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
Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic 

Animal Production Point Source Category 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

Office of Science and Technology 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 

March 2006 
Acknowledgments 

The Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology has prepared 

this compliance guidance and approved it for publication. Tetra Tech, Inc., Contract 68-

C-99-263, supported the preparation of the guidance under the direction and review of 

the Office of Science and Technology. 

Technical experts in the concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) industry 

prepared the document Best Management Practices for Flow-Through, Net-Pen, 

Recirculating, and Pond Aquaculture Systems by Tucker, C., S. Belle, C. Boyd, G. Fornshell, 

J. Hargreaves, S. LaPatra, S. Summerfelt, and P. Zajicek (2003). It provided valuable 

background information for EPA in the development of this compliance guide. 
Disclaimer 

The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance. The statutory 

provisions and regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This document is not 

a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations. 

Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated 

community. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon 

any member of the public. 

While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this 

guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes, 

regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the 

discussion in this document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be 

controlling. 

The general descriptions provided here may not apply to particular situations based 

upon the circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections 

about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the application of this 

guidance to a particular situation. EPA and other decision-makers retain the discretion 

to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this 

guidance where appropriate. 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or 

recommendation for their use. 

This document may be revised periodically without public notice. EPA welcomes 

public input on this document at any time. 

Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, 

subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or 

assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of, or the results of 

such use of, any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or 

represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privately owned 

rights. 
Table of Contents 

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

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 
Table of Contents 

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

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 
Table of Contents 

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

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 
Table of Contents 

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

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 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

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

Chapter 1: Introduction 

On June 30, 2004, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) completed 

regulations under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) establishing Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines (ELGs) and New Source 

Performance Standards for the Concentrated 

Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) Point 

Source Category. The regulations contain 

requirements for wastewater discharges that 

must be met by new and existing CAAP 

facilities discharging directly to U.S. waters. 

The CWA establishes a comprehensive 

program for protecting the Nation’s waters. 

Among its core provisions, the CWA 

generally prohibits the discharge of 

pollutants from a point source to waters 

except as authorized by a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. 

Direct dischargers must comply with 

effluent limits in NPDES permits. EPA’s 

NPDES regulations define a hatchery, fish 

farm, or other facility as a CAAP and 

therefore subject to the NPDES permit 

program. The regulation defines a CAAP by, 

among other things, the size of the operation 

and frequency of discharge. 

Those CAAP facilities subject to the ELGs 

must develop and maintain a best 

management practice (BMP) plan describing 

how they will achieve the ELG 

requirements. The CAAP must certify in 

writing to the permitting authority that a 

BMP plan has been developed and make the 

plan available to the permitting authority 

upon request. EPA did not revise the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) regulation, as it applies to 

CAAPs. 

EPA has produced this document to help 

CAAP facility owners/operators and NPDES 

permit writers to understand and comply 

with the NPDES and ELGs regulations. 

Background information about aquatic 

animal production facilities (e.g., system 

types, wastewater treatment) is available 

from EPA’s Technical Development 

Document for the Final Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and New Source Performance 

Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic 

Animal Production Point Source Category, 

available at 

http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/tdd/final.htm.

EPA is continually improving its rules, 

policies, compliance programs, and outreach 

efforts, so some of the information in this 

guide might have changed since it was 

published. You can find out whether EPA 

has updated this guide by checking EPA’s 

website for the CAAP ELGs at 

http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture. 

How do I use the symbols contained 

in this document? 

In many of the chapters, you will see 

symbols, which denote the following: 

• Flow-through FT

• Recirculating 

RAS

• Net Pen1 NET

 

1

 Whenever the term net pen is used in this guidance, 

it also refers to cages that function like net pens. 

CAAP facilities subject to the ELGs are 

defined as facilities (flow-through, 

recirculating, and net pen) that produce 

100,000 pounds or more of aquatic 

animals per year. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 1-2 2006 

Use the symbols for flow-through, 

recirculating, and net pens as a guide to 

determine which BMPs and/or paragraphs 

may apply to which system type. The 

symbol  denotes specific legal references. 

The permit writer’s version of the 

guidance document will contain the 

following symbols: 

Permit writer begin 

Permit writer end 

Use these symbols to identify the 

beginning and ending of additional 

information or sections included 

specifically for permit writers. 

Who should use this guide? 

You should use this guide if you own or 

operate a CAAP facility or if you are a 

permit writer. It will help you to understand 

the June 2004, CAAP ELGs and how it 

relates to the NPDES regulations. Owners or 

operators of a CAAP can use this guide to 

determine if their operation is a facility 

subject to the ELGs. Permit writers may use 

this guidance to obtain information on the 

permitting requirements for CAAPs. 

Facilities that are not covered by this rule 

(flow-through, recirculating, and net pen 

systems that produce less than 100,000 

pounds of aquatic animals per year and other 

systems, such as ponds) may benefit from 

using this guidance to help improve facility 

operation (i.e., through feed management, 

materials storage, etc.) and reduce pollutant 

discharges. 

Permit writers may use this 

guidance to obtain information on 

permitting requirements for CAAPs. The 

Guidance reflects information from the 

current NPDES Program and final ELGs 

regulations (signed on June 30, 2004 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 23, 2004). 

The guidance assumes the permit writer 

has working knowledge of how to develop 

NPDES permits. Permit writers should 

also be familiar with applicable state 

voluntary wastewater control programs as 

well as regulatory programs, and how 

these programs relate to the federal or 

state NPDES program. Appendix I 

provides a variety of additional resources 

that permit writers may wish to use to 

increase their understanding of practices 

used at CAAP facilities. In addition, the 

guidance discusses the circumstances 

under which CAAP owners or operators 

should submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

seek coverage under an existing NPDES 

general permit or apply for an NPDES 

individual permit. 

While this guidance is limited to the 

development and issuance of NPDES 

permits for CAAPs, it is important for the 

permit writer to recognize that there are 

other NPDES program requirements that 

may be applicable to CAAPs. For 

example, discharges of storm water 

associated with construction activity at, 

or construction of, CAAPs that disturb 

one acre of land or more may be subject 

to NPDES storm water permit 

requirements. These requirements 

address activities associated with the 

construction of CAAPs, including 

clearing, grading, and excavation, but do 

not address discharges associated with 

the operation of the facility, which are 

addressed in the NPDES CAAP permit. 

Therefore, it is generally in the interest of 

the permitting authority and the CAAP 

operator to administer storm water 

permits for construction separately from 

NPDES CAAP permits. Another NPDES 

permitting requirement that may apply to 

a facility includes requirements for 

package plants used to treat septic waste 

at a facility. Additionally, if a facility has a 

large laboratory for fish health and 

diagnostic services, the lab part of the 

facility may be required to obtain a 

separate NPDES permit for their 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 1-3 2006 

wastewater (septic and laboratory 

wastes). These are only example of other 

types of NPDES permitting requirements 

that may apply at a facility. 

Who is in charge of the CAAP 

permitting program where I live – 

EPA or the state? 

EPA has approved most states to run their 

own regulatory and permitting programs for 

CAAPs. If EPA has approved your state, the 

state is the permitting authority and will 

issue a permit for your CAAP facility. EPA 

has not approved Alaska, Idaho, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New 

Mexico to permit CAAPs. In those states, 

D.C., tribal lands, and in all territories 

except the U.S. Virgin Islands, EPA is the 

permitting authority and will issue permits 

for CAAPs. Note that in some cases, EPA 

may still regulate some types of CAAPs 

even if your state has been delegated 

NPDES permitting authority. In these cases, 

the state permitting authority will direct you 

to the appropriate EPA contact. 

Contact information for your permitting 

authority is available in Appendix A. Also 

refer to “Do other laws regulate CAAPs?” in 

Chapter 2 of this guide. It describes how 

your state, county, or town might have 

additional legal requirements that apply to 

you and that go beyond the requirements 

described in this guide. 

What does this guide cover? 

This guide describes EPA’s regulations for 

CAAPs (NPDES and ELGs requirements), 

which govern whether your operation is a 

CAAP, whether you need a permit, and what 

the permit will require. State permitting 

authorities use EPA’s regulations as a 

starting point but often add their own 

requirements in NPDES permits. You 

should always check with your permitting 

authority to see what the requirements are in 

your state and to find out exactly what you 

have to do. Appendix A contains 

information on how to contact your 

permitting authority. 

This guide also 

provides 

information to help 

facilities develop a 

BMP plan for their 

facility, as required 

by the CAAP 

ELGs, and 

describes a number 

of BMPs that 

facilities may use 

to achieve the requirements of the CAAP 

ELGs. The guide also provides example 

forms and logs that facility owners or 

operators may use to comply with the 

requirements of the CAAP ELGs, as well as 

the NPDES application form. Facilities not 

subject to the ELGs may also use the 

information in this guide to improve 

practices at their facility. 

Finally, this guide provides permit 

writers with the specific permitting 

requirements for CAAPs, information 

about how CAAPs are defined, who 

must seek coverage under an NPDES 

permit, the elements of an NPDES 

permit for a CAAP, and other 

considerations when developing a 

permit. 

How should I use this guide? 

If you are a facility owner or operator, you 

can use this guide to determine how to 

comply with the requirements of the CAAP 

Always check with 

your permitting 

authority to find out 

exact requirements 

for your facility. Your 

state may have more 

requirements or 

more specific 

requirements than 

the CAAP 

Regulations. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 1-4 2006 

ELGs. Read Chapter 2 (“What is the CAAP 

Regulation?”) for basic information on the 

guidelines and NPDES permitting process. 

Chapter 3 (“Does the CAAP Regulation 

Affect Me?”) provides information about 

how the CAAP regulation affects you. Read 

Chapter 4 (“What Do I Need to Know About 

NPDES Permits?) for guidance on applying 

for a permit. Chapter 5 discusses the 

requirements of an NPDES permit. 

For specific guidance on complying with the 

CAAP regulations, refer to the following 

chapters: 

• Chapter 6 – General Reporting 

Requirements for Flow-through, 

Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

• Chapter 7 – Narrative Requirements 

for Flow-through, Recirculating, and 

Net Pen Facilities 

• Chapter 8 – Writing and Certifying a 

BMP Plan 

• Chapter 9 – Solids Control for Flowthrough and Recirculating Facilities 

• Chapter 10 – Material Storage for 

Flow-through, Recirculating, and 

Net Pen Facilities 

• Chapter 11 – Maintenance for Flowthrough, Recirculating, and Net Pen 

Facilities 

• Chapter 12 – Record-keeping for 

Flow-through, Recirculating, and 

Net Pen Facilities 

• Chapter 13 – Perform Training for 

Flow-through, Recirculating, and 

Net Pen Facilities 

• Chapter 14 – Feed Management for 

Net Pen Facilities 

• Chapter 15 – Waste Collection and 

Disposal; Transport or Harvest 

Discharge; and Carcass Removal for 

Net Pens 

Refer to the appendices for the following 

information: 

• Appendix A: State Permitting 

Authorities/Departments of 

Environmental Protection 

• Appendix B: Natural Resources 

Agencies Associated with Fisheries 

• Appendix C: Frequently Asked 

Questions 

• Appendix D: Code of Federal 

Regulations (40 CFR, Parts 122.24 

and 451) 

• Appendix E: BMP Plans 

• Appendix F: BMP Certification 

Form 

• Appendix G: State BMP Programs 

• Appendix H: National Association of 

State Aquaculture Coordinators 

(NASAC), Cooperative Extension 

Services, and Sea Grant Information 

• Appendix I: Additional Resources 

• Appendix J: Glossary 

• Appendix K: NPDES Permit 

Applications 

• Appendix L: Applicability Matrix 

• Appendix M: General Reporting 

Forms 

o Example Written Report – 

Participating in an INAD Study 

o Checklist for Oral Report for 

INAD and Extralabel Drug Use 

o Example Written Report – 

INAD and Extralabel Drug Use 

o Checklist for Oral Report of 

Failure or Damage to Structure 

of Containment Systems 

o Example Written Report – 

Failure or Damage to Structure 

of Containment Systems 

o Checklist for Oral Report of 

Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and 

Feed 

o Example Written Report – 

Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and 

Feed 

• Appendix N: Feed Conversion 

Ratios Log 

• Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 1-5 2006 

National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications 

Phone: 1-800-490-9198 

Fax: 513-489-8695 

e-mail: ncepimal@one.ent

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

Mail: U.S. EPA/NSCEP 

 P.O. Box 42419 

 Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-0419 

EPA Contacts 

Office of Science and Technology (OST), 

Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) 

202-566-1000 

Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) 

NPDES Permitting Program Branch 

202-564-9545 

• Appendix P: Inspection and 

Maintenance: Logs 

• Appendix Q: Cleaning Log 

• Appendix R: Record-keeping 

Checklist 

• Appendix S: Employee Training Log 

• Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log 

• Appendix U: FDA Labeling 

• Appendix V: SDAFS BMP Plan 

If you have trouble understanding any of the 

information in this guide, ask your 

permitting authority for help. You may also 

contact EPA’s Offices of Science and 

Technology (Engineering and Analysis 

Division) and Wastewater Management 

(NPDES Permitting Program Branch). 

The guide also provides permit 

writers with references for additional 

information. Permit writers may refer to 

the appendices listed in the previous 

section of this guide for additional 

information. Other good sources of 

information may be available from state 

agencies (e.g., Departments of Natural 

Resources, Agriculture, or Environmental 

Protection), Cooperative Extension 

Services, and Sea Grant. 

How can I get a copy of the federal 

regulations?

You can obtain a copy of the federal CAAP 

regulation from any of the following: 

• Appendix D of this document. 

• View or download the text of the 

federal regulation as it appears in the 

Federal Register on EPA’s ELGs 

website for the CAAP rule at 

http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/. 

• Order the federal regulation and 

supporting documents from EPA’s 

National Service Center of 

Environmental Publications 

(NSCEP). 

Your state might have other regulations that 

apply to you. Contact your permitting 

authority to find out how to get a copy of 

your state’s CAAP regulations. 

Supporting documents for the CAAP 

regulation include the Technical 

Development Document and the Economic 

and Environmental Benefits Document. 

They are available from NSCEP or at 

http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture. 

In this guide, EPA has tried to explain 

the regulatory language in clear, simple 

terms. Some of the guide’s explanations 

are general and might not contain all the 

details from the regulation. Contact your 

permitting authority for more information 

on the specific regulations that apply to 

you. You can find contact information for 

your permitting authority in Appendix A 

of this guide. 
Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation? 

Chapter 2: What is the CAAP Regulation?

This guide covers the requirements in the 

June 2004 rule for CAAP facilities. The 

regulation does not revise the current 

National NPDES Permit Regulation for 

CAAPs (40 CFR 122.24 and Appendix C). 

It does however, establish the ELGs for 

CAAPs (40 CFR 451). 

What is the NPDES Program? 

The NPDES Program 

was created under the 

federal Clean Water 

Act to protect and 

improve water quality 

by regulating point 

source dischargers. 

Point source 

dischargers are operations that discharge 

pollutants from discrete conveyances

directly into waters of the United States. 

Point source dischargers are generally 

regulated by NPDES permits (40 CFR

§122.2). 

An NPDES permit: 

• Identifies outfall points from which a 

facility discharges wastewater to 

surface waters. 

• Sets requirements to protect the 

quality of surface water (such as 

pollutant concentration limits, 

management practices, and recordkeeping 

requirements) 

that the 

discharger 

must meet.

• Allows an 

operation to 

discharge 

pollutants as 

long as the 

operation meets the requirements in 

the permit. 

A discrete 

conveyance, in 

general, is any 

single, identifiable 

way for pollutants 

to be carried or 

transferred to 

waters, such as a 

pipe, ditch, or 

channel. 

A discharge, in 

general, is the 

flow of treated or 

untreated 

wastewater from 

a facility to 

waters of the 

United States.

Generally, if a facility discharges pollutants 

without having a permit, or has a permit but 

does not meet the requirements, it is 

violating the Clean Water Act. The owner or 

operator of the facility could be subject to 

enforcement actions such as fines. 

Under the Clean Water Act, CAAPs are 

defined as point source dischargers. Refer to 

Chapter 3 of this document (“Does the 

CAAP Regulation Affect Me?”) for a 

description of how EPA has defined 

CAAPs. The CWA defines pollutant as dredged spoil, 

solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, 

garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical 

wastes, biological materials, radioactive 

materials, heat, wrecked or discarded 

equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and 

industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste 

discharged into water. 

Every facility that meets EPA’s definition of a 

CAAP has a duty to apply for a permit. EPA 

recommends that CAAP owners or operators 

that do not discharge should contact their 

permitting authority for assistance. For more 

information, refer to “How do I know I am 

covered by these regulations” in Chapter 3 of 

this guide. 

What are the Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines for CAAPs? 

ELGs are national standards for wastewater 

discharges to surface waters and publicly 

owned treatment works (municipal sewage 

treatment plants). EPA develops ELGs for 

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

categories of existing sources and new 

sources under the Clean Water Act. The 

standards are technology-based (i.e. they are 

based on the performance of treatment, 

control technologies, and practices). 

EPA completed ELGs for the CAAP 

industry on June 30, 2004. These ELGs are 

used by permitting authorities to set permit 

requirements for individual facilities. The 

requirements of the CAAP ELGs are 

included directly into an individual permit. 

In the case of CAAPs, the ELGs require 

management practices and record-keeping 

activities, rather than numerical limits called 

“discharge limits.” Your state permitting 

authority may also set additional 

requirements that are needed to protect 

water quality or 

other 

requirements 

that apply under 

state or local 

law. Appendix A 

contains a list of 

permitting 

authorities. A 

summary of the 

regulation is 

available in 

Tables 1 through 

3, at the end of 

this chapter. 

Why is this 

regulation important? 

This regulation is important in reducing 

discharges of conventional pollutants 

(mainly total suspended solids), nonconventional pollutants (e.g., nutrients, 

drugs, and chemicals), and to a lesser extent, 

toxic pollutants (metals and PCBs) from 

CAAP facilities covered by the regulation. 

EPA estimated that implementation of the 

ELGs will result in reducing the discharge 

of total suspended solids by more than 

500,000 pounds per year and discharge of 

biochemical oxygen demand and nutrients 

by approximately 300,000 pounds per year. 

The term waters of the United States is defined 

at 40 CFR 122.2. It means: 

• Waters used for interstate or foreign 

commerce (e.g. Mississippi River). 

• All interstate waters, including interstate 

“wetlands.” 

• Waters used for recreation by interstate or 

foreign travelers (for example a lake in one 

state that attracts fisherman from 

neighboring states). 

• Waters from which fish or shellfish are 

taken to sell in other states or countries. 

• Waters used for industrial purposes by 

industries involved in interstate commerce. 

• Tributaries and impoundments or dams of 

any waters described above. 

• Territorial seas. 

• Wetlands adjacent to any waters described 

above. 

Waters of the United States does not include: 

• Ponds or lagoons designed and 

constructed specifically for waste treatment 

systems. 

• Wetlands that were converted to cropland 

before December 23, 1985. 

These are only examples of kinds of waters 

considered waters of the United States. See the 

complete regulatory definition at 40 CFR 122.2 to 

see what other kinds of waters might be 

considered waters of the United States. 

The final regulation applies to CAAPs (that meet 

the production threshold) located in the territorial 

seas, contiguous zone, or ocean waters. 

Although EPA did not identify any existing 

facilities during the development of the 

regulation, net pens (or cages) operating in the 

contiguous zone or ocean waters would be 

subject to the regulation at this time. Future 

CAAPs (that meet the production threshold) in 

ocean waters or the contiguous zone are point 

sources subject to new source performance 

standards and NPDES permitting requirements.

Note that management 

practices are general 

requirements (e.g., solids 

control) and facilities may 

choose how to achieve 

them. For example, 

solids control can be 

achieved through feed 

management and/or 

proper operation and 

maintenance of solids 

treatment systems. The 

rule does not require any 

specific measures to 

achieve solids control. 

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

The resulting improvements in water quality 

will create more opportunities for swimming 

and fishing, and reduce stress on ecosystems 

in those waters. They could also affect other 

aquatic environmental variables, such as 

primary production and populations or 

assemblages of native organisms in the 

receiving waters of regulated facilities. 

Do other laws regulate CAAPs? 

Although this guide explains what you need 

to do to comply with the federal CAAP 

regulation, your state, county, or town might 

have more requirements to address specific 

circumstances. Your permitting authority 

can set additional permit requirements if it 

finds them necessary. For example, they 

might set additional effluent limitations on a 

facility to ensure attainment of state water 

quality standards. State regulations must 

include federal requirements, but they can 

also be broader, stricter, or more specific. To 

learn about regulations in your state, contact 

your permitting authority. Appendix A 

contains a list of permitting authorities. 

Your NPDES permit might include other 

federal requirements that apply to point 

source discharges (e.g., requirements under 

the Endangered Species Act, or resulting 

from the CWA Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) program). CAAPs might also be 

subject to federal requirements under the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS), the Spill Prevention, Containment, 

and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations, 

CWA Section 403(c) Ocean Discharge 

Criteria, or the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

New CAAPs may be subject to requirements 

resulting from implementation of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The following can provide technical 

assistance to make sure you are complying 

with all applicable requirements: 

• Permitting authority/Departments of 

Environmental Protection – 

Appendix A 

• National Association of State 

Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC) 

http://www.marylandseafood.org/aqu

aculture/nasac.php – Appendix H 

• State Sea Grant program – 

Appendix H 

• Natural Resources Agencies 

Associated with Fisheries – 

Appendix B 

• State Departments of Agriculture 

http://www2.nasda.org/NASDA 

• USDA programs (Cooperative State 

Research, Education, and Extension 

Service (CSREES), Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), others); see Appendix H for 

information about state cooperative 

extension service programs 

o General USDA programs – 

http://www.usda.gov

o CSREES 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov 

o NRCS 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov

• Other resources in your state 

 Final Preamble: Section XIII 

Table 1. Applicability of the CAAP ELGs 

to System Types 

System Type or Annual Production (lb) 

Subcategory <100,000 >100,000 

Flow-through and 

Recirculating 

(Subpart A) 

Not 

Applicable 

Subject to: 

451.3(a)–(d) 

451.11(a)–(e) 

451.12–14 

Net pen 

(Subpart B) 

Not 

Applicable 

Subject to: 

451.3(a)–(d) 

451.21(a)–(h) 

451.22–24 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 2-3 2006
Chapter 2: Wha

Table 2. Summary of Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

General Reporting Requirements Drugs1 1) Reporting of intention to use INADs where such use may lead to a discharge of the drug to waters of the U.S. 

• Provide the permitting authority with a written report, within 7 days of agreeing 

signing up to participate in an INAD study 

• Identify the INAD to be used, method of use, the dosage, and the disease or cond

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 

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 

the drug 

• Identify the drug used and include the reason for treatment, date(s) and times(s) 

addition (including duration), method of application, and the amount added 

Failure or Damage to the Structure of Aquatic Animal Containment System 1) Specification of reportable damage and/or material discharge 

• The permitting authority may specify in the permit what constitutes reportable d

and/or material discharge of pollutants, based on consideration of production syssensitivity 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 

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 fa

3) Written reporting of structural failure or damage • Provide a written report within 7 days of discovery of the failure or damage 

• Document the cause of the failure or damage 

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

Spills 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 

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 

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 spe

INAD or extralabel use is at or below the approved dosage and involves similar conditions of use. 

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-4 
Chapter 2: Wha

Table 2. Summary of Requirements for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities, Contin

Narrative Requirements Best Management Practices Plan 1) Development and maintenance of a BMP plan on site that describes how the permittee will achieve the following five requirements:  a) Solids control • Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to 

minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain rates of aquatic animal growth in order to minimize potential discharges of uneaand waste products to waters of the United States 

• Identify and implement procedures for routine cleaning of rearing units and offli

settling basins 

• Identify procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals th

minimize discharge of accumulated solids 

• Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to 

discharge to waters of the United States, except where authorized by the permittauthority in order to benefits the aquatic environment 

 b) Material storage • Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to pre

spills that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed to waters of thStates 

• Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any sp

materials 

 c) Structural maintenance • Routinely inspect production systems and wastewater treatment systems to ident

promptly repair damage 

• Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment 

to ensure their proper function 

 d) Record-keeping • Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and 

estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative feed conversion ratios 

• Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and 

 e) Training • Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event o

to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials 

• Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater 

systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment 

2) Make the plan available to the permitting authority upon request 3) Certify that a BMP plan has been developed EPA-821-B-05-001 2-5 
Chapter 2: Wha

Table 3. Summary of Requirements for Net Pen Facilities 

General Reporting Requirements Drugs2 1) Reporting of intention to use INADs where such use may lead to a discharge of the drug to waters of the U.S. 

• Provide the permitting authority with a written report, within 7 days of agreeing 

signing up to participate in an INAD study 

• Identify the INAD to be used, method of use, the dosage, and the disease or cond

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 

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 

the drug 

• Identify the drug used and include the reason for treatment, date(s) and times(s) 

addition (including duration), method of application, and the amount added 

Failure or Damage to the Structure of Aquatic Animal Containment System 1) Specification of reportable damage and/or material discharge 

• The permitting authority may specify in the permit what constitutes reportable d

and/or material discharge of pollutants, based on consideration of production syssensitivity 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 

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 fa

3) Written reporting of structural failure or damage • Provide a written report within 7 days of discovery of the failure or damage 

• Document the cause of the failure or damage 

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

Spills 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 

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 

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 spe

INAD or extralabel use is at or below the approved dosage and involves similar conditions of use. 

EPA-821-B-05-001 2-6 
Chapter 2: Wha

Table 3. Summary of Requirements for Net Pen Facilities, Continued 

Narrative Requirements Best Management Practices Plan 1) Develop and maintain a BMP plan on site that describes how the permittee will achieve the following seven requirements:  a) Feed management • Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to 

minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain rates of aquatic animal growth 

• Minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens through active feed mo

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 materia

rope, and netting 

 c) Transport or harvest discharge • Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic an

(including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing 

 d) Carcass removal • Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to 

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 pre

that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed into waters of the UStates 

• Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any sp

material 

 f) Maintenance • Inspect production systems on a routine basis in order to identify and promptly r

damage 

• Conduct regular maintenance on the production system in order to ensure its pro

function 

 g) Record-keeping • Maintain records for aquatic animal net pens documenting the feed amounts and 

of the numbers and weight of aquatic animals in order to calculate representative 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 en

proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials 

• Train staff on proper operation and cleaning of production system, including fee

procedures and equipment 

2) Make the plan available to the permitting authority upon request 3) Certify that a BMP plan has been developed EPA-821-B-05-001 2-7 
Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 3-1 2006 

Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me? 

CAAP ELGs apply to owners and operators 

of CAAP facilities that meet certain 

conditions. If you produce more than 

100,000 pounds annually, you may be 

subject to the ELGs. 

Aquaculture facilities will fall into one of 

the following categories: 

• No NPDES permit required 

• Only NPDES permit required 

• NPDES permit with ELGs 

requirements 

If your aquatic animal operation is a CAAP 

under the NPDES regulations, you must 

apply for an NPDES permit. Refer to the 

next two sections in this chapter for 

additional information about which types of 

aquaculture facilities are required to apply 

for a permit (or renew their permit when 

their current permit expires if they are 

already permitted). 

This chapter provides information about 

which operations are CAAPs and subject to 

NPDES permitting requirements, which are 

covered under the CAAP ELGs, what to do 

if you have more than one type of system at 

your facility, which facilities do not need an 

NPDES permit, how you know that your 

facility is not a CAAP, how a facility is 

defined, and what part of a facility is 

regulated. 

What operations are CAAPs under 

the NPDES regulation? 

EPA’s existing NPDES regulations define 

when a hatchery, fish farm, or other facility 

is a CAAP facility and, therefore, a point 

source subject to the NPDES permit 

program. (See 40 CFR 122.24.) In defining 

CAAP facilities, the NPDES regulations 

distinguish between warm water and cold 

water species 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 C1

 or if it 

is designated as a CAAP facility by the 

 

1

 40 CFR 122, Appendix C is available in Appendix 

D of this document. 

The criteria described in Appendix C of 40 

CFR 122 are as follows. A hatchery, fish 

farm, or other facility is a CAAP facility if it 

grows, contains, or holds, aquatic animals in 

either of two categories: cold water species 

or warm water species. 

The cold water species category includes 

facilities where animals are produced in 

ponds, raceways, or other similar structures 

that discharge at least 30 days per year but 

does not include facilities that produce less 

than approximately 9,090 harvest weight kg 

(approximately 20,000 lb) of aquatic animals 

per year. It also does not include facilities 

that feed less than 2,272 kg (approximately 

5,000 lb) of food during the calendar month 

of maximum feeding. 

The warm water species category includes 

facilities where animals are produced in 

ponds, raceways, or other similar structures 

that discharge at least 30 days per year. It 

does not include closed ponds that discharge 

only during periods of excess runoff or 

facilities that produce less than 45,454 

harvest weight kg (approximately 100,000 lb) 

of aquatic animals per year. 
Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 3-2 2006 

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.

Director2 on a case-by-case basis. 

Most facilities falling under the definition of 

CAAP are either flow-through, recirculating 

or net pen systems. These systems discharge 

continuously or discharge 30 days or more 

per year as defined in 40 CFR 122.24 and 

are subject to permitting depending on the 

production level at the facility. 

Most pond facilities do not require permits 

because ponds generally discharge fewer 

than 30 days per year and therefore 

generally are not CAAP facilities, unless 

designated by the Director. 

Facilities meeting the NPDES definition of a 

CAAP will still be subject to the NPDES 

permit program, even if they are not subject 

to the requirements of the ELGs because 

their production levels are below 100,000 

pounds per year. 

Refer to Appendix L for a description of 

which systems the NPDES regulations 

cover. 

 

2

 Director means the Regional Administrator or State 

Director, as the context requires, or an authorized 

representative. When there is no “approved state 

program,” and there is an EPA administered program, 

“Director” means the Regional Administrator. When 

there is an approved state program, “Director” 

normally means the State Director. In some 

circumstances, EPA retains the authority to take 

certain actions even when there is an approved state 

program.  Regulation: 40 CFR122.2

What operations are covered under 

the CAAP ELGs? 

The CAAP ELGs applies to direct 

dischargers of wastewater from these 

existing and new facilities (where 

production is defined as what leaves the 

facility): 

• Facilities that produce at least 

100,000 pounds a year in flowthrough and recirculating systems 

that discharge wastewater at least 30 

days a year (used primarily to raise 

trout, salmon, hybrid striped bass, 

and tilapia). 

• Facilities that produce at least 

100,000 pounds a year in net pens or 

submerged cage systems (used 

primarily to raise salmon). 

Refer to Appendix L for a description of 

which systems are covered by the ELGs. 

Figure 3.1. A flow-through system

What is the difference between 

NPDES and ELGs for CAAPs? 

Any facility may be designated as a CAAP 

(if it meets the NPDES regulation 

requirements outright or if the Director 

designates it as a CAAP facility) and subject 

to NPDES permitting requirements. 
Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me? 

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

However, if a CAAP facility is subject to 

ELGs requirements (i.e., recirculating, flowthrough, or net pen systems that annually 

produce more than 100,000 pounds of 

aquatic animals) then the facility’s NPDES 

permit will also contain ELGs requirements 

specific to the system types used to produce 

aquatic animals at that location. These are 

minimum requirements in the NPDES 

permit. A permit may contain additional 

more stringent limits required to ensure 

compliance with water quality standards. 

What is considered a facility? 

A facility is defined as all contiguous

property and equipment owned, operated, or 

leased, or under control of the same person 

or entity. Each system owned, operated, 

leased, or under the control of the same 

person or entity that is not contiguous can 

and should be treated as separate facilities; 

the production threshold used in determining 

if a facility is a CAAP should also be 

applied separately. 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451

What if I have more than one type of 

production system at my facility? 

If you have more than one type of regulated 

system (flow-through, recirculating, or net 

pen) at your facility (and the combined 

annual production is 100,000 pounds or 

more), you must comply with the different 

requirements for each system type. For 

example, if you have a recirculating system 

and net pens at your facility, you will need 

to comply with the ELGs requirements for 

both recirculating systems and net pens. For 

more information about different system 

types and meeting the ELGs’ production 

threshold, refer to the following examples.

The following are examples of combinations of 

system types that CAAP facilities may have, and 

whether the CAAP ELGs and NPDES 

requirements apply: 

• Recirculating – 25,000 pounds annually; 

Net pen – 80,000 pounds annually. (Both 

systems are regulated by the ELGs and 

NPDES requirements.) 

• Flow-through – 75,000 pounds annually 

Recirculating – 50,000 pounds annually. 

(Both systems are regulated by NPDES 

requirements. If both are part of the same 

facility, the ELGs requirements also apply.) 

• Flow-through – 25,000 pounds annually 

Recirculating – 50,000 pounds annually. 

(Neither is regulated by the ELGs; if 

growing coldwater species or determined 

to be a significant source of pollution to 

waters of the United States by the 

permitting authority, both are subject to 

NPDES requirements.) 

• Flow-through – 125,000 pounds annually 

Pond – 15,000 pounds annually, 

discharging fewer than 30 days per year. 

(The flow-through system is regulated 

under the ELGs and NPDES; the pond is 

not regulated by the NPDES or ELGs 

regulations, unless the permitting authority 

determines that the pond is a significant 

source of pollution to waters of the United 

States.) 

• Flow-through – 125,000 pounds annually 

Pond – 135,000 pounds annually and 

discharging more than 30 days per year. 

(The flow-through system is regulated 

under the ELGs and the pond is regulated 

by the NPDES regulations.) 

• Net pen – 325,000 pounds annually 

Molluscan shellfish – 130,000 pounds 

annually. (The net pen is regulated by the 

ELGs and NPDES requirements; the 

molluscan shellfish system is not regulated 

by either unless the permitting authority 

determines it to be a significant source of 

pollution to waters of the United States.) 
Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 3-4 2006 

Figure 3.2. A recirculating system 

If you have other system types in addition to 

those subject to the ELGs, such as ponds or 

shellfish hatcheries, those system types are 

not subject to the ELGs (refer to page 3-5 of 

this chapter for a list of systems that are not 

subject to the ELGs). For example, if your 

facility has recirculating systems and ponds, 

only the recirculating systems are subject to 

the ELGs if the recirculating systems meet 

the annual production requirements of at 

least 100,000 pounds. The requirements for 

your recirculating system will appear in your 

NPDES permit. The ponds at your facility 

would not be subject to the ELGs 

requirements. However, you may need an 

NPDES permit if your ponds meet the 

definition of the cold water or warm water 

species category, where the ponds discharge 

at least 30 days per year (40 CFR 122, 

Appendix C) or if your pond is part of a 

facility that has been designated a CAAP 

facility. 

If you are unsure which system types at your 

facility are subject to the ELGs 

requirements, contact your permitting 

authority. 

Figure 3.3. A net pen system 

Are there any aquaculture facilities 

that do not need an NPDES permit? 

You do not need an NPDES permit if you 

are a facility that produces less than 9,090 

harvest weight kilograms (approximately 

20,000 pounds) per year of cold water 

species, if you feed less than 2,272 

kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of 

food during the calendar month of maximum 

feeding, or if you discharge less than 30 

days per year (40 CFR122, Appendix C). 

However, you may need an NPDES permit 

if your facility is designated as a CAAP 

facility by the Director or if your state has 

more stringent requirements than EPA. 

You do not need an NPDES permit if you 

are a facility that produces warm water 

species, using closed ponds that discharges 

only during periods of excess runoff, if you 

are a facility that produces less than 45,454 

harvest weight kilograms (approximately 

100,000 pounds) per year of warm water 

species, or if you discharge less than 30 days 

per year (40 CFR 122, Appendix C). 

However, you may need an NPDES permit 

if your facility is designated as a CAAP 

facility by the Director or if your state has 

more stringent requirements than EPA. 
Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 3-5 2006 

How do I know if I am not covered by 

these regulations? 

In most cases, you are not covered by the 

NPDES or ELGs regulations if your 

production is less than the annual production 

thresholds covered by the regulations. 

However, if the Director designates your 

facility as a CAAP facility or if your state 

has more stringent requirements than EPA, 

you can be subject to NPDES permit 

requirements. 

Systems not covered by the CAAP ELGs 

include: 

• Closed pond systems (may be 

covered by NPDES if discharges 

occur more than 30 days per year or 

if designated as a CAAP facility by 

the Director) 

• Molluscan shellfish (including 

nurseries) 

• Shrimp ponds 

• Crawfish production 

• Alligator production 

• Aquaria 

• Net pens rearing native species 

released after a growing period of no 

longer than 4 months to supplement 

commercial and sport fisheries. 

What if I discharge to a POTW? 

The CAAP ELGs 

do not establish 

national 

pretreatment 

standards for 

facilities that meet 

the criteria for a 

CAAP facility (as defined in 40 CFR 122.24 

and Appendix C of 40 CFR 122) and are 

indirect dischargers (i.e., facilities that 

discharge to a publicly owned treatment 

works (POTW)). However, you may be 

subject to local limit requirements. 

National pretreatment standards are 

established for pollutants in wastewater 

from indirect dischargers that may pass 

through, interfere with, or are otherwise 

incompatible with POTW operations. 

Generally, pretreatment standards are 

designed to ensure that wastewaters from 

direct and indirect industrial dischargers are 

subject to similar levels of treatment. 

POTWs are required to implement local 

treatment limits applicable to their indirect 

dischargers to satisfy any local 

requirements. You should communicate 

with your POTW operator to determine any 

local pretreatment standards that apply to 

your facility. 

If you discharge to a POTW, contact your 

permitting authority for more details. 

What part of my CAAP is regulated? 

The CAAP regulation applies to the 

production areas of your facility, including: 

An indirect discharger 

is a facility that 

discharges or may 

discharge wastewaters 

into a publicly-owned 

treatment works. 

A Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

(POTW) is a treatment works (as defined by 

section 212 of the CWA), which is owned by 

a state or municipality (as defined by 

section 502(4) of the CWA). This definition 

includes any devices and systems used in 

the storage, treatment, recycling, and 

reclamation of municipal sewage or 

industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also 

includes sewers, pipes, and other 

conveyances, only if they convey 

wastewater to a POTW. The term also 

means the municipality, as defined in 

section 502(4) of the CWA, that has 

jurisdiction over the indirect discharges to 

and the discharges from such a treatment 

works.
Chapter 3: Does the CAAP Regulation Affect Me? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 3-6 2006 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-1 March 2006 

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

How do I apply for an NPDES permit? 

To apply for a permit, you first need to 

acquire the application forms. You can get 

the forms you need to apply for an NPDES 

permit from your permitting authority. Some 

states have made the forms available on 

their websites. Check with your permitting 

authority to make sure you are using the 

correct forms. 

You next need to determine what type of 

permit you will be applying for. Under the 

federal NPDES regulations, there are two 

types of permits⎯general permits and 

individual permits. Each permitting 

authority adopts its own rules about what 

types of permits operations need, so you 

should contact your permitting authority for 

more information. 

After you determine what type of NPDES 

permit to apply for, you need to complete 

the application forms and submit the 

required information. Refer to page 4-3 for a 

discussion of the information you must 

include in your permit application. 

Depending on your specific facility 

(existing, new, etc.), you must apply for a 

renewal of your current permit or a new 

permit by the required deadlines. Refer to 

page 4-3 for more information about 

deadlines for applying for NPDES permits. 

After you acquire an NPDES permit, you 

must have the permit in effect for your 

operation as long as it is an operating 

CAAP. Refer to page 4-6 for a discussion of 

situations where you can discontinue your 

NPDES coverage. Page 4-7 contains 

information about what to do if significant 

changes occur at your operation. 

What is an NPDES general permit? 

An NPDES general permit has one set of 

requirements for a group of similar types of 

facilities. For example, all CAAP facilities 

in a particular area, such as an entire state or 

a watershed within the state, might be 

covered under one general permit. The 

permitting authority sets the permit 

conditions, issues a draft permit, and 

requests comments from the public. The 

permitting authority may make changes to 

the draft permit based on the public 

comments and then issues the final permit. 

The general permit specifies what kinds of 

operations can be covered. Owners and 

operators of eligible operations may then 

apply for coverage under the general permit. 

Contact your permitting authority to see if 

your facility is eligible to be covered under 

an existing general permit. 

Operators of CAAP facilities that are 

eligible for coverage under a general permit 

may notify the permitting authority that they 

want to be covered by submitting a Notice 

of Intent (NOI). If an NPDES general permit 

is available in your state and 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 

advantageous for the applicant, permit 

writer, and aquaculture extension specialist 

to hold joint discussion to develop BMP 

components appropriate for the specific 

facility, species, production system, and 

location under consideration. 
Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-2 March 2006 

meets the eligibility requirements, you must 

fill out an NOI and submit it to your 

permitting authority to apply for coverage 

under the general permit. The general permit 

will tell you how to apply for coverage, the 

deadline for applying, and when your 

coverage will become effective. 

Some general permits specify that coverage 

is automatic unless notified by the 

permitting authority. Coverage under other 

general permits does not begin until receipt 

of notification of applicability by the 

permitting authority. If coverage is 

automatic, EPA recommends that the 

general permit specify that the facility is 

authorized to discharge in accordance with 

the permit after a specified waiting period 

of, for example, 30 days. Having a specified 

waiting period or coverage only upon receipt 

of a notification of applicability will allow 

the permitting authority the opportunity to 

provide for meaningful public involvement 

after NOIs are submitted. 

What is an NPDES individual permit? 

An NPDES individual permit contains 

requirements designed specifically for one 

CAAP facility. You must apply for an 

NPDES individual permit if any of the 

following are true: 

• A general NPDES permit is not 

available. 

• Your CAAP facility is not eligible to 

be covered under the general NPDES 

permit. 

• You want an individual NPDES 

permit. 

• Your permitting authority requires 

you to apply for an individual 

permit. 

The permitting authority may also require 

any discharger currently covered by a 

general permit to apply for and obtain an 

individual NPDES permit. 

To apply for an individual permit, you must 

fill out either NPDES Forms 1 and 2B 

(available in Appendix K) or similar forms 

required by your state. You should contact 

your permitting authority for the proper 

forms. Forms 1 and 2B may be downloaded 

from EPA’s website at: 

http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/doctype.cfm?so

rt=name&program_id=45&document_type_

id=8. Your state permitting authority may 

also provide the necessary application forms 

on their websites. Check with your 

permitting authority to be sure you submit 

the correct forms. 

You must complete the forms and submit 

them to your permitting authority. When 

your permitting authority receives your 

permit application, it will use the 

information you submitted to draft a permit 

for your operation. Your permitting 

authority will base your permit requirements 

on the unique conditions at your operation. 

A collaborative effort between the farmer, 

permit writer, and an aquaculture extension 

specialist may be helpful. After a public 

comment period on the draft permit, your 

States that have developed general 

aquaculture NPDES permits include the 

following: 

• EPA Region 10 – General NPDES 

Permit for Aquaculture Facilities in 

Idaho and Associated, On-site Fish 

Processors (ID-G13-0000) 

• Maine – General Permit for Atlantic 

Salmon Aquaculture (MEG130000) 

• North Carolina – General Permit No. 

NCG530000 

• Washington – Upland Fin-Fish 

Hatching and Rearing General NPDES 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-3 March 2006 

Check EPA’s 

website at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/

npdes/stormwater/lat

long.cfm to find out 

how to determine 

the latitude and 

longitude and where 

to get a topographic 

map for your 

location. 

permitting authority will modify the draft, if 

necessary, and then issue your final NPDES 

individual permit. 

What information do I have to include 

in my NOI or permit application? 

When you apply for an individual NPDES 

permit, you must give the following 

information to your permitting authority, as 

part of Form 2B (much of the same 

information may be required as part of an 

NOI for coverage under a general permit): 

• Contact information for the owner or 

operator of the facility. 

• If the facility is existing or proposed. 

• The location and mailing address of 

your facility. 

• The latitude and 

longitude of the 

entrance to your 

facility’s 

production area. 

• A topographic 

map of the area 

where your 

facility is 

located, with the 

location of the 

production area specifically marked. 

• The outfall number and flow for each 

outfall from the facility. 

• The total number and size of ponds, 

raceways, tanks, other rearing units, 

and similar structures at your facility. 

• The name of the receiving water. 

• The source of water used in your 

facility. 

• The species (cold water and warm 

water) of fish or aquatic animals held 

at your facility. For each species, you 

will need to provide the total weight 

produced by your facility per year in 

pounds of harvestable weight 

(harvestable weight = gross 

production), as well as the maximum 

weight present at any one time. 

• The total pounds of food fed during 

the calendar month of maximum 

feeding. 

• The treatment systems and practices 

you use for wastewater. 

Your permitting authority may require more 

information than what is listed above when 

you apply for a permit. Check with your 

permitting authority to make sure you are 

submitting the correct information. 

 Regulations: 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.28

When do I have to get an NPDES 

permit? 

Your permit application deadline depends 

on whether your operation is an existing 

CAAP facility, a new discharger, or a new 

source. Each category has a different 

deadline for applying for an NPDES permit. 

Read the descriptions below to determine 

when you must apply for an NPDES permit. 

• If you are an existing CAAP facility

(already have an NPDES permit), 

you must apply to renew your 

NPDES permit at least 180 days 

before it expires. Refer to the section 

“Existing CAAP Facilities” below 

for additional information. 

• If you are a new discharger, you 

must apply for an NPDES permit at 

least 180 days before you plan to 

begin discharging from the CAAP 

facility. Refer to the section “New 

Dischargers” below for additional 

information. 

• If you are a new source, you must 

apply for an NPDES permit at least 

180 days before you plan to begin 

discharging from the CAAP facility. 
Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits? 

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

Refer to the section “New Sources” 

below for additional information. 

You are responsible for applying for NPDES 

permit coverage for your facility. The 

federal regulations do not require your 

permitting authority to notify you that you 

must apply. For an individual permit, the 

permitting authority issues a permit after it 

receives a complete and accurate permit 

application from the facility seeking 

coverage. For a general permit, the 

permitting authority issues the general 

permit, and operators then submit their NOIs 

to be covered under the permit. In both 

instances, the permitting authority is 

required to provide public notification that a 

permit has been drafted. In addition, 

although permitting authorities are not 

required to do so, many are likely to conduct 

outreach to communicate who must obtain a 

permit and how to do so. Ultimately, 

however, the responsibility to seek permit 

coverage lies with the aquaculture facility. 

Your failure to meet the permitting 

deadlines described below could result in 

liability under the Clean Water Act, which 

may result in penalties. 

Existing CAAP Facilities 

Existing CAAP facilities are operations that 

are already permitted under 40 CFR 122.24. 

If you operate a CAAP facility that is 

already permitted, you already have an 

NPDES permit. You will have to reapply for 

a new permit at least 180 days before your 

existing permit expires. When the permitting 

authority renews your permit, your permit 

will include the ELGs requirements if you 

meet the production and system type 

applicability requirements of the ELGs. If 

you do not meet the production and system 

type applicability requirements of the ELGs, 

recall that other NPDES requirements may 

apply to your facility. 

New Dischargers 

New dischargers are operations that are 

defined as CAAPs after the effective date of 

the rule (September 22, 2004), but are not 

new sources. A general definition of new 

discharger is found at 40 CFR 122.2. 

One example of a new discharger is a 

facility that is newly constructed, will meet 

the production threshold for a CAAP (thus 

requiring an NPDES permit), but will not 

meet the thresholds at which ELGs, and 

therefore New Source Performance 

Standards, would apply. As a new 

discharger, you must apply for a permit at 

least 180 before you plan to commence 

discharging unless permission for a later 

date is granted by the permitting authority. 

It also is possible for a facility already 

constructed and discharging to be 

considered a new discharger under the 

NPDES program. For example, if your 

facility previously was not defined as a 

Existing CAAP 

(Apply for an NPDES permit at least 180 

days prior to expiration of current one) 

If you are subject to 

the CAAP ELGs, 

your new permit 

will contain these 

requirements. 

If you are not subject to 

the CAAP ELGs, your 

new permit may or may 

not contain requirements 

from the CAAP ELGs. 
Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-5 March 2006 

CAAP but plans to increase the number of 

aquatic animals produced so you exceed the 

production threshold for definition as a 

CAAP facility, you would then be 

considered a new discharger for purposes of 

NPDES permitting. In this case, unless a 

later date is granted by the permitting 

authority, you must apply for an NPDES 

permit at least 180 days before you increase 

production and, therefore begin discharging 

as a point source subject to NPDES 

requirements. 

New Sources 

A CAAP facility is a new source if 

construction of the facility began after 

September 22, 2004 and the CAAP ELGs 

apply to the facility. Under the CWA, 

construction refers to the construction of any 

building, structure, or facility and to the 

installation of equipment. Construction 

commences if an entity either undertakes or 

begins certain work as part of a continuous 

on-site construction program, or enters into 

contractual obligations to purchase facilities 

or equipment. If construction occurs after 

the new source date, the facility will be 

considered a new source if it meets any of 

the following criteria: 

• It is constructed at a site at which no 

other source is located; or 

• It totally replaces the process or 

production equipment that causes the 

discharge of pollutants at an existing 

source; or 

• Its processes are substantially 

independent of an existing source at 

the same site. To determine whether 

the processes are substantially 

independent, factors such as the 

extent to which the new facility is 

integrated with the existing plant; 

and the extent to which the new 

facility is engaged in the same 

general type of activity as the 

existing source should be considered. 

40 CFR 122.29(b)(1), 40 CFR 403.3 

(k)(1). 

Construction at land-based sites such as flow 

through and recirculating systems occurs 

when ground is broken, new equipment is 

delivered, or other significant changes 

occur. For net pen and cage operations, 

construction at the facility is generally 

considered the start of the timeframe for a 

new source. Construction is considered to 

include when some activity associated with 

site preparation or construction of the pens 

in the water occurs. For example: 

• Some activity takes place at the site 

bottom or surface in preparation for 

placement of a net pen or cage. 

• If no site bottom or surface 

preparation is necessary, net pens or 

cages are placed in the water. 

The date construction at the facility begins 

compared to the effective date of the rule is 

important. A new source determination for 

aquatic animal production facilities for 

water-based systems such as net pens will be 

based on the date at which construction 

commences. Based on individual 

circumstances, the date construction begins 

may be the date the nets, cages, or structure, 

are placed in the water, date the nets/cages 

were purchased, or the date a binding 

contractual agreement takes place. 

New sources will need to comply with the 

NSPS and limitations of the CAAP rule at 

the time such sources commence 

discharging CAAP process wastewater. 

If you own or operate a new source CAAP 

facility, you must apply for a permit at least 

180 days before you plan to begin 

discharging from the CAAP facility. New 
Chapter 4: What Do I Need to Know About NPDES Permits? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-6 March 2006 

source permitting is subject to National 

Environmental Policy (NEPA) review. 

When will my NPDES permit expire?

Individual NPDES permits are usually 

issued for 5-year terms and are reissued 

every 5 years. You should check the 

expiration date of your permit. 

General NPDES permits are also usually 

issued for 5-year terms. Because a general 

NPDES permit is created for multiple 

permittees, however, it could have been 

issued several years before you submitted 

your NOI. If this is the case, the general 

NPDES permit might expire less than 5 

years after you submit your NOI. 

To reapply for a permit when it is due to 

expire, you must submit a complete and 

accurate new application form (for an 

individual permit) or new NOI (to be 

covered under a general permit) 180 days 

before your permit’s expiration date. For 

EPA issued permits, if you have met this 

deadline and your permitting authority fails 

to reissue your NPDES permit before the 

expiration date, the conditions of your 

current NPDES permit will remain in effect 

until the permitting authority acts on your 

complete and accurate new application (40 

CFR 122.6). Although many states have 

automatic continuation, state issued permits

are subject to state law. 

Some permitting authorities might have 

other deadlines or procedures for reissuing 

CAAP NPDES permits. For example, some 

general permits are automatically continued 

without a facility submitting a new NOI. 

Check the reapplication procedures specified 

in your permit, and contact your permitting 

authority to find out exactly what you must 

do to get a new permit when your current 

permit is due to expire. 

How long should I keep my NPDES 

permit? 

You must have an NPDES permit in effect 

for your operation as long as it is an 

operating CAAP. There are a few situations 

in which you can discontinue your NPDES 

coverage: 

• You close your operation. 

• You permanently change your 

operation so that it no longer is a 

CAAP (under the NPDES program). 

Under all circumstances, you must have an 

NPDES permit in effect until you properly 

dispose of process wastewater that was 

generated at the CAAP facility and solids 

collected in a settling basin or held in a 

storage tank so that your operation no longer 

has a potential to discharge to waters of the 

United States. If your operation still has a 

potential to discharge when your permit is 

due to expire, you must reapply for a permit. 

Once you have properly disposed of the 

collected solids, and process wastewater so 

that there is no longer a potential to 

discharge, you may ask your permitting 

authority to terminate your permit. Contact 

your permitting authority to find out more 

about how to terminate your permit. (You 

can find contact information for your 

permitting authority in Appendix A of this 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 4-7 March 2006 

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). 

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. 
Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 5-1 2006 

Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain? 

Your NPDES permit will state what you 

have to do to comply. Certain minimum 

requirements must be in every NPDES 

CAAP permit, and this guide describes those 

minimum requirements. Your permitting 

authority may include more than the 

minimum requirements in your NPDES 

permit. You should read your permit 

carefully to find out exactly what you have 

to do at your CAAP facility. Your NPDES 

permit will include the following 

requirements: 

• Effluent limitations, if applicable 

• Special conditions 

• Standard conditions 

• Monitoring, record-keeping, and 

reporting requirements 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 122.41 

What are the elements of an NPDES 

permit for a CAAP facility? 

The elements of an NPDES permit for a 

CAAP are the same as those issued to other 

point sources. These elements consist of a 

cover page, effluent limitations, monitoring 

and reporting requirements, record keeping 

requirements, special conditions, and 

standard conditions. 

Cover page – serves as the legal notice of 

the applicability of the permit, provides the 

authority under which it is issued, and 

contains appropriate dates and signature(s). 

Effluent limitations and standards – serves 

as the primary mechanism for controlling 

discharges of pollutants to receiving waters 

(e.g., the specific narrative or numeric 

limitations applied to the facility and the 

point of application of these limits). 

Monitoring and reporting requirements – 

identifies all of the specific conditions 

related to the types of monitoring to be 

performed, the frequencies for collecting 

samples or data, and how to record, 

maintain, and transmit the data and 

information to the permitting authority. 

Record-keeping requirements – specifies the 

types of records to be kept on-site at the 

permitted facility (e.g., inspection and 

monitoring records). 

Special conditions – in NPDES permits for 

CAAPs, special conditions may be included, 

as determined necessary by the permitting 

authority. 

Standard conditions – conditions that apply 

to all NPDES permits, such as the 

requirement to properly operate and 

maintain all facilities and systems of 

treatment and control, as specified in 40 

CFR 122.41. 

For additional details on the elements of an 

NPDES permit, refer to the U.S. EPA 

NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual (EPA-833-

B-96-003). 

Remember to read your permit and check 

with your permitting authority to find out 

exactly what your permit requires. This guide 

describes the minimum requirements 

established by the federal CAAP regulations. 

Your permit might require you to do more 

than the minimum requirements described 

here, for example, to meet your state’s or 

tribe’s water quality standards or to comply 

with CAAP requirements specific to your 

state. See the appendix to find out how to 

contact your permitting authority. 
Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 5-2 2006 

What effluent limitations will be 

included in my NPDES permit? 

Your permit will contain technology-based 

effluent limitations (based on the amount of 

pollutant reduction that can be achieved by 

applying pollution control technologies or 

practices), water quality-based effluent 

limitations (based on the water quality 

standards for and the condition of the 

receiving water body), or both. It might also 

contain additional BMPs, as needed.

Effluent limitations for flow-through and 

recirculating facilities 

As explained in detail in Chapter 2 (Table 

2), the ELGs contain specific reporting 

activities and narrative requirements (i.e, 

management practices) for flow-through and 

recirculating facilities that produce at least 

100,000 pounds of aquatic animals annually. 

The CAAP 

ELGs contain 

general 

reporting 

requirements 

for the use of 

certain types of 

drugs. All 

CAAP facilities 

that are subject 

to 40 CFR 451 

must notify the permitting authority of the 

use of any investigational new animal drug 

(INAD) and any extralabel drug use where 

the use may lead to a discharge to waters of 

the United States. The ELGs also contain 

general reporting requirements for failure in 

or damage to the structure of an aquatic 

animal containment system, resulting in an 

unanticipated material discharge of pollutant 

to waters of the United States. 

The CAAP ELGs 

contain narrative 

requirements for 

management 

practices for flowthrough and 

recirculating 

facilities. Under 

these 

requirements, you 

must develop and 

maintain a BMP 

plan on site that 

describes how you will manage the 

following: 

• Solids control 

• Material storage 

• Structural maintenance 

Facilities should note 

that the management 

practices are general 

(e.g., solids control) 

and a facility may 

choose how to achieve 

the management 

practice. For example, 

solids control can be 

achieved through feed 

management or solids 

disposal. EPA does 

not specify what a 

facility must do to 

achieve solids control.

Reporting is not required 

for an INAD or extralabel 

drug use that has been 

previously approved by 

FDA for a different 

aquatic animal species 

or diseases if the INAD 

or extralabel use is at or 

below the approved 

dosage and involves 

similar conditions of use. 

The technology-based limitations or 

requirements in a CAAP permit will be based 

on the ELG, for pollutants covered by the 

ELGs. The permit writers using best 

professional judgment (BPJ) may develop so 

called BPJ limits. 

A water quality-based effluent limitation is 

designed to protect the quality of the 

receiving water by ensuring that state or 

tribal water quality standards are met. In 

cases where a technology-based 

requirement does not sufficiently protect 

water quality, the permit must include 

appropriate water quality-based limits. 

For example, a technology-based standard 

for a CAAP facility might require the 

development of a facility BMP plan that 

includes controlling the discharge of solids. 

At some facilities, additional controls may be 

required to further reduce the discharge of 

phosphorus because of excessive nutrient 

loading in the receiving waterbody that may 

result in exceeding water quality standards. 

For these facilities, a water quality-based 

effluent limitation in the form of numeric 

phosphorus limits, such as seasonallyadjusted monthly maximum loads for total 

phosphorus, may be included in the permit to 

reduce the discharge of phosphorus and 

ensure that water quality standards are met. 
Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 5-3 2006 

• Record-keeping 

• Training 

 Final Preamble: Section VIII.B

Effluent limitations for net pen facilities 

As explained in 

detail in Table 3 

of Chapter 2, 

the ELGs 

require 

management 

practices and 

record-keeping 

activities for net 

pen facilities 

that produce at 

least 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals 

annually. 

The ELGs contain general reporting 

requirements for the use of certain types of 

drugs. All CAAP facilities that are subject to 

40 CFR 451 must notify the permitting 

authority of the use of any INAD and any 

extralabel drug use where the use may lead 

to a discharge to waters of the United States. 

The ELGs also contain general reporting 

requirements for failure in or damage to the 

structure of an aquatic animal containment 

system, resulting in an unanticipated 

material discharge of pollutants to waters of 

the United States. 

The ELGs contain narrative management 

practice requirements for net pen facilities. 

Under these requirements, you must develop 

and maintain a BMP plan on site that 

describes how you will manage the 

following: 

• Feed management 

• Waste collection and disposal 

• Transport or harvest discharge 

• Carcass removal 

• Material storage 

• Maintenance 

• Record-keeping 

• Training 

 Final Preamble: Section VIII.C

What are special conditions? 

Some NPDES permits contain special 

conditions that supplement the effluent 

limitations. Special conditions address 

unique conditions at an operation. Typical 

special conditions include, for example, 

BMPs, special monitoring studies, and 

stream surveys. 

What special conditions will be 

included in my CAAP NPDES permit? 

The ELGs do not impose any special 

conditions in your CAAP NPDES permit. 

However, your permit may contain special 

conditions to address local concerns. For 

example, where authorized, net pen facilities 

may be required to perform regular benthic 

monitoring to ensure that solids are not 

accumulating under the net pens and causing 

harm to benthic communities. Other 

additional requirements may address spills 

(e.g., petroleum), protection for endangered 

species and migratory birds, employee 

training, and groundwater monitoring or the 

use of liners in areas where there is the 

potential for a discharge to groundwater that 

has a direct hydrologic connection to waters 

of the United States. In addition, states 

concerned with groundwaters as waters of 

the state may require monitoring, liners, or 

other requirements based on appropriate 

state authority. 

Again, reporting is not 

required for an INAD or 

extralabel drug use that 

has been previously 

approved by FDA for a 

different aquatic animal 

species or diseases if the 

INAD or extralabel use is 

at or below the approved 

dosage and involves 

similar conditions of use.
Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 5-4 2006 

What are the standard conditions of 

all NPDES permits? 

Most NPDES permits contain standard 

conditions, which include definitions, testing 

procedures, record-keeping requirements, 

penalties for noncompliance, and your 

responsibilities as an NPDES permit holder. 

These responsibilities include, for example, 

complying with your permit, meeting 

deadlines for reapplying when your permit is 

due to expire, properly operating and 

maintaining your facility, and letting the 

permitting authority inspect your operation. 

The standard conditions also require you to 

notify your permitting authority if certain 

things happen at your operation (e.g., a 

significant increase in annual production or 

an upset occurs). See Chapter 4 of this guide 

for additional information. Carefully read 

the standard conditions section of your 

NPDES permit, and contact your permitting 

authority if you have any questions. 

 Regulation: 40 CFR. 122.41

What records do I have to keep? 

Your NPDES permit will require you to 

keep certain records to show that you are 

complying with the terms of the permit. You 

must keep all the records on-site at your 

operation for 5 years and you must provide 

them to the permitting authority upon 

request. 

What are the record-keeping 

requirements for all CAAPs, under the 

ELGs? 

If you own or operate a flow-through, 

recirculating, or net pen system that 

produces 100,000 pounds or more each year, 

you must keep at least the following records 

that document: 

• Feed amounts and estimates of the 

numbers and weights of aquatic 

animals in order to calculate 

representative feed conversion ratios. 

FT RAS NET

• Frequency of cleaning, inspections, 

maintenance, and repairs. 

FT RAS

• Net pen changes, inspections, and 

repairs. NET

Refer to Appendix R for a checklist of 

record-keeping requirements. Chapter 12 of 

this document (“Record-keeping for Flowthrough, Recirculating, and Net Pen 

Facilities”) provides a more detailed 

discussion of record-keeping and refers to 

example forms in the appendices that may 

be used for record-keeping. 

 Final Preamble: VIII.E

What monitoring do I have to perform 

under my NPDES permit? 

The monitoring that your permitting 

authority may require as part of your permit 

depends on other conditions in your permit. 

If you are subject to ELGs, there are some 

associated monitoring requirements, as 

discussed below. If your permit includes 

numeric effluent limitations, you will be 

required to monitor to demonstrate 

compliance with those limitations. Your 

permitting authority may also require 

monitoring to characterize your discharge 

even when your permit does not include 

numeric effluent limitations. Look carefully 

at your permit, particularly the effluent 

limitations section, special conditions, and 

monitoring requirements section, to find out 

what monitoring you have to perform. 
Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain? 

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

What monitoring do I have to perform 

under the ELGs? 

Under the ELGs, you must monitor your 

production systems and wastewater 

treatment systems for damage to structural 

components. More specifically, you must do 

the following: 

• Routinely inspect production 

systems and wastewater treatment 

systems to identify and promptly 

repair damage. FT RAS

• Routinely inspect production 

systems to identify and promptly 

repair damage. NET

Example forms for tracking inspections are 

available in Appendix P. 

 Final Preamble: VIII.D

What do I have to report to the 

permitting authority? 

Your permit may require you to submit 

certain reports to your permitting authority, 

such as a monitoring report; an annual 

report; or special reports of discharges, 

changes to your operation, and other 

information, such as the use of certain drugs 

through INADs or extralabel prescriptions. 

Read your permit carefully, and contact your 

permitting authority to find out exactly what 

you must report. 

Chapter 12 of this document provides a list 

of example forms and logs available in the 

appendices that may be used to report 

required information to your permitting 

authority or for record-keeping. 

 Final Preamble: VIII.D

What else do I have to report? 

The standard conditions that apply to all 

NPDES permits (refer to Chapter 4 of this 

guide for additional information) also 

include the following reporting 

requirements: 

• Duty to provide information. You 

must provide any information your 

permitting authority needs to find out 

if you are complying with your 

NPDES permit or to make changes 

to your permit.

• Signatory and certification 

requirements. Any applications, 

reports, or information you submit 

must be signed and certified. The 

certification must state that all the 

information you submit is true and 

complete to the best of your 

knowledge. There might be penalties 

if you knowingly submit false 

information. 

• Planned changes. If you plan to 

make any changes to your CAAP 

facility that will affect your ability to 

comply with your NPDES permit, 

you have to notify your permitting 

authority as soon as possible. 

• Anticipated noncompliance. You 

must notify your permitting authority 

if you know that something is going 

to happen at your facility that would 

cause you to be out of compliance 

with your NPDES permit. Failing to 

do so could result in penalties. 

• Twenty-four-hour reporting. If you 

have a discharge (or other 

noncompliance event) at your CAAP 

facility that could endanger human 

health or the environment, you must 

report it orally within 24 hours. 

Within 5 days, you must submit a 

written statement describing the 

discharge or noncompliance. Your 
Chapter 5: What Requirements Will My NPDES Permit Contain? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 5-6 2006 

description must include what caused 

the discharge, when it started, how 

long it lasted, what you did to stop 

the discharge, and how you will 

prevent the problem in the future. 

• Other noncompliance. You must 

report all instances of 

noncompliance. Each report must 

contain the information described 

above for twenty-four hour 

reporting. 

• Other information. If you find out 

that you failed to submit any 

important facts in your application, 

or that you submitted incorrect 

information in your application or 

other reports, you must submit the 

correct information right away. 

 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. 

A TMDL is a calculation of the greatest 

amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can 

receive without exceeding water quality 

standards. It is the sum of the allowable 

loads of a single pollutant from all 

contributing point and nonpoint sources. The 

calculation must include a margin of safety to 

ensure that the waterbody can be used for 

the purposes the state has designated. The 

calculation must also account for seasonal 

variation in water quality. Additional 

information about TMDLs is available from 

EPA’s TMDL website at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl.
Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 6-1 2006 

Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, 

Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

EPA established general reporting 

requirements for the use of certain types of 

drugs (i.e., Investigational New Animal 

Drugs (INADs), extralabel prescriptions). 

EPA also established general reporting 

requirements for failure in or damage to the 

structure of an aquatic animal containment 

system, resulting in an unanticipated 

material discharge of pollutant to waters of 

the United States. 

What is an INAD drug? 

An INAD is a drug for which there is a valid 

exemption in effect under 512(j) of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 

U.S.C. 360b(j). More specifically, INADs 

are those drugs for which FDA has 

authorized use on a case-by-case basis to 

allow a way of gathering data for the 

approval process. Quantities and conditions 

of use are specified. FDA, however, 

sometimes relies on the NPDES permitting 

process to establish limitations on pollutant 

discharges to prevent environmental harm. 

Most NPDES permits, which mention drugs 

and pesticides, to date have required only 

reporting of the use of drugs and pesticides. 

FDA may grant INAD exemptions from 

approved use for establishing data to base 

drug approval. Through the investigative 

approval process, the sponsor agrees to 

conduct laboratory and field tests with the 

drug under the conditions and on the 

animals proposed for approval. These data 

are collected in the INAD and eventually 

submitted to a new animal drug application 

(NADA) to form the basis for the Center for 

Veterinary Medicine’s (CVM’s) approval or 

disapproval of the drug. Data collection for 

the drug approval includes data on the 

observed or anticipated environmental 

effects associated with the drug’s use. In the 

case of drugs used on aquatic animals the 

most significant environmental effect 

associated with the drug’s usage is the effect 

on the aquatic environment. 

What is extralabel use of a drug? 

Extralabel use is when a drug is not used 

according to label requirements. Extralabel 

drug use is restricted to use of approved 

animal and human drugs by, or on the order 

of, a licensed veterinarian and must be 

within the context of a valid veterinarianpatient relationship. 

An example of an extralabel use is injecting 

erythromycin into adult fish to treat bacterial 

infections. Since there are no current labeled 

uses of erythromycin in aquatic animals, this 

use would require a veterinarian to provide 

an extralabel prescription. Note, although 

erythromycin is under an INAD exemption 

to control bacterial kidney disease in 

salmonids, any uses other than those 

associated with the INAD study are only 

allowed as an extralabel use. 

Your veterinarian prescribes oxytetracycline 

(Terramycin) medicated feed at a dose of 3.0 g 

of drug per 100 lb of feed for your yellow perch 

(grown in a flow-though system) that have 

been diagnosed with Aeromonas liquefaciens. 

Since Terramycin is approved for as a feed 

additive to treat salmonids and catfish for 

Aeromonas liquefaciens, when used according 

to the veterinarian’s prescribed instructions, 

you do not have to report the use. Remember, 

you still are required to keep records of the 

treatment conditions as a requirement of the 

extralabel provisions developed by FDA. 
Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 6-2 2006 

What am I required to do if I use an 

INAD drug? 

Unless you 

are exempt, 

under the 

general 

reporting 

requirements

, you must 

first report 

your 

intention to 

use INAD(s). 

You must 

provide a 

written 

report to the permitting authority of an 

INAD’s impending use within 7 days of 

agreeing or signing up to participate in an 

INAD study. The written report must 

identify the: 

• INAD to be used. 

• Method of application. 

• Dosage. 

• Disease or condition the INAD is 

intended to treat. 

Second, you must provide the permitting 

authority with an oral report that you are 

using INAD(s). You must provide an oral 

report to the permitting authority as soon as 

possible (preferably in advance of use), but 

no later than 7 days after initiating use of the 

drug. The oral report must identify the: 

• Drugs used. 

• Method of application. 

• Reason for using the drug. 

Finally, you must also provide a written 

report to your permitting authority that you 

are using INAD(s). You must provide a 

written report to the permitting authority 

within 30 days after initiating use of the 

drug. The written report must identify the: 

• Drugs used. 

• Reason for treatment. 

• Date(s) and time(s) of the addition 

(including duration). 

• Method of application. 

• Amount added. 

Refer to Appendix M for example forms that 

may be used to submit this information to 

your permitting authority. 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3

What am I required to do if there is 

extralabel drug use at my CAAP 

facility? 

Unless you 

are exempt, 

you must 

provide the 

permitting 

authority 

with an oral 

report of 

extralabel 

drug use. 

You must 

provide an 

oral report 

to the 

permitting authority as soon as possible 

(preferably in advance of use), but no later 

If using an INAD drug, you must provide 

the following to your permitting authority: 

1. A written report within 7 days of 

agreeing to use an INAD. 

2. An oral report no later than 7 days of 

initiating use of the drug. 

3. A written report within 30 days after 

initiating use of the drug. 

INAD Reporting Exemption 

Remember: you do not 

need to report an INAD use 

of a drug previously 

approved by FDA for a 

different aquatic animal 

species or disease if: 

• The dosage of the 

drug is used at less 

than or equal to the 

approved dosage and

• The use is done under 

similar conditions. 

Extralabel Drug Use 

Reporting Exemption 

Remember: you do not 

need to report an extralabel 

use of a drug previously 

approved by FDA for a 

different aquatic animal 

species or disease if: 

• The dosage of the 

drug is used at less 

than or equal to the 

approved dosage and

• The use is done under 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 6-3 2006 

than 7 days after initiating use of the drug. 

The oral report must identify the: 

• Drugs used. 

• Method of application. 

• Reason for using the drug. 

You must also provide a written report to 

your permitting authority of extralabel drug 

use. You must provide a written report to the 

permitting authority within 30 days after 

initiating use of the drug. The written report 

must identify the: 

• Drugs used. 

• Reason for treatment. 

• Date(s) and time(s) of the addition 

(including duration). 

• Method of application. 

• Amount added. 

Refer to Appendix M for example forms that 

may be used to submit this information to 

your permitting authority. 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451.3

What am I required to do if there is a 

failure in, or damage to, the structure 

of an aquatic animal containment 

system? 

You will need to notify your permitting 

authority if: 

• There is any failure in, or damage to, 

the structure of an aquatic animal 

containment system resulting in an 

unanticipated material discharge of 

pollutants to waters of the United 

States and/or

• If there is a spill of drugs, pesticides, 

or feed that results in a discharge to 

waters of the United States. 

The permitting authority may specify in the 

permit what constitutes reportable damage 

and/or material discharge of pollutants, 

based on consideration of production system 

type, sensitivity of the receiving waters, and 

other relevant factors. 

You must provide an oral report to your 

permitting authority within 24 hours of the 

discovery of any reportable failure or 

damage that results in a material discharge 

of pollutants. This report must: 

• Describe the cause of the failure or 

damage in the containment system. 

• Identify materials that have been 

released to the environment as a 

result of the failure. 

You must also provide a written report to 

your permitting authority within 7 days 

structural failure or damage. This report 

must: 

• Document the cause of the failure or 

damage. 

Upon discovery of a structural failure or 

damage to a containment system or 

spill of drugs, pesticides, or feed, you 

must provide the following to your 

permitting authority: 

1. An oral report within 24 hours of 

discovery. 

2. A written report within 7 days of 

discovery. 

With extralabel drug use, you must 

provide the following to your permitting 

authority: 

1. An oral report no later than 7 

days of initiating use of the drug.

2. A written report within 30 days 

after initiating use of the drug.
Chapter 6: General Reporting Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 6-4 2006 

• 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.
Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 7-1 2006 

Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, 

Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

EPA established narrative requirements for 

flow-through, recirculating, and net pen 

CAAP facilities. Under the requirements for 

flow-through and recirculating facilities, you 

must develop and maintain a BMP plan on 

site that describes how you will achieve the 

following requirements: 

• Solids control 

• Material storage 

• Structural maintenance 

• Record-keeping 

• Training 

The plan must be made available to your 

permitting authority upon request. You 

must also certify that a BMP plan has been 

developed. Guidance on developing and 

certifying a BMP plan is available in 

Chapter 8 of this document. An example 

form for certifying your BMP plan is 

available in Appendix F. 

Under the narrative requirements for net pen 

facilities, you must develop and maintain a 

BMP plan on site that describes how you 

will achieve the following requirements: 

• Feed management 

• Waste collection and disposal 

• Transport or harvest discharge 

• Carcass removal 

• Material storage 

• Maintenance 

• Record-keeping 

• Training 

The plan must be made available to your 

permitting authority upon request. You must 

also certify that a BMP plan has been 

developed. Guidance on developing and 

certifying a BMP plan is available in 

Chapter 8 of this guidance. An example 

form for certifying your BMP plan is 

available in Appendix F. 

What is required for solids control? 

The following is required for solids control 

for flow-through and recirculating facilities: 

FT RAS

• Use efficient feed management and 

feeding strategies that limit feed 

input to the minimum amount 

reasonably necessary to achieve 

production goals and sustain targeted 

rates of aquatic animal growth. 

• Identify and implement procedures 

for routine cleaning of rearing units 

and offline settling basins. 

• Identify procedures for inventorying, 

grading, and harvesting aquatic 

animals that minimize discharge of 

accumulated solids. 

• Remove and dispose of aquatic 

animal mortalities properly on a 

regular basis to prevent discharge to 

waters of the United States, except 

where authorized by your permitting 

authority in order to benefit the 

aquatic environment. 
Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 7-2 2006 

Figure 7.1. Cleaning out a raceway 

Specific guidance for achieving solids 

control is available from Chapter 9 of this 

document. An example log for tracking and 

calculating feed conversion ratios is 

available in Appendix N. 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(a)

What is required for materials 

storage? 

The following is required for materials 

storage for flow-through, recirculating, and 

net pen facilities: 

FT RAS NET

• Ensure proper storage of drugs, 

pesticides, and feed in a manner 

designed to prevent spills that may 

result in the discharge to waters of 

the United States. 

• Implement procedures for properly 

containing, cleaning, and disposing 

of any spilled materials. 

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 7.2. Storage container for an INAD drug 

What is required for maintenance? 

The following is required for structural 

maintenance for flow-through and 

recirculating facilities: FT RAS

• Routinely inspect production 

systems and wastewater treatment 

systems to identify and promptly 

repair damage. 

• Regularly conduct maintenance of 

production systems and wastewater 

treatment systems to ensure their 

proper function. 

The following is required for maintenance 

for net pen facilities: NET

• Routinely inspect production 

systems to identify and promptly 

repair damage. 
Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 7-3 2006 

• Regularly conduct maintenance of 

production systems to ensure their 

proper function. 

Specific guidance for achieving maintenance 

is available from Chapter 11 of this 

document. Example inspection and 

maintenance logs for performing 

maintenance are available in Appendix P. 

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

What is required for record-keeping? 

The following is required for recordkeeping: 

• 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. 

FT RAS NET

• Keep records documenting 

frequency of cleaning, inspections, 

maintenance, and repairs. 

FT RAS

• Keep records documenting net pen 

changes, inspections, and repairs. 

NET

Specific guidance for record-keeping is 

available from Chapter 12 of this guidance. 

A checklist of the record-keeping 

requirements of the CAAP ELGs is 

available in Appendix R. An example log 

for tracking cleaning of production systems 

and/or wastewater treatment systems is 

available in Appendix Q. 

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

What is required for training? 

The following is required for training: 

• Train all relevant personnel in spill 

prevention and how to respond in the 

event of a spill to ensure proper 

clean-up and disposal of spilled 

materials. FT RAS NET

• Train personnel on proper operation 

and cleaning of production and 

wastewater treatment systems, 

including feeding procedures and 

proper use of equipment. FT RAS

• Train personnel on proper operation 

and cleaning of production systems, 

including feeding procedures and 

equipment. NET

Specific guidance for training is available 

from Chapter 13 of this document. An 

example log for tracking training of 

employees is available in Appendix S. 

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

What is required for feed 

management? 

The following is required for feed 

management for net pen facilities: NET

• Employ efficient feed management 

and feeding strategies that limit feed 

input to the minimum amount 

reasonably necessary to achieve 

production goals and sustain targeted 

rates of aquatic animal growth. 

• Minimize accumulation of uneaten 

feed beneath the pens through active 

feed monitoring and management 
Chapter 7: Narrative Requirements for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 7-4 2006 

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)
Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 8-1 2006 

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

A BMP is a means of controlling and 

reducing pollutant discharges other than 

those that rely on mechanic/physical or 

chemical systems. BMPs include schedules 

of activities, prohibition of action, 

maintenance and management procedures, 

and other treatment and operating 

requirements. These practices may be in 

addition to or separate from physical 

treatment systems. 

Based on the 

CAAP 

regulation, 

facility 

operators must 

design BMP 

plans to include 

a series of 

practices such 

as feed 

management, 

feed monitoring, 

solids control, and material storage. BMP 

plans are flexible and allow facility 

operators to design measures and practices 

that work within their facility management 

framework. 

In the context of the CAAP ELGs, the BMP 

plan must include components that are 

designed to minimize the discharge of solids 

from the facility. The goal of the plan is to 

control conventional and nutrient pollutants 

in the discharge. 

The CAAP facility is expected to provide 

written documentation of a BMP plan and 

keep necessary records to demonstrate the 

implementation of the plan. This type of 

regulatory structure allows individual 

facilities to develop a plan tailored to the 

unique conditions of the CAAP facility, 

while reducing the discharge of pollutants 

consistent with the goals of the CWA. 

What is the goal of a BMP plan? 

The goal of a BMP plan, as stated under the 

narrative requirements of the ELGs, is to 

describe the standard operating procedures 

and BMPs used to control solids, store 

materials, maintain the aquatic animal 

containment structures, perform recordkeeping, train employees, monitor feeding, 

collect and dispose of waste, address 

transport or harvest discharge, and remove 

dead aquatic animals. 

How do I write a BMP plan? 

Your plan should describe how you will 

comply with each required element of the 

regulations. It should incorporate the 

following components, depending on the 

type(s) of system at your facility: 

Solids Control 

For your flow-through and/or recirculating 

systems, describe in detail how you will: 

FT RAS

• Perform efficient feed management 

to limit feed input to the minimum 

amount reasonably necessary to 

achieve production goals and sustain 

targeted rates of aquatic animal 

growth. 

Publicly supported 

aquaculture extension 

specialists, fact sheets, 

and reports are available 

to assist with developing 

BMP plans. These 

resources can help 

assure that the 

production practices, 

design parameters, and 

equipment will achieve 

the environmental 

protection goals being 

addressed. 
Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 8-2 2006 

• Identify and 

implement 

procedures 

for routine 

cleaning of 

rearing units 

and offline settling basins. 

• Identify procedures for inventorying, 

grading, and harvesting aquatic 

animals that minimize discharge of 

accumulated solids. 

• Remove and dispose of aquatic 

animal mortalities properly on a 

regular basis to prevent discharge to 

waters of the United States (except 

where authorized by your permitting 

authority in order to benefit the 

aquatic environment). 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451.11(a)

Material Storage 

For your flow-through, recirculating and/or 

net pen systems, describe in detail how you 

will: FT RAS NET

• Ensure proper storage of drugs, 

pesticides, and feed to prevent spills 

that may result in the discharge to 

waters of the United States. 

• Implement procedures for properly 

containing, cleaning, and disposing 

of any spilled materials. 

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

Refer to the EPA Office of Pesticides 

website on Pesticide Storage Resources 

(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/st

orage_resources.htm) or JSA’s Guide to 

Drug, Vaccine, and Pesticide Use in 

Aquaculture at 

(http://aquanic.org/jsa/wgqaap/drugguide/dr

ugguide.htm) for useful information or 

suggestions for ensuring proper storage or 

drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills. 

Maintenance 

For your flow-through and/or recirculating 

systems, describe in detail how you will: 

FT RAS 

• Routinely inspect production 

systems and wastewater treatment 

systems to identify and promptly 

repair damage. 

• Regularly conduct maintenance of 

production systems and wastewater 

treatment systems to ensure their 

proper function. 

For your net pen 

systems, describe in 

detail how you will: 

NET

• Routinely 

inspect production systems to 

identify and promptly repair damage. 

• Regularly conduct maintenance of 

production systems to ensure their 

proper function. 

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

Record-keeping 

For your flow-through and/or recirculating 

systems, describe in detail how you will: 

FT RAS 

• 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. 

As part of your 

BMP plan, you 

should define the 

term “routine,” 

which can vary 

during the year. 

As part of your 

BMP plan, you 

should define the 

terms “routinely” 

and “regularly,” 

which can vary 

during the year. 
Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 8-3 2006 

• Keep records documenting 

frequency of cleaning, inspections, 

maintenance, and repairs. 

For your net pen systems, describe in detail 

how you will: NET

• Maintain records for aquatic animal 

rearing units documenting feed 

amounts and estimates of the 

numbers and weights of aquatic 

animals in order to calculate 

representative feed conversion ratios. 

• Keep records documenting net pen 

changes, inspections, and repairs. 

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

Training 

For your flow-through and/or recirculating 

systems, describe in detail how you will: 

FT RAS 

• Train all relevant personnel in spill 

prevention and how to respond in the 

event of a spill to ensure proper 

clean-up and disposal of spilled 

materials. 

• Train personnel on proper operation 

and cleaning of production and 

wastewater treatment systems, 

including feeding procedures and 

proper use of equipment. 

For your net pen systems, describe in detail 

how you will: NET

• Train all relevant personnel in spill 

prevention and how to respond in the 

event of a spill to ensure proper 

clean-up and disposal of spilled 

materials. 

• Train personnel on proper operation 

and cleaning of production systems, 

including feeding procedures and 

equipment. 

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

Feed Management 

For your net pen systems, describe in detail 

how you will: NET

• Employ efficient feed management 

and feeding strategies that limit feed 

input to the minimum amount 

reasonably necessary to achieve 

production goals and sustain targeted 

rates of aquatic animal growth. 

• Minimize accumulation of uneaten 

feed beneath the pens through active 

feed monitoring and management 

strategies approved by your 

permitting authority. 

Documenting efficient feed management for 

EPA can be accomplished by describing the 

following: 

• Feed methods used to minimize 

solids production. 

• Modifications made to feed 

quantities as fish production changes 

(e.g., size, health of fish). 

• Feed handling methods used to 

reduce generation of fines. 

• Feed formulations information for 

each life-history stage of fish reared. 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(a)

Waste Collection and Disposal 

For your net pen systems, describe in detail 

how you will: NET
Chapter 8: Writing and Certifying a BMP Plan 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 8-4 2006 

• Collect, return to shore, and properly 

dispose of all feed bags, packaging 

materials, waste rope, and netting. 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(b)

Transport or Harvest Discharge 

For your net pen systems, describe in detail 

how you will: NET

• Minimize any discharge associated 

with the transport or harvesting of 

aquatic animals (including blood, 

viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or 

transport water containing blood). 

 Regulation: 40 CFR 451.21(c)

Carcass Removal 

For your net pen systems, describe in detail 

how you will: 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 

include in your BMP plan are also available 

in Appendix E. 

How do I certify my BMP plan? 

Send a signed letter to your permitting 

authority, stating that you have developed a 

BMP plan. You will need to send a letter 

every time your permit is renewed. The 

BMP certification form should include your 

name and title, name of the facility, NPDES 

number, and date the BMP plan was 

developed. An example certification form 

that may be submitted to your permitting 

authority is available in Appendix F. 

If you have any questions about certifying 

your BMP plan, be sure to check with your 

permitting authority. 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-1 March 2006 

Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating 

Facilities FT RAS

The ELGs regulations require facilities to 

implement solids control BMPs, which are 

intended to allow facilities to develop 

regional or site-specific operational 

measures to control the discharge of solids 

and other materials. The narrative BMP 

requirements also allow facilities and permit 

writers to respond to state programs that are 

currently working well. Some examples of 

solids control management practices 

include a combination of any and/or all of 

the following: 

• Feed management 

• Solids management 

• Solids disposal 

• Solids storage 

• Mortality removal and disposal 

Feed Management 

Feed is effectively the only major source of 

aquaculture-derived nutrients, such as 

nitrogen and phosphorus, and solids in flowthrough systems. Optimizing feed 

management by using high quality feeds and 

minimizing feed waste can reduce the 

nutrients and solids generated and released 

to the environment. Feed also represents the 

largest single variable cost of production and 

efficient use of feeds can result in cost 

savings. Accurate feeding systems and 

appropriate feeding levels are essential for 

productivity, economic efficiency, and 

protection of the environment. 

Relatively short hydraulic residence times 

and continuous discharge of water make 

feed management an important component 

in controlling the amount of nutrients and 

solids discharged from flow-through 

systems. 

For recirculating aquaculture systems, the 

loading of potential pollutants to a receiving 

body of water is not entirely related to feed 

input, but is dependent upon the 

effectiveness of waste capture and treatment 

processes within the recirculating system 

and on any additional effluent treatment 

processes used to clean the water before 

discharge. Minimizing waste feed will 

minimize the wastes that must be treated in 

the recirculating system and ultimately the 

amount of waste released to the 

environment. Feed management is only one 

factor among many in the control of 

potential pollution from recirculating 

aquaculture systems. 

Examples of Feed Management Practices 

1. Use high quality feeds and seek to 

minimize nutrient and solids discharges 

through optimization of feed formulation (in 

cooperation with feed manufacturers) 

FT RAS

Feeds should be formulated to meet the 

nutritional requirements of the cultured 

species and for optimum feed conversion 

ratios and retention of protein (nitrogen) and 

phosphorus. Feeds should be formulated 

using ingredients that have high dry matter 

and protein apparent digestibility 

coefficients. Formulations should be 

designed to enhance nitrogen and 

phosphorus retention efficiency, and reduce 

metabolic waste output. Feeds should 

contain sufficient dietary energy to spare 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-2 March 2006 

dietary protein (amino acids) for tissue 

synthesis. Available phosphorus levels 

should be slightly in excess of the dietary 

requirements of the species for each lifehistory stage. Efforts should be made in feed 

formulation to keep total phosphorus levels 

as low as possible while maintaining 

appropriate available phosphorus levels. 

Consult a qualified aquatic animal 

nutritionist or feed manufacturer for 

information regarding feed formulation. 

When facility operators evaluate feed 

formulations, they should consider 

numerous factors including, pellet stability, 

digestibility, palatability, sinking rates, 

energy levels, moisture content, ingredient 

quality and the nutritional requirements of 

the species being grown. Feeds should be 

formulated and manufactured using highquality ingredients. 

Pelleted feeds should be stable in water for 

sufficient time so the pellets remain intact 

until eaten. Feeds should be manufactured, 

stored, shipped, and handled at the farm so 

they contain a minimum amount of fine 

particles. 

In the case of feeds used in recirculating 

systems, minimizing metabolic excretion of 

nitrogen from amino acids catabolized to 

provide metabolic energy, and minimizing 

nitrogen excretion in feces from indigestible 

protein is the top priority in feed 

formulation. Therefore high quality feeds for 

recirculating systems should have balanced 

amino acid profiles, e.g., profiles that meet 

but do not substantially exceed dietary 

requirements for individual essential amino 

acids, and contain sufficient dietary energy 

from carbohydrates and lipids to “spare” 

dietary protein for tissue synthesis. 

2) Use efficient feeding practices 

FT RAS

In flow-through and recirculating systems, 

feed can be delivered by hand, automatic 

feeders, demand feeders, or by mechanical 

feeders. Regardless of the delivery method 

or system, the amount of feed offered should 

optimize balance between growth goals and 

feed efficiency. 

Figure 9.1. Demand feeder 

The appropriate quantity of feed for a given 

species is influenced by feed formulation, 

fish size, water temperature, dissolved 

oxygen levels, carbon dioxide 

concentrations, health status, and 

management goals. Feed particle size should 

be appropriate for the size of fish in each 

rearing unit. Whenever possible, feed 

utilization should be monitored by observing 

feeding behavior or by looking for trends in 

waste feed collecting within the culture unit 

or waste feed exiting the culture unit. 

Figure 9.2. Feed truck 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-3 March 2006 

Multiple feeding periods distributed over a 

24-hour period will provide more uniform 

water quality within a recirculating system 

than a feeding schedule only offering feed 

once or twice daily. 

3) Calculate feed conversion ratios by using 

feed and fish biomass inventory tracking 

systems FT RAS

Calculation of feed conversion ratios is an 

essential function on all aquatic animal 

farms. Monitoring long- and short-term 

changes in feed conversion ratios allows 

farmers to quickly identify significant 

changes in feed consumption and waste 

production rates. 

4) Manage within the carrying capacity of 

the production system FT RAS

Flowing water carries dissolved oxygen to 

the culture units, receives the waste 

produced in the culture unit, and carries 

these wastes away from the culture unit to 

treatment units before the wastes can 

accumulate to harmful and undesirable 

levels. Dissolved oxygen is usually the first 

water quality parameter to limit culture tank 

carrying capacity, which, in simplistic terms, 

is the maximum fish biomass that can be 

supported at a selected feeding rate. Note 

that the culture vessel volume does not 

determine carrying capacity unless water 

flow is in excess of all other water quality 

based carrying capacity requirements. 

Impaired water quality due to high loading 

and excessively high feeding rates stresses 

fish and reduces feed efficiency and 

production. High loading and high feeding 

rates also lead to higher levels of nutrients 

and solids in the effluent. Loading and 

feeding rates within the carrying capacity of 

the production system are more efficient, 

and minimize the discharge of pollutants. 

In flow-through systems, carrying capacity 

is determined by incoming water quality and 

quantity, production goals, facility design, 

site characteristics, and species cultured. As 

such, there is no single carrying capacity 

value applicable to flow-through systems 

and carrying capacity will vary within and 

between facilities. 

Recirculating systems, by definition, treat 

and reuse large portions of the system makeup water flow. Therefore, the water flow 

requirements through the culture units 

within a recirculating system can be much 

greater than the make-up water flow 

requirements that flush the system. Of 

primary importance is the removal of the 

waste metabolites: ammonia, carbon 

dioxide, and total suspended solids (TSS), 

whose production is directly proportional to 

feed load. 

Biofilters, aeration columns, and 

filters/clarifiers are unit processes used to 

control ammonia, carbon dioxide and TSS 

accumulations within recirculating systems. 

Aquacultural engineering texts and many 

other publications provide the methodology 

to design biofilters, aeration columns, and 

filters/clarifiers to treat a given flow or the 

waste metabolites produced by a given 

feeding rate. However, when a unit 

treatment process (e.g., biofilter or aeration 

column) is designed, the designer should 

provide the expected water quality exiting a 

culture tank within a recirculating system to 

help ensure that the design will provide safe 

water quality for the fish when reared at 

maximum carrying capacity, i.e., feed 

loading. Operators of recirculating systems 

should feed at rates that do not exceed the 

maximum carrying capacity of the system. 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-4 March 2006 

5) Properly store feed FT RAS

Feed storage areas should be secure from 

contamination, vermin, moisture and 

excessive heat. Long term storage of feed 

can affect feed quality. Feed should be 

rotated (use oldest feed first) and not stored 

beyond the manufacturer’s recommended 

use date. If feed can no longer be used 

because of spoilage or it has exceeded the 

manufacturer’s recommendations for 

storage, the unusable feed should be 

properly disposed to prevent water quality 

impacts. 

Care should be taken during feed handling 

to minimize pellet damage or crushing and 

reduce the creation of fine feed particles that 

cannot be utilized by the fish. 

6) Check feeding equipment to ensure 

efficient operation FT RAS

Improperly adjusted or malfunctioning 

feeding equipment can over-feed or underfeed fish and reduce feed and production 

efficiency. 

7) Conduct employee training in fish 

husbandry and feeding methods to ensure 

that workers have adequate training to 

optimize feed conversion ratios FT RAS

Solids Management 

Fish fecal matter and waste feed are the 

major constituents of total suspended solids 

from culture practices in flow-through 

systems. Solids allowed to settle in rearing 

units degrade water quality and may irritate 

fish gills leading to disease. Solids can 

impact the aquatic environment and should 

be thoroughly collected prior to wastewater 

discharge. 

Flow-through system effluent is 

characterized as high volume with low 

solids concentration. This effluent 

characteristic generally limits practical and 

economical solids management to the 

capture and removal of solids using settling 

basins. Solids found in flow-through 

systems readily settle and can be managed 

with practices that rely on gravitational 

settling before water is discharged. Practices 

that increase solid particle fragmentation 

decrease settling efficiency. These particles 

are much smaller and have poor settling 

characteristics. Fish grading, harvesting, and 

other activities within raceways or ponds 

should be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes the disturbance and possible 

discharge of accumulated solids. In rare 

situations, high levels of TSS in source 

water may warrant pretreatment systems, 

such as settling basins, to improve source 

water quality for fish culture. 

Waste feed and fish fecal matter are 

waterborne and require separation for 

efficient management of water quality 

within the recirculating system. The solids 

treatment processes in a recirculating system 

remove a portion of the feed derived waste 

solids in the recirculating water. Higher 

solids removal efficiencies result in cleaner 

water within the recirculating system. 

The particulate wastes discharged from the 

recirculating system are contained in either a 

small but concentrated flow (such as the 

intermittent backwash from a solids capture 

unit) and/or in a more continuous flow of 

displaced water (such as an overtopping 

flow from a pump sump that is water that 

has been displaced by make-up water 

addition) that has a concentration of solids 

similar to that found in the fish culture 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-5 March 2006 

tanks. Not all recirculating systems will 

have an overtopping flow, depending upon 

their make-up water requirements. When the 

solids are discharged, as with backwashing 

water, the concentration of solids is typically 

relatively high. However, if an overtopping 

flow is discharged from the system, it will 

be relatively small in volume compared to 

the discharge from a flow-through system. 

Solids can impact the aquatic environment 

and should be collected as much as possible 

prior to wastewater discharge. Therefore, 

nearly all flow-through and recirculating 

aquaculture systems use some form of solids 

treatment and/or disposal to remove the 

concentrated slurry of captured biosolids. In 

some cases, it may also be necessary to treat 

the more dilute but relatively larger volume 

system overflow before this flow is 

discharged. As an alternate to on site 

treatment, either of these waste flows could 

be discharged to a POTW. 

Examples of Solids Management 

Practices 

1) Design and operate rearing units for 

efficient and rapid capture of solids from the 

water column, incorporating fish-free 

settling basins where practical FT RAS

Linear rearing units designed to promote 

plug flow and sufficient water velocity to 

prevent the settling of solids within the 

rearing unit allow the efficient capture of 

solids using quiescent zones or other settling 

basins. Proper facility design and 

construction can be an economical means of 

managing solids through settling in 

designated areas, allowing for efficient 

removal. Fish should be prevented from 

entering quiescent zones and other settling 

basins and removed as soon as possible 

when found to prevent or alleviate 

resuspension and subsequent discharge of 

solids. 

Circular tanks with properly designed inlets 

and drains can remove the majority of solids 

with minimum labor for further treatment. 

Circular tanks can rapidly concentrate and 

remove settleable solids. Circular tanks are 

designed to promote a primary rotating flow 

that creates a secondary radial flow that 

carries settleable solids to the bottom center 

of the tank, making the tank self-cleaning. 

The self-cleaning attribute of the circular 

tank depends on the overall rate of flow 

leaving the bottom-center drain, the strength 

of the bottom radial flow towards the center 

drain, and the swimming motion of fish. The 

factors that affect self-cleaning within 

circular tanks are also influenced by the 

water inlet and outlet design, tank diameterto-depth ratio, water rotational period, size 

and density of fish, size and specific gravity 

of fish feed and fecal material, and water 

exchange rate. 

2) Remove solids from collection systems in 

a timely fashion FT RAS

Solids should be removed from quiescent 

zones with a frequency sufficient to prevent 

cohesion and limit release of solids-bound 

nutrients. The level of feed application, 

settling basin efficiency, and relative storage 

capacities of the basins will determine the 

removal frequency. For example, quiescent 

zones are typically cleaned at least every 

two weeks during the peak growing seasons. 

However, the frequency of solids removal 

should be determined based on factors such 

as facility discharge compliance limits, 

water quality requirements in the culture 

units, or labor availability. 

The most common method of solids removal 

from quiescent zones is by suction through a 

vacuum head. Usually, a standpipe in each 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-6 March 2006 

quiescent zone connects to a common pipe 

that carries the slurry to an off-line settling 

basin. Suction is provided by head pressure 

from raceway water depth and gravity, or 

where fall is not available, by pumps. A 

flexible hose and swivel joint connects the 

vacuum head to the standpipe so the vacuum 

can be manipulated to clean the quiescent 

zone. There are other methods used to clean 

quiescent zones. For example, the standpipe 

to the off-line destination may be removed 

and the solids can be pushed with a broom 

or squeegee device to the suction port. 

Settling basins should be cleaned as 

frequently as practical. A procedure or 

mechanism to remove the dewatered manure 

from the thickening device must be 

incorporated. Sludge left too long in settling 

basins becomes sticky and viscous making 

removal more difficult. Sludge accumulation 

may degrade water quality as nutrients are 

released through bacterial or physical 

degradation. Off-line and full-flow settling 

basins should be harvested when storage 

capacity is reached or as effluent 

concentrations near compliance limits. 

To clean full-flow and off-line settling 

basins the inflow is usually diverted to 

another settling basin and the supernatant 

from the settling basin decanted. The slurry 

is allowed to dry sufficiently for removal by 

backhoe, front-end loader, or other 

equipment. Or the slurry may be pumped 

directly onto a tank truck or manure 

spreader. Other options include pumping the 

slurry out of the settling basin without 

diverting the flow, similar to cleaning a 

quiescent zone. 

3) Remove solids rapidly, but gently 

FT RAS

Rapid, effective, and gentle removal of 

waste solids within a solids treatment unit is 

the best approach to use when targeting 

optimum water quality. Waste feed and fish 

manure are typically fragile and labile 

organic particles. The longer these particles 

are held within the culture system, the more 

opportunity that dissolution forces such as 

hydraulic shear and micro-organisms will 

have to disintegrate larger particles into 

much finer and more soluble particles. Finer 

particles can more rapidly leach nutrients 

and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 

these components are harder to remove from 

the water column than the original intact 

fecal pellet or waste feed pellet. Thus, if unit 

processes are not installed to remove fresh 

and intact solids rapidly, then solids 

decomposition within aquaculture systems 

can degrade water quality and thus directly 

affect fish health and the performance of 

other unit processes. Products of solid 

decomposition are more difficult to remove 

from aquacultural effluents. 

Waste solids exiting the rearing tank can be 

removed from the bulk flow leaving the 

culture tank using a treatment unit such as 

settling basins (e.g., full-flow settlers, offline settlers, quiescent zones, inclined [tube 

or plate] settlers, and swirl separators), 

microscreen filters (e.g., drum, disk, or belt 

filters), and granular media filters (e.g., bead 

or sand filters). In addition, ozone and foam 

fractionation are water treatment processes 

that can be used in recirculating systems to 

remove dissolved organic matter. 

Conventional sedimentation and 

microscreen filtration processes are often 

used to remove solids larger than 40-100 

μm. However, few processes used in 

aquaculture can remove dissolved solids or 

fine solids smaller than 20-30 μm, although 

granular media filtration has been used to 

remove these fine solids. Depending on the 

particle size distribution and the 

concentration of solids, conventional 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-7 March 2006 

sedimentation and microscreen filtration 

processes typically remove anywhere from 

30-80% of the solids in the treated flow. 

Significant degradation or resuspension/flotation of the solids matter 

should be avoided, but can occur in 

treatment units that have relatively 

infrequent backwash cycles. Therefore, the 

best solids removal processes remove solids 

from the system as soon as possible and 

expose solids to the least turbulence, 

mechanical shear, or micro-biological 

degradation. Note that microscreen filters 

and swirl separators (with a continuous 

underflow) do not store solids for an 

appreciable period, unlike settling basins 

and most granular media filters. 

Backwash of the solids capture unit will 

create an intermittent solids-laden flow that 

will require treatment before discharge, 

unless discharged to a POTW. 

Not all recirculating aquaculture systems 

maintain low levels of suspended solids, as 

is typically the goal in recirculating systems 

used for sensitive species such as trout and 

salmon. Some species may tolerate elevated 

levels of suspended solids and may actually 

consume the algae or micro-organisms 

found in these solids. Such is the case for 

some recirculating systems used for tilapia 

and shrimp. Some recirculating systems rely 

on a combination “green water” or organic 

detrital algae soup (ODAS), which is an 

algal and activated sludge-type treatment 

process, combined with settling basins or 

granular media filters to treat the water. In 

these instances, the rapid removal of waste 

solids is not a goal because the algae and 

bacteria growing in situ within the 

recirculating systems may rely upon solids 

degradation to treat dissolved wastes and 

maintain the culture system water quality. 

Total suspended solids concentrations in 

these recirculating systems can exceed 150 

mg/L. Thus, the associated waste 

management systems must consider the 

specifics of each recirculating aquaculture 

system in order to successfully achieve 

waste collection, transfer, storage, treatment, 

and utilization. 

4) Frequently remove solids from settling 

basins FT RAS

Settling basins should be cleaned as 

frequently as practical. Fish manure left too 

long in settling basins becomes sticky and 

viscous making removal difficult. Fish 

manure accumulation may degrade water 

quality and can provide a substrate for 

bacterial growth. 

A procedure or mechanism to remove the 

dewatered manure from the settling basin 

should be incorporated in the BMP plan. 

5) Overflows from solids thickening tanks 

may require additional treatment 

FT RAS

Solids thickening and storage tanks will 

often discharge a supernatant/overflow, 

which will be a relatively small volume 

discharge but one that contains the highest 

concentration of wastes discharged from an 

aquaculture system. Therefore, treating the 

thickening tank overflow can reduce the 

mass load of wastes discharged. Treatment 

can be relatively simple and inexpensive 

because low effluent volumes must be 

treated. Further removal of soluble BOD and 

ammonia may be required, and can be 

accomplished with properly designed 

aerated basins, aerobic lagoons, created 

wetlands, anaerobic filters, or other suitable 

technologies. Alternatively, the thickening 

tank overflow could be discharged to a 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-8 March 2006 

POTW or reused beneficially for irrigation 

or hydroponics. 

6) When necessary, remove solids from the 

recirculating system’s overtopping flow (if 

present) before it is discharged RAS

Depending upon their make-up water 

requirements, some recirculating systems 

will have an overtopping flow in addition to 

a concentrated backwash flow. The 

concentration of solids in the overtopping 

flow is typically similar to that found in the 

fish culture tanks. Depending upon the 

specifics of the recirculating aquaculture 

system, the suspended solids in the flow 

overtopping this system may require further 

treatment. Waste solids can be removed 

from the overtopping flow using a treatment 

unit such as settling basins (e.g., full-flow 

settlers, inclined [tube or plate] settlers, and 

swirl separators), microscreen filters (e.g., 

drum, disk, or belt filters), granular media 

filters (e.g., bead or sand filters), or 

dissolved air flotation systems. 

Solids Disposal 

Aquaculture solids, primarily consist of fish 

feces and uneaten feed, contain plant 

nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and can 

often be used as a soil amendment. The 

composition of the solids varies among 

facilities according to feed formulation(s) 

used at the facility, treatment of the solids 

inside and out of the culture system, and age 

of the solids. 

Aquaculture solids are similar to other 

animal manures. Some state or local 

governments may consider the fish manure 

captured in an aquaculture waste 

management system an industrial or 

municipal waste (i.e., not an agricultural 

waste). Check with your local or state 

authorities to determine your waste disposal 

options. 

Examples of Solids Disposal Practices 

1) Disposal of solids should comply with all 

applicable local and state regulations and 

done in a manner that prevents the material 

from entering surface or groundwaters 

FT RAS

Solids disposal will be a site-specific 

practice, based on factors such as local 

regulations, soil types, topography, land 

availability, climate, and crops grown. 

Disposal options might include land 

application on agricultural lands at 

agronomic rates, storage lagoons, 

composting, and contract hauling. 

a) Land Application – Land application 

of aquacultural solids is the most 

common disposal method. Proper 

application of aquacultural solids 

provides a safe method for solids 

utilization while fertilizing crops and 

amending the soil. Fish manure in liquid 

form may be sprinkler irrigated directly 

onto agricultural land. In slurry form, 

fish manure may be pumped into a tank 

truck or manure spreader and then 

applied to agricultural land. Finished 

compost generated from aquacultural 

solids may also be applied onto 

agricultural land at agronomic rates. 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

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

Figure 9.3. Manure spreader

b) Evaporation Ponds/Lagoons – 

Manure slurries from aquaculture 

operations may be treated in evaporation 

ponds/lagoons that can thicken and 

stabilize the manure. Evaporation 

ponds/lagoons are effective in arid 

climates only. The stabilized solids can 

then be land applied or otherwise safely 

disposed. 

c) Composting – Thickened and 

dewatered manure may be composted. 

Composting stabilizes the solids and 

produces a valuable soil amendment. 

Aerobic static pile composting is the 

most common method for composting 

dewatered manure. Any excess 

supernatant, leachate, or filtrate leftover 

from slurry treatment processes may 

require additional treatment. State and 

local regulations regarding composting 

should be followed. 

d) Contract Hauling – A licensed 

contract hauler can be paid to remove 

the collected solids or thickened manure. 

e) Reed Drying Beds – Depending on 

location and the local regulations, an 

aquaculture facility may have only 

limited and costly options available for 

disposal of the thickened manure. For 

example, transportation costs may make 

sludge disposal on cropland 

uneconomical. Disposing of the sludge 

on-site within created wetlands may be 

an attractive alternative. 

A constructed reed drying bed can 

provide on-site treatment of a 

concentrated solids discharge with an 

uncomplicated, low-maintenance, plantbased system. Reed drying beds are 

vertical-flow wetland systems that have 

been used over the past 20 years to treat 

thickened sludge (1-7% solids) produced 

in the clarifier underflow at wastewater 

treatment plants and have been recently 

used to treat manure from commercial 

recirculating systems. Thickened 

biosolids are loaded in sequential 

batches onto the reed drying bed every 

7-21 days. Only 2-4 inches of thickened 

biosolids are applied during a given 

application. The 1-3 week intervals 

between applications of thickened 

biosolids allow for dewatering and 

drying, which is facilitated by the 

vegetation growing on the sand bed. 

Reed beds have been found to have a 

useful lifetime of up to 10 years. 

2) Use solids from earthen flow-through 

systems to repair embankments FT

Earthen flow-through systems accumulate 

solids in the rearing units during production. 

It is not practical or necessary to remove 

solids during production from earthen 

rearing units. When it is necessary to 

remove solids from earthen rearing units, the 

source water is diverted around or away 

from the rearing units and they are allowed 

to dry. The solids removed can be used to 

repair the embankments and other areas of 

the rearing unit. Solids should not be used to 

repair roads or other facility surfaces 

because the solids could contaminate 

stormwater runoff from the facility. 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-10 March 2006 

Solids Storage 

Concentrated aquaculture solids can be 

stored in thickening basins that have been 

designed to accommodate the build-up of 

solids and hence provide some temporary 

solids storage capacity. However, solidliquid separation becomes less effective as 

sludge accumulates within these basins. 

Increasing sludge depths can compromise 

settling basin hydraulics and the solids 

stored can rapidly ferment leading to solids 

flotation and dissolution of nutrients and 

organic matter. In some cases, the thickened 

sludge from thickening basins is transferred 

to large sludge storage structures capable of 

holding months of captured and thickened 

solids. Facility owners design solids storage 

structures to hold the amount of solids that 

they anticipate they will collect and hold at 

the facility prior to final disposal (e.g., land 

application). Facilities located in colder 

climates may be required to hold solids for 6 

months, while facilities in warmer climates 

typically design storage structures to hold 

solids for one month. These off-line storage 

structures typically have zero overtopping 

flow and store their manure slurry contents 

until they can be removed for disposal. 

Figure 9.4. Above ground manure storage 

structure 

Examples of Solids Storage Practices 

1) Store sludge in an appropriate facility or 

container FT RAS

Sludge storage structures include earthen 

ponds, and aboveground or belowground 

tanks. Earthen ponds are generally 

rectangular basins with inside slopes 

(horizontal:vertical) of 1.5:1 to 3:1. 

Depending on site geology and hydrology, 

earthen ponds can have liners of concrete, 

geomembrane, or clay. Because they are 

uncovered, earthen pond design will include 

the capacity for storage of rain water as well 

as a method for removing solids. In the case 

where solids will be removed via pumping, 

the solids must be agitated to provide a 

uniform consistency. Pond agitation may be 

accomplished with hitch-type propeller 

agitators that are powered by tractors or by 

agitation pumps. Propeller agitators work 

well for large ponds, while chopper-agitator 

pumps work well for smaller ponds. Solids 

removal may also be done with heavy 

equipment, in which case, pond design 

should include ramp access (maximum slope 

of 8:1) and suitable load capacity in the 

unloading work area. 

Sludge may also be stored in tank structures, 

above and below ground. Storage tanks are 

primarily constructed of reinforced concrete, 

metal, and wood. Reinforced concrete tanks 

may be cast-in-place, walls, foundation, and 

floor slab, or they may be constructed of 

pre-cast wall panels, bolted together, and set 

on a cast-in-place foundation and floor slab. 

Metal tanks are also widely used, with the 

majority being constructed of glass-fused 

steel panels that are bolted together. There 

are many manufactured, modular tanks 

commercially available in reinforced 

concrete and metal, as well as wood. 
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-11 March 2006 

Solids degradation during storage can 

produce dangerous levels of hydrogen 

sulfide gas, methane and hydrogen gases, 

and in tanks with little air exchange can 

contain an atmosphere that includes the 

aforementioned gases and is anoxic. Use 

OSHA confined space guidelines when 

considering all aspects of the human 

interface with a solids storage structure and 

take every practical precaution to prevent 

harm to those working around these 

structures. 

State and local regulations regarding odors 

from the manure storage vessels should be 

considered. 

Mortality Removal and Disposal 

Mortality of small numbers of cultured 

species in aquaculture systems is a common 

occurrence. It is also unpredictable and 

highly variable among rearing units, 

epizootics, and facilities. A facility may 

experience chronic mortality of a few fish 

per day or a catastrophic loss caused by 

infectious disease or acute environmental 

stress. Depending on water temperature and 

species, dead fish either float or sink after 

dying, with warm water fish typically 

floating and cold-water fish sinking. 

In flow-through systems, whether floating or 

sinking, dead fish tend to accumulate on the 

screens at the end of the rearing units. 

In recirculating systems, sinking fish 

mortalities tend to accumulate on the 

exclusion screen on the bottom center drain 

of circular tanks or on the outlet screen of 

linear raceways. Floating fish will 

accumulate on the surface of circular tanks, 

where they are relatively easy to see. 

The timely removal of mortalities helps 

decrease the probability of spreading 

infectious organisms and the introduction of 

excess nutrients into the system. 

Examples of Mortality Removal and 

Disposal Practices 

1) Remove mortalities from rearing units on 

a regular basis FT RAS NET

Mortalities should be removed from rearing 

units regularly. To accomplish this, inspect 

culture units to check for the presence of 

mortalities. Many mortalities float to the 

surface of the culture water and can be 

collected by hand or with nets. 

Mortalities accumulating on screens prevent 

the efficient flow of water from unit to unit 

and represent a hazard for possible damage 

to the screen resulting in escape of fish from 

the unit or diversion of flow away from 

downstream units. 

Dead or moribund fish can be transported by 

flowing water to a tank drain, where they 

can accumulate against screens and restrict 

the water flow out of the culture unit. Dead 

fish should be removed from culture units as 

soon as possible to maintain water level in 

the culture tank, to decrease the probability 

of spreading infectious organisms, and to 

reduce water quality deterioration. Dead fish 

that sink may be difficult to detect at the 

bottom center of large circular culture tanks 

or along the bottoms of net pens that are 

deep or contain turbid water. A procedure or 

mechanisms should be identified for 

detecting and removing dead fish from the 

culture units. 

2) Follow recommended aquatic animal 

health management practices 

FT RAS NET
Chapter 9: Solids Control for Flow-through and Recirculating Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 9-12 March 2006 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 10-1 2006 

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

Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Material Storage 

It is important to properly store materials 

used at aquaculture facilities to protect the 

environment. Specifically, the ELGs require 

that facilities ensure proper storage of drug, 

pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to 

prevent spills that may result in a discharge 

of these materials to waters of the United 

States. The ELGs also require facilities to 

implement procedures for properly 

containing, cleaning, and disposing of any 

spilled materials. 

Examples of Material Storage Practices 

1) Use and store drugs and pesticides in a 

manner to prevent contamination of the 

environment FT RAS

Drugs and pesticides should be stored away 

from rearing areas, feeds, and water sources, 

in locations that are secure, dry, void of 

drains, water tight, well-ventilated, and not 

subject to extreme temperatures. Also 

consider securing the storage areas to avoid 

tampering or vandalism. 

Refer to EPA’s Office of Pesticides website 

on Pesticide Storage Resources 

(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/st

orage_resources.htm) or JSA’s Guide to 

Drug, Vaccine, and Pesticide Use in 

Aquaculture

(http://aquanic.org/jsa/wgqaap/drugguide/dr

ugguide.htm) for useful information or 

suggestions for ensuring proper storage or 

drugs, pesticides, and feed to prevent spills. 

2) Use and store feed in a manner to prevent 

contamination of the environment and to 

protect the quality of the feed 

FT RAS NET

Feed should be stored away from rearing 

areas and water sources, in locations that are 

secure, dry, water tight, and not subject to 

extreme temperatures. 

Storing feed properly maintains feed quality. 

To protect feed quality, store it to prevent 

insect and rodent contamination. Bacteria 

and fungi (mold) can destroy the nutritional 

value of feed and produce toxins, which may 

stress or kill fish. Keeping feed dry and 

maintaining temperatures to prevent 

condensation helps to minimize the growth 

of bacteria and molds. Follow the feed 

manufacturer’s storage recommendations for 

best results.

Handle and store feed with care to prevent 

physical breakdown of feed into fine 

particles. If fines are present in feed, they 

should be removed and disposed of 

properly. 

Drugs and pesticides should be used only 

when needed and only for the specific use 

indicated on the label. In some cases, drugs 

are used under an INAD exemption or 

prescribed by a veterinarian as an extralabel 

drug use. Use of these materials is regulated 

by federal and state agencies, and 

individuals are responsible for using these 

products according to label directions and 

disposing of containers and unused 

chemicals according to applicable federal 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 10-2 2006 

Although most currently used formulations 

are extruded pellets, which produce very 

little fines, check with your feed 

manufacturer to determine if they will 

provide a credit and take back the fines. 

Figure 10.1. Feed storage area 

3) Develop a spill response and prevention 

plan for drugs, pesticides, and feed (you can 

also develop these plans for petroleum 

products and other hazardous products that 

may be found at your facility) 

FT RAS NET

The best way to avoid runoff contamination 

from spilled materials is to prevent the spill 

from occurring. Carefully storing materials 

in sound, clearly labeled containers and 

regular inspection and maintenance of 

equipment are key practices to prevent 

spills. Materials stored outdoors should be 

covered and kept on paved areas to protect 

them from being mobilized by wind and 

runoff. If not covered, storage areas should 

be designed to drain with a slight slope 

(approximately 1.5 percent) to an area that 

will provide treatment prior to disposal. Use 

secondary containment, such as berms, 

safety storage cabinets, or drum containment 

systems, when storing liquids. 

State and federal laws require reporting of 

significant spills of many chemical products. 

Although the quantity of drugs and 

pesticides used and stored at CAAP facilities 

is generally small, check with state and local 

authorities for specific details about any 

chemicals that would require reporting in the 

event of a spill at your facility. A plan 

should be developed specifying response 

procedures, key staff, and phone numbers of 

regulatory authorities. All facility employees 

should be aware of the plan and the plan 

should be accessible to all employees at all 

times. Refer to Chapter 13 of this guidance 

for information about training employees in 

spill prevention. 

Spill response and prevention plans can be 

used to ensure that a facility properly 

contains, cleans, and disposes of spilled 

materials. The plan should clearly state 

measures to stop the source of a spill, 

contain the spill, clean up the spill, dispose 

of contaminated materials, and train 

personnel to prevent and control future 

spills. 

To develop the plan, first identify potential 

spill or source areas, such as loading and 

unloading, storage, and processing areas, 

and areas designated for waste disposal. 

Provide documentation of spill response 

equipment and procedures to be used, 

ensuring that procedures are clear and 

concise. Give step-by-step instructions for 

the response to spills at a particular facility. 

This spill response and prevention plan can 

be presented as a procedural handbook or a 

sign. The spill response and prevention plan 

should: 

• Identify individuals responsible for 

implementing the plan. 

• Define safety measures to be taken 

with each kind of waste. 
Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 10-3 2006 

• Emphasize that spills must be 

cleaned up promptly. 

• Specify how to notify appropriate 

authorities, such as police and fire 

departments, hospitals, or publiclyowned treatment works for 

assistance. 

• State procedures for containing, 

diverting, isolating, and cleaning up 

the spill. 

• Describe spill response equipment to 

be used, including safety and cleanup 

equipment. 

The use of water for cleanup should be 

strongly discouraged. Launderable or 

disposable shop rags should be used for 

small spills of non-volatile chemicals, and 

rags should be properly cleaned or disposed 

of. Larger spills should be absorbed with 

vermiculite, sawdust, kitty litter, or 

absorbent “snakes.” Disposal methods 

depend on the hazard level of the spilled 

material. Nonvolatile liquids can be cleaned 

up with a wet/dry shop vacuum and 

disposed of with the rest of the facility’s 

waste. Drains or inlets to storm sewers 

should be plugged during spill remediation 

to prevent off-site runoff/discharge of 

pollutants. 

A spill prevention and response plan must 

be well planned and clearly defined so that 

the likelihood of accidental spills can be 

reduced and any spills that do occur can be 

dealt with quickly and effectively. Training 

might be necessary to ensure that all 

relevant personnel are knowledgeable 

enough to follow procedures. Equipment 

and materials for cleanup must be readily 

accessible and clearly marked for personnel 

to be able to follow procedures. 

Remember to update the spill prevention and 

response plan to accommodate any changes 

in the site or procedures. It is also important 

to regularly inspect areas where spills might 

occur to ensure that procedures are posted 

and cleanup equipment is readily available. 

A spill prevention and response plan can be 

highly effective at reducing the risk of 

surface and groundwater contamination. 

However, the plan’s effectiveness is 

enhanced by worker training, availability of 

materials and equipment for cleanup, and 

extra time spent by management to ensure 

that procedures are followed. 

Spill prevention and response plans are 

inexpensive to implement. However, extra 

time is needed to properly handle and 

dispose of spills, which results in increased 

labor costs. 

If you want to track spills from your facility 

for your own record-keeping, you can use 

the example tracking worksheet in Appendix 

O. 

Additional Suggestions 

1) Use and store petroleum products to 

prevent contamination of the environment 

FT RAS NET

State and federal laws require reporting of 

significant spills of petroleum products. A 

plan should be developed specifying 

response procedures, key staff, and phone 

numbers of regulatory authorities. 

Petroleum leaking from storage tanks or 

farm equipment wastes a valuable resource 

and can contaminate surface or underground 

water supplies. Petroleum products are 

highly odorous and small amounts in water 

can produce an off-flavor in aquatic animals. 

Petroleum storage in above-ground and 

underground tanks is regulated by federal 

and state agencies. Information on 

petroleum storage regulations can be 
Chapter 10: Material Storage for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 10-4 2006 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 11-1 2006 

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

Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Maintenance 

Flow-through, recirculating, and net pen 

systems should be well-maintained, 

managed efficiently, and operated in 

compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations. This will improve long-term 

economic performance and reduce 

environmental impact. As such, the 

following management practices are simply 

part of good management. 

Examples of Maintenance Practices 

1) Maintain structures and equipment to 

ensure staff safety and protection of the 

environment FT RAS NET

Routinely inspect flow-through and 

recirculating production systems and 

wastewater treatment systems to identify 

and promptly perform repairs or 

replacement, as necessary. 

Some of the system components that should 

be considered for routine inspection of flowthrough and recirculating systems include: 

• Drains⎯make sure that all of the 

parts of the drain structure are 

properly functioning; look for the 

proper placement of stand pipes, dam 

boards, and animal exclusion devices 

(for example screens across pipe 

openings); check that valves and 

other critical drain components are 

working properly; check for broken 

parts and repair when necessary. 

• Production units⎯make sure that 

tanks and raceways are structurally 

sound; repair cracks as necessary; all 

plumbing components are installed 

and working properly. 

• Life support systems⎯routinely 

inspect oxygen equipment, filters, 

heaters, and any other life support 

equipment used to maintain optimal 

growing conditions. 

• Feeding equipment⎯test automatic 

and mechanical feeders periodically 

to ensure that they are delivering the 

proper amounts of feed; check 

demand feeders for proper operation 

and adjust as necessary; inspect all 

feed storage areas to make sure that 

the feed is not contaminated by 

foreign substances, is not easily 

accessible to rodents and insects, and 

check for excess moisture and water 

leaks to prevent mold from forming. 

• Solids control equipment and 

systems⎯check quiescent zones for 

proper function; inspect drains for 

clogging; and make sure that all 

settling basins are working properly 

and that the structures are safe and 

secure to prevent spills and 

accidental discharges of collected 

solids due to cracked or damaged 

basin structures. 

Routinely inspect net pen systems to identify 

and promptly perform repairs or 

replacement of nets. 

Some of the system components that should 

be considered for routine inspection at net 

pen facilities include: 

• Nets⎯inspect for holes and physical 

damage to the nets and make sure 

that nets are securely attached to 
Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 11-2 2006 

floating structures; if present, 

maintain predator control nets and 

devices to ensure proper operation. 

• Floating structures⎯inspect for 

physical damage that may lead to 

structural failure during storms or 

periods of icing; check all mooring 

lines and anchor points for proper 

function and physical damage. 

• Feeding equipment⎯test automatic 

and mechanical feeders periodically 

to ensure that they are delivering the 

proper amounts of feed; check 

demand feeders for proper operation 

and adjust as necessary; inspect all 

feed storage areas to make sure that 

the feed is not contaminated by 

foreign substances, is not easily 

accessible to rodents and insects, and 

check for excess moisture and water 

leaks to prevent mold from forming. 

An example log for documenting routine 

inspections and repairs is available in 

Appendix P. 

2) Periodically conduct a systematic review 

of your current facility to identify any 

problems that would lead to environmental 

impacts; when considering modifications to 

existing facility components or operations, 

include a review of the type and extent of 

probable environmental impacts that may 

occur as a result of the new methods 

FT RAS NET

3) Clearly mark all net pen sites in 

accordance with the farm’s permit for fixed 

private aids (buoys, navigation lights, etc.) 

to navigation from the U.S. Coast Guard 

and appropriate state authorities; make sure 

all net pen sites continue to be clearly 

marked in accordance with U.S. Coast 

Guard marking regulations NET

 

4) When installing net pens and their 

associated mooring systems, give careful 

consideration to their potential impacts on 

water circulation patterns; gear deployment 

should seek to optimize circulation patterns 

and maximize water exchange through the 

pens, thereby improving fish health and 

reducing benthic impacts NET

5) Design, operate, and maintain all 

holding, transportation, and culture systems 

to function as designed FT RAS

 

For flow-through systems, screens of 

appropriate size and strength should be 

installed at the intake from the source and 

outlet to receiving waters to prevent loss and 

escape of cultured species. Occasionally 

check screens to ensure that debris is not 

blocking them. 

For recirculating systems, barriers of 

appropriate size and strength should be 

installed on the facility discharge and on the 

make-up water entry into the facility. A 

procedure or mechanisms should also be 

identified to prevent debris from plugging 

the barriers, thus preventing water from 

overflowing or bypassing the screens. 

6) Avoid siting facilities in areas prone to 

frequent flooding FT RAS

Floods that overflow flow-through and 

recirculating systems result in loss of 

cultured animals and are usually 

catastrophic for the farmer. Facilities 

adjacent to surface waters should be 

constructed to minimize the possibility of 

flood waters entering the facility. 
Chapter 11: Maintenance for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 11-3 2006 

7) Transfer fish (stocking, grading, transfer, 

or harvest) in appropriate weather 

conditions and under constant visual 

supervision of at least one person; use 

appropriate equipment for the weather and 

cage designs; use shields or additional nets 

to prevent stray fish to escape during 

transfer (where necessary or appropriate) 

NET

8) Only obtain nets from a manufacturer or 

supplier whose equipment design 

specifications and manufacturing standards 

meet generally accepted standards prevalent 

in the aquaculture industry NET

Net design and specification should be 

commensurate with the prevailing 

conditions of the site. Stress tests should be 

preformed on all nets with more than three 

years of use in the marine environment 

when the net is pulled out and cleaned. All 

nets in use should be UV-protected. 

9) Only obtain net pen structures from a 

manufacturer or supplier whose equipment 

design specifications and manufacturing 

standards meet generally accepted 

standards prevalent in the aquaculture 

industry NET

Net pen structure design, specification, and 

installation should be commensurate with 

the prevailing conditions and capable of 

withstanding the normal maximum weather 

and sea conditions. 

10) Install jump nets to prevent aquatic 

animals from jumping out of the primary 

containment net NET

Jump nets should be an integral part of the 

primary containment net or joined to it in a 

fashion that prevents aquatic animal escape 

between the primary net and the jump net. 

Jump nets should be of a height appropriate 

to the jumping ability and size of aquatic 

animals they are containing. In areas with 

extreme winters, cages may sink slightly due 

to ice loads from freezing spray. This is a 

temporary condition that abates as the ice 

melts during submergence. In areas where 

winter icing occurs regularly, bird nets 

should be exchanged for winter cover nets. 

These nets should be constructed of netting 

designed to withstand the rigors of icing and 

with mesh sizes appropriate to contain the 

aquatic animal size being reared. 

11) Secure nets to the appropriate 

attachment point, such that the attachment 

bears the strain and not the handrail of the 

cage NET

Net weights, when used for net tensioning, 

should be installed in a manner to prevent 

chafing. A second layer of net should be 

added one foot above and below wear 

points. The use of net weights should be 

encouraged when strong currents or tides are 

present at the net pen site. 

12) Develop a preventative maintenance 

program for nets NET

The program should have the ability to track 

individual nets, and schedule and document 

regular maintenance and testing. Nets that 

fail testing standards should be retired and 

disposed of properly. An example log for 

recording maintenance is available in 

Appendix P. 

13) Mooring system designs should be 

compatible with the net pen systems they 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 11-4 2006 

Mooring systems should be installed in 

consultation with the net pen system 

manufacturer or supplier. Mooring system 

design, specification and installation should 

be commensurate with the prevailing 

conditions of the site and be capable of 

withstanding the normal maximum 

conditions likely to occur at a site. 

14) Regularly inspect and adjust mooring 

systems as needed NET

Rigging tension should be maintained to 

installation standards. New components 

should undergo their first inspection no later 

than 2 years after deployment. A diver or 

remote camera should regularly visually 

inspect subsurface mooring components. 

Special attention should be given to 

connectors and rope/chain interfaces. Chafe 

points should be identified and subject to 

more frequent inspection and removal of 

marine growth. With the exception of rock 

pin anchors, mooring systems should be 

hauled out of the water for a visual 

inspection of all components at least every 6 

years. When considering what inspection 

method to employ, net pen operators should 

consider the relative risks and benefits 

associated with the inspection method. On 

sites frequently exposed to severe weather or 

where it is difficult to set anchors, breaking 

out anchors for visual, above-water 

inspection may represent a greater risk for 

mooring failure than regular underwater 

inspections. An example log for recording 

maintenance is available in Appendix P. 

15) Shackles used in mooring systems 

should be either safety shackles, wire-tied, 

or welded to prevent pin drop-out NET

16) Develop a preventative maintenance 

program for net pen and mooring systems 

NET

The program should monitor maintenance of 

individual cages, and schedule and 

document regular maintenance, the nature of 

the maintenance, date conducted, any 

supporting documentation for new materials 

used, and who conducted the maintenance. 

An example log for documenting routine 

inspections and maintenance is available in 

Appendix P. 

17) Use bird nets (where appropriate) to 

cover net cages to reduce any impacts due to 

bird predation; bird nets should be 

constructed using appropriate materials and 

mesh sizes designed to reduce the risk of 

bird entanglement NET

Contact manufacturers and suppliers of 

aquaculture netting for more information. 

18) Develop a Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) for all routine vessel 

operations NET

Vessel operations around a net pen site can 

damage nets or the structures. All vessel 

operators should receive appropriate training 

in the operation of the vessel. The SOP 

should minimize the risk of damaging nets 

and/or mooring system components with the 

propeller of the vessel. When mooring 

barges on a permanent or semi-permanent 

basis, local current and wind patterns should 

be considered. The mooring location should 

be selected so that in the event of a vessel 

breaking free of its moorings the chance of 

the vessel impacting a net pen system is 

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

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 12-1 2006 

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

Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Record-keeping 

Good record-keeping is the hallmark of a 

well-operated aquatic animal production 

facility. Keeping records can help a facility 

run more efficiently and cleanly. 

Examples of Record-keeping Practices 

1) Develop a record-keeping system 

FT RAS NET

Records, such as feeding, chemical use, 

water quality, serious weather conditions, 

aquatic animal inventory, and aquatic animal 

culture operations facilitate improvements in 

the overall efficiency of a facility. 

Record-keeping is a basic business practice 

and is applicable to all facilities. If a facility 

already has record-keeping structures in 

place, the existing structures can be directly 

used or easily adapted to incorporate any 

additional record-keeping requirements of 

the CAAP ELGs. 

Record keeping is a simple, easily 

implemented, and cost effective 

management tool. Complete, well-organized 

records can help ensure proper maintenance 

of facilities and equipment and can aid in 

determining the causes of required repairs to 

help prevent future foreseeable disasters. 

The following are important points to 

remember when performing record-keeping: 

• Records must be updated regularly. 

• Personnel completing and 

maintaining records must be trained 

to update records correctly. 

• Records need to be readily 

accessible. 

• Records containing any confidential 

information must be secured 

(enforcement staff can still have 

access to these records). 

The key to maintaining records is continual 

updating. Ensure that new information, such 

as inspections of your production systems, is 

added to existing records as it becomes 

available. In addition, update records if there 

are changes to the number and location of 

discharge points, or material storage 

procedures. You should maintain records for 

at least five years from the date of sample 

observation or action. Some simple 

techniques used to accurately document and 

report results include: 

• Forms and logs. 

• Field notebooks. 

• Timed and dated photographs. 

• Videotapes. 

• Drawings and maps. 

• Computer spreadsheets and database 

programs. 

Paper copies of records should be 

maintained for archival purposes; 

computerized record-keeping tools can be 

used for trend analysis and forecasting. 

Records should be reviewed periodically to 

determine if they are useful and to provide 

insight into opportunities for improvement 

of CAAP facility operation. 

EPA encourages the use of existing recordkeeping systems (if available at your 

facility) to meet the record-keeping 

requirements of the CAAP ELGs. However, 
Chapter 12: Record-keeping for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 12-2 2006 

if you need examples of forms and logs that 

help fulfill record-keeping requirements of 

the CAAP ELGs, refer to the appendices 

below. Some appendices contain forms and 

logs for activities that are not required by the 

ELGs, but that can be used to show your 

facility has met other requirements of the 

ELGs (e.g., showing your facility performed 

employee training). 

• Appendix M: General Reporting 

Forms (meets the CAAP ELGs 

general reporting requirements for 

INADs and extralabel drug use; 

failure or damage to containment 

systems; and spills of drugs, 

pesticides, and feed) 

• Appendix N: Feed Conversion 

Ratios Log (may be used to track 

feeding and to calculate FCRs; 

meets the CAAP ELGs recordkeeping requirements for solids 

control) 

• Appendix O: Spills and Leaks Log 

(may be used to keep track of spills) 

• Appendix P: Inspection and 

Maintenance Logs (may be used to 

keep track of when you perform 

maintenance and cleaning at your 

facility; meets the CAAP ELGs 

record-keeping requirements for 

maintenance) 

• Appendix Q: Cleaning Log (may be 

used to document cleaning of your 

production systems and/or 

wastewater treatment systems; meets 

the CAAP ELGs record-keeping 

requirements for cleaning)

• Appendix R: Record-keeping 

Checklist (may be used to make sure 

you have met the record-keeping 

requirements of the CAAP ELGs) 

• Appendix S: Employee Training Log 

(may be used to track employee 

training) 

• Appendix T: Carcass Removal Log 

(may be used to keep track of the 

number of carcasses removed and 

disposal methods for the carcasses)

2) Develop a record-keeping system for 

spills FT RAS NET

EPA requires you to report spills when they 

occur. EPA encourages you to keep track of 

spills at your facility. Records of past spills 

contain useful information (e.g., what 

practices worked best for a given magnitude 

and type of spill) for improving practices to 

prevent future spills. Typical items that 

should be recorded include results of routine 

inspections, and reported spills, leaks, or 

other discharges. Records should include: 

• The date, exact place, and time of 

material inventories, site inspections, 

sampling observations, etc. 

• Names of inspector(s) and 

sampler(s). 

• If applicable, analytical information, 

including date(s) and time(s) 

analyses were performed or initiated, 

analytical techniques or methods 

used, the analysts’ names, analytical 

results, and quality assurance/quality 

control results of such analyses. 

• The date, time, exact location, and a 

complete characterization of 

significant observations, including 

spills or leaks. 

• Notes indicating the reasons for any 

exceptions to standard record 

keeping procedures. 

Refer to Appendix O for an example log to 

track spills at your facility. 
Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-1 March 2006 

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

Net Pen Facilities FT RAS NET

Training 

The CAAP ELGs require facilities to train 

all relevant personnel in spill prevention and 

how to respond in the event of a spill to 

ensure proper clean-up, and disposal of 

spilled materials. Facilities are also required 

to train personnel in the following areas: 

• Operation and cleaning of production 

systems. FT RAS NET

• Operation and cleaning of 

wastewater treatment systems. 

FT RAS

Examples of Training Practices 

1) Develop and implement an employeetraining program to train relevant personnel 

in spill prevention and response 

FT RAS NET

Employee training programs can be 

established to train employees how to 

prevent and respond to spills. Employee 

training programs should instill all personnel 

with a thorough understanding of the 

facility’s Spill Response and Prevention 

Plan, including BMPs, practices for 

preventing spills, and procedures for 

responding quickly and properly to spills. 

Employees can be taught through posters, 

employee meetings, courses, signs, and 

bulletin boards about spill prevention and 

response. Facilities may also use “in-field 

training” programs, where they show 

employees specific areas of the facility 

where potential spills could occur, followed 

by a discussion of site-specific BMPs 

providing solutions to spill prevention and 

response. Trained personnel can provide 

discussion to other staff within the facility. 

Advantages of an employee-training 

program are that the program can be a lowcost and easily implementable procedure for 

addressing spills at aquaculture facilities. 

The program can be standardized and 

repeated as necessary, both to train new 

employees and to keep its objectives fresh in 

the minds of already trained employees. A 

training program is also flexible and can be 

adapted as a facility’s management needs 

change over time. 

Specific design criteria for implementing an 

employee-training program include: 

• Ensuring strong commitment and 

periodic input from senior 

management. 

• Communicating frequently to ensure 

adequate understanding of goals and 

objectives. 

• Using experience from past spills to 

prevent future spills. 

• Making employees aware of BMP 

monitoring and spill reporting 

procedures. 

• Developing operating manuals and 

standard procedures. 

• Implementing spill drills. 

An employee-training program should be an 

on-going, yearly process. A sample 

employee training log that can be used to 

track employee-training programs is 
Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-2 March 2006 

available in Appendix S of this document. 

Refer to Chapter 10 in this guidance for 

more specific information about developing 

a Spill Response and Prevention Plan. 

2) Develop and implement an employeetraining program to train relevant personnel 

in proper operation and cleaning of 

production and wastewater treatment 

systems, including feeding practices and 

proper use of equipment1

FT RAS NET

Employee training programs can be 

established to train employees how to 

properly operate and clean production and 

wastewater treatment systems (only flowthrough and recirculating systems must train 

employees for operating and cleaning 

wastewater treatment systems), including 

feeding procedures and proper use of 

equipment. 

Employees can be taught through posters, 

employee meetings, courses, signs, and 

bulletin boards about properly operating and 

cleaning production systems and wastewater 

treatment systems at your facility. 

General guidance for properly operating and 

cleaning some of the components found in 

CAAP systems is available throughout the 

remainder of this chapter. 

3) Properly operate flow-through and 

recirculating production systems 

FT RAS

To properly operate production systems at 

your facility to reduce solids, identify what 

practices reduce solids (based on your 

facility’s unique design characteristics), and 

 

1

 Net pen systems are not required to train personnel 

in proper operation and cleaning of wastewater 

treatment systems. 

maintain those practices. For example, 

maintain minimum flows to system 

components where required to ensure the 

system is self-cleaning. 

Examples of other practices you can do to 

properly operate your systems so solids are 

reduced include the following: 

• Avoid short-circuiting flows in the 

quiescent zones. 

• Ensure that drainpipes and dam 

boards are working properly. 

• Clear screens in raceways of debris. 

• Do not exceed the carrying capacity 

of your system. 

• Design and implement a feed 

management program. 

4) Properly clean flow-through and 

recirculating production systems 

FT RAS

When cleaning raceways or tanks at your 

facility make sure you do the following: 

• Send cleaning water to a treatment 

system, such as an offline settling 

basins or full-flow settling basins. 

• Clean raceways or tanks as 

frequently as necessary. 

5) Properly clean nets NET

The regular cleaning of production nets 

helps to ensure a constant flow of water 

through the production area of the net pen. 

As the net pen sits in the culture area, 

marine organisms attach and grow on the 

nets. These organisms reduce the area of the 

openings. The reduction in area reduces the 

water flow through the net pen and the 

amount of dissolved oxygen available, and it 

increases the buildup of metabolic waste. 
Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-3 March 2006 

The following practices will help facilities to 

clean their nets, while minimizing the 

impact of this practice on the environment: 

• Minimize the concentration of netfouling organisms that are 

discharged during events such as 

changing and cleaning nets. 

• Remove fouled nets, transport 

ashore, air dry, and clean with 

pressure washers, if necessary. 

Avoid discharges of cleaning water 

or net-fouling organisms to open 

waters. 

• Avoid discharges of chemicals used 

to clean nets or other gear in open 

waters. 

• Do not use materials containing or 

treated with tributyltin. 

6) Properly operate and clean quiescent 

zones FT

The following practices may help you to 

properly operate your quiescent zone to 

reduce solids: 

• Ensure that the turbulence is reduced 

(for example, preventing short 

circuiting by ensuring drains and 

outlets are operating as designed) 

enough so the solids will settle in the 

quiescent zones. 

• Prevent fish from entering quiescent 

zones by maintaining the integrity of 

the screen that separates the 

raceways and quiescent zones. 

The following guidance for cleaning 

quiescent zones is based on the Idaho Waste 

Management Guidelines for Aquaculture 

Facilities (IDEQ, n.d.). 

• Settled solids should be removed 

regularly so they cannot become 

entrained in the wastewater flow and 

contribute to the pollutant loadings 

of the facility. Two operational 

factors associated with operating 

quiescent zones are (1) the necessity 

to clean the screens, and (2) the 

regular removal of collected solids 

from the quiescent zones. 

• Quiescent zones should be cleaned 

as frequently as possible, in most 

cases, at least once every 2 weeks. 

• Screens separating the rearing area 

from the quiescent zone should be 

cleaned daily to promote laminar 

flow in the settling area. 

7) Properly clean and operate sedimentation 

basins FT RAS

Solids must be removed at proper intervals 

to ensure the designed removal efficiencies 

of the sedimentation basin. For both off-line 

settling (OLS) and full-flow settling (FFS) 

basins, IDEQ recommends a minimum 

harvest frequency of every 6 months. 

Infrequent harvests could result in the 

breakdown of solids and the release of 

dissolved nutrients into the receiving waters. 

For FFS basins, some facilities might batch 

crop their fish so that they can all be 

harvested at the same time. Then solids can 

be harvested from the FFS basins when the 

facility is empty (IDEQ, n.d.). 

System operators should attempt to 

minimize the breakdown of particles (into 

smaller sizes) to maintain or increase the 

efficiency of sedimentation basins. 

The following practices may be used to 

properly operate your sedimentation basin to 

reduce solids and are based on the Idaho 

Waste Management Guidelines for 

Aquaculture Facilities (IDEQ, n.d.): 
Chapter 13: Perform Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, and Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 13-4 March 2006 

• 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. 
Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 14-1 2006 

Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities NET

Feed Management 

Waste feed and feces constitute the major 

portion of the wastes generated by net pens. 

However, because net pens operate in highenergy, open water environments (where 

they are exposed to currents, waves, and 

storms), the concentration and collection of 

wastes is difficult. 

The most effective way to reduce the 

discharge of solids from net pen systems is 

effective feed management. Effective feed 

management is based on two components: 

waste reduction and optimal feed conversion 

ratio. Waste reduction focuses on ensuring 

that feed used by the farm is not lost or 

discharged prior to intake by the aquatic 

animal. Optimal conversion focuses on 

ensuring that all feed intake offered to the 

aquatic animal is actually consumed and 

optimally digested and used by the aquatic 

animal. 

Documenting efficient feed management for 

EPA may be achieved by describing the 

following in your BMP plan: 

• Feed methods used to minimize 

solids production. 

• Modifications made to feed 

quantities as fish production changes 

(e.g., size, health of fish). 

• Feed handling methods used to 

reduce generation of fines. 

• Feed formulations information for 

each life-history stage of fish reared. 

Examples of Feed Management Practices 

1) Calculate feed conversion ratios by using 

feed and aquatic animal biomass inventory 

tracking systems NET

Calculation of feed conversion ratios (FCRs) 

is an essential function on all net pen farms. 

Monitoring long- and short-term changes in 

feed conversion ratios allows farmers to 

quickly identify significant changes in feed 

consumption and waste production rates. 

Refer to Appendix N for an example log to 

calculate and track FCRs. 

2) In cooperation with feed manufacturers, 

seek to minimize nutrient and solids 

discharges through optimization of feed 

formulations NET

Feeds should be formulated for optimum 

feed conversion ratios and retention of 

protein (nitrogen) and phosphorus. Feed 

formulations should consider numerous 

factors including, pellet stability, 

digestibility, palatability, sinking rates, 

energy levels, moisture content, ingredient 

quality and the nutritional requirements of 

the species being grown. Feeds should be 

formulated and manufactured using highquality ingredients. Feed ingredients should 

have high dry matter and protein apparent 

digestibility coefficients. Formulations 

should be designed to enhance nitrogen and 

phosphorus retention efficiency, and reduce 

metabolic waste output. Feeds should 

contain sufficient dietary energy to spare 

dietary protein (amino acids) for tissue 

synthesis. Feeds should be water stable for 

sufficient periods such that pellets remain 
Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 14-2 2006 

intact until eaten by fish. Questions 

regarding feed formulations should be 

referred to a qualified fish nutritionist or 

feed manufacturer. 

3) Experiment with feed formulations 

designed to reduce the total environmental 

impact of the feed 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 

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, 

dissolved oxygen levels, health status, 

reproductive status, and management goals. 

Feed particle size should be appropriate for 

the size of aquatic animals being fed. 

Feeding behavior should be observed to 

monitor feed utilization and evaluate health 

status. 

5) Check feeding equipment to ensure 

efficient operation NET

Improperly adjusted or malfunctioning 

feeding equipment can over-feed or underfeed fish and reduce feed and production 

efficiency. 

Figure 14.1. Automatic feeder for net pens 

Figure 14.2. Feed handling for net pens 

6) Reduce fish stress and optimize culture 

conditions to reduce FCRs NET

Facilities can reduce fish stress by avoiding 

overcrowding in production systems and 

maintaining and cleaning net pens to make 

sure adequate water can move through the 

nets. Remember to properly clean your nets 

to avoid harm to the environment. 
Chapter 14: Feed Management for Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 14-3 2006 

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. 
Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or 

 Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 15-1 2006 

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 

to collect and properly dispose of solid 

waste (such as feed bags, packaging 

materials, rope, or netting). In addition, net 

pen facilities are required to minimize the 

discharge associated with harvest and 

transport, particularly blood, viscera, or 

animal carcasses. These facilities should 

also prevent the discharge of animal 

mortalities by properly removing and 

disposing of carcasses. The following 

describes practices that may be used to 

achieve these requirements. 

Waste Collection and Disposal 

The CAAP ELGs require facilities to 

collect, return to shore, and properly dispose 

of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste 

rope, and netting. 

Examples of Waste Collection and 

Disposal Practices 

1) Conduct a systematic review of your 

operation; a waste management plan can be 

used to effectively manage, use, and dispose 

of wastes generated during production; the 

plan identifies all wastes generated on a site 

or from a facility NET

Waste management plans clearly identify all 

wastes generated on a site and classify them 

with respect to any risks associated with 

their collection and appropriate disposal. 

The waste management plan may be 

designed to minimize the generation of 

waste while recognizing the practical 

challenges associated with marine 

operations. 

Waste management plans encourage 

recycling of waste except when human or 

animal health may be compromised. In these 

cases, a clear containment and disposal 

method may be outlined. These methods and 

actions may be designed to minimize any 

human or fish health risks associated with 

the waste. Waste management plans may 

address feed bags, packaging materials, 

waste rope, and netting. Other wastes 

include aquatic animal mortalities and 

chemical/fuel spills. These substances are 

addressed in the next section on “Carcass 

Removal” and in “Chapter 13: Perform 

Training for Flow-through, Recirculating, 

and Net Pen Facilities,” respectively. 

2) Avoid the discharge of substances 

associated with in-place pressure washing 

of nets into the waters of the United States 

NET

Whenever possible, use gear and production 

strategies that minimize or eliminate the 

need for on-site wash down and rinsing to 

reduce biofouling. The use of air-drying, 

mechanical, biological, and other nonchemical procedures to control net fouling 

are strongly encouraged. In some areas with 

high flushing rates or great depth, in-place 

net washing may be acceptable. In areas 

with high fouling rates, treatment of nets 

with anti-fouling compounds permitted by 

EPA may represent a lower environmental 

risk than frequent net washing. 
Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or 

 Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 15-2 2006 

3) Collect, return to shore, and properly 

dispose of all feed bags, packaging 

materials, waste rope, and netting (using 

methods approved by appropriate 

regulatory authorities); recycling is strongly 

encouraged NET

4) Be proactive about minimizing all types 

of solid waste generation NET

Facilities should review their operations and 

consider whether there are alternative 

practices that help reduce the use of 

materials that generate solid waste. For 

example, consider the use of packaging and 

materials handling methods that reduce total 

packaging needs. 

Transport or Harvest Discharge 

Facilities should properly dispose of 

transport or harvest discharge (e.g., viscera, 

blood) when aquatic animals are harvested. 

Examples of Transport or Harvest 

Discharge Practices 

1) Design and operate harvest procedures 

and equipment in a fashion that reduces any 

associated discharges; harvest and postharvest vessel and equipment clean up 

procedures should minimize any wastes 

discharged overboard NET

2) Collect and properly dispose of any 

processing and harvesting waste NET

Facilities should dispose of processing or 

harvesting waste in a manner that prevents it 

from entering into waters of the United 

States. 

Carcass Removal 

Proper aquatic animal health management is 

the best method of managing mortalities in 

net pens and cages. Optimizing aquatic 

animal health will reduce the need to deal 

with dead fish. Even under optimal 

conditions some mortalities can occur. Net 

pens should contain and collect any 

mortalities that may occur. This facilitates 

the close monitoring of mortality rates and 

their timely removal. Severe weather may 

temporarily prevent mortality removal. 

Remove mortalities as soon as weather 

permits. Keeping records of severe weather 

days is recommended. 

An example log for tracking carcass removal 

and disposal is available in Appendix T. 

This log could be useful for facilities 

tracking aquatic animal mortalities and in 

subtracting out mortalities from calculations 

for feed conversion ratios. 

Examples of Carcass Removal Practices 

1) Weather permitting, regularly and 

frequently collect mortalities to prevent their 

discharge to waters of the United States NET

When collecting and removing mortalities, 

use methods that do not stress remaining 

It may be useful to keep a general 

operations log to track activities at your 

facility concerning waste disposal, 

transport or harvest discharge, and 

carcass removal. For example: 

• 9/15/04: hauled feed bags and 

waste rope to shore; disposed of 

these materials in a dumpster. 

• 10/4/04: transported aquatic 

animals (no water spilled).
Chapter 15: Waste Collection and Disposal, Transport or 

 Harvest Discharge, and Carcass Removal for Net Pen Facilities 

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

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
References and Resources
References and Resources 

References 

IDEQ. n.d. Idaho Waste Management Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

<http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/prog_issues/waste_water/pollutant_trading/aqu

aculture_guidelines.pdf>. 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. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/

npdes/pkeyword.cfm?keywords=permit+writers&program_id=0>. 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. <http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/ >. 

Accessed December 2004. 

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

<http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/>. 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 

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

State Permitting Authorities/Departments of Environmental Protection 

Alabama 

Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management 

Permit and Services Division 

Post Office Box 301463 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 

(334) 271-7714

http://www.adem.state.al.us

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment, Water Quality Control Division 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246 

(303) 692-3500 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqhom.asp

Alaska 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

1200 6th Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101-1128 

(206) 553-1200 or (800) 424-4EPA 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF

Connecticut 

Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Water Management, Permitting, 

Enforcement and Remediation Division 

79 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

(806) 424-3018 

http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/prgactiv.htm

American Samoa 

No information found 

Delaware 

Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control, Division of Water Resources 

89 Kings Highway 

Dover, DE 19901 

(302) 739-4860 

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/

WaterResources.asp

Arizona 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

Office of Water Quality 

1110 West Washington Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Phone: (602) 771-2300 

http://www.adeq.state.az.us

Florida 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 

(850)-245-2118 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us

Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Division of Aquaculture 

1203 Governors Square Boulevard, Fifth Floor 

Tallahassee, FL 32301 

(850) 488-4033

http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com

Arkansas 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality 

8001 National Drive 

P.O. Box 8913 

Little Rock, AR 72219 

(50l) 682-0744 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us

Georgia 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Environmental Protection Division 

2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Suite 1152 East Tower 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

(404-657-5947) or (888-373-5947) 

http://www.gaepd.org

California 

California State Water Resources Control Board, 

Division of Water Quality

1001 I Street, 15th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916) 341-5250 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov

Guam 

No information found
Appendix A 

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

Hawaii 

Hawaii Dept. of Health, Environmental Health

1250 Punchbowl Street 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

(808) 586-4400 

http://www.hawaii.gov/health

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96801 

Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Environmental Services 

P. O. Box 4313 

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313 

(225) 219-3181 

http://www.deq.state.la.us

Idaho 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

1200 6th Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101-1128 

(206) 553-1200 or (800) 424-4EPA 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF

Maine 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Land and Water Quality 

17 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

(207) 287-7688 or (800) 452-1942 

http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/index.htm

Illinois 

Illinois EPA, Bureau of Water 

1021 North Grand Ave. East, P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

(217) 782-3362 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water

Maryland 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

1800 Washington Blvd. 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

(410) 537-3000 

http://www.mde.state.md.us

Indiana 

Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management 

Office of Water Quality 

100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015 

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 

(317) 232-8603 or (800) 451-6027 (toll free: IN) 

http://www.in.gov/idem/water

Massachusetts 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

(617) 918-1111 or 

(888) 372-7341 (New England states) 

http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/mass.html

Iowa 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

502 E. 9th Street, Henry A. Wallace State Office Bldg. 

Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 

(515) 281-5918 

http://www.iowadnr.com

Michigan 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

Water Bureau 

Constitution Hall, 525 West Allegan St, P.O. Box 30473

Lansing, MI 48909-7973 

(517) 373-7917 

http://www.michigan.gov/deq

Kansas 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Bureau of Water 

1000 Southwest Jackson Street, Suite 420 

Topeka, KS 66612-1367 

(785) 296-5500 

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/water/index.html

Minnesota 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

520 Lafayette Road 

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 

651-297-2274 or 800-646-6247 

http://www.pca.state.mn.us

Kentucky 

Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection 

Division of Water 

14 Reilly Road 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 564-3410 

http://www.water.ky.gov

Mississippi 

Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of 

Pollution Control, Environmental Permits Division 

P.O. Box 10385 

Jackson, MS 39289-0385 

(601) 961-5171 or (888) 786-0661 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/

Main_Home?OpenDocument
Appendix A 

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

Missouri 

Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources, Water Pollution 

Control Branch, Permits Section 

P.O. Box 176 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 

(573) 751 –3443 or (800) 361-4827 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/

index.html

New Mexico 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, TX 75202 

(215) 665-6444 

http://www.epa.gov/region6

Montana 

Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality, Permitting 

and Compliance Division, Water Protection Bureau 

1520 E. Sixth Avenue 

P.O. Box 200901 

Helena, MT 59620-0901 

Phone: (406) 444-2544 

http://www.deq.state.mt.us/pcd/wpb/index.asp

New York 

New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Division of Water

625 Broadway 

Albany, NY 12233 

(518) 402-8111 

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow

Nebraska 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

1200 N Street, Suite 400, P.O. Box 98922 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-2186 

http://www.deq.state.ne.us

North Carolina 

North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural 

Resources, Division of Water Quality 

1617 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 

(919) 733-7015 

http://www.enr.state.nc.us

Nevada 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Water Pollution Control 

333 West Nye Lane, Suite 138 

Carson City, NV 89706-0851 

(775) 687-9418 

http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpc/bwpc01.htm

North Dakota 

North Dakota Health Department 

Division of Water Quality 

1200 Missouri Avenue 

P.O. Box 5520 

Bismarck, ND 58502-5520 

(701) 328-5210 

http://www.health.state.nd.us/wq

New Hampshire 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

(617) 918-1111 

or (888) 372-7341 (New England states) 

http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/newhampshire.html

Ohio 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Surface Water 

Lazarus Government Center 

122 South Front Street 

P.O. Box 1049 

Columbus, OH 43216 

(614) 644-2021 

http://web.epa.state.oh.us/dsw

New Jersey 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control 

401 East State Street, P.O. Box 29 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029 

(609) 633-7021 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/nonpoint.htm

Oklahoma 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, TX 75202 

(215) 665-6444 

http://www.epa.gov/region6
Appendix A 

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

Oregon 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

811 SW Sixth Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-1390 

(503) 229-5696 or (800) 452-4011 (in Oregon) 

http://www.deq.state.or.us

Tennessee 

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control 

401 Church Street 

L&C Tower 

21st Floor 

Nashville, TN 37243 

(888) 891-8332 

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection 

Office of Water Management 

16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 2063 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 

(717) 787-4686 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wa

termgt.htm

Texas 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

1700 North Congress Avenue 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

(512) 239-1000 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/AC/nav/permits/

water_qual.html

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 

290 Broadway 

New York, NY 10007-1866 

(212) 637-5000 

http://www.epa.gov/Region2/water/wpb/npdes.htm

Utah 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Division of Water Quality 

288 North 1460 West 

Cannon Building, 3rd Floor 

P.O. Box 144870 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 

(801) 538-6146 

http://waterquality.utah.gov

Rhode Island 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management, Office of Water Resources 

235 Promenade Street 

Providence, RI 02908 

(401) 222-6800 

http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/

water/index.htm

Vermont 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 

Wastewater Management Division 

103 South Main Street 

Sewing Bldg. 

Waterbury, VT 05671-0405 

(802) 241-3822 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/wwmd.cfm

South Carolina 

South Carolina Department of Health & 

Environmental Control 

2600 Bull Street 

Columbia, SC 29201 

(803) 898-3432 

http://www.scdhec.net

Virginia 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

629 East Main Street 

P.O. Box 10009 

Richmond, VA 23240-0009 

(804) 698-4000 or 1-800-592-5482 (in Virginia) 

http://www.deq.state.va.us

South Dakota 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, Surface Water Quality Program 

Joe Foss Building 

523 East Capitol Avenue 

Pierre, SD 57501 

(605) 773-3351 

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html

Virgin Islands 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 

290 Broadway 

New York, NY 10007-1866 

(212) 637-5000 

http://www.epa.gov/Region2/water/wpb/npdes.htm
Appendix A 

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

Washington 

Washington Department of Ecology 

P.O. Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504 

(360) 407-6413 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html

Wisconsin 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Bureau of Wastewater Management 

101 South Webster Street 

P.O. Box 7921 

Madison, WI 53707 

(608) 267-7694 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us

West Virginia 

West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Water and Waste 

Management, Water Permitting Section 

601 - 57th Street 

Charleston, WV 25304 

(304) 926-0495 

http://www.dep.state.wv.us

Wyoming 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Water Quality Division 

122 West 25th Street 

Herschler Building, 4th Floor West 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

(307) 777-7781

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd
Appendix B 

Natural Resources Agencies 

Associated with Fisheries
Appendix B 

Natural Resources Agencies Associated with Fisheries 

Alabama 

Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources 

64 N. Union Street, Suite 468 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

(334) 242-3486 

http://www.dcnr.state.al.us

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Wildlife 

1313 Sherman St., Rm. 718 

Denver, CO 80203 

(303) 866-3311 

http://wildlife.state.co.us

Alaska 

Alaska Department Fish and Game 

P.O. Box 25526 

Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 

(907) 465-4100 

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us

Connecticut 

Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection 

Bureau of Natural Resources 

79 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

(860) 424-3010 

http://dep.state.ct.us

American Samoa 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources 

American Samoa Government, 

Executive Office Building, Utulei 

Territory of American Samoa, Pago Pago, 

AS 96799 

(684) 633-4456 

http://www.asg-gov.net

http://www.asg-gov.net/

MARINE%20&%20WILDLIFE%20RESOURCES.htm

Delaware 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Control 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 

89 Kings Hwy. 

Dover, DE 19901 

(302) 739-3441

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/index.asp

Arizona 

Arizona Game and Fish 

2221 W. Greenway Rd.

Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399 

(602) 942-3000 

http://www.gf.state.az.us

Florida 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

620 South Meridian Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 

http://myfwc.com

Arkansas 

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission 

2 Natural Resources Drive 

Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 

(800) 364-4263 

http://www.agfc.state.ar.us

Georgia 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S. E. 

Suite 1252 East Tower 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

(404) 656-3500 

http://www.gadnr.org

California 

California Department of Fish and Game 

1416 Ninth Street 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Phone: (916) 445-0411 

(916) 445-0411 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov

Guam 

Guam Department of Agriculture 

Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 

192 Dairy Road 

Mangilao, Guam 96923 

(671) 735-3986

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

Hawaii 

State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural 

Resources 

Kalanimoku Bldg. 

1151 Punchbowl St. 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

(808) 587-0400 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr

Louisiana 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

2000 Quail Drive 

Baton Rouge, La. 70808 

(225) 342-4500 

http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/page1.asp

Idaho 

Idaho Fish and Game 

600 S Walnut 

PO Box 25 

Boise, ID 83707 

(208) 334-3700 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov

Maine 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

17 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0017 

(207) 287-7688 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/index.shtml

Illinois 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 4-300 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 814-2070 

http://dnr.state.il.us/about/officeadd.htm

Maryland 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

580 Taylor Avenue 

Tawes State Office Building 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/sw_index_flash.asp

Indiana 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

402 West Washington Street 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

http://www.in.gov/dnr

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 

Boston MA 02114-2154 

(617) 626-1590 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/dfw_toc.htm

Iowa 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

502 E. 9th Street 

Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 

(515) 725-0275 

http://www.iowadnr.com

Michigan 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Fisheries Division 

P.O. Box 30446 

Lansing, MI 48909 

(517) 373-1280 

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr

Kansas 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 

1020 S. Kansas Ave., Suite 200 

Topeka, KS 66612 

(785) 296-2281

http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us

Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources 

500 Lafayette Road 

St. Paul, MN 55155-4040 

(651) 296-6157 

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/index.html

Kentucky 

Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Resources 

#1 Game Farm Road 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(800) 858-1549 

http://www.kdfwr.state.ky.us

Mississippi 

Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 

1505 Eastover Drive 

Jackson, MS 39211-6374 

(601) 432-2400 

http://www.mdwfp.com

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

Missouri 

Missouri Department of Conservation 

P. O. Box 176 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(800) 361-4827 

http://mdc.mo.gov

New Mexico 

New Mexico Game and Fish 

One Wildlife Way 

Santa Fe, NM 87507 

(505) 476-8000 

http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us

Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

1420 East 6th Avenue 

Helena, MT 59620-0701 

(406) 444-2535 

http://fwp.state.mt.us/default.html

New York 

NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation 

Office of Natural Resources and Water 

Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources 

625 Broadway 

Albany, NY 12233 

(518) 402–8924 

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/index.html

Nebraska 

The Nebraska Game and Park Commission 

2200 N. 33rd St. 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-0641 

http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us

North Carolina 

North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources 

1601 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 

(919) 733-4984 

http://www.enr.state.nc.us

Nevada 

Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources 

123 W. Nye Lane, Room 230 

Carson City, NV 89706-0818 

(775) 687-4360 

http://dcnr.nv.gov

North Dakota 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

100 N. Bismarck Expressway 

Bismarck, ND 58501-5095 

(701) 328-6300 

http://gf.nd.gov/

New Hampshire 

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 

11 Hazen Drive 

Concord, NH 03301 

(603) 271-3421 

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us

Ohio 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Wildlife 

2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G 

Columbus, OH 43229 

(614) 265-6300 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/default.htm

New Jersey 

New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 

501 E. State St., 3rd Floor 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0400 

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 

1801 N. Lincoln 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405) 521-3721 

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com

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

Oregon 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

3406 Cherry Avenue NE 

Salem, OR 97303 

(503) 947-6000 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us

Tennessee 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

P.O. Box 40747 

Nashville, TN 37204 

(615) 781-6500 

http://www.state.tn.us/twra

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

1601 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

(717) 705-7800 

http://www.fish.state.pa.us

Texas 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Services 

4200 Smith School Road 

Austin, TX 78744 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish

Puerto Rico 

Departamento de Recursos Naturales y 

Ambientales (DRNA) 

(Natural & Environmental Resources Department) 

P.O Box 9066600, Puerta de Tierra Station 

Santurce, PR 00906 

(787) 724-8774 

http://www.gobierno.pr/drna 

Utah 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

1594 West North Temple 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

http://www.water.utah.gov

Rhode Island 

State of Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management 

4808 Tower Hill Road 

Wakefield, RI 02879 

(401) 222-6800 

http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/bnatres/fishwild

Vermont 

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 

103 South Main Street 

Center Building 

Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 

(802) 241-3600 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us

South Carolina 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

Rembert C. Dennis Building 

1000 Assembly Street 

Columbia, SC 29201 

(803) 734-3886 

http://www.dnr.state.sc.us

Virginia 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries 

4010 West Broad St. 

Richmond, VA 23230 

(804) 367-1000 

http://www.dgif.state.va.us

South Dakota 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

523 E Capitol 

Pierre, SD 57501 

(605) 773-3381 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Index.htm

Virgin Islands 

U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and 

Natural Resources 

Cyril E. King Airport, 2nd Floor 

St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands 00802 

(340) 774-3320 

45 Mars Hills, Frederiksted 

St. Croix, US Virgin Islands 00841 

(340) 773-1082 

http://www.dpnr.gov.vi/about.htm

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

Washington 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Natural Resources Building 

Olympia, WA 98501 

(360) 902-2200 

http://wdfw.wa.gov

Wisconsin 

Wisconsin of Department of Natural Resources 

101 S Webster St 

PO Box 7921 

Madison Wisconsin 53707-7921 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us

West Virginia 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 

Wildlife Resources 

Fisheries Management 

1900 Kanawha Boulevard, E. 

Charleston, WV 25305 

(304) 558-2771 

http://www.wvdnr.gov/Fishing/Fishing.shtm

Wyoming 

Wyoming Game and Fish 

5400 Bishop Blvd. 

Cheyenne, WY 82006 

(307) 777-4600 

http://gf.state.wy.us/fish/index.asp

EPA-821-B-05-001 March B-5 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 flowEPA-821-B-05-001 C-3 March 2006
 Appendix C 

through, recirculating, and net pen systems is less than 100,000 pounds. Systems not covered by 

the CAAP ELGs include: 

• Closed pond systems (may be covered by NPDES if it discharges more than 30 days per 

year or it is designated as a CAAP facility by the Director) 

• Molluscan shellfish (including nurseries) 

• Crawfish production 

• Alligator production 

• Aquaria 

• Net pens rearing native species released after a growing period of no longer than 4 

months to supplement commercial and sport fisheries 

What part of my CAAP is regulated? 

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

• Areas where you might grow, maintain, or contain aquatic animals (e.g., raceways, tanks, 

or net pens). 

• Areas where you might store raw materials (e.g., feed silos and storage areas designated 

for feed or drugs). 

• Areas where you might contain wastes (e.g., sedimentation basins, quiescent zones, and 

settling ponds). 

• Source water and wastewater conveyance systems (e.g., tailraces and headraces). 

When do I have to get an NPDES permit? 

Your permit application deadline depends on whether your operation is an existing CAAP 

facility, a new discharger, or a new source. Each category has a different deadline for applying 

for an NPDES permit. Read the descriptions in Chapter 4 of this guide to determine when you 

must apply for an NPDES permit. 

What records do I have to keep? 

Your NPDES permit will require you to keep certain records to show that you are complying 

with the terms of the permit. You must keep all the records on-site at your operation for 5 years 

and you must provide them to the permitting authority upon request. Refer to Chapter 12 for 

additional information about record-keeping. 

How does EPA treat proprietary/confidential information? 

Disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) is restricted by statute. Pursuant to EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR 2.203 and 2.211, EPA treats all information for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made as confidential unless and until it makes a determination to the contrary 

under 40 CFR 2.205. Facilities that want to protect certain proprietary information included in 

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

their BMP plans should mark this information as CBI. Note that information from federal 

facilities and discharge information from all facilities cannot be claimed as CBI. Check with 

your permitting authority for process and eligibility information. 

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

The monitoring that your permitting authority will require as part of your permit will depend on 

the other conditions in your permit. If you are subject to ELGs, there are some associated 

monitoring requirements, which are routine inspections of production and wastewater treatment 

systems that are discussed in Chapters 5 and 11. In addition, if your permit includes water quality 

based numeric effluent limitations, you will be required to monitor to demonstrate compliance 

with those limitations. Your permitting authority may also require monitoring to characterize 

your discharge even when your permit does not include numeric effluent limitations. Look 

carefully at your permit, particularly the effluent limitations section, special conditions, and any 

specific monitoring requirements section, to determine what monitoring you have to perform. 

How do I develop a BMP plan? 

Your BMP plan should describe in detail how you will achieve the requirements of the CAAP 

ELGs. Chapter 8 of this guidance document describes what elements you should include in your 

BMP plan. 

How do I certify my BMP plan? 

Send a signed letter to your permitting authority, stating that you have developed a BMP plan. 

You will need to send a letter every time your permit is renewed. The BMP certification form 

should include your name and title, name of the facility, NPDES number, and date the BMP plan 

was developed. An example certification form that may be submitted to your permitting 

authority is available in Appendix F of this guidance document. Be sure to check with your 

permitting authority if you have any questions about certifying your BMP plan. 

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

Once you have developed your BMP plan, keep a copy of the plan available in case your 

permitting authority requests a copy. You should also provide copies to employees so they can 

implement the BMPs. 

Where can I find example forms to help me satisfy requirements of the CAAP 

ELGs (e.g., solids control) and that may be submitted to my permitting authority? 

Appendices M through T contain examples forms for all requirements of the CAAP ELGs. The 

example forms are available from this document or online at 

http://www.epa.gov/guide/aquaculture. 

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

How do I contact my permitting authority? 

If you are unsure how to contact your permitting authority, Appendix A contains contact 

information by state. 

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

You can get a copy of the final rule by contacting the Office of Water Resource center at 202-

566-1729 or sending them an e-mail at center.water-resource@epa.gov. You can also write or 

call the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP, 

P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419, (800) 490-9198, http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom. 

Finally, Appendix D of this document provides a copy of the federal regulations. You can get 

electronic copies of the preamble, rule, and major supporting documents at 

http://www.epa.gov/guide/aquaculture or in E-Docket at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Once in 

the E-Docket system, select “search,” then key in the docket identification number (OW-2002-

0026). 

Frequently Asked Questions for Your Permitting Authority 

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

• Will additional requirements (e.g., state, local, TMDL), in addition to EPA’s regulations, 

be included in my NPDES permit? If so, what are they? 

• What regulations for my state apply to my CAAP facility? 

• How do I know if I am complying with all federal requirements that apply to point source 

discharges? 

• How will I know if the Director designates my facility, which does not meet the 

requirements of the NPDES regulation or the CAAP ELGs, as a CAAP? 

• If I discharge to a POTW and have an NPDES permit, what are the pretreatment 

requirements that I must meet? 

• What forms do I need to fill out to apply for an NPDES permit or to renew my current 

NPDES permit? Where can I obtain these forms? 

• Is my facility eligible for an existing general NPDES permit? 

• When do I have to get an NPDES permit? 

• What happens if I don’t submit my application by the deadline? 

• What do I have to do when I renew my permit? 

• Am I considered a new source or new discharger? I don’t understand the difference. 

• What happens to my permit if I close my facility? 

• What happens if I make significant changes (e.g., increase production level) at my 

operation? 

• Will I need to perform monitoring? 

• What information do I have to report to my permitting authority? 

EPA-821-B-05-001 C-6 March 2006
Appendix D1 

40 CFR 122.24
Appendix D1 

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

§ 122.24 

later than 90 days after becoming defined 

as a CAFO; except that 

(iii) If an operational change that 

makes the operation a CAFO would not 

have made it a CAFO prior to April 14, 

2003, the operation has until April 13, 

2006, or 90 days after becoming defined 

as a CAFO, whichever is later. 

(4) New sources. New sources must 

seek to obtain coverage under a permit 

at least 180 days prior to the time that 

the CAFO commences operation. 

(5) Operations that are designated as 

CAFOs. For operations designated as a 

CAFO in accordance with paragraph (c) 

of this section, the owner or operator 

must seek to obtain coverage under a 

permit no later than 90 days after receiving 

notice of the designation. 

(6) No potential to discharge. Notwithstanding 

any other provision of this 

section, a CAFO that has received a ‘‘no 

potential to discharge’’ determination 

in accordance with paragraph (f) of this 

section is not required to seek coverage 

under an NPDES permit that would 

otherwise be required by this section. 

If circumstances materially change at 

a CAFO that has received a NPTD determination, 

such that the CAFO has a 

potential for a discharge, the CAFO has 

a duty to immediately notify the Director, 

and seek coverage under an 

NPDES permit within 30 days after the 

change in circumstances. 

(h) Duty to Maintain Permit Coverage. 

No later than 180 days before the expiration 

of the permit, the permittee 

must submit an application to renew 

its permit, in accordance with 

§ 122.21(g). However, the permittee need 

not continue to seek continued permit 

coverage or reapply for a permit if: 

(1) The facility has ceased operation 

or is no longer a CAFO; and 

(2) The permittee has demonstrated 

to the satisfaction of the Director that 

there is no remaining potential for a 

discharge of manure, litter or associated 

process wastewater that was generated 

while the operation was a CAFO, other than 

agricultural stormwater from land application 

areas. 

[68 FR 7265, Feb. 12, 2003]

40 CFR Ch. I (7---1---04 Edition)

§ 122.24 Concentrated aquatic animal 

production facilities (applicable to 

State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).

(a) Permit requirement. Concentrated 

aquatic animal production facilities, as 

defined in this section, are point sources 

subject to the NPDES permit program. 

(b) Definition. Concentrated aquatic 

animal production facility means a 

hatchery, fish farm, or other facility 

which meets the criteria in appendix C 

of this part, or which the Director designates 

under paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Case-by-case designation of 

 concentrated aquatic animal production 

 facilities. (1) The Director may designate any 

warm or cold water aquatic animal production 

facility as a concentrated aquatic animal 

production facility upon determining that it is a 

significant contributor of pollution to waters of 

the United States. In making this designation the 

Director shall consider the following factors: 

(i) The location and quality of the receiving 

waters of the United States; 

(ii) The holding, feeding, and production 

capacities of the facility; 

(iii) The quantity and nature of the 

pollutants reaching waters of the 

United States; and 

(iv) Other relevant factors. 

(2) A permit application shall not be 

required from a concentrated aquatic 

animal production facility designated 

under this paragraph until the Director 

has conducted on-site inspection of the 

facility and has determined that the facility 

should and could be regulated 

under the permit program. 

[48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 65 

FR 30907, May 15, 2000]

§ 122.25 Aquaculture projects (applicable 

to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25). 

(a) Permit requirement. Discharges 

into aquaculture projects, as defined in 

this section, are subject to the NPDES 

permit program through section 318 of 

CWA, and in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 125, subpart B. 

(b) Definitions. (1) Aquaculture project 

means a defined managed water area 

which uses discharges of pollutants
Appendix D1 

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

Pt. 122, App. C 

section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), (D), (E) and (F) of 

CWA, whether or not applicable effluent limitations 

guidelines have been promulgated. 

See §§ 122.44 and 122.46. 

Industry Category 

Adhesives and sealants 

Aluminum forming 

Auto and other laundries 

Battery manufacturing 

Coal mining 

Coil coating 

Copper forming 

Electrical and electronic components 

Electroplating 

Explosives manufacturing 

Foundries 

Gum and wood chemicals 

Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 

Iron and steel manufacturing 

Leather tanning and finishing 

Mechanical products manufacturing 

Nonferrous metals manufacturing 

Ore mining 

Organic chemicals manufacturing 

Paint and ink formulation 

Pesticides 

Petroleum refining 

Pharmaceutical preparations 

Photographic equipment and supplies 

Plastics processing 

Plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing 

Porcelain enameling 

Printing and publishing 

Pulp and paper mills 

Rubber processing 

Soap and detergent manufacturing 

Steam electric power plants 

Textile mills 

Timber products processing 

APPENDIX B TO PART 122 [RESERVED]

APPENDIX C TO PART 122—CRITERIA FOR 

DETERMINING A CONCENTRATED 

AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITY 

(§ 122.24) 

A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility is a 

concentrated aquatic animal production facility 

for purposes of § 122.24 if it contains, 

grows, or holds aquatic animals in either of 

the following categories: 

(a) Cold water fish species or other cold 

40 CFR Ch. I (7---1---04 Edition)

water aquatic animals in ponds, raceways, or 

other similar structures which discharge at 

least 30 days per year but does not include: 

(1) Facilities which produce less than 9,090 

harvest weight kilograms (approximately 

20,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year; 

and 

(2) Facilities which feed less than 2,272 

kilograms (approximately 5,000 pounds) of 

food during the calendar month of maximum 

feeding. 

(b) Warm water fish species or other warm 

water aquatic animals in ponds, raceways, or 

other similar structures which discharge at 

least 30 days per year, but does not include: 

(1) Closed ponds which discharge only during 

periods of excess runoff; or 

(2) Facilities which produce less than 45,454 

harvest weight kilograms (approximately 

100,000 pounds) of aquatic animals per year. 

‘‘Cold water aquatic animals’’ include, but 

are not limited to, the Salmonidae family of 

fish; e.g., trout and salmon. 

‘‘Warm water aquatic animals’’ include, but 

are not limited to, the Ameiuride, 

Centrarchidae and Cyprinidae families of fish; 

e.g., respectively, catfish, sunfish and minnows. 
Appendix D2 

40 CFR 451
Monday,

August 23, 2004

Part II

Environmental 

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 451

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New 

Source Performance Standards for the 

Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production 

Point Source Category; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 451

[OW–2002–0026; FRL–7783–6] 

RIN 2040–AD55

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

New Source Performance Standards 

for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal 

Production Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today’s final rule establishes 

Clean Water Act effluent limitations 

guidelines and new source performance 

standards for concentrated aquatic 

animal production facilities. The 

animals produced range from species 

produced for human consumption as 

food to species raised to stock streams 

for fishing. The animals are raised in a 

variety of production systems. The 

production of aquatic animals 

contributes pollutants such as 

suspended solids, biochemical oxygen 

demand, and nutrients to the aquatic 

environment. The regulation establishes 

technology-based narrative limitations 

and standards for wastewater discharges 

from new and existing concentrated 

aquatic animal production facilities that 

discharge directly to U.S. waters. EPA 

estimates that compliance with this 

regulation will affect 242 facilities. The 

rule is projected to reduce the discharge 

of total suspended solids by about 0.5 

million pounds per year and reduce the 

discharge of biochemical oxygen 

demand (BOD) and nutrients by about 

0.3 million pounds per year. The 

estimated annual cost for commercial 

facilities is $0.3 million. The estimated 

annual cost to Federal and State 

hatcheries is $1.1 million. EPA 

estimates that the annual monetized 

environmental benefits of the rule will 

be in the range of $66,000 to $99,000.

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 22, 2004. For judicial review 

purposes, this final rule is promulgated 

as of 1 p.m. (Eastern time) on September 

7, 2004 as provided at 40 CFR 23.2.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OW–2002–0026. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 

Although not listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., confidential business information or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Water docket in the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566–2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information contact Marta 

Jordan at (202) 566–1049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply To Me?

Entities that directly discharge to 

waters of the U.S. potentially regulated 

by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities and SIC Codes 

Examples of regulated entities and NAICS codes 

Facilities engaged in concentrated aquatic animal production, which may include the 

following sectors: Commercial (for profit) and Non-commercial (public) facilities.

0273—Animal Aquaculture. 

0921—Fish Hatcheries and 

Preserves. 

112511—Finfish Farming 

and Fish Hatcheries. 

112519—Other Animal 

Aquaculture. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria listed at 40 CFR 

part 451 of today’s rule. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed for information in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OW–2002–0026. 

The official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the Water Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. Every user is entitled to copy 

266 pages per day before incurring a 

charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents 

a page for each page over the page limit 

plus an administrative fee of $25.00. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to view public comments, access the 

index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in 

the appropriate docket identification 

number. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the docket facility 

identified in section B.1. 

C. What Other Information Is Available 

To Support This Final Rule? 

The major documents supporting the 

final regulations are the following:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51893

• ‘‘Technical Development Document for 

the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

New Source Performance Standards for the 

Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production 

Point Source Category’’ [EPA–821–R–04–012] 

referred to in the preamble as the Technical 

Development Document (TDD). The TDD 

presents the technical information that 

formed the basis for EPA’s decisions in 

today’s final rule. The TDD describes, among 

other things, the data collection activities, the 

wastewater treatment technology options 

considered by the Agency as the basis for 

effluent limitations guidelines and standards, 

the pollutants found in wastewaters from 

concentrated aquatic animal production 

facilities, the estimates of pollutant removals 

associated with certain pollutant control 

options, and the cost estimates related to 

reducing the pollutants with those 

technology options. 

• ‘‘Economic and Environmental Benefit 

Analysis of the Final Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the 

Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production 

Point Source Category [EPA–821–R–04–013] 

referred to in this preamble as the Economic 

and Environmental Benefit Analysis or 

EEBA. This document presents the 

methodology used to assess economic 

impacts, environmental impacts and benefits 

of the final rule. The document also provides 

the results of the analyses conducted to 

estimate the projected impacts and benefits.

Major supporting documents are 

available in hard copy from the National 

Service Center for Environmental 

Publications (NSCEP), U.S. EPA/NSCEP, 

P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 

45242–2419, (800) 490–9198, 

www.epa.gov/ncepihom. You can obtain 

electronic copies of this preamble and 

rule as well as major supporting 

documents at EPA Dockets at 

www.epa.gov/edocket and at 

www.epa.gov/guide/aquaculture.

D. What Process Governs Judicial 

Review for Today’s Final Rule? 

Under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA), judicial review of 

today’s effluent limitations guidelines 

and standards may be obtained by filing 

a petition for review in the United 

States Circuit Court of Appeals within 

120 days from the date of promulgation 

of these guidelines and standards. For 

judicial review purposes, this final rule 

is promulgated as of 1 pm (Eastern time) 

on September 7, 2004 as provided at 40 

CFR 23.2. Under section 509(b)(2) of the 

CWA, the requirements of this 

regulation may not be challenged later 

in civil or criminal proceedings brought 

by EPA to enforce these requirements. 

E. What Are the Compliance Dates for 

Today’s Final Rule? 

Existing direct dischargers must 

comply with today’s limitations based 

on the best practicable control 

technology currently available (BPT), 

the best conventional pollutant control 

technology (BCT), and the best available 

technology economically achievable 

(BAT) as soon as their National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits include such 

limitations. Generally, this occurs when 

existing permits are reissued. New 

direct discharging sources must obtain 

an NPDES permit for the discharge and 

comply with applicable new source 

performance standards (NSPS) on the 

date the new sources begin discharging. 

For purposes of NSPS, a source is a new 

source if it commences construction 

after September 22, 2004. 

F. How Does EPA Protect Confidential 

Business Information (CBI)? 

Certain information and data in the 

record supporting the final rule have 

been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA 

has not included these materials in the 

record that is available to the public in 

the Water Docket. Further, the Agency 

has withheld from disclosure some data 

not claimed as CBI because release of 

this information could indirectly reveal 

information claimed to be confidential. 

To support the rulemaking while 

preserving confidentiality claims, EPA 

is presenting in the public record 

certain information in aggregated form, 

masking facility identities, or using 

other strategies.

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document 

and Other Related Information? 

C. What Other Information Is Available To 

Support This Final Rule? 

D. What Process Governs Judicial Review 

for Today’s Final Rule? 

E. What Are the Compliance Dates for 

Today’s Final Rule? 

F. How Does EPA Protect CBI? 

II. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 

Used in This Document 

III. Under What Legal Authority Is This Final 

Rule Issued? 

IV. What Is the Statutory and Regulatory 

Background to This Rule? 

A. Clean Water Act 

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree 

C. Clean Water Act Requirements 

Applicable to CAAP Facilities 

V. How Was This Final Rule Developed? 

A. September 2002 Proposed Rule 

B. December 2003 Notice of Data 

Availability 

C. Public Comments 

D. Public Outreach 

VI. What Are Some of the Significant 

Changes in the Content of the Final Rule 

and the Methodology Used To Develop 

it? 

A. Subcategorization 

B. Regulated Pollutants 

C. Treatment Options Considered 

D. Reporting Requirements 

E. Costs 

F. Economic Impacts 

G. Loadings 

H. Environmental Assessment and Benefits 

Analysis 

VII. Who Is Subject to This Rule? 

A. Who Is Subject to This Rule? 

B. What if a facility uses more than one 

production system? 

C. What Wastewater Discharges Are 

Covered? 

VIII. What Are the Requirements of the Final 

Rule and the Basis for These 

Requirements? 

A. What Technology Options Did EPA 

Consider for the Final Rule? 

B. What Are the Requirements for the 

Flow-Through and Recirculating 

Systems Subcategory? 

C. What Are the Requirements for the Net 

Pen Subcategory? 

D. What Monitoring Does the Final Rule 

Require? 

E. What Are the Final Rule’s Notification, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

Requirements? 

IX. What Are the Costs and Economic 

Impacts Associated With This Rule? 

A. Compliance Costs 

B. Economic Impacts 

C. What Do the Cost-Reasonableness 

Analyses Show? 

X. What Are the Environmental Benefits for 

This Rule? 

A. Summary of the Environmental Benefits 

B. Non-Monetized Benefits 

C. Monetized Benefits 

XI. What Are the Non-Water Quality 

Environmental Impacts of This Rule? 

A. Air Emissions 

B. Energy Consumption 

C. Solid Waste Generation 

XII. How Will This Rule Be Implemented? 

A. Implementation of Limitations and 

Standards for Direct Dischargers 

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions 

C. Variances and Modifications 

D. Best Management Practices 

E. Potential Tools To Assist With the 

Remediation of Aquaculture Effluents 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act

II. Definitions, Acronyms, and 

Abbreviations Used in This Document

Act—The Clean Water Act. 

51894 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Agency—U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

AWQC—Ambient water quality criteria. 

BAT—Best available technology 

economically achievable, as defined by 

section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act. 

BCT—Best conventional pollutant control 

technology, as defined by section 304(b)(4) of 

the Act. 

BMP—Best management practice, as 

defined by section 304(e) of the Act. 

BOD5—Biochemical oxygen demand 

measured over a five day period. 

BPJ—Best professional judgment. 

BPT—Best practicable control technology 

currently available, as defined by section 

304(b)(1) of the Act. 

CAAP—Concentrated aquatic animal 

production. 

CBI—Confidential business information. 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations. 

CWA—33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., as 

amended. 

Conventional Pollutants—Constituents of 

wastewater as determined by Section 

304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations), 

i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical 

oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil 

and grease, fecal coliform, and pH. 

Daily Discharge—The discharge of a 

pollutant measured during any calendar day 

or any 24-hour period that reasonably 

represents a calendar day. 

Daily Maximum Limit—the highest 

allowable ‘‘daily discharge’’. 

Direct Discharger—A facility that 

discharges or may discharge treated or 

untreated wastewaters into waters of the 

United States. 

DMR—Discharge monitoring report; 

consists of the reports filed with the 

permitting authority by permitted dischargers 

to demonstrate compliance with permit 

limits. 

DO—Dissolved oxygen. 

ELG—Effluent limitations guidelines. 

EQIP—Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program. 

Existing source—For this rule, any facility 

from which there is or may be a discharge of 

pollutants, the construction of which is 

commenced before September 22, 2004. 

Extralabel drug use—Actual use or 

intended use of a drug in an animal in a 

manner that is not in accordance with the 

approved label. The Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act allows veterinarians to 

prescribe extralabel uses of certain approved 

animal drugs and approved human drugs for 

animals under certain conditions. These 

conditions are spelled out in Food and Drug 

Administration regulations at 21 CFR Part 

530. Among these requirements are that any 

extralabel use must be by or on the order of 

a veterinarian within the context of a 

veterinarian-client-patient relationship, must 

not result in violative residues in foodproducing animals, and the use must be in 

conformance with the regulations. A list of 

drugs specifically prohibited from extralabel 

use appears at 21 CFR 530.41. 

Facility—All contiguous property and 

equipment owned, operated, leased, or under 

the control of the same person or entity. 

FAO—United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization. 

FCR—Feed conversion ratio. 

FDF—Fundamentally different factor. 

FFDCA—Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act, 21 U.S.C. 301, et seq., as amended. 

FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act. 

FR—Federal Register. 

FTE—Full Time Equivalent Employee. 

FWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

INAD—Investigational new animal drug. A 

new animal drug (or animal feed containing 

a new animal drug) intended for testing or 

clinical investigational use in animals. Food 

and Drug Administration regulations limit 

the conditions under which such drugs may 

be used. 21 CFR 511, 514. 

Indirect Discharger-A facility that 

discharges or may discharge wastewaters into 

a publicly-owned treatment works. 

JSA/AETF—Joint Subcommittee on 

Aquaculture, Aquaculture Effluents Task 

Force. 

lb(s)/yr—pound(s) per year. 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System. NAICS was developed 

jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to 

provide new comparability in statistics about 

business activity across North America. 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.

NMFS—National Marine Fisheries Service. 

NPDES Permit—A permit to discharge 

wastewater into waters of the United States 

issued under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System, authorized by 

Section 402 of the CWA. 

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

Nonconventional Pollutants—Pollutants 

that are neither conventional pollutants 

listed at 40 CFR 401 nor toxic pollutants 

listed at 40 CFR 401.15 and Part 423 

Appendix A. 

Non-water quality environmental impact—

Deleterious aspects of control and treatment 

technologies applicable to point source 

category wastes, including, but not limited to 

air pollution, noise, radiation, sludge and 

solid waste generation, and energy used. 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense 

Council. 

NSPS—New Source Performance 

Standards. 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 note.

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains and 

other conduits from which a facility 

discharges effluent into receiving waters. 

Pass through—a discharge that exits a 

POTW into waters of the United States in 

quantities or concentrations that alone or in 

conjunction with discharges from other 

sources, causes a violation of any 

requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit 

(including an increase in the magnitude or 

duration of a violation). 

PCB—Polychlorinated biphenyls. 

POC—Pollutants of Concern. Pollutants 

commonly found in aquatic animal 

production wastewaters. Generally, a 

chemical is considered as a POC if it was 

detected in untreated process wastewater at 

5 times a baseline value in more than 10% 

of the samples. 

Point Source—Any discernable, confined, 

and discrete conveyance from which 

pollutants are or may be discharged. See 

CWA Section 502(14). 

POTW(s)—Publicly owned treatment 

works. It is a treatment works as defined by 

Section 212 of the Clean Water Act that is 

owned by a State or municipality (as defined 

by Section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act). 

This definition includes any devices and 

systems used in the storage, treatment, 

recycling and reclamation of municipal 

sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid 

nature. It also includes sewers, pipes and 

other conveyances only if they convey 

wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant. The 

term also means the municipality as defined 

in Section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act, 

which has jurisdiction over the Indirect 

Discharges to and the discharges from such 

a treatment works. 

Priority Pollutant—One hundred twentysix compounds that are a subset of the 65 

toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants 

outlined pursuant to Section 307 of the CWA. 

40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. 

PSES—Pretreatment standards for existing 

sources of indirect discharges, under Section 

307(b) of the CWA, applicable to indirect 

dischargers that commenced construction 

prior to the effective date of a final rule. 

PSNS—Pretreatment standards for new 

sources under Section 307(c) of the CWA. 

QUAL2E—Enhanced Stream Water Quality 

Model. 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

601, et. seq.

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public 

Law 104–121. 

SIC—Standard Industrial Classification, a 

numerical categorization system used by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce to catalogue 

economic activity. SIC codes refer to the 

products or groups of products that are 

produced or distributed, or to services that 

are provided, by an operating establishment. 

SIC codes are used to group establishments 

by the economic activities in which they are 

engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility’s 

primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic 

activities. 

TDD—Technical Development Document. 

TSS—Total Suspended Solids. 

U.S.C.—United States Code. 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501. 

USDA—United States Department of 

Agriculture.

III. Under What Legal Authority Is This 

Final Rule Issued? 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency is promulgating these 

regulations under the authority of 

Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, 

and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, 

and 1361. 

IV. What Is the Statutory and 

Regulatory Background to This Rule? 

A. Clean Water Act 

Congress passed the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (1972), also 

known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51895

to ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s waters.’’ (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). 

The CWA establishes a comprehensive 

program for protecting our nation’s 

waters. Among its core provisions, the 

CWA prohibits the discharge of 

pollutants from a point source to waters 

of the U.S. except as authorized by a 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

The CWA also requires EPA to establish 

national technology-based effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards 

(effluent guidelines or ELG) for different 

categories of sources, such as industrial, 

commercial and public sources of 

waters. Effluent guidelines are 

implemented when incorporated into an 

NPDES permit. Effluent guidelines can 

include numeric and narrative 

limitations, including Best Management 

Practices, to control the discharge of 

pollutants from categories of point 

sources. 

Congress recognized that regulating 

only those sources that discharge 

effluent directly into the nation’s waters 

may not be sufficient to achieve the 

CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA 

requires EPA to promulgate nationally 

applicable pretreatment standards that 

restrict pollutant discharges from 

facilities that discharge wastewater 

indirectly through sewers flowing to 

publicly-owned treatment works 

(POTWs). (See Section 307(b) and (c), 33 

U.S.C. 1317(b) & (c)). National 

pretreatment standards are established 

only for those pollutants in wastewater 

from indirect dischargers that may pass 

through, interfere with, or are otherwise 

incompatible with POTW operations. 

Generally, pretreatment standards are 

designed to ensure that wastewaters 

from direct and indirect industrial 

dischargers are subject to similar levels 

of treatment. In addition, POTWs must 

develop local treatment limits 

applicable to their industrial indirect 

dischargers. Any POTWs required to 

develop a pretreatment program must 

develop local limits to implement the 

general and specific national 

pretreatment standards. Other POTWs 

must develop local limits to ensure 

compliance with their NPDES permit for 

pollutants that result in pass through or 

interference at the POTW. (See 40 CFR 

403.5). Today’s rule does not establish 

national pretreatment standards for this 

category, which contains very few 

indirect dischargers, because the 

indirect dischargers would be 

discharging mainly TSS and BOD, 

which the POTWs are designed to treat 

and which consequently, do not pass 

through. In addition, nutrients 

discharged from CAAP facilities are in 

concentrations lower, in full flow 

discharges, and similar in off-line 

settling basin discharges, to nutrient 

concentrations in human wastes 

discharged to POTWs. The options EPA 

considered do not directly treat 

nutrients, but some nutrient removal is 

achieved incidentally through the 

control of TSS. EPA concluded POTWs 

would achieve removals of TSS and 

associated nutrients equivalent to those 

achievable by the options considered for 

this rulemaking and therefore there 

would be no pass through of pollutants 

in amounts needing regulation. In the 

event of pass through that causes a 

violation of a POTW’s NPDES limit, the 

POTW must develop local limits for its 

users to ensure compliance with its 

permit.

Direct dischargers must comply with 

effluent limitations in NPDES permits. 

Technology-based effluent limitations in 

NPDES permits are derived from 

effluent limitations guidelines and new 

source performance standards 

promulgated by EPA, as well as 

occasionally from best professional 

judgment analyses. Effluent limitations 

are also derived from water quality 

standards. The effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards are established 

by regulation for categories of industrial 

dischargers and are based on the degree 

of control that can be achieved using 

various levels of pollution control 

technology. 

EPA promulgates national effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards for 

major industrial categories generally for 

three classes of pollutants: (1) 

Conventional pollutants (i.e., total 

suspended solids, oil and grease, 

biochemical oxygen demand, fecal 

coliform, and pH); (2) toxic pollutants 

(e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, 

lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic organic 

pollutants such as benzene, benzo-apyrene, phenol, and naphthalene); and 

(3) Nonconventional pollutants (e.g., 

ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and 

phosphorus). EPA considered the 

discharge of these classes of pollutants 

in the development of this rule. EPA is 

establishing BMP requirements for the 

control of conventional, toxic and 

Nonconventional pollutants. EPA 

considers development of four types of 

effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards for direct dischargers. The 

paragraphs below describe those 

pertinent to today’s rule. 

1. Best Practicable Control Technology 

Currently Available (BPT)—Section 

304(b)(1) of the CWA 

EPA may promulgate BPT effluent 

limits for conventional, toxic, and 

nonconventional pollutants. For toxic 

pollutants, EPA typically regulates 

priority pollutants, which consist of a 

specified list of toxic pollutants. In 

specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number 

of factors. EPA first considers the cost 

of achieving effluent reductions in 

relation to the effluent reduction 

benefits. The Agency also considers the 

age of the equipment and facilities, the 

processes employed, engineering 

aspects of the control technologies, any 

required process changes, non-water 

quality environmental impacts 

(including energy requirements), and 

such other factors as the Administrator 

deems appropriate. (See CWA 

304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA 

establishes BPT effluent limitations 

based on the average of the best 

performance of facilities within the 

industry, grouped to reflect various 

ages, sizes, processes, or other common 

characteristics. Where existing 

performance is uniformly inadequate, 

EPA may establish limitations based on 

higher levels of control than currently in 

place in an industrial category, if the 

Agency determines that the technology 

is available in another category or 

subcategory and can be practically 

applied. 

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control 

Technology (BCT)—Section 304(b)(4) of 

the CWA 

The 1977 amendments to the CWA 

required EPA to identify additional 

levels of effluent reduction for 

conventional pollutants associated with 

BCT technology for discharges from 

existing industrial point sources. In 

addition to other factors specified in 

Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires 

that EPA establish BCT limitations after 

consideration of a two-part ‘‘costreasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its 

methodology for the development of 

BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 

24974). 

Section 304(a)(4) designates the 

following as conventional pollutants: 

Biochemical oxygen demand measured 

over five days (BOD5), total suspended 

solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any 

additional pollutants defined by the 

Administrator as conventional. The 

Administrator designated oil and grease 

as an additional conventional pollutant 

on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

3. Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT)—

Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA 

In general, BAT effluent limitations 

guidelines represent the best 

economically achievable performance of 

facilities in the industrial subcategory or 

category. The CWA establishes BAT as 

51896 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

a principal national means of 

controlling the direct discharge of toxic 

and nonconventional pollutants. The 

factors considered in assessing BAT 

include the cost of achieving BAT 

effluent reductions, the age of 

equipment and facilities involved, the 

process employed, potential process 

changes, non-water quality 

environmental impacts including energy 

requirements, economic achievability, 

and such other factors as the 

Administrator deems appropriate. The 

Agency retains considerable discretion 

in assigning the weight to be accorded 

these factors. Generally, EPA determines 

economic achievability on the basis of 

total costs to the industry and the effect 

of compliance with BAT limitations on 

overall industry and subcategory 

financial conditions. As with BPT, 

where existing performance is 

uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect 

a higher level of performance than is 

currently being achieved based on 

technology transferred from a different 

subcategory or category. BAT may be 

based upon process changes or internal 

controls, even when these technologies 

are not common industry practice. 

4. New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS)—Section 306 of the CWA 

New Source Performance Standards 

reflect effluent reductions that are 

achievable based on the best available 

demonstrated control technology. New 

facilities have the opportunity to install 

the best and most efficient production 

processes and wastewater treatment 

technologies. As a result, NSPS should 

represent the most stringent controls 

attainable through the application of the 

best available demonstrated control 

technology for all pollutants (i.e., 

conventional, nonconventional, and 

priority pollutants). In establishing 

NSPS, EPA is directed to take into 

consideration the cost of achieving the 

effluent reduction, any non-water 

quality environmental impacts, and 

energy requirements. 

B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree 

Section 304(m) of the CWA requires 

EPA every two years to publish a plan 

for reviewing and revising existing 

effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards and for promulgating new 

effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990, 

EPA published an Effluent Guidelines 

Plan (see 55 FR 80) in which the Agency 

established schedules for developing 

new and revised effluent guidelines for 

several industry categories. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., and 

Public Citizen, Inc., challenged the 

Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed 

in the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, (NRDC et al v. Leavitt, Civ. 

No. 89–2980). On January 31, 1992, the 

court entered a consent decree which, 

among other things, established 

schedules for EPA to propose and take 

final action on effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards for several 

point source categories. The amended 

consent decree requires EPA to take 

final action on the Concentrated Aquatic 

Animal Production (CAAP) effluent 

guidelines by June 30, 2004. 

C. Clean Water Act Requirements 

Applicable to CAAP Facilities 

EPA’s existing National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

regulations define when a hatchery, fish 

farm, or other facility is a concentrated 

aquatic animal production facility and, 

therefore, a point source subject to the 

NPDES permit program. See 40 CFR 

122.24. In defining ‘‘concentrated 

aquatic animal production (CAAP) 

facility,’’ the NPDES regulations 

distinguish between warmwater and 

coldwater species of fish and define a 

CAAP facility by, among other things, 

the size of the operation and frequency 

of discharge. 

A facility is a CAAP facility if it meets 

the criteria in 40 CFR 122 appendix C 

or if it is designated as a CAAP facility 

by the NPDES program director on a 

case-by-case basis. The criteria 

described in appendix C are as follows. 

A hatchery, fish farm, or other facility 

is a concentrated aquatic animal 

production facility if it grows, contains, 

or holds aquatic animals in either of two 

categories: cold water species or warm 

water species. The cold water species 

category includes facilities where 

animals are produced in ponds, 

raceways, or other similar structures 

that discharge at least 30 days per year 

but does not include facilities that 

produce less than approximately 20,000 

pounds per year or facilities that feed 

less than approximately 5,000 pounds 

during the calendar month of maximum 

feeding. The warm water species 

category includes facilities where 

animals are produced in ponds, 

raceways, or other similar structures 

that discharge at least 30 days per year, 

but does not include closed ponds that 

discharge only during periods of excess 

runoff or facilities that produce less 

than approximately 100,000 pounds per 

year. 40 CFR part 122, appendix C. 

Today’s action does not revise the 

NPDES regulation that defines CAAP 

facilities. 

Most facilities falling under the 

definition of CAAP are either flowthrough, recirculating or net pen 

systems. These systems discharge 

continuously or discharge 30 days or 

more per year as defined in 40 CFR part 

122 and are subject to permitting 

depending on the production level at 

the facility. Most pond facilities do not 

require permits because ponds generally 

discharge fewer than 30 days per year 

and therefore generally are not CAAP 

facilities unless designated by the 

NPDES program director. The NPDES 

program director can designate a facility 

on a case-by-case basis if the director 

determines that the facility is a 

significant contributor of pollution to 

waters of the U.S.

V. How Was This Final Rule 

Developed? 

This section describes the background 

to development of the proposal, the 

proposed rule, EPA’s data collection 

effort, and changes to the proposal EPA 

considered based on new information 

and comments on the proposal. 

A. September 2002 Proposed Rule 

EPA started work on these effluent 

guidelines in January 2000. EPA relied 

on a federal interagency group known as 

the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture 

as a primary contact for information 

about the industry. The Joint 

Subcommittee on Aquaculture, 

authorized by the National Aquaculture 

Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 1198, 16 U.S.C. 

2801, et seq, operates under the 

National Science and Technology 

Council of the Office of Science and 

Technology in the Office of the Science 

Advisor to the President. The National 

Aquaculture Act’s purpose is to promote 

aquaculture in the United States to help 

meet its future food needs and 

contribute to solving world resource 

problems. The Act provides for the 

identification of regulatory constraints 

on the development of commercial 

aquaculture, and for development of a 

plan identifying specific steps the 

Federal Government can take to remove 

unnecessarily burdensome regulatory 

barriers to the initiation and operation 

of commercial aquaculture ventures. It 

also directs Federal agencies with 

functions or responsibilities that may 

affect aquaculture to perform such 

functions or responsibilities, to the 

maximum extent practicable, in a 

manner that is consistent with the 

purpose and policy of the Act. The Joint 

Subcommittee on Aquaculture 

established the Aquaculture Effluents 

Task Force (AETF) to work with EPA to 

provide information and expertise for 

the development of this rule. The AETF 

became an instrumental group 

providing input and comments to EPA. 

The AETF consists of members from 

various Federal agencies, State 

governments, industry, academia, and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51897

non-governmental (environmental) 

organizations. 

EPA used the information provided 

by the AETF and conducted its own 

research for this rulemaking effort. EPA 

also relied on the 1998 Census of 

Aquaculture conducted by the 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) to 

provide information on the size and 

distribution of facilities in the industry. 

The Census also provided some basic 

information on the revenues and prices 

realized by aquatic animal producers. 

This information became a primary 

resource for describing the industry. 

Because of limitations in the Census 

data, EPA conducted its own survey of 

the aquatic animal production industry. 

EPA adopted a two-phase approach to 

collecting data from aquatic animal 

producers. In the first phase, EPA 

distributed a ‘‘screener’’ survey. EPA 

designed this survey to collect very 

basic information from all known 

aquatic animal producers including 

public facilities regardless of size, 

ownership, or production system. EPA 

mailed the survey to approximately 

6,000 potential aquatic animal 

producers in August 2001. The survey 

consisted of 11 questions asking for 

general facility information. EPA used 

the information collected to refine the 

profiles of the industry with respect to 

the production systems in use and the 

type of effluent controls in use. The 

screener survey, AETF information, and 

Census data became the primary sources 

for the proposed rule. 

EPA based the limitations and 

standards for the proposed rule on the 

analysis of technologies to achieve 

effluent reductions using model aquatic 

animal production facilities. Each of 

these model facilities represented a 

different segment of the population 

corresponding to a particular 

production system type, size range (in 

terms of annual pounds of aquatic 

animals produced), and species 

produced. 

EPA evaluated the economic impact 

of each regulatory option it considered 

for the proposed effluent limitations and 

new source performance standards 

based on the revenues and production 

cost information available from the 

USDA Census of Aquaculture along 

with EPA’s own engineering cost 

estimates for the pollution control 

technologies being considered. After 

determining revenues and compliance 

costs for each model facility, EPA used 

a compliance cost-to-revenue ratio as a 

predictor of potential economic impacts 

for the different model facilities. EPA 

used this economic analysis in its 

evaluation of whether it should limit the 

application of the national limitations 

and standards by size of production. 

On September 12, 2002, EPA 

published the proposed rule (see 67 FR 

57872). The proposed limitations and 

standards applied only to new and 

existing CAAP facilities that discharge 

directly to waters of the United States. 

EPA proposed requirements for three 

subcategories for this industry: flowthrough, recirculating, and net pen 

systems. Flow-through and recirculating 

production systems are land-based. Net 

pens, by contrast, are located in open 

water. 

EPA based the proposed requirements 

for the recirculating and flow-through 

subcategories on effluent control 

technologies that remove suspended 

solids from the animal production water 

prior to discharge. The technologies 

considered include quiescent zones, 

settling basins (including off-line 

settling basins, full flow settling basins, 

and polishing settling basins) and 

filtration technology. EPA proposed to 

establish limitations on the 

concentration of Total Suspended 

Solids (TSS) in the discharges from 

these facilities based on its preliminary 

assessment of the performance achieved 

by the various control technologies. In 

the case of recirculating systems, EPA 

based the proposed TSS limitations on 

solids polishing or secondary solids 

removal technology. For flow-through 

systems, EPA based the proposed TSS 

limitations on primary or secondary 

solids settling technologies depending 

on the production level of the facility 

(i.e., primary for 100,000–475,000 lbs/yr 

and secondary for >475,000 lbs/yr). In 

addition to numeric limits, EPA also 

proposed to require these facilities to 

implement operational measures socalled—Best Management Practices 

(BMPs)—to reduce the discharge of 

pollutants and develop a BMP plan to 

document these practices. Depending on 

the type and size of the facility, the plan 

would have required a facility to 

identify and implement practices that 

controlled, for example, the discharge of 

solids and ensured the proper storage 

and disposal of drugs and chemicals. 

EPA based the proposed requirements 

for net pen facilities on requirements to 

reduce the amount of solids, mainly 

feed, being added directly into waters of 

the U.S. The proposal required net pen 

facilities to develop and implement 

BMPs to address the discharge of solids 

including the requirement to conduct 

active feed monitoring to minimize the 

amount of feed not eaten and thus 

discharged to the aquatic environment. 

Other proposed requirements included 

adoption of practices to ensure proper 

storage and disposal of drugs and 

chemicals. In addition, EPA proposed 

that net pen facilities prevent the 

discharge of solid wastes such as feed 

bags, trash, net cleaning debris, and 

dead fish; chemicals used to clean the 

nets, boats or gear; and materials 

containing or treated with tributyltin 

compounds. Further requirements were 

designed to minimize the discharge of 

blood, viscera, fish carcasses or 

transport water containing blood 

associated with the transport or 

harvesting of fish. 

B. December 2003 Notice of Data 

Availability

On December 29, 2003, EPA 

published a Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA) at 68 FR 75068. In the NODA, 

EPA summarized the data received 

since the proposed rule and described 

how the Agency might use the data for 

the final rule. The NODA also discussed 

the second phase of data collection, a 

detailed survey, which EPA conducted 

in 2002. The detailed survey was mailed 

to a stratified sample population of 

facilities identified from the screener 

survey. EPA received responses from 

203 facilities. The surveyed population 

included a statistically representative 

sample of facilities that reported 

producing aquatic animals with flowthrough, recirculating and net pen 

systems. EPA also surveyed a small 

number of facilities that would not have 

been subject to the proposed 

requirements. EPA’s objective was to 

further verify the assumptions on which 

it had based its preliminary decision to 

exclude these facilities from the scope 

of the final rule. 

The detailed data collected through 

this survey allowed EPA to revise the 

methods used for the proposed rule to 

estimate costs and economic impacts. 

EPA developed facility-specific costs 

and economic impact assessments for 

each surveyed facility based on the 

detailed information provided in the 

survey responses. The detailed 

information included production 

systems, annual production, and control 

practices and technologies in place at 

the facility. 

The detailed responses to the second 

survey provided EPA with better 

information on the baseline level of 

control technologies and operational 

measures in use at CAAP facilities. 

Based on this understanding, EPA 

described two modified options in the 

NODA that EPA was considering for the 

final rule. These options reflected the 

same technologies and practices 

considered for the proposed regulation, 

but reconfigured the combinations of 

treatment technologies and practices 

into revised regulatory options. 

51898 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA visited 17 additional sites and 

sampled at one facility in response to 

issues raised in the comments. The 

NODA discussed the post-proposal data 

including site visits and additional 

sampling. The results of EPA’s analyses 

of the data were also presented in the 

NODA. EPA solicited comment on the 

new data and the conclusions being 

drawn from them. 

C. Public Comments 

EPA has prepared a ‘‘Comment 

Response Document’’ that includes the 

Agency’s responses to comments 

submitted on the proposed rule and the 

notice of data availability. All of the 

public comments, including supporting 

documents, are available for public 

review in the administrative record for 

this final rule, filed under docket 

number OW–2002–0026. 

The comment period on the proposed 

rule closed on January 27, 2003. EPA 

received approximately 300 comments, 

including form letters. EPA received 

comments from sources including the 

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture—

Aquaculture Effluents Task Force (JSA/

AETF), industry trade associations, 

Federal and State agencies, 

environmental organizations, and 

private citizens. For the NODA, EPA 

received 20 comments between 

December 29, 2003 and February 12, 

2004. 

D. Public Outreach 

As part of the development of the 

proposed rule and today’s final rule, 

EPA has conducted outreach activities. 

EPA met with affected and interested 

stakeholders through site visits and 

sampling trips to obtain information on 

operating and waste management 

practices at CAAP facilities. EPA met 

numerous times with members of the 

JSA/AETF and conducted outreach with 

small businesses during the SBREFA 

process. 

EPA conducted three public meetings 

to discuss the proposed rule during the 

public comment period for the proposed 

rule. EPA has participated in the 

industry’s conferences to update 

participants on the progress and status 

of the rule. EPA also held several 

meetings with other federal agencies to 

discuss issues that potentially affect 

their mission, programs, or 

responsibilities. 

Moreover, EPA maintains a website 

that posts information relating to the 

regulation. EPA provided supporting 

documents for the proposed rule on the 

site. The documents included the 

Technical Development Document, the 

Draft Guidance for Aquatic Animal 

Production Facilities to Assist in 

Reducing the Discharge of Pollutants, 

and the Economic and Environmental 

Impact Analysis. These documents used 

to support the proposed rule and the 

final supporting documents are 

available at www.epa.gov/guide/

aquaculture. 

VI. What Are Some of the Significant 

Changes in the Content of the Final 

Rule and the Methodology Used To 

Develop It? 

This section describes some of the 

major changes that EPA made to the 

final rule from that it proposed. This 

section also describes differences in the 

methodology EPA used in evaluating its 

options for the final rule. 

A. Subcategorization 

The proposed regulation included 

limitations and standards for three 

subcategories: Flow-through systems, 

recirculating systems and net pens. The 

final rule establishes limitations and 

standards for the same systems but for 

only two subcategories: A flow-through 

and recirculating systems subcategory 

and a net pens subcategory. The 

recirculating and flow-through systems 

are combined into one subcategory 

instead of two separate subcategories. 

As previously noted, flow-through 

and recirculating systems are both land 

based systems that typically discharge 

continuously, but can occasionally 

discontinue discharges for short periods 

of time. The principal distinguishing 

characteristic between these two 

systems is the degree to which water is 

reused prior to its discharge, with 

recirculating systems typically 

discharging lower volumes of 

wastewater. In the proposal, EPA 

distinguished recirculating systems 

from flow-through systems by 

describing a recirculating system as one 

that typically filters with biological or 

mechanically supported filtration and 

reuses the water in which the aquatic 

animals are raised. Net pen systems, by 

contrast, are located in open water and 

have distinctly different characteristics 

from either recirculating or flowthrough systems. 

EPA received a number of comments 

on the distinction between flow-through 

and recirculating systems described in 

the proposed rule. Because some flowthrough systems also reuse their 

production water, commenters did not 

believe EPA had adequately 

distinguished recirculating systems 

from flow-through systems. Some 

commenters encouraged EPA to use 

hydraulic retention time as a basis for 

distinguishing between flow-through 

and recirculating systems. However, 

EPA’s review of available data showed 

that there is no clear dividing line 

between the hydraulic retention time in 

a system that was considered a 

recirculating system and one that was 

considered a flow-through system. EPA 

examined the aquatic animal production 

literature for alternatives for 

distinguishing recirculating systems and 

flow-through systems. Given the 

difficulty in distinguishing certain flowthrough facilities from recirculating 

ones, EPA considered whether it should 

combine the two subcategories into one 

subcategory. EPA discussed this in the 

NODA and solicited comment on this 

option.

While some commenters opposed 

combining these two subcategories, EPA 

has decided to combine flow-through 

and recirculating systems for the 

purpose of establishing effluent 

limitations guidelines for the following 

reasons. First, as some commenters 

recognized, both flow-through and 

recirculating systems may reuse water 

and employ similar measures to 

maintain water quality including 

mechanical filtration. Second, the 

characteristic of wastewater discharged 

from facilities that are identified as 

recirculating systems that are similar to 

the wastewater from the off-line or 

solids treatment units at flow-through 

systems. Both waste streams are 

characterized by high levels of 

suspended solids, which can be 

effectively treated through properly 

designed and operated treatment 

systems employing either settling 

technology combined with effective feed 

management or a carefully controlled 

feed management system alone. 

Therefore, EPA decided that the same 

requirements should apply both to 

wastewater discharged from 

recirculating production systems and 

wastewater discharged from off-line 

solids treatment units at flow-through 

facilities. Moreover, EPA had based the 

proposed limits for both of these waste 

streams on the same data set. For the 

foregoing reasons, EPA has concluded 

that this change in the organization of 

the final rule does not substantively 

change the requirements. 

Commenters also pointed to 

differences in BMPs employed at the 

different production systems. EPA 

recognizes that there are differences 

between recirculating systems and flowthrough systems. EPA has concluded, 

however, that the control technology 

selected as the basis for the final 

narrative limitations will effectively 

remove pollutants from both systems to 

the same degree. Further, the BMP 

requirements in the final rule for this 

subcategory are flexible enough to 

accommodate differences in the specific 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51899

practices appropriate for the two types 

of production systems. Finally, 

commenters were concerned that 

collapsing these two systems into one 

subcategory could be interpreted as 

indicating that EPA favors recirculating 

systems over flow-through systems and 

implying that flow-through systems 

should be modified to become 

recirculating systems. This certainly is 

not EPA’s intention and the Agency is 

not suggesting that recirculating systems 

should replace existing flow-through 

systems or be given a preference in the 

construction of new systems. The 

primary reason to collapse these two 

systems into one subcategory is to 

eliminate redundancy in the CFR. 

B. Regulated Pollutants 

There are a number of pollutants 

associated with discharges from CAAP 

facilities. CAAP facilities can have high 

concentrations of suspended solids and 

nutrients, high BOD and low dissolved 

oxygen levels. Organic matter is 

discharged primarily from feces and 

uneaten feed. Metals, present in feed 

additives or from the deterioration of 

production equipment, may also be 

present in CAAP wastewater. Effluents 

with high levels of suspended solids, 

when discharged into receiving waters, 

can have a detrimental effect on the 

environment. Suspended solids can 

degrade aquatic ecosystems by 

increasing turbidity and reducing the 

depth to which sunlight can penetrate, 

thus reducing photosynthetic activity. 

Suspended particles can damage fish 

gills, increasing the risk of infection and 

disease. Nutrients are discharged mainly 

in the form of nitrate, ammonia and 

organic nitrogen. Ammonia causes two 

main problems in water. First, it is toxic 

to aquatic life. Second, it is easily 

converted to nitrate which may increase 

plant and algae growth. 

Some substances, like drugs and 

pesticides, that may be present in the 

wastewater may be introduced directly 

as part of the aquatic animal production 

process. An important source of the 

pollutants potentially present in CAAP 

wastewater is, as the above discussion 

suggests, the feed used in aquatic 

animal production. Feed used at CAAP 

facilities contributes to pollutant 

discharges in a number of ways: byproduct feces, ammonia excretions and, 

most directly, as uneaten feed (in 

dissolved and particulate forms). 

Moreover, the feed may be the vehicle 

for introducing other substances into the 

wastewater, like drugs. For example, 

medicated feed may introduce 

antibiotics into the wastewater. 

In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to 

establish numeric limitations for only a 

single pollutant—total suspended solids 

(TSS)—while controlling the discharge 

of other pollutants through narrative 

requirements. Following proposal, EPA 

reevaluated the technological basis for 

the numerical limits for TSS and 

determined that it would be more 

appropriate to promulgate qualitative 

TSS limits, in the form of solids control 

BMP requirements, that could better 

respond to regional and site-specific 

conditions and accommodate existing 

state programs in cases where these 

appear to be working well (see Section 

VIII.B. for further discussion). EPA is 

thus not promulgating numerical 

limitations for TSS or other pollutants. 

EPA is instead establishing narrative 

effluent limitations requiring 

implementation of effective operational 

measures to achieve reduced discharges 

of solids and other materials. For the 

final rule, as it did at proposal, EPA has 

also developed narrative limitations that 

will address a number of other 

pollutants potentially present in CAAP 

wastewater. These narrative limitations 

address spilled materials (drugs, 

pesticides and feed), fish carcasses, 

viscera and other waste, excess feed, 

feed bags, packaging material and 

netting. 

EPA’s decision to not establish 

national numeric limits for TSS will not 

restrict a permit writer’s authority to 

impose site-specific permit numeric 

effluent limits on the discharge of TSS 

or other pollutants in appropriate 

circumstances. For example, a permit 

writer may establish water quality-based 

effluent limits for TSS (see 40 CFR 

122.44(d) or regulate TSS (by 

establishing numeric limits) as a 

surrogate for the control of toxic 

pollutants (see 40 CFR 122.44(e)(2)(ii)) 

where site-specific circumstances 

warrant. The permit writer may also 

issue numeric limits in general permits 

applicable to classes of facilities. In fact, 

one of the bases for EPA’s decision not 

to establish uniform national TSS limits 

is the recognition that a number of 

states, particularly those with 

significant numbers of CAAP facilities, 

already have general permits with 

numeric limits tailored to the specific 

production systems, species raised, and 

environmental conditions in the state, 

and these permits seem to be working 

well to minimize discharges of 

suspended solids (see DCN 63056). EPA 

believes there would be minimal 

environmental gain from requiring these 

states to redo their General Permits to 

conform to a set of uniform national 

concentration-based limits that in most 

cases would not produce significant 

changes in control technologies and 

practices at CAAP facilities. 

In the final rule, EPA is also not 

establishing numeric limits for any drug 

or pesticide, but is requiring CAAP 

facilities to ensure proper storage of 

drugs, pesticides and feed to prevent 

spills and any resulting discharges of 

drugs and pesticides. EPA is also 

establishing a requirement to implement 

procedures for responding to spills of 

these materials to minimize their 

discharge from the facility. EPA’s survey 

of this industry indicated that many 

CAAP facilities currently employ a 

number of different measures to prevent 

spills and have established in-place 

systems to address spills in the event 

they occur. EPA is thus establishing a 

requirement for all facilities to develop 

and implement BMPs that avoid 

inadvertent spills of drugs, pesticides, 

and feed and to implement procedures 

for properly containing, cleaning and 

disposing of any spilled materials to 

minimize their discharge from the 

facility. The effect of these requirements 

will be to promote increased care in the 

handling of these materials.

Some commenters suggested that EPA 

regulate certain other pollutants or 

substances that may be discharged from 

these production systems. For this rule, 

EPA evaluated control of some of these. 

For example, EPA evaluated the 

application of activated carbon 

treatment to remove compounds such as 

antibiotic active ingredients from 

wastewater prior to discharge. For the 

reasons discussed in Section IX.A, 

however, EPA is not basing any 

pollutant limitations on the application 

of this technology. 

C. Treatment Options Considered 

EPA evaluated three treatment 

options as the basis for BPT/BCT/BAT 

proposed limitations for the flowthrough and recirculating subcategories 

and three options for the net pen 

subcategory. For flow-through and 

recirculating systems, EPA proposed a 

numeric limitation for TSS. For Option 

1, the least stringent option, EPA 

considered TSS limitations based on 

primary settling as well as the use of 

BMPs to control the discharge of solids 

from the production system. The second 

treatment option (Option 2) considered 

by EPA for establishing TSS limitations 

was based on Option 1 technologies 

plus the addition of reporting 

requirements if INAD or extralabel drug 

use were used in the production 

systems, plus the implementation of 

BMPs to ensure proper storage, handling 

and disposal of drugs and chemicals 

and the prevention of escapes when 

non-native species are produced. EPA 

based limitations for the most stringent 

option (Option 3) on primary settling 

51900 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

and the addition of secondary solids 

settling, in conjunction with BMPs, to 

control the discharge of solids from the 

production system. This option also 

included BMPs to control drugs, 

chemicals and non-native species and 

the reporting of drugs. For New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA 

considered the same three options. 

EPA evaluated three treatment 

options for the net pen subcategory. The 

least stringent option, Option 1, 

required feed management and 

operational BMPs for solids control. 

Option 2 consisted of the same practices 

and technology as Option 1 plus a BMP 

plan to address drugs, chemicals, 

pathogens, and non-native species and 

general reporting requirements for the 

use of certain drugs and chemicals. 

Option 3, the most stringent option, 

included the requirements of the first 

two options as well as active feed 

monitoring to control the supply of feed 

in the production units. Many existing 

facilities use active feed or real time 

monitoring to track the rate of feed 

consumption and detect uneaten feed 

passing through the nets. These systems 

may include the use of devices such as 

video cameras, digital scanning sonar 

detection, or upwellers, in addition to 

good husbandry and feed management 

practices. These systems and practices 

allow facilities to cease feeding the 

aquatic animals when a build-up of feed 

or over-feeding is observed. EPA 

considered the same treatment options 

for NSPS. 

The NODA described two additional 

options that EPA was considering for 

flow-through and recirculating systems, 

but did not identify any new options for 

net pens. These two options contained 

the same treatment technologies and 

practices described in the three options 

considered for the proposed rule but in 

slightly different combinations. 

The NODA Option A included 

primary solids treatment, a reporting 

requirement for the INAD and extralabel 

drug uses, and the implementation of 

BMPs to control drugs and chemicals. In 

addition to Option A requirements, 

Option B included secondary solids 

removal treatment or, alternatively, the 

implementation of BMPs for feed 

management, and solids handling to 

control the discharge of solids. 

As previously explained, for flowthrough or recirculating systems, today’s 

final rule does not establish numeric 

limitations for total suspended solids 

(TSS) but does include narrative 

limitations requiring the solids control 

measures and operational practices 

described as part of Option B for BPT/

BCT/BAT limitations and NSPS. These 

include requirements to minimize the 

discharge of solids. It also requires 

facilities to develop and implement 

practices designed to prevent the 

discharge of spilled drugs and 

pesticides, inspection and maintenance 

protocols designed to prevent the 

discharge of pollutants as a result of 

structural failure, training of personnel, 

various recordkeeping requirements, 

and documentation of the 

implementation of these requirements 

in a BMP plan which is maintained on 

site and available to the permitting 

authority upon request. 

For net pens, the final rule establishes 

non-numeric, narrative limitations that 

are similar to those adopted for flowthrough and recirculating systems. 

Thus, the limitations require 

minimization of feed input, proper 

storage of drugs, pesticides and feed, 

routine inspection and maintenance of 

the production and wastewater 

treatment systems, training of 

personnel, and appropriate 

recordkeeping. Compliance with these 

requirements must be documented in a 

BMP plan which describes how the 

facility is minimizing solids discharges 

through feed management and how it is 

complying with prohibitions on the 

discharge of feed bags and other solid 

waste materials. Further, net pens must 

minimize the accumulation of uneaten 

feed beneath the pens through active 

feed monitoring and management 

strategies. 

D. Reporting Requirements 

EPA’s proposed rule would have 

required permittees to report the use of 

INADs and extralabel use of both drugs 

and chemicals. In the final rule, EPA is 

modifying the proposed requirement, by 

deleting the reporting requirements for 

chemicals, including pesticides, and by 

further limiting the reporting 

requirement for drugs, as described 

below. EPA used the term ‘‘chemicals’’

in the proposed rule to refer to 

registered pesticides.

EPA’s decision not to include 

pesticides in the final reporting 

requirements is based on the language 

in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the 

regulations that implement the statute. 

FIFRA Section 5 authorizes EPA to 

allow field testing of pesticides under 

development through the issuance of 

Experimental Use Permits. Further, 

FIFRA Section 18 authorizes EPA to 

allow States to use a pesticide for an 

unregistered use for a limited time if 

EPA determines that emergency 

conditions exist. Under both of these 

provisions the applicant is required to 

submit information concerning the 

environmental risk associated with the 

pesticide use as part of the application 

for the permit or exemption. Also in 

both cases the permittee or the State or 

Federal authority must report 

immediately to EPA any adverse effects 

from the use. Prior to issuing an 

emergency exemption, EPA is required 

to determine that the exemption will not 

cause unreasonable adverse effects on 

the environment (see 40 CFR 

166.25(b)(1)(ii)) and that the pesticide is 

likely to be used in compliance with the 

requirements imposed under the 

exemption (see 40 CFR 166.25(b)(1)(iii)). 

EPA’s regulation further specifies that 

the applicant for an emergency 

exemption must coordinate with other 

affected State or Federal agencies to 

which the requested exemption is likely 

to be of concern. The application must 

indicate that the coordination has 

occurred, and any comments provided 

by the other agencies must be submitted 

to EPA with the application (see 40 CFR 

166.20(a)(8)). 

In contrast, the FDA’s regulations for 

Investigative New Animal Drugs 

(INADs) exempt INADs from the 

requirement to conduct an 

Environmental Assessment (see 21 CFR 

25.20 and 25.33). As a policy matter, 

FDA encourages INAD sponsors to 

notify permitting authorities of the use 

of an INAD. There is, however, no 

requirement that the sponsors comply. 

Therefore, EPA considers the reporting 

of INADs in today’s regulation necessary 

to ensure that permit writers are aware 

of the potential for discharge of the 

INAD and can take action as necessary 

in authorized circumstances. 

EPA is providing an exception to the 

requirement to report INAD use. When 

an INAD has already been approved for 

use in another species or to treat another 

disease and is applied at a dosage that 

does not exceed the approved dosage, 

reporting is not required if it will be 

used under similar conditions. The 

requirement that the use be under 

similar conditions is intended to limit 

the exception to cases where the INAD 

use would not be expected to produce 

significantly different environmental 

impacts from the previously approved 

use. For example, use of a drug that had 

been previously approved for a 

freshwater application as an INAD in a 

marine setting would not be considered 

a similar condition of use, since marine 

ecosystems may have markedly different 

vulnerabilities than freshwater 

ecosystems. Similarly, the use of a drug 

approved to treat terrestrial animals as 

an INAD to treat aquatic animals would 

not be considered a similar condition of 

use. In contrast, the use of a drug to treat 

fish in a freshwater system that was 

previously approved for a different 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51901

freshwater species would be considered 

use under similar conditions. EPA has 

concluded that when a drug is used 

under similar conditions it is unlikely 

that the environmental impacts would 

be different than those that were already 

considered in the prior approval of the 

drug. 

CAAP facilities must also report the 

use of extralabel drugs. However, as 

with INADs, reporting is not required if 

the extralabel use does not exceed the 

approved dosage and is used under 

similar conditions. EPA anticipates that 

most extralabel drug use will not require 

reporting, but wants to ensure that 

permitting authorities are aware of 

situations in which a higher dose of a 

drug is used or the drug is used under 

significantly different conditions from 

the approved use. It is also possible that 

drugs approved for terrestrial animals 

could be used to treat aquatic animals 

as extralabel use drugs. 

For the final rule, the timing and 

content of reporting requirements 

related to the use of INADs and 

extralabel drugs are similar to the 

proposed requirements. EPA requires 

both oral and written reporting. The 

final rule has an added requirement that 

the CAAP facility report the method of 

drug application in both the oral report 

and the written report. EPA has 

concluded that both oral and written 

reports are reasonable requirements 

because the oral report lets the 

permitting authority know of the drug 

use sooner than the written report, thus 

facilitating site-specific action if 

warranted. The written report provides 

confirmation of the use of the drug and 

more complete information for future 

data analysis and control measures. 

Today’s regulation also adds a 

requirement that CAAP facilities notify 

the permitting authority in writing 

within seven days after signing up to 

participate in INAD testing. Advance 

notice prior to the use of the INAD 

allows the permitting authority to 

determine whether additional controls 

on the discharge of the INAD during its 

use may be warranted. 

Finally, today’s regulation includes a 

requirement to report any spill of drugs, 

pesticides or feed that results in a 

discharge to waters of the U.S. Facilities 

are expected to implement proper 

storage for these products and 

implement procedures for the 

containing, cleaning and disposing of 

spilled material. If the spilled material 

enters the production system or 

wastewater treatment system it can be 

assumed that the material will reach 

waters of the U.S. EPA considers 

reporting of these events necessary to 

alert the permitting authority to 

potential impacts in the receiving 

stream. Facilities are expected to make 

an oral report to the permitting 

authority within 24 hours of the spill’s 

occurrence followed by a written report 

within 7 days. The report shall include 

the identity of the material spilled and 

an estimated amount.

EPA has concluded that today’s 

reporting requirements are appropriate 

because they make it easier for the 

permitting authority to evaluate what 

additional control measures on INADs 

and extralabel drug use may be 

necessary to prevent or minimize harm 

to waters of the U.S. and to respond 

more effectively to any unanticipated 

environmental impacts that may occur. 

Because neither of these classes of drugs 

has undergone an environmental 

assessment for the use being made of 

them, EPA is ensuring that the 

permitting authority is aware of their 

use and if warranted can take site 

specific action. 

Today’s reporting requirements are 

authorized under several sections of the 

CWA. Section 308 of the CWA 

authorizes EPA to require point sources 

to make such reports and ‘‘provide such 

other information as [the Administrator] 

may reasonably require.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1318(a)(A). Section 402(a) of the Act 

authorizes EPA to impose permit 

conditions as to ‘‘data and information 

collection, reporting and such other 

requirements as [the Administrator] 

deems appropriate.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1342(a)(2). It is well established that 

these provisions justify EPA’s 

establishing a range of information 

disclosure requirements. Thus, for 

example, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit concluded that the Agency’s 

data gathering authority was not limited 

to information on toxic pollutants 

already identified by the Agency in a 

permittee’s discharge. EPA regulations 

required permit applications to include 

information on toxic pollutants that an 

applicant used or manufactured as an 

intermediate or final product or 

byproduct. In the court’s view, EPA 

could reasonably determine that it could 

not regulate effectively without 

information on such pollutants because 

they could end up present in the 

permittee’s discharge. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 822 

F.2d 104, 119 (DC Cir. 1987). The same 

is true for certain INADs and extralabel 

drug use that may end up as pollutants 

discharged to waters of the U.S. 

Under the proposed rule, the 

operators of facilities subject to the rule 

were to certify that they had developed 

a BMP plan that met the requirements 

in the regulation. EPA continues to view 

BMPs as effective tools to control the 

discharge of pollutants from CAAP 

facilities and is establishing narrative 

requirements based on the use of BMPs 

as the basis of today’s regulation. EPA 

has also retained the requirement for a 

BMP plan. The BMP plan is a tool in 

which the facility must describe the 

operational measures it will use to meet 

the non-numeric effluent limitations in 

the regulation. Upon incorporation of 

today’s requirements into an NPDES 

permit, the CAAP facility owner or 

operator will be expected to develop 

site-specific operational measures that 

satisfy the requirements. The final rule 

requires CAAP facilities to develop a 

BMP plan that describes how the CAAP 

facility will comply with the narrative 

requirements and that is maintained at 

the CAAP facility. The CAAP facility 

owner or operator must certify in 

writing to the permitting authority that 

the plan has been developed. In EPA’s 

view, a BMP plan, as a practical matter, 

can assist facilities in achieving 

compliance with the non-numeric 

limitations. It can also assist regulatory 

authorities in verifying compliance with 

the requirements and modifying specific 

permit conditions where warranted. As 

explained earlier in this section, EPA 

has concluded Section 308 clearly 

authorizes it to require this information. 

Of course, irrespective of the content of 

the plan, a facility must still comply 

with the narrative limitations. 

In conjunction with the requirement 

to inspect and provide regular 

maintenance of CAAP production and 

treatment systems to prevent structural 

damage, EPA is including a reporting 

requirement associated with failure of 

the CAAP containment structure and 

any resulting discharges. EPA is 

requiring CAAP facilities to report any 

failure of or damage to the structural 

integrity of the containment system that 

results in a material discharge of 

pollutants to waters of the U.S. For net 

pen systems, for example, failures might 

include physical damage to the predator 

control nets or the nets containing the 

aquatic animals, that may result in a 

discharge of the contents of the nets. 

Physical damage might include 

abrasion, cutting or tearing of the nets 

and breakdown of the netting due to rot 

or ultra violet exposure. For flowthrough and recirculating systems, a 

failure might include the collapse of, or 

damage to, a rearing unit or wastewater 

treatment structure; damage to pipes, 

valves, and other plumbing fixtures; and 

damage or malfunction to screens or 

physical barriers in the system, which 

would prevent the unit from containing 

51902 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

water, sediment, and the aquatic 

animals. The permitting authority may 

further specify in the permit what 

constitutes a material discharge of 

pollutants that would trigger the 

reporting requirements. The permittee 

must report the failure of the 

containment system within 24 hours of 

discovery of the failure. The permittee 

must notify the permitting authority 

orally and describe the cause of the 

failure in the containment system and 

identify materials that were discharged 

as a result of this failure. Further, the 

facility must provide a written report 

within seven days of discovery of the 

failure documenting the cause, the 

estimated time elapsed until the failure 

was repaired, an estimate of the material 

released as a result of the failure, and 

steps being taken to prevent a 

reoccurrence. 

E. Costs 

At proposal, EPA used a model 

facility approach to estimate the cost of 

installing or upgrading wastewater 

treatment to achieve the proposed 

requirements. As described in the 

preamble to the proposed regulation (67 

FR 57872), EPA developed 21 model 

facilities (based on the USDA’s Census 

of Aquaculture and EPA’s screener 

survey) characterized by different 

combinations of production systems, 

size categories, species and ownership 

types. EPA developed regulatory 

technology options based on screener 

survey responses, site visits, industry 

and other stakeholder input, and 

existing permit requirements. 

EPA estimated the cost for each 

option component for each model 

facility. We then calculated costs for 

each regulatory option at each model 

facility based on model facility 

characteristics and the costs of the 

option’s technologies or practices 

corresponding to the option. 

EPA estimated frequency factors for 

treatment technologies and existing 

BMPs based on screener survey 

responses, site visits, and sampling 

visits. Baseline frequency factors 

represented the portion of the facilities 

represented by a particular model 

facility that would not incur costs to 

comply with the proposed requirements 

because they were already using the 

technology or practice. EPA adjusted the 

component cost for each model facility 

to account for those facilities that 

already have the component in-place. 

Subsequently, EPA derived national 

estimates of costs by aggregating the 

component costs applicable to each 

model facility across all model facilities. 

EPA’s detailed surveys captured 

information on the treatment in-place at 

the facility and other site-specific 

information (such as labor rates). EPA 

obtained additional cost information 

from data supplied from public 

comments and site visits. With the new 

data, EPA revised the method to 

estimate compliance costs. Instead of a 

model facility approach, EPA used a 

facility-level cost analysis based on the 

available facility-specific data contained 

in the detailed survey responses. We 

applied statistically-derived survey 

weights instead of the frequency factors 

used at proposal to estimate costs to the 

CAAP industry as a whole.

For proposal, EPA used national 

averages for many of the cost elements, 

such as labor rates and land costs. In its 

analysis for the final regulation, EPA 

used facility specific cost information, 

such as labor rates, to determine the 

costs associated with implementing the 

regulatory options. When facility 

specific rates were not available, EPA 

used national averages for similar 

ownership types of facilities (i.e., noncommercial and commercial ownership) 

to determine managerial and staff labor 

rates. EPA revised estimates for all labor 

costs using the employee and wage 

information supplied in the detailed 

surveys. For those facilities indicating 

they use unpaid labor for part of the 

facility operation, we used wages for 

similar categories (i.e., managerial or 

staff) supplied by that facility to 

estimate costs associated with 

implementing the regulatory options. 

Comments also suggested that EPA’s 

assumed land costs were too low at 

proposal; EPA assumed national average 

land values for agricultural land. EPA 

revised its estimates for land costs when 

determining the opportunity costs of 

using land at a facility if structural 

improvements were evaluated that 

required use of facility land that was not 

currently in use by the CAAP 

operation’s infrastructure (e.g., occupied 

by tanks, raceways, buildings, settling 

basins, etc.). When evaluating the cost 

of land for the revised analyses, EPA 

used land costs of $5,000/acre, which is 

twice the median value for land 

associated with aquaculture facilities 

surveyed in the U.S. (see DCN 63066). 

EPA used this conservative estimate 

because the only facilities that required 

structural improvements in the options 

evaluated were non-commercial 

facilities, for which land value estimates 

were not available. 

EPA considered several technologybased options to determine the technical 

and economic feasibility of requiring 

numeric TSS limits for in-scope CAAP 

facilities. EPA’s analysis of the detailed 

survey revealed that over 90% of the 

flow-through and recirculating system 

facilities currently had at least primary 

settling technologies in-place. EPA 

performed a cost analysis for the 

facilities without primary settling using 

the facility-specific configuration 

information provided in the detailed 

survey. EPA also evaluated facilities 

with primary settling in-place by 

comparing actual (i.e., DMR data) or 

estimated TSS effluent concentrations to 

the proposed limits. For those facilities 

not meeting the proposed TSS limits, 

EPA also evaluated the implementation 

of additional solids controls, including 

secondary solids polishing and feed 

management. 

For facilities with no solids control 

equipment, we estimated the costs for 

primary solids control. EPA evaluated 

each facility to identify the 

configuration of the existing treatment 

units and what upgrades would be 

required. 

EPA also used industry cost 

information provided through public 

comment and the detailed survey to 

estimate costs for design and 

installation of primary settling 

equipment for effective settling of 

suspended solids. For example, we used 

the facility-level data included in the 

detailed survey responses to place and 

size the off-line settling basins on the 

facility site. 

EPA classified each facility’s 

wastewater treatment system based on 

the description provided in its survey 

response and available monitoring data, 

including DMR data. We assumed that 

treatment technologies indicated by a 

facility on the detailed survey are 

properly sized, installed, and 

maintained. EPA estimated facilityspecific costs for each of the responding 

direct dischargers and used these 

estimates as the basis for national 

estimates. Because the survey did not 

collect information about many specific 

parameters used in individual facilities’

production processes and treatment 

systems, EPA supplemented the facilityspecific information with typical 

specifications or parameters from 

literature, survey results, and industry 

comments. For example, EPA assumed 

that facilities have pipes of typical sizes 

for their operations. 

As a consequence of such 

assumptions, a particular facility might 

need a different engineering 

configuration from those modeled if it 

installed equipment that varies from the 

equipment or specifications we used to 

estimate costs. EPA nonetheless 

considers that costs for these facilities 

are generally accurate and 

representative, especially industrywide. EPA applied typical specifications 

and parameters representative of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51903

industry to a range of processes and 

treatment systems. We contacted 

facilities to get site-specific 

configuration information where 

possible. 

In revising cost estimates, EPA paid 

particular attention to: 

1. Size of tanks, raceways, and culture 

units; 

2. Labor rates; 

3. Treatment components in place; 

4. BMPs and plans in place; 

5. Daily operations at the facility. 

Site visits and analysis of the detailed 

surveys indicated that raceways and 

quiescent zones are cleaned as 

necessary to maintain system process 

water quality. 

In evaluating facilities for the need to 

use additional solids controls, EPA first 

checked for evidence of a good feed 

management program. If the facility 

reported they practice feed 

management, EPA looked for evidence 

of solids management and good 

operation of the physical plant, 

including regular cleaning and 

maintenance of feed equipment and 

solids collection devices (e.g., quiescent 

zones, sedimentation basins, screens, 

etc.). To evaluate the effectiveness of a 

facility’s solids control practices, we 

calculated feed conversion ratios (FCRs) 

using pounds of feed per pound of live 

product (as reported in the detailed 

survey) and considered existing solids 

control equipment. We assumed 

facilities lacking evidence of good feed 

management or solids control programs 

would incur additional costs to improve 

or establish them.

EPA estimated FCRs from data in the 

detailed survey and follow-up with 

some facilities and compared FCRs for 

groups of facilities (i.e., combinations of 

ownership, species and production 

system types such as commercial trout 

flow-through facilities or government 

salmon flow-through facilities). We 

found a wide range of FCRs (reported by 

facilities in their detailed surveys, 

which were validated by call backs to 

the facility) among apparently similar 

facilities within ownership-speciesproduction system groupings. 

For example, we had good data for 24 

of 60 government trout producers using 

flow-through systems. They reported a 

range of FCRs of 0.79 to 1.80 with a 

median FCR of 1.30. If an individual 

facility’s reported FCR was significantly 

greater than the median, EPA further 

evaluated the facility to ascertain the 

reason for the higher FCR. Facilities that 

produce larger fish, such as broodstock, 

might have higher FCRs because the 

larger fish produce less flesh per unit of 

food. Facilities with fluctuating water 

temperatures could also be less efficient 

than facilities with constant water 

temperatures. We did not apply costs for 

solids control BMPs for facilities with 

reasonable explanations for the higher 

FCRs. We evaluated facilities that did 

not report FCRs or provide enough data 

for an estimate by using a randomly 

selected FCR, which is described in 

Chapter 10 of the Technical 

Development Document (DCN 63009). 

For those facilities that required 

additional solids controls, EPA 

evaluated both feed management and 

the installation of secondary solids 

polishing technologies. EPA received 

comments on the use of microscreen 

filters and EPA agrees with concerns 

raised in comments that the cost 

associated with enclosing the filter in a 

heated structure would be prohibitive. 

EPA found that the effective operation 

of microscreen filters requires that they 

be enclosed in heated buildings to 

prevent freezing when located in cold 

climates. EPA’s revised estimates of 

costs for secondary solids polishing are 

not based on the application of 

microscreen filters unless the detailed 

survey response indicated that such a 

structure existed at the site. When the 

detailed survey did not indicate a 

structure at the site, EPA estimated costs 

for a second stage settling structure 

rather than a microscreen filter. Based 

on data from two of EPA’s sampling 

episodes at CAAP facilities, this 

technology will achieve the proposed 

limits for TSS. 

We also considered the use of 

activated carbon filtration to treat 

effluent containing drug or pesticide 

active ingredients from wastewater, but 

rejected controls for these materials. 

Research indicates that this technology 

is effective at treating these compounds, 

and at least one aquatic animal 

production facility installed this 

technology for water quality reasons. 

EPA estimated the costs for activated 

carbon treatment as a stand-alone 

technology. We estimated costs on a 

site-specific basis for facilities which 

reported using drugs and then added 

these costs for the different regulatory 

options considered to assess the 

economic achievability of this 

technology. A detailed discussion of 

how EPA estimated costs is available 

from the public record (DCN 62451). 

EPA considers these costs to be 

economically unachievable or not 

affordable on a national scale. However, 

EPA is aware of at least one facility 

currently using this technology, and 

notes that it is an effective technology 

for removing drug compounds from 

wastewater. 

EPA estimated the costs to develop 

and implement escape management 

practices at facilities where (1) the 

cultured species was not commonly 

produced or regarded as native in the 

State, (2) the facility was a direct 

discharger, and (3) the species was 

expected to survive if released. (In 

contrast, producers of a warm water 

species in a cold climate, such as tilapia 

producers in Minnesota or Idaho, would 

not incur costs for this practice.) Costs 

for escape prevention include staff time 

for production unit and discharge point 

inspections and maintenance of escape 

prevention devices. We applied these 

costs to facilities that installed 

equipment conforming with State 

requirements for facilities producing 

non-native species (identified by the 

State). Management time includes 

quarterly production unit and discharge 

point inspections, eight hours a year to 

review applicable State and Federal 

regulations, and quarterly staff 

consultations. 

F. Economic Impacts 

There are a number of changes made 

to the costing and economic impact 

methods used for the final rule. EPA 

used data from the detailed survey to 

project economic impacts for the final 

rule, in contrast to the screener data and 

frequency factors used for the proposed 

rule. For existing commercial 

operations, EPA assessed the number of 

business closures among regulated 

enterprises, facilities, and companies by 

applying market forecasts and using a 

closure methodology that compares 

projected earnings with and without 

incremental compliance costs for the 

period 2005 to 2015. Other additional 

analyses include an analysis of 

moderate impacts by comparing annual 

compliance costs to sales, an evaluation 

of financial health using a modified U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s fourcategory (2 × 2) matrix approach, and an 

assessment of possible impacts on 

borrowing capacity. For new 

commercial operations, EPA evaluates 

whether the regulatory costs will result 

in a barrier to entry among new 

businesses. For noncommercial 

operations, EPA evaluated impacts 

using a budget test that compares 

incurred compliance costs to facility 

operating budgets. Additional analyses 

investigate whether a facility could 

recoup increased compliance costs 

through user fees and estimated the 

associated increase. 

For today’s final regulation, EPA 

modified its forecasting models to 

include certain data for recent years that 

became available after the Agency 

published its NODA (see 68 FR 75068–

75105). This and other details about 

how EPA developed its economic 

51904 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

impact methodologies is presented in 

this preamble and in the Economic and 

Environmental Benefit Analysis of the 

Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

and Standards for the Concentrated 

Aquatic Animal Production Industry 

(‘‘Economic and Environmental Benefit 

Analysis’’), available in the rulemaking 

record. 

G. Loadings 

To estimate the baseline discharge 

loadings and load reductions for the 

proposed rule, EPA used the same 

model facility approach as used to 

estimate the compliance costs. Briefly, 

EPA first estimated pollutant loadings 

for untreated wastewater based on 

several factors for each model facility. 

As previously noted, feed used at CAAP 

facilities contributes to pollutant 

discharges in three ways: By-product 

feces, dissolved ammonia excretions, 

and uneaten feed (in dissolved and 

particulate forms). These byproducts of 

feed contribute to the pollutant load in 

the untreated culture water. EPA then 

used typical efficiency rates of removing 

specific pollutants from water to 

estimate load reductions for the 

treatment options and BMPs. EPA 

estimated frequency factors for 

treatment technologies and existing 

BMPs based on screener survey 

responses, site visits, and sampling 

visits. The occurrence frequency of 

practices or technologies was used to 

estimate the portion of the operations 

that would incur costs. Using the same 

frequency factors for technologies in 

place that were used to estimate costs, 

EPA estimated the baseline pollutant 

loads discharged, then calculated load 

reductions for the options.

As described in the NODA, EPA 

revised the loadings approach to 

incorporate facility-level information 

using data primarily from the detailed 

surveys. EPA also incorporated 

information included in comments 

concerning appropriate feed conversion 

ratios (FCRs). 

EPA based its estimates of pollutant 

loads on the reported feed inputs 

included in the detailed surveys. EPA 

used the annual feed input and feed-topollutant conversion factors described 

in the TDD and DCN 63026 to calculate 

raw pollutant loads. EPA then analyzed 

each facility’s detailed survey response 

to determine the treatment-in-place at 

the facility. Using published literature 

values to determine the pollutant 

removal efficiencies for the types of 

wastewater treatment systems used at 

CAAP facilities, EPA calculated a 

baseline pollutant load discharged from 

each surveyed facility. EPA used these 

pollutant removal efficiencies and raw 

pollutant loads to estimate the baseline 

loads. EPA validated the baseline load 

estimates with effluent monitoring data 

(DCN 63061). 

For today’s regulation, EPA evaluated 

secondary solids removal technologies 

and feed management. EPA assessed 

whether improved feed management in 

addition to primary solids settling might 

be as effective at reducing solids in the 

effluent as secondary settling. EPA 

found that feed management was the 

lower cost option compared to 

secondary solids removal technology. 

(As discussed in more detail below at 

VIII.B., EPA has now concluded that a 

rigorous feed management program 

alone will achieve significant reductions 

in solids at CAAP facilities.) 

Pollutant removals associated with 

feed management result from more 

efficient feed use and less wasted feed. 

For its evaluation, EPA used feed 

conversion rates as a surrogate for 

estimating potential load reductions 

resulting from feed management 

activities. Note, EPA used FCR values as 

a means to estimate potential load 

reductions, not as a target to set absolute 

FCR limits for a facility or industry 

segment. 

Based on the information in the 

detailed surveys, EPA calculated FCRs 

for 69 flow-through and recirculating 

system facilities. EPA validated the 

feeding, production and estimated FCRs 

by contacting each facility. For those 

facilities that were not able to supply 

accurate feed and/or production 

information, to enable EPA to estimate 

a FCR, EPA randomly assigned a FCR. 

EPA attempted to capture and account 

for as much of the variation as possible 

when analyzing FCRs and in the 

random assignment process. For 

example, the production system, 

species, and system ownership (which 

are all known from the detailed surveys) 

were expected to influence feeding 

practices, so facilities were grouped 

according to these parameters. EPA 

included ownership as a grouping 

variable to account for some of the 

variation in production goals. Most 

commercial facilities that were 

evaluated are producing food-sized fish 

and generally are trying to maintain 

constant production levels at the 

facility; commercial facilities would 

tend to target maximum weight gain 

over a low FCR in determining their 

optimal feeding strategy. Noncommercial facilities are generally 

government facilities that are producing 

for stock enhancement purposes. 

Production goals are driven by the 

desire to produce a target size (length 

and weight) at a certain time of year for 

release. Non-commercial facility feeding 

goals may not place as great an 

emphasis on maximum growth. 

However, EPA expects that all facilities, 

regardless of production goals, can 

achieve substantial reductions in 

pollutant discharges over uncontrolled 

levels by designing and implementing 

an optimal feed input management 

strategy, including appropriate 

recordkeeping and documentation of 

FCRs. 

The process for the random 

assignment of FCRs to facilities with 

incomplete information included: 

• EPA grouped facilities by 

ownership, species, and production 

• FCRs were estimated for each 

facility with sufficient data within a 

group 

• The distributions of grouped data 

were examined for possible outliers, 

which were defined as FCRs less than 

0.75 or greater than 3.0. When extreme 

values were found and validated, they 

were removed from the grouping. 

Although these extremes may be 

possible and a function of production 

goals, water temperature, etc., EPA was 

not able to validate and model all of the 

factors contributing to the extreme FCR 

rates. Facilities excluded because of 

extreme values were not assigned a 

random FCR, but were found to have a 

documented reason for the extreme 

value. For example, one facility 

produced broodstock for stock 

enhancement purposes. Some extreme 

values were updated based on 

validating information from the facility, 

and the updates were found to be within 

the range used for analysis. 

• After removing outliers, the first 

and third quartiles were calculated for 

each grouping. The first quartile of a 

group of values is the value such that 

25% of the values fall at or below this 

value. The third quartile of a group of 

values is the value such that 75% of the 

values fall at or below this value. 

• For each grouping, the target FCR 

was assumed to be the first quartile 

value.

• For the facilities with no FCR 

information, a random FCR between the 

first and third quartiles was assigned. 

• To account for variation in FCRs 

based on factors such as water 

temperature, EPA only costed additional 

feed management practices at a facility 

when the reported or randomly assigned 

FCR was within the upper 25% of the 

inter-quartile range. This was 

considered to be an indication of 

potential improvement in feed 

management. 

• For some combinations of 

ownership, species, and production, 

there was not sufficient data to do the 

quartile analysis. In these cases, data 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51905

from a similar grouping of ownership, 

species, and production was used. 

If a facility’s FCR was in the upper 

25% of the inter-quartile range or did 

not currently have secondary settling 

technologies in place, EPA assumed the 

facility would need to improve feed 

management practices. The 

improvement in feed management 

practices would result in increased costs 

due to increased observations and 

recordkeeping and in pollutant load 

reductions resulting from less wasted 

feed. 

The approach for estimating the 

loadings for the final rule has not 

changed significantly from the approach 

taken in the NODA. In estimating the 

loadings and removals for the final rule, 

EPA considered incidental removals or 

removals gained from the control of 

solids through narrative limitations. As 

part of the loadings analysis, EPA 

considered incidental removals of 

metals, PCBs and one drug, 

oxytetracycline. 

Metals may be present in CAAP 

effluents from a variety of sources. Some 

metals are present in feed (as federally 

approved feed additives), occur in 

sanitation products, or may result from 

deterioration of CAAP machinery and 

equipment. EPA has observed that many 

of the treatment measures used in the 

CAAP industry provide substantial 

reductions of most metals. The metals 

present are generally readily adsorbed to 

solids and can be adequately controlled 

by controlling solids. 

Most of the metals appear to be 

originating from the feed ingredients. 

Trace amounts of metals at federally 

approved concentrations are added to 

feed in the form of mineral packs to 

ensure that the essential dietary 

nutrients are provided for the cultured 

aquatic animals. Examples of metals 

added as feed supplements include 

copper, zinc, manganese, and iron 

(Snowden, 2003). 

EPA estimated metals load reductions 

from facilities that are subject to the 

final rule (see DCN 63011). The metals 

for which load reductions are analyzed 

are those which were present above the 

detection levels in the wastewater 

samples collected from CAAP facilities 

during EPA’s sampling for this 

rulemaking. EPA used the net 

concentrations of the metal in the 

wastewater to estimate these loads. EPA 

estimated these load reductions as a 

function of TSS loads using data 

obtained from the four sampling 

episodes. For this analysis, EPA first 

assumed that non-detected samples had 

the concentration of half the detection 

limit. From the sampling data, EPA 

calculated net TSS and metals 

concentrations at different points in the 

facilities. EPA then calculated metal to 

TSS ratios (in mg of metal per kg of 

TSS) based on the calculated net 

concentrations. EPA removed negative 

and zero ratios from the samples. 

Finally, basic sample distribution 

statistics were calculated to derive the 

relationship between TSS and each 

metal. 

EPA calculated estimated load 

reductions of PCBs from regulated 

facilities as a percentage of TSS load 

reductions. Since the main source of 

PCBs at CAAP facilities is through fish 

feed, a conversion factor was calculated 

to estimate the amount of PCBs 

discharged per pound of TSS. EPA 

assumed that 90% of the feed was eaten, 

and that 90% of the feed eaten would 

be assimilated by the fish. By combining 

the amount of food materials excreted 

by fish (10% of feed consumed) with the 

10% of food uneaten, EPA was able to 

partition the PCBs among fish flesh and 

aqueous and solid fractions. Due to a 

lack of sampling data, EPA used a 

maximum level of 2μg/g, the FDA limit 

on PCB concentrations in fish feed, to 

estimate the maximum amount of PCBs 

that could possibly be in the TSS. This 

maximum possible discharge load in the 

TSS was estimated to be 21% of the 

PCBs in the feed. EPA considers this 

estimate to provide an upper bound on 

the amount of PCBs discharged from 

CAAP facilities, and the amount 

potentially removed by the rule. Even 

so, the estimates are quite low (0.52 

pounds of PCBs discharged in the 

baseline). CAAP facilities are not a 

significant source of PCB discharges to 

waters of the U.S. (see DCN 63011). 

EPA estimated the pollutant load of 

oxytetracycline discharged from inscope CAAP facilities using data from 

EPA’s detailed survey of the CAAP 

Industry. EPA first determined facility 

specific amounts of oxytetracycline 

used by each CAAP facility. For those 

facilities that reported using medicated 

feed containing oxytetracycline, EPA 

evaluated their responses to the detailed 

survey to determine the amount, by 

weight, of medicated feed containing 

oxytetracycline and the concentration of 

the drug in the feed. EPA then estimated 

the amount of oxytetracycline that was 

reduced at facilities in which feed 

management practices were applied in 

the cost and loadings analyses. The 

facility level estimates were then 

multiplied by the appropriate weighting 

factors and summed across all facilities 

to determine the national estimate of 

pounds of oxytetracycline reduced from 

discharges as a result of the regulation.

As part of a sampling episode, EPA 

also performed a preliminary study to 

develop a method to measure 

oxytetracycline in effluent from CAAP 

facilities. EPA took samples to analyze 

the effluent from a CAAP facility that 

produces trout during a time period in 

which oxytetracycline, in medicated 

feed, was being used to treat a bacterial 

infection in some of the animals at the 

facility. Results of the study indicate 

that oxytetracycline can be stabilized in 

samples when preserved with 

phosphoric acid and maintained below 

4 °C prior to analysis. The method 

found levels of oxytetracycline to range 

from <0.2 μg/L (which was the method 

detection limit) in the supply and 

hatchery effluent to 110 μg/L in the 

influent to the offline settling basin. The 

level detected in the combined raceway 

effluent was 0.95 μg/L. See the analysis 

report (DCN 63011) for additional 

information. 

H. Environmental Assessment and 

Benefits Analysis 

EPA’s environmental assessment and 

benefits analysis for the proposed rule 

consisted of two efforts. First, EPA 

reviewed and summarized literature it 

had obtained regarding environmental 

impacts of the aquaculture industry, 

focusing particularly on segments of the 

industry in the scope of the proposed 

rule. Second, EPA used estimates of 

pollutant loading reductions associated 

with the proposed requirements to 

assess improvements to water quality 

that might arise from the proposed 

requirements, and monetized benefits 

from these water quality improvements. 

EPA’s approach to the environmental 

assessment and benefits analysis for the 

final rule is similar to the approach for 

the proposed rule, except that EPA has 

incorporated new data, information, and 

methods that were not available at the 

time of proposal, particularly those 

sources described in Section V of this 

Preamble. For example, literature, 

discussions, and data submitted by 

stakeholders both through the public 

comment process on the proposed rule 

as well as at other forums were 

considered. EPA also used facilityspecific data provided by or developed 

from the detailed survey responses. EPA 

has updated and revised its summary of 

material relating to environmental 

impacts of CAAP facilities in Chapter 7 

of the Economic and Environmental 

Benefit Analysis for today’s final rule 

(DCN 63010). EPA’s revised benefits 

analysis are described in both Section X 

of this Preamble as well as in Chapter 

8 of the Economic and Environmental 

Impact Analysis (DCN 63010). 

51906 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

VII. Who Is Subject to This Rule? 

This section discusses the scope of 

the final rule and explains what 

wastewaters are subject to the final 

limitations and standards. 

A. Who Is Subject to This Rule? 

Today’s rule applies to commercial 

(for-profit) and non-commercial 

(generally, publicly-owned) facilities 

that produce, hold or contain 100,000 

pounds or more of aquatic animals per 

year. Any 12 month period would be 

considered a year for the purposes of 

establishing coverage under this rule. 

While facilities producing fewer than 

100,000 pounds of aquatic animals per 

year are not subject to this rule, in 

specific circumstances they may require 

NPDES permits that include limitations 

developed on a BPJ basis. An aquatic 

animal production facility producing 

fewer than 100,000 pounds of aquatic 

animals per year will be subject to the 

NPDES permit program if it is a CAAP 

as defined in 40 CFR 122.24. As 

explained in the proposed rule, EPA 

limited the scope of the regulation it 

was considering to facilities that are 

CAAPs above this production threshold.

The Agency concluded that facilities 

below the threshold would likely 

experience significant adverse economic 

impacts if required to comply with the 

proposed limitations. EPA concluded 

that these smaller CAAP facilities would 

have compliance costs in excess of 3 

percent of revenues. Further, smaller 

CAAP facilities account for a smaller 

relative percentage of total CAAP TSS 

discharges and only limited removals 

would be obtained from the proposed 

BPT/BCT/BAT control. 67 FR 57872, 

57884. Other types of facilities also not 

covered by today’s action include closed 

pond systems (most of which do not 

meet the regulatory definition of a 

CAAP facility), molluscan shellfish 

operations, including nurseries, 

crawfish production, alligator 

production, and aquaria and net pens 

rearing native species released after a 

growing period of no longer than 4 

months to supplement commercial and 

sport fisheries. This last exclusion 

applies primarily to Alaskan non-profit 

facilities which raise native salmon for 

release into the wild in flow-through 

systems and then hold them for a short 

time in net pens preceding their release. 

The flow-through portions of these 

facilities are within the scope of the 

rule, if they produce 100,000 pounds or 

more per year, but the net pen portions 

would be excluded from regulation. 

EPA determined for the types of 

excluded systems or production 

operations listed above either that they 

generate minimal pollutant discharges 

in the baseline or that available 

pollutant control technologies will 

reduce pollutant loadings from these 

operations by only minimal amounts. 

For further explanation, see the 

proposal at 67 FR 57572, 57885–86. 

Facilities that indirectly discharge 

their process wastewater (i.e., facilities 

that discharge to POTWs) are also not 

subject to today’s rule. EPA did not 

propose and is not establishing 

pretreatment standards for existing or 

new indirect sources. As explained 

above, the bulk of pollutant discharges 

from CAAP facilities consists of TSS 

and BOD. POTWs are designed to treat 

these conventional pollutants. 

Moreover, CAAP facilities discharge 

nutrients in concentrations lower in 

full-flow discharges, and similar in offline settling basin discharges, to 

nutrient concentrations found in human 

wastes discharged to POTWs. EPA has 

concluded that the POTW removals of 

TSS would achieve equivalent nutrient 

removals to those obtained by the 

options considered for this rulemaking 

for direct dischargers. EPA, therefore, 

concluded that there would be no pass 

through of TSS or nutrients needing 

regulation. Indirect discharging facilities 

are still subject to the General 

Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) 

and any applicable local limitations. 

EPA has also determined that there are 

few indirect dischargers in this 

industry. 

B. What If a Facility Uses More Than 

One Production System? 

EPA has found that several detailed 

survey respondents are operating more 

than one type of production system. A 

facility is subject to the rule if the total 

production from any of the regulated 

production systems meets the 

production threshold. The facility 

would need to demonstrate compliance 

with the management practices required 

for each of the regulated production 

systems it is operating. 

C. What Wastewater Discharges Are 

Covered? 

This rule covers wastewaters 

generated by the following operations/

processes: Effluent from flow-through, 

recirculating and net pen facilities. The 

flow-through and recirculating 

subcategory (Subpart A) applies to 

wastewaters discharged from these 

systems. 

The type of production system 

determines the nature, quantity, and 

quality of effluents from CAAP 

facilities. Flow-through systems 

commonly use raceways or tanks and 

are characterized by continual flows of 

relatively large volumes of water into 

and out of the rearing units. Some flowthrough systems discharge a single, 

combined effluent stream with large 

water volumes and dilute pollutant 

concentrations. Other flow-through 

systems have two or more discharge 

streams, with the process water in 

which the fish are raised as the primary 

discharge. This discharge, referred to as 

raceway effluent or bulk flow, is 

characterized by a large water volume 

and dilute pollutant concentrations. The 

secondary discharges from flow-through 

systems with multiple discharges result 

typically from some form of solids 

settling through an off-line settling basin 

(OLSB) or other solids removal devices. 

The discharges from off-line settling 

basins or solids removal devices have 

low water volumes and more 

concentrated pollutants. The 

supernatant from the OLSB may be 

discharged through a separate outfall or 

may be recombined prior to discharge 

with the raceway effluent. 

Recirculating systems may also have 

two waste streams: Overtopping 

wastewater and filter backwash. 

Overtopping is a continuous blowdown 

from the production system to avoid the 

buildup of dissolved solids in the 

production system, and filter backwash 

is generated by cleaning the filter used 

to treat the water that is being 

recirculated back to the production 

system. Overtopping wastewater is 

usually small in volume (a fraction of 

the total system volume on a daily basis) 

and has higher TSS concentrations than 

a full flow discharge. Filter backwash 

wastewater is typically low in volume 

and is as concentrated as wastewater 

from similar devices at flow-through 

systems. 

Net pen systems are located in open 

waters and thus are characterized by the 

flow and characteristics of the 

surrounding water body and by the 

addition of raw materials to the pens 

including feed, drugs and the excretions 

from the confined aquatic animals.

VIII. What Are the Requirements of the 

Final Regulation and the Basis for 

These Requirements? 

This section describes, by 

subcategory, the options EPA 

considered and selected as a basis for 

today’s rule. For each subcategory, EPA 

provides a discussion, as applicable, for 

the options considered for each of the 

regulatory levels identified in the CWA 

(i.e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS). For a 

detailed discussion of all technology 

options considered in the development 

of today’s final rule, see the proposal 

(see 67 FR 57872), the NODA (see 68 FR 

75068) or Chapter 9 of the Technical 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51907

Development (TDD) for today’s final 

rule. 

Based on the information in the 

record for the final CAAP rule, EPA has 

determined that the selected technology 

for the flow-through and recirculating 

systems subcategory and the net pens 

subcategory are technically available. 

EPA has also determined that the 

technology it selected as the basis for 

the final limitations or standards has 

effluent reductions commensurate with 

compliance costs and is economically 

achievable for the applicable 

subcategory. EPA also considered the 

age, size, processes, and other 

engineering factors pertinent to facilities 

in the scope of the final regulation for 

the purpose of evaluating the 

technology options. None of these 

factors provides a basis for selecting 

different technologies from those EPA 

has selected as its technology options 

for today’s rule (see Chapter 5 of the 

TDD for the final rule for further 

discussion of EPA’s analyses of these 

factors). 

As previously explained, EPA 

adopted a production threshold cutoff 

as the principal means of reducing 

economic impacts on small businesses 

and administrative burden for control 

authorities associated with the 

treatment technologies it considered. 

EPA notes that certain direct dischargers 

that are not subject to today’s effluent 

limitations or standards will still require 

a NPDES discharge permit developed on 

a case-by-case basis if they are CAAPs 

as defined in 40 CFR 122.24. 

The new source performance 

standards (NSPS) EPA is today 

establishing represent the greatest 

degree of effluent reduction achievable 

through the best available demonstrated 

control technology. In selecting its 

technology basis for today’s new source 

performance standards (NSPS), EPA 

considered all of the factors specified in 

CWA section 306, including the cost of 

achieving effluent reductions. EPA used 

the appropriate technology option for 

developing today’s standards for new 

direct dischargers. The new source 

technology basis for both subcategories 

is equivalent to the technology bases 

upon which EPA is setting BPT/BCT/

BAT (see Chapter 9 of the EEBA). EPA 

has thoroughly reviewed the costs of 

such technologies and has concluded 

that such costs do not present a barrier 

to entry. The Agency also considered 

energy requirements and other nonwater quality environmental impacts for 

the new source technology basis and 

found no basis for any different 

standards from those selected for NSPS. 

Therefore, EPA concluded that the 

NSPS technology basis chosen for both 

subcategories constitute the best 

available demonstrated control 

technology. For a discussion on the 

compliance date for new sources, see

section I.E. of today’s final rule. 

A. What Technology Options Did EPA 

Consider for the Final Rule? 

Among the options EPA considered 

for the final rule for flow-through and 

recirculating systems in addition to the 

options presented in the proposed rule 

were (i) establishing no national effluent 

limitations (ii) establishing limitations 

and BMPs based on technology options 

A and B, and (iii) establishing narrative 

limitations based on BMPs only. Based 

on analysis presented in the NODA, 

EPA focused it analysis on these latter 

three options. For net pens, EPA 

considered three options: no national 

requirements, requirements equivalent 

to those proposed but for new sources 

only, and essentially the same 

requirements for existing and new 

sources as those in the proposed rule. 

B. What Are the Requirements for the 

Flow-Through and Recirculating 

Systems Subcategory? 

The following discussion explains the 

BPT/BCT/BAT limitations and NSPS 

EPA is promulgating for flow-through 

and recirculating system facilities. 

1. BPT 

After considering the technology 

options described in the previous 

section and the factors specified in 

section 304(b)(1)(B) of the CWA, EPA is 

establishing nationally applicable 

effluent limitations guidelines for flowthrough and recirculating system CAAP 

facilities producing 100,000 pounds or 

more of aquatic animals per year for the 

reasons noted above at VIII.A. 

EPA based the final requirements on 

production and operational controls that 

include a rigorously implemented feed 

management program. Programs of 

production and operational controls that 

include feed management systems, 

proper storage of material and adequate 

solids controls, and proper operation 

and maintenance are in wide use at 

existing flow-through and recirculating 

system facilities. Based on the detailed 

survey results, EPA estimates that such 

programs are currently used at 61 flowthrough and recirculating facilities out 

of 242 total facilities. The costs of 

effluent removals associated with the 

evaluated practices are reasonable. The 

cost per pound of pollutant removed is 

$2.77 as measured using the higher of 

the removals for either BOD or TSS at 

each facility. (The removals for these 

parameters are not summed because of 

possible overlap and double counting.) 

Based on its review of the data and 

information it obtained during this 

rulemaking, EPA has concluded that the 

key element in achieving effective 

pollution control at CAAP facilities is a 

well-operated program to manage 

feeding, in addition to good solids 

management. Feed is the primary source 

of TSS (and associated pollutants) in 

CAAP systems, and feed management 

plans are the principal tool for 

minimizing accumulation of uneaten 

feed in CAAP wastewater. Excess feed 

in the production system increases the 

oxygen demand of the culture water and 

increases solids loadings. In addition, 

solids from the excess feed usually 

settle and are naturally processed with 

the feces from the fish. Excess feed and 

feces accumulate in the bottom of flowthrough and recirculating systems or 

below net pens. Ensuring that the 

aquatic animal species being raised 

receive the quantity of feed necessary 

for proper growth without overfeeding, 

and the resulting accumulation of 

uneaten feed, is a challenging task. 

Achieving the optimal feed input 

requires properly designing a sitespecific feeding regimen that considers 

production goals, species, rearing unit 

water quality and other relevant factors. 

It also requires careful observation of 

actual feeding behavior, good record 

keeping, and on-going reassessment. 

After full examination of the data 

supporting EPA’s model technology, 

EPA has decided not to establish 

numerical TSS limitations. While the 

model technology will effectively 

remove solids to a very low level, EPA’s 

data show wide variability, both 

temporally and across facilities, in the 

actual TSS levels achieved. EPA thus 

does not have a record basis for 

establishing numeric TSS limitations 

derived from its data set that are 

appropriate for all sites under all 

conditions. EPA believes that 

establishing a uniform numeric TSS 

limitation would result in requirements 

that are too stringent at some sites and 

not stringent enough at others. This is 

because feed management, while an 

effective pollution reduction technology 

for this industry, is not amenable to the 

same level of engineering process 

control as traditional treatment 

technologies used in other effluent 

guidelines. The basis for this conclusion 

is further explained below.

Clean Water Act sections 301(b)(1)(A) 

and 301(b)(2) require point sources to 

achieve effluent limitations that require 

the application of the BPT/BCT/BAT 

selected by the Administrator under 

section 304(b). Customarily, EPA 

implements this requirement through 

the establishment of numeric effluent 

51908 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

limitations calculated to reflect the 

levels of pollutant removals that 

facilities employing those technologies 

can consistently achieve. EPA 

traditionally uses a combination of 

sampling data and data reported in 

discharge monitoring reports from welloperated systems employing the model 

technology to calculate numeric effluent 

limitations. 

In the proposed rule and the NODA, 

EPA used a similar approach to 

calculate numeric effluent limitations 

for TSS from a partial data set composed 

of well operated CAAP facilities 

employing a combination of wastewater 

treatment and management practices to 

reduce TSS concentrations in the 

discharged effluent. To reduce TSS 

discharge levels, the facilities examined 

by EPA used settling ponds and a 

number of different techniques, 

including feed management programs 

and periodic solids removal from both 

the culture water and settling ponds. 

EPA’s examination of well-operated 

facilities also identified several facilities 

using feed management and other 

operational and management controls 

alone that were achieving the same low 

levels of TSS discharge as facilities 

using settling ponds in combination 

with good feed management. 

Based on EPA’s examination of the 

data in its record, the Agency has 

concluded that a combination of settling 

technology and feed management 

control practices or rigorous feed 

management control and proper solids 

handling practices alone will achieve 

low levels of TSS. Operational measures 

like a feed management system, 

however, are not technologies that 

reflect the same degree of predictability 

as can be expected from wastewater 

treatment technology based on chemical 

or other physical treatment. While EPA 

is confident that its chosen technology 

can consistently achieve BPT treatment 

levels of solids removal, the Agency 

recognizes that feed management 

systems may not have the precision or 

consistently predictable performance 

from site to site that come with the 

traditional wastewater treatment 

technologies. The record confirms that 

there is variability in results associated 

with the use of feed management 

systems and other operational measures 

to control solids. Thus, EPA determined 

that it should not establish specific 

numeric TSS limitations based on the 

model technology. This conclusion is 

supported by a number of commenters 

who maintained that consistently 

achieving the proposed TSS levels 

would require installation of additional 

settling treatment structures, with little 

additional environmental benefit. 

EPA’s decision not to set uniform 

numeric TSS limitations based on 

rigorous feed management and good 

solids management is further supported 

by its analysis of measured or predicted 

TSS concentrations at facilities 

employing this technology. EPA’s 

effluent monitoring data show 

differences in the measured TSS 

concentration in discharges at facilities 

employing feed management programs 

from the predicted TSS concentration 

levels derived using EPA’s calculation 

from the data on feed used at BPT/BAT 

facilities. For this comparison, EPA 

calculated a TSS concentration that 

could be achieved through feed 

management plans using the data on 

feed and fish production at surveyed 

facilities. EPA then compared these 

concentrations, where available, with 

the actual TSS levels reported by those 

facilities in their discharge monitoring 

reports. The differences between the 

calculated TSS levels and reported 

levels may result from differences in 

application of feed management 

practices, variation in the flows or 

dilution of the effluent. 

EPA recognizes that it would be 

feasible to calculate numeric effluent 

limitations for TSS based on treatment 

technologies alone, i.e., eliminating best 

management practices from the 

technology basis for today’s rule. EPA 

did not employ this approach for three 

reasons. First, EPA has determined that 

primary treatment in the form of 

quiescent zones in the culture water 

tanks and settling ponds by themselves 

are not the best technology available for 

treating TSS. Instead, rigorous feed 

management in conjunction with good 

solids handling practices constitutes a 

better technology for controlling this 

pollutant. Second, EPA is concerned 

that establishing numeric limitations for 

TSS based on primary and secondary 

settling may not be a practicable 

technology. Commenters pointed out 

that site and land availability 

constraints might limit their ability to 

install the additional treatment needed 

to achieve TSS limitations. Third, EPA 

believes based on its analysis of the 

data, that comparable discharge levels 

can be achieved using feed management 

and other management practices alone 

as can be achieved using these practices 

in combination with settling 

technologies. Thus, while settling 

technology may be amenable to more 

precise control, EPA believes that the 

overall environmental benefits of this 

technology relative to rigorous feed and 

solids handling management alone are 

negligible. 

EPA is further concerned that 

establishing a numeric limit for TSS 

could provide an incentive for facilities 

to achieve the limit through dilution 

and would not reduce the pollutant 

loads discharged to receiving streams. 

While dilution is generally prohibited as 

a means of achieving effluent 

limitations, this prohibition is harder to 

enforce at CAAP facilities than in most 

other systems because the flow of 

culture water is dependent on a wide 

range of factors and is highly variable 

from one facility to another. Thus it 

would be impossible for regulatory 

authorities to determine if water use 

was being manipulated to dilute TSS 

concentration. Due to variations in 

water use from facility to facility, EPA 

also decided not to establish mass-based 

numeric TSS limitations on a national 

basis. Solids control operational 

measures such as feed management and 

the requirement to focus on the proper 

operation of existing solids control 

structures are expected to achieve 

reductions in the TSS concentrations 

and at the same time reduce the TSS 

loadings being discharged. This 

approach is supported by DMR data 

from facilities in Idaho which have had 

to comply with feed management BMP 

requirements in their general permit. 

This data demonstrates that improved 

performance can be achieved through 

BMPs (DCN 63012). A comparison of 

DMR data from Idaho prior to the 

issuance of a general permit in calendar 

year 1999 with data following 

compliance with the general permit 

indicates that 64 percent of the facilities 

have reduced the TSS loads discharged 

from the facility with an average TSS 

reduction of 75 percent.

For these reasons, EPA has expressed 

effluent limitations in this rule in the 

form of narrative standards, rather than 

as numeric values. EPA has a legal 

authority to do so. The CWA defines 

‘‘effluent limitation’’ broadly, and EPA’s 

regulations reflect this as well. Each 

provides that an effluent limitation is 

‘‘any restriction’’ imposed by the 

permitting authority on quantities, 

discharge rates and concentrations of a 

pollutant discharged into a water of the 

United States. CWA section 502(11) 

(emphasis supplied); 40 CFR 122.2 

(emphasis supplied). Neither definition 

requires an effluent limitation to be 

expressed as a numeric limit. The DC 

Circuit observed, ‘‘Section 502(11) 

defines ‘effluent limitation’ as ‘any

restriction’ on the amounts of 

pollutants, not just a numerical 

restriction.’’ NRDC v. EPA, 673 F.2d 

400, 403 (DC Cir.) (emphasis in 

original), cert. denied sub nom. 

Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 459 U.S. 

879 (1982). In short, the definition of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51909

‘‘effluent limitation’’ is not limited to a 

single type of restriction, but rather 

contemplates a range of restrictions that 

may be used as appropriate. EPA has 

concluded that it is appropriate to 

express today’s BPT/BCT/BAT 

limitations in non-numeric form. These 

narrative limitations reflect a technology 

demonstrated to achieve effective solids 

removals while still giving facilities 

flexibility in determining how to meet 

them. 

Today’s BPT regulation requires 

CAAP facilities to comply with 

specified operational and management 

requirements—best management 

practices (BMPs)—that will minimize 

the generation and discharge of solids 

from the facility. These requirements are 

non-numeric effluent limitations based 

on the technologies EPA has determined 

are BPT. 

The final regulation requires adoption 

of specified solids control practices. 

See, e.g., § 451.11(a) and § 451.21(a). 

Thus, to control the discharge of solids 

from flow-through and recirculating 

system facilities, the final rule requires 

minimizing the discharge of uneaten 

feed through a feed management 

program. See § 451.11(a) of this rule. 

Complying with this limitation will 

require a CAAP facility to identify 

feeding practices which optimize the 

addition of feed to achieve production 

goals while minimizing the amount of 

uneaten feed leaving the rearing unit. 

Such a program should include 

practices such as periodic calibration of 

automatic feeders, visual observation of 

feeding activity and discontinuation of 

feeding when the animals stop eating. 

The rule also requires that CAAPs 

maintain records of feed inputs and 

estimates of the numbers and weight of 

aquatic animals in order to calculate 

representative feed conversion ratios. 

See § 451.11(a)(1) of this rule. 

Development of feed conversion ratios 

is a key component in a properly 

functioning feed management system 

because it allows the facility to calibrate 

more accurately the feeding needs of the 

species being raised. This, in turn, will 

result in further improvement in control 

of solids at the operation. 

In addition to feed management, EPA 

also requires flow-through and 

recirculating system facilities to identify 

and implement procedures for routine 

cleaning. See § 451.11(a)(2). This will 

ensure that CAAP facilities develop 

practices to minimize the build-up and 

subsequent discharge of solids from the 

rearing units. The facility must also 

identify procedures with respect to 

harvesting, inventorying and grading of 

fish so as to minimize disturbance and 

discharge of solids from the facility 

during these activities. 

The final rule also provides that 

facilities must remove dead fish and fish 

carcasses from the production system on 

a regular basis and dispose of them to 

avoid the discharge to waters of the U.S. 

§ 451.11(a)(3). EPA is establishing an 

exception to this requirement when the 

permit writer authorizes a discharge to 

benefit the aquatic environment. The 

following example explains one 

circumstance in which a permit writer 

could authorize such a discharge. There 

are a number of federal, state, and tribal 

hatcheries that are raising fish for 

stocking or mitigation purposes. In some 

cases, these facilities have been 

approved to discharge fish carcasses 

along with the live fish that are being 

stocked. In these situations, the 

carcasses are serving as a source of 

nutrients and food to the fish being 

stocked in these waters. The exception 

would apply in these circumstances if 

the permitting authority determines that 

the addition of fish carcasses to surface 

water will improve water quality. 

Facilities must also implement 

measures that address material storage 

and structural maintenance. In the case 

of material storage, EPA is requiring 

facilities to identify and develop 

practices to prevent inadvertent spillage 

of drugs, pesticides, and feed from the 

facility. § 451.11 (b). This would include 

proper storage of these materials. EPA is 

also requiring facilities to identify 

proper procedures for cleaning, 

containing and disposing of any spilled 

material. EPA’s assessment, based on 

site visits and sampling visits, indicates 

that facilities may have varying degrees 

of spill prevention procedures and 

containment and structural maintenance 

practices to address these requirements. 

The final rule also includes a 

requirement that facilities inspect and 

provide regular maintenance of the 

production system and the wastewater 

treatment system to ensure that they are 

properly functioning. § 451.11(c). One 

area of concern addressed by this 

requirement is the potential 

accumulation of solids (especially large 

solids such as carcasses and leaves) that 

could clog screens that separate the 

raceway from the quiescent zone. These 

solids could prevent the flow of water 

through the screen causing water to 

instead flow over the screen and impair 

the passage of solids into the quiescent 

zone. Proper maintenance should 

ensure that screens are regularly 

inspected and cleaned. 

The final rule also requires that 

facilities conduct routine inspections to 

identify any damage to the production 

system or wastewater treatment system 

and that facilities repair this damage 

promptly. EPA has not specified any 

design requirement for structural 

components of the CAAP facility. 

Rather, it has adopted the requirement 

that facilities identify practices that will 

ensure existing structures are 

maintained in good working order. 

Flow-through and recirculating facilities 

are also required to keep records as 

described previously and to conduct 

routine training for facility staff on spill 

prevention and response. 

As discussed further below, in the 

final rule, EPA is not establishing 

numeric limits for any drug or pesticide 

but is requiring CAAP facilities to 

ensure proper storage of drugs, 

pesticides and feed to prevent spills and 

any resulting discharge of spilled drugs 

and pesticides. EPA is also establishing 

a requirement to implement procedures 

for responding to spills of these 

materials to minimize their discharge 

from the facility. See§ 451.11(c)(2) of 

this rule. Facilities must also train their 

staff in spill prevention and proper 

operation and cleaning of production 

systems and equipment. See § 451.11(e) 

of this rule. The detailed survey did not 

provide information about spill 

prevention, but during site visits and 

sampling visits EPA identified 

containment systems and practices. 

EPA’s site visit information indicated 

that CAAP facilities currently employ a 

number of different measures to prevent 

spills and some have established inplace systems to address spills in the 

event they occur. The effect of this 

narrative limitation will be to promote 

increased care in the handling of these 

materials. Its adoption as a regulatory 

requirement provides an additional 

incentive for facility operators currently 

employing effective spill control 

measures to continue such practices 

when handling drugs and pesticides. 

Moreover, because EPA has adopted the 

same requirements for existing and new 

sources (see discussion below), this will 

ensure that new sources employ the 

same highly protective measures as 

existing sources have employed 

successfully to protect against spills. 

Today’s regulation does not include 

any requirements specifically 

addressing the release of non-native 

species. The final regulation, however, 

includes a narrative effluent limitation 

that requires facilities to implement 

operational controls that will ensure the 

production facilities and wastewater 

treatment structures are being properly 

maintained. Facilities must conduct 

routine inspections and promptly repair 

damage to the production systems or 

wastewater treatment units. This 

requirement, described in more detail in 

51910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Section VI.D., will aid in preventing the 

release of various materials, including 

live fish.

2. BAT 

EPA is establishing BAT at a level 

equal to BPT for the flow-through and 

recirculating system discharge 

subcategory. For this subcategory, EPA 

did not identify any available 

technologies that are economically 

achievable for the subcategory that 

would achieve more stringent effluent 

limitations than those considered for 

BPT. Because of the nature of the wastes 

generated from CAAP facilities, 

advanced treatment technologies or 

practices to remove additional toxic or 

nonconventional pollutants that would 

be economically achievable on a 

national basis do not exist beyond those 

already considered. 

3. BCT 

EPA evaluated conventional pollutant 

control technologies and did not 

identify a more stringent technology for 

the control of conventional pollutants 

for BCT limitations that would be 

affordable than the final requirements 

considered. Other technologies for the 

control of conventional pollutants 

include biological treatment, but this 

technology is not affordable for the 

subcategory as a whole. Consequently, 

EPA has not promulgated BCT 

limitations or standards based on a 

different technology from that used as 

the basis for BPT limitations and 

standards. 

4. NSPS 

After considering the technology 

options described in the proposal and 

NODA and evaluating the factors 

specified in section 306 of the CWA, 

EPA is promulgating standards of 

performance for new sources equal to 

BPT, BAT, and BCT. There are no more 

stringent technologies available for 

NSPS that would not represent a barrier 

to entry for new facilities, see Section IX 

for more discussion of the barrier to 

entry analysis. Because of the nature of 

the wastes generated in CAAP facilities, 

EPA has not identified advanced 

treatment technologies or practices to 

remove additional solids (e.g., smaller 

particle sizes) in TSS or other pollutants 

that would be generally affordable 

beyond those already considered. 

EPA determined that NSPS equal to 

BAT will not present a barrier to entry. 

The overall impacts from the effluent 

limitations guidelines on new sources 

would not be any more severe than 

those on existing sources. This is 

because the costs faced by new sources 

are generally the same as, or lower than, 

those faced by existing sources. It is 

generally less expensive to incorporate 

pollution control equipment into the 

design at a new facility than it would be 

to retrofit the same pollution control 

equipment in an existing plant. At a 

new facility, no demolition is required 

and space constraints (which can add to 

retrofitting costs if specifically designed 

equipment must be ordered) may be less 

of an issue. 

C. What Are the Requirement for the Net 

Pen Subcategory? 

The following discussion explains the 

BPT/BAT/BCT limitations and NSPS 

EPA is promulgating for Net Pen 

Systems. 

1. BPT 

After considering the technology 

options described in the proposal and 

the factors specified in Section 

304(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act, EPA 

is establishing nationally applicable 

effluent limitations for net pen facilities 

producing 100,000 pounds or more of 

aquatic animals per year. Today’s BPT 

regulations requires CAAP net pen 

systems, like CAAP flow-through and 

recirculating systems, to comply with 

specified operational practices and 

management requirements. These 

requirements are non-numeric effluent 

limitations based on technologies EPA 

has evaluated and determined are costreasonable, available technologies. 

Based on the detailed survey results, 

EPA estimates that such programs are 

currently in use at most or all the net 

pen systems. As a result, the cost to 

facilities of meeting the BPT 

requirements is very low. To EPA’s 

knowledge, all existing net pen facilities 

that are currently covered by NPDES 

permits are subject to permit 

requirements comparable to today’s 

limitations. Therefore, EPA concludes 

that the BPT limits are both technically 

available and cost reasonable for the net 

pen subcategory. 

EPA rejected the establishment of 

numeric effluent limitations for net pens 

for obvious reasons. Because of the 

nature of the facilities, net pens cannot 

use physical wastewater control systems 

except at great cost. Located in open 

waters, nets are suspended from a 

floating structure to contain the crop of 

aquatic animals. Nets are periodically 

changed to increase the mesh size as the 

fish grow in order to provide more water 

circulating inside the pen. The pens are 

anchored to the water body floor and 

sited to benefit from tidal and current 

action to move wastes away from, and 

bring oxygenated water to, the pen. As 

a result, these CAAP facilities 

experience a constant in- and out-flow 

of water. Development of a system to 

capture the water and treat the water 

within the pen would be prohibitively 

expensive. EPA, therefore, rejected 

physical treatment systems as the basis 

for BPT limitations. Instead, EPA is 

promulgating narrative effluent 

limitations. 

As was the case with flow-through 

and recirculating systems, feed 

management programs are a key element 

of the promulgated requirements for the 

reasons explained above and in the 

proposal at 67 FR 57872, 57887. 

Consequently, for the control of solids, 

the final regulation requires that net pen 

CAAP facilities minimize the 

accumulation of uneaten feed beneath 

the pen through the use of active feed 

monitoring and management practices. 

§ 451.21(a). These strategies may 

include either real-time monitoring (e.g., 

the use of video monitoring, digital 

scanning sonar, or upweller systems); 

monitoring of sediment quality beneath 

the pens; monitoring of the benthic 

community beneath the pens; capture of 

waste feed and feces; or the adoption of 

other good husbandry practices, subject 

to the permitting authority’s approval. 

As noted, feed management systems 

are effective in reducing the quantity of 

uneaten feed. Facilities should limit the 

feed added to the pens to the amount 

reasonably necessary to sustain an 

optimal rate of fish growth. In 

determining what quantity of feed will 

result in minimizing the discharge of 

uneaten feed while at the same time 

sustaining optimal growth, a facility 

should consider, among others, the 

following factors: The types of aquatic 

animals raised, the method used to feed 

the aquatic animals, the facility’s 

production and aquatic animal size 

goals, the species, tides and currents, 

the sensitivity of the benthic community 

in the vicinity of the pens, and other 

relevant factors. In some areas, deep 

water and/or strong tides or currents 

may prevent significant accumulation of 

uneaten feed such that active feed 

monitoring is not needed. Several states 

with significant numbers of net pens 

(e.g., Washington, Maine) already 

require feed management practices, 

which may include active feed 

monitoring, to minimize accumulation 

of feed beneath the pens. Facilities will 

need to ensure that whatever practices 

they adopt are consistent with the 

requirements of their state NPDES 

program. 

In order to implement a feed 

management system, the facility must 

also track feed inputs by maintaining 

records documenting feed and estimates 

of the numbers and weight of aquatic 

animals in order to calculate 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51911

representative feed conversion ratios. 

§ 451.21(g). As previously explained, 

development of feed conversion ratios 

are a necessary element in any effective 

feed management system.

Real-time monitoring represents a 

widely-used business practice that is 

employed by many salmonid net pen 

facilities to reduce feed costs. Net pen 

systems do not present the same 

opportunities for solids control as do 

flow-through or recirculating systems 

for the obvious reason that ocean water 

is continuously flowing in and out of 

the net pens. Therefore, in EPA’s view, 

feed monitoring, including real time 

monitoring and other practices is an 

important and cost reasonable practice 

to control solids discharges. 

The final rule includes a narrative 

limitation requiring CAAP net pen 

facilities to collect, return to shore, and 

properly dispose of all feed bags, 

packaging materials, waste rope and 

netting. § 451.21(b). This will require 

that net pen facilities have the 

equipment (e.g., trash receptacles) to 

store empty feed bags, packaging 

materials, waste rope and netting until 

they can be transported for disposal. 

EPA is also requiring that net pens 

minimize any discharges associated 

with the transporting or harvesting of 

fish, including the discharge of blood, 

viscera, fish carcasses or transport water 

containing blood. § 451.21(c). During 

stocking or harvesting of fish, some may 

die. The final limitations require 

facilities to remove and dispose of dead 

fish properly on a regular basis to 

prevent discharge. Discharge of dead 

fish represents an environmental 

concern because they may spread 

disease and attract predators, which 

could imperil the structural integrity of 

the containment system. The wastes and 

wastewater associated with the 

transport or harvest of fish have high 

BOD and nutrient concentrations and 

should be disposed of at a location 

where they may be properly treated. 

The final regulations also require net 

pen facilities to ensure the proper 

storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to 

avoid spilling these materials and 

subsequent discharge. See § 451.21(e)(1) 

of this rule. Facilities must also 

implement procedures for properly 

containing, cleaning and disposing of 

any spilled material. See § 451.21(e)(2) 

of this rule. As previously discussed, 

excess feed may present a number of 

different environmental problems. 

Preventing spills of feed is consequently 

important. Additionally, net pens may 

use different pesticides and drugs in 

fish production. Preventing their release 

is similarly important. The final 

regulation also includes a narrative 

limitation, similar to that for CAAP 

flow-through and recirculating systems, 

requiring that net pen facilities 

adequately train facility personnel in 

how to respond to spills and proper 

clean-up and disposal of spilled 

material. See § 451.21(h) of this rule. 

Next, the final regulation requires 

regular inspection and maintenance of 

the net pen § 451.21(f). This would 

include any system to prevent predators 

from entering the pen. Net pens are 

vulnerable to damage from predator 

attack or accidents that result in the 

release of the contents of the nets, 

including fish and fish carcasses. Given 

the economic incentive to prevent the 

loss of production, EPA assumes 

facilities will conduct routine 

inspections of the nets to ensure they 

are not damaged and make repairs as 

soon as any damage is identified. Most 

net pen facilities are already doing these 

inspections. However, in evaluating this 

technology option, EPA estimated costs 

for increased inspections at every net 

pen facility in order to ensure that costs 

are not underestimated. 

Like the final BPT limitations for 

flow-through and recirculating systems, 

the BPT limitations for net pens do not 

include any requirements specifically 

addressing the release of non-native 

species. The final regulation, however, 

includes a narrative effluent limitation 

that requires facilities to implement 

operational controls that will ensure the 

production facilities and wastewater 

treatment structures are being properly 

maintained. Facilities must conduct 

routine inspections and promptly repair 

damage to the production systems or 

wastewater treatment units. EPA 

included this requirement to ensure 

achievement of the other BPT 

limitations for net pens such as the 

prohibition on the discharge of feed 

bags, packaging materials, waste rope 

and netting at net pens, and the 

requirement to minimize release of 

solids, fish carcasses and viscera. This 

requirement will also aid in preventing 

the release of other materials including 

live fish. 

2. BAT 

EPA is establishing BAT at a level 

equal to BPT for the net pen 

subcategory. For this subcategory, EPA 

did not identify any available 

technologies that are economically 

achievable that would achieve more 

stringent effluent limitations than those 

considered for BPT. Because of the 

nature of the wastes generated from 

CAAP net pen facilities, EPA did not 

identify any advanced treatment 

technologies or practices to remove 

additional toxic and nonconventional 

pollutants that would be economically 

achievable on a national basis beyond 

those already considered. 

3. BCT 

EPA evaluated conventional pollutant 

control technologies and did not 

identify a more stringent technology for 

the control of conventional pollutants 

for BCT limitations than the final 

requirements considered. Consequently, 

EPA has not promulgated BCT 

limitations or standards based on a 

different technology from that used as 

the basis for BPT limitations and 

standards. 

4. NSPS 

After considering the technology 

requirements described previously 

under BPT, and the factors specified in 

section 306 of the CWA, EPA is 

promulgating standards of performance 

for new sources equal to BPT, BAT, and 

BCT. There are no more stringent best 

demonstrated technologies available. 

Because of the nature of the wastes 

generated and the production system 

used, EPA has not identified advanced 

treatment technologies or practices that 

would be generally affordable beyond 

those already considered. 

Although siting is not specifically 

addressed with today’s standards, 

proper siting of new facilities is one 

component of feed management 

strategies designed to minimize the 

accumulation of uneaten feed beneath 

the pens and any associated adverse 

environmental effects. When 

establishing new net pen CAAP 

facilities, consideration of location is 

critical in predicting the potential 

impact the net pen will have on the 

environment. Net pens are usually 

situated in areas which have good water 

exchange through tidal fluctuations or 

currents. Good water exchange ensures 

good water quality for the animals in the 

nets. It also minimizes the concentration 

of pollutants below the nets. In 

implementing today’s rule for new net 

pen operations, facilities and permit 

authorities should give careful 

consideration to siting prior to 

establishing a new net pen facility. 

EPA has concluded that NSPS equal 

to BAT does not present a barrier to 

entry. The overall impacts from the 

effluent limitations guidelines on new 

source net pens are no more severe than 

those on existing net pens. The costs 

faced by new sources generally should 

be the same as, or lower than, those 

faced by existing sources. It is generally 

less expensive to incorporate pollution 

control equipment into the design at a 

new facility than it is to retrofit the 

51912 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

same pollution control equipment in an 

existing facility. 

Although EPA is not establishing 

standards of performance for new 

sources for small cold water facilities 

(i.e., those producing between 20,000 

and 100,000 pounds of aquatic animals 

per year), such facilities would be 

subject to existing NPDES regulations 

and BPT/BAT/BCT permit limits 

developed using the permit writer’s 

‘‘best professional judgment’’ (BPJ). 

EPA, based on its analysis of existing 

data, determined that new facilities 

would most often produce 100,000 

pounds of aquatic animals or more per 

year because of the expense of 

producing the aquatic animals. 

Generally, the species produced are 

considered of high value and are 

produced in such quantities to 

economically justify the production. For 

example, one net pen typically holds 

100,000 pounds of aquatic animals or 

more. In reviewing USDA’s Census of 

Aquaculture and EPA’s detailed 

surveys, EPA has not identified any 

existing commercial net pen facilities 

producing fewer than 100,000 pounds of 

aquatic animals per year. 

Offshore aquatic animal production is 

an area of potential future growth. As 

these types of facilities start to produce 

aquatic animals, those with 100,000 

pounds or more per year will be subject 

to the new source requirements 

established for net pens as well as 

NPDES permitting. 

D. What Monitoring Does the Final Rule 

Require? 

The final rule does not require any 

effluent monitoring. In the case of net 

pen facilities, however, it does require 

CAAPs to adopt active feed monitoring 

and management practices that will 

most often include measures to observe 

the addition of feed to the pen. Net pen 

facilities subject to today’s rule must 

develop and implement active feed 

monitoring and management strategies 

to minimize the discharge of solids and 

the accumulation of uneaten feed 

beneath the pen. Many existing net pen 

facilities use a real-time monitoring 

system such as video cameras, digital 

scanning sonar, or upweller systems to 

accomplish this. With a real-time 

monitoring system, when uneaten feed 

is observed falling beneath the pen 

feeding should stop. Depending on the 

location and other site-specific factors at 

the facility, a facility may adopt other 

measures in lieu of real time 

monitoring. These may include 

monitoring of sediment or the benthic 

community quality beneath the pens, 

capture of waste feed and feces or other 

good husbandry practices that are 

approved by the permitting authority.

E. What Are the Final Rule’s 

Notification, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements? 

The final rule establishes 

requirements for reporting the use of 

spilled drugs, pesticides or feed that 

result in a discharge to waters of the 

U.S. by CAAP facilities. This provision 

ensures that, any release of spilled 

drugs, pesticides and feed to waters of 

the U.S. are reported to the permitting 

authorities to provide them with 

necessary information for any 

responsive action that may be 

warranted. This will allow regulatory 

authorities to reduce or avoid adverse 

impacts to receiving waters associated 

with these spills. EPA is requiring that 

any spill of material that results in a 

discharge to waters of the U.S. be 

reported orally to the permitting 

authority within 24 hours of its 

occurrence. A written report shall be 

submitted within 7 days. Facilities are 

required to report the identity of the 

material spilled and an estimated 

amount. 

EPA is retaining for the final rule the 

proposed requirement that CAAP 

facilities report to the Permitting 

Authority whenever they apply certain 

types of drugs under the following 

conditions. First, the permittee must 

report drugs prescribed by a 

veterinarian to treat a species or a 

disease when prescribed for a use which 

is not an FDA-approved use (referred to 

as ‘‘extralabel drug use’’) as described 

further below. Second, the permittee 

must report drugs being used in an 

experimental mode under controlled 

conditions, known as Investigative New 

Animal Drugs (INADs). In EPA’s view, 

notifying the Permitting Authority is 

necessary to ensure that any potential 

risk to the environment resulting from 

the use of these drugs can be addressed 

with site-specific remedies where 

appropriate. EPA strongly encourages 

reporting prior to use where feasible, as 

this provides the Permitting Authority 

with the opportunity to monitor or 

control the discharge of the drugs while 

the drugs are being applied. EPA has not 

made this an absolute requirement, 

however, in recognition of the fact that 

swift action on the part of veterinarians 

and operators is sometimes necessary to 

respond to and contain disease 

outbreaks. 

The reporting requirement applies to 

the permittee and imposes no obligation 

on the prescribing veterinarian. The 

reporting requirement for extralabel 

drug use is not in any way intended to 

interfere with veterinarians’ authority to 

prescribe extralabel drugs to treat 

aquatic animals or other animals in 

accordance with FFCDA and 40 CFR 

Part 530. This reporting requirement is 

promulgated to ensure that permitting 

authorities are aware of the use at 

CAAPs of extralabel drugs when such 

use may result in the release of the drug 

to waters of the U.S. Because the use is 

likely to involve adding the drug 

directly to the rearing unit, EPA believes 

there is a probability that these drugs 

may be released to waters of the U.S.. 

The regulation requires that a 

permittee must provide a written report 

to the permitting authority within seven 

days of agreeing to participate in an 

INAD study and an oral report 

preferably in advance of use, but in no 

event later than seven days after starting 

to use the INAD. The first written report 

must identify the drug, method of 

application, the dosage and what it is 

intended to treat. The oral report must 

also identify the drug, method of 

application, and the reason for its use. 

Within 30 days after the use of the drug 

at the facility, the permittee must 

provide another written report to the 

permitting authority describing the 

drug, reason for treatment, date and 

time of addition, method of addition 

and total amount added. 

EPA has similar reporting 

requirements for extralabel drug use 

except that EPA is not requiring a 

written report in advance of use. 

The reporting requirement applies 

only to those drugs that have not been 

previously approved for their intended 

use. Reporting would not be required for 

EPA registered pesticides and FDA 

approved drugs for aquatic animal uses 

when used according to label 

instructions. Reporting would only be 

required for INAD drugs and drugs 

prescribed by a veterinarian for 

extralabel uses. Because these classes of 

drugs have not been fully evaluated by 

FDA for the potential environmental 

consequences of the use being made of 

them EPA considers reporting ensures 

the permitting authority has enough 

information to make an informed 

response if environmental problems do 

occur. EPA has included an exception to 

the reporting requirement for cases 

where the INAD or extralabel drug has 

already been approved under similar 

conditions for use in another species or 

to treat another disease and is applied 

at a dosage that does not exceed the 

approved dosage. The requirement that 

the use be under similar conditions is 

intended to limit the exception to cases 

where the INAD or extralabel drug use 

would be expected to produce 

significantly different environmental 

impacts from the previously approved 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51913

use. For example, use of a drug that had 

been previously approved for a 

freshwater application, as an INAD in a 

marine setting would not be considered 

a similar condition of use, since marine 

ecosystems may have markedly different 

vulnerabilities than freshwater 

ecosystems. Similarly, the use of a drug 

approved to treat terrestrial animals 

used as an INAD or extralabel drug to 

treat aquatic animals would not be 

considered a similar condition of use. In 

contrast, the use of a drug to treat fish 

in a freshwater system that was 

previously approved for a different 

freshwater species would be considered 

use under similar conditions. EPA has 

concluded that when a drug is used 

under similar conditions it is unlikely 

that the environmental impacts would 

be different than those that were already 

considered in the prior approval of the 

drug. 

The reporting requirements with 

respect to INADs are not burdensome. 

FDA regulations require that the 

sponsor of a clinical investigation of a 

new animal drug submit to the Food 

and Drug Administration certain 

information concerning the intended 

use prior to its use. Therefore, this 

information will be readily available to 

any CAAP facility that participates in an 

INAD investigation. Having advance 

information will enable the permitting 

authority to determine whether 

restrictions should be imposed on the 

release of such drugs. 

EPA is also requiring all CAAP 

facilities subject to today’s regulation to 

develop and maintain a Best 

Management Practices plan on site. This 

plan must describe how the permittee 

will achieve the required narrative 

limitations. The plan must be available 

to the permitting authority upon 

request. Upon completion of the plan, 

the permittee must certify to the 

permitting authority that a plan has 

been developed. 

The proposal included a requirement 

to implement escape prevention 

practices at facilities where non-native 

species are being produced. EPA 

received comments supporting such 

controls to prevent the release of nonnative species. EPA also received 

comments arguing against controls in 

this regulation because other authorities 

are already dealing with non-native 

species, and because of the complexities 

of determining what is a non-native 

species and when such species may 

become invasive. For example, species 

raised by Federal and State authorities 

for stocking may not be ‘‘native,’’ but 

would not generally impose a threat if 

escapes occurred. 

Today’s regulation does not include 

any requirements specifically 

addressing the release of non-native 

species. The regulation, however, 

includes a requirement for facilities to 

develop and implement BMPs to ensure 

the production and wastewater 

treatment systems are regularly 

inspected and maintained. Facilities are 

required to conduct routine inspections 

and perform repairs to ensure proper 

functioning of the structures. EPA 

included this requirement to promote 

achievement of BPT/BAT limitations on 

the discharge of feed bags, packaging 

materials, waste rope and netting at net 

pens, and on the discharge of solids, 

including fish carcasses and viscera at 

all facilities. This requirement, 

described in more detail in Section 

VI.D, will also aid in preventing the 

release of other materials, including live 

fish.

The final regulation also includes a 

requirement for facilities to report 

failures and damage to the structure of 

the aquatic animal containment system 

leading to a material discharge of 

pollutants. EPA realizes that most CAAP 

facilities take extensive measures to 

ensure structural integrity is 

maintained. Nonetheless, failures do 

occur with potentially serious 

consequences to the environment. The 

failure of the containment system can 

result in the release of sediment, fish 

and fish carcasses which, depending on 

the magnitude of the release, can have 

significant impacts on the environment. 

For net pen systems, failures include 

physical damage to the predator control 

nets or the nets containing the aquatic 

animals, which result in a discharge of 

the contents of the nets. Damage 

includes abrasion, cutting or tearing of 

the nets and breakdown of the netting 

due to rot or ultra-violet exposure. For 

flow-through and recirculating systems, 

a failure includes a collapse or damage 

of a rearing unit or wastewater treatment 

structure; damage to pipes, valves, and 

other plumbing fixtures; and damage or 

malfunction to screens or physical 

barriers in the system, which would 

prevent the unit from containing water, 

sediment, and the aquatic animals. In 

the event of a reportable failure as 

defined in the NPDES permit, EPA is 

requiring CAAP facilities to report to the 

permit authority orally within 24 hours 

of discovering a failure and to follow the 

oral report with a written report no later 

than seven days after the discovery of 

the failure. The oral report must include 

the cause of the failure and the materials 

that have likely been released. The 

written report must include a 

description of the cause of the failure, 

the time elapsed until the failure was 

repaired, an estimate of the types and 

amounts of materials released and the 

steps that will be taken to prevent a 

recurrence. Because the determination 

of what constitutes damage resulting in 

a ‘‘material’’ discharge varies from one 

facility to the next, EPA encourages 

permitting authorities to include more 

specific reporting requirements defining 

these terms in the permit. Such 

conditions might recognize variations in 

production system type and 

environmental vulnerability of the 

receiving waters. 

Today’s regulation requires recordkeeping in conjunction with 

implementation of a feed management 

system. As previously explained, EPA is 

requiring flow-through, recirculating 

and net pen CAAP facilities subject to 

today’s regulation to keep records on 

feed amounts and estimates of the 

numbers and weight of aquatic animals 

in order to calculate representative feed 

conversion ratios. The feed amounts 

should be measured at a frequency that 

enables the facility to estimate daily 

feed rates. The number and weight of 

animals contained in the rearing unit 

may be recorded less frequently as 

appropriate. 

Flow-through and recirculating 

facilities subject to today’s requirements 

must record the dates and brief 

descriptions of rearing unit cleaning, 

inspections, maintenance and repair. 

Net pen facilities must keep the same 

types of feeding records as described 

above and record the dates and brief 

descriptions of net changes, inspections, 

maintenance and repairs to the net pens. 

IX. What Are the Costs and Economic 

Impacts Associated With This Rule? 

This section discusses the costs and 

economic impact of the rule 

promulgated today. 

A. Compliance Costs 

The information below describes the 

rule’s costs and how EPA determined 

these costs. A more detailed discussion 

of how EPA estimated compliance costs 

is included in the Technical 

Development Document (EPA–821–R–

04–012) and the discussion of the 

economic impacts is included in the 

Economic and Environmental Benefits 

Analysis report (EPA–821–R–04–013). 

Both of these documents can be found 

on EPA’s Web site, www.epa.gov/ost/

guide/aquaculture.

1. How Did EPA Estimate the Costs of 

Compliance With the Final Rule? 

EPA estimated costs associated with 

regulatory compliance for the options it 

considered to determine the economic 

51914 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

impact of the effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards on the 

aquaculture industry. The economic 

impact is a function of the estimated 

costs of compliance to achieve the 

requirements. These costs may include 

initial fixed and capital costs, as well as 

annual operating and maintenance 

(O&M) costs. Estimation of these costs 

began by identifying the practices and 

technologies that could be used as a 

basis to meet particular requirements. 

EPA estimated compliance costs for 

each facility, based on the specific 

configuration of the facility as provided 

in the detailed survey and the 

implementation of the practices or 

technologies to meet particular 

requirements. 

EPA developed cost estimates for 

capital, land, annual O&M, and onetime fixed costs for the implementation 

of the different best management 

practices and treatment technologies 

targeted under the regulatory options. 

EPA developed the cost estimates from 

information collected from the detailed 

survey, site visits, sampling events, 

published information, vendor contacts, 

industry comments, and engineering 

judgment. EPA estimates compliance 

costs in 2001 dollars that it converted to 

2003 dollars using the Engineering 

News Record construction cost index. 

All costs presented in this section are 

reported in pre-tax 2003 dollars, unless 

otherwise indicated. 

The final regulation requires facilities 

to adopt various management practices 

to control pollutant discharges and 

incorporate these practices in a BMP 

plan. The detailed survey provided 

information on the use of BMPs at each 

surveyed facility. In its analyses, EPA 

estimated the costs associated with 

implementing various types of BMPs. 

As explained above, EPA has concluded 

that BMPs are an effective tool for 

controlling pollutant discharges. EPA 

assumed no additional costs for 

compliance for a facility for particular 

BMPs when the facility indicated that it 

had comparable BMPs in place, or EPA 

found strong evidence that such BMPs 

were already being implemented at the 

facility. For example, facilities reporting 

the use of drugs and pesticides that are 

located in Washington or Idaho were 

not costed for drug and pesticide BMPs 

because the general permits in these 

states require facilities to implement 

BMPs related to drugs and pesticides 

that are at least as stringent as these 

required by today’s rule. 

EPA is requiring each facility to 

develop a BMP plan that describes the 

practices and strategies it is using to 

comply with narrative limitations 

addressing solids control, including 

feed management, materials storage (i.e., 

spill containment), structural 

maintenance, recordkeeping, and 

training. For net pen facilities, the BMP 

plan must also document provisions for 

complying with narrative limitations 

related to waste collection and disposal, 

minimization of discharges associated 

with transport or harvest, and carcass 

removal. EPA found that the net pen 

facilities responding to the detailed 

survey generally have operational 

measures in place that address these 

requirements.

The costs associated with BMP plan 

development include a one-time labor 

cost of 40 hours for management staff 

training and time to develop and write 

the plan. The plan that EPA costed 

included time for the manager to (1) 

identify all waste streams, wastewater 

structures, and wastewater and manure 

treatment structures at the site, (2) 

identify and document standard 

operating procedures for all BMPs used 

at the facility, and (3) define 

management and staff responsibilities 

for implementing the plan. EPA 

assumed that each employee at a facility 

would incur a one time cost of 4 hours 

for initial BMP plan review. EPA 

included an annual cost for four hours 

of management labor to maintain the 

plan and eight hours of management 

labor and 4 hours for each employee for 

training and an annual review of BMP 

performance. EPA included the cost of 

developing solids control, spill 

prevention, and structural maintenance 

components of the BMP plan in the 

estimates for all appropriate facilities. 

EPA also included recordkeeping and 

training costs as a part of annual 

operation and maintenance activities for 

the BMP components. 

One part of the solids control 

component of the BMP plan is feed 

management. Based on feed and 

production data reported in the surveys, 

EPA evaluated the effectiveness of a 

facility’s feed management programs. 

EPA calculated feed conversion ratios 

(FCRs) using pounds of feed per pound 

of live product. These calculated FCRs 

were compared for groups of facilities 

(i.e., combinations of ownership, 

species and production system types 

such as commercial trout flow-through 

facilities or government salmon flowthrough facilities). EPA found a wide 

range of FCRs (reported by facilities in 

their detailed surveys, which were 

validated by call backs to the facility) 

among apparently similar facilities 

within ownership-species-production 

system groupings. 

For example, EPA had good data for 

24 of 60 government trout producers 

using flow-through systems. They 

reported a range of FCRs of 0.79 to 1.80 

with a median FCR of 1.30. If an 

individual facility’s reported FCR was 

significantly greater than the median, 

EPA further evaluated the facility to 

ascertain the reason for the higher FCR. 

Facilities that produce larger fish, such 

as broodstock, might have higher FCRs 

because the larger fish produce less 

flesh per unit of food. Facilities with 

fluctuating water temperatures could 

also be less efficient than facilities with 

constant water temperatures. EPA 

assumed facilities lacking evidence of 

good feed management practices (based 

on the calculated FCR) would incur 

additional costs to improve or establish 

them. However, EPA did not apply costs 

for feed management BMPs for facilities 

with reasonable explanations for the 

higher FCRs because EPA assumed such 

facilities were already optimizing feed 

input or would be able to do so at 

reasonable cost. 

EPA evaluated facilities that did not 

report FCRs or provide enough data for 

an estimate by assigning each facility a 

random FCR between the first and third 

quartiles of the FCR distribution of the 

group of facilities (i.e., combinations of 

ownership, species, and production 

systems) where it was classified. For its 

analysis, EPA estimated target FCRs for 

each group as the 25th percentile value 

of the category. EPA used these target 

FCRs in its costing and loadings 

analyses, but does not intend to set any 

specific FCR targets at facilities (see

DCN 62467). These facilities were 

assigned costs associated with feed 

management BMPs in the same manner 

as facilities with calculated FCRs. 

Costs for the feed management BMP 

component include staff time for 

recordkeeping for feed delivery and 

daily feeding observations. Management 

activities associated with the feed 

management practices were weekly data 

reviews of feeding records, regular 

estimates of changes to feeding regimes 

for each group of aquatic animals, and 

staff consultations about feeding. For 

facilities that reported using drugs or 

pesticides, EPA evaluated costs for (1) 

storage containment, (2) spill prevention 

planning and training, and (3) reporting 

of INAD and extralabel drug uses. For 

storage containment, EPA evaluated the 

amount of product stored onsite and 

estimated containment structure costs 

specifically for the facility. This capital 

cost was for the purchase of 

commercially available drum storage 

units and pesticide cabinets that will 

contain spills in the event of leakage or 

accidental spills. EPA also estimated the 

costs for management to develop a spill 

prevention plan, which is included in 

the facility BMP plan, and annual staff 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51915

training at the facility (8 hours/year for 

managers and 4 hours/year for each 

employee). EPA assumed that reporting 

to the appropriate regulatory authority 

would occur 6 times per year for 

facilities reporting using INAD or 

extralabel drug uses. The reporting for 

each occurrence includes 20 minutes for 

an oral report and 1 hour for a written 

report. EPA considers these costing 

assumptions to be conservative and may 

overstate actual reporting frequency. 

In addition, EPA estimated costs for 

inspections in order to maintain the 

structural integrity of the aquatic animal 

containment system. The costs include 

regular inspections of rearing units, 

solids storage units, and drug/pesticide 

storage units. EPA considers the aquatic 

animal containment system to include 

any physical barriers and practices used 

to prevent the release of materials from 

the containment system. For flowthrough and recirculating facilities, the 

containment system includes 

wastewater treatment, for example, 

quiescent zones or settling basins, in 

addition to the rearing units and storage 

units. For net pens, the containment 

system includes the use of double nets 

or other techniques that may be used to 

deter predators. EPA also included costs 

for reporting of structural failure or 

damage to the containment system that 

results in a material discharge of 

pollutants to waters of the U.S. 

For net pen systems, failures include 

physical damage to the predator control 

nets or the nets containing the aquatic 

animals, which result in a discharge of 

the contents of the nets. Damage 

includes abrasion, cutting or tearing of 

the nets and breakdown of the netting 

due to rot or ultra violet exposure. For 

flow-through and recirculating systems, 

a failure includes a collapse or damage 

of a rearing unit or wastewater treatment 

structure; damage to pipes, valves, and 

other plumbing fixtures; and damage or 

malfunction to screens or physical 

barriers in the system, which would 

prevent the unit from containing water, 

sediment, and the aquatic animals. The 

rule provides the permitting authorities 

may specify what constitutes damage 

and/or a material discharge on a sitespecific basis for the purposes of 

triggering the reporting requirement. 

Based on available information related 

to containment system failures in the 

past, flow-through and recirculating 

facilities have had less incidences of 

failures than net pen facilities. 

Therefore, EPA estimated that 10 

percent of the flow-through and 

recirculating facilities would incur a 

cost associated with the reporting of the 

failure whereas, for costing purposes, all 

net pen facilities were assumed to 

experience a failure. Again, EPA 

believes these assumptions are 

conservative and may overestimate the 

frequency of reportable failures.

EPA revised estimates for all labor 

costs using the employee and wage 

information supplied in the detailed 

surveys. For those facilities indicating 

they use unpaid labor for all or part of 

the facility operation, or that did not 

supply useable wage information, EPA 

used average State or regional wages for 

both staff and management labor. 

Separate estimates were used for 

commercial and non-commercial 

facilities. 

2. What Are the Total National Costs? 

Tables IX–1 and IX–2 summarize 

numbers of affected facilities and total 

annualized costs for today’s final 

regulation. EPA estimates that a total of 

242 facilities will be affected by today’s 

final regulation. These counts include 

two non-profit flow-through facilities in 

Alaska producing 100,000 lb/year or 

more that did not receive a detailed 

questionnaire. More information is 

provided in the rulemaking record (DCN 

63065). Table IX–1 summarizes the 

estimated number and type of facilities 

affected by the rule, based on the 

production threshold of 100,000 lb/year. 

These 242 facilities consists of 101 

commercial facilities and 141 

noncommercial facilities; 

noncommercial facilities include 

Federal, state, Alaskan non-profit, and 

Tribal hatcheries. Of the 101 

commercial facilities, 32 are projected to 

be unprofitable prior to the final rule 

(i.e., baseline closures) under cash flow 

analysis. EPA did not identify any 

academic/research facilities in the 

detailed questionnaire that produced 

100,000 lbs/yr or more. 

The estimated cost for this rule is $1.4 

million per year (pre-tax, 2003 dollars). 

Noncommercial facilities account for 

about 81 percent of the total cost of the 

rule. These estimated total costs reflect 

aggregate compliance costs incurred by 

facilities that produce 100,000 lb/year or 

more and will be affected by today’s 

final regulation. EPA’s total cost 

estimates do not include costs that are 

incurred by the 32 commercial facilities 

that are considered baseline closures. To 

the extent that some projected baseline 

closures remain open and incur costs 

under this rule, despite analysis 

showing unprofitability in the baseline, 

national compliance costs, pollutant 

load reductions and potential benefits 

would be higher than projected.

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

Organization 

Estimated number of facilities (see note) 

Baseline closures 1

Not baseline 

closures 2 Total 

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. 

1Projected 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. 2Total 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).

51916 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Production system Owner 

Pre-tax 

annualized 

costs ($000, 

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. 1Total annual post-tax cost for the final option is $1,362. 

2 Noncommercial facilities include those operated by State, Federal, Alaska nonprofit, and Tribal facilities.

B. Economic Impacts 

This section discusses the economic 

effects associated with the final rule. 

1. How did EPA Estimate Economic 

Effects? 

Existing Commercial Facilities. EPA 

uses several measures to evaluate 

possible impacts on existing commercial 

facilities. These measures examine the 

possibility of business closure and 

corresponding direct impacts on 

employment and communities and 

indirect and national impacts associated 

with closures. EPA also evaluates 

potential moderate impacts short of 

closure, as well as changes in financial 

health and borrowing capacity. 

To evaluate impacts to commercial 

facilities, EPA conducts a closure 

analysis that compares projected 

earnings, with and without cost of 

compliance with the final regulation for 

the period 2005 to 2015. For this rule, 

EPA used discounted cash flow and net 

income to estimate earnings for closure 

analysis. The difference between cash 

flow and net income is depreciation 

(cash flow equals net income plus 

depreciation). Analysis using net 

income is more likely to identify 

baseline closures and could demonstrate 

additional regulatory closures 

associated with the rule. Table IX–3.5 

presents closure results obtained using 

both discounted cash flow and net 

income. All other analytical results (for 

example, other measures of economic 

impacts, costs and benefits) presented in 

this final action reflect discounted cash 

flow as the basis for earnings. EPA also 

examines the effects of attributing a 

wage rate to unpaid labor and found 

that imputing costs for unpaid labor and 

management would not change the 

projected economic impacts of the rule. 

Closure analysis assumes that (1) 

producers are unable to pass on the 

costs of incremental pollution control to 

consumer through higher prices and (2) 

costs and earnings are discounted 

assuming a 7 percent real discount rate 

to account for the time value of money 

and place earnings and costs on a 

comparable basis. EPA considers that 

the rule will result in a facility closure 

if a facility shows (1) positive 

discounted cash flow (or net income) 

without the rule and (2) negative 

discounted cash flow (or net income) 

with the rule for two out of three 

forecasting scenarios. The forecasting 

methods give a range of trends: (1) 

Optimistic or upward (USDA CPI Food 

at Home, Fish and Seafood Sector), (2) 

pessimistic or downward (weighted 

average, based on facility production, of 

USDA trout price data or U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Fish PPI, Producer Price 

Index—Unprocessed and packaged fish, 

not seasonally adjusted), and (3) neutral 

or no change (average of 1999–2001 

earnings collected in the detailed 

questionnaire). In an effort to evaluate 

the effects of relying on two out of three 

forecasts to define closures, EPA also 

analyzed closures using a more 

conservative assumption whereby 

closures are defined as occurring when 

negative earnings are projected under 

only one of three forecast scenarios. 

EPA does not assess potential for 

closure under the rule if a facility is 

projected to have negative earnings 

under baseline conditions (i.e., baseline 

closure). Baseline closures are defined 

as facilities that are projected to have 

negative earnings under 2 or 3 of the 

forecasting methods before they incur 

pollution control costs (i.e., baseline 

closures). EPA’s standard methodology 

when using forecasts in closure models 

is to use a ‘‘weight of evidence’’

approach across a set of reasonable 

assumptions regarding future industry 

behavior. This allows EPA to recognize 

uncertainty in the forecasts without 

placing undue emphasis on any one set 

of ‘‘timing and initial conditions’’. 

Using this methodology, EPA 

determined that 32 out of 101 

commercial facilities are baseline 

closures, assuming discounted cash 

flow for earnings. When EPA adopts net 

income as the basis for earnings, 

baseline closures are projected to be 43. 

When EPA projects closures based on 

negative earnings in one out of three 

forecasts, baseline closures are projected 

to be 34. EPA notes that this type of 

analysis identifies candidates for 

closure; information on facility-level 

costs and earnings may be too uncertain 

to allow precise prediction of which 

operations will actually close, in the 

absence of the rule. 

In addition to its closure analysis, 

EPA also prepared additional analyses 

to assess potential effects, short of 

closure, on existing businesses, 

including an analysis of additional 

moderate impacts using a sales test, an 

evaluation of financial health using an 

approach similar to that used by USDA, 

and an assessment of possible impacts 

on borrowing capacity. Use of these 

measures has the advantage that they 

mirror analyses that investment and 

lending institutions perform to evaluate 

industries and businesses.

First, to assess whether there are 

additional moderate impacts to 

facilities, EPA uses a sales test to 

compare the pre-tax annualized cost of 

the final rule to the revenues reported 

for facilities that passed the baseline 

closure analysis. EPA considers that 

facilities show additional moderate 

impacts if they are not projected to close 

but incur compliance costs in excess of 

5 percent of facility revenue; this 

threshold is consistent with threshold 

values established by EPA in previous 

regulations and is determined to be 

appropriate for this rulemaking. 

Second, EPA calculates impacts on 

financial health at the company level 

using USDA’s 2 × 2 matrix (i.e., fourlevel) categorization of financial health 

based on a combination of net cash 

income and debt/asset ratios. The 

categories are favorable, marginal 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51917

solvency, marginal income, and 

vulnerable. EPA considers any change 

in financial health category as an impact 

of the rule. 

Finally, EPA performs a credit test by 

calculating the ratio of the pre-tax 

annualized cost of an option and the 

after-tax Maximum Feasible Loan 

Payment (MFLP) (i.e., 80 percent of 

after-tax cash flow). EPA identified 

companies with a ratio exceeding 80 

percent of MFLP as being impacted by 

this rule (i.e., the test threshold is 

therefore actually 64 percent of the 

after-tax cash flow). 

For the purposes of EPA’s analysis, 

the Agency assumes (1) no growth in 

production to offset incremental costs 

and (2) that the costs of the rule are not 

passed on to consumers. The facility 

must absorb all increased costs. If it 

cannot do so and remain in operation, 

all production is assumed lost. EPA’s 

assumption of no cost pass through is a 

conservative approach to evaluating 

economic achievability among regulated 

entities. To evaluate market and trade 

level impacts, EPA assumes all costs are 

shifted onto the broader market level as 

a way of assessing the upper bound of 

potential impacts. 

The Economic and Environmental 

Benefit Analysis, available in the 

rulemaking record, provides more detail 

on EPA’s analysis (DCN 63010). 

Noncommercial Facilities. For today’s 

final rule, EPA collected information on 

how U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

State agencies make decisions about 

operating or closing public hatcheries. 

EPA confirmed that public hatcheries 

close; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

hatchery system once had as many as 

250 hatcheries and it now operates 

fewer than 90 facilities. Closures may 

result from funding cuts (e.g., Mitchell 

Act Funds and the Willard National 

Fish Hatchery or General Funds for 

State Hatcheries) or revision of a 

program’s mission and goals (e.g., 

increase focus on endangered species 

versus provision of recreational 

services). Closures may also result from 

water quality impacts associated with 

aquaculture activities. The costs of 

upgrading pollution control at public 

hatcheries are not generally the primary 

reason for closure, but costs may tip the 

balance of a particular hatchery toward 

a closure decision. See the Economic 

and Environmental Benefits Analysis 

(DCN 63010) for more details. 

In the absence of well defined tests for 

projecting public facility closures, EPA 

compares pre-tax annualized 

compliance costs to 2001 operating 

budgets for public facilities (‘‘Budget 

Test’’). For the purposes of this analysis, 

costs exceeding 5 percent and 10 

percent are assumed to signal potential 

‘‘moderate’’ and ‘‘adverse’’ impacts, 

respectively. EPA examines the ability 

of State-owned hatcheries to recoup 

compliance costs through increases in 

funding derived solely from user fees. 

All States and the District of Columbia 

have fishing license fees for residents. 

The license fees are not raised every 

year even though costs increase through 

inflation. Instead, when fees are raised 

or a fish stamp instituted, the 

incremental or new fee is usually a 

round number such as $3, $5, or $10. A 

$3 to $5 hike in State fishing license 

fees translates into an increase in fees of 

about 20 percent to 35 percent. 

Although all States report having fishing 

license fees, if a state hatchery reports 

no funding from user fee sources, EPA 

considers that facility to be unable to 

recoup increased costs through 

increased funding from user fees. 

More detailed information is provided 

in the Economic and Environmental 

Benefit Analysis and the rulemaking 

record. 

New Commercial Facilities. To assess 

effects on new businesses, EPA’s 

analysis considers the barrier that 

compliance costs due to the effluent 

guidelines regulation may pose to entry 

into the industry. In general, it is less 

costly to incorporate waste water 

treatment technologies as a facility is 

built than it is to retrofit existing 

facilities. Therefore, where a rule is 

economically achievable for existing 

facilities, it will also be economically 

achievable for new facilities that can 

meet the same guidelines at lower cost. 

Similarly, even where the cost of 

compliance with a given technology is 

not economically achievable for an 

existing source, such technology may be 

less costly for new sources and thus 

have economically sustainable costs. It 

is possible, on the other hand, that to 

the extent the up-front costs of building 

a new facility are significantly increased 

as a result of the rule, prospective 

builders may face difficulties in raising 

additional capital. This could present a 

barrier to entry. Therefore, as part of its 

analysis of new source standards, EPA 

evaluates barriers to entry. If the 

requirements promulgated in the final 

regulation do not give existing operators 

a cost advantage over new source 

operators, then EPA assumes new 

source performance standards do not 

present a barrier to entry for new 

facilities. 

EPA’s analysis includes all 

commercial facilities within scope of 

the rule, including those that are 

baseline closures. EPA examines the (1) 

proportion of commercial facilities that 

incur no costs, (2) proportion of 

commercial facilities that incur no land 

or capital costs, and (3) ratio of 

incremental land and capital costs to 

total company assets. The cost to asset 

ratio is calculated using company data 

because asset data were collected only 

at the company level; company impacts 

cannot be extrapolated to the nationallevel because sampling weights are 

based on facilities, not companies. EPA 

calculates the ratio for each company 

and uses the average of the ratios. More 

information is provided in the 

Economic and Environmental Impact 

Analysis available in the rulemaking 

record. 

2. What Are the Results of the Economic 

Analysis? 

Existing Commercial Facilities. Table 

IX–3 shows the impacts on commercial 

operations from today’s regulation. As 

shown, EPA projects no facility closures 

as a result of the final rule under the 

cash flow analysis. No closures are 

projected for enterprises or companies. 

Correspondingly, there are no 

employment and other direct and 

indirect impacts estimated for this rule 

as a consequence of closures using cash 

flow analysis and negative earnings in 

two of three forecast scenarios. When 

the closure analysis is conducted using 

net income as a basis for earnings, EPA 

projects two closures out of 58 

commercial facilities (see Table IX–3.5). 

When the closure analysis is conducted 

using only one of three forecast 

scenarios, EPA also identifies two 

closures out of 67 commercial facilities 

(see Section IX.B.1 for discussion of 

forecast methods). Based on these 

results, EPA concludes that the final 

rule option is economically achievable. 

EPA notes that all other analytical 

results (for example other measures of 

economic impacts, costs) presented in 

this final action reflect discounted cash 

flow as the basis for earnings; EPA’s 

analyses indicate that use of net income 

will not materially change results.

EPA expects some operations will 

incur moderate impacts, short of 

closure, based on an analysis that shows 

that some operations will incur 

compliance costs in excess of 5 percent 

of annual revenue. For the final 

regulation, 4 of 69 commercial facilities 

incur costs greater than 5 percent of 

sales, affecting about 5 percent of 

regulated facilities in the flow-through 

and recirculating subcategory; no 

additional facilities have costs 

exceeding 3 percent of revenues. No 

commercial facilities have costs that 

exceed 10 percent of annual revenue. 

EPA’s analysis shows no expected 

change in financial health. One 

company fails the USDA credit test as 

51918 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

a result of the final regulation. These 

results are based on data from 

companies represented in the Agency’s 

detailed questionnaire. These results 

further support EPA’s conclusion that 

the final options are economically 

achievable for commercial facilities (and 

companies). More information is 

provided in the Economic and 

Environmental Benefit Analysis 

available in the rulemaking record (DCN 

63010) 

Noncommercial Facilities. Table IX–3 

also shows the impacts on 

noncommercial operations from today’s 

regulation. Four facilities incur costs 

exceeding 10 percent of budget. EPA 

assumes that those facilities that face 

costs exceeding 10 percent of their 

budget would be adversely affected by 

the final regulation. None of these 

facilities report the use of user fee 

funds. These results indicate that 3 

percent of all non-commercial 

operations may be adversely affected by 

the final option. Under EPA’s assumed 

criteria for determining economic 

achievability, these operations may be 

vulnerable to closure. 

Twelve facilities incur costs 

exceeding 5 percent of annual budgets 

under the final rule. These results 

indicate that an additional 6 percent of 

all non-commercial operations (not 

counting those adversely affected) 

would experience some moderate 

impact, short of closure, associated 

under this final rule. Some of these 

facilities report the use of user fees 

revenues, implying potential flexibility 

in meeting the incremental costs. 

No in-scope Alaskan nonprofit 

facilities responded to EPA’s detailed 

questionnaire, but EPA did identify two 

in-scope facilities based on screener 

data. These facilities were costed using 

screener data and economic impacts 

were projected based on publicly 

available revenue data for 2001. Neither 

facility is projected to incur costs greater 

than 3 percent of revenues. 

Given that the results of EPA’s 

analysis project that a small share of 

regulated noncommercial facilities may 

incur costs exceeding 10 percent of 

budget, estimated at 3 percent of 

facilities, the Agency has determined 

that these final technology options to be 

economically achievable for 

noncommercial facilities. For more 

information, see the Economic and 

Environmental Benefit Analysis 

available in the rulemaking record. 

New Commercial Facilities. EPA 

estimated that about 4 percent of 

regulated facilities do not incur any 

costs under the final regulation, and 

about 76 percent of facilities incur no 

land or capital costs. The incremental 

land and capital costs, where they were 

incurred, represented less than 0.2 

percent of total assets. This final 

regulation should therefore not present 

barriers to entry for new businesses.

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

Threshold test 

Number of inscope facilities 

in the

Analysis 1

Impacts projected under 

final option 

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. 

1There 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. 3Analysis performed at the company level. The statistical weights, however, are developed on the basis of facility characteristics and therefore 

cannot be used for estimating the number of companies. 4Two Alaska non-profit organizations are within the scope of this rule, but did not receive a detailed survey. They were costed using screener 

survey data. Economic impacts were calculated using publically available information. 5Some State-owned facilities reported that they relied, in part, on funds from State user fee operations. These numbers are reported in parenthesis and are included in the overall numbers as well. 6There is a potential for a small number of Tribal facilities to be present within the population of non-commercial facilities, despite the absence 

of a line item for Tribal facilities above. In its screener survey which was a census of the industry, EPA identified a number of Tribal facilities that 

might be subject to the proposed rule for the CAAP category (DCN 51401). However, all of the tribal facilities represented by the detailed survey 

were determined to not be in scope.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51919

Because the detailed survey is a 

sample, there is uncertainty associated 

with the conclusion that there are no 

tribal facilities in scope for the final 

rule. For this reason, EPA believes there 

may be a few in-scope tribal facilities 

that have not been analyzed. As part of 

the analyses conducted prior to the 

NODA, based on the screener data, EPA 

estimated impacts for tribal facilities 

producing between 20,000 and 100,000 

pounds per year for Option B (more 

costly than the final option). These 

results are for facilities that are not 

within the scope of the final rule, but 

they provide evidence that the final rule 

is expected to be economically 

achievable for tribal facilities.

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

Number of inscope facilities 

in the

analysis 1

Closures projected under 

final option 

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 

1There 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. 3Analysis assumes earnings estimated using cash flow and closure defined, more conservatively, as occurring when negative earnings are 

projected under only one of three forecast methods. 

3. What Are the Projected Market Level 

Impacts? 

EPA was not able to prepare a market 

model analysis for this rule because of 

the complex interaction between 

commercial and non-commercial 

operations (e.g., trout are raised 

commercially, but also for restoration 

and recreation), wild catch accounts for 

a large share of the market for some 

species, and USDA Census data indicate 

that there is a high degree of 

concentration of specific species, such 

as trout and some other food fish. 

Literature on estimated measures of 

elasticity of supply and demand is 

limited and exist for only a few species, 

such as catfish which are not covered by 

this regulation. The Agency does 

therefore not report quantitative 

estimates of changes in overall supply 

and demand for aquaculture products 

and changes in market prices. For more 

information, see Chapter 3.6 of the 

Economic and Environmental Benefit 

Analysis for the proposed rulemaking 

available in the docket (DCN 63010). 

However, EPA does not expect 

significant market impacts as a result of 

today’s final rule because economic 

impacts are expected to be low (see

discussion above) and the overall cost of 

the rule is low, as compared to the total 

value of the U.S. aquaculture industry. 

Long-term shifts in supply associated 

with this rule are unlikely given 

expected continued competition from 

domestic wild harvesters and low-cost 

foreign suppliers. For additional 

information, see the Economic and 

Environmental Impact Analysis 

available in the rulemaking record. 

4. What Are the Potential Impacts on 

Foreign Trade? 

Foreign trade impacts are difficult to 

predict, since agricultural exports are 

determined by economic conditions in 

foreign markets and changes in the 

international exchange rate for the U.S. 

dollar. In addition, for today’s final rule, 

EPA was not able to perform a market 

model analysis for this rule and did not 

obtain quantitative estimates of changes 

in overall supply and demand for 

aquaculture products and changes in 

market prices, as well as changes in 

traded volumes including imports and 

exports. 

Nevertheless, EPA believes that the 

impact of this final rule on U.S. 

aquaculture trade will not be significant. 

Because of the relatively small market 

share of U.S. aquaculture producers in 

world markets, EPA believes that longterm shifts in supply associated with 

this rule are unlikely given expected 

continued competition from domestic 

wild harvesters and already lower-cost 

foreign suppliers in China and other 

Asian nations. Under a scenario that 

assumes the total costs of the rule are 

absorbed by the domestic market, EPA 

estimates that U.S. aquaculture prices 

would rise by slightly more than 1 cent 

per pound. Under the alternative 

assumption that all costs are born by 

facility operators, impacts are projected 

to be small and would not significantly 

affect production (see Section IX.B.2). 

5. What Are the Potential Impacts on 

Communities? 

The communities where aquaculture 

facilities are located may be affected by 

the final regulation if facilities cut back 

operations. However, EPA projects no 

commercial facility closures as a result 

of this rule, assuming discounted cash 

flow (two closures are projected using 

net income as shown in Table IX–3.5), 

indicating minimal likelihood of 

measurable impacts on (1) direct losses 

in commercial production, revenue, or 

employment; and (2) local economies 

and employment rates. Should some 

facilities cut back operations as a result 

of this final regulation, EPA cannot 

project how great these impacts would 

be as it cannot identify the communities 

where impacts might occur. Under a 

scenario that assumes the total costs of 

the rule are absorbed by the domestic 

market, EPA estimates that U.S. 

aquaculture prices would rise by 

slightly more than 1 cent per pound. 

(See EPA’s Economic and 

Environmental Benefit Analysis.) 

Closures of non-commercial facilities 

could also result in employment 

impacts on communities. EPA projects 

four noncommercial facilities, with a 

total employment of 16 employees 

could experience impacts such that they 

would be vulnerable to closure (i.e.,

costs exceed 10 percent of annual 

budget). The communities in which 

these facilities are located could 

experience moderate impacts, but, as 

noted in Section IX.B.2, environmental 

compliance costs are generally a 

contributing rather than the deciding 

factor in closure decisions. EPA 

therefore does not expect significant 

impacts on communities as a result of 

today’s final rule. 

C. What Do the Cost-Reasonableness 

Analyses Show? 

EPA performed an assessment of the 

total cost of the final rule relative to the 

expected effluent reductions. EPA based 

its ‘‘cost reasonableness’’ (CR) analysis 

on estimated costs, loadings, and 

51920 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

removals. See EPA’s Development 

Document in the rulemaking record for 

additional details. 

Table IX.4 shows the costreasonableness values for conventional 

pollutants. EPA estimates BOD and TSS 

removals for each facility for each 

option. Because BOD can be correlated 

with TSS, EPA selected the higher of the 

two values (not the sum) to avoid 

possible double-counting of removals. 

For the Flow-through and Recirculating 

Systems Subcategory, costreasonableness is $2.77/lb. Costreasonableness is undefined for the Net 

Pen Subcategory systems because these 

facilities have adequate treatment to 

achieve requirements for pollutants (i.e.,

no incremental removals are estimated 

for these facilities).

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

Subcategory 

Pre-tax 

annualized 

costs

($2003) 

BOD or TSS 

removals

(lb) 1

Cost-reasonableness

($2003/pound) 

Flow-through and Recirculating Systems .................................................................................... $1,405,866 506,839 $2.77 

Net pen ........................................................................................................................................ $35,640 0 Undefined 

1EPA 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 

Benefits for This Rule? 

A. Summary of Environmental Benefits 

Today’s final action does not establish 

numeric limits for total suspended 

solids (TSS) or other pollutants from 

flow-through and recirculating systems. 

It establishes BMPs for solids control, 

materials storage, structural 

maintenance, recordkeeping, and 

training. The final rule also requires the 

permittee to develop a BMP plan on-site 

describing how the permittee will 

achieve the BMP requirements and 

make the plan available to the 

permitting authority upon request. The 

facilities are also to maintain the 

structural integrity of the aquatic animal 

containment system. The final rule also 

establishes BMP requirements for net 

pen systems that address feed 

management, waste collection and 

disposal, discharges associated with 

transport and harvest, carcass removal, 

materials storage, structural 

maintenance, recordkeeping, and 

training. Net pen facilities are to 

develop and maintain a BMP plan onsite describing how the permittee is to 

achieve the BMP requirements. The 

permittee must make the plan available 

to the permitting authority upon 

request. Both the flow-through and 

recirculating and net pen subcategories 

have reporting requirements for (1) the 

use of INADs and extralabel drugs use, 

(2) failure or damage to the structural 

integrity of the aquatic animal 

containment system, and (3) spills of 

drugs, pesticides and feed which result 

in discharge of pollutants to waters of 

the U.S. The requirements, according to 

EPA loadings estimates, will reduce 

facility discharges of TSS, total nitrogen 

(TN), total phosphorus (TP), and 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). 

EPA has also estimated reductions for 

metals and some feed contaminants as 

a result of these final requirements. EPA 

could not quantify baseline or regulated 

loads for drugs and pesticides. 

These requirements and loading 

reductions (TSS, TN, TP, BOD, metals, 

and feed contaminants) could affect 

water quality, the uses supported by 

varying levels of water quality, and 

other aquatic environmental variables 

(e.g., primary production and 

populations or assemblages of native 

organisms in the receiving waters of 

regulated facilities). These impacts may 

result in environmental benefits, some 

of which have quantifiable, monetizable 

value to society. For today’s final action, 

EPA has only monetized benefits from 

water quality improvements resulting 

from reductions in TSS, TN, TP, and 

BOD.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF FINAL RULE

Type of benefit Monetized value 

($2003) 

Improved water quality from reduced 

TSS, TN, TP, and 

BOD loadings due 

to improved solids 

control, including 

feed management 

$66,000–$99,000

Reduced inputs to receiving water of 

metals and feed 

contaminants 

not monetized 

Reduced inputs of 

drugs and pesticides 

not monetized 

Reduced inputs of 

materials as a result of structural 

maintenance and 

material storage requirements 

not monetized 

B. Non-Monetized Benefits 

1. Metals and Other Additives and 

Contaminants 

CAAP facilities may release metals 

and other feed additives and 

contaminants to the environment in 

limited quantities; proper management 

of solids and other management 

practices may reduce environmental 

risk from these releases. Trace amounts 

of metals are added to feed in the form 

of mineral packs to ensure that the 

essential dietary nutrients are provided. 

In general, FDA establishes safety limits 

for feed additives and must address 

environmental safety concerns 

associated with such additives under 

the requirements of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFD&CA) and 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). Trace amounts of metals may 

also be present as feed contaminants. 

Metals may also be introduced into the 

environment from CAAP machinery, 

equipment, and structures (e.g., net pens 

treated with antifouling copper 

compounds). Other feed additives may 

include FDA-approved compounds used 

to improve the coloring of fish flesh. 

Organochlorine contaminants such as 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) also 

may be present as trace residues 

regulated by FDA in some fish feeds.

EPA estimates that today’s final rule 

will reduce total suspended solids (TSS) 

released by CAAP facilities by about 

half a million pounds per year. Metals 

and other feed contaminants that may 

be released to the environment from 

CAAP facilities are in large part 

associated with waste solids. EPA 

estimates that reductions in TSS will be 

accompanied by incidental removals of 

metals and PCBs. EPA estimated metal 

reductions of approximately 2,700 

pounds per year nationally and a 

maximum of PCB reductions of 0.04 lbs 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51921

per year. For further discussion of 

metals and other feed additives and 

contaminants, see the Economic and 

Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Technical Development Document for 

this final rule (DCNs 63010 and 63009). 

2. Drugs and Pesticides 

CAAP facilities employ drugs and 

pesticides for a variety of therapeutic 

and water treatment purposes. Facilities 

release treated waters that may contain 

residual amounts of drugs, pesticides, 

and their byproducts directly to the 

environment. Drugs used for therapeutic 

purposes are regulated by FDA. Prior to 

approving drugs for use, FDA must 

evaluate the environmental safety of 

animal drugs as required by FFDCA and 

NEPA. While FDA is required to 

consider environmental impacts of 

approved and investigational drugs 

under these authorities, the 

environmental safety of drugs used 

under FDA’s ‘‘investigational new 

animal drug’’ (INAD) program may not 

be fully characterized. The INAD 

program is an important mechanism 

that enables the collection of data that 

can be used to characterize and 

establish the environmental safety of 

new drugs. For compilations of 

technical literature supporting FDA’s 

environmental assessments of 

therapeutants used at CAAP facilities, 

see the FDA’s Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (CVM) Web site 

(www.fda.gov/cvm). It should be noted 

that FDA environmental assessments are 

not site-specific and may not cover all 

discharge scenarios (e.g., multiple 

dischargers to a single receiving water) 

or applications (e.g., extralabel 

applications of drugs). For additional 

discussion of this topic, see Chapter 7 

of EPA’s Environmental Impact 

Analysis for this final rule. 

Today’s final rule requires the proper 

storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed to 

prevent spills that may result in a 

discharge from CAAP facilities. For 

reasons explained in Section VI.G 

(Loadings) of this Preamble, EPA has 

not quantified expected reductions in 

the release of drugs and pesticides to the 

environment nor environmental benefits 

that might result. Today’s final rule also 

requires CAAP facilities to report to 

permitting authorities whenever an 

investigative drug or an extralabel drug 

is used in amounts exceeding a 

previously approved dosage, as 

described above in Section VIII.E. This 

requirement is expected to better enable 

permitting authorities to monitor the 

potential for environmental risks that 

could result from such uses. EPA has 

not quantified benefits that might arise 

as a result of this requirement. 

C. Monetized Benefits 

1. Case Study Framework 

As was done for EPA’s proposed rule, 

EPA estimated monetized benefits of the 

regulation based on predicted 

improvements in water quality in the 

receiving waters of facilities that were 

expected to have load reductions as a 

result of the rule. EPA’s water quality 

modeling for today’s final action differs 

from the proposal modeling, however, 

in that for the final rule, more detailed, 

facility-specific operational and 

environmental data were obtained, both 

from information provided by facilities 

on the detailed surveys as well as other 

sources. This more detailed data 

provided EPA with a better basis for 

developing representative case studies 

on which to perform water quality 

modeling and valuation and for 

extrapolating from case studies to a 

national benefit estimate. 

To select a set of representative case 

studies from among the facilities for 

which EPA had detailed data, EPA 

assumed that three factors primarily 

drive water quality improvements at any 

given facility: (1) The magnitude of 

pollutant load reductions under the 

final rule, (2) effluent pollutant 

concentrations at baseline (prior to 

regulatory reductions), and (3) the ratio 

of facility effluent flow to receiving 

water streamflow (‘‘dilution ratio’’). EPA 

then created categories based on 

combinations of values (low and high) 

for each of these factors. For example, 

the ‘‘LLL’’ category means facilities with 

‘‘low’’ pollutant reductions under the 

final rule, ‘‘low’’ baseline effluent 

concentrations, and ‘‘low’’ dilution 

ratios; this category is expected to 

experience the smallest benefits of the 

final regulation. In this manner, eight 

categories were created (LLL, LLH, LHL, 

LHH, HLL, HLH, HHL, HHH; see Table 

2). EPA then assigned all detailed 

survey facilities with non-zero load 

reductions in the scope of the final rule 

to an appropriate category based on the 

three factors described above. For more 

details on the categorization procedure, 

see Chapter 8 of the Economic and 

Environmental Impact Analysis for 

today’s final action [DCN 63010]. 

EPA then developed a ‘‘case study’’

for one facility in each of the five 

categories expected to experience the 

greatest water quality improvement 

(EPA did not develop case studies for all 

categories partly because of resource 

constraints). EPA multiplied the 

estimated benefits for each case study 

by the total number of facilities assigned 

to that category to estimate a total 

national benefit for that category. No 

benefits were estimated for the three 

categories for which case studies were 

not developed. Benefits for these 

categories are expected to be small 

relative to those included in the 

analysis. The total national benefit 

estimate was estimated as the sum of 

benefits for all categories.

2. Economic Valuation Method 

Economic research indicates that the 

public is willing to pay for 

improvements in water quality and 

several methods have been developed to 

translate changes in water quality to 

monetized values, as noted in EPA’s 

‘‘Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses (EPA–240–R–00–003, 2003;). 

At proposal, EPA based the water 

quality benefits monetization on results 

from a stated-preference survey 

conducted by Carson and Mitchell 

(1993) (DCN 20157). We divided 

household willingness-to-pay (WTP) 

values for changes in recreational water 

‘‘use classes’’ by the number of ‘‘water 

quality index’’ points (an index based 

on water quality variables; see below) in 

each use class. We assigned a portion of 

the value for each unit change to 

achieving the whole step. Recently, EPA 

developed an alternative approach, also 

based on Mitchell and Carson’s work. 

Mitchell and Carson also expressed 

their results as an equation relating a 

household’s WTP for improved water 

quality to the change in the water 

quality index and household income. 

An important feature of this approach is 

that it is less sensitive to the baseline 

use of the water body. This approach is 

also consistent with economic theory in 

that it exhibits a declining marginal 

WTP for water quality (see more 

information on this approach in DCNS 

40138 and 40595). While caution must 

be used in manipulating valuations 

derived from stated preference surveys, 

this valuation function approach helps 

address some concerns about earlier 

applications of the water quality 

benefits monetization method. (See DCN 

40595 for a more detailed discussion). 

3. Water Quality Modeling 

As was done for the proposed rule, 

EPA applied the Enhanced Stream 

Water Quality Model (QUAL2E, http://

www.epa.gov/waterscience/wqm/) to 

simulate changes in receiving water 

quality resulting from reductions in 

TSS, BOD, total nitrogen, and total 

phosphorus estimated by EPA to result 

from the regulatory requirements of this 

final rule. QUAL2E is a onedimensional water quality model that 

assumes steady state flow but allows 

simulation of diurnal variations in 

temperature, algal photosynthesis, and 

respiration. The model projects water 

51922 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

quality by solving an advectivedispersive mass transport equation. 

Water quality constituents simulated 

include conservative substances, 

temperature, bacteria, BOD5, DO, 

ammonia, nitrate and organic nitrogen, 

phosphate and organic phosphorus, and 

algae. 

Resource and data limitations 

constrained the number of QUAL2E 

applications that could be performed. 

EPA developed a QUAL2E case study 

for the following categories: LHL, LHH, 

HLH, HHL, and HHH. EPA did not 

prepare case studies for the LLL, LLH, 

and HLL categories because (a) no 

facilities were in the HLL category and 

(b) EPA focused modeling resources on 

categories expected to represent a larger 

proportion of benefits. Water quality 

improvements for facilities in the LLL 

and LLH categories were expected to be 

smaller than the improvements for the 

facilities in the other categories. 

4. Calculation of ‘‘Water Quality Index’’

Simulated water quality changes for 

each case study must be translated into 

a composite ‘‘index’’ value for the 

monetization method described in 

Section X.B.2 above. EPA more recently 

developed a six-parameter WQI (‘‘WQI–

6’’) based on TSS, BOD, DO, FC, plus 

nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (PO4). The 

new index more completely reflects the 

type of water quality changes that will 

result from loading reductions for TSS, 

total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus 

(TP), and BOD. Final rule benefits 

presented here were estimated on the 

basis of WQI–6. 

5. Estimated National Water Quality 

Benefits 

EPA monetized water quality benefits 

for each of the 5 QUAL2E case studies 

performed (Table 2). Using the methods 

described above, the Agency estimates 

that the total national benefit from water 

quality improvements arising from TSS, 

BOD, TN, and TP reductions from this 

rule are $66,000—$99,000. This range 

reflects varying assumptions that the 

Agency implemented to reflect some 

sources of uncertainty. Furthermore, 

this range of water quality-based 

benefits of this regulation may be 

uncertain for several reasons including: 

• EPA did not estimate benefits for 

the facilities in the LLL and LLH 

extrapolation categories. However, it is 

not expected that inclusion of these 

facilities would greatly increase 

monetized water quality benefits. 

• EPA’s monetization method mainly 

captures benefits for recreational uses of 

the streams. Economic research 

indicates that there are significant ‘‘nonuse’’ values associated with some 

dimensions of water quality. Analysis 

using monetization methods that fully 

captures non-use values could increase 

the estimated benefits for this rule if it 

significantly affects these dimensions. 

EPA does not have enough information 

to determine if this is the case. 

• Other receiving water impacts are 

not captured in the QUAL2E modeling, 

such as build-up of organic sediments in 

stream channels. Research included in 

the administrative record for today’s 

final action documents that such 

accumulations can impair aquatic 

ecosystems. Benefits from reducing 

these effects are not captured in EPA’s 

analysis of water quality-based benefits 

of today’s final action.

TABLE 2.—EXTRAPOLATED TOTAL NATIONAL WATER QUALITY BENEFIT

ESTIMATE, FINAL OPTION

A

Extrapolation category 

B

Total national 

benefit for extrapolation category

($2003) 

LLL–LLH ........................... not estimated 

LHL–LHH .......................... $2,126–$5,330 

HLL–HLH .......................... $6,591–$12,031 

HHL–HHH ......................... $57,497–$81,255 

Total ........................... $66,214–$98,616 

In general, however, the relatively 

small recreational benefits projected for 

the rule suggest that non-monetized 

benefits categories are likely to be small 

as well. 

XI. What Are the Non-Water Quality 

Environmental Impacts of This Rule? 

Under Sections 304(b) and 306 of the 

Clean Water Act, EPA may consider 

non-water quality environmental 

impacts (including energy requirements) 

when developing effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards. Accordingly, 

EPA has considered the potential 

impact of today’s final regulation on air 

emissions, energy consumption, and 

solid waste generation. 

A. Air Emissions 

With the implementation of feed 

management, the final rule decreases 

the amount of solid waste generated and 

land applied from CAAP facilities. Land 

application is a common waste disposal 

method in the CAAP industry; therefore, 

the amount of ammonia released as air 

emissions would be expected to 

decrease as the quantity of waste 

applied to cropland decreases. EPA 

estimates the decrease in ammonia 

emissions to be 8,182 pounds of 

ammonia per year. This is a decrease of 

about 8 % over the ammonia emissions 

presently estimated for the industry. For 

additional details about air emissions 

from CAAP facilities, see Chapter 11 of 

the TDD. 

B. Energy Consumption

EPA estimates that implementation of 

today’s rule would result in a net 

decrease in energy consumption for 

aquaculture facilities. The decrease 

would be based on electricity used 

today to pump solids from raceways to 

solids settling ponds, which will no 

longer be generated, from wastewater 

treatment equipment. EPA determined 

that the decrease in energy consumption 

for flow-through and recirculating 

systems is estimated at 4,900 kilowatthour (kW-h). This represents about 1.3 

× 10¥7 percent of the national generated 

energy. 

C. Solid Waste Generation 

EPA estimates that implementation of 

today’s rule would result in an 

estimated reduction of 2.3 million 

pounds of sludge, on a wet basis 

(assuming 12 percent solids) for flowthrough and recirculating facilities. This 

reduction is due to feed management 

that results in less solid waste 

generated. 

XII. How Will This Rule Be 

Implemented? 

This section helps permit writers and 

CAAP facilities implement this 

regulation. This section also discusses 

the relationship of upset and bypass 

provisions, variances, and modifications 

to the final limitations and standards. 

For additional implementation 

information, see Chapter 2 of the 

Technical Development Document for 

today’s rule. 

A. Implementation of Limitations and 

Standards for Direct Dischargers 

Effluent limitations guidelines and 

new source performance standards act 

as important mechanisms to control the 

discharges of pollutants to waters of the 

United States. These limitations and 

standards are applied to individual 

facilities through NPDES permits issued 

by the EPA or authorized States under 

Section 402 of the Act. 

In specific cases, the NPDES 

permitting authority may elect to 

establish technology-based permit limits 

for pollutants not covered by this 

regulation. In addition, where State 

water quality standards or other 

provisions of State or Federal law 

require limits on pollutants not covered 

by this regulation (or require more 

stringent limits or standards on covered 

pollutants in order to attain and 

maintain water quality standards), the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51923

permitting authority must apply those 

limitations or standards. See CWA 

Section 301(b)(1)(C). 

The final regulation establishing 

narrative limitations for the flowthrough and recirculating system and 

net pen subcategories requires that a 

point source must meet the prescribed 

limitations expressed as operational 

practices or ‘‘any modification to these 

requirements as determined by the 

permitting authority based on its 

exercise of its best professional 

judgment.’’ Sections 451.11 and 451.21. 

This provision authorizes the permitting 

authority to tailor the specific NPDES 

permit limits that implement the 

guideline limitations to individual sites. 

As previously explained, the final 

narrative requirements, in many cases, 

require achievement of environmental 

end points. There may be circumstances 

which require some modification to 

these requirements to best accomplish 

these environmental end points, or to 

accommodate specific circumstances at 

a particular site. The provision allows 

the permitting authority to address such 

situations by incorporating in the 

NPDES permit specific tailored 

conditions that accomplish the intent of 

the narrative limitations. The CWA 

recognizes that it should provide 

mechanisms for addressing certain 

unique, site-specific situations in the 

guidelines regulation. Here, EPA has 

provided upfront in this rule such a 

mechanism. 

1. What Are the Compliance Dates for 

Existing and New Sources? 

New and reissued NPDES permits to 

direct dischargers must include these 

effluent limitations unless water quality 

considerations require more stringent 

limits, and the permits must require 

immediate compliance with such 

limitations. If the permitting authority 

wishes to provide a compliance 

schedule, it must do so through an 

enforcement mechanism. 

New sources must comply with the 

new source standards (NSPS) of this 

rule when they commence discharging 

CAAP wastewater. Because the final 

rule was not promulgated within 120 

days of the proposed rule, the Agency 

considers a discharger to be a new 

source if its construction commences 

after September 22, 2004. 

2. Who Does Part 451 Apply To? 

In Section VI.A. of this preamble and 

Chapter 2 of the TDD, EPA provides 

detailed information on the 

applicability of this rule. 40 CFR part 

451 will apply to existing and new 

concentrated aquatic animal production 

facilities that produce 100,000 pounds 

or more of aquatic animals per year in 

flow-through, recirculating, and net pen 

systems. There is an exception for net 

pen systems rearing native species 

released after a growing period of no 

longer than 4 months to supplement 

commercial and sport fisheries. 

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions 

A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion 

of the streams from any portion of a 

treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an 

exceptional incident in which there is 

unintentional and temporary 

noncompliance with technology-based 

permit effluent limitations because of 

factors beyond the reasonable control of 

the permittee. EPA’s regulations 

concerning bypasses and upsets for 

direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR 

122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect 

dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and 

403.17. 

C. Variances and Modifications

While the CWA requires application 

of effluent limitations established 

pursuant to section 301 to all direct 

dischargers, the statute also provides for 

the modification of these national 

requirements in a limited number of 

circumstances. Moreover, the Agency 

established administrative mechanisms 

to provide an opportunity for relief from 

the application of the national effluent 

limitations guidelines for categories of 

existing sources for toxic, conventional, 

and nonconventional pollutants. 

1. Fundamentally Different Factors 

Variances 

EPA will develop effluent limitations 

or standards different from the 

otherwise applicable requirements if an 

individual discharging facility is 

fundamentally different with respect to 

factors considered in establishing the 

limitation of standards applicable to the 

individual facility. Such a modification 

is known as a ‘‘fundamentally different 

factors’’ (FDF) variance. 

Early on, EPA, by regulation provided 

for the FDF modifications from the BPT 

effluent limitations, BAT limitations for 

toxic and nonconventional pollutants 

and BCT limitations for conventional 

pollutants for direct dischargers. FDF 

variances for toxic pollutants were 

challenged judicially and ultimately 

sustained by the Supreme Court. 

(Chemical Manufacturers Assn v. 

NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)). 

Subsequently, in the Water Quality 

Act of 1987, Congress added new 

Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to 

authorize modifications of the otherwise 

applicable BAT effluent limitations or 

categorical pretreatment standards for 

existing sources if a facility is 

fundamentally different with respect to 

the factors specified in Section 304 

(other than costs) from those considered 

by EPA in establishing the effluent 

limitations or pretreatment standard. 

Section 301(n) also defined the 

conditions under which EPA may 

establish alternative requirements. 

Under Section 301(n), an application for 

approval of a FDF variance must be 

based solely on (1) information 

submitted during rulemaking raising the 

factors that are fundamentally different 

or (2) information the applicant did not 

have an opportunity to submit. The 

alternate limitation or standard must be 

no less stringent than justified by the 

difference and must not result in 

markedly more adverse non-water 

quality environmental impacts than the 

national limitation or standard. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125, 

Subpart D, authorizing the Regional 

Administrators to establish alternative 

limitations and standards, further detail 

the substantive criteria used to evaluate 

FDF variance requests for direct 

dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) 

identifies six factors (e.g., volume of 

process wastewater, age and size of a 

discharger’s facility) that may be 

considered in determining if a facility is 

fundamentally different. The Agency 

must determine whether, on the basis of 

one or more of these factors, the facility 

in question is fundamentally different 

from the facilities and factors 

considered by EPA in developing the 

nationally applicable effluent 

guidelines. The regulation also lists four 

other factors (e.g., infeasibility of 

installation within the time allowed or 

a discharger’s ability to pay) that may 

not provide a basis for an FDF variance. 

In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), 

a request for limitations less stringent 

than the national limitation may be 

approved only if compliance with the 

national limitations would result in 

either (a) a removal cost wholly out of 

proportion to the removal cost 

considered during development of the 

national limitations, or (b) a non-water 

quality environmental impact 

(including energy requirements) 

fundamentally more adverse than the 

impact considered during development 

of the national limits. 

The legislative history of Section 

301(n) underscores the necessity for the 

FDF variance applicant to establish 

eligibility for the variance. EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are 

explicit in imposing this burden upon 

the applicant. The applicant must show 

that the factors relating to the discharge 

controlled by the applicant’s permit 

which are claimed to be fundamentally 

different are, in fact, fundamentally 

51924 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

different from those factors considered 

by EPA in establishing the applicable 

guidelines. In practice, very few FDF 

variances have been granted for past 

ELGs. An FDF variance is not available 

to a new source subject to NSPS or 

PSNS. 

Facilities must submit all FDF 

variance applications to the appropriate 

Director (defined at 40 CFR 122.2) no 

later than 180 days from the date the 

limitations or standards are established 

or revised (see CWA section 301(n)(2) 

and 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1)(i)(B)(2)). EPA 

regulations clarify that effluent 

limitations guidelines are ‘‘established’’

or ‘‘revised’’ on the date those effluent 

limitations guidelines are published in 

the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 122.21 

(m)(1)(i)(B)(2)). Therefore, all facilities 

requesting FDF variances from the 

effluent limitations guidelines in today’s 

final rule must submit FDF variance 

applications to their Director (as defined 

at 40 CFR 122.2) no later than February 

21, 2005. 

2. Economic Variances 

Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes 

a variance from the otherwise applicable 

BAT effluent guidelines for 

nonconventional pollutants due to 

economic factors. The request for a 

variance from effluent limitations 

developed from BAT guidelines must 

normally be filed by the discharger 

during the public notice period for the 

draft permit. Other filing time periods 

may apply, as specified in 40 CFR 

122.21(1)(2). Specific guidance for this 

type of variance is available from EPA’s 

Office of Wastewater Management.

D. Best Management Practices 

Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 

501(a) of the CWA authorize the 

Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part 

of effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards or as part of a permit. EPA’s 

BMP regulations are found at 40 CFR 

122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA 

authorizes EPA to include BMPs in 

effluent limitations guidelines for 

certain toxic or hazardous pollutants for 

the purpose of controlling ‘‘plant site 

runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste 

disposal, and drainage from raw 

material storage.’’ Section 402(a)(1) and 

NPDES regulations [40 CFR 122.44(k)] 

also provide for best management 

practices to control or abate the 

discharge of pollutants when numeric 

limitations and standards are infeasible. 

In addition, Section 402(a)(2), read in 

concert with Section 501(a), authorizes 

EPA to prescribe as wide a range of 

permit conditions as the Administrator 

deems appropriate in order to ensure 

compliance with applicable effluent 

limitations and standards and such 

other requirements as the Administrator 

deems appropriate. 

E. Potential Tools To Assist With the 

Remediation of Aquaculture Effluents 

A potential option to assist land 

owners with aquaculture effluent 

quality is the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP). This is a 

voluntary USDA conservation program. 

EQIP was reauthorized in the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 (Farm Bill 2002). The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

administers EQIP funds. 

EQIP applications are accepted 

throughout the year. NRCS evaluates 

each application using a state and 

locally developed evaluation process. 

Incentive payments may be made to 

encourage a producer to adopt land 

management, manure management, 

integrated pest management, irrigation 

water management and wildlife habitat 

management practices or to develop a 

Comprehensive Nutrient Management 

Plan (CNMP). These practices would 

provide beneficial effects on reducing 

sediment and nutrient loads to those 

aquaculture operations dependent on 

surface water flows. In addition, 

opportunities exist to provide EQIP 

funds to foster the adoption of 

innovative cost effective approaches to 

address a broad base of conservation 

needs, including aquaculture effluent 

remediation. NRCS does not at present 

have standards that apply specifically to 

waste handling at aquaculture facilities, 

thus EQIP funds for aquaculture projects 

would only apply to practices related to 

other agricultural aspects of a facility 

such as CNMPs for the land application 

of solids. 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 

51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ As such, this action was 

submitted to OMB for review. Changes 

made in response to OMB suggestions or 

recommendations will be documented 

in the public record. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

EPA has several special reporting and 

monitoring provisions in this regulation 

as previously explained. The provisions 

include reporting requirements (1) for 

the use of INAD or extralabel drug uses; 

(2) for failure or damage to the 

containment system (including the 

production system(s) and all the 

associated storage and water treatment 

systems) that results in a material 

discharge of pollutants to waters of the 

U.S; and (3) for spills of drugs, 

pesticides or feed. Section 308(a) of the 

CWA authorizes the Administrator to 

require the owner or operator of any 

point source to file reports as required 

to carry out the objectives of the Act. 

This ELG requires reporting in the event 

that drugs are used which are either 

under a conditional approval as an 

Investigative New Animal Drugs 

(INADs) or are prescribed by a licensed 

veterinarian for treatment of a disease or 

a species that is outside the approved 

use of the specific drug, referred to as 

extralabel drug use, unless the INAD or 

extralabel drug use is under similar 

conditions and dosages as a previously 

approved use. EPA believes this 

reporting requirement is appropriate for 

these classes of drugs, because they 

have not undergone the same degree of 

review with respect to their 

environmental effects as approved 

drugs. The final regulation also requires 

reporting when the facility has a failure 

in the structural integrity of the aquatic 

animal containment systems that results 

in a material discharge of pollutants. 

EPA believes this reporting is necessary 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51925

to alert the permitting authority to the 

release of large quantities of material 

from these facilities. The rule also 

allows the permitting authority to 

specify in the permit what constitutes 

damage and/or material discharge of 

pollutants for particular facilities based 

on consideration of relevant site-specific 

factors. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; search data 

sources; complete and review the 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

EPA estimates that the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

today’s regulation will result in a total 

annual burden of 45,000 hours and cost 

$808,000. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is primarily engaged in 

concentrated aquatic animal production, 

as defined by North American Industry 

Classification (NAIC) codes 112511 and 

112519, with no more than $0.75 

million in annual revenues; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

the final rule are primarily commercial 

businesses that fall within the NAIC 

codes for finfish farming, fish 

hatcheries, and other aquaculture. The 

Small Business Administration size 

standard for these codes is $0.75 million 

in annual revenues. Among the costed 

facilities, EPA identified 38 facilities 

belonging to small businesses or 

organizations. Of the 38, 37 facilities are 

owned by small businesses and 1 is an 

Alaskan facility operated by a small 

non-profit organization that is not 

dominant in its field. For the purposes 

of the RFA, Federal, and State 

governments are not considered small 

governmental jurisdictions, as 

documented in the rulemaking record 

(DCN 20121). Thus, facilities owned by 

these governments are not considered 

small entities, regardless of their 

production levels. EPA identified no 

public facilities owned by small local 

governments. No small organization is 

projected to incur impacts. Of the 101 

commercial facilities, 37 (37 percent) 

are owned by small businesses. Under 

EPA’s closure analyses no small 

business is projected to close as a result 

of the final rule, assuming discounted 

cash flow (two small business closures 

are projected using net income). In 

addition to considering the potential for 

adverse economic impacts, EPA also 

evaluated the possibility of other, more 

moderate financial impacts. Expressed 

as a comparison of compliance costs to 

sales, only 4 facilities belonging to small 

businesses (11 percent of small 

businesses, and 4 percent of commercial 

facilities) are likely to incur costs that 

exceed 3 percent of sales. One small 

business fails the USDA credit test. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless designed the rule to 

reduce the impact on small entities. The 

scope of the final rule is restricted to 

CAAP facilities that produce 100,000 

lbs/year or more. This means that of the 

approximately 4,000 aquaculture 

facilities nationwide, as identified by 

USDA’s Census of Aquaculture, EPA’s 

final regulation applies to an estimated 

101 commercial facilities or 

approximately 2.6 percent of all 

operations. Among commercial 

facilities, EPA identifies 38 facilities (37 

percent of in-scope facilities) as small 

businesses using SBA’s definition. 

Finally, EPA based the final rule on a 

technology option that has lower costs 

and fewer impacts (including impacts 

on small businesses) than several other 

technology options that were considered 

as possible bases for the final rule. 

EPA conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel prior to 

proposal to obtain the advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

the small entities that potentially would 

be subject to the rule’s requirements. 

The Agency convened the Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel on 

January 22, 2002. Members of the Panel 

represented the Office of Management 

and Budget, the Small Business 

Administration, and EPA. The Panel 

met with small entity representatives 

(SERs) to discuss the potential effluent 

guidelines and, in addition to the oral 

comments from SERs, the Panel 

solicited written input. In the months 

preceding the Panel, EPA conducted 

outreach with small entities that would 

potentially be affected by this 

regulation. On January 25, 2002, the 

SBAR Panel sent some initial 

information for the SERs to review and 

provide comment on. On February 6, 

2002, the Panel distributed additional 

information to the SERs for their review. 

On February 12 and 13, the Panel met 

with SERs to hear their comments on 

the information distributed in these 

mailings. The Panel also received 

written comments from the SERs in 

response to the discussions at this 

meeting and the outreach materials. The 

Panel asked SERs to evaluate how they 

would be affected and to provide advice 

and recommendations regarding early 

ideas to provide flexibility. See Section 

8 of the Panel’s Report (DCN 31019) for 

a complete discussion of SER 

comments. The Panel evaluated the 

assembled materials and small-entity 

comments on issues related to the 

elements of an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. A copy of the 

Panel’s report is included in the 

rulemaking docket. EPA provided 

responses to the Panel’s most significant 

findings in the Notice of Proposal 

Rulemaking (67 FR 57918–57920). In 

general, the requirements of this final 

rule address the concerns raised by 

SERs and are consistent with the Panel’s 

recommendations.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

51926 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. The 

total annual cost of this rule is estimated 

to be $1.4 million. Thus, today’s rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

Sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This rule does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. EPA estimates 

that, when promulgated, these revised 

effluent guidelines and standards will 

be incorporated into NPDES permits 

without significant additional costs to 

authorized States. 

Further, the revised regulations would 

not alter the basic State-Federal scheme 

established in the Clean Water Act 

under which EPA authorizes States to 

carry out the NPDES permitting 

program. EPA expects the revised 

regulations to have little effect, if any, 

on the relationship between, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among, the Federal, 

State and local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

this distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

The final rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. The 

Executive Order provides that EPA must 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications. EPA’s rulemaking process 

has provided that opportunity for 

meaningful and timely input. EPA first 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for CAAPs in September 

2002, requesting comment on the 

proposal. In December 2003, EPA issued 

a Notice of Data Availability describing 

options for changes to the proposed 

rule. As noted, EPA identified a number 

of tribal facilities in its screener survey, 

however further evaluation did not 

identify any in-scope tribal facilities 

based on subsequent evaluation of the 

detailed survey information from a 

sample of these facilities. Thus EPA has 

not had a basis to have any formal 

consultation with Tribal officials. EPA 

has however concluded that the final 

rule will not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian Tribes, will 

not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian tribal 

governments, nor pre-empt tribal law. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health and safety effects 

of the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant rule under E.O. 

12866. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘actions concerning Regulations 

that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

As part of the Agency’s consideration of 

non-water quality impacts, EPA has 

estimated the energy consumption 

associated with today’s requirements. 

The rule will result in a net decrease in 

energy consumption for flow-through 

and recirculating systems. The decrease 

would be based on electricity used 

today to pump solids from raceways to 

solids settling ponds, which will no 

longer be generated, from wastewater 

treatment equipment. EPA estimated the 

decrease in energy consumption for 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51927

flow-through and recirculating systems 

at 4,900 kilowatt-hour (kW-h). 

Comparing the annual decrease in 

electric use resulting from the final 

requirements to national annual energy 

use, EPA estimates the decrease to be 

1.3 × 10¥7 percent of national energy 

use. Therefore, we conclude that this 

rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

Today’s rule does not establish any 

technical standards, thus NTTAA does 

not apply to this rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The requirements of the 

Environmental Justice Executive Order 

are that EPA will review the 

environmental effects of major Federal 

actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. For 

such actions, EPA reviewers will focus 

on the spatial distribution of human 

health, social and economic effects to 

ensure that agency decision makers are 

aware of the extent to which those 

impacts fall disproportionately on 

covered communities. This is not a 

major action. Further, EPA does not 

believe this rulemaking will have a 

disproportionate effect on minority or 

low income communities because the 

technology-based effluent limitations 

guidelines are uniformly applied 

nationally irrespective of geographic 

location. The final regulation will 

reduce the negative effects of 

concentrated aquatic animal production 

industry waste in our nation’s waters to 

benefit all of society, including minority 

and low-income communities. The cost 

impacts of the rule should likewise not 

disproportionately affect low-income 

communities given the relatively low 

economic impacts of today’s final rule. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective September 22, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 451

Environmental protection, 

Concentrated aquatic animal 

production, Waste treatment and 

disposal, Water pollution control.

Dated: June 30, 2004. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Acting Deputy Administrator.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended by 

adding part 451 to read as follows:

PART 451—CONCENTRATED 

AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION 

POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec. 

451.1 General applicability. 

451.2 General definitions. 

451.3 General reporting requirements.

Subpart A—Flow-Through and 

Recirculating Systems Subcategory 

451.10 Applicability. 

451.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the 

application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

451.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the 

application of the best available 

technology economically achievable 

(BAT). 

451.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the 

application of the best conventional 

technology (BCT). 

451.14 New source performance standards 

(NSPS).

Subpart B—Net Pen Subcategory 

451.20 Applicability. 

451.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the 

application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

451.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the 

application of the best available 

technology economically achievable 

(BAT). 

451.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the 

application of the best conventional 

technology (BCT). 

451.24 New source performance standards 

(NSPS).

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671, 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and 

(e), 1361; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 

300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–

5, 300g–6, 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 

1857 et seq., 6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 

9601–9657, 11023, 11048; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 

21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., 973.

§ 451.1 General applicability. 

As defined more specifically in each 

subpart, this Part applies to discharges 

from concentrated aquatic animal 

production facilities as defined at 40 

CFR 122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR 

Part 122. This Part applies to the 

discharges of pollutants from facilities 

that produce 100,000 pounds or more of 

aquatic animals per year in a flowthrough, recirculating, net pen or 

submerged cage system.

§ 451.2 General definitions. 

As used in this part: 

(a) The general definitions and 

abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 apply. 

(b) Approved dosage means the dose 

of a drug that has been found to be safe 

and effective under the conditions of a 

new animal drug application. 

(c) Aquatic animal containment 

system means a culture or rearing unit 

such as a raceway, pond, tank, net or 

other structure used to contain, hold or 

produce aquatic animals. The 

containment system includes structures 

designed to hold sediments and other 

materials that are part of a wastewater 

treatment system. 

(d) Concentrated aquatic animal 

production facility is defined at 40 CFR 

122.24 and Appendix C of 40 CFR Part 

122. 

(e) Drug means any substance defined 

as a drug in section 201(g)(1) of the 

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 

(21 U.S.C. 321). 

(f) Extralabel drug use means a drug 

approved under the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act that is not used in 

accordance with the approved label 

directions, see 21 CFR part 530. 

(g) Flow-through system means a 

system designed to provide a 

continuous water flow to waters of the 

United States through chambers used to 

produce aquatic animals. Flow-through 

systems typically use rearing units that 

are either raceways or tank systems. 

51928 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Rearing units referred to as raceways are 

typically long, rectangular chambers at 

or below grade, constructed of earth, 

concrete, plastic, or metal to which 

water is supplied by nearby rivers or 

springs. Rearing units comprised of tank 

systems use circular or rectangular tanks 

and are similarly supplied with water to 

raise aquatic animals. The term does not 

include net pens. 

(h) Investigational new animal drug 

(INAD) means a drug for which there is 

a valid exemption in effect under 

section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360b(j), to 

conduct experiments. 

(i) New animal drug application is 

defined in 512(b)(1) of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C 

360b(b)(1)). 

(j) Net pen system means a stationary, 

suspended or floating system of nets, 

screens, or cages in open waters of the 

United States. Net pen systems typically 

are located along a shore or pier or may 

be anchored and floating offshore. Net 

pens and submerged cages rely on tides 

and currents to provide a continual 

supply of high-quality water to the 

animals in production. 

(k) Permitting authority means EPA or 

the State agency authorized to 

administer the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

permitting program for the receiving 

waters into which a facility subject to 

this Part discharges. 

(l) Pesticide means any substance 

defined as a ‘‘pesticide’’ in section 2(u) 

of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(u)). 

(m) Real-time feed monitoring means 

a system designed to track the rate of 

feed consumption and to detect uneaten 

feed passing through the nets at a net 

pen facility. These systems may rely on 

a combination of visual observation and 

hardware, including, but not limited to, 

devices such as video cameras, digital 

scanning sonar, or upweller systems 

that allow facilities to determine when 

to cease feeding the aquatic animals. 

Visual observation alone from above the 

pens does not constitute real-time 

monitoring. 

(n) Recirculating system means a 

system that filters and reuses water in 

which the aquatic animals are produced 

prior to discharge. Recirculating systems 

typically use tanks, biological or 

mechanical filtration, and mechanical 

support equipment to maintain high 

quality water to produce aquatic 

animals.

§ 451.3 General reporting requirements. 

(a) Drugs. Except as noted below, a 

permittee subject to this Part must 

notify the permitting authority of the 

use in a concentrated aquatic animal 

production facility subject to this Part of 

any investigational new animal drug 

(INAD) or any extralabel drug use where 

such a use may lead to a discharge of 

the drug to waters of the U.S. Reporting 

is not required for an INAD or extralabel 

drug use that has been previously 

approved by FDA for a different species 

or disease if the INAD or extralabel use 

is at or below the approved dosage and 

involves similar conditions of use. 

(1) The permittee must provide a 

written report to the permitting 

authority of an INAD’s impending use 

within 7 days of agreeing or signing up 

to participate in an INAD study. The 

written report must identify the INAD to 

be used, method of use, the dosage, and 

the disease or condition the INAD is 

intended to treat. 

(2) For INADs and extralabel drug 

uses, the permittee must provide an oral 

report to the permitting authority as 

soon as possible, preferably in advance 

of use, but no later than 7 days after 

initiating use of that drug. The oral 

report must identify the drugs used, 

method of application, and the reason 

for using that drug. 

(3) For INADs and extralabel drug 

uses, the permittee must provide a 

written report to the permitting 

authority within 30 days after initiating 

use of that drug. The written report 

must identify the drug used and 

include: the reason for treatment, date(s) 

and time(s) of the addition (including 

duration), method of application; and 

the amount added.

(b) Failure in, or damage to, the 

structure of an aquatic animal 

containment system resulting in an 

unanticipated material discharge of 

pollutants to waters of the U.S. In 

accordance with the following 

procedures, any permittee subject to this 

Part must notify the permitting 

authority when there is a reportable 

failure. 

(1) The permitting authority may 

specify in the permit what constitutes 

reportable damage and/or a material 

discharge of pollutants, based on a 

consideration of production system 

type, sensitivity of the receiving waters 

and other relevant factors. 

(2) The permittee must provide an 

oral report within 24 hours of discovery 

of any reportable failure or damage that 

results in a material discharge of 

pollutants, describing the cause of the 

failure or damage in the containment 

system and identifying materials that 

have been released to the environment 

as a result of this failure. 

(3) The permittee must provide a 

written report within 7 days of 

discovery of the failure or damage 

documenting the cause, the estimated 

time elapsed until the failure or damage 

was repaired, an estimate of the material 

released as a result of the failure or 

damage, and steps being taken to 

prevent a reccurrence. 

(c) In the event a spill of drugs, 

pesticides or feed occurs that results in 

a discharge to waters of the U.S., the 

permittee must provide an oral report of 

the spill to the permitting authority 

within 24 hours of its occurrence and a 

written report within 7 days. The report 

shall include the identity and quantity 

of the material spilled. 

(d) Best management practices (BMP) 

plan. The permittee subject to this Part 

must: 

(1) Develop and maintain a plan on 

site describing how the permittee will 

achieve the requirements of § 451.11(a) 

through (e) or § 451.21(a) through (h), as 

applicable. 

(2) Make the plan available to the 

permitting authority upon request. 

(3) The permittee subject to this Part 

must certify in writing to the permitting 

authority that a BMP plan has been 

developed.

Subpart A—Flow-Through and 

Recirculating Systems Subcategory

§ 451.10 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to the discharge 

of pollutants from a concentrated 

aquatic animal production facility that 

produces 100,000 pounds or more per 

year of aquatic animals in a flowthrough or recirculating system.

§ 451.11 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart must meet 

the following requirements, expressed 

as practices (or any modification to 

these requirements as determined by the 

permitting authority based on its 

exercise of its best professional 

judgment) representing the application 

of BPT: 

(a) Solids control. The permittee must: 

(1) Employ efficient feed management 

and feeding strategies that limit feed 

input to the minimum amount 

reasonably necessary to achieve 

production goals and sustain targeted 

rates of aquatic animal growth in order 

to minimize potential discharges of 

uneaten feed and waste products to 

waters of the U.S. 

(2) In order to minimize the discharge 

of accumulated solids from settling 

ponds and basins and production 

systems, identify and implement 

procedures for routine cleaning of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 51929

rearing units and off-line settling basins, 

and procedures to minimize any 

discharge of accumulated solids during 

the inventorying, grading and harvesting 

aquatic animals in the production 

system. 

(3) Remove and dispose of aquatic 

animal mortalities properly on a regular 

basis to prevent discharge to waters of 

the U.S., except in cases where the 

permitting authority authorizes such 

discharge in order to benefit the aquatic 

environment. 

(b) Materials storage. The permittee 

must: 

(1) Ensure proper storage of drugs, 

pesticides, and feed in a manner 

designed to prevent spills that may 

result in the discharge of drugs, 

pesticides or feed to waters of the U.S. 

(2) Implement procedures for properly 

containing, cleaning, and disposing of 

any spilled material. 

(c) Structural maintenance. The 

permittee must: 

(1) Inspect the production system and 

the wastewater treatment system on a 

routine basis in order to identify and 

promptly repair any damage. 

(2) Conduct regular maintenance of 

the production system and the 

wastewater treatment system in order to 

ensure that they are properly 

functioning.

(d) Recordkeeping. The permittee 

must: 

(1) In order to calculate representative 

feed conversion ratios, maintain records 

for aquatic animal rearing units 

documenting the feed amounts and 

estimates of the numbers and weight of 

aquatic animals. 

(2) Keep records documenting the 

frequency of cleaning, inspections, 

maintenance and repairs. 

(e) Training. The permittee must: 

(1) In order to ensure the proper 

clean-up and disposal of spilled 

material adequately train all relevant 

facility personnel in spill prevention 

and how to respond in the event of a 

spill. 

(2) Train staff on the proper operation 

and cleaning of production and 

wastewater treatment systems including 

training in feeding procedures and 

proper use of equipment.

§ 451.12 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart must meet 

the following requirements representing 

the application of BAT: The limitations 

are the same as the corresponding 

limitations specified in § 451.11.

§ 451.13 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best conventional 

technology (BCT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart must meet 

the following requirements representing 

the application of BCT: The limitations 

are the same as the corresponding 

limitations specified in § 451.11.

§ 451.14 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Any point source subject to this 

subpart that is a new source must meet 

the following requirements: The 

standards are the same as the 

corresponding limitations specified in 

§ 451.11.

Subpart B—Net Pen Subcategory

§ 451.20 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to the discharge 

of pollutants from a concentrated 

aquatic animal production facility that 

produces 100,000 pounds or more per 

year of aquatic animals in net pen or 

submerged cage systems, except for net 

pen facilities rearing native species 

released after a growing period of no 

longer than 4 months to supplement 

commercial and sport fisheries.

§ 451.21 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best practicable 

control technology currently available 

(BPT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart must meet 

the following requirements, expressed 

as practices (or any modification to 

these requirements as determined by the 

permitting authority based on its 

exercise of its best professional 

judgment) representing the application 

of BPT: 

(a) Feed management. Employ 

efficient feed management and feeding 

strategies that limit feed input to the 

minimum amount reasonably necessary 

to achieve production goals and sustain 

targeted rates of aquatic animal growth. 

These strategies must minimize the 

accumulation of uneaten food beneath 

the pens through the use of active feed 

monitoring and management practices. 

These practices may include one or 

more of the following: Use of real-time 

feed monitoring, including devices such 

as video cameras, digital scanning 

sonar, and upweller systems; 

monitoring of sediment quality beneath 

the pens; monitoring of benthic 

community quality beneath the pens; 

capture of waste feed and feces; or other 

good husbandry practices approved by 

the permitting authority. 

(b) Waste collection and disposal.

Collect, return to shore, and properly 

dispose of all feed bags, packaging 

materials, waste rope and netting. 

(c) Transport or harvest discharge.

Minimize any discharge associated with 

the transport or harvesting of aquatic 

animals including blood, viscera, 

aquatic animal carcasses, or transport 

water containing blood. 

(d) Carcass removal. Remove and 

dispose of aquatic animal mortalities 

properly on a regular basis to prevent 

discharge to waters of the U.S. 

(e) Materials storage.

(1) Ensure proper storage of drugs, 

pesticides and feed in a manner 

designed to prevent spills that may 

result in the discharge of drugs, 

pesticides or feed to waters of the U.S. 

(2) Implement procedures for properly 

containing, cleaning, and disposing of 

any spilled material. 

(f) Maintenance.

(1) Inspect the production system on 

a routine basis in order to identify and 

promptly repair any damage. 

(2) Conduct regular maintenance of 

the production system in order to 

ensure that it is properly functioning. 

(g) Recordkeeping.

(1) In order to calculate representative 

feed conversion ratios, maintain records 

for aquatic animal net pens 

documenting the feed amounts and 

estimates of the numbers and weight of 

aquatic animals. 

(2) Keep records of the net changes, 

inspections and repairs. 

(h) Training. The permittee must: 

(1) In order to ensure the proper 

clean-up and disposal of spilled 

material adequately train all relevant 

facility personnel in spill prevention 

and how to respond in the event of a 

spill. 

(2) Train staff on the proper operation 

and cleaning of production systems 

including training in feeding procedures 

and proper use of equipment.

§ 451.22 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart must 

achieve the following effluent 

limitations representing the application 

of BAT: The limitations are the same as 

the limitations specified in § 451.21.

§ 451.23 Effluent limitations attainable by 

the application of the best conventional 

technology (BCT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this subpart must 

achieve the following effluent 

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

limitations representing the application 

of BCT: The limitations are the same as 

the limitations specified in § 451.21.

§ 451.24 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

Any point source subject to this 

subpart that is a new source must meet 

the following requirements: The 

standard is the same as the limitations 

specified in § 451.21.

[FR Doc. 04–15530 Filed 8–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

Appendix E1 

BMP Plan Template
Appendix E1 

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

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 
Appendix E1 

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

• 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 

FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

FT RAS

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.
Appendix E1 

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

F. Material Storage 

FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING AND/OR NET PEN SYSTEMS

FT RAS NET

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.
Appendix E1 

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

G. Maintenance 

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

Guidance. 

FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS 

FT RAS

1. Routinely inspect production systems and wastewater treatment systems to identify and 

promptly repair damage. 

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

“routine.”

2. Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems 

to ensure their proper function. 

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

“regular.”

NET PEN SYSTEMS

NET

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

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

“routine.”

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

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

“regular.”
Appendix E1 

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

H. Record-keeping 

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

FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

FT RAS

 

1. Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and 

estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate 

representative feed conversion ratios. 

Describe the records your facility keeps for documenting feed amounts and estimates of 

aquatic animals for calculating FCRs. A form for tracking and calculating FCRs is 

available in Appendix N of the BMP Guidance.

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

Describe the records your facility keeps to document this. Appendix P of the BMP 

Guidance contains forms for tracking inspection, maintenance, and repairs; Appendix Q 

of the BMP Guidance contains a form for tracking cleaning.

NET PEN SYSTEMS

NET

1. Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and 

estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals in order to calculate 

representative feed conversion ratios. 

Describe the records your facility keeps for documenting feed amounts and estimates of 

aquatic animals for calculating FCRs. A form for tracking and calculating FCRs is 

available in Appendix N of the BMP Guidance.

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

Describe the records your facility keeps to document this. Appendix P of the BMP 

Guidance contains forms for tracking inspection, maintenance, and repairs.
Appendix E1 

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

I. Training 

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

FLOW-THROUGH AND/OR RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

FT RAS

 

1. Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill 

to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials. 

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

2. Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment 

systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment. 

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

NET PEN SYSTEMS

NET

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.
Appendix E1 

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

J. Feed Monitoring 

NET PEN SYSTEMS 

NET

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.
Appendix E1 

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

K. Waste Collection and Disposal 

NET PEN SYSTEMS

NET

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

rope, and netting. 

Describe practices to accomplish this.
Appendix E1 

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

L. Transport or Harvest Discharge 

NET PEN SYSTEMS

NET

1. Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic animals 

(including blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing blood). 

Describe practices used to accomplish this.
Appendix E1 

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

M. Carcass Removal 

NET PEN SYSTEMS 

NET

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.
Appendix E1 

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

N. Diagram or Map 

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

O. Review and Endorsement of the BMP Plan 

We, the facility manager and the individuals responsible for implementing the BMP plan, have 

reviewed and endorsed this BMP plan. 

 (Facility Name) (NPDES #) 

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

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

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

 (Other Individual – Printed Name & Title) (Other Individual – Signature) 
Appendix E1 

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

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.
Appendix E1 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 2006

 

E1-13

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.
Appendix E1 

EPA-821-B-05-001 March 2006

 

E1-14

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.
Appendix E2 

Example BMP Plan
Appendix E2 

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

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. 
Appendix E2 

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

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).
Appendix E2 

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

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.
Appendix E2 

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

The raceways are screened to prevent avian predators from eating the fish. The netting reduces 

indirect mortality from predators by reducing the incidence of disease at the facility. Healthy fish 

consume feed better, which prevents uneaten feed from going to waste, and are more active in 

the raceway, which allows accumulated biosolids to move more readily down the raceway to the 

quiescent zones, facilitating cleaning and faster removal of biosolids. 

The OLS pond is harvested twice annually, in the spring and fall. When the OLS pond is 

harvested, the water in the pond is slowly decanted by removing the collar from around the 

standpipe and slowing rotating the standpipe on the 90° elbow to gradually lower the water level 

in the pond. Once the pond is decanted, a tractor is driven into the pond and the slurry is stirred 

to a uniform consistency to allow for pumping. The sludge is pumped from the OLS pond into a 

“honey wagon,” which takes it to a field for land application. Solids content of the slurry varies 

between 6 % and 12 %. 

Sludge and slurry that have been collected in the OLS pond are recycled by land application to 

nearby cropped fields. Farmers that accept the slurry agree to disc it under within 24 hours of 

application and prior to any irrigation water being applied to the field. All land application is 

done in such a manner as to prevent the materials from entering surface or groundwaters. The 

dates, locations, and amounts of slurry that are taken offsite for land application are kept in a 

record. 

Examples of the forms we use to track cleaning and land application of waste are attached. 

Records of this information are kept in our office and are available upon request by contacting 

the facility manager. 

3. Procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals (that minimize 

discharge of accumulated solids). 

Raceways above the quiescent zones are vacuumed before any scheduled inventorying, grading, 

or harvesting events to prevent unnecessary disturbance and subsequent discharge of biosolids 

from the raceways. 

4. Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent 

discharge to waters of the United States (except where authorized by your permitting 

authority in order to benefit the aquatic environment). 

Raceways at our facility are screened to prevent avian predators from eating the fish. This 

benefits the waste management on the farm by reducing direct mortality to injured fish. The 

netting reduces indirect mortality by reducing the incidence of disease at the facility. When fish 

mortality does occur, carcasses are promptly removed (at a minimum – daily). Fish carcasses are 

typically composted on site. Mortalities from the hatchery are also disposed of with the raceway 

mortalities. In the event of a significant problem that leads to a large number of mortalities, a 

local rendering company is called to haul the mortalities away. 
Appendix E2 

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

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 facilitytraining 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, 
Appendix E2 

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

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 
Appendix E2 

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

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. 
Appendix E2 

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

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. 
Appendix E2 

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

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

Upper Springs 

OLS Pond 

Hatchery/Office/Shop 

Weir 

OLS Discharge 

Upper 

Creek 

Quiescent Zone 

Cleanout Drains 

Raceway Discharge 
Appendix E2 

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

Feed Conversion Ratios Log 

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

Instructions: Fill in this form with feeding information so as to keep track of feeding 

and to calculate/track feed conversion ratios. FCRs are calculated with the following 

equation: 

Dry weight of feed applied

Wet weight of fish gained 

Date 

(start date 

end date)

Description of 

Group 

Total Feed 

Amounts 

(Estimate) 

Weights of 

Animals 

(start weight 

end weight) 

Weight 

Gained 

Calculated 

FCR 

3/1/04 100 lbs 

10/1/04 

Rainbow trout 

stockers 20,775 lbs 

17,528 lbs 

17,428 lbs 1.19 

 

 

 

 

 
Appendix E2 

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

Cleaning Log 

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

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

components. 

Date 

Cleaned 

Cleaner 

Initials 

Description of 

Component Cleaned Notes About Cleaning

10/1/04 ML QZ raceways 1-10 Cleaned QZs and dam boards; checked and 

cleaned screens, removing moss and dead fish. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Appendix E2 

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

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

10/1/04 ML Crop Field 1 

2.5%% nitrogen 

3.0% phosphorus 

0.1% potassium 

5.0% calcium 

1.0% magnesium 

10,000 gallons 

No problems 

encountered. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Appendix E2 

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

CARCASS REMOVAL LOG

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

Instructions: Record all mortalities observed on a daily basis. 

Date Initials System/Group 

of Animals 

# of 

Mortalities 

Approx. 

Weight 

Disposal 

Method Notes

10/1/04 ML Rainbow trout 

– R1–12 20 11 lbs Composted 

All from R4; appear 

to be from an 

infection – closely 

monitoring 

remaining fish 

 

 

 

 

 

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

EXAMPLE SPILLS AND LEAKS LOG

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

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

Date 

(mm/dd/

yy) 

Spill or 

Leak 

Location 

(as indicated 

on a site 

map) 

Type of Material & 

Quantity 

Source 

(if known) Reason 

Amount of 

Material 

Recovered 

Pr

Mea

10/4/04 Spill Hatchery floor Formalin Storage drum Top was not secured and the drum was knocked over 20 gallons 

Spoke emplothe imsecuristorag

Instructions: Use this page to enter any important notes about the spills from the previous sheets. 
EPA-821-B-05-001 E2-15 

Date of spill or 

leak (mm/dd/yy) Notes 

10/4/04 All employees have been instructed on the importance of securing container lids. Employees were also i

that container lids are secured before proceeding with applications. 
Appendix E2 

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

STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE

INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG

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

Production or Wastewater Treatment System: Raceway 1 

Instructions: Fill in all routine inspections and regular maintenance of production 

systems and wastewater treatment systems in the table below. Use a separate form for 

each production system and/or wastewater treatment system. 

Date 

Inspected 

Inspector 

Initials 

Notes 

(Note any problems found and maintenance performed) 

Date 

Maintenance

Performed 

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

the screen. 10/2/04 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Appendix F 

BMP Certification Form
 Appendix F 

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

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.
Appendix G 

State BMP Programs
Appendix G 

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

State BMP Programs

A number of states, including Alabama, 

Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, and 

Idaho, were found to have recommended 

BMPs for AAP. In addition, BMPs have 

also been developed for specific types of 

aquatic species. BMPs are addressed in 

manuals or regulations, depending on the 

state. Data were collected from in-house 

resources and through Internet research. An 

example of technical guidance on BMP 

development is Best Management Practices 

for Flow-through, Net Pen, Recirculating, 

and Pond Aquaculture Systems (Tucker et 

al., 2003). This guidance document provides 

examples of existing BMP plans and state 

regulations, as well as technical information 

that can be used in facilities’ BMP plan 

development. Information is provided for 

four production system types and ranges 

from guidance on site selection, to solids 

and feed management, to facility operation 

and maintenance. 

Alabama 

Dr. Claude Boyd and his colleagues, with 

funding from the Alabama Catfish 

Producers (a division of the Alabama 

Farmers Federation), have developed a set 

of BMPs for aquaculture facilities in 

Alabama. The BMPs are described in a 

series of guide sheets that have been adopted 

by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) to supplement the Service’s 

technical standards and guidelines (Auburn 

University and USDA, 2002). The NRCS 

technical standards are intended to be 

referenced in Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management rules or 

requirements that are promulgated for 

aquaculture in Alabama. The guide sheets 

address a variety of topics, including 

reducing storm runoff into ponds, managing 

ponds to reduce effluent volume, erosion 

control in watersheds and on pond 

embankments, settling basins and wetlands, 

and feed management. 

Arizona 

Arizona Aquaculture BMPs addresses 

treatment and discharge of aquaculture 

effluents containing nitrogenous wastes and 

closing of aquaculture facilities when they 

cease operation (Fitzsimmons, 1999). 

Use of these BMPs is intended to minimize 

the discharge of nitrates from facilities 

without being too restrictive for farm 

operations. The draft document Arizona 

Aquaculture BMPs describes BMPs that can 

minimize nitrogen impacts from aquaculture 

facilities. A list of information resources is 

also provided for additional information 

about Arizona aquaculture and BMPs 

(Fitzsimmons, 1999). The BMPs are 

available at: 

http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/bmps.html. 

Arkansas 

The Arkansas Bait and Ornamentals Fish 

Growers Association (ABOFGA, n.d.) 

developed a list of BMPs to help its 

members make their farms more 

environmentally friendly. More specifically, 

the Association provides a set of BMPs that 

help to conserve water, reduce effluent, 

capture solids, and manage nutrients. 

Members may voluntarily agree to adopt the 

BMPs on their farms (ABOFGA, n.d.). 
Appendix G 

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

Florida 

Florida=s aquaculture certificate of 

registration and BMP program requires any 

person engaging in aquaculture to be 

annually certified by the Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services and 

to follow BMPs established by the 

Department (Chapter 597, Florida 

Aquaculture Policy Act, Florida Statutes). 

Aquaculture Best Management Practices, a 

manual prepared by the department, 

establishes BMPs for aquaculture facilities 

in Florida. By legislative mandate, the 

BMPs in the manual are intended to 

preserve environmental integrity, while 

eliminating cumbersome, duplicative, and 

confusing environmental permitting and 

licensing requirements. When these BMPs 

are followed, aquaculturists meet the 

minimum standards necessary for protecting 

and maintaining offsite water quality and 

wildlife habitat (FDACS, 2000). Additional 

information is available from Florida’s 

Division of Aquaculture website at 

http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com. 

Georgia 

Agriculture enterprises such as fish farms 

are required to conduct activities consistent 

with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) 

established by the Georgia Department of 

Agriculture. BMP’s are management 

strategies for control and abatement of 

nonpoint source pollution resulting from 

agriculture. The manual Agricultural Best 

Management Practices for Protecting Water 

Quality in Georgia provides information on 

using and maintaining BMP’s. The manual 

is available from the Georgia Soil and Water 

Conservation Commission (Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, 2003). 

Hawaii 

Hawaii developed a practical BMP manual 

to assist aquaculture farmers in managing 

their facilities more efficiently and 

complying with discharge regulations. The 

manual, Best Management Practices for 

Hawaiian Aquaculture (Howerton, 2001), is 

available from the Center for Tropical and 

Subtropical Aquaculture. A copy of the 

manual is available at: 

http://www.ctsa.org/upload/publication/CTS

A_148631672853284080260.pdf. 

Idaho 

In combination with site-specific 

information, Idaho Waste Management 

Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations can 

be used to develop a waste management 

plan to meet water quality goals. Such a 

waste management plan would address 

Idaho=s water quality concerns associated 

with aquaculture in response to the Clean 

Water Act and Idaho’s Water Quality 

Standards and Wastewater Treatment 

Requirements. The manual is also intended 

to assist aquaculture facility operators in 

developing BMPs to maintain discharge 

levels that do not violate the state’s water 

quality standards (IDEQ, n.d.). The manual 

is available for download at: 

http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/prog_issues

/agriculture/aquaculture.cfm. 

Louisiana 

The LSU AgCenter has published a 

guidance manual, Aquaculture Production 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), which 

provides a list of BMPs that can help 

producers to conserve soil and protect water 

and air resources by reducing pollutants. 

The manual is available at 

http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/environment

/conservation/bmps/aquaculture+production

+best+management+practices.htm. 
Appendix G 

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

Missouri 

Missouri has published the following 

guidance document to answer typical 

questions that aquaculture facility owners or 

operators may have: Missouri Aquaculture 

Environmental and Regulatory Guide: A 

Guide to Regulatory Compliance, Sources of 

Information and Assistance and Answers to 

Environmental Questions for Aquaculture 

Businesses in Missouri. The guide provides 

basic information about regulatory 

requirements and suggestions for protecting 

operators and owners of aquaculture 

facilities, their workers and the environment 

through pollution prevention. Each guide 

sheet in the publication deals with a separate 

issue, such as pollution prevention, dead fish 

disposal, backflow prevention, drug use, and 

preventing fish diseases. A copy of the guide 

is available at: 

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub513.PDF.

Ohio 

The Ohio Pond Management Handbook, 

created by the Department of Natural 

Resources’ Division of Wildlife, provides 

guidance to pond or small lake owners on 

pond management issues. Owners of new 

ponds, owners of old ponds, or landowners 

who plan to build a pond are given guidance 

on how to best manage fish stocks, aquatic 

vegetation, fish health, and surrounding 

pond wildlife (Ohio DNR, 1996). The guide 

is available for download at: 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/PDF/pon

dmgt.pdf. 

West Virginia 

West Virginia University, Extension Service 

has developed a guide, as part of their 

Aquaculture Information Series, for 

managing aquaculture waste entitled Waste 

Management in Aquaculture. The guide 

discusses BMPs, and their associated costs, 

that may be used to reduce aquaculture 

waste. A copy of the guide is available at: 

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/

waste02.pdf. Other aquaculture-related fact 

sheets and documents are available at: 

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture/f

actsht.htm. 

Wisconsin 

As of July 2005, the University of 

Wisconsin is finishing completing a draft 

version of a BMP user manual for 

aquaculture for Wisconsin and the Great 

Lakes Region. The draft document will be 

reviewed by various agencies before it is 

made available to the public. 

Other BMP Guidance Documents 

BMPs have also been developed for specific 

species, including shrimp, hybrid striped 

bass, and trout. The Global Aquaculture 

Alliance, in Codes of Practice for 

Responsible Shrimp Farming, has compiled 

nine recommended codes of practice that are 

intended to serve as guidelines for parties 

who want to develop more specific national 

or regional codes of practice or formulate 

systems of BMPs for use on shrimp farms. 

These codes of practice address a variety of 

topics, including mangroves, site evaluation, 

design and construction, feeds and feed use, 

shrimp health management, therapeutic 

agents and other chemicals, general pond 

operations, effluents and solid wastes, and 

community and employee relations (Boyd, 

1999). The purpose of the document is to 

provide a framework for environmentally 

and socially responsible shrimp farming that 

is voluntary, proactive, and standardized. 

The document also provides a background 

narrative that reviews the general processes 

involved in shrimp farming and the 

environmental and social issues facing the 

industry (Boyd, 1999). 
Appendix G 

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

The Hybrid Striped Bass Industry: From 

Fish Farm to Consumer is a brochure that 

provides guidance to new and seasoned 

farmers in the proper handling of fish from 

the farm to the consumer. Although the 

brochure is primarily geared toward 

providing quality fish products to 

consumers, the information it provides about 

the use of drugs and chemicals, including 

pesticides and animal drugs and vaccines, 

could be used to benefit the environment 

(Jahncke et al., 1996). 

The Trout Producer Quality Assurance 

Program of the U.S. Trout Farmer=s 

Association (USTFA) is a two-part program 

that emphasizes production practices that 

enable facilities to decrease production 

costs, improve management practices, and 

avoid any possibilities of harmful drug or 

other chemical residues in fish. Part 1 

discusses the principles of quality assurance, 

and Part 2 provides information about the 

highest level of quality assurance endorsed 

by the USTFA. Although the program 

addresses a variety of subjects related to 

trout production, the discussion on waste 

management and drugs and chemicals can 

be applied to protecting the environment 

(USTFA, 1994). 

References 

ABOFGA. No Date. Best Management 

Practices (BMP’s) for Baitfish and 

Ornamental Fish Farms. Arkansas Bait and 

Ornamental Fish Growers Association, in 

cooperation with the University of Arkansas 

at Pine Bluff, Aquaculture/Fisheries Center. 

Boyd, C.E. 1999. Codes of Practice for 

Responsible Shrimp Farming. Global 

Aquaculture Alliance, St. Louis, Missouri. 

48 pages. Copies of this publication are 

available by contacting the Global 

Aquaculture Alliance at P.O. Box 510799, 

St. Louis, Missouri, 63151-0799, 314-416-

9500, Fax: 314-416-9500, E-mail: 

homeoffice@gaalliance.org, Web page: 

http://www.GAAlliance.org. 

DEQ. No Date. Idaho Waste Management 

Guidelines for Aquaculture Operations. 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. 

Available for download at 

<http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/prog_issu

es/agriculture/aquaculture.cfm>. Accessed 

September 2004. 

FDACS. 2000. Aquaculture Best 

Management Practices. Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Division of Aquaculture, Tallahassee, 

Florida. 

Fitzsimmons, K. 1999. Draft: Arizona 

Aquaculture BMPs. Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. Available for 

download at 

<http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/bmps.html>. 

Accessed September 2004. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 

2003. A Summary of Georgia’s Licenses and 

Permits for Aquaculture. 

<http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/

documents/Aqua_Sum_Oct03.pdf>. 

Accessed October 2004. 

Howerton, R. 2001. Best Management 

Practices for Hawaiian Aquaculture. Center 

for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, 

University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension 

Services, Publication No. 148. 

<http://www.ctsa.org/upload/publication/CT

SA_148631672853284080260.pdf>. 

Accessed September 2004. 

Jahncke, M.L, T.I.J. Smith, and B.P, 

Sheehan. 1996. The Hybrid Striped Bass 

Industry: From Fish Farm to Consumer. 

Preparation of this brochure was supported 
Appendix G 

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

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. 

<http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/PDF/po

ndmgt.pdf>. Accessed June 2005. 

USTFA. 1994. Trout Producer Quality 

Assurance Program. U.S. Trout Farmer=s 

Association. 
Appendix H 

National Association of State Aquaculture 

Coordinators (NASAC), Cooperative Extension 

Services, and Sea Grant Information 
Appendix H 

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

National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators (NASAC), 

Cooperative Extension Services, and Sea Grant Information

Since this guidance document was 

completed, contacts for NASAC, 

Cooperative Extension Services and Sea 

Grant Programs may have been updated. If 

any of the links do not work, please visit the 

following websites for updated contacts: 

NASAC 

http://www.marylandseafood.org/aquaculture/na

sac.php 

Cooperative Extension 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state

_partners.html 

Sea Grant

http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org 

ALABAMA 

NASAC 

John Gamble 

Marketing & Economics Division 

Department of Agriculture and Industries 

PO Box 3336 

Montgomery AL 36109-0336 

(334)240-7245 

(334)240-7270 FAX 

ageconadm@agi.state.al.us

Jimmy Carlisle 

Catfish, Poultry and International Trade 

Divisions 

Alabama Farmers Federation 

PO Box 11000 

Montgomery AL 36191-0001 

(334)613-4214 

(334)284-3957 FAX 

jcarlisle@alfafarmers.org 

 

Cooperative Extension

The Department of Fisheries and Allied 

Aquaculture is responsible for extension 

activities in aquaculture production and 

marketing, managing fish populations in 

large and small impoundments, aquatic 

ecology, and recreational fisheries. 

Department experts work with county 

extension agents throughout the state to 

conduct educational programs and provide 

up-to-date, practical information to 

interested clients. More information about 

the Department is available at: 

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/faa/extension

Sea Grant

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium 

(MASGC) is an organization of nine 

universities and laboratories dedicated to 

activities that foster the conservation and 

sustainable development of coastal and 

marine resources in Mississippi and 

Alabama. Additional information about 

MASGC is available at: 

http://www.masgc.org 

ALASKA 

NASAC

Guyla McGrady 

Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Land 

550 W 7th Ave, Suite 900C 

Anchorage AK 99501-3577 

907-269-8543 

907-269-8913 FAX 

guyla_mcgrady@dnr.state.ak.us

Cynthia Pring-Ham 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

P O Box 25526 

Juneau AK 99802-5526 

(907)465-6150 

(907)465-4168 FAX 

cynthia_pring-ham@fishgame.state.ak.us

 
Appendix H 

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

Cooperative Extension

The University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Cooperative Extension has had aquaculturerelated initiatives through its 4-H programs. 

Information about University of AlaskaFairbanks Cooperative Extension efforts can 

be found at: 

http://www.uaf.edu/coop-ext

Sea Grant

The Marine Advisory Program (MAP) 

works to promote positive development, use 

and conservation of Alaska’s aquatic and 

marine resources. The Aquaculture section 

of the MAP attempts to promote the 

aquaculture industry in Alaska through 

improvement of species diversity, 

production, quality, management, marketing 

opportunities, and public awareness of the 

industry. More information about the Marine 

Advisory Program can be obtained at: 

http://www.uaf.edu/map/about.html 

AMERICAN SAMOA 

NASAC

Ta'alo P. Lauofo 

Department of Agriculture 

Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Cooperative Extension

American Samoa Community College’s 

Cooperative Extension Service offers 

community-based educational programs and 

projects to enhance individual and group 

decision-making towards improved living. 

Extension works closely with farmers, 

homemakers and youth, as well as 

government and civic agencies. The 

extension agents use discoveries made by 

the research division to improve the quality 

of life for individuals and the community. 

Extension programs are offered in 

agriculture, consumer family sciences, 4-H 

youth, and forestry. No specific information 

concerning aquaculture for the state’s 

cooperative extension service was found. 

Specific information about the cooperative 

extension service is available at: 

http://www.ascc.as/academicssupportcnrp.htm

Sea Grant

American Samoa Community College does 

have a Sea Grant Program. However, no 

information or website was available. 

ARIZONA 

NASAC

Richard Willer 

Department of Agriculture

1688 West Adams 

Phoenix AZ 85007-2617

(602)542-4293 

(602)542-4290 FAX 

rwiller@azda.gov 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Arizona Cooperative 

Extension Service acts as a conduit for 

information on aquaculture issues. 

Information available at this website 

includes links to publications, educational 

activities including the high school 

aquaculture program, and other resources 

within the State. Additional information 

about University of Arizona Aquaculture is 

available at: 

http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua

Sea Grant

There is no Sea Grant Program for the State 

of Arizona. 
Appendix H 

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

ARKANSAS 

NASAC

Ted McNulty 

Arkansas Development and Finance Authority

423 Main Street Suite 500 

Little Rock AR 72203 

(501)682-5849 

(501)682-5893 FAX 

Htmcnulty@adfa.state.ar.us 

Cooperative Extension

The Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the 

University of Arkansas Pine Bluff hosts 

information on Extension activities. The 

Center provides educational materials such 

as newsletters, videos, demonstrations and 

training. Some specialized programs have 

included publication of the quarterly 

newsletter “Aquaculture Aquafarming,” and 

development of Spanish-English training 

curriculum and training. The goal of the 

Center is to provide relevant, timely 

information through research and extension 

programs. Further information about the 

Aquaculture/ Fisheries Center can be 

obtained at: 

Hhttp://www.uaex.edu/aqfi

Sea Grant

Arkansas does not have a Sea Grant 

Program. 

CALIFORNIA 

NASAC

Bob Hulbrock 

Department of Fish and Game

1812 Ninth Street 

Sacramento CA 95814 

916-445-4034 

916-445-4044 FAX 

Hrhulbrock@dfg.ca.gov

Cooperative Extension

The University of California, Davis Animal 

Science Extension is linked to about 30 

county-based Cooperative Extension 

livestock and dairy farm advisors. The 

campus-based specialists are responsible for 

the program areas of waste management, 

livestock systems management, aquaculture, 

and dairy management and health. The 

Animal Science Extension provides 

Aquaculture Document Database, an online 

source for documents related to Aquaculture 

both in California and throughout the United 

States. Information about the Animal 

Science Extension is available at: 

Hhttp://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/extension/Aqu

aculture.htm

Sea Grant

The California Sea Grant College program 

focuses its work on aquaculture issues of 

research and development. Abstracts of 

research documents pertaining to this 

subject are available online. The Southern 

California Sea Grant has identified 

aquaculture as a research need and places 

development of aquaculture as a topic under 

the “Urban Coasts” theme. More 

information about the California Sea Grant 

College program’s aquaculture research is 

available at: 

Hhttp://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/ 

SgResearchIndx.html 

Information about the Southern California 

Sea Grant can be found at: 

Hhttp://www-csgc.ucsd.edu 
Appendix H 

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

COLORADO 

NASAC

Jim Rubingh 

Department of Agriculture

700 Kipling Suite 4000 

Lakewood CO 80215-8000 

(303)239-4117 

(303)239-4125 FAX 

jim.rubingh@ag.state.co.us

Cooperative Extension

The Colorado State University Extension 

has one aquaculture expert within the faculty 

of the College of Natural Resources, who 

has expertise about both sport fishing pond 

management and fish farming. More 

information about the Colorado State 

University Extension can be found at: 

http://www.ext.colostate.edu

Sea Grant

Colorado does not have a Sea Grant 

Program. 

CONNECTICUT 

NASAC

David Carey 

Bureau of Aquaculture & Laboratory 

Connecticut Department of Agriculture

PO Box 97 

Milford CT 06460 

(203)874-0696 

(203)783-9976 FAX 

DEPT.AGRIC@SNET.NET

Cooperative Extension

The University of Connecticut Cooperative 

Extension seeks to strengthen profitability 

and to increase agriculture as a major sector 

in the State economy. Work is done in a 

variety of areas, including aquaculture, to 

update production and improve management 

skills. Additional information about the 

University of Connecticut Cooperative 

Extension is located at: 

http://www.canr.uconn.edu/ces 

Sea Grant

Connecticut Sea Grant seeks to create 

possibilities within the State for new jobs 

through sustainable, environmentally 

friendly intensive aquaculture. The Sea 

Grant promotes research projects to further 

this end. Additional information about 

Connecticut Sea Grant College’s 

aquaculture initiatives can be found at: 

http://www.seagrant.uconn.edu/aqua.htm 

DELAWARE 

NASAC

Bruce Walton 

Department of Agriculture 

2320 South Dupont Highway 

Dover DE 19901-5515 

(302)698-4503 

(302)697-4463 FAX 

brucew@state.de.us

Cooperative Extension

The University of Delaware Cooperative 

Extension provides local communities with 

information on agricultural issues, financial 

tools, and other community educational 

materials. No information concerning 

aquaculture for the state’s cooperative 

extension service was available for 

Delaware. Complete information about the 

University of Delaware Cooperative 

Extension can be found at: 

http://ag.udel.edu/extension
Appendix H 

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

Sea Grant

The University of Delaware Sea Grant 

Marine Advisory Service acts as a source of 

information-sharing among researchers, 

resource managers, business people and 

private citizens in an effort to foster the wise 

use, conservation, and development of 

marine resources. More information about 

the University of Delaware Sea Grant 

Marine Advisory Service’s programs in 

aquaculture is available at: 

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/mas/aquaculture/aqu

aculture.html

FLORIDA 

NASAC

Sherman Wilhelm 

Florida Department of Agriculture 

Division of Aquaculture 

1203 Governor's Square Blvd. Fifth Floor

Tallahassee FL 32301 

(850)488-4033 

(850) 410-0893 Fax 

wilhels@doacs.state.fl.us 

http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com 

Cooperative Extension

The Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences serves as the coordinating body for 

Extension Service activities and 

information. The Extension Service is a 

partnership of county, state, and federal 

government, which serves the citizens of 

Florida by providing information and 

training on a wide variety of topics. This site 

provides contact information for experts 

specializing in fisheries, aquaculture and 

pond management, and also has links to 

relevant publications. More information 

about extension activities of the Institute of 

Food and Agricultural Sciences is available 

at: 

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

Sea Grant

Florida Sea Grant College efforts in 

aquaculture seek to promote sustainable 

production of aquatic species through 

education and research. Further details of 

Florida Sea Grant College efforts can be 

found at: 

http://www.flseagrant.org

GEORGIA 

NASAC

Ted Hendrickx 

Wildlife Resources Division - Fisheries 

2123 US Highway 278 SE 

Social Circle GA 30025 

770-918-6418 

706-57-3040 FAX 

ted_hendrickx@dnr.state.ga.us 

Cooperative Extension

The Warnell School of Forest Resources 

serves as the conduit for information about 

forestry, fisheries, wildlife and conservation 

for the State of Georgia. One goal of the 

Warnell School is to provide information to 

the citizens of Georgia and the US so that 

they might be able to reach informed 

decisions about personal objectives and 

societal issues involving forestry and forest 

products, wildlife, aquaculture and fisheries 

and related natural resources. Aspects of 

these efforts include: education through 

technology transfer, translation and 

synthesis of research results and other 

information, discussion and explanation of 

public policy issues and science-based 

evaluations and recommendations. Further 

information about the Warnell School of 

Forest Resources can be found at: 

http://www.forestry.uga.edu
Appendix H 

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

Sea Grant

The University of Georgia Sea Grant 

College collaborates with the University of 

Georgia Marine Extension Service to 

provide information about current research 

in aquaculture. Additional information about 

the Georgia Sea Grant College is available 

at: 

http://www.marsci.uga.edu/gaseagrant

GUAM 

NASAC

Jeff Tellock 

Guam Department of Commerce 

Guam Aquaculture Development & Training

102 M Street 

Tiyan GU 96913 

(671)734-3011/7327 

(671)477-9031 FAX 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Guam’s Cooperative 

Extension Service focuses on agriculture 

and natural resources. No specific 

information related to aquaculture from the 

state’s Cooperative Extension Service was 

found. Additional information about the 

Service is available at: 

http://www.uog.edu/cals/site/extension.html

Sea Grant

The mission of the University of Guam’s 

Sea Grant Program is to optimize the 

sustainable use of the ocean’s resources, to 

protect the delicate ecosystems that exist and 

to prevent any hazards and degradation of 

the natural resources through research, 

education, and advisory support; to increase 

our understanding of the balance of 

sustainability and protection of the 

environment that exist within the Western 

Pacific region; and to make significant 

contributions for the benefit of Guam, the 

Western Pacific, and the Nation. No website 

was available for the University of Guam’s 

Sea Grant Program.

HAWAII 

NASAC

John Corbin 

Aquaculture Development Program 

Department of Land and Natural Resources

1177 Alakea Street Room 400 

Honolulu HI 96813 

(808)587-0030 

(808)587-0033 FAX 

info@hawaiiaquaculture.org 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Hawai’i Center of 

Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources 

conducts research and provides the public 

with information on a variety of topics 

including community development, 

environmental issues, and commercial 

production. Aquaculture is listed as one area 

of focus, but further details of programs and 

research were not found on the website. 

More information about the University of 

Hawai’i Center of Tropical Agriculture and 

Human Resources is located at: 

http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ctahr2001/Extensio

n/ExtMain.html

Sea Grant

Promotion of sustainable aquaculture is one 

research goal of the Sea Grant in Hawaii. 

More information about the University of 

Hawaii Sea Grant is available at: 

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/SEAGRANT
Appendix H 

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

IDAHO 

NASAC

Dan Crowell 

Division of Animal Industries

Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 7249 

Boise ID 83707 

(208)332-8540 

(208)334-4062 FAX 

dcrowell@agri.state.id.us

Cooperative Extension

The Aquaculture Research Institute provides 

students with educational and research 

opportunities relating to aquaculture and 

serves as an active educational outreach 

program within the state of Idaho. The 

Institute promotes, supports, and coordinates 

aquaculture research activities at the 

University of Idaho and throughout the state. 

Additional information about the Institute 

can be found at: 

http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/aquaculture

Sea Grant

Idaho does not have a Sea Grant program.

ILLINOIS 

NASAC

Ms. Delayne Holsapple Reeves

Department of Agriculture 

State Fairgrounds 

PO Box 19281 

Springfield IL 62794-9281 

(217)524-9129 

(217)524-5960 FAX 

dreeves@agr.state.il.us 

Cooperative Extension

No specific information related to 

aquaculture from the state’s Cooperative 

Extension Service was found. Complete 

information about the Illinois Cooperative 

Extension is available at: 

http://www.extension.uiuc.edu

Sea Grant

The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College 

initiatives in aquaculture focus on the 

promotion and profitability of the industry in 

the two states. Outreach efforts include 

education, training, and promotion of 

research. Additional information about the 

Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College can be 

found at: 

http://www.iisgcp.org

INDIANA 

NASAC

Paul Brown 

Purdue University 

1159 Forestry Building 

West Lafayette IN 47907-1159 

(765)494-4968 

(765)496-2422 FAX 

pb@fnr.purdue.edu 

Cooperative Extension

No specific information related to 

aquaculture from the state’s Cooperative 

Extension Service was found. Further 

information about the Purdue Extension can 

be found at: 

http://www.ces.purdue.edu

Sea Grant

The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College 

initiatives in aquaculture focus on the 

promotion and profitability of the industry in 

the two states. Outreach efforts include 

education, training, and promotion of 

research. Additional information about the 
Appendix H 

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

Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College can be 

found at: 

http://www.iisgcp.org

IOWA 

NASAC

Joe Morris 

Department of Ecology

Iowa State University 

124 Science II 

Ames IA 50011 

(515)294-4622 

(515)294-7874 FAX 

jemorris@ia.state.edu

Cooperative Extension

Iowa State University (ISU) Extension to 

Agricultural and Natural Resources provides 

information through its research and 

specialists about many topics including 

aquaculture. Links related to aquaculture 

include information about research 

initiatives and facilities and details about 

other organization and consortiums in the 

State or within the region. More information 

about ISU Extension to Agricultural and 

Natural Resources is available at: 

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag/topics.html

Sea Grant

Iowa does not have a Sea Grant Program.

KANSAS 

NASAC

Troy Amspacker 

Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks

Milford Fish Hatchery 

3100 Hatchery Drive 

Junction City KS 66411 

(785)238 2638 

(785)238-1369 FAX 

troya@wp.state.ks.us

Cooperative Extension

K-State research provides information about 

aquaculture through its research specialists 

and publications. The K-State Extension 

lists aquaculture resources under their topic 

of farm ponds. The website has links to 

regional resources on aquaculture. 

Additional information about K-State 

research can be found at: 

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/root/coreResources.htm

Specific information about K-State 

Aquaculture is located at: 

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

Sea Grant

Kansas does not have a Sea Grant Program.

KENTUCKY 

NASAC

Angela Caporelli 

Kentucky Department of Agriculture

100 Fair Oaks Lane 5th floor 

Frankfort KY 40601 

(502)564-4983 ext 259 

(502)564-0303 FAX 

angela.caporelli@ky.gov 

Cooperative Extension

The Cooperative Extension at the University 

of Kentucky makes available information 

relevant to aquaculture activities in the 

State. This information includes new reports 

of aquaculture projects in the State; details 

of events in different counties (e.g., shrimp 

farming events; and access to specialists. 

The Kentucky State University Aquaculture 

Program aids the extension through its 

research and specialists. Complete 

information about the Cooperative 
Appendix H 

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

Extension Service is located at: 

http://www.ca.uky.edu/ces/index.htm

Further details of the Kentucky State 

University Aquaculture Program can be 

found at 

http://www.ksuaquaculture.org

Sea Grant

Kentucky does not have a Sea Grant 

Program.

LOUISIANA 

NASAC

Roy Johnson 

Department of Agriculture and Forestry

PO Box 3334 

Baton Rouge LA 70821-3334 

225-922-1280 

504-922-1289 FAX 

roy_j@ldaf.state.la.us

www.ldaf.state.la.us

Cooperative Extension

The LSU AgCenter provides information 

about Cooperative Extension activities in 

Louisiana. Research and publications about 

aquaculture in Louisiana are available 

through the Center’s website. Additional 

information about the LSU AgCenter is 

available at: 

http://www.lsuagcenter.com

Sea Grant

The Louisiana Sea Grant, a participant in a 

30-institution partnership, promotes 

responsible stewardship of marine and 

coastal resources through its program 

efforts. The Louisiana Sea Grant Program 

does not have a specific focus in 

aquaculture. Further information about the 

Louisiana Sea Grant College can be 

obtained at: 

http://www.laseagrant.org 

MAINE 

NASAC

John W. Sowles 

Ecology Division 

Maine Department of Marine Resources

P.O. Box 8 

West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575-0008

(207) 633-9518 

(207) 633-9579 FAX 

john.sowles@maine.gov 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Maine Marine Extension 

Team is a cooperative effort between the 

University of Maine Cooperative Extension 

and the Maine Sea Grant College. The 

Marine Extension Team focuses on many 

aspects of aquaculture. The University of 

Maine Cooperative Extension can be 

accessed at: 

http://www.umext.maine.edu

Sea Grant

The Maine Sea Grant College seeks to be a 

leader in marine science and education 

through its research and programming. A 

number of aquaculture programs continue to 

receive attention from the Maine Sea Grant. 

The Maine Sea Grant also cooperates with 

the Maine Marine Extension Team to 

conduct research and information sharing. 

Information about the Maine Sea Grant is 

located at: 

http://www.seagrant.umaine.edu
Appendix H 

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

MARYLAND 

NASAC

Karl Roscher 

Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis MD 21401-7080 

(410)841-5724 

(410)841-5970 FAX 

roschekr@mda.state.md.us 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Maryland Cooperative 

Extension Service does not focus 

specifically on aquaculture but does provide 

a wide range of information on other issues 

in resource management. Further 

information about the Cooperative 

Extension can be found at: 

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

Sea Grant

The Maryland Sea Grant College focuses on 

marine research and education, with a 

concentration on the Chesapeake Bay, 

including aquaculture. Specialists at the 

Maryland Sea Grant Program are working to 

evaluate the economic efficiency of 

commercial finfish and shellfish 

aquaculture. Through Aquaculture Action, a 

teaching program, Sea Grant hosts 

workshops for educators to create a network 

of “aquaculture educators.” Additional 

details about the Maryland Sea Grant 

Program can be found at: 

http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/index.html 

MASSACHUSETTS 

NASAC

Scott Soares 

Massachusetts Dept of Food and Agriculture

251 Causeway Street 

Suite 500 

Boston MA 02114-2151 

617-626-1730 

617-727-1850 FAX 

scott.soares@state.ma.us

http://www.mass.gov/dfa/aquaculture 

Cooperative Extension

The UMass Extension Service Division of 

Fish, Wildlife, and Biodiversity 

Conservation provides a variety of outreach 

and research and training efforts related to 

marine aquaculture. Further information 

about the UMass Extension is available at: 

http://www.umass.edu/nrec

Sea Grant

WHOI Sea Grant provides an academic and 

research environment for addressing the 

revitalization of national fisheries and the 

development of sustainable aquaculture. The 

MIT Sea Grant provides educational 

resources on aquaculture through its K-12 

curriculum at the finfish hatchery. WHOI 

Sea Grant information is located at: 

http://www.whoi.edu/seagrant

Information on the MIT Sea Grant can be 

found at: 

http://web.mit.edu/seagrant
Appendix H 

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

MICHIGAN 

NASAC

Nancy Frank 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

Animal Industry Division 

PO Box 30017 

Lansing MI 48909 

(517)373-1077 

(517)373-6015 FAX 

frankn@michigan.gov

Cooperative Extension

The Michigan State University Extension 

has links to research publication focused on 

aquaculture in the State and throughout the 

Nation. Complete details of extension 

programs can be found at: 

http://www.msue.msu.edu/portal 

Sea Grant

The Michigan Sea Grant promotes 

protection and sustainable use of the aquatic 

environment in the Great Lakes region. 

Aquaculture is a major initiative of the Sea 

Grant members in this region. Further 

information about the Michigan Sea Grant 

and its fisheries program can be found at: 

http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu

MINNESOTA 

NASAC

Ying Ji 

Department of Agriculture

90 W Plato Boulevard 

St Paul MN 55107 

(651)296-5081 

(651)296-6890 FAX 

yingji@state.mn.us 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Minnesota Extension 

Service serves as a link between Minnesota 

communities and the university. No specific 

information related to aquaculture for the 

state’s Cooperative Extension Service was 

found. Further information about the 

University of Minnesota Extension Service 

and publications about aquaculture can be 

found at: 

http://www.extension.umn.edu

Sea Grant

Minnesota Sea Grant uses research and 

public education to further the state’s coastal 

environment and economy. Sea Grant acts 

as a conduit for information among user 

groups, including industry, management 

agencies, and research scientists. 

Aquaculture is a major outreach topic, and 

information is available on beginning fish 

farming operations and aquaculture business 

structure. Additional information about 

Minnesota Sea Grant is available at: 

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

 

Aquaculture outreach information can be 

found at: 

http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/aqua/index.html

MISSISSIPPI 

NASAC

Gene Roberston 

Department of Agriculture and Commerce

PO Box 1609 

Jackson MS 39215-1609 

(601)359-1102 

(601)359-1174 FAX 

gene@mdac.state.ms.us

Cooperative Extension

MSUcares (Coordinated Access to the 

Research and Extension System) is a joint 

effort between the Mississippi State 

University Extension Service and the 
Appendix H 

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

Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry 

Experiment Station (MAFES). MSUcares 

provides information about aquaculture for 

residents of the state. More information 

about MSUcares is available at: 

http://msucares.com

Sea Grant

The Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant 

Consortium (MASGC) is an organization of 

nine universities and laboratories dedicated 

to activities that foster the conservation and 

sustainable development of coastal and 

marine resources in Mississippi and 

Alabama. Additional information about 

MASGC is available at: 

http://www.masgc.org

MISSOURI 

NASAC

Bart Hawcroft 

Market Development Division 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

1616 Missouri Blvd 

Jefferson City MO 65102 

(573)526-6666 

1-800-419-9139 (573)751-2868 FAX 

bart.hawcroft@mda.mo.gov 

Cooperative Extension

The Missouri Watershed Information 

Network’s Aquaculture Center provides 

links to information pertaining to 

aquaculture in Missouri. Additional 

information about the Aquaculture Center 

can be found at: 

http://outreach.missouri.edu/mowin/Training/aq

uaculture.html

Sea Grant

Missouri does not have a Sea Grant 

Program. 

MONTANA 

NASAC 

Angie DeYoung 

Department of Agriculture 

Agriculture Development Division 

PO Box 200201 

Helena MT 59620-0201 

(406)444-2402 

(406)444-9442 FAX 

adeyoung@state.mt.us

http://agr.state.mt.us/dept/agDevDiv.asp

Cooperative Extension

The Montana Cooperation Extension 

program is an educational resource with the 

aim of providing research-based knowledge 

to strengthen the social, economic and 

environmental well being of individuals, 

communities, and agricultural enterprises. 

This extension service does not have a 

particular focus on aquaculture. Further 

details of the Montana Cooperation 

Extension program can be found at: 

http://extn.msu.montana.edu 

Sea Grant

Montana does not have a Sea Grant 

Program. 

NEBRASKA 

NASAC

Ag Promotion and Development

Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 94947 

Lincoln NE 68509-4947 

(402)471-4876 

(402)471-2759 FAX 

agprom@agr.state.ne.us 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Nebraska Lincoln 

Cooperative Extension Service provides 

public information about current research 
Appendix H 

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

efforts, offers training, and seeks to maintain 

educational resources about a variety of 

topics. Publications related to aquaculture 

are available at this site. More information 

about the University of Nebraska Lincoln 

Extension Service is located at: 

http://www.extension.unl.edu

Publications may be searched at: 

http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs

Sea Grant

Nebraska does not have a Sea Grant 

Program. 

NEVADA 

NASAC

No Program

Cooperative Extension

The University of Nevada Cooperative 

Extension provides local citizens with 

information for improving their lives and 

local surroundings. No specific information 

related to aquaculture for the state’s 

Cooperative Extension Service was found. 

Additional information about the University 

of Nevada Cooperative Extension is 

available at: 

http://www.unce.unr.edu

Sea Grant

Nevada does not have a Sea Grant Program. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

NASAC

J-J Newman (Joyce) 

University of New Hampshire Sea Grant Division

Kingman Farm 

Durham NH 03824 

(603)749-1565 

(603)743-3997 FAX 

jj.newman@unh.edu 

Cooperative Extension

UNH Aquaculture extension programs have 

the goals of assisting both potential and 

existing aquaculture operations with all 

aspects of the business including: species 

identification, broodstock care, nutrition, 

disease, systems design, marketing, 

permitting and business plans. Extension 

staff work closely with the aquaculture 

research community to highlight the most 

recent industry technologies. Further 

information of UNH Fisheries/Aquaculture 

programs is available at: 

http://www.ceinfo.unh.edu

Sea Grant

The New Hampshire Sea Grant promotes 

research and education about aquatic 

resources. Sea Grant aquaculture extension 

programs are designed to aid potential and 

existing aquaculture operations in areas such 

as site and species evaluation, culture 

techniques, nutrition, health management, 

systems design, marketing, permitting, and 

business plans for a full range of finfish, 

shellfish, and seaweed operations. Complete 

information about the New Hampshire Sea 

Grant is available at: 

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

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

NEW JERSEY 

NASAC

Linda O' Dierno 

Fish and Seafood Development 

Department of Agriculture CN 330

Trenton NJ 08625 

(609)984-6757 

(609)633-7229 FAX 

linda.odierno@ag.state.nj.us 

Cooperative Extension

The Rutgers Cooperative Extension 

aquaculture programs are focused on 

providing information about seafood 

productions in the state of New Jersey. 

Further details of the Rutgers Cooperative 

Extension program can be found at: 

http://www.rce.rutgers.edu 

Sea Grant

The New Jersey Sea Grant College, a part of 

the New Jersey Marine Sciences 

Consortium, provides training, research and 

educational materials focused on the marine 

environment in New Jersey. This Sea Grant 

has no specific programs in aquaculture. 

Further details of the New Jersey Sea Grant 

College are located at: 

http://www.njmsc.org/Sea_Grant/About_SeaGra

nt.htm

NEW MEXICO 

NASAC

Mike Sloane 

New Mexico Department of Game & Fish 

PO Box 25112 

Sante Fe NM 87504 

505-476-8055 

505-476-8131 FAX 

msloane@state.nm.us 

Cooperative Extension

The Cooperative Extension at New Mexico 

State University provides educational 

outreach to New Mexico’s citizens. 

Although no current programs in 

aquaculture exist, publications on this topic 

can be found at this website. Further 

information from New Mexico State 

University’s Extension Service can be found 

at: 

http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu/ces

Sea Grant

New Mexico does not have a Sea Grant 

program. 

NEW YORK

NASAC

Philip Hulbert 

Department of Environmental Conservation

50 Wolf Road Room 522 

Albany NY 12233-4753 

518-402-8920 

518-485-5827 FAX 

pxhulber@gw.dec.state.ny.us 

Cooperative Extension

The Cornell Cooperative Extension 

Programs in Fish and Wildlife Biology 

provide information specific to fisheries 

management. Details of aquaculture 

programs are on a case-by-case basis. An 

example of a county-based aquaculture 

program is Suffolk County. Through its 

research and educational and training 

programs, the Suffolk County office of the 

Cooperative Extension seeks to improve the 

quality of aquaculture in this county of New 

York. More information about Cornell 

Cooperative Extension Programs can be 

found at: 

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

fe.htm
Appendix H 

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

Suffolk Country information is available at: 

http://www.cce.cornell.edu/counties/Suffolk/MA

Rprograms/Aquaculturemain.htm

Sea Grant

The New York Sea Grant conducts research 

on a variety of topics related to marine 

ecosystems. Information about aquaculture 

and the New York Sea Grant was not 

available. Additional information about New 

York’s Sea Grant program is available at: 

http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NASAC

Debra Sloan 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 1475 

Franklin, NC 28744 

(828)524-1264 

(828)524-1264 FAX 

debrasloan@earthlink.net

http://www.agr.state.nc.us/aquacult

Cooperative Extension

North Carolina State University (NCSU) 

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical 

State University (NC AT&T) Cooperative 

Extension provides information about ponds 

and aquaculture. NCSU/NC A&T 

Cooperative Extension is located at: 

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/copubs/ag/aqua

Sea Grant

The North Carolina Sea Grant College 

program directs research and information 

sharing about issues in coastal and marine 

resources. Aquaculture is one of the theme 

areas for the NC Sea Grant. The North 

Carolina Sea Grant College Program can be 

accessed at: 

http://www.ncsu.edu/seagrant

NORTH DAKOTA 

NASAC

No Aquaculture Program 

Cooperative Extension

The North Dakota State University (NDSU) 

Extension Service offers its citizens 

information and other educational resources. 

Aquaculture has become a topic of focus at 

the Carrington Research Extension, where 

economic development is the goal. Reports 

of the aquaculture program at the Carrington 

Research Extension are available at its 

website. Additional information about the 

NDSU Extension can be found at: 

http://www.ext.nodak.edu

The Carrington Research Extension can be 

found at: 

http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/carringt

Sea Grant

North Dakota does not have a Sea Grant 

Program.

OHIO 

NASAC

Laura Tiu 

Ohio State University Piketon Research Center

1864 Shyville Rd. 

Piketon OH 45661-9749 

740-289-2071 

740-289-4591 FAX 

tiu.2@osu.edu 
Appendix H 

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

Cooperative Extension

Providing aquaculture practitioners with 

information on topics such as fish culture 

methods, nutritional requirements, 

aquacultural system design and 

management, species selection and water 

quality management. Further information 

about the Ohio State Extension Aquaculture 

Program is available at: 

http://piketon.osu.edu/aqua

Sea Grant

As a part of the Lake Erie Programs, the 

Ohio Sea Grant College offers publications 

and research initiatives focused on many 

topics in aquaculture. Additional 

information about the Ohio Sea Grant 

program can be found at: 

http://www.sg.ohio-state.edu 

OKLAHOMA 

NASAC

Mitch Broiles 

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture 

2800 N Lincoln Boulevard 

Oklahoma City OK 73105 

405-522-6131 

405-522-0756 FAX 

mbroiles@oda.state.ok.us 

Cooperative Extension

Oklahoma State University (OSU) 

Cooperative Extension’s publications 

database, has links to a wide range of 

aquaculture documents. The Extension’s 

Water Quality Team maintains a group of 

experts in the field of aquaculture and pond 

maintenance. Specifically, the OSU 

Extension’s Southern District and expert 

Marley Beem maintain a site dedicated to 

aquaculture education. 

Publications, contact information, and 

aquaculture resources from the Southern 

District are found at: 

http://osuextra.okstate.edu, 

http://biosystems.okstate.edu/waterquality/wqtea

m.htm, and 

http://dasnr.okstate.edu/oces/sedistrict,

respectively.

Sea Grant

Oklahoma does not have a Sea Grant 

Program. 

OREGON 

NASAC

Dalton Hobbs 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Agriculture Development and Marketing Division

1207 NW Naito Parkway 

Suite 104 

Portland OR 97209-2832 

503-872-6600 

503-872-6601 FAX 

dhobbs@oda.state.or.us

Cooperative Extension

No information concerning aquaculture for 

the state’s cooperative extension service was 

available for Oregon. Additional 

information about Oregon State University’s 

Extension Service can be found at: 

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

Sea Grant

Research of the Oregon Sea Grant College is 

focused on promotion and sustainability of 

aquatic resources in the Northeast. Research 

in sustainable aquaculture is one initiative of 

this Sea Grant program. Complete 

information about the Oregon Sea Grant 

College can be obtained at: 

http://seagrant.orst.edu
Appendix H 

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

PENNSYLVANIA 

NASAC

Kyle Nagurny 

Agriculture Development 

Department of Agriculture

2301 N Cameron Street 

Harrisburg PA 17110-9408

(717)787-2376 

(717)787-5643 FAX 

knagurny@state.pa.us 

Cooperative Extension

No information concerning aquaculture for 

the state’s Cooperative Extension Service 

was available for Pennsylvania. 

Sea Grant

The Pennsylvania Sea Grant has programs 

dedicated to promoting research in 

aquaculture in the Lake Erie region. Further 

details of Pennsylvania Sea Grant programs 

can be found at: 

http://www.pserie.psu.edu/seagrant/seagindex.htm 

PUERTO RICO 

NASAC

Jaime Gonzalez Azar 

Fisheries Development Program

Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 10163 

San Juan PR 00908-1163 

(809)724-4911 

(787)725-7884 FAX 

Cooperative Extension

Although the University of Puerto Rico has 

an Agricultural Extension Service, no 

specific information related to aquaculture 

was found. A current website was also 

unavailable. 

Sea Grant

The University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant 

College Program is an educational program 

devoted to the conservation and sustainable 

use of coastal and marine resources in 

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the 

Caribbean region. Their mission is two-fold: 

to conduct scientific research in the areas of 

water quality, fisheries and mariculture, 

seafood safety, marine recreation and coastal 

tourism, coastal hazards and coastal 

communities economic development; and to 

apply their scientific knowledge to solve a 

variety of problems that communities face 

every day. For over two decades the 

University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College 

Program has been working to promote 

sustainable development and the wise use of 

marine resources in Latin America and the 

Caribbean region. Complete information 

about the University of Puerto Rico Sea 

Grant College Program is available at: 

http://seagrant.uprm.edu

RHODE ISLAND 

NASAC

Michelle Burnett 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management 

Office of Marine Fisheries 

3 Fort Wetherill Rd 

Jamestown, RI 02835 

401-423-1946 

401-423-1925 FAX 

michelle.burnett@dem.state.ri.us

Dave Alves 

Oliver Stedman Government Center 

4808 Tower Hill Rd 

Wakefield RI 02879 

401-783-3370 

401-783-3767 FAX 

dalves@crmc.state.ri.us

 
Appendix H 

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

Cooperative Extension

The Rhode Island Cooperative Extension 

program in Aquaculture Biotechnology and 

Fishing seeks to increase local aquaculture 

through economically- and environmentallybeneficial technologies systems. The Rhode 

Island Cooperative Extension program in 

Aquaculture Biotechnology and Fishing 

website is: 

http://www.uri.edu/ce/aquaculture.html

 

Sea Grant

The Rhode Island Sea Grant Sustainable 

Fisheries Extension Program seeks to 

revitalize and stabilize the Nation’s 

Fisheries through applied research, outreach, 

and education. The program provides a link 

between researchers, commercial and 

recreational fishermen, and regulators by 

bringing scientific and technical information 

to user groups, and in turn informing 

researchers of user needs and priorities. 

Fisheries Extension deals with capture 

fisheries, aquaculture, and seafood safety 

and quality. Information about the Rhode 

Island Sea Grant can be found at: 

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu

SOUTH CAROLINA 

NASAC

Gerry Bonnette 

South Carolina Department of Agriculture

PO Box 11280 

Columbia SC 29211-1280 

803-734-2218 

803-734-0325 FAX 

gbonnett@scda.sc.gov

Cooperative Extension

Clemson’s Aquacultural Water Resources 

website provides links to a variety of 

information sources including publications, 

meetings, contacts, and research. Links to 

Clemson Aquacultural Water Resources can 

be found at: 

http://www.clemson.edu/waterquality/waterres/a

qwr.htm

Sea Grant

The South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium 

provides a program of research, education, 

extension, and training to increase economic 

opportunities and conservation of coastal 

and marine resources for citizens of South 

Carolina. Complete information about the 

SC Sea Grant Consortium can be found at: 

http://www.scseagrant.org

SOUTH DAKOTA 

NASAC

Jon Farris 

South Dakota Department of Agriculture 

Division of Agricultural Development 

Foss Building 

523 E Capitol 

Pierre SD 57501-3182 

(605)773-5436 

(605)773-3481 FAX 

jon.farris@state.sd.us

Dennis Unkenholz 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks 

521 E Capitol 

Pierre SD 57501 

(605)773-4508 

(605)773-6245 FAX 

dennis.unkenholz@state.sd.us

 

Cooperative Extension

South Dakota State University’s Extension 

Service is the primary outreach facility of 

the University. It serves the people of South 

Dakota by helping them apply scientific 

knowledge to improve their lives. No 

information on aquaculture-related programs 
Appendix H 

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

is available for this Extension. Additional 

information about South Dakota State 

University’s Cooperative Extension is 

located at:

http://sdces.sdstate.edu

Sea Grant

There is no Sea Grant Program for the State 

of South Dakota.

TENNESSEE 

NASAC

Robert Beets 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture

Market Development Division 

P O Box 40627 

Nashville TN 37204 

615-837 5517 

615-837 5194 FAX 

robert.beets@state.tn.us 

Cooperative Extension

The Center for Profitable Agriculture is a 

partnership between the Tennessee Farm 

Bureau and the University of Tennessee 

Institute of Agriculture. The Center provides 

information about the development of the 

aquaculture industry in Tennessee. Further 

information about aquaculture initiatives 

from the Center for Profitable Agriculture 

can be found on the University of Tennessee 

Extension’s web site at: 

http://www.utextension.utk.edu/departments

Sea Grant

There is no Sea Grant Program in 

Tennessee. 

TEXAS 

NASAC

Susan Dunn 

Institutional and Produce Marketing

Texas Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 12847 

Austin TX 78711 

(512)475-1665 

(512)463-7843 FAX 

susan.dunn@agr.state.tx.us 

Bob Blumberg 

General Land Office 

1700 N Congress Avenue 

SFA Building Room 710 

Austin TX 78701-1495 

(512)463-5028 

(512)463-5098 FAX 

 

Cooperative Extension

The Texas A&M Cooperative Extension 

offers practical, educational information as a 

result of university research. No specific 

information related to aquaculture from the 

state’s Cooperative Extension Service was 

found. Texas A&M Cooperative Extension 

information can be found at: 

http://texasextension.tamu.edu

Sea Grant

Texas Sea Grant provides outreach through 

two efforts: the Marine Advisory Service 

(MAS) and the Marine Information Service 

(MIS). The Texas Sea Grant has specialists 

who deal with issues including aquaculture, 

fisheries, environmental quality, marine 

business management, marine education, 

and seafood science, technology and marine 

policy. Further information about the Texas 

Sea Grant College Program can be found at: 

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

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

UTAH 

NASAC

Kent Hauck 

Utah Department of Agriculture & Food

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City UT 84114-6500 

(801)538-7029 

(801)538-7169 FAX 

khauck@utah.gov

Cooperative Extension

No specific information related to 

aquaculture from the state’s Cooperative 

Extension Service was found. Further 

information about initiatives from the Utah 

State University Extension Service is 

located at: 

http://extension.usu.edu

Sea Grant

Utah does not have a Sea Grant Program.

VERMONT 

NASAC

Denise Russo 

Vermont Department of Agriculture

116 State Street Drawer 20 

Montpelier VT 05620-2901 

(802)828-3829 

(802)828-3831 FAX 

drusso@agr.state.vt.us

Cooperative Extension

The University of Vermont’s Extension 

seeks to help build vital, sustainable rural 

communities and families through 

educational programs. Additional 

information about the University of 

Vermont Extension is available at: 

http://www.uvm.edu/extension

Sea Grant

The Lake Champlain Sea Grant Program 

provides a variety of scientific research and 

activities that lead to improved 

understanding, use, and management of the 

Lake Champlain ecosystem. Information 

about aquaculture through the Lake 

Champlain Sea Grant was not found. 

Additional information about the Lake 

Champlain Sea Grant is available at: 

http://www.uvm.edu/~seagrant 

VIRGINIA 

NASAC

T. Robins Buck 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

1100 Bank Street Suite 210 

Richmond VA 23219 

(804)371-6094 

(804)371-2945 FAX 

robins.buck@vdacs.virginia.gov 

Cooperative Extension

The Southwest Virginia Aquaculture 

Research and Extension Center seeks to aid 

the public with sustainable recirculating 

aquaculture and high value alternative 

horticulture opportunities in southwest 

Virginia through research, extension, and 

education programs. More information from 

the Southwest Virginia Aquaculture 

Research and Extension Center is located at: 

http://www.vaes.vt.edu/saltville

Sea Grant

The Virginia Sea Grant Program is a 

consortium of research organizations that 

focuses on protection and use of marine and 

freshwater resources in the State. 

Development of sustainable aquaculture is a 

key research initiative from this program. 
Appendix H 

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

More information about the Virginia Sea 

Grant is available at: 

http://www.virginia.edu/virginia-sea-grant 

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

NASAC

Arthur Petersen, Jr. 

Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture

Estate Lower Love 

Kingshill, St. Croix VI 00850 

(340)778-0991 

(340)778-3101 

Cooperative Extension

The University of the Virgin Islands (UVI) 

Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural 

Experiment Station (AES) is located on the 

St. Croix Campus of the University of the 

Virgin Islands. AES is part of the Research 

and Public Service Component. 

AES conducts basic and applied research to 

meet the needs of the local agricultural 

community in increasing production, 

improving efficiency, developing new 

enterprises, preserving and propagating 

germplasm unique to the Virgin Islands, and 

protecting the natural resource base. AES 

has a research program for aquaculture. 

Information about the UVI Cooperative 

Extension Service is available at: 

http://rps.uvi.edu/CES

Additional information about AES is 

available at: 

http://rps.uvi.edu/AES/aes_home.html

Sea Grant

The Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service 

(VIMAS), a part of the University of Puerto 

Rico Sea Grant College Program, is located 

within the Center for Marine and 

Environmental Studies (CMES) at UVI. 

VIMAS was established on the St. Thomas 

campus of UVI in 1984 and later expanded 

to include agents on St. Croix. No specific 

information related to aquaculture for the 

Virgin Islands’ Cooperative Extension 

Service was found. Additional information 

about VIMAS is available at: 

http://rps.uvi.edu/VIMAS

WASHINGTON 

NASAC

Dan Swecker, Senator 

Washington State Aquaculture Coordinator

10420 173rd Ave. SW 

Rochester WA 98579 

360-273-5890 

360-273-6577 FAX 

dan@wfga.net

Cooperative Extension

Washington State University Cooperative 

Extension offers non-credit education and 

degree opportunities to people throughout 

the state. Cooperative Extension builds the 

capacity of individuals, organizations, 

businesses and communities, empowering 

them to find solutions for local issues and to 

improve their quality of life. WSU 

Cooperative Extension offers some 

aquaculture publications at: 

http://pubs.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/index.html

Additional information about the WSU 

Cooperative Extension is available at: 

http://ext.wsu.edu 
Appendix H 

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

Sea Grant

Washington Sea Grant Program brings 

researchers, regulatory agencies and 

industry together to keep Washington-raised 

aquatic species available for sale as food 

products. Through research, education, and 

information sharing, Washington State 

aquaculture continues to be productive. 

Further information about the Washington 

Sea Grant Program can be found at: 

http://www.wsg.washington.edu

WEST VIRGINIA 

NASAC

Rob Nichols 

West Virginia Department of Agriculture

1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East 

Charleston WV 25305 

(304)558-2208 

(304)558-3594 FAX 

rnichols@ag.state.wv.us 

Cooperative Extension

The WVU Extension Service has established 

a website dedicated to promoting education, 

technical support, and cooperative resources 

related to the aquaculture industry. 

Additional resources from the WVU 

Extension Service are available at: 

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/aquaculture 

Sea Grant

West Virginia does not have a Sea Grant 

Program.

WISCONSIN 

NASAC

Will H. Hughes 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & 

Consumer Protection 

Division of Agricultural Development 

2811 Agriculture Drive 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

608-224-5142 

Fax: 608-224-5110 

will.hughes@datcp.state.wi.us 

Cooperative Extension

Through its programming and collaborative 

relationships with the UW universities and 

colleges, the 72 Wisconsin counties, and 

countless local, state, and federal agencies 

and groups, Extension provides a spectrum 

of lifelong learning opportunities for 

Wisconsin citizens. Extension education 

applies university research, knowledge and 

resources to the needs of Wisconsin citizens. 

Aquaculture is a topic of interest for the 

Wisconsin Extension. Further information 

about University of Wisconsin’s Extension 

can be found at: 

http://www.uwex.edu

Sea Grant

The Wisconsin Sea Grant provides 

information on research and publications 

pertaining to aquaculture. Through these 

efforts as well as initiatives in technology 

transfer and outreach, Wisconsin Sea Grant 

acts to promote sustainable use of aquatic 

resources in the Great Lakes and the Oceans. 

Additional information about Wisconsin’s 

Sea Grant Programs can be found at: 

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

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

WYOMING 

NASAC

Wyoming Business Council 

Division of Agriculture and Timber

2219 Carey Avenue 

Cheyenne WY 82002-0100 

(307)777-6577 

(307)777-6593 FAX 

wda@state.wy.us 

Cooperative Extension

The University of Wyoming Cooperative 

Extension offers access to information and 

research on a variety of topics related to 

community life in the State. Additional 

information about aquaculture through this 

Extension was not found. The University’s 

Extension can be accessed at: 

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/UWces

Sea Grant

Wyoming does not have a Sea Grant 

Program.
Appendix I 

Additional Resources
Appendix I 

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

Additional Resources

The following resources may provide useful 

information to owners and operators of aquatic animal 

production facilities. 

EPA Programs and Information 

CAAP Final Rule Web Page 

This website provides access to the text of the rule and 

preamble, supporting/guidance documents. 

http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture 

U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ 

Manual, EPA 833-B-96-003, December 1, 1996. 

You may download individual chapters or the 

entire document at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm?prog

NPDES Permit Program Basics 

This Web site provides basic permitting tools and 

information. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id

=45

Permit Compliance System 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/pcs_overview.htm

l#PCS

Source Water Protection Programs 

EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, 

Source Water Protection. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html 

 

TMDL Programs 

EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 

TMDL Program. 

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/index.html 

USDA Programs and Information 

Land Grant Universities 

This website provides directory of land grant 

universities. Click on a state link to reach a list of land 

grant university web sites. 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partn

ers.html 

USDA Agricultural Research Service 

http://www.ars.usda.gov 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov 

USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service (CSREES) 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov 

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov 

USDA NRCS Conservation Programs 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 

Agricultural Management Assistance Program, 

Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs 

USDA Regional Aquaculture Centers 

• Center for Tropical and Subtropical 

Aquaculture: http://www.ctsa.org

• North Central Regional Aquaculture 

Center: http://www.ncrac.org/

• Northeastern Regional Aquaculture 

Center:

http://www.agnr.umd.edu/AGNRDirectory/Se

ction.cfm?SN=%208.13

• Southern Regional Aquaculture Center: 

http://www.msstate.edu/dept/srac

• Western Regional Aquaculture Center: 

http://www.fish.washington.edu/wrac
Appendix I 

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

Other Resources 

American Fisheries Society 

http://www.fisheries.org 

American Tilapia Association 

http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ata.html 

AquaFeed.com 

http://www.aquafeed.com 

Aquaculture Engineering Society 

http://www.aesweb.org 

Aquaculture Magazine 

http://www.aquaculturemag.com

Aquaculture Network Information Center 

(Aquanic) 

http://www.aquanic.org 

Atlantic Salmon Federation 

http://www.asf.ca 

Controlling Birds at Aquaculture Facilities 

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uh120.pdf 

Freshwater Institute 

http://www.freshwaterinstitute.org 

Global Aquaculture Alliance 

http://www.gaalliance.org 

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture 

http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/jsa/index.htm 

Maryland Department of Agriculture, Directory of 

State Aquaculture Coordinators and Contacts 

http://www.marylandseafood.org/aquaculture/nasac.php

National Aquaculture Association 

http://www.nationalaquaculture.org 

National Association of State Aquaculture 

Coordinators 

http://www.agr.state.nc.us/aquacult/NASAC.html 

National Fisheries Institute 

http://www.nfi.org 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov 

National Sea Grant Library 

http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/index.html 

 

NOAA Aquaculture Information Center 

http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/frontpage.htm 

Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association 

http://www.pcsga.org 

Pacific Shellfish Institute 

http://www.pacshell.org 

Sea Grant 

http://www.nsgo.seagrant.org 

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse 

http://www.seaweb.org/resources/sac 

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Fact Sheets 

http://srac.tamu.edu 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

http://www.usace.army.mil 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

http://www.fws.gov 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for 

Veterinary Medicine (CVM) 

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/default.html 

U.S. Trout Farmers Association 

http://www.ustfa.org 
Appendix J 

Glossary
Appendix J 

Glossary

Aeration: The process of bringing air into 

contact with a liquid by one or more of the 

following methods: (1) spraying the liquid 

into the air, (2) bubbling air through the 

liquid, and (3) agitating the liquid to 

promote absorption of oxygen through the 

air-liquid interface.

Aerobic: Having or occurring in the 

presence of free oxygen.

Agronomic rates: The land application of 

animal wastes at rates of application that 

provide the crop or forage growth with 

needed nutrients for optimum health and 

growth.

Anaerobic: Characterized by the absence of 

molecular oxygen, or capable of living and 

growing in the absence of oxygen, such as 

anaerobic bacteria.

Aquaculture: The propagation and rearing 

of aquatic species in controlled or selected 

environments. 

Aquatic animal production: The 

production of aquatic animals under 

controlled or semicontrolled conditions.

Benthic monitoring: Monitoring conducted 

to ensure that degradation is not occurring 

under or around net pens.

Best Available Technology Economically 

Achievable (BAT): Technology-based 

standard established by the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) as the most appropriate means 

available on a national basis for controlling 

the direct discharge of toxic and 

nonconventional pollutants to navigable 

waters. BAT effluent limitations guidelines, 

in general, represent the best existing 

performance of treatment technologies that 

are economically achievable within an 

industrial point source category or 

subcategory. 

Best Conventional Pollutant Control 

Technology (BCT): Technology-based 

standard for the discharge from existing 

industrial point sources of conventional 

pollutants including BOD, TSS, fecal 

coliform, pH, oil and grease. The BCT is 

established in light of a two-part “cost 

reasonableness” test, which compares the 

cost for an industry to reduce its pollutant 

discharge with the cost to a POTW for 

similar levels of reduction of a pollutant 

loading. The second test examines the costeffectiveness of additional industrial 

treatment beyond BPT. EPA must find 

limits, which are reasonable under both tests 

before establishing them as BCT.

Best management practices: Schedules of 

activities, prohibitions of practices, 

maintenance procedures, and other 

management practices that prevent or reduce 

pollution (Title 40 CFR Part 122.2). 

Best Practicable Control Technology 

Currently Available (BPT): The first level 

of technology-based standards established 

by the CWA to control pollutants discharged 

to waters of the United States. BPT effluent 

limitations guidelines are generally based on 

the average of the best existing performance 

by plants within an industrial category or 

subcategory. 

Biosolids: Waste material from an 

aquaculture operation, primarily fish manure 

and uneaten feed. 

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

Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water 

Act is an act passed by the U.S. Congress to 

control water pollution. It was formerly 

referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act of 1972 or Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 

(Public Law 92-500), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. 

seq., as amended by: Public Law 96-483; 

Public Law 97- 117; Public Laws 95-217, 

97-117, 97-440, and 100-04.

Concentrated aquatic animal production 

(CAAP) facility: A hatchery, fish farm, or 

other facility that contains, grows, or holds 

aquatic animals in either of the following 

categories, or that the Director designates as 

such on a case-by-case basis, and must apply 

for a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit. 

Coldwater fish species or other 

coldwater aquatic animals including, but 

not limited to, the Salmonidae family of 

fish (e.g., trout and salmon) in ponds, 

raceways, or other similar structures that 

discharge at least 30 days per year but 

does not include: 

(1) Facilities that produce less than 

9,090 harvest weight kilograms 

(approximately 20,000 pounds) of 

aquatic animals per year and 

(2) Facilities that feed less than 2,272 

kilograms (approximately 5,000 

pounds) of food during the calendar 

month of maximum feeding. 

Warmwater fish species or other 

warmwater aquatic animals including, 

but not limited to, the Ameiuridae, 

Cetrachidae, and the Cyprinidae families 

of fish (e.g., respectively, catfish, 

sunfish, and minnows) in ponds, 

raceways, or similar structures that 

discharge at least 30 days per year, but 

does not include: 

(1) Closed ponds that discharge only 

during periods of excess runoff or 

(2) Facilities that produce less than 

45,454 harvest weight kilograms 

(approximately 100,000 pounds) of 

aquatic animals per year.

Drug: Any substance, including medicated 

feed, that is added to a production facility to 

maintain or restore animal health and that 

subsequently might be discharged to waters 

of the United States.

Effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs): 

Under the Clean Water Act, section 502(11), 

any restriction, including schedules of 

compliance, established by a state or the 

Administrator on quantities, rates, and 

concentrations of chemical, physical, 

biological, and other constituents that are 

discharged from point sources into 

navigable waters, the waters of the 

contiguous zone, or the ocean (Clean Water 

Act sections 301(b) and 304(b)). 

Excess feed: Feed that is added to a 

production system, is not consumed, and is 

not expected to be consumed by the aquatic 

animals.

Existing source: Any facility from which 

there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, 

the construction of which is commenced 

before September 22, 2004.

Extralabel use: The use of a drug in any 

way that is not in accordance with approved 

labeling. Extralabel use may be allowed 

under specific conditions. 

Facility: All contiguous property and 

equipment owned, operated, leased, or under 

the control of the same person or entity. 

Feed conversion ratio (FCR): A measure 

of feeding efficiency that is calculated as the 

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

ratio of the weight of feed applied to the 

weight of the fish produced.

Flow-through systems: A system designed 

for a continuous water flow to waters of the 

United States through chambers used to 

produce aquatic animals. Flow-through 

systems typically use either raceways or 

tank systems. Raceways are fed by nearby 

rivers or springs and are typically long, 

rectangular chambers at or below grade, 

constructed of earth, concrete, plastic, or 

metal. Tank systems are similarly fed and 

concentrate aquatic animals in circular or 

rectangular tanks above grade. The term 

does not include net pens. 

Groundwater: Water in a saturated zone or 

stratum beneath the surface of land or water.

Indirect discharger: A facility that 

discharges or may discharge wastewaters 

into a publicly owned treatment works.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit: A permit to 

discharge wastewater into waters of the 

United States issued under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 

authorized by section 402 of the Clean 

Water Act. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) program: The NPDES 

program authorized by sections 307, 318, 

402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act. It 

applies to facilities that discharge 

wastewater directly to U.S. surface waters. 

Navigable waters: Traditionally, waters 

sufficiently deep and wide for navigation by 

all, or specified vessels; such waters in the 

United States come under federal 

jurisdiction and are protected by certain 

provisions of the Clean Water Act.

Net pens and cage systems: A culture 

system that uses suspended or floating 

systems to culture fish or shellfish. These 

systems may be located along a shore or pier 

or may be anchored and floating offshore. 

Net pens and cages rely on tides, currents, 

and other natural water movement to 

provide a continual supply of high-quality 

water to the cultured animals. 

New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS): Technology-based standards for 

facilities that qualify as new sources under 

40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 122.29. 

Standards consider that the new source 

facility has an opportunity to design 

operations to more effectively 

control pollutant discharges.

Outfall: The mouth of the conduit drains 

and other conduits from which a facility 

effluent discharges into receiving waters.

Pass through: A discharge which exits the 

POTW into waters of the United States, or 

state of Washington, in quantities or 

concentrations which, alone or in 

conjunction with a discharge or discharges 

from other sources, is a cause of a violation 

of any requirement of the city’s NPDES 

permit including an increase in the 

magnitude or duration of a violation. 

Permitting authority: The agency 

authorized to administer the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

permitting program in a state or territory.

Point source: Any discernible, confined, 

and discrete conveyance from which 

pollutants are or may be discharged. See 

Clean Water Act section 502(14).

Ponds: Culture systems characterized by 

hydraulic retention times sufficiently long to 

allow natural processes to reduce metabolic 

waste concentrations. Commonly used to 

culture warm water fish, such as channel 

catfish. 

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

Pretreatment standards for existing 

sources (PSES) of indirect discharges: 

Under section 307(b) of the Clean Water 

Act, standards applicable (for this rule) to 

indirect dischargers that commenced 

construction prior to promulgation of the 

final rule. 

Pretreatment standards for new sources 

(PSNS): Under section 307(c) of the Clean 

Water Act, standards applicable to indirect 

dischargers that commence after 

promulgation of the final rule.

Publicly owned treatment works 

(POTW): A treatment works as defined by 

section 212 of the Clean Water Act, which is 

owned by a state or municipality (as defined 

by section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act). 

This definition includes any devices and 

systems used in the storage, treatment, 

recycling, and reclamation of municipal 

sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid 

nature. It also includes sewers, pipes, and 

other conveyances, only if they convey 

wastewater to a POTW. The term also 

means the municipality, as defined in 

section 502(4) of the Clean Water Act, that 

has jurisdiction over the indirect discharges 

to and the discharges from such a treatment 

works. 

Quiescent zones: Solids-collection zones 

placed at the end of a raceway tank to

collect the settleable solids swept out of the 

fish-rearing area. They are the primary 

means for solids removal in flow-through 

raceways. 

Raceways: Culture units in which water 

flows continuously, making a single pass 

through the unit before being discharged; 

these systems are also referred to as flowthrough systems. 

Recirculating systems: A system that filters 

and reuses water in which aquatic animals 

are produced prior to discharge. 

Recirculating systems typically use tanks, 

biological or mechanical filtration, and 

mechanical support equipment to maintain 

high-quality water to produce aquatic 

animals. These systems are highly intensive 

and require biological treatment within the 

system to prevent ammonia from 

accumulating to harmful levels. 

Sludge: Settled sewage solids combined 

with varying amounts of water and dissolved 

materials that are removed from sewage by 

screening, sedimentation, chemical 

precipitation, or bacterial digestion.

Wastewater treatment: The processing of 

wastewater by physical, chemical, 

biological, or other means to remove 

specific pollutants from the wastewater 

stream, or to alter the physical or chemical 

state of specific pollutants in the wastewater 

stream. Treatment is performed for 

discharge of treated wastewater, recycle of 

treated wastewater to the same process that 

generated the wastewater, or reuse of the 

treated wastewater in another process. 

EPA-821-B-05-001 J-4 March 2006 
Appendix K1 

NPDES Permit Applications: Form 1














Appendix K2 

NPDES Permit Applications: Form 2B
7260 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 


ER12FE03.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 7261


ER12FE03.001</GPH>
7262 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 


ER12FE03.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 7263


ER12FE03.003</GPH>
7264 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C


ER12FE03.004</GPH>
Appendix L 

Applicability Matrix
 Appendix L 

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

APPLICABILITY MATRIX

System Type 

Species 

Type 

(Water) 

Discharge > 

than 30 

Days Per 

Year? 

Annual Production of 

Aquatic Animals 

Maximum 

Feeding is > 

than 5,000 lb 

(2,272 kg)? 

NPDES 

Applies?1

NPDES / 

ELGs 

Applies? 

> 100,000 lb N/A X X 

Yes X 

> 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) No Yes 

Cold < 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) 

No 

> 100,000 lb N/A X X 

Yes X X 

> 100,000 lb (45,454 kg) Yes No 

< 100,000 lb (45,454 kg) 

Flow-through or 

Recirculating 

Warm

No 

> 100,000 lb N/A X X 

Yes X 

> 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) No Yes 

< 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) 

Cold 

No 

> 100,000 lb N/A X X 

Yes X X 

> 100,000 lb (45,454 kg) No Yes 

< 100,000 lb (45,454 kg) 

Net Pens 

Warm 

No 

Yes X > 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) Yes No 

< 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) Cold 

No 

Yes X 

> 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) Yes No 

< 20,000 lb (9,090 kg) 

Ponds 

Warm 

No 

Alligator ponds, 

molluscan 

shellfish, lobster 

cages and pounds, 

crawfish, indirect 

dischargers, or 

Alaskan flowthrough2

 

See 

footnote2

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.
Appendix M1 

Example Written Report 

Participating in an INAD Study
 Appendix M1 

EPA-821-B-05-001 M1-1 March 2006 

EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR AGREEING

TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INAD STUDY

(Submit a written report to your permitting authority within 

7 days of agreeing or signing up to participate in an INAD study) 

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

Name of person submitting this report: 

Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority: 

* Instructions: A form/table like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to 

fulfill the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted within 7 days of 

agreeing to participate in an INAD study. Check with your permit and permitting 

authority for exact reporting requirements. The first row is an example row. 

Date Initiating 

INAD Study 

Participation 

Name of INAD 

Drug Used & 

Dosage 

Disease or Condition 

Intended to Treat Method of Application 

09/09/04 Oxytetracycline For controlling 

columnaris in walleye 

; Medicated feed 

 Injection 

 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.
Appendix M2 

Checklist for Oral Report for 

INAD and Extralabel Drug Use
 Appendix M2 

EPA-821-B-05-001 M2-1 March 2006 

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. 

Reported to 

Permitting 

Authority? 

Name of Drug (INAD & 

Extralabel) Used & 

Reason for Use 

Method of 

Application 

First Date 

of Drug 

Use 

Date Oral 

Report 

Submitted 

to Permitting 

Authority 

Initials 

;

Extralabel: Erythromycin 

Treat bacterial infections 

Injection 09/09/04 09/10/04 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.
Appendix M3 

Example Written Report 

INAD and Extralabel Drug Use
 Appendix M3 

EPA-821-B-05-001 M3-1 March 2006 

EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR INAD AND EXTRALABEL DRUG USE

(Submit a written report to your permitting authority 

within 30 days after initiating use of the drug)

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

Name of person submitting this report: 

Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority: 

* Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill 

the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted within 30 days after initiating 

use of an INAD or extralabel drug. Check with your permit and permitting authority 

for exact reporting requirements. The first row is an example row. 

Name of Drug & 

Reason for Use 

Date and 

Time of 

Application 

(start date/time 

end date/time)

Duration Method of Application 

Total 

Amount of 

Active 

Ingredient 

Added 

Total 

Amount of 

Medicated 

Feed 

Added** 

09/09/04 

10:00 AM 

Oxytetracycline 

For control of 

columnaris in 

walleye 

09/13/04 

10:00 AM 

5 

consecutive 

days 

; Medicated feed 

 Injection 

 Bath treatment 

 Other: ___________________ 

__________________________ 

1 g/lb as sole 

ration 50 lbs 

 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.
Appendix M4 

Checklist for Oral Report of 

Failure or Damage to the Structure 

of Containment Systems
 Appendix M4 

EPA-821-B-05-001 M4-1 March 2006 

CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT OF FAILURE OR

DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS

(Provide an oral report to your permitting authority within 24 hours of the discovery of 

any reportable failure or damage that results in a material discharge of pollutants)

* Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your permitting 

authority. It can be used as a checklist to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting 

requirements of the ELGs. Use the following table to track failure or damage to the 

structure of your containment systems. The first row is an example row. 

Reported to 

Permitting 

Authority? 

Cause of the Failure or Damage in 

the Containment System 

Materials Released to 

the Environment 

Date of 

Release 

Date Oral 

Report 

Submitted 

to Permitting 

Authority 

Initials 

; 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.
Appendix M5 

Example Written Report 

Failure or Damage to the Structure 

of Containment Systems
 Appendix M5 

EPA-821-B-05-001 M5-1 March 2006 

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. 

Cause of the 

Failure or 

Damage 

Date 

Failure or 

Damage 

was 

Discovered 

Time Elapsed 

Until the 

Failure or 

Damage was 

Repaired 

Materials Released to 

the Environment from 

the Failure or Damage 

(Estimate) 

Steps Being Taken to Prevent 

Reoccurrence 

Broken raceway 

screen at 

quiescent zone 

and on 

standpipe 

09/10/04 30 minutes 1,000 fish – Coho salmon 

fingerlings 

1. Secure standpipe screen with 

pipe clamps. 

2. Inspect clamps weekly for signs 

of corrosion or deterioration. 

3. Replace clamps as necessary. 

4. Inspect QZ screens weekly for 

signs of deterioration. 

5. Replace screens as necessary. 

 

 

 

 

* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types of 

existing written reports if available.
Appendix M6 

Checklist for Oral Report of 

Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed
 Appendix M6 

EPA-821-B-05-001 M6-1 March 2006 

CHECKLIST FOR ORAL REPORT OF SPILLS OF 

DRUGS, PESTICIDES, AND FEED

(Provide an oral report to your permitting authority 

within 24 hours of any spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed)

* Instructions: This example form/table does not need to be submitted to your permitting 

authority. It can be used as a checklist to ensure that you have fulfilled the oral reporting 

requirements of the ELGs. Use the following table to track multiple spills throughout the 

year. The first row is an example row. 

Reported to 

Permitting 

Authority? 

Name of Material Spilled 

(Drugs, Pesticides, or Feed) 

Quantity 

Spilled Date of Spill 

Date Oral 

Report 

Submitted 

to Permitting 

Authority 

Initials 

; Oxytetracycline medicated feed; 

broken bag spilled onto ground 50 lbs 09/09/04 09/10/04 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.
Appendix M7 

Example Written Report 

Spills of Drugs, Pesticides, and Feed
 Appendix M7 

EPA-821-B-05-001 M7-1 March 2006 

EXAMPLE WRITTEN REPORT FOR SPILLS OF

DRUGS, PESTICIDES, AND FEED

(Submit a written report to your permitting authority within 

7 days of any spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed)

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

Name of person submitting this form: 

Date this written report was submitted to the permitting authority: 

* Instructions: A form like this may be submitted to your permitting authority to fulfill 

the ELGs requirement that a written report be submitted with 7 days of a spill. The first 

row is an example row. Check with your permit and permitting authority for exact 

reporting requirements. 

Name of Material Spilled 

(Drugs, Pesticides, or 

Feed) 

Quantity Spilled Where Spilled and Action 

Taken Date Spilled 

Oxytetracycline medicated 

feed 50 lbs 

Bag of medicated feed broke when 

being moved from a pallet in the feed 

storage area. Contents spilled onto 

the floor. Swept up spilled feed and 

placed material in a plastic container 

for future use. 

9/10/04 

 

 

 

 

 

* Note: This form is only an example of what a written report could look like. Facilities may use other types 

of existing written reports if available.
Appendix N 

Feed Conversion Ratios Log
 Appendix N 

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

FEED CONVERSION RATIOS LOG

FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of feeding and to 

calculate/track feed conversion ratios. The first row is an example row. FCRs are 

calculated with the following equation: 

Dry weight of feed applied

Wet weight of fish gained 

Date 

(start date 

end date)

Description of Group 

Total Feed 

Amounts 

(Estimate) 

Weights of 

Animals 

(start weight 

end weight) 

Weight 

Gained 

Calculated 

FCR 

3/20/04 100 lbs 

10/21/04 

Brooktrout stockers for 

Potomac River 5,275 lbs 

4,800 lbs 

4,700 lbs 1.12 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Appendix N 

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

Date 

(start date 

end date)

Description of Group 

Total Feed 

Amounts 

(Estimate) 

Weights of 

Animals 

(start weight 

end weight) 

Weight 

Gained 

Calculated 

FCR 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking feeding and calculating FCRs could look like. 

Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
Appendix O 

Spills and Leaks Log
EPA-821-B-05-001 O-1 

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 reform to your permitting authority. The first row is an example row. 

Date 

(mm/dd/

yy) 

Spill or 

Leak 

Location 

(as indicated 

on a site 

map) 

Type of Material & 

Quantity 

Source 

(if known) Reason 

Amount of 

Material 

Recovered 

List o

Me

09/10/04 Spill Hatchery floor Formalin Storage drum Top was not secured and the drum was knocked over 20 gallons Spoke to 

about thsecuring containe
EPA-821-B-05-001 O-2 

Date 

(mm/dd/

yy) 

Spill or 

Leak 

Location 

(as indicated 

on a site 

map) 

Type of Material & 

Quantity 

Source 

(if known) Reason 

Amount of 

Material 

Recovered 

List o

Me

* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking spills and leaks could look like. Facilities may use existing record system
EPA-821-B-05-001 O-3 Instructions: Use this page to enter any important notes about the spills from the previous sheets. 

Date of spill or leak 

(mm/dd/yy) Notes 

09/10/04 All employees have been instructed on the importance of securing container lids. Employees were also in

container lids are secured before proceeding with applications. 
Appendix P1 

Example Inspection and Maintenance Log 

Flow-through and Recirculating Systems
 Appendix P1 

EPA-821-B-05-001 P1-1 March 2006 

STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE

EXAMPLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG

FLOW-THROUGH AND RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

Production or Wastewater Treatment System: 

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of routine inspections and 

regular maintenance of your production systems and wastewater treatment systems. 

Use a separate form for each production system and/or wastewater treatment system. 

Make sure you defined the terms “routine” and “regular” in your BMP plan. The first 

row is an example row. 

Date 

Inspected 

Inspector 

Initials 

Notes 

(Note any problems found and maintenance performed) 

Date 

Maintenance

Performed 

09/10/04 MJ The screen at the end of raceway 2 was loose. Secured the 

screen to prevent it from completely coming loose. 09/12/04 

09/25/04 MJ Inspected screens in raceways. All screens were found to be in 

good condition. N/A 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Appendix P1 

EPA-821-B-05-001 P1-2 March 2006 

Date 

Inspected 

Inspector 

Initials 

Notes 

(Note any problems found and maintenance performed) 

Date 

Maintenance

Performed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Note: This is only an example of what a maintenance log could look like. Facilities may use existing record 

systems if available.
Appendix P2 

Example Inspection and Maintenance Log 

Net Pen Systems
 Appendix P2 

EPA-821-B-05-001 P2-1 March 2006 

MAINTENANCE

EXAMPLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG

NET PEN SYSTEMS

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

Production System: 

* Instructions: This example form may be used to keep track of routine inspections and 

regular maintenance of your production systems. Use a separate form for each 

production system. Make sure you defined the terms “routine” and “regular” in your 

BMP plan. The first row is an example row. 

Date 

Inspected 

Inspector 

Initials 

Notes 

(Note any problems found and maintenance performed) 

Date 

Maintenance

Performed 

09/10/04 MJ During a routine inspection, divers discovered a small hole in 

net pen 3; patched the hole. 09/10/04 

09/25/04 MJ Inspected nets – all were in good condition N/A 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Appendix P2 

EPA-821-B-05-001 P2-2 March 2006 

Date 

Inspected 

Inspector 

Initials 

Notes 

(Note any problems found and maintenance performed) 

Date 

Maintenance

Performed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Note: This is only an example of what a maintenance log could look like. Facilities may use existing record 

systems if available.
 Appendix Q 

Cleaning Log
 Appendix Q 

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

CLEANING LOG

FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

* Instructions: This example form may be used to track cleaning of your production 

systems and/or wastewater treatment systems. The first row is an example row. 

Date 

Cleaned 

Cleaner 

Initials 

Description of 

Component Cleaned Notes About Cleaning

9/10/04 MJ QZ raceways EB 1-5 Cleaned QZs and dam boards; checked and cleaned 

screens. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Appendix Q 

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

Date 

Cleaned 

Cleaner 

Initials 

Description of 

Component Cleaned Notes About Cleaning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking cleaning of production systems and wastewater 

treatment systems could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
 Appendix R 

Record-keeping Checklist
 Appendix R 

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

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.
 Appendix S 

Employee Training Log
 Appendix S 

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

EMPLOYEE TRAINING LOG

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

* Instructions: This example form may be used to track employee training at your 

facility. 

Employee Training 

Completed By: ______________ 

Title: _______________________ 

Date: _______________________ 

Instructions: Describe the employee-training program for your facility below. The program should, at a 

minimum, address spill prevention and response, and proper operation and cleaning of production and 

wastewater treatment systems. Provide a schedule for the training program and list the employees who 

attend the training sessions. 

Training Topics 

Brief Description of the 

Training Program and 

Materials 

Schedule for 

Training 

(list dates) 

Participants 

Spill Prevention 

and Response 

 

Operation and 

Cleaning of 

Systems 

 

Feeding 

Procedures 

 

Other Topics 

(list): 

 

Other Topics 

(list): 

 

* Note: This is only an example of what an employee training log could look like. Facilities may use 

existing record systems if available.
 Appendix T 

Carcass Removal Log
 Appendix T 

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

CARCASS REMOVAL LOG

FLOW-THROUGH, RECIRCULATING, AND NET PEN SYSTEMS

Facility Name: NPDES Permit Number: 

* Instructions: This example form may be used to track carcass removal from your 

production systems and/or wastewater treatment systems. The first row is an example 

row. 

Date Initials System/Group of 

Animals 

# of 

Mortalities 

Approx. 

Weight 

Disposal 

Method Notes

9/10/04 MJ Brooktrout – R1–4 10 6 lbs Composting 

All from R2; 

appear to be from 

some type of 

infection – closely 

monitor 

remaining fish 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Appendix T 

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

Date Initials System/Group of 

Animals 

# of 

Mortalities 

Approx. 

Weight 

Disposal 

Method Notes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Note: This is only an example of what a log for tracking carcass removal from your production systems 

and/or wastewater treatment systems could look like. Facilities may use existing record systems if available.
 Appendix U 

FDA Labeling
 Appendix U 

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

FDA: LABELS FOR NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR AQUACULTURE

In some cases as part of the approval process for new animal drugs, FDA may decide to 

include information on labels for individual aquaculture drugs in order to address the 

potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the drug. Drug labels may also 

require the user to inform the appropriate NPDES permitting authority prior to the first 

use of the drug. This is necessary because FDA must approve drugs for use on a 

nationwide basis without in-depth consideration of wastewater treatment (e.g., settling 

ponds) at individual facilities and local site-specific conditions such as dilution and 

degradation in receiving waters. The reporting requirement insures that there is 

appropriate oversight to determine whether effluent discharge limits are needed at 

individual aquaculture facilities when FDA has determined that release of a drug has the 

potential to cause effects on organisms in receiving waters at some locations. 

Label information on aquaculture drugs may include identification of acute and chronic 

water quality ”benchmarks” derived to address and help mitigate potential adverse effects 

on aquatic life resulting from drug use. These benchmarks are meant to assist NPDES 

permitting authorities make determinations on whether discharge limits are needed and 

help them set these limits, if they are needed (see below). In developing such benchmarks, 

FDA relies on toxicity and environmental fate information collected and generated 

through an environmental assessment process that is part of the overall drug approval 

process (Note: Environmental Assessment documents for veterinary drugs are available 

through the following FDA website: http://fda.gov/cvm/ea.htm). FDA’s technical 

process for deriving water quality benchmarks is similar to that used by the U.S. EPA to 

develop numerical water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life 

(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife.html#guide). 

Under EPA’s NPDES regulations, NPDES permits must include limits necessary to achieve 

water quality standards under section 303 of the Clean Water Act. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1). 

In cases where a State has not established a water quality criterion for a specific chemical 

pollutant but has established a narrative criterion (i.e, “no toxics, in toxic amounts”), the 

permitting authority must establish an effluent limit for a new animal drug if it is present 

in an effluent in concentrations that cause or has a reasonable potential to cause or 

contribute to an excursion above a narrative criterion. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(i). In 

developing such limits, the permitting authority may use a calculated numeric water 

quality criterion derived by one of several methods, supplemented with other relevant 

information which may include “information about the pollutant from the Food and Drug 

Administration” 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vi)(A). Water quality benchmarks and other 

information on drug labels will alert users of the potential adverse effects of drug use on 

aquatic life in receiving waters. This information will also provide a mechanism for 

alerting permit writers of the potential need to formally establish facility-specific numeric 

effluent limitations for aquaculture drug products as well as necessary information for 

complying with § 122.44(d). 
 Appendix U 

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

Additional Information

Charles E. Eirkson III 

Environmental Safety Team, HFV-103 

Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation 

Center for Veterinary Medicine 

301-827-6653 

ceirkson@cvm.fda.gov

 
 Appendix V 

SDAFS BMP Plan
 Appendix V 

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

BMP PLAN FOR STATE FISH HATCHERIES (DEVELOPED BY THE SOUTHERN 

DIVISION OF AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (SDAFS) AQUACULTURE 

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

(Italicized text will need to be re-worded to describe each individual hatchery, and areas 

left blank and/or underlined will have to be filled in and may need to be updated 

occasionally.) 

SDAFS Aquaculture Technical Committee 

BMP PLAN 

FOR STATE FISH HATCHERIES

Dated: ___________ 

Facility Name: ___________________

Facility Address: ___________________

 ___________________ 

 ___________________

NPDES Number and Expiration Date: ___________________ 

Hatchery Superintendent: ___________________ 

Phone number: ___________________ 

Email address: ___________________ 

1) INTRODUCTION: 

The [fill in the name of your hatchery] fish hatchery operates under the NPDES permit 

number referenced above. The NPDES permit is issued by [fill in the US EPA or a state 

agency such as DENR, Division of Water Quality). The contact person at the permit issuing 

authority is ___________________ and the contact phone number is ___________________ 

or they can be contacted by email at __________________ the mailing address for the 

permitting authority is __________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________. The hatchery 

typically produces the following types of fish, in approximately these numbers of fish and 

pounds of fish per year. 

Species of Fish Number of Fish Pounds of Fish 

 

[THIS FACILITY DESCRIPTION MAY BE TAKEN FROM ANOTHER SOURCE SUCH AS 

YOUR NPDES PERMIT] The hatchery consists of indoor raceways in the hatchery building and a 

series of re-use raceways in six parallel rows providing 46 individual outdoor culture tanks or 

raceways (see attached facility layout diagram). Raceways are typically 100 feet long by 8 feet wide 

with the first or up-stream row being twelve raceways across and each raceway being 4 feet wide. 
 Appendix V 

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

Water is supplied through an underground pipe from a surface intake from the Wild River. Water 

flow is typically between 2,000 and 5,000 gallons per minute. The primary water discharge point is 

the outflow pipe from the lower raceway, but water can be discharged at nine locations upstream of 

the main water discharge point during quiescent zone cleaning. Incoming water passes through a 

screen at the intake and is not chemically treated or aerated before use. 

2) REPORTING 

The following reporting is undertaken to meet Effluent Limitations Guidelines: 

1) When we sign up for participation in an INAD study of a reportable drug (i.e. the drug 

may be discharged and is not a use similar to an approved use), we submit a written 

report, which identifies the method of use, the dosage and the disease or condition being 

treated, to the permitting authority within seven days. 

2) When we use a reportable drug an oral report is given to the permitting authority 

within 7 days of the use. The report includes the drug used, method of application and 

the reason for using the drug. A written report is sent to the permitting authority within 

30 days of the use and the report includes the reason for treatment, date(s) and time(s) of 

the addition (including duration), method of application and the amount added. 

3) In the event of damage to or failure of a hatchery structure that results in a discharge 

of pollutants, an oral report is given to the permitting authority within 24 hours. The 

oral report describes the cause of the failure or damage and identifies the materials 

released. A written report is sent to the permitting authority within 7 days of the 

problem and the written report documents the cause, the estimated time elapsed until the 

problem was repaired, and estimates the material released, and steps being taken to 

prevent a recurrence. 

4) In the event of a spill of drugs, pesticides or feed that results in a discharge, an oral 

report is given to the permitting authority within 24 hours. The oral report describes the 

identity and quantity of the material spilled. A written report is sent to the permitting 

authority within 7 days of the spill and the written report describes the identity and 

quantity of the material spilled. Spills that are contained before they discharge to waters 

of the U.S. are not subject to this reporting requirement. 

5) This BMP plan is finalized and being implemented at the fish hatchery. The permittee 

sent a letter on [fill in date] certifying that a BMP plan has been implemented and is 

available to the permitting authority upon request. 

3) SOLIDS CONTROL 

A) High quality feed is utilized to minimize waste. Periodically the feed formulation and 

manufacturing process are assessed so that the most appropriate feed is used. Feed is either 

applied by hand with feed being distributed via scoop from a bucket, by belt feeder or by blower from 

a truck mounted automatic feeder. The feed contract specifies a high quality, extruded commercial 

floating trout feed with a minimum protein content of 42% and minimum 16% fat content for all 

trout grower and finisher feeds. Feeding is adjusted to meet requirements of the fish based 
 Appendix V 

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

on the number of fish, size of the fish, feeding response of the fish, and the temperature of 

the water. Feed consumption is visually monitored and when the floating feed is not 

readily consumed by the fish the feed rate is adjusted to prevent overfeeding either during 

that feeding or for the next feeding that is to occur. 

B) Fish inventories are continuously updated based on stocking rates, records of 

mortalities and fish growth. The following measures are taken to minimize solids 

discharge during grading, harvesting and inventorying of fish: 1) fish are not fed for 24 

hours before handling, and 2) screens and quiescent zones are cleaned before fish are 

handled (etc). Raceways are stocked with proper numbers of fish to facilitate movement 

of solids through the raceway system. Feed rates are adjusted weekly based on fish inventory 

and other considerations mentioned above. Fish inventory is reported monthly. We use feeding 

records and inventory records to calculate feed conversion on a monthly and annual basis. Feed 

conversion ratios are reported in monthly and annual reports. A physical inventory of the fish 

based on weight of fish in each raceway and size (from sub-sampling) of the fish is conducted as 

needed, but at least once each year. 

C) There is a perimeter fence around the raceways to keep wildlife from capturing and removing 

fish. Quiescent zones are maintained in the downstream end of each raceway by screening the fish 

out of the area. Quiescent zones are four feet long and are cleaned at least once weekly on a rotating 

basis. Solids from each quiescent zone are brushed out and flushed through the discharge system to 

the stream through the drain at the bottom of each quiescent zone. No more than one section of 

quiescent zones (one fourth of the facility) is cleaned each day. 

D) Two settling ponds collect solids during cleaning of the quiescent zones. Solids are removed 

from the settling ponds every other month by a septic tank pump truck, and land applied at 

agricultural rates.

E) Trout mortalities are collected from each raceway at least twice per week. The carcasses 

are disposed of on site well away from receiving waters so that there is no chance of 

mortalities making their way to receiving waters. Mortalities are collected before they 

deteriorate and discharge back to the river. 

A disposal log is maintained at the hatchery and updated each time solids (typically dead fish) are 

removed. The log contains: 

 1. date of disposal 

 2. area where solids were applied 

 3. amount of solids applied 

 4. initials of applicator

4) MATERIALS STORAGE 

A) Employees are trained in proper handling and storage of materials used in the hatchery. The 

facility maintains a list of all materials that require special handling in the hatchery together with 

relevant MSDS sheets. A spill response plan is attached as Appendix A. Particular materials of 

concern are: 

• Feed in bags 
 Appendix V 

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

• Bulk feed 

• Medicated feed 

• Therapeutants (formalin, salt, anesthetics, etc.) 

• Fuels and lubricants 

• Disinfectants 

B) New employees and existing staff are trained to avoid any spills that could enter public 

waters, and properly dispose of spilled substances. The hatchery superintendent 

schedules training on an annual basis to update hatchery staff. The training addresses 

each of the types of materials of concern listed above (Appendix A, Spill Response Plan). 

5) STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE 

A) New employees and existing staff are trained to be alert to leakage from or 

deterioration of production and waste storage facilities when feeding or working around 

the raceways. When any malfunctioning of facilities is observed it is immediately reported 

to the superintendent who takes appropriate action to correct the situation. In addition, as 

part of the annual training, an annual inspection of production and waste storage facilities 

is conducted. 

B) Maintenance of intake screens, raceway screens, LHOs and other facility systems is done 

on a daily basis (as described by the manufacturer’s specifications if available) during 

feeding and other activities. Feed storage bins and areas are kept clean and pest free on a 

daily basis. A notebook that lists maintenance on vehicles and equipment is maintained on site. 

6) RECORD KEEPING 

A) Feeding records are maintained daily and feed usage is summarized and reported 

monthly. Monthly reports are stored for a period of at least five years. Monthly reports are 

compiled into an annual report, which summarizes production and feeding data including FCR, 

total feed usage, and total production in numbers and pounds of fish. All records are available 

on site upon request. 

B) Forms that track cleaning, inspections, maintenance, waste disposal, training and 

repairs are kept on site, compiled on an annual basis and kept with the annual reports. 

7) TRAINING 

A) Once each year, during January, the hatchery superintendent arranges a half-day training 

session for all employees at the hatchery. During the training session, the BMP plan is 

reviewed in detail and each section is discussed. Other operational plans such as the fire exit 

plan, safety plan, spill response plan, stocking procedures and hatchery operational procedures are 

also reviewed. 

B) Each new employee at the hatchery is given an orientation that includes a detailed 

review of and training in the BMP plan. This training is conducted within the first two 

weeks that the employee is on the job. 
 Appendix V 

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

8) FACILITY LAYOUT DIAGRAM 

A layout diagram of the hatchery facility is attached indicating where water intakes are 

located, where water discharges are located, where feed and chemical storage is located, 

where culture facilities are located, and where waste storage facilities (including disposal 

for fish carcasses) are located. 
 Appendix V 

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

APPENDIX A -- SPILL RESPONSE PLAN 

1) IMMEDIATE RESPONSE 

• Don’t panic. Call 911 if public safety is threatened. Get help on site and call for 

more help if necessary. 

• Define the problem (leaking valve, broken container, overflow, etc.). 

• Assess risks (where will spill go and will it enter your water discharge). 

• Keep people safe. Away from the spill, upwind or evacuate as necessary. 

• Stop the source of spill if possible, safe and necessary. 

• Stop sources of ignition if relevant (shut off motors, engines, no-smoking, etc.). 

• Contain the spill if safe and possible. 

o Collect the spill in a bucket or drip pan. 

o Block the spill from spreading or getting into the water (build dike or block 

with sandbags, etc.). 

• Call for help. 

2) STABILIZATION 

• Clean up the spill safely if you can or arrange for a contractor to clean it up. 

• Log the spill, and review Spill Response plans and update as needed. 

3) IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS AND CONTACT INFORMATION 

• 911 

• Agency Contacts 

o Hatchery Superintendent – Home__________ Work__________ 

o Production Coordinator - Home__________ Work __________ 

o Regional Supervisor - Home __________ Work __________ 

o Program Coordinator - Home ________ Work ________ 

• NPDES Permit Liaison: Name ___________________ Phone Number ________ 

• Other Government Agencies, Local Officials, and Neighboring Facilities. 

4) PREVENTION 

Preventative measures and procedures are listed below. 

• Chemical storage room or cabinet with lip to prevent spills in storage room. 

• Containment barrier around fuel tanks, and overfill protection on generator tank. 

• Material Safety Data Sheets are maintained for all chemicals used. 

• Security fence, locks, and lights. 

• Inspection logs and procedures. 

• Labeling of tanks and containers. 

• Diagram of site, storage areas, and exit plans. 

5) PREPAREDNESS 

• Available equipment and supplies that can be used to control spills: 

o Shovels and brooms 

o Empty buckets and drums 

o Plastic sheeting and plastic bags 

o Sand bags and absorbent materials 

• Spill containment materials are located in the feed storage room. 

• Annual training and new employee training includes spill response training.