ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT

                 DRAFT
          DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
   PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
   AND  NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                   FOR THE
      FISH  HATCHERIES AND FARMS
              POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER-DENVER
              DENVER, COLORADO
                 APRIL  1974

-------
NOTICE
The attached document is a DRAFT REPORT. It includes technical
information and recommendations submitted by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regarding the subject industry. It Is
being distributed for review and comment only.
The report, including the recommendations, will be undergoing
extensive review by EPA, Federal and State agencies, public interest
organizations and other interested groups and persons during the coining
weeks. The report, and in particular, the recommended effluent limit-
ation guidelines and standards of performance are subject to change in
any and all respects.
The regulations to be published by EPA under Section 304(b) and 306
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, will be based to
a large extent on the report and the comments received on it. However,
pursuant to Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act, EPA will also consider
additional pertinent technical and economic information which is developed
in the course of review of this report by the public and within EPA.
EPA is currently performing an economic impact analysis regarding the
subject industry, which will be taken into account as part of the review
of the final report. Upon completion of the review process, and prior
to final promulgation of regulations, an EPA report will be Issued
setting forth EPA’s conclusions concerning the subject industry, ef flu-
ent limitation guidelines, and standards of performance applicable to
such industry. Judgments necessary to promulgation of regulations under
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act, of course, remain the responsibility
of EPA. Subject to these limitations, EPA is making this Draft Report
available in order to encourage the widest possible participation of
interested persons in the decision making process at the earliest possible
time. Persons desiring to make comments on this document should do so
by May 17, 1974. Written comments should be submitted to Robert Schneider
of the EPA National Field Investigations Center, Box 25227, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, Colorado, 80225 (303/234—2481).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Water Programs
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D. C. 20460

-------
          DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR

  PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

        AND .STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

                   FOR THE
          FISH HATCHERIES AND FARMS
            POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
              Prepared for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
      Office of Air and Water Programs
        Effluent Guidelines Division
              Washington, D. C.
                 April 1974
   Project Officer - Robert F. Schneider
               Prepared by the
       Environmental Protection Agency
            Office of Enforcement
 National Field Investigations Center-Denver
              Denver, Colorado

-------
REVIEW NOTICE
This document presents conclusions and recommendations of a study con-
ducted for the Effluent Guidelines Division, United States- Environmental
Protection Agency, in support of proposed regulations providing effluent
limitations guidelines and new source standards for the fish hatcheries
and farms point source category.
The conclusions and recommendations of this document may be subject to
subsequent revisions during the document review process, and as a result,
the proposçd guidelines for effluent limitations as contained within this
docun ent may be superseded by revisions prior to final promulgation of
the regulations in the Federal Register as required by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92. 5OO).
iii

-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of a study of the fish hatcheries
and farms industry for the purpose of developing effluent limitations
guidelines, Federal standards of performance, and pretreatment standards
for the industry, to 1tn 1ement Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the “Act”).
Effluent limitations guidelines are set forth for the degree of ef flu-
ent reduction attainable through the application of the “Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available,” and the “Best Available Tech-
nology Economically Achievable,” which must be achieved by existing
point sources by July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1983, respectively. The
“Standards of Performance for New Sources” set forth the degree of
effluent reduction which is achievable through the application of the
best available demonstrated control technology 1 processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives. The proposed regulations require that
the native fish flow—thru culturing systems segment of the industry
provide by July 1, 1977, vacuum cleaning of culturing units or sedi-
mentation of their cleaning waste flow with sludge removal before
discharge to navigable waters. For the native fish pond culturing
systems segment of the industry, the 1977 requirements are settleable
solids reduction through controlled discharge of pond draining water.
The non—native fish culturing systems segment of the industry is re-
quired to achieve no. discharge of wastewater pollutants with land
disposal by July 1,1977. By July 1, 1983, the native fish flow—thru
culturing systems will be required to achieve greater reductions in
pollutants discharged by the sedimentation of their entire waste flow
with sludge removal. The 1983 requirements for the other two segments
of the industry are the same as for 1977. Newsource performance
standards for all three segments of the industry are the same as the
1983. requirements.
Supportive data and rationale for development of the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance are contained in
this report.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFOR}IATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
V

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . - . . . . . xlii
LISTOFFIGTJRES . . . •....... xvii
I. CONCLUSIONS
II. RECO !ENDATIONS . . . . 5
INTRODUCTION . .
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Legal Authority
Existing Point Sources
New Sources . . . . * .
Summary and Basis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines for Existing Sources
and Standards of Performance and Pretreatment
• Standards for New Sources . . . . . . . .
General Methodology . . . .
NATIVE FISH - GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF
THEINDEJSTRY
Industry Growth
Types of Facilities
Location of Facilities . . .
Fish Cultured
Raw Materials
Production Process
NON-NA’rIvE P1 5 1 - i - GENERAL. DESCRIPTION
THEINDTJSTRY .
Industry Growth . . . . . . .. .
Types of Facilities
Location of Facilities . . .
RawMaterials
Production Process . . . . .
IV. INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
FACTORS OR VARIABLES CONSIDERED
Product
REVIEWNOTICE . .
- ABSTR.ACT .
Page
. . . . . ._ . iii
.. p . . • V
III.
. . p
p p • • • p p p
9
9
9
9
10
11
11
p. p p p p p
OF
• I
• S
• S
. • . 14
• . . 14
• . . . 21
• . . 23
• • . 26
• . p • 34
p. • • 37
• . . . 43
• . • p 43
• p • p 45
• . • . 46
• . • . 48
• p p p 50
53.
53
53
vii

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
12. Salmonella , Coliforrns, and
Fecal Streptococci .
Page
6 l
62
62
:63
7.3 ’
76
80
- •80
•81
85
85
86
86
86
• 86
86
86
$ 87
87
87
Wastes Generated
Native Fish Culturing
a
.
54
54
Non—Native Fish Culturing
$.
55
Treatability of Wastewater
,
.
.
.
55’
Native Fish Culturing
‘
55
Non-Native Fish Culturing
56
Production Process
$
...‘
.
56
Native Fish Culturing.
.
,.
56’
Non—Native Fish Culturing
57
Facility Size and Age
$
.
57
Native Fish Culturing
57
Non—Native Fish Culturing
57
Geographic Location
58
Native Fish Culturing
SR
Non—Native Fish Culturing
.
$
58
Raw ‘laterials
58
Native Fish Culturinz . .
.
.
.
58
Non—Native Fish Culturin t
59
Subcategorization
$
.59
7 V.
‘WASTE CI IARACTERISTICS
NATIVE FISH
Oxygen and Oxygen-Demanding Constituents
Solids
Nutrients
Bacteria . .
NON-NATIVE FISH
Oxygen Derianding Constituents, Solids,
Nutrients, and Flow $
Biological Pollutants
Bacteria . $ . .
1. Aerornonas $ .
2. Clostridium .. . . .
3. Chbñdrococcus
4. Escherichia .. a . .
5. Erysipelothrix $ a
6. Le tospira
7. Listeria a,. • .
8. Nycobacterium
9. Nocardia a
10. Paracolon . • . . • .
11. Pasteurella
87
viii

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page
13. Shigella
14. Staphylococcus
15. Vibrio . .
Protozoan Parasites
Helminthic Diseases and Snail Hosts
1. Clonorchis sinensis . .
2. Fasciola hepatica . . .
3. Gyrodactylus
4. Paragonimus westermani
5. Philophthalxnus megalurus
6. Schistosoma sp.
7. Other Trematodes
8. Netnatodes . . . . .. . . .
Molluscs
1. Marisa
2. Corbicula
3. Melanoides t,uberculatus
Copepods
Fish -.
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
WAS TEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE
Selected Parameters
Rationale
Solids
1. Suspended Solids
2. Settleable Solids . .
Ammonia Nitrogen
Bacteria (Fecal Coliform)
F lows . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
CURRENT STANDARD OF PRACTICE
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
IN -PLANT CONTROL MEASURES
Native:Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Water .Conse ation
Feeding Practices
Cleaning Practices
FishDistribution
• . . . 90
91
• . • . 91
91
91
• • . . . 93
• • . . • 93
• . ,. . . 94’
94
• . .. . • 95
• . . . . 95
96
.. . . • . 96
• . . . . ‘97
97
97
• . . . • 97
• . . . • 98
. 98
• • . . . 101
• VI.
VII.
• . .
• . .
. S •
• . • . 101
101
• . . • 104
• . . • 104
• . 104
• . 105
• . . . 105
• . 106
107
• . 109
• . 109
• . 109
11O
112
• . 113
113’
• . 113
• . 114
• . 115
119
ix

-------
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cant.)
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Water Conservation . . . . .
Feeding Practices . .
Cleaning Practices
Fish Distribution . . . . . •
Pond Draining and Harvesting Practices
Non—Native F ish Culturing Systems . . . .
WaterConservátion . . . . . . . .
Feeding Practices
Pond Draining and Harvesting Practices
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Native Fish - - Flow—thru Culturing System
Settling of Cleaning Flow
VacuumCleaning
Settling of Entire Flow Without
Sludge Removal . . . . . . . . . . .
Settling of Entire Flow with
SludgeRemoval
Stabilization Ponds • .
Aeration and Settling (5 hours) . . .
Aeration and Settling (10 hours) . .
Reconditioning
Native Fish —- Pond Culturing Systems .
Draining at aControlled Rate . . . .
Draining Through Another Pond . . • .
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
Chlorination
Filtration and Ultraviolet Disinfection . .
No Discharge (Land Disposal)
Summary • •
120
120
120
121
121
121
122
122
• . 123
• 123
• 123
• 124
124
126
129
• 132
• 136
• 140
145
• 148
• 151
]51
155
• 155
156
157
159
161
.VIiI.
COST, ENERGY, AND OTHER NON-WATER
QUALITY ASPECTS. . • . . . . . .. • • •
INTRODUCTION .••••
NATIVE FISH —- FLOW—THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
Alternative A —- Settling of Cleaning Flow
Alternative B —— Vacuum Cleaning • .
Altern3tive C-—- Settling of Entire Flow
Without Sludge Removal
Alternative D —— Settling of Entire Flow
With Sludge Removal
• • 163
• . 163
• 164
• 165
• •165
• . 165
19
x

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cant.)
Pa ge
• • 169
169
173
173
173
• • 176
• 176
• 176
• . 176
• . 177
• . 177
• 179
• • 179
• . 179
181
183
• . 183
l83..
• 185
185.
185
187
191
191
Alternative .E — — Stabilization Ponds ..
Alternative F — — Aeration and Settling
(5hours)
Alternative C — — Aeration and Settling
(10 hours)
Alternative H — — Reconditioning
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) .•
NATIVE FISH - - POND CULTURING. SYSTEMS .
Cost of Achieving Best Available Teéhnology
Economically Achievable (BATEAY
Cost of Achieving New Source Performance.
Standards (NSPS) • •,.
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment
Requirements (PRETREAT)
NON—NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
Alternative A —— Chlorination . . ... - .
Alternative B —— ‘Filtration and
Ultraviolet Disinfection .
Alternative C — — No Discharge With
Land DisposaL • .1 . . . . .
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
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
INTRODUCTION
IX.
xi

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Native Fish — — Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Native Fish — — Pond Culturing Systems •
Non—N3tive Fish Culturing Systems .
RATIONALE FOR SELECTIQN OP TECHNOLOGY :
Native . Fish — — Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Native Fish — — Pond Culturing SyStems
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems . . ‘
EFFLUENT REDUOTION 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
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Native Fish — — Pond Culturing Systern
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems .
NEW SOURCE PERFOENANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION...
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE
PERFOR 1MCE STANDARDS • • • . •
Native Fish ——Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems. •
XII. PRRTREATI ENT TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . , . . .., •
XtII. ‘ REFERENCES . ,
XIV. ACKNOWLEDGr IENTS . . . . , •
XV , GLOSSARY
DEFINITIONS
SYi IBOLS
K.
XI.
• . 192
• 192
• . 193
• ! 194
• , 195
• 195
196
• .. 198
• • 201
• . 2O1-
• 202
202
201
204
• - . 2O4
204
• 205
• 205
• •• 207
207
• 208
2O8
• . 208
• 208
209.
211
• 233
• . 235
235
• 236:
xii

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page
I—i. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS_NATIVE FISH
CULTURING SYSTEMS . . . . . . • • 2
11—2 LEVEL I EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
JULY1,1977 6
11—2 LEVEL II EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS-JULy 1, 1983
AND LEVEL III EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
NEWSOTJRCES ..•••••• 7
1 11— 1 TROUT PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND
STATE HATCHERIES PROJECTED THROUGH
THE YEAR 2000 (FROM REFERENCE 244) 17
111—2 WARN—WATER FISH PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL
AND STATE HATCHERIES PROJECTED THROUGH
THE YEAR 2000 (FROM REFERENCE 244) 19
111—3 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF STATE, FEDERAL
AND PRIVATE FISH—CULTURING FACILITIES IN
THE UNITED STATES THAT REAR NATIVE FISH . . 24
111—4 NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES . 27
111—5 CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL OF INFECTIOUS
DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR OTHER FISH -
PRODUCTION RELATED REASONS 38
V—i OXYGEN-DEMANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS
FROM FLOW—T}IRU FACILITIES CULTURING
NATIVEFISH. . 65
V—2 OXYGEN—DEMANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS
FROM CULTURING PONDS BEING DRAINED DURING
FISH HARVESTING ACTIVITIES . . . 67
V—3 SOLIDS CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS FROM
FLOW—THRTJ FACILITIES CULTURING NATIVE FISH 70
V—4 SOLIDS CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS FROM
CULTURING PONDS BEING DRAINED DURING FISH
HARVESTING ACTIVITIES • . . . . . . . . . . .. 72
xiii

-------
LIST OP TABLES (Cont.)
ag&
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS flOM
FLOW-THRU FACILITIES CULTURING NATTVE ‘ISH
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS FROII
CULTURING PONDS BEING DRAINED DURING FISH
HARVESTING ACTIVITIES . 71
7—7 SOURCES OF COLIFORM BACTERIA IN A COLORADO
TROUTIIAT IIERY .........
V—8 SALMONELLA ISOLATIONS FROM A FLORIDA
TROPICAL FISH FARM (NOVE ER12—16, 1973) . . . 84
V—9 BACTERIAL DENSITIES—FLORIDA TROPICAL
FISH FARM (NOVEMBER 12—16, 1973) . . . . . 88
VI I—i SETTLING OF CLEANING WASTES
Removal Efficiency 127
ViI- -2 SETTLING OF CLEANING WASTES
Effluent Characteristiês . . . . . . . ;. • . 128
VII—3 SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITHOUT SLUDGE RENOVAL
Removal Efficiency . .. . . . • . -‘ . 13O
VU 1- . -4. SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITHOUT SLUDGE
Effluent Characteristics : 131
SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITH SLUDGE REMOVAL :
Removal Efficiency - . •
V1I 6i SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITH SLUDGE } E 1OVAL
Effluent Characteristics . . . 1-35
STABILIZATION PONDS.
Removal Efficiency .. . F37
STABILIZATION PONDS
Effluent Characteris ti’cs . • . . 4. .. • 139
DWORSHAK PILOT PLANT INFLUENT FILTER NORMAL:
OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
AERATION AND.. SETTLING — 5 HOUR
Removal Efficiency . . . 142-
xiv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table No. Page
Vu—li AERATION AND SETTLING — 5 HOUR
Effluent Characteristics . . 143
VII-12 PILOT PLANT TREATING MIXTURE OF FILTER
NORMAL OVERFLOW AND BACKWASHING WATER 144
VII—13 AERATION AND SETTLING - 10 hOUR
Removal Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
VII—14 AERATION AND SETTLING - 10 HOUR
Effluent Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 14T
VII— 15 RECONDITIONING 0
Removal Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
VII-16 RECONDITIONING
Equivalent Effluent Characteristics 150
VII—17 COMPARISON OF THE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
FROM NATIVE FISH -- POND CULTURING SYSTEMS . . 153
VII-18 COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
DURING DRAINING OF NATIVE FISH-POND
CULTURING SYSTEMS 154
VII-19 POLLUTANT LOAD ACHIEVABLE TIIRU ALTERNATE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . 162
VIII—i NATIVE FISH -— FLOW—ThIRtY .CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A, COST ESTIMATE 166
VIII-2 NATIVE FISH -— FLOW—ThIRtY CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE 13, COST ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . 167
VIII-3 NATIVE FISH -- FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C, COST ESTIMATE . 168
VIII—4 NATIVE FISH —— FLOW—THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE D, COST ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . 170
VIII—5 NATIVE FISH —— FLOW—ThIRtY CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE E, COST ESTIMATE . 171
VIII—6 NATIVE FISH —— FLOW—TI -iRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE F, COST ESTIMATE 172
xv

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table No. Page
VIII-7 NATIVE FISH — - FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE G, COST ESTIMATE . . . 174
VIII—8 NATIVE FISH — FLOW -TIIRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE H, COST ESTIMATE . . . . 175
V III—9 NATIVE FISH — — POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A, COST ESTIMATE . . 178
VI II —lO NON—NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A, COST ESTIMATE . 180
VIII— ll NON—NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE B, COST ESTIMATE 182
VIII—l2 NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURIN SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C, COST ESTIAMTE . . . . . . . . 184
VIII—13 COST ESTIMATES FO1 ALTEkNATE
TREAT NT TECHNOLOGIES - . . 186
V III- 14 SLUDGE VOLUI€S - 1 ATIVE FISH —— FLOW—THRU
CULTURING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES . a - 188
xvi

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No .
1 1 1—1 Types of Water—Plow Systems Used
in Fish Culturing 22
1 11—2 Typical Native Fish—Culturing
Process Diagram 42
1 11—3 Non-Native Fish Culturing
Process Diagram 51
V—l SOD Production and DO Uptake Rates
Versus Fish Size (139) 63
xvii

-------
SECTION I.
CONCLUSIONS
For the purposes of establishing effluent limitation guidelines
and standards of performance, the fish culturing industry has been
divided* into three subcategories, based on product and culturing pro-
cess. Other factors, including wastes generated, treatability of
wastewater, facility size and age, geographic location and raw mater-
ials were considered but do not justify further subcategorization.
The subcategories are:
1. Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
2. Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
3. Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
Data were summarized to arrive at waste characteristics for each
subcategory. Waste characteristics for the native fish subcategories
are shown in Table I—i.
Non—native fish are cultured in pond systems. Therefore, with the
exception of biological pollutants, waste characteristics are the same
as for native fish pond culturing systems.
The current standard of practice in the native fish culturing
industry is no treatment of wastewater discharges. An estimated 12 per-
cent of the flow—thru systems and one percent of the pond culturing
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
2
TABLE 1-1
WASTE CHARACTER. ISTICS - NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
Flow- thru
Culturing System Pond Cu1tu ing
Waste (kg/100 kg fish Systeth
Constituent on hand/day) ( mg/i )
BOD 1.3 5.1
COD 5.5 31
Suspended Solids 2.6 157
Settleable So1ids - ’ 0.8 5.5
N11 3 —N 0.09 0.39
TIU 0.38 0.78
N0 3 —N O.O6 0.41
Total P0 4 —P 0.03 0.13
Fecal Co1iform ’ 28 2OO
a! Characteristics are for draining discharges th ly becau e 1ow-thrü
ponds are considered f1o .i—thrU culturing systems.
b/ Reported as mill.
c/ Reported as number of bacteria per 100 thi of water.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECO NDATI0NS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON CO1’4NENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
3
systems provide treatment. In non—native fish culturing, an estimated
60 percent of the operations discharge to municipal sewage treatment
facilities, an estimated 33 percent discharge to. surface waters without
treatment, and an estimated 7 percent use land disposal to achieve no
discharge of wastewaters to surface waters.
Technology is available to improve the quality of discharges from
fish culturing facilities. In—plant control measures can be incorpor-
ated to reduce the level of pollutants discharged. Eight treatment
methods, providing different levels of pollutant reduction, have been
identified for flow—thru systems culturing nat ive fish. Three control
and treatment methods have been identified for native fish pond cultur-
ing systems, and three have been identified for non—native fish cultur-
ing. Cost estimates for alternatives in each subcategory have been made
and are summarized in. Table V1II—l3.
It is concluded that the Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently. Available (BPCTCA) for the Native Fish —— Flow—Thru Culturing
Systems subcategory is treatment of the cleaning flow by sedimentation
or vacuum cleaning. This technology will eliminate slug discharges of
pollutants associated with cleaning wastes and in terms of total pollu-
tant load will remove 15 percent of the BUD and suspended solids. The
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) is sediment-
ation of the entire flow with sludge removal. This treatment method
will remove 35 percent of the BOD and 50 .perc nt of the. suspended solids.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMNENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
4
Both BPCTCA and BATE.A or the Native Fish—Pond Culturing Systems
subcategory are shown to be in—plant control of draining discharges
consisting of: ‘(a) draining at a controlled rate; (b) draining through
another rearing pond or settling pond; or (c) harvesting without drain-
ing. Each of these measures can remove at least 40 percent of the
settleable solids.
It is also concluded that BPCTCA and BATEA for the Non—Native Fish
Culturing Systems subcategory is no discharge with land disposal. This
will eliminate the discharge of pOllutants.
Furthermore, BPCTCA and BATEA can be impletnented by the fish
culturing industryby July 1, 1977, and July l 1983, respectively.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECO 4NENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION.
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL’ REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
5
SECTION II.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Presented herein are the recommended effluent limitations guide-
lines for the fish culturing industry. Limitations written in terms
of daily or thirty—day values will be monitored for compliance with
24—hour composite sampling. Limitations written in terms of instan-
taneous values should be monitored for compliance with grab sampling.
Maximum one—day values are 1.3 times the thirty—day value. The value
of 1.3 was chosen on the basis that the treatment systems recommended
accomplish pollutant removals through entirely physical means and thus
are considered stable processes.
It is recommended that the Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available be implemented by the fish culturing industry on
or before July 1, 1977. It is further recommended that the effluent
limitations indicated in Table 11—1 be adopted as Level I technology
achievable through the implementation of BP.CTCA.
It is recommended that the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable be implemented by the fish culturing industry on or before
July 1, 1983. It is further recommended that the effluent limitations
indicated in Table 11—2 be adopted as Level II technology achievable
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
6
TABLE 11-1
LEVEL. I EFFLUENT LIMITATI0NS - JULY 1, 1977
kg/lO0 kg fish on hand/day Maximum tr istan-
Parapieter Max. Daily - ‘ Avg. Daily taneöüs (mg’/l )
NATIVE. FISH — - FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
Suspended Solids 2.9 2.2
Settleable SolidS ’ . . 0. 2
NH 3 —N 0.12 0.b9
Fecal ColiformS ’ . 200 organisms/lOO nil
NATIVE FISH -— POND CULTURING SYStEMS
Settleable Solids - ’ . 33
Fecal Coliform ’ .. . . — . . 200 organisrns/lOO ml
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
No discharge of process wastewater. pollutants
a/ Effluent limitations are net values.
b/ Reported as nil/I. Limit T ation applies to cleaninj culturing u its
containing fish or cleaning after fish have been removed.
/ Salmonid operations are excluded from this effluent limitation..
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMAT ION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE. SUBJECT . TO CHANGE BASED flON CQMMENTS. RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
7
TABLE 11—2
LEVEL II EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS!’ — JUlY 1, 1983
and
LEVEL III EFF LUENT LIMITATIONS-i’. — NEW SOURCES
kg/l00 kg fish on hand/day Maximum Instan-
Para meter Max. Daily Avg. Daily taneous ( /1 )
NATIVE FISH -— FLOW—THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
Suspended Solids 1.7 1.3
Settleable So1ids ’ <0.1 0.2
NH 3 —N 0.12 0.09
Fecal Coliform ’ 200 organisms/100 ml
NATIVE FISH -— POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
Settleable So1ids ’ 3.3
Pecal Coliforn2i 200 organismsllOO ml
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
a/ Effluent limitations are net values.
b/ Reported as mill. Limitation applies to cleaning culturing units
containing fish or cleaning after fish have been removed.
ci Salmonid operations are excluded,from this effluent limitation.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
8
through the implementation of BATEA. The effluent limitations pre-
sented in Table 11—2 are also recommended as New Source Performance
Standards or Level HI6echnology.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION I
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
9
SECTION III.
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE A111) AUThORITY
Legal Authority
Existing Point Sources —— Section 301(b) of the Act requires the
achievement by not later than July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations
for poInt sources, other than publicly—owned treatment works, which
require the application of the best, practicable control technology
currently available as defined by the Administrator pursuant to sec-
tion 304(b) of the Act. Section 301(b) also requires the achievement
by not later than July 1, 1983, of effluent limitations for point
sources, other than publicly—owned treatment works, which require
the application of the best available technology economically achiev-
able which will result in reasOnable further progress toward the na—
tional goa1 of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as deter-
mined in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator pur-
suant to section 304(b) of the Act.
Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish
regulations providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting
forth the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology currently available
and the degree’ of effluent reduction attainable through the applica—’
tion of the best control measures and practices achievable including
treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating
methods and other alternatives. The regulations proposed herein set

-------
10
forth effluent limitations guidelines, pursuant to section 304(b) of
the Act, for the fish culturing facilities source category. As such,
it covers only facilities in the United States that culture Or hold
native or non—native species. It does not address fish piers, fish
outs, fishing preserves, frog farms, oyster beds, mariculture, or
aquaculture facilities as covered by Section 318.
New Sources —- Section 306 of the Act requires the achievement by
new sources of a Federal standard of performance providing for the con-
trol of the discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree
of effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to he achiev-
able through application of the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternat vcs, in-
cluding, where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of
pollutants.
Section 307(c) of the Act requires the Adtninistrator to promul-
gate pretreatment standards for new sources at the same ,tjme that stap—
dards of performance’ for new sources are promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 306.
Section 304(e) of the Act requires the Admin st ator to issue to
the States and appropriate water pollution control agencies nforiua—
tion on the processes, procedures or operating jnethod,s wh c1 re,si i1t in
the elimination or reduction of the discharge of pollutants to imple—
ment standards of performance under section 306 of the Act. This
Development Document provides, pursuant to sect.ipp 30,4(c) of the Act,
information on such processes, procedures oroper ting methods.
DRAFT

-------
11
Summary and Basis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines for
Existing Sources and Standards of Performance and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources.
General Methodology —— The effluent limitations guidelines and
standards of performance proposed herein were developed in the follow-
ing manner. The point source category was first studied for the pur-
pose of determining whether separate limitations and standards are
appropriate for different segments within the ‘category. This analy-
sis included a determination of whether differences in raw material
used, product produced, manufacturing process employed,, age, size,
wastewater constituents and other factors require development of
separate limitations and standards for di’fferent segments of the
point source category. The raw waste characteristics for each such
segment were then identified. This included an analysis of (1) the
source, flow and volume of water used in the process employed and the
sources of waste and wastewaters in the operation, and (2) the con-
stituents of all wastewaters. The constituents of the wastewaters
which should be subject to effluent limitations guidelines, and stan-
dards of performance were identified.
,The control and treatment technologies existing within’ each
segment ‘were identified. This included an identification of each
distinct control and treatment technology, including both in—plant
and end—of—process technologies, which are existent or capable of
being designed for each segment. It also included an identification,
in terms of the amount of constituents and the chemical, physical
and biological characteristics of pollutants, of the effluent level
DRAFT ‘

-------
12
resulting from the application of each of the technoldgles’. ihe -
problems, limitations and reliability of each triätment and doàtrol
technology were also identified. In addition, the non—water quialfty
environmental impacts, such as the effects of the a pplication bf
such technologies upon other pollution problems, including a r,
solid waste, noise and radiation, were identified. The eneijy rè-
quirements of each control and treatment technology were detertined
as well as the cost of the application of such techno1d 1èth
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in 6 *der
to determine what levels of technology constitute the “best prácti
cable control technology currently available”, the “best á äitáb1é
technology economically achievable t ’ and the “best available demdir
strated control technology, processes, operating methods, o± other
alternatives.” In identifying such technologies, várióus Eactors
were considered. These included the total cost of applicatioW of
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefifS éo bI
achieved from such application, the age of equipment ai d facfll€fes
involved, the process employed, the engineérin aspects of the
application of various types of control techniques, rOCeS& thailges,
non—water quality environmental impact (includitIg enetjy te4ti±&
ments) and other factors.
The basis for development of the effl uent tithi’taffthi& prisenfed
in this document consists pf revIew and evaluatiotrdf ava-i-lablè l’ter—
ature; EPA research information; Bureau of Sport Fishi r±é& and Wildlife
information; monitoring data from State Fish and Game eparrSedts; dO i
sultant reports on fish hatchery design; water pollution stXdièWI5
DRAFT

-------
13
government agencies; interviews with recognized experts and trade
associations; and analysis and evaluation of permit application data
provided by the industry under the Permit Programs of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 3.899 (Refuse Act).
The pretreatment standards for new sources proposed herein are
intended to be complementary to the pretreatment standards proposed
for existing sources under 40 CFR Part 128. The bases for such stan-
dards are set forth in the Federal Register of July 19, 1973, 38 FR
19236. The provisions of Part 128 are equally applicable to sources
which would constitute “new sources” under section 306 if they were
to discharge pollutants directly to navigable waters, except for
§128.133. That section provides a pretreatment standard for
“incompatible pollutants” which requires application of the “best
practicable controltechnology currently available,” subject to an
adjustment.for amounts of pollutants removed by the publicly—owned
treatment works. For the pretreatment standards applicable to new
sources, §128.133 is amended to require application of the standard
of performance for new sources rather than the “best practicable”
standard applicable to existing sources under sections 301 and 304(b)
of the Act.
This effluent guidance document is intended to satisfy all the
requirements of the Act as it pertains to the previously described fish
culturing source category. Fundamental differences in the methods of
obtaining, holding, culturing and distributing of species necessitates
separate discussion for native and non—native fish.
DRAFT

-------
14
*
NATIVE FISH — GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
Industry Growth•
The development of native fish—culturing activities in the United
States since the turn of the century has been phenomenal. Iii 1900 the
Federal Government Operated 34 fish hatcheries and :fish—col lecting
stations and it was estimated that there were abàut the same number of
state hatcheries (242). In subsequent years the number of gó e nment
owned and operated hatcheries increased rapidly. By 1948 nearly 500
more state hatcheries were in operation and the federal units hadin—
creased to 97. During the past 25 years, many of the smaller and less
efficient hatcheries have been replaced by larger modern facilities
(244). In 1970, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, there were 579 fish—culturing facilities op-
erated by governmental agencies. Of this total, 482 were state and 97
were federal fish hatcheries. It has been estimated that government
facilities produce more than 9070 metric torts (20 niillion pounds) of
salmonid fish (salmon and trout) and 680 metric tons (1.5 million
pounds) of other. native species, such as catfish and sunfIsh, annually
(244,260).
Similar development has occurred In privately—owned fish pro-
duction facilities, of ten referred toas fish farms. Private fish
*Native species of fish are defined in “Special PublicatIon No. 6” of:
the American FIsheries Society entitled, “A List of Connuon and
Scientific Names of Fishes from the U.S. and Canada.” Although common
carp, goldfish and brown trout are categorized as non—native fish in
the American Fisheries Society List, they are considered native species
in this document. The rationale for this inclusion is based upon the
fact that these fish have a widespread distribution and relatively long
residence time In the waters of the United States (82).
DRAFT

-------
15
farming began in the United States during the 1930’s and by the mid—
1950’s the industry was fairly well developed and widespread (31).
The principal type of fish cultured at farms in the western and north—
em sections of the United States was trout (59)’wl ile in the central
and southern areas the major efforts were directed at culturing buffalo
fish usually in combination with catfish, crappie and bass (96).
About 1963 there was a change in the central and southern fish—
farming activities. Nearly 80 percent of the land under pond cult!—
vation, for raising buffalo fish was converted to the raising of cat-
fish and minnows (31). -
During the 10 years that followed (1963 to 1973), fish farm pro-
duction continued to. experience significant growth. Unfortunately
many private farmers guard their production information resulting in
only fragmentary data on the fish—farming industry. Nevertheless, the
importance of private enterprise in producing marketable fish can be
illustrated. For example, private fish farms In Idaho annually pro-
duce about the same poundage of trout as all the federal fish hatcheries
in the United States combined (135). It has been estimated that these
private hatcheries produced 6,800 metric tons (15 million pounds) of
trout ,eách.year primarily’for consumption (268), and reportedly have
potential for. additional ‘development (23). Fish farms raising ,catfish
have shown similar growth. In the southern United States privately—owned
catfish farms produced 12,250 metric tons (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).
DRAFT

-------
16
In a cooperative study with the 50 states, the Bürèau of Sport Fish-
eries and Wildlife, U. S. Department of the Interior, published iñfor—
mation on the potential growth of the native fish-culturing industry In
the United States (244). This national survey cdncluded 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 17,240 métrictons (38million
pounds) [ Table 111—1]. This 9,070 metric tons (20 milliOn pound)
increase would mean an average annual production rate of 30 to 45 metric
tons (65,000 to 100,000 pounds) of fish per hatéhery. However 300 ad4i—
tional hatcheries will have to be constructed to meet this estimate.
The potential hatchery production of warm—water ‘fish was also esti-
mated in the cooperative national survey. In 1965 the anñüà] próductjOñ
of warm—water fish by state and federal’ hatcheries was abOut 1.2 bil-
lion and by the year 2000 the annual production’ is estimated to approach
2 billion [ Table 111—2].
As part of the national survey, ‘an effort was made by the FiC’h and
Wildlife Service, USD1, to obtain present and future production capa-
bilities of private hatcheries and fish farms. Only 97 Operations
supplied information and the data are not presented in ‘this document
because of their incompleteness.
DRAFT

-------
17
TABLE I l l—i
TROUT PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATCHERIES
PROJECTED THROUGH THE YEAR 2000
(FROM REFERENCE 244)
Production (Thousands of Fish)
State 1965 1973 1980 2000
Alabama 6 15 19 23
Alaska 2,100 4,000 6,900 9,500
Arizona 6,555 7,310 7,800 9,330
Arkansas 882 1,353 1,495 2,093
California 28,933 51,713 57,898 58,000
Colorado 18,473 34,963 36,484 40,678
Connecticut 709 953 972 1,443
Delaware 15 35 39 55
Florida 3 3 3
Georgia 803 1,276 1,378 1,809
Hawaii 100 150 300 400
Idaho 27,663 36,021 37,021 39,021
Illinois 31 20 22 31
Indiana 66 107 112 131
Iowa 282 349 408 493
Kansas
Kentucky 79 616 681 954
Louisiana
Maine 2,004 2,651 2,466 2,732
Maryland 339 867 899 1,039
Massachusetts . 1,648 2,187 2,338 2,753
MichIgan 5,317 17,203 23,038 31,133
Minnesota 4,019 4,935 5,532 4,505
Mississippi — — — —
Missouri 2,880 3,211 3,383. 3,990
Montana 7,916 9,500 14,288 14,613
Nebraska 795 1,017 1,155 . 1,497
Nevada 3,770 5 ,150 5 ,685 7,310
New Hampshire 2,825 2,320 2,470 2,985
New Jersey 650 914 1,031 1,451
New Mexico 8,780 12,859 14,607 17,150
New York 5,769 5,463 5,503 5,675
North Carolina 1,525 1,335 1,397 1,661
North Dakota 1,238 1,220 1,348 1,887
Ohio 23 90 96 120
Oklahoma 66 144 160 224
Oregon 26,932 38,348 47,801 .73,621
Pennyslvania 4,028 6,519 9,179 12,350
Rhode Island 515 401 414 447
South Carolina 166 126 139 195
DRAFT

-------
18
TABLE 11 1—1 (Cont.)
TROUT PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATCHERIES
‘PROJECIED THROUGH’ THE YEAR- 2000
(FROM REFERENCE 244)
State
1965
Production (Thousands of Fish )
1973 , 1980” 2000
South Dakota
1,440
2,178
2,313
Tennessee ‘ ‘
- ‘1,515
2,’999
3,314
Texas -
‘
Utah
Vermont
‘19,773
2,485
23,980
2,716
Virginia
1,194
- 2,061
Washington
37,334
•
42,477
West Virginia
1,528
1,557
Wisconsin ‘
3,013
3,580
Wyoming
13,566
1S,628
District of Columbia
Total
2
-
249,755
355,525
25-, 714
2,778
2,451
48,069
2,194
3,564
20,205
6,
2,749
4,:564
‘46 ,80O’
3,017
3,432
‘63,985
2,960
4,062
22 ,588
8
405 ,O 69
505 ,4’68
DRAFT

-------
TABLE 111—2
WARN—WATER FISH PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATCHERIES
PROJECTED THROUGH THE YEAR 2000
(FROM REFERENCE 244)
Production (Thousands of Fish)
State 1965 1973 1980 2000
Alabama 1 5,218 8,903 9,445 11,736
Alaska —,
Arizona 516 950 1,500 2,500
Arkansas 11,210 15,034 18,337 21,151
California 27 130 535 (535)
Colorado 10,775 12,637 15,807 26,290
Connecticut 14 16 17 20
Delaware 118 242 246. 264
Florida 5,041 9,378 10,325 12,922
Georgia 16,209 23,114 25,039 31,534
Hawaii 50 75 100 150
Idaho 10 50 50 50
Illinois 2,124 2,451 2,598 3,216
Indiana 2,873 3,813 4,242 5,864
Iowa 114,679 141,089 165,209 208,953
Kansas 13,185 41,600 46,531 52,843
Kentucky 2,465 8,495 11,376 14,726
Louisiana 10,213 18,864 23,624 30,724
Maine 34 50 55 77
Maryland . 168 12,249 25,277 15,387
Massachusetts 214 338 388 535
Michigan . 3,701 4,925 5,022 5,431
Minnesota 194,718 304,437 304,903 306,864
Mississippi 9,380 17,071 18,863 26,409
Missouri . 4,194 20,949 81,326 103,461
Montana 2,052 2,100 2,102 2,615
Nebraska 18,622 15,592 16,158 . 16,591
Nevada 116 110 110 112
New Hampshire 1 5 6 8
New Jersey 290 390 430 597
New Mexico . 4,500 7,265 8,029 11,240
New York 348,469 450,478 450,515 450,669
North Carolina 5,878 - 10,029 10,860 14,356
North Dakota . 46,505 46,924 49,752 61,653
Ohio 48,009 52,698 58,827 71,919
Oklahoma - 26, 8l 31,956 46,530 61,902
Oregon 502 . 2,502 .3,002 3,502
Pennsylvania 17,462 21,250 31,775 42,385
Rhode Island 3 •26 48 88
South Carolina 57,605 8,698 9,450 12,391
DRAFT

-------
20
TABLE 111—2 (Cont.)
WARM-WATER FISH PRODUCTION AT FEDERAL AND STATE HATC1{ERIES
PROJECTED ThROUGH THE YEAR 200i)
(FROM REFERENCE 244)
at No warm—water fish culturing opèratiofls.
Production
State 1965 1973
(Th isai s of
Pjsh)
1980
2000
South Dakota
Tennessee
48,450
6,389
71,226
4,076
73,034
4,249
I0l ,646
5;979
Texas
17,278
13,996
14,417
16,192
Utah
3,045
10,059
•
10 ,065
10,091
Vermont
Virginia
1
6,004
4
11,350
.5
15,72
.7
21,236
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
76
579
112,468
10,013
100
679
169,675
10,025
10.0
810,
170,785
10,028
200
979
185,618
10 039
District of ColultLbia
7
. 13
. ... 14.-
20
Total 1,187,841
1,578,104
i,747 ,645
1;9?3,677
DRAFT

-------
21
Types of Facilities .
Perhaps the most striking difference in native fish—rearing faci-
lities is related to water—flow patterns. Fish can be reared in closed
ponds which typically discharge less than 31) days per year or only dur-
ing periods of excess runoff. Another operation, the open pond, usually
has a continuous overflow. A third type of operation, the flow—thru
system, éonsists of a single or series of rearing units. The fish are
concentrated in the culturing unit through which a continuous flow of
water passes. Uneaten food and fish excreta are routinely removed from
most types of flow—thru rearing units by various types of cleaning
practices.
A fourth type of rearing process relies upon reconditioned and
recycled water. Surveys (34) have revealed that reconditioning is
becoming more attractive because: (a) many water supplies are too
cold and must be heated, thus on a once—through basis all the heat re-
maining is wasted; and (b) many areas do not have sufficient water sup-
plies to rear a full capacity of fish during dry months. In addition,
reconditioning is attractive in operations where source water must be
disinfected to control diseases. Figure Ill—i diagrammatically shows
the four systems described. Many operations do not limit their acti-
vities to the use of just one of these confinement methods for their
fish—culturing processes. For example, typical cold—water or saimonid
fish hatcheries have prop ation facilities that include holding ponc1 ,
DRAFT

-------
22
A.. CLOSED POND
Source Water
- - —-“, .
B. OPEN POND (Uncleaned)
Source Water
Discharge
C. PLOW—THRU UNITS (Cleaned)
Source Water
Rearing Unit
Normal Discharge
•1
+
Cleaning
Discharge
D. RECONDITIONING-RECYCLE
Reconditioned Recycled Water
Legend
Intermittent Flow
Continuous Flow
- r-j
4
Sludge or
Filter Backwash
Note: B and C operate as. single—pass systems
with single units or multiple units in series.
Rearing
Pond
Rearing
Pond
Source Water
_ Reari g co itio -ñi.ng
Units(s) System
Dischar2e
Figure 111—1. Types of Water—Flow Systems Used in Fish Culturing

-------
23
rearing tanks and raceways (139). Even the warm—water fish culturing
operations such as catfish farms are beginning to expand their faci-
lities beyond the strictly pond—type system of rearing. They are
beginning to construct and stock raceways because this production’
process offers ease in harvesting fish, greater carrying capacity and
other distinct advantages over the pond systems (205). The blending of
production processes is even more evident in hatcheries or farms that
have multiple water sources allowing them to rear warm—water and cold—
water fish,
Location of Facilities
Hatcheries specializing in the rearing of salmonid fish are con-
centrated in the northwest region of the United States (176) where the
volume of cool water (about 10°C or 50°F) for culturing is abundant
and inexpensive. However, cold—water hatcheries are not limited to
the west. Considerab1e numbers of salmonid hatcheries are located
in the Great Lakes area, along the northeast Atlantic states, and in
themountains of the mid—coastal and southeastern states (Table 111—31.
On the other hand, warm—water fish culturing operations are concentra-
ted in,’but not limited to, the central—southern’section of the United
States where climate, water temperatures and other physical conditions
are conducive to the rearing of such types of fish as’minnows, sunfish
and catfish (31,87,121,223).
Fish farms and hatcheries are generally located In rural areas.
Some occupy several hundred acres while others may be contained within
,a single building or even a portable shed with an incubator and a water
DRAFT

-------
24
TABLE 111-3
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF STATE, FEDERAL AND PRIVATE
FISH—CULTURING FACILITIES IN THE’ U1 ITED STATES
THAT REAR NATIVE FISH ’
Cold Water Warm Water Mixed ’
State Federal State Private Federal State Private Federal State Privates-
Alabama ‘ 1 2 2 . 9
Alaska 4
Arizona 2 2 1 1 ].
Arkansas 2 8 2 ‘ 3 30
California 2 20 66 2 118 32
Colorado 2 19 12 2 1’ . 2
ConnectIcut 3 9 18 5
Delaware
Florida 1 2 1
GeorgIa 1 2 3 7 19 2
Hawaii
Idaho 3 17 34 . 2
Illinois 5 2 13
Indiana ‘1 .6 4
Iowa 1 2 1 26 10 4
Kansas . 2 2 55
Kentucky 1 1 2
Louisiana 1 3 18
Maine 1 17 . 12 1 5 1 1
Maryland 3 .2 4 . 1
Massachusetts 2 6 9 2 5 .1 1
Michigan 3 8 111 10 1 10
Minnesota 3 ‘1 34 86 1 2 19
Mississippi 2 35
Missouri 5 10 6 62 1 3
Montana 3 8 35 1 1
Nebraska 1 .5 1 10 . 1 3
Nevada 1 5 1
New Hampshire 2 8 2 2
NewJersey 1 3 1 1
New Mexico 1 6 2 1 2
New York 1 13 38 . 3 4 2 1
North Carolina 1 4 18 2 3 2
North Dakota 1 2 .6 .. 1
Ohio 1 3 2 3 46 3 .3
Oklahoma 4 83 8
Oregon 1 31 25 1 1
Pennsylvania 3 50 1 33 1 7 6
DRAFT

-------
25
TABLE III-3 (Cont.)
CEOCRAPIIIC DISTRIBUTION OP STA E, FEDERAL AND PRIVATE
FISI1—CULTURIN( FACILITIES IN THE IJNITED STATES
THAT REAR NATIVE FIS1l. !
Cold Water Warm Water Mixed ’ /
State Federal State Private Federal State Private Federal State Privates
Rhode Island 2 1
South Carolina 1 2 6
South Dakota 2 1 3 3 1
Tennessee 2 2 7 4 21 1 3
Texas 3 11 54
Utah 111 7 •2
Vermont 1 6 2 -
Virginia 1 3 4 2 3 6
Washington 10 59 33
West Virginia 4 5 1 3 3 1 2
Wisconsin 7 17 3 8 2 5 28
Wyoming 2 10 1 1
Total 49 296 540 29 156 783 15 37 150
a/ Data based on. information contained in Supplement B.
b/ Operations with both cold— and warm—water fish.
ef Census incomplete.
DRAFT

-------
26
supply. A warm—water hatchery often appears to be much larger than a
trout or salmon hatchery. This Is because of the larger acreage of
ponds utilized for natüralspawnlng and rearing of warm—water fishes.
At federal facilities the average cold—water fish hatchery Includes
about 60 hectares (150 acres) of land while the average warm—water
hatchery is 8 hectares (20 acres) larger (244).
If wastewater treatment Is deemed necessary at these faciliE es,
there Is generally sufficient acreage to permit the Insta11at on of
adequate treatment systems. Those with spatial limitations either
have other land available they can purchase or are reasonably well
suited (from a physical but not necessarily an economical standpoint)
for operating a water—recycling system. Most hatcheries are built
on flat to moderately rolling terrain. In many localities the most
economical and desirable site cannot be used because the land is
subject to flooding. In other localities the type of soil may pre-
sent a major problem in site selection for earthen raceways, ponds
or impoundments. A potential farm or hatchery 1ocat on may be re-
jected if soils allow excessive seepage or adversely affect water
quality and subsequently interfere with the fish—rearing process.
Fish Cultured
A review of available literature [ Section XIII) produced. a list
of 83 species of native fish cultured in the United States. For the
sake of simplicity, these species were placed into two major groups,
cold—water and warm—water fish. Because of similarities in production
and for convenience, cool—water fish such as pike and walleye were in-
cluded In the warm—water fish group (Table 111—4).
DRAFT

-------
27
TABLE 111—4
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Common Name Scientific Name Reference
COLD—WATER FISH
I. Pink salmon Oncorhynchus rbuscha (248)
(Wa].baum)
2. Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta (250)
(Walbaum)
3. Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (250)
(Walbaum)
4. Sockeye salmon Oxicorhynchus nerka (250)
(Walbaum)
5. Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (250)
(Walbaum)
6. Apache trout ’ Salmo apache (271)
(Miller)
7. Golden trout Salmo aguabonita (271)
(Jordan)
8. Cutthroat trout Salmo clarki (250)
(Richardson).
9. Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri (250)
(Richardson)
10. Gila trout Salmo gllae (271)
(Miller)
11. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar (250)
(Linnaeus)
12. Brown trout Salmo trutta (250)
(Linnaeus)
13. Brook trout Salvelinu.s fontinalis (250)
(Mitchill)
DRAFT

-------
28
TABLE 111—4 (Cont.)
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Common Name Scientific Name Référence
COLD—WATER FISH (Cont. )
14. Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma (250)
(Wa lb aum)
15. Lake trout. Salvelinus : namaycush (250)
(Walbaum)
16. Arctic grayling Thytuallus areticus (248)
(Pa has).
17. Inconnu Stenodus leucichthys (248)
(GUldens tadt)
WARN-WATER FISH
1. Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum (31)
(Lesueur)
2. Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhychus platorynchus (250)
(Rafinesque)
3. Paddlefish Polyodon ! pathula (32)
(Walbaum)
4. Bowf in Amia calva (250)
(Linnaeus)
5. Central mudminnow Umbra limi (18)
(Kirtland)
6. Gara Lepisosteus sp. (249)
7. Northern pike Esox lucius (250)
(Linnaeus)
8. Muskellunge Esox masguirtongy (250)
(Mitch ill)

-------
29
TABLE 111—4 (Cont.)
NATIVE FISHES CULTU1 ED IN THE UNITED STATES
Common Name Scientific Name Reference
WARN—WATER FISH (Cont. )
9. Chain pickerel Esox niger (65)
(Lesueur)
10. Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum (18)
(Rafinesque)
11. Goldfish Carassius auratus (250)
(•Linnaeus)
12. Carp Cyprinus carpio (250)
(Linnaeus)
13. Silveryminnow Hybognathus nuchalis (126)
(Agassiz)
14. Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus (18)
(Kirtland)
15. River chub Nocotnis micropogon (18)
(Cope)
16. Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas (18)
(Mitchill)
17. Plains minnow Hy ognathus placitus (126)
(Girard)
18. Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni (18)
(Hubbs)
19. Lake chub Couesius plumbeus (126)
(Agassiz)
20. Utah chub Gila atraria (126)
(Girard)
21. Leatherside chub Gila copei (126)
(Jordan and Gilbert)
22. Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides (18)
(Rafinesque)
DRAFT

-------
30
Common shiner
Red shiner
Sand shiner
Northern redbelly dace
Southern redbelly dace
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Fines cale dace
Blacknose dace
Speckled dace
Reds ide shiner
Creek chub
Utah sucker
White sucker
Rèférencé
(18)
(156)
(126Y
(18
(18Y
• (i8)
(25i)
(i8Y
• (18Y
(12 Y
(126)
(18)’
( 126)
(126).
Common Name
WARM-WATER
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
TABLE 111—4 (Cont.)
NATiVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Scientific Name
FISH (Cont.)
Notropis cornutus
(Mitch ill)
Notropis lutrensis
(Bard & Girard)
Notropis stramineus
(Cope)
Phoxinus eos
(Cope)
Phoxinus erythrogastet
(Rafinesque)
Pimephales ñotátus
(Rafinesque)
Pimephales prome1às
(Rafinesque)
Phoxiñus neogaeus
(Cope)
Rhinichthys atràtülus
(Herman).
Rhinichthys oscüliiS :
(Girard)
RI chardsonius baié at.tis
(Richardson)
Semotilus atrÔthácirlâtti .
(?,ui tchl. 11)
Catostomus ardens
(Jordan and Gilbert)
Catos tomus couñersoni
(Lacépède)
DRAFT

-------
31
TABLE 111—4 (Cont.)
NATIVE FISHESCULTURED IN THE’UNITED STATES
Conmion Name Scientific Name Reference
WARN—WATER FISH (Cont. )
37. Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus (249)
(Rafinesque)
38. Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus (249)
(Vàlenciennes)
39. Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus (250)
(Lesueur).
40. Biginouth x Black buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus (156)
(Valenciennes)
x Ictiobus niger
(Rafinesque)
41. Black bullhead Ictalurus melas (249)
(Rafinesque)
42. Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis (156)
(Lesueur)
43. Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus (249)
(Lesueur)
44. Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus (250)
(Rafinesque)
45. Spotted bullhead Ictalurus serracanthus (156)
(Yerger & Relyea)
46. White. catfish Ictalurus catus (250)
(Llnnaeus)
47. Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris . (250)
(Rafinesque)
48. Mosquitofish Gambusia afflnis (250)
(Bard & Girard)
49. Guppy Poecilia reticulata . (156)
(Peters)
DRAFT

-------
32
White bass
Striped bass
Green sunfish
Warmouth
Bluegill
Redear sunfish
Smalimouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie
Brook stickleback
Yellow perch
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(250)
(?50)
(250)
(25 0)
(250)
(250)
(250)
ç250)
Common Name
WARN—WATER
Reference
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
9.
60.
61.
62.
TABLE 111—4 (Cont.)
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STAT $
Scientific Name
FISH (Cont.)
Morone chrysops
(Rafiñesque)
Morone saxatilis
(Walbaum)
Lepomis cyanellus
(Rafinesque)
Lepotnis gulosus
(Cuvier)
Lepomis maçrochirus
(Rafinesquè)
Lepomis microlophus
(Giinther)
Micropterus dolomjeui
(Lac pède)
Micropterus punctulatus
(Rafinesque)
Micropterus salmoldes
(Lacép de)
Pomoxis annularis
(Rafinesque)
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
(Lesueur)
Culaea incons tans
(Kirtland)
Perca flavescens
(MitchilI)
DRAFT

-------
33
TABLE 111—4 (Cont.)
NATIVE FISHES CULTURED IN THE UNITED STATES
Common Name Scientific Name Reference
WARM-WATER FISH (Con.t. )
63. Sauger Stlzostedion canadense (250)
(Smith)
64. Walleye S Stizostedion vitreuin vitreum (250)
(Hit chill)
65. Blue pike Stizostedion vitreum aucum (250)
(Hubbs)
66. Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grimniens (250)
(Rafinesque)
a/ Recently described native species, not listed in American Fisheries
Society listof common and scientific names of fish (15).
DRAFT

-------
34
Raw Materials
A basic raw material required by all, fish—product Ion facil Lties
is water.. The source of water used in fish farms or hatcheries may
be from streams, ponds, springs, wells or impoundments that store sur-
face runoff. Regardless of which source is used, the supply must be
available in sufficient quantity to maintain a minimum design flow
and to periodically or continuously flush out organic wastes.
Because water is the medium In which the fish are cultured, the
successful operation of a fish farm or hatchery is dependent upon the
quality as well as the quantity. Preferably, the water should be
n derately hard, have a pH of 7 to 8, and be suitable in temperature
to promote rapid fish growth. It should be clear, with a high oxygen
content and free from noxious gasses, chemicals, pesticides or other
materials that may be toxic to fish (39,59,141).
Except for temperature, water quality requirements for the própi—
gation. of warm—water fish are much the Same as for trout and salmOn.
For a discussion of optimum temperatures for cold- and warm— ater cul-
tures, the reader is directed to such publications as Inland Fi5heties
Management (41), Culture and Diseases of Game Fishes (59) and TextböOk
of Fish Culture (115).
Another raw material required for some fish—cu1turiii àctivitiès
Is prepared feed. Operations engaged in intensive culturing hold àñd
rear fish at densities that require routine feeding with prepared foOd.
Other operations rear fish at densities more similar to those enjoyed
by wild fish. These non—intensive culturing operations typically rely
on natural foods existing in earthen ponds (59).
DRAFT

-------
35
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 mix-
tures, to bound mixtures of meats and dry meals, to pelletized diets
fed with periodic meat allowances, and recently to exclusive feeding
of moist or dry pelletized feed (27,46;114,138,143,146,158,178,186,
187,188,215,216,259). Currently, the 579 state and federal fish hatch-
eries operating in the United States use an average of 44 percent pre-
pared pellets or other dry feeds; the remaining 56 percent is primarily
fish or meat offal (109). No statistics are available on feeding
practices for the’private sector of the industry.
The quantity of feed per fish is also an important variable in main-
taining a hatchery or fartn. 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 f lab (45).
In fish—culturing facilities that use commercially prepared
feed, young fish are fed dry mash which floats, while older fish and
DRAFT

-------
36
adults in ponds or raceways are fed pelleted food (186). Feeding may
be manual or mechanical (99) and varies in frequency fro n daily for
salmonid broodfish 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—water 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 dissolved 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 of game fishes or by forage fishes which, in turn, become the
prey of larger fish (59). Thus, the nutrient—rich matérial introduced
into the pond during artificial fertilization is subsequently conver-
ted into kilograms of fish.
In addition to stimulating the growth of fish—food organisms
and thus increasing fish production, pond fertilization has twO àther
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. Davis (59) and Iluet (115) have published detailed de
scriptions on the techniques and results of proper fish—pond fer-
tilization.
A fourth raw material used by most fish culturing operations Is
treatment chemicals. These chemicals are used specifically for water
DRAFT

-------
37
treatment or for disease control. The list of chemicals used in fish
culturing operations and the typical dosage used in fish propagation
activities are shown in Table 1 1 1—5.
Production Process
Typical fish—hatchery operations are done in 8 to 9 basic steps.,
consistent with the species, size and groith of the fi!h. In some
hatcheries broodfish are harvested from the brood ponds and stripped
of eggs and milt. The eggs and ndlt 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. From the
nursery basin, fry are placed in rearing troughs. Fingerlings are
transferred to raceways, or in some cases, Into flow—thru ponds for
fingerling rearing. Young fish are then moved to the main rearing
units and raised to marketable or releasable size (59). -
In Other fish hatcheries or fish farms, culturing techniques are
often quite different because the basic unit isa pond rather than a
flow—thru-unit (29,42,64,95,160,162,180,183,193,214,222 ,239,255).
-Instead of harvesting broodfish and stripping eggs and milt by hand,
the fish are usually allowed to spawn naturally. In some operations
the young are reared in ponds under much the same. conditions as those
enjoyed by wild fish (59,160). Still other fish—culturing facilities
limit their activities to the pond rearing of young fish 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 111—2].
DRAFT

-------
38
TABLE 111—5
CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL. OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR OTHER
FISH PRODUCTION RELATED REAS0NS -”
Diluted in water:
1:500 for 30—60 seconds (dip)
1:2000 (500 ppm) as bath for
30 mInutes
Acri flavine
(Trypaflavine)
Betadine
(lodophore containing 1.0% of
Iodine In organic solvent)
Bromex
(Dibroin, Naled; a pesticide)
Calcium cyanamide
Calcium oxide
(quicklime)
Carbarsone oxide
5—10 ppm 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 ppm added to (pond) water for
indefinite time.
Distributed on the
of rained_butret
of 200 g per rn
Distributed on the
of drained_butre.t
of 200 g per rn.
Mixed with food at •a rate f 0.2%.
Feeding for 3 days.
Chioramphenicol
(ChloromycetIn)
Ch 1ortetracyc1i
(Aureomycln) ‘.‘
1. Orally with food 50—75 mg/ -g
body weight/day for 5 -L0 day .
2. Single intraperiton a1 inje tipn
of soluble for i.O,-30 mg/kg.
3. Added to water 10—50 .pp for
indefinite time as needed.
10—20 ppm in Water
Copper sulphate
(Blue stone)
Cu SO 4 , anhydrous
Cu SO 4 5H 2 0, crystalline
For 1 mInute dip: 1:2000
in hard water. Add 1 ml
acetic acid per liter.
0.25 to 2 ppm to ponds. Quantity
depends on hardness of water.
Hard water requires mpre.
(500 .ppw)
glacial
Acetic acid, glacial
bottom and banks
pon4s at a rate
bpttom and
ponds at a
banks
rate
DRAFT

-------
39
TABLE 111—5 (Cont.)
CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR,OThER
FISH PRODUCTION RELATED REASONS ’
Cyzine®
(Enhep tin—A)
Diquat
(Patented herbicide, Ortho Co.
contains 35.3% of active
compound)
Dy lox
(Dipterex, Neguron, Chiorophos,
Trichiorof on .Foschlor)
Formal in
(37% by weight of formaldehyde
in water. Usually coittains
also 12—15% methanol)
Formalin with Malachite green
Furazolidone
(Furoxone NJ. 180
N.F’. 180 Hess & Clark)
Commerical products contain
- Furazolidone mixed with Inert
materials.
Other Nitrofurans (Japanese)
Furanace
(P-7138)
Made in Japan
Hyamine 1622
(Rohm & Haas Co.,
Quarternary ammonium
germicide available as
crystals or as 50% solution)
20 ppm in feed for 3 days
1—2 ppm of Diquat cation, or
8.4 ppm as purchased added to
water. Treatment for 30—6 0
minutes. Activity much reduced
in turbid water.
0.25 ppm to water 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 aquarium
water 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 n ponds.
On the’basis of pure drug
activity; 25—30 mg/kg body
weight/day up to 20 days
orally with food.
Added to water with fish to be
treated at lppm for several
hours. Toxicity to different
fishes varies from 0.5 to 4.0 ppm
(Experimental drug).
1.0—2.0 ppm in water for one hour.
DRAFT

-------
40
TASLE 111—5 (Cont.)
CHEMICALS USED ‘FOR CONTROL ‘OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR ,OTHER
FISH PRODUCTION RELATED REASONS ’
Hyamine 3500 As above
(As above)
lodophores (See under Betadlne and Wescodyne)
Kamala Mixed with diet at a rate of 2%.
Feeding to starved fish fo 3 days.
Malachite green , 1:15,000 in water as a dip for
10—30 seconds. .1—5 ppm in water
for 1 hour (most of ten tised aS
5 ppm). 0.1 p m in ponds or
aquaria for indefInite tim ;
Methiolate 10—20 ppm to suppress bactériãl
growth.
Methylene blue 1.0—3.0 ppm in wate r fbr 3—5 d s.
Neguvon®
(See Dylox)
0xytetracyclin 50—75 mg/kg body weight/thy fdr
(Terramycin) ‘-s’ 10 days with food (Law requires
that it must be disco tthtë d f&r
21 days before fish are kiIlé i
for human cor sump ±’ón.’)
Potassium periaanganate 1:1000 (1000 pp fó a’
K Mn 04 seconds dip. 10 p &’ fr
30 mInutes. , 3—5 p’pñi add,è& to
aquarium or pond s ater for
indefinite time’.
Quinine hydrochloride 10—15 ppm in. wàter fOr tnde’finite
or Quinine sulfate time.
Roccal® ‘ 1—2 ppm in water for’ i hour. Toxic
(Benzalkonium chloride, in very soft water; less effective
Quarternary ammonia germicide — in hard water.
see also Hyamine 3500. Sold as
10—50% solution)
DRAFT

-------
41
TABLE 111—5 (Cont.)
CHEMICALS USED FOR CONTROL OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF FISHES AND FOR,OTHER
FISH PRODUCTION RELATED REASQNS
Sodium chloride 1—3% in water from 30 minutes
(table salt, iodized or not) to 2 hours only for freshwater
fishes.
Sulfamerazine 200 mg/kg body weight/day with
food for 14 days. (Law requires
that treatment must be stopped
for 21 days before fishes are
killed for human consumption.)
Sulfamethazine l00—20Ô mg/kg body weight/day
depending on the type of food
with which it is mixed. For
prophylaxis reduce the quantity
to 2 g per kg/day. Length of
treatment as recommended.
Sulfisoxazole, 200 mg/kg body weight/day with
(Gantrisin) ‘ food.
Terralnycin®
(See Oxytetracycline)
Tin oxide, di—n—butyl 25 mg/kg body weight/day with
food for 3 days.
Wescodyne® 100—200 ppm in water on basis of
Iodophore containing 1.6% of iodine content by weight for 15
iodine in organic solvent minutes for fish egg disinfection.
at This list of chemicals is from Reference 212.
DRAFT

-------
42
FLOW-THRU CULTURE
POND CULTURE
Figure 111—2.
Typical Native Fish—Culturing Process Diagr xn

-------
43
NON-NATIVE FISH — GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
Industry Growth
The non—native fish industry in the United States began in Florida
1929 and has experienced tremendous growth since World War II (56).
The annual growth of the number of family-owned ornamental fish, for
example, in the years 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 fish will increase from 130 million
to 340 million (206), ornamental fIèh aales.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 64.3 mil-
lion fish to re .than 137 million fish (196).
It has been estimated that more than 1,000 species of ornamental
fish are imported Into the United States each year (133, 195). For
the single n nth 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
flah culturing 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 I more difficult to predict.
DRAFT

-------
44
There are reasons for thinking the induè try will grow d her, perhaps
more compelling reasons for thinking it will decline. Reasons for
believing the industry will grow include the fact that several large
companies are iñtereéted ’in culturing and selling grass carp tó oñtrol
the growth of nuisance aquatic plants and ‘a similar lüterest in Silver
carp is expected to follow (54). Furthermore, “a recent book on
aquaculture (17) may stimulate United States fish culturist8 to attempt
rearing many species of exotic fishes as food fishes (52).
Conversely, reasons exist for believing the indu8try will decline.
For example, interest in Tilàpia farming in Florida Is growing slowly,
perhaps In part ckie to State restrictions on culture and poSsesSion
of all species of this genus (54)’. For similar reasons, Tilapla farming
interest is not growing in Louisiana (9). If problems of ovèr— roduction
of stunted populations, lack of consumer demand as’ food, and deleterious
competition with valuable native sport fish become widely knOwn; interest
in Tilapia farming will probably decline. ‘
The American Fisheries Society has officially adopted a pósitiôn
opposed to the introduction of all non—native fish species prior to
careful experimental research and approval by an international,
national’, or regional agency’ having jurisdiction over all the water
bodies which might be affected (4).
In a similar vein, the Sport Fishing Institute officially adopted
a resolution urging the U. S. Department of the Interior to prohibit
the importation into the United States, except for well—conti olled
scientific study purposes, of all exotic fishes other than those th t
DRAFT

-------
45
can be proven to lack harmful ecological effects upon the natural
aquatic environments of the United States and the native flora and
fauna found therein (231)
Both these organizations have a substantial amount of influence
on- fisheries biologists nationwide and have helped alert state officials
to the dangers of introducing harmful species, particularly those
related to the carp. Due to the growing awareness of problems assoc-
iated with non—native species and the growingnumber of state and
federal laws.prohibiting iarious species, enthusiasm for culturing non-
native species of sport, food, and biological control fishes may decline.
Types of Facilities
There are essentially three types of ornamental fish production.
facilities: importers, ornamental fish farmers, and facilities
which both import and cultivate ornamental fish.
Facilities which are strictly importers typically. unpack the fish,
acclimatà them for 3 to 21 days; and sometimes treat them with dilute
formalin or other chemicals before reshipping them (191).
Ornamental fish. farmers ordinarily do not im.port fish from outside
the country but rely pritñarily on stocks already established in Florida
and are usually relatively small operators. A recent report (25) divides
small ornamental fish farms into two groups:
Group I includes àrnamental fish farmers that have 25 to 40 acres of
land, 8 to l 2 employees, and produce about 60 species of fish. Some
farmers in.this group do import fish (219), but the percentage imported
is. relatively small (25). . -
DRAFT

-------
46
Group II includes ornamental.fish -farmers that have”less”than
25 acres, employ 1 to.3 people and .produce 2O to 25..species of fish.
It is estimated that there are about 120 small. far!ne rs .in th’ se groups
in Florida (25).
The same report states that: large oriian e ta1 ’ -f1 sh .f rtn i ’
cally Import fish to, increase the volume and :vari’ety of their’prqdu t.
The largest farms typically import’,from-25, :to:5O perccnt ofthe1r”
product and purchase. considerable, quantIties -of fish frorn:the smaller
farmers. For example, there are, 2-7 :operat1ons in t’he ’Tatnpa arefla’. alone
that do not ship fish, •thernse1 ves,’ but ‘sell, all of their product to
other fish farmers (10).
The types of facilities producing non—native carp—related sp
(grass carp, silver carp, bighead carp, and black carp) aid Tilapia are
similar in general characteristics to those of pon4—cultur d native fish.
Location of Facilities
Breeding and culturing of ornamental fish on a cpmm rc al- aSiS.’
is worldwide, but’the largest s ng1e breeding.-cente.r Is Fior-i.da:’(l .O)
It was estimated that 90 percent.of the prod 1c.tI fl..Pf QrflaIflefltal’ fish
in the United States in,’ 1970 was, in Florida (25), the lo.cat ..on’of “abo t
150 facilities,, (217)., In l972’ : 150...mifllon ornamen ,al f1sh’ ( 53 million
imported, 97 million bred in the state), we gh ng: 10,200 metric’ tons:.”;
(11.25 miliioU pounds),’ were’ shipped’ from Fiori4a (2-5)..-’.
Indoor production of nott—native:Ornaxnental ‘ftshh y :smáll:;fàcii’iti’es
and even advanced .hob’byis:t.s occurs throughout the cotint b ut’: m st -.o ,f
the outdoor production is in Florida. There is at ‘least- one.or.namet tai
DRAFT

-------
47
fish farmer utilizing outdoor production ponds in ‘Louisiana (63), and
there are some small outdoor operations in Texas which utilize warm—
water springs occurring along a limestone fault line which extends
from Austin through San Antonio, Texas (7). Some former outdoor
production facilities in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (179), and various
parts of California (123,191) have reportedly ceased production.
Production of non—native sport fishes has not been widespread,
although the comsion carp was originally brought to this country in 1877
based partially on claIms that it would be a good sport fish (136).
Just as’ these claims later proved to be false, early claims that Tilapia
would beagood sport fish in Florida (55) and Puerto Rico (77) proved
to be: exaggerated.
The farming of various species of Tilapia as food fish is wide-
spread around the world (100). There is evidence that Tilapia was
cultured in Egypt as early as 2500 B.C. (148), and some species are
still considered to be promising food fish for underdeveloped nations
(100).. . Tilapia are being cultured in the Unite.d States i Texas (49,
199), California (149,229), Louisiana (100), North Carolina (53),
Nebraska. (106), and Alabama (100); but production is often experimental
oron a small scale. In spite of state restrictions, fear of intro-
ductions, disenchantment with sportfish qualities, and over population
of stunted fish, dealers in Arizona, Mississippi, and Texas continue
to be listed as suppliers ,of Tilapia (79).
The production of non—native relatives of the common carp cur-
rently appears to be centered in Arkansas and Missouri, with interest
DRAFT

-------
48
in polyculture of native channel catfish with o -native cyp.rj iLds (the
grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idefla ; silver -carp, Hypop1 t1michthys
molitrix ; bighead carp, Aristichthys nobilis ; and black carp
Mylopharyngodon piceus ) increasing only in Arkasas (229). Crass carp,
and more recently, silver carp, are for sale by cuiturists In Arkansas,
Minnesota, and Virginia (54). Arkansas has stocked the grass carp widely
in the state, including in several large lakes (14). Thay are for sale
from dealers in Missouri and Ohio (79), and experiments with this species
continue in Louisiana (9), Arkansas (153), and Florida (53), even though
40 states have now banned them (53).
Silver carp, although not good as food, are being culturnd in
Arkansas in experiments to determine if they are gpo4 ‘b .io1ogica1
filters ! for use in sewage treatment (153). A p ivate ish far er
in Arkansas recently imported 100,000 silver carp 1.47),.
The bighead carp is cultured in the Sacramento, California area
and sold live in Chinatown, San Francisco., s food fish (i47); and
at least one private fish farm in Arkansas h-as had a stock pf bighead
carp under culture for three years (153). Anpther A i Ln carp, -the black
carp, has been cultured by at least two .pitv.ate fish .f4rmers Ii
Arkansas (153,229).
Raw Materials
The basic raw materials used to produce, non—native ornamental fish
are high quality water similar to that described for ‘natIve fish culture
except that high water temperatures (ideally 22 -to 24!C or to .76 F)
are required, fish food, pond ferti1 zer, and -va -r 1ous water t e tnen -t
chemicals (10).

-------
49
Ornamental fish food, used includes mash, frozen food, live food and
dry food (222). Dry food is composed of fish meal, shrimp meal, crab
meal, blood meal, salmon—egg meal, pablum, clam meal, beef meal, Daphnia ,
and fish roe (10). Some fish food used in outdoor ponds consists of
about one part fish meal mixed with two parts oatmeal in addition to
meat scrap and” cotton—seed oIl (222). Some pet fish farms utilize corn—
mercial’pelletized food similar to that used in food fish culture, and
others use bulk fish flakes from Germany (137). Many large ornamental
fish farms make a wet mash for indoor feeding, using various mixtures
of lean ground beef heart, a more expensive fish meal, cooked spinach,
and cooked liver (222). Other ingredients used in some wet mashes
‘include oatmeal, shrimp, and egg yolk. Cooked foods utilized include
chicken, turkey, fish, beef liver, muscle meats, fish roe, minced clan,
boiled shrimp, lobster, and crab (10). Live organisms used as pet fish
food include brine shrimp, Daphnia , water boatman, midge larvae, glass
worms, Gammarus , microworms, fairy shrimp, snails, meal worms, infusoria,
and earthworms (10). ‘ Ornamental fishes cultured in Hong Kong and other
parts of the orient are fed tubificids and other worms grown in human
sewage (93).
As ‘in some bthèr types df’warm—water fish culture, fertilizer is
sometimes’ added’ ‘to ornamental fish ponds to encourage the natural pro—
du ioii 6f”planktonic fish food. Sheep manure (a possible source of
fecal bacteria) and cottonseed meal are listed as common fertilizers
(212). Chemicals used as raw materials for water treatment and disease
control in fish’ culture were previously listed in Table 111—5. Raw
DRAFT

-------
50
materials used in the production of non—natIve food, sport, and
biological control fish are similar to those listed for native
species.
Production Process
There are two basic types of ornamental fish production processes,
that used for outdoor breeders, primarily live—bearers, and that used
for Indoor breeders, primarily egg—layers (192, 221). Different
species of fish require slightly different culturing techniques, but.
the basic non—native fish production process ollows the flow diagram
outlined in Figure 111—3.
Outdoor breeding is possible wIth mOst l±ve—bearers and with some
egg laying species. In the major pro c ior areas ft Ce tral Florida,
dirt ponds are prepared for a new crop by beIng pumped d y nd treated
with hydrated lime. The ponds refill in a few days th ou h Inf ii—
tration (221). Ponds are then fertilUed tth substances such as
cottonseed meal and sheep manure and allowed to remaIn dormant, except
for the addition of live Daphnla , for abotit three weeks (10). The
pond is then full of planktonic fish food and ready to be stocked with
fish. One strain of fish is introduced an4 5 to 12 months lätèr he
fish are ready to be harvested (10, 221). In some cases, the strain
remains productive and repeated spawning allows the pond to st 1 n
production without drainage for u to year (221).
While the fish are In ponds, weed control is a cOmplIshed with
chemicals (10). In the past, dangerous chemicals such as arsenic
compounds have been used (10); wide—spread recognitIon of the dangers
DRAFT

-------
51
Outdoor Breeders
(mostly livebearers)
Indoor Breeders -
(mostly egglayers)
Importation
Figure 111—3.
Non—Native Fish Culturing Process Diagram

-------
52
of such chemicals has hopefully eliminated their uSe. Some f tsh are
brought inside during the cold periods, while relatively warm well
water is sometimes routed •through outdoor ponds to h ip regulate he
temperature. The fish a:re harvested by trapping sand br6ught inside
for preshipinent holding. During this time they are sometimes
medicated with dilute chlorine or various comm rciál äheni tä1s .(i 92)
prior to packing and shipment.
Indoor breeding is done in tanks where aft r spawning :t adults
of many species are separated from the eggs (10). The fry they then
be cultured in vats or outside in ponds. Many of the g.g—iár äre
sold prior to November to avoid problems of low tempetát tës 1 whIle
others are more tolerant and can be retained Outhide untIl apriñ (22 )
The process used in the culturing of mon_native food, Ort an’d
biological control fish are generally simi1à to those ii t d f the
pond culture of natfve fish. However, grass and 1té dat âre
produced In the United States by artificialspawnlng *iethbds whereas
Tilapia production is from natural spawning in pOnds (54).
DRAFT

-------
53
SECTION IV .
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZAT ION
In developing effluent limitations guidelines and standards of
performance f or a particular industry, a judgement must be made by
- the Environmental Protection Agency as to whether effluent limita-
tions and standards are appropriate for different segments or sub-
categories within the Industry.
To determine whether sub categorization was necessary, the fol-
lowing factors or variables were considered.
1.. Product 5. Facility Size and Age
2 Wastes Generated 6. Geographic Location
3. Treatability. of Wastewater 7. Raw materials
4. Production Process
FACTORS OR VARIABLES CONSIDERED
Product
The products of the fish-culturing industry are native and non—
native fish. Native fish are cultured in fish farms or hatcheries
throughout the United States to be subsequently.marketed (sold for
consumption or bait) or released (fish stocking). Non—native fish
are Imported into the United States to be used principally by the
aquarium industry.
The principal product, of native fish—culturing activities in the
United States is mature fish. State and Federal hatcheries rear fish
for release to public waterways. Most privately—owned hatcheries or
DRAFT

-------
54
farms rear fish for commercial distribution, primarily for consumpt On.
Although mature fish themselves are the major hatchery product, fish
eggs or fingerlings may also be sold to others for rearing. Other oper-
ations include rearing broodfish for breeding and marketing arid selling
fish eggs for consumption or bait.
The product of non—native fish culturing is also mature fish.
Instead of being released to public waterways Or sold for consumption or
bait, non—native species are principally imported by the aquarium
industry for sale as ornamental fish.
Therefore, the fish—culturing industry can be subcategOrized into
native and non-native fish on the basis of fish-type and ultimate use.
Wastes Generated
Native Fish Culturing —— The principal type of waste generated
by fish hatcheries or farms is organic material. Through the process
of decomposition, these wastes reduce dissolved oxygen l veis and in-
crease biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen and
phosphorus levels. Particles of waste not dissolved within the hat-
cheries increase the levels of suspended and settleable solids in the
effluent while the portion entering Solution will elevate th total
dissolved solids level (109).
Wastes generated from fish hatcheries or farms are often inter—
mittent and directly related to housekeeping. Reariftg ponds and.race—
ways are cleaned typically at intervals varying from daily to monthly
or longer. When the facilities are being cleaned, the effluent can
contain fecal wastes, unconsumed food, weeds, algae, Silt, detritus,
flBAFT

-------
55
chemicals and drugs and can produce a inajor.pollution problem (28,139).
Conversely, these same hatcheries or farms may discharge low amounts
of wastes during normal operations.
• While these operational differences require that special atten-
tion should be given to evaluating the increase in wastes generated
during cleaning operations, it does not appear that sufficient varia-
bility exists to subcategorize the Industry on the basis of the type
of wastes generated.
Non—Native Fish Culturing —— The wastes generated by non—native
fish culturing are similar to those generated by native fish culturing.
All non—native fish have the potential for Introducing harmful biolog-
ical pollutants into native ecosystems (55,133,233) so further aubcatego—
rization based upon specific biological pollutants is not necessary.
Treatability of Wastéwater
Native Fish Culturing —— Conventional waste treatment methods are
capable of reducing the levels of pollutants in fish—farm and hatch-
ery wastewaters. Plant scale sedimentation systems have been operated
at several hatcheries and have proven effective in removing that portion
of. the pollutant load associated with the settleable solids (113,235);
Treatability studies have been conducted to determine the pollutant
removal efficiency of sedimentation (113,140,251,258), aeration and
settling (130,131), stabilization ponds (140), and reconditioning—recycle
systems employing several methods of secondary waste treatment (159).
Findings indicate that technology is available to accomplish a wide
range of efficiencies in removing BOO and suspended solids from fish—
culture waatewaters.
DRAFT

-------
56
Although slug organic loadings do occur in facIlities where 1 in—
termittent cleaning is practiced, study results show that treatment
efficiency is not impaired and in some cases increases during clean-
ing (113,130,131,235). Shock hydraulic loadingsoccur at sOme
hatcheries during cleaning and should be carefully considered in
the design of treatment facilities. In view of the fact that fish—
farm and hatchery effluents are amenable to’treatment, it does not
appear that further division of the native fish—culturing Industry
is warranted on the basis of treatabllity of wastewater.
Non—Native Fish Culturing —— The rationale given above for native
fish culturing is applicable to non—native fish culturing. The addi-
tional treatment téchnólogies used in non—native fish culture, including
dry wells, holding reservoirs, ultraviolet dIsinfection, and chlori-
nation, are alternatives applicable to effluents for any non—native
fish production facility and thus further subcategorizatlcn is not
justified.
Production Process
Native Fish Culturing —— Basically, fish hatcheries and’fartns
are designed to control the spawning, hatching and/or rearing of con-
fined fish. However, fundamental differences exist in the methods
employed in the artificial propagation of cold— and warm—water fishes.
Typically cold—water fish are cultured in raceways through-which large
volumes of water flow, while warm-water fish are pond cultured.
Because the production process and resulting waste loadsdischàrg’ed
from flow—thru and pond fish—rearing facilities may be substantially-
different, the need for subcategorization is indicated.
DRAFT

-------
57
Non—Native Fish Culturing —— Raceway or o.thercontinuous flow
facilities are not necessary for non—natlye fish, species being cultured
at present. Production is typically in static outdoor ponds or indoor
tanks [ Figure 111—3], givIng no reason to subcategorize based on slight
differences in production processes.
Facility Size and Age
Native Fish Culturing —— 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 small and large fish—culturing
operations. may, ,at certai.n times and unde.r specific conditions, dis-
charge .poor quality water into receiving streams, thus the pollution
potential of the industry, is not strictly size d pendent (232).
During .the past 25 years many of the smaller and less efficient
fish—culturing operations have been replaced by larger, inodern,faci—
lities (244). This general practice of moderni.zlng rearing units,
coupled with similarities of waste characteristics from fish—culturing
facilities of varying s.izes, ,,indicates that subcategorlzation,of the
natIve fish—culturing industry.on the basis of facility size or age
would not be meaningful.
Non—Hative Fish . Culturin —— 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 blàlogical control species are usually small, primarily
due to regulations and fear of introducing harmful biological pollutants.
DRAFT

-------
58
There are no substantial differences in ciiittes based onagé
because non—native fish.cuituring is a new industry that had its begin-
ning in 1929 (56).
Geographic. Location
Native Fish Culturing —— Cold—water fish hatcheries are concen-
trated in, but not limited to, thE northwest region of the United
States. Warm—water fish culturing facilities arE primatily located
in the central—southern and éoutheastern section of thE country.
The specific ocatlon of these fish fatm and hatcheries is
determined by such factors as availability of water, cthftatic con-
ditions, tErrain, and Eoil’ types. Geôgra hiëa1 lOcat bn of a fish—
culturing operatiOn may detei ininé the degree sÜc ess in i’e’a ing
certain spec1E of ish , ôt i t fiay i n•f1U nté the 1e tibfl of waSte—
treatment equipment, but i t does not subs táRt1El ly altet the character
of the wastewater Or its trEatability. ThErEfö±é, SUb à e: orization
according to locatiOn Is ±iöt °i ndi áte .
Non—Native Fish eulturing The tI ale g1VE•n above f:ór natIve
fish production is also true for non native fish. Because indoor pro-
ducers typically do not dischãr e into nav gEble wa ers and because
outdoor produôers ‘occur primarily in the South, there is tib need for
further subcategoti ation On the basi Of ge.ogr hicl cation.
Raw Materials
Native Fish Culturing —— Raw materials used for fish propagation
operations include water, fEed, fettili Er and t eathe ± chEmicals. The
DRAFT

-------
59
quantity of these materials used is generally dependent upon such factors
as water temperature, fish size, rearing process, species and facility—
carrying capacity (176).
Although variations in the ariount and type of raw material used may
change the strength of the waste discharged from the culturing faci1it ’,
there are too many dependent variables to develop realistic subcategories.
Therefore, it does nat appear practical to subcategorize the native
fish—culturing industry on the basis of rà ’i materials used.
Non—Native Fish Culturing —— Raw materials listed above for native
fish are used also in the cultivation of non—native fish. In addition,
chemicals mentioned specifically for use in disease control in orna-
mental fish culturing include mercurochrome, epsom salts, and tetra-
cycline hydrochloride (10).
Subeategori zat on
On the basis of fundamental differences in holding, culturing,
harvesting, cleaning and other factors, and rationale discussed herein,
the United States fish—culturing industry was subcategorized for
the purpose of designing adequate treatment systems and for de-
veloping recommended effluent standards and guidelines. These sub-
categories are:
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
DRAFT

-------
61
SECTION V.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Wastewaters from fish culturing activities may contain metabolic
waste products, residual food, algae, detritus pathoeenic bacteria,
parasites, chemicals and drugs (28,109,139). Major consideration is
given to metabolic and uneaten food wastes because these organic pol—
lutants are characteristic of most fish culturing waste discharges while
the other substances named above are often discharged sporadically (23,
109,139). The rate and concentration of organic waste discharged from a
fish culturing facility are dependent upon such factors as feeding, fish
size, loading densities and water supply (26,103,139,140,170,207).
Because of the numerous combinations of these variables, typical waste
characteristics were computed from the results of several independent
studies. Values cited in this section were determined for sampling that
ranged from single grab samples to 24—hour composit.e samples consisting
of portions collected at hourly intervals. These values reflect the
daily waste production for the fish culturing industry.
Organic wastes usually cause such water quality changes as reduction
in the dissolved oxygen concentration and increase in the level of oxygen
demanding materials, solids and nutrients (109,159). These and other
waste characteristics are discussed below for native and non—native fish
culturing activities.
DRAFT

-------
62
NATIVE FISH
Oxygen and Oxygen—Demanding Constituents
Aside from the presence of waste products, the most important single
factor affecting the number of fish that can be held in the restricted
space of a pond, raceway or other culturing facility is the concentra-
tion of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water (59). It is generally agreed
that for good growth and the general well—being of cold— and warm—water
fish, the DO concentration should not be less ‘than 6 and 5 mg/i, respec-
tively (245). Under extreme conditions, the DO may be lower for short
periods provided the water quality is favorable in all other respects
however, it should never be less than 4 mg/i at any time (245). To reach
or maintain these oxygen levels, some ‘fish hatcheries 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 fjsh 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 inches), the biochemical oxygen demand (1 OD) produc-
tion and oxygen uptake per kilogram both decrease [ Figure V—i].
In terms of a daily oxygen reduction rate per kg of fish being cul-
tured, the decrease in water passing through a typical fish hatchery
DRAFT

-------
WATER TEMPERATURE, 8° to 13°C (47° to 55°F)
-o
C O
-C
C , ‘C a
.0
-r 1
C a ,
4-4 0
00
‘H
0
0
‘ H
00
E
C O 200
- C I 0 ’
0)
00
- C O
S c i . ’
0)
CO
U ,
inn
C C O
0
-d
0
C - d
C O .
C
U
0 -
- —0
U-
U
-a
0 Q
S - i
0
15.2
17.8
20.3
cm
(6)
(7)
(8)
inches
FISH SIZE
63
“ 0
C
C O
-c
C
0
2.0
1.5
1.0
U.S
DO Uptake
Figure v—i.
BOD Productioii and DO Uptake Rates Versus Fish Size (139).

-------
64
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 culturing 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 (1MM )) -
‘or chemical oxygen demand (COD). The oxygen demanding materials in cer-
tain types of warm— and cold—water fish culturing facilities were compared
in Table V—i. Findings showed that flow—thru systems culturing either
warm— or cold—water fishes produce an average net increase in BOD of 3 to
4 mg/l during normal operations. The corresponding net increase in COD
for these flow—thru culturing facilities averages 16 to 25 mg/i.
During cleaning operations there, is a marked increase in the con-
centration of oxygen demanding materials discharged. Liao (139) reported
that the average BOD concentration increased from 5.4 to 33.6 mg/i during
cleaning activities at salmonid fish hatcheries. Other studies by Dydek
(69) have shown similar results. Dydek reported that the average BOD
concentration increased from 6.4 to 28.6 mg/i during raceway cleaning
at the four federal fish hatcheries he evaluated. Results shown in Table
V—l reflect this trend for cold—water fish cultures.
Although survey data are not available to specifically evaluate
cleaning wastes from warm—water fish culturing facilities, some reasonable
assumptions can be made; During normal operations, flow—thru ponds and
raceway systems used exclusively for rearing warm—water fish have BUD
and COD characteristics quite similar to those reported in wastewaters
DRAFT

-------
TABLE V—i
OXYGEN-DEMANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS
FROM FLOW-THRU FACILITIES CULTURING NATIVE FISH
at Summarized from the data presented in Supplement B.
bf Based upon selected data collected during cleaning activities at
69,75,76,139).
Normal Operation
Cleaning
Operation
Net
Net
Effluent
(m /l)
Change
(mg/i)
Effluent
(mg/i)
Change
(mg/i)
Waste Load
•
(kg/lO0 kg fish on
hand/day)
CO L D - W
A T E
R
F
I S Ii C
U L T
U R E
BOD
.
.
Average
Range
No. of
Samples
5.0
0.2—12
639
4.0
1.0—6.2
636
27.3
7.3 6
9—
21.2
—
9—
1.3
0.5—2.5
. 157
COD
.
Average
Range
No. of
Samples
30
2—460
107
25
0—96
97
97
83 lO
9—
48
—
9—
6
0.6—22
12
WARM-WATER
FISH
CULTU.RE
.
BOD
Average
Range
No. of
Samples
8.2
0.6—21
300
.
.
.
3.1
0.5—12
150
.
,
——
——
——
.
.
.
——
—— .
——
.
1.4
0.2—5.0
17
COD
.
Average
Range
No. of
Samples
34
2—120
12
16
4—24
5
——
— —
——
——
——
——
5
0.7—17.8
13
9 fish hatcheries (References
U i

-------
66
from cold—water fish culturing facilities. Therefore, one might expect
raceway or flow—thru pond cleaning in warm—water facilities to produce
about the same amount of oxygen demanding pollutants, as reported for
cold—water operations. This assumption. becomes. more accentable when
waste loads from flow—thru facilities culturing cold— and warm—water fish
are compared. An extensive literature search and available field data
indicate that flow—thru culturing facilities produce a daily average of
1.3 and 1.4 kg of BOD and 6 and 5 kg of COD per 100 kg of cold and warm—
water fish respectively [ Table V—i].
Typically, warm—water fish are cultured in earthen ponds (68).
Cleaning is not routinely practiced for various reasons including prac-
ticality, manpower, time and need. If done at all, pond c’leanin oper-
ations are usually accomplished in. conjunction with fish harvesting.
Therefore, waste characteristics shown in Table V—2 reflect conditions
that exist when ponds are being drained to aid in fish harvesting.
Generally, pond—reared fish are harvested during the fall,. fol-
lowing a spring and summer rearing period.. In practice, the water level
is drawn down to a suitable depth for wading. This activity is usually
referred to as pre—harvest draining. The fish are then h.arvested with
nets and jj 1 many operations the pond is then drained completely. The’
latter activity is termed post—harvest draining.
From a literature search sunpiemented with field studies. by the
Environmental Protection Agency’(74),. typical pond wastewaters from
facilities culturing native fish have been characterized [ Table V—21.
These studies show that, wastewaters discharged during draining activities
DRAFT

-------
67
TABLE V-2
OXYGEN-DEM.ANDT-NG CHARACTERISTICS OF
EFFLUENTS FROM CULTURING PONDS BEING D1 4INED
DURING FISH HARVESTING ACTIVITIES —’
Effluent Waste Load
(mg/i) (kg/100 kg fish on hand)
BOD
Average 5.1 2.2
Range 0.8—21 0.2—5.9
No. of Samples 135 40
COD
Average 31 6.2
Range 0—130 0.7—17.8
No. of Samples 33 30
a/ Summarized from the data presented in Supplement B.
DRAFT

-------
68
had average BO1) and COD concentration of 5.1 and 31 mfl/i, resoectively.
tn terms of waste loads, the draining wastewaters had 2.2 kc of BOD
and 6.2 kg of COD for each 100 kg of fIsh being cultured.
So lids
Several sources contribute to the increase in the concentration
of solids as water flows through a fish culturing facility. The un-
naturally high density of fish confined in the facility leads to ranid
accumulation of metabolic by—products and the buildup of particulate
fecal matter (28). Speece (226) and Liao (139) cited this as a malor
contributor to the accumulation of solids in some fish culturing faci-
lities. They showed 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 pound) of feed consumed, 0.14 kg (0.3 pound) of susnended
solids are excreted by the fish. When feed is not completely consumed,
it is not only wasteful and costly, but also contributes tO the effluent
BOD and suspended solids concentrations (139). In addition, the cleaning
of algae, silt and detritus from nonds and raceways produces periodic
discharges of additional ãolids.
Table V—3 shows that under normal operating conditions f],ow—thru
systems culturing warm— or cold—water fish produce similar quantities of
solids. The net increase in suspended solids in cold—water fish facili-
ties is 3.7 mg/i while in warm—water fish facilities the increase is
greater at 9.7 mg/i. Results also show that the settleable solids are
very low averaging 0.6 mill and 0.2 mi/i in effluents from cold— and
warm—water fish culturing facilities, resrectively. Settleable solids
DRAFT

-------
69
are defined as the volume of solids that settle within one hour under
quiescent conditions in an Imhoff Cone (234). Dissolved solids in
cold—water hatcheries showed a net change (effluent minus influent)
ranging from minus (—) 183 to 116 mg/i with an average value of
12 mg/i. The minus value is assumed to reflect the decrease in dissolved
solids caused by biological uptake. Dissolved solids in warm—water
fish facilities showed a net average increase.of 22 mg/i, nearly twice
the increase reported for cold—water fish operations. In part, this
may be due to the fact that accumulated waste solids are intermittently
flushed from cold—water fish rearing facilities during cleaning while
in warm—water facilities waste solids are left to digest and solubilize.
During cleaning operations in cold—water fish 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/i, during cleaning activities. The net change
in settleable solids increased more than four times from 0.5 to 2.2 mi/I.
Based upon data reported by Liao (139), there is no net change in the dis-
solved solids concentration when comparing normal operation effluent
characteristics with cleaning—water characteristics.
Effluent characteristics reported by Dydek (69) and Liao (139) demon-
strate 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/i during raceway cleaning
activities at three Federal fish hatcheries. Liso (139) reported suspended
DRAFT

-------
TABLE V—3
SOLIDS CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS FROM
FLOW—T}IRU FACILITIES CULTURING NATIVE FISH
Normal Operation —
Cleaning Operation
:
Net
Net
Effluent
(m g/i)
Change
(mg/i)
Effluent
(mg/i)
Change
(mg/i)
Waste Load
(kg/l0O kg fish on
hand/day)
COLD-VAT
ER FISH
CULTUR
E
Suspended Solids
.
Average
9..5
3.7
73.5
61.9
2.6
Range
0—220 s
(—>13—40
0.1—122
3.6—120
(—)19.8—23.8
No. of Samples
398
•
354
133
130
105.
Dissolved Solids
Average
326
12
h /
78—’
b /
0—’
•
22
Range
5—520
(—)183—116
( )l1.4l64
No. of Samples
238
238
75
75
88
Settleable So1ids 1
.
Average
0.6
0.5
2.2
2.2
——
Range
<0.1—12
0—10
0.5—3.5
0.5—3.5
——
No, of Samples
168
168
5
5
——
WARN-VAT
ER FISH
CULTUR
E
.
Suspended Solids
.
.
Average
: 38.2
9.7
——
——
3.1
Range
0.5—470
4—464
—
——
0.19—3.5
No. of Samples
91
83
9
Dissolved Solids
.
Average
136
22
——
——
13
Range
——
——
——
——
0.37—49
No. of Samples
8
8
——
——
14
Settleable So1ids EJ
S
Average
0.2
<0.1
—
——
——
Range
<0.1—0.7
0—0.7
——
——
——
No, of Samples
7
7
—
——
a/Summarized from the data presented in Supplement B.
b/ Data are from Reference 139.
C/ Reported as mi/i
-J

-------
71
solids ranged from 0 to 55 mg/i during normal operations and ranged
from 85 to 104 mg/i during cleaning activities. This was an average
net increase of 89 mg/i 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. He concluded that “. . . most of the [ suspended] solids
contained in the cleaning water will immediately deposit on the stream
bottom below the hatchery.”
Although data are not available to evaluate the solids character-
istics in cleaning wastes from warm—water 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
and obtained during’ field studies tend to substantiate this similarity.
In terms of weight, Table V—3 shows that cold—water fish culturing units
discharge an average of 2.6 kg of suspended solids per 100 kg of fish on
hand per day. Warm—water fish cultures that are operated as flow—thru
systems discharge slightly greater solids loads averaging 3.1 kg of
suspended solids per 100 kg of fish on hand per day.
Solids are also discharged directly into receiving streams when
earthen ponds are drained to harvest fish. To evaluate the pollution
potential of these wastewaters several studies were reviewed and addi-
tional sampling was conduçted’(74). The data were compiled and are
summarized in Table V—4. Findings showed that, during harvest draining,
ponds’contributed from 4 to 470 mg/i of suspended solids. The variation
DRAFT

-------
72
TABLE V—4
SOLIDS CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS.
FROM CULTURING PONDS BEING DRAINEI 1 DURING
FISH HARVESTING ACTIVITIES!
Effluent
(mg/i)
Waste Load
(kg/lOO kg fish on
hand)
Suspended Solids
Average
157
•
.
23.5
Range
4—470
3.5—43.7
No. of Samples
30
30
Settleable Solids ’
5.-S
Average
Range
(0.1—39
——
No, of Samples
46
——
at Summarized from the data presented in Supplement B.
b/ Reported as mi/i
DRAFT

-------
73
was caused by the fact that solids are strongly influenced by such
factors as sediment type and algae. On the average, draining waste—
water contained 157 mg/i of suspended solids of which 5.5 mi/i 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 accumu-
lating 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—thru system there
is usually sufficient water flow to dilute toxic levels of ammonia to
harmless concentrations [ <0.3 mg/i according to Smith (210), Burrows (35)
and Brockway (28)]. However, in some open and many closed systems, such
as a recycle facility, ammonia accumulation isoften a major problem
(144,145). It has been demonstrated that fish exposed to ammonia con-
centrations of 1.6 mg/l 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 was tewaters is
erratic but on an average ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/i (36,113,139,247).
Given sufficient time and proper conditions organic nitrogen and
phosphorus in waste feed and fish excreta will be oxidized to nitrate
and phosphate. Table V—S shows that under normal operating conditions,
DRAFT

-------
74
flow—thru systems culturing either warm or cold—water fish produce
similar concentrations ofnutrients. On the average there is a net
increase in ammonia—nitrogen (NH 3 —N) of 0.35 mg/i, and In total
phosphate (P0 4 — ?) of 0.05 to 0.09 mg/i. On the other hand the nitrate—
nitrogen (t O 3 —N) concentration decreases on the average of 0.17 to
0.22 mg/i as water flows through the fish culturing facility. This
net loss of nitrate is assumed to be caused primarily by biological
uptake in phytoplankton and periphyton growths that commonly occur in
raceway and ponds through which the nutrient—rich waters flow.
During cleaning operations there is a change in the concentrations
of certain forms of nutrients in the fish culturing facility wastewater.
The net change in ammonia—nitrogen was rei orted to be an increase from
0.35 to 0.52 mg/i, nitrate—nitrogen increased from C—) 0.17 to 0.64 mg/i,
total k.jeldahl nitrogen (TKN), which includes ammonia and organic
nitrogen, increased from 0.74 to 1.15 mg/i and total phosphate Increased
from 0.09 to 0.38 mg/i. Although no data are available for characterizing
the nutrient levels in cleaning wastewaters from warm—water (flow—thru)
systems, there is little reason to believe that the characteristics differ
from those reported for cold-water fish facilities. A comparison of the
nutrient waste loads produced In either cold— or warm—water fish culture
discharges shows the similarity in nutrient characteristics [ Table V—51.
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 cold— and warm—water fish culturing
facilities, respectively. Further similarity in nutrient characteristic
of wastewacers is shown by the fact that both fiow—thru facilities pro-
duce 0.03 kg of phosphate per 100 kg of fish on hand per day.
DRAFT

-------
75
TABLE V-S
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS CF EFFLUENTS FROM
FLOW-THRU FACILITIES CULTURINC NATIVE FISH
Normal Operation
Cieanin
Oneratioñ
•
Net
Net
Effluent
(m g /i)
Change
(m g/i)
Effluent
(mg /i)
Change Waste Load
(mg/i) (kct/10() kg fish on
hand/day)
COLD—WATER FISH CULTURE
N 1 1 3 -N
Average 0.52 0.35 0.59 0.52 0.09
Range - 0.0-3.60 0.02—2.18 0.06-2.40 —— , 0.02—0.40
No. of Samples 654 644 72 ! 7— 116
TEN
Average 1.20 0.74 2.05 1.15 0.20
Range 0.01—12.80 0.05—1.53 0.61—5.95 —— / ——
No. of Samples 251 248 7. ! ’ 7.! 1
N0 3 -N
Average 1.73 (—)0. 17 1.27 0.64 0.06
Range 0.0—8.2 (—)3.6—1.l 0.l3—4. 0 —— / (—)0.38—l.50
No. of Samples 685 619 7.! 163
Total P0 4 —P -
Average 0.16 0.09 0.59 0.38 0.03
Range 0—0.57 (—)O.09—0.94 0.17— 1. 9 3 a/ 0.0—0.44
No. of Samples 375 372 .7.! 7— 85
WARM—WATER FISH CULTURE
Nfl 3 -N
Average 0.41 0.36 0.09
Range 0.10—1.63 0.10—0.56 0.01—0.65
No. of Samplos 137 126 18
TEN
Average 0.63 .0.55 0.41
Range 0.30—2.40 0.20—1.87 0.04—1.00
No. of Samples 16 7 - 7
N0 —N
Average 0.98 (—)0.22 0.07
Range 0.05—4.00 (—)0.31—0.10 0.02—0.29
No. of Samples 236 3 12
Total P04 —P
Average 0.28 0.05 - 0.03
Range 0.01—0.90 (— >0.02—0.17 (—)0.003—0.39
No. of Samples 17 17 18
a/ Based upon data collected during cleaning activitiea at 7 fish hatcheries (References 69,75 ,76).
DRAFT

-------
76
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 show that,.during draining, wastewaters contained an average
of 0.39mg/i ammonia—nitrogen, 0.78 mg/i of total kjeldahi nitrogen,
0.41 mg/i of nitrate—nitrogen and 0.13 ing/i.of total phosphate. In
terms of waste loads, the harvest wastewaters contained 0.04 kg of both
nitrate and phosphate and 0.25 kg of ammonia per 100 kg of fish on hand.
Although nutrient levels in fish culturing wastewaters may occa-
sionally be sufficient to stimulate algal growths, this condition is
likely to occur only when the hatchery discharge constitute 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 Federal fish hatcheries including 3 warm—water fish hatcheries
(Senecaville, Ohio; New London, Minnesota and Tishoiningo, Oklahoma).
The monitoring studies were conducted over a period of one calendar
year with sampling usually done on a monthly basis. These studies
include the evaluation of eoljform bacterial densities in the inflow
or source water and the outflow water of the hatcheries. From these
data, net changes in the bacterial densities were calculated (outflow
DRAFT

-------
77,
TABLE V—6
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFLUENTS
FROM CULTURING PONDS BEING DRAINED
DURING FISH HARVESTING ACTIVITIES-
Effluent Waste Load
(mg/i) (kg/100 kg fish on hand)
NH-N
Lrerage 0.39 0.25
Range 0.07—3.00 0.06—0.36
No. of Samples 228 22
TKN
Average 0.78
Range 0.10—5.25
No. of Samples 54
NO-N
average 0.41 0.04
Range 0.0—1.39 0.02—0.05
No. of Samples 107 17
Total P0 4 -P
Average V 0.13 0.04
Range - V 0.01—0.45 0.01—0.12
No. of Samples 61 22
at Summarized from the data presented in Supplement B.
DRAFT

-------
78
values minus inflow or source water values). The data showed that cold—
water fish hatcheries had a mean net increase 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 the warm—water fish culturing faci—
lities in Tishomingo, Oklahoma showed a mean net increase of 58,000 and
4,800 per 100 mlof water for total coliform and fecal coliform bacteria,
respectively.
A special study was done in conjunàtion with the preparation of
this document to determine if coliform bacteria are harbQred in the
intestinal tract of fish and to determine the source of the coliform
bacteria contamination [ Table V—fl. 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
coliform bacteria found in the gut of 15 rainbow trout examined was
>2.5 million per 100 gin 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 isolEted 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 con-
tained a log mean of 4,100 total èoliform bacteria and 6 fecal coliforrn
bacteria per 100 ml of water. It was concluded from this study that
fecal coliform bacteria originated from the hatchery source water
DRAFT

-------
TABLE V—7
SOURCES OF COLIFORM BACTERIA IN A COLORADO TROUT HATCHERY
COLIFORM DENSITIES PER 100 GR NS IN NTESTINAL
CONTENTS OF RAINBOW TR0tJT
(OCTOBER 15—19., 1973)
Total Coliforms
Log Mean Range
:)2,500,000 33,000—)24,000,000
Fecal Coliforms
Log Mean Range
<20 <20
a/ Three fish were collected for each analysis. -
COLIFORM DENSITIES PER 100 GRAMS
IN PELLETIZED FISH FEED
Temperature
oF
52 1].
52 11
52 11
Total_Coliforms
Log Mean Range
52 22—3 O
690 220—2,800
4,100 1 ,300—28,000
Fecal Coliforms
Log Mean Range
<3 <2—11
<2 <2—4
6 5—8
Fish Species
Rainbow trout -
Water
Tenper ature
52 11
No. of
Samples
-5
No. of Samples
TotalColiform — .
Log Mean Range
•
Feca].
Coliforms
Log Mean
Range
5
.
9,000
2,300—17,000
<20
<20
COLIFORM DENSITIES PER 100 ml
IN TROUT—CULTURING WATER
Station Location
Intake Water from Watson Lake
Raceway Water at Midpoint
Discharge from Combined Raceways

-------
80
(a river) and that other coliform bacterisare commonly present in the
feed or source water; furthermore, -these non—fecal bacteria accumulate
in the intestinal tract of cold—s. 4 ter fish.
In the past, the literature indicated that fish rarely harbor
bacteria normally found in the mammalian digestIve tract (6,78,P3,84,
85,88,98,107,1l6,l18,120,l54,201,237,253). However, other coliforn -
bacteria normally associated with decaying vegetation, or soil have
been found in accumulated uneaten feed and fish fecal material in fish
hatchery raceways. Furthermore, examples -are cited where the source
water or feed contained high levels of coliform bacteria and consequently
the fish hatchery wastewater contained high bacterial levels.
NON-NATIVE FISH
Oxygen Demanding Co istituents Solids, Rutrients and Flow -
There appears to be little data in the literature which relate
strictly to these effluent characteristIcs from non—native fish culturing
facilities. This nay be partly because trovical fish culturing tanks and
ponds are relatively small (most have a water volume of less than 50 cu m
or 18,000 cu ft) when compared to native fish ponds and are sometimes
drained less than .once per year. Even large non—native fish cu lturing
facilities do not usually drain more than two ponds per day, A typical
maximum flow rate for draining two fish ponds (6 x 25 x 60 ft) per day is
about 6.3 liters per second (100 gptii) (179), whereas winter flow—thru
rates for one facility with 80 ponds was reported as 10.7 lIters per
second (170 gpm) (63). Non—native sport, food, and biological control
species may be cultured in larger ponds, but to date their production
DRAFT

-------
81
has been primarily experimental and thus the volume of water discharged
nationwide has been much smaller than the volume of water discharged
from native fish culturing facilities. It has been estimated that only
three million gallons of wastewater accompanies fish imports each
year (56).
In the absence of other data, it seems reasonable to assume that
the concentrations of oxygen demanding constituents, solids, and nutrients
discharged from non—native fish culturing facilities are ‘not unlike con—
.centrations discharged from warm—water native fish culturing facilities.
This assumption is based on the fact that the production processes involved
are either very similar (in the case of non—native sport, food, and biolo-
gical control species) or similar but scaled down (in the case of the
ornamental fish) to processes utilized in some types of native fish cul-
turing operations.”’
Biological Pollutants
A concern 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 ‘nroduction facilities has been voiced
by many authorities (3,l6,l9,51,57,92,lG5,l77,l94,l95,l9 ,2O8,233,238).
Aquatic environments inthe United States are already stressed by pol-
lution 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 renresent a serious additional threat
to the native aquatic environment (5.7). Experts on the subject have
DRAFT

-------
82
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 pub-
licized harmful effect of some fish introductions, many fish and shell-
fish 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 quasi—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 para—
sitisin of local fish has occurred following the introduction of a non—
native fish in at least one American river (60).
Concentrations of various biological pollutants discharged vary
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
other biological pollutants, is discharged into navigable waters. Because
their concentrations in fish culturing effluents is so variable, most of
the biological pollutants are discussed here qualitatively rather than
quantatively.
DRAFT

-------
83
The discussion of probable or possible as well as confirmed bio-
logical contaminents in discharges from non—native fish culturing faci-
lities is appropriate for the following reasons:
1) There is some evidence that non—native fish may serve as
carriers of human pathogens [ Table V—8]. The relatively small
number of previous re orts referring to biological contaminents
in non—native fish culturing effluents p 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), and not always done (227).
3) There is a serious threat to the environment and human health
in the United States by some of the probable or possible
constituents.
4) From a sanitary point of view, the safest approach is to con-
sider water from contaminated areas as contaminated until
proven otherwise (212).
5) At present, non—native fish and import water come from countries
where, sanitary conditions are known to be poor (3), and the
fish are often fed food grown on human sewage (93). These
facts greatly increase the probability of contamination.
Bacteria——Fish arriving from overseas often arrive in unhealthy
condition (33,240). Some individuals will sell poor quality, sick
fish at reduced rates (24); one of the largest American dealers has
reported to the United States Congress that about 60 percent of all
DRAFT

-------
84
TABLE V-8
SALMONELLA ISOLATIONS FROM A
FLORIDA TROPICAL FISH FARM
(NOVEMBER 12—16, 1973)
Sample Source Sertotype(s) Isolated
Aquarium water at point Salmonella enteritidis ser Typhimurium
immediately before S. enteritidis ser Typhimurium variant
disinfection. Copenhagen
Final discharge from Salmonella enteritidis ser Worthington
indoor facilities. S. enteritidis ser Typhimurium var
Copenhagen
S. enteritidis ser Anatum
S. enteritidis ser Tennessee
Fish food used in indoor Salmonella enteritidis ser Typhixnuriutn var
facilities. Copenhagen
Foreign imported shipment, Salmonella enteritidis bioser Java
water sample,
Hong Kong, Ch1na
DRAFT

-------
85
imported tropical fish die within 30 days and that most have parasitic
ichthyophthiriasis (ICH) or fungus infections (236). Although aquarium
fish in good condition can live compatibly in a large water system con-
taining, a high bacterial density (108), fish stressed by infections
and crowded conditions in shipment have less resistence to bacteria
and thus are more likely to become vectors of bacterial diseases. In
addition to being carried into navigable waters by the effluent water
itself, bacteria may be carried to the outside environment in fish
intestInes (155,209), body slime (155,166),’and in uneaten fish food
(227,241).
1. Aeromonas——Bacterla of this genus are almost universally present
in any body of water containing organic material (213), and they have
been found in tropical fish and import water from Hong Kong (94). Low
levels of bacteria of this genus are not uncommon in healthy fish (94),
but high levels are pathogenic to both fish and man (118,166).
Aeromonas hydrophila is a conunon fish pathogen and is the cause of a
variety of clinical diseases In man (118). A number of other members
of the genus are closely related to human pathogens and may be respon-
sible for eye, ear, nose, and throat infections more frequently than is
presently realized (118). High levels in water are sometimes the result
of contamination with aerated human sewage, a medium in which Aerontonas
thrives (213).
2. Clostridium——Clostridium perfingens , the most Important cause
of gangrene in man, has been isolated from commercial diets of tropical
aquarium fish (241). This fact takes special importance because it has
DRAFT

-------
86
been shown that fish can act as carriers of bacteriA of this genus,
including the species which cause tetanus and botulism in man (200).
3. Chondrococcus——Members of this genus cause columnaris disease,
a fish disease coxmnon in the United States and capable of causing great
losses among important commercial species such as trout and salmon (211).
It is fairly common in tropical freshwater fish, especially cichlids (129)
and thus non—native fish culturing facilities have the potential for dis-
charging bacteria, of this genus in their effluents.
4. Escherichia——I4ernbers of this genus ‘were found i the water with
a shipment of tropical fish from Singapore, and in tropical fish imported
from Hong Kong (94). It has been reported that some strains of E. coli
bacteria can be carried by fish, cause r io harm to the fish, yet remain
pathogenic to man (200,209). Enteropathogenic strains have been retained
in fish intestines for at least 21 days (132).
5. Erysipelothrix——Bacteria of this genus, reported from native and
non—native fish, cause swine erysipelas ( “fish rose”) skin disease in
humans that. handle fish (118,200).
6. Leptospira——A member of this genus is carried in fish slime and
causes infectious jaundice in humans handling fish (118,166,20).
7. Listeria—--The genus includes bacteria that are pathogenic to
man and that have been observed in fish (200).
8. Mycobacteriurn——Menbers of this genus are causes of tuberculosis,
including fish tuberculosis in freshc ater and marine fish (181,211).
Tropical fish tanks provide ideal growth conditions for f r i. narium (1.).
This species has caused àerious skin diseases among persons cleaning
DRAFT

-------
87
ornamental fish tanks (1). No effective cure has been found for treating
the fish (211) or humans (1) infected. Another member of the genus which
has been isolated from both fish and human infections is M. fortuitum
(118,200). It is possible that snails may be one. of the vectors of the
mycobacteria pathogenic to man and fish (211) and that the bacteria may
be carried in an effluent in this manner.
The leprosy bacillus, Mycobacterium lepraé , has been reported in
fish by Russian workers (118).
9. Nocardla——Species of this genus have been isolated from fish
and are known from human wound infections (200).
10. Paracolon—-Members of this genus cause gastroenteritus in
humans and were found in water with a shipment of South American reef
fish (132).
11. Pasteurella——Members of this genus cause plague and tularemia
(rabbit fever) in man and at least one species, P. tularensls , has been
found in freshwater fish (118). It has been suggested that fish pathogens
such as P. piscidida , closely related to the bubonic plague pathogen,
might develop strains virulent to man (118).
12. Salmonella, Coliforms , and Fecal Streptococci——A bacteriological
study done at a large tropical fish farm near Tampa, Florida, in conjunc-
tion with the preparation of this report revealed pathogenic Salmonella
bacteria in the aquarium water, the final discharge from indoor facilities,
the fish food used in indoor facilities, and the import water in a shipment
of fish from Hong Kong (Tables V—8 and V—9).
DRAFT

-------
caB
‘T i
H
Sample Source
No. of Total Coliforms
Fecal Coliforos
Fecal Streptococci
Range Log Mean
Range Log Mean
Samples Range Log Mean
Outdoor Rearing Ponds
Water, ,4P:/100 ml
4 1,300—3,900 2,500
4—79 13
11—490 59
Fish, MP H/lao grams
4 13,000—1,600,000 250,000
(Giant $ailtin Mo llys—l)
(Species Unkncwn—3)
50—5,300 350
50—28,000 2,500
Fish food used in outdoor
50—13,000 1,400
rearing ponds, MPN/100 grams
5 170,000—920,000 480,000
1,400—7,000 2,700
indoor Aquariums
Water, live bearer room, Nfl /l tD ml
5 2,800—35,000 13,000
, /
(2—700 240,000—’ >110,000
Fish, import cocos, MPH/lao grams 4 2,200—>2,400F000 >420,000
(Walking Catfish— i)
(Jack Dempseys—l)
(Moonlight Fieh—l)
(Rainbow Shark—l)
<20—49 <28
27—490 150
<20—94,000 (1,300
22—110 56
79—2,200 310
220—130,000 7,l00
Fish Food used in iodoor facilities,
:
MPN/l00 grams
5 170,000—>2,400,000 >690,000
80—49,000 9,800
35,000—920,000 130,000
Final discharge from indoor facilities,
.
MPN/100 ml
5 ll,000—>2,400,000 >75,000
500—18,000 2,600
1,100—92,000 9,800
Sample Source
14o.of
Samples Common Name Total Coliforms
.
Fecal Coliforms
Fecs l Streptococci
Foreign Inported Shipnents
Water. Hong Kong, China, MPH/l aO ml
1 Blue Gourani 240,000
13,000
280
Guyana, South America
1 Hatchet Fish !240,000
>240,000
22
Fish. Hong Kong, China, N/l00 grams
1 Blue Gourami 220,000
70,000
4,900
Guyana, South America
1 Hatchet Fish !2,400,000
28,000
1,700
TABLE V-9
BACTERIAL DENSITIES
FLORIDA TROPICAL FISH FARM
(N0VEThER 12—16, 1973)
/ < a less than value
k i 2. — greater than or equal to value

-------
89
Total (TC) and fecal coliform (PC) bacteria and fecal streptococci
(PS) analyses were performed on random samples collected daily over a
5—day period. Sampling locations consisted of the following: a) water
and fish from the out door rearing ponds and the fish food used in these
ponds; b) water, fish and food from the indoor facility, including’’
samples collected both before and after disinfection within the closed
system; c) the final discharge from the indoor facility; and d) water
and fish collected from foreign imnorted shipments. The results are
summarized inTable V—9.
Water samples dollected from the outdoor rearing ponds at the fish
farm contained high total coliform densities; however, the water con-
tained low fecal-coliform and fecal streptococci densities. Fish col-
lected from these ponds, reflected greater numbers of the. three bacterio-
logical parameters measured. -
Aquarium water, fish and the fish food used, in the indoor facility
showed a pattern of pollution indicator densities very similar to those
found in the outdoor pond; however, results show the densities were
higher than in the ponds. The fish collected’ from the live—bearer room
contained fecal coliform log mean densities of ?901b00 gin. Fish taken
from die import room contained fecal coliform log mean densities of
<1,300/100 gin. Fish from both the liye—bearer room and the import room
contained fecal streptococci densities of 7,100/100 gin. The fish food
used in the indoor facility is the most significant source of contami-
nation (PC =9,800/100 gm, PS = 130,000/100 gin). The presence of the
pathogenic Salmonella substantiates the fecal coliforin data in that the
DRAFT

-------
90
pathogens are only found in materials contaminated ith feces from
warm—blooded animals.
It should be noted that whole fish were homogenized before analyses.
It Is likely that if only the intestinal contents, rather than whole
fish, were tested, they would contain bacterial densities in numbers
similar to the levels found in the food.
The final wastewater discharge contained high densitlea of fecal
coliforms and fecal streptococci (FC 2,600/100 ml, FS a 9,800/100 ml),
and high numbers of bacteria were found in both fish and water sa p1es
collected from foreign imported shipments.
In addition to the EPA study, there are several pertinent references
to Salmonella In the literature. Five of 35 samples of a dry fish diet
from a Canadian fish hatchery contained Salmonella , including S. monteuidea ,
S. livingston , and S. anatum , (240). The aut ior of that report noted
that the presence of Salmonella in fish rations may present a hazard to
fish handlers as well as human and animal populationS downstream from
the discharge. Fish from polluted waters have been found to contain a
number of species of Salmonella (118,157). Salmonella can survive at
least two weeks in brackish water from Chesapeake Bay (118) and at least
29 days in fish intestines (157). Salmonella cyphosa , the cause of
typhoid fever in man, has been reported from the- gut of a number of
species of fish (118) and might be present in the water of shipi nts
containing imported fish (13).
13. Shigella——A shipment of South American reef fish were found
to contain species of this genus which cause gastroenteritus in man-
DRAFT

-------
91
(132). This genus had previously been reported in fish coming from
polluted waters (200).
14. Staphylococcus——FIsh from contaminated waters contained
S. aureus , a human pathogen (200).
15. Vibrio——It has been reported that in many parts of the world
fish are important vectors of the vibrio causing cholera (118). Russian,
workers claim that cholera vibrios grow actively in the gastrointestinal
tract of fish and thus are transported up’ and down rivers (118). Vibrio
parahaemolytirus , a bacterium which causes frequent cases of food poi—
soning in Japan, was only recently found to be the cause of such out-
breaks in this country (80,167). Although it is not known how virulent
strains reached this country, it is known that fish can serve as car-
riers (8O)
Protozoan Parasites——One of the protozoan parasites commonly found
on.grass carp, Ctenepharyngodon idella , the ciliate Hemiophrys , was
recently ‘reported in Missouri (154) and may have the potential to para-
sitize native, fish. Myxosoma cerebralis was brought to the U.S. with
shipments of fish from Europe and is now the agent of whirling disease,
a devastating rainbow trout disease now established in the U.S. (110).
Heintinthic Diseases and Snail Hosts——The helminthic diseases of
man which are carried by fish include those caused by three types of
parasitic worms: flukes (trematodes.), tapeworms (cestodes), and round—
worms (nematodes).
These diseases are not established in a body of water unless the
proper combination of the parasitic worms, intermediate snail and fish hosts,
and final host (such as dogs, cats, birds, or humans) are all present.
DRAFT

-------
92
Introductions of undesirable molluscs, including snails which can
serve as Intermediate hosts for helminthic diseases, have been a world.
wide problem (56). Such snails can and do accompany fish as “hitch-
hikers” in shipments to the United States (56) and some of the danger us
snails have been widely sold 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 infected areas without:
notice (152). In this manner non—native snails which are carriers of
disease might be introduced into fish ponds in the U.S. and gain access
to navigable waters through the effluent (152).
The snails Melanoides tuberculatus and Tarebia granifera , carriers
of many important helminthic diseases, have been sold widely along with
tropical fish (173). These and other snails are often produced and held
by the same facilities which produce and hold fish. It is known that a
Tampa tropical fish dealer was responsible for contaminating Lithià Springs,
Florida, with T. granifera (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 (164). 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 ftsh culturing facilttles would cóñtain
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. fish infected by the parasite;
DRAFT

-------
93
3. snails carrying the parasite;
4. other intermediate hosts carrying the parasite.
The parasites could then infect man directly or could gain estab-
lishment 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).
The helminthic disease organisms and associated snails are both
probable components of unregulated discharges from non—native fish cul-
turing facilities. For this reason a discussion of the types of
he].minthic parasites which would likely characterize wastewaters from
some of these facilities is given below.
1. Clonorchis ‘ sinensis — The Chinese Liver Fluke——There is a prob-
ability that this parasite of man will be brought into this country
because the Asian fish considered to be the most important vector and
the most frequently infected is the grass carp, a species being promoted
for introduction into the U.S. at present (262). The appropriate (173)
snail intermediate host ! 1elanoides tuberculatus , is available and cats
and dogs can serve as the “reservoir” final hosts.
2. Fasciola hepatica — The Sheen Liver Fluke——Already causing
millions of dollars of loss each year in the cattle and sheep industry
in the United States, this parasite could become more wide spread if
new intermediate hosts, such as Melanoides tuberculatus are introduced
DRAFT

-------
94
in new areas through discharges from non—native fish farina. The new
snail host may be more successful and contaminate new habitats where
the native snail does not now occur.
3. Gyrodactylus——MetflberE of this parasitic t genus of trematodes
were found on the skin and fins of non—natIve fiSh from Singapore (94).
This suggests they may be dccisional constituents in the èffluentè
culturing facilities, either in the wàtiror on the fish. Although
members of the genus are established in North A merica, further diSsem-
ination by new and succeèsful hosts would be dàtrimental to the native
aquatic environment (267). I has beèn Spotted thatoiie species as
probably introduced to this cOuntry with shipments of carp from over—
seas (110):.
4. Paragonimus westermani — The Oiiental Lung Fluke——This derious
parasite of man is also carried by two snailS introduced InS thiS
country, Melanoides tuberculatusánd Tarebia granifera (173). A wide-
spread native fluke which infects mink, pigs, bobcats, racoàni,dogs,
and crayfish is caused by a closely related sàecies, ParagoñimOs
kellicotti , and carried by a native snail which has a rather spotty
distribution in the U.S. (224). Further nttodüctioñs of Meiánoidés
tuberculatus or Tarebia jranifera could result In the following:
a) An introduction of i new huian disease caused by P wesfernani ;
b) A spread±ng of both P. westSrnani ’ and P. kellicotti through
one or all of the three snail hosts, the native one,
N. tuberculatus and L granifera (224)
DRAFT

-------
95
5. Philophthalanus alurus—-This fluke became established in
San Antonio, Texas, after appropriate fish hosts and snail intermediate
hosts ( Melanoides tuberculatus ) were introduced (172,173). It was pos-
sible that the infected snails were introduced into the water by dis—
charges related to the local aquaria trade (173). The final hosts
utilized in the initial establishment of the parasite were water fowl,
but there are three records of flukes of this genus parasitizing
humans in Asia (172,174).
6. Schistosoma p. — The Blood Flukes——The members of this genus
cause schistosomiasis (bilharzia), a usually fatal disease afflicting
about 150 million people in foreign countries (],36) Tilapia fish pro-
duction ponds in Puerto Rico and Africa have provided an ideal habitat
for the disease and increased its incidence. Because Tilapia are being
imported to this country it is possible that the disease might be present
in the import water (13,56).
Although the free swimming cerarial forms live only about 24 hours,
it is possible that import waters from infected areas might be dumped
into American waters as soon as 6 to 8 hours after leaving Puerto Rico
(56). The cerariae might then borrow into the skin and infect humans
in contact with the water. It is more probable that nutria, mice,
racoons or other small mammals would act as the Initial reservoir hosts
to start the cycle in native waters (20). Humans wading, swimming, or
having any other water contact could then be infected.
Imported snails which carry the disease represent a long term
hazard, since they continue to shed infective cercariae for the rest
DRAFT

-------
96
of their life (20). Due to the seriousness of the disease and the
probability that it could be come established in the United States, the
presence of such snails in fish farm effluents would represent an
especially serious threat to the environment (165).
Native snails representing one colony of Biomphalaria obstructa
in Louisiana were able to carry the disease, and other such colonies,
though not yet discovered, may exist in the South (152).
7. Other Trematodes——A number of mongenetic trematodes which para-
sitize fish have been transferred to: the United States with shipments
of non—native fish (110). These include three species of Anacanthorus
transferred on the gills of piranhas from South America, Cichlidogyrus
transferred on the gills of Tilapia from Africa, three species of
Cleidodiscus on gills of piranhas from South America, Dactylogyrus on
mixed species front Asia and Europe, and Urocleldus on piranhas from
South America (110).
8. Nematodes — Round Wor s——Parasitic roundworms carried by fish,
especially the genera Porrocaecum, Ganthostoma, Angiostrongylurus,
Eustoma , and Contracaecum , have caused various human health problems
such as anisakiasis, other types of ulcerative enteritus, and eosino—
philic meningitus, in foreign countries. It is known that a serious fish
parasite, Philometra carassi became established in this country after
being introduced with a shipment of fishes from Japan (110). Some of
the foreign species of these genera might be brought in with shipments
of non—native fish, and eventually gain access to navigable waters
through fish farm effluents (224).
DRAFT

-------
97
Molluscs——In addition to acting as carriers of helininthic diseases,
snails and other molluscs discharged with non—native farm effluents nay
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 competion (117,134,163,164). About 10 per-
cent of the species of molluscs in this country are considered “en-
dangered” (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 waste—
water) include the following:
1. Marisa——In the aquarium industry, snails of this genus have been
widely sold as one of the large “mystery snails” (225). It is thought
that its release into navigable waters of Florida was caused by indi-
viduals culturing non—native fish (133,203). It has proved to be a
problem due to its threatened eradication of native species of birds
in Everglades National Park (203,225).
2. Corbicula —— This Asian clam, which has become a destructive,
expensive pest in the last few years, may have been introduced by the
aquarium trade (133). Spreading widely in’ the U.S., it poses a threat
to the Delaware and other rivers by crowding out other forms of life (8).
It has no known predators or enemies and can cover the bottom 1 m (3 ft)
deep, occuring in densities to 50,000 clams/sq m (5,000 clams/sq ft) (8).
3. Melanoides tuberculatus——In addition to carrying helminthic
diseaseâ, this snail has caused damage to some ecosystems by eradicating
DRAFT

-------
98
native snail species (164,172) and eating eggs of endangered species
of fish (163,164). Its very high reproduction rate has made it an
especially serious competitor of native species of snails (174).
Copepods——It is kncMn that harmful parasitic copepods were intro-
duced to the west coast along with imports of seed oysters from Japan
(209), and there is evidence that fish may also act as carriers (261).
Learnea infestations were not recorded in the fish of Moapa River,
Nevada, prior to 1941. Since that time these parasites have been intro-
duced with fish non—native to the area and a native species of fish,
Gila , has been afflicted with a high Incidence of parasitism (261). The
introduction of a non—native fish, Poecilla mexicana , into the Moapa
River Water District spring was followed by heavy infestations of
Learneaon another native species of fish (261).
Fish——Non—native fish are released from fish farms in the following
ways (55):
1.
2.
3..
4.
Through unscreened effluent pipes
Pumping out conta1ninated! (with mixed species) ponds
Floods
Purposeful discharge of stocks which have been overproduced.
in relation to demand.
5. Dumping of illegal stocks.
A consideration of some species of fish as biological pollutants
is warranted by the fact that fish introductions have often turned out
to be harmful to the environment (30,56,133,175). The walking catfish,
Clarias tatrarchus (50,55) and the co tion carp. (136) present well known
DRAFT

-------
99
examples of the deleterious effect that undesirable fish species can
have in American aquatic habitats.
Due to their low value as sport fish, competition with valuable
species, and destruction of necessary as well as nuisance plants,
several authorities have suggested the grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon
idella , (56,133) and species of Tilapia (55,56) could also become
biological pests of large magnitude.
DRAFT

-------
101
SECTION VI.
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF POLLTJTIQNAL SIGNIFICANCE
Selected Parameters
The unnaturally high density of confined fish in culturing faci—
lities leads to changes in the chemical, physical and biological pro-
perties of the process wastewaters. Major wastevater parameters of
pollutional significance for the fish culturi’ng industry include:
Solids
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
Nutrients
Ammonia Nitrogen
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform
Flow
In addition, biological pollutants (as described in the previous
section) are considered to be of pollutional significance in non—native
fish culturing operations.
On the basis of an extensive literature search, review and evalua-
tion of Refuse Act Permit Application data, EPA data, industry data,
personal communications and visits or studies at various fish—culturing
facilities it was determined that other than ammonia nitrogen no purely
hazardous or toxic pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides) exist in
DRAFT

-------
102
the wastes discharged from a fish-culturing faciIity The pit, témpera-
ture and dissolved oxygen were not considered significant parameters
in fish—culturing wastewaters because they must remain at levels found
in high—quality water for successful fish rearing;
With the exception of ammonia, nutrients are not included in the
present effluent limitation guidelines because the extent to which nut-
rients are removed by treatment processeS remains to be evaluated.
Furthermore, the need for advanced treatment technology specifically
designed for nutrient removal has not been demonstrated at this time.
A brief discussion of biochemical oxygen demand (DOD) appears
necessary because it is a commonly reported pollution iarameter 4
Because of the dilute nature of fish culturing wastes, dissolved
oxygen (DO) problems seldom occur in receiving streams. With the
exception of cleaning wastes, a typical salmonid hatchery discharge
has a DOD of 5.0 mg/i (Table V—i). The potential effect of this con-
centration on DO is best illustrated by oxygen sag analysis using the
Streeter—Pheips 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 calèulated. With DO
saturation equal to 10 mgf 1, initial DO deficit D.a equal to 2 mg/i,
rate of self purification f = 3.0, initial DOD La 5 mg/i and rate of
deoxygenation k = 0.2, the critical DO deficit Dc is determined by first
calculating the time t at which D occurs.
c c
DRAFT

-------
103
1 D
= k(f—l> log {F (l—(f—l)t.--1} (270) . 844
t 1.28 days
-kt 0 -
D = Le /f (270) p. M4
= 1.3 mg/I
The critical deficit 0 is less than the initial deficit D . This
- a
indicates that the equations are not valid for a waste with an initial
BOO La of 5 mg/l. Apparently the rate of self purification or reoxygen—
ation is greater than the rate of deoxygena.tion. 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 P01)
L•of 5 ng/l with the conditions previously described, the minimum DO
occurs at the hatchery outfall and is 10 mg/l minus 2 mg/I = 8 mg/l.
Performing thesamécalculation for La = 10 mgfl yields 0 2.5 mg/l
indicating that a true oxygen sag does occur. The minimum DO then equals
10 mg/Iminus 2.5 mg/l =• 7.-S mg/l. This oxygen sag analysis shows a negli-
gible environmental impact.
• studies done by the EPA during the development of this document
• showed that the BOO was closely correlated to accumulated particulate
mattét in the fish—culturing facility. Therefore, if discharges of
süs ended- and settleable solids are controlled, there will be a con—
- comitant- reduction reduction in the BOO.
For these eeasons, BOB was not considered a major or meaningful
pollutant parameter for evaluating fish-culturing wastewaters.
DRAFT

-------
104
Rationale
The justification for the selection of the wästewatêr parameters
for the fish—culturing industry is given belOw. AdditIOnally; there
is a brief discussion on suggested analytical methods f Or many Of these
parameters
Solids——Two types of analyses for detetmining the coñcënträtlbñs
of solids are significant in the fish—culturing ±ndustr . They arE
suspended and settleable solids.
1. Suspended Solids——This paiameter measures the sus endEd
material that can be removed from the was tewaters by lEboratory: filtra-
tion but does not include coarse or floating matter. than can be screened
or settled out readily (234). Suspended solids are a vital and easily
determined measure of pollution. In the wastes frOm fi h cultüflhg
facilities the suspended particuies correlate well with B0 nd COD (70).
Suspended solids are the primary parameter for theaeu ing. the effe tive
ness of,solids removal processes such as screEning and séd entation 142).
Suspended solids may kill fish and shEllfish by JAiPg abfVE
injuries, by clogging the gills and respirating passages of vätl’ous
aquatic fauna; and by blanketing the stream bottOm, killing youn
and food organisms, and destroying spawning beds (151). IiidIrect1y
suspended solids are detrimental to a 4 uatic life bEcaUSe the i eert
out light and because, by carrying down and trappIng bacteria ai ddEco-
posing organic wastes on the bottom, they promote áfid malntEiit the
development of noxious conditions and oxygen depletion, killing fish,
shellfish and fish food organisms, and reducing the recreational value
of the water (257).
DRAFT

-------
105
.2. Settleable Solids——The settleable solids test (234) involves
the quiescent settling of a liter of wastewater in an Emhoff 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 wastewaters 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).
• Ammonia Nitrogen——Ammonia is a major pollutant in fish—cul-
turing facilities. It may occur in high concentrations in cleaning
wastewaters [ Section V; Table V—5-). As such it should be measured
separately by accepted techniques (73).
The lethal effects of ammonia in concentrations greater than 0.7 mgfl
are well documented (66,71,72,161,245,264). However, the effects of
even very low un-ionized ammonia nitrogen levels are equally important
in the fish—culturing industry (35,59,124). As ammonia concentrations
in fish—rearing tanks and ponds increase, the fish lose their ability to
utilize oxygen. When the ammonia concentration of the water reaches
0.3mg/i, there is a measurable decrease in the oxygen content of the
blood. The oxygen concentration of the blood decreases rapidly as the
-ammonia concentration in the water increases from 0 to 10 mg/i as N,
and the blood conditions change drastically (86). The carbon dioxide
DRAFT

-------
106
content of the blood Increases about 15 percent, while the oxygen con-
tent of the blood decreases to about one—seventh of its normal value.
The hemoglobin of the fish blood loses its ability to cOmbine with oxygen
or to liberate carbon dioxide. The end result is that the fish actually
suffocates even though the oxygen content of the water may be sufficient
for normal respiration (86).
Bacteria (Fecal Coliform)——lt is co non practice In water quality
surveys to measure the fecal coliform den8ity to evaluate the sanitary
significance of certain wastewaters. These’ bacteria can be identified
and enumerated by either of two reliable techniques (234)’, the or
the milipore filter method. Fecal coliform bacteria are present In the
gut of all warm—blooded animals. The presence of these bacteria at
significant densities (usually a density of 200 organisrns/lOO ml or
more) is a good indication of the probable presence of pathogens
(38, 119). Although fecal coliform bacteria are not expecte4i,o be
produced by fish (6,78,84,85,120,154,231,253), studies by ‘the U. S.
Bureau of. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have shown they increaSe ‘i1 some
warm—water fish—culturing facilities. Evidence has h n that U the
feed or source water Is contaminated the bacteria acetimulate ‘Li the
fish. Therefore, in order to monitor the possible presetice of patho—
gene in wastevaters, fecal coliform bacteria Should be monitored In
warm—water fish operations that hold or culture native or non—n ativ5 fish.
Plow——The effluent guidelines developed in this repOrt are “based
on production and require the conversion of con centrationS ‘to the . to—
duction based units of expression. This conversion requires knowledge
of the wastevater flow at the time of Sampling.
DRArr

-------
107
Flow can be measured in a variety of ways and the method employed
will depend on the climate, quantity of flow and whether the flow is open
channel (e.g. sewers, lined and unlined ditches, etc.) or pressure con-
duit. Most flows from hatcheries may be measured in open channels.
Some methods commonly employed to measure flow in open channels are:
a) Current meters
b) Weirs
c) Plumes
Where instantaneous flow measurementsare sought, the metho’ds listed
will provide such information. The current meter éan be used for estab-
lishing velocities at a selected cross section over a series of depths.
From this information, a rating curve can be developed which willallow
determination of the.Jlow at other depths. A depth recorder could also
be installed to prcvide a continuous record of flow. However, whete a
continuous record is desirable, weirs (three common types are the
rectangular, V—notch, and the Cipolletti which is trapezoidal in shape)
and Parshall flumes may be used effectively. Weirs are generally easy
to install at low cost although specific upstream and end conditions
must be met. The Parshall flume has an advantage over the weir in that
it is self—cleaning. Accurate measurements can be made using a properly
installed Parshall flume under both free—flow and submerged—flow condi-
tions (243,252). Head requirements for weirs and flumes are important
and may add to operating posts or preclude their use altogether.
DRAFT

-------
109
SECTION VII.
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
CURRENT STANDARD OF PRACTICE
Although treatment is not normally provided for native fish cul-
turing facilities exeptions occur in both flow—thru and pond subcate-
gories where settleable solids removal is the most coi unon type of waste
treatment. The most common control method used for non—native fish
culturing facilities is to discharge wastewaters to municipal sewage
systems. Current practice in flow—thru, pond, and non—native fish
operations is discussed separately. The type, frequency and relative
water quality of discharges is presented. Estimates are made of the
percentage of fish culturing facilities providing a specific type of
treatment.
Native Fish —- Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Cold—water fish are usually reared in flow—thru 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 discharge. Of this figure an esti-
mated 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
DRAFT

-------
110
remaining 2 percent reinove•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 re-
conditioning hatcheries.
The intermittent cleaning discharge is greater in BOIl, suspended
solids and nutrient concentration than the continuous flow. A steel
bristle broom or scraping tool is usually use4 during cleaning result-
ing in the resuspension and. discharge of accumulated waste solids.
The frequency of cleaning varies widely. It is estimated that 5 per—
cent of the flow—thru culturing operations treat the cleaning flow.
In most cases the treatment provided is sedimentation although approxi-
mately one percent of the f].ow—thru systems provide secondary or equi-
valent treatment of the cleaning flow along with the normal flow. An
estimated one—tenth of one percent remove accumulated waste solids with
the use of a suction device thus, in effect, treat ng the cleaning flow.
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Warm—water fish are usually reared in ponds. Typically, fish 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 herein as those
that operate without a continuous discharge.
DRAFT

-------
111
Closed ponds typically have a discharge only during harvesting.
Exceptions occur in cases where harvesting is accomplished without drain-
ing the pond. In some operations draining for harvesting is usually
begun by discharging the lowest quality water first (97). This water
from the bottom of the pond often contains high concentrations of
suspended 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
pond 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 treat-
ment 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: a) water drained
during harvesting; and b) the normal continuous overflow.
Dlsèharges 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 settleable.
solids removal by discharging the flow through. another pond.
DRAFT

-------
112
The continuous discharge from open ponds does not usually fluctuate
markedly in quality. The flow discharged may vary from several liters
per minute to several million liters per day at different culturing
facilities. Most ponds are unlined; 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.
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
Non—native fish are primarily cultured in closed pond systems.
Discharges from these culturing units include short duration continuous
discharge 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 from native fish pond
cultures, non—native fish culturing discharges require control to elimi-
nate biological pollutants.
The current standard of practice is to discharge wastewaters to
municipal sewage treatment facilities, no discharge (via land disposal),
and to discharge wastewaters directly into navigable waters with no treat-
ment. An estimated 60 percent of the existing non—native fish culturing
facilities discharge their waste into municipal sewage treatment systems
rather than into navigable waters (91,123,127,191,230 ,254). This group
is primarily composed of importers, distributors, and breeding facilities
DRAFT

-------
113
outside the State of Florida. The next most commonly used control method,
especially in Florida, is no discharge with land disposal (12,43,101,102,
179,218). About seven percent of the non—native fish culturing facilities
use this method. An estimated 33 percent of non—native fish culturing
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 discharge have
occurred in South Florida, Texas, Arkansas, California, and Louisiana.
These known direct discharges have been eliminated with, the exception of
those in Texas 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 o,f vital interest
to the hatchery manager (59,139). This section will present changes in
hatchery or farm operations to minimize water pollution without com-
promising fish quality or level of production.
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing System
Water 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 (104). The primary goal in
fish culturing is to produce the highest quality fish possible with the
DRAFT

-------
114
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 lbfft 3 ) to 90 kilograms per cubic meter
(5.6 lb/ft 3 ) during a 10 month period (190).
Permits issued by EPA under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) require that treatment facilities. be oper—
ated 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.
Feeding Practices——Feeding practices have been studied extensively and
many hatchery managers now believe that fish growth Is very nearly inde-
pendent of feeding levels above a minimum. Feeding amounts greater than
this minimum only Increases the cost and conversion ratio* (40,125,189).
* The conversion ratio is kilograms of feed fed per kilogram of fish
produced.
DRAFT

-------
115
Feeding levels greater than the minimum results in residual food which
has been recognized 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 pro-
duction 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 a d amount of feeding be optimized
for each hatchery. 1 ’ (139)
Cleaning Practices— — Periodic cleaning of flow—thru rearing units
is necessary to remove solid wastes consisting primarily of uneaten
food and particulate 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.
DRAFT

-------
116
The settleable material which accumulates from fish rearing
activities will slSwly digest and release BOD in a soluble 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 (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
organic solids digest through bacterial action releasing nutrients
and oxygen demanding constituents, it is reasonable to limit the inter-
val between cleanings. The information available suggests that the
average interval between cleanings -should not exceed three weeks.
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 clean-
ing may affect both the total load and concentration of pollutants
reaching the receiving water.
The most coimnon method of cleaning is to resuspend the settled
solids and flush them out of the culturing unit intothe receiving
water. Usually along 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 probably 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
DRAFT

-------
117
anu onia. The conditions existing during and resulting from this type
of cleaning are thought to have beer the cause of serious mortalities.
at many fish culturing 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.
Several types of self—cleaning rearing, units have been developed
(37,168). These are designed to alleviate 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 found to be
less conducive to disease than any other type tested (37). On the
other hand, it has been renorted 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 system with the
normal flow or they are moved by the water current to a point where
they can be removed from the system 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 he expected to
deteriorate slightly in comparison to a periodically cleaned system.
The advantage of this system, in terms of water pollution control,
DRAFT

-------
118
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 of 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. 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
(59). 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
is 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 recep-
tacles adjacent to each rearing unit. Wastewater flows to a central
collection sump from which it is pumped for treatment and disposal
(128). 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 dewarering offers the opportunity for reuse of
the solids as a fertilizer on hatchery or nearby private property.
DRAFT

-------
119
Vacuum cleaning appears to be the best method of cleaning consis-
tent with fish culturing and water pollution control objectives. Dis-
advantages of this method include the possible inability of suction
devices to remove attached slimes, 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 would be expected to pass a greater percentage of
the total settleable solids generated than units more lightly loaded.
Thus, the hatchery manager has some degree of flexibility in deter-
mining whether settleable solids will be discharged with the normal or
cleaning flows.
Depending upon the type of cleaning method employed, fish distri-
bution may be a significant factor affecting effluent quality. 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.
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.
DRAFT

-------
120
The points discussed above concerning fish distribution should not
be misinterpreted with respect to the primary goal of the fish produc-
tion 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.
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Water Conservation——The water conservation discussion presented for
flow—thru culturing systems applies to lined pond operations with con-
tinuous 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. Rather its function is normally to maintain the
desired water level in the culturing unit. In some cases, it may be
possible that flow could be reduced or that flow—thru ponds could
operate just as effectively as closed ponds. Each of these possi-
bilities would reduce the load of pollutants discharged.
FeedinR Practices——In pond culture, feeding may or may not be
practiced depending upon such factors as species of fish being cul-
tured. 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 may result in water
quality degradation. Where feeding is practiced, the discussion con-
cerning feeding practices in flow—thru operations is pertinent. The
amount and scheduling of feeding should be optimized for each hatchery
such that excess feeding is eliminated.
DRAFT

-------
121
Cleaning Practices——Usually only those fish farms and hatcheries
with lined ponds or raceways practice cleaning. Therefore, points dis-
cussed under flow—thru culturing systems concerning frequency and method
of cleaning should be applied to the 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—thru
culturing operations because the same technologies apply.
Pond Draining and Harvesting Practices——During fish harvesting
pollutants are discharged as individual ponds are drained. In—plant
control measures may be taken to reduce the lâad of pollutants dis-
charged. These measures, aimed primarily at reducing the suspended and
settleable solids concentrations, include: a) control discharge rate
to allow se t1ing itt the pond; b) discharge through another rearing pond
at controlled rate; and c) harvest without draining. While each of these
measures s 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
drainedby 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 discharged. This practice
DRAFT

-------
122
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 con-
trolled rate offers another alternative method for removing set leab1e
solids. As draining progresses, settleable solids could be monitored.
When settleable solids appear in the discharge, the flow could be di-
verted through another rearing pond. Care should be taken at this point
to see that the discharge is introduced into the rearing pond at a point
farthest from the outlet.
At many hatcheries, elevations may be such that flow would not be
diverted by gravity as described and pumping would be necessary. Har-
vesting 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 durin2
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.
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
Water Conservation—--Because non—native fish are pond or tank cul-
tured, water conservation measures described for native fish pond cul-
ture are applicable. Specifically, the discharge from open ponds may
DRAFT

-------
123
be reduced or eliminated altogether; each of these measures would reduce
the load of pollutants discharged. In addition, recycle systems are
becoming more coimnon and result in considerable water conservation.
Feeding Practices——Some non—native fish are fed prepared rations
in much the same manner as many 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 increa8e in pol-
lutant 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 culturing. 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 culturing is to harvest
by trapping. In this way draining may be delayed until after harvesting
is 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.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Eight methods of treatment have been documented in the literature
and are available for reducing the discharge of pollutants fràm native fish
flow—thru culturing fa ?i1ities. Two methods are presented for treatment of
discharges from native fish pond--culturing operations. In addition, three
technologies have been identified for control of pollution from non—native
fish culturing units. Included are technologies based on bench studies,
DRAFT

-------
124
pilot plant studies and full, scale operation. The. levels of technology
are described in the order of the least to the most efficient.,. Addi-
tionally, 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.
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing System
Settling of Cleaning Flow——Cleaning wastes consist primarily of
settleable solids which accumulate in the rearing units. Simple set-
tling will remove most of this material. Bench tests have revealed
that 78—93 percent of the settleable solids can be removed [ Table Vu—i]
in 30 minutes of quiescent settling in an tmhoff Cone (76,113). For
continuous flow plant scale application, a conventional settling basin
with a settling time of one hour should provide comparable removals.
A surface overflow rate of 26 liters per minute per square meter
(0.7 gpm/sq ft) has been used in conventional settling resulting in
90 percent removal of suspended solids from cleaning wastes (235).
Where the necessary land area is not available, high rate sedimentá—
tion units including plate separators and tube settlers could be used.
It has been reported that cleaning discharges may account for
15 to 25 percent of the total BOD load from a hatclhery (69,182). For
purposes of estimating efficiencies of treatment alternatives it is
assumed that 20 percent of the SOD load from flow—thru systems is dis—
charged during cleaning. Table Vu—i indicates the percentage removal
of various pollutants attained through simple settling of the cleaning
flow. Raw waste characteristics (previously presented in Chapter V),
DRAFT

-------
TABLE VU-i
SETTLING OF CLEANING WASTES
Removal Efficiency
Study and
Reference
Settling
Time
(mm.)
.
.
Percent Removal
.
Settleable
Solids
.
130D
Suspended
Solids
TK1
N}I N
N0 1 —N
Total
POjj—P
Lamar (113)
15
93&
—
—
Cowlitz (].4 )
120
—
80.3
88.6
—
—
—
—
Wray (76)
15
67
: 63
69
40
50
4
82
30
•
78
72
71
35
57
1
68
.
45
89
72
7.
40
50
3
79
60
100
72
78
43
50
3
83
Willow Beach
(251)

5
15
857
92.9
757
80
95 3
96.7
69.9
74.5
—
—
49.2
53.8
92.9
.
93.7
30
100
80
97.5
74.5
—
53.8
93.7
a/Based on settleable solids removed after 60
minutes equal
s 100 pe
rcent
I— i
U i

-------
126
removal efficiency and final effluent characteristics of the cleaning
flow are presented in Table VII—2. In terms of the entire waste loads,
sedimentation of the cleaning flow would result in an estimated
15 percent reduction of BOD, suspended solids and phosphate loads and
a five percent reduction in the . total nitrogen load. In addition slug
loads 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. For this reason, provisions shçuld 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 fertilizer; and c) discharge or hauling of wet sludge to a
municipal waste disposal system.
The time for the industry to implement this level of technology is
estimated to be 28 months. This includes the following time Intervals:
DRAFT

-------
127
TABLE VII-2
SETTLING OF CLEA1 ING WASTES
Effluent Characterist1cs- !
a/ Effluent characteristics expected with one
b/ Values are gross concentrations
c/ Reported as ml/l
Pollutant
Raw Waste ’
(mg/i)
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
Effluent
(mg/i)
BOD
27.3
75
6.7
COD
97
-
-
Suspended Solids
73.5
80
14.7
Settleable Solids- 1
2.2
90
0.2
NH 3 —N
TKN
0.59
2.05
50
50
0.3
1.0
N0 3 —N
1.27
50
0.64
Total P0 4 —P
0.59
80
0.12
settling at plant scale
DRAFT

-------
128
Obtain Funding
Acquire Land
Engineering Evaluation
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract
Construction
Operation Adjustment Period
Vacuum Cleaning——Cleaning wastes can be removed directly from the
rearing units with a suction device similar to switrnning pool vacuum
equipment. The waste .settleable solids can be removed from the clean-
ing flow by means of a batch settling operation. After settling the
supernatant can be decanted and the solidspumped into a tank truck -
for land disposal or allowed to air dry in place. At a hatchery in
Wisconsin cleaning wastes are discharged to seepage ponds where the
liquid percolates and the solids are retained (128).
The removal efficiencies and the resultant effluent quality are the
same as those presented for settling [ Tables Vu—i and VII—2). In terms
of the entire waste load, it is estimated that the suápended solids and
BOD load reduction resulting from the implementation of vacuum cleaning
would be
The
15 percent.
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 would be resolved as cleaning devices are per-
fected 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
6 months
6
6 -
2
6
2
DRAFT

-------
129
become problems and should be carefully considered by the design engi-
neers. Several possibilities for sludge disposal include but are not
limited to: a) hauling with direct application of wet sludge to agri-
cultural land; b) on—site dewatering and land application or distri-
bution as garden fertilizer; and c) discharge or hauling of wet sludge
to a municipal disposal system.
Time required for the implementation of vacuum cleaning is esti-
mated to be 24 months, The following time intervals are included:
Obtain Funding - 4 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation 6
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 2
Construction 4
Operation Adjustment Period 2
Settling of Entire Plow Without Sludge Removal —-Settling has been
used to treat the entire flow from fish hatcheries (75,182,184,235).
The simplest method, although not the most efficient, is to settle in
an earthen pond or lagpon. Solids are allowed to settle and decompose
through bacterial action. Many hatcheries use- brood stock holding
ponds or in some cases rearing ponds for settleable solids removal.
Plant scale treatment results for three hatcheries have been documented
and arepresented with results of two bench studies [ Table Vll-3].
From the data available, it is reasonable to expect a 25 percent
removal of BOD with a settling time of two hours. Removal efficiencies
for other pollutants and the resultant effluent characteristics are
indicated [ Table VtI—4 1. Effluent concentrations are expected to be
essentially constant with possibly slight increases as a result of
DRAFT

-------
TABLE VII—3
SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITHOUT SLUDGE REMOVAL
Removal Efficiency -’
Settling
Time
.
— —
Percent
Removal
Settleable
Suspended
Total
Study and Reference
(hours)
Solids
BOD
Solids
Org—N
N1-1 3 —N
N0 3 —N
POçP
Rifle Falls ’ (182)
1.5
—
22.6
—
—
—
—
—
l3igSpring(184)
1
—
•
2
—
—
—
—
—
wray- ’ (76)
0.75
—
35
49
15
8
•
2
21
Lamar (113)
0.25
85
—
—
—
—
—
—
Chalk Cliffs ’ (75)
5
.
—
36
50
17
—17
0
25
a! Efficiencies for the entire flow are determined, by weighting efficiencies during normal and
flows assuming 15 percent of the pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
b/ Settling basin used also as brood stock holding pond
C ! Bench settling test using Inhoff Cone
d/ Based on two 24-hour composite samples of nornal flow
0

-------
131
TABLE VII—4
SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITHOUT SLU 9 GE REMOVAL
Effluent Characteristics
Pollutant
Raw Waste ’
(mg/i)
Re
moval Efficiency
(percent)
Effluent
(mg/i)
BOD
9.5
25
7.1
COD
.
43
-
-
Suspended Solids
22
45
12.1
Settleable So1ids ’
0.9
90
<0.1
NH 3 —I
0.54
0
0.54
TKN
1.37
0
1.37
N0 3 —N
1.63
0
1.63
Total PO 4 —P
0.25
20
0.20
a/
with
two hour settling at plant
Effluent characteristics expected
scale
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
C/ Reported as ml/l
DRAFT

-------
132
cleaning. The slug loads currently discharged during cleaning, however
would be reduced in strength.
The ultimate disposal of accumulated solids is thought to be the
major operating problem which would be encountered. Periodically it
would be necessary to remove and dispose of the settled solids. This
material could be hauled wet for land application or in some cases
allowed to dry in place before disposal. Thus two settling basins
operating in parallel would probably be necessary to maintain treat-
ment during solids disposal.
The estimated time necessary for the implementation of this level
of technology is 25 months. Included are the following time periods;
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation 6
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 2
Construction 4
Operation Adjustment Period I
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.
Two methods of sludge removal are applicable. First, sludge may be re-
moved mechanically from concrete clarifiers as is the practice in the treat-
ment 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 basinmay then
be taken out of service while dewatering and sludge removal take place.
The other basin remains in service treating the entire flow. This
DRAFT

-------
133
procedure is followed until both basins are clean. Where land is at a
premium, high rate sedimentation could be employed using plate sepa-
rators or tube settlers. Although these devices have not yet been used
successfully on fish hatchery wastes, information exists for the rational
design of high rate settlers (265,266).
Removal efficiencies obtained using this level of technology are
presented in Table VII—5. Projecting this data to plant scale settling
with a detention time of two hours, the removal efficiencies in Table
VII—6 are expected. The efficiencies indicated are accomplishable only
with the removal of accumulated solids prior to measurable breakdown
and resolubilization. Available information suggests that sludge removal
would be necessary at about two week intervals (196,246).
Sludge handling and disposal is recognized as the major problem
associated with the implementation of this technology. For a hatchery
with a flow of 37,850 m 3 /day (10 mgd) that removes 10 mg/I of suspended
solids, an estimated sludge volume, assuming 90 percent moisture, of
about 3.785 m 3 /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 toa municipal waste disposal system.
Another problem at some hatcheries may be shock hydraulic loadings
to the settling basin during raceway cleaning. Fish farms or hatcheries
operated with an increase in water flow during cleaning could experience
a reduction in settling efficiency due to short circuiting. This could
DRAFT

-------
TABLE VII—5
SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITh SLU1)GE REMOVAL
Removal Efficiency J
.
Study and Reference
Settling
Time
(hours)
Percent Removal
Settleable
Solids
Suspended
Solids
BOD
COD
Org—N
NH —N
N0 1 —N
Total
P0 4 — ?
Lamar (113)
0.07k’
38
.
52
39
69
Big Springs (184)
1
—
24
Wray ’ (76)
0.75
—
49
35
—
15
8
2
21
at Efficiencies for the entire flow are determined by weighting efficiencies during normal and cleaning flows
assuming 15 percent of the pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
hi Actual settling time was 3.9 minutes.
a! Bench settling test using Imhoff Cone
L)

-------
135
TABLE VII—6
SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW WITH SLUDGE ,REMOVAL
Effluent Characteristic?
Pollutant
Raw Wastes ’
(mg/i)
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
•
Effluen
(mg/i)
t
BOD
COD
.
9.5
43
35
60
6.2
17.2
Suspended Solids
22
50
I I
Settleable SOlids ’
0.9
90
<0.1
.
1 114 3 -N
0.54
0
0.54
TKN
1.37
10
1.2
N0 3 —N
1.63
0
1.63
Total P0 4 — ?
0.25
20
0.20
a/
two hour settling at
plant
Effluent characteris tics expected with
scale
b/ Raw waste concentrations for the entire floware gross concentrations
determined by weighting concentrations of normal and cleaning flows
assuming 20 percent of the pollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
c/ Reported as ml/l
DRAFT

-------
136
be a particular problem in smaller operations where the increased flow
during cleaning of one unit would be a significant percentage of the
total flow.
It is estiTnated that 28 months would be required for the industry
to implement settling with sludge removal. The time intervals are
estimated as follows:
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation 6
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 2
Construction 6 “
Operation Adjustment Period 2
Stabilization Ponds——Stabilization ponds are probably one of the
simplest methods available for treating fish wastes. The use of rearing
ponds for waste stabilization is not unconm on in fish culturing opera-
tions. Usually brood stock ponds are used and only the normal hatchery
discharge is routed through the pond. Cleaning wastes are disposed of
by other methods including direct discharge into the receiving water.
The effectiveness of stabilization ponds for treatment of the entire
flow has been studied and documented (140). Four rearing ponds of about
1.8 hectares (4.5 acres) each with an average water depth of about 2.5 m
(8.2 ft) were selected for the study. Excluding tests one and two
(Table VII—71, the average detention time in the ponds was 3.8 days
and the average BOD loading was 54.2 kg BOD/hectare—day (48.4 lb
BOO/acre—day).
It is reasonable to expect BOO and suspended solids removals of
about 60 percent when operated at detention times and loading rates
DRAFT

-------
TABLE VII—7
STABILIZATION POtThS 1
Removal Efficiency
a/ Data from Reference (140). Ponds received normal discharge and cleaning discharge. Author noted that ponds tested were used for rearing fingerling
ttout during peak season. The pollutant removal efficitncy with fish in ponds was comparable to that without fish in ponds.
b/ Author noted that ponds tested had not yet stabilized.
F low
Test
No.
2 w
3
4
5
6
7
8
m Idoy
8,, 592
17,638
15,064
5,829
8,213
17,525
12,491
6,359
( ngd )
2.27,
4.66
3.98
1.54
2.17
4.63
3.30
1.68
Detention
Time
(Days)
DOD
loading
Percent Removal Efficiency
•
BOO
Suspended
Solids
•
NH —N
‘
(kg/h ’ectare—day)
(lb/acre—day)
4.0
‘10.2
9.].
‘
35 ,
46
44
2.0
‘ 20.8
18.6
32
40
52
•
2.3
51.6
46.0
56
60
77
6.0
78.6
70.1
48
‘
60
78
4.2:
42.6
38.0
68
65
—
NO , -N
43
36
41
58
P0 4 —P
19
0
86
87
65.5
2.0
73.4
54
54
2.8
52.2
46.6
6].
61

-------
138
similar to those shown in Table V1I—7. The determinations made indIcate
that stabilization ponds are highly efficient in removing nutrient poi—
lutants, nitrogen and phosphorus. Removal efficiencies and the resul—
tant effluent quality are presented in Table VII—8. These figures are
based on a stabilization pond with a detention time of three to four
days, a loading rate of approximately 56.0 kg BOD/hectare—day (50 lbs
BOD/acre—day) and are independent of whether or not fish are in the pond.
Two potential problems do exist in the use of stabilization ponds.
First, over a period of many years some accumulation of 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 stabilization pond. Eventually, condi-
tions 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 appli-
cation at many 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
nx,nths. An estimated implementation schedule is presented below:
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation .4
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 2 ‘
Construction 6 “
Operation Adjustment Period 1
L R Fr

-------
139
TABLE VII—8
STABILIZATION PONDS
Effluent Characteris tics ’
Pollutant
Raw Wast
(mg/i)
e ’
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
Effluent
(mg/l)
BOD
9.5
60
‘
3.8
COD
43
—
-
Suspended Solids
22
60
8.8
Settleable Soiids
0.9
90 ”
•
<0.1
NH 3 —N
0.54
70
0.16
TKN
1.37
—
—
.
N0 3 —N
1.63
50
0.82
Total P0 4 —P
0.25
•
80
0.05
a/ Effluent characteristics expected with three to four day detention
time at a BOD loading rate of 56 kg/hectare—day (50 lb/acre—day)
b/ Raw waste concentrations for the entiref low 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/ Based on results of bench scale settling tests (113)
DRAFT

-------
140
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 àf Engineers Dworshak National Fish Hatchery
in Idaho. The Dworshak 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 waste stream.
Characteristics of influent to the pilot plant [ Table VII—9J are nearly
identical to characteristics of single—pass hatchery effluent.
TABLE VII-9
DWORSHAK PILOT PLANT INFLUENT
FILTER NORMAL OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS ’
Concentration
Pollutant. ( mg/i )
BOD . 5.4
Suspended Solids 12;6
Total Solids 76
Total Volatile Solids 25
NH 3 —N 1.1
N0 3 —N 1.8
P0 4 —P 0.8
i] Characteristics are average of pilot plant influent concentrations
with pilot plant operating at detention times between 3.2 and 6.6 hours.
Data are from Reference 131.
DRAFT

-------
141
Nine tests were made with the pilot plant operating at detention
times between three and seven hours. Results of these tests are pre-
sented in Table VU—iC. At a total detention time of five hours the
removal efficiencies in Table Vu—li would be expected. Applying these
efficiencies to theaverage raw waste concentration of a single—pass
hatchery would result in the effluent characteristics in Table Vu—il.
For plant scale operation a three cell system could be used con-
sisting of one aeration cell and two settling cells. During the pilot
plant testing, under the conditions previously described, the air supply
ranged from 970 to 2,020 cc/liter ‘(0.13 to 0.27 ft 3 /gai.) (130). To
permit sludge handling, with some degree of convenience,settling basin
design should consider the necessity for sludge removal. This may be
accomplished with a single concrete clarifier with mechanical sludge
removal or with two earthen settling basins designed for alternate
dewatering 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 VuI—12].
At the increased pollutant concentrations of the combined influent treat—
i nt efficiency was not impaired [ Table VuI—12).
The time required f or implementation of aeration and settling
(5 hours) is estimated at 32 months. Time intervals comprising this
period are estimated below.
DRAFT

-------
142
TABLE Vil—lO
AERATION AND SETTLING - 5 U0UR ’
Removal Efficiency
Detention Percent Removal
Time Suspended
Date (hours) BOD Solids NH3—N _N01—N P04-P
4—23—70 3.2 76.4 33.3 8.6 15.5
4—24—70 3.3 63 16 34
4—25—70 3.65 52 80 2
4—26—70 6.6 51 50 27
4—26—70 5.3 67 55 44 65 7
4—27—70 4.92 90 90 12 24.5
4—30—70 4.9 27 90 10 44 14.5
4—30—70 5.8 46.5 53 8.6 30 29
5—01—70 4.4 60 58 10 12
Mean
Values 4.67 59.2 58.4 17.4 19.9 6.9
a/ Data are from Reference 140.
DRAFT

-------
143
TABLE Vu—li
AERATION A D SETTLING - 5 H9UR
Effluent Characteristfcs ’
Pollutant
Raw Waste
(mg/i)
Rem

oval Efficiency
(percent)
Effluent.
(mg/i)
•
BOD
9.5
60
3.8.
COD
43
—
.
—
Suspended Solids
22
60
8.8
Settleable SOlids k
0.9
90 ”
<0.1
.
NH 3 —N
0.54
15
0.46
1.37
—
—
•
N0 3 —N
1.63
15
,
1.39
Total P0 4 —P
0.25
.
5
0.24
a/
with 1 to 1—1/2
hours
aer
ation and
Effluent characteristics expected
3 to 3—1/2 hours settling
b/ Raw waste concentrations for the entire flow are gross concentrations
detern ined by weighting concentrations of normal and cleaning flows
sssuming 20 percent of nollutant load is discharged during cleaning.
Cl Reported as mi/i
df Assumption based on 3 hours settling
DRAFT

-------
144
TABLE ‘/11-12
PILOT PLANT TREATING MIXTURE OP FILTE1 . NORMAL
OVERFLOW AND BACKWASHING WATER ’
Pollutant -
Influent
Concentration Percent
(mg/i) Removal
BOB
11.6
67
Suspended Solids
42.7
.
68
Total Solids
112
20
Total Volatile Solids
34
37
NH 3 —N
0.9
•
•
22
N0 3 —N
1.9
48
P0 4 —P
1.0
31
at Data are from Reference 131. Testing was done April 28 and 29, 1970.
Concentrations and percent removals tabulated are average of values
for the three tests conducted.
DRAFT

-------
145
Obtain ,Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation 8
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 2
Construction 8 “
Operation Adjustment Period 2
Aeration and Settling (10 hours)——Aeration and settling with a
total detention time of approximately 10 hours was studied on pilot
scale at the Seward Park Game Fish Hatchery in Seattle, Washington
from November 22, 1969 to January 21, 1970 (130). During this period
ten tests were made in which the total detention time ranged from 8.9
to 12 hours and averaged 10.2 hours. Aeration time averaged 1.9 hours
and settling time averaged 8.3 hours. The aeration rate ranged from
1,800 to 2,470 cc/liter (0.24 to 0.33 ft 3 /gal.) and averaged 1,950 cc!
liter (0.26 ft 3 /gal.).
The BOD and COD removal efficiencies are presented in Table VII—13.
Applying the removal efficiencies to average raw waste characteristics
of single—pass hatcheries the effluent characteristics indicated in
Table VII—14 would be expected from a system operating with a total
detention time of 10 hours.
Configurations for plant scale operation, and possible operating
problems would be the same as for the 5—hour system previously des-
cribed. The estimated time necessary for implementing this technology
is 32 months. Time intervals for the various steps of implementation
are estimated below.
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation 8
& Design
• Accept Bids & Award Contract 2
Construction 8 “
Operation Adjustment Period 2
DRAFT

-------
146
TA3LE VII—13
AERATION AND SETTLING - 10 HOUR ’
Removal Efficiency
Detention Influent
Time BOD COD Percent Removal
Date (hours) (mg/i) — (mg/i) BOD COD
11—22—69 9.3 14.2 20.8 78 52
11—23—69 9.3 13.3 32 77 84
11—25—69 9.3 12.7 40 78 88
11—29—69 89 16.5 21 89 15
12—02—69 8.9 18.1 52 79 77
12—06—69 11.9 13.1 42 81 80
12—20—69 11.1 16.7 27.4 77 86
12—21—69 10.6 14.3 16 84 38
12—23—69 10.8 14.4 27.0 83 52
12—24—69 12 17.3 22 92 68
Mean
Values 10.2 15.1 30.2 82 64
a! Data are from Reference 130.
DRAFT

-------
147
TABLE vII—14
AERATION ANT) SETTLING — 10 IJOUR
Effluent Characteristics
Pollutant
b/
Raw Waste—
(mg/i)
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
E
.
ffluen
(mg/i)
t
BOB
9.5
80
1.9
COD
43
60
17
Suspended Solids
22
—
—
Settleable So1ids- ’
0.9
90 -’
<0.1
NH 3 N
0.54
-
.
—
TKN
1.37
—
—
N0 3 —N
1.63
—
—
Total P0 4 —P
0.25
—
vi
th 2 hours aeration
and
8
hours
a/ Effluent characteristics expected
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 l Reported as mi/i
d/ Assumption based on 8 hours settling
DRAFT

-------
148
Reconditioning——Reconditioning refers to fish rearing systems in
which water is treated arid recirculated through the hatchery. A frac-
tion of the total flow is wasted from the system to prevent a buildup
of and replaced with an equal flow of source water. Reconditioning
systems have been used primarily for reasons other than pollution control.
Several reasons for installing water reconditioning include: a) source
water requiring sterilization; b) insufficient flow of source water
available; and c) temperature control for increased production.
Reconditioning water for fish rearing requires th replenishment of
oxygen and the removal of carbon dioxide and ammonia (36). Oxygen re-
plenishment and carbon dioxide removal are usually accomplished by
violent aeration. “Bactial nitrification is said to offer the most
practical and economical method of ammonia removal (36)!!. Several
methods of treatment for reconditioning were tested. at Rozeman, Montana
(159). Pilot reconditioning systems were operated using activated sludge,
extended aeration and trickling filtration, all common methods of secon-
dary wastewater 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 nine-pass reconditioning system
resulting in 90 percent of the water being recirculated while 10 percent
Is wasted from the system. Results of the Bozernan pilot studies are
presented in Table VII—l5. From these data It was concluded that the
removal efficiencies and effluent characteristics indicated in Table
VII—l6 were achievable with a nine—pass reconditioning system.
DRAFT

-------
149
TABLE Vu—iS
RECONDITIONINGWb
Removal Efficiency—
Reconditioning
197.1
Pe iod of
Percent
Remova1 ’
Suspended
P04—P
System
Operation
BOD
Solids
NH 1 —N
(ortho)
Activated
3/3 to
97
•
88
23
24
Sludge
7/29
.
Extended
3/3 to
93
95
10
25
Aeration
7/29
Trickling
3/3 to
86
91
69
+33
Filter ‘
8/16
‘
Upflow
.
8/7 to
89
79
‘
49
+25
Filter
11/il
New Upflow
8/23 to
91
—
49
+33
Filter ‘
11/11
.
.
a/Data are from Reference 159 ‘for nine—pass reconditioning
(10 percent waste)
b/ Removal is expressed in percent based on pollutant production
rates measured in a single—pass system.
c/ Plus sign represents increase
DRAFT

-------
150
TABLE VII—16
RECONDITIONING
Equivalent Effluent Characteristics
Pollutant
Raw Waste ’
(mg/I)
Removal Efficiency
(percent)
Effluent
(mg/i)
BOD
9.5
90
1.0
COD
43
—
.
—
Suspended Solids
22
90
2.2
Settj.eable Solids ’
0.9
—
—
NH 3 —N
0.54
40
0.32
TKN
1.37
—
—
N0 3 —N
1.63
—
.
—
Ortho P0 4 —P
0.25
a! Because the discharge is approximately 90 percent less than from a
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.
hi 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 mi/i
DRAFT

-------
151
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 by 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 below:
Obtain Funding 12 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation 12
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 2
Construction 16 “
Operation Adjustment Period 4 •“
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Pond culturing systems which overflow more than 30 days per year are
considered flow—thru culturing systems; therefore, only discharges re-
sulting from pond draining activities are considered here. In—plant
control measures are presented below as treatment alternatives because
significant construction or capital investment may be required for
implementation. In addition to the two alternatives discussed, a third
control measure, harvesting without draining, may be implemented with
only negligible cost and therefore is not presented here.
Drainin g at a Controlled Rate——Ponds that are partially drained
before fish are harvested can be drained from the surface to allow
settling of solids within the pond. To continue the control of set—
leable solids, fish harvesting can be done in the pond by such methods
DRAFT

-------
152
as seining or trapping. After fish have been removed, pond water can
be retained to allow additional settling of solids. Later the super—
natant can be carefully drained from the surface 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 40 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 Vu—iS shows two important facts. First, it shows that settleable
solids can be controlled in pond draining discharges when good fish
harvesting management is practiced. Second, it shows that water quality
stays essentially constant during much of the draining procedure, dete-
riorating in quality lust prior to harvest.
Problems and limitations inherent in this technology are three—fold.
First, additional man—hours are required for harvesting. Second har-
vesting in the pond is thought by some fish culturists to cause higher
fish mortality at harvest. Third, these harvesting techniques may
require reconstruction of pond outlets and harvesting. sumps as well
as major modification of piping.
The estimated implementation time for this technology is 15 months.
Time increments included in this estimate are as follows:
Obtain Funding 6 months
Engineering Evaluation 3
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 1
Construction 4
Operation Adjustment Period 1
DRAFT

-------
153
TABLE VII—17
COMPARISON OF THE
FROM NATIVE FISH
EFI!LUENT CHARACTERI STICS ’
-- POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
Pollutant
Pond Over
(mg/i)
flow
Pond Drain
(mg/i)
ing
,
BOD
3.9
5.1
COD
29
31
Suspended Solids
29
157
Settleabie So1ids ’
<0.1
5.5
NE 3 —N
0.30
0.39
TKN
0.63
0.78
N0 3 —N
0.43
0.41
Total P0 4 —P’
0.31
0.13
a! Sununarlzed from..data presented In Suppiement B
b/ Reported as mi/i
DRAPT

-------
154
TABLE VII—18
COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS ’
DURING DRAINING OF NATIVE FISH-POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
Pollutant
Start of
Draining
(mg/i)
Pond Half
Drained
(mg/i)
Ju
To
st Prior
Harvest
(mg/i)
ROD
5.7
4.8
11.7
COD
50
69
67
Suspended Solids
43
57
253
Settleable So1ids - ’
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
NH 3 —N
0.08
0.15
0.25
•
TKN
0.97
0.96
1.41
14O 3 —N
0.27
0.23
.
O..22
Total P
0.19
0.23
0.71
a/ Data are average values for three ponds sampled
harvesting (74).
b/ Reported as mi/i
during draining for
DRAFT

-------
155
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 dis-
charge, pumping may be necessary.
Draining through an existing rearing pond or a new settling pond
can result in the removal of 8Ô 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, maintenance where
pumping equipment is used, and additional man—hours required for
harvesting.
The estimated time required for implementation is 22 months. This
estimateassumes that land must be acquired anda settling pond constructed.
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation 4
& Design
Accept Bids & Award Contract 1
Construction 4 “
Operation Adjustment Period 1
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
As one may conclude from Section V, treatment of was tewater from
•the non—native subeategory is aimed primarily at the control of biolo-
gical pollutants. Because non—native fish are pond cultured, two
DRAFT

-------
156
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 accom-
plished 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 con-
centration of organic pollutants. Because of the public health signi-
ficance of many of the organic pollutants from non—native operations,
sludge must not be disposed by application to crops raised for human
consumption. The three alternatives presented in this section are dis-
cussed in order of increasing efficiency in the removal of biological
pollutants.
Chlorination——Chlorination is a disinfection method in widespread
use for treating water and wastewater. Presently, chlorination is used
in treating discharges from non—native fish éulturing facilities and for
in—plant disease control (33,102).
Biological pollution in pond drainage waters èan be controlled by
batch chlorination. After harvesting, the pond is charged with granular
chlorine to a dosage of 20 mg/l. Mter a minimum of 24—hours and when
no chlorine residual remains the pond can be drained without risk of
biological contamination of surface waters.
The following problems and limitations are associated with chlorination.
To insure effective chlorination, adequate contact time and regular
monitoring of chlorine residual is necessary. Batch treatment would be
DRAFT

-------
157
most common, however, were continuous chlorination used, preventive
maintenance would be necessary for reliable equipment operation. The
primary limitations of chlorination are that at usual treatment levels
not all organisms are killed and 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 time required for the Implementation of filtration Is estimated
at 8 months. Land requirements are negligible, thus the following
estimated time intervals do not include a period for land aquisition.
Obtain Funding 2 months
Engineering Evaluation and Design 2
Accept Bids and Award Contract 1
Construction 2
Operation Adjustment Period 1
Filtration and Ultraviolet Disinfection——This treatment alternative
consists of filtration followed by ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Fil-
tration is presently used in anuinber 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 1W dis-
infection 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).
DRAFT

-------
158
Ultraviolet (DV) light or short wave length irradiation is used to
disinfect water in non—native fish culturing facilities (21,218) in
some large public aquaria (61,108), and in research facilities (108).
Presently li v is used as art 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 aim thick, is exposed to light from
low—pressure mercury vapor lamps. The shortwavelength irradiation is
believed to destroy the nucleic acids in bacterial cells (5).
The effectiveness of UV disinfection in reducing biological pol-
lutants has been doèumented. An ultraviolet system at a non—native
fish culturing facility reduced total coliforms from 350 per ml to
2—5 per ml (21). At the Steinhart Aquarium, five months of operation
without tW resulted in a buildup of bacteria in the aeration tank to
40,000 per ml; after one day of liv, the level was reduced to 57 per
ml (108). Spores are more resIstant to liv than vegetative cells (5),
however, standard UV doses of 35,000 mUll—watt—seconds kill spores of
the bacterium Myxosoma cerebralis , a form resistant to chemical treat-
ment (111,112). Larger biological contaminants such as copepods, snails
fish or fish gill parasites are not k illed by UV irradiation (61,108).
Several problems and limitations exist in filtration followed by
liv 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. Second, filters may clog
when suspended solids concentrations become excessive due to algal
blooms or pond draining. Maintenance of associated mechanical equip-
ment is necessary.
DRAFT

-------
159
Furthermore, the following problems and limitations are associated
with the use of UV disinfection. Effectiveness is dependent upon deliv-
ery of the energy to the entire volume of water to be disinfected. Tur-
bidity, algae, and color constitute natural barriers to the penetration
of ultraviolet irradiations (5), thus thorough water preconditioning is
required (256). The main limitation is that not all sizes of biological
pollutants are destroyed. In addition, under some conditions, complete
DNA cellular repair occurs in bacteria after IN disinfection. 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 UV
disinfection is 27 months as estimated below:
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation and Design 6
Accept Bids and Award Contract 1
Construction 6 “
Operation Adjustment Period 2
No Discharge ( Land Disposal)——No discharge as discussed here refers
to land disposal such that no discharge exists to surface water. No dis—
• charge is presently practiced at both large (218) and very small (43)
non—native fish farms and, assuming that control technology is required,
is the method most often recommended by representatives of the industry
(11,12,43,89,90,101,192,220) and other authorities (48,55,56,204,233,267).
DRAFT

-------
160
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. 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 Miami (102)
areas of Florida.
Biological pollutants are removed by 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
ground 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 required for land disposal. When
percolation ponds are used they’ must be protected against flooding to
prevent escapment of biological pollutants during peak flood or hurricane
periods. Three foot dikes are sufficient in the main production area of
Southern Florida (192,204).
DRAFT

-------
161
The estimated time required for the imnlementation of no discharge
is 18 months. The following estimated time intervals are included:
Obtain Funding 6 months
Acquire Land 6
Engineering Evaluation and Desic n 2
Accept Bids and Award Contract 1
Construction 2 U
Operation Adlustment Period 1
Summary
The waste loads achievable through the treatment technologies
described are summarized in Table VII—19.
DRAFT

-------
Settling
aTReported as mi/l
b/ Reported as kg/l0O kgfish on hand/day except for settleabie solids
c/ Reported as mg/i
TABLE VII— 19
POLLUTANT LOAD ACHIEVABLE THRU ALTERNATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
C ’
Treatment
Technology
BOD
Suspended
COD Solids
Settleable ’
Solids
N11 1 —N
TRW
NO3—N
Total
P0 6 — ?
.
NATIVE FtSfl — —
FLOW-THRU SYS TEMS - ’
No Treatment
1.3
5.5 2.6
0.9
0.09
0.38
0.06
0.03
Settling of
Cleaning Flow
1.1
— 2.2
0.7
—
—
—

0.03
.
Vacuum Cleaning
1.1
— 2.2
0.7
— .
—
—
—
Settling Entire
Flow t-z/o SR
1.0
— 1.4
<0.1
—
—
—
0.02
Settling Entire
F lowwSR
0.9
— 1.3
.
<0.1
0.09.
0.34
.
0.06
0.02
Stabilization Ponds
0.5
— 1.0
<0.1
0.03.
—
0.03
0.01
Aeration & Settling
5—Hour
0.5
— 1.0
<0.1
0.08..
.
—
0.05
0.03
Aeration & Settling
10—Hour
0.3
2.2 —
<0.1
.
Recycle
Reconditioning
0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.05
—
NATIVE FISK
— — PONT) DRAININGSJ
.
.
No Treatment
5.1
31 157
5.5
0.39
0.78
0.41
0.13
In—Plant Control
—
— —
3.3
.—
— — — 1.1 — — — —

-------
163
‘SECTION VIII.
COSTS, ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
The control and treatment technologies that can be adopted to reduce
waste loads from the fish culturing industry were presented in Section
VII. The purpose of this section is to examine the treatment alternatives
in terms of their costs, energy requirements, and impact on the non—
water quality aspects of the environment. Cost information is presented
for each alternative by subcatego ’ry as follows:
Native Fish —— Flow—Thru Culturing Systems
A —— Settling of Cleaning ‘Flow
B —- Vacuum Cleaning
C —— Settling of Entire Flow Without Sludge Removal
D -— Settling of Entire Flow With Sludge Removal
E — — Stabilization Ponds
F —— Aeration and Settling (5 hours) ‘f
G —— Aeration and Settling (10 hours)
Ii — - Reconditioning
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
A —— Draining at Controlled Rate
B —— Draining Through Another Pond
C —— Harvesting Without Draining
Non—Native Fish
A —— Chlorination
B —— Filtration and Ultraviolet Disinfection
C —— No Discharge With Land Disposal
DRAFT

-------
164
In each case, the generation of costs has required the adoption
of various assumptions about typical size operations, existing treatment
technology, levels of production and many other conditions. Two general
assumptions have been made concerning land and power costs for all sub-
categories; land costs have been calculatedat $2,000 per acre and
power costs have-been calculated at $0.025 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
for subsequent review and evaluation.
NATIVE FISH - — FLOW—THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
Eight levels of control and treatment technologies have been identi-
fied. 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 zero cost. Climate, process characteristics, and age of
facility were not considered meaningful for the purposes of making cost
distinctions. Size, however, was -considered significant and costs
were developed for four scales of operation: 3,785; 37,850; 94,600
and 378,500 in 3 /day (1, 10, 25 and 100 nigd) facilities.. The following
capacities were used in estimating the cost per pound of fish for thIs
subcategory:
Hatchery Flow Fish Produced -
m 3 /day pg4 kg lb
3,785 1 2,200 4,860
37,850 10 22,000 48,600
94,600 25 55,300 122,000
378,500 100 220,000 486,000
DRAFT

-------
165
Several other assumptions specific to this subcategory are made.
First, it is assumed that pumping is necessary to operate treatment
facilities at elevations above flood levels. Secondly, it is assumed
that major piping modifications are necessary to collect discharges
for treatment. Sludge handling costs are eè timated assuming wet sludge
removal and hauling at $O.62/m 3 ($O.8O/yd 3 ) and disposal at $5.44/m. ton
($6/ton).
The cost estimates also rely on a number of detailed assumptions
that remain unstated in this document because it is believed that they
are not critical to the acceptance or rejection of the estimates.
Alternative A — — Settling of Cleaning Flow
Cost estimates for Alternative A are presented in Table VIII—l.
- In addition to the previously stated general assumptions, estimates
are based on. the construction of an earth settling basin with a one-hour
detention time and depth of 1.8 meters (6 ft).
Alternative B —- Vacuum Cleaning
In computing the cost estimates for Alternative B [ Table VIII—2]
it was assumed that settled solids would be pumped from the culturing
units directly to a batch settling basin such that intermediate pumping
would not be necessary. The pumping rate during vacuuming was esti-
mated at 3.2 1/sec (50 gpm).
Alternative C — — Settling df Entire Flow:Without Sludge Removal
The estimated costs of Alternative C are indicated in Table VIII—3.
For purposes of the cost estimate it is assumed that two earth settling
DRAYT

-------
166
TABLE VIII—1
NATIVE FISH -— FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY ‘FLOW
3,785 m 3 /day
(1 mgd)
37., 850’ m 3 /day
(10 mgd)
94,600 m 3 /day
(25 .mgd)
378,500 m 3 /day
(100 mgd)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Settling Pond
Piping
TOTAL COST
$ 6,900
$ 10,600
$ 15,300
$ 23,000
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AN])
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
.$. 30 $ 250
800
$ 1,750
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital.
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOCRA1 OF
FISH PRODUCED ’
$ 0.99
$ 0.20
0.15
0.07
COST PER POUND
FISH PRODUCED
$ 0.45
$ ‘0.09
$ 0.07
$ 0.03
a/ For production figures refer to the introdiictory paragraph of Native Fish
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
—— Flow-Thru
$ 4,100
$ :5,600
$ 7,500
$ 10,000
550
1,000
1,800
4,000
2,250
, . 4,000
‘6,000 ,
9,000
$
300
$
. 1,200
‘$
3,380
.$
8,000
.960
,
1,440
1,920
3,000
,
$
1,260
‘
$
2,640
$
5,300
$
11,000
$ 550
360
1,260
30
$ 850
530,
‘2, 640
250
$ ‘ 1,250
770
- 5,300
800
$ 2,200 $ 4,270
.$ 1,850
1,150
11,000
1,750
$ 8,120 $ 15,750
DRAFT

-------
167
TABLE VIII—2
NATIVE FISH —— FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE B, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
3,785 m 3 fday
(1 tngd)
37,850 m 3 /day
(10 mgd)
94,600 m 3 /day
(25 mgd)
378,500 m 3 /day
(100 mgd)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Vacuuming and Piping
Settling Pond
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
$ 1,740
$ 3,650
$ 7,250
$ 14,800
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
$ 30 $ 250
$ 800
$ 2,000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
COST PER KILOGRAM OF
FISH PRODUCED ’
$ 0.92
$ 0.22
$ 0.18
$ 0.09
COST PER POUND O
FISH PRODUCED
$ 0.42
$ 0.10
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
at For production figures refer
Culturing Systems portion of
to the introductory paragraph of Native Fish
Section VIII.
—— Flow—Thru
TOTAL COST
$
1,750
$
6,200
$
8,900
$
19,000
200
600
1,000
•
2,500
$
l!950
$
6,800
$
9,900
$
21,500
$
300
$
1,200’
$
3,380
$
8,000
1,440
2,450
3,870
6,800
$ 160
100
1,740
30
$ ‘540
340
3,650
250
720
450
7,250
800
$ 2,030 $ 4,780
$ 1,720
1,080
14,800
2,000
$ 9,220 $ 19,600
DRAFT

-------
168
TABLE VIII-3
NATIVE FISH -- FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
3,785 m 3 lday
(1 mgd)
37,850 m 3 /day
(10 tagd)
94,600 in 3 /day
(25 mgd)
378,500 m 3 lday
(100 mgd)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Settling Ponds
Piping
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
$ 490
$ 4,900
$ 11,750
$ 30,000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$ 3,880
$ 23,240
$. 52,470
$ 136,200
COST PER KILOGRA1 / OF
FISH PRODUCED!
$ 1.76
$ 1.06
$ 0.95
$ 0.62
COST PER POUND
FISH PRODUCED!
$ 0.80
$ 0.48
$ 0.43
$ 0.28
/ duction figures ref er to the introductory paragraph of Native Fish —- Flow—Thru
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
TOTAL COST
•$ 5,000
1,350
3,100
$ 14,500
10,600
12,700
$ 24,000
20,700
34,500
$ 9,450 $ 37,800
$ 45,000
70,000
70,000
$ 79,200 $ 185,000
$ 1,2O0
960
$ 12,000
1,440
$ 2,160 $ 13,440
$ 28,500
1,920
$ 75,000
7,000
$ 30,420 $ 82,000
$ 760
$ 3,000
$
6,350
$
15,000
470
1,900
3,950
9,200
2,160
13,440
30,420
82,000
490
4,900
11,750
30,000
DRAFT

-------
169
basins, operated in parallel, would provide a total detention time of
two hours with a depth of 1.8 meters (6 ft). Although no attempt would
be made to remove sludge before bacterial decomposition takes place, it
is recognized that over the long term sludge removal would be necessary
at six—month to one—year intervals. The operation and maintenance cost
for sludge handling assumed a removal interval of six months.
Alternative D —— Settling of Entire Flow With Sludge Removal
The estimated costs of this alternative are tabulated in Table
VIII—4. Similar to the previous alternative, cOsts for Alternative D
are estimated for two earth settling basins, operated in parallel,
providing a total detention time of two hours with a depth of 1.8 meters
(6 ft). Sludge is removed before bacterial decomposition has the oppor-
tunity to affect effluent water qualIty. it is estimated that during
the course of a year, sludge would be removed 12 times.
Alternative E —— Stabilization Ponds
The costs of implementing Alternative E have been estimated and are
presented in Table VIII—5. Estimates are based on duel earth stabili-
zation ponds operated in parallel with a total detention time of fOur
days and a depth of 2.4 meters (8 ft).
Alternative F —— Aeration and Settling (5 hours )
Cost estimates for Alternative F are indicated in Table VIII—6.
Estimates are based on an aeration time of 1—1/2 hours followed by 3—1/2
hours of settling. The aeration basin was assumed to be of earth
construction 3.7 meters (12 ft) in depth. Two earth settling basins,
DRAFT

-------
170
TABLE VIII-4
NATIVE FISH -- FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE D, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
3,785 m 3 /day
(1 mgd)
37,850 ‘1n 3 /day
çio mgd)
94,600 m 3 /day
(25 rngd)
378,500 m 3 /day
(100 mgd)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Settling Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST
$ 9,450
$ 37,800
$ 79,200
$ 185,000
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
$ 3,060
$ 16,140
$ 35,500
$ 94,000
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
$ 550
$ 5,500
$ 12,450
$ 33,000
COST PER KILOGRA ./ OF
FISH PRODUCED
$ 2.20
$ 1.21
$ 0.95
$ 0.68
COST PER POUND 0
FISH PRODUCED!
$ 1.00
$ 0.55
$ 0.48
$ 0.31
a/ For production figures refer to the introductory paragraph of Native Fish —— Flow—Thru
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
$ 5,000
$ 14,500
$ 24,000
$ 45,000
1,350
10,600
20,700
70,000
3,100
12,700
34,500
70,000
$ 1,300
$ 13,500
$ 32,000
$ 84,000
1,760
2,640
3 5OO
— 10,000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
$
760
$
3,000
$
6,350
$
15,000
Depreciation
470
1,900
3,950
9,200
Operation and Maintenance
3,060
16,140.
35,500
94,000
Energy and Power
•
550
5,500
—
12,450
33,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$
4,840
$
26,540
$
58,250
S
151,200
DRAFT

-------
TABLE VIII-5
NATIVE FISH -- FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE E, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
171
3,785 m 3 /day
‘(1 mgd)
37, 850 tn 3 /day
(10 mgd)
94,600 m 3 /day
(25 mgd)
378,500 m 3 /day
(100 mgd)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Stabilization Pods
Piping
TOTAL COST
$ 52,000
$ 187,200
$ 378,500
$ 715,000
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor
$ 2,000
$ 3,000
$ 5,000
$ 8,000
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy ‘and Power
$ 260
$ 2,600
$ 6,250
$ 20,000
COST PER KILOCRAI/ OF
FISH PRODUCED!
$ 4.07
$ 1.36
$ 1.12
$ 0.55
COST PER POUND 0
FISH PRODUCED!
$ 1.85
$ 0.62
0.51
$ 0.25
a [ For production figures refer to the introductory paragraph of Native Fish
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
—— Flow—Thru
$ 5,000
$ 14,500
$ 24,000
$ 45,000
34,000
.160,000 .
320,000
600,000
13,000
12,700
34,500
70,000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$ 4,150
$ 15,000
$
30,300
$
57,000
2,600
, 9,360
21,000
36,000
2,000
3,000
5,000
8,000
260
2,600
‘
‘
6,250
20,000
$ 9,010
$ 29,960
‘
$
62,550
,
$
121,000
,
DRAFT

-------
172
TABLE VIII—6
NATIVE FISH -— FLOW-THRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE F, COST ESTIMATES
3,785 in 3 /day
(1 mgd)
HATCHERY FLOW
37,850.m 3 /day 94,600 m 3 /day
( 10 mgd) ( 25 mgd )
378,500 m 3 /day
(100 mgd)
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS;
Sludge Handling
Labor
Aeration Maintenance
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
$ 1,000
$ 10,000
$ 25,000
$ 70,000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$ 13,870
$ 72,140
$ 155,800
$ 328,000
COST PER KILOGRM/ OF
FISH PRODUCED
$ 6.27
$ 3.26
$ 2.82
$ 1.47
COST PER POUND
FISH PRODUCED
$ 2.85
$ 1.48
$ 1.28
$ 0.67
at For production figures refer to the introductory paragraph of Native Fish —— Flow—Thru
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Aeration Equipment
Aeration Ponds
Settling Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST
$ 5,000
$
14,500
$
24,000
$ 70,000
45,000
1,350
235,000
10,600
485,000
20,700
750,000
70,000
1,850
15,500
31,200
80,000
5,100
23,700
64,500
95,000
$ 58,300
$
299,300
•
$
625,400
$1,065,000
$ 1,600
$
16,500
$
40,000
$ 100,000
1,760
2,640
3,500
5,000
2,000
4,000
6,000
15,000
$ 5,360
$
23,140
$
49,500
$ 120,000
$ 4,650
$ 24,000
$ 50,000
$ 85,000
2,860
15,000
31,300
53,000
5,360
23,140
49,500
120,000
1,000
10,000
25,000
70,000
DRAFT

-------
173
1.8 meters (6 ft) deep, operating in parallel were assumed. The assumed
air supply was 1.9 liters of air per.liter of aeration tank volume (0.25
cu ft/gal.).
Alternative G — — Aeration and Settling (10 hours )
Estimated costs for Alternative G are presented in Table 1 1 1 1 1—7.
All assumptions are identical to Alternative P with the exception of
detention time. Alternative C is based on 2 hours aeration followed by
8 hours settling.
Alternative II —— Reconditioning
Cost estimates for Alliernative H are presented in Table 11111—8.
The estimates are based on a nine—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 meter (5 ft) filter
media depth and a loading rate of 1.4 lps/m 2 (2 gpm/ft 2 ). Reaeration is
estimated for 10 minutes detention time.
Cost of Achieving Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Avail-
able (BPCTCA )
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 1 1 1 1 1—1 and 1 1111—2.
DRAFT

-------
174
TABLE VIfl-7
NATIVE FISH - — FLOW-THR’LJ CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE C, COST ESTIMATES
HATCHERY FLOW
3,785 m 3 /day
(1 mgd)
37,850 m 3 /day
(10 iugd)
94,600 m 3 /day
(25 mgd)
378,500 m 3 /day
__çioo 4)
ANNUAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
Aeration Maintenance
TOTAL COST
$ 5,360
$ 23,140
$ 49,500
$ 120,000
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
$ 1,000
$ 10,000
$ 25,000
$ 80,000
COST PER KILOGRA4 OF
FISH PRODUCED!’
$ 6.53
$ 3.45
$ 2.99 1.61
COST PER POUND 9’
FISH PRODUCED!
$ 2.97
$ 1.57
$ 1.36 $ 0.73
at For production figures refer to the introductory paragraph of Native Fish — — Flow—Thru
Culturing Systems portion of Section VIII.
CAPITAL COSTS:
Pumping Facilities
Aeration Equipnient
Aeration Ponds
Settling Ponds
Piping
TOTAL COST
$• 5,000
$
14,5cm
$
24,000
$ 70,000
46,500
245,000
515,000
800,000
1,850
15,200
33,000
90,000
3,550
34,000
69,000
140,000
— 5,100
23,700
64,500
95,000
$ 62,000
$
332,400
$
705,500
$1,195,000
$ 1,600
$
16,500
$
40,000
$ 100,000
1,760
•
2,640
3,500
5,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
15,000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
$
4,950
$
26,500
$
57,000
$
95,000
Depreciation
3,100
16,500
35,000
•
60,000
Operation and Maintenance
5,360
23 ,140
49,500
120,000
Energy and Power
1,000
10,000
25,000
—
80,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
- $
14,410
$
76,140
$
166,500
$
355,000
DRAFT

-------
175
TABLE VtII—8
NATIVE FISH -- FLOW-T}LRU CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE H, COST ESTIMATES
3,785 m 3 /day
(1 mgd)
HATCHERY FLOW
37,850 m 3 /day 94,600 m 3 /day
( 10 mgd) ( 25 mgd )
378,500 m 3 /day
(100 mgd)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Clarifier
Nitrification Filter
Reaeration
Ozonation
Sludge Holding Tank
Pumps
Piping
Land
$ 90,000
50,000
110,000
55,000
20,000
10,000
5,100
1,000
$ 250,000
300,000
250,000
195,000
20,000
30,000
23,700
2,000
$ 400,000
700,000
600,000
380, 000
20,000
75,000
64,500
4,000
$ 700,000
1,000,000
800,000
750,000
50,000
200,000
100,000
6,000
TOTAL COST
$341, 100
$1,070,000
$2, 240,000
$3,621,000
ANN1JAL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Sludge Handling
Labor
TOTAL COST
ANNUAL ENERGY AND
POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power
$ 1,550
$ 14,500
$• 35,000
$ 100,000
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
$ 62,920
$ 200,500
$ 418,000
$ .760,000
COST PER KILOGRAM 1 OF
FISH PRODUCED
$ 28.49
$ 9.09
$ 7.55
$ 3.43
COST PER POUND OF
FISH PRODUCED
$ 12 95
4.13
$ 3.43
$ 1.56
al For production figures refer
Culturing Systems portion of
to the introductory paragraph
Section VIII.
of Native Fish —— Flow—Thru
$ 2,070
15,000
$ 17,500
30,000
$ 17,070 $ 47,500
$. 46,000
45,000
$ 130,000
60,000
$ 91,000 $ 190,000
$ 27,300
$ 85,000
$ 180,000
$ 290,000
17,000
53,500
.
112,000
180,000
17,070
47,500
91,000
190,000
1,550
14,500
35,000
100,000
DRAFT

-------
176
Cost of Achieving Best Available TechnoloM _ Econornically Achievable
( BATEA )
The BATEA has been recommended as settling of the entire flow with
sludge removal. The costs of achieving BATEA are presented in
Table VIII—4.
Cost of Achieving New Source Performance Standards (NSPS )
The NSPS technology is the same as BATEA. The cost of implementing
NSPS is also presented in Table VIII—4.
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment Requirements (PRETREAT )
Pretreatment of wastewaters from fish culturing facilities is not
necessary. Therefore the costs are zero for achieving pretreatment
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 pond; 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 requirements. 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
ponds. In other cases, the proprietor may find it least costly to
DRAFT

-------
177
convert a production pond for use as a settling pond. Some ponds are
constructed in such a way that harvesting without -draining is already
practiced or could readily be adopted. Harvesting without draining is a
possibility in shallow ponds and those that have feeding areas that can
be readily closed off from the rest of the pond. Finally, in many
cases, the least cost approach toward achieving BPCTTCA requirements may
be the construction of a new outlet structure that allows controlled
draining from the pond surface.
Costs have been estimated only for the-construction of a new outlet
structure [ Table VIII—9]. Costs have been developed on the basis of a
0.405 hectare (one acre) pond producing 1,820. kg (4,000 lb) of fish per
year. The costs are based upon the construction of a concrete outlet
sttucture that allows controlled draining by means of dam bpards. These
costs represent the largest expenditure a pond culturing facility would
incur in order to comply with BPCTCA. Whereas settling or harvesting
without draining may be economically desirable or technically feasible
in only certain situations, controlled drainage front the surface could
be adopted in all cases.
Cost of Achieving Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
( BATEA )
The BATEA is the same as BPCTCA. The incremental costs of achiev—
ing BATEA above those of BPCTCA are zero.
Cost of Achieving New Source Performance Standards (NSPS )
The NSPS requirements are identical to BPCTCA. Costs to achieve
NSFS may be somewhat less than those for BPCTCA for existing sources but
not by an appreciable amount.
DRAFt

-------
178
TABLE VIII—9
NATIVE FISH —- POND CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS:
Site Preparation $ 200
Piping Modifications 300
Outlet Structure 1,000
TOTAL COST $1,500
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS-:
Labor $ 160
2 Percent Fish Loss* 35
TOTAL COST $ 195
ANNUAL ENERGY AND POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power $ 00
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital $ 150
Depreciation 150
Operation and Maintenance 195
Energy 00
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $ 495
•COST PER KILOGRAM OF FISH PRODUCED $ 0.29
COST PER POUND OF FISH PRODUCED $ 0.13
* Based on $0.44 lb value of live fish (269).
DRAFT

-------
179
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment Requirements (PRETREAT )
Should waters from native fish pond culturing systems be discharged
to a municipal system, they would require no pretreatment. The cost of
pretreatment would be zero.
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
Alternative A —— Chlorination
The cost for chlorination is developed on the basis of batch treat-
ment of a typical pond 18 in x 7.6 m x 1.8 in 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
reported 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 VIII—lO.
Alternative B —— Filtration and Ultraviolet 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 culturing system consists of ten
ponds with an average size of 18 in x 7.6 in x 1.8 in deep (60 ft x 25 ft x
6 ft). Ponds are assumed to be drained once per year and to have an
annual production of 10,000 fish per pond. For purposes of flow rate it
DRAFT

-------
ião
TABLE Vill—lO
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE A, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS: $ 00
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor $ 40
Chlorine 50
TOTAL COST $ 90
ANNUAL ENERCY AND POWER COSTS:• $ 00
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital $ 00
Depreciation 00
Operation and Maintenance 90
Energy and Power - 00
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $ 90
COST PER FISH PRODUCED
Production of 10,000/pond/yr $0.01
DRAFT

-------
181
is assumed that only one pond is drained at any time and that the drain-
ing takes place over a period of 24 hours. O .iing to the relative small
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—UV system for a ten—pond non—native fish
culturing operation are presented in Table VIII—ll.
Alternative C —— No Discharge With Land Disposal
The viable approaches to land disposal are the application of pond
drainage water to the land at irrigation rates or at pond percolation
rates depending upon the availability of land and the local soil drain—
•age characteristics. Costs have been developed for each of these
alternatives employing conservative assumptions about soil character-
istics.
The cost estimates have been developed for the same typical ten—
pond system assumed in Alternative B. In the case of the irrigation altern-
ative, a one—day application of 631 cubic meters per hectare (67,500
gal./acre) ten times per year has been assumed. This rate is equiv-
alent 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 (one 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
DRAFT

-------
182
TABLE Vill—Il
NON-NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE B, COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS:
Diatomaceous Earth Filter $1,100
Ultraviolet Disinfection 2,700
Piping 1,100
Surge Tank 1,100
TOTAL COST $6,000
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor $ 800
Diatomaceous Earth 100
TOTAL COST $ 900
ANNUAl ENERGY AND POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power $ 20
ANNUAL COSTS:
Capital $ 600
Depreciation 600
Operation and Maintenance 900
Energy and Power 20
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $2,120
COST PER FISH PRODUCED
Production of 10,000/pond/yr $ 0.02
DRAFT

-------
183
year. In some cases rates have been as low as 21 in (70 ft) of water per
year for primary, effluents. For purposes of cost estimation, an applic-
ation rate of 30 m (100 ft) per year has been assumed. . This rate trans-
lates 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 neces-
sary.
Based on these assumptions, the costs for .the two alternative
methods of land disposal appear in Table VILT—12.
Cost of Achieving Best Practicable’ Control Technology Currently
Available (BPCTCA )
The BPCTCA has been recommended as no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. The BPCTCA is to be achieved by land disposal via an irri-
gation or an infiltration—percolation system. The costs for these
systems appear in Table VIII—12.
Cost of Achieving Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
( BATEA )
The BATEA is the same as BPCTCA. Therefore, the costs of achieving
BATEA above those of achieving BPCTCA are zero.
Cost of Achiev±ng New Source Performance Standards (NSPS )
The NSPS technology is’ the same as BPCTCA. The costs of NSPS
appear in Table VIII—12 presented earlier.
DR4FT

-------
184
TABLE VIII— 12
NON—NATIVE FISH CULTURING SYSTENS
ALTERNATIVE C, COST ESTIMATE
Spray Percolation
Irrigation — Pond
CAPITAL COSTS:
Land $2,000 $ 500
Earthwork 00 6,000
Pump and Piping 1,300 2,800
Hose 1,500 00
TOTAL COST $4,800 $9,300
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Labor $1,600 $1,200
ANNUAL ENERGY AND POWER COSTS:
Energy and Power $ 25 $ 10
ANNuAL COSTS:
Capital $ 580 $ 930
Depreciation 560 560
Operation and Maintenance 1,600 1,200
Energy andPower - 25 10
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $2,765 $2,700
COST PER FISH PRODUCED
Production of 10,000/pond/yr $0.028 $O.027
DRAFT

-------
185
Cost of Achieving Pretreatment Requirements (PRETREAT )
Wastes from fish culturing ponds are organic in nature and pollu-
tants are not present in concentrations that require pretreatment. The
costs of achieving pretreatment for existing and new sources are zero.
SUMMARY
To facilitate comparison, the costs for each treatment alternative
discussed in this section are summarized by sdbcategory in Table VIII—13.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT. TECHNOLOGIES
Fish 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
pumping 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 1 Manual feeding is usually accompliâhed 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—l
through 12] for the alternatives presented for each subcategory. For
native fish — — flow—thru culturing systems Alternatives A through E,
power costs are composed almost entirely of energy consumed in pumping
prior to treatment. 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 F, C and H are high due
to the dependence upon mechanical equipment.
DRAFT

-------
186
TABLE VIII-13
*
COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATE TREATMENT TEC}1NOLOCIES
Alternative
A — SETTLING OF CLEANING FLOW
B —- VACUUM CLEANING
C — SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW
WITHOUT SLUDGE REMOVAL
I) — SETTLING OF ENTIRE FLOW
WITH SLUDGE REMOVAL
E — STABILIZATION PONDS
F — AERATION AND SETTLING
(5 HOURS)
C —- AERATION AND SETTLING
(10 HOURS)
H — RECONDITIONING
3,785 ixi 3 /day
(1 ingd)
0.99
(0.45)
0.92
(0.42)
1.76
(0 80)
2.20
(1.00)
4.07
(1.85)
6.27
(2.85)
6.53
(2.97)
28.49
(12.95)
378,500 m 3 /day
( 100 mgd
O..07
(0.03)
0. 09
(0.04) -
0.62
(0.28)
0.68
(O .31)
O.55
(O.25)
1.47
(0.67)
1.61
(0.73)
3.43
(I. 56)
NATIVE. FI.SH
A —- DRAINING AT CONTROLLED RATE
B —- DRAINING THROUGH ANOTHER POND
C —- HARVESTING WITHOUT DRAINING
POND
CULTURI NG s:ysTEM -S;
0 • 29
(0.13)
A — CHLORINATION
B —- FILTRATION AND ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION
C — NO DISCHARGE WITH LAND DISPOSAL
NATIVE FISH
F L o w - T H R u clu L ru:’R I N C s y: TEM s.
Hatchery Flow
37,850 tn 3 /day 94,600 m 3 /day
_____________ ( 10 yngd) ( 25 mgd ) ______
0.20 0.15
(0.09) (O O7)
0.22 0.18
(0.10) (0.08)
1.06 0.95 -
(0.48) (0.43)
1.21 0.95
(0.55) (0.48)
1.36. 1.12
(0.62) (0.51)
3.26 2.82.
(1.48) (1.28)
3.45 2 99
(1.57) (LN6)
9.09 7.55
(4.13) (3.43)
NON-N -ATIV E FISH
0.01
0.02
0.03
* Costs are in terms of cost per ki1o ram (pound) of fish produced for. natjve fish and cost per fish
for non—native fish.
DRAFT

-------
187
For native fish—pond culturing systems, annual energy and power
costs are zero [ Table V1II—91. Energy and power requirements for
non—native fish culturing system alternatives are negligible [ Table
Vilt—lO to Table VIIl—12].
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Non—water quality aspects for each alternative treatment technology’
have been identif led and discussed in Section VII. Sludge disposal is
the only non—water quality consideration of significance in terms of
environmental impact.
Sludge resulting from treatment alternatives for the native fish ——
flow—thru 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 fish subcategories is characterized by high
levels of inorganic solids. In either case this material Is of value as
a fertilizer or soil conditioner and as such can have a positive environ-
mental impact if properly handled.. Sludge may be spread on agricultural
land or used as a home lawn or garden fertilizer. Aesthetically, fish
waste solids should not be any less desirable as a fertilizer than
manure from other agricultural activities. It should be mentioned,
however, that wastes from non—native fish culturing activities should
not be applied to edible crops due to the possibility of contamination
from pathogenic organisms.
To identify the magnitude of the sludge handling problem, sludge
volumes have been estimated for each alternative in the native—flow—
thru subcategory. These volumes are presented in Table VIII—14 for a
DRAFT

-------
188
TABLE VIII—14
SLUDGE VOLUMES-NATIVE FISH — — FLOU —THRU
CULTURING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Sludge Voiune*
Technology Per Day
liters cu ft
A 136 4.8
B 136 4.8
C 294 10.4
D 329 11.6
E 0 0
P .394 13;9
C 524 18.5
H .. 589 20.8
* Based on flow of 3,785 m 3 /day (1 rngd) and sludge moisture
content of 90 percent.
DRAFT

-------
189
3,785 m 3 /day (1 mgd) flow. The volume of sludge resulting from pond
culturing of native and non—native fish is dependent to a large degree
on the type of soil in which the ponds are constructed. Due to the
small volume of sludge from pond culturing as compared to flow—thru
systems, and the inorganic nature of the material, disposal is usually
accomp1ish d on site without measurable environmental impact.
DRAFT

-------
191
SECTION IX.
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1977,
specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through applica-
tion of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
BPCTCA). The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
is generally based upon the average of the best existing performance
by plants of various sizes, ages and unit processes within the in-
dustry. This average is not based upon a broad range of plants with-
in 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 guidelines, consider-
ation must also be given to:
1. The total cost of application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from
such application;
2. The age and size of equipment and facilities Involved;
3. The processes employed;
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
192
4. The engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques;
5. Process changes;
6. Non—water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available empha-
sizes treatment facilities at the end of manufacturing processes,
but includes control technologies within the process itself 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 be
“currently available.” As a result of demonstration projects, pilot
plants, and general use, there must exist a high degree of confi-
dence in the engineering and economic practicability of the tech-
nology at the time of connencement of construction or installation
of the control facilities.
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
*
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for the
flow—thru systems subcategory of the fish culturing industry is sedi-
mentation of the cleaning flow with sludge removal or vacuum cleaning
of the culturing units. A description and discussion of sedimentation
* All fish culturing operations which discharge wastewaters more
than 30 days per year
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANCE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
193
and vacuum cleaning is included in Section VII of this document.
Effluent characteristics achievable through implementation of BPCTCA
and disinfection as needed are as follows:
*
Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitation
Suspended Solids Maximum for any one day 2.9
kg/l00 kg of fish on hand/day
Maximum average of daily values
for any period of thirty conse-
cutive days = 2.2 kg/l00 kg of
fIsh on hand/day
Settieab.Le Solids Maximum instantaneous = 0.2 mill
N11 3 —N Maximum for any one day = 0.12
kg/lOG of fish on hand/day
Maximum average of daily values
•for any period of thirty conse-
cutive days = 0.09 kg/lOG kg of
fish on hand/day
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Maximum concentration = 200
organisms/l00 ml (Salmonid op-
erations are excluded from this
effluent limitation).
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
Pond culturing systems which overflow more than 30 days per year
are considered flow—thru culturing systems and are subject to efflu-
ent limitations for the flow—thru culturing subcategory. However, pond
* Effluent limitations are net values
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECO}IMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
194
draining discharges are subject to effluent limitations for the pond
culturing subcategory.
Control of pollutants from discharges during pond draining for
harvesting is practicable with currant technology. The Best Practi-
cable Control Technology Currently Available is in—plant control in-
cluding: 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 a) harvest without
draining. These measures and effluent disinfection as needed
can be used to achieve the following effluent characteristics:
*
Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitation
Settleable Solids Maximum instantaneous concentra-
tion during draining period = 3.3 mill
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Maximum concentration 200 organ—
istns/lOO ml (Salmonid operations
are excluded from this effluent
limitation).
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for the
non—native fish culturing industry Is no discharge of process waste—
water pollutants achieved by the use of land disposal practices des-
cribed in Section VII.
* Effluent limitations are net values
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
195
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Native Fish — — Flow—thru CulturinA Systems
Sedimentation of the cleaning flow with sludge removal or vacuum
cleaning of the culturing units is judged to be BPCTCA because it is
being practiced by exemplary hatcheries within the in4ustry. A factor
of 1.3 was used in determining maximum one—day effluent limitations.
A larger peaking factor was not selected because sedimentation is con-
sidered a stable process not subject to wide variations in treat-
ment efficiency. There are ito data available to substantiate that
either the age or size of hatchery facilities justify special consi-
deration for different effluent limitations. On the other hand, cul-
turing processes are different and subcategories have been established
for flow—thru and pond culturing systems. Process changes are not ne-
cessary in the implementation of BP TCA.
At some hatcheries it may be possible to meet the Level I guide-
lines solely through implementation of the in—plant control measures
discussed in Section VII. Where NH 3 —N concentrations exceed limita-
tions during cleaning, rearing units will require more frequent.
‘cleaning.
The, engineering design and operation of sedimentation facili-
ties is well defined. Design criteria may be developed by using
the fish waste in question and employing established bench scale
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT .

-------
196
testing procedures. The operation of sedimentation facilities or
vacuum cleaning devices is not complex and should require only minimum
training of hatchery personnel.
The major non—water quality environmental impact from the imple-
mentation of BPCTCA will be solids disposal. Sludge must be removed
periodically from the settling basin. Solids disposal may be accom-
plished as described in Section VII.
Native Fish —— Pond Culturipg Systems
Pond culturing systems which overflow more than 30 days per year
are considered flow—thru culturing systems, therefore.rationale pre-
sented for pond culturing systems applies only to pond draining
discharges.
The BPCTCA for pond culturing systems is in—plant control by one
of the following measures: a) draining from the surface at a con-
trolled rate to allow settling in the pond; b) draining at a con-
trolled rate through an existing rearing pond or a settling pond,
or c) harvesting without draining. Each of these measures will pro-
vide some reduction in the settleable solids discharged. Because con-
trol of draining discharges is not presently practiced, the following
assumptions are included in the rationale for BPCTCA.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
197
First, draining from the surface at a controlled rate can ac-
complish a 40 percent removal of settleable solids. Much of this
removal nay be accomplished after harvesting by allowing settling
before the remaining water is discharged. In some cases this may
require a change in harvesting procedures.
Second, draining at a controlled rate through an existing rear-
ing 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 per-
cent 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 re-
quired 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 drain-
ing is necessary.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANCE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
198
Rationale are not available justifying the establishment of dif-
ferent effluent guidelines based on size or age of hatchery facili-
ties. Subcategories have been established based on culturing pro-
cesses for flow—thru and pond culturing systems. Harvesting pro-
cedures will 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
pond. Second, discharge and harvesting structures may require
significant modification to allow controlled surface draining
and harvesting in the pond. Where such modification is necessary,
these measures are considered treatment alternatives and are dis-
cussed under Treatment Technology, Section VII.
Non-Native Fish Culturing Systems
No discharge with land disposal of process wastewater pollu-
tants is judged to be BPCTCA. This level of technology is practi-
cal 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, erthance produc-
tion. Process changes in the industry are usually minor and should
not affect the practicability of BPCTCA.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
199
There is no evidence that different effluent limitations are
justified on the basis of variations in the age or size of cultur-
ing facilities. Industry 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 rela-
tively low flow rates required, substantiates that no discharge
with land disposal is practical.
All plants in the industry usesimilar. production methods and
have similar wastevater characteristics. There is no evidence
that operation of any current process or subprocess will substan—
tially 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 vastewater 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 p 01—
lutants ax the fact that other treatment methods require more
energy use.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AN!) ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPO I COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
201
SECTION X.
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must’be achieved by July 1, 1983,
specify the degree of effluent reduction. attainable through applica-
tion of the best available technology economically achievable (BATEA).
The BATEA is to be based on the very best control and treatment tech-
nology employed within the fi h culturing industry or based upon
technology which is readily transferable to the industry. Since limi-
ted data exist on the full—scale operation of exemplary facilities,
pilot studies andshort—term plant scale studies are also used for
assessment of BATEA.
Consideration must be given to the following in determining BATEA:
1. The total cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting
from application of BATEA;
2. The age and size of equipment and facilities involved;
3. The processes employed;
4. The engineering aspects of the application of various types
of control techniques;
5. Process changes;
6. Non—water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOm1MENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AN]) ARE SUBJECT TO CHANCE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
202
In contrast to BPcTCA, BATEA assesses the availability of in—
process controls as well as 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 de-
signed for plant scale operation up to and including no discharge
of process wastewater pollutants. This level of control is in-
tended to be the top—of—the—line of current technology subject to
limitations 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 development work prior to its application may be necessitated.
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
*
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
The BATEA is sedimentation of the entire flow with sludge removal
as described in Section VII. Effluent guidelines achievable through
implementation of BATEA and disinfection as needed are as follows:
* All fish culturing operations which discharge wastewater more than
30 days per year. Facilities which discharge less than 30 days per
year are classified In the pond culturing subcategory.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON CONMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
203
*
Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitation
Suspended Solids Maximum for any one day = 1.7
kg/100 kg of fish on hand/day
Maximum average of daily values
for any period of thirty conse-
cutive days = 1.3 kg/lOO of fish
on hand/day
Settleable Solids Maximum instantaneous = 0.2 mi/I
Maximum average of daily values for.
any period of thirty consecutive
days 
-------
204
The effluent limitations for BATEA are the same as those estab-
lished for BPCTCA as developed in Section IX.
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
The effluent limitations for BATEA are the same as those estab-
lished for BPCTCA as developed in Section IX.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY
Native Fish —— Flow—thru Culturing Systems
The BATEA is sedimentation of the entire flow with sludge removal.
Sedimentation ponds have been operated on plant scale by exemplary
hatcheries and it is the best documented and proven method of treatment
in use. Study results and discussions of this treatment’method are
presented in Section VII. In establishing the effluent limitations
set forth in this section, a factor of 1.3 was used in determining
maximum one—day values. A larger peaking factor was not selected
because the treatment methods are considered stable processes not
subject to wide variations in treatment efficiency.
The selection of BATEA.is sedimentation of the entire flow, means
that construction could be phased and the investment made for BPCTCA
would not be lost. Facilities could be installed to provide sedi-
mentation of the cleaning flow (BPCTCA) and then later enlarged to
provide sedimentation of the entire flow (BATEA).
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASE!) UPON INFORMATION
EN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVE!)
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
205
The major non—water quality environmental impact will be solids
disposal. The preferred method of sludge disposal, as with other
agricultural waste solids, is direct land application. This practice
should not cause an adverse environmental impact as long as disposal
sites are located on flat terrain not adjacent to water bodies.
Native Fish —— Pond Culturin ,g Systems
Pond culturing systems which overflow more than 30 days per year
are considered flow—thru culturing systems. Therefore, rationale pre-
sented for pond culturing systems applies only, to pond draining dis-
charges.
The rationale is the same as developed for BPCTCA In Section IX.
Non—Native Fish Culturing ! ysterns
The rationale is the same as developed for BPCTCA in Section IX.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
207
SECTION XI.
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
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 regu—
lations prescribing a standard of performance”. New source perform-
ance standards are evaluated by adding to the consideration underlying
the identification of BP CA,a determination of what higher levels of
pollution control are available through the use of improved production
processes and/or treatment techniques. Thus, in addition to consider-
ing 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 alterna-
tives are considered. However, the end result of the analysis iden-
tifies 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 must be employed. A further determination made for
new source performance standards is whether a standard permitting no
discharge of pollutants is practicable.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANCE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
208
The following factors were considered with respect to produc-
tion processes analyzed in assessing new source performance
standards:
1. The type of process employed and process changes;
2. Operating methods;
3. Batch as opposed to continuous operations;
4. Use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw materials;
and.
5. Recovery of pollutants as by—products.
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Native Fish -- Flow-thru Culturing Systems
The effluent limitations for new sources are the same as for
BATEA as developed n Section X.
Native Fish —— Pond Culturing Systems
The effluent limitations for new sources are the same as for
BPCTCA as developed in Section IX.
Non—Native Fish Culturing Systems
The effluent limitations for new sources are the sante as for
BPCTCA as developed in Section IX.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECTTO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
DRAFT

-------
211
SECTION XIII.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, R. H., et. al. 1970. Tropical Fish Aquariums. Journal
American Medical Association 211(3):457—461.
2. Allen, Kenneth 0. 1973. Fish Farming Experiment Station,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stuttgart, Arkansas. Personal
Communication (verbal) to Robert Schneider, National Field
Investigations Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado.
3. Amend, Donald F. 1973. Western Fish Disease Laboratory,
Seattle, Washington. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
[ March 15].
4. American Fisheries Society. 1973. Position of American Fisheries
Society on Introductions of Exotic Aquatic Species. Transactions
American Fisheries Society 102(l):274—276.
5. American Water Works Association. 1971. Water Quality and
Treatment . 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
654 pp.
6. Amyot, J. A. 1901. Is the Colon Bacillus a Normal Habitant of
Intestines of Fishes? American Journal Public Health 27:400—418.
7. Anderson, Roger. 1973. T.exas A. and N. University, College Station,
Texas. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 4].
8. Anonymous. 1973. A Pesky, Fast—multiplying Chinese Clam. Water
and Wastes Engineerin g tApril]:14.
9. Avault, James. 1973. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ November 12].
10. Axeirod, H. Exotic Tràpical Fishes. T. F. H. Publications,
Jersey City, New Jersey. C3.OO—C48.0O.
11. Axeirod, Herbert. 1973. T. F. H. Publications, Neptune, New Jersey.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington D.C. [ August 31].
12. Axeirocl, Herbert. 1973. T. F. H. Publications, Neptune, New Jersey.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ November 13].
DRAFT

-------
212
13. Axeirod, Herbert. 1973. Controlling -Major Communicable Fish
Diseases by Improvine Methods of Storing, Transporting and Receivine
Shipments of Tropical Fishes in All Parts of the World. (A Sym-
posium on the Major Communicable Fish Diseases in Europe and Their
Control) EIFAC Tech Paper No. 17, Supplement 2, FAG, Rome. pp 242—
247.
14. Bailey, Bill. 1973. Grass Care Update 1973. [ Presentation at
Session 41, American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Orlando,
Florida. [ September 14].
15. Bailey, Reeve M. 1970. A List of Common and Scientific Names of
Fishes from the United States and Canada. Special Publication No. 6,
3rd ed., American Fisheries Society, Washington, P. C. 150 pp.
16. Barber, Yates. 1973. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, P. C. P arch 7].
17. Bardech, J. E., J. II. Rycher, and R. 0.. Mcharney. 1972.
Aguaculture, the Farming and Husbandry of Freshwater and Marine
Organisms . Wiley lnterscience, New York, New York. 868 pp.
18. Baxter, George T. and .James R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming Fishes.
Bulletin No. 4, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne,
Wyoming. 168 pp.
19. Baysinger, Earl. 1973. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.
Personal Communication (Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ Sentember 141.
20. Beaver, Paul. 19714. Tulane University Medical School, New Orleans,
Louisiana. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ January i.
21. Biaesing, Ken. 1973. Chicago, Illinois. Personal Communication
(Verbal) to Roy Im in, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. [ September 131.
22. Blosz, John. 1952. Propagation of Large:nouth 1ac1 -z Bass and
Bluegill Sunfish in Federal Hatcheries of the Southeast. Prog-
ressive Fish Culturist 14(2):61—66.
23. Bodien, Danfortb C. 1970. Salmonid Uatchery Wastes. Federal Water
Quality Administration, Deoartment of Interior, Portland, Oregon.
[ October]. 51 pp.
24. ]ioozer, P. 1973. Tropical- Fish Farming. AmerIcan Fish Farmer
[ July] :4—5.
25. Boozer, P. 1973. Exploratory Survey of the Tropical Fish Industry
in Florida. Trade Magazine of Florida Tropical Fish Farms Association.
[ In Pressj.
DRAFT

-------
213
26. Brisbin, K. J. 1971. Pollutional Aspects of Trout Hatcheries in
British Columbia. Report Prepared for the British Columbia
Department of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Branch,
Victoria, B.C. Canada. 102 pp.
27. Brockway, D. R. 1953. Fish Food Pellets Show Promise. Progressive
Fish Culturist 15(2):92—93.
28. Brockway, Donald R. 1950. Metabolic Products and Their Effects.
Pro.&ressive Fis’h Culturist 21(3):127—129.
29. Bryan, R. D. and K. 0. Allen. 1969. Pond Culture of Channel Catfish
Fingerlings. Progressive Fish Culturist 31(1):38—43.
30. Bucknow, E. 1969. Exotics: A New Threat to U. S. Waters.
Field and Stream [ May]:16, 18,. 20, 22, 24, 28.
31. Buettner, Howard J. 1972. Fish Farming in Twelve South Central
States — Species, Acreage and Number of Farmers. Current Fisheries
Statistics No. 6038, Statistics and Market Nec s Division, Nationa1
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D. C. [ November]. 20 pp.
32. Bumpas, George S. 1973. Paddlefish Cultivation Possible.
American Fish Farmer 4(6):4—6.
33. Burkes, Raymond. 1973. Guppy Gardens, Lakeland, Florida. Personal
Communications (Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. [ September 12].
34. Burkstaller, John and R. E. Speece. 1970. Survey of Treatment
and Recycle of Used Fish Hatchery Water. Technical Report No. 64,
Engineering Experiment Station, New ‘lexico State University, Las
Cruces, New Mexico. fJune}. 41 pp.
35. Burrows, R. E. 1964. Effects of Aécumulated Exercretory Products
on Hatchery—Reared Salmonids. Research Report No. 66, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 12 pp.
36. Burrows, R. E. and B. D. Combs. 1968. Controlled Environments for
Sa1ii on Propagation. Progressive Fish Culturist 30(3):123.
37. Burrows, Roger B. and Harry 11. Chenoweth. 1970. The Rectangular
Circulating Rearing Pond. Progressive Fish Culturist . [ April].
38. Burrows, William. .1968. Textbook of Microbiolqgy . 19th ed.,
W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 974 pp.
39. Buss, Keen and Edward R. MIller. 1971. Considerations for
Conventional Trout Hatchery Design and Construction in Pennsylvania.
Progressive Fish Culturist 33(2) :86—94.
DRAFT

-------
214
40. Buterbaugh, G. L. and H. Willoughby. 1967. A Feeding Guide for
Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout. Progressive Fish Culturist 29(4):
210—215.
41. Calhoun, Alex. 1966. Inland Fisheries Management. The Resources
Agency of California, Department of Game and Fish, Sacramento,
California. 546 pp.
42. Canfield, H. L. 1947. Artificial Propagation of Those Channel
Cats. Progressive Fish Culturist 9(1):27—30.
43. Carter, Jim. 1973. Lakeland, Florida.. Personal Communication
(Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. [ September 11].
44. Chambers, Cecil. 1973. National Environmental Research Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. Personal
Communication (Memo) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. [ March 161.
45. Chapman, S. R., J. L. Chesness and R. B. Mitchell. 1971. 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. [ January]. 10 pp.
46. Cheshire, W. F. and K. L. Stelle. 1972. Hatchery Rearing of
Walleyes Using Artificial Food. Progressive 1 ish Culturist
34(2) :96—99.
47. Combs, B. D. and R. E. Burrows. 1958. An Evaluation of Bound
Diets. Progressive Fish Culturist 20(3):124-128.
48. Coliwell, Rita. 1973. University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ November 12].
49. Cooper, Billy. 1973. Houston, Texas. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. [ November 5].
50. Courtenay, W. R. 1970. Florida’s Walking Catfish. Ward’s
Bulletin 10(69): 1—2.
51. Courtenay, W. R. 1972. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 20].
52. Courtenay, W. R. 1973. (Review of) Aquaculture, the Farming
and Husbandry of Freshwater and Marine Organisms. By 3. E. Bardech,
et al., Copeia , 1973 (4):F 26—828.
DRAFT

-------
215
53. Courtenay, W. R. 1973. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida. Personal Communication (Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ September 13].
54. Courtenay, W. R. 1973. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
Florida. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington,D. C. [ November 7].
55. Courtenay, W. R., et al. 1973. Exotic Fishes in Fresh and Brackish
Waters of Florida. Biological Conservation (In Press).
56. Courtenay, W. R. and C. R. Robins. 1973. Exotic Aquatic Organisms
in Florida with Emphasis on Fishes: A Review and Recommendations.
Transactions American Fisheries Society 102 (1):l—12.
57. Crane, John. 1973. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. [ March 14].
58. Davis, George. 1973. Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 14].
59. Davis, H. S. 1953. Culture and Diseases of Caine Fishes . University
of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, California. 332 pp.
60. Deacon, Jim. 1973. University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Nevada;
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 3].
61. Dernpster, Robert. 1973. Steinhart Aquarium, San Francisco, California.
Personal Communication (Telécon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. [ October 11].
62. Dempster, Robert. 1973. Steinhart Aquarium, San Francisco, California.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. [ October 16].
63. Dick, Wesley. 1973. Ozone Pet Supply Company, Lacomb, Louisiana.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 3].
64. Dobie, John. 1956. Walley Pond Management in Minnesota.
Progressive Fish Culturist 18(2):51—57.
65. Dobie, J. R., 0. L. Meehan and C. N. Washburn. 1948. Propagation
of Minnows and Other Bait Species. Circular No. 12, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries arid Wildlife, U. S. Department of Interior, Wash-
ington, D.C. 113 pp.
DRAFT

-------
216
66. Doudoroff, P. and M. Katz. 1950. Critical
the Toxicity of Industrial Wastes and Their
Alkalies, Acids and Inorganic Gasses. II.
and Industrial Wastes 22:432—458.
Review of Literature on
Components to Fish. I.
Metal as Salts. Sewage
67. Dundee, Dee. 1973. Louisiana State University, New Orleans,
Louisiana. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 14].
68. Dupree, H. K. 1972. Evaluation of an Oxidation Pool to Remove
Wastes in a Closed System for Raising’Fish. Factors Affecting
The Growth and Production of Channel Catfish in Raceways . Technical
Assistance Project No. 14—16—0008—571, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, U. S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. pp 49—62..
69. Dydek, S. Thomas. 1972. Treatment of Hatchery Effluents; Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of Interior,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 20 pp.
70. Enhinger, Paul F., Jr. 1973. TJWA Engineering, Pacific, Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Portland, Oregon. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Robert Schneider, National Field Investigations Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. [ August 10].
71. Ellis, M. M. 1937. Detection and Measurement of Stream Pollution.
U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, Bulletin 48(22):365—437.
72. Ellis, M. M. 1940. Water Conditions Affecting Aquatic Life in
Elephant Butte Reservoir. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, Bulletin
39(34) :257—304.
73. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
74. Environmental Protection Agency.
by National Field Investigations
(September 23 to October 6].
1973.
Field Sampling. Conducted
Center,
Denver, Colorado.
75. Environmental Protection Agency.
by National Field Investigations
[ November 13 and 14].
1973. Field Sampling.
Center, Denver, Colorado.
Conducted
76. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Field Sampling and
Settleability Test. Conducted by National Field Investigations
Center, Denver, Colorado. (November 19 and 20].
77. Erdnian,
Session
Florida.
Don. 1973. Introduced Exotics. Presentation at
3, American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Orlando,
[ September 13].
DRAFT

-------
217
78. Evelyn, T. P. T. and L. A. McDermott. 1961. Bacteriological
Studies of Fresh —water Fish. I. Isolation of Aerobic Bacteria
from Several Species of Ontairo Fish. Canadian Journal
Microbiology 7:375—380.
79. Fish Farming Industries. 1974. Buyer’s Guide , (In Press).
80. Fishbein, M. and J. C. Olsen. 1971. Vibrio tarahaemolyticus :
A Real Foodborne Disease Problem. Food and Drug Administration
Papers, Washington, D.C. [ September]..
81. Freeman, R. I., D. C. Haskell, D. L. Longacre and E. U. Stiles.
1967. Calculations of Amounts to Feed in Trout Hatcheries.
Progressive Fish Culturist 29(4):194—202.
82. Fri, Robert F. 1973. Form and Guidelines Regarding Agricultural
and Silvicultural Activities. Pollutant Discharge Elimination.
Federal Register 38(128):l8001—2. [ July 5,1973].
83. Geldreich, E. E. 1966. Sanitary Significance of Fecal Coliforms
in the Environment. Water Pollution Control Research Series
WP—20—3, Cincinnati Water Research Laboratory, U.S. Department
of Interior, Cincinnati, Ohio. [ November]. 122 pp.
84. Gibbons, N. E. 1934. Lactose Fermenting Bacteria from the
Intestinal Contents of Some Marine Fishes. Contributions
Canadian Biology and Fisheries 8:291—300.
85. Gibbons, N. E; 1934. The Slime and Intestinal Flora of Some
Marine Fishes. Contributions Canadian Bioiogy and Fisheries
8:275—291.
86. Gigger, R. P. and R. B. Speece. 1970. Treatment of Fish
Hatchery Effluent for Recycle. Technical Report No. 67,
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 119 pp.
87. Giudice, J. J. 1960. The Culture of Bait Fishes. [ Unpublished
Report]. Fish Farming Experiment Station, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Interior, Stuttgart,
Arkansas. 15 PP.
88. Glantz, P. J. and G E. Krantz. 1965. Escherichia coli
Serotypes Isolated from Fish and Their Environment. Health
Laboratory Science 2:54—63.
89. Goldstein, Robert. 1973. Applied Biology, Inc., Decatur,
Georgia. Personal Communication (Verbal) as a report of the
Disease Committee, PIJAC at the annual APPMA meeting, Atlanta,
Georgia. [ June 7].
90. Goldstein, Robert. 1973. Applied Biology, Inc., Decatur,
Georgia. Personal Communication (Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ June u].
DRAFT

-------
218
91. Goldstein, Robert. 1973. Applied Biology, Inc., Decatur, Georgia.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. [ November 8].
92. Graham, Lane. 1973. University of Manitoba, Winipeg, Canada.
Personal Communication to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. [ March 5].
93. Gratzek, John. 1973. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ October 29].
94. Gratzek, John. 1973. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ November 19].
95. Gray, D. L. 1970. The Biology of Channel Catfish Production.
Circular No. 535, Agricultural Extension Service, University
of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 16 pp.
96. Green, B. L. and T. Mullins. 1959. Use of Reservoirs for
Production of Fish in the Rice Areas of Arkansas. Special
Report No. 9, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 13 pp.
97. Greenland, Donald. 1973. Fish Farming Experiment Station,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Stuttgart, Arkansas.
Personal Communication (Verbal) to Robert Schneider, National
Field Investigations Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
Denver, Colorado. [ November 20].
98. Griffiths, F. P. 1937. A Review öfthe Bacteriology of Fresh
Marine Fishery Products. Food Research 2:121—134.
99. Grizzell, R. A., Jr., E. G. Sullivan and 0. W. Dillon, Jr. 1968.
Catfish Farming: An Agricultural Enterprise. Unpublished Report.
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. 16 pp.
100. Guerrero, R. 1973. Tilapia Cultured at Auburn. The American
Fish Farmer (May]. pp 12—13.
101. Hanan, John. 1973. Sunlan Aquatic Nurseries, Miami, Florida.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (November 6].
102. Hanan, John. 1973. Sunlan Aquatic Nurseries, Miami, Florida.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ November 14].
103. Harris, J. R. 1972. Pollution Characteristics of Channel Catfish
Culture.. Environmental Health Engineering Department, University
of Texas, Austin, Texas. [ Unpublished MS Thesis.] 94 pp.
DRAFT

-------
219
104. Haskell, David C. 1955. Weight of Fish Per Cubic Foot of Water
In Hatchery Troughs and Ponds. The Progressive Fish Culturist .
[ July].
105. Haskell, D. C., R. 0. Davies and 3. Rechahn. 1960. Factors in
Hatchery Pond Design. New York Fish and Game Journal 7(2):112—129.
106. Heffernan, Bernard. 1973. Fish Farming Industries, Mt. Morris,
Illjnojs. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ November 16].
107. Hendricks, C. W. 1972. Enteric Bacterial Growth Rates in River
Water. Applied Microbiology [ August] 214:168—174.
108. Herald, E., R. Dempster, and N. Hunt. 1970. 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.
109. Hinshaw, Russell N. 1972. An Evaluation of Fish Hatchery
Discharges. Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Department of
Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 214 pp.
110. Hoffman, C. 1970. Intercontinental and Transcontinental
Dissemination and Transfaunation of Fish Parasites with Emphasis
on Whirling Disease, Myxosoma cerebralis . [ A Symposium of
Diseases of Fishes and Shelifishes. Edited by S. F. Snieszko].
Special Publication No. 5, American Fisheries Society, Washington,
D. C. 526 pp.
ill. Hoffman, Glenn. 1973. Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory, Leetown,
West VirginIa. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C [ January 191.
112. Hoffman, Glenn. 1973. Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory, Leetown,
West Virginia. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection A ency, Washington, D.C. [ November 9].
113. Fluber, R. T. and J. T. Valentine. 1971. Analysis and Treatment
of Fish Hatchery Effluents. [ Unpublished Report], Lamar National
Fish Hatchery Development Center, Lamar, PennsylvanIa. 6 pp.
114. Hublou, W. F. 1963. Oregon Pellets. Progressive Fish Culturist
25(4) :175—180.
115. iluet, Marcel. 1970. Textbook of Fish Culture — r. reeding and
Cultivation of rish . Thanet Press, Margate, Enaland. 436 p .
116. Huggins, C.. and H. V. Vast, Jr. 1963. Incidence of Coliform
acteria in the Intestinal Tract of Gambusia affinis hollbrooki
(Girard) and in their Habitat Water. Journal Bacteriology
85:489—490.
DRAFT

-------
220
117. Imlay, Mark. 1973. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C.
Personal Conununicat ion (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 171.
118. Janssen, W. 1970. Fish as Potential Vectors of Human Bacterial
Diseases. [ A Symposium on Diseases of Fishes and Shelifishes].
Special Publication No. 5, Arnerican Fisheries Society, Washington,
D. C. pp 284—289.
119. Jeter, H. L. 1973. Bacteriological Indicators of Water Pollution.
Current Practices in Water Microbiology . Training Manual, Office of
Water Programs, U.S. Environmental Prdtection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio. [ Januaryl. pp 1—22.
120. Johnson, C. A. 1904. IsolatIon of Bacilus coil communis from the
Alimentary Tract of Fish And The Significance Thereof. Journal
Infectious Disease 1:348—354.
121. Johnson, M. C. 1959. Food—Fish Farming In the Mississippi
Delta. Progresslve Fish Culturist 21(4):154—160.
122. Jones, W. G. 1969. Market Prospects for Farm Catfish Production.
Presented at the Commercial Fish Farming Conference, University
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 24 pp.
123. Judge, Greg. 1973. Long Beach Fisheries, California. Personal
Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 51.
124. Kawamoto, N. 1. 1961. The Influence of Excretory Substances
of Fishes on Their Own Growth. Progressive Fish Culturist 23:
2, 70—75.
125. Kennamer, E. F. 1961. Bait Minnows. Bulletin of Auburn University
and U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service, Auburn,
Alabama. 4 pp.
126. Kilgen, Ronald H. and R. Oneal Smitherman. 1971. Food Habits
of the White Amur Stocked in Ponds Alone and in Combination with
Other Species. Progressive Fish Culturist 33(3):123—127.
127. Klein, Arthur. 1973. Connecticut Tropicals, Millford, Connecticut.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ December 31.
128. Klingbiel, John. 1973. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, Wisconsin. Personal Coinmun-icatlon (Telecon) to James C.
Pennington, National Field Investig tions Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. [ November 28].
129. Kiocek, Roger. 1973. John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, Illinois.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 151.
DRAFT

-------
221
130. Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting Engineers. 1970. A Study of
Salmonid Hatchery Waste Water Control for the Platte Hatchery in
Michigan. Seattle, Washington. [ May].
131. Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting Engineers. 1970. A Process
D sign for Effluent Treatment Facilities at Spring Creek and
Bonneville Salmonid Hatcheries. Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.
[ August].
132. Krantz, George. 1973. University of Miami, Coral Cables, Florida.
Personal Communication (Telecbn) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ November 71.
133. Lachner, E. A., C. R. Robins, and W. R. Courtenay. 1970. Exotic
Fishes and Other Aquatic Organisms ‘Introduced into North America.
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 59:1—29.
134. La Rocque, A. 1965. Changes in the Molluscoa Fauna of White
Lake, Ontario, After 30 Years. Sterkiana 19:40.
135. Larsen, Howard N. 1973. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Department of Interior, Washington, D. C. Personal Communication
(Verbal) to Robert Schneider, National Field Investigations
Center, Denver, Colorado. [ September 13].
136. Laycock, George. 1966. The Alien Animals . Natural Mistory
Press, New York, New York. 240 pp. -
137. Levey, Allan. 1973. Wardley Products Company, Inc., Secaucus,
New Jersey. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental’Protection Agency, Washington’, D.C. [ December 11].
138. Lewis, W. N., R. Heidinger and H. Kontkoff. 1q69. Artificial
Feeding of Yearling and Adult Largemouth Bass. Progressive
Fish Culturist -31(l):44—46.
139. Liao, Paul B. 1970. Pollution Potential of Salmonid Fish
Hatcheries. Water and Sewage Works 117(8):29l—297.
140. L ao, Paul B. 1970. Salmonid Hatchery Wastewater Treatment. Water
and Sewage Works 117(12):438—443.
141. Liao, Paul B. 1971. Water Requirements of Salmonids. Progressive
Fish Culturist 33(4):210—215.
142. Liao, Paul B. 1973. Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting Engineers,
Seattle, Washington. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Robert
Schneider, National ield Investigations Center, Environmental
Protection Agency. [ September 27].
143. Lindsey, J. F. 1960. Pelleted Dry Food asa Total Diet for
Trout. New York Fish and Game Journal 7(1):33—38.
144. Lloyd, R. 1961. The Toxicity of Ammonia to Rainbow Tr ut.
Water and Waste Treatment Journal 8(6):278.
DRAFT

-------
222
145. Lloyd, R. and D. iJ. N. Herbert. 1962; The Influence of CO 2 on.
the Toxicity of Un—Ionized Ammonia to Rainbow Trout. Ann.
Applied Biology 48:339.
146. Locke, D. 0. and S. P. Linscott. 1969. A New Dry Diet for
Landlocked Atlantic Salmon and Lake Trout. Progressive Fish
Culturist 31(l):3—lO.
147. Lynne, S. Y. 1973. Washington, D. C. Personal Cormrnnication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. [ November 5].
148. Maar, A., et al. 1966. Fish Culture in Central East Africa.
FAO, Rome. 158 pp.
149. MaCamon, George. 1973. California Game and Fish, Sacramento,
California. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Ac ency, Washington, D. C. [ October 10].
150. Mackenthun, Kenneth N; 1965. Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Water:
An Annotated Selected Bibliography of Their Biological Effects.
Division of Water SupDly and Pollution Control, Public Health
Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. ill n .
151. Mackenthun, Kenneth M. 1969. The Practice of Water Pollution
Biology. Division of Technical Support, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U. S. Department of Interior, Washington,
D. C. 281 pp.
152. Malek, Emile. 1973. Tulane iJniversi y Medical School, New Orleans,
Louisiana. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 4J.
153. Malone, Jim. 1973. Lonoke, Arkansas. Personal Coimnunication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. [ November 5].
154. ?largolis, L. 1935. The Effect of Fa ting on the Bacterial Flora
of the Intestine of Fish. Journal Fisheries Research Board of
Canada 10:62—70.
155. Margolis, L. 1952. Aerobic Bacteria in the Intestine and Slime of
the Pike ( Esox lucius ) in Lake Monroe, Quebec. Revue Canadienne de
Biologie 11(1) :20—48.
156. Martin, Mayo. .1973. Fish Faming Experiment Station, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Interior, Stuttgart,
Arkansas. Personal Communication to Robert Schneider, ationa1
Field Investigations Center, Environmental Protection Agency.
Denver, Colorado.
DRAFT

-------
223
157. Martin, t i. T.. 1966. Occurrence and Survival of Salmonella in
the Alimentary Tract of Some Freshwater Fishes. M.S. Thesis, Kansas
State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
158. Mason, J. U., 0. 71. Brynildson, and P. E. Degurse. 1966.
Survival of Trout Fed Dry and Meat—Supplemented Dry Diets.
Progressive Fish Culturist 28(4):187—192.
159. Mayo, Ronald D., Paul B. Liao and Warren C. Williams. 1972.
A Study for Development of Fish Hatchery Water Treatment Systems.
Kramer, Chin and Mayo Consulting Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
[ April] 80 pp.
160. McCarraher, D. B. 1957. The Natural Propagation of Northern
Pike in Small Drainable Ponds. Progressive Fish Culturist 19(4):
185—187.
161. McKee, J. E. and H. t i. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria.
Publication No. 3—A, State Water Quality Control Bpard, The
Resources Agency of California, Sacramento, California. 548 pp..
162. Miller, Fred. 1952. Walleyed Pike Fingerling Production in
Drainable Constructed Ponds in Minnesota. Progressive Fish
Culturist 14(4):173—l76.
163. Miller, Robert. 1973. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 3].
164. Minckley, William. 1973. Arizona State University, Tucson,
Arizona. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 4].
165. Mizelle, John. 1973. California State University, Sacramento,
California. Personal Communication to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. (March 14].
166. Morse, Erskine. 1973. 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}.
167. Morse, Erskine. 1973. Saltwater Fish and Seafoods as Potential
Health Problems. [ Presented as a paper at the Interprofessional
Seminar, Diseases Common to Animals and Mani. University of
Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. [ August 16—17].
168. Mudrak, Vincent A. 1973. Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania. Personal Communication (Telecon) to James C.
Pennington, National Field Investigations Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. [ October 24].
DRAFT

-------
224
169. Mudrak, Vincent A. 1973. Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bellefonte,
Pennsylvania. Personal Communication (Telecon) to James C.
Pennington, National Field Investigations Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. (November 261.
170. Murphy, J. P. and R. I. Lipper. 1970. BOD Production of Channel
Catfish. Progressive Fish Culturist 32(4):195—198.
171. Murray, H. 1970. Western Fresh Water Molluscs. (Discussion].
Malacologia 10:33—34.
172. Murray, H. D. and D. Haines. 1970. Philopthalmus Species
(Trematoda) in Tarebia granifera and Melanoides tuberculatus
in South Texas. Annual report of the American Malalogical
Union . pp 44_45
173. Murray, H. U. 1971. The Introduction and Spread of Thiarids in
The United States. The Bio1o ist 53d33—135.
174. Murray, Harold. 1974. Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas.
Personal Conmunication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ February 6).
175. Myers, C. 1955. Notes on the Freshwater Fauna of Middle Central
America with Especial Reference to Pond Culture of Tikpia . FAQ
Fisheries Papers 55(2):1— .
176. Nakatani, R. E., C. Simensted and B. Uchida. 1972. 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.
177. Neal, Richard. 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Galveston,
Texas. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ March 30].
178. Nielson, N. E. and J. .1. Mazuranich. 1959. Dry Diets for Chinook
Salmon. Progressive Fish Culturist 21(2):86—88.
179. NortOn, Paul. 1973. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. [ December 13).
180. Oehmche, A. A. 1949. Muskellunge Fingerling Culture. Progressive
Fish Culturist ll(1):3—].8.
181. Parisot, T. J. 1970. Fish Mycobacteriosis (Tuberculosis). Fish
Disease Leaflet (7):l.—2.
DRAFT

-------
225
182. Parker and Associates Consulting Engineers. 1968. Preliminary
Report For Treatment Facilities at Rifle Falls Trout Ftatchery.•
Denver, Colorado. [ August}.
183. Pearson , John C. 1952. Rearing Young Shad in Ponds. Pror ressive
Fish Culturist l4(l):33—36.
184. Pennsylvania Fish Conmiission. 1972. Study of Waste Water Treat-
ment System— Big Spring Hatchery. [ Internal Report]. Division of
Fisheries. Belle fonte, Pennsylvania.
185. Phillips, Arthur M. 1954. The Nutrition of Trout. Cortland
Hatchery Report No. 23, New York Conservation Department and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, New York, New.York. [ Mimeo.].
186. Phillips, Arthur N., Jr. 1970. 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. [ June]. 49 pp.
187. Phillips, A. N., Jr. and 1). R. Brockway. 1959. Dietary Calories
and the Production of Trout in Hatcheries. Progressive Fish
Culturist 21(1) :3—16.
188. Phillips, A. N., Jr. and C. C .. Balzer, Jr. 1957. The Nutrition
of Trout v. Ingredients for Trout Diets. Progressive Fish Culturist
19(4) :158—167.
189. Piper, RobertG. 1970. A Slide—Rule Feeding Guide. Progressive
Fish Culturist . [ July].
190. Piper, Robert C. 1970. Know the Proper Carrying Capacities of
Your Farm. American Fishes.and U. S. Trout News [ Hay —June].
191. Pratt, Charles. 1973. San Diego, California. Personal
Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environnental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. [ December 5].
192. Prevatt, C. 1973. Tropical Fish Farm, Riverview, Florida.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. (November 16].
193. Purkett, C. A., Jr. 1963. Artificial Propagation of Paddlefish.
Progressive Fish Culturist 25(l):3l—33.
194. Putz, Bob. 1973. Department of interior, Washington, D. C.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D. C. [ March 8 1.
DRAFT

-------
226
195. Ramsey, John. 1973. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Personal
Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. [ March 5].
196. Ramsey, John. 1973. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Personal
Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. [ November 13].
197. Ramsey, .1. S. 1973. A Sampling of U. S. Aquarium Fish Imports.
ABS Bulletin 20(2):76.
198. Reed, Nathaniel. 1973. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C.
Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D. C.
199. Reel, Jimmy. 1973. Houston, Texas. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. [ November 5].
200. Reichenbach—Klinke, H. H. 1973. Fish Pathology . T.F.H.
Publications, Neptune, New Jersey. pp 420—430.
201. Reichenbach—Klinke, II. and E. Elkan. 1965. The Principal Diseases
of Lower Vertebrates . Academic Press, New York, New York.
pp 190—194.
202. Richardson, John. 1973. Public Health Service Center for Disease
Control, Atlanta, Georgia. Personal Communication (Letter) to Roy
Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. (March 16].
203. Robins, C. H. 1970. Marisa in South Florida, The Introduced Fresh
Water Snail. Annual Report of the American Malacological Union . p 3.
204. Robins, Richard. 1973. University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ October 25].
205. Russell, Jesse R. 1972. Catfish Processing——A Rising Southern
Industry. Agricultural Economic Report No. 224, Economic Research
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
[ April]. 33 p1).
206. Setzer, Paul. 1973. 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 Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
[ November 13].
207. Shanks, W. 1971. Hatchery Water Quality Monitoring. Transactions
of the 22nd Northwest Fish Cultural Conference, Portland, Oregon.
[ December).
DRAFT

-------
227
208. Short, Robert. 1973. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D. C. [ March 51.
209. Sindérman, C. J. 1970. The Role and Control of Diseases and Para-
sites in Mariculture. Food—Drugs From The Sea. 1969 Conference
MTS [ 19701:145—173.
210. Smith, Charles E. 1972. Effects of Netabolic Products on the
Quality of Rainbow Trout. American Fishes and U. S. Trout News
17(3) :1—3.
211. Snieszko, S. and H. Axeirod. 1971. Diseases of Fishes. T.F.FI.
Publications, Jersey City, New Jersey. 151 p .
212. Sriieazko, S. F. 1973. Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory, Leetown,
1 Jest Virginia. Personal Communication (Verbal) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ November 61.
213. Snieszko, S. F. 1973. Eastern Fish Disease Laboratory, Leetown,
West Virginia. Personal Communication (Letter) to Dr. John Cratzek
covering talks with Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. [ November 14].
214. Snow, J. R. 1959. Notes on the Propagation of the Flathead Catfish,
Pilociictis olivaris (Rafinesque). Progressive Fish Culturist 21(2):
75—80.
215. Snow, J. R. 1968. The Oregon Moist Pellet as a Diet for
Largemouth Bass. Progressive Fish Culturist 30(4): 235.
216. Snow, J. R. and 3. I. Maxwell. 1970. Oregon Moist Pellet
as a Production Ration for Largemouth Bass. Progressive Fish
Culturist 32(2) :101—102.
217. Socolof, Ross. 1973. Bradenton, Florida. Personal Communi-
cation (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. [ February 271.
218. Socolof, Ross. 1973. Bradenton, Florida. Personal Communi-
cation (Verbal) to American Fisheries Society Ornamental
Fish Session at Orlando, Florida. [ Set,tember 14].
219. Socolof, Ross. 1973. Bradenton, Florida. PersonalCommuni—
cation (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmantal Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C. [ October 181.
220. Socolof, Ross. 1973. Bradenton, Florida. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. (November 6].
DRAFT

-------
228
221. Socolof, Ross. 1973. Bradenton, Florida. Personal Communi-
cation (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. [ November 29].
222. Socolof, Ross. 1973. Bradenton, Florida. Personal Communication
(Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. [ December 111.
223. Soderquist, 4. R. 1973. Canned and Preserved Fish and
Seafoods Processing Industry. EPA Contract No. 68—01—1526
[ draft copy of effluent guidance document], Washington, D.C.
313 pp.
224. Soganclares, Franklin. 1974. UnIversity of Montana, Ilissoula,
Montana. Personal Communication (Telecon.) to Roy Irwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. [ January 3].
225. Salem, A. 1971. Molluses Introduced into North America.
[ Given at a Symposium on Introducing Molluscs into North America.
36th Annual Meeting of the American Malacological Union,
Key West, Florida. (July 19)]. The Biologist 53: (89—92).
226. Speece, R. E. 1973. Trout Metabolism Characteristics and the
Rationale Design of Nitrification Facilities for Water Reuse in
Hatcheries. Transactions American Fisheries Society 102(2):
323—334.
227. Stang, William. 1973. National Field Investigations Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. Personal
Communication (Memo) to Robert Schneider, National Field Investi-
gations Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado.
[ December 6].
228. Stang, William. 1973. National Field Investigations Center, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. Personal Communication
(Verbal) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. [ December 11].
229. Stanley, John. 1973. Stuttgart, Arkansas. Personal Communi-
cation (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, I). C. [ November 2].
230. Stetson, Paul. 1973. Whitman, Massachusetts. Personal Communi-
cation (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. [ December 3].
231. Stroud, IL 1973. SF1 Directors Resolutions. SF1. Bulletin ,
June (24 ):i..
232. Stroud, Richard II. 1973. Executive Vice—President, Sport
Fishing Institute, Washington, D. C. Personal Communication
(Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection AGency,
Washington, D.C. [ August 30}.
DRAFT

-------
229
233. Stuart, Tim. 1973. Deoartment of Pollution Control, State of
Florida, Tallahassee, Florida. Personal Communication (Letter)
to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
[ October 30].
234. Tarus, M. J., A. E. Greenberg, R. D. Hoak and 11. C. Rand. 1971.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
13th ed., American Public Health Association, New York, New York.
874 pp.
235. Theis, Gary L. 1973. Evaluation of Jordon River National Fish
Hatchery Settling System. Inter—office transmittal, Lamar
National Fish Hatcher, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Lamar, Pennsylvania. [ March 11.
236. Thompson, P. E., N. A. Dill, and C. E. Moore. 1973. 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.
237. Thjotta, T. and 0. N. Somme. 1943. The BacterialFiora of
Normal Fish. Skrifter Norske Videnskaps—Akad Oslo Mat. Naturv .
4:1—10.
238. Tomasec, I., et al. 1967. Diseases and Parasites. [ Proceedings
of the World Symposium on Warm Water Pond Fish Culture]. FAO
Fisheries Report l(44):38—39.
239. Toole, Marion. 1951. Channel Catfish Culture in Texas. Progres-
sive Fish Cuj.turist 13(1):3—lO.
240. Trust, T. J. 1971. Bacterial Counts of Commercial Fish Diets.
Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada 28:1185—1189.
241. Trust, T. J. and V. G. Money.. 1972. Bacterial Population of Diets
for Aquarium Fishes. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada
29(4) :429—433.
242. Tunison, A. V.,, S. N. Mullin and 0. L. Mechean. 1949. Survey
of Fish Culture in the United States. Progressive Fish
Culturist l1(1):31—69 and 11(4):253—262.
243. U. S. Department of Interior. 1967. Water Measurement Manual.
2nd ed., Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 229 pp.
244. U. S. Department of Interior. 1968. 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, S4ashington,D.C. [ October]. 63 pp.
245. U. S. Department of Interior. 1968. Water Quality Criteria.
Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the
Secretary of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Washington, D.C. [ April]. 234 pp.
DRAFT

-------
230
246. U. S. Department of Interior. 1970. Analysis and Treatment
of Fish Hatchery Effluents tRaceway Settling System Exnerimentl.
Progress Report, Fish Cultural Deve1opment Center, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and. Wildlife, Lamar, Pennsylvania. [ July 1-
September 30].
247. Ii. S. Department of Interior. 1970. Quarterly Report. Bozeman
Fish Cultural Development Center, Bozeman, Montana. [ March].
248. U. S. Department of Interior. 1970. List of State Fish
Hatcheries and Rearing Stations. Division of Fish Hatcheries,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 20 nn.
249. U. S. Department of Interior. 1970. Leaflet No. 46—OH, [ ivision
of Fish Hatcheries, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Washington, D.C. 7 pp.
250. U. S. Department of Interior. 1971. Propagation and Distribution
of Fishes from National Fish Hatcheries for the Fiscal Year 1971.
Fish Distribution Report No. 6, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, Nashington, D.C. 72 n .
251. U. S. Department of Interior. No Date. hatchery Raceway Cleanin
Effluent Nutrient Removal at 5, 15, and 30 Minutes of Settling
in Imhoff Cones. Willow Beach National Fish hatchery, Eureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Willow Beach, Arizona.
252. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Flow Measurements.
Handbook for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater [ Chanter 73.
Technical Transfer Publication, Washington, D.C. [ August].
ppl9—4 .
253. Venkataraman, R. and A. Sreenivasan. 195:1. The Bacteriology of
Freshwater Fish. Indian Journal of MedicaiResearch 41:385—399.
254. Vettel, Robert. 1973. Favor’s Aquarium, New York, New York.
Personal Communication (Telecon) to Roy Irwin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [ December 5].
255. Walker, Meddle C. and Phillip T. Frank. 1952. The Propagation
of Buffalo. Progressive Fish Culturist 14(3):129 —130.
256. Weber, Walter J., Jr. 1972. Physiochesiical Processes For
Water quality Control . John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
New York. 640 pp.
257. Welch, Paul S. 1952. Limnology . 2nd ed., McGraw Hill Book
Company, Tnc., New York, New York. 538 pp.
258. Westers, Harry. 1970. Carrying Capacity of Salmonid Hatcheries.
Progressive Fish Culturist , [ January].
DRAFT

-------
231
259. Willoughby, H. 1953. Use of Pellets as Trout Food. Progressive
Fish Culturist 15(3):127—128.
260. Willoughby, Harvey. 1973. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Denver, Colorado. Personal Communication (Telecon) to Robert
Schneider, National Field Investigations Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. [ October 16].
261. Wilson, B.,. J. Deacon, and W. C. Bradley. 1966. Parasitism of the
Fishes of the Moapa River, Clark County, Nevada. Transactions
California—Nevada Section Wildlife Society 1:12—23.
262. Wittenberg, C. G. 1964. Trematodiases . [ J. Van Der Hoeden (ed.),
Zoonoses] . Elsevier Publishing Company, London. pp 613—619.
263. Wood, J. W. 1973. Interim Effluent Guidance for Salmonid Fish
Hatcheries, Preserves and Farms (Critique]. Washington State
Department of Fishes, Olympia, Washington. [ July 16].
264. Wuhrmann, K., F. Zehender and H. Woker. .1947. Uber die Fishere:—
Biologische Bedentung des Ammoniwn—und Axnmoniakgehaltes Fliessen
des Gewässer. Vierteliahrsschr. Naturfarsch. Cesellsch. ZUrich
92:198.
265. Yao, K. M. 1970. Theoretical Study of High—Rate Sedimentation.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 42:2. [ February].
266. Yao, Kuan N. 1973. Design of High—Rate Settlers. Journal of
the Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers 99:EE5. [ October].
267. Zeiller, Warren. 1973. Miami Seaquarium, Miami, Florida. Personal
Communication (Letter) to Roy Irwin, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. [ December 17].
268. Erickson, David. 1974. Clear Springs Trout Company, Buhi, Idaho.
Personal Communication (Verbal) to Robert Schneider, National Field
Investigations Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado. V
269. Bailey, William N., Fred P. Meyer, J. Mago Martin and D. Leroy Gray.
1973. Farm Fish Production in Arkansas During 1972. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Stuttgart,Arkansas. 16 pp.
270. Fair, Gordon M. and John C. Ceyer. 1954. Water Supply and
Waste—Water Disposal . John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 973 pp.
271. Behnke, Robert J. 1973. Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado. Personal Communication (verbal) to John Hale, National
Field Investigations Center—Denver, Environmental Protection Agency,
Denver, Colorado [ September].
DRAFT

-------
233
SECTION XIV.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere appreciation is expressed to all of those individuals
whose personal communications are listed in the references section
of 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, US. Department of Interior, Stutt-
gart, Arkansas; Dr. Walter 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 Imlay,
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, 3. C. Penningtón, 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, U.S.
Trout Growers Association; Stanton Hudson, Fish Farmers of America;
Dr. Herbert Axeirod, 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.
DRAFT

-------
235
SECTION XV.
GLOSSARY
DEFINITIONS
BOD—Biochemical Oxygen Demand —- The amount of oxygen required by
microorganisms while stabilizing decomposable organic matter under
aerobic conditions. The level of BOD is usually measured as the
demand for oxygen over a standard five—day period. Generally expressed
as mg/l.
Broodfish —— Fish reared and/or maintained for the purpose of taking
and fertilizing eggs.
Cleaning Intervals —- The length of time between the cleaning of
culturing units. Typically the cleaning interval varies at different
hatcheries from daily to weekly to monthly.
COD—Chemical Oxygen Demand —— A measure of the ‘amount of organic matter
which can be oxidized to carbon dioxide and water by a strong oxidizing
agent under acidic conditions. Generally expressed as mg/i.
Conversion Ratio —— The ratio of total number of pounds of food fed to
the total gain in weight of the fish during the period. It is some-
times referred to as ‘“conversion factor.”
—— Fish up to the time when the yolk sac has been absorbed.
Milt —— The combination of sex cells (spermatozoa) and fluid medium
from male fish.
Plate Separators -— High rate sedimentation units consisting of closely
spaced parallel plates resulting in a very short vertical settling
distance.
Raceway —— A greatly enlarged trough with a stream of water flowing
into one end and out the other.
Rearing Unit —— A container used to culture fish.
Settleable Solids -- A volumetric determination of the solids which
settle during a given period of time under quiescent conditions in
an Imhoff cone.
DRAFT

-------
236
Suspended Solids —— The suspended material that can be removed from the
wastewater by laboratory filtration but does not include coarse or
floating matter that can be screened or settled out readily.
Tube Settlers —— I{igh rate sedimentation units consisting of inclined
tubes each of which acts as a small settling basin resulting in a
very short vertical settling distance.
SYMBOLS
cc/liter —— volumetrIc atio cubic centimeters per liter =
1.337 x 10 cubic feet per gallon
°c —— temperature in degrees Centigrade = 5/9 (°F—32)
cm —— length in centimeters.= 0.3937 in. or 0.03281 ft
cu ft —— cubic feet = 0.02832 cubic meters
DO —- dissolved oxygen
gal. —— volume in gallons 3.785 liters
gin —— weight in grams = 0.03527 ounces
g per in 2 —— grams per square meter = 2.05 x lO pounds
per square foot
gpd —— flow rate in gallons per day 0.003785 m 3 /day
gpm —— flow rate in gallons per minute = 0.0631 liters
per second
hectares —— area = 2.471 acres
kg —— weight in kilograms = 2.205 pounds
kg/rn —— kilograms per meter = 0.672 pounds per foot
I —— volume in liters = 0.2642 gallons
lps/m 2 —— 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
in 3 —— volume in cubic meters = 1.307 cubic yards or
264 .2 gallons
DRAFT

-------
237
m 3 /day —— flow rate in cubic meters/day = 22.81 million
gallons per second
mm —— length in millimeters
mgd —— flow rate in million gallons per day = 3.785
cubic meters per day
mg/i —— concentration given in milligrams per liter
ml —— volume given in milliliters = 0.0002642 gallons
or one cubic centimeter
ml/l —— concentration given in milliliters per liter
in. ton —— weight in metric tons = 1.102 tons or 2204.6
pounds
MPN —— most probable number
N —— nitrogen
NH 3 —N —— ammonia as nitrogen
N0 3 —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
P0 4 —P —— phosphate as phosphorus
TKN —— total Kjeldahl nitrogen
y 3 —— volume in cubic yards = 0.7646 cubic meters or
27 cubic feet
DRAFT

-------