United States Office of Ground Water EPA/816-R-99-014k

Environmental and Drinking Water (4601) September 1999

Protection Agency 

The Class V Underground Injection

Control Study

Volume 11

Aquaculture Waste Disposal Wells
Table of Contents

Page

1. Summary ............................................................... 1

2. Introduction ............................................................. 3

3. Prevalence of Wells ....................................................... 5

4. Wastewater Characteristics and Injection Practices ................................ 6

4.1 Injectate Characteristics .............................................. 6

4.1.1 Injectate Data at Existing Wells ................................... 7

4.1.2 General Characteristics of Aquaculture Effluent ...................... 12

4.2 Well Characteristics ................................................ 16

4.2.1 Design Features ............................................. 16

4.2.2 Siting Considerations ......................................... 17

4.3 Operational Practices ............................................... 18

5. Potential and Documented Damage to USDWs ................................. 20

5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties ....................................... 20

5.2 Observed Impacts ................................................. 20

6. Best Management Practices ................................................ 21

6.1 Reducing Pollutant Levels in Injectate ................................... 21

6.1.1 Improving Feeding Efficiency ................................... 21

6.1.2 Chemical Use Reduction ...................................... 21

6.1.3 Technological Approaches ..................................... 22

6.2 Reducing Injectate Volume ........................................... 23

6.3 Closure; Use of Alternative Disposal Methods ............................ 23

7. Current Regulatory Requirements ............................................ 23

7.1 Federal Programs .................................................. 24

7.2 State and Local Programs ........................................... 25

Attachment A: Drugs, Chemicals, and Biotics Used in Aquaculture ......................... 27

Attachment B: State and Local Program Descriptions ................................... 37

References ................................................................... 44
September 30, 1999 1

AQUACULTURE WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted a study of Class V

underground injection wells to develop background information the Agency can use to evaluate the risk

that these wells pose to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and to determine whether

additional federal regulation is warranted. The final report for this study, which is called the Class V

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Study, consists of 23 volumes and five supporting appendices. 

Volume 1 provides an overview of the study methods, the USEPA UIC Program, and general findings. 

Volumes 2 through 23 present information summaries for each of the 23 categories of wells that were

studied (Volume 21 covers 2 well categories). This volume, which is Volume 11, covers Class V

aquaculture waste disposal wells.

1. SUMMARY

Methods employed for the controlled cultivation of aquatic organisms can vary substantially. 

Some aquaculture facilities use pens suspended in open water bodies, while others use systems that

circulate water through tanks. Many aquaculture operations accumulate wastewater and sludge that

requires removal. At dozens of such facilities in Hawaii and in several other states, this effluent is

disposed via underground injection.

Injected aquaculture effluent includes fecal and other excretory wastes and uneaten aquaculture

food. The primary chemical and physical constituents of these wastewaters are therefore nitrogen- and

phosphorus-based nutrients and suspended and dissolved solids. The effluent may also contain bacteria

pathogenic to humans and chemicals, pesticides, and/or aquaculture additives. However, the incidence

and concentrations of human pathogenic bacteria, chemicals, pesticides, and additives in injectate is

unknown. Information on aquaculture wastewater quality industry-wide is very limited, and wastewater

properties are believed to vary greatly among different aquaculture operations. Available analytical

data for aquaculture injectate and aquaculture effluent suggest that the concentrations of most

parameters are generally below applicable standards. Contaminants that may exceed the standards

under some circumstances include turbidity and possibly nitrite and nitrate. The secondary maximum

contaminant level (MCL) for chloride is also exceeded in the wastewater from some seawater-based

operations, but as long as these wastes are injected to saline aquifers, they pose no threat to USDWs.

The injection zone for aquaculture wastewater is characterized by relatively high porosity, as

aquaculture wastewaters typically have significant suspended solids content. Seawater-based

aquaculture operations in Hawaii inject wastewater into brackish or saline aquifers that flow seaward. 

Little information is available regarding other aquifers receiving aquaculture injectate. 

No contamination incidents related to aquaculture wastewater disposal have been reported. 

Information about the threat of contamination posed by these wells is also inconclusive. For example,

in Idaho, an aquaculture well is known to inject wastewater directly into an aquifer, but the quality of

the aquifer, its status as a USDW, and the resulting impacts, are unknown. The subsurface disposal
September 30, 1999 2

system (i.e., a leaching field) known to be in use by an aquaculture operation in Maryland is situated

above a Type 1 (high quality) aquifer, but no impacts have been observed.

Aquaculture wells generally are not vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges. Most are located

within private facilities and are not accessible to the public for unsupervised waste disposal. However,

the potential exists for operators to dispose of harmful liquid wastes (e.g., waste aquaculture chemicals,

or spent tank water with higher concentrations of chemicals used for temporary treatment of cultivated

organisms) via aquaculture injection wells. No such cases have been reported.

According to the state and USEPA Regional survey conducted for this study, a total of 56

documented Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells exist in the U.S. The great majority occur in

Hawaii (51 wells, or 93 percent). The remaining documented wells are in Wyoming (2 wells), Idaho (1

well), New York (1 well), and Maryland (1 well). In addition to these documented wells, as many as

50 additional wells are estimated to exist in California. Thus, the true number of aquaculture waste

disposal wells in the U.S. is likely to approach 100. Given that the value of U.S. aquaculture

production has grown by 5 to 10 percent per year over the past decade, and that the aquaculture

industry remains the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture, there is some possibility that the

number of Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells will increase.

Programs to manage Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells vary between the states with

documented or estimated wells:

C In California, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,

under the California Water Quality Control Act, nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards

coordinate and advance water quality in each region. These Boards may prescribe discharge

requirements for discharges into the waters of the state under regional water quality control

plans.

C In Hawaii, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,

aquaculture waste disposal wells are authorized by individual permits issued by the state

Department of Health. Class V wells are subject to siting requirements, and prohibited from

operating in a manner that allows the movement of contaminants into a USDW.

C In Idaho, which is a Primacy State, wells greater than 18 feet deep are individually permitted,

while shallower wells are authorized by rule. The state has enacted an antidegradation policy to

maintain the existing uses of all ground water.

C Maryland is also a Primacy State. In addition to the state’s UIC Class V program, the state’s

pollution discharge elimination system can require permits for discharges into ground water. 

Individual permits are required for any discharge of pollutants to ground water, for any

industrial discharge of wastewater to a well or septic system, for any septic system with 5,000

gpd or greater capacity, or for any well that injects fluid directly into a USDW. County health
September 30, 1999 3

What is Aquaculture?

According to the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) of the United Nations,

the term “aquaculture” is defined as “the

farming of aquatic organisms, including fish,

molluscs, crustaceans, and aquatic plants. 

Farming implies some sort of intervention in

the rearing process to enhance production,

such as regular stocking, feeding, protection

from predators, etc. Farming also implies

individual or corporate ownership of the

stock being cultivated” (FAO, 1997).

departments, as well as the state Department of the Environment, can oversee aquaculture

waste discharge wells.

• In New York, the Class V UIC program is directly implemented by USEPA Region 2. The

state also implements a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) to protect the

waters of the state, which include ground waters. Aquaculture waste disposal wells can be

required to obtain an SPDES permit for discharges into ground water. 

C Wyoming is a Primacy State and aquaculture wells are covered under a general permit under

the state’s Class V UIC program. The permit covers a class of operators, all of whom inject

similar types of fluids for similar purposes, and requires somewhat less information to be

submitted by the applicant than is required by an individual permit. The well must satisfy

specific construction and operating requirements (e.g., pretreatment of wastewater).

2. INTRODUCTION

The term “aquaculture” has been defined in

many different ways. In addition to the international

definition used by the United Nations (see text box),

the term has taken a number of definitions in the

United States. According to the National Aquaculture

Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. 2801, the term “aquaculture”

means the propagation and rearing of aquatic species

in controlled or selected environments. USEPA

(1987) defines it simply as the active cultivation of

marine and freshwater aquatic organisms under

controlled conditions, while Buck (1999) defines the

term to include both the farming and the husbandry of

fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants.

These definitions encompass a broad range of

organisms and a wide variety of production systems and facilities. Aquaculture operations across the

U.S. produce more than 100 species of aquatic organisms at different life stages, although about 10

species of shellfish and finfish dominate the industry (Goldburg and Triplett, 1997). These operations

utilize salt, brackish, and/or fresh waters. As the purpose of the facility can also vary, this study

considers those facilities that propagate aquatic organisms for commercial purposes (e.g., for sale as

food) as well as those that rear aquatic organisms for research and/or educational purposes (e.g., public

display).

A common attribute of all aquaculture systems is the use of water as the medium for cultivation. 

Aquaculture systems provide a constant supply of sufficiently clean and oxygenated water to support

the cultivated organisms, and also to carry away deoxygenated water and wastes. Systems that hold

organisms within open, natural water bodies (suspended cages, net pens, or racks) rely on natural
September 30, 1999 4

water circulation or dispersion to accomplish this water “turnover.” Wastes released from these

systems are not collected or managed, and this type of aquaculture operation is therefore beyond the

scope of this study. By comparison, pond culture, recirculating systems (i.e., closed systems where

some or all of the water is filtered and reused), and single-pass systems (i.e., channels or troughs with

water flowing from one end to the other) are required to manage the supply and condition of water in

the system, including the removal and management of wastes (largely consisting of wastewater). These

types of aquaculture systems are considered in this study. Specifically, this study focuses on

aquaculture operations that manage at least a portion of their wastewater by releasing it into Class V

underground injection wells (see below), and more broadly on aquaculture operations that collect and

manage their wastewater, and therefore may consider underground injection as a means of wastewater

management.

Aquaculture wastewater parameters are as varied as the types of aquaculture systems in

operation. Wastewater effluent consist primarily of uneaten food and excretory wastes from cultivated

organisms. Aquaculture wastewater effluent can also include a variety of chemicals, pesticides, and/or

feed additives that are added to systems to condition the water, medicate the cultivated organisms,

control pests, or aid growth patterns. 

Many aquaculture systems employ a constant through-flow of water. These systems typically

generate wastewater at a relatively high and constant rate, with relatively low contamination levels. 

Systems that filter, re-oxygenate, and recycle water typically generate more concentrated wastewater

and sludges (from the filtration process), but at lower or intermittent rates. Most tank-based

aquaculture systems also often have intermittent discharges of concentrated wastewater during cleaning

and harvesting operations.

All of these wastewater types can be, and in some cases are, injected into Class V underground

injection wells. Available data indicate, however, that only a very few aquaculture operations (roughly

100 nationwide) currently dispose of wastewater by underground injection.

According to the existing underground injection control (UIC) regulations in 40 CFR

146.5(e)(12), “wells used to inject fluids that have undergone chemical alteration

during...aquaculture...” are classified as Class V injection wells. For purposes of this study, aquaculture

waste disposal wells include wells that drain or inject waste fluids from aquacultural operations into the

subsurface. This includes wastewater drained directly from tanks or ponds, as well as wastewater from

filtration systems, sludge removal processes, and cleaning operations. As currently defined in the UIC

regulations (40 CFR 144.3), a “well means a bored, drilled or driven shaft, or a dug hole, whose depth

is greater than the largest surface dimension.” Therefore, any hole that is deeper than it is wide or long

qualifies as a well. In the case of aquaculture waste disposal wells, this includes holes drilled and cased

with pipe, as well as “infiltration galleries” consisting of one or more vertical pipes leading to an array of

horizontal, perforated pipes laid below the ground surface, designed to release wastewater

underground. Each of the vertical pipes in such a system, individually or in a series, is considered an

injection well subject to UIC authorities (Elder and Lowrance, 1992). 
September 30, 1999 5

3. PREVALENCE OF WELLS

For this study, data on the number of Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells were collected

through a survey of state and USEPA Regional UIC Programs. The survey methods are summarized in

Section 4 of Volume 1 of the Class V Study. Table 1 lists the number of Class V aquaculture waste

disposal wells in each state, as determined from this survey. The table includes the documented number

and estimated number of wells in each state, along with the source and basis for any estimate, when

noted by the survey respondents. If a state is not listed in Table 1, it means that the UIC Program

responsible for that state indicated in its survey response that it did not have any Class V aquaculture

waste disposal wells.

As shown in Table 1, the available inventory information indicates that there are a total of 56

documented Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells in the U.S. Of these, 51 are in Hawaii, two are

in Wyoming, and Idaho, Maryland, and New York have one documented well each. In addition to

these documented wells, State of California and USEPA Region 9 officials estimate that there may be

as many as 50 aquaculture waste disposal wells in California. Therefore, the best estimate indicates

that fewer than 106 wells currently exist in the U.S.

Currently, Oregon has no registered Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells, but it is possible

that some may exist at federal- and/or state-operated facilities and at one coastal aquarium facility. It is

likely that the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality will register some Class V

aquaculture facilities in the future (Priest, 1999).

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing segment of U.S. agriculture (Holeck et al., 1998). The

National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that in 1997, the most recent year available, aquaculture

production totaled almost 934 million dollars (NMFS, 1999). The value of U.S. aquaculture

production has grown by roughly 5 percent to 10 percent per year over the past decade. As the

industry continues to grow, it is possible that additional aquaculture operations will consider

underground injection as a means of disposing at least a portion of their wastewater, although injection

wells have proven to be a relatively uncommon means of waste disposal in the aquaculture industry to

date. Several industry experts believe that it is unlikely that additional injection wells will be used in the

future due to high regulatory and construction costs and a loss of a potentially valuable incomeproducing resource (i.e., nutrients from the effluent) (Castle, 1999; Jensen, 1999).
September 30, 1999 6

Table 1. Inventory of Aquaculture Wells in the U.S.

State Documented 

Number of Wells

Estimated Number of Wells

Number Source of Estimate and Methodology1

USEPA Region 1 -- None

USEPA Region 2 

NY 1 1 N/A

USEPA Region 3

MD 1 1 N/A

USEPA Region 4 -- None

USEPA Region 5 -- None

USEPA Region 6 -- None

USEPA Region 7 -- None

USEPA Region 8

WY 2 2 Best professional judgement.

USEPA Region 9 

CA 0 < 50 Based on anecdotal information.

HI 51 51 N/A

USEPA Region 10

ID 1 1 N/A

All USEPA Regions

All States 56 < 106 Total estimated number counts the documented number

when the estimate is NR.

1

 Unless otherwise noted, the best professional judgement is that of the state or USEPA Regional staff completing the survey

questionnaire.

N/A Not available.

4. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND INJECTION

PRACTICES

4.1 Injectate Characteristics

Wastewater and injectate characteristics from aquaculture operations can be examined from

two standpoints: (1) the known characteristics of injectate at the relatively few aquaculture operations
September 30, 1999 7

now known to inject wastes into Class V wells; and (2) more general characteristics of aquaculture

wastewater, describing the types of wastewaters that could potentially be injected in Class V wells if

additional aquaculture operations elect this means of waste disposal as the domestic aquaculture

industry grows. However, as discussed earlier in Section 3, many industry experts believe that this

means of disposal will not become more widespread in the future.

The principal sources of contaminants in aquaculture effluent are unconsumed feed, excreta,

and possibly chemical additives. Therefore, the principal contaminants in aquaculture effluent are

nutrients from decomposing feed and excreta: nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, other nitrogen compounds, and

phosphate and other forms of phosphorous. Other key physical/chemical parameters of aquaculture

effluent include suspended and dissolved solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and low oxygen

levels. Aquaculture effluents have been shown to contain microbial contamination, including human

pathogens. Aquaculture operations also utilize antibiotics to control diseases; pesticides to control

parasites, algae, and other pests; hormones to induce spawning; anesthetics to immobilize fish during

transport and handling; and pigments, vitamins, and minerals to promote rapid growth and desired

qualities in the cultivated organisms (Goldburg and Triplett, 1997). However, while these chemicals,

pesticides, and feed additives may possibly be present in aquaculture effluent, little data exist on either

their presence or, if present, their concentrations. Moreover, little evidence has been found to indicate

problems from using approved compounds in their prescribed manner.

4.1.1 Injectate Data at Existing Wells

Data characterizing injectate at known Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells are limited. 

As outlined in Section 3, the existence of documented wells is limited to five states (HI, MD, ID, WY,

NY) and wells are also believed to exist in an additional state (CA). Injectate data are available only

for wells in Hawaii, Idaho, and Maryland, and are summarized below.

The Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program compiled a report in 1990 that describes

a survey conducted from December 1988 to June 1989 of eleven Hawaiian aquaculture facilities that

were injecting wastewater into Class V wells. Injectate quality parameters measured in the survey were

dissolved nutrients, total nutrients, pigments, and suspended solids. Data from this survey are

summarized in Table 2.

Injectate characteristics data provided to the Hawaii Department of Health by Sea Life Park in

Waimanalo, Ouahu, are listed in Table 3. Sea Life Park operates 19 of Hawaii’s 51 documented Class

V aquaculture waste disposal wells (Uehara, 1999). This operation and other similar facilities fall within

the broad definition of aquaculture given earlier (see Section 2). In addition, Sea Life Park is

considered to be an aquaculture facility by the Hawaii Department of Health UIC Program, and since it

disposes of aquaculture wastewater via underground injection, it is included in this volume. Data in

Table 3 are for samples at four injection wells, analyzed in December 1998. According to the Hawaii

Department of Health UIC Program, chemicals are generally not used in aquaculture in Hawaii, except

that Sea Life Park uses small amounts of chlorine as a disinfectant for mammal tank wastewater

(Uehara, 1999).
September 30, 1999 8

Table 2. Aquaculture Injectate Characteristics, Hawaii (mg/l except where noted)

Parameter Freshwater Fish

Farm

Freshwater Prawn

Farm

Marine Fish 

Farm

Marine Shrimp

Farm

Dissolved Nutrients

Nitrate and Nitrite 0.001 - 0.83 0.0043 - 0.52 0.0035 - 0.98 0.0038 - 0.5 

Ammonia 0.0082 - 0.5 0.0042 - 0.2 0.007 - 0.7 0.003 - 1.2 

Phosphate 0.008 - 0.11 0.007 - 0.055 0.014 - 0.32 0.006 - 0.51 

Total Nutrients

Total Nitrogen 0.0047 - 1.5 0.33 - 1.82 0.0015 - 1.62 0.09 - 1.7 

Total Phosphorus 0.062 - 2.2 0.14 - 1.0 0.02 - 0.5 0.03 - 1.5 

Pigments

Chlorophyll 0.001 - 5.0 0.1 - 1.0 0.001 - 0.18 0.003 - 1.1 

Pheopigment 0.001 - 0.25 0.003 - 0.18 0.001 - 0.04 0.002 - 0.16 

Suspended Solids

Turbidity (NTU) 1 - 150 1.6 - 62 1 - 9.9 1.8 - 42 

Total Filterable Solids 1.8 - 610 38 - 400 1.3 - 75 4.1 - 160 

Ash-free Dry Weight 1 - 500,000 50 - 500 1 - 100 3 - 100 

Source: Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program, 1990.
1

 A series of chambers through which water flows continuously.

September 30, 1999 9

Table 3. Aquaculture Injectate Characteristics, Sea Life Park, Hawaii

Parameter Average1 Range1

Ammonia (NH4

+

) (mg/l) 0.22 0.09 - 0.45

Nitrate & nitrite (mg/l) 1.46 1.31 - 1.75

Total nitrogen (mg/l) 2.45 1.45 - 3.48

Total phosphorus (mg/l) 0.22 0.18 - 0.31

Oil and grease (mg/l) <10.0 All samples <10.0

Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 6.33 6.14 - 6.48

pH 7.61 7.59 - 7.65

Temperature (oC) 25.9 25.9 - 26.0

Total coliform (colonies/100 ml) - 12 - TNTC2

BOD5 (mg/l) <1.0 All samples <1.0

Total residual chlorine (mg/l) None detected None detected

Total suspended solids (mg/l) 3.35 2.86 - 4.28

Total dissolved solids (mg/l) 38,150 36,450 - 38,950

Turbidity (NTU) 0.28 0.21-0.33

Chloride (mg/l) 18,475 18,400 - 18,500

1

 Average and range for one sample at each of four wells.

2

 Too numerous to count.

Source: Uehara, 1999.

The single documented aquaculture injection well in Idaho, the Ten Springs Fish Farm, injects

only a portion of its raceway1 effluent water, which is regulated by a National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit, after it has been allowed to settle in a settling pond. 

Characteristics of the settling pond effluent, as it was injected in a nine-month span from 1992-1993,

are presented in Table 4.

Information on the injectate at McGill Farms, the single aquaculture operation that injects

wastes into a Class V well in Maryland, was provided by state and county officials (Eisner, 1999, and

Browning, 1999, respectively). Effluents from the operation consist of wastewater and sludge from a

biofilter process as well as water and sludge from the tanks themselves. Characteristics of the biofilter

liquid effluent, as well as the sludge (fecal material), that is sent to the disposal system (similar in design

to a septic system with septic tanks and leaching fields) are presented in Table 5 below.
September 30, 1999 10

Table 4. Aquaculture Injectate Characteristics, Ten Springs Fish Farm, ID (mg/l)

Parameter Average1 Range1

Total suspended solids - none detected - 2.0

Nitrate N 0.91 0.64 - 1.34

Ammonia N 0.23 0.01 - 0.37

Kjeldahl N 0.58 0.30 - 1.02

Total Phosphorus 0.08 0.05 -0.14

1 Data from 9 samples taken monthly from 12/92 through 8/93. Nitrogen and

phosphorous parameters not analyzed in 2/93.

Source: Anderson, 1999.

Table 5. Characteristics of Effluent Sent to Disposal System, McGill Farms, MD (mg/l)

Parameter

Biofilter Effluent Fecal Material

1/10/98 Sample 2/3/98 Sample 12/24/97 Sample

Nitrate -- -- 130 

Total Kjeldahl N 22.4 -- 90.4 

Ammonia -- -- 3.02

Total phosphorus -- -- 2.7 

Suspended solids 355 510 1,760 

BOD 169 285 1,241 

Orthophosphorus -- -- 2.4 

Source: Eisner, 1999.

It is apparent that the nutrient content of both biofilter effluent and solid wastes from McGill

Farms are considerably higher than that of effluents reported for aquaculture operations in Hawaii and

Idaho. However, at this Maryland operation, the wastes concentrated by the filtration process are

partially removed and broken down in the septic tanks and then the supernatant is injected

underground. The concentration of contaminants in the supernatant/ injectate from this system has not

been analyzed, but can be assumed to be considerably lower than the concentrations presented in

Table 5 (which shows the characteristics of the waste before it is sent to the septic system) because

nutrients would be at least partially contained in or adhered to solids in the sludge. The State of

Maryland authorities expressed concern that the McGill Farms injectate may contain bacteriological

contamination, but data on the bacteriological content of the operations wastes are not available

(Eisner, 1999). There were no plans to use chemical additives at McGill Farms at the time of

application for a state ground water permit (Eisner, 1999).

Table 6 presents a comparison of the known parameters in documented aquaculture injectate to

existing drinking water standards (MCLs) and health advisory levels (HALs). Many of the primary
September 30, 1999 11

constituents of aquaculture effluent (phosphorous compounds, BOD, suspended solids) are not of

direct concern from the standpoint of human toxicity, and drinking water standards or HALs have not

been established for them.

Table 6. Comparison of Aquaculture Injectate Parameters to 

Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisory Levels

Constituent

Primary Drinking Water Standards

and Health Advisory Levels

Nearest

Value

or

Exceedence

in Known

Injectate

(mg/l except

where

noted) Operation

Primary

MCL

(mg/l except

where

noted)

Secondary

MCL

(mg/l except

where noted)

HALNoncancer

Lifetime

(mg/l)

Ammonia 30 (draft

advisory)

1.2 Marine Shrimp Farm,

HI

Nitrate (as N) 10 1.34 Ten Springs 

Farm, ID 

Nitrite (as N) 1 - -

Nitrate and Nitrite (as

N)

10 1.75 Sea Life Park, HI

Total dissolved solids 500 39 Sea Life Park, HI

pH (pH units) 6.5 - 8.5 7.59 - 7.65 Sea Life Park, HI

Turbidity (NTU) 0.5 - 1.0 150 Freshwater fish farm, HI

Chloride 250 18,500 Sea Life Park, HI

Total coliform

(colonies/100 ml)

repeated

detection1

12 - TNTC2 Sea Life Park, HI

1

 No more than 5.0 percent of samples collected during a month may be positive for coliform.

2

 Too numerous to count.

Source for standards and advisories: USEPA, 1999.

Based on the data presented in this section and in Table 6 for known injectate, concentrations

of contaminants in unconcentrated aquaculture effluent are generally well within the established MCLs. 

There are a few exceptions, however. Of the primary aquaculture effluent constituents for which

drinking water standards and advisories have been established (i.e., nitrogen compounds, total

dissolved solids, pH, turbidity, and chloride), the values for chloride, turbidity, and possibly nitrate and

nitrite (see explanation below) are exceeded according to current injectate data.

Chloride concentrations are well above the secondary MCL in the injectate from Sea Life Park

(HI). This is of no significance, however, with respect to threats to USDWs or human health. The Sea

Life Park operations use sea water, which naturally has very high chloride concentrations. Wastewater
September 30, 1999 12

from Sea Life Park is injected into a saline aquifer that flows seaward, and is believed to pose no threat

to USDWs. Chloride would only be of concern for any future sea or brackish water-based

aquaculture operations that plan to inject their effluent in locations where they can affect USDWs. No

aquaculture operations are known to do so at present. 

Table 6 indicates that the established performance standard for turbidity is exceeded by the

effluent from one aquaculture operation known to inject waste into Class V wells (i.e., the fresh water

fish farm monitored by the Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program in 1990; see Table 2). 

While turbidity does not have direct human health effects, the primary MCL for turbidity has been

established because turbidity can interfere with disinfection and can provide a medium for microbial

growth. 

The MCL for nitrate is exceeded in effluent from the McGill Farms (MD) operation (Table 5),

but as previously noted, this effluent passes through a septic tank, where settling and some digestion

and breakdown of contaminants typically occurs, prior to injection. Only the supernatant from the

septic tank is injected into the subsurface disposal well. The concentration of nitrate in the

supernatant/injectate is unknown. It is probably well below the concentration found in the raw effluent

prior to entry into the septic tank (i.e., well below the concentrations shown in Table 5), but may

nevertheless exceed the nitrate MCL. All other nitrate concentrations reported for Class V aquaculture

injectate are below the MCL.

Although the data for aquaculture injectate presented in this section do not provide information

on nitrite concentrations, effluent data from other aquaculture operations (not injecting wastes into

wells) suggest that effluent from certain types of high-intensity operations (e.g., high-density shrimp

farms) can contain nitrite at levels approaching the established MCL (Samocha and Lawrence, 1995). 

Thus nitrite concentrations are of possible concern for any future, high-intensity aquaculture operations

planning to dispose of effluent via underground injection. 

4.1.2 General Characteristics of Aquaculture Effluent

As the foregoing data suggest, wastewaters from various aquaculture operations generally share

a common list of primary constituents: nitrogen- and phosphorous-based nutrients, and suspended and

dissolved solids. Effluent quality data for the industry as a whole are limited. Moreover, the

concentrations of these constituents in effluent probably vary greatly among different aquaculture

operations, depending on a number of factors such as: water management systems (i.e., flow-through or

recirculating); wastewater management systems (whether treatment or settling is applied to effluents);

whether low-intensity or high-intensity aquaculture is practiced; the type and size of organisms raised;

feeding efficiency; and other factors.

Bacteria are additional constituents of concern in aquaculture effluent. Fish wastes can contain

bacteria that are known human pathogens and thus it is possible that aquaculture injectate may contain

pathogenic bacteria. However, adequate data are not available to fully characterize the threat to

USDWs and humans. Table 7 lists pathogenic bacteria found in fish and wastewater at aquaculture
September 30, 1999 13

operations. The likelihood of such bacteria being present in wastewater, and the particular bacterial

species likely to be present, varies depending on the type of aquacultural operation and species

cultivated.

Table 7. Human Pathogenic Bacteria Found in Fish and

Water at Aquaculture Operations

Pathogen Possible Effect 

on Humans Infection Route

Salmonella sp. Food poisoning Ingestion 

Vibrio parahaemolyticuys Food poisoning Ingestion

Campilobacter jejuni Gastroenteritis Ingestion

Aeromonas hydrophila Diarrhea/septacaemia Ingestion

Plesiomonas shigelloides Gastroenteritis Ingestion

Edwardsiella tarda Diarrhea Ingestion

Pseudomonas aeruginosa Wound Infection Dermal

Pseudomonas fluorescens Wound Infection Dermal

Mycobacterium fortuitum Mycobacteriosis Dermal

Mycobacterium marinum Mycobacteriosis Dermal

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Erysipeloid Dermal

Leptospira interrogans Leptospirosis Dermal

Source: Austin and Austin, 1989 (as cited in Smith et al., 1994).

A single set of data is available indicating microbial content in aquaculture injectate. All samples

of injectate at Sea Life Park (HI) had coliform bacteria present (see Tables 3 and 6). This does not

provide a useful indication of the possible presence of microbial pathogens in all types of aquaculture

injectate, however. Sea Life Park raises marine mammals (for display purposes), and the microbial

content in the effluent from this operation is probably very different from that of the great majority of

aquaculture operations that raise non-mammal species for food. 

Similarly, the types of chemicals, pesticides, and additives used in aquaculture are well known,

but their incidence and concentrations in aquaculture effluents are not well quantified for the industry as

a whole. The use and rate of application of these materials varies significantly and depends on factors

such as the species raised, culture intensity (e.g., organism density), water quality, and operation type. 

Thus, the incidence and concentration of these materials in wastewaters is expected to vary

considerably. 

Three antibiotics are approved for use in U.S. aquaculture: oxytetracycline, sulfadimethoxineormetoprim, and sulfamerazine. However, the Federal Drug Administration’s (FDA) new drug-use

regulations allow other antibiotics and other drugs to be used under certain specified and controlled
September 30, 1999 14

conditions (USFDA, 1996). FDA regulations include certification of proper drug usage and drug

residue testing (FDA also requires an environmental impact review prior to drug approval). The

approved drugs can be used only for certain fish species, and withdrawal times prior to harvest are

specified on drug labels (USFDA, 1998). These regulations reduce the likelihood that these drugs will

be present in aquaculture effluent at levels toxic to humans. However, as these regulations are focused

on concentrations of drugs in the edible product, they can not be relied upon to maintain the

concentration of drugs in wastewater within drinking water standards.

Fish hormones are sometimes used to induce maturation, spawning, and sex reversal for fish in

hatcheries. FDA-approved color additives, carotenoids (also found naturally in many vegetables), may

be fed to farmed salmon and trout to produce a pink/orange flesh that consumers prefer. Vitamins and

minerals may also be added to feed to fulfill fish nutrition requirements (Goldburg and Triplet, 1997). 

Drugs approved by FDA for use in aquaculture, as well as drugs of low regulatory priority at FDA, are

listed in Attachment A of this volume.

USEPA regulations allow the use of numerous herbicides, algaecides, and fish toxins (not

necessarily common) in aquaculture systems where fish are raised for food. For example, fungicides

may be used to ensure the healthy development of fish eggs. The USEPA-approved algaecides,

herbicides, and other pesticides are also listed in Attachment A of this volume. 

Finally, veterinary biologics (e.g., vaccines) are used in aquaculture for the prevention,

diagnosis, and treatment of animal diseases. Preventive and therapeutic veterinary biologics act on or in

concert with the body's immune system to provide or enhance resistance to disease. Diagnostic

veterinary biologics are used to detect the presence of a disease organism or diseased cells as well as

to detect immunity in the fish against disease organisms. The use of biologics in aquaculture is regulated

by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Biologics approved by USDA for use in

aquaculture are also listed in Attachment A of this volume.

The FDA-, USDA-, and USEPA-regulated chemicals listed in Attachment A are not

necessarily present in aquaculture injectate. For example, some of the chemicals may not be used in

closed systems, or may be applied in a manner preventing them from being in wastewater (i.e., they

may degrade and break down before reaching the effluent). The herbicides listed in Attachment A that

are used for weed control are generally used in large water bodies supporting open aquaculture

operations that do not collect or manage wastes. These herbicides are therefore outside the scope of

concern for aquaculture waste disposal wells. 

Drugs and pesticides regulated by FDA and USEPA that are likely to be present in the effluent

of some aquaculture operations, and could conceivably be present in current and future aquaculture

injectate, are summarized in Table 8 below. 
September 30, 1999 15

Table 8. Possible Chemical Contaminants in Aquaculture Effluent

FDA-Approved Drugs

Used as additives to tank water (likely to be in effluent in some operations):

C Tricaine methanesulfonate

C Formalin

C Oxytetracycline

C Sulfadimethoxine and ormetoprim

C Sulfamerizine

Used as solutions into which fish are dipped briefly (may be disposed of via wastewater disposal system):

C Acetic acid 

C Calcium oxide

C Fuller's earth

C Magnesium sulfate

C Papain

C Povidone iodine compounds

C Sodium bicarbonate

C Sodium sulfite

C Urea 

C Tannic acid

Drugs of Low Regulatory Priority for FDA Used in Aquaculture 

Generally used as additives to tank water (could be present in effluent in some operations):

C Calcium chloride

C Hydrogen Peroxide

C Potassium chloride

C Sodium chloride

USEPA-Registered Pesticides For Aquaculture

Algaecides, generally added to tank water (likely to be present in effluent of some operations, but in

instances of high BOD, copper compounds are likely to be complexed with suspended organics, and thus

may become biologically unavailable):

C Chelated copper

C Copper (inorganic compounds)

C Elemental copper

C Copper sulfate pentahydrate

C Endothall

Herbicides, possibly used as additives to some tanks (may be present in the effluent from some operations):

C Acid blue and acid yellow

C Dichlobenil

C Diquat dibromide

C Glyphosate

Fish toxins, generally added to tank water (likely to be present periodically in effluent of some operations

but not likely in tank or raceway systems):

C Antimycin

C Rotenone

As is the case with bacteriological contamination, however, data adequate to quantify the

incidence and concentrations of the above materials in aquaculture effluent on an industry-wide basis

are not available. The presence and concentration of these chemicals and biologics is expected to vary

greatly from operation to operation, and from one period to another within individual operations. High

concentrations of some chemicals used in aquaculture may be toxic to humans. However, the use of

these materials is regulated to ensure safety of the aquaculture product, and this regulation may also

ensure that concentrations of these materials in aquaculture waters and effluents are safe.
September 30, 1999 16

Primary drinking water standards have been established for four of the materials listed in Table

8, and a draft health advisory has been issued for one additional drug. These standards and the

advisory are presented in Table 9. These constituents, since they are approved for use in aquaculture,

could conceivably pose a threat to human health if introduced into USDWs in concentrations above

these thresholds. However, adequate data are not available to estimate the likelihood of such

contamination.

Table 9. Drinking Water Standards for Chemicals Used in Aquaculture

Chemicals/

Pesticides

Primary Standards Health Advisory Levels For 70-kg Adult

Cancer

Group1

Regulatory

Status

MCL

(mg/l) Status

Noncancer

Lifetime

(mg/l)

mg/l at 10-4

Cancer

Risk

Copper Final 1.3 - - - D

Diquat Final 0.02 - 0.02 - D

Endothall Final 0.1 Final 0.1 - D

Formaldehyde2- - Draft 1 - B13

Glyphosate Final 0.7 Final 0.7 - E

1

 The categorization of cancer group according to the carcinogenic potentials of chemicals:

B1 - probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in

animals. 

D - inadequate or no human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity.

E - no evidence of carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in

adequate epidemiologic and animal studies.

2

 The active drug used in aquaculture is formalin, an aqueous solution of formaldehyde.

3

 Carcinogenicity based on inhalation exposure.

Source: USEPA, 1990.

4.2 Well Characteristics

4.2.1 Design Features

Specific design features of aquaculture waste disposal wells vary by site in order to account for

local hydrogeologic conditions. However, based on currently available inventory data, two well types

are most frequently used in the U.S.: vertical cased wells and shallow subsurface disposal systems. 

Vertical cased wells are more numerous, and consist of a hollow casing installed vertically into

the ground. The well casing is impermeable down to a specified depth, below which the casing is

perforated to allow fluids to diffuse into the surrounding stratum or aquifer. The majority of case wells

in use are less than 100 feet in depth; these usually have a diameter of approximately 8 inches. 

However, some are drilled to a depth of over 100 feet, and are typically 12 to 20 inches in diameter. 
September 30, 1999 17

The majority of the injection wells in Hawaii are shallow cased wells with concrete walls (for design

details, see USEPA, 1987). The injection well at Ten Springs Fish Farm in Idaho is a deep cased well

with a 12-inch diameter drill hole and a depth of 180 feet. It is cased with 5-mm steel and sealed at the

top with a 1⁄4-inch screen.

A shallow subsurface disposal system is in use at McGill Farms in Maryland. This system is

essentially a standard septic system with leaching field. Classified as a Class V injection well under the

ground water permit program of the Maryland Department of the Environment, this system consists of

two septic tanks, from which drain pipes run underground to perforated pipes lain in subsurface

trenches filled with gravel. The septic tanks are constructed of concrete and each has a capacity of

1,500 gallons. 

Although no further information was available on the McGill Farms system, Hartford County

Health Department (HCHD) staff indicated that this system conforms in design to standard septic

systems in the county (Browning, 1999). According to HCHD regulations for such systems, the

wastewater from the septic tanks is distributed via a distribution box to a series of pipes buried in

trenches. The trenches surrounding the pipes are typically between 35 and 100 feet long, 2 feet wide,

and 10 feet deep. Each trench is filled with gravel to within 2 feet of the ground surface. Perforated

pipe is laid on top of this gravel, and is covered by several more inches of gravel. The trench is then

filled to the ground surface with original soil from the site. The perforated pipes that release effluent to

the leaching field are at least 6 inches but no more than 2 feet below the ground surface, and are

inclined at no more than 4 inches per 100 feet. The leaching field consists of several pipes in trenches

at least 8 feet apart. HCHD requires that septic systems be located at least 15 feet from any property

line, 75 to 100 feet from any ground water withdrawal wells, and 150 feet from wells that are below the

grade of the septic system. 

A septic system is also used for aquaculture effluent disposal at the Oneida Fish Hatchery in

New York. Detailed information regarding the design of this leach field was not available for this

report. For information regarding the basic operational practices at this facility, see Section 4.3. 

Information about the design of the aquaculture waste disposal wells in Wyoming and California

was not available for this report.

4.2.2 Siting Considerations

Hydrogeology is an important factor that influences both the likelihood that injectate from

aquaculture waste disposal wells will affect USDWs, and the performance of injection wells themselves

in disposing of wastewater. Permeable receiving formations comprise the most favorable injection

formation for aquaculture effluent, due to the high solids content of the effluent. Low-permeability

receiving formations can result in clogging and failure of aquaculture injection wells. However, these

same factors that contribute to good well performance also increase the mobility of injectate within the

receiving strata, and the likelihood that injectate will ultimately reach any nearby or underlying aquifer (if

no impermeable barriers exist between the injection point and the aquifer). 
2

 State data indicate 39 drinking water wells within 1⁄2 mile of the operation. Fourteen of these wells

range in depth from less than 100 feet to 150 feet, suggesting that they may tap the same shallow aquifer

that underlies the aquaculture waste disposal system. The remaining wells range from 150 to over 350

feet deep, and may or may not tap this same aquifer.

September 30, 1999 18

Most of the injection wells in Hawaii, including aquaculture waste disposal wells, are located in

the coastal region (seaward of the saltwater intrusion boundary) and release injectate directly into

brackish or saline aquifers (Peterson and Oberdorfer, 1985). State officials believe that these wells

pose no threat to USDWs, as the flow of the receiving saline aquifers is seaward, carrying injectate

away from inland USDWs. The ground water table at these sites usually lies a few meters below the

ground surface, and water table fluctuations resulting from ocean tides, storms, and seasonal changes in

ground water recharge can significantly affect injection well performance (although USDWs remain

unthreatened).

The aquaculture waste disposal well in Idaho is located in highly fractured basalt and discharges

in such close proximity to the surface water discharge point that contaminants are adequately addressed

through the NPDES permit requirements (Tallman, 1999).

The aquaculture waste disposal well (leaching field) in Maryland is situated above an aquifer

classified as a “Type 1" aquifer, meaning that the quality of the water in the aquifer is excellent. The

upper boundary of this aquifer is approximately 48 feet below the ground surface, or 38 feet below the

bottom of the leaching trenches.2

Information regarding the hydrogeology at the aquaculture waste disposal wells in Wyoming,

New York, and California was not available for this report.

4.3 Operational Practices

Available data indicate that operational practices could vary significantly among aquaculture

waste disposal wells depending on various factors, including the hydrogeologic conditions at the well

site, the state where the well is located, type of well, the nature of aquaculture activity, and the

availability of other waste disposal options. This section describes operations at the systems for which

information is available.

In Hawaii, aquaculture injection wells are used as a primary means of waste disposal, with a

few wells used as standby wells or for backup drainage. Recorded pumping rates for individual wells

range from 0.5 to 6 million gallons per day (gpd) (Pruder, 1992). Uehara (1999) reports that at the

two Keahole Point facilities, effluent discharge rates of are 3,000 gpd and 5,760,000 gpd (for all wells

combined), respectively. Wells at the Oceanic Institute are permitted an aggregate flow of 80,000 gpd,

and those at Sea Life Park are permitted a flow of 18,008,000 gpd.

Unlike pressurized wastewater wells, aquaculture injection wells are usually gravity fed. The

main operational concern is clogging due to poor site selection and a lack of maintenance. Clogging
September 30, 1999 19

can cause well overflow and possible ground water contamination from leaching of effluent that is

discharged onto the ground. Pruder (1992) notes that clogging has occurred at several facilities in

Hawaii. As experienced at the Kahuku Intensive Aquaculture Facility in Oahu, clogging of wells due to

selection of a geologically unfavorable site with non- or poorly permeable soils can force an eventual

abandonment of the wells. Aquaculture effluent at that location is now discharged into a ditch leading to

an adjacent open, swampy wildlife refuge. Similar problems were encountered at wells owned by

Marine Culture Enterprises at the same facility. In the first six months of operation there, one of the

wells became irreversibly clogged and capacity at other wells was severely reduced despite all

maintenance efforts. These injection wells are no longer in use.

In some other cases, improper handling and maintenance of the injection wells is found to cause

clogging. For example, when the Ocean Farms Incorporated injection wells located at Keahole Point,

Hawaii were first installed, settled materials were vacuumed from the bottom of the ponds and pressed

down the wells, resulting in clogging. After the practice was stopped, the wells began to function

properly (Pruder, 1992).

The deep injection well at Ten Springs Fish Farm, Idaho is not used as the primary means of

wastewater disposal. The function of this injection well is to generate compressed air to aerate the fish

pond, according to state officials and the operator (Anderson, 1999; Lemmon, 1999). Water from the

fish pond goes to a settling pond for pre-treatment. Only a small portion of the wastewater is diverted

from the settling pond to the well. The remainder of the effluent from the settling pond is discharged to

a nearby stream. Wastewater sent to the injection well generates compressed air (the incoming water

compresses the air already in the well), which is then returned to the fish pond through gravity force. 

This system functions on a continuous basis. The typical injection volume of the well is 450 gallons per

minute (gpm); it has a capacity of 900 gpm.

The septic system in place at McGill Farms in Maryland is used for the disposal of wastes from

biofilters and fish tanks. This tilapia farming facility consists of twelve 10,000 gallon fish culture tanks. 

Water from each of the tanks is re-circulated through a biofilter (also referred to as a “clarifier”). 

Material filtered from the recirculating water is treated further in the subsurface wastewater disposal

system before being injected underground. The disposal system receives about 3,000 gpd from the

twelve biofilters, one for each tank. Accumulated solid wastes, including fish fecal materials, are also

discharged to the subsurface disposal system. In addition, approximately every two weeks (or during

fish harvest), one of the twelve 10,000 gallon aquaculture tanks is drained. Water from the drained

culture tanks is transferred to a holding tank, and gradually discharged into the subsurface disposal

system.

Two 1,500-gallon septic tanks act as settling tanks for the McGill Farms subsurface disposal

system; some (or possibly most) of the solids in the waste stream settle to the bottom of the tanks. 

Sludge is periodically pumped from the bottom of the septic tanks and is hauled away for disposal

elsewhere. Only the supernatant from the septic tanks is injected to the underground leaching fields. 
September 30, 1999 20

The Oneida Fish Hatchery in New York also uses a leaching field to dispose of aquaculture

wastes. As described by Holeck et al. (1998), solids and wastewater from walleye rearing tanks are

sent to two large (5,700 liter) above-ground concrete tanks for settling. After the particulates settle, the

supernatant is removed and discharged underground via a leach field. The leach field has a maximum

capacity of 13,250 liters per day. Not all of the wastes produced as a result of fish cultivation are

discharged via subsurface injection -- the solids that accumulate in the settling tanks are applied to

agricultural fields, while the hatchery “overtopping water” is discharged directly into a creek.

As with any underground disposal well, gravity-fed and pressurized aquaculture waste disposal

wells are at risk to unauthorized discharges. Higher risks may be associated with gravity-fed wells if

their wellheads are unsecured. However, most aquaculture injection wells are located within private

facilities and are not accessible to the public for unsupervised waste disposal. The potential certainly

exists for operators to dispose of harmful liquid wastes (e.g., waste aquaculture chemicals, or spent

tank water with higher concentrations of chemicals used for temporary treatment of cultivated

organisms) via aquaculture injection wells. However, no such cases have been reported and

aquaculture wells generally are not vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges.

5. POTENTIAL AND DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO USDWs

5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties

The primary constituent properties of concern when assessing the potential for Class V

aquaculture waste disposal wells to adversely affect USDWs are toxicity, persistence, and mobility. 

The toxicity of a constituent is the potential of that contaminant to cause adverse health effects if

consumed by humans. Appendix D of the Class V Study provides information on the health effects

associated with contaminants found above drinking water MCLs or HALs in the injectate of

aquaculture waste disposal wells and other Class V wells. As discussed in Section 4.1, the

contaminants that have been observed above drinking water MCLs or HALs in aquaculture waste

disposal well injectate are chloride, turbidity, and possibly nitrate and nitrite.

Persistence is the ability of a chemical to remain unchanged in composition, chemical state, and

physical state over time. Appendix E of the Class V Study presents published half-lives of common

constituents in fluids released in aquaculture waste disposal wells and other Class V wells. All of the

values reported in Appendix E are for ground water. Caution is advised in interpreting these values

because ambient conditions have a significant impact on the persistence of both inorganic and organic

compounds. Appendix E also provides a discussion of mobility of certain constituents found in the

injectate of aquaculture waste disposal wells and other Class V wells.

5.2 Observed Impacts

To date, no documented cases of impacts on USDWs or other ground water resources caused

by aquaculture waste disposal wells have been observed. 
September 30, 1999 21

6. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Best management practices (BMPs) designed to minimize potential detrimental health and

environmental effects that may result from injection of aquaculture wastes into wells are primarily

focused on: reducing pollutant levels in effluent; reducing the volume of waste injected; or adopting

alternative waste disposal options. The following discussion is neither exhaustive nor represents a

USEPA preference for the stated BMPs. Each state or USEPA Region may require certain BMPs to

be installed and maintained based on that state’s or USEPA Region’s priorities and site-specific

considerations.

6.1 Reducing Pollutant Levels in Injectate

A variety of practices can be implemented to reduce pollutant levels in aquaculture effluent

injectate. Goldburg and Triplett (1997), Mires (1995), and Boardman et al. (1998) suggest a number

of “environmentally friendly” management practices for aquaculture wastes that can reduce pollutant

levels and potential for harmful effects. Although these practices were suggested as methods to reduce

pollutant levels in aquaculture effluent to surface water bodies, they are equally applicable for the

reduction of pollutant concentrations in injectate at operations utilizing injection wells.

6.1.1 Improving Feeding Efficiency

Several key practices aimed at reducing the levels of pollutants in aquaculture effluents focus on

reducing the amount of unconsumed feed, a primary source of nutrients and solids in these effluents. 

Such practices include:

• Optimization of the amount and type of feed applied in relation to the culture biomass, to reduce

overfeeding;

• Accurate and frequent monitoring of fish growth and feeding rates, in order to determine the

lowest amount of feed necessary to produce a given amount of fish biomass (i.e., maximization

of the feed conversion ratio, or FCR); and

• Improvements in feed quality through the use of more digestible ingredients or reformulation to

match fish needs. This can result in a higher FCR. However, one study found that high energy

feed reduced total suspended solids but also increased total Kjeldahl nitrogen in the effluent due

to greater nitrogen release from the fish receiving the high energy feed (Boardman et al., 1998).

6.1.2 Chemical Use Reduction

Although many types of biological compounds have become an integral part of modern

intensive aquaculture (Mires, 1995), minimizing the use of chemicals, such as pesticides and

pharmaceuticals, can reduce levels of potentially harmful substances in the effluent and lessen the

potential for subsequent environmental impacts. For example, the application of pesticides in a
September 30, 1999 22

calculated manner (e.g., certain amounts, types, time of year), rather than applying them liberally, would

act to prevent over-usage and potentially needless contamination.

6.1.3 Technological Approaches

Certain technologies can also reduce pollutant levels in aquaculture effluents prior to disposal. 

Several are listed here: 

• Sedimentation ponds allow suspended solids to settle out of the waste stream before disposal

of the aqueous effluent. Nutrients and other pollutants are frequently adsorbed to the settled

particulates. The University of Stirling (1990) has reported that up to 90 percent of suspended

solids, 60 percent of biological oxygen demand, and 50 percent of total phosphorous loads can

be removed through the use of these ponds. Sedimentation ponds can also reduce well

clogging by removing solids. 

C Retention ponds are similar to sedimentation ponds in that they allow solids to settle, but

retention ponds hold the wastewater longer, allowing algae and nitrifying and denitrifying

bacteria to transform, immobilize, and volatilize nitrogen. Phosphorus is mostly retained in the

bottom sediments (Mires, 1995).

C Mechanical filtration and sediment traps can also reduce sediment and particulate levels in

effluent. Several filtration systems exist, including low-head-swirl concentrators (rapidly

rotating cylindrical chambers that remove suspended solids via centrifugal force), fine mesh

filters, and sand and gravel filters (Goldburg and Triplett, 1997). Regular cleaning and

maintenance of filtration systems will ensure efficient operation (Boardman et al., 1998).

C Biofilters utilize aerobic and anaerobic microbial filtration to remove organic matter and

nutrients from aquaculture waters. Bivalve and macro-algae filter beds have also been used at

marine aquaculture operations to accomplish the same results (Mires, 1995).

C Aeration and resuspension of solids can help to purify water by enhancing the aerobic

decomposition of wastes. Resuspension of solids encourages bacteria to flocculate (form

masses) around suspended particles; the bacteria can then be ingested or decomposed by fish

in some cases (Mires, 1995).

However, technologies such as filtration systems and settling ponds generate large amounts of

waste solids (i.e., sludge). Improper disposal of this sludge may introduce a separate set of health or

safety problems (Boardman et al., 1998). Aquaculture facility operators generally do consider these

factors when choosing an appropriate best management practice. However, by removing these solids

from injectate, operators can reduce any impact of injectate on USDWs. Concentrated waste sludges

are of considerably less volume than the original effluent, making them easier to manage by means other

than underground injection.
September 30, 1999 23

In addition, the nutrient-rich sludge removed from effluent waters by the settling and filtration

processes discussed here can be used as a soil amending agent (e.g., compost) and/or can be applied

to agricultural crops as a fertilizer. It may also prove useful for some types of integrated farming. 

Integrated farming -- combining terrestrial agriculture and aquaculture -- includes various types of

practices, including polyculture (i.e., the cultivation of more than one species of plant or animal in a

single place or system) and hydroponics (i.e., the cultivation of plants rooted in an aqueous nutrient

solution rather than in soil) (McLarney, 1984).

6.2 Reducing Injectate Volume

The rate of water use and disposal by aquaculture operations can be greatly reduced through

the use of water recirculating systems, as opposed to flow-through systems (Goldburg and Triplett,

1997). Recirculating systems allow water to be circulated through culture tanks several times. This

greatly reduces the demand for fresh intake water and the rate of wastewater production, and makes

them more desirable financially. Recirculated water is generally filtered and aerated in order to maintain

a suitable level of cleanliness and oxygenation. The filtration process results in the generation of

concentrated sludge wastes that require management and disposal, as noted above.

6.3 Closure; Use of Alternative Disposal Methods

In a study of Hawaiian aquaculture, Pruder (1992) considered several options for aquaculture

waste disposal in an effort to find an alternative to coastal water discharge and eliminate NPDES/ZOM

(Zones of Mixing) permit requirements. Several of the disposal options considered by Pruder (1992)

could also be considered as alternatives to waste injection wells, or could be used in conjunction with

injection wells to decrease the amount of waste requiring underground injection. Options (other than

well injection) considered by Pruder included: deep ocean outfall pipes, recycling systems, polyculture,

solids removal, trenches, and leaky ponds (earthen ponds that slowly leak effluent into the ground). All

of these represent potential alternatives to injection of wastes into Class V wells for the disposal or

aquaculture wastes. Although trenches and leaky ponds might provide more filtration as the

wastewater migrates through the unsaturated zone, it is questionable if such disposal would be

preferable to underground injection from the standpoint of aquifer protection. The cost and feasibility

of these alternatives would have to be examined on a case-specific basis to determine whether a

particular alternative is desirable.

7. CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Several federal, state, and local programs exist that either directly manage or regulate Class V

aquaculture waste disposal wells. On the federal level, management and regulation of these wells falls

primarily under the UIC program authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Some states

and localities have used these authorities, as well as their own authorities, to extend the controls in their

areas to address concerns associated with aquaculture waste disposal wells.
September 30, 1999 24

7.1 Federal Programs

Class V wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of SDWA. Congress enacted the

SDWA to ensure protection of the quality of drinking water in the United States, and Part C specifically

mandates the regulation of underground injection of fluids through wells. USEPA has promulgated a

series of UIC regulations under this authority. USEPA directly implements these regulations for Class

V wells in 19 states or territories (Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC). USEPA also directly implements all Class

V UIC programs on Tribal lands. In all other states, which are called Primacy States, state agencies

implement the Class V UIC program, with primary enforcement responsibility.

Aquaculture waste disposal wells currently are not subject to any specific regulations tailored

just for them, but rather are subject to the UIC regulations that exist for all Class V wells. Under 40

CFR 144.12(a), owners or operators of all injection wells, including aquaculture waste disposal wells,

are prohibited from engaging in any injection activity that allows the movement of fluids containing any

contaminant into USDWs, “if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary

drinking water regulation . . . or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.” 

Owners or operators of Class V wells are required to submit basic inventory information under

40 CFR 144.26. When the owner or operator submits inventory information and is operating the well

such that a USDW is not endangered, the operation of the Class V well is authorized by rule. 

Moreover, under section 144.27, USEPA may require owners or operators of any Class V well, in

USEPA-administered programs, to submit additional information deemed necessary to protect

USDWs. Owners or operators who fail to submit the information required under sections 144.26 and

144.27 are prohibited from using their wells.

Sections 144.12(c) and (d) prescribe mandatory and discretionary actions to be taken by the

UIC Program Director if a Class V well is not in compliance with section 144.12(a). Specifically, the

Director must choose between requiring the injector to apply for an individual permit, ordering such

action as closure of the well to prevent endangerment, or taking an enforcement action. Because

aquaculture waste disposal wells (like other kinds of Class V wells) are authorized by rule, they do not

have to obtain a permit unless required to do so by the UIC Program Director under 40 CFR 144.25. 

Authorization by rule terminates upon the effective date of a permit issued or upon proper closure of the

well. 

Separate from the UIC program, the SDWA Amendments of 1996 establish a requirement for

source water assessments. USEPA published guidance describing how the states should carry out a

source water assessment program within the state’s boundaries. The final guidance, entitled Source

Water Assessment and Programs Guidance (USEPA 816-R-97-009), was released in August

1997.
3

 May 2003 is the deadline including an 18-month extension.

September 30, 1999 25

State staff must conduct source water assessments that are comprised of three steps. First,

state staff must delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in the state from which one or more

public drinking water systems receive supplies of drinking water. In delineating these areas, state staff

must use “all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the sources of the supply of drinking

water in the state and the water flow, recharge, and discharge and any other reliable information as the

state deems necessary to adequately determine such areas.” Second, the state staff must identify

contaminants of concern, and for those contaminants, they must inventory significant potential sources

of contamination in delineated source water protection areas. Class V wells, including aquaculture

waste disposal wells, should be considered as part of this source inventory, if present in a given area. 

Third, the state staff must “determine the susceptibility of the public water systems in the delineated area

to such contaminants.” State staff should complete all of these steps by May 2003 according to the

final guidance.3

7.2 State and Local Programs

As discussed in Section 3 above, a total of 56 Class V aquaculture waste disposal wells are

documented to occur across the nation. Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, New York, and Wyoming have

documented aquaculture waste disposal wells, and wells are thought to exist in California. Attachment

B of this volume describes how aquaculture waste disposal wells are addressed in each of these states. 

In brief:

USEPA directly implements the UIC Class V program in California, Hawaii, and New York. 

In addition, California and New York also have state programs to protect ground water that can

address aquaculture waste disposal wells.

C In California, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,

under the California Water Quality Control Act, nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards

coordinate and advance water quality in each region. These Boards may prescribe discharge

requirements for discharges into the waters of the state under regional water quality control

plans.

C In Hawaii, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program. In addition,

aquaculture waste disposal wells are authorized by individual permits issued by the state

Department of Health. Class V wells are subject to siting requirements, and prohibited from

operating in a manner that allows the movement of contaminants into a USDW.

• In New York, the Class V UIC program is directly implemented by USEPA Region 2. The

state also implements a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) to protect the

waters of the state, which include ground waters. Aquaculture waste disposal wells can be

required to obtain an SPDES permit for discharges into ground water. Permit conditions can
September 30, 1999 26

include construction and operation requirements for septic systems used to dispose of industrial

waste.

In the three states that are Primacy States for the UIC Class V program, Idaho, Maryland, and

Wyoming, aquaculture waste disposal wells are either individually permitted or covered by a general

permit that includes conditions similar to those of an individual permit. 

C In Idaho, wells greater than 18 feet deep are individually permitted, while shallower wells are

authorized by rule. The state has enacted an antidegradation policy to maintain the existing uses

of all ground water.

C In Maryland, in addition to the state’s UIC Class V program, the state’s pollution discharge

elimination system can require permits for discharges into ground water. Individual permits are

required for any discharge of pollutants to ground water, for any industrial discharge of

wastewater to a well or septic system, for any septic system with 5,000 gpd or greater

capacity, or for any well that injects fluid directly into a USDW. County health departments, as

well as the state Department of the Environment, can oversee aquaculture waste discharge

wells.

C In Wyoming, aquaculture wells are covered under a general permit under the state’s Class V

UIC program. The permit covers a class of operators, all of whom inject similar types of fluids

for similar purposes, and requires somewhat less information to be submitted by the applicant

than is required by an individual permit. The well must satisfy specific construction and

operating requirements (e.g., pretreatment of wastewater).
September 30, 1999 27

ATTACHMENT A

DRUGS, CHEMICALS, AND BIOTICS USED IN AQUACULTURE

Table A1. FDA-Approved Drugs Used in Aquaculture 

Trade name Active Drug Species and Uses

Finquel (MS-222) Tricaine methanesul-fonate Temporary immobilization (anesthetic) for Ictaluridae,

Salmonidae, Esocidae, and Percidae. For approved uses

for other poikilothermic animals, refer to the product label.

Formalin-F Formalin Control of external protozoa and monogenetic trematodes

in trout, salmon, catfish, large-mouth bass, and bluegill. 

Control of fungi of the family Saprolegniacae on salmon,

trout, and esocid eggs. 

Paracide-F Formalin Control of external protozoa, monogenetic trematodes, and

fungi in trout, salmon, catfish, large-mouth bass, and

bluegill. Control of fungi of the family Saprolegniacae on

salmon, trout, and esocid eggs.

Parasite-S Formalin Control of external protozoa and monogenetic trematodes

in all fish. Control of fungi of the family Saprolegniacae

on all fish eggs. Control of external protozoan parasites

on cultured penaeid shrimp. 

Romet 30 Sulfadimethoxine and

ormetoprim

Control of enteric septicemia in catfish. Control of

furunculosis in salmonids.

Sulfamerazine in Fish Grade Sulfamerizine Control of furunculosis in rainbow trout, brook trout, and

brown trout. 1

Terramycin For Fish Oxytetracycline Control of bacterial hemorrhagic septicemia and control of

gaffkemia in lobsters. Control of ulcer disease,

furunculosis, bacterial hemorrhagic septicemia,

pseudomonas disease in salmonids. Marking of skeletal

tissue in Pacific salmon.

Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999 28

Table A2. Drugs of Low Regulatory Priority for FDA Used in Aquaculture

Name Uses

Acetic acid Used as a dip at a concentration of 1,000-2,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) for 1-10 minutes as a

parasiticide for fish.

Calcium chloride Used to increase water calcium concentration to ensure proper egg hardening. Dosages used would

be those necessary to raise calcium concentration to 10-20 mg/l calcium carbonate. Also used to

increase water hardness up to 150 mg/l to aid in maintenance of osmotic balance in fish by preventing

electrolyte loss.

Calcium oxide Used as an external protozoacide for fingerling to adult fish at a concentration of 2,000 mg/l for 5

seconds.

Carbon dioxide gas Used for anesthetic purposes in cold, cool, and warm water fish.

Fuller's earth Used to reduce the adhesiveness of fish eggs in order to improve hatchability.

Garlic (whole) Used for control of helminth and sea lice infestations in marine salmonids at all life stages.

Hydrogen Peroxide Used at 250-500 mg/l to control fungi on all species and at all life stages of fish, including eggs.

Ice Used to reduce metabolic rate of fish during transport.

Magnesium sulfate

(Epsom salts) 

Used to treat external monogenetic trematode infestations and external crustacean infestations in fish

at all life stages. Used in freshwater species. Fish are immersed in a solution 30,000 mg/l magnesium

sulfate and 7,000 mg/l sodium chloride for 5-10 minutes.

Onion (whole) Permitted use: Used to treat external crustacean parasites and to deter sea lice from infesting external

surface of fish at all life stages.

Papain Used as a 0.2% solution in removing the gelatinous matrix of fish egg masses in order to improve

hatchability and decrease the incidence of disease.

Potassium chloride Used as an aid in osmoregulation to relieve stress and prevent shock. Dosages used would be those

necessary to increase chloride ion concentration to 10-2,000 mg/l.

Povidone iodine

compounds

Used as a fish egg disinfectant at rates of 50 mg/l for 30 minutes during water hardening and 100 mg/l

solution for 10 minutes after water hardening.

Sodium bicarbonate

(baking soda)

Used at 142-642 mg/l for 5 minutes as a means of introducing carbon dioxide into the water to

anesthetize fish.

Sodium chloride

(salt)

Used as a 0.5-1% solution for an indefinite period as an osmoregulatory aid for the relief of stress

and prevention of shock. Used as a 3% solution for 10-30 minutes as a parasiticide.

Sodium sulfite Used as a 15% solution for 5-8 minutes to treat eggs in order to improve hatchability.

Urea and tannic acid Used to denature the adhesive component of fish eggs at concentrations of 15 g urea and 20 NaCl/5 l

of water for approximately 6 minutes, followed by a separate solution of 0.75 g tannic acid/5 l water

for an additional 6 minutes. These amounts will treat approximately 400,000 eggs.

Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
4

 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.

September 30, 1999 29

Table A3. USEPA-Registered Algaecides for Aquaculture/Aquatic Sites

Trade Name

USEPA

Reg. No. Registrant Indications For Use

Common name: Chelated Copper 

Algae-Rhap CU-7 Liquid 55146-42 Agtrol Chemical Products Broad-range algaecide for use in farm and fish

ponds, lakes, and fish hatcheries.

Algimycin PLL 7364-10 Great Lakes Biochemical

Co., Inc.

Algaecide for small, ornamental ponds and

pools.

Algimycin PLL-C 7364-9 Great Lakes Biochemical

Co., Inc.

Algaecide for pools, lakes, ponds, and similar

waters.

Aquatrine Algaecide 8959-33 Applied Biochemists, Inc. Algaecide for fish and shrimp aquaculture

facilities (e.g., ponds, tanks, and raceways).4

Copper Control Granular 47677-8 Argent Chemical

Laboratories, Inc

Algaecide for fish ponds and hatcheries.

Cutrine Algaecide 8959-1 Applied Biochemists, Inc. Algaecide for fish ponds, lakes, and

hatcheries.5

Cutrine Granular Algaecide 8959-3 Applied Biochemists, Inc. Granular algaecide for control of Chara and

Nitella in fish ponds, lakes, and hatcheries. 5

Cutrine Plus Algaecide

/Herbicide

8959-10 Applied Biochemists, Inc Algaecide/herbicide for fish ponds, lakes, and

hatcheries.

Cutrine Plus II Algaecide 8959-20 Applied Biochemists, Inc. Algaecide for fish ponds, lakes, and

hatcheries.5

Cutrine Plus Granular

Algaecide

8959-12 Applied Biochemists, Inc. Algaecide (especially for Chara and Nitella) in

fish ponds and hatcheries.

Cutrine Plus granular

Algaecide

8959-12 Applied Biochemists, Inc Algaecide (especially for Chara and Nitella) in

fish ponds and hatcheries.

Komeen Aquatic Herbicide 1812-312 Griffin Corporation Algaecide for freshwater lakes and fish

hatcheries.

K-Tea Algaecide 1812-307 Griffin Corporation Algaecide for freshwater lakes and fish

hatcheries.

SCI-62 Algaecide/ Bactericide 61943-1 Chem-A-Co., Inc. Algaecide/bactericide for lakes and ponds.

Slow Release Algimycin PLL

Concentrate

7364-26 Great Lakes Biochemical

Co., Inc.

Algaecide (especially for Chara and Nitella) in

ponds and lakes.

Common name: Copper

Alco Cutrine Algaecide RTU 5481-140 Amvac Chemical

Corporation

Algaecide for fish ponds, lakes, and

hatcheries.5
Table A3. USEPA-Registered Algaecides for Aquaculture/Aquatic Sites (cont’d)

Trade Name

USEPA

Reg. No. Registrant Indications For Use

5

 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.

September 30, 1999 30

Common name: Copper as elemental

Algon Algaecide 11474-15 Sungro Chemicals, Inc. Algaecide for use in lakes, fish ponds, and

fish hatcheries.

AV-70 Plus Algaecides 12014-10 A & V Inc. Algaecides for fish ponds, lakes, and

hatcheries.

A & V-70 Granular Algaecide 12014-5 A & V Inc. Granular algaecide for lakes and ponds.5

Common name: Copper sulfate pentahydrate

Blue Viking Kocide Copper

Sulfate Star Glow Powder

1812-314 Griffin Corporation Algaecide for freshwater lakes and ponds.

Blue Viking Kocide Copper

Sulfate Star Shine Crystals 

1812-313 Griffin Corporation Algaecide for lakes, ponds, and impounded

water.

Calco Copper Sulfate 39295-8 Calabrian International

Corporation

For algae control in impounded water, lakes,

and ponds.6

Copper Sulfate Crystals 56576-1 Chem One Corporation Algae control in impounded lakes and ponds.

Copper sulfate Large Crystal 1109-1 Boliden Intertrade, Inc For algae control in lakes and ponds.

Copper Sulfate Medium

Crystals

1109-19 Boliden Intertrade, Inc. For algae control in lakes and ponds.

Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate

Algaecide/Herbicide

35896-19 C.P. Chemicals Algaecide/herbicide for controlled-outflow

lakes and ponds.

Copper Sulfate Superfine

Crystals

1109-32 Boliden Intertrade, Inc. For algae control in lakes and ponds.

Copper Sulfate Powder 1109-7 Boliden Intertrade, Inc For algae control in lakes and ponds.

Dionne Root Eliminator 34797-39 Qualis, Inc. For algae control in lakes and ponds.

Granular Crystals Copper

Sulfate

1109-20 Boliden Intertrade, Inc. For algae control in lakes and ponds.

Kocide Copper Sulfate

Pentahydrate Crystals

1812-304 Griffin Corporation Algaecide for lakes and ponds.6

Root Killer RK-11 8123-117 Frank Miller & Sons, Inc. For algae control in impounded waters (e.g.,

lakes, ponds).6

SA-50 Brand Copper Sulfate

Granular Crystals

829-210 Southern Agricultural

Insecticides, Inc.

For algae control in ponds.

Snow Crystals Copper

Sulfate

1109-21 Boliden Intertrade, Inc. For algae control in lakes and ponds.

Triangle Brand Copper

Sulfate Crystals

1278-8 Phelps Dodge Refining

Corporation

For algae control in impounded waters, lakes,

ponds, and reservoirs.

Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999 31

Table A4. USEPA-Registered Fish Toxicants

Trade Name

USEPA

Registration

Number Registrant

Comments and

Indications For Use

Common name: Antimycin

Fintrol Concentrate 39096-2 Aquabiotics Corporation Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Common name: Cube Resins/Rotenone

Chem-Sect Brand Chem Fish

Regular 

1439-157 Tifa Limited Cube

resins/rotenone

Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Chem-Fish Synergized 1439-159 Tifa Limited Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Finely Ground Cube Powder 6458-6 Foreign Domestic Chemicals

Corp

Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Fish-Tox-5 769-309 Sureco, Inc. Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Martin's Rotenone Powder 299-227 C.J. Martin Company Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Noxfish Fish Toxicant Liquid

Emulsifiable

432-172 Roussel Uclaf Corporation Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Nusyn-Noxfish Fish Toxicant 432-550 Roussel Uclaf Corporation Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Pearson's 5% Rotenone

Wettable Powder

19713-316 Drexel Chemical Company Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Powdered Cube 769-414 Sureco, Inc. Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Prentox Prenfish Toxicant 655-422 Prentiss Incorporated Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Prentox Rotenone Fish Toxicant

Powder

655-691 Prentiss Incorporated Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Prentox Synpren Fish Toxicant 655-421 Prentiss Incorporated Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Rotenone 5% Liquid

Emulsifiable

47677-3 Argent Chemical

Laboratories, Inc.

Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Rotenone 5% Fish Toxicant

Powder 

47677-4 Argent Chemical

Laboratories, Inc.

Fish toxicant/ piscicide

Note: Restricted use products such as rotenone fish toxicants can be purchased only by a Certified Pesticide Applicator and

can be applied only by a Certified Pesticide Applicator or under a certified applicator's direct supervision.

Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
6

 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.

September 30, 1999 32

Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides

Trade Name

USEPA

Registration

Number Registrant Comments and Indications For Use

Common name: Acid blue and acid yellow

Aquashade 33068-1 Applied Biochemists, Inc. Aquatic plant control through selective

light filtering; usable in controlled-outflow

natural and man- made lakes and ponds.

Common name: Dichlobenil

Acme Norosac 10G 2217-679 PBI/Gordon Corporation Aquatic weed control for lakes and

ponds.

Casoron 10-G 400-178 Uniroyal Chemical

Company, Inc.

Aquatic herbicide for submerged weeds in

non-flowing water.

Common name: Diquat dibromide

Aqua Clear 2155-63 I. Schneid, Inc. Contact, non-selective vegetation killer

for aquatic weeds.

Aqua-Kil Plus 37347-6 Uni-Chem Corporation of

Florida

Contact, non-selective vegetation killer to

control aquatic weeds and grasses.

Aquaquat 5080-4 Aquacide Company Liquid weed killer for lakes and ponds

with controlled outflow.

Aquatic Weed Killer 10292-13 Venus Laboratories, Inc. For the elimination of aquatic weeds and

algae.6

Clean-Up 2155-64 I. Schneid, Inc. Algaecide and non-selective weed killer.

Conkill 10088-13 Athea Laboratories, Inc. Contact, non-selective herbicide for

aquatic weeds.

Contact Vegetation

Controller

8123-102 Frank Miller & Sons, Inc For the control of aquatic vegetation.

Diquat-L Weed Killer 1/5

Lb.

34704-589 Platte Chemical Co., Inc. Aquatic weed killer for controlledoutflow lakes and ponds.

Formula 268 AquaQuat 1685-64 State Chemical

Manufacturing Company

Aquatic weed killer in lakes, ponds, and

impounded water.

Ind-Sol 435 10827-78 Chemical Specialties, Inc. Non-selective weed killer for controlled -

outflow lakes and ponds.

Miller Liquid Vegetation

Control

8123-37 Frank Miller & Sons, Inc For the control of aquatic vegetation.

No. 401 Water Plant Killer 11515-29 ABC Chemical Corporation Contact, non-selective weed killer for

aquatic weeds.

Norkem 500 5197-37 Systems General, Inc. Contact, non-selective weed killer for

controlled-outflow ponds and lakes.
Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides (cont’d)

Trade Name

USEPA

Registration

Number Registrant Comments and Indications For Use

September 30, 1999 33

P.D.Q. Non-Selective Weed

Killer

2155-43 I. Schneid, Inc. Algaecide and non-selective weed killer.

Selig's Mister Trim No. 10 491-201 Selig Chemical Industries Contact, non-selective killer for aquatic

weeds.

Watrol 1769-174 NCH Corporation Herbicide for aquatic weeds.

Weedtrine D Aquatic

Herbicide

8959-9 Applied Biochemists, Inc. Aquatic herbicide for still lakes and fish

ponds.

Yardman 10663-11 Sentry Chemical Company Nons-elective weed, algae, and aquatic

foliage killer. 

Common name: Endothall

Aquathol Granular Aquatic

Herbicide

4581-201 Elf Atochem North America,

Inc.

Aquatic herbicide in ponds and lakes.

Aquathol K Aquatic

Herbicide

4581-204 Elf Atochem North America,

Inc.

Contact aquatic herbicide for lakes and

ponds.

Hydrothol 191 Aquatic

Algaecide and Herbicide

4581-174 Elf Atochem North America,

Inc.

Aquatic algaecide/ herbicide for lakes and

ponds. 

Hydrothol 191 Granular

Aquatic Algaecide and

Herbicide

4581-172 Elf Atohem North America,

Inc.

Aquatic algaecide/ herbicide for lakes and

ponds. 

Common name: Fluridone

Sonar A.S. 62719-124 DowElanco Herbicide for the management of aquatic

vegetation in freshwater ponds, lakes, and

drainage canals.

Sonar SRP 62719-123 DowElanco Herbicide for the management of aquatic

vegetation in freshwater ponds, lakes, and

drainage canals.

Common name: Glyphosate

Rodeo 524-343 The Agricultural Group of

Monsanto Company

Aquatic herbicide for freshwater and

brackish water applications.

Common name: 2,4-D

Weed-Rhap A-4D 5905-501 Helena Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

Weed-Rhap A-6D Herbicide 5905-503 Helena Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds. 

Common name: Acetic Acid, 2,4

A C Aquacide Pellets 5080-2 Aquacide Company Herbicide for submerged weeds in

recreational lakes and ponds.

Predominantly for broad-leafed plants.
Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides (cont’d)

Trade Name

USEPA

Registration

Number Registrant Comments and Indications For Use

7

 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.

September 30, 1999 34

Common name: 2,4-D and Butoxyethyl Ester

Aqua-Kleen 264-109 Rhone-Poulenc Agricultural

Co.

Granular aquatic herbicide for controlling

weeds.

Navigate 264-109-8959 Applied Biochemists, Inc. For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

Common name: Dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D

Clean Crop Amine 2,4-D

Granulese:

34704-645 Platte Chemical Co., Inc Aquatic herbicide for immersed/

submerged weeds.7

Clean Crop Amine 6 2,4-D

Herbicide

34704-646 Platte Chemical Co., Inc. Herbicide for lakes and ponds.

Rhodia 2,4-D Gran 20 42750-16 Albaugh Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.8

Weedestroy AM-40 Amine

Salt

228-145 Riverdale Chemical Company For control of broadleaf weeds and

aquatic weeds in lakes and ponds.

2,4-D Amine 4 Herbicide 42750-19 Albaugh Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

2,4-D Amine 6 Herbicide 42750-21 Albaugh Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

2,4-D380 Amine Weed

Killer

407-430 Imperial, Inc. Aquatic herbicide for lakes and ponds.

Weedar 64 264-2 Rhone-Poulenc Agricultural

Co.

Broadleaf herbicide; toxic to aquatic

invertebrates.
Table A5. USEPA-Registered Herbicides (cont’d)

Trade Name

USEPA

Registration

Number Registrant Comments and Indications For Use

8

 Note: According to registrant, this product is not presently being distributed.

September 30, 1999 35

Common name: Isooctyl ester of 2,4-D

Barrage (Weed-Rhap LV-5D

Herbicide) 

5905-504 Helena Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

Brush-Rhap Low Volatile 4-

D Herbicide

5905-498 Helena Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

2,4-D Granules 228-61 Riverdale Chemical Company For control of broadleaf and certain

aquatic weeds.

2,4-D L. V. 4 Ester 228-139 Riverdale Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

2,4-D L. V. 6 Ester 228-95 Riverdale Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

SEE 2,4-D Low Volatile

Ester Solventless Herbicide

42750-22 Albaugh Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

2,4-D L. V. 4 Ester 228-139 Riverdale Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.8

2,4-D LV Ester 6 5905-93 Helena Chemical Company Selective aquatic herbicide.9

Visko-Rhap Low Volatile

Ester 2D

42750-17 Albaugh Herbicide for aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.9

Weed-Rhap Low Volatile

Granular D Herbicide

5905-507 Helena Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

Weed-Rhap LV-4D

Herbicide 

5905-505 Helena Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.

Weed-Rhap LV-6D 5905-508 Helena Chemical Company For control of aquatic weeds in lakes and

ponds.9

Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999 36

Table A6. USDA-Licensed Biologics for Fish (Vaccines)

Product Name/Trade Name

Licenses/

Permittee Species Disease

Aeromonas Salmonicida Bacterin Biojec 1500 BioMed, Inc Salmonids Furunculosis

Aeromonas Salmonicida-Vibrio BioMed, Inc. Salmonids Furunculosis, vibriosis

Autogenous Bacterin Autogenous Bacterin BioMed, Inc Fish Bacterial diseases

Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii Bacterin BioMed, Inc. Salmonids Vibriosis

Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii-Yersinia Ruckeri

Bacterin

BioMed, Inc. Salmonids Vibriosis, yersiniosis

(enteric red- mouth

disease)

Yersinia Ruckeri Bacterin Biomed, Inc Salmonids Yersiniosis (enteric redmouth disease)

Vibrio Salmonicida Bacterin BioMed, Inc. Salmonids Vibriosis

Vibrio Anguillarum-Salmonicida Bacterin BioMed, Inc. Salmonids Vibriosis

Aeromonas Salmonicida Bacterin Jerry Zinn, Aqua

Health, Ltd.

Salmonids Furunculosis

Autogenous Bacterin Jerry Zinn, Aqua

Health, Ltd.

Fish Bacterial diseases

Edwardsiella Ictaluri Bacterin Jerry Zinn, Aqua

Health, Ltd.

Catfish Enteric septicemia

Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii Bacterin Jerry Zinn, Aqua

Health, Ltd.

Salmonids Vibriosis

Vibrio Anguillarum-Ordalii Bacterin Jerry Zinn, Aqua

Health, Ltd.

Salmonids Vibriosis

Yersinia Ruckeri Bacterin Jerry Zinn, Aqua

Health, Ltd.

Salmonids Yersiniosis (enteric redmouth disease)

Source: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1994.
September 30, 1999 37

ATTACHMENT B

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

In this attachment, summary information for state and local regulations and guidance pertaining

to aquaculture waste disposal wells is provided below for the six states known or believed to have such

wells. 

California 

USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program in California and the federal

UIC regulations apply to Class V wells in this state. 

In addition, the California Water Quality Control Act (WQCA) establishes broad requirements

for the coordination and control of water quality in the State, sets up a State Water Quality Control

Board, and divides the State into nine regions, each with a Regional Water Quality Control Board

(RWQCB) that is delegated responsibilities and authorities to coordinate and advance the water quality

of the region (Chapter 4 Article 2 WQCA). A RWQCB can prescribe requirements for discharges

into the waters of the State (13263 WQCA), and these waste discharge requirements can apply to

injection wells (13263.5 and 13264(b)(3) WQCA). Although the RWQCBs do not issue permits for

injection wells, the WQCA provides that any person operating, or proposing to operate, an injection

well (as defined in §13051 WQCA) must file a report of the discharge with the appropriate RWQCB

(13260(a)(3) WQCA). Furthermore, the RWQCB, after any necessary hearing, may prescribe

requirements concerning the nature of any proposed discharge, existing discharge, or material change in

an existing discharge to implement any relevant regional water quality control plans. However, a

RWQCB may waive the requirements in 13260(a) and 13253(a) for a specific discharge or a specific

type of discharge when the waiver is not against the public interest (13269(a) WQCA). No RWQCB

is known to have established discharge limits for aquaculture waste wells in the state.

Hawaii

USEPA Region 9 directly implements the Class V UIC program in Hawaii. In addition, the

Safe Drinking Water Branch within the Hawaii Department of Health administers a Class V UIC

Program. Chapter 23 of Title 11 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), effective July 6, 1984,

amended November 12, 1992, established this program. 

Class V wells are grouped for purposes of permitting into 6 subclasses. Subclass B includes

wells that inject non-polluting fluids into any geohydrologic formation, including USDWs. Subclass

B(E) consists of wells used in aquaculture, if the water in the receiving formation has either (a) an equal

or greater chloride concentration as that of the injected fluid, or (b) a TDS concentration in excess of

5,000 mg/l (11-23-06(b)(3) HAR).
September 30, 1999 38

Permitting

Underground injection through a Class V well is prohibited except as authorized by permit. A

permit for injection into USDWs will be based on evaluation of the contamination potential of the local

water quality by the injection fluids and the water development potential for public or private

consumption. Permits are issued not to exceed five years. Permit applications must include specified

information (11-23-12, 11-23-13, and 11-23-16 HAR).

Siting and Construction

Wells are required to be sited beyond an area that extends at least one-quarter mile from any

part of a drinking water source, including not only the surface expression of the water supply well,

tunnel, or spring, but also all portions of the subsurface collection system (the so-called “UIC line”). 

Special buffer zones are required if the well is located in a caprock formation that overlies a volcanic

USDW under artesian pressure (11-23-10 HAR).

No injection well may be constructed unless a permit application has been made and the

construction has been approved. Specific construction standards for each type of well are not

specified, due to the variety of injection wells and their uses. If large voids such as lava tubes or

solution cavities are encountered, special measures must be taken to prevent unacceptable migration of

the injected fluids (11-23-09 HAR).

Operating Requirements

A Class V well may not be operated in a manner that allows the movement of fluid containing a

contaminant into a USDW, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any national or

state primary drinking water rule or otherwise adversely affect the health of one or more persons. All

wells must be operated in such a manner that they do not violate any rules under Title 11 HAR

regulating water quality and pollution, including Chapter 11-20 (potable water systems), Chapter 11-62

(wastewater systems), and Chapter 11-55 (water pollution control). State staff may also impose other

limitations on the quantity and quality of injectate as deemed appropriate. An operator may be ordered

to take such actions as may be necessary, including cessation of operations, to prevent a violation of

primary drinking water standards (11-23-11 HAR). The rules pertaining to wastewater systems (Title

11 Chapter 62 HAR) specify wastewater effluent requirements applicable to treatment works (11-62-

26 HAR) for BOD and suspended solids, adopt by reference USEPA regulations in 40 CFR 125 and

40 CFR 133, and specify a chlorine residual for treatment works using a subsurface disposal system

other than soil absorption. They also specify peak flow and backup requirements for proposed

subsurface disposal systems (11-62-25 HAR).

Monitoring Requirements

Operating records will be required for aquaculture wells, including the type and quantity of

injected fluids and the method and rate of injection (11-23-12 HAR). In addition to the detection of
September 30, 1999 39

potential environmental impacts, frequent well monitoring also acts to minimize chances for well

malfunction. To date, well failure has not been documented (Wong, 1999).

Plugging and Abandonment

An operator wishing to abandon a well must submit an application, and the well must be

plugged in a manner that will not allow detrimental movement of fluids between formations (11-23-19

HAR).

Idaho 

Idaho is a Primacy State with respect to the Class V UIC program, and has promulgated

regulations covering all Class V wells. In addition the state’s Ground Water Quality Protection Act

establishes an antidegradation policy.

Permitting

Under Idaho regulations, deep injection wells ($ 18 feet below the land surface) require

permits. Shallow injection wells are authorized by rule, provided that wells do not threaten any

USDW, the injectate meets drinking water standards, and their operators provide inventory information

to state authorities. The regulations outline detailed specifications for the information that must be

supplied in a permit application (37.03.03.035 IDAPA). At least one injection well in the state

receives aquaculture effluent, and it is permitted as a deep injection well.

Operating Requirements

 Standards for the quality of injected fluids and criteria for location and use are established for

rule-authorized wells, as well as for wells requiring permits. The rules are based on the premise that if

the injected fluids meet MCLs for drinking water for physical, chemical, and radiological contaminants

at the wellhead, and if ground water produced from adjacent points of diversion for beneficial use

meets the water quality standards found in Idaho’s “Water Quality Standards and Wastewater

Treatment Requirements,” 16.01.02 IDAPA, administered by the Idaho Department of Health and

Welfare, the aquifer will be protected from unreasonable contamination. The State of Idaho may, when

it is deemed necessary, require specific injection wells to be constructed and operated in compliance

with additional requirements (37.03.03.050. 01 IDAPA (Rule 50)). Rule-authorized wells “shall

conform to the drinking water standards at the point of injection and not cause any water quality

standards to be violated at the point of beneficial use” (37.03.03.050.04.d IDAPA).

Monitoring, record keeping, and reporting may be required if state officials find that the well

may adversely affect a drinking water source or is injecting a contaminant that could have an

unacceptable effect upon the quality of the ground waters of the state (37.03.03.055 IDAPA (Rule

55)).
September 30, 1999 40

Plugging and Abandonment

 The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) has prepared “General Guidelines for

Abandonment of Injection Wells,” which are not included in the regulatory requirements. IDWR

expects to approve the final abandonment procedure for each well. The General Guidelines

recommend the following:

C Pull casing, if possible. If casing is not pulled, cut casing a minimum of two feet below land

surface.

C The total depth of the well should be measured.

C If the casing is left in place, it should be perforated and neat cement with up to 5% bentonite

can be pressure-grouted to fill the hole. As an alternative, when the casing is not pulled, you

may use course bentonite chips or pellets. If the well extends into the aquifer, the chips or

pellets must be run over a screen to prevent any dust from entering the hole. No dust is

allowed to enter the bore hole because of the potential for bridging. Perforation of casing is not

required under this alternative.

C If the well extends into the aquifer, a clean pit-run gravel or road mix may be used to fill bore

up to ten feet below top of saturated zone or ten feet below the bottom of casing, whichever is

deeper, and cement grout or bentonite clay used to surface. The use of gravel may not be

allowed if the lithology is undetermined or unsuitable. 

C A cement cap should be placed at the top of the casing if it is not pulled, with a minimum of two

feet of soil overlying the filled hole/cap.

C Abandonment of the well must be witnessed by an IDWR representative.

Financial Responsibility

No financial responsibility requirement exists for rule-authorized wells Permitted wells are

required by the permit rule to demonstrate financial responsibility through a performance bond or other

appropriate means to abandon the injection well according to the conditions of the permit

(37.03.03.35.03.e IDAPA).

Maryland

Maryland is a Primacy State with respect to the Class V UIC program. Maryland has

incorporated the federal UIC regulations (42 CFR 124, 40 CFR 144, 40 CFR 145) by reference. In

addition, Maryland’s Water Resources Law and regulations enacted under that law cover discharges to

ground water. Ground water discharge permits are required under section 28.08 of the Code of

Maryland Regulations. 
September 30, 1999 41

Permitting

Under Maryland regulations, permits are required for any discharge of pollutants to ground

water, for any industrial discharge of wastewater to a well or septic system, for any septic system with

5,000 gpd or greater capacity, and for any well that injects liquids directly into a USDW (28.08.02

CMR). Therefore, a permit is required for all aquaculture waste well discharges of one gallon or more

into the environment. In addition, if aquaculture waste is discharged into a septic system, county health

departments issue permits for such systems under delegated authority from the Maryland Department of

the Environment (MDE). County health departments generally permit systems of less than 5,000 gpd

capacity. Larger systems are permitted directly by MDE. MDE has prepared “Guidelines for Large

On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems Pertaining to Onsite Community and Multiple Use Sewerage

Systems With Accumulative Flow Exceeding 5,000 Gallons per Day,” (March 1996) as non-binding

guidance for permit applicants. The only known aquaculture waste discharge facility in the state is

covered by septic system permits issued by the Maryland Department of Environment and Hartford

County Health Department (Eisner, 1999; Browning, 1999).

Operating requirements

In addition to design and installation procedures, permit conditions can include monitoring and

reporting requirements and general management responsibilities (Eisner, 1999).

New York

USEPA Region 2 directly implements the Class V UIC program in New York. In addition, the

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) requires permits for all point-source discharges

into ground water. The SPDES requirement applies to all Class V wells, except septic systems of less

than 1,000 gpd capacity. The only known aquaculture waste facility in the state, which is a state-run

facility, has obtained a SPDES permit which covers the aquaculture discharge. Monitoring of

aquaculture effluent that is discharged underground is not a requirement under this permit (Kolakowski,

1999).

Wyoming

Wyoming is a Class V Primacy State, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) Water Quality Division has promulgated regulations pertaining to its Class V UIC Program in

Chapter 16, Water Quality Rules and Regulations (WQRR). Rules on ground water pollution control

permits are promulgated in Chapter 9, WQRR, but Class V wells are specifically exempted from

coverage by Chapter 9 (Chapter 9 Section 3(a) WQRR). Chapter 11 of the WQRR establishes

design and construction standards for disposal systems. 
September 30, 1999 42

Permitting

Aquaculture return flow facilities (category 5E1) are covered by the General Permit provisions

of the State of Wyoming’s Class V rules (Chapter 16 Section 7 WQRR). A general permit is a permit

issued to a class of operators, all of which inject similar types of fluids for similar purposes. General

permits require less information to be submitted by the applicant than individual permits, and do not

require public notice for a facility to be included under the authorization of a general permit (Chapter 16

Section 2 (l) WQRR). General permits specify the subclass of injection facility covered, the geographic

area covered, the general nature of the fluids discharged, and the location of the receiver where the

discharge will be allowed. 

Siting and Construction

Class V facilities may not be located within 500 feet of any active public water supply well,

regardless of whether or not the well is completed in the same aquifer. This minimum distance may

increase or the existence of a Class V well may be prohibited within a wellhead protection area, source

water protection area, or water quality management area (Chapter 16 Section 10 (n) WQRR).

A separate permit to construct is not required under Chapter 3 of the WQRR for any Class V

facility. Construction requirements are included in the UIC permit issued under Chapter 16 (Chapter

16, Section 5 (v) WQRR). In order to be covered by a general permit, an operator must submit the

information required by Chapter 16, Section 6 (i), (ii), and (iii), which includes a brief description of the

nature of the business and activities to be conducted, information about the operator, and the location of

the facility. Additional information also may be required as a condition of the general permit. The rules

specify that certain construction and operating requirements must be included (see section below on

operating requirements; Chapter 16 Section 10 (d) WQRR). 

A facility is covered by a general permit as soon as the DEQ has issued a general statement of

acceptance to allow the construction and operation of the facility (Chapter 16 Section 7 WQRR). The

facility must meet general Class V construction requirements in Chapter 16 Section 10 WQRR (e.g., it

must be constructed to permit the use of testing devices and allow monitoring of injected fluid quality),

must meet specific construction and design requirements for sewage disposal facilities (5E) in Chapter

16 Section 10 (j) WQRR (see below), submit notice of completion of construction to the DEQ, and

allow for inspection upon completion of construction prior to commencing any injection activity

(Chapter 16 Section 5 (c) (i)(u) WQRR).

Operating Requirements

The general permit conditions include a requirement that the permittee must properly operate

and maintain all facilities and systems, furnish information to the DEQ upon request, allow inspections,

establish a monitoring program and report monitoring results, give prior notice of physical alterations or

additions, and orally report confirmed noncompliance resulting in the migration of injected fluid into any

zone outside of the permitted receiving zone within 24 hours and follow up with a written report within
September 30, 1999 43

5 days. A continuous monitoring program normally will not be required, but monitoring frequency will

depend on the “ability of the facility to cause adverse environmental damage or affect human health”

(Chapter 16 Section 7 (e)(v) WQRR).

The rules (Chapter 16 Section 10 (j) WQRR) also specify that all sewage disposal (5E)

facilities, including aquaculture return flow facilities (5E1), shall:

C Conform to all applicable construction standards found in Chapter 11, Part D WQRR (the

state’s disposal system requirements, which include standards topics such as site suitability,

piping material and design); and

C Comply with applicable sections of Chapter 11, Parts B and C WQRR for all piping systems or

storage facilities feeding Class V facilities.

In addition, all aquaculture return flow (5E1) facilities are required to include pretreatment in a

lagoon, septic tank, or oxidation ditch sized for the strength and volume of the wastes to be disposed

(Chapter 16 Section 10 (k) WQRR).

Mechanical Integrity

Permittees are required to adopt measures to ensure the mechanical integrity of any well

designed to remain in service for more than 60 days. No specific regulatory requirements on

mechanical integrity testing have been enacted; the specific tests to be used will depend on the specific

well conditions.

Plugging and Abandonment

Wells may be abandoned in place if it is demonstrated to the DEQ that no hazardous waste or

radioactive waste has ever been discharged through the facility, all piping allowed for the discharge has

either been removed or the ends of the piping have been plugged in such a way that the plug is

permanent and will not allow for a discharge, and all accumulated sludges are removed from holding

tanks, lift stations, or other waste handling structures prior to abandonment (Chapter 16 Section 12 (a)

WQRR).

Financial Responsibility

Aquaculture waste disposal wells are not covered by the financial responsibility requirements in

Chapter 16 WQRR.
September 30, 1999 44

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. 1999. UIC Program, Idaho Department of Water Resources. Telephone conversations

with Jia Li, ICF Consulting. March 23-24, 1999. 

Austin, B. and D. Austin. 1989. Methods for the microbiological examination of fish and shellfish. In

Laird, L.M. (ed.), Aquaculture and Fisheries Support. Ellis Horwood Ltd., and John Wiley Sons, New

York, NY.

Boardman, G.D., V. Maillard, J. Nyland, G.J. Flick, and G.S. Libey. 1998. Final Report: The

Characterization, Treatment and Improvement of Aquacultural Effluents. Submitted to the Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA. October 23, 1998.

Browning, G. 1999. Harford County (Maryland) Health Department. Telephone conversation and

facsimile communication with Jia Li, ICF Consulting. March 29, 1999.

Buck, E.H. 1999. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. IB10010: Fishery,

Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation in the 106th Congress. Resources, Science, and

Industry Division, June 16, 1999. Distributed by the Committee for the National Institute for the

Environment. http://www.cnie.org/nle/mar-27.html (August 28, 1999).

Castle, R.A. 1999. Director, Aquaculture/Seafood Program, Maryland Department of Agriculture. 

Comments on Draft Aquaculture Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3,

1999). Facsimile communication to Michael Eisner, Maryland Department of the Environment. June

10, 1999.

Eisner, M. 1999. Maryland Department of Environment, Water Management Administration,

Groundwater Permits Program. Telephone conversation and facsimile communication to Jia Li, ICF

Consulting. March 25, 1999.

Elder, J.R. and S.K. Lowrance. 1992. Directors, USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water and USEPA Office of Solid Waste (respectively). Classification of Infiltration Galleries Under

the UIC and RCRA Programs. Memorandum to USEPA Region 1-10 Water Management Division

Directors and Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1997. Aquaculture Development. FAO Technical

Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 5. FAO of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.

Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett. 1997. Murky Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the U.S. 

The Environmental Defense Fund. 

Hawaii Aquaculture Effluent Discharge Program. 1990. Water Quality Characteristics of Aquaculture

Effluents in Hawaii.
September 30, 1999 45

Holeck, K., E.L. Mills, and R. Colesante. 1998. Managing Fish Hatchery Phosphorus Discharge

Through Facility Design and Waste Solids Management: A Field Assessment in Nearshore Oneida

Lake, New York. The Progressive Fish-Culturist. 60:263-271.

Jensen, G.L. 1999. National Program Leader for Aquaculture, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Comments on Draft Aquaculture

Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3, 1999). Facsimile communication to

Amber Moreen, USEPA. June 30, 1999.

Kolakowshi, P. 1999. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Telephone

conversation and facsimile communication to Matthew Preisser, ICF Consulting. September 2, 1999.

Lemmon, G. 1999. Operator, Ten Springs Fish Farm, Idaho. Telephone conversation with Jia Li,

ICF Consulting. March 24, 1999.

McLarney, W.O. 1984. The Freshwater Aquaculture Book: A Handbook for Small-Scale Fish

Culture in North America. Hartley and Marks, Inc. Point Roberts, WA.

Mires, D. 1995. Aquaculture and the Aquatic Environment: Mutual Impact and Preventive

Management. The Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh. 47:163-172.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Fisheries of the US 1998. Current Fishery

Statistics No. 9800, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver Spring, MD.

Peterson, F.L. and J.A. Oberdorfer. 1985. Uses and Abuses of Wastewater Injection Wells in

Hawaii. Pacific Science. 39:230-240.

Priest, B. 1999. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Comments on Draft

Aquaculture Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3, 1999). Communication

with Amber Moreen, USEPA. July 1, 1999.

Pruder, G.D. 1992. Aquaculture Alternatives to Coastal Water Discharge: Technical Review and

Cost Analysis. Completed under contract by The Oceanic Institute, for the Center for Tropical and

Subtropical Aquaculture, Year 3 Final Report (under USDA Grant No. 89-CSRS-0138563). 

Samocha, T.M. and A.L. Lawrence. 1995. Shrimp Farms’ Effluent Waters: Environmental Impact

and Potential Treatment Methods. In: Interactions Between Cultured Species and Naturally Occurring

Species in the Environment: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth U.S. - Japan Aquaculture Panel

Symposium. Corpus Christi, Texas. October 1995.

Smith P., M. Hiney, and O. Samuelsen. 1994. Bacterial Resistance to Antimicrobial Agents Used in

Fish Farming: a Critical Evaluation of Method and Meaning. Annual Review of Fish Disease. 4:273-

313.
September 30, 1999 46

1. Note: According to sponsor, this product is not presently being distributed.

Tallman, J. 1999. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Comments on Draft Aquaculture Waste

Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated May 3, 1999). Facsimile communication to Anhar

Karimjee, USEPA. July 7, 1999.

Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1994. Guide to Drug, Vaccine, and Pesticide Use in

Aquaculture. Prepared by the Federal Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, Working Group on Quality

Assurance in Aquaculture Production, in cooperation with the Extension Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. The Texas A&M University System, Publication No. B-5085. June 1994.

Uehara, N. 1999. Hawaii Department of Health, Underground Injection Control Program. Facsimile

communication to Jia Li, ICF Consulting. March 25, 1999.

University of Stirling (Institute of Aquaculture, Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Institute of

Terrestrial Ecology). 1990. Fish Farming and the Scottish Freshwater Environment. Nature

Conservancy Council, Edinburgh Scotland. As cited in: Goldburg and Triplett, 1997.

U.S. EPA. 1999. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. Office of Water. EPA-822-b96-002, October 1996. http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/dwstds.html (March 1999).

U.S. EPA. 1987. Report to Congress. Class V Injection Wells: Current Inventory, Effects on

Ground Water, Technical Recommendations.

U.S. FDA. 1998. Chapter 11. Aquaculture Drugs. In Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and

Control Guide. U.S. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

http://vm.cfsan.gov/~dms/haccp-2k.html (January, 1998).

U.S. FDA. 1996. Extralabel Drug Use in Animals: Final Rule. Federal Register 61:57731-

5746.

Wong, W. 1999. Hawaii Department of Health, Underground Injection Control Program.

Comments on Draft Aquaculture Waste Disposal Well Information Summary (draft dated

May 3, 1999). Communication with Anhar Karimjee, USEPA. June 18, 1999.