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be  superseded  by  revisions  prior  to formal .proposal and    14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 fish—flow-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 fish—pond    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  Fish—Flow-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 Culturina—The 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 Culturina—With 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 Culturina—Conventional  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 Culturing—The  rationale  given  above  for   I 1458
native—flshTulturing  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 Culturing—Basically,  fish  hatcheries and  farms  |  1468
Ire—designed   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 Culturing—Raceway 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 Culturinq—The 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 Culturina—The 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  Culturina—Cold-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 Culturinq—The  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   Culturinq—Raw   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.

Bacteria—Fish  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 Hosts—The 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).            ""

Molluscs—Zn 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) .

Copepoda—It 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).
Fish—Non-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.

Solids—Two  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  Solids—The  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   conservation—Water   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

-------
,^>.     Practices—Feeding  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   Practices—Periodic   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   Distribution—Another  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   Conservation—The   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  Practices—In  -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 ces—Usually  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   Distribution—Control   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   Practices—During  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 conservation—Because  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  Practices—Some  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    Practices—Control    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  Flow—cleaning 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!ng—Cleaning 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 Removal—Settling
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   Removal—Removal
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 Ponds—Stabilization  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

Reconditioning—Reconditioning   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  Rate—Ponds  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   Pond—In  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.

Chlorination—Chlorination  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  Disinfection—This   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  Processing—A   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.

-------