 
|
|
|
EPA Issues Final National Aquaculture Rule
07/05/04
By J.E. Jack Rensel Ph.D.
| 
Jack Rensel releases drogue |
It is time for one of my infrequent Rensel-Grams, this one initiated by the recent release of the new national rule and my role as co-chair (along with John Sowles) of the JSA net pen technical committee involved in EPA's effluent rulemaking process.
Fortunately, I do not have to post a rant.
Indications from the past several years of work on this led me to dread release of the final rule. Some EPA staff demonstrated inept and sloppy performance, preconceived notions and lack of interest in honest communication. Several times we had to write letters or give testimony that was highly critical of their work products. They failed to produce an industry characterization paper that was anywhere near correct and then did not revise their paper when provided with corrections. They were mistaken on the extent of feed loss monitoring in WA and their economic assumptions were entirely off the mark. They treated field visits to Washington State and Maine as junkets, not bothering to contact key people or to visit a variety of subregions. The draft rule was full of mistakes, errors, laughable economic assumptions and unsupported conclusions. The NODA wasn't much better.
Given the above, I thought my eyesight was failing or I was dreaming when I inspected the final rule (see a couple excerpts far below and the attached pre-federal register publication for details).
EPA has finally come around on key issues including need for flexibility and they have recognized the vast amount of site specific variation involved in this industry. They have pursued the need for feed loss management, but in the case of net pens, are allowing benthic (sea bottom) monitoring as an alternative to active feed loss measurement and they emphasize the use of BMPs. This is recognition of the extensive and rationale rule making efforts we in Washington and our friends in Maine have been doing for years! Our rules include many BMPs and were region-specific, and based in most cases on extensive experience, data collection (for at least a decade in WA and Maine) and special studies by industry and university researchers. So the EPA language is very welcomed verification of the states' and industry efforts indeed.
For flow through systems, EPA did not adopt numerical standard for solids, instead recognizing the huge variation in site specific conditions and acknowledged the probable effectiveness of BMPs. They state that existing state programs are effective and working properly in this regard and of course there are state numeric standards for many parameters already. Some operators who have facilities without solids settling will not be pleased with this rule, but most have some kind of quiescent zones were solids can be removed and treated by offline settling.
The argument for BMPs was made most effectively by our colleagues Craig Tucker (Mississippi State University) along with Sebastian Belle (Maine Aquaculture Association) and Claude Boyd (Auburn University), Gary Fornshell (University of Idaho) and several others in their fine BMP document that many of us reviewed as a draft. This was a key document that effectively showed EPA the way on BMPs. If you haven't seen it, you should.
I have no idea if this rule will be appealed or contested by the purveyors of false information about aquaculture. I hope not. The anti forces seem to have limitless energy, but they apparently failed to participate in this process which shows their true colors. Locally they participated here 10 years ago when Ecology developed the WA net pen rules, and when they couldn't get their way with the rulemaking and science findings, they sued, eventually losing in court because they just didn't have a case.
I view this outcome as very bullish for the future of flow through and net pen aquaculture in the U.S. It should help with existing industry and species cultured as well as helping promote culture of previously unused species. It is recognition of the advances already achieved by net pen and flow through facilities nationwide, especially in Maine, Washington, Idaho and elsewhere where NPDES or TMDL processes have been active for years.
Many and special thanks to Gary Jensen who deserves many kudos for his fine efforts and careful diplomacy (as well as several others at USDA), and to John Colt for his co-chair efforts (and probably many others in NOAA), John Sowles at Maine DMR (net pen panel co-chair and head of the Ecology unit at Maine DMR) and others including the entire net pen panel (especially Sebastian Belle), the flow through panel leaders (Gary Fornshell and several other very active participants) and members and all others who were involved and persistent in this process!
And finally thanks to EPA for finally coming around to a reasonable approach to the issues at hand.
J.E. Jack Rensel Ph.D.
Rensel Associates Aquatic Science Consultants
jackrensel@att.net
The following excerpts are from page 82 of the pre-final version (available at http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/ ) and refer to the narrative rule:
'These strategies may include either real-time monitoring (e.g., the use of video monitoring, digital scanning sonar, or upweller systems); monitoring of sediment quality beneath the pens; monitoring of the benthic community beneath the pens; capture of waste feed and feces; or the adoption of other good husbandry practices, subject to the permitting authority's approval'.
and later on page 88:
'Depending on the location and other site-specific factors at the facility, a facility may adopt other measures in lieu of real time monitoring. These may include monitoring of sediment or the benthic community quality beneath the pens, capture of waste feed and feces or other good husbandry practices that are approved by the permitting authority'.
This language says 'or', it does not say 'and' with regard to the different methods. It allow for sediment monitoring which is already done in WA and ME. Feed monitoring is a good practice, business wise, but this give folks some running room to do what's best for individual facilities.
For flow through hatcheries there are some hopeful indications too (page 70):
'After full examination of the data supporting EPA's model technology, EPA has decided not to establish numerical TSS limitations. While the model technology will effectively remove solids to a very low level, EPA's data show wide variability, both temporally and across facilities, in the actual TSS levels achieved. EPA thus does not have a record basis for establishing numeric TSS limitations derived from its data set that are appropriate for all sites under all conditions. EPA believes that establishing a uniform numeric TSS limitation would result in requirements that are too stringent at some sites and not stringent enough at others'.
and later on page 71:
'Based on EPA's examination of the data in its record, the Agency has concluded that a combination of settling technology and feed management control practices or rigorous feed management control and proper solids handling practices alone will achieve low levels of TSS'.
(i.e., numerical standard not needed)
 ISSUES MAIN
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
