1973.
Hackenthun, Kenneth M. "The Practice of Water
Pollution Biology. Division of Technical Support,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.
S. Department of InteriorT Washington, D. C. 281
pp., 1969.
Malek, Emile. Tulane University Medical School, New
Oreleans, Louisiana. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Boy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C., December
-------
153. Mason* J. W., O. M. Brynildson, and P. E. Degurse.
"" "Survival of Trout Fed Dry and Meat-Supplemented
Dry Diets", Progressive Fish Culturist 28(4):187-
192, 1966.
154. Mayo, Ronald D., Paul B. Liao and Warren G.
"" Williams. ^A Study for Development of Fish
Hatchery Hater Treatment Systems.*1 Kramer, Chin and
Mayo Consulting Engineers, Seat tie,'Washington. 80
pp., April, 1972.
155. McCarraher, D. B. "The Natural Propagation of
"~ Northern Pike in Small Drainable Ponds."
Progressive Fish Culturist 19(«): .185-187, 1957.
.156. Miller, Fred, "Walleyed Pike Fingerling Production
~~ in Drainable Constructed Ponds in Minnesota."
Progressive Fish Culturist 14(4):173-176, 1952.
J.57. Miller, Robert, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
~" Michigan. Personal Communication fTelecon) to Roy
Trvin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., December 3, 1973.
158. Minckley, William, Arizona State University,
"~ Tucson, Arizona. Personal communication (Telecon)
to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C.7 December ft, 1973.
159. Mizelle, John, California State University,
~~ Sacramento, California. Personal Communication to
Roy Zrvin, "" Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C., March la, 1973.
160. Morse, Erskine, "Freshwater Fishes as Potential
~ Health Hazards." [Presented as a paper at the
Interprofessional Seminar, Diseases Common to
Animals and Man]. University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois, August 16-17, 1973.
161. Mudrak, Vincent A., Pennsylvania Fish Commission,
* Beliefonte, Pennsylvania. Personal communication
(Telecon) to James C. Penning ton. National Field
Investigations CenterT Environmental Protection
Agency, Denver, Colorado, October 24, 1973.
162. Mudrak, Vincent A, Pennsylvania Fish commission,
~~ Be lief onte, Pennsylvania. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to James C. Pennington, National Field
5212
5213
5214
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5239
52<*0
52«i
5242
52«)
52««
524«
52»5
52«6
52«7
52«a
52«9
52*9
5250
5251
5252
5253
-------
163,
I64'
165.
166.
167.
169
170,
171,
172,
Investigations Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Denver, Colorado, November 26, 1973.
Murphy, J. P. and R. I. Upper, "BOD Production of
Channel Catfish." Progressive Fish culturist
32(4):195-198, 1970.
Murray, B., Western Fresh Water Molluscs.
±Discussion1. Malacologia 10:33-34, 1970.
Murray, R. D. and D. Baines, Philopthalmus Species
^Treaatoda) in Tarebia granifera and Melanoides
tuberculatus in South Texas. Annual report of the
American Malalogical Union, pp 44-45, 1970.
Murray, B. D., "The Introduction and Spread of
Thiarids in The United States* The Biologist
53:133-135, 1971.
Murray, Harold, Trinity University, San Antonio,
Texas. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
O.C., February 6, 1974.
Myers, G., "Notes on the Freshvater Fauna of Middle
Central America with Especial Reference to Pond
Culture of Tikpia." FAQ Fisheries Papers 55(2):l-4,
1955.
Nakatani, R. E., C. Simensted and B. Dchida, "Water
Quality inventory of Aquaculture Facilities in the
United States." ^Interim Report dated December 29,
1972]. Fisheries Research Institute, College of
Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington. 43 pp., 1972.
Neal, Richard, National Marine Fisheries service,
Galveston, Texas. Persona 1 communication (Telecon)
to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C., March 30, 1973.
Nielson, W. E. and J. J. Mazuranich, "Dry Diets for
Chinook Salmon." Progressive Fish Culturist
21(2):86-88, 1959.
Norton, Paul, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Personal
communication JTelecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., December 13,
1973.
5254
5254
5255
5256
5257
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5266
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5276
5277
5278
5279
5260
5281
5281
5282
5283
528Q
528*
5286
5286
5287
5288
5289
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5293
5294
-------
173,
175,
176,
177
^78
179.
1.80
182
183
Oehmche, A. A., "Muskellunge Fingerling Culture."
Progressive Fish Culturist 11CD:3-18, 1949.
Parker and Associates Consulting Engineers,
Preliminary Report For Treatment Facilities at
Rifle Falls Trout Hatchery." Denver, Colorado,
August, 1968.
Pearson, John C., "Rearing Young Shad in Ponds."
Progressive Fish Culturist 14(1):33-36, 1952.
Pennsylvania Fish Commission, "Study of Haste Hater
Treat ment System - Big Spring Hatchery."
[Internal Report]. Division of Fisheries.
Be lief on te, Pennsylvania, 1972.
Phillips, Arthur M. , "The Nutrition of Trout."
Cortland Hatchery Report No. 23. [Mimeo. ]. New
York Conservation Department and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service. Hew York, New York. [Mimeo.],
1954.
Phillips, Arthur M., Jr., "Trout Feeds and
Feeding." Condensed from Manual of Fish Culture.
Part 3, Section B, Chapter 5 [Published 1897 by U.
S. commercial Fisheries], Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Department of Interior, Washington,
D. C.7 June, 1970.
Phillips, A.M., Jr. and Brockway, D. R., "Dietary
Calories and the Production of Trout in
Hatcheries." Progressive Fish culturist 21(1):3-
16, 1959.
Phillips, A. M., Jr., "The Nutrition of Trout
v. Ingredients for Trout Diets." Progressive Fish
culturist
l9T5)s158-167, 1957.
Piper, Robert G., "A Slide-Rule Feeding Guide."
Progressive Fish Culturist. July, 1970.
Piper, Robert G. "Know the Proper Carrying
Capacities of Your Farm." American Fishes and u..
S.. Trout News May-June, 1970.
Pratt, Charles, San Diego, California. Personal
communication fTelecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
ProtectionAgency, Washington, D. C., December,
1973.
5295
5296
5298
5299
| 5300
| 5300
5301
5302
5303
|
5305
5306
5307
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5311
5311
5312
5313
531U
5315
5315
5316
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5323
5323
5323
| 5326
| 5327
| 532'
j b MO
| 53)0
5332
533)
-------
18 a.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
Prevatt* C. Tropical Fish Farm* Riverview, Florida.
personal communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency* Washington* D. C.
November 16, 1973.
Purkett* C. A.* Jr.* "Artificial Propagation of
Paddlefish." Progressive fish Culturist 25(1): 31-
33, 1963.
Putz, Bob, Department of Interior, Washington, D.
C. Personal communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency* Washington, D. C.*
March 8* 1973.
Ramsey* John* Auburn University, Auburn* Alabama.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency* Washington, D.C.,
March 5, 1973.
Ramsey, John, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Personal communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington* D. C.*
November 13* 1973.
Ramsey* J. 6.* "A Sampling of U. S. Aquarium Fish
Imports." ABS Bulletin 20(2):76* 1973.
Reed* Nathaniel, Department of Interior,
Washington, D. C. Personal Communication (Letter)
to Roy Irwin* Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington* D. C., 1973.
Reel* Jimmy* Houston* Texas. Personal
Communication j[Telecon) to Roy Irwin* Environmental
Protection Agency* Washington* D. C.* November 5*
1973.
Reichenbach-Klinke* B. and Elkan* E. The Principal
Diseases of Lower Vertebrates. Academic Press, New
York, New York. £p 190-194* 1965.
Richardson* John, Public Health Service Center for
Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia. Personal
communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington* D. C.* 1973.
Robins, C. B.* Marisa in South Florida, "The
Introduced Fresh Water Snail." Annual Report of.
the American Malacological Union, p 3* 1970.
5336
5337
5338
5338
5339
5340
5341
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5360
53*1
536?
534)
*>
lift*
lift*
*!
5JU
*}')
*!'
-------
195. Robins, Richard, University of Miami, Coral Gables,
~" Florida. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy
Xrwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., October 25, 1973;
.196. Russell, Jesse R., "Catfish ProcessingA Rising
* southern X/idustry." Agricultural Economic Report
No. 224, "Economic Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 33
pp., April, 1972.
.197. setter, Paul, "Pet/Supplies/Marketing", Duluth,
"" Minnesota. Personal communication [Unpublished
report, the State of the Pet Industry: A
Statistical Report, sent as an attachment to a
letter] to Roy Xrwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. November 13, 1973.
.198. Shanks, H., Hatchery Water Quality Monitoring.
Transactions of the 22nd Northwest Fish Cultural
Conference, Portland, Oregon. December, 1971.
199. Short, Robert, Florida State Univesity,
Tallahassee, Florida. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Roy Xrwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C., March 5, 1973. . ~~
£00. Sin derma n, C. J., "The Role and Control of Diseases
~~ and Parasites in Mariculture." Food-Drugs From The
Sea. 19*69 Conference NTS [ 1970]:145-173, 1970.
201. Smith, Charles E., "Effects of Metabilic Products
~~ on the Duality of Rainbow Trout.1* American Fishes
and D. S. Trout News 17(3):l-3, 1972.
202. Snieszko, S. F., Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory,
"" Leetown. West Virginia. Personal communication
(Verbal) to Roy Xrwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C.,"November 6, 1973.
203. Snow, J. R., "Notes on the Propagation of the
Flathead Catfish, Pilodictis olivaris-
(Rafinesque). Progressive "fish Culturist 21(2):
75-80, 1959.
204. Snow, J. R., "The Oregon Moist Pellet as a Diet for
~" Largeraouth Bass." Progressive Fish Culturist
30(4):235, 1968.
5377
5378
5379
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5380
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5391
5395
5396
5397
5398
5398
5399
5000
5401
5*02
5«0 J
5«0«
5*06
5*07
5*38
| 5*10
I *'
-------
205.
206.
207.
Snow, J. R. and Maxwell, J. I., "Oregon Moist
Pellet as a Production Ration for Largemouth Bass.**
Progressive Pish Culturist 32(2):101-102, 1970.
Socolof* Ross, Bradenton, Florida. Personal
communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., February 27,
1973.
Socolof, Ross. Bradenton, Florida.
Communication (Verbal) to American
Society Ornamental Fish Session at
Florida, September 1*7 1973.
Personal
Fisheries
Orlando,
208,
209,
210,
211,
212.
213.
214.
Socolof, Ross. Bradenton, Florida. Personal
Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., October 18,
1973.
Socolof, Ross. Bradenton, Florida. Personal
Communication ^Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, C.C., November 6,
1973.
Socolof, Ross. Bradenton, Florida. Personal
communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., November 29,
1973.
Socolof, Ross. Bradenton, Florida. Personal
Communication JTelecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington* D.C., December 11,
1973.
Soderquist, N. R. Canned and Preserved Fish and
Seafoods Processing Industry. EPA Contract No. 68-
01-1526 {.draft copy of effluent guidance document],
Washington, O.C. J13 pp., 1973.
Soleot, A. "Molluscs introduced into North America."
rGiven at a Symposium on Introducing Molluscs into
North America. 36th Annual Meeting of the American
Malacological Onion, Key west, Florida, July 19,
1971]. The Biologist S3;(89-92).
Speece, R. E. "Trout Metabolism Characteristics
and the Rationale Design of Nitrification
Facilities for Water Reuse in Hatcheries."
Transactions American Fisheries Society 102(2):
323-334, 1973.
I
I
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
54U1
54U2
5443
5444
5445
5445
54a6
5447
5448
54*9
5*50
5«51
54S2
5«5J
5*54
5455
5455
5a56
5457
5*58
5459
5459
5460
-------
215.
216.
217.
218,
219,
2.20,
221,
222.
223.
Stang, William. National Field Investigations
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado." Personal Communication (Memo) to Robert
Schneider, National Field Investigations Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado.
December 6, 1973.
Stanley, John. Stuttgart, Arkansas. Personal
communication (Telecon) to Boy Irvin. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., November 2,
1973.
Stetson, Paul. Whitnan, Massachusetts. Personal
Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December 3,
1973
Stroud, R. SFZ Directors
Bulletin. (245):1, June 1973.
Resolutions.
SFI
Stroud, Richard H. Executive Vice-President, sport
Fishing Institute, Washington, p. C. Personal
Communication ^Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August 30,
1973.
Stuart, Tim. Department of Pollution Control,
State of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida. Personal
communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., October 30,
1973.
Tarus, H. J., Greenberg, A. E., HoaJc, R. D., and
Rand, M. C. "Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Waste water.» £3th ed., American Public
Health Association, New York, New York. 87U pp.
Theis, Gary L. "Evaluation of J or don River
National Fish Hatchery Settling System." Inter-
office transmittal, Lamar National Fish Hatchery,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Lamar,
Pennsylvania, March 1, 1973.
Thompson, P. E., Dill, W. A., and Moore, G. E.
"The Major Communicable Fish Diseases of Europe and
North America: A Review of National and
International Measures for Their Control." FI:EIFAC
72/Section II - Symposium 10, Rev. 1, FAO, Rome.
48 pp., 1973.
5462
5463
5464
5465
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5470
5471
5472
547J
5474
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5U87
5488
54R9
5491
544J
5*98
5500
5501
5502
5502
5502
5503
-------
124.
225.
126.
227.
228.
£29.
230.
Thjotta, T
of Normal
O8lo~Mat.
, and somme. o. M. "The Bacterial Flora
Pish." Starifter Nor sice Videnskaps-AXad
laturv. *:i-lo, 1943.
231,
232,
133,
Tomasec, l.f et al. "Diseases and Parasites.
[Proceedings of the World Symposium on Harm Hater
Pond Pish Culture]. FAQ Fisheries Report.
l<44):38-39, 1967.
Toole. Marion. "Channel catfish Culture in Texas.**
Progressive Pish Guitarist 13<1):3-10, 1951.
Trust* T. J. Bacterial Counts of Commercial Pish
Diets." Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada
28:1185-1189, 1971.
Trust, T. J. and Money, V. G. "Bacterial
Population of Diets .for Aquarium Pishes." Journal
of Fisheries Research""Board of Canada 19(4) :429-
433. 1972.
Tunison, A. V.. Mullin, S. M. and Mechean, Ol L.
Survey of Fish Culture in the United states."
Progressive Fish Culturist ll(l):31-69 and
11 (4): 253-262. 1949.
O. S. Department of Interior. National Survey of
Needs for Hatchery Fish. Resource Publication No.
63, a cooperative project of the 50 States and the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington,
D.C., 63 pp, October 1968.
U. S. Department of Interior. Hater Quality
Criteria. Report of the National Technical
Advisory Committee to the secretary of the
Interior. Federal Hater Pollution control
Administration, Washington, D.C. , 234 pp, April
T968.
O. S. Department of Interior. "Analysis and
Treatment of Fish Hatchery Effluents" [Raceway
Settling System Experiment ]. Progress Report, Fish
Cultural Development Center, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Lamar, Pennsylvania, July 1
September 30, 1970.
U. S. Department of Interior. Quarterly Report.
Bozeman Fish Cultural Development Center, Boseman,
Montana, March, 1970.
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5520
5521
5522
5523
55^4
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
551)
5534
5534
5535
5536
5537
5536
5539
5539
5540
S5«1
55*2
550
554]
554*
-------
234,
235.
236,
237,
238.
239.
240.
2.41.
242.
243.
U. S. Department of Interior. List of State Fish
Hatcheries and Rearing Stations. Division of Fish
Hatcheries, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Washington, D.C., 20 pp, 1970.
O. S. Department of Interior. Leaflet No. 46-OH,
Division of Fish Hatcheries, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C., 7 pp,
1970.
O. S. Department of Interior. "Propagation and
Distribution of Fishes from National Fish
Hatcheries for" the Fiscal Year 1971. Fish
Distribution Report Ho. 6, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C., 72 pp,
1971.
D. S. Department of Interior. "Hatchery Raceway
Cleaning Effluent Nutrient Removal at 5, 15, and 30
Minutes ol settling in Imhoff Cones." Willow Beach
National Fish Hatchery, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, willow Beach, Arizona.
Venkataraman, R. and Sreenivasan, A. "The
Bacteriology of Freshwater Fish." Indian Journal
of Medical Research 41:385-399, 1953.
Vettel, Robert. Favor's Aquarium, New York, New
York. Personal communication (Telecon) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., December 5, 1973.
Walker, Meddie C. and Frank, Phillip T., "The
Propagation of Buffalo." Progressive Fish
culturist. 14(37:129-130, 1952.
Westers, Harry. "Carrying Capacity of Salmonid
Hatcheries." Progressive Fish culturist. January
1970.
Willoughby, H. "Use of Pellets as Trout Food."
Progressive Fish Culturist 15(3) :127-128, 1953.
Willoughby, Harvey. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, personal Communication
(Teleoon) "~ to Robert Schneider, National Field
Investigations Center, "Environmental Protection
Agency, Denver, Colorado, October 16, 1973.
I
55U5
55U6
5547
55U7
5548
5549
5550
5551
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5555
5556
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5561
5562
5563
5564
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5568
5569
5570
5571
5571
5572
5573
557«
557«
557S
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5582
5583
-------
Z44.
245.
246,
247,
Wilson, B., Deacon, J., and Bradley, H. G.
Parasitism of the Fishes of the Moapa River, Clark
County, Nevada." ""Transactions cali fornia-Nevada
Wildlife Society. 1:12-23, 1966.
Hood, J. H. Interim Effluent Guidance for Salmonid
Pish Hatcheries, Preserves and Farms [Critique].
Washington State Department of Fishes, Olympia,
Washington, July 16, 1973.
Yao, K. M. 1970. "Theoretical Study of High-Rate
Sedimentation." Journal Hater Pollution Control
Federation 42:2, February 1070.
Yao, Kuan M. "Design of High-Rate Settlers."
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers 99:EE5, October
1973.
Zeiller, Warren. Miami Seaquarinm, Miami, Florida.
Personal Communication ILetter) to Roy Zrwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
December 17, 1973.
5584
5585
5586
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5590
5591
5592
5593
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5601
5602
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
5605
5606
Sincere appreciation is expressed to all of those
individuals whose personal communications are listed in the
references section gf this document. For Many hours of
assistance, special thanks are due to the staff of the
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission; Fish Farming
Experimental station, O.S. Department of Interiorr Stutt-
gart, Arkansas; Dr. Halter Courtenay, Florida Atlantic
University and Exotic Fish Committee, American Fisheries
Society: Ross Socolof, ornamental Fish Committee, American
Fisheries Society: Dr.~S. F. Sniezco, Eastern Fish Disease
Laboratory; Tim Bowen and Mark Unlay, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Paul Liao of Kramer, Chin
and Mayo Consulting Engineers, Seattle, Washington; Thomas
Lynch and Marty Karl, Colorado Fish Commission; and the Army
Corps of Engineers, Walla walla, Washington.
The authors, R. J. Irwin, J. C. Pennington, and R. F.
Schneider, wish to thank representatives of the Industry and
Trade Associations who were very helpful and cooperative.
This includes: Ted Eastman, David Erickson, Robert Erkins,
Fred Gettelman and John Hepworth, O.S. Trout Growers
Association; Stanton Hudson, Catfish Farmers of America; Dr.
Herbert Axelrod, T.F.H. Publications; David Booser, Florida
Tropical Fish Farms Association; Bernard E. Hefferman, Fish
Farming industries; and Allen L. Levey, Pet Industry Joint
Advisory council.
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5619
5620
5621
5623
5620
5625
5626
5627
5628
5628
5629
5630
5630
-------
SECTION XV | 5633
GLOSSARY 5635
DEFINITIONS 5638
BOD-Biochemical Oxygen Demand The amount of oxygen 56UO
required by microorganisms while stabilizing decomposable 56U1
organic matter~*under aerobic conditions. The level of BOD 5643
is usually measured as the demand for oxygen over a standard 56U3
five-day period. Generally expressed as mg/1. 56
-------
suspended solids The suspended Material that can be 5675
removed from the vastewater by .laboratory filtration but 5676
does not include coarse or floating matter that can be 5676
screened or settled out readily. 5677
Tube settlers High rate sedimentation units consisting of 5679
inclined tubes each of which acts as a small settling basin 5680
resulting in a very short vertical settling distance. 5680
-------
SECTION ZVZ
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
5683
5685
5687
cc/liter
C
cm
-- volumetric ratio cubic centimeters per liter
1.337 x 10~»» cubic feet per gallon
Temperature in degrees Centigrade -
5/9 |°F-32)
length in centimeters » 0.3937 in. or
0.003281 ft
cu ft
Per
cubic feet * 0.02832 cubic meters
DO dissolved oxygen
gal. volume in gallons * 3.785 liters
gm weight in grams « 0.03527 ounces
-- grams per square meter «= 2.05 x 10-* pounds
per square foot
gpd flow rate in gallons per day =
0.003785 m*/day
gpm
flow rate in gallons per minute
per second
0.0631 liters
hectares area * 2.471 acres
weight in kilograms « 2.205 pounds
kg/m
kilograms per meter
per food
0.672 pounds
volume in liters - 0.2642 gallons
Ips/m*
overflow rate in liters per second per square meter
1.48 gallons per minute per square foot
m length in meters = 3.281 feet or
1.094 yards
5690
5691
5693
5694
5696
5697
5699
5701
5703
5705
5707
5708
5710
5711
5713
571U
5716
5718
5720
5721
5723
s
5726
5728
5729
5725
m* volume in cubic meters « 1.307 cubic yards or
5731
-------
264.2 gallons
5732
m»/day ~ flow rate in cubic Meters/day
gallons per second
am 'length in Millimeters
22.81 Billion
igd
flow rate in Billion gallons per day
aeters per day
3.785 cubic
Bl
Bg/1 - concentration given in Milligrams
per liter
volume given in Billiliters * 0.0002642 gallons
or one cubic centimeter
Bl/1 concentration given in Billiliters
per liter
B. ton weight in metric tons * 1.102 tons or
2204.6 pounds
MPN most probable number
n nitrogen
NH3-N ammonia as nitrogen
HO3-N nitrate as nitrogen
Org N ~ organic nitrogen
pH the logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of
hydrogen ion concentration
ppm concentration given in parts per million parts
PO4-P phosphate as phosphorus
1KB total Kjeldahl nitrogen
y3 volume in cubic yards - 0.7646 cubic meters or
27 cubic feet
5734
5735
5737
5739
5740
I 5742
5743
5745
5746
| 5748
5749
5751
5752
5754
5756
| 5758
| 5760
| 5762
576U
5765
5767
| 5769
5771
5773
577«t
-------
END OF DOCUMENT Fish Report
LIMBS PRINTED 10079
PAGES OU1
ft***********************************************************
I***********************************************************
ft************************************************************
ft************************************************************
I************************************************************
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
CUSTOMER a2130 OPERATOR 123 213 123 Fish Repot"
-------
. '-i . ..t .'^ , - ' -. _ f
A. CLOSED'POND
Source
Rearing
Pond
_ . Discharge ^ _^
I
1
'I
f
»
f
f
4
B. OPEN POND (Uncleaned)
«
Source Water
Rearing
Pond
Discharge
C.
FLOW-TllRU UNITS (Cleaned)
Source Water
Rearing Unit
Normal Discharge
i
Cleaning
Discharge
D. RECONDITIONING-RECYCLE
Source Water '
Rearing
Units (s)
leconditioning
System
I Discharge^
Sludge or
Filter Backwash
Legend
.___ Intermittent Flow
Continuous Flow
Note: B and C operate as single-pass systems
vith single units or multiple units in series.
Figure III-l. Types of Water-Flow Systems Used in Fish] Culturing
-------
1
FLOW-THRU CULTURE
POND CULTURE
1
i
V
«
jt
i
V
f.
r
/
f
V
I
I
f
,*
r
*
.1
V
\.
^
1 Brood fish Pond
1
1 Harvest
1 Brood fish Pond
I
I Spawning 'Pond
1
IEgg and Milt Stripping j
IEgg Incubation
1
f
I Fry Trough I
[Main Rearing Unit |
_
1 Harvest Fry |
1
t
I Fry Pond |
. i
1 Finger ling Pond
1
i
. .. .. .
Figure III-2. Typical Native Fish-Culturing Process Diagram
-------
V
. Outdoor Breeders
" (mostly livebearers)
>
1
;'
. V
i,
\
(T
t
I
\
\
r
c
*»
*
J*
t
:
't
t
k
«
c
/
I
1
\
j
1
Empty Pond
1
Lime Poison
4
Refill
1
Pool
Indoor Breeders
(mostly egglayers) Importation
1 Selected Strain ! I 1 Import Box
Fertilize Pool 1
1
[
Add Selected
Strain
1 Spawn
't
Growth
*
of Fish
Market
«
i *
Breeding Tanka ] Unpack Fish
4 \
s, | *~«»r io:'
I
. , , 1 Chemical I
Remove Adults J Treatment |
i
Harvest Fry
f
1 Raising Vats or Pools
Medication
& Packing
*
Growth of Fish 1
*
Harvest Product |
Grading [
^1 Selective Breeding
Figure III-3. Non-Native Fish Culturing Process Diagram
-------
.- /.- ' ..^.H- Jl.-r-:j ^,X.O*i':"#//.- Y
V
V
HATER TEMPERATURE 8° to 13°C (47- to 55'F)
o
2.0 .
0
e i.s 1
i.o
I
1
0.5 .
I «>
15.2
(6)
17.8
(7)
.300 ^
200
100
20.3 on
(8) inches
o
.o
M
I
Jt.
n
8
1
o
il
FISH SIZE
Figure V-l. BOD Production and DO Uptake Rates Versus Fish Sice (139).
-------
TABLE 1-1
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS NATTVE FISH CULTUIRNC STSTEHS
(net valves)
Raceway Discharge Open-Pond Overflow Pond Draining
30-day avg waste load 30-day avg waste load Total avg waste load
kg/100 kg flab on hand/day kg/100 kg fish on hand/day kg/100 kg fish on hand/day
(noraal discharge in ng/1) (normal overflow In ng/1) (draining discharge in ng/1)
Waste Constituent (cleaning wastes in ng/1)
BOD 1.3 1.4 2.2
(4.0) (3.1 (S.I)
COD 6 3 6.2
<25) (16) (31)
(61)
Suspended Solids 2.6 3.1 23.3
(3.7) (9.7) (157)
(61.9)
Settleable Solids^ " . '
«0.1) (<0.1) (3.3)
(2.2)
Total Aanonla Nitrogen 0.09 0.09 0.23
(0.49) (0.46) (0.39)
(0.52)
TO! 0.20 0.41
(0.74) (0.55) (0.78)
(1.15)
BO,-* 0.06 0.07 0.04
9 (-0.17) (-0.22) (0.41)
(0.64)
Total tO.-» 0.03 <. 0.03 0.04
(0.09) (O.OS) (0.13)
fecal Coltfi
'4
(0.38)
*/
() (0 to >200) (0 to >200)
(28)
a/ Reported aa ml/I.
₯/ »ported aa nu*brr of bacteria per 100 ml of water.
-------
TABLE II-l
LEVEL I EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS-' - JULY 1, 1977
LEVEL II EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS - JULY 1. 1983
LEVEL III EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS - NEW SOURCES :
i
kg/100 kg fish on hand/day Maximum Instan-
Parameter Max. Daily Avg. Daily -taneous (me/I)
NATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS\
Suspended Solids 2.9 2.2 15
Settleable Solids^ <0.1 0.2
NATIVE FISH POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
.1
Settleable Solids^' 3-3
Fecal Colifom£' 200 organisms/100 ml
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
No discharge of biological pollutants
a/ Effluent limitations are net values.
l>/ Reported as ml/1.
7/ This effluent limitation applies only to operations using manure
to fertilize ponds.
-------
TABLE III-l
TROUT PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATCHERIES
PROJECTED THROUGH THE YEAR 2000
(FROM REFERENCE 244)
Production (Thousands of Fish)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
_ _ _ _
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennyslvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
1965
6
2,100
6,555
882
28,933
18,473
709
15
3
803
100
27,663
31
66
282
79
2,004
339
1,648
5,317
4,019
2,880
7,916
795
3,770
2,825
650
8,780
5,769
1.525
1,238
66
26,932
4,028
515
166
1973
15
4 ,«00
7,310
1.353
51.713
34.963
953
35
3
1,276
150
36.021
20
107
349
616
2.651
867
2.187
17.203
4.935
3,211
9,500
1,017
5,150
2,320
914
12,859
5.463
1.335
1,220
90
^**
144
38,348
6,519
401
126
1980
19
6,900
7,800
1,495
57,898
36,484
972
39
M
1,378
300
37,021
M M
22
112
408
681
2.466
899
2,338
23,038
5,532
3,383
14,288
1.155
5.685
2.470
1.031
14,607
5,503
1,397
1,348
96
160
47.801
9.179
414
139
2000
23
9,500
9,330
2,093
58,000
40,678
1,443
55
*
1,809
400
39,021
131
493
954
2,732
1,039
2,753
31.133
4.505
3,990
14.613
1.497
7.310
2,985
1,451
17.150
5.675
1.661
1.887
120
224
73.621
12.350
447
195
i)
-------
TABLE IXI-1 (Cent.)
TROUT PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATCHERIES
PROJECTED THROUGH THE YEAR 2000
(FROM REFERENCE 244) .
Production (Thousands ef Fish)
State
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Vest Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of Columbia
1965
1,440
1.515
19,773
2,485
1,194
37.334
1,528 .
3,013
13.566
2
1973
2,178
2,999
23,980
2,716
2,061
42,477
1,557
3,580
18,628
5
1980
2,313
3.314
~
25.714
2.778
2,451
48,069
2.194
3,564
20.205
2000
2,749
4.564
46.800
3,017
3,432
63,985
2,960
4,062
22,588
Total 249,755 355,525 405,069 505,468
-------
TABLE II1-2
WARM-WATER FISH PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATCHERIES
PROJECTED THROUGH THE YEAR 2000
(FROM REFERENCE 244)
Production (Thousands of Fish)
State
Alabama .
Alaska '
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
.Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
%^1 A W
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
1965
5,218
516
11,210
27
10,775
14
118
5,041
16,209
50
10
2,124
2,873
114,679
13,185
2,465
10,213
34
168
214
3,701
194,718
9.380
4,194
2,052
18,622
116
1
290
4,500
348,469
5,878
46,505
48,009
26.381
502
17,462
3
57,605
1973
S.90,1
950
15,034
130
12.637
16
242
9,378
23,114
75
.- 50
2,451
3.813
141.089
41,600
8,495
18.864
50
12.249
338
4,925
304,437
17,071
20,949
2,100 i
15,592
110
5
390
7,265
450,478
10,029
46,924
52,698
31.956
2,502
21,250
26
8,698
1980
9,445
**
1,500
18,337
535
15,807
17
246
10.325
25,039
100
50
2.598
4,242
165.209
46.531
11,376 i
23,624 I
55
25.277 .
388
5,022
304.903
18.863
81.326
2.102
16.158
110.
6
430
8.029.
450.515
10,860
49.752
58,827
46,530
3,002
31,775
48
9.450
2000
11.736
2,500
21,151
(535)
26,290
20
264
12,922
31,534
150
50
3,216
5,864
208,953
52,843
14.726
30,724
^ ^
77
15,387
535
5,431-
306.864
26,409
103,461
2,615
16,591
112
597
11,240
450,669
14,356
61,653
71,919
61,902
3,502
-42,385
D O
Bo
12,391
-------
TABLE III-2 (Cont.)
State
WARM-WATER FISH PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATCHERIES
PROJECTED THROUGH THE TEAR 2000
(FROM REFERENCE 244}
Production (Thousands «of Fish)
1965
1973
1980
2000
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Visconsin
Wyoming
District of Columbia
48,450
6,389
17,278
3,045
1
6,004
76
579
112,468
10,013
7
71,226
4,076
13,996
10,059
4
11,350
100
679
169,675
10,025
13
73,034
4,249
14,417
10,065'
5
15,729
100
810
170,785
10,028
14
101,646
5,979
16,192
10.091
7
21,236
200
979
185.618
10,039
20
Total 1,187,841 1.578,104 1,747,645
1,973,677
£/ No warm-vater fish culturing operations.
-------
TABLE III-3
GEOGRAPHIC'DISTRIBUTION OF STATE, FEDERAL AND PRIVATE
TTSH-CULTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
THAT REAR NATIVE TISlli'
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
. Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Cold
Water
Federal State Private
2
2
2
2
m t
1
3
1
4
2
20
19
3
17
1
2
1
1
8
66
12
9
2
34
5
Warm Water
Mixed^7
Federal State Private Federal State Private
229
*
1
2 3 30
2 118
2 1
18
121
3 7 19
»" ^ A
2 13
6 4
1 .26 10
2 2 55
*% t
32
112.,
1 3 18 !
_ _ i « i
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
17
3
6
8
3
5
8
1
5
8
6
13
4
1
31
3
12
9
111
1
10
35
5
1
2
2
38
18
1
3
25
50
1 S * *
2f 4
* *
251 1
10 1 10
34 86 12 19
_ A £
2 35
6 62 1 3
11
, *
1 ' 10 1 3
^
2
3
j
m *)
1 2
3m *
4
A * *i
232
2f
6
2 3 46
4 83
t *# J
1
1 33
1 1
21
*
<
3 23
1 8
1
1 7 6
c/
-------
TABLE II1-3 (Cont.)
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF STATE, FEDERAL AND PRIVATE
FISH-CULTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
THAT REAR NATIVE FISlll'
Cold Water
Warm Water
State
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
c/
Federal State Private Federal State Private Federal State Private-
1
2
2
1
1
.1 .
10
2
1
2
11
6
3
59
4
7
10
3
7
7
2
4
33
5
17
1
2 -«6
3
4
3 11
2 3
1
3
21
54
6
3
8
1
1
2
3 1
2 5
1
3
2
28
296 540
29 156
783
15
37
150
/ Summarized from the data base as described on page
/ Operations with both cold- and warm-water fish.
c/ Census incomplete.
|
-------
Common Kame
TABLE III-4
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Name
1. Pink salmon
2. Chun salmon
3. Coho salmon
4. Sockeye salmon
5. Chinook salmon
6. Apache trout
7. Golden trout
8. Cutthroat trout
9. Rainbow trout
10. Gila trout
11. Atlantic salmon
12. Brown trout
13. Brook trout
Reference
COLn-UATER FISH
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
(Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus keta
(Ualbauro)
Oncorhynchus kisutch
(Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus nerka
(Walbaun)
Oncorhynchus tshavytscha
(V.'albaun)
Salno apache
(Miller)
Salmo aruabonita
(Jordan)
Salmo clarV.i
(Richardson)
Salrao gairdneri
(Richardson)
Salmo gilae
(Miller)
Salno salar
(Linnaeus )
Salmo trutta
(Linnaeus )
Salve linus fontinalis
(248)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(271)
(271)
(250)
(250)
(271)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(Mitchill)
-------
Common Name
TABLE II1-4
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Name
1. Pink salmon
2. Chun saloon
3. Coho saloon
. Sockeye salmon
5. Chinook salmon
6. Apache trout
7. Golden trout
8. Cutthroat trout
9. Rainbov trout
10. Gila trout
11. Atlantic salmon
12. Brown trout
13. Brook trout
Reference
COLD-WATER FISH
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
(Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus keta
(Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus kisutch
(Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus nerka
(Walbaum)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(Walbaun)
Salno apache
(Miller)
Salno ajtuabonita
(Jordan)
Salmo clarki
(Richardson)
Salno gairdneri
(Richardson)
Salmo pilae
(Miller)
Salmo salar
(Linnaeus)
Salmo trutta
(Linnaeus)
Salvellnus fontlnalis
(248)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(271)
(271)
(250)
(250)
(271)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(Mltchill)
-------
Con-on TIarse
TABLE II1-4 (Cont.)
NATIVE fISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Name j
14. Dolly Vardcn
15. Lake trout
16. Arctic grayling
17. Inconnu
COLD-WATER FISK (Cont.)
Salvelinus tnalna '
(Walbaum)
Salvelinus nanaycush
(Ualbaum)
Thymallus areticus-
(Pallas)
Stenodus leueiehthys
(Guldenstadt)
Reference
(250)
(250)
(248)
(248)
WARM-WATER FISH
1. Gizzard shad
2. Shovelnose sturgeon
3. Paddlefish
4. Bovfin
5. Central nudoinnov
6. Cars
7. Northern pike
8. Muskellunge
Dorosoma eepedianum
(Lesueur) \ \
Scaphlrhychus platorynchus
(Rafinesque)
Polvodon spathula
(Walbaum)
Ami a ealva
(Linnaeus )
Umbra limi
(Kirtland)
Lepisosteus sp.
Esox lucius
(31)
(250)
(32)
(250)
(18)
(249)
(250)
(Linnaeus)
Esox tftasquinongy
(Mitchill)
(250)
-------
Connon Name
TABLE III-4 (Cont.)
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Name
9. Chain pickerel
10. Stoneroller
V /
11.
12.
13. Silveryminnov
14. llomyhead chub
15. River chub
16. Golden shiner
17. Plains einnov
18. Brassy minnov
19. Lake chub
20. Utah chub
21. Leatherside chub
22. Emerald shiner
Reference
ISH (Cont.)
Esox nitrer
(Lesucur)
Campos toma anonalum
(Rafinesque)
Carassius auratus
(Linnaeus)
Cyprinus carpio
(Linnaeus)
Hybopnathus nuchalis
(Agassiz)
Noco«*is biputtatus
(Klrtland) ,
i
Noconis tnicropopon
(Cope)
Noteniponus crysoleucas
(Mitchill)
Hybopnathus placitus
(Glrard)
Hybopnathus hankinsoni
(Hubbs)
Couesius plunbeus
(Agassiz)
Gila atraria
(Cirard)
Cila copei
(Jordan and Gilbert)
i
Notropis atherinoldes ,
(65)
(18)
(250)
(250)
(126)
(18)
(18)
(18)
(12G)
(18)
(126)
(126)
(126)
(18)
(Rafinesque) j
-------
CoTm&on
TABLE IXI-4 (Cont.)
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Name
I
VARK-V?ATER FISH (Cont.)
23. Common shiner
24. Red shiner
25. Sand shiner
26. Northern redbelly dace
27. Southern redbelly dace
28. Eluntnose minnow
29. Fathead minnow
30. Finescale dace
31. Blacknose dace
32. Speckled dace
33. Redside shiner
34. Creek chub
35. Utah sucker
36. White sucker
Notropis cornutus
(Mitchill)
Notropis lutrensis .
(Bard & Girard)
Notropis stramincus
(Cope)
Phoxinus eos
(Cope)
Phoxinus erythropaster
(Rafinesque)
Pimephales notatus
(Rafinesque)
Pimephales pronelas
(Rafinesque)
Phoxinus neogaeus
(Cope)
Rhinlchthys atratulus
(Herman)
Rhiniehthys oseulus
(Cirard)
Richardsonius baleatus
(Richardson)
Setnotilus atromaculatus
TSITchill)
Catostomus ardens
(Jordan and Gilbert)
Catostomus comnersoni
Reference
(18)
(156)
(126)
(18)
(18)
(13)
(25)
(18)
(IS)
(126)
(126)
(18)
(126)
(126)
-------
Conmon Kane
TABLE III-4 (Cont.)
NATIVE TISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Name
VARM-WATER FISH (Cont.)
37. Snallmouth buffalo
38. Bigtnouth buffalo
39. Blue catfish
40. Bigmouth x Black buffalo
41. Black bullhead
42. Yellow bullhead
A3. Brovn bullhead
44. Channel catfish
45. Spotted bullhead
46. White catfish
47. Flathead catfish
48. Mosquitofish
49. Guppy
Ictiobys bubalus
(Rafinesque)
Ictlobus cyprinellus
(Valenciennes)
Ictalurus fureatus
(Lesueur)
Ictlobus cyprinellus
(Valenciennes)
x Ictiobus nirer
(Rafinesque)
Ictalurus nelas
(Rafinesque)
j
Ictalurus natalis I
(Lesueur)
Ictalurus nebulosus
(Lesueur)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Rafinesque)
I
Ictalurus serraeanthus
(Verger & Relyea)
Ictalurus catus
(Linnaeus)
Pylodietis ollvaris
(Rafinesque)
Cambusia affinis
(Bard & Cirard)
Poecllia reticulata
(Peters)
Reference
(249)
(249)
(250)
(156)
(249)
(156)
(249)
(250)
(156)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(156)
-------
Common NaH>c
TABLE XII-4 (Cont.)
DATIVE'FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Nace
WARM-VATER FISH (Cont.)
50. White bass
51. Striped bass
52. Green sunfish
53. Waraouth
54. Bluegill
55. Redear sunfish
56. Smallmouth bass
57. Spotted bass
58. Largenouth bass
59. White erappie
60. Black erappie
61. Brook stickleback
62. Yellov perch
Morone chrysops
(Rafinesque)
Morone saxatilis
(Walbaum)
Lcpeiris cyanellus
(Rafinesque)
Lepotnts guloeus
(Cuvier)
LeporaiB nacrochirus
(Rafinesque)
i
Leponis mierolophus
(CUnther)
Micron terus dolomieui
(Lac^pede)
Micropterus punetulatus
(Rafinesque)
Micropterus salmoides
(Lac^pede)
annularis
(Rafinesque)
Potnoxts nlprotnaculatus
(Lesueur)
Culaea inconstans
(Kirtland)
Perea flaveseens
(Mltchtll)
Reference
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
-------
TABLE III-4 (Cent.)
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UKITED STATES
Corvnon Nanc
Scientific Name!
(Raginesque)
Reference
63. Sauger
64. Walleye
65. Blue pike
66. Freshwater drum
VARM-WATER FISH (Cont.)
Stizostedion
(Smith)
Stizostedion
(Mitchlll)
Stizostedion
(llubbs)
Aplodinotus
canadense
I
vitreutn' vitreum
vltreum glaucun
p.runniens
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
£/ Recently described native species, not listed in American Fisheries
Society list of coanon and scientific names of fish* (15).
-------
TABLE III-5
'CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR-OTHER
FISH PRODUCTION RELATED REASONS-
Acetic acid, glacial
Acriflavine
(Trypaflavine)
Betadine R
(lodophore containing 1.0% of
Iodine in organic solvent)
»
Bromex
(Dibrom, Naled; a pesticide)
Calcium cyanamide
Calcium oxide
(quicklime) .
Carbarsone oxide
Chloramphenicol
(Chloromycetin)
Chlortetracycline
(Aureoreycin)
Copper sulphate
(Blue atone)
Cu SO,, anhydrous
Cu SO^ . 5H20, crystalline
Diluted in water:
1:500 for 30-60 seconds (dip)
1:2000 (500 ppn) as bath for
30 minutes
5-10 ppn added to water every few
hours to several days
100 to 200 ppm in water on basis
of iodine content by weight for
15 minutes for fish egg disinfection.
0.12 ppn added to (pond) water for
indefinite time.
Distributed on the bottom and banks
of dralned-butswet ponds at a rate
of 200 g per m .
Distributed on the bottom and banks
of dralned-butxvet ponds at a race
of 200 g per m .
Mixed with food at a rate of 0.2".
Feeding for 3 days.
1. Orally with food 50-75 ng/kc
body weight/day for 5-10 days.
2. Single intraperitoneal injection
of soluble form 10-30 mp/kp.
3. Added to water 10-50 ppia for
indefinite time as needed.
i
10-20 ppn in water
For 1 minute dip: 1:2000 (500 ppn)
in hard water. Add 1 ml glacial
acetic add per liter.
0.25 to 2 ppm to ponds. Quantity
depends en hardness of water.
Hard water requires more.
-------
TABLE II1-5 (Cone.)
.CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AKD FOR.OTHER
FISH PRODUCTION RELATED REASONS-'
Cyzine
(Enheptin-A)
Dlquat R
(Patented herbicide, Ortho Co.
contains 35.32 of active
compound)
Dylox R
(Dipterex, Ncguron, Chlorophos,
Trichlorofon Foschlor)
Formalin
(37Z by veight of formaldehyde
in water. Usually contains
also 12-152 nethanol)
Formalin vith Malachite green
Furazolidone
(Furoxone N.F. 180
N.F. 180 Hess 6 Clark)
Conmerieal products contain
Furazolidone mixed vith inert
materials.
Other Nitrofurans (Japanese)
Furanace
(P-7138)
Made in Japan
Hyanine 1622 K
(Rohm 6 Haas Co.,
Quarternary ammonium
germicide available as
crystals or as 50Z solution)
i
20 pptn in feed' for 3 days
1-2 ppm of Diquat cation, or
8.A ppm as purchased added to
vater. Treatment for 30-60
minutes. Activity much reduced
in turbid vater.
0.25 ppm to vater in aquaria and
0.25 to 1.0 ppm in ponds for
indefinite period.
1:500 for 15 minute dip
1:4000-1:6000 for one hour
15-20 ppm to pond or aquarlun
vater for indefinite period.
Formalin, 25 ppm
Malachite green, 0.05 ppm. For
6 hours in aquaria; may be
repeated as needed. For inde-
finite period in ponds.
On the basis of pure drug
activity; 25-30 mp/kp body
veight/day up to 20 days
orally vith food.
Added to vater vith fish to be
treated at 1 ppm for several
hours. Toxicity to different
fishes varies from 0.5 to 4.0 ppm
(Experimental drug).
1.0-2.0 ppm in vater for one hour.
-------
TABLE IIX-5 (Cont.)
. CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR.OTHER
FISH PRODUCTION RELATED REASONS-
Hyomlne 3500
(As above)
lodophores
Kamala
Malachite green
Methiolate
Methylenc blue
Neguvon
(See Dylox)
Oxytetracycline.
(Terramycin)
Potassium permanganate
K Mn 0,
Quinine hydrochloride
or Quinine aulfate
Roccal R
(Benzalkonium chloride,
Quarternary ammonia germicide -
see also Hyamine 3500. Sold as
10-50Z solution)
As above
(See under Betadine and I.'cscodyne)
Mixed with diet at a rate of 22.
Feeding to starved fish for 3 days.
1:15,000 in water as a dip for
10-30 seconds. 1-5 ppn in water
for 1 hour (most often used as
5 ppm). 0.1 ppm in ponds or
aquaria for indefinite tine.
** 10-20 ppn to suppress bacterial
growth.
1.0-3.0 ppm in water for 3-5 days.
50-75 mg/kg body weight /day for
10 days with food. (Law requires
that it must be discontinued for
21 days before 'fish are killed
for human consumption.)
1:1000 (1000 ppm) for a 10-tC
seconds dip. 10 ppm up to
30 minutes. 3-5 ppm added to
aquariua or pond water for
indefinite time.
10-15 ppa in water for indefinite
time. !
i
1-2 ppo in water for 1 hour. Toxic
in very soft water; less effective
in hard water.
-------
TABLE III-5 (Cone.)
CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL OP
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR.OTHER
PISH PRODUCTION RELATED REASONS-' j
Sodium chloride
(table salt* iodized or not)
Sulfatnerarine
Sulfamcthazine
Sulfisoxazole
(Gantrisin)
U
Terramycin
(See Oxytetracycline)
Tin oxide, di-n-butyl
Wescodyne
lodophore containing 1.6Z of
'iodine in organic solvent
1-3X in water fron 30 minutes
to 2 hours only for freshwater
fishes.
200 eg/kg body weipht/day with
food for 14 days. (Law requires
that treatment oust be stopped
for 21 days before fishes are
killed for human consumption.)
100-200 ing/kg body weight /day
depending on the type of food
'with which it is nixed. For
prophylaxis reduce the quantity
to 2 g per kg/day. Length of
treatment as recommended.
200 tig/kg body weight/day with
food.
25 ng/kg body weight/day with
food for 3 days.
100-200 pptn in water on basis of
iodine content by weight for 15
minutes for fish egg disinfection.
a/ This list of chemicals is from Reference 212.
-------
TABLE V-l
OXTCEN-DEMANDINC CHARACTERISTICS OP EFFLUENTS
BOD
Average
Range
No. of Samples
COD
Average
Range
Ho. of Samples
BOD
Average
Range
No. of Samples
COD
Average
** Range '
No. of Samples
FROH CO!
Normal
Effluent
R
5.0
0.1-12
639
30
2-460
107
0
-
8.2
0.6-21
300
34
4m M«%
-120
12
JTINDOUS FLOW FACILI1
Operation
TIet
Change
(ng/1)
AC E W AT FIS
4.0
0.2-6.2
636
25
0-96
97
PER POND F
3.1
0.5-12
150
16 ---
2ft 4
-24
5
[IF.S CULTURINC NATIVE FISH^'
Cleaning
Effluent
Org/l)
B C U L
27.3
7.3-56
9
97
83-110
9
i s n c
.
"
Operation-^
Met
Change
(mr/1)
TtJR E
21.2
6.5-55.3
9
61
48-74
2
U L T U R E
~
30-day Average
Waste Load
(kg/100 kc fish on hand/day)
1.3
0.5-2.5
157
6
0.6-22
12
1.4
0.2-5.0
17
5
OA A A m^
.7-17.8
13
a/ Sunrarized from the data base as described on page
b/ Based upon selected data collected during cle.ining activities at 9 fish hatcheries (References
69,75.76,139).
-------
TABLE V-2
OXYGEN-DEMANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF
EFFLUENTS FROM CULTURING PONDS BEING DTIAINED
DURING FISH HARVESTING ACTIVITIES^/
EffluentWaste Load
(mg/1) (kR/100 kp fish on hand)
BOD
Average 5.1 .2.2
Range 0.8-21 0.2-5.9
No. of Samples 135 40
COi)
Average 31 6.2
Range 0-130 0.7-17.B
No. of Samples 33 30
a/ Summarized from the data base as described on page
-------
TABLE 7-3
SOLIDS
CONTINUOUS
CHARACTERISTICS
FLOW FACILITIES
Normal Operation
Suspended Solids
Average
Range
No. of Samples
Dissolved Solids
Average
Range
No. of Samples
Scttleable Solids^
Average
Range
No. of Samples'
Suspended Solids
Average
Range
No. of Samples
Dissolved Solids
Average
Range
No. of Samples
Settleable Solids^'
Average
Range
No. of Samples
Effluent
(mE/1)
RACE
9.3
0-220
398
326
5-520
238
<0.1
0-0.5
91
OPEN
38.2
0.5-470
91
136
8
0.2
<0.1-0.7
1
Net
Change
(me/1)
WAT F I S H
3.7
(-) 13-40
354
12
(-H83-116
238
-
<0.1
0.0-0.5
91
POND F X
9.7
4-464
83
22
8
<0.1
0-0.7
7
OF EFFLutNTb FROI
CULTURING NATIVE
W'
Cleaning Operation
Net
Effluent Change
(mr/1) 4
14
ml SuntBAtlrrd ftoai tha data t»A*r as described on page
b/ Data are from Reference
~il Reported as ml/1
-------
TABLE V-4
SOLIDS CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUETTS
FROM CULTURING PONDS BEING DRAIN|9 DURING
i
FISH HARVESTING ACTIVITIES^'
Effluent Waste Load
(rag/1) (kc/100 kr; fish on hand)
Suspended Solids * ;
Average 157 ; 23.5
Range - 3.5-43.7
No. of Samples 30 30
Settleable Solids-' '. _
Average 5.5
RanBc <0.1-39 .
Ko. of Samples *6 ~~
£/ Summarize* from the data base as described on paRe
W Reported as ml/I
-------
TABLE V-5
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS FROM
CONTINUOUS FLOW FACILITIES COLTURINC KATIVE
Hormal
Affluent
(nc/1)
R
Operation
Met
Change
(me/1)
ACEVAT FISH
Cleaning Operation
, Net 30-day Average
Effluent Change Waste Load
(mfi/1)
CULTURE
(nr/1) (kc/100
kc fish on hand/d?y)
Total Ammonia-Nitrogen
Average
Range
Me. cf Staples
TW
Average
Eange
Mo. of Samples
MO.-K
Average
Range .
Ko. of Samples
Total F04-F
Average
Range
Mo. of Samples
O.S2
0.0-3.60
65*
1.20
0.01-12.80
251
1.73
0.0-8.2
«85
0.16
0-0.57
375
V A
0.49
O.02-2.18
644
0.74
0.05-1.53
248
<-)0.17
<-)3.6-l.l
619
0.09
<-)0.09-0.94
372
RH-VATER FZ
0.59
0.14-2.50
7
2.05
0.93-5.95
7
1.27
0.13-4.50
7
1.17
0.52-2.90
7
SB COLT
0.52
0.13-2. 4S
7
1.15
0.71-5.70
7
0.64
0.09
0.02-0.40
116
0.20
1
0.06
0.0-4.32 {-) 0.38-1. 50
7
i
0.38 ;
0.36-2.79
7
U R E
143
0.03
0.0-0.44
85
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
Average
Range
Mo. of Samples
TKN
Average
Range
No. of Samples
MO.-N
Average
Range
. Mo. of Samples
Total FO.-F
Average
Range
Mo. of Samples
Jf-
0.41
0.10-1.63
137
0.63
0.30-2.40
16
0.98
0.05-4.00
236
0.28
0.01-0.90
17
0.46
0.10-0.56
126
0.55
0.20-1.87
7
<->0.22
(-)0. 31-0.10
3
*
o.os
<-)0.02-0.17
17
~~ 1
1
_
^
_
_
^
_
_
_
0.09
0.01-0.65
18
0.41
0.04-1.00
7
0.07
0.02-0.29
12
0.03
<-)0.003-0.39
18
ml Summarized from the data base as described en pace
b/ Based upon data collected during cleaning activities at 7 fish hatcheries (References 69.75.76).
-------
TABLE V-6
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS
FROM OILTURIKG POTTOS BEING DRAINED
DURING FISH HARVESTING ACTIVITIES^/
Effluent
Waste Load
(kr/100 kp. fish on hand)
Total Ammonia-Nitrogen
Average 0.39
Range 0.07-3.00
No. of Samples 228
TKN
Average 0.78
Range 0.10-5.25
No. of Samples 54
110 -N
Average 0.41
. Range 0.0-1.39
No. of Sanples 107
Total PO.-P
Average 0.13
Range 0.01-0.45
No. of Samples 61
0.25
0.06-0.36
22
0.04
0.02-0.05
1 17
0.04
0.01-0.12
22
a/ Summarized from the data base as described on page '
-------
TABLE 7-7
SOURCES OP OOL1FORH BACTERIA IN A COLORADO TROUT RATCRERT
COLIFORN DENSITIES PER 100 CRAMS IN INTESTINAL
CONTENTS OP RAINBOW TROUT-'
(OCTOBER 15-19, 1973)
fish Sp<
Rainbow
Water
Temperature No. of
teles "*F *C~ Samples
trout 52 11 5
Total Coliforms
>2, 500,000
Ranee
33. 000->24,000,000
Peeal Coltfona
LOR Mean
<20
Range
<20
COLIFORM DENSITIES PER 100 CRAMS
IN PELLETIZED FISH FEED
No.
of Samples
L
2R.
Total
Mean
Collform
Log
Mean
Range
9,000 2,300-17,000 <20 <20
COLIFORM DENSITIES PER 100 ml
IN TROUT-CULTURINC WATER
Intake Water from Watson Lake
Raceway Water at Midpoint
Discharge from Combined Raceways
Temperature
~*F *C~
52
52
52
11
11
11
LOR tlcan Ranee
52
690
4,100
22-330
220-2,800
1,300-28,000
Log Mean Ranee
<3
<2
6
<2-ll
<2-4
5-8
-------
TABLE V-8
SALMONELLA ISOLATIONS FROM A
FLORIDA TROPICAL FISH FARM
(NOVEMBER 12-16, 1973)
Sample Source
Serotype(s) Isolated
Aquarium water at point
immediately before
disinfection.
Final discharge from
indoor facilities.
Fish food used in indoor
facilities.
Foreign imported shipment,
water sample.
Hong Kong, China.
Salmonella enteritidis ser Typhlmurlum
Salmonella enteritidis eer Worthinpton
£. enteritidis scr Typhinurium
£. enteritidis ser Anatum
S. enteritidis ser Tennessee
Salmonella enteritidis ser Typhireui-iua
Salmonella cnteritidis bioser Java
-------
TABLE VII-1
SETTLING OF CLEANING WASTES
Removal Efficiency
Settling
Study and Time
Reference (min.)
Plant A (113)-'
Plant A (113)-'
Plant B (140)-/
K/
Plant C (76)-'
Plant D^
(251)
15
3.9
120
15
30
45
60
5
15
30
Percent Removal
Settloable^
Solids BOD
93
40
67
78
89
100
85.7
92.9
100
48
80.3
63
72
72
72
75.7
80
80
Suspended
Solids
67
88.6
69
71
76
7*
95.3
96.7
97.5
TKN
-
40
35
40
43
69.9
74.5
74.5
wiri
-
50
57
50
50
.
-
-
I IRh-H
-
4
1
3
3
49.2
53.8
53.8
Total
POi-P
-
82
68
79
83
92.9
93.7
93.7
a/ Based on settliable solids removed after 60 minutes equals 100 percent
b/ Bench scale study
c/ Plant scale study
-------
TABLE VII-2
SETTLING OF CLEANING WASTES
Effluent Characteristics^/
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-'
OT3-N
TKN
NO -N
Total PO^-P
Raw Wasted
' (me/1)
27.3
97
73.5
2.2
0.59
2.05
1.27
0.59
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
75
-
80
90
50
50
50
80
Effluent
(rr-,/1)
6.7
-
14.7
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.64
0.12
1
*
operated settling basin.
b/ Values are gross concentrations
£/ Reported as ml/1
-------
TABLE VII-3
SETTLING OP ENTIRE FLOW WITHOUT SLUDGE REMOVAL
Removal Efficiency*!/
Study and Reference
Plant E-'-7 (182)
Plant F-7 (184)
Plant C-7 (76)
Plant A^7 (113)
Plant <£7 (75)
Settling
Tine Settlcable
(minutes) Solids
90
60
45
15 85
300
BOD
22.6
2
35
-
36
Percent
Suspended
Solids
-
-
49
-
50
Removal
Orp-K NHfN
-
-
15 8
'-
17 -17
Total
NOi-N P04-P
-
' -
2 21
-
0 25
.. . . .
~ flows assuming 15 percent of the pollutant load Is discharged during cleaning
b/ Settling basin used also as brood stock holding pond
£/ Plant scale study
d/ Bench scale study
-------
TABLE V1I-4
SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITHOUT SLUDGE REMOVAL
Effluent Characteristics
. Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-'
HH3-N
TKN
N03-N
Total PO^-P
Raw Waste^'
9.5
43
22
0.5
0.54
1.37
1.63
0.25
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
25
-
45
90
0
0
0
20
i
Effluent
7.1
-
12.1
0.54
1.37
1.63
0.20
Effluent characteristics expected by properly designed and
operated settling basin
b/ Raw waste concentrations for the entire flow are gross values deter-
mined by weighting concentrations of normal and cleaning flows
assuming 20 percent of the pollutant load is discharged during
cleaning
£/ Reported as ml/I
-------
TABLE VtI-5
SETTLING OP ENTIRE FLOW WITH SLUDGE REMOVAL
' Removal Efficiency!/
Study and Reference
Plant A^/ (113)
Plant F-' (184)
Plant C-' (76)
Settling
Time
(minutes)
3.9
60
45
Settleable
Solids
38
-
^
Suspended
Solids
52
-
49
Percent Removal
BOD COD Org-N NhVN
39 69
24 - -
35-15 8
Total
NOi-N PO^-P
-
2 21
BJf bllAfelCllW&W * Vl> vllV ^llfc**^ , M.\f** f»«. w v^w^.» in *-« v j -»-*, p,-- .-f, - -
smmlng 15 percent of the pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
b/ Plant scale study
c/ Bench scale study
-------
TABLE VII-6
SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITH SLUDGE REMOVAL
Effluent Characteristics!'
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-'
NH3-N
TKN
N03-N
Total -PO^-P
Raw Waste^
(nR/1)
9.5
43
22
0.5
0.54
1.37
1.63
0.25
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
35
60
50
90
0
10
0
20
Effluent
(mc/1)
6.2
17.2
11
<0.1
0.54
1.2
1.63
0.20
Q j M» *> A U&*i W » * »«»Wfc^»^«» »« ^-- | - j r | - f -mr
~~ settling basin with sludge removal
b/ Raw waste concentrations for the entire flow are gross concentrations
~~ determined by weighting concentrations of normal and cleaning flows
assuming 20 percent of the pollutant load is discharged during cleaning
cl Reported as ml/I
-------
TABU fll-I
STABILIZATION
Renoval Efficiency
Test
Ho.
1*'
&
3
4
9
1
t
now
3/der
8,592
17.638
15.064
9.829
8.213
17.929
12.491
6.339
(mtd)
2.27
4.66
3.98
1.34
2.17
4.63
3.30
1.68
Detention
TiM
(Day*)
4.0
2.0
2.3
6.0
4.2
2.0
2.8
5.5
BOD loading.
Oc«/hec tare-day)
10.2
20.8
31.6
78.6
42.6
73.4
32.2
26.9
(Ib/acre-day)
9.1
18.6
46.0
70.1
38.0
63.9
46.6
24 .U
BOD
39
32
36
48
68
94
61
62
Percent Re
Suspended
Solida
46
40
60
60
65
94
61
63
Moral CfficlencT
UH1-W
44
52
77
78
-
-
NOvM
43
36
41
38
-
-
-
P04-?
19
0
86
87
-
-
-
If !)( I BOB HQICrCnCV \A^V|« rUnoiJ rccvftvca nucavHi, aftBcnvtBiv mm* «.*« 1119 ««vu»a«Kw« ««»» »»«« »» rv««w ».««« w«»«i «»«
~ troor during peek muon. The pollutant moral efficiency with fish in pond* waa comparable to that without fiati in ponda.
b/ Author noted that ponda teated had not yet atabllited.
-------
TABLE VII-8
STABILIZATION PONDS
Effluent Characteristics-
.
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-''
NH3-N
TKN
Total PO^-P
Raw Waste^
(mR/l)
9.5
43
22
0.5
0.54
1.37
1.63
0.25
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
60
-
60
90*'
70
-
SO
80
Effluent
3.8
-
8.8
0.16
-
0.82
0.05
d/ biixucni. tn*»*»fc^c*ADb*wB %s«»|»»^»«.«- ---
~ time at a BOD loading rate of 56 kg/hectare-day (50 Ib/acre-day)
b/ Raw waste concentrations for the entire flow are gross concentrations
~" determined by weighting concentrations of normal and cleaning flow*
assuming 20 percent of pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
c/ Reported as ml/1
I/ Based on results of bench scale settling tests (113)
-------
TABLE VII-10
AERATION AND SETTLING - 5 IIOUR^-
Removal Efficiency
Date
4-23-70
4-24-70
4-25-70
4-26-70
4-26-70
4-27-70
4-30-70
4-30-70
5-01-70
Mean
Values
Detention
Time
(hours)
3.2
3.3
3.65
6.6
5.3
4.92
4.9
5.8
4.4
4.67
Percent Removal
BOD
76.4
63
52
51
67
90
27
46.5
60
59.2
Suspended
33.3
16
80
50
55
'90
90
53
58
58.4
Hh-11
8.6
34
2
27
44
12
10
8.6
10
17.4
NOt-N PO^-?
15.5
-
-
-
65 7
24.5
44 14.5
30 29
12
19.9 6.9
a/ Data are from Reference 140.
-------
TABLE VII-11
AERATION AND SETTLING - 5 HOUR
Effluent Characteristics^'
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-'
MH3-N
TKN
N03-X<
Total PO^-r
Raw Waste^'
(mjt/1)
9.5
43
22
0.5
0.54
1.37
1.63
0.25
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
: i
60
-
60
9(4'
15
-
15
5
Effluent
3.8
-
8.8
<0.1
0.46
-
1.39
0.24
a/ Effluent characteristics expected with 1 to 1-1/2 hours aeration and
3 to 3-1/2 hours settling
b/ Raw waste concentrations for the entire flow are gross concentrations
determined by weighting concentrations of normal and cleaning flows
assuming 20 percent of pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
c/ Reported as ml/1
d/ Assumption based on 3 hours settling
-------
TABLE VI1-12
PILOT PLANT TREATING MIXTURE OF FILTER NORMAL
OVERFLOW AND BACKWASHING WATERS-7
Pollutant
BOD
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids
NH3-N
N03-N
PO^-P
Influent
Concentration
(ng/1)
17.6
42.7
112
34
0.9
"1.9
1.0
Percent
Removal
67
68
20
37
22
48
31
" Concentrations and percent removals tabulated are average of values
for the three tests conducted.
-------
TABLE VI1-13
AERATION AND SETTLING - 10 HOUR-'
Removal Efficiency
Date
11-22-69
11-23-69
11-25-69
11-29-69
12-02-69
12-06-69
12-20-69
12-21-69
12-23-69
12-24-69
Mean
Values
Detention
Tine
(hours)
9.3
9.3
9.3
8.9
8.9
11.9
11.1
10.6
10.8
12
10.2
Influent
BOD
Oas/l)
14.2
13.3
12.7
16.5
18.1
13.1
16.7
14.3
14.4
17.3
15.1
COD
20.8
32
40
21
52
42
27.4
16
27.0
22
30.2
Percent
BOD
; 78
77
78
89
79
81
77
84
i
83
92
82
Removal
COD
52
84
88
15
77
80
86
38
52
68
64
a/ Data are from Reference 130.
-------
TABLE VII-14
AERATION AND SETTLING - 10 HOUR
Effluent Characteristics-
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-'
NH3-N
TKN
NOyN
Total PO^-P
Raw Waste^'
(nc/1)
9.5
43
22
0.5
0.54
1.37
1.63
0.25
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
80
60
-
90*'
-
-
-
"
Effluent
1.9
17
-
<0.1
-
-
-
Effluent characteristics expected with 2 hours aeration and 8 hours
settling
b_/ Raw waste concentrations for the entire flow are gross concentrations
determined by weighting concentrations of normal and cleaning flows
assuming 20 percent of pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
c/ Reported as ml/1
d/ Assumption based on 8 hours settling
-------
TABLE VII-15
RECON'DITIONING^ f
Removal Efficiency
Reconditioning
System
Activated
Sludge
Extended
Aeration .
Trickling
Filter
Up flow
Filter
New Upflow
Filter
1971
Period of
Operation
3/3 to
7/29
3/3 to
7/29
3/3 to
8/16
8/7 to
11/11
8/23 to
11/11
BOD
97
93
86
89 ,
91
Percent
Suspended
Solids
88
95
91
79
Renoval
NH^-N
23
10
69
49
49
PO^-P
(ortho)
24
25
+33
+25 -
+33
(10 percent waste)
b/ Renoval Is expressed In percent based on pollutant production
rates measured in a single-pass system.
£/ Plus sign represents increase
-------
TABLE VI1-16
RECONDITIONING
Equivalent Effluent Characteristics
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-7
NH3-N
TKN
K03-H
Ortho PO^-P
Raw Waste^-7
(mc/1)
9.5
43
22
0.5
0.54
1.37
1.63
0.25
Removal Efficiency
. (percent)
90
-
90
.-
40
-
-
Effluent
(mK/1)
1.0
-
2.2
-
0.32
-
7 A A /* fl 11G A ^h A^
0C WO v9 V * » *m^** «» O^* ^^ ^*" *" ~ "~" "~" ~"~ * ~ "
"" single-pass system, the actual effluent concentrations would be higher.
However effluent concentrations are expressed in terms of an equivalent
single-pass system to simplify comparison.
b/ Raw waste concentrations for entire flow are determined by weighting
~~ concentrations of normal and cleaning flows assuming 20 percent of
pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
c/ Reported as nl/1
-------
TABLE VII-17
HE EFFLUENT Q
FROM NATIVE FISH POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
COMPARISON OF THE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS^
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-'
NHyN
TKN
N03-N
Total PO^-P
Pond Overflow
3.9
29
29
0.30
0.6»
0.43
0.31
Pond Draining
5.1
31
157
5.5
0.39
0.78
0.41
0.13
*l Summarized from data base as described on page
b/ Reported as ml/1
-------
TABLE VI1-18
*
COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS-'
DURING DRAINING OF NATIVE FISH-POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
Pollutant
BOD
COD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids-'
NH3-N
TKN
N03-N
Total P
Start of
Draining
One /I)
5.7
50
43
<0.1
0.08
0.97
0.27
0.19
Pond Half
, Drained
(me/I)
4.8
69
57
<0.1
0.15
0.96
0.23
0.23
Just Prior
To Harvest
11.7
67
253
0.9
0.25
1.41
0.22
i 0.71
ja/ Data are average values for three ponds sampled during draining for
harvesting (74).
b/ Reported as ml/I
-------
TABLE V1I-19
POLLUTANT LOAD ACHIEVABLE THRU ALTERNATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Treatment
TechnoloRT
No Treatment
Settling of
Cleaning Flow
Vacuum Cleaning
Settling Entire
Flow w/o SR
Settling Entire
Flow v SR
Stabilization Fonda
Aeration A Settling
5-Hour
Aeration Settling
10-Hour
Recycle
Reconditioning
Ho Treatment
In-Plant Control
Settling
BOD
.1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
S.I
-
-
Suspended
COO Solida
NATIVE FISH
5.5 2.6
2.2
2.2
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.0
2.2
0.3
- NATIVE FISH -
31 157
m a»
-
Scttleable^
Solids NllvN TKN NOi-N
FLOW-THRU SYSTEMS^
0.5 . 0.09 0.38 0.06
0.4 - - .
0.4 - -
<0.1 ...
<0.1 0.09 0.34 0.06
<0.1 0.03 - 0.03
-------
TABLE VIII-1
KATXVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A-l, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Settling Pond
Plnlne
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3.785 B3/day
(1 vcd)
$ 4,100
500
2.250
$ 6.900
I
$ 3
42
6 45
$ 30
$ 550
360
45
30
$ 985
$ 0.19
$ 0.09
37,850 B3/day
(J10 ned)
$ 5,600
1,000
4,000
$ 10,600
$ 30
92
$ 122
$ 250
$ 850
530
122
250
$ 1,752
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
94,600 «3/day
(25 «Rd)
$ 7.500
1.800
6.000
S 15.300
. 1 .75
156
$ 231
'$ 800
$ 1.250
,770
231
800
$ 3.051
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
378.500 o3/day
(100 med)
$ 10,000
4,000
9,000
$ 23,000
$ 300
406
$ 706
.
$ 1,750
$ 1,850
1,150
706
1.750
$ 5,456
$ 0.01
$ 0.005
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE VXXX-2
BATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURINC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A-2, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY PLOW
.
CAPITAL COSTS:
Collection troughs
and release structures
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
Assumed reduction in
production due to
using fish pond for
settling
3.7B5 »3/day
(1 WRd)
$ 1.100
$ 3
30
$ 13
S 00
$ 88
55
13
00
$ 156
$ 0.03
$ 0.01
50Z
37.850 »3/day
(10 ned)
$ 2,500
$ 30
36
$ 66
$ 00
$ 200
125
66
00
$ 391
$ 0.008
$ 0.003
20Z
94,600 a3 /day
(25 ned)
$ 4.000
$ 75
81
$ .156
$ 00
$ 320
200
156
00
$ 676
$ 0.005
1
t
$ 0.002
12Z
\
378.500 B3/day
(100 ned)
$ 10,000
$ 300
306
$ 606
$ 00
$ 800
500
606
oc
$ 1,906
$ 0.006
S 0.002
9Z
£ Vt> 1** W«»t«^ fc»W»» A^VBVW «VB» H » _-- _--_ .
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE VIII-3
NATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURINC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A-3. COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Settling Pond
Collection troughs and
release structures
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISK PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3,785 B3/day
(1 acd)
$ 550
1.100
$ 1,650
t
$ 3
10
$ 13
$ 00
$ 130
85
13
00
$ 228
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
37,850 B3/day
(10 aed)
$ 1.000
2,500
$ 3,500
$ 30
36
$ 66
$ 00
$ 280
175
66
00
$ 521
$ 0.01
$ 0.005
94,600 B3/day
(25 BKd)
:
$ 1,800
4.000
$ . 5,800
t
$ -«
81
.$ 156
$' 00
1
$ 465
i 290
156
00
$ 911
$ 0.007
$ 0.003
378.500 n3/c!ay
(ICO nr.d)
$ 4.000
10.000
$ 14.000
$ 300
306
$ 606
$ 00
$ 1.100
700
606
00
$ 2.426
$ 0.00)
$ 0 00?
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE TZIZ-4
DATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE B, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Vacuuming and Piping
Settling Pond
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS :
Energy and Power
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
"5ZSES? "'
"SJISS? .
3,785 «3/day
(1 BRd)
$ 1.750
200
$ 1,950
I
6 22
$ 30
$ 160
100
$ 320
$ 0.06
$ 0.03
37,850 B3/day
(10 ngd)
$ 6.200
600
$ 6.800
* 30
$ 107
'"$ 250
$ 540
340
107
250
$ 1.237
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
94,600 B3/day
(25 »e
-------
TABLE VIII-5
BATXVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURINC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C-l, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Fuaping Facilities
Settling Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Hal
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
PISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3,785 B3/day
(1 BKd)
$ 5.000
1.350
3,100
$ 9,450
i «
$ 1,200
300
« 1.500
$ 490
$ 760
470
itenance 1. 500
490
DST $ 3.220
F
$ 0.62
$ 0.28
37.850 B3/day
{10 aed)
$ 14.500
10,600
12.700
$ 37.800
$ 12.000
450
$ 12,450
$ 4,900
$ 3,000
1,900
12,450
4.900
$ 22.250
$ 0.43
$ 0.19
94.600 B3/day
(25 aed)
$ 24,000
20,700
34.500
$ 79.200
$ 28.500
600
$ 29.100
$ 11.750
i
$ 6,350
3.950
29.100
11.750
$ 51.150
$ 0.40
$ 0.18
~k _C tin «<<<> V4c
378,500 B3/day
(100 trpd)
$ 45.000
70.000
70.000
$ 185.000
$ 75.000
2.100
$ 77.100
$ 30.000
$ 15.000
9.200
77,100
30.000
$ 131.300
$ 0.25
$ 0.11
for proouut*o»i **£«*«» *^*«* ** .«. *--. -
Culturiog Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE VIII-6
HATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURINC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C-2.COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Settling Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
5.785 B3/day
(1 aed)
$ 1.350
1.100
$ 2.450
i
$ 1.200
300
S 1.500
$ 260
$ 195
125
1,500
260
37,850 B3/day
{10 Bed)
$ 10,600
2.500
$ 13.100
$ 12.000
450
S 12.450
S 2.600
$ 1,050
650
12,450
2.600
94,600 B3/day
{25 wed)
$ 20,700
4.000
S 24.700
$ 28.500
600
$ 29.100
**"" "'*:
$ 6.*250
$'' 2,000
' 1.250
29.100
6.250
378.500 m3/day
(100 aed)
$ 70,000
10.000
$ 80.000
$ 75,000
2.100
$ 77.100
$ 15.000
$ 6.400
4,000
77 . 100
15.000
$ 2.080 $ 16,750 $ 38.600 $ 102,500
COST PER KILOGRAM OF < - ,Q
FISH PRODUCED* $ 0.40 $ 0.33 $ 0.29 $ 0.20
COST PER POUND OF « O 09
«..__~.i $ 0.18 $ 0.15 $ 0.13 9 u.uy
FISH PRODUCED*
* For production figures refer to the introductory paragraph of Native Fish Flow-Thru
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE VIII-7
HATXVE PISH FLOW-THRU CULTURINC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE D-l, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Puoping Facilities
Settling Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
KAIKTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AKD
POWER COSTS:
Energy end Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Pouer
TOTAL AHKUAL COST
COST PEP. KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3,785 »3/day
(1 n&d)
* 5.000
1.350
3.100
$ 9.450
i
$ 1.300
530
$ 1.830
$ 550
$ 760
470
1,830
550
$ 3.610
$ 0.70
S 0.32
37,850 a3/day
(10 r.ed)
$ 14,500
10.600
12.700
$ 37.800
« 13.500
800
$ 14.300
$ 5,500
$ 3,000
1.900
1A.300
5.500
$ 24,700
$ 0.48
$ 0.22
94,600 m3/day
(25 wed)
1
$ 24.000
20.700
34.500
$ 79,200
$ 32A000
1.100
$ 33.100
4 12.450
$' 6.350
, 3.950
33.100
12.450
$ 55,850
$ 0.43
$ 0.20
378.500 D3/day
(100 n>p(M
$ 45.000
70.000
70.000
$ 185.000
$ 84,000
3.000
$ 87,000
$ 33.000
$ 15,000
9,200
87,000
33.000
$ 144,230
$ 0.28
$ 0.13
£ Wa> §'*' W«*«*W »fc*W»» « *B^W» WW »»
Culturing Systeas portion of Section VIII,
-------
TABLE VZX1-8
NATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE D-2, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Settling Ponds
Collection troughs and
release structures
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AKD
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
'ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3.785 B3/day
(1 Bed)
$ 1.350
600
$ 1.950
i
6 1.300
530
$ 1.830
$ 00
$ 156
98
1.830
00
$ 2,084
$ 0.40
$ 0.18
37.850 B3/day
(10 Bed)
$ 10.600
t 4.000
$ 14.600
$ 13,500
800
$ 14,300
$ 00
$ 1,170
730
14.300
00
$ 16,200
$ 0.31
1
$ 0.14
94,600 a3/day
(25 Bed)
$ 20.700
8.000
$ 28,700
$ 32-, 000
1.100
$ 33.100
$ 00
^ 2.300
. ' 1.450
33.100
00
$ 36,850
$ 0.29
$ 0.13
376.500 «3/day
(100 mcd)
$ 70.000
12.000
$ 82.000
$ 84.000
3.000
$ 87,000
$ 00
$ 6.550
4,100
87,000
00
* 97,650
$ 0.19
$ 0.09
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE VZII-9
NATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURIKG SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE E, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Stabilization Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor
ANNUAL ENERGY AKD
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
AKNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3.785 v3/day
(1 BRd)
S 5.000
34.000
13.000
* 52.000
i
$ 600
6 260
$ «,150
2.600
ee 600
260
$ 7.610
$ 1.48
$ 0.66
37.850 n3/day
(10 red)
$ 14.500
160.000
12.700
$ 187.200
$ 900
$ 2.600
^
$ 15.000
9.360
900
2.600
$ 27,860
$ 0.54
$ 0.24
94.600 B3/day
(25 «c
-------
TABLE VZIX-10
RATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURINC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE F, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOV
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Aeration Equipnent
Aeration Ponds
Settling Ponds
V4«4no
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3.785 «3/day
(1 BKd)
$ 5.000
45.000
1.350
1.850
5.100
$ 58.300
I
$ 1.600
530
2.000
$ A, 130
$ 1.000
$ A. 650
2.860
4.130
1.000
$ 12.640
$ 2.45
$ 1.10
37,850 «3/day
(10 ocd)
$ 14.500
235.000
10,600
15.500
23.700
$ 299.300
$ 16.500
800
4.000
$ 21,300
$ 10.000
$ 24,000
15,000
21.300
10.000
S 70,300
$ 1.37
$ 0.61
94,600 «3/day
(25 ned)
$ 24.000
485.000
20.700
31,200
64.500
$ 625,400
-
$ 40,000
1,100
6.000
$ 47.100
i
1 $ 25.000
$ 50.000
31.300
47,100
25.000
i
$' 153,400
$ 1.19
378,500 n3/day
(100 red)
$ 70.000
750.000
70.000
80,000
95.000
$1,065,000
$ 100,000
1,500
15,000
$ 116.500
$ 70.000
$ 85.000
53.003
116.500
70.000
$ 324.SOO
$ 0.63
$ 0.54 S 0.28
»«>> etf Native Fish Flow- Thru
For production »».b.».- - - -
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
. TABLE VXIX-11
NATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Aeration Equipment
Aeration Ponds
Settling Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST '
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
Aeration Maintenance
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
3.785 »3/day
(1 vcd)
* 5.000
46.500
1,850
3.550
5.100
$ 62,000
i
.$ 1.600
530
2.000
$ 4.130
$ .1.000
$ 4.950
3.100
4,130
1.000
$ 13,180
$ 2.56
$ 1.15
37,850 n3/day
(10 nr.d)
$ 14.500
245,000
15,200
34,000
23.700
$ 332,400
$ 16,500
800
4.000
$ 21,300
$ 10.000
$ 26,500
16.500
21,300
10.000
$ 74,300
$ 1.44
$ 0.65
94.600 B3/day
(25 »cd)
$ 24,000
515,000
33,000
69.000
64.500
$ 705,500
$ 40,000
1.100
6.000
$ 47.100
i
$ 25.000
1
$ 57,000
35,000
47,500
25.000
$ 164,100
$ 1.27
$ 0.57
378.
500 m /day
(100 ircd)
$
$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
70.000
800,000
90,000
140.000
95.000
.195.000
100.000
1,500
15.000
116.500
80.000
95.000
60.000
116.500
80,030
351.500
0.68
0.31
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE VII1-12
HATIVE FISH FLOW-THRU CULTURIHG SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE H. COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
CAPITAL COSTS:
Clarifier
Nitrification Filter
Reacration
donation
Sludge Holding Tank
Punps
Piping
Land
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
3.785 «3/day
(1 eed)
$ 90,000
50,000
110.000
55.000
20.000
10,000
5,100
1.000
$341.100
$ 2,070
15.000
37.850 m3/day
(10 mcd)
$ 250.000
300.000
250.000
195.000
20.000
30.000
23.700
2.000
$1,070.000
$ 17,500
30.000
94,600 « /day
(25 ned)
1
$ 400.000
700.000
600.000
380,000
20.000
' 75,000
: 64,500
4.000
,$2,240rOOO
$ 46,000
45.000
378.500 n3/day
(100 mcd)
$ 700,000
1.000.000
800,000
750,000
50,000
200.000
100,000
6.000
$3.621,000
$ 130.000
60.000
$ 17.070
$ 47.500
,$ 91.000
$ 190.000
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
$ 1.550
$ 14.500
I
$ . 35.000
$ 100.000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital * 27.300
Depreciation 17.000
Operation and Maintenance 17,070
Energy and Power 1.550
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 62.920
$
85,000
53.500
47,500
14.500
$ 180.000
112,000
91.000
35.000
$
290.000
180.000
190.000
100.000
$ 200,500
$ 418,000
$ 760.000
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED*
$ 12.22
3.89
3.25
1.48
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED*
$ 5.50
1.75
1.46
0.66
For production figures refer to the introductory paragraph oi Native Fish - Flow-Thru
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
-------
TABLE VIII-13
NATIVE FISH POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A-l, COST ESTIH.YTE
CAPITAL COSTS:
Site Preparation
Pipinp Modifications
Outlet Structure
TOTAL COST
$ 200
300
1.000
$1,500
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor and Materials
2 Percent Fish Loss*
Chlorlnation (CLj)
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST WITI1 CL
$ 60
20
(1.000)
$ 80
(1,080)
ANNUAL ENERGY AND P017ER COSTS:
Energy and Power
00
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS INCLUDING DISINFECTION
$ 150
150
80
00
$ 380
(1,380)
COST PER KILOGRAM OF FISH PRODUCED
COST PER POUND OF FISK PRODUCED
FOR OPERATION REQUIRING DISINFECTION
THE COST ARE:
Cost Per Kilogram of Fish Produced
Cost Per Pound of Fish Produced
* Based on $0.44 Ib value of live fish (269)
$ 0.42
$ 0.19
(1.52)
(0.69)
r
-------
TABU:
NATIVE FISH POUT) CULTURINC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A-2, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS: $ °°
ANNUAL OPERATIC:? AND MAINTENANCE COSTS :
Labor and Material $ 60
2 Percent Fish Loss* 20
Chlorination (CL2> OjOOO)
TOTAL COST 80
TOTAL COST WITH CLj (1,080)
ANNUAL ENERGY AND POVER COSTS:
Energy and Power $ °°
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital $ °°
Depreciation ; °°
H Maintenance
00
Operation and Maintenance
Energy
1 80
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 80
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS INCLUDING DISINFECTION (1,080)
COST PER KILOGRAM OF FISH PRODUCED $ 0-J9
COST PER POUND OF FISH PRODUCED S0.04
FOR OPERATION REQUIRING DISINFECTION
THE COST ARE:
Cost Per Kilogram of Fish Produced Cl.19)
Cost Per Pound of Fish Produced (0.54)
* Based on $0.44 Ib value of live fish (269).
-------
TABLE VIII-15
NATIVE FISH PONT) CULTURIKC SYSTTIS
'ALTERNATIVE B, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS:
Trenching $3,800
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor $ 180
ANNUAL ENERGY AND POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power $ 00
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
Loss of Fish Production*
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $1,150
COST PER "KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED $ 0.13
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED $ 0.06
* This figure assures a cost of land of $2,000 and a cost of
prior improvements of $2,000. With a net rate of return of
10 percent on investments, the culturist would experience
a $400 per year opportunity cost on this invested capital.
-------
TABLE VIII-16
NATIVE FISH POTJD CULTURI'IG SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS:
Seine and Winch equipment $1,600
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor
ANNUAL EJIERGY AI.'D PO'.JER COSTS:
Energy and Power $ 150
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital $ 16°
Depreciation 22°
Operation and Maintenance 800
Energy and Power *50
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS flt330
'COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED $ 0.13
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED 5 0.06
-------
TABLE VIII-17
NON-NATIVE FISH CtTT.TURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS: $ °°
ANNUAL OPERATION AN!) MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor « £
Chlorine -2ii
TOTAL COST $ 90
ANNUAL ENERGY AND POWER COSTS: $ 00
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital $ J°
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance j"
Energy and Power -2i
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $ 90
COST PER FISH PRODUCED
Production of 10,000/pond/yr
-------
TABLE V1II-18
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTVRr;G SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE B, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS:
Diatomaceous Earth Filter $1,100
Ultraviolet Disinfection 2,700
Piping
Surge Tank
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor
Diatomaceous Earth
TOTAL COST $ 900
ANNUAL ENERGY AND POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
20
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $2,120
COST PER FISH PRODUCED
Production of 10,000/pond/yr $ 0.02
-------
TABLE VIII-19
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURIHC SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C. COST ESTIMATE
Spray
Irrigation
Percolation
Pond
CAPITAL COSTS:
Land
Earthwork
Pump and Piping
Hose
TOTAL COST
$2,000
00
1,300
l.SOO
$4,800
$ 500
6,000
2,800
00_
$9,300
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS;.
Labor
$1.600
$1,200
ANNUAL EJTERCY AND PO'.TER COSTS:
. Energy and Power
25
$ 10
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$ 580
560
1,600
25_
i $2,765
$ 930
560
1,200
10
$2,700
COST PER FISH PRODUCED
Production of 10,000/pond/yr
$0.028
$0.027
-------
TABU nn-ie
COST fsrnuTts* m* ALTBVIATE TMATWW
Hatcher* Plnv
1.T8S m'/day J7.«0 «J/«laT «*.«» '/<?
Alternative Cl »*) 10 !) Cl* ee«_
Y-l srrn.T«c or CLXMaMR FUM
(In. ce fiev toad)
«-2 Kmmc or CUAHIKC yunu
(gravity flow to
xletini pond)
>3 Semite or GUAKINC now
(gravity flev ce MM pond)
B VACODK cuAinn:
e-i stmin or emu nnv
wnarr SUIDCE KIXOVAI
BiB> 4 « f 4 » _
0.0)
(0.02)
O.OOB
(0.003)
0.01
(0.005)
0.02
(0.01)
0.43
(0.19)
0.33
(0.13)
0.48
(0.22)
- 0.31
(0.14)
0.54
(0.24)
1.37
(0.61)
1.44
(0.63)
3.89
(1.75)
0.42
(0.19)
0.09
(0.04)
0.13
(0.06)
0.13
(0.06)
.01
0.02
0.03
( (Uh predocad
0.02
(0.01)
0.005
(0.002)
0.007
j(0.003)
0.017
(0.008)
0.40
(0.18)
0.29
(0.13)
0.43
(0.20)
0.29
(0.13)
0.46
(0.21)
1.19
(O.S4)
1.27
(0.37)
3.25
(1.46)
378. JOO .'/d«y
(100 *-d)
0.01
- (0.005)
0.004
(0.002)
0.003
(o.oo:)
0.01
(o.eoi)
0.26
(0.12)
0.20
(0.09)
O.28
(0.1))
0.19
(0.09)
0.22
(0.10)
0.6)
(0.21)
0.68
(0.31)
1.41
(0.66)
-------
TABLE VIII-21
ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER POUND OF FISH
PRODUCED FOR THE INCREASING LEVELS OF
POLLUTION CONTROL - 25 MGD PLANT
Energy Consumption
BTU's per Ib of fish
Level of
Level A
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level C
Level D
Level D
Level E
Level F
Level G
Level H
Technology
- Gravity Flow
- Pumping
- Gravity Flow
- Pumping
- Gravity Flow
- Pumping
Pumping
- Pumping
Pumping
Gravity flow Pumping
Assumed Assumed
500 BTU/lb
of fish
668
668
5,200
9,' 800
3,300 |
10.AOO
5,200
20; 900
20.900
30,000
-------
TABLE VIII-22
COMPARISON OF THE INCREASE IN PER CAPITA
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR SELECTED LEVELS OF
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY WITH THE 1972 OVERALL
AVERAGE PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION
Level of Technology
Level A Gravity Flow
Level A - Pumping
Level B
Level C - Gravity Flow
Level C - Pumping
Level 0 - Gravity Flow
Level D - Pumping
Level H
1972*
Per Capita
Energy
Consumption
(BTU/Cap.)
340 x 106
340 x 106
340 x 106
340 x 106
340 x 106
340 x 106
340 x 106
340 x 106
Additional**
Energy Required
by Treatment
Per Capita
(BTU/Cap.)
50
67
67
520
980
330
i
1,040
3,000
*EPA, NERC, Cincinnati, "Impact of Environmental Control
Technology on the Energy Crisis", News of Environmental
Research. Jan. 1, 1974.
** The data in Section III indicate that an estimate of
20 million pounds of annual production by fish hatcheries
In 1973 appears reasonable. Per capita energy increases
are determined by multiplying the energy consumption
figures in the preceding table by the annual production
of fish and dividing by 200,000,000 persons.
-------
TAB D. PROFILE OP THE PISH
UATCHERIES AHD FARMS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Sub category
f Plants^'
Z Direct
Discharges
Mature of
BPT
BPT
Based Upon
Native Fish-
Flow-thru culturing
systems 685
Native Fish-
Pond culturing
systems 986
Non-native fish
culturing systems 149
99
95
33
Sedinentation or .
vacuum cleaning-
Controlled
draining^'
No discharge or
filtration and
disinfection5-'
Current
practice
Transferred
technology
Current
practice
a/ The value shown represents the number of operations identified during the
NFIC-Denver studies of the fish culturing industry. The exact number of
facilities is not known because the census of private-owned operations
that culture or hold fish is incomplete.
b_/ Pollutant parameters for which available data Justifies limitations are
suspended and settleable solids.
£/ Pollutant parameters for which available data justifies limitations are
settleable solids and in certain operations fecal coliform bacteria.
d/ Pollutant parameters for which available data justifies limitations are
"" biological pollutants.
------- |