1. EPA Update on Rule Making: Aquaculture Effluent Limitations & Guidelines National Association of State Aquaculture Coordinators Louisville, Kentucky June 2 – 6, 2004 Debra Sloan North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services

2. The Clean Water Act (CWA) EPA’S MANDATE: effluent limitations guidelines and standards the best available technologies economically achievable industrial point sources Develop and implement effluent limitations guidelines and standards that, for most pollutants, reflect the level of pollutant control achievable by the best available technologies economically achievable for categories or subcategories of industrial point sources.

3. EPA, NRDC & PC Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action against EPA stating that EPA had failed to comply with CWA section 304(m) on October 30, 1989.Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action against EPA stating that EPA had failed to comply with CWA section 304(m) on October 30, 1989. EPA “selected” the aquaculture industry for the development of effluent guidelines and standards.EPA “selected” the aquaculture industry for the development of effluent guidelines and standards. The Proposed Rule Making for Aquaculture Effluents Limitations & Guidelines began in January of 2000 and Final Rule is June 2004.The Proposed Rule Making for Aquaculture Effluents Limitations & Guidelines began in January of 2000 and Final Rule is June 2004.

4. NASAC’s Role in this Process 1.Summary Report of NDPES Permits 2.Summary Report from 1998 303d list – impaired water for all of US. 3.NASAC provided comments on all Notices, attended meetings and was actively involved with the JSA AETF during this four-year Rule Making process.

5. NASAC’s Position  US Aquaculture does not pose an imminent threat to the nation’s waters.  Point source impact from aquaculture is being addressed & remedied on a state level. Examples were cited.  Too few facilities in scope of Rule to justify development of a National Rule.  No sound scientific data to support EPA’s need to develop a National Rule for aquaculture.

6. Aquaculture Industry’s Response to EPA CAAP Proposed Rule Science-based documentation of the minimal environmental impact – being addressed on a state level – proven Economic Achievability – EPA Mandate – credible documentation proves - NO EPA Options are Economically Achievable! No Rule – only logical or proven choice

7. CAAP Production Systems’ in EPA’s Scope for ELGs Rule Making Technology based – Production Systems: Pond – exempt Net Pens – not exempt Flow Through/Raceways – not exempt Recirculating – not exempt

8. EPA’s Notice of Data Availability *Net pens issues are being addressed at the state level with BMPs. *NOW - Flow Through Systems & Recirculating Systems use the same Options for ELGS. ?Is this a practical approach? Scientific justification?

9. “EPA’s Countdown to the Final CAAP ELGs Rule” The US Aquaculture Industry's input: Science-based data o Science-based data o Quantified impact on the environment o Proven - no Options are Economically Achievable The Environmentalists’ Contentions:  Murky Waters – not Science-based  No credible data to support the “threat” to the nation’s waters  Decisions based on politics & emotions

10. NASAC’s Actions if CAAP ELGs Rule Making is Chosen Know howEPA’s Final Rule for CAAP ELGs will impact your state’s farmers. Know how EPA’s Final Rule for CAAP ELGs will impact your state’s farmers. How will YOUR state’s regulatory agencies enforce the Rule? How will YOUR state’s regulatory agencies enforce the Rule? Work to educate your regulators. Work to educate your regulators. Work to educate the environmentalists. Work to educate the environmentalists. How can YOU help the farmers comply? How can YOU help the farmers comply?