Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 2006

Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and Technology U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460

March 2006 Acknowledgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privately owned rights.

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?...... 4-1 How do I apply for an NPDES permit? ...... 4-1 What is an NPDES general permit?...... 4-1 What is an NPDES individual permit?...... 4-2 What information do I have to include in my NOI or permit application?...... 4-3 When do I have to get an NPDES permit?...... 4-3 Existing CAAP Facilities ...... 4-4 New Dischargers ...... 4-4 New Sources ...... 4-5 When will my NPDES permit expire?...... 4-6 How long should I keep my NPDES permit? ...... 4-6 What if I make significant changes to my operation while I have an NPDES permit?...... 4-7

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 i March 2006 Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 ii March 2006 Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References and Resources

EPA-821-B-05-001 iii March 2006 Table of Contents

Appendices

Appendix A: State Permitting Authorities/Departments of Environmental Protection Appendix B: Natural Resources Agencies Associated with Fisheries Appendix C: Frequently Asked Questions Appendix D: Code of Federal Regulations Appendix D1: 40 CFR 122.24 Appendix D2: 40 CFR 451 Appendix E: BMP Plans Appendix E1: BMP Plan Template Appendix E2: Example BMP Plan Appendix F: BMP Certification Form Appendix G: State BMP Programs Appendix H: National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC), Cooperative Extension Services, and Sea Grant Information Appendix I: Additional Resources Appendix J: Glossary Appendix K: NPDES Permit Applications Appendix K1: Form 1 Appendix K2: Form 2B Appendix L: Applicability Matrix Appendix M: General Reporting Forms Appendix M1: Example Written Report – Participating in an INAD Study Appendix M2: Checklist for Oral Report for INAD and Extralabel Drug Use Appendix M3: Example Written Report – INAD and Extralabel Drug Use Appendix M4: Checklist for Oral Report of Failure or Damage to the Structure of Containment Systems Appendix M5: Example Written Report – Failure or Damage to the Structure of Containment Systems Appendix M6: Checklist for Oral Report of Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed Appendix M7: Example Written Report – Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed Appendix N: Feed Conversion Ratios Log Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log Appendix P: Inspection and Maintenance Logs Appendix P1: Example Inspection and Maintenance Log for Flow-through and Recirculating Systems Appendix P2: Example Inspection and Maintenance Log for Net Pen Systems Appendix Q: Cleaning Log Appendix R: Record-keeping Checklist Appendix S: Employee Training Log Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log Appendix U: FDA Labeling Appendix V: SDAFS BMP Plan

EPA-821-B-05-001 iv March 2006 Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction

On June 30, 2004, the U.S. Environmental with the NPDES and ELGs regulations. Protection Agency (EPA) completed Background information about aquatic regulations under the Clean Water Act animal production facilities (e.g., system (CWA) establishing Effluent Limitations types, wastewater treatment) is available Guidelines (ELGs) and New Source from EPA’s Technical Development Performance Standards for the Concentrated Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Point Guidelines and New Source Performance Source Category. The regulations contain Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic requirements for wastewater discharges that Animal Production Point Source Category, must be met by new and existing CAAP available at facilities discharging directly to U.S. waters. http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/tdd/final.htm. The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting the Nation’s waters. CAAP facilities subject to the ELGs are Among its core provisions, the CWA defined as facilities (flow-through, generally prohibits the discharge of recirculating, and net pen) that produce 100,000 pounds or more of aquatic pollutants from a point source to waters animals per year. except as authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. Direct dischargers must comply with EPA is continually improving its rules, effluent limits in NPDES permits. EPA’s policies, compliance programs, and outreach NPDES regulations define a hatchery, fish efforts, so some of the information in this farm, or other facility as a CAAP and guide might have changed since it was therefore subject to the NPDES permit published. You can find out whether EPA program. The regulation defines a CAAP by, has updated this guide by checking EPA’s among other things, the size of the operation website for the CAAP ELGs at and frequency of discharge. http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture.

Those CAAP facilities subject to the ELGs must develop and maintain a best How do I use the symbols contained management practice (BMP) plan describing in this document? how they will achieve the ELG requirements. The CAAP must certify in In many of the chapters, you will see writing to the permitting authority that a symbols, which denote the following: BMP plan has been developed and make the FT plan available to the permitting authority • Flow-through upon request. EPA did not revise the RAS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination • Recirculating System (NPDES) regulation, as it applies to NET • Net Pen1 CAAPs.

EPA has produced this document to help CAAP facility owners/operators and NPDES permit writers to understand and comply 1 Whenever the term net pen is used in this guidance, it also refers to cages that function like net pens.

EPA-821-B-05-001 1-1 March 2006 Chapter 1: Introduction

Use the symbols for flow-through, Guidance reflects information from the recirculating, and net pens as a guide to current NPDES Program and final ELGs regulations (signed on June 30, 2004 and determine which BMPs and/or paragraphs published in the Federal Register on may apply to which system type. The August 23, 2004). symbol denotes specific legal references. The guidance assumes the permit writer The permit writer’s version of the has working knowledge of how to develop guidance document will contain the NPDES permits. Permit writers should following symbols: also be familiar with applicable state voluntary wastewater control programs as well as regulatory programs, and how these programs relate to the federal or Permit writer begin state NPDES program. Appendix I

provides a variety of additional resources Permit writer end that permit writers may wish to use to increase their understanding of practices used at CAAP facilities. In addition, the Use these symbols to identify the guidance discusses the circumstances beginning and ending of additional under which CAAP owners or operators information or sections included should submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to specifically for permit writers. seek coverage under an existing NPDES general permit or apply for an NPDES individual permit. Who should use this guide? While this guidance is limited to the You should use this guide if you own or development and issuance of NPDES permits for CAAPs, it is important for the operate a CAAP facility or if you are a permit writer to recognize that there are permit writer. It will help you to understand other NPDES program requirements that the June 2004, CAAP ELGs and how it may be applicable to CAAPs. For relates to the NPDES regulations. Owners or example, discharges of storm water operators of a CAAP can use this guide to associated with construction activity at, or construction of, CAAPs that disturb determine if their operation is a facility one acre of land or more may be subject subject to the ELGs. Permit writers may use to NPDES storm water permit this guidance to obtain information on the requirements. These requirements permitting requirements for CAAPs. address activities associated with the construction of CAAPs, including clearing, grading, and excavation, but do Facilities that are not covered by this rule not address discharges associated with (flow-through, recirculating, and net pen the operation of the facility, which are systems that produce less than 100,000 addressed in the NPDES CAAP permit. pounds of aquatic animals per year and other Therefore, it is generally in the interest of systems, such as ponds) may benefit from the permitting authority and the CAAP operator to administer storm water using this guidance to help improve facility permits for construction separately from operation (i.e., through feed management, NPDES CAAP permits. Another NPDES materials storage, etc.) and reduce pollutant permitting requirement that may apply to discharges. a facility includes requirements for package plants used to treat septic waste at a facility. Additionally, if a facility has a large laboratory for fish health and Permit writers may use this diagnostic services, the lab part of the guidance to obtain information on facility may be required to obtain a permitting requirements for CAAPs. The separate NPDES permit for their

EPA-821-B-05-001 1-2 March 2006 Chapter 1: Introduction

wastewater (septic and laboratory starting point but often add their own wastes). These are only example of other requirements in NPDES permits. You types of NPDES permitting requirements that may apply at a facility. should always check with your permitting authority to see what the requirements are in your state and to find out exactly what you have to do. Appendix A contains information on how to contact your Who is in charge of the CAAP permitting authority. permitting program where I live –

EPA or the state? This guide also Always check with EPA has approved most states to run their provides your permitting own regulatory and permitting programs for information to help authority to find out CAAPs. If EPA has approved your state, the facilities develop a exact requirements state is the permitting authority and will BMP plan for their for your facility. Your facility, as required state may have more issue a permit for your CAAP facility. EPA requirements or has not approved Alaska, Idaho, by the CAAP more specific Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New ELGs, and requirements than Mexico to permit CAAPs. In those states, describes a number the CAAP D.C., tribal lands, and in all territories of BMPs that Regulations. except the U.S. Virgin Islands, EPA is the facilities may use permitting authority and will issue permits to achieve the requirements of the CAAP for CAAPs. Note that in some cases, EPA ELGs. The guide also provides example may still regulate some types of CAAPs forms and logs that facility owners or even if your state has been delegated operators may use to comply with the NPDES permitting authority. In these cases, requirements of the CAAP ELGs, as well as the state permitting authority will direct you the NPDES application form. Facilities not to the appropriate EPA contact. subject to the ELGs may also use the information in this guide to improve Contact information for your permitting practices at their facility. authority is available in Appendix A. Also refer to “Do other laws regulate CAAPs?” in Chapter 2 of this guide. It describes how Finally, this guide provides permit your state, county, or town might have writers with the specific permitting requirements for CAAPs, information additional legal requirements that apply to about how CAAPs are defined, who you and that go beyond the requirements must seek coverage under an NPDES described in this guide. permit, the elements of an NPDES permit for a CAAP, and other considerations when developing a permit. What does this guide cover? This guide describes EPA’s regulations for CAAPs (NPDES and ELGs requirements), which govern whether your operation is a How should I use this guide? CAAP, whether you need a permit, and what If you are a facility owner or operator, you the permit will require. State permitting can use this guide to determine how to authorities use EPA’s regulations as a comply with the requirements of the CAAP

EPA-821-B-05-001 1-3 March 2006 Chapter 1: Introduction

ELGs. Read Chapter 2 (“What is the CAAP • Appendix A: State Permitting Regulation?”) for basic information on the Authorities/Departments of guidelines and NPDES permitting process. Environmental Protection Chapter 3 (“Does the CAAP Regulation • Appendix B: Natural Resources Affect Me?”) provides information about Agencies Associated with Fisheries how the CAAP regulation affects you. Read • Appendix C: Frequently Asked Chapter 4 (“What Do I Need to Know About Questions NPDES Permits?) for guidance on applying • Appendix D: Code of Federal for a permit. Chapter 5 discusses the Regulations (40 CFR, Parts 122.24 requirements of an NPDES permit. and 451) • Appendix E: BMP Plans For specific guidance on complying with the • Appendix F: BMP Certification CAAP regulations, refer to the following Form chapters: • Appendix G: State BMP Programs

• Appendix H: National Association of

• Chapter 6 – General Reporting State Aquaculture Coordinators Requirements for Flow-through, (NASAC), Cooperative Extension Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities Services, and Sea Grant Information Chapter 7 – Narrative Requirements • • Appendix I: Additional Resources for Flow-through, Recirculating, and • Appendix J: Glossary Net Pen Facilities • Appendix K: NPDES Permit • Chapter 8 – Writing and Certifying a Applications BMP Plan • Appendix L: Applicability Matrix • Chapter 9 – Solids Control for Flow- Appendix M: General Reporting through and Recirculating Facilities • Forms • Chapter 10 – Material Storage for Example Written Report – Flow-through, Recirculating, and o Participating in an INAD Study Net Pen Facilities o Checklist for Oral Report for Chapter 11 – Maintenance for Flow- • INAD and Extralabel Drug Use through, Recirculating, and Net Pen o Example Written Report – Facilities INAD and Extralabel Drug Use • Chapter 12 – Record-keeping for o Checklist for Oral Report of Flow-through, Recirculating, and Failure or Damage to Structure Net Pen Facilities of Containment Systems • Chapter 13 – Perform Training for o Example Written Report – Flow-through, Recirculating, and Failure or Damage to Structure Net Pen Facilities of Containment Systems • Chapter 14 – Feed Management for o Checklist for Oral Report of Net Pen Facilities Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and • Chapter 15 – Waste Collection and Feed Disposal; Transport or Harvest o Example Written Report – Discharge; and Carcass Removal for Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Net Pens Feed • Appendix N: Feed Conversion Refer to the appendices for the following Ratios Log information: • Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log

EPA-821-B-05-001 1-4 March 2006 Chapter 1: Introduction

• Appendix P: Inspection and • Appendix D of this document. Maintenance: Logs • View or download the text of the • Appendix Q: Cleaning Log federal regulation as it appears in the • Appendix R: Record-keeping Federal Register on EPA’s ELGs Checklist website for the CAAP rule at • Appendix S: Employee Training Log http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/. • Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log • Order the federal regulation and • Appendix U: FDA Labeling supporting documents from EPA’s • Appendix V: SDAFS BMP Plan National Service Center of Environmental Publications If you have trouble understanding any of the (NSCEP). information in this guide, ask your permitting authority for help. You may also National Service Center for Environmental Publications contact EPA’s Offices of Science and Technology (Engineering and Analysis Phone: 1-800-490-9198

Division) and Wastewater Management Fax: 513-489-8695 (NPDES Permitting Program Branch). e-mail: [email protected]

EPA Contacts Web: http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom

Mail: U.S. EPA/NSCEP Office of Science and Technology (OST), P.O. Box 42419 Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-0419 202-566-1000

Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) Your state might have other regulations that NPDES Permitting Program Branch apply to you. Contact your permitting 202-564-9545 authority to find out how to get a copy of your state’s CAAP regulations.

The guide also provides permit Supporting documents for the CAAP writers with references for additional regulation include the Technical information. Permit writers may refer to the appendices listed in the previous Development Document and the Economic section of this guide for additional and Environmental Benefits Document. information. Other good sources of They are available from NSCEP or at information may be available from state http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture. agencies (e.g., Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture, or Environmental Protection), Cooperative Extension In this guide, EPA has tried to explain Services, and Sea Grant. the regulatory language in clear, simple terms. Some of the guide’s explanations are general and might not contain all the details from the regulation. Contact your How can I get a copy of the federal permitting authority for more information on the specific regulations that apply to regulations? you. You can find contact information for your permitting authority in Appendix A You can obtain a copy of the federal CAAP of this guide. regulation from any of the following:

EPA-821-B-05-001 1-5 March 2006 Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

This guide covers the requirements in the keeping June 2004 rule for CAAP facilities. The requirements) A discrete regulation does not revise the current that the conveyance, in general, is any National NPDES Permit Regulation for discharger single, identifiable CAAPs (40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C). must meet. way for pollutants It does however, establish the ELGs for • Allows an to be carried or CAAPs (40 CFR 451). operation to transferred to waters, such as a discharge pipe, ditch, or pollutants as channel. What is the NPDES Program? long as the operation meets the requirements in The NPDES Program A discharge, in the permit. was created under the general, is the federal Clean Water flow of treated or Generally, if a facility discharges pollutants Act to protect and untreated without having a permit, or has a permit but improve water quality wastewater from a facility to does not meet the requirements, it is by regulating point waters of the violating the Clean Water Act. The owner or source dischargers. United States. operator of the facility could be subject to Point source enforcement actions such as fines. dischargers are operations that discharge pollutants from discrete conveyances Under the Clean Water Act, CAAPs are directly into waters of the United States. defined as point source dischargers. Refer to Point source dischargers are generally Chapter 3 of this document (“Does the regulated by NPDES permits (40 CFR CAAP Regulation Affect Me?”) for a §122.2). description of how EPA has defined CAAPs. The CWA defines pollutant as dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical Every facility that meets EPA’s definition of a wastes, biological materials, radioactive CAAP has a duty to apply for a permit. EPA materials, heat, wrecked or discarded recommends that CAAP owners or operators equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and that do not discharge should contact their industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste permitting authority for assistance. For more discharged into water. information, refer to “How do I know I am covered by these regulations” in Chapter 3 of this guide. An NPDES permit:

• Identifies outfall points from which a What are the Effluent Limitations facility discharges wastewater to Guidelines for CAAPs? surface waters. • Sets requirements to protect the ELGs are national standards for wastewater quality of surface water (such as discharges to surface waters and publicly pollutant concentration limits, owned treatment works (municipal sewage management practices, and record- treatment plants). EPA develops ELGs for

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-1 March 2006 Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation? categories of existing sources and new EPA estimated that implementation of the sources under the Clean Water Act. The ELGs will result in reducing the discharge standards are technology-based (i.e. they are of total suspended solids by more than based on the performance of treatment, 500,000 pounds per year and discharge of control technologies, and practices). biochemical oxygen demand and nutrients by approximately 300,000 pounds per year. EPA completed ELGs for the CAAP industry on June 30, 2004. These ELGs are The term waters of the United States is defined used by permitting authorities to set permit at 40 CFR 122.2. It means: requirements for individual facilities. The • Waters used for interstate or foreign requirements of the CAAP ELGs are commerce (e.g. Mississippi River). included directly into an individual permit. • All interstate waters, including interstate In the case of CAAPs, the ELGs require “wetlands.” management practices and record-keeping • Waters used for recreation by interstate or activities, rather than numerical limits called foreign travelers (for example a lake in one state that attracts fisherman from “discharge limits.” Your state permitting neighboring states). authority may also set additional • Waters from which fish or shellfish are requirements that are needed to protect taken to sell in other states or countries. water quality or • Waters used for industrial purposes by other industries involved in interstate commerce. Note that management requirements • Tributaries and impoundments or dams of practices are general any waters described above. that apply under requirements (e.g., solids • Territorial seas. state or local control) and facilities may • Wetlands adjacent to any waters described law. Appendix A choose how to achieve above. contains a list of them. For example, solids control can be Waters of the United States does not include: permitting achieved through feed authorities. A management and/or • Ponds or lagoons designed and summary of the proper operation and constructed specifically for waste treatment regulation is maintenance of solids systems. available in treatment systems. The • Wetlands that were converted to cropland rule does not require any before December 23, 1985. Tables 1 through specific measures to 3, at the end of achieve solids control. These are only examples of kinds of waters this chapter. considered waters of the United States. See the complete regulatory definition at 40 CFR 122.2 to see what other kinds of waters might be considered waters of the United States. Why is this regulation important? The final regulation applies to CAAPs (that meet the production threshold) located in the territorial This regulation is important in reducing seas, contiguous zone, or ocean waters. Although EPA did not identify any existing discharges of conventional pollutants facilities during the development of the (mainly total suspended solids), non- regulation, net pens (or cages) operating in the conventional pollutants (e.g., nutrients, contiguous zone or ocean waters would be drugs, and chemicals), and to a lesser extent, subject to the regulation at this time. Future toxic pollutants (metals and PCBs) from CAAPs (that meet the production threshold) in ocean waters or the contiguous zone are point CAAP facilities covered by the regulation. sources subject to new source performance standards and NPDES permitting requirements.

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-2 March 2006 Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

The resulting improvements in water quality • Permitting authority/Departments of will create more opportunities for swimming Environmental Protection – and fishing, and reduce stress on ecosystems Appendix A in those waters. They could also affect other • National Association of State aquatic environmental variables, such as Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC) primary production and populations or http://www.marylandseafood.org/aqu assemblages of native organisms in the aculture/nasac.php – Appendix H receiving waters of regulated facilities. • State Sea Grant program – Appendix H • Natural Resources Agencies Do other laws regulate CAAPs? Associated with Fisheries – Appendix B Although this guide explains what you need • State Departments of Agriculture to do to comply with the federal CAAP http://www2.nasda.org/NASDA regulation, your state, county, or town might • USDA programs (Cooperative State have more requirements to address specific Research, Education, and Extension circumstances. Your permitting authority Service (CSREES), Natural can set additional permit requirements if it Resources Conservation Service finds them necessary. For example, they (NRCS), others); see Appendix H for might set additional effluent limitations on a information about state cooperative facility to ensure attainment of state water extension service programs quality standards. State regulations must General USDA programs – include federal requirements, but they can o http://www.usda.gov also be broader, stricter, or more specific. To CSREES learn about regulations in your state, contact o http://www.csrees.usda.gov your permitting authority. Appendix A NRCS contains a list of permitting authorities. o http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

• Other resources in your state Your NPDES permit might include other federal requirements that apply to point Final Preamble: Section XIII source discharges (e.g., requirements under the Endangered Species Act, or resulting Table 1. Applicability of the CAAP ELGs from the CWA Total Maximum Daily Load to System Types (TMDL) program). CAAPs might also be subject to federal requirements under the System Type or Annual Production (lb) Subcategory Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service <100,000 >100,000 (APHIS), the Spill Prevention, Containment, Subject to: Flow-through and and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations, 451.3(a)–(d) Recirculating Not CWA Section 403(c) Ocean Discharge Applicable 451.11(a)–(e) (Subpart A) Criteria, or the Federal Insecticide, 451.12–14 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Subject to: New CAAPs may be subject to requirements Net pen Not 451.3(a)–(d) resulting from implementation of the (Subpart B) Applicable 451.21(a)–(h) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 451.22–24 The following can provide technical assistance to make sure you are complying with all applicable requirements:

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-3 March 2006 Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

Table 2. Summary of Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities General Reporting Requirements Reference Drugs1 451.3(a) 1) Reporting of intention to use INADs where such use may • Provide the permitting authority with a written report, within 7 days of agreeing or 451.3(a)(1) lead to a discharge of the drug to waters of the U.S. signing up to participate in an INAD study • Identify the INAD to be used, method of use, the dosage, and the disease or condition the INAD is intended to treat 2) Oral reporting of INAD and extralabel drug use • Provide an oral report to the permitting authority as soon as possible, preferably in 451.3(a)(2) advance of application, but no later than 7 days after initiating use of the drug • Identify drugs used, method of application, and the reason for adding that drug 3) Written reporting of INAD and extralabel drug use • Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 30 days after initiating use of 451.3(a)(3) the drug • Identify the drug used and include the reason for treatment, date(s) and times(s) of the addition (including duration), method of application, and the amount added Failure or Damage to the Structure of Aquatic Animal Containment System 451.3(b) 1) Specification of reportable damage and/or material • The permitting authority may specify in the permit what constitutes reportable damage 451.3(b)(1) discharge and/or material discharge of pollutants, based on consideration of production system type, sensitivity of the receiving waters, and other relevant factors 2) Oral reporting of structural failure or damage • Provide an oral report within 24 hours of the discovery of any reportable failure or 451.3(b)(2) damage that results in a material discharge of pollutants • Describe the cause of the failure or damage in the containment system • Identify materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the failure 3) Written reporting of structural failure or damage • Provide a written report within 7 days of discovery of the failure or damage 451.3(b)(3) • Document the cause of the failure or damage • Estimate the time elapsed until the failure or damage was repaired • Estimate materials released to the environment as a result of the failure or damage • Describe steps being taken to prevent a recurrence Spills 451.3(c) 1) Oral reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed • Provide an oral report to the permitting authority within 24 hours of any spill of drugs, 451.3(c) pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States • Identify the material spilled and quantity 2) Written reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed • Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 7 days of any spill of drugs, 451.3(c) pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States • Identify the material spilled and quantity

1 Reporting is not required for an INAD or extralabel drug use of a drug previously approved by FDA for a different aquatic animal species or diseases if the INAD or extralabel use is at or below the approved dosage and involves similar conditions of use.

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-4 March 2006 Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

Table 2. Summary of Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities, Continued Narrative Requirements Reference Best Management Practices Plan 451.3(d) 1) Development and maintenance of a BMP plan on site that describes how the permittee will achieve the following five requirements: 451.3(d)(1) a) Solids control • Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the 451.11(a) minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth in order to minimize potential discharges of uneaten feed and waste products to waters of the United States • Identify and implement procedures for routine cleaning of rearing units and offline settling basins • Identify procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals that minimize discharge of accumulated solids • Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent discharge to waters of the United States, except where authorized by the permitting authority in order to benefits the aquatic environment b) Material storage • Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to prevent 451.11(b) spills that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed to waters of the United States • Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials c) Structural maintenance • Routinely inspect production systems and wastewater treatment systems to identify and 451.11(c) promptly repair damage • Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems to ensure their proper function d) Record-keeping • Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and 451.11(d) estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios • Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs e) Training • Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill 451.11(e) to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials • Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment 2) Make the plan available to the permitting authority upon request 451.3(d)(2) 3) Certify that a BMP plan has been developed 451.3(d)(3)

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-5 March 2006 Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

Table 3. Summary of Requirements for Net Pen Facilities General Reporting Requirements Reference Drugs2 451.3(a) 1) Reporting of intention to use INADs where such use may • Provide the permitting authority with a written report, within 7 days of agreeing or 451.3(a)(1) lead to a discharge of the drug to waters of the U.S. signing up to participate in an INAD study • Identify the INAD to be used, method of use, the dosage, and the disease or condition the INAD is intended to treat 2) Oral reporting of INAD and extralabel drug use • Provide an oral report to the permitting authority as soon as possible, preferably in 451.3(a)(2) advance of application, but no later than 7 days after initiating use of the drug • Identify drugs used, method of application, and the reason for adding that drug 3) Written reporting of INAD and extralabel drug use • Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 30 days after initiating use of 451.3(a)(3) the drug • Identify the drug used and include the reason for treatment, date(s) and times(s) of the addition (including duration), method of application, and the amount added Failure or Damage to the Structure of Aquatic Animal Containment System 451.3(b) 1) Specification of reportable damage and/or material • The permitting authority may specify in the permit what constitutes reportable damage 451.3(b)(1) discharge and/or material discharge of pollutants, based on consideration of production system type, sensitivity of the receiving waters, and other relevant factors 2) Oral reporting of structural failure or damage • Provide an oral report within 24 hours of the discovery of any reportable failure or 451.3(b)(2) damage that results in a material discharge of pollutants • Describe the cause of the failure or damage in the containment system • Identify materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the failure 3) Written reporting of structural failure or damage • Provide a written report within 7 days of discovery of the failure or damage 451.3(b)(3) • Document the cause of the failure or damage • Estimate the time elapsed until the failure or damage was repaired • Estimate materials released to the environment as a result of the failure or damage • Describe steps being taken to prevent a recurrence Spills 451.3(c) 1) Oral reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed • Provide an oral report to the permitting authority within 24 hours of any spill of drugs, 451.3(c) pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States • Identify the material spilled and quantity 2) Written reporting of spills of drugs, pesticides, and feed • Provide a written report to the permitting authority within 7 days of any spill of drugs, 451.3(c) pesticides, and feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States • Identify the material spilled and quantity

2 Reporting is not required for an INAD or extralabel drug use of a drug previously approved by FDA for a different aquatic animal species or diseases if the INAD or extralabel use is at or below the approved dosage and involves similar conditions of use.

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-6 March 2006 Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

Table 3. Summary of Requirements for Net Pen Facilities, Continued Narrative Requirements Reference Best Management Practices Plan 451.3(d) 1) Develop and maintain a BMP plan on site that describes how the permittee will achieve the following seven requirements: 451.3(d)(1) a) Feed management • Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the 451.21(a) minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth • Minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens through active feed monitoring and management strategies approved by the permitting authority b) Waste collection and disposal • Collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste 451.21(b) rope, and netting c) Transport or harvest discharge • Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic animals 451.21(c) (including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing blood) d) Carcass removal • Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent 451.21(d) their discharge into the waters of the United States e) Materials storage • Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills 451.21(e) that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed into waters of the United States • Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled material f) Maintenance • Inspect production systems on a routine basis in order to identify and promptly repair any 451.21(f) damage • Conduct regular maintenance on the production system in order to ensure its proper function g) Record-keeping • Maintain records for aquatic animal net pens documenting the feed amounts and estimates 451.21(g) of the numbers and weight of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios • Keep records of net changes, inspections, and repairs h) Training • Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond to spills to ensure 451.21(h) proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials • Train staff on proper operation and cleaning of production system, including feeding procedures and equipment 2) Make the plan available to the permitting authority upon request 451.3(d)(2) 3) Certify that a BMP plan has been developed 451.3(d)(3)

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-7 March 2006 Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?

Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?

CAAP ELGs apply to owners and operators program. (See 40 CFR 122.24.) In defining of CAAP facilities that meet certain CAAP facilities, the NPDES regulations conditions. If you produce more than distinguish between warm water and cold 100,000 pounds annually, you may be water species of fish and define a CAAP subject to the ELGs. facility by, among other things, the size of the operation and frequency of discharge. Aquaculture facilities will fall into one of the following categories: The criteria described in Appendix C of 40 CFR 122 are as follows. A hatchery, fish • No NPDES permit required farm, or other facility is a CAAP facility if it • Only NPDES permit required grows, contains, or holds, aquatic animals in • NPDES permit with ELGs either of two categories: cold water species or warm water species. requirements The cold water species category includes If your aquatic animal operation is a CAAP facilities where animals are produced in under the NPDES regulations, you must ponds, raceways, or other similar structures that discharge at least 30 days per year but apply for an NPDES permit. Refer to the does not include facilities that produce less next two sections in this chapter for than approximately 9,090 harvest weight kg additional information about which types of (approximately 20,000 lb) of aquatic animals aquaculture facilities are required to apply per year. It also does not include facilities for a permit (or renew their permit when that feed less than 2,272 kg (approximately 5,000 lb) of food during the calendar month their current permit expires if they are of maximum feeding. already permitted). The warm water species category includes This chapter provides information about facilities where animals are produced in ponds, raceways, or other similar structures which operations are CAAPs and subject to that discharge at least 30 days per year. It NPDES permitting requirements, which are does not include closed ponds that discharge covered under the CAAP ELGs, what to do only during periods of excess runoff or if you have more than one type of system at facilities that produce less than 45,454 your facility, which facilities do not need an harvest weight kg (approximately 100,000 lb) of aquatic animals per year. NPDES permit, how you know that your facility is not a CAAP, how a facility is defined, and what part of a facility is regulated. A facility is a CAAP facility if it meets the criteria in 40 CFR 122, Appendix C1 or if it is designated as a CAAP facility by the What operations are CAAPs under the NPDES regulation? EPA’s existing NPDES regulations define when a hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a CAAP facility and, therefore, a point source subject to the NPDES permit 1 40 CFR 122, Appendix C is available in Appendix D of this document.

EPA-821-B-05-001 3-1 March 2006 Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?

Director2 on a case-by-case basis. What operations are covered under the CAAP ELGs? Most facilities falling under the definition of CAAP are either flow-through, recirculating The CAAP ELGs applies to direct or net pen systems. These systems discharge dischargers of wastewater from these continuously or discharge 30 days or more existing and new facilities (where per year as defined in 40 CFR 122.24 and production is defined as what leaves the are subject to permitting depending on the facility): production level at the facility. • Facilities that produce at least Most pond facilities do not require permits 100,000 pounds a year in flow- because ponds generally discharge fewer through and recirculating systems than 30 days per year and therefore that discharge wastewater at least 30 generally are not CAAP facilities, unless days a year (used primarily to raise designated by the Director. trout, salmon, hybrid striped bass, and tilapia). Facilities meeting the NPDES definition of a • Facilities that produce at least CAAP will still be subject to the NPDES 100,000 pounds a year in net pens or permit program, even if they are not subject submerged cage systems (used to the requirements of the ELGs because primarily to raise salmon). their production levels are below 100,000 pounds per year. Refer to Appendix L for a description of which systems are covered by the ELGs. Under 40 CFR 122, Appendix C:

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

"Warm water aquatic animals" include, but are not limited to, the Ameiuride, Centrarchidae and Cyprinidae families of fish; e.g., respectively, catfish, sunfish and minnows.

Refer to Appendix L for a description of which systems the NPDES regulations cover. Figure 3.1. A flow-through system

2 Director means the Regional Administrator or State What is the difference between Director, as the context requires, or an authorized NPDES and ELGs for CAAPs? representative. When there is no “approved state program,” and there is an EPA administered program, Any facility may be designated as a CAAP “Director” means the Regional Administrator. When there is an approved state program, “Director” (if it meets the NPDES regulation normally means the State Director. In some requirements outright or if the Director circumstances, EPA retains the authority to take designates it as a CAAP facility) and subject certain actions even when there is an approved state to NPDES permitting requirements. program. Regulation: 40 CFR122.2

EPA-821-B-05-001 3-2 March 2006 Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?

However, if a CAAP facility is subject to The following are examples of combinations of ELGs requirements (i.e., recirculating, flow- system types that CAAP facilities may have, and through, or net pen systems that annually whether the CAAP ELGs and NPDES produce more than 100,000 pounds of requirements apply: aquatic animals) then the facility’s NPDES permit will also contain ELGs requirements • Recirculating – 25,000 pounds annually; Net pen – 80,000 pounds annually. (Both specific to the system types used to produce systems are regulated by the ELGs and aquatic animals at that location. These are NPDES requirements.) minimum requirements in the NPDES permit. A permit may contain additional • Flow-through – 75,000 pounds annually more stringent limits required to ensure Recirculating – 50,000 pounds annually. (Both systems are regulated by NPDES compliance with water quality standards. requirements. If both are part of the same facility, the ELGs requirements also apply.)

What is considered a facility? • Flow-through – 25,000 pounds annually Recirculating – 50,000 pounds annually. A facility is defined as all contiguous (Neither is regulated by the ELGs; if growing coldwater species or determined property and equipment owned, operated, or to be a significant source of pollution to leased, or under control of the same person waters of the United States by the or entity. Each system owned, operated, permitting authority, both are subject to leased, or under the control of the same NPDES requirements.) person or entity that is not contiguous can • Flow-through – 125,000 pounds annually and should be treated as separate facilities; Pond – 15,000 pounds annually, the production threshold used in determining discharging fewer than 30 days per year. if a facility is a CAAP should also be (The flow-through system is regulated applied separately. under the ELGs and NPDES; the pond is not regulated by the NPDES or ELGs regulations, unless the permitting authority Regulation: 40 CFR 451 determines that the pond is a significant source of pollution to waters of the United States.) What if I have more than one type of production system at my facility? • Flow-through – 125,000 pounds annually Pond – 135,000 pounds annually and If you have more than one type of regulated discharging more than 30 days per year. (The flow-through system is regulated system (flow-through, recirculating, or net under the ELGs and the pond is regulated pen) at your facility (and the combined by the NPDES regulations.) annual production is 100,000 pounds or more), you must comply with the different • Net pen – 325,000 pounds annually requirements for each system type. For Molluscan shellfish – 130,000 pounds annually. (The net pen is regulated by the example, if you have a recirculating system ELGs and NPDES requirements; the and net pens at your facility, you will need molluscan shellfish system is not regulated to comply with the ELGs requirements for by either unless the permitting authority both recirculating systems and net pens. For determines it to be a significant source of more information about different system pollution to waters of the United States.) types and meeting the ELGs’ production threshold, refer to the following examples.

EPA-821-B-05-001 3-3 March 2006 Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?

Figure 3.3. A net pen system Figure 3.2. A recirculating system

If you have other system types in addition to those subject to the ELGs, such as ponds or Are there any aquaculture facilities shellfish hatcheries, those system types are that do not need an NPDES permit? not subject to the ELGs (refer to page 3-5 of You do not need an NPDES permit if you this chapter for a list of systems that are not are a facility that produces less than 9,090 subject to the ELGs). For example, if your harvest weight kilograms (approximately facility has recirculating systems and ponds, 20,000 pounds) per year of cold water only the recirculating systems are subject to species, if you feed less than 2,272 the ELGs if the recirculating systems meet kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of the annual production requirements of at food during the calendar month of maximum least 100,000 pounds. The requirements for feeding, or if you discharge less than 30 your recirculating system will appear in your days per year (40 CFR122, Appendix C). NPDES permit. The ponds at your facility However, you may need an NPDES permit would not be subject to the ELGs if your facility is designated as a CAAP requirements. However, you may need an facility by the Director or if your state has NPDES permit if your ponds meet the more stringent requirements than EPA. definition of the cold water or warm water species category, where the ponds discharge at least 30 days per year (40 CFR 122, You do not need an NPDES permit if you Appendix C) or if your pond is part of a are a facility that produces warm water facility that has been designated a CAAP species, using closed ponds that discharges facility. only during periods of excess runoff, if you are a facility that produces less than 45,454 If you are unsure which system types at your harvest weight kilograms (approximately facility are subject to the ELGs 100,000 pounds) per year of warm water requirements, contact your permitting species, or if you discharge less than 30 days authority. per year (40 CFR 122, Appendix C).

However, you may need an NPDES permit if your facility is designated as a CAAP facility by the Director or if your state has more stringent requirements than EPA.

EPA-821-B-05-001 3-4 March 2006 Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?

How do I know if I am not covered by works (POTW)). However, you may be these regulations? subject to local limit requirements.

In most cases, you are not covered by the National pretreatment standards are NPDES or ELGs regulations if your established for pollutants in wastewater production is less than the annual production from indirect dischargers that may pass thresholds covered by the regulations. through, interfere with, or are otherwise However, if the Director designates your incompatible with POTW operations. facility as a CAAP facility or if your state Generally, pretreatment standards are has more stringent requirements than EPA, designed to ensure that wastewaters from you can be subject to NPDES permit direct and indirect industrial dischargers are requirements. subject to similar levels of treatment. POTWs are required to implement local Systems not covered by the CAAP ELGs treatment limits applicable to their indirect include: dischargers to satisfy any local requirements. You should communicate • Closed pond systems (may be with your POTW operator to determine any covered by NPDES if discharges local pretreatment standards that apply to occur more than 30 days per year or your facility. if designated as a CAAP facility by the Director) • Molluscan shellfish (including A Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) is a treatment works (as defined by nurseries) section 212 of the CWA), which is owned by • Shrimp ponds a state or municipality (as defined by • Crawfish production section 502(4) of the CWA). This definition • Alligator production includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and • Aquaria reclamation of municipal sewage or • Net pens rearing native species industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also released after a growing period of no includes sewers, pipes, and other longer than 4 months to supplement conveyances, only if they convey wastewater to a POTW. The term also commercial and sport fisheries. means the municipality, as defined in section 502(4) of the CWA, that has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to What if I discharge to a POTW? and the discharges from such a treatment works. The CAAP ELGs An indirect discharger do not establish is a facility that If you discharge to a POTW, contact your national discharges or may permitting authority for more details. pretreatment discharge wastewaters standards for into a publicly-owned treatment works. facilities that meet What part of my CAAP is regulated? the criteria for a CAAP facility (as defined in 40 CFR 122.24 The CAAP regulation applies to the and Appendix C of 40 CFR 122) and are production areas of your facility, including: indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that discharge to a publicly owned treatment

EPA-821-B-05-001 3-5 March 2006 Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me?

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

No specific guidance for land application of waste was developed for the CAAP ELGs. If a facility is doing land application, a good source of information regarding land application is EPA’s Producers’ Compliance Guide for CAFOs, available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_prod_ guide_cover_and_contents.pdf.

Figure 3.4. A feed storage area

EPA-821-B-05-001 3-6 March 2006 Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?

Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?

How do I apply for an NPDES permit? page 4-3 for more information about deadlines for applying for NPDES permits. To apply for a permit, you first need to acquire the application forms. You can get After you acquire an NPDES permit, you the forms you need to apply for an NPDES must have the permit in effect for your permit from your permitting authority. Some operation as long as it is an operating states have made the forms available on CAAP. Refer to page 4-6 for a discussion of their websites. Check with your permitting situations where you can discontinue your authority to make sure you are using the NPDES coverage. Page 4-7 contains correct forms. information about what to do if significant changes occur at your operation. An applicant should consider requesting a pre-application meeting to resolve any questions and to seek guidance from the agency and or permit writer. It may be What is an NPDES general permit? advantageous for the applicant, permit writer, and aquaculture extension specialist An NPDES general permit has one set of to hold joint discussion to develop BMP requirements for a group of similar types of components appropriate for the specific facilities. For example, all CAAP facilities facility, species, production system, and in a particular area, such as an entire state or location under consideration. a watershed within the state, might be covered under one general permit. The You next need to determine what type of permitting authority sets the permit permit you will be applying for. Under the conditions, issues a draft permit, and federal NPDES regulations, there are two requests comments from the public. The types of permits⎯general permits and permitting authority may make changes to individual permits. Each permitting the draft permit based on the public authority adopts its own rules about what comments and then issues the final permit. types of permits operations need, so you should contact your permitting authority for The general permit specifies what kinds of more information. operations can be covered. Owners and operators of eligible operations may then After you determine what type of NPDES apply for coverage under the general permit. permit to apply for, you need to complete Contact your permitting authority to see if the application forms and submit the your facility is eligible to be covered under required information. Refer to page 4-3 for a an existing general permit. discussion of the information you must include in your permit application. Operators of CAAP facilities that are eligible for coverage under a general permit Depending on your specific facility may notify the permitting authority that they (existing, new, etc.), you must apply for a want to be covered by submitting a Notice renewal of your current permit or a new of Intent (NOI). If an NPDES general permit permit by the required deadlines. Refer to is available in your state and your operation

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-1 March 2006 Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits? meets the eligibility requirements, you must NPDES individual permit if any of the fill out an NOI and submit it to your following are true: permitting authority to apply for coverage under the general permit. The general permit • A general NPDES permit is not will tell you how to apply for coverage, the available. deadline for applying, and when your • Your CAAP facility is not eligible to coverage will become effective. be covered under the general NPDES permit. Some general permits specify that coverage • You want an individual NPDES is automatic unless notified by the permit. permitting authority. Coverage under other • Your permitting authority requires general permits does not begin until receipt you to apply for an individual of notification of applicability by the permit. permitting authority. If coverage is automatic, EPA recommends that the The permitting authority may also require general permit specify that the facility is any discharger currently covered by a authorized to discharge in accordance with general permit to apply for and obtain an the permit after a specified waiting period individual NPDES permit. of, for example, 30 days. Having a specified waiting period or coverage only upon receipt To apply for an individual permit, you must of a notification of applicability will allow fill out either NPDES Forms 1 and 2B the permitting authority the opportunity to (available in Appendix K) or similar forms provide for meaningful public involvement required by your state. You should contact after NOIs are submitted. your permitting authority for the proper forms. Forms 1 and 2B may be downloaded from EPA’s website at: States that have developed general http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/doctype.cfm?so aquaculture NPDES permits include the rt=name&program_id=45&document_type_ following: id=8. Your state permitting authority may also provide the necessary application forms • EPA Region 10 – General NPDES Permit for Aquaculture Facilities in on their websites. Check with your Idaho and Associated, On-site Fish permitting authority to be sure you submit Processors (ID-G13-0000) the correct forms. • Maine – General Permit for Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture (MEG130000) You must complete the forms and submit • North Carolina – General Permit No. them to your permitting authority. When NCG530000 • Washington – Upland Fin-Fish your permitting authority receives your Hatching and Rearing General NPDES permit application, it will use the Permit information you submitted to draft a permit for your operation. Your permitting authority will base your permit requirements on the unique conditions at your operation. What is an NPDES individual permit? A collaborative effort between the farmer, An NPDES individual permit contains permit writer, and an aquaculture extension requirements designed specifically for one specialist may be helpful. After a public CAAP facility. You must apply for an comment period on the draft permit, your

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-2 March 2006 Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits? permitting authority will modify the draft, if (harvestable weight = gross necessary, and then issue your final NPDES production), as well as the maximum individual permit. weight present at any one time. • The total pounds of food fed during the calendar month of maximum What information do I have to include feeding. in my NOI or permit application? • The treatment systems and practices you use for wastewater. When you apply for an individual NPDES permit, you must give the following Your permitting authority may require more information to your permitting authority, as information than what is listed above when part of Form 2B (much of the same you apply for a permit. Check with your information may be required as part of an permitting authority to make sure you are NOI for coverage under a general permit): submitting the correct information.

• Contact information for the owner or Regulations: 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28 operator of the facility. • If the facility is existing or proposed. • The location and mailing address of When do I have to get an NPDES your facility. permit? • The latitude and Check EPA’s Your permit application deadline depends longitude of the website at: on whether your operation is an existing entrance to your http://cfpub.epa.gov/ CAAP facility, a new discharger, or a new facility’s npdes/stormwater/lat source. Each category has a different long.cfm to find out production area. deadline for applying for an NPDES permit. • A topographic how to determine the latitude and Read the descriptions below to determine map of the area longitude and where when you must apply for an NPDES permit. where your to get a topographic facility is map for your location. • If you are an existing CAAP facility located, with the (already have an NPDES permit), location of the you must apply to renew your production area specifically marked. NPDES permit at least 180 days • The outfall number and flow for each before it expires. Refer to the section outfall from the facility. “Existing CAAP Facilities” below • The total number and size of ponds, for additional information. raceways, tanks, other rearing units, • If you are a new discharger, you and similar structures at your facility. must apply for an NPDES permit at • The name of the receiving water. least 180 days before you plan to • The source of water used in your begin discharging from the CAAP facility. facility. Refer to the section “New • The species (cold water and warm Dischargers” below for additional water) of fish or aquatic animals held information. at your facility. For each species, you • If you are a new source, you must will need to provide the total weight apply for an NPDES permit at least produced by your facility per year in 180 days before you plan to begin pounds of harvestable weight discharging from the CAAP facility.

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-3 March 2006 Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?

Refer to the section “New Sources” Existing CAAP below for additional information.

You are responsible for applying for NPDES permit coverage for your facility. The federal regulations do not require your permitting authority to notify you that you (Apply for an NPDES permit at least 180 must apply. For an individual permit, the days prior to expiration of current one) permitting authority issues a permit after it receives a complete and accurate permit application from the facility seeking coverage. For a general permit, the permitting authority issues the general permit, and operators then submit their NOIs to be covered under the permit. In both instances, the permitting authority is If you are subject to If you are not subject to the CAAP ELGs, the CAAP ELGs, your required to provide public notification that a your new permit new permit may or may permit has been drafted. In addition, will contain these not contain requirements although permitting authorities are not requirements. from the CAAP ELGs. required to do so, many are likely to conduct outreach to communicate who must obtain a permit and how to do so. Ultimately, however, the responsibility to seek permit New Dischargers coverage lies with the aquaculture facility. Your failure to meet the permitting New dischargers are operations that are deadlines described below could result in defined as CAAPs after the effective date of liability under the Clean Water Act, which the rule (September 22, 2004), but are not may result in penalties. new sources. A general definition of new discharger is found at 40 CFR 122.2. Existing CAAP Facilities One example of a new discharger is a Existing CAAP facilities are operations that facility that is newly constructed, will meet are already permitted under 40 CFR 122.24. the production threshold for a CAAP (thus If you operate a CAAP facility that is requiring an NPDES permit), but will not already permitted, you already have an meet the thresholds at which ELGs, and NPDES permit. You will have to reapply for therefore New Source Performance a new permit at least 180 days before your Standards, would apply. As a new existing permit expires. When the permitting discharger, you must apply for a permit at authority renews your permit, your permit least 180 before you plan to commence will include the ELGs requirements if you discharging unless permission for a later meet the production and system type date is granted by the permitting authority. applicability requirements of the ELGs. If you do not meet the production and system It also is possible for a facility already type applicability requirements of the ELGs, constructed and discharging to be recall that other NPDES requirements may considered a new discharger under the apply to your facility. NPDES program. For example, if your facility previously was not defined as a

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-4 March 2006 Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?

CAAP but plans to increase the number of general type of activity as the aquatic animals produced so you exceed the existing source should be considered. production threshold for definition as a 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1), 40 CFR 403.3 CAAP facility, you would then be (k)(1). considered a new discharger for purposes of NPDES permitting. In this case, unless a Construction at land-based sites such as flow later date is granted by the permitting through and recirculating systems occurs authority, you must apply for an NPDES when ground is broken, new equipment is permit at least 180 days before you increase delivered, or other significant changes production and, therefore begin discharging occur. For net pen and cage operations, as a point source subject to NPDES construction at the facility is generally requirements. considered the start of the timeframe for a new source. Construction is considered to New Sources include when some activity associated with site preparation or construction of the pens A CAAP facility is a new source if in the water occurs. For example: construction of the facility began after September 22, 2004 and the CAAP ELGs • Some activity takes place at the site apply to the facility. Under the CWA, bottom or surface in preparation for construction refers to the construction of any placement of a net pen or cage. building, structure, or facility and to the • If no site bottom or surface installation of equipment. Construction preparation is necessary, net pens or commences if an entity either undertakes or cages are placed in the water. begins certain work as part of a continuous on-site construction program, or enters into The date construction at the facility begins contractual obligations to purchase facilities compared to the effective date of the rule is or equipment. If construction occurs after important. A new source determination for the new source date, the facility will be aquatic animal production facilities for considered a new source if it meets any of water-based systems such as net pens will be the following criteria: based on the date at which construction commences. Based on individual • It is constructed at a site at which no circumstances, the date construction begins other source is located; or may be the date the nets, cages, or structure, • It totally replaces the process or are placed in the water, date the nets/cages production equipment that causes the were purchased, or the date a binding discharge of pollutants at an existing contractual agreement takes place. source; or • Its processes are substantially New sources will need to comply with the independent of an existing source at NSPS and limitations of the CAAP rule at the same site. To determine whether the time such sources commence the processes are substantially discharging CAAP process wastewater. independent, factors such as the extent to which the new facility is If you own or operate a new source CAAP integrated with the existing plant; facility, you must apply for a permit at least and the extent to which the new 180 days before you plan to begin facility is engaged in the same discharging from the CAAP facility. New

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-5 March 2006 Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits? source permitting is subject to National in your permit, and contact your permitting Environmental Policy (NEPA) review. authority to find out exactly what you must do to get a new permit when your current permit is due to expire. When will my NPDES permit expire?

Individual NPDES permits are usually How long should I keep my NPDES issued for 5-year terms and are reissued permit? every 5 years. You should check the expiration date of your permit. You must have an NPDES permit in effect for your operation as long as it is an General NPDES permits are also usually operating CAAP. There are a few situations issued for 5-year terms. Because a general in which you can discontinue your NPDES NPDES permit is created for multiple coverage: permittees, however, it could have been issued several years before you submitted • You close your operation. your NOI. If this is the case, the general • You permanently change your NPDES permit might expire less than 5 operation so that it no longer is a years after you submit your NOI. CAAP (under the NPDES program).

To reapply for a permit when it is due to Under all circumstances, you must have an expire, you must submit a complete and NPDES permit in effect until you properly accurate new application form (for an dispose of process wastewater that was individual permit) or new NOI (to be generated at the CAAP facility and solids covered under a general permit) 180 days collected in a settling basin or held in a before your permit’s expiration date. For storage tank so that your operation no longer EPA issued permits, if you have met this has a potential to discharge to waters of the deadline and your permitting authority fails United States. If your operation still has a to reissue your NPDES permit before the potential to discharge when your permit is expiration date, the conditions of your due to expire, you must reapply for a permit. current NPDES permit will remain in effect Once you have properly disposed of the until the permitting authority acts on your collected solids, and process wastewater so complete and accurate new application (40 that there is no longer a potential to CFR 122.6). Although many states have discharge, you may ask your permitting automatic continuation, state issued permits authority to terminate your permit. Contact are subject to state law. your permitting authority to find out more about how to terminate your permit. (You Some permitting authorities might have can find contact information for your other deadlines or procedures for reissuing permitting authority in Appendix A of this CAAP NPDES permits. For example, some guide.) general permits are automatically continued without a facility submitting a new NOI. Check the reapplication procedures specified

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-6 March 2006 Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits?

If you make short-term (1-2 years) changes to your operation that reduce annual production so you no longer meet the definition of a CAAP facility, you may request changes be made to your permit. However, remember that the permitting authority can reevaluate your operation and add requirements at that time. Contact your permitting authority if you have any questions.

What if I make significant changes to my operation while I have an NPDES permit? If you make significant changes at your operation, under NPDES regulations and the terms of your permit, you must contact your permitting authority and report these changes. Examples of significant changes include increasing production levels (e.g., increasing annual production from 50,000 pounds to 175,000 pounds), changes to structures (e.g., removing quiescent zones), or changes to facility configuration (e.g., adding 10 raceways to a facility).

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-7 March 2006 Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?

Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?

Your NPDES permit will state what you Cover page – serves as the legal notice of have to do to comply. Certain minimum the applicability of the permit, provides the requirements must be in every NPDES authority under which it is issued, and CAAP permit, and this guide describes those contains appropriate dates and signature(s). minimum requirements. Your permitting authority may include more than the Effluent limitations and standards – serves minimum requirements in your NPDES as the primary mechanism for controlling permit. You should read your permit discharges of pollutants to receiving waters carefully to find out exactly what you have (e.g., the specific narrative or numeric to do at your CAAP facility. Your NPDES limitations applied to the facility and the permit will include the following point of application of these limits). requirements: Monitoring and reporting requirements – • Effluent limitations, if applicable identifies all of the specific conditions • Special conditions related to the types of monitoring to be • Standard conditions performed, the frequencies for collecting • Monitoring, record-keeping, and samples or data, and how to record, reporting requirements maintain, and transmit the data and information to the permitting authority. Regulation: 40 CFR 122.41 Record-keeping requirements – specifies the Remember to read your permit and check with your permitting authority to find out types of records to be kept on-site at the exactly what your permit requires. This guide permitted facility (e.g., inspection and describes the minimum requirements monitoring records). established by the federal CAAP regulations. Your permit might require you to do more Special conditions – in NPDES permits for than the minimum requirements described here, for example, to meet your state’s or CAAPs, special conditions may be included, tribe’s water quality standards or to comply as determined necessary by the permitting with CAAP requirements specific to your authority. state. See the appendix to find out how to contact your permitting authority. Standard conditions – conditions that apply to all NPDES permits, such as the requirement to properly operate and What are the elements of an NPDES maintain all facilities and systems of permit for a CAAP facility? treatment and control, as specified in 40 The elements of an NPDES permit for a CFR 122.41. CAAP are the same as those issued to other point sources. These elements consist of a For additional details on the elements of an cover page, effluent limitations, monitoring NPDES permit, refer to the U.S. EPA and reporting requirements, record keeping NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual (EPA-833- requirements, special conditions, and B-96-003). standard conditions.

EPA-821-B-05-001 5-1 March 2006 Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?

What effluent limitations will be activities and narrative requirements (i.e, included in my NPDES permit? management practices) for flow-through and recirculating facilities that produce at least Your permit will contain technology-based 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals annually. effluent limitations (based on the amount of pollutant reduction that can be achieved by The CAAP Reporting is not required applying pollution control technologies or ELGs contain practices), water quality-based effluent for an INAD or extralabel general drug use that has been limitations (based on the water quality reporting previously approved by standards for and the condition of the requirements FDA for a different receiving water body), or both. It might also for the use of aquatic animal species contain additional BMPs, as needed. or diseases if the INAD certain types of or extralabel use is at or drugs. All below the approved The technology-based limitations or CAAP facilities dosage and involves requirements in a CAAP permit will be based that are subject similar conditions of use. on the ELG, for pollutants covered by the ELGs. The permit writers using best to 40 CFR 451 professional judgment (BPJ) may develop so must notify the permitting authority of the called BPJ limits. use of any investigational new animal drug (INAD) and any extralabel drug use where A water quality-based effluent limitation is the use may lead to a discharge to waters of designed to protect the quality of the receiving water by ensuring that state or the United States. The ELGs also contain tribal water quality standards are met. In general reporting requirements for failure in cases where a technology-based or damage to the structure of an aquatic requirement does not sufficiently protect animal containment system, resulting in an water quality, the permit must include unanticipated material discharge of pollutant appropriate water quality-based limits. to waters of the United States. For example, a technology-based standard for a CAAP facility might require the The CAAP ELGs Facilities should note development of a facility BMP plan that contain narrative that the management includes controlling the discharge of solids. requirements for practices are general At some facilities, additional controls may be (e.g., solids control) required to further reduce the discharge of management and a facility may phosphorus because of excessive nutrient practices for flow- choose how to achieve loading in the receiving waterbody that may through and the management result in exceeding water quality standards. recirculating practice. For example, For these facilities, a water quality-based facilities. Under solids control can be effluent limitation in the form of numeric achieved through feed phosphorus limits, such as seasonally- these management or solids adjusted monthly maximum loads for total requirements, you disposal. EPA does phosphorus, may be included in the permit to must develop and not specify what a reduce the discharge of phosphorus and maintain a BMP facility must do to ensure that water quality standards are met. plan on site that achieve solids control. describes how you will manage the Effluent limitations for flow-through and following: recirculating facilities • Solids control As explained in detail in Chapter 2 (Table • Material storage 2), the ELGs contain specific reporting • Structural maintenance

EPA-821-B-05-001 5-2 March 2006 Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?

• Record-keeping • Material storage • Training • Maintenance • Record-keeping Final Preamble: Section VIII.B • Training

Effluent limitations for net pen facilities Final Preamble: Section VIII.C

As explained in Again, reporting is not What are special conditions? detail in Table 3 required for an INAD or of Chapter 2, extralabel drug use that Some NPDES permits contain special has been previously the ELGs conditions that supplement the effluent require approved by FDA for a different aquatic animal limitations. Special conditions address management species or diseases if the unique conditions at an operation. Typical practices and INAD or extralabel use is special conditions include, for example, record-keeping at or below the approved BMPs, special monitoring studies, and dosage and involves activities for net stream surveys. pen facilities similar conditions of use. that produce at least 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals What special conditions will be annually. included in my CAAP NPDES permit?

The ELGs contain general reporting The ELGs do not impose any special requirements for the use of certain types of conditions in your CAAP NPDES permit. drugs. All CAAP facilities that are subject to However, your permit may contain special 40 CFR 451 must notify the permitting conditions to address local concerns. For authority of the use of any INAD and any example, where authorized, net pen facilities extralabel drug use where the use may lead may be required to perform regular benthic to a discharge to waters of the United States. monitoring to ensure that solids are not The ELGs also contain general reporting accumulating under the net pens and causing requirements for failure in or damage to the harm to benthic communities. Other structure of an aquatic animal containment additional requirements may address spills system, resulting in an unanticipated (e.g., petroleum), protection for endangered material discharge of pollutants to waters of species and migratory birds, employee the United States. training, and groundwater monitoring or the use of liners in areas where there is the The ELGs contain narrative management potential for a discharge to groundwater that practice requirements for net pen facilities. has a direct hydrologic connection to waters Under these requirements, you must develop of the United States. In addition, states and maintain a BMP plan on site that concerned with groundwaters as waters of describes how you will manage the the state may require monitoring, liners, or following: other requirements based on appropriate state authority. • Feed management • Waste collection and disposal • Transport or harvest discharge • Carcass removal

EPA-821-B-05-001 5-3 March 2006 Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?

What are the standard conditions of • Feed amounts and estimates of the all NPDES permits? numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate Most NPDES permits contain standard representative feed conversion ratios. conditions, which include definitions, testing FT RAS NET procedures, record-keeping requirements, penalties for noncompliance, and your responsibilities as an NPDES permit holder. • Frequency of cleaning, inspections, These responsibilities include, for example, maintenance, and repairs. complying with your permit, meeting FT RAS deadlines for reapplying when your permit is due to expire, properly operating and maintaining your facility, and letting the • Net pen changes, inspections, and permitting authority inspect your operation. NET repairs. The standard conditions also require you to notify your permitting authority if certain Refer to Appendix R for a checklist of things happen at your operation (e.g., a record-keeping requirements. Chapter 12 of significant increase in annual production or this document (“Record-keeping for Flow- an upset occurs). See Chapter 4 of this guide through, Recirculating, and Net Pen for additional information. Carefully read Facilities”) provides a more detailed the standard conditions section of your discussion of record-keeping and refers to NPDES permit, and contact your permitting example forms in the appendices that may authority if you have any questions. be used for record-keeping. Regulation: 40 CFR. 122.41 Final Preamble: VIII.E

What records do I have to keep? What monitoring do I have to perform Your NPDES permit will require you to under my NPDES permit? keep certain records to show that you are The monitoring that your permitting complying with the terms of the permit. You authority may require as part of your permit must keep all the records on-site at your depends on other conditions in your permit. operation for 5 years and you must provide If you are subject to ELGs, there are some them to the permitting authority upon associated monitoring requirements, as request. discussed below. If your permit includes numeric effluent limitations, you will be What are the record-keeping required to monitor to demonstrate requirements for all CAAPs, under the compliance with those limitations. Your ELGs? permitting authority may also require monitoring to characterize your discharge If you own or operate a flow-through, even when your permit does not include recirculating, or net pen system that numeric effluent limitations. Look carefully produces 100,000 pounds or more each year, at your permit, particularly the effluent you must keep at least the following records limitations section, special conditions, and that document: monitoring requirements section, to find out what monitoring you have to perform.

EPA-821-B-05-001 5-4 March 2006 Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?

What monitoring do I have to perform What else do I have to report? under the ELGs? The standard conditions that apply to all Under the ELGs, you must monitor your NPDES permits (refer to Chapter 4 of this production systems and wastewater guide for additional information) also treatment systems for damage to structural include the following reporting components. More specifically, you must do requirements: the following: • Duty to provide information. You • Routinely inspect production must provide any information your systems and wastewater treatment permitting authority needs to find out systems to identify and promptly if you are complying with your repair damage. FT RAS NPDES permit or to make changes to your permit. • Routinely inspect production • Signatory and certification systems to identify and promptly requirements. Any applications, repair damage. NET reports, or information you submit must be signed and certified. The

certification must state that all the Example forms for tracking inspections are information you submit is true and available in Appendix P. complete to the best of your Final Preamble: VIII.D knowledge. There might be penalties if you knowingly submit false information. What do I have to report to the • Planned changes. If you plan to permitting authority? make any changes to your CAAP facility that will affect your ability to Your permit may require you to submit comply with your NPDES permit, certain reports to your permitting authority, you have to notify your permitting such as a monitoring report; an annual authority as soon as possible. report; or special reports of discharges, • Anticipated noncompliance. You changes to your operation, and other must notify your permitting authority information, such as the use of certain drugs if you know that something is going through INADs or extralabel prescriptions. to happen at your facility that would Read your permit carefully, and contact your cause you to be out of compliance permitting authority to find out exactly what with your NPDES permit. Failing to you must report. do so could result in penalties. • Twenty-four-hour reporting. If you Chapter 12 of this document provides a list have a discharge (or other of example forms and logs available in the noncompliance event) at your CAAP appendices that may be used to report facility that could endanger human required information to your permitting health or the environment, you must authority or for record-keeping. report it orally within 24 hours. Final Preamble: VIII.D Within 5 days, you must submit a written statement describing the discharge or noncompliance. Your

EPA-821-B-05-001 5-5 March 2006 Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain?

description must include what caused A TMDL is a calculation of the greatest the discharge, when it started, how amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can long it lasted, what you did to stop receive without exceeding water quality the discharge, and how you will standards. It is the sum of the allowable prevent the problem in the future. loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The • Other noncompliance. You must calculation must include a margin of safety to report all instances of ensure that the waterbody can be used for noncompliance. Each report must the purposes the state has designated. The contain the information described calculation must also account for seasonal above for twenty-four hour variation in water quality. Additional information about TMDLs is available from reporting. EPA’s TMDL website at • Other information. If you find out http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl. that you failed to submit any important facts in your application, or that you submitted incorrect information in your application or other reports, you must submit the correct information right away.

Regulation: 40 CFR 122.41 (h), (k), and (l)(1), (2), (6), (7), and (8)

What other requirements might my permit contain? Your NPDES permit might also contain requirements to address other considerations, such as considerations to implement requirements under the CWA Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs. Check with your permitting authority if you have any questions about these other requirements.

EPA-821-B-05-001 5-6 March 2006 Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through,

Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

EPA established general reporting the drug approval includes data on the requirements for the use of certain types of observed or anticipated environmental drugs (i.e., Investigational New Animal effects associated with the drug’s use. In the Drugs (INADs), extralabel prescriptions). case of drugs used on aquatic animals the EPA also established general reporting most significant environmental effect requirements for failure in or damage to the associated with the drug’s usage is the effect structure of an aquatic animal containment on the aquatic environment. system, resulting in an unanticipated material discharge of pollutant to waters of the United States. What is extralabel use of a drug? Extralabel use is when a drug is not used What is an INAD drug? according to label requirements. Extralabel drug use is restricted to use of approved An INAD is a drug for which there is a valid animal and human drugs by, or on the order exemption in effect under 512(j) of the of, a licensed veterinarian and must be Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 within the context of a valid veterinarian- U.S.C. 360b(j). More specifically, INADs patient relationship. are those drugs for which FDA has authorized use on a case-by-case basis to An example of an extralabel use is injecting allow a way of gathering data for the erythromycin into adult fish to treat bacterial approval process. Quantities and conditions infections. Since there are no current labeled of use are specified. FDA, however, uses of erythromycin in aquatic animals, this sometimes relies on the NPDES permitting use would require a veterinarian to provide process to establish limitations on pollutant an extralabel prescription. Note, although discharges to prevent environmental harm. erythromycin is under an INAD exemption Most NPDES permits, which mention drugs to control bacterial kidney disease in and pesticides, to date have required only salmonids, any uses other than those reporting of the use of drugs and pesticides. associated with the INAD study are only allowed as an extralabel use. FDA may grant INAD exemptions from approved use for establishing data to base Your veterinarian prescribes oxytetracycline (Terramycin) medicated feed at a dose of 3.0 g drug approval. Through the investigative of drug per 100 lb of feed for your yellow perch approval process, the sponsor agrees to (grown in a flow-though system) that have conduct laboratory and field tests with the been diagnosed with Aeromonas liquefaciens. drug under the conditions and on the Since Terramycin is approved for as a feed animals proposed for approval. These data additive to treat salmonids and catfish for Aeromonas liquefaciens, when used according are collected in the INAD and eventually to the veterinarian’s prescribed instructions, submitted to a new animal drug application you do not have to report the use. Remember, (NADA) to form the basis for the Center for you still are required to keep records of the Veterinary Medicine’s (CVM’s) approval or treatment conditions as a requirement of the disapproval of the drug. Data collection for extralabel provisions developed by FDA.

EPA-821-B-05-001 6-1 March 2006 Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

What am I required to do if I use an within 30 days after initiating use of the INAD drug? drug. The written report must identify the:

Unless you INAD Reporting Exemption • Drugs used. are exempt, • Reason for treatment. under the Remember: you do not • Date(s) and time(s) of the addition general need to report an INAD use (including duration). reporting of a drug previously • Method of application. requirements approved by FDA for a different aquatic animal , you must • Amount added. species or disease if: first report your • The dosage of the If using an INAD drug, you must provide intention to drug is used at less the following to your permitting authority: use INAD(s). than or equal to the approved dosage and 1. A written report within 7 days of You must • The use is done under provide a agreeing to use an INAD. similar conditions. 2. An oral report no later than 7 days of written initiating use of the drug. report to the permitting authority of an 3. A written report within 30 days after INAD’s impending use within 7 days of initiating use of the drug. agreeing or signing up to participate in an INAD study. The written report must Refer to Appendix M for example forms that identify the: may be used to submit this information to your permitting authority. • INAD to be used. • Method of application. Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3 • Dosage. • Disease or condition the INAD is intended to treat. What am I required to do if there is extralabel drug use at my CAAP Second, you must provide the permitting facility? authority with an oral report that you are Extralabel Drug Use using INAD(s). You must provide an oral Unless you Reporting Exemption report to the permitting authority as soon as are exempt, possible (preferably in advance of use), but you must Remember: you do not no later than 7 days after initiating use of the provide the need to report an extralabel use of a drug previously drug. The oral report must identify the: permitting approved by FDA for a authority different aquatic animal • Drugs used. with an oral species or disease if: • Method of application. report of extralabel • The dosage of the • Reason for using the drug. drug is used at less drug use. than or equal to the Finally, you must also provide a written You must approved dosage and report to your permitting authority that you provide an • The use is done under are using INAD(s). You must provide a oral report similar conditions written report to the permitting authority to the permitting authority as soon as possible (preferably in advance of use), but no later

EPA-821-B-05-001 6-2 March 2006 Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

than 7 days after initiating use of the drug. containment system resulting in an The oral report must identify the: unanticipated material discharge of pollutants to waters of the United • Drugs used. States and/or • Method of application. • If there is a spill of drugs, pesticides, • Reason for using the drug. or feed that results in a discharge to waters of the United States. You must also provide a written report to your permitting authority of extralabel drug use. You must provide a written report to the Upon discovery of a structural failure or damage to a containment system or permitting authority within 30 days after spill of drugs, pesticides, or feed, you initiating use of the drug. The written report must provide the following to your must identify the: permitting authority:

• Drugs used. 1. An oral report within 24 hours of discovery. • Reason for treatment. 2. A written report within 7 days of • Date(s) and time(s) of the addition discovery. (including duration).

• Method of application. The permitting authority may specify in the • Amount added. permit what constitutes reportable damage and/or material discharge of pollutants, With extralabel drug use, you must based on consideration of production system provide the following to your permitting type, sensitivity of the receiving waters, and authority: other relevant factors. 1. An oral report no later than 7 days of initiating use of the drug. You must provide an oral report to your 2. A written report within 30 days permitting authority within 24 hours of the after initiating use of the drug. discovery of any reportable failure or damage that results in a material discharge Refer to Appendix M for example forms that of pollutants. This report must: may be used to submit this information to your permitting authority. • Describe the cause of the failure or damage in the containment system. Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3 • Identify materials that have been released to the environment as a result of the failure. What am I required to do if there is a failure in, or damage to, the structure You must also provide a written report to of an aquatic animal containment your permitting authority within 7 days system? structural failure or damage. This report must: You will need to notify your permitting authority if: • Document the cause of the failure or

damage. • There is any failure in, or damage to, the structure of an aquatic animal

EPA-821-B-05-001 6-3 March 2006 Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

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

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

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

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

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3

Examples of Information to Include When Reporting Structural Failure

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 6-4 March 2006 Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through,

Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

EPA established narrative requirements for developed. Guidance on developing and flow-through, recirculating, and net pen certifying a BMP plan is available in CAAP facilities. Under the requirements for Chapter 8 of this guidance. An example flow-through and recirculating facilities, you form for certifying your BMP plan is must develop and maintain a BMP plan on available in Appendix F. site that describes how you will achieve the following requirements: What is required for solids control? • Solids control • Material storage The following is required for solids control • Structural maintenance for flow-through and recirculating facilities: • Record-keeping FT RAS • Training • Use efficient feed management and The plan must be made available to your feeding strategies that limit feed permitting authority upon request. You input to the minimum amount must also certify that a BMP plan has been reasonably necessary to achieve developed. Guidance on developing and production goals and sustain targeted certifying a BMP plan is available in rates of aquatic animal growth. Chapter 8 of this document. An example • Identify and implement procedures form for certifying your BMP plan is for routine cleaning of rearing units available in Appendix F. and offline settling basins. • Identify procedures for inventorying, Under the narrative requirements for net pen grading, and harvesting aquatic facilities, you must develop and maintain a animals that minimize discharge of BMP plan on site that describes how you accumulated solids. will achieve the following requirements: • Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a • Feed management regular basis to prevent discharge to • Waste collection and disposal waters of the United States, except • Transport or harvest discharge where authorized by your permitting • Carcass removal authority in order to benefit the • Material storage aquatic environment. • Maintenance • Record-keeping • Training

The plan must be made available to your permitting authority upon request. You must also certify that a BMP plan has been

EPA-821-B-05-001 7-1 March 2006 Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

Specific guidance for achieving materials storage is available from Chapter 10 of this guidance. An example log for tracking spills and leaks is available in Appendix O.

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(b) and 451.21(e)

Figure 7.1. Cleaning out a raceway

Specific guidance for achieving solids control is available from Chapter 9 of this document. An example log for tracking and calculating feed conversion ratios is available in Appendix N. Figure 7.2. Storage container for an INAD drug

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(a) What is required for maintenance? What is required for materials The following is required for structural storage? maintenance for flow-through and The following is required for materials recirculating facilities: FT RAS storage for flow-through, recirculating, and • Routinely inspect production net pen facilities: systems and wastewater treatment FT RAS NET systems to identify and promptly repair damage. • Ensure proper storage of drugs, • Regularly conduct maintenance of pesticides, and feed in a manner production systems and wastewater designed to prevent spills that may treatment systems to ensure their result in the discharge to waters of proper function. the United States. • Implement procedures for properly The following is required for maintenance for net pen facilities: containing, cleaning, and disposing NET of any spilled materials. • Routinely inspect production systems to identify and promptly repair damage.

EPA-821-B-05-001 7-2 March 2006 Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

• Regularly conduct maintenance of What is required for training? production systems to ensure their proper function. The following is required for training:

Specific guidance for achieving maintenance • Train all relevant personnel in spill is available from Chapter 11 of this prevention and how to respond in the document. Example inspection and event of a spill to ensure proper maintenance logs for performing clean-up and disposal of spilled maintenance are available in Appendix P. materials. FT RAS NET

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(c) and 451.21(f) • Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment systems, What is required for record-keeping? including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment. The following is required for record- FT RAS keeping: • Train personnel on proper operation • Maintain records for aquatic animal and cleaning of production systems, rearing units documenting feed including feeding procedures and amounts and estimates of the equipment. numbers and weights of aquatic NET animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios. Specific guidance for training is available FT RAS NET from Chapter 13 of this document. An example log for tracking training of employees is available in Appendix S. • Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(e) and 451.21(h) maintenance, and repairs. FT RAS What is required for feed management? • Keep records documenting net pen changes, inspections, and repairs. The following is required for feed NET management for net pen facilities: NET

Specific guidance for record-keeping is • Employ efficient feed management available from Chapter 12 of this guidance. and feeding strategies that limit feed A checklist of the record-keeping input to the minimum amount requirements of the CAAP ELGs is reasonably necessary to achieve available in Appendix R. An example log production goals and sustain targeted for tracking cleaning of production systems rates of aquatic animal growth. and/or wastewater treatment systems is • Minimize accumulation of uneaten available in Appendix Q. feed beneath the pens through active

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(d) and 451.21(g) feed monitoring and management

EPA-821-B-05-001 7-3 March 2006 Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

strategies approved by your permitting authority.

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

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(a)

What are additional requirements for net pens? The following requirements apply to net pen facilities: NET

• Collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and netting. • Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic animals (including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing blood). • Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent their discharge into waters of the United States.

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

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(b), (c), (d)

EPA-821-B-05-001 7-4 March 2006 Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan

Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan FT RAS NET

A BMP is a means of controlling and facilities to develop a plan tailored to the reducing pollutant discharges other than unique conditions of the CAAP facility, those that rely on mechanic/physical or while reducing the discharge of pollutants chemical systems. BMPs include schedules consistent with the goals of the CWA. of activities, prohibition of action, maintenance and management procedures, and other treatment and operating What is the goal of a BMP plan? requirements. These practices may be in addition to or separate from physical The goal of a BMP plan, as stated under the treatment systems. narrative requirements of the ELGs, is to Publicly supported describe the standard operating procedures Based on the aquaculture extension and BMPs used to control solids, store CAAP specialists, fact sheets, materials, maintain the aquatic animal regulation, and reports are available containment structures, perform record- to assist with developing keeping, train employees, monitor feeding, facility BMP plans. These operators must resources can help collect and dispose of waste, address design BMP assure that the transport or harvest discharge, and remove plans to include production practices, dead aquatic animals. a series of design parameters, and equipment will achieve practices such the environmental as feed protection goals being How do I write a BMP plan? management, addressed. feed monitoring, Your plan should describe how you will solids control, and material storage. BMP comply with each required element of the plans are flexible and allow facility regulations. It should incorporate the operators to design measures and practices following components, depending on the that work within their facility management type(s) of system at your facility: framework. Solids Control

In the context of the CAAP ELGs, the BMP plan must include components that are For your flow-through and/or recirculating designed to minimize the discharge of solids systems, describe in detail how you will: from the facility. The goal of the plan is to FT RAS control conventional and nutrient pollutants in the discharge. • Perform efficient feed management

to limit feed input to the minimum The CAAP facility is expected to provide amount reasonably necessary to written documentation of a BMP plan and achieve production goals and sustain keep necessary records to demonstrate the targeted rates of aquatic animal implementation of the plan. This type of growth. regulatory structure allows individual

EPA-821-B-05-001 8-1 March 2006 Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan

• Identify and As part of your suggestions for ensuring proper storage or implement BMP plan, you drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills. procedures should define the for routine term “routine,” Maintenance which can vary cleaning of during the year. rearing units For your flow-through and/or recirculating and offline settling basins. systems, describe in detail how you will: • Identify procedures for inventorying, FT RAS grading, and harvesting aquatic animals that minimize discharge of accumulated solids. • Routinely inspect production • Remove and dispose of aquatic systems and wastewater treatment animal mortalities properly on a systems to identify and promptly regular basis to prevent discharge to repair damage. waters of the United States (except • Regularly conduct maintenance of where authorized by your permitting production systems and wastewater authority in order to benefit the treatment systems to ensure their aquatic environment). proper function.

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(a) For your net pen As part of your systems, describe in BMP plan, you Material Storage detail how you will: should define the terms “routinely” NET and “regularly,” For your flow-through, recirculating and/or which can vary net pen systems, describe in detail how you during the year. • Routinely will: FT RAS NET inspect production systems to identify and promptly repair damage. • Ensure proper storage of drugs, • Regularly conduct maintenance of pesticides, and feed to prevent spills production systems to ensure their that may result in the discharge to proper function. waters of the United States. Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(c) and 451.21(f) • Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing Record-keeping of any spilled materials.

For your flow-through and/or recirculating Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(b) and 451.21(e) systems, describe in detail how you will:

Refer to the EPA Office of Pesticides FT RAS website on Pesticide Storage Resources (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/st • Maintain records for aquatic animal orage_resources.htm) or JSA’s Guide to rearing units documenting feed Drug, Vaccine, and Pesticide Use in amounts and estimates of the Aquaculture at numbers and weights of aquatic (http://aquanic.org/jsa/wgqaap/drugguide/dr animals in order to calculate ugguide.htm) for useful information or representative feed conversion ratios.

EPA-821-B-05-001 8-2 March 2006 Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan

• Keep records documenting • Train personnel on proper operation frequency of cleaning, inspections, and cleaning of production systems, maintenance, and repairs. including feeding procedures and equipment. For your net pen systems, describe in detail Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(e) and 451.21(h) how you will: NET Feed Management • Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed For your net pen systems, describe in detail amounts and estimates of the how you will: NET numbers and weights of aquatic

animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios. • Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed • Keep records documenting net pen input to the minimum amount changes, inspections, and repairs. reasonably necessary to achieve Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(d) and 451.21 (g) production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth. Training • Minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens through active For your flow-through and/or recirculating feed monitoring and management systems, describe in detail how you will: strategies approved by your FT RAS permitting authority.

Documenting efficient feed management for • Train all relevant personnel in spill EPA can be accomplished by describing the prevention and how to respond in the following: event of a spill to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled • Feed methods used to minimize materials. solids production. • Train personnel on proper operation • Modifications made to feed and cleaning of production and quantities as fish production changes wastewater treatment systems, (e.g., size, health of fish). including feeding procedures and • Feed handling methods used to proper use of equipment. reduce generation of fines.

• Feed formulations information for For your net pen systems, describe in detail each life-history stage of fish reared. how you will: NET Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(a)

• Train all relevant personnel in spill Waste Collection and Disposal prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill to ensure proper For your net pen systems, describe in detail clean-up and disposal of spilled how you will: materials. NET

EPA-821-B-05-001 8-3 March 2006 Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan

• Collect, return to shore, and properly include in your BMP plan are also available dispose of all feed bags, packaging in Appendix E. materials, waste rope, and netting.

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(b) How do I certify my BMP plan? Transport or Harvest Discharge Send a signed letter to your permitting authority, stating that you have developed a For your net pen systems, describe in detail BMP plan. You will need to send a letter how you will: NET every time your permit is renewed. The BMP certification form should include your

name and title, name of the facility, NPDES • Minimize any discharge associated number, and date the BMP plan was with the transport or harvesting of developed. An example certification form aquatic animals (including blood, that may be submitted to your permitting viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or authority is available in Appendix F. transport water containing blood).

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(c) If you have any questions about certifying your BMP plan, be sure to check with your Carcass Removal permitting authority.

For your net pen systems, describe in detail how you will: NET

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

Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(d)

Other Information

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

A template for developing your BMP plan is available in Appendix E. A sample BMP plan and a checklist of components to

EPA-821-B-05-001 8-4 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating

Facilities FT RAS

The ELGs regulations require facilities to solids discharged from flow-through implement solids control BMPs, which are systems. intended to allow facilities to develop regional or site-specific operational For recirculating aquaculture systems, the measures to control the discharge of solids loading of potential pollutants to a receiving and other materials. The narrative BMP body of water is not entirely related to feed requirements also allow facilities and permit input, but is dependent upon the writers to respond to state programs that are effectiveness of waste capture and treatment currently working well. Some examples of processes within the recirculating system solids control management practices and on any additional effluent treatment include a combination of any and/or all of processes used to clean the water before the following: discharge. Minimizing waste feed will minimize the wastes that must be treated in • Feed management the recirculating system and ultimately the • Solids management amount of waste released to the • Solids disposal environment. Feed management is only one • Solids storage factor among many in the control of • Mortality removal and disposal potential pollution from recirculating aquaculture systems.

Examples of Feed Management Practices Feed Management

Feed is effectively the only major source of 1. Use high quality feeds and seek to aquaculture-derived nutrients, such as minimize nutrient and solids discharges nitrogen and phosphorus, and solids in flow- through optimization of feed formulation (in through systems. Optimizing feed cooperation with feed manufacturers) management by using high quality feeds and FT RAS minimizing feed waste can reduce the nutrients and solids generated and released to the environment. Feed also represents the Feeds should be formulated to meet the largest single variable cost of production and nutritional requirements of the cultured efficient use of feeds can result in cost species and for optimum feed conversion savings. Accurate feeding systems and ratios and retention of protein (nitrogen) and appropriate feeding levels are essential for phosphorus. Feeds should be formulated productivity, economic efficiency, and using ingredients that have high dry matter protection of the environment. and protein apparent digestibility coefficients. Formulations should be Relatively short hydraulic residence times designed to enhance nitrogen and and continuous discharge of water make phosphorus retention efficiency, and reduce feed management an important component metabolic waste output. Feeds should in controlling the amount of nutrients and contain sufficient dietary energy to spare

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-1 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities dietary protein (amino acids) for tissue In flow-through and recirculating systems, synthesis. Available phosphorus levels feed can be delivered by hand, automatic should be slightly in excess of the dietary feeders, demand feeders, or by mechanical requirements of the species for each life- feeders. Regardless of the delivery method history stage. Efforts should be made in feed or system, the amount of feed offered should formulation to keep total phosphorus levels optimize balance between growth goals and as low as possible while maintaining feed efficiency. appropriate available phosphorus levels. Consult a qualified aquatic animal nutritionist or feed manufacturer for information regarding feed formulation.

When facility operators evaluate feed formulations, they should consider numerous factors including, pellet stability, digestibility, palatability, sinking rates, energy levels, moisture content, ingredient quality and the nutritional requirements of the species being grown. Feeds should be formulated and manufactured using high- quality ingredients. Figure 9.1. Demand feeder

The appropriate quantity of feed for a given Pelleted feeds should be stable in water for species is influenced by feed formulation, sufficient time so the pellets remain intact fish size, water temperature, dissolved until eaten. Feeds should be manufactured, oxygen levels, carbon dioxide stored, shipped, and handled at the farm so concentrations, health status, and they contain a minimum amount of fine management goals. Feed particle size should particles. be appropriate for the size of fish in each

rearing unit. Whenever possible, feed In the case of feeds used in recirculating utilization should be monitored by observing systems, minimizing metabolic excretion of feeding behavior or by looking for trends in nitrogen from amino acids catabolized to waste feed collecting within the culture unit provide metabolic energy, and minimizing or waste feed exiting the culture unit. nitrogen excretion in feces from indigestible protein is the top priority in feed formulation. Therefore high quality feeds for recirculating systems should have balanced amino acid profiles, e.g., profiles that meet but do not substantially exceed dietary requirements for individual essential amino acids, and contain sufficient dietary energy from carbohydrates and lipids to “spare” dietary protein for tissue synthesis.

2) Use efficient feeding practices

FT RAS Figure 9.2. Feed truck

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-2 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

feeding rates within the carrying capacity of Multiple feeding periods distributed over a the production system are more efficient, 24-hour period will provide more uniform and minimize the discharge of pollutants. water quality within a recirculating system than a feeding schedule only offering feed In flow-through systems, carrying capacity once or twice daily. is determined by incoming water quality and quantity, production goals, facility design, site characteristics, and species cultured. As 3) Calculate feed conversion ratios by using such, there is no single carrying capacity feed and fish biomass inventory tracking value applicable to flow-through systems systems FT RAS and carrying capacity will vary within and between facilities.

Calculation of feed conversion ratios is an Recirculating systems, by definition, treat essential function on all aquatic animal and reuse large portions of the system make- farms. Monitoring long- and short-term up water flow. Therefore, the water flow changes in feed conversion ratios allows requirements through the culture units farmers to quickly identify significant within a recirculating system can be much changes in feed consumption and waste greater than the make-up water flow production rates. requirements that flush the system. Of primary importance is the removal of the 4) Manage within the carrying capacity of waste metabolites: ammonia, carbon the production system FT RAS dioxide, and total suspended solids (TSS), whose production is directly proportional to Flowing water carries dissolved oxygen to feed load. the culture units, receives the waste produced in the culture unit, and carries Biofilters, aeration columns, and these wastes away from the culture unit to filters/clarifiers are unit processes used to treatment units before the wastes can control ammonia, carbon dioxide and TSS accumulate to harmful and undesirable accumulations within recirculating systems. levels. Dissolved oxygen is usually the first Aquacultural engineering texts and many water quality parameter to limit culture tank other publications provide the methodology carrying capacity, which, in simplistic terms, to design biofilters, aeration columns, and is the maximum fish biomass that can be filters/clarifiers to treat a given flow or the supported at a selected feeding rate. Note waste metabolites produced by a given that the culture vessel volume does not feeding rate. However, when a unit determine carrying capacity unless water treatment process (e.g., biofilter or aeration flow is in excess of all other water quality column) is designed, the designer should based carrying capacity requirements. provide the expected water quality exiting a culture tank within a recirculating system to Impaired water quality due to high loading help ensure that the design will provide safe and excessively high feeding rates stresses water quality for the fish when reared at fish and reduces feed efficiency and maximum carrying capacity, i.e., feed production. High loading and high feeding loading. Operators of recirculating systems rates also lead to higher levels of nutrients should feed at rates that do not exceed the and solids in the effluent. Loading and maximum carrying capacity of the system.

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-3 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

be thoroughly collected prior to wastewater 5) Properly store feed FT RAS discharge.

Flow-through system effluent is Feed storage areas should be secure from characterized as high volume with low contamination, vermin, moisture and solids concentration. This effluent excessive heat. Long term storage of feed characteristic generally limits practical and can affect feed quality. Feed should be economical solids management to the rotated (use oldest feed first) and not stored capture and removal of solids using settling beyond the manufacturer’s recommended basins. Solids found in flow-through use date. If feed can no longer be used systems readily settle and can be managed because of spoilage or it has exceeded the with practices that rely on gravitational manufacturer’s recommendations for settling before water is discharged. Practices storage, the unusable feed should be that increase solid particle fragmentation properly disposed to prevent water quality decrease settling efficiency. These particles impacts. are much smaller and have poor settling characteristics. Fish grading, harvesting, and Care should be taken during feed handling other activities within raceways or ponds to minimize pellet damage or crushing and should be conducted in a manner that reduce the creation of fine feed particles that minimizes the disturbance and possible cannot be utilized by the fish. discharge of accumulated solids. In rare situations, high levels of TSS in source 6) Check feeding equipment to ensure water may warrant pretreatment systems, efficient operation FT RAS such as settling basins, to improve source water quality for fish culture. Improperly adjusted or malfunctioning feeding equipment can over-feed or under- Waste feed and fish fecal matter are feed fish and reduce feed and production waterborne and require separation for efficiency. efficient management of water quality within the recirculating system. The solids 7) Conduct employee training in fish treatment processes in a recirculating system husbandry and feeding methods to ensure remove a portion of the feed derived waste that workers have adequate training to solids in the recirculating water. Higher solids removal efficiencies result in cleaner optimize feed conversion ratios FT RAS water within the recirculating system.

The particulate wastes discharged from the Solids Management recirculating system are contained in either a small but concentrated flow (such as the Fish fecal matter and waste feed are the intermittent backwash from a solids capture major constituents of total suspended solids unit) and/or in a more continuous flow of from culture practices in flow-through displaced water (such as an overtopping systems. Solids allowed to settle in rearing flow from a pump sump that is water that units degrade water quality and may irritate has been displaced by make-up water fish gills leading to disease. Solids can addition) that has a concentration of solids impact the aquatic environment and should similar to that found in the fish culture

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-4 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities tanks. Not all recirculating systems will resuspension and subsequent discharge of have an overtopping flow, depending upon solids. their make-up water requirements. When the solids are discharged, as with backwashing Circular tanks with properly designed inlets water, the concentration of solids is typically and drains can remove the majority of solids relatively high. However, if an overtopping with minimum labor for further treatment. flow is discharged from the system, it will Circular tanks can rapidly concentrate and be relatively small in volume compared to remove settleable solids. Circular tanks are the discharge from a flow-through system. designed to promote a primary rotating flow that creates a secondary radial flow that Solids can impact the aquatic environment carries settleable solids to the bottom center and should be collected as much as possible of the tank, making the tank self-cleaning. prior to wastewater discharge. Therefore, The self-cleaning attribute of the circular nearly all flow-through and recirculating tank depends on the overall rate of flow aquaculture systems use some form of solids leaving the bottom-center drain, the strength treatment and/or disposal to remove the of the bottom radial flow towards the center concentrated slurry of captured biosolids. In drain, and the swimming motion of fish. The some cases, it may also be necessary to treat factors that affect self-cleaning within the more dilute but relatively larger volume circular tanks are also influenced by the system overflow before this flow is water inlet and outlet design, tank diameter- discharged. As an alternate to on site to-depth ratio, water rotational period, size treatment, either of these waste flows could and density of fish, size and specific gravity be discharged to a POTW. of fish feed and fecal material, and water exchange rate. Examples of Solids Management Practices 2) Remove solids from collection systems in a timely fashion FT RAS 1) Design and operate rearing units for efficient and rapid capture of solids from the water column, incorporating fish-free Solids should be removed from quiescent zones with a frequency sufficient to prevent settling basins where practical FT RAS cohesion and limit release of solids-bound nutrients. The level of feed application, Linear rearing units designed to promote settling basin efficiency, and relative storage plug flow and sufficient water velocity to capacities of the basins will determine the prevent the settling of solids within the removal frequency. For example, quiescent rearing unit allow the efficient capture of zones are typically cleaned at least every solids using quiescent zones or other settling two weeks during the peak growing seasons. basins. Proper facility design and However, the frequency of solids removal construction can be an economical means of should be determined based on factors such managing solids through settling in as facility discharge compliance limits, designated areas, allowing for efficient water quality requirements in the culture removal. Fish should be prevented from units, or labor availability. entering quiescent zones and other settling basins and removed as soon as possible The most common method of solids removal when found to prevent or alleviate from quiescent zones is by suction through a vacuum head. Usually, a standpipe in each

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-5 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

quiescent zone connects to a common pipe the best approach to use when targeting that carries the slurry to an off-line settling optimum water quality. Waste feed and fish basin. Suction is provided by head pressure manure are typically fragile and labile from raceway water depth and gravity, or organic particles. The longer these particles where fall is not available, by pumps. A are held within the culture system, the more flexible hose and swivel joint connects the opportunity that dissolution forces such as vacuum head to the standpipe so the vacuum hydraulic shear and micro-organisms will can be manipulated to clean the quiescent have to disintegrate larger particles into zone. There are other methods used to clean much finer and more soluble particles. Finer quiescent zones. For example, the standpipe particles can more rapidly leach nutrients to the off-line destination may be removed and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and and the solids can be pushed with a broom these components are harder to remove from or squeegee device to the suction port. the water column than the original intact fecal pellet or waste feed pellet. Thus, if unit Settling basins should be cleaned as processes are not installed to remove fresh frequently as practical. A procedure or and intact solids rapidly, then solids mechanism to remove the dewatered manure decomposition within aquaculture systems from the thickening device must be can degrade water quality and thus directly incorporated. Sludge left too long in settling affect fish health and the performance of basins becomes sticky and viscous making other unit processes. Products of solid removal more difficult. Sludge accumulation decomposition are more difficult to remove may degrade water quality as nutrients are from aquacultural effluents. released through bacterial or physical degradation. Off-line and full-flow settling Waste solids exiting the rearing tank can be basins should be harvested when storage removed from the bulk flow leaving the capacity is reached or as effluent culture tank using a treatment unit such as concentrations near compliance limits. settling basins (e.g., full-flow settlers, off- line settlers, quiescent zones, inclined [tube To clean full-flow and off-line settling or plate] settlers, and swirl separators), basins the inflow is usually diverted to microscreen filters (e.g., drum, disk, or belt another settling basin and the supernatant filters), and granular media filters (e.g., bead from the settling basin decanted. The slurry or sand filters). In addition, ozone and foam is allowed to dry sufficiently for removal by fractionation are water treatment processes backhoe, front-end loader, or other that can be used in recirculating systems to equipment. Or the slurry may be pumped remove dissolved organic matter. directly onto a tank truck or manure spreader. Other options include pumping the Conventional sedimentation and slurry out of the settling basin without microscreen filtration processes are often diverting the flow, similar to cleaning a used to remove solids larger than 40-100 quiescent zone. μm. However, few processes used in aquaculture can remove dissolved solids or 3) Remove solids rapidly, but gently fine solids smaller than 20-30 μm, although FT RAS granular media filtration has been used to remove these fine solids. Depending on the particle size distribution and the Rapid, effective, and gentle removal of concentration of solids, conventional waste solids within a solids treatment unit is

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-6 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

sedimentation and microscreen filtration these recirculating systems can exceed 150 processes typically remove anywhere from mg/L. Thus, the associated waste 30-80% of the solids in the treated flow. management systems must consider the specifics of each recirculating aquaculture Significant degradation or re- system in order to successfully achieve suspension/flotation of the solids matter waste collection, transfer, storage, treatment, should be avoided, but can occur in and utilization. treatment units that have relatively infrequent backwash cycles. Therefore, the 4) Frequently remove solids from settling best solids removal processes remove solids basins FT RAS from the system as soon as possible and expose solids to the least turbulence, mechanical shear, or micro-biological Settling basins should be cleaned as degradation. Note that microscreen filters frequently as practical. Fish manure left too and swirl separators (with a continuous long in settling basins becomes sticky and underflow) do not store solids for an viscous making removal difficult. Fish appreciable period, unlike settling basins manure accumulation may degrade water and most granular media filters. quality and can provide a substrate for bacterial growth. Backwash of the solids capture unit will create an intermittent solids-laden flow that A procedure or mechanism to remove the will require treatment before discharge, dewatered manure from the settling basin unless discharged to a POTW. should be incorporated in the BMP plan.

Not all recirculating aquaculture systems 5) Overflows from solids thickening tanks maintain low levels of suspended solids, as may require additional treatment is typically the goal in recirculating systems FT RAS used for sensitive species such as trout and salmon. Some species may tolerate elevated Solids thickening and storage tanks will levels of suspended solids and may actually often discharge a supernatant/overflow, consume the algae or micro-organisms which will be a relatively small volume found in these solids. Such is the case for discharge but one that contains the highest some recirculating systems used for tilapia concentration of wastes discharged from an and shrimp. Some recirculating systems rely aquaculture system. Therefore, treating the on a combination “green water” or organic thickening tank overflow can reduce the detrital algae soup (ODAS), which is an mass load of wastes discharged. Treatment algal and activated sludge-type treatment can be relatively simple and inexpensive process, combined with settling basins or because low effluent volumes must be granular media filters to treat the water. In treated. Further removal of soluble BOD and these instances, the rapid removal of waste ammonia may be required, and can be solids is not a goal because the algae and accomplished with properly designed bacteria growing in situ within the aerated basins, aerobic lagoons, created recirculating systems may rely upon solids wetlands, anaerobic filters, or other suitable degradation to treat dissolved wastes and technologies. Alternatively, the thickening maintain the culture system water quality. tank overflow could be discharged to a Total suspended solids concentrations in

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-7 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

POTW or reused beneficially for irrigation authorities to determine your waste disposal or hydroponics. options.

6) When necessary, remove solids from the Examples of Solids Disposal Practices recirculating system’s overtopping flow (if present) before it is discharged RAS 1) Disposal of solids should comply with all applicable local and state regulations and done in a manner that prevents the material Depending upon their make-up water from entering surface or groundwaters requirements, some recirculating systems FT will have an overtopping flow in addition to RAS a concentrated backwash flow. The concentration of solids in the overtopping Solids disposal will be a site-specific flow is typically similar to that found in the practice, based on factors such as local fish culture tanks. Depending upon the regulations, soil types, topography, land specifics of the recirculating aquaculture availability, climate, and crops grown. system, the suspended solids in the flow Disposal options might include land overtopping this system may require further application on agricultural lands at treatment. Waste solids can be removed agronomic rates, storage lagoons, from the overtopping flow using a treatment composting, and contract hauling. unit such as settling basins (e.g., full-flow settlers, inclined [tube or plate] settlers, and a) Land Application – Land application swirl separators), microscreen filters (e.g., of aquacultural solids is the most drum, disk, or belt filters), granular media common disposal method. Proper filters (e.g., bead or sand filters), or application of aquacultural solids dissolved air flotation systems. provides a safe method for solids utilization while fertilizing crops and amending the soil. Fish manure in liquid Solids Disposal form may be sprinkler irrigated directly onto agricultural land. In slurry form, Aquaculture solids, primarily consist of fish fish manure may be pumped into a tank feces and uneaten feed, contain plant truck or manure spreader and then nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and can applied to agricultural land. Finished often be used as a soil amendment. The compost generated from aquacultural composition of the solids varies among solids may also be applied onto facilities according to feed formulation(s) agricultural land at agronomic rates. used at the facility, treatment of the solids inside and out of the culture system, and age of the solids.

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-8 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

sludge disposal on cropland uneconomical. Disposing of the sludge on-site within created wetlands may be an attractive alternative.

A constructed reed drying bed can provide on-site treatment of a concentrated solids discharge with an uncomplicated, low-maintenance, plant- based system. Reed drying beds are vertical-flow wetland systems that have been used over the past 20 years to treat Figure 9.3. Manure spreader thickened sludge (1-7% solids) produced in the clarifier underflow at wastewater b) Evaporation Ponds/Lagoons – treatment plants and have been recently Manure slurries from aquaculture used to treat manure from commercial operations may be treated in evaporation recirculating systems. Thickened ponds/lagoons that can thicken and biosolids are loaded in sequential stabilize the manure. Evaporation batches onto the reed drying bed every ponds/lagoons are effective in arid 7-21 days. Only 2-4 inches of thickened climates only. The stabilized solids can biosolids are applied during a given then be land applied or otherwise safely application. The 1-3 week intervals disposed. between applications of thickened biosolids allow for dewatering and c) Composting – Thickened and drying, which is facilitated by the dewatered manure may be composted. vegetation growing on the sand bed. Composting stabilizes the solids and Reed beds have been found to have a produces a valuable soil amendment. useful lifetime of up to 10 years. Aerobic static pile composting is the most common method for composting 2) Use solids from earthen flow-through dewatered manure. Any excess systems to repair embankments FT supernatant, leachate, or filtrate leftover from slurry treatment processes may require additional treatment. State and Earthen flow-through systems accumulate local regulations regarding composting solids in the rearing units during production. should be followed. It is not practical or necessary to remove solids during production from earthen d) Contract Hauling – A licensed rearing units. When it is necessary to contract hauler can be paid to remove remove solids from earthen rearing units, the the collected solids or thickened manure. source water is diverted around or away from the rearing units and they are allowed e) Reed Drying Beds – Depending on to dry. The solids removed can be used to location and the local regulations, an repair the embankments and other areas of aquaculture facility may have only the rearing unit. Solids should not be used to limited and costly options available for repair roads or other facility surfaces disposal of the thickened manure. For because the solids could contaminate example, transportation costs may make stormwater runoff from the facility.

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-9 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

Solids Storage Examples of Solids Storage Practices Concentrated aquaculture solids can be stored in thickening basins that have been 1) Store sludge in an appropriate facility or designed to accommodate the build-up of container FT RAS solids and hence provide some temporary solids storage capacity. However, solid- Sludge storage structures include earthen liquid separation becomes less effective as ponds, and aboveground or belowground sludge accumulates within these basins. tanks. Earthen ponds are generally Increasing sludge depths can compromise rectangular basins with inside slopes settling basin hydraulics and the solids (horizontal:vertical) of 1.5:1 to 3:1. stored can rapidly ferment leading to solids Depending on site geology and hydrology, flotation and dissolution of nutrients and earthen ponds can have liners of concrete, organic matter. In some cases, the thickened geomembrane, or clay. Because they are sludge from thickening basins is transferred uncovered, earthen pond design will include to large sludge storage structures capable of the capacity for storage of rain water as well holding months of captured and thickened as a method for removing solids. In the case solids. Facility owners design solids storage where solids will be removed via pumping, structures to hold the amount of solids that the solids must be agitated to provide a they anticipate they will collect and hold at uniform consistency. Pond agitation may be the facility prior to final disposal (e.g., land accomplished with hitch-type propeller application). Facilities located in colder agitators that are powered by tractors or by climates may be required to hold solids for 6 agitation pumps. Propeller agitators work months, while facilities in warmer climates well for large ponds, while chopper-agitator typically design storage structures to hold pumps work well for smaller ponds. Solids solids for one month. These off-line storage removal may also be done with heavy structures typically have zero overtopping equipment, in which case, pond design flow and store their manure slurry contents should include ramp access (maximum slope until they can be removed for disposal. of 8:1) and suitable load capacity in the unloading work area.

Sludge may also be stored in tank structures, above and below ground. Storage tanks are primarily constructed of reinforced concrete, metal, and wood. Reinforced concrete tanks may be cast-in-place, walls, foundation, and floor slab, or they may be constructed of pre-cast wall panels, bolted together, and set on a cast-in-place foundation and floor slab. Metal tanks are also widely used, with the majority being constructed of glass-fused steel panels that are bolted together. There Figure 9.4. Above ground manure storage are many manufactured, modular tanks structure commercially available in reinforced concrete and metal, as well as wood.

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-10 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

Solids degradation during storage can infectious organisms and the introduction of produce dangerous levels of hydrogen excess nutrients into the system. sulfide gas, methane and hydrogen gases, and in tanks with little air exchange can Examples of Mortality Removal and contain an atmosphere that includes the Disposal Practices aforementioned gases and is anoxic. Use OSHA confined space guidelines when 1) Remove mortalities from rearing units on considering all aspects of the human a regular basis FT RAS NET interface with a solids storage structure and take every practical precaution to prevent harm to those working around these Mortalities should be removed from rearing structures. units regularly. To accomplish this, inspect culture units to check for the presence of State and local regulations regarding odors mortalities. Many mortalities float to the from the manure storage vessels should be surface of the culture water and can be considered. collected by hand or with nets.

Mortalities accumulating on screens prevent Mortality Removal and Disposal the efficient flow of water from unit to unit and represent a hazard for possible damage Mortality of small numbers of cultured to the screen resulting in escape of fish from species in aquaculture systems is a common the unit or diversion of flow away from occurrence. It is also unpredictable and downstream units. highly variable among rearing units, epizootics, and facilities. A facility may Dead or moribund fish can be transported by experience chronic mortality of a few fish flowing water to a tank drain, where they per day or a catastrophic loss caused by can accumulate against screens and restrict infectious disease or acute environmental the water flow out of the culture unit. Dead stress. Depending on water temperature and fish should be removed from culture units as species, dead fish either float or sink after soon as possible to maintain water level in dying, with warm water fish typically the culture tank, to decrease the probability floating and cold-water fish sinking. of spreading infectious organisms, and to reduce water quality deterioration. Dead fish In flow-through systems, whether floating or that sink may be difficult to detect at the sinking, dead fish tend to accumulate on the bottom center of large circular culture tanks screens at the end of the rearing units. or along the bottoms of net pens that are deep or contain turbid water. A procedure or In recirculating systems, sinking fish mechanisms should be identified for mortalities tend to accumulate on the detecting and removing dead fish from the exclusion screen on the bottom center drain culture units. of circular tanks or on the outlet screen of linear raceways. Floating fish will 2) Follow recommended aquatic animal accumulate on the surface of circular tanks, health management practices where they are relatively easy to see. FT RAS NET

The timely removal of mortalities helps decrease the probability of spreading

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-11 March 2006 Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities

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

3) Do not discharge mortalities into receiving waters FT RAS NET

Appropriate screens for flow-through and recirculating systems on the outlet to receiving waters will prevent mortalities discharging into receiving waters. There are, however, permitted restoration and stock- enhancement activities where spawned carcasses are returned to waters for nutrient replacement.

Figure 9.5. Screened effluent pipe

4) Only use approved methods of mortality disposal FT RAS NET

Disposal methods are site-specific and usually governed by state or local regulations. Disposal options could include composting, rendering, use as fertilizer, incineration, burial, or landfill.

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-12 March 2006 Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

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

Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Material Storage Drugs and pesticides should be used only when needed and only for the specific use It is important to properly store materials indicated on the label. In some cases, drugs used at aquaculture facilities to protect the are used under an INAD exemption or environment. Specifically, the ELGs require prescribed by a veterinarian as an extralabel that facilities ensure proper storage of drug, drug use. Use of these materials is regulated pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to by federal and state agencies, and individuals are responsible for using these prevent spills that may result in a discharge products according to label directions and of these materials to waters of the United disposing of containers and unused States. The ELGs also require facilities to chemicals according to applicable federal implement procedures for properly and state regulations. containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials. 2) Use and store feed in a manner to prevent Examples of Material Storage Practices contamination of the environment and to protect the quality of the feed 1) Use and store drugs and pesticides in a FT RAS NET manner to prevent contamination of the environment FT RAS Feed should be stored away from rearing areas and water sources, in locations that are Drugs and pesticides should be stored away secure, dry, water tight, and not subject to from rearing areas, feeds, and water sources, extreme temperatures. in locations that are secure, dry, void of drains, water tight, well-ventilated, and not Storing feed properly maintains feed quality. subject to extreme temperatures. Also To protect feed quality, store it to prevent consider securing the storage areas to avoid insect and rodent contamination. Bacteria tampering or vandalism. and fungi (mold) can destroy the nutritional value of feed and produce toxins, which may Refer to EPA’s Office of Pesticides website stress or kill fish. Keeping feed dry and on Pesticide Storage Resources maintaining temperatures to prevent (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/st condensation helps to minimize the growth orage_resources.htm) or JSA’s Guide to of bacteria and molds. Follow the feed Drug, Vaccine, and Pesticide Use in manufacturer’s storage recommendations for Aquaculture best results. (http://aquanic.org/jsa/wgqaap/drugguide/dr ugguide.htm) for useful information or Handle and store feed with care to prevent suggestions for ensuring proper storage or physical breakdown of feed into fine drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills. particles. If fines are present in feed, they should be removed and disposed of properly.

EPA-821-B-05-001 10-1 March 2006 Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

State and federal laws require reporting of Although most currently used formulations significant spills of many chemical products. are extruded pellets, which produce very Although the quantity of drugs and little fines, check with your feed pesticides used and stored at CAAP facilities manufacturer to determine if they will is generally small, check with state and local provide a credit and take back the fines. authorities for specific details about any chemicals that would require reporting in the event of a spill at your facility. A plan should be developed specifying response procedures, key staff, and phone numbers of regulatory authorities. All facility employees should be aware of the plan and the plan should be accessible to all employees at all times. Refer to Chapter 13 of this guidance for information about training employees in spill prevention.

Spill response and prevention plans can be used to ensure that a facility properly Figure 10.1. Feed storage area contains, cleans, and disposes of spilled materials. The plan should clearly state 3) Develop a spill response and prevention measures to stop the source of a spill, plan for drugs, pesticides, and feed (you can contain the spill, clean up the spill, dispose also develop these plans for petroleum of contaminated materials, and train products and other hazardous products that personnel to prevent and control future may be found at your facility) spills. FT RAS NET To develop the plan, first identify potential spill or source areas, such as loading and The best way to avoid runoff contamination unloading, storage, and processing areas, from spilled materials is to prevent the spill and areas designated for waste disposal. from occurring. Carefully storing materials in sound, clearly labeled containers and Provide documentation of spill response regular inspection and maintenance of equipment and procedures to be used, equipment are key practices to prevent ensuring that procedures are clear and spills. Materials stored outdoors should be concise. Give step-by-step instructions for covered and kept on paved areas to protect the response to spills at a particular facility. them from being mobilized by wind and This spill response and prevention plan can runoff. If not covered, storage areas should be presented as a procedural handbook or a be designed to drain with a slight slope sign. The spill response and prevention plan (approximately 1.5 percent) to an area that should: will provide treatment prior to disposal. Use secondary containment, such as berms, • Identify individuals responsible for safety storage cabinets, or drum containment implementing the plan. systems, when storing liquids. • Define safety measures to be taken with each kind of waste.

EPA-821-B-05-001 10-2 March 2006 Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

• Emphasize that spills must be to regularly inspect areas where spills might cleaned up promptly. occur to ensure that procedures are posted • Specify how to notify appropriate and cleanup equipment is readily available. authorities, such as police and fire departments, hospitals, or publicly- A spill prevention and response plan can be owned treatment works for highly effective at reducing the risk of assistance. surface and groundwater contamination. • State procedures for containing, However, the plan’s effectiveness is diverting, isolating, and cleaning up enhanced by worker training, availability of the spill. materials and equipment for cleanup, and • Describe spill response equipment to extra time spent by management to ensure be used, including safety and cleanup that procedures are followed. equipment. Spill prevention and response plans are The use of water for cleanup should be inexpensive to implement. However, extra strongly discouraged. Launderable or time is needed to properly handle and disposable shop rags should be used for dispose of spills, which results in increased small spills of non-volatile chemicals, and labor costs. rags should be properly cleaned or disposed of. Larger spills should be absorbed with If you want to track spills from your facility vermiculite, sawdust, kitty litter, or for your own record-keeping, you can use absorbent “snakes.” Disposal methods the example tracking worksheet in Appendix depend on the hazard level of the spilled O. material. Nonvolatile liquids can be cleaned up with a wet/dry shop vacuum and Additional Suggestions disposed of with the rest of the facility’s waste. Drains or inlets to storm sewers 1) Use and store petroleum products to should be plugged during spill remediation prevent contamination of the environment to prevent off-site runoff/discharge of FT RAS NET pollutants.

State and federal laws require reporting of A spill prevention and response plan must significant spills of petroleum products. A be well planned and clearly defined so that plan should be developed specifying the likelihood of accidental spills can be response procedures, key staff, and phone reduced and any spills that do occur can be numbers of regulatory authorities. dealt with quickly and effectively. Training might be necessary to ensure that all Petroleum leaking from storage tanks or relevant personnel are knowledgeable farm equipment wastes a valuable resource enough to follow procedures. Equipment and can contaminate surface or underground and materials for cleanup must be readily water supplies. Petroleum products are accessible and clearly marked for personnel highly odorous and small amounts in water to be able to follow procedures. can produce an off-flavor in aquatic animals.

Petroleum storage in above-ground and Remember to update the spill prevention and underground tanks is regulated by federal response plan to accommodate any changes and state agencies. Information on in the site or procedures. It is also important petroleum storage regulations can be

EPA-821-B-05-001 10-3 March 2006 Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities obtained from state Departments of Commerce, state Departments of Environmental Quality or Protection, or from EPA regional offices. Aquaculturists should also implement a regular maintenance schedule for tractors, trucks, and other equipment to prevent oil and fuel leaks. Used oil should be disposed of through recycling centers.

Figure 10.2. Fuel storage

Facilities can also address spill prevention and response for petroleum products in their spill prevention and response plan, described above.

EPA-821-B-05-001 10-4 March 2006 Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

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

Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Maintenance plumbing components are installed and working properly. Flow-through, recirculating, and net pen • Life support systems⎯routinely systems should be well-maintained, inspect oxygen equipment, filters, managed efficiently, and operated in heaters, and any other life support compliance with all applicable laws and equipment used to maintain optimal regulations. This will improve long-term growing conditions. economic performance and reduce • Feeding equipment⎯test automatic environmental impact. As such, the and mechanical feeders periodically following management practices are simply to ensure that they are delivering the part of good management. proper amounts of feed; check demand feeders for proper operation Examples of Maintenance Practices and adjust as necessary; inspect all feed storage areas to make sure that 1) Maintain structures and equipment to the feed is not contaminated by ensure staff safety and protection of the foreign substances, is not easily environment FT RAS NET accessible to rodents and insects, and check for excess moisture and water

leaks to prevent mold from forming. Routinely inspect flow-through and recirculating production systems and • Solids control equipment and wastewater treatment systems to identify systems⎯check quiescent zones for and promptly perform repairs or proper function; inspect drains for replacement, as necessary. clogging; and make sure that all settling basins are working properly Some of the system components that should and that the structures are safe and be considered for routine inspection of flow- secure to prevent spills and through and recirculating systems include: accidental discharges of collected solids due to cracked or damaged • Drains⎯make sure that all of the basin structures. parts of the drain structure are properly functioning; look for the Routinely inspect net pen systems to identify proper placement of stand pipes, dam and promptly perform repairs or boards, and animal exclusion devices replacement of nets. (for example screens across pipe openings); check that valves and Some of the system components that should other critical drain components are be considered for routine inspection at net working properly; check for broken pen facilities include: parts and repair when necessary. • Production units⎯make sure that • Nets⎯inspect for holes and physical tanks and raceways are structurally damage to the nets and make sure sound; repair cracks as necessary; all that nets are securely attached to

EPA-821-B-05-001 11-1 March 2006 Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

floating structures; if present, 4) When installing net pens and their maintain predator control nets and associated mooring systems, give careful devices to ensure proper operation. consideration to their potential impacts on • Floating structures⎯inspect for water circulation patterns; gear deployment physical damage that may lead to should seek to optimize circulation patterns structural failure during storms or and maximize water exchange through the periods of icing; check all mooring pens, thereby improving fish health and lines and anchor points for proper reducing benthic impacts NET function and physical damage.

• Feeding equipment⎯test automatic 5) Design, operate, and maintain all and mechanical feeders periodically holding, transportation, and culture systems to ensure that they are delivering the to function as designed proper amounts of feed; check FT RAS demand feeders for proper operation and adjust as necessary; inspect all For flow-through systems, screens of feed storage areas to make sure that appropriate size and strength should be the feed is not contaminated by installed at the intake from the source and foreign substances, is not easily outlet to receiving waters to prevent loss and accessible to rodents and insects, and escape of cultured species. Occasionally check for excess moisture and water check screens to ensure that debris is not leaks to prevent mold from forming. blocking them.

An example log for documenting routine For recirculating systems, barriers of inspections and repairs is available in appropriate size and strength should be Appendix P. installed on the facility discharge and on the make-up water entry into the facility. A 2) Periodically conduct a systematic review procedure or mechanisms should also be of your current facility to identify any identified to prevent debris from plugging problems that would lead to environmental the barriers, thus preventing water from impacts; when considering modifications to overflowing or bypassing the screens. existing facility components or operations, include a review of the type and extent of 6) Avoid siting facilities in areas prone to probable environmental impacts that may frequent flooding FT RAS occur as a result of the new methods FT RAS NET Floods that overflow flow-through and recirculating systems result in loss of 3) Clearly mark all net pen sites in cultured animals and are usually accordance with the farm’s permit for fixed catastrophic for the farmer. Facilities private aids (buoys, navigation lights, etc.) adjacent to surface waters should be to navigation from the U.S. Coast Guard constructed to minimize the possibility of and appropriate state authorities; make sure flood waters entering the facility. all net pen sites continue to be clearly marked in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard marking regulations NET

EPA-821-B-05-001 11-2 March 2006 Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

7) Transfer fish (stocking, grading, transfer, between the primary net and the jump net. or harvest) in appropriate weather Jump nets should be of a height appropriate conditions and under constant visual to the jumping ability and size of aquatic supervision of at least one person; use animals they are containing. In areas with appropriate equipment for the weather and extreme winters, cages may sink slightly due cage designs; use shields or additional nets to ice loads from freezing spray. This is a to prevent stray fish to escape during temporary condition that abates as the ice transfer (where necessary or appropriate) melts during submergence. In areas where NET winter icing occurs regularly, bird nets should be exchanged for winter cover nets.

These nets should be constructed of netting 8) Only obtain nets from a manufacturer or designed to withstand the rigors of icing and supplier whose equipment design with mesh sizes appropriate to contain the specifications and manufacturing standards aquatic animal size being reared. meet generally accepted standards prevalent in the aquaculture industry NET 11) Secure nets to the appropriate attachment point, such that the attachment Net design and specification should be bears the strain and not the handrail of the commensurate with the prevailing cage NET conditions of the site. Stress tests should be preformed on all nets with more than three Net weights, when used for net tensioning, years of use in the marine environment should be installed in a manner to prevent when the net is pulled out and cleaned. All chafing. A second layer of net should be nets in use should be UV-protected. added one foot above and below wear

points. The use of net weights should be 9) Only obtain net pen structures from a encouraged when strong currents or tides are manufacturer or supplier whose equipment present at the net pen site. design specifications and manufacturing standards meet generally accepted 12) Develop a preventative maintenance standards prevalent in the aquaculture program for nets NET industry NET

The program should have the ability to track Net pen structure design, specification, and individual nets, and schedule and document installation should be commensurate with regular maintenance and testing. Nets that the prevailing conditions and capable of fail testing standards should be retired and withstanding the normal maximum weather disposed of properly. An example log for and sea conditions. recording maintenance is available in

Appendix P. 10) Install jump nets to prevent aquatic animals from jumping out of the primary 13) Mooring system designs should be containment net NET compatible with the net pen systems they secure NET Jump nets should be an integral part of the primary containment net or joined to it in a fashion that prevents aquatic animal escape

EPA-821-B-05-001 11-3 March 2006 Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

Mooring systems should be installed in 16) Develop a preventative maintenance consultation with the net pen system program for net pen and mooring systems manufacturer or supplier. Mooring system NET design, specification and installation should be commensurate with the prevailing The program should monitor maintenance of conditions of the site and be capable of individual cages, and schedule and withstanding the normal maximum document regular maintenance, the nature of conditions likely to occur at a site. the maintenance, date conducted, any

supporting documentation for new materials 14) Regularly inspect and adjust mooring used, and who conducted the maintenance. systems as needed NET An example log for documenting routine inspections and maintenance is available in Rigging tension should be maintained to Appendix P. installation standards. New components should undergo their first inspection no later 17) Use bird nets (where appropriate) to than 2 years after deployment. A diver or cover net cages to reduce any impacts due to remote camera should regularly visually bird predation; bird nets should be inspect subsurface mooring components. constructed using appropriate materials and Special attention should be given to mesh sizes designed to reduce the risk of connectors and rope/chain interfaces. Chafe bird entanglement NET points should be identified and subject to more frequent inspection and removal of Contact manufacturers and suppliers of marine growth. With the exception of rock aquaculture netting for more information. pin anchors, mooring systems should be hauled out of the water for a visual 18) Develop a Standard Operating inspection of all components at least every 6 Procedure (SOP) for all routine vessel years. When considering what inspection operations method to employ, net pen operators should NET consider the relative risks and benefits associated with the inspection method. On Vessel operations around a net pen site can sites frequently exposed to severe weather or damage nets or the structures. All vessel where it is difficult to set anchors, breaking operators should receive appropriate training out anchors for visual, above-water in the operation of the vessel. The SOP inspection may represent a greater risk for should minimize the risk of damaging nets mooring failure than regular underwater and/or mooring system components with the inspections. An example log for recording propeller of the vessel. When mooring maintenance is available in Appendix P. barges on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, local current and wind patterns should 15) Shackles used in mooring systems be considered. The mooring location should should be either safety shackles, wire-tied, be selected so that in the event of a vessel or welded to prevent pin drop-out NET breaking free of its moorings the chance of the vessel impacting a net pen system is

minimized.

EPA-821-B-05-001 11-4 March 2006 Chapter 12: Record-keeping for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

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

Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Record-keeping • Records need to be readily accessible. Good record-keeping is the hallmark of a • Records containing any confidential well-operated aquatic animal production information must be secured facility. Keeping records can help a facility (enforcement staff can still have run more efficiently and cleanly. access to these records). Examples of Record-keeping Practices The key to maintaining records is continual updating. Ensure that new information, such 1) Develop a record-keeping system as inspections of your production systems, is FT RAS NET added to existing records as it becomes available. In addition, update records if there Records, such as feeding, chemical use, are changes to the number and location of water quality, serious weather conditions, discharge points, or material storage aquatic animal inventory, and aquatic animal procedures. You should maintain records for culture operations facilitate improvements in at least five years from the date of sample the overall efficiency of a facility. observation or action. Some simple techniques used to accurately document and Record-keeping is a basic business practice report results include: and is applicable to all facilities. If a facility already has record-keeping structures in • Forms and logs. place, the existing structures can be directly • Field notebooks. used or easily adapted to incorporate any • Timed and dated photographs. additional record-keeping requirements of • Videotapes. the CAAP ELGs. • Drawings and maps. • Computer spreadsheets and database Record keeping is a simple, easily programs. implemented, and cost effective management tool. Complete, well-organized Paper copies of records should be records can help ensure proper maintenance maintained for archival purposes; of facilities and equipment and can aid in computerized record-keeping tools can be determining the causes of required repairs to used for trend analysis and forecasting. help prevent future foreseeable disasters. Records should be reviewed periodically to determine if they are useful and to provide The following are important points to insight into opportunities for improvement remember when performing record-keeping: of CAAP facility operation.

• Records must be updated regularly. EPA encourages the use of existing record- • Personnel completing and keeping systems (if available at your maintaining records must be trained facility) to meet the record-keeping to update records correctly. requirements of the CAAP ELGs. However,

EPA-821-B-05-001 12-1 March 2006 Chapter 12: Record-keeping for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities if you need examples of forms and logs that • Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log help fulfill record-keeping requirements of (may be used to keep track of the the CAAP ELGs, refer to the appendices number of carcasses removed and below. Some appendices contain forms and disposal methods for the carcasses) logs for activities that are not required by the ELGs, but that can be used to show your 2) Develop a record-keeping system for facility has met other requirements of the spills FT RAS NET ELGs (e.g., showing your facility performed employee training). EPA requires you to report spills when they • Appendix M: General Reporting occur. EPA encourages you to keep track of Forms (meets the CAAP ELGs spills at your facility. Records of past spills general reporting requirements for contain useful information (e.g., what INADs and extralabel drug use; practices worked best for a given magnitude failure or damage to containment and type of spill) for improving practices to systems; and spills of drugs, prevent future spills. Typical items that pesticides, and feed) should be recorded include results of routine • Appendix N: Feed Conversion inspections, and reported spills, leaks, or Ratios Log (may be used to track other discharges. Records should include: feeding and to calculate FCRs; meets the CAAP ELGs record- • The date, exact place, and time of keeping requirements for solids material inventories, site inspections, control) sampling observations, etc. • Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log • Names of inspector(s) and (may be used to keep track of spills) sampler(s). • Appendix P: Inspection and • If applicable, analytical information, Maintenance Logs (may be used to including date(s) and time(s) keep track of when you perform analyses were performed or initiated, maintenance and cleaning at your analytical techniques or methods facility; meets the CAAP ELGs used, the analysts’ names, analytical record-keeping requirements for results, and quality assurance/quality maintenance) control results of such analyses. • Appendix Q: Cleaning Log (may be • The date, time, exact location, and a used to document cleaning of your complete characterization of production systems and/or significant observations, including wastewater treatment systems; meets spills or leaks. the CAAP ELGs record-keeping • Notes indicating the reasons for any requirements for cleaning) exceptions to standard record • Appendix R: Record-keeping keeping procedures. Checklist (may be used to make sure you have met the record-keeping Refer to Appendix O for an example log to requirements of the CAAP ELGs) track spills at your facility. • Appendix S: Employee Training Log (may be used to track employee training)

EPA-821-B-05-001 12-2 March 2006 Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

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

Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Training where potential spills could occur, followed The CAAP ELGs require facilities to train by a discussion of site-specific BMPs all relevant personnel in spill prevention and providing solutions to spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill to response. Trained personnel can provide ensure proper clean-up, and disposal of discussion to other staff within the facility. spilled materials. Facilities are also required to train personnel in the following areas: Advantages of an employee-training program are that the program can be a low- • Operation and cleaning of production cost and easily implementable procedure for systems. FT RAS NET addressing spills at aquaculture facilities. The program can be standardized and • Operation and cleaning of repeated as necessary, both to train new wastewater treatment systems. employees and to keep its objectives fresh in FT RAS the minds of already trained employees. A training program is also flexible and can be adapted as a facility’s management needs Examples of Training Practices change over time.

1) Develop and implement an employee- Specific design criteria for implementing an training program to train relevant personnel employee-training program include: in spill prevention and response • Ensuring strong commitment and FT RAS NET periodic input from senior management. Employee training programs can be • Communicating frequently to ensure established to train employees how to adequate understanding of goals and prevent and respond to spills. Employee objectives. training programs should instill all personnel • Using experience from past spills to with a thorough understanding of the prevent future spills. facility’s Spill Response and Prevention • Making employees aware of BMP Plan, including BMPs, practices for monitoring and spill reporting preventing spills, and procedures for procedures. responding quickly and properly to spills. • Developing operating manuals and standard procedures. Employees can be taught through posters, • Implementing spill drills. employee meetings, courses, signs, and bulletin boards about spill prevention and An employee-training program should be an response. Facilities may also use “in-field on-going, yearly process. A sample training” programs, where they show employee training log that can be used to employees specific areas of the facility track employee-training programs is

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-1 March 2006 Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

available in Appendix S of this document. maintain those practices. For example, Refer to Chapter 10 in this guidance for maintain minimum flows to system more specific information about developing components where required to ensure the a Spill Response and Prevention Plan. system is self-cleaning.

2) Develop and implement an employee- Examples of other practices you can do to training program to train relevant personnel properly operate your systems so solids are in proper operation and cleaning of reduced include the following: production and wastewater treatment systems, including feeding practices and • Avoid short-circuiting flows in the proper use of equipment1 quiescent zones. FT RAS NET • Ensure that drainpipes and dam boards are working properly.

• Clear screens in raceways of debris. Employee training programs can be established to train employees how to • Do not exceed the carrying capacity properly operate and clean production and of your system. wastewater treatment systems (only flow- • Design and implement a feed through and recirculating systems must train management program. employees for operating and cleaning wastewater treatment systems), including 4) Properly clean flow-through and feeding procedures and proper use of recirculating production systems equipment. FT RAS

Employees can be taught through posters, When cleaning raceways or tanks at your employee meetings, courses, signs, and facility make sure you do the following: bulletin boards about properly operating and cleaning production systems and wastewater • Send cleaning water to a treatment treatment systems at your facility. system, such as an offline settling basins or full-flow settling basins. General guidance for properly operating and • Clean raceways or tanks as cleaning some of the components found in frequently as necessary. CAAP systems is available throughout the remainder of this chapter. NET 5) Properly clean nets 3) Properly operate flow-through and recirculating production systems The regular cleaning of production nets FT RAS helps to ensure a constant flow of water through the production area of the net pen.

To properly operate production systems at As the net pen sits in the culture area, your facility to reduce solids, identify what marine organisms attach and grow on the practices reduce solids (based on your nets. These organisms reduce the area of the facility’s unique design characteristics), and openings. The reduction in area reduces the water flow through the net pen and the

1 amount of dissolved oxygen available, and it Net pen systems are not required to train personnel increases the buildup of metabolic waste. in proper operation and cleaning of wastewater treatment systems.

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-2 March 2006 Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

The following practices will help facilities to contribute to the pollutant loadings clean their nets, while minimizing the of the facility. Two operational impact of this practice on the environment: factors associated with operating quiescent zones are (1) the necessity • Minimize the concentration of net- to clean the screens, and (2) the fouling organisms that are regular removal of collected solids discharged during events such as from the quiescent zones. changing and cleaning nets. • Quiescent zones should be cleaned • Remove fouled nets, transport as frequently as possible, in most ashore, air dry, and clean with cases, at least once every 2 weeks. pressure washers, if necessary. • Screens separating the rearing area Avoid discharges of cleaning water from the quiescent zone should be or net-fouling organisms to open cleaned daily to promote laminar waters. flow in the settling area. • Avoid discharges of chemicals used to clean nets or other gear in open 7) Properly clean and operate sedimentation waters. basins FT RAS • Do not use materials containing or

treated with tributyltin. Solids must be removed at proper intervals

to ensure the designed removal efficiencies 6) Properly operate and clean quiescent of the sedimentation basin. For both off-line zones FT settling (OLS) and full-flow settling (FFS) basins, IDEQ recommends a minimum The following practices may help you to harvest frequency of every 6 months. properly operate your quiescent zone to Infrequent harvests could result in the reduce solids: breakdown of solids and the release of dissolved nutrients into the receiving waters. • Ensure that the turbulence is reduced (for example, preventing short For FFS basins, some facilities might batch circuiting by ensuring drains and crop their fish so that they can all be outlets are operating as designed) harvested at the same time. Then solids can enough so the solids will settle in the be harvested from the FFS basins when the quiescent zones. facility is empty (IDEQ, n.d.). • Prevent fish from entering quiescent zones by maintaining the integrity of System operators should attempt to the screen that separates the minimize the breakdown of particles (into raceways and quiescent zones. smaller sizes) to maintain or increase the efficiency of sedimentation basins. The following guidance for cleaning quiescent zones is based on the Idaho Waste The following practices may be used to Management Guidelines for Aquaculture properly operate your sedimentation basin to Facilities (IDEQ, n.d.). reduce solids and are based on the Idaho Waste Management Guidelines for • Settled solids should be removed Aquaculture Facilities (IDEQ, n.d.): regularly so they cannot become entrained in the wastewater flow and

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-3 March 2006 Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities

• Regularly check the depth of collected solids and clean out the basin when the sediment depth exceeds 50% of the design depth. • Check pipes and basin walls for cracks and other damage. • Check for solids “caking” around the basin drain structure to ensure proper draining of treated effluent. • Check area around the outfall for signs of erosion and repair any damage. • Check outlet pipes for clogging.

8) Properly clean and operate microscreen filters FT RAS

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

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

• Regularly check for normal operation of the filter unit. • Inspect all moving parts for proper operation. • Refer to the manufacturer’s operation and maintenance manual for specific details. • Check for wear or holes in miscroscreens. • Lubricate bearings according to manufacturer’s recommended schedules. • Check for proper operation of wash pump and cleaning nozzles.

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-4 March 2006 Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities

Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities NET

Feed Management Examples of Feed Management Practices Waste feed and feces constitute the major portion of the wastes generated by net pens. 1) Calculate feed conversion ratios by using However, because net pens operate in high- feed and aquatic animal biomass inventory tracking systems energy, open water environments (where NET they are exposed to currents, waves, and storms), the concentration and collection of Calculation of feed conversion ratios (FCRs) wastes is difficult. is an essential function on all net pen farms. Monitoring long- and short-term changes in The most effective way to reduce the feed conversion ratios allows farmers to discharge of solids from net pen systems is quickly identify significant changes in feed effective feed management. Effective feed consumption and waste production rates. management is based on two components: Refer to Appendix N for an example log to waste reduction and optimal feed conversion calculate and track FCRs. ratio. Waste reduction focuses on ensuring that feed used by the farm is not lost or 2) In cooperation with feed manufacturers, discharged prior to intake by the aquatic seek to minimize nutrient and solids animal. Optimal conversion focuses on discharges through optimization of feed ensuring that all feed intake offered to the formulations aquatic animal is actually consumed and NET optimally digested and used by the aquatic animal. Feeds should be formulated for optimum feed conversion ratios and retention of Documenting efficient feed management for protein (nitrogen) and phosphorus. Feed EPA may be achieved by describing the formulations should consider numerous following in your BMP plan: factors including, pellet stability, digestibility, palatability, sinking rates, • Feed methods used to minimize energy levels, moisture content, ingredient solids production. quality and the nutritional requirements of • Modifications made to feed the species being grown. Feeds should be quantities as fish production changes formulated and manufactured using high- (e.g., size, health of fish). quality ingredients. Feed ingredients should • Feed handling methods used to have high dry matter and protein apparent reduce generation of fines. digestibility coefficients. Formulations • Feed formulations information for should be designed to enhance nitrogen and each life-history stage of fish reared. phosphorus retention efficiency, and reduce metabolic waste output. Feeds should contain sufficient dietary energy to spare dietary protein (amino acids) for tissue synthesis. Feeds should be water stable for sufficient periods such that pellets remain

EPA-821-B-05-001 14-1 March 2006 Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities intact until eaten by fish. Questions feed fish and reduce feed and production regarding feed formulations should be efficiency. referred to a qualified fish nutritionist or feed manufacturer.

3) Experiment with feed formulations designed to reduce the total environmental impact of the feed NET

If experimental formulations that use alternative protein and lipid sources are tried, care should be taken to ensure that digestibility is not decreased and the nutritional needs of the species being cultured are met. Farmers should be careful that alternate formulations do not increase Figure 14.1. Automatic feeder for net pens feed conversion ratios, decrease fish growth, and result in increased fecal waste.

4) Use efficient feeding practices NET

Feed can be delivered by hand, demand feeders, automatic feeders, or by mechanical feeders. Regardless of the delivery method or system, the amount of feed offered should optimize the balance between maximum growth and maximum feed conversion efficiency. The appropriate quantity and type of feed for a given species is influenced by aquatic animal size, water temperature, Figure 14.2. Feed handling for net pens dissolved oxygen levels, health status, reproductive status, and management goals. 6) Reduce fish stress and optimize culture Feed particle size should be appropriate for conditions to reduce FCRs the size of aquatic animals being fed. NET Feeding behavior should be observed to monitor feed utilization and evaluate health Facilities can reduce fish stress by avoiding status. overcrowding in production systems and maintaining and cleaning net pens to make 5) Check feeding equipment to ensure sure adequate water can move through the efficient operation NET nets. Remember to properly clean your nets to avoid harm to the environment.

Improperly adjusted or malfunctioning feeding equipment can over-feed or under-

EPA-821-B-05-001 14-2 March 2006 Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities

7) Conduct employee training in fish husbandry and feeding methods to ensure that workers have adequate training to optimize FCRs NET

Additional information about performing training is available in “Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities.”

8) Wherever practical, use monitoring technologies such as video, “lift-ups,” or digital scanning sonar sensors to monitor feed consumption and reduce feed waste NET

If automated feeding systems are used, fish monitoring systems should, if possible, be actively linked to feeding control systems to provide direct control feedback to reduce feed wastage. Even if monitoring systems are employed, active monitoring by farm operators should also occur to ensure that all systems are functioning properly and aquatic animals are behaving and feeding normally.

9) If water depths and currents allow, regularly examine the bottom under net pens and cages NET

To prevent benthic impacts from occurring, close attention should be paid to the presence of any waste feed and how the benthic environment appears to be assimilating the nutrient load. Regular inspections by divers or video cameras can alert farm operators to potential problems before they become unmanageable. Also, use information collected by third parties or regulators to adjust management practices if necessary.

EPA-821-B-05-001 14-3 March 2006 Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities

Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or Harvest

Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities NET

The CAAP ELGs require net pen facilities Waste management plans encourage to collect and properly dispose of solid recycling of waste except when human or waste (such as feed bags, packaging animal health may be compromised. In these materials, rope, or netting). In addition, net cases, a clear containment and disposal pen facilities are required to minimize the method may be outlined. These methods and discharge associated with harvest and actions may be designed to minimize any transport, particularly blood, viscera, or human or fish health risks associated with animal carcasses. These facilities should the waste. Waste management plans may also prevent the discharge of animal address feed bags, packaging materials, mortalities by properly removing and waste rope, and netting. Other wastes disposing of carcasses. The following include aquatic animal mortalities and describes practices that may be used to chemical/fuel spills. These substances are achieve these requirements. addressed in the next section on “Carcass Removal” and in “Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, Waste Collection and Disposal and Net Pen Facilities,” respectively.

The CAAP ELGs require facilities to 2) Avoid the discharge of substances collect, return to shore, and properly dispose associated with in-place pressure washing of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste of nets into the waters of the United States rope, and netting. NET Examples of Waste Collection and Disposal Practices Whenever possible, use gear and production strategies that minimize or eliminate the

need for on-site wash down and rinsing to 1) Conduct a systematic review of your reduce biofouling. The use of air-drying, operation; a waste management plan can be mechanical, biological, and other non- used to effectively manage, use, and dispose chemical procedures to control net fouling of wastes generated during production; the are strongly encouraged. In some areas with plan identifies all wastes generated on a site high flushing rates or great depth, in-place or from a facility NET net washing may be acceptable. In areas with high fouling rates, treatment of nets Waste management plans clearly identify all with anti-fouling compounds permitted by wastes generated on a site and classify them EPA may represent a lower environmental with respect to any risks associated with risk than frequent net washing. their collection and appropriate disposal. The waste management plan may be designed to minimize the generation of waste while recognizing the practical challenges associated with marine operations.

EPA-821-B-05-001 15-1 March 2006 Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities

3) Collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed bags, packaging It may be useful to keep a general operations log to track activities at your materials, waste rope, and netting (using facility concerning waste disposal, methods approved by appropriate transport or harvest discharge, and regulatory authorities); recycling is strongly carcass removal. For example:

encouraged NET • 9/15/04: hauled feed bags and waste rope to shore; disposed of 4) Be proactive about minimizing all types these materials in a dumpster. • 10/4/04: transported aquatic of solid waste generation NET animals (no water spilled).

Facilities should review their operations and consider whether there are alternative practices that help reduce the use of materials that generate solid waste. For Carcass Removal example, consider the use of packaging and Proper aquatic animal health management is materials handling methods that reduce total the best method of managing mortalities in packaging needs. net pens and cages. Optimizing aquatic animal health will reduce the need to deal with dead fish. Even under optimal Transport or Harvest Discharge conditions some mortalities can occur. Net Facilities should properly dispose of pens should contain and collect any transport or harvest discharge (e.g., viscera, mortalities that may occur. This facilitates blood) when aquatic animals are harvested. the close monitoring of mortality rates and their timely removal. Severe weather may Examples of Transport or Harvest temporarily prevent mortality removal. Discharge Practices Remove mortalities as soon as weather permits. Keeping records of severe weather

days is recommended. 1) Design and operate harvest procedures

and equipment in a fashion that reduces any An example log for tracking carcass removal associated discharges; harvest and post- and disposal is available in Appendix T. harvest vessel and equipment clean up This log could be useful for facilities procedures should minimize any wastes tracking aquatic animal mortalities and in discharged overboard NET subtracting out mortalities from calculations for feed conversion ratios. 2) Collect and properly dispose of any Examples of Carcass Removal Practices processing and harvesting waste NET

1) Weather permitting, regularly and Facilities should dispose of processing or frequently collect mortalities to prevent their harvesting waste in a manner that prevents it discharge to waters of the United States from entering into waters of the United NET States. When collecting and removing mortalities, use methods that do not stress remaining

EPA-821-B-05-001 15-2 March 2006 Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities animals, jeopardize worker safety, or compromise biosecurity. Mortalities should only be stored and transported in closed containers with tight fitting lids. Mortalities should be returned to shore and disposed of properly, using methods approved by appropriate regulatory authorities. Facilities may want to consider practices such as composting as a method to treat mortalities.

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

2) Proactively manage your aquatic animal stocks to optimize animal health NET

EPA-821-B-05-001 15-3 March 2006

References and Resources References and Resources

References

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

Tucker, C., S. Belle, C. Boyd, G. Fornshell, J. Hargreaves, S. LaPatra, S. Summerfelt, and P. Zajicek. 2003. Best Management Practices for Flow-Through, Net-Pen, Recirculating, and Pond Aquaculture Systems.

Additional Resources

Lawson, T.B. 1995. Fundamentals of Aquacultural Engineering. pp. 48-57. Chapman & Hall, NY.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Disposal, 3d ed., revised by G. Tchobanoglous and F. Burton. McGraw Hill, Inc., NY.

Soderberg, R.W. 1995. Flowing Water Fish Culture. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Tomasso, J., ed. 2002. Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.

USEPA. 1996. NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual. EPA-833-B-96-003. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. . Accessed December 2004.

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

USEPA. 2004. Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category (Revised August 2004). EPA 821-R-04-012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. . Accessed December 2004.

USEPA. 2004. Website for the Aquatic Animal Production Industry Effluent Guidelines. . Accessed December 2004.

EPA-821-B-05-001 R-1 March 2006 References and Resources

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

Wheaton, F.W. 1977. Aquacultural Engineering. pp. 643-679. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.

EPA-821-B-05-001 R-2 March 2006

Appendix A

State Permitting Authorities/Departments of Environmental Protection Appendix A

State Permitting Authorities/Departments of Environmental Protection Alabama Colorado Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management Colorado Department of Public Health and Permit and Services Division Environment, Water Quality Control Division Post Office Box 301463 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 Denver, CO 80246 (334) 271-7714 (303) 692-3500 http://www.adem.state.al.us http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqhom.asp Alaska Connecticut U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection, 1200 6th Avenue Bureau of Water Management, Permitting, Seattle, WA 98101-1128 Enforcement and Remediation Division (206) 553-1200 or (800) 424-4EPA 79 Elm Street http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF Hartford, CT 06106 (806) 424-3018 http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/prgactiv.htm American Samoa Delaware No information found Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Water Resources 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 (302) 739-4860 http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/ WaterResources.asp Arizona Florida Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Water Quality 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49 1110 West Washington Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Phoenix, AZ 85007 (850)-245-2118 Phone: (602) 771-2300 http://www.dep.state.fl.us http://www.adeq.state.az.us Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Aquaculture 1203 Governors Square Boulevard, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 488-4033 http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com Arkansas Georgia Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Georgia Department of Natural Resources 8001 National Drive Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 8913 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Suite 1152 East Tower Little Rock, AR 72219 Atlanta, GA 30334 (50l) 682-0744 (404-657-5947) or (888-373-5947) http://www.adeq.state.ar.us http://www.gaepd.org California Guam California State Water Resources Control Board, No information found Division of Water Quality 1001 I Street, 15th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 341-5250 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov

EPA-821-B-05-001 A-1 March 2006 Appendix A

Hawaii Louisiana Hawaii Dept. of Health, Environmental Health Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 1250 Punchbowl Street Office of Environmental Services Honolulu, HI 96813 P. O. Box 4313 (808) 586-4400 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313 http://www.hawaii.gov/health (225) 219-3181 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96801 http://www.deq.state.la.us Idaho Maine U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 1200 6th Avenue Bureau of Land and Water Quality Seattle, WA 98101-1128 17 State House Station (206) 553-1200 or (800) 424-4EPA Augusta, ME 04333 http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF (207) 287-7688 or (800) 452-1942 http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/index.htm Illinois Maryland Illinois EPA, Bureau of Water Maryland Department of the Environment 1021 North Grand Ave. East, P.O. Box 19276 1800 Washington Blvd. Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Baltimore, MD 21230 (217) 782-3362 (410) 537-3000 http://www.epa.state.il.us/water http://www.mde.state.md.us Indiana Massachusetts Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Office of Water Quality One Congress Street, Suite 1100 100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015 Boston, MA 02114-2023 Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 (617) 918-1111 or (317) 232-8603 or (800) 451-6027 (toll free: IN) (888) 372-7341 (New England states) http://www.in.gov/idem/water http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/mass.html Iowa Michigan Iowa Department of Natural Resources Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 502 E. 9th Street, Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg. Water Bureau Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan St, P.O. Box 30473 (515) 281-5918 Lansing, MI 48909-7973 http://www.iowadnr.com (517) 373-7917 http://www.michigan.gov/deq Kansas Minnesota Kansas Department of Health and Environment Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Bureau of Water 520 Lafayette Road 1000 Southwest Jackson Street, Suite 420 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Topeka, KS 66612-1367 651-297-2274 or 800-646-6247 (785) 296-5500 http://www.pca.state.mn.us http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/water/index.html Kentucky Mississippi Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of Division of Water Pollution Control, Environmental Permits Division 14 Reilly Road P.O. Box 10385 Frankfort, KY 40601 Jackson, MS 39289-0385 (502) 564-3410 (601) 961-5171 or (888) 786-0661 http://www.water.ky.gov http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/ Main_Home?OpenDocument

EPA-821-B-05-001 A-2 March 2006 Appendix A

Missouri New Mexico Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources, Water Pollution U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Control Branch, Permits Section 1445 Ross Avenue P.O. Box 176 Dallas, TX 75202 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 (215) 665-6444 (573) 751 –3443 or (800) 361-4827 http://www.epa.gov/region6 http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/ index.html Montana New York Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality, Permitting New York Department of Environmental and Compliance Division, Water Protection Bureau Conservation, Division of Water 1520 E. Sixth Avenue 625 Broadway P.O. Box 200901 Albany, NY 12233 Helena, MT 59620-0901 (518) 402-8111 Phone: (406) 444-2544 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow http://www.deq.state.mt.us/pcd/wpb/index.asp Nebraska North Carolina Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural 1200 N Street, Suite 400, P.O. Box 98922 Resources, Division of Water Quality Lincoln, NE 68509 1617 Mail Service Center (402) 471-2186 Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 http://www.deq.state.ne.us (919) 733-7015 http://www.enr.state.nc.us Nevada North Dakota Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, North Dakota Health Department Bureau of Water Pollution Control Division of Water Quality 333 West Nye Lane, Suite 138 1200 Missouri Avenue Carson City, NV 89706-0851 P.O. Box 5520 (775) 687-9418 Bismarck, ND 58502-5520 http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpc/bwpc01.htm (701) 328-5210 http://www.health.state.nd.us/wq New Hampshire Ohio U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Division of Surface Water Boston, MA 02114-2023 Lazarus Government Center (617) 918-1111 122 South Front Street or (888) 372-7341 (New England states) P.O. Box 1049 http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/newhampshire.html Columbus, OH 43216 (614) 644-2021 http://web.epa.state.oh.us/dsw New Jersey Oklahoma New Jersey Department of Environmental U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 Protection, Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control 1445 Ross Avenue 401 East State Street, P.O. Box 29 Dallas, TX 75202 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029 (215) 665-6444 (609) 633-7021 http://www.epa.gov/region6 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/nonpoint.htm

EPA-821-B-05-001 A-3 March 2006 Appendix A

Oregon Tennessee Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Tennessee Department of Environment and 811 SW Sixth Avenue Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control Portland, OR 97204-1390 401 Church Street (503) 229-5696 or (800) 452-4011 (in Oregon) L&C Tower http://www.deq.state.or.us 21st Floor Nashville, TN 37243 (888) 891-8332 http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc Pennsylvania Texas Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Office of Water Management 1700 North Congress Avenue 16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 13087 P.O. Box 2063 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 (512) 239-1000 (717) 787-4686 http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/AC/nav/permits/ http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wa water_qual.html termgt.htm Puerto Rico Utah U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Utah Department of Environmental Quality 290 Broadway Division of Water Quality New York, NY 10007-1866 288 North 1460 West (212) 637-5000 Cannon Building, 3rd Floor http://www.epa.gov/Region2/water/wpb/npdes.htm P.O. Box 144870 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 (801) 538-6146 http://waterquality.utah.gov Rhode Island Vermont Rhode Island Department of Environmental Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Management, Office of Water Resources Wastewater Management Division 235 Promenade Street 103 South Main Street Providence, RI 02908 Sewing Bldg. (401) 222-6800 Waterbury, VT 05671-0405 http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/ (802) 241-3822 water/index.htm http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/wwmd.cfm South Carolina Virginia South Carolina Department of Health & Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Control 629 East Main Street 2600 Bull Street P.O. Box 10009 Columbia, SC 29201 Richmond, VA 23240-0009 (803) 898-3432 (804) 698-4000 or 1-800-592-5482 (in Virginia) http://www.scdhec.net http://www.deq.state.va.us South Dakota Virgin Islands South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Resources, Surface Water Quality Program 290 Broadway Joe Foss Building New York, NY 10007-1866 523 East Capitol Avenue (212) 637-5000 Pierre, SD 57501 http://www.epa.gov/Region2/water/wpb/npdes.htm (605) 773-3351 http://www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html

EPA-821-B-05-001 A-4 March 2006 Appendix A

Washington Wisconsin Washington Department of Ecology Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 47600 Bureau of Wastewater Management Olympia, WA 98504 101 South Webster Street (360) 407-6413 P.O. Box 7921 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html Madison, WI 53707 (608) 267-7694 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us West Virginia Wyoming West Virginia Department of Environmental Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Protection, Division of Water and Waste Water Quality Division Management, Water Permitting Section 122 West 25th Street 601 - 57th Street Herschler Building, 4th Floor West Charleston, WV 25304 Cheyenne, WY 82001 (304) 926-0495 (307) 777-7781 http://www.dep.state.wv.us http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd

EPA-821-B-05-001 A-5 March 2006

Appendix B

Natural Resources Agencies Associated with Fisheries Appendix B

Natural Resources Agencies Associated with Fisheries Alabama Colorado Alabama Department of Conservation and Colorado Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Division of Wildlife 64 N. Union Street, Suite 468 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 718 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Denver, CO 80203 (334) 242-3486 (303) 866-3311 http://www.dcnr.state.al.us http://wildlife.state.co.us Alaska Connecticut Alaska Department Fish and Game Connecticut Department of Environmental P.O. Box 25526 Protection Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 Bureau of Natural Resources (907) 465-4100 79 Elm Street http://www.adfg.state.ak.us Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3010 http://dep.state.ct.us American Samoa Delaware Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Delaware Department of Natural Resources American Samoa Government, and Environmental Control Executive Office Building, Utulei Division of Fish and Wildlife Territory of American Samoa, Pago Pago, 89 Kings Hwy. AS 96799 Dover, DE 19901 (684) 633-4456 (302) 739-3441 http://www.asg-gov.net http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/index.asp http://www.asg-gov.net/ MARINE%20&%20WILDLIFE%20RESOURCES.htm Arizona Florida Arizona Game and Fish Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 2221 W. Greenway Rd. Commission Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399 620 South Meridian Street (602) 942-3000 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 http://www.gf.state.az.us http://myfwc.com Arkansas Georgia Arkansas Game & Fish Commission Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2 Natural Resources Drive 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S. E. Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Suite 1252 East Tower (800) 364-4263 Atlanta, GA 30334 http://www.agfc.state.ar.us (404) 656-3500 http://www.gadnr.org California Guam California Department of Fish and Game Guam Department of Agriculture 1416 Ninth Street Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Sacramento, California 95814 192 Dairy Road Phone: (916) 445-0411 Mangilao, Guam 96923 (916) 445-0411 (671) 735-3986 http://www.dfg.ca.gov

EPA-821-B-05-001 B-1 March 2006 Appendix B

Hawaii Louisiana State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 2000 Quail Drive Kalanimoku Bldg. Baton Rouge, La. 70808 1151 Punchbowl St. (225) 342-4500 Honolulu, HI 96813 http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/page1.asp (808) 587-0400 http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr Idaho Maine Idaho Fish and Game Maine Department of Environmental Protection 600 S Walnut 17 State House Station PO Box 25 Augusta, ME 04333-0017 Boise, ID 83707 (207) 287-7688 (208) 334-3700 http://www.maine.gov/dep/index.shtml http://fishandgame.idaho.gov Illinois Maryland Illinois Department of Natural Resources Maryland Department of Natural Resources James R. Thompson Center 580 Taylor Avenue 100 W. Randolph St., Suite 4-300 Tawes State Office Building Chicago, IL 60601 Annapolis, MD 21401 (312) 814-2070 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/sw_index_flash.asp http://dnr.state.il.us/about/officeadd.htm Indiana Massachusetts Indiana Department of Natural Resources Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 402 West Washington Street 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Boston MA 02114-2154 http://www.in.gov/dnr (617) 626-1590 http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/dfw_toc.htm Iowa Michigan Iowa Department of Natural Resources Michigan Department of Natural Resources 502 E. 9th Street Fisheries Division Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 P.O. Box 30446 (515) 725-0275 Lansing, MI 48909 http://www.iowadnr.com (517) 373-1280 http://www.michigan.gov/dnr Kansas Minnesota Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Department of Natural Resources 1020 S. Kansas Ave., Suite 200 500 Lafayette Road Topeka, KS 66612 St. Paul, MN 55155-4040 (785) 296-2281 (651) 296-6157 http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/index.html Kentucky Mississippi Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Resources Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks #1 Game Farm Road 1505 Eastover Drive Frankfort, KY 40601 Jackson, MS 39211-6374 (800) 858-1549 (601) 432-2400 http://www.kdfwr.state.ky.us http://www.mdwfp.com

EPA-821-B-05-001 B-2 March 2006 Appendix B

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 B-3 March 2006 Appendix B

Oregon Tennessee Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 3406 Cherry Avenue NE P.O. Box 40747 Salem, OR 97303 Nashville, TN 37204 (503) 947-6000 (615) 781-6500 http://www.dfw.state.or.us http://www.state.tn.us/twra Pennsylvania Texas Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Texas Parks and Wildlife Services 1601 Elmerton Avenue 4200 Smith School Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Austin, TX 78744 (717) 705-7800 http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish http://www.fish.state.pa.us Puerto Rico Utah Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Utah Department of Natural Resources Ambientales (DRNA) 1594 West North Temple (Natural & Environmental Resources Department) Salt Lake City, UT 84114 P.O Box 9066600, Puerta de Tierra Station http://www.water.utah.gov Santurce, PR 00906 (787) 724-8774 http://www.gobierno.pr/drna Rhode Island Vermont State of Rhode Island Department of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Environmental Management 103 South Main Street 4808 Tower Hill Road Center Building Wakefield, RI 02879 Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 (401) 222-6800 (802) 241-3600 http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/bnatres/fishwild http://www.anr.state.vt.us South Carolina Virginia South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Virginia Department of Game and Inland Rembert C. Dennis Building Fisheries 1000 Assembly Street 4010 West Broad St. Columbia, SC 29201 Richmond, VA 23230 (803) 734-3886 (804) 367-1000 http://www.dnr.state.sc.us http://www.dgif.state.va.us South Dakota Virgin Islands South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and 523 E Capitol Natural Resources Pierre, SD 57501 Cyril E. King Airport, 2nd Floor (605) 773-3381 St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00802 http://www.sdgfp.info/Index.htm (340) 774-3320

45 Mars Hills, Frederiksted St. Croix, US Virgin Islands 00841 (340) 773-1082 http://www.dpnr.gov.vi/about.htm

EPA-821-B-05-001 B-4 March 2006 Appendix B

Washington Wisconsin Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wisconsin of Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Building 101 S Webster St Olympia, WA 98501 PO Box 7921 (360) 902-2200 Madison Wisconsin 53707-7921 http://wdfw.wa.gov http://www.dnr.state.wi.us West Virginia Wyoming West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Wyoming Game and Fish Wildlife Resources 5400 Bishop Blvd. Fisheries Management Cheyenne, WY 82006 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, E. (307) 777-4600 Charleston, WV 25305 http://gf.state.wy.us/fish/index.asp (304) 558-2771 http://www.wvdnr.gov/Fishing/Fishing.shtm

EPA-821-B-05-001 B-5 March 2006

Appendix C

Frequently Asked Questions Appendix C

Frequently Asked Questions

What operations are covered under the CAAP ELGs?

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

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

What do the CAAP ELGs require?

The rule requires that all applicable facilities:

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

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

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

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

Additional information about these requirements is available from Chapters 6 and 7, and Chapters 9 through 15 of this guidance.

EPA-821-B-05-001 C-1 March 2006 Appendix C

What operations are covered under the NPDES regulation?

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

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

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

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

What is the difference between NPDES and ELGs for CAAPs?

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

However, if the ELG applies to the CAAP facility (i.e., recirculating, flow-through, or net pen systems that annually produce more than 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals) then the facility’s NPDES permit will also contain ELGs requirements specific to the system types used to produce aquatic animals at that location.

1 Unless the Director designates your facility as requiring an NPDES permit.

EPA-821-B-05-001 C-2 March 2006 Appendix C

When do the ELGs take effect?

The ELGs requirements will apply during a facility’s next permit cycle (i.e., when the facility’s permit is renewed).

How does EPA define a facility?

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

What is annual production?

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

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

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

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

What systems are not regulated by the ELGs?

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 C-3 March 2006 Appendix C

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

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

What part of my CAAP is regulated?

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

When do I have to get an NPDES permit?

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

What records do I have to keep?

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

How does EPA treat proprietary/confidential information?

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 C-4 March 2006 Appendix C their BMP plans should mark this information as CBI. Note that information from federal facilities and discharge information from all facilities cannot be claimed as CBI. Check with your permitting authority for process and eligibility information.

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

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

How do I develop a BMP plan?

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

How do I certify my BMP plan?

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

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

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

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

Appendices M through T contain examples forms for all requirements of the CAAP ELGs. The example forms are available from this document or online at http://www.epa.gov/guide/aquaculture.

EPA-821-B-05-001 C-5 March 2006 Appendix C

How do I contact my permitting authority?

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions for Your Permitting Authority

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

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 C-6 March 2006

Appendix D1

40 CFR 122.24 Appendix D1

§ 122.24 40 CFR Ch. I (7---1---04 Edition) later than 90 days after becoming defined § 122.24 Concentrated aquatic animal as a CAFO; except that production facilities (applicable to (iii) If an operational change that State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). makes the operation a CAFO would not have made it a CAFO prior to April 14, (a) Permit requirement. Concentrated 2003, the operation has until April 13, aquatic animal production facilities, as 2006, or 90 days after becoming defined defined in this section, are point sources as a CAFO, whichever is later. subject to the NPDES permit program. (4) New sources. New sources must (b) Definition. Concentrated aquatic seek to obtain coverage under a permit animal production facility means a at least 180 days prior to the time that hatchery, fish farm, or other facility the CAFO commences operation. which meets the criteria in appendix C (5) Operations that are designated as of this part, or which the Director designates CAFOs. For operations designated as a under paragraph (c) of this section. CAFO in accordance with paragraph (c) (c) Case-by-case designation of of this section, the owner or operator concentrated aquatic animal production must seek to obtain coverage under a facilities. (1) The Director may designate any permit no later than 90 days after receiving warm or cold water aquatic animal production notice of the designation. facility as a concentrated aquatic animal (6) No potential to discharge. Notwithstanding production facility upon determining that it is a any other provision of this significant contributor of pollution to waters of section, a CAFO that has received a ‘‘no the United States. In making this designation the potential to discharge’’ determination Director shall consider the following factors: in accordance with paragraph (f) of this (i) The location and quality of the receiving section is not required to seek coverage waters of the United States; under an NPDES permit that would (ii) The holding, feeding, and production otherwise be required by this section. capacities of the facility; If circumstances materially change at (iii) The quantity and nature of the a CAFO that has received a NPTD determination, pollutants reaching waters of the such that the CAFO has a United States; and potential for a discharge, the CAFO has (iv) Other relevant factors. a duty to immediately notify the Director, (2) A permit application shall not be and seek coverage under an required from a concentrated aquatic NPDES permit within 30 days after the animal production facility designated change in circumstances. under this paragraph until the Director (h) Duty to Maintain Permit Coverage. has conducted on-site inspection of the No later than 180 days before the expiration facility and has determined that the facility of the permit, the permittee should and could be regulated must submit an application to renew under the permit program. its permit, in accordance with § 122.21(g). However, the permittee need [48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 65 FR 30907, May 15, 2000] not continue to seek continued permit coverage or reapply for a permit if: § 122.25 Aquaculture projects (applicable (1) The facility has ceased operation to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). or is no longer a CAFO; and (2) The permittee has demonstrated (a) Permit requirement. Discharges to the satisfaction of the Director that into aquaculture projects, as defined in there is no remaining potential for a this section, are subject to the NPDES discharge of manure, litter or associated permit program through section 318 of process wastewater that was generated CWA, and in accordance with 40 CFR while the operation was a CAFO, other than part 125, subpart B. agricultural stormwater from land application (b) Definitions. (1) Aquaculture project areas. means a defined managed water area which uses discharges of pollutants [68 FR 7265, Feb. 12, 2003]

EPA-821-B-05-001 D1-1 March 2006 Appendix D1

Pt. 122, App. C 40 CFR Ch. I (7---1---04 Edition) section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D), (E) and (F) of CWA, whether or not applicable effluent limitations water aquatic animals in ponds, raceways, or guidelines have been promulgated. other similar structures which discharge at See §§ 122.44 and 122.46. least 30 days per year but does not include: (1) Facilities which produce less than 9,090 Industry Category harvest weight kilograms (approximately Adhesives and sealants 20,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year; Aluminum forming and Auto and other laundries (2) Facilities which feed less than 2,272 Battery manufacturing kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of Coal mining food during the calendar month of maximum Coil coating feeding. Copper forming (b) Warm water fish species or other warm Electrical and electronic components water aquatic animals in ponds, raceways, or Electroplating other similar structures which discharge at Explosives manufacturing least 30 days per year, but does not include: Foundries (1) Closed ponds which discharge only during Gum and wood chemicals periods of excess runoff; or Inorganic chemicals manufacturing (2) Facilities which produce less than 45,454 Iron and steel manufacturing harvest weight kilograms (approximately Leather tanning and finishing 100,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year. Mechanical products manufacturing ‘‘Cold water aquatic animals’’ include, but Nonferrous metals manufacturing are not limited to, the Salmonidae family of Ore mining fish; e.g., trout and salmon. Organic chemicals manufacturing ‘‘Warm water aquatic animals’’ include, but Paint and ink formulation are not limited to, the Ameiuride, Pesticides Centrarchidae and Cyprinidae families of fish; Petroleum refining e.g., respectively, catfish, sunfish and minnows. Pharmaceutical preparations Photographic equipment and supplies Plastics processing Plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing Porcelain enameling Printing and publishing Pulp and paper mills Rubber processing Soap and detergent manufacturing Steam electric power plants Textile mills Timber products processing

APPENDIX B TO PART 122 [RESERVED]

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

A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a concentrated aquatic animal production facility for purposes of § 122.24 if it contains, grows, or holds aquatic animals in either of the following categories: (a) Cold water fish species or other cold

EPA-821-B-05-001 D1-2 March 2006

Appendix D2

40 CFR 451 Monday, August 23, 2004

Part II

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

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51892 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and standards for wastewater discharges i.e., confidential business information or AGENCY from new and existing concentrated other information whose disclosure is aquatic animal production facilities that restricted by statute. Certain other 40 CFR Part 451 discharge directly to U.S. waters. EPA material, such as copyrighted material, [OW–2002–0026; FRL–7783–6] estimates that compliance with this is not placed on the Internet and will be regulation will affect 242 facilities. The publicly available only in hard copy RIN 2040–AD55 rule is projected to reduce the discharge form. Publicly available docket of total suspended solids by about 0.5 materials are available either Effluent Limitations Guidelines and million pounds per year and reduce the electronically in EDOCKET or in hard New Source Performance Standards discharge of biochemical oxygen copy at the Water docket in the EPA for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal demand (BOD) and nutrients by about Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, Production Point Source Category 0.3 million pounds per year. The Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., AGENCY: Environmental Protection estimated annual cost for commercial NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Agency. facilities is $0.3 million. The estimated Center Public Reading Room is open ACTION: Final rule. annual cost to Federal and State from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday hatcheries is $1.1 million. EPA through Friday, excluding legal SUMMARY: Today’s final rule establishes estimates that the annual monetized holidays. The telephone number for the Clean Water Act effluent limitations environmental benefits of the rule will Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, guidelines and new source performance be in the range of $66,000 to $99,000. and the telephone number for the Water standards for concentrated aquatic Docket is (202) 566–2426. animal production facilities. The DATES: This regulation is effective animals produced range from species September 22, 2004. For judicial review FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For produced for human consumption as purposes, this final rule is promulgated additional information contact Marta food to species raised to stock streams as of 1 p.m. (Eastern time) on September Jordan at (202) 566–1049. 7, 2004 as provided at 40 CFR 23.2. for fishing. The animals are raised in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: variety of production systems. The ADDRESSES: EPA has established a production of aquatic animals docket for this action under Docket ID I. General Information contributes pollutants such as No. OW–2002–0026. All documents in A. Does This Action Apply To Me? suspended solids, biochemical oxygen the docket are listed in the EDOCKET demand, and nutrients to the aquatic index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Entities that directly discharge to environment. The regulation establishes Although not listed in the index, some waters of the U.S. potentially regulated technology-based narrative limitations information is not publicly available, by this action include:

Examples of regulated enti- Examples of regulated enti- Category ties and SIC Codes ties and NAICS codes

Facilities engaged in concentrated aquatic animal production, which may include the 0273—Animal Aquaculture. 112511—Finfish Farming following sectors: Commercial (for profit) and Non-commercial (public) facilities. 0921—Fish Hatcheries and and Fish Hatcheries. Preserves. 112519—Other Animal Aquaculture.

This table is not intended to be this action, any public comments electronically through the EPA Internet exhaustive, but rather provides a guide received, and other information related under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at for readers regarding entities likely to be to this action. Although a part of the http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. regulated by this action. This table lists official docket, the public docket does An electronic version of the public the types of entities that EPA is now not include Confidential Business docket is available through EPA’s aware could potentially be regulated by Information (CBI) or other information electronic public docket and comment this action. Other types of entities not whose disclosure is restricted by statute. system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA listed in the table could also be The official public docket is the Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ regulated. To determine whether your collection of materials that is available to view public comments, access the facility is regulated by this action, you for public viewing at the Water Docket index listing of the contents of the should carefully examine the in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), applicability criteria listed at 40 CFR EPA West, Room B102, 1301 official public docket, and to access part 451 of today’s rule. If you have Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, those documents in the public docket questions regarding the applicability of DC. The EPA Docket Center Public that are available electronically. Once in this action to a particular entity, consult Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the person listed for information in the 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, the appropriate docket identification preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION excluding legal holidays. The telephone number. Although not all docket CONTACT section. number for the Public Reading Room is materials may be available (202) 566–1744, and the telephone electronically, you may still access any B. How Can I Get Copies of This number for the Water Docket is (202) of the publicly available docket Document and Other Related 566–2426. Every user is entitled to copy materials through the docket facility Information? 266 pages per day before incurring a identified in section B.1. 1. Docket. EPA has established an charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents C. What Other Information Is Available official public docket for this action a page for each page over the page limit To Support This Final Rule? under Docket ID No. OW–2002–0026. plus an administrative fee of $25.00. The official public docket consists of the 2. Electronic Access. You may access The major documents supporting the documents specifically referenced in this Federal Register document final regulations are the following:

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51893

• ‘‘Technical Development Document for the best conventional pollutant control F. Economic Impacts the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and technology (BCT), and the best available G. Loadings New Source Performance Standards for the technology economically achievable H. Environmental Assessment and Benefits Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (BAT) as soon as their National Analysis Point Source Category’’ [EPA–821–R–04–012] VII. Who Is Subject to This Rule? referred to in the preamble as the Technical Pollutant Discharge Elimination System A. Who Is Subject to This Rule? Development Document (TDD). The TDD (NPDES) permits include such B. What if a facility uses more than one presents the technical information that limitations. Generally, this occurs when production system? formed the basis for EPA’s decisions in existing permits are reissued. New C. What Wastewater Discharges Are today’s final rule. The TDD describes, among direct discharging sources must obtain Covered? other things, the data collection activities, the an NPDES permit for the discharge and VIII. What Are the Requirements of the Final wastewater treatment technology options comply with applicable new source Rule and the Basis for These considered by the Agency as the basis for performance standards (NSPS) on the Requirements? effluent limitations guidelines and standards, A. What Technology Options Did EPA the pollutants found in wastewaters from date the new sources begin discharging. Consider for the Final Rule? concentrated aquatic animal production For purposes of NSPS, a source is a new B. What Are the Requirements for the facilities, the estimates of pollutant removals source if it commences construction Flow-Through and Recirculating associated with certain pollutant control after September 22, 2004. Systems Subcategory? options, and the cost estimates related to C. What Are the Requirements for the Net reducing the pollutants with those F. How Does EPA Protect Confidential Pen Subcategory? technology options. Business Information (CBI)? D. What Monitoring Does the Final Rule • ‘‘Economic and Environmental Benefit Certain information and data in the Require? Analysis of the Final Effluent Limitations record supporting the final rule have E. What Are the Final Rule’s Notification, Guidelines and Standards for the been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA Recordkeeping, and Reporting Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Requirements? Point Source Category [EPA–821–R–04–013] has not included these materials in the IX. What Are the Costs and Economic referred to in this preamble as the Economic record that is available to the public in Impacts Associated With This Rule? and Environmental Benefit Analysis or the Water Docket. Further, the Agency A. Compliance Costs EEBA. This document presents the has withheld from disclosure some data B. Economic Impacts methodology used to assess economic not claimed as CBI because release of C. What Do the Cost-Reasonableness impacts, environmental impacts and benefits this information could indirectly reveal Analyses Show? of the final rule. The document also provides information claimed to be confidential. X. What Are the Environmental Benefits for the results of the analyses conducted to To support the rulemaking while This Rule? estimate the projected impacts and benefits. A. Summary of the Environmental Benefits preserving confidentiality claims, EPA Major supporting documents are B. Non-Monetized Benefits is presenting in the public record C. Monetized Benefits available in hard copy from the National certain information in aggregated form, XI. What Are the Non-Water Quality Service Center for Environmental masking facility identities, or using Environmental Impacts of This Rule? Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP, other strategies. A. Air Emissions P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA B. Energy Consumption 45242–2419, (800) 490–9198, Table of Contents C. Solid Waste Generation www.epa.gov/ncepihom. You can obtain I. General Information XII. How Will This Rule Be Implemented? electronic copies of this preamble and A. Does This Action Apply to Me? A. Implementation of Limitations and rule as well as major supporting B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document Standards for Direct Dischargers and Other Related Information? B. Upset and Bypass Provisions documents at EPA Dockets at C. What Other Information Is Available To C. Variances and Modifications www.epa.gov/edocket and at Support This Final Rule? D. Best Management Practices www.epa.gov/guide/aquaculture. D. What Process Governs Judicial Review E. Potential Tools To Assist With the for Today’s Final Rule? D. What Process Governs Judicial Remediation of Aquaculture Effluents E. What Are the Compliance Dates for XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Review for Today’s Final Rule? Today’s Final Rule? A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean F. How Does EPA Protect CBI? Planning and Review Water Act (CWA), judicial review of II. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations B. Paperwork Reduction Act Used in This Document C. Regulatory Flexibility Act today’s effluent limitations guidelines III. Under What Legal Authority Is This Final and standards may be obtained by filing D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Rule Issued? E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism a petition for review in the United IV. What Is the Statutory and Regulatory F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation States Circuit Court of Appeals within Background to This Rule? and Coordination With Indian Tribal 120 days from the date of promulgation A. Clean Water Act Governments of these guidelines and standards. For B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of judicial review purposes, this final rule C. Clean Water Act Requirements Children From Environmental Health is promulgated as of 1 pm (Eastern time) Applicable to CAAP Facilities and Safety Risks V. How Was This Final Rule Developed? H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That on September 7, 2004 as provided at 40 A. September 2002 Proposed Rule CFR 23.2. Under section 509(b)(2) of the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, B. December 2003 Notice of Data Distribution, or Use CWA, the requirements of this Availability I. National Technology Transfer and C. Public Comments regulation may not be challenged later Advancement Act D. Public Outreach in civil or criminal proceedings brought J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions VI. What Are Some of the Significant by EPA to enforce these requirements. To Address Environmental Justice in Changes in the Content of the Final Rule E. What Are the Compliance Dates for and the Methodology Used To Develop Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Today’s Final Rule? it? A. Subcategorization K. Congressional Review Act Existing direct dischargers must B. Regulated Pollutants comply with today’s limitations based II. Definitions, Acronyms, and C. Treatment Options Considered Abbreviations Used in This Document on the best practicable control D. Reporting Requirements technology currently available (BPT), E. Costs Act—The Clean Water Act.

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51894 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Agency—U.S. Environmental Protection FCR—Feed conversion ratio. pollutants are or may be discharged. See Agency. FDF—Fundamentally different factor. CWA Section 502(14). AWQC—Ambient water quality criteria. FFDCA—Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic POTW(s)—Publicly owned treatment BAT—Best available technology Act, 21 U.S.C. 301, et seq., as amended. works. It is a treatment works as defined by economically achievable, as defined by FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Section 212 of the Clean Water Act that is section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Rodenticide Act. owned by a State or municipality (as defined BCT—Best conventional pollutant control FR—Federal Register. by Section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act). technology, as defined by section 304(b)(4) of FTE—Full Time Equivalent Employee. This definition includes any devices and the Act. FWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. systems used in the storage, treatment, BMP—Best management practice, as INAD—Investigational new animal drug. A recycling and reclamation of municipal defined by section 304(e) of the Act. new animal drug (or animal feed containing sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid BOD5—Biochemical oxygen demand a new animal drug) intended for testing or nature. It also includes sewers, pipes and measured over a five day period. clinical investigational use in animals. Food other conveyances only if they convey BPJ—Best professional judgment. and Drug Administration regulations limit wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant. The BPT—Best practicable control technology the conditions under which such drugs may term also means the municipality as defined currently available, as defined by section be used. 21 CFR 511, 514. in Section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act, 304(b)(1) of the Act. Indirect Discharger-A facility that which has jurisdiction over the Indirect CAAP—Concentrated aquatic animal discharges or may discharge wastewaters into Discharges to and the discharges from such production. a publicly-owned treatment works. a treatment works. CBI—Confidential business information. JSA/AETF—Joint Subcommittee on Priority Pollutant—One hundred twenty- CFR—Code of Federal Regulations. Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluents Task six compounds that are a subset of the 65 CWA—33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., as Force. toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants amended. lb(s)/yr—pound(s) per year. outlined pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA. Conventional Pollutants—Constituents of NAICS—North American Industry 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. wastewater as determined by Section Classification System. NAICS was developed PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing 304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations), jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to sources of indirect discharges, under Section i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical provide new comparability in statistics about 307(b) of the CWA, applicable to indirect oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil business activity across North America. dischargers that commenced construction and grease, fecal coliform, and pH. NEPA—National Environmental Policy prior to the effective date of a final rule. Daily Discharge—The discharge of a Act, 33 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new pollutant measured during any calendar day NMFS—National Marine Fisheries Service. sources under Section 307(c) of the CWA. NPDES Permit—A permit to discharge or any 24-hour period that reasonably QUAL2E—Enhanced Stream Water Quality wastewater into waters of the United States represents a calendar day. Model. issued under the National Pollutant Daily Maximum Limit—the highest RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Discharge Elimination System, authorized by allowable ‘‘daily discharge’’. 601, et. seq. Section 402 of the CWA. Direct Discharger—A facility that SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public discharges or may discharge treated or Service. Law 104–121. untreated wastewaters into waters of the Nonconventional Pollutants—Pollutants SIC—Standard Industrial Classification, a United States. that are neither conventional pollutants numerical categorization system used by the DMR—Discharge monitoring report; listed at 40 CFR 401 nor toxic pollutants U.S. Department of Commerce to catalogue consists of the reports filed with the listed at 40 CFR 401.15 and Part 423 permitting authority by permitted dischargers Appendix A. economic activity. SIC codes refer to the to demonstrate compliance with permit Non-water quality environmental impact— products or groups of products that are limits. Deleterious aspects of control and treatment produced or distributed, or to services that DO—Dissolved oxygen. technologies applicable to point source are provided, by an operating establishment. ELG—Effluent limitations guidelines. category wastes, including, but not limited to SIC codes are used to group establishments EQIP—Environmental Quality Incentives air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and by the economic activities in which they are Program. solid waste generation, and energy used. engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility’s Existing source—For this rule, any facility NRDC—Natural Resources Defense primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic from which there is or may be a discharge of Council. activities. pollutants, the construction of which is NSPS—New Source Performance TDD—Technical Development Document. commenced before September 22, 2004. Standards. TSS—Total Suspended Solids. Extralabel drug use—Actual use or NTTAA—National Technology Transfer U.S.C.—United States Code. intended use of a drug in an animal in a and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 note. UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act manner that is not in accordance with the OMB—Office of Management and Budget of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501. approved label. The Federal Food, Drug, and Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains and USDA—United States Department of Cosmetic Act allows veterinarians to other conduits from which a facility Agriculture. prescribe extralabel uses of certain approved discharges effluent into receiving waters. III. Under What Legal Authority Is This animal drugs and approved human drugs for Pass through—a discharge that exits a animals under certain conditions. These POTW into waters of the United States in Final Rule Issued? conditions are spelled out in Food and Drug quantities or concentrations that alone or in The U.S. Environmental Protection Administration regulations at 21 CFR Part conjunction with discharges from other Agency is promulgating these 530. Among these requirements are that any sources, causes a violation of any regulations under the authority of extralabel use must be by or on the order of requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, a veterinarian within the context of a (including an increase in the magnitude or veterinarian-client-patient relationship, must duration of a violation). and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 not result in violative residues in food- PCB—Polychlorinated biphenyls. U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, producing animals, and the use must be in POC—Pollutants of Concern. Pollutants and 1361. conformance with the regulations. A list of commonly found in aquatic animal IV. What Is the Statutory and drugs specifically prohibited from extralabel production wastewaters. Generally, a use appears at 21 CFR 530.41. chemical is considered as a POC if it was Regulatory Background to This Rule? Facility—All contiguous property and detected in untreated process wastewater at A. Clean Water Act equipment owned, operated, leased, or under 5 times a baseline value in more than 10% the control of the same person or entity. of the samples. Congress passed the Federal Water FAO—United Nations Food and Point Source—Any discernable, confined, Pollution Control Act (1972), also Agriculture Organization. and discrete conveyance from which known as the Clean Water Act (CWA),

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51895

to ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical, discharged from CAAP facilities are in nonconventional pollutants. For toxic physical, and biological integrity of the concentrations lower, in full flow pollutants, EPA typically regulates Nation’s waters.’’ (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). discharges, and similar in off-line priority pollutants, which consist of a The CWA establishes a comprehensive settling basin discharges, to nutrient specified list of toxic pollutants. In program for protecting our nation’s concentrations in human wastes specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number waters. Among its core provisions, the discharged to POTWs. The options EPA of factors. EPA first considers the cost CWA prohibits the discharge of considered do not directly treat of achieving effluent reductions in pollutants from a point source to waters nutrients, but some nutrient removal is relation to the effluent reduction of the U.S. except as authorized by a achieved incidentally through the benefits. The Agency also considers the National Pollutant Discharge control of TSS. EPA concluded POTWs age of the equipment and facilities, the Elimination System (NPDES) permit. would achieve removals of TSS and processes employed, engineering The CWA also requires EPA to establish associated nutrients equivalent to those aspects of the control technologies, any national technology-based effluent achievable by the options considered for required process changes, non-water limitations guidelines and standards this rulemaking and therefore there quality environmental impacts (effluent guidelines or ELG) for different would be no pass through of pollutants (including energy requirements), and categories of sources, such as industrial, in amounts needing regulation. In the such other factors as the Administrator commercial and public sources of event of pass through that causes a deems appropriate. (See CWA waters. Effluent guidelines are violation of a POTW’s NPDES limit, the 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA implemented when incorporated into an POTW must develop local limits for its establishes BPT effluent limitations NPDES permit. Effluent guidelines can users to ensure compliance with its based on the average of the best include numeric and narrative permit. performance of facilities within the limitations, including Best Management Direct dischargers must comply with industry, grouped to reflect various Practices, to control the discharge of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. ages, sizes, processes, or other common pollutants from categories of point Technology-based effluent limitations in characteristics. Where existing sources. NPDES permits are derived from performance is uniformly inadequate, effluent limitations guidelines and new EPA may establish limitations based on Congress recognized that regulating source performance standards higher levels of control than currently in only those sources that discharge promulgated by EPA, as well as place in an industrial category, if the effluent directly into the nation’s waters occasionally from best professional Agency determines that the technology may not be sufficient to achieve the judgment analyses. Effluent limitations is available in another category or CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA are also derived from water quality subcategory and can be practically requires EPA to promulgate nationally standards. The effluent limitations applied. applicable pretreatment standards that guidelines and standards are established restrict pollutant discharges from by regulation for categories of industrial 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control facilities that discharge wastewater dischargers and are based on the degree Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of indirectly through sewers flowing to of control that can be achieved using the CWA publicly-owned treatment works various levels of pollution control The 1977 amendments to the CWA (POTWs). (See Section 307(b) and (c), 33 technology. required EPA to identify additional U.S.C. 1317(b) & (c)). National EPA promulgates national effluent levels of effluent reduction for pretreatment standards are established limitations guidelines and standards for conventional pollutants associated with only for those pollutants in wastewater major industrial categories generally for BCT technology for discharges from from indirect dischargers that may pass three classes of pollutants: (1) existing industrial point sources. In through, interfere with, or are otherwise Conventional pollutants (i.e., total addition to other factors specified in incompatible with POTW operations. suspended solids, oil and grease, Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires Generally, pretreatment standards are biochemical oxygen demand, fecal that EPA establish BCT limitations after designed to ensure that wastewaters coliform, and pH); (2) toxic pollutants consideration of a two-part ‘‘cost- from direct and indirect industrial (e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, reasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its dischargers are subject to similar levels lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic organic methodology for the development of of treatment. In addition, POTWs must pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a- BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR develop local treatment limits pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene); and 24974). applicable to their industrial indirect (3) Nonconventional pollutants (e.g., Section 304(a)(4) designates the dischargers. Any POTWs required to ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and following as conventional pollutants: develop a pretreatment program must phosphorus). EPA considered the Biochemical oxygen demand measured develop local limits to implement the discharge of these classes of pollutants over five days (BOD5), total suspended general and specific national in the development of this rule. EPA is solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any pretreatment standards. Other POTWs establishing BMP requirements for the additional pollutants defined by the must develop local limits to ensure control of conventional, toxic and Administrator as conventional. The compliance with their NPDES permit for Nonconventional pollutants. EPA Administrator designated oil and grease pollutants that result in pass through or considers development of four types of as an additional conventional pollutant interference at the POTW. (See 40 CFR effluent limitations guidelines and on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). 403.5). Today’s rule does not establish standards for direct dischargers. The 3. Best Available Technology national pretreatment standards for this paragraphs below describe those Economically Achievable (BAT)— category, which contains very few pertinent to today’s rule. indirect dischargers, because the Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA indirect dischargers would be 1. Best Practicable Control Technology In general, BAT effluent limitations discharging mainly TSS and BOD, Currently Available (BPT)—Section guidelines represent the best which the POTWs are designed to treat 304(b)(1) of the CWA economically achievable performance of and which consequently, do not pass EPA may promulgate BPT effluent facilities in the industrial subcategory or through. In addition, nutrients limits for conventional, toxic, and category. The CWA establishes BAT as

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51896 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

a principal national means of of Columbia, (NRDC et al v. Leavitt, Civ. more per year as defined in 40 CFR part controlling the direct discharge of toxic No. 89–2980). On January 31, 1992, the 122 and are subject to permitting and nonconventional pollutants. The court entered a consent decree which, depending on the production level at factors considered in assessing BAT among other things, established the facility. Most pond facilities do not include the cost of achieving BAT schedules for EPA to propose and take require permits because ponds generally effluent reductions, the age of final action on effluent limitations discharge fewer than 30 days per year equipment and facilities involved, the guidelines and standards for several and therefore generally are not CAAP process employed, potential process point source categories. The amended facilities unless designated by the changes, non-water quality consent decree requires EPA to take NPDES program director. The NPDES environmental impacts including energy final action on the Concentrated Aquatic program director can designate a facility requirements, economic achievability, Animal Production (CAAP) effluent on a case-by-case basis if the director and such other factors as the guidelines by June 30, 2004. determines that the facility is a Administrator deems appropriate. The significant contributor of pollution to C. Clean Water Act Requirements Agency retains considerable discretion waters of the U.S. Applicable to CAAP Facilities in assigning the weight to be accorded V. How Was This Final Rule these factors. Generally, EPA determines EPA’s existing National Pollutant Developed? economic achievability on the basis of Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) total costs to the industry and the effect regulations define when a hatchery, fish This section describes the background of compliance with BAT limitations on farm, or other facility is a concentrated to development of the proposal, the overall industry and subcategory aquatic animal production facility and, proposed rule, EPA’s data collection financial conditions. As with BPT, therefore, a point source subject to the effort, and changes to the proposal EPA where existing performance is NPDES permit program. See 40 CFR considered based on new information uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect 122.24. In defining ‘‘concentrated and comments on the proposal. aquatic animal production (CAAP) a higher level of performance than is A. September 2002 Proposed Rule currently being achieved based on facility,’’ the NPDES regulations technology transferred from a different distinguish between warmwater and EPA started work on these effluent subcategory or category. BAT may be coldwater species of fish and define a guidelines in January 2000. EPA relied based upon process changes or internal CAAP facility by, among other things, on a federal interagency group known as controls, even when these technologies the size of the operation and frequency the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture are not common industry practice. of discharge. as a primary contact for information A facility is a CAAP facility if it meets about the industry. The Joint 4. New Source Performance Standards the criteria in 40 CFR 122 appendix C Subcommittee on Aquaculture, (NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA or if it is designated as a CAAP facility authorized by the National Aquaculture New Source Performance Standards by the NPDES program director on a Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 1198, 16 U.S.C. reflect effluent reductions that are case-by-case basis. The criteria 2801, et seq, operates under the achievable based on the best available described in appendix C are as follows. National Science and Technology demonstrated control technology. New A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility Council of the Office of Science and facilities have the opportunity to install is a concentrated aquatic animal Technology in the Office of the Science the best and most efficient production production facility if it grows, contains, Advisor to the President. The National processes and wastewater treatment or holds aquatic animals in either of two Aquaculture Act’s purpose is to promote technologies. As a result, NSPS should categories: cold water species or warm aquaculture in the United States to help represent the most stringent controls water species. The cold water species meet its future food needs and attainable through the application of the category includes facilities where contribute to solving world resource best available demonstrated control animals are produced in ponds, problems. The Act provides for the technology for all pollutants (i.e., raceways, or other similar structures identification of regulatory constraints conventional, nonconventional, and that discharge at least 30 days per year on the development of commercial priority pollutants). In establishing but does not include facilities that aquaculture, and for development of a NSPS, EPA is directed to take into produce less than approximately 20,000 plan identifying specific steps the consideration the cost of achieving the pounds per year or facilities that feed Federal Government can take to remove effluent reduction, any non-water less than approximately 5,000 pounds unnecessarily burdensome regulatory quality environmental impacts, and during the calendar month of maximum barriers to the initiation and operation energy requirements. feeding. The warm water species of commercial aquaculture ventures. It category includes facilities where also directs Federal agencies with B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree animals are produced in ponds, functions or responsibilities that may Section 304(m) of the CWA requires raceways, or other similar structures affect aquaculture to perform such EPA every two years to publish a plan that discharge at least 30 days per year, functions or responsibilities, to the for reviewing and revising existing but does not include closed ponds that maximum extent practicable, in a effluent limitations guidelines and discharge only during periods of excess manner that is consistent with the standards and for promulgating new runoff or facilities that produce less purpose and policy of the Act. The Joint effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990, than approximately 100,000 pounds per Subcommittee on Aquaculture EPA published an Effluent Guidelines year. 40 CFR part 122, appendix C. established the Aquaculture Effluents Plan (see 55 FR 80) in which the Agency Today’s action does not revise the Task Force (AETF) to work with EPA to established schedules for developing NPDES regulation that defines CAAP provide information and expertise for new and revised effluent guidelines for facilities. the development of this rule. The AETF several industry categories. Natural Most facilities falling under the became an instrumental group Resources Defense Council, Inc., and definition of CAAP are either flow- providing input and comments to EPA. Public Citizen, Inc., challenged the through, recirculating or net pen The AETF consists of members from Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed systems. These systems discharge various Federal agencies, State in the U.S. District Court for the District continuously or discharge 30 days or governments, industry, academia, and

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51897

non-governmental (environmental) application of the national limitations chemicals. In addition, EPA proposed organizations. and standards by size of production. that net pen facilities prevent the EPA used the information provided On September 12, 2002, EPA discharge of solid wastes such as feed by the AETF and conducted its own published the proposed rule (see 67 FR bags, trash, net cleaning debris, and research for this rulemaking effort. EPA 57872). The proposed limitations and dead fish; chemicals used to clean the also relied on the 1998 Census of standards applied only to new and nets, boats or gear; and materials Aquaculture conducted by the existing CAAP facilities that discharge containing or treated with tributyltin Department of Agriculture (USDA) to directly to waters of the United States. compounds. Further requirements were provide information on the size and EPA proposed requirements for three designed to minimize the discharge of distribution of facilities in the industry. subcategories for this industry: flow- blood, viscera, fish carcasses or The Census also provided some basic through, recirculating, and net pen transport water containing blood information on the revenues and prices systems. Flow-through and recirculating associated with the transport or realized by aquatic animal producers. production systems are land-based. Net harvesting of fish. This information became a primary pens, by contrast, are located in open water. B. December 2003 Notice of Data resource for describing the industry. Availability Because of limitations in the Census EPA based the proposed requirements data, EPA conducted its own survey of for the recirculating and flow-through On December 29, 2003, EPA the aquatic animal production industry. subcategories on effluent control published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) at 68 FR 75068. In the NODA, EPA adopted a two-phase approach to technologies that remove suspended EPA summarized the data received collecting data from aquatic animal solids from the animal production water since the proposed rule and described producers. In the first phase, EPA prior to discharge. The technologies considered include quiescent zones, how the Agency might use the data for distributed a ‘‘screener’’ survey. EPA settling basins (including off-line the final rule. The NODA also discussed designed this survey to collect very settling basins, full flow settling basins, the second phase of data collection, a basic information from all known and polishing settling basins) and detailed survey, which EPA conducted aquatic animal producers including filtration technology. EPA proposed to in 2002. The detailed survey was mailed public facilities regardless of size, establish limitations on the to a stratified sample population of ownership, or production system. EPA concentration of Total Suspended facilities identified from the screener mailed the survey to approximately Solids (TSS) in the discharges from survey. EPA received responses from 6,000 potential aquatic animal these facilities based on its preliminary 203 facilities. The surveyed population producers in August 2001. The survey assessment of the performance achieved included a statistically representative consisted of 11 questions asking for by the various control technologies. In sample of facilities that reported general facility information. EPA used the case of recirculating systems, EPA producing aquatic animals with flow- the information collected to refine the based the proposed TSS limitations on through, recirculating and net pen profiles of the industry with respect to solids polishing or secondary solids systems. EPA also surveyed a small the production systems in use and the removal technology. For flow-through number of facilities that would not have type of effluent controls in use. The systems, EPA based the proposed TSS been subject to the proposed screener survey, AETF information, and limitations on primary or secondary requirements. EPA’s objective was to Census data became the primary sources solids settling technologies depending further verify the assumptions on which for the proposed rule. on the production level of the facility it had based its preliminary decision to EPA based the limitations and (i.e., primary for 100,000–475,000 lbs/yr exclude these facilities from the scope standards for the proposed rule on the and secondary for >475,000 lbs/yr). In of the final rule. analysis of technologies to achieve addition to numeric limits, EPA also The detailed data collected through effluent reductions using model aquatic proposed to require these facilities to this survey allowed EPA to revise the animal production facilities. Each of implement operational measures so- methods used for the proposed rule to these model facilities represented a called—Best Management Practices estimate costs and economic impacts. different segment of the population (BMPs)—to reduce the discharge of EPA developed facility-specific costs corresponding to a particular pollutants and develop a BMP plan to and economic impact assessments for production system type, size range (in document these practices. Depending on each surveyed facility based on the terms of annual pounds of aquatic the type and size of the facility, the plan detailed information provided in the animals produced), and species would have required a facility to survey responses. The detailed produced. identify and implement practices that information included production EPA evaluated the economic impact controlled, for example, the discharge of systems, annual production, and control of each regulatory option it considered solids and ensured the proper storage practices and technologies in place at for the proposed effluent limitations and and disposal of drugs and chemicals. the facility. new source performance standards EPA based the proposed requirements The detailed responses to the second based on the revenues and production for net pen facilities on requirements to survey provided EPA with better cost information available from the reduce the amount of solids, mainly information on the baseline level of USDA Census of Aquaculture along feed, being added directly into waters of control technologies and operational with EPA’s own engineering cost the U.S. The proposal required net pen measures in use at CAAP facilities. estimates for the pollution control facilities to develop and implement Based on this understanding, EPA technologies being considered. After BMPs to address the discharge of solids described two modified options in the determining revenues and compliance including the requirement to conduct NODA that EPA was considering for the costs for each model facility, EPA used active feed monitoring to minimize the final rule. These options reflected the a compliance cost-to-revenue ratio as a amount of feed not eaten and thus same technologies and practices predictor of potential economic impacts discharged to the aquatic environment. considered for the proposed regulation, for the different model facilities. EPA Other proposed requirements included but reconfigured the combinations of used this economic analysis in its adoption of practices to ensure proper treatment technologies and practices evaluation of whether it should limit the storage and disposal of drugs and into revised regulatory options.

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51898 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

EPA visited 17 additional sites and Reducing the Discharge of Pollutants, that there is no clear dividing line sampled at one facility in response to and the Economic and Environmental between the hydraulic retention time in issues raised in the comments. The Impact Analysis. These documents used a system that was considered a NODA discussed the post-proposal data to support the proposed rule and the recirculating system and one that was including site visits and additional final supporting documents are considered a flow-through system. EPA sampling. The results of EPA’s analyses available at www.epa.gov/guide/ examined the aquatic animal production of the data were also presented in the aquaculture. literature for alternatives for NODA. EPA solicited comment on the distinguishing recirculating systems and VI. What Are Some of the Significant new data and the conclusions being flow-through systems. Given the Changes in the Content of the Final drawn from them. difficulty in distinguishing certain flow- Rule and the Methodology Used To through facilities from recirculating C. Public Comments Develop It? ones, EPA considered whether it should EPA has prepared a ‘‘Comment This section describes some of the combine the two subcategories into one Response Document’’ that includes the major changes that EPA made to the subcategory. EPA discussed this in the Agency’s responses to comments final rule from that it proposed. This NODA and solicited comment on this submitted on the proposed rule and the section also describes differences in the option. notice of data availability. All of the methodology EPA used in evaluating its While some commenters opposed public comments, including supporting options for the final rule. combining these two subcategories, EPA documents, are available for public A. Subcategorization has decided to combine flow-through review in the administrative record for and recirculating systems for the this final rule, filed under docket The proposed regulation included purpose of establishing effluent number OW–2002–0026. limitations and standards for three limitations guidelines for the following The comment period on the proposed subcategories: Flow-through systems, reasons. First, as some commenters rule closed on January 27, 2003. EPA recirculating systems and net pens. The recognized, both flow-through and received approximately 300 comments, final rule establishes limitations and recirculating systems may reuse water including form letters. EPA received standards for the same systems but for and employ similar measures to comments from sources including the only two subcategories: A flow-through maintain water quality including Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture— and recirculating systems subcategory mechanical filtration. Second, the Aquaculture Effluents Task Force (JSA/ and a net pens subcategory. The characteristic of wastewater discharged AETF), industry trade associations, recirculating and flow-through systems from facilities that are identified as Federal and State agencies, are combined into one subcategory recirculating systems that are similar to environmental organizations, and instead of two separate subcategories. the wastewater from the off-line or private citizens. For the NODA, EPA As previously noted, flow-through solids treatment units at flow-through received 20 comments between and recirculating systems are both land systems. Both waste streams are December 29, 2003 and February 12, based systems that typically discharge characterized by high levels of 2004. continuously, but can occasionally suspended solids, which can be discontinue discharges for short periods effectively treated through properly D. Public Outreach of time. The principal distinguishing designed and operated treatment As part of the development of the characteristic between these two systems employing either settling proposed rule and today’s final rule, systems is the degree to which water is technology combined with effective feed EPA has conducted outreach activities. reused prior to its discharge, with management or a carefully controlled EPA met with affected and interested recirculating systems typically feed management system alone. stakeholders through site visits and discharging lower volumes of Therefore, EPA decided that the same sampling trips to obtain information on wastewater. In the proposal, EPA requirements should apply both to operating and waste management distinguished recirculating systems wastewater discharged from practices at CAAP facilities. EPA met from flow-through systems by recirculating production systems and numerous times with members of the describing a recirculating system as one wastewater discharged from off-line JSA/AETF and conducted outreach with that typically filters with biological or solids treatment units at flow-through small businesses during the SBREFA mechanically supported filtration and facilities. Moreover, EPA had based the process. reuses the water in which the aquatic proposed limits for both of these waste EPA conducted three public meetings animals are raised. Net pen systems, by streams on the same data set. For the to discuss the proposed rule during the contrast, are located in open water and foregoing reasons, EPA has concluded public comment period for the proposed have distinctly different characteristics that this change in the organization of rule. EPA has participated in the from either recirculating or flow- the final rule does not substantively industry’s conferences to update through systems. change the requirements. participants on the progress and status EPA received a number of comments Commenters also pointed to of the rule. EPA also held several on the distinction between flow-through differences in BMPs employed at the meetings with other federal agencies to and recirculating systems described in different production systems. EPA discuss issues that potentially affect the proposed rule. Because some flow- recognizes that there are differences their mission, programs, or through systems also reuse their between recirculating systems and flow- responsibilities. production water, commenters did not through systems. EPA has concluded, Moreover, EPA maintains a website believe EPA had adequately however, that the control technology that posts information relating to the distinguished recirculating systems selected as the basis for the final regulation. EPA provided supporting from flow-through systems. Some narrative limitations will effectively documents for the proposed rule on the commenters encouraged EPA to use remove pollutants from both systems to site. The documents included the hydraulic retention time as a basis for the same degree. Further, the BMP Technical Development Document, the distinguishing between flow-through requirements in the final rule for this Draft Guidance for Aquatic Animal and recirculating systems. However, subcategory are flexible enough to Production Facilities to Assist in EPA’s review of available data showed accommodate differences in the specific

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51899

practices appropriate for the two types single pollutant—total suspended solids In the final rule, EPA is also not of production systems. Finally, (TSS)—while controlling the discharge establishing numeric limits for any drug commenters were concerned that of other pollutants through narrative or pesticide, but is requiring CAAP collapsing these two systems into one requirements. Following proposal, EPA facilities to ensure proper storage of subcategory could be interpreted as reevaluated the technological basis for drugs, pesticides and feed to prevent indicating that EPA favors recirculating the numerical limits for TSS and spills and any resulting discharges of systems over flow-through systems and determined that it would be more drugs and pesticides. EPA is also implying that flow-through systems appropriate to promulgate qualitative establishing a requirement to implement should be modified to become TSS limits, in the form of solids control procedures for responding to spills of recirculating systems. This certainly is BMP requirements, that could better these materials to minimize their not EPA’s intention and the Agency is respond to regional and site-specific discharge from the facility. EPA’s survey not suggesting that recirculating systems conditions and accommodate existing of this industry indicated that many should replace existing flow-through state programs in cases where these CAAP facilities currently employ a systems or be given a preference in the appear to be working well (see Section number of different measures to prevent construction of new systems. The VIII.B. for further discussion). EPA is spills and have established in-place primary reason to collapse these two thus not promulgating numerical systems to address spills in the event systems into one subcategory is to limitations for TSS or other pollutants. they occur. EPA is thus establishing a eliminate redundancy in the CFR. EPA is instead establishing narrative requirement for all facilities to develop effluent limitations requiring and implement BMPs that avoid B. Regulated Pollutants implementation of effective operational inadvertent spills of drugs, pesticides, There are a number of pollutants measures to achieve reduced discharges and feed and to implement procedures associated with discharges from CAAP of solids and other materials. For the for properly containing, cleaning and facilities. CAAP facilities can have high final rule, as it did at proposal, EPA has disposing of any spilled materials to concentrations of suspended solids and also developed narrative limitations that minimize their discharge from the nutrients, high BOD and low dissolved will address a number of other facility. The effect of these requirements oxygen levels. Organic matter is pollutants potentially present in CAAP will be to promote increased care in the discharged primarily from feces and wastewater. These narrative limitations handling of these materials. uneaten feed. Metals, present in feed address spilled materials (drugs, Some commenters suggested that EPA additives or from the deterioration of pesticides and feed), fish carcasses, regulate certain other pollutants or production equipment, may also be viscera and other waste, excess feed, substances that may be discharged from present in CAAP wastewater. Effluents feed bags, packaging material and these production systems. For this rule, with high levels of suspended solids, netting. EPA evaluated control of some of these. when discharged into receiving waters, EPA’s decision to not establish For example, EPA evaluated the can have a detrimental effect on the national numeric limits for TSS will not application of activated carbon environment. Suspended solids can restrict a permit writer’s authority to treatment to remove compounds such as degrade aquatic ecosystems by impose site-specific permit numeric antibiotic active ingredients from increasing turbidity and reducing the effluent limits on the discharge of TSS wastewater prior to discharge. For the depth to which sunlight can penetrate, or other pollutants in appropriate reasons discussed in Section IX.A, thus reducing photosynthetic activity. circumstances. For example, a permit however, EPA is not basing any Suspended particles can damage fish writer may establish water quality-based pollutant limitations on the application gills, increasing the risk of infection and effluent limits for TSS (see 40 CFR of this technology. disease. Nutrients are discharged mainly 122.44(d) or regulate TSS (by in the form of nitrate, ammonia and establishing numeric limits) as a C. Treatment Options Considered organic nitrogen. Ammonia causes two surrogate for the control of toxic EPA evaluated three treatment main problems in water. First, it is toxic pollutants (see 40 CFR 122.44(e)(2)(ii)) options as the basis for BPT/BCT/BAT to aquatic life. Second, it is easily where site-specific circumstances proposed limitations for the flow- converted to nitrate which may increase warrant. The permit writer may also through and recirculating subcategories plant and algae growth. issue numeric limits in general permits and three options for the net pen Some substances, like drugs and applicable to classes of facilities. In fact, subcategory. For flow-through and pesticides, that may be present in the one of the bases for EPA’s decision not recirculating systems, EPA proposed a wastewater may be introduced directly to establish uniform national TSS limits numeric limitation for TSS. For Option as part of the aquatic animal production is the recognition that a number of 1, the least stringent option, EPA process. An important source of the states, particularly those with considered TSS limitations based on pollutants potentially present in CAAP significant numbers of CAAP facilities, primary settling as well as the use of wastewater is, as the above discussion already have general permits with BMPs to control the discharge of solids suggests, the feed used in aquatic numeric limits tailored to the specific from the production system. The second animal production. Feed used at CAAP production systems, species raised, and treatment option (Option 2) considered facilities contributes to pollutant environmental conditions in the state, by EPA for establishing TSS limitations discharges in a number of ways: by- and these permits seem to be working was based on Option 1 technologies product feces, ammonia excretions and, well to minimize discharges of plus the addition of reporting most directly, as uneaten feed (in suspended solids (see DCN 63056). EPA requirements if INAD or extralabel drug dissolved and particulate forms). believes there would be minimal use were used in the production Moreover, the feed may be the vehicle environmental gain from requiring these systems, plus the implementation of for introducing other substances into the states to redo their General Permits to BMPs to ensure proper storage, handling wastewater, like drugs. For example, conform to a set of uniform national and disposal of drugs and chemicals medicated feed may introduce concentration-based limits that in most and the prevention of escapes when antibiotics into the wastewater. cases would not produce significant non-native species are produced. EPA In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to changes in control technologies and based limitations for the most stringent establish numeric limitations for only a practices at CAAP facilities. option (Option 3) on primary settling

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51900 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

and the addition of secondary solids discharge of solids. It also requires pesticide use as part of the application settling, in conjunction with BMPs, to facilities to develop and implement for the permit or exemption. Also in control the discharge of solids from the practices designed to prevent the both cases the permittee or the State or production system. This option also discharge of spilled drugs and Federal authority must report included BMPs to control drugs, pesticides, inspection and maintenance immediately to EPA any adverse effects chemicals and non-native species and protocols designed to prevent the from the use. Prior to issuing an the reporting of drugs. For New Source discharge of pollutants as a result of emergency exemption, EPA is required Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA structural failure, training of personnel, to determine that the exemption will not considered the same three options. various recordkeeping requirements, cause unreasonable adverse effects on EPA evaluated three treatment and documentation of the the environment (see 40 CFR options for the net pen subcategory. The implementation of these requirements 166.25(b)(1)(ii)) and that the pesticide is least stringent option, Option 1, in a BMP plan which is maintained on likely to be used in compliance with the required feed management and site and available to the permitting requirements imposed under the operational BMPs for solids control. authority upon request. exemption (see 40 CFR 166.25(b)(1)(iii)). Option 2 consisted of the same practices For net pens, the final rule establishes EPA’s regulation further specifies that and technology as Option 1 plus a BMP non-numeric, narrative limitations that the applicant for an emergency plan to address drugs, chemicals, are similar to those adopted for flow- exemption must coordinate with other pathogens, and non-native species and through and recirculating systems. affected State or Federal agencies to general reporting requirements for the Thus, the limitations require which the requested exemption is likely use of certain drugs and chemicals. minimization of feed input, proper to be of concern. The application must Option 3, the most stringent option, storage of drugs, pesticides and feed, indicate that the coordination has included the requirements of the first routine inspection and maintenance of occurred, and any comments provided two options as well as active feed the production and wastewater by the other agencies must be submitted monitoring to control the supply of feed treatment systems, training of to EPA with the application (see 40 CFR in the production units. Many existing personnel, and appropriate 166.20(a)(8)). facilities use active feed or real time recordkeeping. Compliance with these In contrast, the FDA’s regulations for monitoring to track the rate of feed requirements must be documented in a Investigative New Animal Drugs consumption and detect uneaten feed BMP plan which describes how the (INADs) exempt INADs from the passing through the nets. These systems facility is minimizing solids discharges requirement to conduct an may include the use of devices such as through feed management and how it is Environmental Assessment (see 21 CFR video cameras, digital scanning sonar complying with prohibitions on the 25.20 and 25.33). As a policy matter, detection, or upwellers, in addition to discharge of feed bags and other solid FDA encourages INAD sponsors to good husbandry and feed management waste materials. Further, net pens must notify permitting authorities of the use practices. These systems and practices minimize the accumulation of uneaten of an INAD. There is, however, no allow facilities to cease feeding the feed beneath the pens through active requirement that the sponsors comply. aquatic animals when a build-up of feed feed monitoring and management Therefore, EPA considers the reporting or over-feeding is observed. EPA strategies. of INADs in today’s regulation necessary considered the same treatment options to ensure that permit writers are aware D. Reporting Requirements for NSPS. of the potential for discharge of the The NODA described two additional EPA’s proposed rule would have INAD and can take action as necessary options that EPA was considering for required permittees to report the use of in authorized circumstances. flow-through and recirculating systems, INADs and extralabel use of both drugs EPA is providing an exception to the but did not identify any new options for and chemicals. In the final rule, EPA is requirement to report INAD use. When net pens. These two options contained modifying the proposed requirement, by an INAD has already been approved for the same treatment technologies and deleting the reporting requirements for use in another species or to treat another practices described in the three options chemicals, including pesticides, and by disease and is applied at a dosage that considered for the proposed rule but in further limiting the reporting does not exceed the approved dosage, slightly different combinations. requirement for drugs, as described reporting is not required if it will be The NODA Option A included below. EPA used the term ‘‘chemicals’’ used under similar conditions. The primary solids treatment, a reporting in the proposed rule to refer to requirement that the use be under requirement for the INAD and extralabel registered pesticides. similar conditions is intended to limit drug uses, and the implementation of EPA’s decision not to include the exception to cases where the INAD BMPs to control drugs and chemicals. In pesticides in the final reporting use would not be expected to produce addition to Option A requirements, requirements is based on the language significantly different environmental Option B included secondary solids in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide impacts from the previously approved removal treatment or, alternatively, the and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the use. For example, use of a drug that had implementation of BMPs for feed regulations that implement the statute. been previously approved for a management, and solids handling to FIFRA Section 5 authorizes EPA to freshwater application as an INAD in a control the discharge of solids. allow field testing of pesticides under marine setting would not be considered As previously explained, for flow- development through the issuance of a similar condition of use, since marine through or recirculating systems, today’s Experimental Use Permits. Further, ecosystems may have markedly different final rule does not establish numeric FIFRA Section 18 authorizes EPA to vulnerabilities than freshwater limitations for total suspended solids allow States to use a pesticide for an ecosystems. Similarly, the use of a drug (TSS) but does include narrative unregistered use for a limited time if approved to treat terrestrial animals as limitations requiring the solids control EPA determines that emergency an INAD to treat aquatic animals would measures and operational practices conditions exist. Under both of these not be considered a similar condition of described as part of Option B for BPT/ provisions the applicant is required to use. In contrast, the use of a drug to treat BCT/BAT limitations and NSPS. These submit information concerning the fish in a freshwater system that was include requirements to minimize the environmental risk associated with the previously approved for a different

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51901

freshwater species would be considered potential impacts in the receiving in the regulation. EPA continues to view use under similar conditions. EPA has stream. Facilities are expected to make BMPs as effective tools to control the concluded that when a drug is used an oral report to the permitting discharge of pollutants from CAAP under similar conditions it is unlikely authority within 24 hours of the spill’s facilities and is establishing narrative that the environmental impacts would occurrence followed by a written report requirements based on the use of BMPs be different than those that were already within 7 days. The report shall include as the basis of today’s regulation. EPA considered in the prior approval of the the identity of the material spilled and has also retained the requirement for a drug. an estimated amount. BMP plan. The BMP plan is a tool in CAAP facilities must also report the EPA has concluded that today’s which the facility must describe the use of extralabel drugs. However, as reporting requirements are appropriate operational measures it will use to meet with INADs, reporting is not required if because they make it easier for the the non-numeric effluent limitations in the extralabel use does not exceed the permitting authority to evaluate what the regulation. Upon incorporation of approved dosage and is used under additional control measures on INADs today’s requirements into an NPDES similar conditions. EPA anticipates that and extralabel drug use may be permit, the CAAP facility owner or most extralabel drug use will not require necessary to prevent or minimize harm operator will be expected to develop reporting, but wants to ensure that to waters of the U.S. and to respond site-specific operational measures that permitting authorities are aware of more effectively to any unanticipated satisfy the requirements. The final rule situations in which a higher dose of a environmental impacts that may occur. requires CAAP facilities to develop a drug is used or the drug is used under Because neither of these classes of drugs BMP plan that describes how the CAAP significantly different conditions from has undergone an environmental facility will comply with the narrative the approved use. It is also possible that assessment for the use being made of requirements and that is maintained at drugs approved for terrestrial animals them, EPA is ensuring that the the CAAP facility. The CAAP facility could be used to treat aquatic animals permitting authority is aware of their owner or operator must certify in as extralabel use drugs. use and if warranted can take site writing to the permitting authority that For the final rule, the timing and specific action. the plan has been developed. In EPA’s content of reporting requirements Today’s reporting requirements are view, a BMP plan, as a practical matter, related to the use of INADs and authorized under several sections of the can assist facilities in achieving extralabel drugs are similar to the CWA. Section 308 of the CWA compliance with the non-numeric proposed requirements. EPA requires authorizes EPA to require point sources limitations. It can also assist regulatory both oral and written reporting. The to make such reports and ‘‘provide such authorities in verifying compliance with final rule has an added requirement that other information as [the Administrator] the requirements and modifying specific the CAAP facility report the method of may reasonably require.’’ 33 U.S.C. permit conditions where warranted. As drug application in both the oral report 1318(a)(A). Section 402(a) of the Act explained earlier in this section, EPA and the written report. EPA has authorizes EPA to impose permit has concluded Section 308 clearly concluded that both oral and written conditions as to ‘‘data and information authorizes it to require this information. reports are reasonable requirements collection, reporting and such other Of course, irrespective of the content of because the oral report lets the requirements as [the Administrator] the plan, a facility must still comply permitting authority know of the drug deems appropriate.’’ 33 U.S.C. with the narrative limitations. use sooner than the written report, thus 1342(a)(2). It is well established that facilitating site-specific action if these provisions justify EPA’s In conjunction with the requirement warranted. The written report provides establishing a range of information to inspect and provide regular confirmation of the use of the drug and disclosure requirements. Thus, for maintenance of CAAP production and more complete information for future example, the United States Court of treatment systems to prevent structural data analysis and control measures. Appeals for the District of Columbia damage, EPA is including a reporting Today’s regulation also adds a Circuit concluded that the Agency’s requirement associated with failure of requirement that CAAP facilities notify data gathering authority was not limited the CAAP containment structure and the permitting authority in writing to information on toxic pollutants any resulting discharges. EPA is within seven days after signing up to already identified by the Agency in a requiring CAAP facilities to report any participate in INAD testing. Advance permittee’s discharge. EPA regulations failure of or damage to the structural notice prior to the use of the INAD required permit applications to include integrity of the containment system that allows the permitting authority to information on toxic pollutants that an results in a material discharge of determine whether additional controls applicant used or manufactured as an pollutants to waters of the U.S. For net on the discharge of the INAD during its intermediate or final product or pen systems, for example, failures might use may be warranted. byproduct. In the court’s view, EPA include physical damage to the predator Finally, today’s regulation includes a could reasonably determine that it could control nets or the nets containing the requirement to report any spill of drugs, not regulate effectively without aquatic animals, that may result in a pesticides or feed that results in a information on such pollutants because discharge of the contents of the nets. discharge to waters of the U.S. Facilities they could end up present in the Physical damage might include are expected to implement proper permittee’s discharge. Natural abrasion, cutting or tearing of the nets storage for these products and Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. and breakdown of the netting due to rot implement procedures for the Environmental Protection Agency, 822 or ultra violet exposure. For flow- containing, cleaning and disposing of F.2d 104, 119 (DC Cir. 1987). The same through and recirculating systems, a spilled material. If the spilled material is true for certain INADs and extralabel failure might include the collapse of, or enters the production system or drug use that may end up as pollutants damage to, a rearing unit or wastewater wastewater treatment system it can be discharged to waters of the U.S. treatment structure; damage to pipes, assumed that the material will reach Under the proposed rule, the valves, and other plumbing fixtures; and waters of the U.S. EPA considers operators of facilities subject to the rule damage or malfunction to screens or reporting of these events necessary to were to certify that they had developed physical barriers in the system, which alert the permitting authority to a BMP plan that met the requirements would prevent the unit from containing

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51902 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

water, sediment, and the aquatic the facility and other site-specific facilities currently had at least primary animals. The permitting authority may information (such as labor rates). EPA settling technologies in-place. EPA further specify in the permit what obtained additional cost information performed a cost analysis for the constitutes a material discharge of from data supplied from public facilities without primary settling using pollutants that would trigger the comments and site visits. With the new the facility-specific configuration reporting requirements. The permittee data, EPA revised the method to information provided in the detailed must report the failure of the estimate compliance costs. Instead of a survey. EPA also evaluated facilities containment system within 24 hours of model facility approach, EPA used a with primary settling in-place by discovery of the failure. The permittee facility-level cost analysis based on the comparing actual (i.e., DMR data) or must notify the permitting authority available facility-specific data contained estimated TSS effluent concentrations to orally and describe the cause of the in the detailed survey responses. We the proposed limits. For those facilities failure in the containment system and applied statistically-derived survey not meeting the proposed TSS limits, identify materials that were discharged weights instead of the frequency factors EPA also evaluated the implementation as a result of this failure. Further, the used at proposal to estimate costs to the of additional solids controls, including facility must provide a written report CAAP industry as a whole. secondary solids polishing and feed within seven days of discovery of the For proposal, EPA used national management. failure documenting the cause, the averages for many of the cost elements, For facilities with no solids control estimated time elapsed until the failure such as labor rates and land costs. In its equipment, we estimated the costs for was repaired, an estimate of the material analysis for the final regulation, EPA primary solids control. EPA evaluated released as a result of the failure, and used facility specific cost information, each facility to identify the steps being taken to prevent a such as labor rates, to determine the configuration of the existing treatment reoccurrence. costs associated with implementing the units and what upgrades would be regulatory options. When facility required. E. Costs specific rates were not available, EPA EPA also used industry cost At proposal, EPA used a model used national averages for similar information provided through public facility approach to estimate the cost of ownership types of facilities (i.e., non- comment and the detailed survey to installing or upgrading wastewater commercial and commercial ownership) estimate costs for design and treatment to achieve the proposed to determine managerial and staff labor installation of primary settling requirements. As described in the rates. EPA revised estimates for all labor equipment for effective settling of preamble to the proposed regulation (67 costs using the employee and wage suspended solids. For example, we used FR 57872), EPA developed 21 model information supplied in the detailed the facility-level data included in the facilities (based on the USDA’s Census surveys. For those facilities indicating detailed survey responses to place and of Aquaculture and EPA’s screener they use unpaid labor for part of the size the off-line settling basins on the survey) characterized by different facility operation, we used wages for facility site. combinations of production systems, similar categories (i.e., managerial or EPA classified each facility’s size categories, species and ownership staff) supplied by that facility to wastewater treatment system based on types. EPA developed regulatory estimate costs associated with the description provided in its survey technology options based on screener implementing the regulatory options. response and available monitoring data, survey responses, site visits, industry Comments also suggested that EPA’s including DMR data. We assumed that and other stakeholder input, and assumed land costs were too low at treatment technologies indicated by a existing permit requirements. proposal; EPA assumed national average facility on the detailed survey are EPA estimated the cost for each land values for agricultural land. EPA properly sized, installed, and option component for each model revised its estimates for land costs when maintained. EPA estimated facility- facility. We then calculated costs for determining the opportunity costs of specific costs for each of the responding each regulatory option at each model using land at a facility if structural direct dischargers and used these facility based on model facility improvements were evaluated that estimates as the basis for national characteristics and the costs of the required use of facility land that was not estimates. Because the survey did not option’s technologies or practices currently in use by the CAAP collect information about many specific corresponding to the option. operation’s infrastructure (e.g., occupied parameters used in individual facilities’ EPA estimated frequency factors for by tanks, raceways, buildings, settling production processes and treatment treatment technologies and existing basins, etc.). When evaluating the cost systems, EPA supplemented the facility- BMPs based on screener survey of land for the revised analyses, EPA specific information with typical responses, site visits, and sampling used land costs of $5,000/acre, which is specifications or parameters from visits. Baseline frequency factors twice the median value for land literature, survey results, and industry represented the portion of the facilities associated with aquaculture facilities comments. For example, EPA assumed represented by a particular model surveyed in the U.S. (see DCN 63066). that facilities have pipes of typical sizes facility that would not incur costs to EPA used this conservative estimate for their operations. comply with the proposed requirements because the only facilities that required As a consequence of such because they were already using the structural improvements in the options assumptions, a particular facility might technology or practice. EPA adjusted the evaluated were non-commercial need a different engineering component cost for each model facility facilities, for which land value estimates configuration from those modeled if it to account for those facilities that were not available. installed equipment that varies from the already have the component in-place. EPA considered several technology- equipment or specifications we used to Subsequently, EPA derived national based options to determine the technical estimate costs. EPA nonetheless estimates of costs by aggregating the and economic feasibility of requiring considers that costs for these facilities component costs applicable to each numeric TSS limits for in-scope CAAP are generally accurate and model facility across all model facilities. facilities. EPA’s analysis of the detailed representative, especially industry- EPA’s detailed surveys captured survey revealed that over 90% of the wide. EPA applied typical specifications information on the treatment in-place at flow-through and recirculating system and parameters representative of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51903

industry to a range of processes and than facilities with constant water practices at facilities where (1) the treatment systems. We contacted temperatures. We did not apply costs for cultured species was not commonly facilities to get site-specific solids control BMPs for facilities with produced or regarded as native in the configuration information where reasonable explanations for the higher State, (2) the facility was a direct possible. FCRs. We evaluated facilities that did discharger, and (3) the species was In revising cost estimates, EPA paid not report FCRs or provide enough data expected to survive if released. (In particular attention to: for an estimate by using a randomly contrast, producers of a warm water 1. Size of tanks, raceways, and culture selected FCR, which is described in species in a cold climate, such as tilapia units; Chapter 10 of the Technical producers in Minnesota or Idaho, would 2. Labor rates; Development Document (DCN 63009). not incur costs for this practice.) Costs 3. Treatment components in place; For those facilities that required for escape prevention include staff time 4. BMPs and plans in place; additional solids controls, EPA for production unit and discharge point 5. Daily operations at the facility. evaluated both feed management and inspections and maintenance of escape Site visits and analysis of the detailed the installation of secondary solids prevention devices. We applied these surveys indicated that raceways and polishing technologies. EPA received costs to facilities that installed quiescent zones are cleaned as comments on the use of microscreen equipment conforming with State necessary to maintain system process filters and EPA agrees with concerns requirements for facilities producing water quality. raised in comments that the cost non-native species (identified by the In evaluating facilities for the need to associated with enclosing the filter in a State). Management time includes use additional solids controls, EPA first heated structure would be prohibitive. quarterly production unit and discharge checked for evidence of a good feed EPA found that the effective operation point inspections, eight hours a year to management program. If the facility of microscreen filters requires that they review applicable State and Federal reported they practice feed be enclosed in heated buildings to regulations, and quarterly staff management, EPA looked for evidence prevent freezing when located in cold consultations. of solids management and good climates. EPA’s revised estimates of operation of the physical plant, costs for secondary solids polishing are F. Economic Impacts including regular cleaning and not based on the application of There are a number of changes made maintenance of feed equipment and microscreen filters unless the detailed to the costing and economic impact solids collection devices (e.g., quiescent survey response indicated that such a methods used for the final rule. EPA zones, sedimentation basins, screens, structure existed at the site. When the used data from the detailed survey to etc.). To evaluate the effectiveness of a detailed survey did not indicate a project economic impacts for the final facility’s solids control practices, we structure at the site, EPA estimated costs rule, in contrast to the screener data and calculated feed conversion ratios (FCRs) for a second stage settling structure frequency factors used for the proposed using pounds of feed per pound of live rather than a microscreen filter. Based rule. For existing commercial product (as reported in the detailed on data from two of EPA’s sampling operations, EPA assessed the number of survey) and considered existing solids episodes at CAAP facilities, this business closures among regulated control equipment. We assumed technology will achieve the proposed enterprises, facilities, and companies by facilities lacking evidence of good feed limits for TSS. applying market forecasts and using a management or solids control programs We also considered the use of closure methodology that compares would incur additional costs to improve activated carbon filtration to treat projected earnings with and without or establish them. effluent containing drug or pesticide incremental compliance costs for the EPA estimated FCRs from data in the active ingredients from wastewater, but period 2005 to 2015. Other additional detailed survey and follow-up with rejected controls for these materials. analyses include an analysis of some facilities and compared FCRs for Research indicates that this technology moderate impacts by comparing annual groups of facilities (i.e., combinations of is effective at treating these compounds, compliance costs to sales, an evaluation ownership, species and production and at least one aquatic animal of financial health using a modified U.S. system types such as commercial trout production facility installed this Department of Agriculture’s four- flow-through facilities or government technology for water quality reasons. category (2 × 2) matrix approach, and an salmon flow-through facilities). We EPA estimated the costs for activated assessment of possible impacts on found a wide range of FCRs (reported by carbon treatment as a stand-alone borrowing capacity. For new facilities in their detailed surveys, technology. We estimated costs on a commercial operations, EPA evaluates which were validated by call backs to site-specific basis for facilities which whether the regulatory costs will result the facility) among apparently similar reported using drugs and then added in a barrier to entry among new facilities within ownership-species- these costs for the different regulatory businesses. For noncommercial production system groupings. options considered to assess the operations, EPA evaluated impacts For example, we had good data for 24 economic achievability of this using a budget test that compares of 60 government trout producers using technology. A detailed discussion of incurred compliance costs to facility flow-through systems. They reported a how EPA estimated costs is available operating budgets. Additional analyses range of FCRs of 0.79 to 1.80 with a from the public record (DCN 62451). investigate whether a facility could median FCR of 1.30. If an individual EPA considers these costs to be recoup increased compliance costs facility’s reported FCR was significantly economically unachievable or not through user fees and estimated the greater than the median, EPA further affordable on a national scale. However, associated increase. evaluated the facility to ascertain the EPA is aware of at least one facility For today’s final regulation, EPA reason for the higher FCR. Facilities that currently using this technology, and modified its forecasting models to produce larger fish, such as broodstock, notes that it is an effective technology include certain data for recent years that might have higher FCRs because the for removing drug compounds from became available after the Agency larger fish produce less flesh per unit of wastewater. published its NODA (see 68 FR 75068– food. Facilities with fluctuating water EPA estimated the costs to develop 75105). This and other details about temperatures could also be less efficient and implement escape management how EPA developed its economic

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51904 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

impact methodologies is presented in pollutant loads to estimate the baseline goals may not place as great an this preamble and in the Economic and loads. EPA validated the baseline load emphasis on maximum growth. Environmental Benefit Analysis of the estimates with effluent monitoring data However, EPA expects that all facilities, Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines (DCN 63061). regardless of production goals, can and Standards for the Concentrated For today’s regulation, EPA evaluated achieve substantial reductions in Aquatic Animal Production Industry secondary solids removal technologies pollutant discharges over uncontrolled (‘‘Economic and Environmental Benefit and feed management. EPA assessed levels by designing and implementing Analysis’’), available in the rulemaking whether improved feed management in an optimal feed input management record. addition to primary solids settling might strategy, including appropriate be as effective at reducing solids in the recordkeeping and documentation of G. Loadings effluent as secondary settling. EPA FCRs. To estimate the baseline discharge found that feed management was the The process for the random loadings and load reductions for the lower cost option compared to assignment of FCRs to facilities with proposed rule, EPA used the same secondary solids removal technology. incomplete information included: model facility approach as used to (As discussed in more detail below at • EPA grouped facilities by estimate the compliance costs. Briefly, VIII.B., EPA has now concluded that a ownership, species, and production EPA first estimated pollutant loadings rigorous feed management program • FCRs were estimated for each for untreated wastewater based on alone will achieve significant reductions facility with sufficient data within a several factors for each model facility. in solids at CAAP facilities.) group As previously noted, feed used at CAAP Pollutant removals associated with • The distributions of grouped data facilities contributes to pollutant feed management result from more were examined for possible outliers, discharges in three ways: By-product efficient feed use and less wasted feed. which were defined as FCRs less than feces, dissolved ammonia excretions, For its evaluation, EPA used feed 0.75 or greater than 3.0. When extreme and uneaten feed (in dissolved and conversion rates as a surrogate for values were found and validated, they particulate forms). These byproducts of estimating potential load reductions were removed from the grouping. feed contribute to the pollutant load in resulting from feed management Although these extremes may be the untreated culture water. EPA then activities. Note, EPA used FCR values as possible and a function of production used typical efficiency rates of removing a means to estimate potential load goals, water temperature, etc., EPA was specific pollutants from water to reductions, not as a target to set absolute not able to validate and model all of the estimate load reductions for the FCR limits for a facility or industry factors contributing to the extreme FCR treatment options and BMPs. EPA segment. rates. Facilities excluded because of estimated frequency factors for Based on the information in the extreme values were not assigned a treatment technologies and existing detailed surveys, EPA calculated FCRs random FCR, but were found to have a BMPs based on screener survey for 69 flow-through and recirculating documented reason for the extreme responses, site visits, and sampling system facilities. EPA validated the value. For example, one facility visits. The occurrence frequency of feeding, production and estimated FCRs produced broodstock for stock practices or technologies was used to by contacting each facility. For those enhancement purposes. Some extreme estimate the portion of the operations facilities that were not able to supply values were updated based on that would incur costs. Using the same accurate feed and/or production validating information from the facility, frequency factors for technologies in information, to enable EPA to estimate and the updates were found to be within place that were used to estimate costs, a FCR, EPA randomly assigned a FCR. the range used for analysis. EPA estimated the baseline pollutant EPA attempted to capture and account • After removing outliers, the first loads discharged, then calculated load for as much of the variation as possible and third quartiles were calculated for reductions for the options. when analyzing FCRs and in the each grouping. The first quartile of a As described in the NODA, EPA random assignment process. For group of values is the value such that revised the loadings approach to example, the production system, 25% of the values fall at or below this incorporate facility-level information species, and system ownership (which value. The third quartile of a group of using data primarily from the detailed are all known from the detailed surveys) values is the value such that 75% of the surveys. EPA also incorporated were expected to influence feeding values fall at or below this value. information included in comments practices, so facilities were grouped • For each grouping, the target FCR concerning appropriate feed conversion according to these parameters. EPA was assumed to be the first quartile ratios (FCRs). included ownership as a grouping value. EPA based its estimates of pollutant variable to account for some of the • For the facilities with no FCR loads on the reported feed inputs variation in production goals. Most information, a random FCR between the included in the detailed surveys. EPA commercial facilities that were first and third quartiles was assigned. used the annual feed input and feed-to- evaluated are producing food-sized fish • To account for variation in FCRs pollutant conversion factors described and generally are trying to maintain based on factors such as water in the TDD and DCN 63026 to calculate constant production levels at the temperature, EPA only costed additional raw pollutant loads. EPA then analyzed facility; commercial facilities would feed management practices at a facility each facility’s detailed survey response tend to target maximum weight gain when the reported or randomly assigned to determine the treatment-in-place at over a low FCR in determining their FCR was within the upper 25% of the the facility. Using published literature optimal feeding strategy. Non- inter-quartile range. This was values to determine the pollutant commercial facilities are generally considered to be an indication of removal efficiencies for the types of government facilities that are producing potential improvement in feed wastewater treatment systems used at for stock enhancement purposes. management. CAAP facilities, EPA calculated a Production goals are driven by the • For some combinations of baseline pollutant load discharged from desire to produce a target size (length ownership, species, and production, each surveyed facility. EPA used these and weight) at a certain time of year for there was not sufficient data to do the pollutant removal efficiencies and raw release. Non-commercial facility feeding quartile analysis. In these cases, data

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51905

from a similar grouping of ownership, concentrations at different points in the develop a method to measure species, and production was used. facilities. EPA then calculated metal to oxytetracycline in effluent from CAAP If a facility’s FCR was in the upper TSS ratios (in mg of metal per kg of facilities. EPA took samples to analyze 25% of the inter-quartile range or did TSS) based on the calculated net the effluent from a CAAP facility that not currently have secondary settling concentrations. EPA removed negative produces trout during a time period in technologies in place, EPA assumed the and zero ratios from the samples. which oxytetracycline, in medicated facility would need to improve feed Finally, basic sample distribution feed, was being used to treat a bacterial management practices. The statistics were calculated to derive the infection in some of the animals at the improvement in feed management relationship between TSS and each facility. Results of the study indicate practices would result in increased costs metal. that oxytetracycline can be stabilized in due to increased observations and EPA calculated estimated load samples when preserved with recordkeeping and in pollutant load reductions of PCBs from regulated phosphoric acid and maintained below reductions resulting from less wasted facilities as a percentage of TSS load ° feed. reductions. Since the main source of 4 C prior to analysis. The method The approach for estimating the found levels of oxytetracycline to range PCBs at CAAP facilities is through fish µ loadings for the final rule has not feed, a conversion factor was calculated from <0.2 g/L (which was the method changed significantly from the approach to estimate the amount of PCBs detection limit) in the supply and µ taken in the NODA. In estimating the discharged per pound of TSS. EPA hatchery effluent to 110 g/L in the loadings and removals for the final rule, assumed that 90% of the feed was eaten, influent to the offline settling basin. The EPA considered incidental removals or and that 90% of the feed eaten would level detected in the combined raceway removals gained from the control of be assimilated by the fish. By combining effluent was 0.95 µg/L. See the analysis solids through narrative limitations. As the amount of food materials excreted report (DCN 63011) for additional part of the loadings analysis, EPA by fish (10% of feed consumed) with the information. considered incidental removals of 10% of food uneaten, EPA was able to H. Environmental Assessment and metals, PCBs and one drug, partition the PCBs among fish flesh and oxytetracycline. aqueous and solid fractions. Due to a Benefits Analysis Metals may be present in CAAP lack of sampling data, EPA used a EPA’s environmental assessment and effluents from a variety of sources. Some µ maximum level of 2 g/g, the FDA limit benefits analysis for the proposed rule metals are present in feed (as federally on PCB concentrations in fish feed, to consisted of two efforts. First, EPA approved feed additives), occur in estimate the maximum amount of PCBs reviewed and summarized literature it sanitation products, or may result from that could possibly be in the TSS. This had obtained regarding environmental deterioration of CAAP machinery and maximum possible discharge load in the impacts of the aquaculture industry, equipment. EPA has observed that many TSS was estimated to be 21% of the focusing particularly on segments of the of the treatment measures used in the PCBs in the feed. EPA considers this CAAP industry provide substantial estimate to provide an upper bound on industry in the scope of the proposed reductions of most metals. The metals the amount of PCBs discharged from rule. Second, EPA used estimates of present are generally readily adsorbed to CAAP facilities, and the amount pollutant loading reductions associated solids and can be adequately controlled potentially removed by the rule. Even with the proposed requirements to by controlling solids. so, the estimates are quite low (0.52 assess improvements to water quality Most of the metals appear to be pounds of PCBs discharged in the that might arise from the proposed originating from the feed ingredients. baseline). CAAP facilities are not a requirements, and monetized benefits Trace amounts of metals at federally significant source of PCB discharges to from these water quality improvements. approved concentrations are added to waters of the U.S. (see DCN 63011). EPA’s approach to the environmental feed in the form of mineral packs to EPA estimated the pollutant load of assessment and benefits analysis for the ensure that the essential dietary oxytetracycline discharged from in- final rule is similar to the approach for nutrients are provided for the cultured scope CAAP facilities using data from the proposed rule, except that EPA has aquatic animals. Examples of metals EPA’s detailed survey of the CAAP incorporated new data, information, and added as feed supplements include Industry. EPA first determined facility methods that were not available at the copper, zinc, manganese, and iron specific amounts of oxytetracycline time of proposal, particularly those (Snowden, 2003). used by each CAAP facility. For those sources described in Section V of this EPA estimated metals load reductions facilities that reported using medicated Preamble. For example, literature, from facilities that are subject to the feed containing oxytetracycline, EPA discussions, and data submitted by final rule (see DCN 63011). The metals evaluated their responses to the detailed for which load reductions are analyzed survey to determine the amount, by stakeholders both through the public are those which were present above the weight, of medicated feed containing comment process on the proposed rule detection levels in the wastewater oxytetracycline and the concentration of as well as at other forums were samples collected from CAAP facilities the drug in the feed. EPA then estimated considered. EPA also used facility- during EPA’s sampling for this the amount of oxytetracycline that was specific data provided by or developed rulemaking. EPA used the net reduced at facilities in which feed from the detailed survey responses. EPA concentrations of the metal in the management practices were applied in has updated and revised its summary of wastewater to estimate these loads. EPA the cost and loadings analyses. The material relating to environmental estimated these load reductions as a facility level estimates were then impacts of CAAP facilities in Chapter 7 function of TSS loads using data multiplied by the appropriate weighting of the Economic and Environmental obtained from the four sampling factors and summed across all facilities Benefit Analysis for today’s final rule episodes. For this analysis, EPA first to determine the national estimate of (DCN 63010). EPA’s revised benefits assumed that non-detected samples had pounds of oxytetracycline reduced from analysis are described in both Section X the concentration of half the detection discharges as a result of the regulation. of this Preamble as well as in Chapter limit. From the sampling data, EPA As part of a sampling episode, EPA 8 of the Economic and Environmental calculated net TSS and metals also performed a preliminary study to Impact Analysis (DCN 63010).

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51906 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

VII. Who Is Subject to This Rule? generate minimal pollutant discharges relatively large volumes of water into This section discusses the scope of in the baseline or that available and out of the rearing units. Some flow- the final rule and explains what pollutant control technologies will through systems discharge a single, wastewaters are subject to the final reduce pollutant loadings from these combined effluent stream with large limitations and standards. operations by only minimal amounts. water volumes and dilute pollutant For further explanation, see the concentrations. Other flow-through A. Who Is Subject to This Rule? proposal at 67 FR 57572, 57885–86. systems have two or more discharge Today’s rule applies to commercial Facilities that indirectly discharge streams, with the process water in (for-profit) and non-commercial their process wastewater (i.e., facilities which the fish are raised as the primary (generally, publicly-owned) facilities that discharge to POTWs) are also not discharge. This discharge, referred to as that produce, hold or contain 100,000 subject to today’s rule. EPA did not raceway effluent or bulk flow, is pounds or more of aquatic animals per propose and is not establishing characterized by a large water volume year. Any 12 month period would be pretreatment standards for existing or and dilute pollutant concentrations. The considered a year for the purposes of new indirect sources. As explained secondary discharges from flow-through above, the bulk of pollutant discharges establishing coverage under this rule. systems with multiple discharges result While facilities producing fewer than from CAAP facilities consists of TSS typically from some form of solids and BOD. POTWs are designed to treat 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals per settling through an off-line settling basin these conventional pollutants. year are not subject to this rule, in (OLSB) or other solids removal devices. Moreover, CAAP facilities discharge specific circumstances they may require The discharges from off-line settling nutrients in concentrations lower in NPDES permits that include limitations basins or solids removal devices have full-flow discharges, and similar in off- developed on a BPJ basis. An aquatic low water volumes and more line settling basin discharges, to animal production facility producing concentrated pollutants. The nutrient concentrations found in human fewer than 100,000 pounds of aquatic supernatant from the OLSB may be wastes discharged to POTWs. EPA has discharged through a separate outfall or animals per year will be subject to the concluded that the POTW removals of may be recombined prior to discharge NPDES permit program if it is a CAAP TSS would achieve equivalent nutrient with the raceway effluent. as defined in 40 CFR 122.24. As removals to those obtained by the Recirculating systems may also have explained in the proposed rule, EPA options considered for this rulemaking two waste streams: Overtopping limited the scope of the regulation it for direct dischargers. EPA, therefore, wastewater and filter backwash. was considering to facilities that are concluded that there would be no pass Overtopping is a continuous blowdown CAAPs above this production threshold. through of TSS or nutrients needing from the production system to avoid the The Agency concluded that facilities regulation. Indirect discharging facilities buildup of dissolved solids in the below the threshold would likely are still subject to the General production system, and filter backwash experience significant adverse economic Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) is generated by cleaning the filter used impacts if required to comply with the and any applicable local limitations. to treat the water that is being proposed limitations. EPA concluded EPA has also determined that there are recirculated back to the production that these smaller CAAP facilities would few indirect dischargers in this system. Overtopping wastewater is have compliance costs in excess of 3 industry. usually small in volume (a fraction of percent of revenues. Further, smaller the total system volume on a daily basis) CAAP facilities account for a smaller B. What If a Facility Uses More Than and has higher TSS concentrations than relative percentage of total CAAP TSS One Production System? a full flow discharge. Filter backwash discharges and only limited removals EPA has found that several detailed wastewater is typically low in volume would be obtained from the proposed survey respondents are operating more and is as concentrated as wastewater BPT/BCT/BAT control. 67 FR 57872, than one type of production system. A from similar devices at flow-through 57884. Other types of facilities also not facility is subject to the rule if the total systems. covered by today’s action include closed production from any of the regulated Net pen systems are located in open pond systems (most of which do not production systems meets the waters and thus are characterized by the meet the regulatory definition of a production threshold. The facility flow and characteristics of the CAAP facility), molluscan shellfish would need to demonstrate compliance surrounding water body and by the operations, including nurseries, with the management practices required addition of raw materials to the pens crawfish production, alligator for each of the regulated production including feed, drugs and the excretions production, and aquaria and net pens systems it is operating. from the confined aquatic animals. rearing native species released after a growing period of no longer than 4 C. What Wastewater Discharges Are VIII. What Are the Requirements of the months to supplement commercial and Covered? Final Regulation and the Basis for sport fisheries. This last exclusion This rule covers wastewaters These Requirements? applies primarily to Alaskan non-profit generated by the following operations/ This section describes, by facilities which raise native salmon for processes: Effluent from flow-through, subcategory, the options EPA release into the wild in flow-through recirculating and net pen facilities. The considered and selected as a basis for systems and then hold them for a short flow-through and recirculating today’s rule. For each subcategory, EPA time in net pens preceding their release. subcategory (Subpart A) applies to provides a discussion, as applicable, for The flow-through portions of these wastewaters discharged from these the options considered for each of the facilities are within the scope of the systems. regulatory levels identified in the CWA rule, if they produce 100,000 pounds or The type of production system (i.e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS). For a more per year, but the net pen portions determines the nature, quantity, and detailed discussion of all technology would be excluded from regulation. quality of effluents from CAAP options considered in the development EPA determined for the types of facilities. Flow-through systems of today’s final rule, see the proposal excluded systems or production commonly use raceways or tanks and (see 67 FR 57872), the NODA (see 68 FR operations listed above either that they are characterized by continual flows of 75068) or Chapter 9 of the Technical

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51907

Development (TDD) for today’s final subcategories constitute the best Based on its review of the data and rule. available demonstrated control information it obtained during this Based on the information in the technology. For a discussion on the rulemaking, EPA has concluded that the record for the final CAAP rule, EPA has compliance date for new sources, see key element in achieving effective determined that the selected technology section I.E. of today’s final rule. pollution control at CAAP facilities is a for the flow-through and recirculating well-operated program to manage A. What Technology Options Did EPA systems subcategory and the net pens feeding, in addition to good solids Consider for the Final Rule? subcategory are technically available. management. Feed is the primary source EPA has also determined that the Among the options EPA considered of TSS (and associated pollutants) in technology it selected as the basis for for the final rule for flow-through and CAAP systems, and feed management the final limitations or standards has recirculating systems in addition to the plans are the principal tool for effluent reductions commensurate with options presented in the proposed rule minimizing accumulation of uneaten compliance costs and is economically were (i) establishing no national effluent feed in CAAP wastewater. Excess feed achievable for the applicable limitations (ii) establishing limitations in the production system increases the subcategory. EPA also considered the and BMPs based on technology options oxygen demand of the culture water and age, size, processes, and other A and B, and (iii) establishing narrative increases solids loadings. In addition, engineering factors pertinent to facilities limitations based on BMPs only. Based solids from the excess feed usually in the scope of the final regulation for on analysis presented in the NODA, settle and are naturally processed with the purpose of evaluating the EPA focused it analysis on these latter the feces from the fish. Excess feed and technology options. None of these three options. For net pens, EPA feces accumulate in the bottom of flow- factors provides a basis for selecting considered three options: no national through and recirculating systems or different technologies from those EPA requirements, requirements equivalent below net pens. Ensuring that the has selected as its technology options to those proposed but for new sources aquatic animal species being raised for today’s rule (see Chapter 5 of the only, and essentially the same receive the quantity of feed necessary TDD for the final rule for further requirements for existing and new for proper growth without overfeeding, discussion of EPA’s analyses of these sources as those in the proposed rule. and the resulting accumulation of factors). B. What Are the Requirements for the uneaten feed, is a challenging task. As previously explained, EPA Achieving the optimal feed input adopted a production threshold cutoff Flow-Through and Recirculating Systems Subcategory? requires properly designing a site- as the principal means of reducing specific feeding regimen that considers economic impacts on small businesses The following discussion explains the production goals, species, rearing unit and administrative burden for control BPT/BCT/BAT limitations and NSPS water quality and other relevant factors. authorities associated with the EPA is promulgating for flow-through It also requires careful observation of treatment technologies it considered. and recirculating system facilities. actual feeding behavior, good record EPA notes that certain direct dischargers 1. BPT keeping, and on-going reassessment. that are not subject to today’s effluent After full examination of the data limitations or standards will still require After considering the technology supporting EPA’s model technology, a NPDES discharge permit developed on options described in the previous EPA has decided not to establish a case-by-case basis if they are CAAPs section and the factors specified in numerical TSS limitations. While the as defined in 40 CFR 122.24. section 304(b)(1)(B) of the CWA, EPA is model technology will effectively The new source performance establishing nationally applicable remove solids to a very low level, EPA’s standards (NSPS) EPA is today effluent limitations guidelines for flow- data show wide variability, both establishing represent the greatest through and recirculating system CAAP temporally and across facilities, in the degree of effluent reduction achievable facilities producing 100,000 pounds or actual TSS levels achieved. EPA thus through the best available demonstrated more of aquatic animals per year for the does not have a record basis for control technology. In selecting its reasons noted above at VIII.A. establishing numeric TSS limitations technology basis for today’s new source EPA based the final requirements on derived from its data set that are performance standards (NSPS), EPA production and operational controls that appropriate for all sites under all considered all of the factors specified in include a rigorously implemented feed conditions. EPA believes that CWA section 306, including the cost of management program. Programs of establishing a uniform numeric TSS achieving effluent reductions. EPA used production and operational controls that limitation would result in requirements the appropriate technology option for include feed management systems, that are too stringent at some sites and developing today’s standards for new proper storage of material and adequate not stringent enough at others. This is direct dischargers. The new source solids controls, and proper operation because feed management, while an technology basis for both subcategories and maintenance are in wide use at effective pollution reduction technology is equivalent to the technology bases existing flow-through and recirculating for this industry, is not amenable to the upon which EPA is setting BPT/BCT/ system facilities. Based on the detailed same level of engineering process BAT (see Chapter 9 of the EEBA). EPA survey results, EPA estimates that such control as traditional treatment has thoroughly reviewed the costs of programs are currently used at 61 flow- technologies used in other effluent such technologies and has concluded through and recirculating facilities out guidelines. The basis for this conclusion that such costs do not present a barrier of 242 total facilities. The costs of is further explained below. to entry. The Agency also considered effluent removals associated with the Clean Water Act sections 301(b)(1)(A) energy requirements and other non- evaluated practices are reasonable. The and 301(b)(2) require point sources to water quality environmental impacts for cost per pound of pollutant removed is achieve effluent limitations that require the new source technology basis and $2.77 as measured using the higher of the application of the BPT/BCT/BAT found no basis for any different the removals for either BOD or TSS at selected by the Administrator under standards from those selected for NSPS. each facility. (The removals for these section 304(b). Customarily, EPA Therefore, EPA concluded that the parameters are not summed because of implements this requirement through NSPS technology basis chosen for both possible overlap and double counting.) the establishment of numeric effluent

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51908 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

limitations calculated to reflect the EPA’s decision not to set uniform could provide an incentive for facilities levels of pollutant removals that numeric TSS limitations based on to achieve the limit through dilution facilities employing those technologies rigorous feed management and good and would not reduce the pollutant can consistently achieve. EPA solids management is further supported loads discharged to receiving streams. traditionally uses a combination of by its analysis of measured or predicted While dilution is generally prohibited as sampling data and data reported in TSS concentrations at facilities a means of achieving effluent discharge monitoring reports from well- employing this technology. EPA’s limitations, this prohibition is harder to operated systems employing the model effluent monitoring data show enforce at CAAP facilities than in most technology to calculate numeric effluent differences in the measured TSS other systems because the flow of limitations. concentration in discharges at facilities culture water is dependent on a wide In the proposed rule and the NODA, employing feed management programs range of factors and is highly variable EPA used a similar approach to from the predicted TSS concentration from one facility to another. Thus it calculate numeric effluent limitations levels derived using EPA’s calculation would be impossible for regulatory for TSS from a partial data set composed from the data on feed used at BPT/BAT authorities to determine if water use of well operated CAAP facilities facilities. For this comparison, EPA was being manipulated to dilute TSS employing a combination of wastewater calculated a TSS concentration that concentration. Due to variations in treatment and management practices to could be achieved through feed water use from facility to facility, EPA reduce TSS concentrations in the management plans using the data on also decided not to establish mass-based discharged effluent. To reduce TSS feed and fish production at surveyed numeric TSS limitations on a national discharge levels, the facilities examined facilities. EPA then compared these basis. Solids control operational by EPA used settling ponds and a concentrations, where available, with measures such as feed management and number of different techniques, the actual TSS levels reported by those the requirement to focus on the proper including feed management programs facilities in their discharge monitoring operation of existing solids control and periodic solids removal from both reports. The differences between the structures are expected to achieve the culture water and settling ponds. calculated TSS levels and reported reductions in the TSS concentrations EPA’s examination of well-operated levels may result from differences in and at the same time reduce the TSS facilities also identified several facilities application of feed management loadings being discharged. This using feed management and other practices, variation in the flows or approach is supported by DMR data operational and management controls dilution of the effluent. from facilities in Idaho which have had alone that were achieving the same low EPA recognizes that it would be to comply with feed management BMP levels of TSS discharge as facilities feasible to calculate numeric effluent requirements in their general permit. using settling ponds in combination limitations for TSS based on treatment This data demonstrates that improved with good feed management. technologies alone, i.e., eliminating best performance can be achieved through Based on EPA’s examination of the management practices from the BMPs (DCN 63012). A comparison of data in its record, the Agency has technology basis for today’s rule. EPA DMR data from Idaho prior to the concluded that a combination of settling did not employ this approach for three technology and feed management issuance of a general permit in calendar reasons. First, EPA has determined that year 1999 with data following control practices or rigorous feed primary treatment in the form of management control and proper solids compliance with the general permit quiescent zones in the culture water indicates that 64 percent of the facilities handling practices alone will achieve tanks and settling ponds by themselves have reduced the TSS loads discharged low levels of TSS. Operational measures are not the best technology available for from the facility with an average TSS like a feed management system, treating TSS. Instead, rigorous feed reduction of 75 percent. however, are not technologies that management in conjunction with good reflect the same degree of predictability solids handling practices constitutes a For these reasons, EPA has expressed as can be expected from wastewater better technology for controlling this effluent limitations in this rule in the treatment technology based on chemical pollutant. Second, EPA is concerned form of narrative standards, rather than or other physical treatment. While EPA that establishing numeric limitations for as numeric values. EPA has a legal is confident that its chosen technology TSS based on primary and secondary authority to do so. The CWA defines can consistently achieve BPT treatment settling may not be a practicable ‘‘effluent limitation’’ broadly, and EPA’s levels of solids removal, the Agency technology. Commenters pointed out regulations reflect this as well. Each recognizes that feed management that site and land availability provides that an effluent limitation is systems may not have the precision or constraints might limit their ability to ‘‘any restriction’’ imposed by the consistently predictable performance install the additional treatment needed permitting authority on quantities, from site to site that come with the to achieve TSS limitations. Third, EPA discharge rates and concentrations of a traditional wastewater treatment believes based on its analysis of the pollutant discharged into a water of the technologies. The record confirms that data, that comparable discharge levels United States. CWA section 502(11) there is variability in results associated can be achieved using feed management (emphasis supplied); 40 CFR 122.2 with the use of feed management and other management practices alone (emphasis supplied). Neither definition systems and other operational measures as can be achieved using these practices requires an effluent limitation to be to control solids. Thus, EPA determined in combination with settling expressed as a numeric limit. The DC that it should not establish specific technologies. Thus, while settling Circuit observed, ‘‘Section 502(11) numeric TSS limitations based on the technology may be amenable to more defines ‘effluent limitation’ as ‘any model technology. This conclusion is precise control, EPA believes that the restriction’ on the amounts of supported by a number of commenters overall environmental benefits of this pollutants, not just a numerical who maintained that consistently technology relative to rigorous feed and restriction.’’ NRDC v. EPA, 673 F.2d achieving the proposed TSS levels solids handling management alone are 400, 403 (DC Cir.) (emphasis in would require installation of additional negligible. original), cert. denied sub nom. settling treatment structures, with little EPA is further concerned that Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 459 U.S. additional environmental benefit. establishing a numeric limit for TSS 879 (1982). In short, the definition of

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51909

‘‘effluent limitation’’ is not limited to a discharge of solids from the facility and that facilities repair this damage single type of restriction, but rather during these activities. promptly. EPA has not specified any contemplates a range of restrictions that The final rule also provides that design requirement for structural may be used as appropriate. EPA has facilities must remove dead fish and fish components of the CAAP facility. concluded that it is appropriate to carcasses from the production system on Rather, it has adopted the requirement express today’s BPT/BCT/BAT a regular basis and dispose of them to that facilities identify practices that will limitations in non-numeric form. These avoid the discharge to waters of the U.S. ensure existing structures are narrative limitations reflect a technology § 451.11(a)(3). EPA is establishing an maintained in good working order. demonstrated to achieve effective solids exception to this requirement when the Flow-through and recirculating facilities removals while still giving facilities permit writer authorizes a discharge to are also required to keep records as flexibility in determining how to meet benefit the aquatic environment. The described previously and to conduct them. following example explains one routine training for facility staff on spill Today’s BPT regulation requires circumstance in which a permit writer prevention and response. CAAP facilities to comply with could authorize such a discharge. There As discussed further below, in the specified operational and management are a number of federal, state, and tribal final rule, EPA is not establishing requirements—best management hatcheries that are raising fish for numeric limits for any drug or pesticide practices (BMPs)—that will minimize stocking or mitigation purposes. In some but is requiring CAAP facilities to the generation and discharge of solids cases, these facilities have been ensure proper storage of drugs, from the facility. These requirements are approved to discharge fish carcasses pesticides and feed to prevent spills and non-numeric effluent limitations based along with the live fish that are being any resulting discharge of spilled drugs on the technologies EPA has determined stocked. In these situations, the and pesticides. EPA is also establishing are BPT. carcasses are serving as a source of a requirement to implement procedures The final regulation requires adoption nutrients and food to the fish being for responding to spills of these of specified solids control practices. stocked in these waters. The exception materials to minimize their discharge would apply in these circumstances if from the facility. See§ 451.11(c)(2) of See, e.g., § 451.11(a) and § 451.21(a). the permitting authority determines that this rule. Facilities must also train their Thus, to control the discharge of solids the addition of fish carcasses to surface staff in spill prevention and proper from flow-through and recirculating water will improve water quality. operation and cleaning of production system facilities, the final rule requires Facilities must also implement systems and equipment. See § 451.11(e) minimizing the discharge of uneaten measures that address material storage of this rule. The detailed survey did not feed through a feed management and structural maintenance. In the case provide information about spill program. See § 451.11(a) of this rule. of material storage, EPA is requiring prevention, but during site visits and Complying with this limitation will facilities to identify and develop sampling visits EPA identified require a CAAP facility to identify practices to prevent inadvertent spillage containment systems and practices. feeding practices which optimize the of drugs, pesticides, and feed from the EPA’s site visit information indicated addition of feed to achieve production facility. § 451.11 (b). This would include that CAAP facilities currently employ a goals while minimizing the amount of proper storage of these materials. EPA is number of different measures to prevent uneaten feed leaving the rearing unit. also requiring facilities to identify spills and some have established in- Such a program should include proper procedures for cleaning, place systems to address spills in the practices such as periodic calibration of containing and disposing of any spilled event they occur. The effect of this automatic feeders, visual observation of material. EPA’s assessment, based on narrative limitation will be to promote feeding activity and discontinuation of site visits and sampling visits, indicates increased care in the handling of these feeding when the animals stop eating. that facilities may have varying degrees materials. Its adoption as a regulatory The rule also requires that CAAPs of spill prevention procedures and requirement provides an additional maintain records of feed inputs and containment and structural maintenance incentive for facility operators currently estimates of the numbers and weight of practices to address these requirements. employing effective spill control aquatic animals in order to calculate The final rule also includes a measures to continue such practices representative feed conversion ratios. requirement that facilities inspect and when handling drugs and pesticides. See § 451.11(a)(1) of this rule. provide regular maintenance of the Moreover, because EPA has adopted the Development of feed conversion ratios production system and the wastewater same requirements for existing and new is a key component in a properly treatment system to ensure that they are sources (see discussion below), this will functioning feed management system properly functioning. § 451.11(c). One ensure that new sources employ the because it allows the facility to calibrate area of concern addressed by this same highly protective measures as more accurately the feeding needs of the requirement is the potential existing sources have employed species being raised. This, in turn, will accumulation of solids (especially large successfully to protect against spills. result in further improvement in control solids such as carcasses and leaves) that Today’s regulation does not include of solids at the operation. could clog screens that separate the any requirements specifically In addition to feed management, EPA raceway from the quiescent zone. These addressing the release of non-native also requires flow-through and solids could prevent the flow of water species. The final regulation, however, recirculating system facilities to identify through the screen causing water to includes a narrative effluent limitation and implement procedures for routine instead flow over the screen and impair that requires facilities to implement cleaning. See § 451.11(a)(2). This will the passage of solids into the quiescent operational controls that will ensure the ensure that CAAP facilities develop zone. Proper maintenance should production facilities and wastewater practices to minimize the build-up and ensure that screens are regularly treatment structures are being properly subsequent discharge of solids from the inspected and cleaned. maintained. Facilities must conduct rearing units. The facility must also The final rule also requires that routine inspections and promptly repair identify procedures with respect to facilities conduct routine inspections to damage to the production systems or harvesting, inventorying and grading of identify any damage to the production wastewater treatment units. This fish so as to minimize disturbance and system or wastewater treatment system requirement, described in more detail in

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Section VI.D., will aid in preventing the those faced by existing sources. It is of water. Development of a system to release of various materials, including generally less expensive to incorporate capture the water and treat the water live fish. pollution control equipment into the within the pen would be prohibitively design at a new facility than it would be expensive. EPA, therefore, rejected 2. BAT to retrofit the same pollution control physical treatment systems as the basis EPA is establishing BAT at a level equipment in an existing plant. At a for BPT limitations. Instead, EPA is equal to BPT for the flow-through and new facility, no demolition is required promulgating narrative effluent recirculating system discharge and space constraints (which can add to limitations. subcategory. For this subcategory, EPA retrofitting costs if specifically designed As was the case with flow-through did not identify any available equipment must be ordered) may be less and recirculating systems, feed technologies that are economically of an issue. management programs are a key element achievable for the subcategory that of the promulgated requirements for the would achieve more stringent effluent C. What Are the Requirement for the Net reasons explained above and in the limitations than those considered for Pen Subcategory? proposal at 67 FR 57872, 57887. BPT. Because of the nature of the wastes The following discussion explains the Consequently, for the control of solids, generated from CAAP facilities, BPT/BAT/BCT limitations and NSPS the final regulation requires that net pen advanced treatment technologies or EPA is promulgating for Net Pen CAAP facilities minimize the practices to remove additional toxic or Systems. accumulation of uneaten feed beneath nonconventional pollutants that would 1. BPT the pen through the use of active feed be economically achievable on a monitoring and management practices. national basis do not exist beyond those After considering the technology § 451.21(a). These strategies may already considered. options described in the proposal and include either real-time monitoring (e.g., the factors specified in Section the use of video monitoring, digital 3. BCT 304(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act, EPA scanning sonar, or upweller systems); EPA evaluated conventional pollutant is establishing nationally applicable monitoring of sediment quality beneath control technologies and did not effluent limitations for net pen facilities the pens; monitoring of the benthic identify a more stringent technology for producing 100,000 pounds or more of community beneath the pens; capture of the control of conventional pollutants aquatic animals per year. Today’s BPT waste feed and feces; or the adoption of for BCT limitations that would be regulations requires CAAP net pen other good husbandry practices, subject affordable than the final requirements systems, like CAAP flow-through and to the permitting authority’s approval. considered. Other technologies for the recirculating systems, to comply with As noted, feed management systems control of conventional pollutants specified operational practices and are effective in reducing the quantity of include biological treatment, but this management requirements. These uneaten feed. Facilities should limit the technology is not affordable for the requirements are non-numeric effluent feed added to the pens to the amount subcategory as a whole. Consequently, limitations based on technologies EPA reasonably necessary to sustain an EPA has not promulgated BCT has evaluated and determined are cost- optimal rate of fish growth. In limitations or standards based on a reasonable, available technologies. determining what quantity of feed will different technology from that used as Based on the detailed survey results, result in minimizing the discharge of the basis for BPT limitations and EPA estimates that such programs are uneaten feed while at the same time standards. currently in use at most or all the net sustaining optimal growth, a facility pen systems. As a result, the cost to should consider, among others, the 4. NSPS facilities of meeting the BPT following factors: The types of aquatic After considering the technology requirements is very low. To EPA’s animals raised, the method used to feed options described in the proposal and knowledge, all existing net pen facilities the aquatic animals, the facility’s NODA and evaluating the factors that are currently covered by NPDES production and aquatic animal size specified in section 306 of the CWA, permits are subject to permit goals, the species, tides and currents, EPA is promulgating standards of requirements comparable to today’s the sensitivity of the benthic community performance for new sources equal to limitations. Therefore, EPA concludes in the vicinity of the pens, and other BPT, BAT, and BCT. There are no more that the BPT limits are both technically relevant factors. In some areas, deep stringent technologies available for available and cost reasonable for the net water and/or strong tides or currents NSPS that would not represent a barrier pen subcategory. may prevent significant accumulation of to entry for new facilities, see Section IX EPA rejected the establishment of uneaten feed such that active feed for more discussion of the barrier to numeric effluent limitations for net pens monitoring is not needed. Several states entry analysis. Because of the nature of for obvious reasons. Because of the with significant numbers of net pens the wastes generated in CAAP facilities, nature of the facilities, net pens cannot (e.g., Washington, Maine) already EPA has not identified advanced use physical wastewater control systems require feed management practices, treatment technologies or practices to except at great cost. Located in open which may include active feed remove additional solids (e.g., smaller waters, nets are suspended from a monitoring, to minimize accumulation particle sizes) in TSS or other pollutants floating structure to contain the crop of of feed beneath the pens. Facilities will that would be generally affordable aquatic animals. Nets are periodically need to ensure that whatever practices beyond those already considered. changed to increase the mesh size as the they adopt are consistent with the EPA determined that NSPS equal to fish grow in order to provide more water requirements of their state NPDES BAT will not present a barrier to entry. circulating inside the pen. The pens are program. The overall impacts from the effluent anchored to the water body floor and In order to implement a feed limitations guidelines on new sources sited to benefit from tidal and current management system, the facility must would not be any more severe than action to move wastes away from, and also track feed inputs by maintaining those on existing sources. This is bring oxygenated water to, the pen. As records documenting feed and estimates because the costs faced by new sources a result, these CAAP facilities of the numbers and weight of aquatic are generally the same as, or lower than, experience a constant in- and out-flow animals in order to calculate

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51911

representative feed conversion ratios. limitation, similar to that for CAAP pollutants that would be economically § 451.21(g). As previously explained, flow-through and recirculating systems, achievable on a national basis beyond development of feed conversion ratios requiring that net pen facilities those already considered. are a necessary element in any effective adequately train facility personnel in 3. BCT feed management system. how to respond to spills and proper Real-time monitoring represents a clean-up and disposal of spilled EPA evaluated conventional pollutant widely-used business practice that is material. See § 451.21(h) of this rule. control technologies and did not employed by many salmonid net pen Next, the final regulation requires identify a more stringent technology for facilities to reduce feed costs. Net pen regular inspection and maintenance of the control of conventional pollutants systems do not present the same the net pen § 451.21(f). This would for BCT limitations than the final opportunities for solids control as do include any system to prevent predators requirements considered. Consequently, flow-through or recirculating systems from entering the pen. Net pens are EPA has not promulgated BCT for the obvious reason that ocean water vulnerable to damage from predator limitations or standards based on a is continuously flowing in and out of attack or accidents that result in the different technology from that used as the net pens. Therefore, in EPA’s view, release of the contents of the nets, the basis for BPT limitations and feed monitoring, including real time including fish and fish carcasses. Given standards. monitoring and other practices is an the economic incentive to prevent the important and cost reasonable practice loss of production, EPA assumes 4. NSPS to control solids discharges. facilities will conduct routine After considering the technology The final rule includes a narrative inspections of the nets to ensure they requirements described previously limitation requiring CAAP net pen are not damaged and make repairs as under BPT, and the factors specified in facilities to collect, return to shore, and soon as any damage is identified. Most section 306 of the CWA, EPA is properly dispose of all feed bags, net pen facilities are already doing these promulgating standards of performance packaging materials, waste rope and inspections. However, in evaluating this for new sources equal to BPT, BAT, and netting. § 451.21(b). This will require technology option, EPA estimated costs BCT. There are no more stringent best that net pen facilities have the for increased inspections at every net demonstrated technologies available. equipment (e.g., trash receptacles) to pen facility in order to ensure that costs Because of the nature of the wastes store empty feed bags, packaging are not underestimated. generated and the production system materials, waste rope and netting until Like the final BPT limitations for used, EPA has not identified advanced they can be transported for disposal. flow-through and recirculating systems, treatment technologies or practices that EPA is also requiring that net pens the BPT limitations for net pens do not would be generally affordable beyond minimize any discharges associated include any requirements specifically those already considered. with the transporting or harvesting of addressing the release of non-native fish, including the discharge of blood, species. The final regulation, however, Although siting is not specifically viscera, fish carcasses or transport water includes a narrative effluent limitation addressed with today’s standards, containing blood. § 451.21(c). During that requires facilities to implement proper siting of new facilities is one stocking or harvesting of fish, some may operational controls that will ensure the component of feed management die. The final limitations require production facilities and wastewater strategies designed to minimize the facilities to remove and dispose of dead treatment structures are being properly accumulation of uneaten feed beneath fish properly on a regular basis to maintained. Facilities must conduct the pens and any associated adverse prevent discharge. Discharge of dead routine inspections and promptly repair environmental effects. When fish represents an environmental damage to the production systems or establishing new net pen CAAP concern because they may spread wastewater treatment units. EPA facilities, consideration of location is disease and attract predators, which included this requirement to ensure critical in predicting the potential could imperil the structural integrity of achievement of the other BPT impact the net pen will have on the the containment system. The wastes and limitations for net pens such as the environment. Net pens are usually wastewater associated with the prohibition on the discharge of feed situated in areas which have good water transport or harvest of fish have high bags, packaging materials, waste rope exchange through tidal fluctuations or BOD and nutrient concentrations and and netting at net pens, and the currents. Good water exchange ensures should be disposed of at a location requirement to minimize release of good water quality for the animals in the where they may be properly treated. solids, fish carcasses and viscera. This nets. It also minimizes the concentration The final regulations also require net requirement will also aid in preventing of pollutants below the nets. In pen facilities to ensure the proper the release of other materials including implementing today’s rule for new net storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to live fish. pen operations, facilities and permit avoid spilling these materials and authorities should give careful subsequent discharge. See § 451.21(e)(1) 2. BAT consideration to siting prior to of this rule. Facilities must also EPA is establishing BAT at a level establishing a new net pen facility. implement procedures for properly equal to BPT for the net pen EPA has concluded that NSPS equal containing, cleaning and disposing of subcategory. For this subcategory, EPA to BAT does not present a barrier to any spilled material. See § 451.21(e)(2) did not identify any available entry. The overall impacts from the of this rule. As previously discussed, technologies that are economically effluent limitations guidelines on new excess feed may present a number of achievable that would achieve more source net pens are no more severe than different environmental problems. stringent effluent limitations than those those on existing net pens. The costs Preventing spills of feed is consequently considered for BPT. Because of the faced by new sources generally should important. Additionally, net pens may nature of the wastes generated from be the same as, or lower than, those use different pesticides and drugs in CAAP net pen facilities, EPA did not faced by existing sources. It is generally fish production. Preventing their release identify any advanced treatment less expensive to incorporate pollution is similarly important. The final technologies or practices to remove control equipment into the design at a regulation also includes a narrative additional toxic and nonconventional new facility than it is to retrofit the

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51912 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

same pollution control equipment in an good husbandry practices that are prescribe extralabel drugs to treat existing facility. approved by the permitting authority. aquatic animals or other animals in accordance with FFCDA and 40 CFR Although EPA is not establishing E. What Are the Final Rule’s Part 530. This reporting requirement is standards of performance for new Notification, Recordkeeping, and promulgated to ensure that permitting sources for small cold water facilities Reporting Requirements? (i.e., those producing between 20,000 authorities are aware of the use at and 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals The final rule establishes CAAPs of extralabel drugs when such per year), such facilities would be requirements for reporting the use of use may result in the release of the drug subject to existing NPDES regulations spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that to waters of the U.S. Because the use is and BPT/BAT/BCT permit limits result in a discharge to waters of the likely to involve adding the drug developed using the permit writer’s U.S. by CAAP facilities. This provision directly to the rearing unit, EPA believes ‘‘best professional judgment’’ (BPJ). ensures that, any release of spilled there is a probability that these drugs EPA, based on its analysis of existing drugs, pesticides and feed to waters of may be released to waters of the U.S.. data, determined that new facilities the U.S. are reported to the permitting The regulation requires that a would most often produce 100,000 authorities to provide them with permittee must provide a written report pounds of aquatic animals or more per necessary information for any to the permitting authority within seven year because of the expense of responsive action that may be days of agreeing to participate in an producing the aquatic animals. warranted. This will allow regulatory INAD study and an oral report authorities to reduce or avoid adverse Generally, the species produced are preferably in advance of use, but in no impacts to receiving waters associated considered of high value and are event later than seven days after starting with these spills. EPA is requiring that produced in such quantities to to use the INAD. The first written report any spill of material that results in a economically justify the production. For must identify the drug, method of discharge to waters of the U.S. be example, one net pen typically holds application, the dosage and what it is reported orally to the permitting 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals or intended to treat. The oral report must authority within 24 hours of its more. In reviewing USDA’s Census of also identify the drug, method of occurrence. A written report shall be Aquaculture and EPA’s detailed application, and the reason for its use. submitted within 7 days. Facilities are surveys, EPA has not identified any Within 30 days after the use of the drug required to report the identity of the existing commercial net pen facilities at the facility, the permittee must material spilled and an estimated provide another written report to the producing fewer than 100,000 pounds of amount. permitting authority describing the aquatic animals per year. EPA is retaining for the final rule the drug, reason for treatment, date and Offshore aquatic animal production is proposed requirement that CAAP time of addition, method of addition an area of potential future growth. As facilities report to the Permitting and total amount added. these types of facilities start to produce Authority whenever they apply certain EPA has similar reporting aquatic animals, those with 100,000 types of drugs under the following requirements for extralabel drug use pounds or more per year will be subject conditions. First, the permittee must except that EPA is not requiring a to the new source requirements report drugs prescribed by a written report in advance of use. established for net pens as well as veterinarian to treat a species or a The reporting requirement applies NPDES permitting. disease when prescribed for a use which only to those drugs that have not been D. What Monitoring Does the Final Rule is not an FDA-approved use (referred to previously approved for their intended Require? as ‘‘extralabel drug use’’) as described use. Reporting would not be required for further below. Second, the permittee EPA registered pesticides and FDA The final rule does not require any must report drugs being used in an approved drugs for aquatic animal uses effluent monitoring. In the case of net experimental mode under controlled when used according to label pen facilities, however, it does require conditions, known as Investigative New instructions. Reporting would only be CAAPs to adopt active feed monitoring Animal Drugs (INADs). In EPA’s view, required for INAD drugs and drugs and management practices that will notifying the Permitting Authority is prescribed by a veterinarian for most often include measures to observe necessary to ensure that any potential extralabel uses. Because these classes of the addition of feed to the pen. Net pen risk to the environment resulting from drugs have not been fully evaluated by facilities subject to today’s rule must the use of these drugs can be addressed FDA for the potential environmental develop and implement active feed with site-specific remedies where consequences of the use being made of monitoring and management strategies appropriate. EPA strongly encourages them EPA considers reporting ensures to minimize the discharge of solids and reporting prior to use where feasible, as the permitting authority has enough the accumulation of uneaten feed this provides the Permitting Authority information to make an informed beneath the pen. Many existing net pen with the opportunity to monitor or response if environmental problems do facilities use a real-time monitoring control the discharge of the drugs while occur. EPA has included an exception to system such as video cameras, digital the drugs are being applied. EPA has not the reporting requirement for cases scanning sonar, or upweller systems to made this an absolute requirement, where the INAD or extralabel drug has accomplish this. With a real-time however, in recognition of the fact that already been approved under similar monitoring system, when uneaten feed swift action on the part of veterinarians conditions for use in another species or is observed falling beneath the pen and operators is sometimes necessary to to treat another disease and is applied feeding should stop. Depending on the respond to and contain disease at a dosage that does not exceed the location and other site-specific factors at outbreaks. approved dosage. The requirement that the facility, a facility may adopt other The reporting requirement applies to the use be under similar conditions is measures in lieu of real time the permittee and imposes no obligation intended to limit the exception to cases monitoring. These may include on the prescribing veterinarian. The where the INAD or extralabel drug use monitoring of sediment or the benthic reporting requirement for extralabel would be expected to produce community quality beneath the pens, drug use is not in any way intended to significantly different environmental capture of waste feed and feces or other interfere with veterinarians’ authority to impacts from the previously approved

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51913

use. For example, use of a drug that had Today’s regulation does not include the time elapsed until the failure was been previously approved for a any requirements specifically repaired, an estimate of the types and freshwater application, as an INAD in a addressing the release of non-native amounts of materials released and the marine setting would not be considered species. The regulation, however, steps that will be taken to prevent a a similar condition of use, since marine includes a requirement for facilities to recurrence. Because the determination ecosystems may have markedly different develop and implement BMPs to ensure of what constitutes damage resulting in vulnerabilities than freshwater the production and wastewater a ‘‘material’’ discharge varies from one ecosystems. Similarly, the use of a drug treatment systems are regularly facility to the next, EPA encourages approved to treat terrestrial animals inspected and maintained. Facilities are permitting authorities to include more used as an INAD or extralabel drug to required to conduct routine inspections specific reporting requirements defining treat aquatic animals would not be and perform repairs to ensure proper these terms in the permit. Such considered a similar condition of use. In functioning of the structures. EPA conditions might recognize variations in contrast, the use of a drug to treat fish included this requirement to promote production system type and in a freshwater system that was achievement of BPT/BAT limitations on environmental vulnerability of the previously approved for a different the discharge of feed bags, packaging receiving waters. freshwater species would be considered materials, waste rope and netting at net Today’s regulation requires record- use under similar conditions. EPA has pens, and on the discharge of solids, keeping in conjunction with concluded that when a drug is used including fish carcasses and viscera at implementation of a feed management under similar conditions it is unlikely all facilities. This requirement, system. As previously explained, EPA is that the environmental impacts would described in more detail in Section requiring flow-through, recirculating be different than those that were already VI.D, will also aid in preventing the and net pen CAAP facilities subject to considered in the prior approval of the release of other materials, including live today’s regulation to keep records on drug. fish. feed amounts and estimates of the The reporting requirements with The final regulation also includes a numbers and weight of aquatic animals respect to INADs are not burdensome. requirement for facilities to report in order to calculate representative feed FDA regulations require that the failures and damage to the structure of conversion ratios. The feed amounts sponsor of a clinical investigation of a the aquatic animal containment system should be measured at a frequency that new animal drug submit to the Food leading to a material discharge of enables the facility to estimate daily and Drug Administration certain pollutants. EPA realizes that most CAAP feed rates. The number and weight of information concerning the intended facilities take extensive measures to animals contained in the rearing unit use prior to its use. Therefore, this ensure structural integrity is may be recorded less frequently as information will be readily available to maintained. Nonetheless, failures do appropriate. any CAAP facility that participates in an occur with potentially serious Flow-through and recirculating INAD investigation. Having advance consequences to the environment. The facilities subject to today’s requirements information will enable the permitting failure of the containment system can must record the dates and brief authority to determine whether result in the release of sediment, fish descriptions of rearing unit cleaning, restrictions should be imposed on the and fish carcasses which, depending on inspections, maintenance and repair. release of such drugs. the magnitude of the release, can have Net pen facilities must keep the same EPA is also requiring all CAAP significant impacts on the environment. types of feeding records as described facilities subject to today’s regulation to For net pen systems, failures include above and record the dates and brief develop and maintain a Best physical damage to the predator control descriptions of net changes, inspections, Management Practices plan on site. This nets or the nets containing the aquatic maintenance and repairs to the net pens. plan must describe how the permittee animals, which result in a discharge of IX. What Are the Costs and Economic will achieve the required narrative the contents of the nets. Damage Impacts Associated With This Rule? limitations. The plan must be available includes abrasion, cutting or tearing of This section discusses the costs and to the permitting authority upon the nets and breakdown of the netting economic impact of the rule request. Upon completion of the plan, due to rot or ultra-violet exposure. For promulgated today. the permittee must certify to the flow-through and recirculating systems, permitting authority that a plan has a failure includes a collapse or damage A. Compliance Costs been developed. of a rearing unit or wastewater treatment The information below describes the The proposal included a requirement structure; damage to pipes, valves, and rule’s costs and how EPA determined to implement escape prevention other plumbing fixtures; and damage or these costs. A more detailed discussion practices at facilities where non-native malfunction to screens or physical of how EPA estimated compliance costs species are being produced. EPA barriers in the system, which would is included in the Technical received comments supporting such prevent the unit from containing water, Development Document (EPA–821–R– controls to prevent the release of non- sediment, and the aquatic animals. In 04–012) and the discussion of the native species. EPA also received the event of a reportable failure as economic impacts is included in the comments arguing against controls in defined in the NPDES permit, EPA is Economic and Environmental Benefits this regulation because other authorities requiring CAAP facilities to report to the Analysis report (EPA–821–R–04–013). are already dealing with non-native permit authority orally within 24 hours Both of these documents can be found species, and because of the complexities of discovering a failure and to follow the on EPA’s Web site, www.epa.gov/ost/ of determining what is a non-native oral report with a written report no later guide/aquaculture. species and when such species may than seven days after the discovery of become invasive. For example, species the failure. The oral report must include 1. How Did EPA Estimate the Costs of raised by Federal and State authorities the cause of the failure and the materials Compliance With the Final Rule? for stocking may not be ‘‘native,’’ but that have likely been released. The EPA estimated costs associated with would not generally impose a threat if written report must include a regulatory compliance for the options it escapes occurred. description of the cause of the failure, considered to determine the economic

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51914 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51915

training at the facility (8 hours/year for a failure includes a collapse or damage regulation. EPA estimates that a total of managers and 4 hours/year for each of a rearing unit or wastewater treatment 242 facilities will be affected by today’s employee). EPA assumed that reporting structure; damage to pipes, valves, and final regulation. These counts include to the appropriate regulatory authority other plumbing fixtures; and damage or two non-profit flow-through facilities in would occur 6 times per year for malfunction to screens or physical Alaska producing 100,000 lb/year or facilities reporting using INAD or barriers in the system, which would more that did not receive a detailed extralabel drug uses. The reporting for prevent the unit from containing water, questionnaire. More information is each occurrence includes 20 minutes for sediment, and the aquatic animals. The provided in the rulemaking record (DCN an oral report and 1 hour for a written rule provides the permitting authorities 63065). Table IX–1 summarizes the report. EPA considers these costing may specify what constitutes damage estimated number and type of facilities assumptions to be conservative and may and/or a material discharge on a site- affected by the rule, based on the overstate actual reporting frequency. specific basis for the purposes of production threshold of 100,000 lb/year. In addition, EPA estimated costs for triggering the reporting requirement. These 242 facilities consists of 101 inspections in order to maintain the Based on available information related commercial facilities and 141 structural integrity of the aquatic animal to containment system failures in the noncommercial facilities; containment system. The costs include past, flow-through and recirculating noncommercial facilities include regular inspections of rearing units, facilities have had less incidences of Federal, state, Alaskan non-profit, and solids storage units, and drug/pesticide failures than net pen facilities. Tribal hatcheries. Of the 101 storage units. EPA considers the aquatic Therefore, EPA estimated that 10 commercial facilities, 32 are projected to animal containment system to include percent of the flow-through and be unprofitable prior to the final rule any physical barriers and practices used recirculating facilities would incur a (i.e., baseline closures) under cash flow to prevent the release of materials from cost associated with the reporting of the analysis. EPA did not identify any the containment system. For flow- failure whereas, for costing purposes, all academic/research facilities in the through and recirculating facilities, the net pen facilities were assumed to detailed questionnaire that produced containment system includes experience a failure. Again, EPA 100,000 lbs/yr or more. wastewater treatment, for example, believes these assumptions are quiescent zones or settling basins, in conservative and may overestimate the The estimated cost for this rule is $1.4 addition to the rearing units and storage frequency of reportable failures. million per year (pre-tax, 2003 dollars). units. For net pens, the containment EPA revised estimates for all labor Noncommercial facilities account for system includes the use of double nets costs using the employee and wage about 81 percent of the total cost of the or other techniques that may be used to information supplied in the detailed rule. These estimated total costs reflect deter predators. EPA also included costs surveys. For those facilities indicating aggregate compliance costs incurred by for reporting of structural failure or they use unpaid labor for all or part of facilities that produce 100,000 lb/year or damage to the containment system that the facility operation, or that did not more and will be affected by today’s results in a material discharge of supply useable wage information, EPA final regulation. EPA’s total cost pollutants to waters of the U.S. used average State or regional wages for estimates do not include costs that are For net pen systems, failures include both staff and management labor. incurred by the 32 commercial facilities physical damage to the predator control Separate estimates were used for that are considered baseline closures. To nets or the nets containing the aquatic commercial and non-commercial the extent that some projected baseline animals, which result in a discharge of facilities. closures remain open and incur costs the contents of the nets. Damage under this rule, despite analysis includes abrasion, cutting or tearing of 2. What Are the Total National Costs? showing unprofitability in the baseline, the nets and breakdown of the netting Tables IX–1 and IX–2 summarize national compliance costs, pollutant due to rot or ultra violet exposure. For numbers of affected facilities and total load reductions and potential benefits flow-through and recirculating systems, annualized costs for today’s final would be higher than projected.

TABLE IX–1.—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES WITH PRODUCTION 100,000 LBS/YR OR MORE

Estimated number of facilities (see note) Organization Baseline clo- Not baseline Total sures 1 closures 2

Commercial ...... 32 (28) 69 4 (69) 101 (97) Noncommercial 3 ...... NA (NA) 141 (141) 141 (141)

Total ...... 32 (28) 210 (210) 242 (238) Note: Numbers in (parentheses) are facilities that are determined not to be in compliance with final rule requirements at the time this final rule is signed by the EPA Administrator. NA: EPA does not determine closures for noncommercial facilities. 1 Projected baseline closures are estimated using cash flow analysis. When net income analysis is assumed for earnings, the number of commercial baseline closures increases to 43. Baseline closures would not be projected to incur costs for a new rule in accordance with EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (USEPA, EPA 240–R–00–003). Baseline closures (based on cash flow) are therefore not included in estimates of costs for this rule. 2 Total costs and economic impacts for this rule are estimated using incremental compliance costs incurred by the facilities that are not baseline closures and not in compliance with the rule at time of final signature (i.e., 210 facilities are expected to incur costs under this rule: 69 commercial and 141 noncommercial facilities). 3 Noncommercial facilities include those operated by States, Tribes, the Federal Government, and Alaskan Non-Profits. 4 Includes two facilities that are projected to be baseline closures using discounted cash flow analysis but are characterized by EPA as ‘‘Not Baseline Closures’’ due to unique facility-specific evidence associated with production, fish type, scale, and financial data (as outlined in DCN 20500 in the confidential record for this rule).

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51916 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE IX–2.—NATIONAL COSTS: TOTAL BY SUBCATEGORY

Pre-tax annualized costs ($000, Production system Owner 2003 dollars) Final option

Flow-through and Recirculating Systems ...... Commercial ...... $256 Noncommercial 2 ...... $1,149 Net Pen ...... Commercial ...... $36 Noncommercial 2 ...... $0 Total pre-tax 1 ...... $1,442 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 1 Total annual post-tax cost for the final option is $1,362. 2 Noncommercial facilities include those operated by State, Federal, Alaska nonprofit, and Tribal facilities.

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

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51917

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

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51918 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

a result of the final regulation. These the final option. Under EPA’s assumed facility is projected to incur costs greater results are based on data from criteria for determining economic than 3 percent of revenues. companies represented in the Agency’s achievability, these operations may be Given that the results of EPA’s detailed questionnaire. These results vulnerable to closure. analysis project that a small share of further support EPA’s conclusion that Twelve facilities incur costs regulated noncommercial facilities may the final options are economically exceeding 5 percent of annual budgets incur costs exceeding 10 percent of achievable for commercial facilities (and under the final rule. These results budget, estimated at 3 percent of companies). More information is indicate that an additional 6 percent of facilities, the Agency has determined provided in the Economic and that these final technology options to be all non-commercial operations (not Environmental Benefit Analysis economically achievable for counting those adversely affected) available in the rulemaking record (DCN noncommercial facilities. For more would experience some moderate 63010) information, see the Economic and impact, short of closure, associated Noncommercial Facilities. Table IX–3 Environmental Benefit Analysis under this final rule. Some of these also shows the impacts on available in the rulemaking record. noncommercial operations from today’s facilities report the use of user fees New Commercial Facilities. EPA regulation. Four facilities incur costs revenues, implying potential flexibility estimated that about 4 percent of exceeding 10 percent of budget. EPA in meeting the incremental costs. regulated facilities do not incur any assumes that those facilities that face No in-scope Alaskan nonprofit costs under the final regulation, and costs exceeding 10 percent of their facilities responded to EPA’s detailed about 76 percent of facilities incur no budget would be adversely affected by questionnaire, but EPA did identify two land or capital costs. The incremental the final regulation. None of these in-scope facilities based on screener land and capital costs, where they were facilities report the use of user fee data. These facilities were costed using incurred, represented less than 0.2 funds. These results indicate that 3 screener data and economic impacts percent of total assets. This final percent of all non-commercial were projected based on publicly regulation should therefore not present operations may be adversely affected by available revenue data for 2001. Neither barriers to entry for new businesses.

TABLE IX–3.—ECONOMIC IMPACTS: EXISTING COMMERCIAL & NONCOMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

Number of in- Impacts pro- Threshold test scope facilities jected under in the final option Analysis 1

Commercial Operations

Closure Analysis (discounted cash flow) 2 ...... 69 0 Sales test >3% (facility level) ...... 69 4 Sales test >5% (facility level) ...... 69 4 Sales test >10% (facility level) ...... 69 0 Change in Financial Health (Company level) 3 ...... 34 0 Credit test >80% (Company level) 3 ...... 34 1

Noncommercial Facilities 6

Budget test >3% (all facilities) ...... 141 19 State owned only (# with user fees) 5 ...... 106 12 (8) Federal owned only ...... 33 7 Alaskan Non-Profit 4 ...... 2 0 Budget test >5% (all facilities) ...... 141 12 State owned only (# with user fees) 5 ...... 106 8 (8) Federal owned only ...... 33 4 Alaskan Non-Profit 4 ...... 2 0 Budget test >10% (all facilities) ...... 141 4 State owned only (# with user fees)5 ...... 106 0 (0) Federal owned only ...... 33 4 Alaskan Non-Profit 4 ...... 2 0 Source: Estimated by USEPA using results from facility-specific detailed questionnaire responses, see Chapter 3. 1 There are 101 in-scope commercial facilities, represented by 34 unweighted companies. Of the 101 facilities, 32 are baseline closures, assuming cash flow analysis, leaving 69 commercial facilities that can be analyzed. Closure analysis and sales test are performed at facility level; financial health and credit tests performed at company level; and all noncommercial tests performed at facility level. 2 Closure analysis results obtained using discounted cash flow and closure defined as negative earnings in two of three forecast scenarios. See Table IX–3.5 for results under different assumptions. 3 Analysis performed at the company level. The statistical weights, however, are developed on the basis of facility characteristics and therefore cannot be used for estimating the number of companies. 4 Two Alaska non-profit organizations are within the scope of this rule, but did not receive a detailed survey. They were costed using screener survey data. Economic impacts were calculated using publically available information. 5 Some State-owned facilities reported that they relied, in part, on funds from State user fee operations. These numbers are reported in paren- thesis and are included in the overall numbers as well. 6 There is a potential for a small number of Tribal facilities to be present within the population of non-commercial facilities, despite the absence of a line item for Tribal facilities above. In its screener survey which was a census of the industry, EPA identified a number of Tribal facilities that might be subject to the proposed rule for the CAAP category (DCN 51401). However, all of the tribal facilities represented by the detailed survey were determined to not be in scope.

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51919

Because the detailed survey is a that have not been analyzed. As part of costly than the final option). These sample, there is uncertainty associated the analyses conducted prior to the results are for facilities that are not with the conclusion that there are no NODA, based on the screener data, EPA within the scope of the final rule, but tribal facilities in scope for the final estimated impacts for tribal facilities they provide evidence that the final rule rule. For this reason, EPA believes there producing between 20,000 and 100,000 is expected to be economically may be a few in-scope tribal facilities pounds per year for Option B (more achievable for tribal facilities.

TABLE IX–3.5.—CLOSURE ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL FACILITIES UNDER DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS

Number of in- Closures pro- scope facilities jected under in the final option analysis 1

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

3. What Are the Projected Market Level 4. What Are the Potential Impacts on of this rule, assuming discounted cash Impacts? Foreign Trade? flow (two closures are projected using Foreign trade impacts are difficult to net income as shown in Table IX–3.5), EPA was not able to prepare a market indicating minimal likelihood of predict, since agricultural exports are model analysis for this rule because of measurable impacts on (1) direct losses determined by economic conditions in the complex interaction between in commercial production, revenue, or foreign markets and changes in the commercial and non-commercial employment; and (2) local economies international exchange rate for the U.S. operations (e.g., trout are raised and employment rates. Should some dollar. In addition, for today’s final rule, commercially, but also for restoration facilities cut back operations as a result EPA was not able to perform a market of this final regulation, EPA cannot and recreation), wild catch accounts for model analysis for this rule and did not project how great these impacts would a large share of the market for some obtain quantitative estimates of changes be as it cannot identify the communities species, and USDA Census data indicate in overall supply and demand for that there is a high degree of where impacts might occur. Under a aquaculture products and changes in scenario that assumes the total costs of concentration of specific species, such market prices, as well as changes in as trout and some other food fish. the rule are absorbed by the domestic traded volumes including imports and market, EPA estimates that U.S. Literature on estimated measures of exports. elasticity of supply and demand is aquaculture prices would rise by Nevertheless, EPA believes that the slightly more than 1 cent per pound. limited and exist for only a few species, impact of this final rule on U.S. (See EPA’s Economic and such as catfish which are not covered by aquaculture trade will not be significant. Environmental Benefit Analysis.) this regulation. The Agency does Because of the relatively small market Closures of non-commercial facilities therefore not report quantitative share of U.S. aquaculture producers in could also result in employment estimates of changes in overall supply world markets, EPA believes that long- impacts on communities. EPA projects and demand for aquaculture products term shifts in supply associated with four noncommercial facilities, with a and changes in market prices. For more this rule are unlikely given expected total employment of 16 employees information, see Chapter 3.6 of the continued competition from domestic could experience impacts such that they Economic and Environmental Benefit wild harvesters and already lower-cost would be vulnerable to closure (i.e., Analysis for the proposed rulemaking foreign suppliers in China and other costs exceed 10 percent of annual available in the docket (DCN 63010). Asian nations. Under a scenario that budget). The communities in which However, EPA does not expect assumes the total costs of the rule are these facilities are located could significant market impacts as a result of absorbed by the domestic market, EPA experience moderate impacts, but, as today’s final rule because economic estimates that U.S. aquaculture prices noted in Section IX.B.2, environmental impacts are expected to be low (see would rise by slightly more than 1 cent compliance costs are generally a per pound. Under the alternative discussion above) and the overall cost of contributing rather than the deciding assumption that all costs are born by the rule is low, as compared to the total factor in closure decisions. EPA facility operators, impacts are projected value of the U.S. aquaculture industry. therefore does not expect significant to be small and would not significantly impacts on communities as a result of Long-term shifts in supply associated affect production (see Section IX.B.2). today’s final rule. with this rule are unlikely given expected continued competition from 5. What Are the Potential Impacts on C. What Do the Cost-Reasonableness domestic wild harvesters and low-cost Communities? Analyses Show? foreign suppliers. For additional The communities where aquaculture EPA performed an assessment of the information, see the Economic and facilities are located may be affected by total cost of the final rule relative to the Environmental Impact Analysis the final regulation if facilities cut back expected effluent reductions. EPA based available in the rulemaking record. operations. However, EPA projects no its ‘‘cost reasonableness’’ (CR) analysis commercial facility closures as a result on estimated costs, loadings, and

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51920 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

removals. See EPA’s Development option. Because BOD can be correlated reasonableness is undefined for the Net Document in the rulemaking record for with TSS, EPA selected the higher of the Pen Subcategory systems because these additional details. two values (not the sum) to avoid facilities have adequate treatment to Table IX.4 shows the cost- possible double-counting of removals. achieve requirements for pollutants (i.e., reasonableness values for conventional For the Flow-through and Recirculating no incremental removals are estimated pollutants. EPA estimates BOD and TSS Systems Subcategory, cost- for these facilities). removals for each facility for each reasonableness is $2.77/lb. Cost-

TABLE IX–4.—COST-REASONABLENESS: BOD OR TSS

Pre-tax BOD or TSS Cost-reason- annualized ableness Subcategory costs removals 1 ($2003/pound) ($2003) (lb)

Flow-through and Recirculating Systems ...... $1,405,866 506,839 $2.77 Net pen ...... $35,640 0 Undefined 1 EPA determines the higher of BOD or TSS mass removal for each facility and then aggregates pounds across facilities. Undefined: Facilities in this group are not projected to achieve incremental removals of the pollutants in this table (i.e., no incremental removals are estimated).

X. What Are the Environmental metals and some feed contaminants as B. Non-Monetized Benefits Benefits for This Rule? a result of these final requirements. EPA 1. Metals and Other Additives and A. Summary of Environmental Benefits could not quantify baseline or regulated Contaminants loads for drugs and pesticides. Today’s final action does not establish CAAP facilities may release metals numeric limits for total suspended These requirements and loading and other feed additives and solids (TSS) or other pollutants from reductions (TSS, TN, TP, BOD, metals, contaminants to the environment in flow-through and recirculating systems. and feed contaminants) could affect limited quantities; proper management It establishes BMPs for solids control, water quality, the uses supported by of solids and other management materials storage, structural varying levels of water quality, and practices may reduce environmental maintenance, recordkeeping, and other aquatic environmental variables risk from these releases. Trace amounts training. The final rule also requires the (e.g., primary production and of metals are added to feed in the form permittee to develop a BMP plan on-site populations or assemblages of native of mineral packs to ensure that the describing how the permittee will organisms in the receiving waters of essential dietary nutrients are provided. achieve the BMP requirements and regulated facilities). These impacts may In general, FDA establishes safety limits make the plan available to the result in environmental benefits, some for feed additives and must address permitting authority upon request. The of which have quantifiable, monetizable environmental safety concerns facilities are also to maintain the value to society. For today’s final action, associated with such additives under structural integrity of the aquatic animal EPA has only monetized benefits from the requirements of the Federal Food, containment system. The final rule also water quality improvements resulting Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFD&CA) and establishes BMP requirements for net from reductions in TSS, TN, TP, and National Environmental Policy Act pen systems that address feed BOD. (NEPA). Trace amounts of metals may management, waste collection and also be present as feed contaminants. disposal, discharges associated with TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF ENVIRON- Metals may also be introduced into the transport and harvest, carcass removal, MENTAL BENEFITS OF FINAL RULE environment from CAAP machinery, materials storage, structural equipment, and structures (e.g., net pens maintenance, recordkeeping, and treated with antifouling copper Type of benefit Monetized value training. Net pen facilities are to ($2003) compounds). Other feed additives may develop and maintain a BMP plan on- include FDA-approved compounds used site describing how the permittee is to Improved water qual- $66,000–$99,000 to improve the coloring of fish flesh. achieve the BMP requirements. The ity from reduced Organochlorine contaminants such as permittee must make the plan available TSS, TN, TP, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) also to the permitting authority upon BOD loadings due may be present as trace residues request. Both the flow-through and to improved solids regulated by FDA in some fish feeds. recirculating and net pen subcategories control, including EPA estimates that today’s final rule feed management have reporting requirements for (1) the Reduced inputs to re- not monetized will reduce total suspended solids (TSS) use of INADs and extralabel drugs use, ceiving water of released by CAAP facilities by about (2) failure or damage to the structural metals and feed half a million pounds per year. Metals integrity of the aquatic animal contaminants and other feed contaminants that may containment system, and (3) spills of Reduced inputs of not monetized be released to the environment from drugs, pesticides and feed which result drugs and pes- CAAP facilities are in large part in discharge of pollutants to waters of ticides associated with waste solids. EPA the U.S. The requirements, according to Reduced inputs of not monetized estimates that reductions in TSS will be EPA loadings estimates, will reduce materials as a re- accompanied by incidental removals of facility discharges of TSS, total nitrogen sult of structural metals and PCBs. EPA estimated metal (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and maintenance and reductions of approximately 2,700 material storage re- biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). quirements pounds per year nationally and a EPA has also estimated reductions for maximum of PCB reductions of 0.04 lbs

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51921

per year. For further discussion of C. Monetized Benefits categories for which case studies were metals and other feed additives and not developed. Benefits for these 1. Case Study Framework contaminants, see the Economic and categories are expected to be small Environmental Impact Analysis and As was done for EPA’s proposed rule, relative to those included in the Technical Development Document for EPA estimated monetized benefits of the analysis. The total national benefit this final rule (DCNs 63010 and 63009). regulation based on predicted estimate was estimated as the sum of improvements in water quality in the benefits for all categories. 2. Drugs and Pesticides receiving waters of facilities that were CAAP facilities employ drugs and expected to have load reductions as a 2. Economic Valuation Method pesticides for a variety of therapeutic result of the rule. EPA’s water quality Economic research indicates that the and water treatment purposes. Facilities modeling for today’s final action differs public is willing to pay for release treated waters that may contain from the proposal modeling, however, improvements in water quality and residual amounts of drugs, pesticides, in that for the final rule, more detailed, several methods have been developed to and their byproducts directly to the facility-specific operational and translate changes in water quality to environment. Drugs used for therapeutic environmental data were obtained, both monetized values, as noted in EPA’s purposes are regulated by FDA. Prior to from information provided by facilities ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing Economic approving drugs for use, FDA must on the detailed surveys as well as other Analyses (EPA–240–R–00–003, 2003;). evaluate the environmental safety of sources. This more detailed data At proposal, EPA based the water animal drugs as required by FFDCA and provided EPA with a better basis for quality benefits monetization on results NEPA. While FDA is required to developing representative case studies from a stated-preference survey consider environmental impacts of on which to perform water quality conducted by Carson and Mitchell approved and investigational drugs modeling and valuation and for (1993) (DCN 20157). We divided under these authorities, the extrapolating from case studies to a household willingness-to-pay (WTP) environmental safety of drugs used national benefit estimate. values for changes in recreational water under FDA’s ‘‘investigational new To select a set of representative case ‘‘use classes’’ by the number of ‘‘water animal drug’’ (INAD) program may not studies from among the facilities for quality index’’ points (an index based be fully characterized. The INAD which EPA had detailed data, EPA on water quality variables; see below) in program is an important mechanism assumed that three factors primarily each use class. We assigned a portion of that enables the collection of data that drive water quality improvements at any the value for each unit change to can be used to characterize and given facility: (1) The magnitude of achieving the whole step. Recently, EPA establish the environmental safety of pollutant load reductions under the developed an alternative approach, also new drugs. For compilations of final rule, (2) effluent pollutant based on Mitchell and Carson’s work. technical literature supporting FDA’s concentrations at baseline (prior to Mitchell and Carson also expressed environmental assessments of regulatory reductions), and (3) the ratio their results as an equation relating a therapeutants used at CAAP facilities, of facility effluent flow to receiving household’s WTP for improved water see the FDA’s Center for Veterinary water streamflow (‘‘dilution ratio’’). EPA quality to the change in the water Medicine (CVM) Web site then created categories based on quality index and household income. (www.fda.gov/cvm). It should be noted combinations of values (low and high) An important feature of this approach is that FDA environmental assessments are for each of these factors. For example, that it is less sensitive to the baseline not site-specific and may not cover all the ‘‘LLL’’ category means facilities with use of the water body. This approach is discharge scenarios (e.g., multiple ‘‘low’’ pollutant reductions under the also consistent with economic theory in dischargers to a single receiving water) final rule, ‘‘low’’ baseline effluent that it exhibits a declining marginal or applications (e.g., extralabel concentrations, and ‘‘low’’ dilution WTP for water quality (see more applications of drugs). For additional ratios; this category is expected to information on this approach in DCNS discussion of this topic, see Chapter 7 experience the smallest benefits of the 40138 and 40595). While caution must of EPA’s Environmental Impact final regulation. In this manner, eight be used in manipulating valuations Analysis for this final rule. categories were created (LLL, LLH, LHL, derived from stated preference surveys, Today’s final rule requires the proper LHH, HLL, HLH, HHL, HHH; see Table this valuation function approach helps storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to 2). EPA then assigned all detailed address some concerns about earlier prevent spills that may result in a survey facilities with non-zero load applications of the water quality discharge from CAAP facilities. For reductions in the scope of the final rule benefits monetization method. (See DCN reasons explained in Section VI.G to an appropriate category based on the 40595 for a more detailed discussion). (Loadings) of this Preamble, EPA has three factors described above. For more not quantified expected reductions in details on the categorization procedure, 3. Water Quality Modeling the release of drugs and pesticides to the see Chapter 8 of the Economic and As was done for the proposed rule, environment nor environmental benefits Environmental Impact Analysis for EPA applied the Enhanced Stream that might result. Today’s final rule also today’s final action [DCN 63010]. Water Quality Model (QUAL2E, http:// requires CAAP facilities to report to EPA then developed a ‘‘case study’’ www.epa.gov/waterscience/wqm/) to permitting authorities whenever an for one facility in each of the five simulate changes in receiving water investigative drug or an extralabel drug categories expected to experience the quality resulting from reductions in is used in amounts exceeding a greatest water quality improvement TSS, BOD, total nitrogen, and total previously approved dosage, as (EPA did not develop case studies for all phosphorus estimated by EPA to result described above in Section VIII.E. This categories partly because of resource from the regulatory requirements of this requirement is expected to better enable constraints). EPA multiplied the final rule. QUAL2E is a one- permitting authorities to monitor the estimated benefits for each case study dimensional water quality model that potential for environmental risks that by the total number of facilities assigned assumes steady state flow but allows could result from such uses. EPA has to that category to estimate a total simulation of diurnal variations in not quantified benefits that might arise national benefit for that category. No temperature, algal photosynthesis, and as a result of this requirement. benefits were estimated for the three respiration. The model projects water

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51922 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

quality by solving an advective- dimensions of water quality. Analysis presently estimated for the industry. For dispersive mass transport equation. using monetization methods that fully additional details about air emissions Water quality constituents simulated captures non-use values could increase from CAAP facilities, see Chapter 11 of include conservative substances, the estimated benefits for this rule if it the TDD. temperature, bacteria, BOD , DO, significantly affects these dimensions. 5 B. Energy Consumption ammonia, nitrate and organic nitrogen, EPA does not have enough information phosphate and organic phosphorus, and to determine if this is the case. EPA estimates that implementation of algae. • Other receiving water impacts are today’s rule would result in a net Resource and data limitations not captured in the QUAL2E modeling, decrease in energy consumption for constrained the number of QUAL2E such as build-up of organic sediments in aquaculture facilities. The decrease applications that could be performed. stream channels. Research included in would be based on electricity used EPA developed a QUAL2E case study the administrative record for today’s today to pump solids from raceways to for the following categories: LHL, LHH, final action documents that such solids settling ponds, which will no HLH, HHL, and HHH. EPA did not accumulations can impair aquatic longer be generated, from wastewater prepare case studies for the LLL, LLH, ecosystems. Benefits from reducing treatment equipment. EPA determined and HLL categories because (a) no these effects are not captured in EPA’s that the decrease in energy consumption facilities were in the HLL category and analysis of water quality-based benefits for flow-through and recirculating (b) EPA focused modeling resources on of today’s final action. systems is estimated at 4,900 kilowatt- categories expected to represent a larger hour (kW-h). This represents about 1.3 proportion of benefits. Water quality TABLE 2.—EXTRAPOLATED TOTAL NA- × 10¥7 percent of the national generated improvements for facilities in the LLL TIONAL WATER QUALITY BENEFIT energy. and LLH categories were expected to be ESTIMATE, FINAL OPTION smaller than the improvements for the C. Solid Waste Generation facilities in the other categories. B EPA estimates that implementation of Total national today’s rule would result in an 4. Calculation of ‘‘Water Quality Index’’ A benefit for ex- estimated reduction of 2.3 million Extrapolation category trapolation cat- Simulated water quality changes for egory pounds of sludge, on a wet basis each case study must be translated into ($2003) (assuming 12 percent solids) for flow- a composite ‘‘index’’ value for the through and recirculating facilities. This monetization method described in LLL–LLH ...... not estimated reduction is due to feed management Section X.B.2 above. EPA more recently LHL–LHH ...... $2,126–$5,330 that results in less solid waste developed a six-parameter WQI (‘‘WQI– HLL–HLH ...... $6,591–$12,031 generated. 6’’) based on TSS, BOD, DO, FC, plus HHL–HHH ...... $57,497–$81,255 XII. How Will This Rule Be nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4). The Total ...... $66,214–$98,616 new index more completely reflects the Implemented? type of water quality changes that will In general, however, the relatively This section helps permit writers and result from loading reductions for TSS, small recreational benefits projected for CAAP facilities implement this total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus the rule suggest that non-monetized regulation. This section also discusses (TP), and BOD. Final rule benefits benefits categories are likely to be small the relationship of upset and bypass presented here were estimated on the as well. provisions, variances, and modifications basis of WQI–6. to the final limitations and standards. XI. What Are the Non-Water Quality For additional implementation 5. Estimated National Water Quality Environmental Impacts of This Rule? information, see Chapter 2 of the Benefits Under Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Technical Development Document for EPA monetized water quality benefits Clean Water Act, EPA may consider today’s rule. for each of the 5 QUAL2E case studies non-water quality environmental A. Implementation of Limitations and performed (Table 2). Using the methods impacts (including energy requirements) Standards for Direct Dischargers described above, the Agency estimates when developing effluent limitations that the total national benefit from water guidelines and standards. Accordingly, Effluent limitations guidelines and quality improvements arising from TSS, EPA has considered the potential new source performance standards act BOD, TN, and TP reductions from this impact of today’s final regulation on air as important mechanisms to control the rule are $66,000—$99,000. This range emissions, energy consumption, and discharges of pollutants to waters of the reflects varying assumptions that the solid waste generation. United States. These limitations and Agency implemented to reflect some standards are applied to individual A. Air Emissions sources of uncertainty. Furthermore, facilities through NPDES permits issued this range of water quality-based With the implementation of feed by the EPA or authorized States under benefits of this regulation may be management, the final rule decreases Section 402 of the Act. uncertain for several reasons including: the amount of solid waste generated and In specific cases, the NPDES • EPA did not estimate benefits for land applied from CAAP facilities. Land permitting authority may elect to the facilities in the LLL and LLH application is a common waste disposal establish technology-based permit limits extrapolation categories. However, it is method in the CAAP industry; therefore, for pollutants not covered by this not expected that inclusion of these the amount of ammonia released as air regulation. In addition, where State facilities would greatly increase emissions would be expected to water quality standards or other monetized water quality benefits. decrease as the quantity of waste provisions of State or Federal law • EPA’s monetization method mainly applied to cropland decreases. EPA require limits on pollutants not covered captures benefits for recreational uses of estimates the decrease in ammonia by this regulation (or require more the streams. Economic research emissions to be 8,182 pounds of stringent limits or standards on covered indicates that there are significant ‘‘non- ammonia per year. This is a decrease of pollutants in order to attain and use’’ values associated with some about 8 % over the ammonia emissions maintain water quality standards), the

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51923

permitting authority must apply those or more of aquatic animals per year in fundamentally different with respect to limitations or standards. See CWA flow-through, recirculating, and net pen the factors specified in Section 304 Section 301(b)(1)(C). systems. There is an exception for net (other than costs) from those considered The final regulation establishing pen systems rearing native species by EPA in establishing the effluent narrative limitations for the flow- released after a growing period of no limitations or pretreatment standard. through and recirculating system and longer than 4 months to supplement Section 301(n) also defined the net pen subcategories requires that a commercial and sport fisheries. conditions under which EPA may point source must meet the prescribed establish alternative requirements. B. Upset and Bypass Provisions limitations expressed as operational Under Section 301(n), an application for practices or ‘‘any modification to these A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion approval of a FDF variance must be requirements as determined by the of the streams from any portion of a based solely on (1) information permitting authority based on its treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an submitted during rulemaking raising the exercise of its best professional exceptional incident in which there is factors that are fundamentally different judgment.’’ Sections 451.11 and 451.21. unintentional and temporary or (2) information the applicant did not This provision authorizes the permitting noncompliance with technology-based have an opportunity to submit. The authority to tailor the specific NPDES permit effluent limitations because of alternate limitation or standard must be permit limits that implement the factors beyond the reasonable control of no less stringent than justified by the guideline limitations to individual sites. the permittee. EPA’s regulations difference and must not result in As previously explained, the final concerning bypasses and upsets for markedly more adverse non-water narrative requirements, in many cases, direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR quality environmental impacts than the require achievement of environmental 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect national limitation or standard. end points. There may be circumstances dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125, which require some modification to 403.17. Subpart D, authorizing the Regional these requirements to best accomplish Administrators to establish alternative C. Variances and Modifications these environmental end points, or to limitations and standards, further detail accommodate specific circumstances at While the CWA requires application the substantive criteria used to evaluate a particular site. The provision allows of effluent limitations established FDF variance requests for direct the permitting authority to address such pursuant to section 301 to all direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) situations by incorporating in the dischargers, the statute also provides for identifies six factors (e.g., volume of NPDES permit specific tailored the modification of these national process wastewater, age and size of a conditions that accomplish the intent of requirements in a limited number of discharger’s facility) that may be the narrative limitations. The CWA circumstances. Moreover, the Agency considered in determining if a facility is recognizes that it should provide established administrative mechanisms fundamentally different. The Agency mechanisms for addressing certain to provide an opportunity for relief from must determine whether, on the basis of unique, site-specific situations in the the application of the national effluent one or more of these factors, the facility guidelines regulation. Here, EPA has limitations guidelines for categories of in question is fundamentally different provided upfront in this rule such a existing sources for toxic, conventional, from the facilities and factors mechanism. and nonconventional pollutants. considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent 1. Fundamentally Different Factors 1. What Are the Compliance Dates for guidelines. The regulation also lists four Variances Existing and New Sources? other factors (e.g., infeasibility of New and reissued NPDES permits to EPA will develop effluent limitations installation within the time allowed or direct dischargers must include these or standards different from the a discharger’s ability to pay) that may effluent limitations unless water quality otherwise applicable requirements if an not provide a basis for an FDF variance. considerations require more stringent individual discharging facility is In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), limits, and the permits must require fundamentally different with respect to a request for limitations less stringent immediate compliance with such factors considered in establishing the than the national limitation may be limitations. If the permitting authority limitation of standards applicable to the approved only if compliance with the wishes to provide a compliance individual facility. Such a modification national limitations would result in schedule, it must do so through an is known as a ‘‘fundamentally different either (a) a removal cost wholly out of enforcement mechanism. factors’’ (FDF) variance. proportion to the removal cost New sources must comply with the Early on, EPA, by regulation provided considered during development of the new source standards (NSPS) of this for the FDF modifications from the BPT national limitations, or (b) a non-water rule when they commence discharging effluent limitations, BAT limitations for quality environmental impact CAAP wastewater. Because the final toxic and nonconventional pollutants (including energy requirements) rule was not promulgated within 120 and BCT limitations for conventional fundamentally more adverse than the days of the proposed rule, the Agency pollutants for direct dischargers. FDF impact considered during development considers a discharger to be a new variances for toxic pollutants were of the national limits. source if its construction commences challenged judicially and ultimately The legislative history of Section after September 22, 2004. sustained by the Supreme Court. 301(n) underscores the necessity for the (Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. FDF variance applicant to establish 2. Who Does Part 451 Apply To? NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)). eligibility for the variance. EPA’s In Section VI.A. of this preamble and Subsequently, in the Water Quality regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are Chapter 2 of the TDD, EPA provides Act of 1987, Congress added new explicit in imposing this burden upon detailed information on the Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to the applicant. The applicant must show applicability of this rule. 40 CFR part authorize modifications of the otherwise that the factors relating to the discharge 451 will apply to existing and new applicable BAT effluent limitations or controlled by the applicant’s permit concentrated aquatic animal production categorical pretreatment standards for which are claimed to be fundamentally facilities that produce 100,000 pounds existing sources if a facility is different are, in fact, fundamentally

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51924 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

different from those factors considered limitations and standards and such (2) Create a serious inconsistency or by EPA in establishing the applicable other requirements as the Administrator otherwise interfere with an action taken guidelines. In practice, very few FDF deems appropriate. or planned by another agency; variances have been granted for past (3) Materially alter the budgetary E. Potential Tools To Assist With the ELGs. An FDF variance is not available impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, Remediation of Aquaculture Effluents to a new source subject to NSPS or or loan programs or the rights and PSNS. A potential option to assist land obligations of recipients thereof; or Facilities must submit all FDF owners with aquaculture effluent (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues variance applications to the appropriate quality is the Environmental Quality arising out of legal mandates, the Director (defined at 40 CFR 122.2) no Incentives Program (EQIP). This is a President’s priorities, or the principles later than 180 days from the date the voluntary USDA conservation program. set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive limitations or standards are established EQIP was reauthorized in the Farm Order 12866, it has been determined or revised (see CWA section 301(n)(2) Security and Rural Investment Act of that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory and 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1)(i)(B)(2)). EPA 2002 (Farm Bill 2002). The Natural action.’’ As such, this action was regulations clarify that effluent Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) submitted to OMB for review. Changes limitations guidelines are ‘‘established’’ administers EQIP funds. or ‘‘revised’’ on the date those effluent made in response to OMB suggestions or limitations guidelines are published in EQIP applications are accepted recommendations will be documented the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 122.21 throughout the year. NRCS evaluates in the public record. each application using a state and (m)(1)(i)(B)(2)). Therefore, all facilities B. Paperwork Reduction Act requesting FDF variances from the locally developed evaluation process. effluent limitations guidelines in today’s Incentive payments may be made to The information collection final rule must submit FDF variance encourage a producer to adopt land requirements in this rule have been applications to their Director (as defined management, manure management, submitted for approval to the Office of at 40 CFR 122.2) no later than February integrated pest management, irrigation Management and Budget (OMB) under 21, 2005. water management and wildlife habitat the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. management practices or to develop a 3501 et seq. The information collection 2. Economic Variances Comprehensive Nutrient Management requirements are not enforceable until Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes Plan (CNMP). These practices would OMB approves them. a variance from the otherwise applicable provide beneficial effects on reducing EPA has several special reporting and BAT effluent guidelines for sediment and nutrient loads to those monitoring provisions in this regulation nonconventional pollutants due to aquaculture operations dependent on as previously explained. The provisions economic factors. The request for a surface water flows. In addition, include reporting requirements (1) for variance from effluent limitations opportunities exist to provide EQIP the use of INAD or extralabel drug uses; developed from BAT guidelines must funds to foster the adoption of (2) for failure or damage to the normally be filed by the discharger innovative cost effective approaches to containment system (including the during the public notice period for the address a broad base of conservation production system(s) and all the draft permit. Other filing time periods needs, including aquaculture effluent associated storage and water treatment may apply, as specified in 40 CFR remediation. NRCS does not at present systems) that results in a material 122.21(1)(2). Specific guidance for this have standards that apply specifically to discharge of pollutants to waters of the type of variance is available from EPA’s waste handling at aquaculture facilities, U.S; and (3) for spills of drugs, Office of Wastewater Management. thus EQIP funds for aquaculture projects pesticides or feed. Section 308(a) of the would only apply to practices related to CWA authorizes the Administrator to D. Best Management Practices other agricultural aspects of a facility require the owner or operator of any Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and such as CNMPs for the land application point source to file reports as required 501(a) of the CWA authorize the of solids. to carry out the objectives of the Act. Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part This ELG requires reporting in the event of effluent limitations guidelines and XIII. Statutory and Executive Order that drugs are used which are either standards or as part of a permit. EPA’s Reviews under a conditional approval as an BMP regulations are found at 40 CFR A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Investigative New Animal Drugs 122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA Planning and Review (INADs) or are prescribed by a licensed authorizes EPA to include BMPs in veterinarian for treatment of a disease or effluent limitations guidelines for Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR a species that is outside the approved certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for 51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency use of the specific drug, referred to as the purpose of controlling ‘‘plant site must determine whether the regulatory extralabel drug use, unless the INAD or runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore extralabel drug use is under similar disposal, and drainage from raw subject to OMB review and the conditions and dosages as a previously material storage.’’ Section 402(a)(1) and requirements of the Executive Order. approved use. EPA believes this NPDES regulations [40 CFR 122.44(k)] The Order defines ‘‘significant reporting requirement is appropriate for also provide for best management regulatory action’’ as one that is likely these classes of drugs, because they practices to control or abate the to result in a rule that may: have not undergone the same degree of discharge of pollutants when numeric (1) Have an annual effect on the review with respect to their limitations and standards are infeasible. economy of $100 million or more or environmental effects as approved In addition, Section 402(a)(2), read in adversely affect in a material way the drugs. The final regulation also requires concert with Section 501(a), authorizes economy, a sector of the economy, reporting when the facility has a failure EPA to prescribe as wide a range of productivity, competition, jobs, the in the structural integrity of the aquatic permit conditions as the Administrator environment, public health or safety, or animal containment systems that results deems appropriate in order to ensure State, local or tribal governments or in a material discharge of pollutants. compliance with applicable effluent communities; EPA believes this reporting is necessary

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51925

to alert the permitting authority to the population of less than 50,000; and (3) facilities, EPA identifies 38 facilities (37 release of large quantities of material a small organization that is any not-for- percent of in-scope facilities) as small from these facilities. The rule also profit enterprise which is independently businesses using SBA’s definition. allows the permitting authority to owned and operated and is not Finally, EPA based the final rule on a specify in the permit what constitutes dominant in its field. technology option that has lower costs damage and/or material discharge of After considering the economic and fewer impacts (including impacts pollutants for particular facilities based impacts of today’s final rule on small on small businesses) than several other on consideration of relevant site-specific entities, I certify that this action will not technology options that were considered factors. have a significant economic impact on as possible bases for the final rule. Burden means the total time, effort, or a substantial number of small entities. EPA conducted outreach to small financial resources expended by persons The small entities directly regulated by entities and convened a Small Business to generate, maintain retain, or disclose the final rule are primarily commercial Advocacy Review Panel prior to or provide information to or for a businesses that fall within the NAIC proposal to obtain the advice and Federal agency. This includes the time codes for finfish farming, fish recommendations of representatives of needed to review instructions; develop, hatcheries, and other aquaculture. The the small entities that potentially would acquire, install, and utilize technology Small Business Administration size be subject to the rule’s requirements. and systems for the purposes of standard for these codes is $0.75 million The Agency convened the Small collecting, validating, and verifying in annual revenues. Among the costed Business Advocacy Review Panel on information, processing and facilities, EPA identified 38 facilities January 22, 2002. Members of the Panel maintaining information, and disclosing belonging to small businesses or represented the Office of Management and providing information; search data organizations. Of the 38, 37 facilities are and Budget, the Small Business sources; complete and review the owned by small businesses and 1 is an Administration, and EPA. The Panel collection of information; and transmit Alaskan facility operated by a small met with small entity representatives or otherwise disclose the information. non-profit organization that is not (SERs) to discuss the potential effluent EPA estimates that the reporting and dominant in its field. For the purposes guidelines and, in addition to the oral recordkeeping requirements included in of the RFA, Federal, and State comments from SERs, the Panel today’s regulation will result in a total governments are not considered small solicited written input. In the months annual burden of 45,000 hours and cost governmental jurisdictions, as preceding the Panel, EPA conducted $808,000. documented in the rulemaking record outreach with small entities that would An agency may not conduct or (DCN 20121). Thus, facilities owned by potentially be affected by this sponsor, and a person is not required to these governments are not considered regulation. On January 25, 2002, the respond to a collection of information small entities, regardless of their SBAR Panel sent some initial unless it displays a currently valid OMB production levels. EPA identified no information for the SERs to review and control number. The OMB control public facilities owned by small local provide comment on. On February 6, numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 governments. No small organization is 2002, the Panel distributed additional CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When projected to incur impacts. Of the 101 information to the SERs for their review. this ICR is approved by OMB, the commercial facilities, 37 (37 percent) On February 12 and 13, the Panel met Agency will publish a technical are owned by small businesses. Under with SERs to hear their comments on amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the EPA’s closure analyses no small the information distributed in these Federal Register to display the OMB business is projected to close as a result mailings. The Panel also received control number for the approved of the final rule, assuming discounted written comments from the SERs in information collection requirements cash flow (two small business closures response to the discussions at this contained in this final rule. are projected using net income). In meeting and the outreach materials. The addition to considering the potential for Panel asked SERs to evaluate how they C. Regulatory Flexibility Act adverse economic impacts, EPA also would be affected and to provide advice The RFA generally requires an agency evaluated the possibility of other, more and recommendations regarding early to prepare a regulatory flexibility moderate financial impacts. Expressed ideas to provide flexibility. See Section analysis of any rule subject to notice as a comparison of compliance costs to 8 of the Panel’s Report (DCN 31019) for and comment rulemaking requirements sales, only 4 facilities belonging to small a complete discussion of SER under the Administrative Procedure Act businesses (11 percent of small comments. The Panel evaluated the or any other statute unless the agency businesses, and 4 percent of commercial assembled materials and small-entity certifies that the rule will not have a facilities) are likely to incur costs that comments on issues related to the significant economic impact on a exceed 3 percent of sales. One small elements of an Initial Regulatory substantial number of small entities. business fails the USDA credit test. Flexibility Analysis. A copy of the Small entities include small businesses, Although this final rule will not have Panel’s report is included in the small organizations, and small a significant economic impact on a rulemaking docket. EPA provided governmental jurisdictions. substantial number of small entities, responses to the Panel’s most significant For purposes of assessing the impacts EPA nonetheless designed the rule to findings in the Notice of Proposal of today’s rule on small entities, small reduce the impact on small entities. The Rulemaking (67 FR 57918–57920). In entity is defined as: (1) A small business scope of the final rule is restricted to general, the requirements of this final that is primarily engaged in CAAP facilities that produce 100,000 rule address the concerns raised by concentrated aquatic animal production, lbs/year or more. This means that of the SERs and are consistent with the Panel’s as defined by North American Industry approximately 4,000 aquaculture recommendations. Classification (NAIC) codes 112511 and facilities nationwide, as identified by 112519, with no more than $0.75 USDA’s Census of Aquaculture, EPA’s D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act million in annual revenues; (2) a small final regulation applies to an estimated Title II of the Unfunded Mandates governmental jurisdiction that is a 101 commercial facilities or Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public government of a city, county, town, approximately 2.6 percent of all Law 104–4, establishes requirements for school district or special district with a operations. Among commercial Federal agencies to assess the effects of

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51926 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

their regulatory actions on State, local, the States, or on the distribution of rulemaking for CAAPs in September and tribal governments and the private power and responsibilities among the 2002, requesting comment on the sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, various levels of government.’’ proposal. In December 2003, EPA issued EPA generally must prepare a written This rule does not have Federalism a Notice of Data Availability describing statement, including a cost-benefit implications. It will not have substantial options for changes to the proposed analysis, for proposed and final rules direct effects on the States, on the rule. As noted, EPA identified a number with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may relationship between the national of tribal facilities in its screener survey, result in expenditures to State, local, government and the States, or on the however further evaluation did not and tribal governments, in the aggregate, distribution of power and identify any in-scope tribal facilities or to the private sector, of $100 million responsibilities among the various based on subsequent evaluation of the or more in any one year. Before levels of government, as specified in detailed survey information from a promulgating an EPA rule for which a Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates sample of these facilities. Thus EPA has written statement is needed, section 205 that, when promulgated, these revised not had a basis to have any formal of the UMRA generally requires EPA to effluent guidelines and standards will consultation with Tribal officials. EPA identify and consider a reasonable be incorporated into NPDES permits has however concluded that the final number of regulatory alternatives and without significant additional costs to rule will not have a substantial direct adopt the least costly, most cost- authorized States. effect on one or more Indian Tribes, will effective or least burdensome alternative Further, the revised regulations would not impose substantial direct that achieves the objectives of the rule. not alter the basic State-Federal scheme compliance costs on Indian tribal The provisions of section 205 do not established in the Clean Water Act governments, nor pre-empt tribal law. apply when they are inconsistent with under which EPA authorizes States to G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of applicable law. Moreover, section 205 carry out the NPDES permitting Children From Environmental Health allows EPA to adopt an alternative other program. EPA expects the revised and Safety Risks than the least costly, most cost-effective regulations to have little effect, if any, or least burdensome alternative if the on the relationship between, or the Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Administrator publishes with the final distribution of power and April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: rule an explanation why that alternative responsibilities among, the Federal, (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically was not adopted. Before EPA establishes State and local governments. Thus, significant’’ as defined under Executive any regulatory requirements that may Executive Order 13132 does not apply Order 12866, and (2) concerns an significantly or uniquely affect small to this rule. environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a governments, including tribal F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation disproportionate effect on children. If governments, it must have developed and Coordination With Indian Tribal the regulatory action meets both criteria, under section 203 of the UMRA a small Governments government agency plan. The plan must the Agency must evaluate the provide for notifying potentially Executive Order 13175, entitled environmental health and safety effects affected small governments, enabling ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with of the planned rule on children, and officials of affected small governments Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR explain why the planned regulation is to have meaningful and timely input in 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA preferable to other potentially effective the development of EPA regulatory to develop an accountable process to and reasonably feasible alternatives proposals with significant Federal ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by considered by the Agency. intergovernmental mandates, and tribal officials in the development of This rule is not subject to Executive informing, educating, and advising regulatory policies that have tribal Order 13045 because it is not an small governments on compliance with implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal economically significant rule under E.O. the regulatory requirements. implications’’ is defined in the 12866. Executive Order to include regulations EPA has determined that this rule H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That does not contain a Federal mandate that that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, may result in expenditures of $100 Distribution, or Use million or more for State, local, and relationship between the Federal tribal governments, in the aggregate, or government and the Indian tribes, or on This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy the private sector in any one year. The this distribution of power and action’’ as defined in Executive Order total annual cost of this rule is estimated responsibilities between the Federal 13211, ‘‘actions concerning Regulations to be $1.4 million. Thus, today’s rule is government and Indian tribes.’’ that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, not subject to the requirements of The final rule does not have tribal Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. implications. It will not have substantial 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to direct effects on tribal governments, on have a significant adverse effect on the E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism the relationship between the Federal supply, distribution, or use of energy. Executive Order 13132, entitled government and Indian tribes, or on the As part of the Agency’s consideration of ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, distribution of power and non-water quality impacts, EPA has 1999), requires EPA to develop an responsibilities between the Federal estimated the energy consumption accountable process to ensure government and Indian tribes, as associated with today’s requirements. ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State specified in Executive Order 13175. The The rule will result in a net decrease in and local officials in the development of Executive Order provides that EPA must energy consumption for flow-through regulatory policies that have federalism ensure meaningful and timely input by and recirculating systems. The decrease implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal officials in the development of would be based on electricity used federalism implications’’ is defined in regulatory policies that have tribal today to pump solids from raceways to the Executive Order to include implications. EPA’s rulemaking process solids settling ponds, which will no regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct has provided that opportunity for longer be generated, from wastewater effects on the States, on the relationship meaningful and timely input. EPA first treatment equipment. EPA estimated the between the national government and published a notice of proposed decrease in energy consumption for

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51927

flow-through and recirculating systems communities given the relatively low 451.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the at 4,900 kilowatt-hour (kW-h). economic impacts of today’s final rule. application of the best available Comparing the annual decrease in technology economically achievable K. Congressional Review Act electric use resulting from the final (BAT). 451.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the requirements to national annual energy The Congressional Review Act, 5 application of the best conventional use, EPA estimates the decrease to be U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small ¥ technology (BCT). 1.3 × 10 7 percent of national energy Business Regulatory Enforcement 451.24 New source performance standards use. Therefore, we conclude that this Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides (NSPS). rule is not likely to have any adverse that before a rule may take effect, the Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; energy effects. agency promulgating the rule must 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671, submit a rule report, which includes a I. National Technology Transfer and 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 Advancement Act copy of the rule, to each House of the U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, Congress and to the Comptroller General 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and As noted in the proposed rule, of the United States. EPA will submit a (e), 1361; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, Section 12(d) of the National report containing this rule and other 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g– Technology Transfer and Advancement required information to the U.S. Senate, 5, 300g–6, 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law the U.S. House of Representatives, and 1857 et seq., 6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 9601–9657, 11023, 11048; E.O. 11735, 38 FR the Comptroller General of the United 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., 973. directs EPA to use voluntary consensus States prior to publication of the rule in standards in its regulatory activities the Federal Register. A major rule § 451.1 General applicability. unless to do so would be inconsistent cannot take effect until 60 days after it As defined more specifically in each with applicable law or otherwise is published in the Federal Register. subpart, this Part applies to discharges impractical. Voluntary consensus This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as from concentrated aquatic animal standards are technical standards (e.g., defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule production facilities as defined at 40 materials specifications, test methods, will be effective September 22, 2004. CFR 122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR sampling procedures, and business Part 122. This Part applies to the practices) that are developed or adopted List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 451 discharges of pollutants from facilities by voluntary consensus standards Environmental protection, that produce 100,000 pounds or more of bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to Concentrated aquatic animal aquatic animals per year in a flow- provide Congress, through OMB, production, Waste treatment and through, recirculating, net pen or explanations when the Agency decides disposal, Water pollution control. submerged cage system. not to use available and applicable Dated: June 30, 2004. voluntary consensus standards. § 451.2 General definitions. Stephen L. Johnson, Today’s rule does not establish any As used in this part: technical standards, thus NTTAA does Acting Deputy Administrator. (a) The general definitions and not apply to this rule. I For the reasons set forth in the abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 apply. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code (b) Approved dosage means the dose Actions To Address Environmental of Federal Regulations is amended by of a drug that has been found to be safe Justice in Minority Populations and adding part 451 to read as follows: and effective under the conditions of a Low-Income Populations new animal drug application. PART 451—CONCENTRATED (c) Aquatic animal containment The requirements of the AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION system means a culture or rearing unit Environmental Justice Executive Order POINT SOURCE CATEGORY such as a raceway, pond, tank, net or are that EPA will review the other structure used to contain, hold or environmental effects of major Federal Sec. produce aquatic animals. The 451.1 General applicability. actions significantly affecting the containment system includes structures quality of the human environment. For 451.2 General definitions. 451.3 General reporting requirements. designed to hold sediments and other such actions, EPA reviewers will focus materials that are part of a wastewater on the spatial distribution of human Subpart A—Flow-Through and treatment system. health, social and economic effects to Recirculating Systems Subcategory (d) Concentrated aquatic animal ensure that agency decision makers are 451.10 Applicability. production facility is defined at 40 CFR aware of the extent to which those 451.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the 122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR Part impacts fall disproportionately on application of the best practicable 122. covered communities. This is not a control technology currently available (e) Drug means any substance defined major action. Further, EPA does not (BPT). as a drug in section 201(g)(1) of the believe this rulemaking will have a 451.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best available Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act disproportionate effect on minority or technology economically achievable (21 U.S.C. 321). low income communities because the (BAT). (f) Extralabel drug use means a drug technology-based effluent limitations 451.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the approved under the Federal Food, Drug guidelines are uniformly applied application of the best conventional and Cosmetic Act that is not used in nationally irrespective of geographic technology (BCT). accordance with the approved label location. The final regulation will 451.14 New source performance standards directions, see 21 CFR part 530. reduce the negative effects of (NSPS). (g) Flow-through system means a concentrated aquatic animal production Subpart B—Net Pen Subcategory system designed to provide a industry waste in our nation’s waters to 451.20 Applicability. continuous water flow to waters of the benefit all of society, including minority 451.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the United States through chambers used to and low-income communities. The cost application of the best practicable produce aquatic animals. Flow-through impacts of the rule should likewise not control technology currently available systems typically use rearing units that disproportionately affect low-income (BPT). are either raceways or tank systems.

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51928 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Rearing units referred to as raceways are use in a concentrated aquatic animal documenting the cause, the estimated typically long, rectangular chambers at production facility subject to this Part of time elapsed until the failure or damage or below grade, constructed of earth, any investigational new animal drug was repaired, an estimate of the material concrete, plastic, or metal to which (INAD) or any extralabel drug use where released as a result of the failure or water is supplied by nearby rivers or such a use may lead to a discharge of damage, and steps being taken to springs. Rearing units comprised of tank the drug to waters of the U.S. Reporting prevent a reccurrence. systems use circular or rectangular tanks is not required for an INAD or extralabel (c) In the event a spill of drugs, and are similarly supplied with water to drug use that has been previously pesticides or feed occurs that results in raise aquatic animals. The term does not approved by FDA for a different species a discharge to waters of the U.S., the include net pens. or disease if the INAD or extralabel use permittee must provide an oral report of (h) Investigational new animal drug is at or below the approved dosage and the spill to the permitting authority (INAD) means a drug for which there is involves similar conditions of use. within 24 hours of its occurrence and a a valid exemption in effect under (1) The permittee must provide a written report within 7 days. The report section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, written report to the permitting shall include the identity and quantity and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(j), to authority of an INAD’s impending use of the material spilled. conduct experiments. within 7 days of agreeing or signing up (d) Best management practices (BMP) (i) New animal drug application is to participate in an INAD study. The plan. The permittee subject to this Part defined in 512(b)(1) of the Federal Food, written report must identify the INAD to must: Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C be used, method of use, the dosage, and (1) Develop and maintain a plan on 360b(b)(1)). the disease or condition the INAD is site describing how the permittee will (j) Net pen system means a stationary, intended to treat. achieve the requirements of § 451.11(a) suspended or floating system of nets, (2) For INADs and extralabel drug through (e) or § 451.21(a) through (h), as screens, or cages in open waters of the uses, the permittee must provide an oral applicable. United States. Net pen systems typically report to the permitting authority as (2) Make the plan available to the are located along a shore or pier or may soon as possible, preferably in advance permitting authority upon request. be anchored and floating offshore. Net of use, but no later than 7 days after (3) The permittee subject to this Part pens and submerged cages rely on tides initiating use of that drug. The oral must certify in writing to the permitting and currents to provide a continual report must identify the drugs used, authority that a BMP plan has been supply of high-quality water to the method of application, and the reason developed. animals in production. for using that drug. (k) Permitting authority means EPA or (3) For INADs and extralabel drug Subpart A—Flow-Through and the State agency authorized to uses, the permittee must provide a Recirculating Systems Subcategory administer the National Pollutant written report to the permitting § 451.10 Applicability. authority within 30 days after initiating Discharge Elimination System This subpart applies to the discharge use of that drug. The written report permitting program for the receiving of pollutants from a concentrated must identify the drug used and waters into which a facility subject to aquatic animal production facility that include: the reason for treatment, date(s) this Part discharges. produces 100,000 pounds or more per and time(s) of the addition (including (l) Pesticide means any substance year of aquatic animals in a flow- duration), method of application; and defined as a ‘‘pesticide’’ in section 2(u) through or recirculating system. of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, the amount added. and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(u)). (b) Failure in, or damage to, the § 451.11 Effluent limitations attainable by (m) Real-time feed monitoring means structure of an aquatic animal the application of the best practicable a system designed to track the rate of containment system resulting in an control technology currently available feed consumption and to detect uneaten unanticipated material discharge of (BPT). feed passing through the nets at a net pollutants to waters of the U.S. In Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 pen facility. These systems may rely on accordance with the following through 125.32, any existing point a combination of visual observation and procedures, any permittee subject to this source subject to this subpart must meet hardware, including, but not limited to, Part must notify the permitting the following requirements, expressed devices such as video cameras, digital authority when there is a reportable as practices (or any modification to scanning sonar, or upweller systems failure. these requirements as determined by the that allow facilities to determine when (1) The permitting authority may permitting authority based on its to cease feeding the aquatic animals. specify in the permit what constitutes exercise of its best professional Visual observation alone from above the reportable damage and/or a material judgment) representing the application pens does not constitute real-time discharge of pollutants, based on a of BPT: monitoring. consideration of production system (a) Solids control. The permittee must: (n) Recirculating system means a type, sensitivity of the receiving waters (1) Employ efficient feed management system that filters and reuses water in and other relevant factors. and feeding strategies that limit feed which the aquatic animals are produced (2) The permittee must provide an input to the minimum amount prior to discharge. Recirculating systems oral report within 24 hours of discovery reasonably necessary to achieve typically use tanks, biological or of any reportable failure or damage that production goals and sustain targeted mechanical filtration, and mechanical results in a material discharge of rates of aquatic animal growth in order support equipment to maintain high pollutants, describing the cause of the to minimize potential discharges of quality water to produce aquatic failure or damage in the containment uneaten feed and waste products to animals. system and identifying materials that waters of the U.S. have been released to the environment (2) In order to minimize the discharge § 451.3 General reporting requirements. as a result of this failure. of accumulated solids from settling (a) Drugs. Except as noted below, a (3) The permittee must provide a ponds and basins and production permittee subject to this Part must written report within 7 days of systems, identify and implement notify the permitting authority of the discovery of the failure or damage procedures for routine cleaning of

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51929

rearing units and off-line settling basins, § 451.13 Effluent limitations attainable by (b) Waste collection and disposal. and procedures to minimize any the application of the best conventional Collect, return to shore, and properly discharge of accumulated solids during technology (BCT). dispose of all feed bags, packaging the inventorying, grading and harvesting Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 materials, waste rope and netting. aquatic animals in the production through 125.32, any existing point (c) Transport or harvest discharge. system. source subject to this subpart must meet Minimize any discharge associated with (3) Remove and dispose of aquatic the following requirements representing the transport or harvesting of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular the application of BCT: The limitations animals including blood, viscera, basis to prevent discharge to waters of are the same as the corresponding aquatic animal carcasses, or transport the U.S., except in cases where the limitations specified in § 451.11. water containing blood. permitting authority authorizes such (d) Carcass removal. Remove and § 451.14 New source performance dispose of aquatic animal mortalities discharge in order to benefit the aquatic standards (NSPS). environment. properly on a regular basis to prevent (b) Materials storage. The permittee Any point source subject to this discharge to waters of the U.S. must: subpart that is a new source must meet (e) Materials storage. (1) Ensure proper storage of drugs, the following requirements: The (1) Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner standards are the same as the pesticides and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills that may corresponding limitations specified in designed to prevent spills that may result in the discharge of drugs, § 451.11. result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides or feed to waters of the U.S. pesticides or feed to waters of the U.S. Subpart B—Net Pen Subcategory (2) Implement procedures for properly (2) Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of § 451.20 Applicability. containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled material. any spilled material. This subpart applies to the discharge (f) Maintenance. (c) Structural maintenance. The of pollutants from a concentrated (1) Inspect the production system on permittee must: aquatic animal production facility that a routine basis in order to identify and (1) Inspect the production system and produces 100,000 pounds or more per promptly repair any damage. the wastewater treatment system on a year of aquatic animals in net pen or (2) Conduct regular maintenance of routine basis in order to identify and submerged cage systems, except for net the production system in order to promptly repair any damage. pen facilities rearing native species ensure that it is properly functioning. (2) Conduct regular maintenance of released after a growing period of no (g) Recordkeeping. the production system and the longer than 4 months to supplement (1) In order to calculate representative wastewater treatment system in order to commercial and sport fisheries. ensure that they are properly feed conversion ratios, maintain records functioning. § 451.21 Effluent limitations attainable by for aquatic animal net pens (d) Recordkeeping. The permittee the application of the best practicable documenting the feed amounts and control technology currently available estimates of the numbers and weight of must: (BPT). (1) In order to calculate representative aquatic animals. feed conversion ratios, maintain records Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (2) Keep records of the net changes, for aquatic animal rearing units through 125.32, any existing point inspections and repairs. documenting the feed amounts and source subject to this subpart must meet (h) Training. The permittee must: estimates of the numbers and weight of the following requirements, expressed (1) In order to ensure the proper aquatic animals. as practices (or any modification to clean-up and disposal of spilled (2) Keep records documenting the these requirements as determined by the material adequately train all relevant frequency of cleaning, inspections, permitting authority based on its facility personnel in spill prevention maintenance and repairs. exercise of its best professional and how to respond in the event of a spill. (e) Training. The permittee must: judgment) representing the application (2) Train staff on the proper operation (1) In order to ensure the proper of BPT: and cleaning of production systems clean-up and disposal of spilled (a) Feed management. Employ including training in feeding procedures material adequately train all relevant efficient feed management and feeding and proper use of equipment. facility personnel in spill prevention strategies that limit feed input to the and how to respond in the event of a minimum amount reasonably necessary § 451.22 Effluent limitations attainable by spill. to achieve production goals and sustain the application of the best available (2) Train staff on the proper operation targeted rates of aquatic animal growth. technology economically achievable (BAT). and cleaning of production and These strategies must minimize the Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 wastewater treatment systems including accumulation of uneaten food beneath through 125.32, any existing point training in feeding procedures and the pens through the use of active feed source subject to this subpart must proper use of equipment. monitoring and management practices. achieve the following effluent These practices may include one or limitations representing the application § 451.12 Effluent limitations attainable by more of the following: Use of real-time the application of the best available of BAT: The limitations are the same as feed monitoring, including devices such the limitations specified in § 451.21. technology economically achievable (BAT). as video cameras, digital scanning Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 sonar, and upweller systems; § 451.23 Effluent limitations attainable by through 125.32, any existing point monitoring of sediment quality beneath the application of the best conventional source subject to this subpart must meet the pens; monitoring of benthic technology (BCT). the following requirements representing community quality beneath the pens; Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 the application of BAT: The limitations capture of waste feed and feces; or other through 125.32, any existing point are the same as the corresponding good husbandry practices approved by source subject to this subpart must limitations specified in § 451.11. the permitting authority. achieve the following effluent

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2 51930 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

limitations representing the application § 451.24 New source performance standard is the same as the limitations of BCT: The limitations are the same as standards (NSPS). specified in § 451.21. the limitations specified in § 451.21. Any point source subject to this subpart that is a new source must meet [FR Doc. 04–15530 Filed 8–20–04; 8:45 am] the following requirements: The BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

VerDate jul<14>2003 14:39 Aug 20, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR2.SGM 23AUR2

Appendix E1

BMP Plan Template Appendix E1

BMP Plan Template

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

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

A. Description of Facility

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

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

B. Water Source

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

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

C. Treatment System(s) Used

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

• Type of treatment system • Design flow • Normal operation

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-1 March 2006 Appendix E1

• Cleaning procedures • Maintenance procedures

D. Other Information

Provide any other additional information that might be useful to your permitting authority (e.g., additional information about how water flows into your facility or about oxygen recharge). In the following sections, describe in detail how you will achieve the specific requirements of the CAAP ELGs. Where helpful, you might attach example logs/forms used at your facility to physically show your permitting authority how you are complying with the CAAP ELGs.

E. Solids Control

FT RAS FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

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

Describe the practices your facility uses to achieve efficient feed management. A form for tracking and calculating feed conversion ratios is available in Appendix N of the BMP Guidance.

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

Describe the cleaning procedures used. Also describe how your facility defines “routine.” An example log to track cleaning is available in Appendix Q of the BMP Guidance.

3. Procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals (that minimize discharge of accumulated solids).

Describe the procedures used.

4. Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent discharge to waters of the United States (except where authorized by your permitting authority in order to benefit the aquatic environment).

Describe the procedures for removal and disposal. A form for tracking carcass removal and disposal is available in Appendix T of the BMP Guidance.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-2 March 2006 Appendix E1

F. Material Storage

FT RAS NET FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING AND/OR NET PEN SYSTEMS

A form for tracking spills and leaks at your facility is available in Appendix O of the BMP Guidance.

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

Describe the practices used.

2. Procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials.

Describe the procedures used.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-3 March 2006 Appendix E1

G. Maintenance

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

FT RAS FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

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

Describe the routine inspections performed. Also describe how your facility defines “routine.”

2. Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems to ensure their proper function.

Describe the regular maintenance performed. Also describe how your facility defines “regular.”

NET NET PEN SYSTEMS

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

Describe the routine inspections performed. Also describe how your facility defines “routine.”

2. Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems to ensure their proper function.

Describe the regular maintenance performed. Also describe how your facility defines “regular.”

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-4 March 2006 Appendix E1

H. Record-keeping

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

FT RAS FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

1. Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios.

Describe the records your facility keeps for documenting feed amounts and estimates of aquatic animals for calculating FCRs. A form for tracking and calculating FCRs is available in Appendix N of the BMP Guidance.

2. Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs.

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

NET NET PEN SYSTEMS

1. Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios.

2. Keep records documenting net pen changes, inspections, and repairs.

Describe the records your facility keeps to document this. Appendix P of the BMP Guidance contains forms for tracking inspection, maintenance, and repairs.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-5 March 2006 Appendix E1

I. Training

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

FT RAS FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

1. Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials.

Describe the procedures for training personnel in spill prevention and response.

2. Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment.

Describe the procedures for training personnel on proper operation and cleaning.

NET NET PEN SYSTEMS

1. Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials.

Describe the procedures for training personnel in spill prevention and response.

2. Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production systems, including feeding procedures and equipment.

Describe the procedures for training personnel on proper operation and cleaning.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-6 March 2006 Appendix E1

J. Feed Monitoring

NET NET PEN SYSTEMS

1. Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth.

Describe the practices your facility uses to achieve efficient feed management. A form for tracking and calculating feed conversion ratios is available in Appendix N of the BMP Guidance.

2. Minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens through active feed monitoring and management strategies approved by your permitting authority.

Describe practices and management strategies to minimize uneaten feed beneath net pens.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-7 March 2006 Appendix E1

K. Waste Collection and Disposal

NET NET PEN SYSTEMS

1. Collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and netting.

Describe practices to accomplish this.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-8 March 2006 Appendix E1

L. Transport or Harvest Discharge

NET NET PEN SYSTEMS

1. Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic animals (including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing blood).

Describe practices used to accomplish this.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-9 March 2006 Appendix E1

M. Carcass Removal

NET NET PEN SYSTEMS

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

Describe procedures for removing and disposing of aquatic animal mortalities. Appendix T of the BMP Guidance contains a log for tracking carcass removal and disposal.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-10 March 2006 Appendix E1

N. Diagram or Map

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

O. Review and Endorsement of the BMP Plan

We, the facility manager and the individuals responsible for implementing the BMP plan, have reviewed and endorsed this BMP plan.

(Facility Name) (NPDES #)

(Facility Manager – Printed Name) (Facility Manager – Signature)

(Other Individual – Printed Name & Title) (Other Individual – Signature)

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-11 March 2006 Appendix E1

P. Certifying the BMP Plan with the Permitting Authority

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

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

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-12 March 2006 Appendix E1

BMP Plan Checklist for Flow-Through and Recirculating Facilities

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

FACILITY DESCRIPTION A short description of your facility.

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

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

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

RECORD-KEEPING Description of how you will maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals to calculate FCRs. Description of how you will keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs.

TRAINING Description of procedures for training all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond to a spill to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials. Description of procedures for training personnel on proper operation/cleaning of production and wastewater treatment systems (includes feeding procedures and proper equipment use).

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

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-13 March 2006

Appendix E1

BMP Plan Checklist for Net Pen Facilities

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

FACILITY DESCRIPTION A short description of your facility.

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

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

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

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

RECORD-KEEPING Description of how you will maintain records documenting feed amounts and estimates of numbers and weights of aquatic animals to calculate FCRs. Description of how you will document net changes, inspections, and repairs.

TRAINING Description of procedures for training all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond to spills to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials. Description of procedures for training personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment.

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

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 E1-14 March 2006

Appendix E2

Example BMP Plan Appendix E2

Example BMP Plan

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

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

A. Description of Facility

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

B. Water Source

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

C. Treatment System(s) Used

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

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-1 March 2006 Appendix E2

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

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

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

D. Other Information

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

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-2 March 2006 Appendix E2

E. Solids Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raceways above the quiescent zones are vacuumed before scheduled fish inventorying, grading or harvesting events.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-3 March 2006 Appendix E2

The raceways are screened to prevent avian predators from eating the fish. The netting reduces indirect mortality from predators by reducing the incidence of disease at the facility. Healthy fish consume feed better, which prevents uneaten feed from going to waste, and are more active in the raceway, which allows accumulated biosolids to move more readily down the raceway to the quiescent zones, facilitating cleaning and faster removal of biosolids.

The OLS pond is harvested twice annually, in the spring and fall. When the OLS pond is harvested, the water in the pond is slowly decanted by removing the collar from around the standpipe and slowing rotating the standpipe on the 90° elbow to gradually lower the water level in the pond. Once the pond is decanted, a tractor is driven into the pond and the slurry is stirred to a uniform consistency to allow for pumping. The sludge is pumped from the OLS pond into a “honey wagon,” which takes it to a field for land application. Solids content of the slurry varies between 6 % and 12 %.

Sludge and slurry that have been collected in the OLS pond are recycled by land application to nearby cropped fields. Farmers that accept the slurry agree to disc it under within 24 hours of application and prior to any irrigation water being applied to the field. All land application is done in such a manner as to prevent the materials from entering surface or groundwaters. The dates, locations, and amounts of slurry that are taken offsite for land application are kept in a record.

Examples of the forms we use to track cleaning and land application of waste are attached. Records of this information are kept in our office and are available upon request by contacting the facility manager.

3. Procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals (that minimize discharge of accumulated solids).

Raceways above the quiescent zones are vacuumed before any scheduled inventorying, grading, or harvesting events to prevent unnecessary disturbance and subsequent discharge of biosolids from the raceways.

Raceways at our facility are screened to prevent avian predators from eating the fish. This benefits the waste management on the farm by reducing direct mortality to injured fish. The netting reduces indirect mortality by reducing the incidence of disease at the facility. When fish mortality does occur, carcasses are promptly removed (at a minimum – daily). Fish carcasses are typically composted on site. Mortalities from the hatchery are also disposed of with the raceway mortalities. In the event of a significant problem that leads to a large number of mortalities, a local rendering company is called to haul the mortalities away.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-4 March 2006 Appendix E2

Mortalities generally range from 1% to 7% of fish on hand, now that the raceways are screened, and depending on the disease and timing of the disease outbreak.

Our facility tracks carcass removal to improve facility management. When we encounter fish mortalities, we record the number of fish that died, their approximate weight, the group/age, and how we disposed of them. Records of this information are kept in our office and are available upon request by contacting the facility manager. An example of the form we use is attached.

F. Material Storage

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

To ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed at 3M & LJ Fish Farm, employees have been instructed on the importance of proper handling of these substances through the facility- training program.

Bagged feeds are stored in the shop area and are used on a “first in, first out” basis to prevent lengthy storage of feed. Use of fresh diets improves dietary efficiency. No feed is used if it has exceeded the storage period recommended by the manufacturer. This rarely occurs, but when outdated feed is found, it has to be taken to the local landfill for disposal. The largest diets are purchased in bulk and stored in feed bins. Feed can be poured from the bins and fines screened off before the feed is put in the demand feeders. All fines are collected and sent back to the manufacturer for repelleting. Since converting to extruded pellets, the volume of fines is typically less than 50 lb per month. All the demand feeders are set up with a windshield to prevent the undesired release of feed on windy days.

All drugs, disinfectants, chemicals, and pesticides are stored in a cabinet in the office building in their original containers. The chemical cabinet is in a dry well-ventilated place, away from water, and with no floor drains. Employees have been instructed to keep container lids secure at all times. All liquid materials at our facility are stored in a containment system to prevent possible spills from running off. Every month, we inspect and maintain the storage areas and equipment to prevent spills.

2. Procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials.

3M & LJ Fish Farm has developed a spill response and prevention plan to ensure that our facility properly contains, cleans, and disposes of spilled materials. The plan provides details on measures to stop the source of a spill, contain the spill, clean up the spill, dispose of contaminated materials, and train personnel to prevent and control future spills. The plan is reviewed during our required annual employee-training program.

Our spill response and prevention plan is a procedural handbook that identifies individuals responsible for implementing the plan; defines safety measures to be taken with each kind of waste; emphasizes that spills must be cleaned up promptly; specifies how to notify appropriate authorities, such as the fire department for assistance; states procedures for containing, diverting,

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-5 March 2006 Appendix E2

isolating, and cleaning up the spill; and describes spill response equipment to be used, including safety and cleanup equipment.

Our plan encourages the use of shop rags (for small spills) and absorbent snakes (for large spills), rather than water. For non-hazardous materials, we would send the rags out for cleaning and throw away the absorbent snakes. For hazardous materials, we would dispose of the cleanup materials according to our state’s guidelines. A copy of the plan is kept in our office and is available upon request by contacting the facility manager.

We also keep track of information about any spills at our facility to try to prevent any future spills. This information is kept with other records for the facility in the office. An example of the form we use to track spills is attached.

G. Maintenance

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

We inspect the raceways and quiescent zones every day. More specifically, we check that all of the drain structure parts are functioning properly; that valves and other critical drain components are working properly; and that there are no broken parts. If any parts are broken, we repair them immediately. We check the raceways to make sure they are structurally sound; repair cracks as necessary; and check that all plumbing components are installed and working properly. Finally, we check the quiescent zones for proper function; inspect drains for clogging; and make sure that all settling basins are working properly.

We also check equipment used at the facility every day. We routinely inspect oxygen equipment, filters, and heaters that maintain optimal growing conditions in the hatchery. We also test the demand automatic feeders periodically (weekly) to ensure they are delivering the proper amounts of feed; check demand feeders for proper operation and adjust as necessary; and inspect all feed storage areas to make sure the feed is free from rodents and insects and that no excess moisture or water leaks are present to prevent mold.

We keep track of the inspections of production and wastewater treatment systems at our facility in a log. Records of this information are kept in our office and are available upon request by contacting the facility manager. An example of the log is attached.

2. Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems to ensure their proper function.

We perform maintenance of parts and equipment when our routine inspections determine that a repair is necessary. We also perform maintenance on equipment that requires periodic maintenance or adjustment, based on the manufacturer’s recommendations. For example, demand feeders need to be constantly adjusted to the conditions of the facility to maximize feeding efficiency. Employees immediately correct any feeders discovered to be out of adjustment (feeding too freely or jammed up). We record maintenance in the same log where we

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-6 March 2006 Appendix E2

record inspections of production and wastewater treatment systems. An example of this form is attached.

H. Record-keeping

1. Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios.

We keep records in the office of the amount of feed we feed our fish daily. We also record estimates of the number and weight of trout at our facility at the same time we feed the fish. From this information, we have been able to calculate FCRs to better manage feeding at our facility. All records are maintained and updated as information is collected. For example, feeding records are updated daily. All records are available upon request by contacting the facility manager. Examples of the forms we use are attached.

2. Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs.

We keep records in the office of the frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs at our facility. All records are maintained and updated as information is collected. All records are available upon request by contacting the facility manager. Examples of the forms we use are attached.

I. Training

1. Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials.

All new employees are required to attend training on spill prevention and response. Current employees must attend refresher training once every year. Our facility has developed a spill prevention and response plan, which is covered at employee training. The plan was described in more detail in Section F above. The plan is kept in our office, is accessible to all employees, and is available upon request by contacting the facility manager. We also keep Material Safety data sheets for all chemicals used at the facility within a binder in the chemical cabinet. Employees have been trained on how to use these sheets.

2. Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment.

All new employees are required to attend training on proper operation and cleaning of production systems and wastewater treatment systems at our facility. Management reviews employee performance in operating the facility and provides additional training for those not operating the facility according to the Standard Operating Procedures.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-7 March 2006 Appendix E2

J. Diagram or Map

A diagram/map of the facility (to illustrate the layout of the operation) is included at the end of the BMP plan as Figure 1.

K. Review and Endorsement of the BMP Plan

We, the facility manager and the individuals responsible for implementing the BMP plan, have reviewed and endorsed this BMP plan.

(Facility Name) (NPDES #)

(Facility Manager – Printed Name) (Facility Manager – Signature)

(Other Individual – Printed Name & Title) (Other Individual – Signature)

L. Certifying the BMP Plan with the Permitting Authority

A copy of the BMP plan is kept in our office. It is available to any employee at our facility, EPA, and any state environmental agency upon request by contacting the facility manager.

A signed letter has been sent to our permitting authority stating that our facility has developed a BMP plan.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-8 March 2006 Appendix E2

Upper Springs

Weir

Hatchery/Office/Shop Quiescent Zone Cleanout Drains

Upper Creek

Raceway Discharge

OLS Discharge OLS Pond

Figure 1: Facility Diagram of 3M & LJ Fish Farm

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-9 March 2006 Appendix E2

Feed Conversion Ratios Log

Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567

Instructions: Fill in this form with feeding information so as to keep track of feeding and to calculate/track feed conversion ratios. FCRs are calculated with the following equation:

Dry weight of feed applied Wet weight of fish gained

Weights of Date Total Feed Description of Animals Weight Calculated (start date Amounts Group (start weight Gained FCR end date) (Estimate) end weight) 3/1/04 100 lbs Rainbow trout 20,775 lbs 17,428 lbs 1.19 stockers 10/1/04 17,528 lbs

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-10 March 2006 Appendix E2

Cleaning Log

Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567

Instructions: Record all cleaning performed on production and/or wastewater system components.

Date Cleaner Description of Notes About Cleaning Cleaned Initials Component Cleaned Cleaned QZs and dam boards; checked and 10/1/04 ML QZ raceways 1-10 cleaned screens, removing moss and dead fish.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-11 March 2006 Appendix E2

OLS WASTE LAND APPLICATION LOG

Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567

Instructions: Record information about land application of OLS waste in the form below. This is an example of a state requirement that is not required by the ELGs.

Date Initials Location Nutrient Analysis Volume Applied Notes 2.5%% nitrogen 3.0% phosphorus No problems 10/1/04 ML Crop Field 1 0.1% potassium 10,000 gallons encountered. 5.0% calcium 1.0% magnesium

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-12 March 2006 Appendix E2

CARCASS REMOVAL LOG

Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567

Instructions: Record all mortalities observed on a daily basis.

System/Group # of Approx. Disposal Date Initials Notes of Animals Mortalities Weight Method All from R4; appear to be from an Rainbow trout 10/1/04 ML 20 11 lbs Composted infection – closely – R1–12 monitoring remaining fish

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-13 March 2006 Appendix E2

EXAMPLE SPILLS AND LEAKS LOG

Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567

Instructions: Fill in this form with information about any spills or leaks.

Location Date Amount of List of Spill or (as indicated Type of Material & Source (mm/dd/ Reason Material Preventative Initials Leak on a site Quantity (if known) yy) Recovered Measures Taken map) Spoke to all Top was not secured employees about Hatchery Storage 10/4/04 Spill Formalin and the drum was 20 gallons the importance of ML floor drum knocked over securing lids to storage containers

Instructions: Use this page to enter any important notes about the spills from the previous sheets.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-14 March 2006

Appendix E2

Date of spill or Notes leak (mm/dd/yy) All employees have been instructed on the importance of securing container lids. Employees were also instructed to double-check 10/4/04 that container lids are secured before proceeding with applications.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-15 March 2006

Appendix E2

STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG

Facility Name: 3M & LJ Fish Farm NPDES Permit Number: ID 1234567

Production or Wastewater Treatment System: Raceway 1

Instructions: Fill in all routine inspections and regular maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems in the table below. Use a separate form for each production system and/or wastewater treatment system.

Date Date Inspector Notes Maintenance Inspected Initials (Note any problems found and maintenance performed) Performed

The screens at the end of raceways 5 and 7 were loose; secured 10/1/04 ML 10/2/04 the screen.

EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-16 March 2006

Appendix F

BMP Certification Form Appendix F

BMP Certification Form

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

Printed Name:

Title (owner, operator, etc.):

Date the BMP Plan was developed:

I certify that a BMP plan was developed for: (name of facility)

A copy of the BMP plan is available for inspection at the following address:

Signature: Date:

* Note: This is only an example of what a certification form could look like.

EPA-821-B-05-001 F-1 March 2006

Appendix G

State BMP Programs Appendix G

State BMP Programs

A number of states, including Alabama, reducing storm runoff into ponds, managing Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, and ponds to reduce effluent volume, erosion Idaho, were found to have recommended control in watersheds and on pond BMPs for AAP. In addition, BMPs have embankments, settling basins and wetlands, also been developed for specific types of and feed management. aquatic species. BMPs are addressed in manuals or regulations, depending on the Arizona state. Data were collected from in-house resources and through Internet research. An Arizona Aquaculture BMPs addresses example of technical guidance on BMP treatment and discharge of aquaculture development is Best Management Practices effluents containing nitrogenous wastes and for Flow-through, Net Pen, Recirculating, closing of aquaculture facilities when they and Pond Aquaculture Systems (Tucker et cease operation (Fitzsimmons, 1999). al., 2003). This guidance document provides examples of existing BMP plans and state Use of these BMPs is intended to minimize regulations, as well as technical information the discharge of nitrates from facilities that can be used in facilities’ BMP plan without being too restrictive for farm development. Information is provided for operations. The draft document Arizona four production system types and ranges Aquaculture BMPs describes BMPs that can from guidance on site selection, to solids minimize nitrogen impacts from aquaculture and feed management, to facility operation facilities. A list of information resources is and maintenance. also provided for additional information about Arizona aquaculture and BMPs Alabama (Fitzsimmons, 1999). The BMPs are available at: Dr. Claude Boyd and his colleagues, with http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/bmps.html. funding from the Alabama Catfish Producers (a division of the Alabama Arkansas Farmers Federation), have developed a set of BMPs for aquaculture facilities in The Arkansas Bait and Ornamentals Fish Alabama. The BMPs are described in a Growers Association (ABOFGA, n.d.) series of guide sheets that have been adopted developed a list of BMPs to help its by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation members make their farms more Service (NRCS) to supplement the Service’s environmentally friendly. More specifically, technical standards and guidelines (Auburn the Association provides a set of BMPs that University and USDA, 2002). The NRCS help to conserve water, reduce effluent, technical standards are intended to be capture solids, and manage nutrients. referenced in Alabama Department of Members may voluntarily agree to adopt the Environmental Management rules or BMPs on their farms (ABOFGA, n.d.). requirements that are promulgated for aquaculture in Alabama. The guide sheets address a variety of topics, including

EPA-821-B-05-001 G-1 March 2006 Appendix G

Florida Hawaii

Florida=s aquaculture certificate of Hawaii developed a practical BMP manual registration and BMP program requires any to assist aquaculture farmers in managing person engaging in aquaculture to be their facilities more efficiently and annually certified by the Florida Department complying with discharge regulations. The of Agriculture and Consumer Services and manual, Best Management Practices for to follow BMPs established by the Hawaiian Aquaculture (Howerton, 2001), is Department (Chapter 597, Florida available from the Center for Tropical and Aquaculture Policy Act, Florida Statutes). Subtropical Aquaculture. A copy of the Aquaculture Best Management Practices, a manual is available at: manual prepared by the department, http://www.ctsa.org/upload/publication/CTS establishes BMPs for aquaculture facilities A_148631672853284080260.pdf. in Florida. By legislative mandate, the BMPs in the manual are intended to Idaho preserve environmental integrity, while eliminating cumbersome, duplicative, and In combination with site-specific confusing environmental permitting and information, Idaho Waste Management licensing requirements. When these BMPs Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations can are followed, aquaculturists meet the be used to develop a waste management minimum standards necessary for protecting plan to meet water quality goals. Such a and maintaining offsite water quality and waste management plan would address wildlife habitat (FDACS, 2000). Additional Idaho=s water quality concerns associated information is available from Florida’s with aquaculture in response to the Clean Division of Aquaculture website at Water Act and Idaho’s Water Quality http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com. Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements. The manual is also intended Georgia to assist aquaculture facility operators in developing BMPs to maintain discharge Agriculture enterprises such as fish farms levels that do not violate the state’s water are required to conduct activities consistent quality standards (IDEQ, n.d.). The manual with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) is available for download at: established by the Georgia Department of http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/prog_issues Agriculture. BMP’s are management /agriculture/aquaculture.cfm. strategies for control and abatement of nonpoint source pollution resulting from Louisiana agriculture. The manual Agricultural Best Management Practices for Protecting Water The LSU AgCenter has published a Quality in Georgia provides information on guidance manual, Aquaculture Production using and maintaining BMP’s. The manual Best Management Practices (BMPs), which is available from the Georgia Soil and Water provides a list of BMPs that can help Conservation Commission (Georgia producers to conserve soil and protect water Department of Natural Resources, 2003). and air resources by reducing pollutants. The manual is available at http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/environment /conservation/bmps/aquaculture+production +best+management+practices.htm.

EPA-821-B-05-001 G-2 March 2006 Appendix G

Missouri that may be used to reduce aquaculture waste. A copy of the guide is available at: Missouri has published the following http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/ guidance document to answer typical waste02.pdf. Other aquaculture-related fact questions that aquaculture facility owners or sheets and documents are available at: operators may have: Missouri Aquaculture http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/f Environmental and Regulatory Guide: A actsht.htm. Guide to Regulatory Compliance, Sources of Information and Assistance and Answers to Wisconsin Environmental Questions for Aquaculture Businesses in Missouri. The guide provides As of July 2005, the University of basic information about regulatory Wisconsin is finishing completing a draft requirements and suggestions for protecting version of a BMP user manual for operators and owners of aquaculture aquaculture for Wisconsin and the Great facilities, their workers and the environment Lakes Region. The draft document will be through pollution prevention. Each guide reviewed by various agencies before it is sheet in the publication deals with a separate made available to the public. issue, such as pollution prevention, dead fish disposal, backflow prevention, drug use, and Other BMP Guidance Documents preventing fish diseases. A copy of the guide is available at: BMPs have also been developed for specific http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub513.PDF. species, including shrimp, hybrid striped bass, and trout. The Global Aquaculture Ohio Alliance, in Codes of Practice for Responsible Shrimp Farming, has compiled The Ohio Pond Management Handbook, nine recommended codes of practice that are created by the Department of Natural intended to serve as guidelines for parties Resources’ Division of Wildlife, provides who want to develop more specific national guidance to pond or small lake owners on or regional codes of practice or formulate pond management issues. Owners of new systems of BMPs for use on shrimp farms. ponds, owners of old ponds, or landowners These codes of practice address a variety of who plan to build a pond are given guidance topics, including mangroves, site evaluation, on how to best manage fish stocks, aquatic design and construction, feeds and feed use, vegetation, fish health, and surrounding shrimp health management, therapeutic pond wildlife (Ohio DNR, 1996). The guide agents and other chemicals, general pond is available for download at: operations, effluents and solid wastes, and http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/PDF/pon community and employee relations (Boyd, dmgt.pdf. 1999). The purpose of the document is to provide a framework for environmentally West Virginia and socially responsible shrimp farming that is voluntary, proactive, and standardized. West Virginia University, Extension Service The document also provides a background has developed a guide, as part of their narrative that reviews the general processes Aquaculture Information Series, for involved in shrimp farming and the managing aquaculture waste entitled Waste environmental and social issues facing the Management in Aquaculture. The guide industry (Boyd, 1999). discusses BMPs, and their associated costs,

EPA-821-B-05-001 G-3 March 2006 Appendix G

The Hybrid Striped Bass Industry: From St. Louis, Missouri, 63151-0799, 314-416- Fish Farm to Consumer is a brochure that 9500, Fax: 314-416-9500, E-mail: provides guidance to new and seasoned [email protected], Web page: farmers in the proper handling of fish from http://www.GAAlliance.org. the farm to the consumer. Although the brochure is primarily geared toward DEQ. No Date. Idaho Waste Management providing quality fish products to Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. consumers, the information it provides about Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. the use of drugs and chemicals, including Available for download at pesticides and animal drugs and vaccines, . Accessed (Jahncke et al., 1996). September 2004.

The Trout Producer Quality Assurance FDACS. 2000. Aquaculture Best Program of the U.S. Trout Farmer=s Management Practices. Florida Department Association (USTFA) is a two-part program of Agriculture and Consumer Services, that emphasizes production practices that Division of Aquaculture, Tallahassee, enable facilities to decrease production Florida. costs, improve management practices, and avoid any possibilities of harmful drug or Fitzsimmons, K. 1999. Draft: Arizona other chemical residues in fish. Part 1 Aquaculture BMPs. Arizona Department of discusses the principles of quality assurance, Environmental Quality. Available for and Part 2 provides information about the download at highest level of quality assurance endorsed . by the USTFA. Although the program Accessed September 2004. addresses a variety of subjects related to trout production, the discussion on waste Georgia Department of Natural Resources. management and drugs and chemicals can 2003. A Summary of Georgia’s Licenses and be applied to protecting the environment Permits for Aquaculture. (USTFA, 1994). . References Accessed October 2004.

ABOFGA. No Date. Best Management Howerton, R. 2001. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for Baitfish and Practices for Hawaiian Aquaculture. Center Ornamental Fish Farms. Arkansas Bait and for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, Ornamental Fish Growers Association, in University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension cooperation with the University of Arkansas Services, Publication No. 148. at Pine Bluff, Aquaculture/Fisheries Center. . Boyd, C.E. 1999. Codes of Practice for Accessed September 2004. Responsible Shrimp Farming. Global Aquaculture Alliance, St. Louis, Missouri. Jahncke, M.L, T.I.J. Smith, and B.P, 48 pages. Copies of this publication are Sheehan. 1996. The Hybrid Striped Bass available by contacting the Global Industry: From Fish Farm to Consumer. Aquaculture Alliance at P.O. Box 510799, Preparation of this brochure was supported

EPA-821-B-05-001 G-4 March 2006 Appendix G by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FISMA Grant No. 12-25-G-0131, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and South Carolina Department of Agriculture.

Ohio DNR. 1996. Ohio Pond Management Handbook. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. . Accessed June 2005.

USTFA. 1994. Trout Producer Quality Assurance Program. U.S. Trout Farmer=s Association.

EPA-821-B-05-001 G-5 March 2006

Appendix H

National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC), Cooperative Extension Services, and Sea Grant Information Appendix H

National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC), Cooperative Extension Services, and Sea Grant Information

Since this guidance document was marketing, managing fish populations in completed, contacts for NASAC, large and small impoundments, aquatic Cooperative Extension Services and Sea ecology, and recreational fisheries. Grant Programs may have been updated. If Department experts work with county any of the links do not work, please visit the extension agents throughout the state to following websites for updated contacts: conduct educational programs and provide up-to-date, practical information to NASAC interested clients. More information about http://www.marylandseafood.org/aquaculture/na the Department is available at: sac.php http://www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/faa/extension Cooperative Extension http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state Sea Grant _partners.html Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium Sea Grant (MASGC) is an organization of nine http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org universities and laboratories dedicated to activities that foster the conservation and ALABAMA sustainable development of coastal and marine resources in Mississippi and NASAC Alabama. Additional information about MASGC is available at: John Gamble Marketing & Economics Division http://www.masgc.org Department of Agriculture and Industries PO Box 3336 ALASKA Montgomery AL 36109-0336 (334)240-7245 (334)240-7270 FAX NASAC [email protected]

Guyla McGrady Jimmy Carlisle Department of Natural Resources Catfish, Poultry and International Trade Division of Land Divisions 550 W 7th Ave, Suite 900C Alabama Farmers Federation Anchorage AK 99501-3577 PO Box 11000 907-269-8543 Montgomery AL 36191-0001 907-269-8913 FAX (334)613-4214 [email protected] (334)284-3957 FAX [email protected] Cynthia Pring-Ham Alaska Department of Fish and Game Cooperative Extension P O Box 25526 Juneau AK 99802-5526 The Department of Fisheries and Allied (907)465-6150 (907)465-4168 FAX Aquaculture is responsible for extension [email protected] activities in aquaculture production and

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-1 March 2006 Appendix H

Cooperative Extension Extension programs are offered in agriculture, consumer family sciences, 4-H The University of Alaska Fairbanks youth, and forestry. No specific information Cooperative Extension has had aquaculture- concerning aquaculture for the state’s related initiatives through its 4-H programs. cooperative extension service was found. Information about University of Alaska- Specific information about the cooperative Fairbanks Cooperative Extension efforts can extension service is available at: be found at: http://www.ascc.as/academicssupportcnrp.htm http://www.uaf.edu/coop-ext Sea Grant Sea Grant American Samoa Community College does The Marine Advisory Program (MAP) have a Sea Grant Program. However, no works to promote positive development, use information or website was available. and conservation of Alaska’s aquatic and marine resources. The Aquaculture section ARIZONA of the MAP attempts to promote the aquaculture industry in Alaska through NASAC improvement of species diversity, production, quality, management, marketing Richard Willer opportunities, and public awareness of the Department of Agriculture 1688 West Adams industry. More information about the Marine Phoenix AZ 85007-2617 Advisory Program can be obtained at: (602)542-4293 (602)542-4290 FAX [email protected] http://www.uaf.edu/map/about.html Cooperative Extension AMERICAN SAMOA The University of Arizona Cooperative NASAC Extension Service acts as a conduit for

Ta'alo P. Lauofo information on aquaculture issues. Department of Agriculture Information available at this website Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 includes links to publications, educational activities including the high school Cooperative Extension aquaculture program, and other resources within the State. Additional information American Samoa Community College’s about University of Arizona Aquaculture is Cooperative Extension Service offers available at: community-based educational programs and projects to enhance individual and group http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua decision-making towards improved living. Extension works closely with farmers, Sea Grant homemakers and youth, as well as government and civic agencies. The There is no Sea Grant Program for the State extension agents use discoveries made by of Arizona. the research division to improve the quality of life for individuals and the community.

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-2 March 2006 Appendix H

ARKANSAS Cooperative Extension

NASAC The University of California, Davis Animal Science Extension is linked to about 30 Ted McNulty county-based Cooperative Extension Arkansas Development and Finance Authority 423 Main Street Suite 500 livestock and dairy farm advisors. The Little Rock AR 72203 campus-based specialists are responsible for (501)682-5849 the program areas of waste management, (501)682-5893 FAX livestock systems management, aquaculture, [email protected] and dairy management and health. The Cooperative Extension Animal Science Extension provides Aquaculture Document Database, an online The Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the source for documents related to Aquaculture University of Arkansas Pine Bluff hosts both in California and throughout the United information on Extension activities. The States. Information about the Animal Center provides educational materials such Science Extension is available at: as newsletters, videos, demonstrations and training. Some specialized programs have http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/extension/AquH included publication of the quarterly aculture.htm newsletter “Aquaculture Aquafarming,” and development of Spanish-English training Sea Grant curriculum and training. The goal of the Center is to provide relevant, timely The California Sea Grant College program information through research and extension focuses its work on aquaculture issues of programs. Further information about the research and development. Abstracts of Aquaculture/ Fisheries Center can be research documents pertaining to this obtained at: subject are available online. The Southern California Sea Grant has identified aquaculture as a research need and places http://www.uaex.edu/aqfiH development of aquaculture as a topic under Sea Grant the “Urban Coasts” theme. More information about the California Sea Grant Arkansas does not have a Sea Grant College program’s aquaculture research is Program. available at:

CALIFORNIA http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/H SgResearchIndx.html NASAC Information about the Southern California Bob Hulbrock Department of Fish and Game Sea Grant can be found at: 1812 Ninth Street Sacramento CA 95814 http://www-csgc.ucsd.eduH 916-445-4034 916-445-4044 FAX

[email protected]

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-3 March 2006 Appendix H

COLORADO University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension is located at: NASAC http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces Jim Rubingh Department of Agriculture Sea Grant 700 Kipling Suite 4000 Lakewood CO 80215-8000 (303)239-4117 Connecticut Sea Grant seeks to create (303)239-4125 FAX possibilities within the State for new jobs [email protected] through sustainable, environmentally Cooperative Extension friendly intensive aquaculture. The Sea Grant promotes research projects to further The Colorado State University Extension this end. Additional information about has one aquaculture expert within the faculty Connecticut Sea Grant College’s of the College of Natural Resources, who aquaculture initiatives can be found at: has expertise about both sport fishing pond management and fish farming. More http://www.seagrant.uconn.edu/aqua.htm information about the Colorado State University Extension can be found at: DELAWARE

NASAC http://www.ext.colostate.edu

Bruce Walton Sea Grant Department of Agriculture 2320 South Dupont Highway Colorado does not have a Sea Grant Dover DE 19901-5515 (302)698-4503 Program. (302)697-4463 FAX [email protected] CONNECTICUT Cooperative Extension NASAC The University of Delaware Cooperative David Carey Extension provides local communities with Bureau of Aquaculture & Laboratory Connecticut Department of Agriculture information on agricultural issues, financial PO Box 97 tools, and other community educational Milford CT 06460 materials. No information concerning (203)874-0696 (203)783-9976 FAX aquaculture for the state’s cooperative [email protected] extension service was available for Delaware. Complete information about the Cooperative Extension University of Delaware Cooperative Extension can be found at: The University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension seeks to strengthen profitability http://ag.udel.edu/extension and to increase agriculture as a major sector in the State economy. Work is done in a variety of areas, including aquaculture, to update production and improve management skills. Additional information about the

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-4 March 2006 Appendix H

Sea Grant Sea Grant

The University of Delaware Sea Grant Florida Sea Grant College efforts in Marine Advisory Service acts as a source of aquaculture seek to promote sustainable information-sharing among researchers, production of aquatic species through resource managers, business people and education and research. Further details of private citizens in an effort to foster the wise Florida Sea Grant College efforts can be use, conservation, and development of found at: marine resources. More information about the University of Delaware Sea Grant http://www.flseagrant.org Marine Advisory Service’s programs in aquaculture is available at: GEORGIA http://www.ocean.udel.edu/mas/aquaculture/aqu NASAC aculture.html Ted Hendrickx Wildlife Resources Division - Fisheries FLORIDA 2123 US Highway 278 SE Social Circle GA 30025 NASAC 770-918-6418 706-57-3040 FAX [email protected] Sherman Wilhelm Florida Department of Agriculture Division of Aquaculture Cooperative Extension 1203 Governor's Square Blvd. Fifth Floor Tallahassee FL 32301 (850)488-4033 The Warnell School of Forest Resources (850) 410-0893 Fax serves as the conduit for information about [email protected] forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com for the State of Georgia. One goal of the Warnell School is to provide information to Cooperative Extension the citizens of Georgia and the US so that The Institute of Food and Agricultural they might be able to reach informed Sciences serves as the coordinating body for decisions about personal objectives and Extension Service activities and societal issues involving forestry and forest information. The Extension Service is a products, wildlife, aquaculture and fisheries partnership of county, state, and federal and related natural resources. Aspects of government, which serves the citizens of these efforts include: education through Florida by providing information and technology transfer, translation and training on a wide variety of topics. This site synthesis of research results and other provides contact information for experts information, discussion and explanation of specializing in fisheries, aquaculture and public policy issues and science-based pond management, and also has links to evaluations and recommendations. Further relevant publications. More information information about the Warnell School of about extension activities of the Institute of Forest Resources can be found at: Food and Agricultural Sciences is available http://www.forestry.uga.edu at:

http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/ExtensFac.htm

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-5 March 2006 Appendix H

Sea Grant contributions for the benefit of Guam, the Western Pacific, and the Nation. No website The University of Georgia Sea Grant was available for the University of Guam’s College collaborates with the University of Sea Grant Program. Georgia Marine Extension Service to provide information about current research HAWAII in aquaculture. Additional information about the Georgia Sea Grant College is available NASAC at: John Corbin Aquaculture Development Program http://www.marsci.uga.edu/gaseagrant Department of Land and Natural Resources 1177 Alakea Street Room 400 GUAM Honolulu HI 96813 (808)587-0030 (808)587-0033 FAX NASAC [email protected]

Jeff Tellock Cooperative Extension Guam Department of Commerce Guam Aquaculture Development & Training 102 M Street The University of Hawai’i Center of Tiyan GU 96913 Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (671)734-3011/7327 (671)477-9031 FAX conducts research and provides the public with information on a variety of topics Cooperative Extension including community development, environmental issues, and commercial The University of Guam’s Cooperative production. Aquaculture is listed as one area Extension Service focuses on agriculture of focus, but further details of programs and and natural resources. No specific research were not found on the website. information related to aquaculture from the More information about the University of state’s Cooperative Extension Service was Hawai’i Center of Tropical Agriculture and found. Additional information about the Human Resources is located at: Service is available at: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ctahr2001/Extensio http://www.uog.edu/cals/site/extension.html n/ExtMain.html

Sea Grant Sea Grant

The mission of the University of Guam’s Promotion of sustainable aquaculture is one Sea Grant Program is to optimize the research goal of the Sea Grant in Hawaii. sustainable use of the ocean’s resources, to More information about the University of protect the delicate ecosystems that exist and Hawaii Sea Grant is available at: to prevent any hazards and degradation of the natural resources through research, http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/SEAGRANT education, and advisory support; to increase our understanding of the balance of sustainability and protection of the environment that exist within the Western Pacific region; and to make significant

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-6 March 2006 Appendix H

IDAHO information about the Illinois Cooperative Extension is available at: NASAC http://www.extension.uiuc.edu Dan Crowell Division of Animal Industries Department of Agriculture Sea Grant PO Box 7249 Boise ID 83707 The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College (208)332-8540 (208)334-4062 FAX initiatives in aquaculture focus on the [email protected] promotion and profitability of the industry in the two states. Outreach efforts include Cooperative Extension education, training, and promotion of research. Additional information about the The Aquaculture Research Institute provides Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College can be students with educational and research found at: opportunities relating to aquaculture and serves as an active educational outreach http://www.iisgcp.org program within the state of Idaho. The Institute promotes, supports, and coordinates INDIANA aquaculture research activities at the University of Idaho and throughout the state. NASAC Additional information about the Institute can be found at: Paul Brown Purdue University 1159 Forestry Building http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/aquaculture West Lafayette IN 47907-1159 (765)494-4968 (765)496-2422 FAX Sea Grant [email protected]

Idaho does not have a Sea Grant program. Cooperative Extension

ILLINOIS No specific information related to aquaculture from the state’s Cooperative NASAC Extension Service was found. Further information about the Purdue Extension can Ms. Delayne Holsapple Reeves Department of Agriculture be found at: State Fairgrounds PO Box 19281 http://www.ces.purdue.edu Springfield IL 62794-9281 (217)524-9129 (217)524-5960 FAX Sea Grant [email protected] The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Cooperative Extension initiatives in aquaculture focus on the promotion and profitability of the industry in No specific information related to the two states. Outreach efforts include aquaculture from the state’s Cooperative education, training, and promotion of Extension Service was found. Complete research. Additional information about the

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-7 March 2006 Appendix H

Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College can be Cooperative Extension found at: K-State research provides information about http://www.iisgcp.org aquaculture through its research specialists and publications. The K-State Extension IOWA lists aquaculture resources under their topic of farm ponds. The website has links to NASAC regional resources on aquaculture. Additional information about K-State Joe Morris research can be found at: Department of Ecology Iowa State University 124 Science II http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/root/coreResources.htm Ames IA 50011 (515)294-4622 (515)294-7874 FAX Specific information about K-State [email protected] Aquaculture is located at:

Cooperative Extension http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/neao/aquaculture.htm

Iowa State University (ISU) Extension to Sea Grant Agricultural and Natural Resources provides information through its research and Kansas does not have a Sea Grant Program. specialists about many topics including aquaculture. Links related to aquaculture KENTUCKY include information about research initiatives and facilities and details about NASAC other organization and consortiums in the Angela Caporelli State or within the region. More information Kentucky Department of Agriculture about ISU Extension to Agricultural and 100 Fair Oaks Lane 5th floor Natural Resources is available at: Frankfort KY 40601 (502)564-4983 ext 259 (502)564-0303 FAX http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag/topics.html [email protected]

Sea Grant Cooperative Extension

Iowa does not have a Sea Grant Program. The Cooperative Extension at the University of Kentucky makes available information KANSAS relevant to aquaculture activities in the State. This information includes new reports NASAC of aquaculture projects in the State; details of events in different counties (e.g., shrimp Troy Amspacker Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks farming events; and access to specialists. Milford Fish Hatchery The Kentucky State University Aquaculture 3100 Hatchery Drive Program aids the extension through its Junction City KS 66411 (785)238 2638 research and specialists. Complete (785)238-1369 FAX information about the Cooperative [email protected]

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-8 March 2006 Appendix H

Extension Service is located at: Louisiana Sea Grant College can be obtained at: http://www.ca.uky.edu/ces/index.htm http://www.laseagrant.org Further details of the Kentucky State University Aquaculture Program can be MAINE found at NASAC http://www.ksuaquaculture.org John W. Sowles Ecology Division Sea Grant Maine Department of Marine Resources P.O. Box 8 Kentucky does not have a Sea Grant West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575-0008 (207) 633-9518 Program. (207) 633-9579 FAX [email protected] LOUISIANA Cooperative Extension NASAC The University of Maine Marine Extension Roy Johnson Team is a cooperative effort between the Department of Agriculture and Forestry PO Box 3334 University of Maine Cooperative Extension Baton Rouge LA 70821-3334 and the Maine Sea Grant College. The 225-922-1280 Marine Extension Team focuses on many 504-922-1289 FAX [email protected] aspects of aquaculture. The University of www.ldaf.state.la.us Maine Cooperative Extension can be accessed at: Cooperative Extension http://www.umext.maine.edu The LSU AgCenter provides information about Cooperative Extension activities in Sea Grant Louisiana. Research and publications about aquaculture in Louisiana are available The Maine Sea Grant College seeks to be a through the Center’s website. Additional leader in marine science and education information about the LSU AgCenter is through its research and programming. A available at: number of aquaculture programs continue to receive attention from the Maine Sea Grant. http://www.lsuagcenter.com The Maine Sea Grant also cooperates with the Maine Marine Extension Team to Sea Grant conduct research and information sharing. Information about the Maine Sea Grant is The Louisiana Sea Grant, a participant in a located at: 30-institution partnership, promotes responsible stewardship of marine and http://www.seagrant.umaine.edu coastal resources through its program efforts. The Louisiana Sea Grant Program does not have a specific focus in aquaculture. Further information about the

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-9 March 2006 Appendix H

MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS

NASAC NASAC

Karl Roscher Scott Soares Department of Agriculture Massachusetts Dept of Food and Agriculture 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 251 Causeway Street Annapolis MD 21401-7080 Suite 500 (410)841-5724 Boston MA 02114-2151 (410)841-5970 FAX 617-626-1730 [email protected] 617-727-1850 FAX [email protected] Cooperative Extension http://www.mass.gov/dfa/aquaculture Cooperative Extension The University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service does not focus The UMass Extension Service Division of specifically on aquaculture but does provide Fish, Wildlife, and Biodiversity a wide range of information on other issues Conservation provides a variety of outreach in resource management. Further and research and training efforts related to information about the Cooperative marine aquaculture. Further information Extension can be found at: about the UMass Extension is available at:

http://www.agnr.umd.edu/MCE/index.cfm http://www.umass.edu/nrec

Sea Grant Sea Grant

The Maryland Sea Grant College focuses on WHOI Sea Grant provides an academic and marine research and education, with a research environment for addressing the concentration on the Chesapeake Bay, revitalization of national fisheries and the including aquaculture. Specialists at the development of sustainable aquaculture. The Maryland Sea Grant Program are working to MIT Sea Grant provides educational evaluate the economic efficiency of resources on aquaculture through its K-12 commercial finfish and shellfish curriculum at the finfish hatchery. WHOI aquaculture. Through Aquaculture Action, a Sea Grant information is located at: teaching program, Sea Grant hosts workshops for educators to create a network http://www.whoi.edu/seagrant of “aquaculture educators.” Additional details about the Maryland Sea Grant Information on the MIT Sea Grant can be Program can be found at: found at: http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/index.html http://web.mit.edu/seagrant

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-10 March 2006 Appendix H

MICHIGAN communities and the university. No specific information related to aquaculture for the NASAC state’s Cooperative Extension Service was found. Further information about the Nancy Frank University of Minnesota Extension Service Michigan Department of Agriculture Animal Industry Division and publications about aquaculture can be PO Box 30017 found at: Lansing MI 48909 (517)373-1077 (517)373-6015 FAX http://www.extension.umn.edu [email protected] Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Minnesota Sea Grant uses research and The Michigan State University Extension public education to further the state’s coastal has links to research publication focused on environment and economy. Sea Grant acts aquaculture in the State and throughout the as a conduit for information among user Nation. Complete details of extension groups, including industry, management programs can be found at: agencies, and research scientists. Aquaculture is a major outreach topic, and http://www.msue.msu.edu/portal information is available on beginning fish farming operations and aquaculture business Sea Grant structure. Additional information about Minnesota Sea Grant is available at: The Michigan Sea Grant promotes protection and sustainable use of the aquatic http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/index.html environment in the Great Lakes region. Aquaculture is a major initiative of the Sea Aquaculture outreach information can be Grant members in this region. Further found at: information about the Michigan Sea Grant and its fisheries program can be found at: http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/aqua/index.html http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu MISSISSIPPI

MINNESOTA NASAC

NASAC Gene Roberston Department of Agriculture and Commerce Ying Ji PO Box 1609 Department of Agriculture Jackson MS 39215-1609 90 W Plato Boulevard (601)359-1102 St Paul MN 55107 (601)359-1174 FAX (651)296-5081 [email protected] (651)296-6890 FAX [email protected] Cooperative Extension

Cooperative Extension MSUcares (Coordinated Access to the Research and Extension System) is a joint The University of Minnesota Extension effort between the Mississippi State Service serves as a link between Minnesota University Extension Service and the

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-11 March 2006 Appendix H

Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry MONTANA Experiment Station (MAFES). MSUcares provides information about aquaculture for NASAC residents of the state. More information about MSUcares is available at: Angie DeYoung Department of Agriculture http://msucares.com Agriculture Development Division PO Box 200201 Sea Grant Helena MT 59620-0201 (406)444-2402 (406)444-9442 FAX The Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant [email protected] Consortium (MASGC) is an organization of http://agr.state.mt.us/dept/agDevDiv.asp nine universities and laboratories dedicated to activities that foster the conservation and Cooperative Extension sustainable development of coastal and marine resources in Mississippi and The Montana Cooperation Extension Alabama. Additional information about program is an educational resource with the MASGC is available at: aim of providing research-based knowledge to strengthen the social, economic and http://www.masgc.org environmental well being of individuals, communities, and agricultural enterprises. MISSOURI This extension service does not have a particular focus on aquaculture. Further NASAC details of the Montana Cooperation Bart Hawcroft Extension program can be found at: Market Development Division Missouri Department of Agriculture http://extn.msu.montana.edu P.O. Box 630 1616 Missouri Blvd Jefferson City MO 65102 Sea Grant (573)526-6666 1-800-419-9139 (573)751-2868 FAX Montana does not have a Sea Grant [email protected] Program. Cooperative Extension NEBRASKA The Missouri Watershed Information Network’s Aquaculture Center provides NASAC links to information pertaining to Ag Promotion and Development aquaculture in Missouri. Additional Department of Agriculture information about the Aquaculture Center PO Box 94947 can be found at: Lincoln NE 68509-4947 (402)471-4876 (402)471-2759 FAX http://outreach.missouri.edu/mowin/Training/aq [email protected] uaculture.html Cooperative Extension Sea Grant Missouri does not have a Sea Grant The University of Nebraska Lincoln Program. Cooperative Extension Service provides public information about current research

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-12 March 2006 Appendix H

efforts, offers training, and seeks to maintain NEW HAMPSHIRE educational resources about a variety of topics. Publications related to aquaculture NASAC are available at this site. More information about the University of Nebraska Lincoln J-J Newman (Joyce) University of New Hampshire Sea Grant Division Extension Service is located at: Kingman Farm Durham NH 03824 http://www.extension.unl.edu (603)749-1565 (603)743-3997 FAX [email protected] Publications may be searched at: Cooperative Extension http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs UNH Aquaculture extension programs have Sea Grant the goals of assisting both potential and existing aquaculture operations with all Nebraska does not have a Sea Grant aspects of the business including: species Program. identification, broodstock care, nutrition, disease, systems design, marketing, NEVADA permitting and business plans. Extension staff work closely with the aquaculture NASAC research community to highlight the most recent industry technologies. Further No Program information of UNH Fisheries/Aquaculture Cooperative Extension programs is available at:

The University of Nevada Cooperative http://www.ceinfo.unh.edu Extension provides local citizens with information for improving their lives and Sea Grant local surroundings. No specific information The New Hampshire Sea Grant promotes related to aquaculture for the state’s research and education about aquatic Cooperative Extension Service was found. resources. Sea Grant aquaculture extension Additional information about the University programs are designed to aid potential and of Nevada Cooperative Extension is existing aquaculture operations in areas such available at: as site and species evaluation, culture http://www.unce.unr.edu techniques, nutrition, health management, systems design, marketing, permitting, and Sea Grant business plans for a full range of finfish, shellfish, and seaweed operations. Complete Nevada does not have a Sea Grant Program. information about the New Hampshire Sea Grant is available at:

http://www.seagrant.unh.edu/index.html

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-13 March 2006 Appendix H

NEW JERSEY Cooperative Extension

NASAC The Cooperative Extension at New Mexico State University provides educational Linda O' Dierno outreach to New Mexico’s citizens. Fish and Seafood Development Department of Agriculture CN 330 Although no current programs in Trenton NJ 08625 aquaculture exist, publications on this topic (609)984-6757 can be found at this website. Further (609)633-7229 FAX [email protected] information from New Mexico State University’s Extension Service can be found Cooperative Extension at:

http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu/ces The Rutgers Cooperative Extension aquaculture programs are focused on Sea Grant providing information about seafood productions in the state of New Jersey. New Mexico does not have a Sea Grant Further details of the Rutgers Cooperative program. Extension program can be found at: NEW YORK http://www.rce.rutgers.edu NASAC Sea Grant Philip Hulbert The New Jersey Sea Grant College, a part of Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Room 522 the New Jersey Marine Sciences Albany NY 12233-4753 Consortium, provides training, research and 518-402-8920 educational materials focused on the marine 518-485-5827 FAX [email protected] environment in New Jersey. This Sea Grant has no specific programs in aquaculture. Cooperative Extension Further details of the New Jersey Sea Grant College are located at: The Cornell Cooperative Extension Programs in Fish and Wildlife Biology http://www.njmsc.org/Sea_Grant/About_SeaGra provide information specific to fisheries nt.htm management. Details of aquaculture programs are on a case-by-case basis. An NEW MEXICO example of a county-based aquaculture program is Suffolk County. Through its NASAC research and educational and training Mike Sloane programs, the Suffolk County office of the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish Cooperative Extension seeks to improve the PO Box 25112 quality of aquaculture in this county of New Sante Fe NM 87504 505-476-8055 York. More information about Cornell 505-476-8131 FAX Cooperative Extension Programs can be [email protected] found at:

http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/EXT/ext/fish&wildli fe.htm

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-14 March 2006 Appendix H

Suffolk Country information is available at: Carolina Sea Grant College Program can be accessed at: http://www.cce.cornell.edu/counties/Suffolk/MA Rprograms/Aquaculturemain.htm http://www.ncsu.edu/seagrant

Sea Grant NORTH DAKOTA

The New York Sea Grant conducts research NASAC on a variety of topics related to marine ecosystems. Information about aquaculture No Aquaculture Program and the New York Sea Grant was not available. Additional information about New Cooperative Extension York’s Sea Grant program is available at: The North Dakota State University (NDSU) http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu Extension Service offers its citizens information and other educational resources. NORTH CAROLINA Aquaculture has become a topic of focus at the Carrington Research Extension, where NASAC economic development is the goal. Reports of the aquaculture program at the Carrington Debra Sloan Research Extension are available at its North Carolina Department of Agriculture website. Additional information about the P.O. Box 1475 Franklin, NC 28744 NDSU Extension can be found at: (828)524-1264 (828)524-1264 FAX http://www.ext.nodak.edu [email protected] http://www.agr.state.nc.us/aquacult The Carrington Research Extension can be found at: Cooperative Extension http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/carringt North Carolina State University (NCSU) North Carolina Agricultural and Technical Sea Grant State University (NC AT&T) Cooperative Extension provides information about ponds North Dakota does not have a Sea Grant and aquaculture. NCSU/NC A&T Program. Cooperative Extension is located at: OHIO http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/copubs/ag/aqua NASAC Sea Grant Laura Tiu Ohio State University Piketon Research Center The North Carolina Sea Grant College 1864 Shyville Rd. program directs research and information Piketon OH 45661-9749 sharing about issues in coastal and marine 740-289-2071 740-289-4591 FAX resources. Aquaculture is one of the theme [email protected] areas for the NC Sea Grant. The North

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-15 March 2006 Appendix H

Cooperative Extension Publications, contact information, and aquaculture resources from the Southern Providing aquaculture practitioners with District are found at: information on topics such as fish culture methods, nutritional requirements, http://osuextra.okstate.edu, aquacultural system design and http://biosystems.okstate.edu/waterquality/wqtea management, species selection and water m.htm, and quality management. Further information http://dasnr.okstate.edu/oces/sedistrict, about the Ohio State Extension Aquaculture respectively. Program is available at: Sea Grant http://piketon.osu.edu/aqua Oklahoma does not have a Sea Grant Sea Grant Program.

As a part of the Lake Erie Programs, the OREGON Ohio Sea Grant College offers publications and research initiatives focused on many NASAC topics in aquaculture. Additional information about the Ohio Sea Grant Dalton Hobbs Oregon Department of Agriculture program can be found at: Agriculture Development and Marketing Division 1207 NW Naito Parkway http://www.sg.ohio-state.edu Suite 104 Portland OR 97209-2832 503-872-6600 OKLAHOMA 503-872-6601 FAX [email protected] NASAC Cooperative Extension Mitch Broiles Oklahoma Department of Agriculture No information concerning aquaculture for 2800 N Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City OK 73105 the state’s cooperative extension service was 405-522-6131 available for Oregon. Additional 405-522-0756 FAX information about Oregon State University’s [email protected] Extension Service can be found at:

Cooperative Extension http://extension.oregonstate.edu/index.php

Oklahoma State University (OSU) Sea Grant Cooperative Extension’s publications database, has links to a wide range of Research of the Oregon Sea Grant College is aquaculture documents. The Extension’s focused on promotion and sustainability of Water Quality Team maintains a group of aquatic resources in the Northeast. Research experts in the field of aquaculture and pond in sustainable aquaculture is one initiative of maintenance. Specifically, the OSU this Sea Grant program. Complete Extension’s Southern District and expert information about the Oregon Sea Grant Marley Beem maintain a site dedicated to College can be obtained at: aquaculture education. http://seagrant.orst.edu

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-16 March 2006 Appendix H

PENNSYLVANIA Sea Grant

NASAC The University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College Program is an educational program Kyle Nagurny devoted to the conservation and sustainable Agriculture Development Department of Agriculture use of coastal and marine resources in 2301 N Cameron Street Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Harrisburg PA 17110-9408 Caribbean region. Their mission is two-fold: (717)787-2376 (717)787-5643 FAX to conduct scientific research in the areas of [email protected] water quality, fisheries and mariculture, seafood safety, marine recreation and coastal Cooperative Extension tourism, coastal hazards and coastal communities economic development; and to No information concerning aquaculture for apply their scientific knowledge to solve a the state’s Cooperative Extension Service variety of problems that communities face was available for Pennsylvania. every day. For over two decades the University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College Sea Grant Program has been working to promote sustainable development and the wise use of The Pennsylvania Sea Grant has programs marine resources in Latin America and the dedicated to promoting research in Caribbean region. Complete information aquaculture in the Lake Erie region. Further about the University of Puerto Rico Sea details of Pennsylvania Sea Grant programs Grant College Program is available at: can be found at: http://seagrant.uprm.edu http://www.pserie.psu.edu/seagrant/seagindex.htm RHODE ISLAND PUERTO RICO NASAC NASAC Michelle Burnett Jaime Gonzalez Azar Rhode Island Department of Environmental Fisheries Development Program Management Department of Agriculture Office of Marine Fisheries PO Box 10163 3 Fort Wetherill Rd San Juan PR 00908-1163 Jamestown, RI 02835 (809)724-4911 401-423-1946 (787)725-7884 FAX 401-423-1925 FAX [email protected]

Cooperative Extension Dave Alves Oliver Stedman Government Center Although the University of Puerto Rico has 4808 Tower Hill Rd Wakefield RI 02879 an Agricultural Extension Service, no 401-783-3370 specific information related to aquaculture 401-783-3767 FAX was found. A current website was also [email protected] unavailable.

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-17 March 2006 Appendix H

Cooperative Extension information sources including publications, meetings, contacts, and research. Links to The Rhode Island Cooperative Extension Clemson Aquacultural Water Resources can program in Aquaculture Biotechnology and be found at: Fishing seeks to increase local aquaculture through economically- and environmentally- http://www.clemson.edu/waterquality/waterres/a beneficial technologies systems. The Rhode qwr.htm Island Cooperative Extension program in Aquaculture Biotechnology and Fishing Sea Grant website is: The South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium http://www.uri.edu/ce/aquaculture.html provides a program of research, education, extension, and training to increase economic Sea Grant opportunities and conservation of coastal and marine resources for citizens of South The Rhode Island Sea Grant Sustainable Carolina. Complete information about the Fisheries Extension Program seeks to SC Sea Grant Consortium can be found at: revitalize and stabilize the Nation’s Fisheries through applied research, outreach, http://www.scseagrant.org and education. The program provides a link between researchers, commercial and SOUTH DAKOTA recreational fishermen, and regulators by bringing scientific and technical information NASAC to user groups, and in turn informing Jon Farris researchers of user needs and priorities. South Dakota Department of Agriculture Fisheries Extension deals with capture Division of Agricultural Development fisheries, aquaculture, and seafood safety Foss Building 523 E Capitol and quality. Information about the Rhode Pierre SD 57501-3182 Island Sea Grant can be found at: (605)773-5436 (605)773-3481 FAX http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu [email protected]

Dennis Unkenholz SOUTH CAROLINA South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 521 E Capitol NASAC Pierre SD 57501 (605)773-4508 Gerry Bonnette (605)773-6245 FAX South Carolina Department of Agriculture [email protected] PO Box 11280 Columbia SC 29211-1280 803-734-2218 Cooperative Extension 803-734-0325 FAX [email protected] South Dakota State University’s Extension Service is the primary outreach facility of Cooperative Extension the University. It serves the people of South Dakota by helping them apply scientific Clemson’s Aquacultural Water Resources knowledge to improve their lives. No website provides links to a variety of information on aquaculture-related programs

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-18 March 2006 Appendix H

is available for this Extension. Additional TEXAS information about South Dakota State University’s Cooperative Extension is NASAC located at: Susan Dunn Institutional and Produce Marketing http://sdces.sdstate.edu Texas Department of Agriculture PO Box 12847 Sea Grant Austin TX 78711 (512)475-1665 (512)463-7843 FAX There is no Sea Grant Program for the State [email protected] of South Dakota. Bob Blumberg General Land Office TENNESSEE 1700 N Congress Avenue SFA Building Room 710 NASAC Austin TX 78701-1495 (512)463-5028 (512)463-5098 FAX Robert Beets Tennessee Department of Agriculture Market Development Division P O Box 40627 Cooperative Extension Nashville TN 37204 615-837 5517 The Texas A&M Cooperative Extension 615-837 5194 FAX [email protected] offers practical, educational information as a result of university research. No specific Cooperative Extension information related to aquaculture from the state’s Cooperative Extension Service was The Center for Profitable Agriculture is a found. Texas A&M Cooperative Extension partnership between the Tennessee Farm information can be found at: Bureau and the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture. The Center provides http://texasextension.tamu.edu information about the development of the aquaculture industry in Tennessee. Further Sea Grant information about aquaculture initiatives from the Center for Profitable Agriculture Texas Sea Grant provides outreach through can be found on the University of Tennessee two efforts: the Marine Advisory Service Extension’s web site at: (MAS) and the Marine Information Service (MIS). The Texas Sea Grant has specialists http://www.utextension.utk.edu/departments who deal with issues including aquaculture, fisheries, environmental quality, marine Sea Grant business management, marine education, and seafood science, technology and marine There is no Sea Grant Program in policy. Further information about the Texas Tennessee. Sea Grant College Program can be found at:

http://texas-sea-grant.tamu.edu

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-19 March 2006 Appendix H

UTAH Sea Grant

NASAC The Lake Champlain Sea Grant Program provides a variety of scientific research and Kent Hauck activities that lead to improved Utah Department of Agriculture & Food P.O. Box 146500 understanding, use, and management of the Salt Lake City UT 84114-6500 Lake Champlain ecosystem. Information (801)538-7029 about aquaculture through the Lake (801)538-7169 FAX [email protected] Champlain Sea Grant was not found. Additional information about the Lake Cooperative Extension Champlain Sea Grant is available at:

No specific information related to http://www.uvm.edu/~seagrant aquaculture from the state’s Cooperative Extension Service was found. Further VIRGINIA information about initiatives from the Utah State University Extension Service is NASAC located at: T. Robins Buck Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services http://extension.usu.edu 1100 Bank Street Suite 210 Richmond VA 23219 (804)371-6094 Sea Grant (804)371-2945 FAX [email protected] Utah does not have a Sea Grant Program. Cooperative Extension VERMONT The Southwest Virginia Aquaculture NASAC Research and Extension Center seeks to aid the public with sustainable recirculating Denise Russo aquaculture and high value alternative Vermont Department of Agriculture 116 State Street Drawer 20 horticulture opportunities in southwest Montpelier VT 05620-2901 Virginia through research, extension, and (802)828-3829 education programs. More information from (802)828-3831 FAX [email protected] the Southwest Virginia Aquaculture Research and Extension Center is located at: Cooperative Extension http://www.vaes.vt.edu/saltville The University of Vermont’s Extension seeks to help build vital, sustainable rural Sea Grant communities and families through educational programs. Additional The Virginia Sea Grant Program is a information about the University of consortium of research organizations that Vermont Extension is available at: focuses on protection and use of marine and freshwater resources in the State. http://www.uvm.edu/extension Development of sustainable aquaculture is a key research initiative from this program.

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-20 March 2006 Appendix H

More information about the Virginia Sea Rico Sea Grant College Program, is located Grant is available at: within the Center for Marine and Environmental Studies (CMES) at UVI. http://www.virginia.edu/virginia-sea-grant VIMAS was established on the St. Thomas campus of UVI in 1984 and later expanded VIRGIN ISLANDS to include agents on St. Croix. No specific information related to aquaculture for the NASAC Virgin Islands’ Cooperative Extension Service was found. Additional information Arthur Petersen, Jr. about VIMAS is available at: Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture Estate Lower Love Kingshill, St. Croix VI 00850 http://rps.uvi.edu/VIMAS (340)778-0991 (340)778-3101 WASHINGTON Cooperative Extension NASAC The University of the Virgin Islands (UVI) Dan Swecker, Senator Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Washington State Aquaculture Coordinator Experiment Station (AES) is located on the 10420 173rd Ave. SW St. Croix Campus of the University of the Rochester WA 98579 360-273-5890 Virgin Islands. AES is part of the Research 360-273-6577 FAX and Public Service Component. [email protected]

AES conducts basic and applied research to Cooperative Extension meet the needs of the local agricultural community in increasing production, Washington State University Cooperative improving efficiency, developing new Extension offers non-credit education and enterprises, preserving and propagating degree opportunities to people throughout germplasm unique to the Virgin Islands, and the state. Cooperative Extension builds the protecting the natural resource base. AES capacity of individuals, organizations, has a research program for aquaculture. businesses and communities, empowering them to find solutions for local issues and to Information about the UVI Cooperative improve their quality of life. WSU Extension Service is available at: Cooperative Extension offers some aquaculture publications at: http://rps.uvi.edu/CES http://pubs.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/index.html Additional information about AES is available at: Additional information about the WSU Cooperative Extension is available at: http://rps.uvi.edu/AES/aes_home.html http://ext.wsu.edu Sea Grant

The Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service (VIMAS), a part of the University of Puerto

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-21 March 2006 Appendix H

Sea Grant WISCONSIN

Washington Sea Grant Program brings NASAC researchers, regulatory agencies and industry together to keep Washington-raised Will H. Hughes Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & aquatic species available for sale as food Consumer Protection products. Through research, education, and Division of Agricultural Development information sharing, Washington State 2811 Agriculture Drive Madison, WI 53708-8911 aquaculture continues to be productive. 608-224-5142 Further information about the Washington Fax: 608-224-5110 Sea Grant Program can be found at: [email protected] http://www.wsg.washington.edu Cooperative Extension

WEST VIRGINIA Through its programming and collaborative relationships with the UW universities and NASAC colleges, the 72 Wisconsin counties, and countless local, state, and federal agencies Rob Nichols and groups, Extension provides a spectrum West Virginia Department of Agriculture of lifelong learning opportunities for 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston WV 25305 Wisconsin citizens. Extension education (304)558-2208 applies university research, knowledge and (304)558-3594 FAX resources to the needs of Wisconsin citizens. [email protected] Aquaculture is a topic of interest for the Cooperative Extension Wisconsin Extension. Further information about University of Wisconsin’s Extension The WVU Extension Service has established can be found at: a website dedicated to promoting education, technical support, and cooperative resources http://www.uwex.edu related to the aquaculture industry. Sea Grant Additional resources from the WVU

Extension Service are available at: The Wisconsin Sea Grant provides

information on research and publications http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture pertaining to aquaculture. Through these efforts as well as initiatives in technology Sea Grant transfer and outreach, Wisconsin Sea Grant West Virginia does not have a Sea Grant acts to promote sustainable use of aquatic Program. resources in the Great Lakes and the Oceans. Additional information about Wisconsin’s Sea Grant Programs can be found at:

http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/index.asp

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-22 March 2006 Appendix H

WYOMING

NASAC

Wyoming Business Council Division of Agriculture and Timber 2219 Carey Avenue Cheyenne WY 82002-0100 (307)777-6577 (307)777-6593 FAX [email protected]

Cooperative Extension

The University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension offers access to information and research on a variety of topics related to community life in the State. Additional information about aquaculture through this Extension was not found. The University’s Extension can be accessed at: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/UWces

Sea Grant

Wyoming does not have a Sea Grant Program.

EPA-821-B-05-001 H-23 March 2006

Appendix I

Additional Resources Appendix I

Additional Resources

The following resources may provide useful http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partn information to owners and operators of aquatic animal ers.html production facilities. USDA Agricultural Research Service EPA Programs and Information http://www.ars.usda.gov

CAAP Final Rule Web Page USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) This website provides access to the text of the rule and preamble, supporting/guidance documents. http://www.aphis.usda.gov http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) http://www.csrees.usda.gov U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’

Manual, EPA 833-B-96-003, December 1, 1996. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service You may download individual chapters or the (NASS) entire document at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm?prog

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service NPDES Permit Program Basics (NRCS) This Web site provides basic permitting tools and http://www.nrcs.usda.gov information.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id USDA NRCS Conservation Programs =45 Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Agricultural Management Assistance Program, Permit Compliance System Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_overview.htm http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs l#PCS USDA Regional Aquaculture Centers Source Water Protection Programs EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, • Center for Tropical and Subtropical Source Water Protection. Aquaculture: http://www.ctsa.org http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html • North Central Regional Aquaculture Center: http://www.ncrac.org/ TMDL Programs • Northeastern Regional Aquaculture EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Center: TMDL Program. http://www.agnr.umd.edu/AGNRDirectory/Se http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/index.html ction.cfm?SN=%208.13 • Southern Regional Aquaculture Center: USDA Programs and Information http://www.msstate.edu/dept/srac • Western Regional Aquaculture Center: http://www.fish.washington.edu/wrac Land Grant Universities This website provides directory of land grant universities. Click on a state link to reach a list of land grant university web sites.

EPA-821-B-05-001 I-1 March 2006 Appendix I

Other Resources National Marine Fisheries Service http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov American Fisheries Society http://www.fisheries.org National Sea Grant Library http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/index.html American Tilapia Association http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ata.html NOAA Aquaculture Information Center http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/frontpage.htm AquaFeed.com http://www.aquafeed.com Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association http://www.pcsga.org Aquaculture Engineering Society http://www.aesweb.org Pacific Shellfish Institute http://www.pacshell.org Aquaculture Magazine http://www.aquaculturemag.com Sea Grant http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org Aquaculture Network Information Center (Aquanic) SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse http://www.aquanic.org http://www.seaweb.org/resources/sac

Atlantic Salmon Federation Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Fact Sheets http://www.asf.ca http://srac.tamu.edu

Controlling Birds at Aquaculture Facilities U.S. Army Corps of Engineers http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uh120.pdf http://www.usace.army.mil

Freshwater Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service http://www.freshwaterinstitute.org http://www.fws.gov

Global Aquaculture Alliance U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for http://www.gaalliance.org Veterinary Medicine (CVM) http://www.fda.gov/cvm/default.html Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/jsa/index.htm U.S. Trout Farmers Association http://www.ustfa.org Maryland Department of Agriculture, Directory of State Aquaculture Coordinators and Contacts http://www.marylandseafood.org/aquaculture/nasac.php

National Aquaculture Association http://www.nationalaquaculture.org

National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators http://www.agr.state.nc.us/aquacult/NASAC.html

National Fisheries Institute http://www.nfi.org

EPA-821-B-05-001 I-2 March 2006

Appendix J

Glossary Appendix J

Glossary

Aeration: The process of bringing air into in general, represent the best existing contact with a liquid by one or more of the performance of treatment technologies that following methods: (1) spraying the liquid are economically achievable within an into the air, (2) bubbling air through the industrial point source category or liquid, and (3) agitating the liquid to subcategory. promote absorption of oxygen through the air-liquid interface. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT): Technology-based Aerobic: Having or occurring in the standard for the discharge from existing presence of free oxygen. industrial point sources of conventional pollutants including BOD, TSS, fecal Agronomic rates: The land application of coliform, pH, oil and grease. The BCT is animal wastes at rates of application that established in light of a two-part “cost provide the crop or forage growth with reasonableness” test, which compares the needed nutrients for optimum health and cost for an industry to reduce its pollutant growth. discharge with the cost to a POTW for similar levels of reduction of a pollutant Anaerobic: Characterized by the absence of loading. The second test examines the cost- molecular oxygen, or capable of living and effectiveness of additional industrial growing in the absence of oxygen, such as treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find anaerobic bacteria. limits, which are reasonable under both tests before establishing them as BCT. Aquaculture: The propagation and rearing of aquatic species in controlled or selected Best management practices: Schedules of environments. activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other Aquatic animal production: The management practices that prevent or reduce production of aquatic animals under pollution (Title 40 CFR Part 122.2). controlled or semicontrolled conditions. Best Practicable Control Technology Benthic monitoring: Monitoring conducted Currently Available (BPT): The first level to ensure that degradation is not occurring of technology-based standards established under or around net pens. by the CWA to control pollutants discharged to waters of the United States. BPT effluent Best Available Technology Economically limitations guidelines are generally based on Achievable (BAT): Technology-based the average of the best existing performance standard established by the Clean Water Act by plants within an industrial category or (CWA) as the most appropriate means subcategory. available on a national basis for controlling the direct discharge of toxic and Biosolids: Waste material from an nonconventional pollutants to navigable aquaculture operation, primarily fish manure waters. BAT effluent limitations guidelines, and uneaten feed.

EPA-821-B-05-001 J-1 March 2006 Appendix J

Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water (1) Closed ponds that discharge only Act is an act passed by the U.S. Congress to during periods of excess runoff or control water pollution. It was formerly (2) Facilities that produce less than referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 45,454 harvest weight kilograms Control Act of 1972 or Federal Water (approximately 100,000 pounds) of Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 aquatic animals per year. (Public Law 92-500), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., as amended by: Public Law 96-483; Drug: Any substance, including medicated Public Law 97- 117; Public Laws 95-217, feed, that is added to a production facility to 97-117, 97-440, and 100-04. maintain or restore animal health and that subsequently might be discharged to waters Concentrated aquatic animal production of the United States. (CAAP) facility: A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility that contains, grows, or holds Effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs): aquatic animals in either of the following Under the Clean Water Act, section 502(11), categories, or that the Director designates as any restriction, including schedules of such on a case-by-case basis, and must apply compliance, established by a state or the for a National Pollutant Discharge Administrator on quantities, rates, and Elimination System permit. concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents that are Coldwater fish species or other discharged from point sources into coldwater aquatic animals including, but navigable waters, the waters of the not limited to, the Salmonidae family of contiguous zone, or the ocean (Clean Water fish (e.g., trout and salmon) in ponds, Act sections 301(b) and 304(b)). raceways, or other similar structures that discharge at least 30 days per year but Excess feed: Feed that is added to a does not include: production system, is not consumed, and is not expected to be consumed by the aquatic (1) Facilities that produce less than animals. 9,090 harvest weight kilograms (approximately 20,000 pounds) of Existing source: Any facility from which aquatic animals per year and there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, (2) Facilities that feed less than 2,272 the construction of which is commenced kilograms (approximately 5,000 before September 22, 2004. pounds) of food during the calendar month of maximum feeding. Extralabel use: The use of a drug in any way that is not in accordance with approved Warmwater fish species or other labeling. Extralabel use may be allowed warmwater aquatic animals including, under specific conditions. but not limited to, the Ameiuridae, Cetrachidae, and the Cyprinidae families Facility: All contiguous property and of fish (e.g., respectively, catfish, equipment owned, operated, leased, or under sunfish, and minnows) in ponds, the control of the same person or entity. raceways, or similar structures that discharge at least 30 days per year, but Feed conversion ratio (FCR): A measure does not include: of feeding efficiency that is calculated as the

EPA-821-B-05-001 J-2 March 2006 Appendix J ratio of the weight of feed applied to the systems to culture fish or shellfish. These weight of the fish produced. systems may be located along a shore or pier or may be anchored and floating offshore. Flow-through systems: A system designed Net pens and cages rely on tides, currents, for a continuous water flow to waters of the and other natural water movement to United States through chambers used to provide a continual supply of high-quality produce aquatic animals. Flow-through water to the cultured animals. systems typically use either raceways or tank systems. Raceways are fed by nearby New Source Performance Standards rivers or springs and are typically long, (NSPS): Technology-based standards for rectangular chambers at or below grade, facilities that qualify as new sources under constructed of earth, concrete, plastic, or 40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 122.29. metal. Tank systems are similarly fed and Standards consider that the new source concentrate aquatic animals in circular or facility has an opportunity to design rectangular tanks above grade. The term operations to more effectively does not include net pens. control pollutant discharges.

Groundwater: Water in a saturated zone or Outfall: The mouth of the conduit drains stratum beneath the surface of land or water. and other conduits from which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters. Indirect discharger: A facility that discharges or may discharge wastewaters Pass through: A discharge which exits the into a publicly owned treatment works. POTW into waters of the United States, or state of Washington, in quantities or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination concentrations which, alone or in System (NPDES) permit: A permit to conjunction with a discharge or discharges discharge wastewater into waters of the from other sources, is a cause of a violation United States issued under the National of any requirement of the city’s NPDES Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, permit including an increase in the authorized by section 402 of the Clean magnitude or duration of a violation. Water Act. Permitting authority: The agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination authorized to administer the National System (NPDES) program: The NPDES Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program authorized by sections 307, 318, permitting program in a state or territory. 402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act. It applies to facilities that discharge Point source: Any discernible, confined, wastewater directly to U.S. surface waters. and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may be discharged. See Navigable waters: Traditionally, waters Clean Water Act section 502(14). sufficiently deep and wide for navigation by all, or specified vessels; such waters in the Ponds: Culture systems characterized by United States come under federal hydraulic retention times sufficiently long to jurisdiction and are protected by certain allow natural processes to reduce metabolic provisions of the Clean Water Act. waste concentrations. Commonly used to Net pens and cage systems: A culture culture warm water fish, such as channel system that uses suspended or floating catfish.

EPA-821-B-05-001 J-3 March 2006 Appendix J

Pretreatment standards for existing are produced prior to discharge. sources (PSES) of indirect discharges: Recirculating systems typically use tanks, Under section 307(b) of the Clean Water biological or mechanical filtration, and Act, standards applicable (for this rule) to mechanical support equipment to maintain indirect dischargers that commenced high-quality water to produce aquatic construction prior to promulgation of the animals. These systems are highly intensive final rule. and require biological treatment within the system to prevent ammonia from Pretreatment standards for new sources accumulating to harmful levels. (PSNS): Under section 307(c) of the Clean Water Act, standards applicable to indirect Sludge: Settled sewage solids combined dischargers that commence after with varying amounts of water and dissolved promulgation of the final rule. materials that are removed from sewage by screening, sedimentation, chemical Publicly owned treatment works precipitation, or bacterial digestion. (POTW): A treatment works as defined by section 212 of the Clean Water Act, which is Wastewater treatment: The processing of owned by a state or municipality (as defined wastewater by physical, chemical, by section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act). biological, or other means to remove This definition includes any devices and specific pollutants from the wastewater systems used in the storage, treatment, stream, or to alter the physical or chemical recycling, and reclamation of municipal state of specific pollutants in the wastewater sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid stream. Treatment is performed for nature. It also includes sewers, pipes, and discharge of treated wastewater, recycle of other conveyances, only if they convey treated wastewater to the same process that wastewater to a POTW. The term also generated the wastewater, or reuse of the means the municipality, as defined in treated wastewater in another process. section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act, that has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to and the discharges from such a treatment works.

Quiescent zones: Solids-collection zones placed at the end of a raceway tank to collect the settleable solids swept out of the fish-rearing area. They are the primary means for solids removal in flow-through raceways.

Raceways: Culture units in which water flows continuously, making a single pass through the unit before being discharged; these systems are also referred to as flow- through systems.

Recirculating systems: A system that filters and reuses water in which aquatic animals

EPA-821-B-05-001 J-4 March 2006

Appendix K1

NPDES Permit Applications: Form 1

Appendix K2

NPDES Permit Applications: Form 2B 7260 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:50 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12FER2.SGM 12FER2 ER12FE03.000 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 7261

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:50 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12FER2.SGM 12FER2 ER12FE03.001 7262 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:50 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12FER2.SGM 12FER2 ER12FE03.002 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 7263

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:50 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12FER2.SGM 12FER2 ER12FE03.003 7264 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

VerDate Jan<31>2003 18:08 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12FER2.SGM 12FER2 ER12FE03.004

Appendix L

Applicability Matrix Appendix L

APPLICABILITY MATRIX Discharge > Maximum Species NPDES / than 30 Annual Production of Feeding is > NPDES System Type Type ELGs Days Per Aquatic Animals than 5,000 lb Applies?1 (Water) Applies? Year? (2,272 kg)? > 100,000 lb N/A X X Yes X Yes > 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) No Cold < 20,000 lb (9,090 kg)

No Flow-through or Recirculating > 100,000 lb N/A X X Yes X X > 100,000 lb (45,454 kg) Yes No Warm < 100,000 lb (45,454 kg)

> 100,000 lb N/A X X Yes X Yes > 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) Cold No < 20,000 lb (9,090 kg)

No Net Pens > 100,000 lb N/A X X Yes X X Yes > 100,000 lb (45,454 kg) Warm No < 100,000 lb (45,454 kg) No Yes X > 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) Yes No Cold < 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) No Ponds Yes X > 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) Yes No Warm < 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) No Alligator ponds, molluscan shellfish, lobster cages and pounds, See

crawfish, indirect footnote2 dischargers, or Alaskan flow- through2 1 The Director may designate a facility as a CAAP facility on a case-by-case basis, even if the facility does not meet the discharge, annual production, and feed requirements of the NPDES regulations.

2 These types of systems are exempt from the CAAP ELGs. They may be regulated by the NPDES regulations if they meet the discharge, annual production, and feed requirements of the NPDES regulations, or if the Director designates them (on a case-by-case basis) as CAAP facilities or other types of facilities requiring an NPDES permit.

EPA-821-B-05-001 L-1 March 2006

Appendix M1

Example Written Report Participating in an INAD Study Appendix M1

EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR AGREEING TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INAD STUDY (Submit a written report to your permitting authority within 7 days of agreeing or signing up to participate in an INAD study)

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

Name of person submitting this report:

Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:

* Instructions: A form/table like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted within 7 days of agreeing to participate in an INAD study. Check with your permit and permitting authority for exact reporting requirements. The first row is an example row.

Date Initiating Name of INAD Disease or Condition INAD Study Drug Used & Method of Application Intended to Treat Participation Dosage ; Medicated feed Injection For controlling 09/09/04 Oxytetracycline columnaris in walleye Bath treatment Other: ______

Medicated feed

Injection Bath treatment

Other: ______

Medicated feed

Injection Bath treatment Other: ______

Medicated feed Injection Bath treatment Other: ______

* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types of existing written reports if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 M1-1 March 2006

Appendix M2

Checklist for Oral Report for INAD and Extralabel Drug Use Appendix M2

CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT FOR INAD AND EXTRALABEL DRUG USE (Provide an oral report to your permitting authority within 7 days after initiating use of the drug)

* Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your permitting authority. It can be used to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting requirements of the ELGs. The first row is an example row.

Date Oral Reported to Name of Drug (INAD & First Date Report Method of Permitting Extralabel) Used & of Drug Submitted Initials Application Authority? Reason for Use Use to Permitting Authority Extralabel: Erythromycin ; Injection 09/09/04 09/10/04 MJ Treat bacterial infections

* Note: This checklist is only an example of a checklist that facilities could use to track oral reporting. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 M2-1 March 2006

Appendix M3

Example Written Report INAD and Extralabel Drug Use Appendix M3

EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR INAD AND EXTRALABEL DRUG USE (Submit a written report to your permitting authority within 30 days after initiating use of the drug)

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

Name of person submitting this report:

Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:

* Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted within 30 days after initiating use of an INAD or extralabel drug. Check with your permit and permitting authority for exact reporting requirements. The first row is an example row.

Date and Total Total Amount of Amount of Name of Drug & Time of Duration Method of Application Active Medicated Reason for Use Application (start date/time Ingredient Feed end date/time) Added Added**

Oxytetracycline 09/09/04 ; Medicated feed 10:00 AM 5 Injection 1 g/lb as sole For control of consecutive 50 lbs Bath treatment ration columnaris in days 09/13/04 Other: ______walleye 10:00 AM ______

Medicated feed Injection Bath treatment

Other: ______

Medicated feed Injection Bath treatment

Other: ______

Medicated feed Injection Bath treatment

Other: ______

* This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types of existing written reports if available. ** Applies only to drugs applied through medicated feed.

EPA-821-B-05-001 M3-1 March 2006

Appendix M4

Checklist for Oral Report of Failure or Damage to the Structure of Containment Systems Appendix M4

CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT OF FAILURE OR DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS

(Provide an oral report to your permitting authority within 24 hours of the discovery of any reportable failure or damage that results in a material discharge of pollutants)

* Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your permitting authority. It can be used as a checklist to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting requirements of the ELGs. Use the following table to track failure or damage to the structure of your containment systems. The first row is an example row.

Date Oral Reported to Report Cause of the Failure or Damage in Materials Released to Date of Permitting Submitted Initials the Containment System the Environment Release Authority? to Permitting Authority ; Storm/wave damage to net pen 1,000 Coho salmon 09/08/04 09/09/04 MJ

* Note: This checklist is only an example of a checklist that facilities could use to track oral reporting. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 M4-1 March 2006

Appendix M5

Example Written Report Failure or Damage to the Structure of Containment Systems Appendix M5

EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR FAILURE OR DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS (Submit a written report to your permitting authority within 7 days of discovery of the failure or damage)

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

Name of person submitting this form:

Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:

* Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted with 7 days of the discovery of a failure or damage to the structure of containment systems at your facility. The first row is an example row. Check with your permit and permitting authority for exact reporting requirements.

Date Time Elapsed Materials Released to Cause of the Failure or Until the the Environment from Steps Being Taken to Prevent Failure or Damage Failure or the Failure or Damage Reoccurrence Damage was Damage was (Estimate) Discovered Repaired 1. Secure standpipe screen with pipe clamps. Broken raceway 2. Inspect clamps weekly for signs screen at 1,000 fish – Coho salmon of corrosion or deterioration. quiescent zone 09/10/04 30 minutes fingerlings 3. Replace clamps as necessary. and on 4. Inspect QZ screens weekly for standpipe signs of deterioration. 5. Replace screens as necessary.

* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types of existing written reports if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 M5-1 March 2006

Appendix M6

Checklist for Oral Report of Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed Appendix M6

CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT OF SPILLS OF DRUGS, PESTICIDES, AND FEED (Provide an oral report to your permitting authority within 24 hours of any spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed)

* Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your permitting authority. It can be used as a checklist to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting requirements of the ELGs. Use the following table to track multiple spills throughout the year. The first row is an example row.

Date Oral Reported to Report Name of Material Spilled Quantity Permitting Date of Spill Submitted Initials (Drugs, Pesticides, or Feed) Spilled Authority? to Permitting Authority Oxytetracycline medicated feed; 50 lbs 09/09/04 09/10/04 MJ ; broken bag spilled onto ground

* Note: This checklist is only an example of a checklist that facilities could use to track oral reporting. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 M6-1 March 2006

Appendix M7

Example Written Report Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed Appendix M7

EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR SPILLS OF DRUGS, PESTICIDES, AND FEED (Submit a written report to your permitting authority within 7 days of any spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed)

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

Name of person submitting this form:

Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority:

* Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted with 7 days of a spill. The first row is an example row. Check with your permit and permitting authority for exact reporting requirements.

Name of Material Spilled Where Spilled and Action (Drugs, Pesticides, or Quantity Spilled Date Spilled Taken Feed) Bag of medicated feed broke when being moved from a pallet in the feed Oxytetracycline medicated storage area. Contents spilled onto 50 lbs 9/10/04 feed the floor. Swept up spilled feed and placed material in a plastic container for future use.

* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types of existing written reports if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 M7-1 March 2006

Appendix N

Feed Conversion Ratios Log Appendix N

FEED CONVERSION RATIOS LOG FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of feeding and to calculate/track feed conversion ratios. The first row is an example row. FCRs are calculated with the following equation:

Dry weight of feed applied Wet weight of fish gained

Weights of Date Total Feed Animals Weight Calculated (start date Description of Group Amounts (start weight Gained FCR end date) (Estimate) end weight) 3/20/04 100 lbs Brooktrout stockers for 5,275 lbs 4,700 lbs 1.12 Potomac River 10/21/04 4,800 lbs

EPA-821-B-05-001 N-1 March 2006 Appendix N

Weights of Date Total Feed Animals Weight Calculated (start date Description of Group Amounts (start weight Gained FCR end date) (Estimate) end weight)

* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking feeding and calculating FCRs could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 N-2 March 2006

Appendix O

Spills and Leaks Log Appendix O

SPILLS AND LEAKS LOG

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of spills or leaks at your facility. You are not required to submit this form to your permitting authority. The first row is an example row.

Location Date Amount of Spill or (as indicated Type of Material & Source List of Preventative (mm/dd/ Reason Material Initials Leak on a site Quantity (if known) Measures Taken yy) Recovered map) Spoke to all employees Top was not secured Hatchery Storage about the importance of 09/10/04 Spill Formalin and the drum was 20 gallons MJ floor drum securing lids to storage knocked over containers

EPA-821-B-05-001 O-1 March 2006 Appendix O

Location Date Amount of Spill or (as indicated Type of Material & Source List of Preventative (mm/dd/ Reason Material Initials Leak on a site Quantity (if known) Measures Taken yy) Recovered map)

* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking spills and leaks could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 O-2 March 2006 Appendix O

Instructions: Use this page to enter any important notes about the spills from the previous sheets.

Date of spill or leak Notes (mm/dd/yy) All employees have been instructed on the importance of securing container lids. Employees were also instructed to double-check that 09/10/04 container lids are secured before proceeding with applications.

EPA-821-B-05-001 O-3 March 2006

Appendix P1

Example Inspection and Maintenance Log Flow-through and Recirculating Systems Appendix P1

STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE EXAMPLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG FLOW-THROUGH AND RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

Production or Wastewater Treatment System:

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of routine inspections and regular maintenance of your production systems and wastewater treatment systems. Use a separate form for each production system and/or wastewater treatment system. Make sure you defined the terms “routine” and “regular” in your BMP plan. The first row is an example row.

Date Date Inspector Notes Maintenance Inspected Initials (Note any problems found and maintenance performed) Performed

The screen at the end of raceway 2 was loose. Secured the 09/10/04 MJ 09/12/04 screen to prevent it from completely coming loose.

Inspected screens in raceways. All screens were found to be in 09/25/04 MJ N/A good condition.

EPA-821-B-05-001 P1-1 March 2006 Appendix P1

Date Date Inspector Notes Maintenance Inspected Initials (Note any problems found and maintenance performed) Performed

* Note: This is only an example of what a maintenance log could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 P1-2 March 2006

Appendix P2

Example Inspection and Maintenance Log Net Pen Systems Appendix P2

MAINTENANCE EXAMPLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG NET PEN SYSTEMS

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

Production System:

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of routine inspections and regular maintenance of your production systems. Use a separate form for each production system. Make sure you defined the terms “routine” and “regular” in your BMP plan. The first row is an example row.

Date Date Inspector Notes Maintenance Inspected Initials (Note any problems found and maintenance performed) Performed

During a routine inspection, divers discovered a small hole in 09/10/04 MJ 09/10/04 net pen 3; patched the hole.

09/25/04 MJ Inspected nets – all were in good condition N/A

EPA-821-B-05-001 P2-1 March 2006 Appendix P2

Date Date Inspector Notes Maintenance Inspected Initials (Note any problems found and maintenance performed) Performed

* Note: This is only an example of what a maintenance log could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 P2-2 March 2006

Appendix Q

Cleaning Log Appendix Q

CLEANING LOG FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

* Instructions: This example form may be used to track cleaning of your production systems and/or wastewater treatment systems. The first row is an example row.

Date Cleaner Description of Notes About Cleaning Cleaned Initials Component Cleaned Cleaned QZs and dam boards; checked and cleaned 9/10/04 MJ QZ raceways EB 1-5 screens.

EPA-821-B-05-001 Q-1 March 2006 Appendix Q

Date Cleaner Description of Notes About Cleaning Cleaned Initials Component Cleaned

* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking cleaning of production systems and wastewater treatment systems could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 Q-2 March 2006

Appendix R

Record-keeping Checklist Appendix R

RECORD-KEEPING CHECKLIST

* Instructions: Use the following checklist to make sure you meet all the record-keeping requirements of the CAAP ELGs. You do not need to submit this to your permitting authority.

Records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios (can use the form in Appendix N to fulfill this requirement).

Records documenting frequency of cleaning (can use the form in Appendix Q to fulfill this requirement).

Records documenting frequency of inspections, maintenance, and repairs (can use forms in Appendix P to fulfill this requirement).

* Use the following checklist to see what other record-keeping forms can be used to show your permitting authority that you are meeting the reporting and BMP plan requirements of the CAAP ELGs (e.g., solids control, training). The following forms are not required.

INAD – 7 Day Written Report (Appendix M)

INAD and Extralabel – 7 Day Oral Report (Appendix M)

INAD & Extralabel – 30 Day Written Report (Appendix M)

Failure or Damage to the Structural Integrity of Containment Systems – 24 Hour Oral Report (Appendix M)

Failure or Damage to the Structural Integrity of Containment Systems – 7 Day Written Report (Appendix M)

Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed – 24 Hour Oral Report (Appendix M)

Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed – 7 Day Written Report (Appendix M)

Material Storage: Spills and Leaks Log (Appendix O)

Cleaning Log (Appendix Q)

Employee Training Log (Appendix S)

Carcass Removal (Appendix T)

* Note: This checklist is only for tracking record-keeping at your CAAP facility. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.

EPA-821-B-05-001 R-1 March 2006

Appendix S

Employee Training Log Appendix S

EMPLOYEE TRAINING LOG

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number:

* Instructions: This example form may be used to track employee training at your facility.

Completed By: ______Employee Training Title: ______Date: ______

Instructions: Describe the employee-training program for your facility below. The program should, at a minimum, address spill prevention and response, and proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment systems. Provide a schedule for the training program and list the employees who attend the training sessions.

Brief Description of the Schedule for Training Topics Training Program and Training Participants Materials (list dates)

Spill Prevention and Response

Operation and

Cleaning of

Systems

Feeding Procedures