United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency · 2017-04-10 · 2.1.2.1 Overview ......

United States Department of Agriculture

Farm Service Agency

Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Farm Storage Facility Loans for Aquaculture Storage and Handling

April 2017

COVER SHEET

Proposed Action: The United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency has

prepared this Programmatic Environmental Assessment to assess the impacts

of Farm Storage Facility Loans for Aquaculture Storage.

Type of Document: Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Lead Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency

Further Information: Toni Williams

Farm Storage Facility Loan and Sugar Loan Program Manager

202-720-2270

Comments: This PEA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) (Public Law [PL] 91-190); implementing regulations adopted by

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal

Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508); and FSA’s implementing regulations:

Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance

with NEPA (7 CFR 799).

The FSA will provide a public review and comment period prior to any final

decision. This Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment is available

for review from April 13 through May 13, 2017 on the USDA FSA

Environmental and Cultural Resources Compliance website:

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

programs-and-services/environmental-cultural-resource/index

Written comments regarding this PEA shall be submitted to:

Farm Storage Facility Loan PEA Comments

c/o Cardno-GS

2496 Old Ivy Road

Suite 300

Charlottesville, VA 22903

Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment Farm Storage Facility Loans for Aquaculture Storage and Handling

Table of Contents i April 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Farm Storage Facility Loan Program ........................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Farm Storage Facility Loan for Aquaculture .............................................................. 1-2

1.1.3 Aquaculture Production in the United States .............................................................. 1-2

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.3 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.4 Scoping and Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 Organization of PEA ...................................................................................................................... 1-5

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................2-1

2.1 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Surface Water Storage and Handling Systems ............................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Bivalve Mollusk Aquaculture ........................................................................................ 2-2

2.1.2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.2.2 Uses of Surface Water Storage Systems for Bivalves ...................................... 2-2

2.1.3 Environmental Protection Measures and Regulatory Compliance ............................ 2-3

2.1.3.1 Farm Service Agency Environmental Compliance

Requirements .................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.3.2 Farm Storage Facility Loan Program Requirements ........................................ 2-4

2.1.3.3 Aquaculture Regulatory Compliance ............................................................... 2-4

2.2 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 2-7

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................3-1

3.1 Resources Eliminated from Analysis ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Wildlife and Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1 Definition of Resource and Regulatory Framework .................................................... 3-4

3.2.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts of No Action ........................................................ 3-6

3.2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action ......................................... 3-7

3.3 Coastal Barriers and Coastal Zones ............................................................................................. 3-7


3.3.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-8

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 3-8


Table of Contents ii April 2017

3.3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts of No Action ........................................................ 3-8

3.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action ......................................... 3-9

3.4 Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Nationwide Rivers Inventory,

National Natural Landmarks ........................................................................................................ 3-9


3.4.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 3-10

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 3-10

3.4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts of No Action ...................................................... 3-10

3.4.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action ....................................... 3-11

3.5 Sole Source Aquifers .................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.5.1 Definition of Resource and Regulatory Framework .................................................. 3-11





3.6 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.6.1 Definition of Resource and Regulatory Framework .................................................. 3-12





4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ..........................................................................................4-1

4.1 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ....................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ........................................................................................ 4-2

4.1.2.1 Wildlife and Habitat ......................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................................ 4-2

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS, PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED ...................................................5-1

6.0 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................................6-1

APPENDIX A AQUACULTURE SUMMARY TABLES .................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTS FOR

MASSACHUSETTS, FLORIDA, AND WASHINGTON ......................................................... B-1


Table of Contents iii April 2017

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Aquaculture Species Eligible for Farm Storage Facility Loan Program .......................... 1-2

Table 1-2. Aquaculture Summary Statistics .......................................................................................... 1-3

Table 3-1. Number of Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical

Habitat in Massachusetts, Florida and Washington ........................................................ 3-6

Table 3-2. Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and Rivers listed on the

Nationwide Rivers Inventory in Massachusetts, Florida and

Washington ........................................................................................................................ 3-10

Table 3-3. Sole Source Aquifers in Massachusetts, Florida and Washington .................................. 3-12


Acronyms and Abbreviations iv April 2017

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BMP best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

EA Environmental Assessment

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

FSA Farm Service Agency

FSFL Farm Storage Facility Loan

na not applicable

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program

PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment

PL Public Law

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service


1.0 Introduction 1-1 April 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA), on behalf of the

Commodity Credit Corporation, proposes to implement programmatic changes to the Farm Storage Facility

Loan (FSFL) Program. The Secretary of Agriculture added aquaculture species to the list of products

eligible for FSFLs on August 17, 2015, according to his authority as defined in the Food, Conservation,

and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). This document examines only those aspects of the FSFL Program

not covered in previous analyses, specifically, the use of FSFL to construct storage facilities, other than

cold storage, for aquaculture products that take in water from, or discharge water into, natural sources such

as tributaries, coastal and ocean waters, or perennial waterways.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

(Public Law [PL] 91-190); implementing regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508); and FSA’s implementing regulations:

Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance with NEPA (7 CFR 799).

The Proposed Action addressed in this document is programmatic in nature and the exact locations of

facilities that could be constructed using FSFLs are not known. Programmatic NEPA documents are

prepared to analyze impacts on a broad scale to aid decision makers in evaluating the collective effects of

a program, to document regulatory and permitting requirements, and to formulate comprehensive

mitigations as needed.

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Farm Storage Facility Loan Program

The FSFL Program was established in 2000 under the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation

Charter Act (15 U.S. Code [USC] 714b) to address shortages in on-farm storage capacity. The goal of the

FSFL Program is to increase producer-owned storage capacity to alleviate national, regional, and local

shortages in storage capacity. The program provides low interest loans to producers to construct facilities

for the storage and handling of products they produce. FSFLs are not available for commercial storage

facilities. Having on-farm storage helps producers to sell their products at a time when the market is

favorable for them, rather than being forced to sell immediately after harvest or pay for commercial storage.

On-farm storage allows producers to serve their customers throughout the year. FSFLs are for storage and

handling/processing facilities only; FSFLs are not made for crop production facilities and equipment.

Structures and equipment and related costs that are eligible for FSFLs are defined in FSA’s Handbook Farm

Storage Facility Loan Program for State and County Offices (1-FSFL Revision 2) (USDA FSA 2016a).

To be eligible for an aquaculture FSFL, the producer must own or lease the property where storage and/or

handling structures and equipment would be built and must demonstrate the need for storage capacity based

on 3 years of production history. An eligible producer can receive loans up to $500,000 for terms up to 12

years. Producers can receive multiple loans. A financial analysis is completed for each FSFL request to

demonstrate the borrower is able to repay the loan. The FSFL Program also issues microloans, which have

a maximum loan amount of $50,000 for terms of up to 7 years. Since 2000, more than 33,000 FSFLs have

been disbursed totaling $1.8 billion. The FSFL program annual appropriation is $300 million. Between

2000 and 2015, an average of approximately 2,100 FSFLs were made each year.



1.1.2 Farm Storage Facility Loan for Aquaculture

On August 17, 2015, the Secretary of Agriculture expanded the FSFL program to add storage and handling

of aquaculture species. FSFL policies and procedures for aquaculture storage and handling equipment and

storage and handling trucks will be issued in the FSFL program related handbook and program notices.

The FSFL Program defines aquaculture species as any species of aquatic organism grown as food for human

consumption, or fish raised as feed for fish that are consumed by humans. Aquaculture species include, but

are not limited to, those listed in Table 1-1. Additional species can be deemed eligible if the FSA State

Office provides written justification to the National Office FSFL Program Manager.

Table 1-1. Aquaculture Species Eligible for Farm Storage Facility Loan Program

Crustaceans crabs, crawfish for food, lobster, freshwater prawns, saltwater shrimp

Fin Fish hybrid striped bass, carp, yellow perch, tilapia, trout

Molluscan shellfish abalone, clams, mussels, oysters, scallops

Seaweed kelp, dulse, laver, gacilaria, sea lettuce

FSFL financing is available for eligible storage structures, including new and used facilities, storage and

handling equipment and trucks, and permanently affixed and portable components. Providing funding for

installed uptake and discharge systems that are used only for storage and handling of aquaculture products

produced by the borrower are being evaluated in this Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA).

1.1.3 Aquaculture Production in the United States

Aquaculture production in the U.S. is increasing because of fisheries harvest restrictions resulting from

concerns over the sustainability of natural stocks of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic food products (USDA

Economic Research Services 2016). Unlike native fisheries that are subject to seasonal, geographic, size

and quantity limits on harvest, aquaculture provides a dependable source of product to meet the volume,

quality, and timing of consumer demand.

There are five Regional Aquaculture Centers established by USDA and authorized by the Agriculture &

Food Act of 1980 and the Food Security Act of 1985 which are overseen by the USDA National Institute

of Food and Agriculture. The Regional Aquaculture Centers support cooperative research and education,

and fund projects to support “viable and profitable U.S. aquaculture production to benefit consumers,

producers, service industries, and the American economy” (South Regional Aquaculture Center 2016).

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects data on U.S. agriculture, including

aquaculture. The 2012 Census of Agriculture: Census of Aquaculture (2013) reported 3,093 aquaculture

production farms in the U.S. (USDA NASS 2013). Table 1-2 provides summary data on aquaculture farms

and production from the Census of Aquaculture. Detailed data are in Appendix A including: the number of

aquaculture farms in each state by production method (Table A-1 in Appendix A); water sources utilized

for aquaculture and FSFL-eligible aquaculture products for each of the U.S. states (Table A-2, Appendix

A); farm and sales data by type of aquaculture product including average sales per farm and states that are

the largest producers of each of the aquaculture products that would be eligible for the FSFL Program

(Tables A-3 and A-4, Appendix A). Most of the 3,093 aquaculture farms in the U.S. are located in the

southeast. Approximately two-thirds of U.S. aquaculture farms utilize water from natural surface water

sources. Of the 3,093 aquaculture farms in the U.S. in 2013, 2,618 produced species that could be eligible

for FSFL including fish raised for food, crustaceans, molluscan shellfish, and sea vegetables. Nearly half



of all farms produced food fish, which also generated the largest sales. Slightly less than half of the U.S.

aquaculture farms are small, producing less than $25,000 in sales annually.

Table 1-2. Aquaculture Summary Statistics

Number of Aquaculture Farms1

Southern

Northeastern

North Central

Western

Subtropical

Total

1,867

441

337

404

45

3,093

Aquaculture Farms Using Natural Water Sources

Saltwater

On-farm Surface Water

Total

872

1,204

2,076

Aquaculture Farms Producing FSFL-eligible Products

Fish

Crustaceans

Molluscan Shellfish

Sea Vegetables

Total

1,296

566

756

10

2,618

Aquaculture 2013 Sales by Product ($1,000)

Fish

Crustaceans

Molluscan Shellfish

Sea Vegetables

Total

732,147

84,880

328,567

na

1,371,707

Aquaculture Farms 2013 by Total Sales

Less than $25,000

$5,000-49,999

$50,000to $99,999

$100,000 to 499,999

$500,000 to $999,999

$1,000,000 or more

Total

1,249

321

380

708

193

242

3,093

Source: USDA NASS 2013 1 Regions are defined according to USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

as follows:

South Regional Aquaculture Center: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Virginia.

Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia.

North Central Regional Aquaculture Center: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and

Wisconsin

Western Regional Aquaculture Center: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona,

Montana, Utah, California, Nevada, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico,

Wyoming

Tropical and Subtropical Center: Hawaii and Pacific Territories

na = not available



1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to implement programmatic changes to the FSFL Program resulting

from the Secretary of Agriculture adding aquaculture species to the list of those eligible for the FSFL

Program by allowing for storage and handling equipment and facilities that take water from or discharge

water into a natural surface water source. The need for the Proposed Action is to fulfill FSA’s responsibility

to administer the FSFL Program while improving the program’s functionality.

1.3 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

This PEA examines the potential environmental consequences of those aspects of the FSFL Program not

covered in previous NEPA analyses for the FSFL Program, specifically, using FSFLs for facilities and

equipment used to handle or store eligible aquaculture products when those facilities and equipment would

involve taking water from or discharging water into natural sources including, tributaries, coastal and ocean

waters, or perennial waterways.

In 2009, a PEA was prepared to assess the impacts of the aspects of the FSFL Program authorized by the

2008 Farm Bill including expanding eligible commodities, adding eligible storage structures, and changes

to loan terms and maximum loan limits (USDA FSA 2009). The PEA evaluated the use of FSFL funds to

support facilities and equipment for storage and handling of eligible commodities including fruits,

vegetables, grains, floriculture products, honey, dairy, eggs, and meats. Some aquaculture storage

structures, such as cold storage facilities, are the same as those that could be used to store currently eligible

commodities. The impacts of providing loans for such facilities were assessed in the 2009 FSFL PEA. The

2009 FSFL PEA is incorporated in this document by reference and specific impacts are summarized under

the No Action Alternative for each resource in Section 3.0.

When a producer applies for a FSFL to construct a storage or handling facility or to purchase storage and

handling equipment, FSA must evaluate the potential impacts that the proposed facilities and equipment

could have on the environment. The first step in this compliance process is to complete the Environmental

Screening Worksheet (FSA-850) for each FSFL application before the application can be approved to

determine whether program activities could adversely affect protected resources. FSA County Offices are

responsible for completing the FSA-850 based on information provided by applicants and for collecting

data needed to ensure compliance with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered

Species Act (ESA), and other related laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EO). The FSA-850 is

reviewed by an agency official who determines whether the proposed activity can occur by utilizing a

Supported Categorical Exclusion (that includes completion of required consultation and other supporting

documentation) or whether a site-specific EA is required. The site-specific FSA-850 is consistent with

FSA’s Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns – Compliance with NEPA (7 CFR

799). FSA’s Handbook on Environmental Quality Programs for State and County Offices (Handbook 1-

EQ Revision 3) (USDA FSA 2016b) provides guidance on completing FSA-850s as well as EAs when they

are required. The site-specific FSA-850 and/or EAs, the 2009 FSFL PEA for FSFL Program, and this PEA

together provide full NEPA compliance for FSFLs made for aquaculture products.

1.4 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The CEQ defines scoping as “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed

and for identifying the significant issues related to a Proposed Action alternative” (40 CFR 1501.7). For

this project, scoping included soliciting input from FSA National Office and State personnel, Regional



Aquaculture Centers, industry representatives, and aquaculture producers. FSA representatives from the

National Office as well as State and County offices in areas where existing aquaculture is concentrated

were contacted to determine how the FSFL for storage and handling facilities and equipment that take up

or discharge into natural surface waters would potentially be used by producers. Often, these Agency

representatives provided additional contacts including industry groups and individual producers. The

Proposed Action was defined through this process.

For this project, the Draft PEA is available for public review and comment for 30 days, from April 13

through May 13, 2017. The Draft PEA is posted on the USDA FSA Environmental and Cultural Resources

Compliance website (http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/environmental-cultural-

resource/index). Written comments will be accepted by mail at: FSFL PEA Comments, c/o Cardno-GS,

2496 Old Ivy Road, Suite 300, Charlottesville, VA 22903.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF PEA

Since the FSFL Program is a national program, the geographic scope of this PEA covers the entire U.S.

Given the broad nature of the program, this document is programmatic and is intended to provide the basis

for site-specific NEPA documentation that would occur before applications are approved to ensure activities

would not adversely affect protected resources. The organization of this PEA is as follows:

Section 1.0 provides background information and the purpose and need of the Proposed

Action.

Section 2.0 describes the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action.

Section 3.0 describes the existing conditions (i.e., the baseline conditions against which

potential impacts of the Proposed Action are measured) for each of the potentially affected

resources and the potential direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action

Alternative on these resources.

Section 4.0 describes cumulative impacts and irreversible and irretrievable resource

commitments.

Section 5.0 lists the preparers of this document and contains a list of the persons and agencies

contacted during the preparation of this document.

Section 6.0 contains references.



This page intentionally left blank.


2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2-1 April 2017

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action would expand the FSFL Program to include providing low interest loans for facilities

and equipment used for storage and handling of eligible aquaculture species. This PEA evaluates the

impacts of those storage and handling facilities that would take up water from or discharge water into a

natural surface water source. The Proposed Action would not increase production, only provide options for

live storage and handling of aquaculture products.

Based on the scoping undertaken for this project (described in Section 1.4), storage and handling systems

that utilize surface water and/or discharge into surface waters are associated primarily with bivalve mollusk

(such as clams and oysters) aquaculture. Storing bivalve mollusks is necessary when weather or tides

prevent daily harvest; for product quality control (also called wet storage); and for elimination of

contaminants (depuration). The PEA focuses on bivalve aquaculture because internal scoping indicates this

is the most likely use of FSFL funds. However, similar methods may be employed to store and handle other

eligible aquaculture species (lobsters, crab, crawfish, and fish). Based on annual program funding and

information gathered during scoping, the number of loans made to support the Proposed Action is expected

to be small. The limited number of loans would be spread nationwide.

2.1.1 Surface Water Storage and Handling Systems

Aquaculture storage methods that take up water from or discharge into natural water sources are similar to

some of the methods employed for aquaculture production. To qualify for a FSFL, the purpose of the system

must be storage and handling, not production. In general terms, aquaculture storage systems that utilize

surface waters and would be eligible for FSFLs are either flow through (open) systems or recirculating

(closed) systems. These systems are described in general terms below. Individual systems vary based on

location, aquaculture species, and water source.

Flow-through systems are those in which water is continuously circulated from an adjacent natural source

through structures (usually elongated tanks), and discharged back into a natural water source. Water enters,

flows through a series of structures, and exits with no recirculation of water. Flow-through systems can rely

on the natural flow of a river or stream or can utilize pumps to take water in from an estuary, river, or other

surface water. Pumps can be used to control the flow of water, ensuring appropriate flow rates for the

species and life stage. Flow-through systems are built near natural water sources either outdoors or in some

cases, within structures. Aeration may occur naturally in rapidly flowing systems or can be accomplished

through mechanical means. Some flow-through systems employ filters to treat (disinfect) water entering or

being discharged from the system. There is less control of water quality or temperature in flow-through

systems than in recirculating systems as water is taken directly from adjacent surface waters. Issues related

to flow through systems include introduction of non-native species into natural systems through escapes,

introduction of disease into natural waters or from natural waters into the aquaculture system, and impacts

to surface water quality.

Recirculating systems consist of one or more tanks, normally above ground and usually under cover, used

for the rearing of aquatic organisms where 90 percent or more of system water is recycled (USDA NASS

2013). In recirculating systems, water is filtered and recirculated through structures continuously.

Recirculating systems are often located inside buildings to maximize control of environmental variables,



making them particularly advantageous in colder or drier climates where weather limits the practicality of

open systems. Though some recirculating systems can take water in from a natural surface water source,

they can also use municipal or groundwater and can discharge into municipal sewage systems, enabling

flexibility in siting facilities. Typically recirculating systems involve a series of tanks through which water

is circulated, passing through a waste water treatment system before returning to tanks. Recirculating

systems require tanks, water circulation pumps, aeration, and particulate and contaminant removal systems.

Such systems also potentially require heaters/coolers, treatment systems for incoming water (depending on

source and quality). Recirculating systems offer advantages to producers over open systems including near-

complete control of water quality (disease and quality control), temperature, less use of surface waters

(closed systems lose minimal water to evaporation but do require periodic addition of water to account for

evaporative loss and loss during maintenance activities); low probability of escape of farmed species; and

greatly reduced risk of surface water contamination or introduction of disease into or from the system.

2.1.2 Bivalve Mollusk Aquaculture

2.1.2.1 Overview

Aquaculture methods vary widely depending on the species produced as well as conditions at the location

of the farm including water depth and quality, weather, tides, and substrate. In general, production of

bivalves begins in hatcheries where adults are induced to spawn. Fertilized eggs are collected and

transferred into tanks where the larvae develop. When larvae reach an appropriate size they are placed in

tanks into which water with feed (algae in the case of bivalves) is circulated. Generally, hatcheries employ

recirculating systems. Upon reaching another size milestone, they are moved to a nursery, where

supplemental feed is no longer supplied. At this stage the individuals filter food from water pumped through

tanks from an adjacent surface water source until reaching a size where the “seed” can be grown outside

the nursery.

In many cases, seed is sold or contracted to grow out producers, who grow the seed and harvest the final

product. In some cases, a hatchery/nursery may grow out the seed it produces. For clams, seed is generally

planted in plots (also referred to as grow out beds) in intertidal or shallow subtidal areas, in trays or directly

on bottom, and covered with plastic mesh to prevent predation. In other instances, clams are planted in

mesh bags that are staked to the bottom or just above the bottom on platforms. Similarly, oysters and

scallops may be placed in bags, racks, or cages that are either affixed to the bottom or suspended vertically

on ropes in the water column. Generally, product harvest occurs 1-4 years after planting depending on the

species and the grow out location.

According to USDA data, the states with the greatest number of aquaculture farms producing bivalves in

2013 were Florida, Massachusetts, and Washington (USDA NASS 2013). Florida had 132 farms, nearly all

(127) producing clams, primarily on bottom but also employing bag and rack and other systems.

Massachusetts data also report 132 farms, nearly all of which (126) produced oysters primarily employing

bag and rack systems, beds on bottom and also floating trays, long lines, and rafts. Washington had 125

farms nearly equally divided between oyster and clam production, mostly produced on bottom.

2.1.2.2 Uses of Surface Water Storage Systems for Bivalves

Extended bad weather, persistent ice, and the timing of daily low tides can prevent bivalve producers from

harvesting product from grow out beds or floating systems located offshore. In these cases, producers would



benefit from harvesting and storing product ahead of such events so that they can meet their customers’

needs.

Wet storage can also be employed to address issues of product quality. Bivalve mollusks are filter feeders,

which strain food particles and microorganisms from water that they pump into and through their bodies.

Through this process, sediment can accumulate in the gut. Some bivalves, typically clams, can be held

temporarily in tanks of clean water to purge, removing “grit” before they are sold. Similarly, bivalves may

be held in tanks where the salinity (salt content) of the water is maintained to control the brininess of the

product.

As with sediment, bivalves can also accumulate contaminants in the gut that affect the safety and quality

of the product. Depuration is a technique for the removal of microbial contaminants from light and

moderately contaminated bivalve mollusks. Depuration involves holding the bivalves in tanks of clean

water so that natural filtering activity results in expulsion of contaminants. The National Shellfish Sanitation

Program (NSSP) requires a minimum 44 hour depuration period (NSSP 2015). See Section 2.1.3.3 for more

information about NSSP. Depuration is most widely used for oysters, mussels, and clams; it is also used

for cockles, scallops, and razor clams (Lee et al. 2008). Depuration is an effective method to remove some

bacterial contaminants (such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella species) but is not currently effective for

reducing Vibrio bacteria, does not reduce biotoxin contamination to safe levels, and does not remove high

concentrations of heavy metal and organic chemical contaminants (Lee et al. 2008).

Flow through or recirculating systems could be employed for storage and handling in order to address issues

of product quality and supply. In the case of depuration, water would require treatment through filtration

or settlement and disinfection prior to use in the depuration system and prior to being discharged from the

system. If a closed system is used, the water would also be disinfected prior to recirculation. Depuration

systems must provide controlled flow rates to ensure that the normal filtering by the bivalves can occur and

to prevent the settlement of fecal matter or other contaminants flushed from the shellfish. Discharge of used

seawater back to a natural body of water requires permitting through the NSSP, State, or local agencies

depending on location of the depuration facility.

2.1.3 Environmental Protection Measures and Regulatory Compliance

Environmental Protection Measures include adherence to regulatory, permitting, and program requirements

that would minimize or eliminate potential adverse impacts. Such requirements are considered part of the

Proposed Action and the environmental effects described in Section 3.0 of this document assume these

protection measures are in place.

2.1.3.1 Farm Service Agency Environmental Compliance Requirements

FSA is required to consider the impacts of its activities in compliance with the NEPA. When a producer

applies for participation in any FSA program, the potential impacts of the activities they propose must be

evaluated before approving the application. The FSA-850 (Environmental Screening Worksheet) is used to

determine the effects of the action, the appropriate level of NEPA documentation, and additional permitting,

compliance, coordination and consultation requirements of the action. FSA’s Handbook 1-EQ (USDA FSA

2016b) provides guidance on compliance as well as the agency’s policies regarding protected resources,

including the following.



FSA requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) on projects that have the potential to affect threatened and

endangered species and will not approve actions or activities that could significantly affect

threatened or endangered species or their formally designated critical habitats.

FSA requires consultation with the appropriate State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation

Office to ensure that historic properties will not be affected by its projects and programs and

will not approve actions or activities that could result in significant effects to historic

properties unless such affects can be mitigated.

FSA will not approve actions or activities that could significantly affect water quality. Clean

Water Act (CWA) permitting that could be required of FSA projects is detailed in Section

2.1.3.3.

FSA requires consultation with USFWS for proposed activities that would occur within the

Coastal Barrier Resource System and will not approve actions or activities that could

significantly affect coastal barriers.

FSA requires its programs be consistent with Federal and State Coastal Zone Management

Plans and requires a consistency determination be made in consultation with state coastal

zone management program office for activities that could affect a water resource connected to

a coastal zone.

Participants in FSA programs are prohibited from using any loan (direct or guaranteed) or

any USDA cost-share program, in such a way that might result in negative impacts to

wetlands.

FSA requires consultation with appropriate land management agencies for projects that would

take place: within 1 mile of designated Wilderness, ¼ mile of a Wild and Scenic River, or

near a National Natural Landmark.

2.1.3.2 Farm Storage Facility Loan Program Requirements

In addition to those environmental compliance requirements described above that are applicable to all FSA

programs, the FSFL program also requires applicants to (USDA FSA 2014):

Demonstrate compliance with any applicable local zoning, land use, and building codes for

the farm storage facility structures

Provide all-peril structural insurance and flood insurance (if required)

2.1.3.3 Aquaculture Regulatory Compliance

The aquaculture industry is subject to a number of regulatory and permitting requirements, some of which

vary depending on the species cultivated, source of water utilized, how waste water is discharged and the

facilities and land required for the operation. Compliance with the following regulations is required, though

requirements vary from state to state.

Clean Water Act

Section 401 of the CWA requires activities that occur within or discharge into jurisdictional wetlands or

waters of the U.S. obtain a certification from the state (or tribe) where the facility is located, ensuring that

the discharge or fill activity complies with State and Tribal water quality standards.

Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), regulates point sources that

discharge pollutants to waters of the U.S. NPDES permitting requirements for aquaculture vary depending



on the aquaculture production method employed, the species produced, the weight of animals produced

annually, the weight of feed utilized monthly, and the number of days per year that the farm discharges

water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2006). Details are provided in Section 3.6.

Section 402 also regulates construction stormwater. Construction of on shore aquaculture facilities that

exceed a ground disturbance threshold (typically 1 acre) would require a Construction General Permit and

Stormwater Management or Pollution Prevention Plan (varies depending on agency with jurisdiction)

which details best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to ensure sediment does not

leave the construction area.

Section 403 of CWA regulates discharges to the territorial sea (0-3 miles), contiguous zone (3-12 miles),

and ocean (more than 12 miles) by evaluating factors to determine if a discharge will cause “unreasonable

degradation to the marine environment”.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees Section 404 of the CWA, which regulates any dredge or fill

activities in jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Under Section 404, if an action will impact

or directly dredge or fill jurisdictional wetlands, a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be

required.

Lacey Act

The cultivation and transportation of aquaculture species must be accomplished in compliance with

provisions of the Lacey Act, which protects wildlife and plants taken or possessed in violation of State,

Tribal, foreign, or U.S. law. The Lacey Act is administered by the NMFS (in the case of marine species),

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (plants), and the USFWS (wildlife). Title 16 prohibits

the import, export, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition or purchase of wildlife or plants (whether alive

or dead, whole or part, protected or prohibited) that have been taken, possessed, transported or sold in

violation of any Federal, State, Tribal or foreign laws (interstate or foreign commerce); and the false

labeling or falsification of records or identification of species. Title 18 regulates the importation and

interstate transport of animal species determined to be injurious by the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits

the release of any live fish, mollusks, crustacean, or any progeny or eggs into the wild except by the prior

written permission of the State wildlife conservation agency having jurisdiction over the area of release (50

CFR 16.13).

National Shellfish Sanitation Program

The NSSP requires states to implement legislation to promote and improve the sanitation of shellfish

moving in interstate commerce through Federal/state cooperation and the uniformity of State shellfish

programs. Both shellfish aquaculture and wet storage require permits from the appropriate state authority.

Land-based operations require operational plans that include facility description and design as well as the

facility program for monitoring and maintaining water quality. The NSSP also requires states to evaluate

all shellfish growing areas to determine their suitability.

If a FSFL is used for new wet storage or depuration systems for a facility, the operator would be required

to coordinate with the state agency that administers the NSSP to determine permitting requirements and

obtain the appropriate permit. If the FSFL provides additional infrastructure for aquaculture or wet storage

operations, the facility’s permit would be amended.



Seafood Safety

The NMFS Seafood Inspection Program provides seafood inspection services for fish, shellfish, and other

products under authority in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The program provides inspections to

assure compliance with all applicable food regulations, including product quality evaluation, grading and

certification, sanitation inspection, and process auditing.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures food safety of fish and fishery products through a

mandatory safety program administered under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (PL 75-71).

Components of this program include research, inspection, compliance, enforcement, and development of

regulations and guidance.

The FDA also regulates drugs and medicated feeds used to treat diseases in aquaculture production through

programs administered by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, which regulates the manufacture,

distribution, and use of animal drugs, provides a list of approved drugs and medicated feed available to

aquaculture producers, and is responsible for regulating animal feed and feed safety.

States

In addition to Federal regulation, states have programs to ensure that aquaculture facilities adhere to state

environmental regulations, including those relating to water quality, wetlands protection, wastewater

treatment, water supply, non-native species, and public health. Often, these programs streamline application

processes for aquaculture, ensuring that producers are obtaining all necessary local, state, and Federal

permits necessary. The following sections are examples of such state programs.

The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Division of Agriculture Conservation and

Technical Assistance Aquaculture Specialist’s Office provide assistance to aquaculture producers within

the state. The Aquaculture Specialist’s Office created a guidance document that directs aquaculture

producers to appropriate permit requirements based on the following factors: species cultivated, structures

used, water sources, and wastewater discharge. The Southeastern Massachusetts Aquaculture Center has

developed BMPs for the Shellfish Culture Industry in Southeastern Massachusetts, which provides

background information, applicable laws, necessary permits and regulatory authority, and industry-standard

BMPs associated with: site selection and access; materials, operations, and maintenance; improvement of

shellfish survival and productivity; disease prevention and management; and maintenance of environmental

quality (Southeastern Massachusetts Aquaculture Center 2017).

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) regulates aquaculture production.

Aquaculture producers must register annually with the FDACS. For new aquaculture facilities, producers

must submit site plans, construction timelines, species production plan and timelines, and a description of

the BMPs that would be implemented at the facility. FDACS has developed the Aquaculture BMPs Manual,

which outlines BMPs associated with all aspects of aquaculture production, identifies additional permitting

requirements, and establishes penalties for noncompliance with BMPs (FDACS 2016). The FDACS also

conducts inspections of aquaculture facilities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has authorized the

FDACS to deposit materials into waters of the U.S. for the purpose of live rock and marine bivalve

aquaculture under a Programmatic General Permit SAJ-99. This permit also lays out Special Conditions to

reduce or mitigate impacts to other resources, such as cultural resources.

The Washington Shellfish Initiative establishes a partnership between industry and local, state, tribal, and

Federal governments to promote protection of natural resources while promoting business opportunities



within the state. As part of the Washington Shellfish Initiative, the Shellfish Interagency Permitting team

was established to identify permitting requirements for both shellfish harvesters and aquaculture producers,

and created the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application. Through Joint Aquatic Resource Permit

Application, producers can apply for all necessary permits associated with aquaculture production within

the state of Washington. All shellfish aquaculture facilities may be required to obtain an Operator’s License

and Harvest Site Certificate from the Washington Department of Health, and an Aquatic Farm Registration

Permit from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Washington Department of Ecology

also issues Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Federal consistency

determinations. Other state permits may be necessary depending on where the aquaculture facility is located

(e.g. in state, Federal, or tribal waters) and how aquaculture products may be stored or handled.

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed addition of aquaculture storage systems that take up water

from or discharge water into natural water sources would not be approved and only cold storage, currently

available for other commodities, would be available for storing aquaculture products at the more than 3000

aquaculture farms. This would result in the continuation of existing FSFL provisions, that is aquaculture

production and storage would continue as currently authorized and no change from the baseline conditions

would occur.





3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental 3-1 April 2017

Consequences

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

This section describes the environment that could be affected by implementation of the alternatives

described in Section 2.0 and the potential direct and indirect impacts of implementing those alternatives.

Direct impacts are those caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are

those caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance. Cumulative impacts are

discussed in chapter 4.

Programmatic environmental documents analyze impacts on a broad scale, such as those resulting from

proposed policies, plans, programs, or projects where subsequent specific actions will be implemented.

NEPA analysis for those subsequent actions is tiered to the programmatic NEPA review. When loan

applications are received, the potential for environmental impact of activities funded by FSFLs would be

evaluated using the FSA-850, which would also determine whether the proposed activity requires

preparation of an EA.

Though aquaculture could and does occur throughout the U.S., based on NASS data (USDA NASS 2013),

the majority of existing farms occur in states bordering the Gulf of Mexico (44 percent) or Mississippi

River (41 percent). Mollusk production accounts for 24 percent of existing aquaculture farms and is

concentrated in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington. Most of these farms produce oysters and clams

which are grown out in offshore beds or in bag and rack systems, floating trays, long lines, and rafts. Based

on the location and methods employed in most existing mollusk production, it is assumed that the majority

of aquaculture storage and handling systems that could be funded by the FSFL program would be located

along the shoreline near offshore grow out locations. Based on annual program funding and information

gathered during scoping, the number of loans made to support the Proposed Action is expected to be small.

The limited number of loans would be spread nationwide, therefore, impacts to any geographic area are

anticipated to be minor.

Impacts of proposed changes to the FSFL Program are discussed below. The exact locations, timing, type,

and specifications of aquaculture storage and handling facilities funded by FSFL Program loans are

unknown. Potential impacts focus on those states where mollusk aquaculture is currently concentrated.

However, it should be noted that FSFL funded storage and handling facilities and equipment that use natural

surface water or discharge into natural surface water could be sited in other locations and for the storage of

other eligible aquaculture products and the review presented here is not limited to these areas.

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented. Only cold storage

facilities could be constructed for the storage of aquaculture products using FSFLs. Impacts from the No

Action Alternative are summarized in the following resource sections. More detailed information may be

found in the 2009 FSFL PEA (USDA FSA 2009).

3.1 RESOURCES ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) state that the lead agency shall identify and eliminate from detailed study

the issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review, narrowing the

discussion of these issues in the document to a brief presentation of why they would not have a significant

effect on the human or natural environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere. The 2009

FSFL PEA included an assessment of the impacts of providing FSFL funding for storage facilities for a



Consequences

number of commodities. For the Proposed Action, the impacts to some protected resources are expected to

be the same as those covered in the 2009 FSFL PEA and impacts to others would be negligible or

nonexistent.

Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of

their actions on historic properties before undertaking a project. A historic property is defined as any

cultural resource that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation oversees Section 106 and its implementing regulations (36

CFR 800). FSA requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act including

consultation with the appropriate State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Office to ensure that significant

impacts to historic properties would not result from its projects and programs. FSA will not approve actions

or activities that could result in significant effects to historic properties unless such effects can be mitigated

(USDA FSA 2016b).

No impacts to cultural resources beyond those described in the 2009 FSFL PEA would be expected to result

from the Proposed Action. As with the storage facilities described in the 2009 FSFL PEA, the FSA-850

would be required prior to any loan commitment or ground disturbing activities associated with a Proposed

Action. This would include making a determination of the potential impacts to cultural resources and

consulting with appropriate State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and/or Tribes. As described

in the 2009 FSFL PEA, impacts to cultural resources that could result from the Proposed Action could

include destruction or disturbance of previously unidentified archaeological sites during land clearing and

construction. However, by completing the FSA-850 and consultation process (when needed), no significant

impacts are anticipated and cultural resources are eliminated from detailed analysis in this PEA.

Floodplains

Floodplains are defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as those low lying areas that are

subject to inundation by a 100-year flood, which is a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled

or exceeded in any given year. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to avoid, to

the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to

avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development. EO 13690 requires federal agencies to update

risk reduction strategies related to where and how development and construction should occur. FSA policy

is to continue its practices established to protect floodplains in compliance with EO 11988. No impacts to

floodplains beyond those described in the 2009 FSFL PEA are expected to result from the implementation

of the Proposed Action. Impacts to floodplains could occur if a facility was constructed in or affected the

flood zone. Local governments participating in the National Flood Insurance Program are required to review

proposed construction plans and to issue development permits for projects that occur within floodplains to

reduce potential impacts. The FSFL program requires applicants to demonstrate compliance with applicable

local zoning, land use, and building codes and to provide all-peril structural insurance and flood insurance

if it is required by FSFL policy. Based on meeting these permitting requirements, no significant impacts to

floodplains are anticipated and they are eliminated from detailed analysis.

Wetlands

As was described in the 2009 FSFL PEA (USDA FSA 2009), participants in FSA programs are prohibited

from using any FSFL Program loan (direct or guaranteed) or any USDA cost-share program, in such a way



Consequences

that might result in negative impacts to wetlands. Participants are notified of this requirement and agree to

these terms as part of the Environmental Screening process. Participants complete and sign Form AD-1026

Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Certification which certifies compliance

with this policy. FSA requires its actions and programs comply with Section 404 of the CWA, EO 11990

(Protection of Wetlands), and Section 363 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. If a

wetland determination is not available, form FSA-858 (Determining If a Wetland May Be Present) is used

to document wetland indicators on the site. If wetland indicators are found, the applicant may relocate the

proposed project or may employ the services of an approved wetland delineator to provide documentation

of any wetlands on site. If wetlands could be impacted by a proposed project, the applicant would be

required to apply for and obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Based on meeting these

permitting requirements, no significant impacts to wetlands are anticipated and the resource is eliminated

from detailed analysis.

Soils

No impacts to soils beyond those described in the 2009 FSFL PEA (USDA FSA 2009) would occur from

adding the proposed aquaculture facilities to the FSFL Program. As with the facilities covered in the 2009

FSFL PEA, impacts to soils resulting from the Proposed Action could be minor, localized disturbance of

soils during grading, leveling, and facilities construction. Such disturbance could result in increased erosion

by water and wind during the time soils are exposed. If the area required for construction exceeds

disturbance thresholds (typically 1 acre, but varies state to state), a Construction General Permit and

Stormwater Management Plan or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (naming convention depends on

agency with jurisdiction) would be required. Plans include BMPs that would be implemented to ensure that

erosion/sediment does not leave the construction area and an inspection schedule that adheres to the permit

requirements. Additionally, Highly Erodible Land provisions do not apply to aquaculture projects because

aquaculture producers do not produce agricultural commodities on land devoted to traditional agriculture

(USDA FSA 2014). No significant impacts to soils are anticipated and the resource is eliminated from

detailed analysis.

Air Quality

As described in the 2009 FSFL PEA (USDA FSA 2009), the Proposed Action would not permanently

impact either local or regional air quality. Temporary minor impacts to local air quality could result from

soil disturbance and emissions during construction of a storage facility but are not expected to exceed

ambient air quality standards. Operation of storage facilities would not impact air quality. No significant

air quality impacts are anticipated and the resource is eliminated from detailed analysis.

Noise

Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense

enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Human response to noise varies according to the type

and characteristics of the noise source, the distance between source and receiver, receiver sensitivity and

time of day. The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901) directs all Federal agencies to comply with

Federal, State, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of environmental noise. Noise

is often regulated under nuisance ordinances or the use of exclusionary zoning at the local level. FSA does

not implement activities that have the potential to greatly increase permanent noise levels and the FSFL

Program requires compliance with local zoning and land use codes. Therefore, no significant noise impacts

are anticipated and noise is eliminated from detailed analysis.



Consequences

Important Land Resources

Important land resources include prime farmland, unique farmland, prime forestland, and prime rangeland.

These lands are protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (PL 98-98), which was enacted to

minimize the effect of Federal programs on the irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.

Activities not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act include the construction of on-farm structures

necessary for farm operations, therefore, Important Land Resources are eliminated from detailed analysis.

Socioeconomics

The socioeconomic impacts of expanding the FSFL Program to include wet storage and handling for

aquaculture products are the same as those described in the 2009 FSFL PEA. Local positive impacts would

be realized by producers including: enabling consistent availability of products and extended sales seasons;

providing flexibility in the timing of sales to maximize value; and improving year round cash flow. On a

national scale, impacts are expected to be minor. Therefore, socioeconomics are eliminated from detailed

analysis.

Environmental Justice

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations, directs Federal agencies to ensure that minority and low-income populations are not

disproportionately adversely impacted by Federal actions. The 2009 FSFL PEA noted that FSFLs have

been authorized since 2000. The potential impacts of the FSFL program on minority and low income

populations have been evaluated consistent with a Civil Rights Impact Analysis completed by FSA.

Implementing the proposed changes to the FSFL would not introduce new impacts on minority or low

income populations. Providing loans for wet storage of aquaculture products does not have the potential to

disproportionately impact low income or minority populations and environmental justice is eliminated from

detailed analysis.

3.2 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

3.2.1 Definition of Resource and Regulatory Framework

Wildlife and habitat include vegetation, wildlife, and protected species including threatened, endangered

and proposed species and their designated critical habitats. Vegetation and wildlife refer to the plant and

animal species, both native and introduced, that characterize a region. Threatened and endangered species

are those species that the USFWS has determined to be in need of protection due to threats to survival

including habitat destruction, disease, predation, natural or manmade factors, or inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms. Critical habitat is a designated geographic area(s) that contains features essential

for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and

protection.

Threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat are protected by the ESA of 1973 (16 USC

1531 et seq.), which requires Federal agencies to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The ESA prohibits the taking of listed animal

species. The definition of “take” includes to harass, harm, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect,

or attempt to engage in any such conduct. The USFWS has authority for enforcing provisions of the ESA

for terrestrial and freshwater species. The NMFS has jurisdiction over marine species.



Consequences

Other Federal wildlife protections include: the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668);

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-711); and EO 13112 Invasive Species. The Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act prohibits taking (defined as pursuing, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing,

trapping, collecting, molesting or disturbing) or possessing bald and golden eagles. The Migratory Bird

Treaty Act prohibits the taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds. EO 13112 requires Federal

agencies to prevent introducing invasive species and provide for their control.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

FSFL funds are available for producers throughout the U.S. and its territories, thus a wide variety of

terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species could be affected by implementation of the program. Given

this geographic scale, it is not feasible to describe all species that could be present on lands eligible for

enrollment, but broad generalizations based upon the organizing principle of terrestrial ecoregions can be

made. Ecoregions are areas of relatively homogenous soils, vegetation, climate, and geology, each with

associated wildlife adapted to that region. Ecoregions of the U.S. are described in the 2009 FSFL PEA

(USDA FSA 2009).

Massachusetts can generally be divided into three major ecoregions; northeastern highlands, northeastern

coastal zone, and Atlantic coastal pine barrens. Forest vegetation is somewhat transitional between the

boreal regions to the north in Canada and the broadleaf deciduous forests to the south. Typical forest types

include northern hardwoods (maple-beech-birch), northern hardwoods/spruce, and northeastern spruce-fir

forests. Within the coastal zone, forest types including Appalachian oak and northeastern oak-pine forests

change slightly, depending on elevation. The coastal pine barrens is a transitional zone characterized by

sandy beaches, grassy dunes, bays, marshes, and scrubby oak-pine forests. Typical animal species within

these ecoregions include gray squirrel, eastern chipmunk, raccoon, porcupine, gray fox, bobcat, white-tailed

deer, and black bear (EPA 2017b).

Florida can be divided into three major ecoregions as well: southeastern plains, southern coastal plains, and

southern Florida coastal plain. The southeastern plains are irregular plains that are a mosaic of cropland,

pasture, woodland, and forest. Historic vegetation was predominately longleaf pine, with smaller areas of

oak-hickory-pine and southern mixed forest. The southern coastal plain is a heterogeneous zone that

contains barrier islands, coastal lagoons, marshes, and swampy lowlands along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

Historically, this zone was dominated by a variety of forest communities that included trees of longleaf

pine, slash pine, pond pine, beech, sweetgum, southern magnolia, white oak, and laurel oak. Land cover in

the region is now mostly slash and loblolly pine with oak-gum-cypress forest in some low lying areas. The

southern Florida coastal plain exists within parks, game refuges, and Indian reservations, but a large part of

the region has undergone extensive hydrological and biological alteration. Common mammals of

southeastern plains and southern coastal plains include the white-footed mouse, gray squirrel, raccoon,

porcupine, gray fox, white-tailed deer, and black bear. Florida’s ecoregions have extremely diverse

populations of birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. The southern Florida coastal plain contains the tropical

areas of southern Florida. Common species within the southern Florida coastal plain include the armadillo,

squirrel, lynx, peccary, and tapir. Common birds include pheasant, macaws, parrots, and toucans.

Amphibians and reptiles are abundant including toads, frogs, arboreal frogs, and crocodilians (EPA 2017b).

Washington contains nine ecoregions. These range from coastal mountains and temperate rainforests, to

arid areas to the east of the Cascade Mountains. The low mountains of the Coast Range in Washington are

covered by highly productive, rain-drenched coniferous forests. Sitka spruce forests originally dominated



Consequences

the fog-shrouded coast, while a mosaic of western red cedar, western hemlock, and seral Douglas-fir

blanketed inland areas. Today, Douglas-fir plantations are prevalent on the intensively logged and managed

landscape. The Cascades have a moist, temperate climate that supports an extensive and highly productive

coniferous forest that is intensively managed for logging. At lower elevations in the north, Douglas-fir,

western hemlock, western red cedar, big leaf maple, and red alder are typical. At higher elevations, Pacific

silver fir, mountain hemlock, subalpine fir, noble fir, and lodgepole pine occur. The Eastern Cascade Slopes

and Foothills ecoregion is in the rainshadow of the Cascade Range. It has a more continental climate than

ecoregions to the west, with greater temperature extremes and less precipitation. Open forests of ponderosa

pine and some lodgepole pine distinguish this region from the higher ecoregions to the west where hemlock

and fir forests are common, and the lower, drier ecoregions to the east where shrubs and grasslands are

predominant. The vegetation is adapted to the prevailing dry, continental climate and frequent fire.

Characteristic mammals include mule deer, elk, moose, mountain goat, California bighorn sheep, coyote,

black and grizzly bear, hoary marmot, and Columbian ground squirrel. Typical bird species include blue

grouse, Steller’s jay, and black-billed magpie (EPA 2017b).

The potential for threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats to occur on sites where FSFL

funds could be used would be identified using FSA’s Environmental Screening Worksheet (FSA-850). This

evaluation requires coordination with the USFWS and NMFS to identify species and critical habitats that

may be affected by a proposal before funding or approval is granted. Appendix B contains threatened and

endangered species lists for Massachusetts, Florida, and Washington, those areas where project scoping

indicates it is most likely that FSFL funding for aquaculture facilities that utilize or discharge into surface

waters would occur. This is not an exhaustive list of all threatened and endangered species and critical

habitats that could be affected by the FSFL program. Table 3-1 contains a summary of the current number

of threatened and endangered species in these states. Note that the status of species may change, new species

could be listed or removed from the list, and new critical habitat could be established.

Table 3-1. Number of Threatened and Endangered Species and

Designated Critical Habitat in Massachusetts, Florida and Washington

Species Group Massachusetts Florida Washington

Mammals 1 16 11

Birds 3 12 6

Reptiles 4 10 1

Amphibians 0 1 1

Fish 0 4 5

Invertebrates 5 24 2

Plants 3 64 11

Total 16 131 37

Designated Critical Habitat 2 37 21

Sources: USFWS 2017 a, b, c

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences

3.2.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts of No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the FSFL Program would continue to be implemented as currently

administered. During the construction and installation of FSFL funded equipment and facilities, it is

possible that vegetation and wildlife could be affected. In some cases, facilities and equipment could be

placed in previously undisturbed settings resulting in the removal of existing vegetation. Likewise,



Consequences

temporary or permanent loss of wildlife habitat could occur as result of direct habitat loss or disturbance

during construction activities. In most cases loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat would be

expected to be minor.

FSA’s policies and regulations do not permit authorization, funding, or implementation of any proposal

that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed as endangered or threatened, or any

proposal that is likely to destroy or adversely modify the habitats of listed species when such habitats have

been determined critical to the species’ existence. FSA addresses potential effects to threatened and

endangered species and their designated critical habitats by completing a site-specific Environmental

Screening Worksheet (FSA-850) to determine the effects of each loan request. These evaluations require

consultation with the USFWS or NMFS in cases where threatened and endangered species and their critical

habitats may be present and potentially impacted requests are denied if a potential to adversely impact is

identified. No significant adverse impacts to protected species or critical habitat are expected from

continued implementation of the current FSFL Program.

3.2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Proposed Action

Impacts to wildlife and habitat, including threatened and endangered species and their designated critical

habitats are expected to be similar under the Proposed Action as those that result from the current FSFL

program, as described above. As with the existing FSFL program, site-specific Environmental Screening

Worksheets (FSA-850) are required for each loan request. These evaluations require consultation with

USFWS and NMFS in cases where there is the potential to affect threatened and endangered species and

the proposed FSFL would be denied if adverse impacts to these resources were anticipated. Impacts to water

quality, which could affect marine and aquatic threatened and endangered species, are not anticipated (see

section 3.6 for discussion of Water Quality impacts).

3.3 COASTAL BARRIERS AND COASTAL ZONES


Coastal barriers are geologic features, such as barrier islands, and all associated areas including marshes,

estuaries and inlets, that protect landward habitats from wave, tidal, and wind erosion. The Coastal Barrier

Resources Act of 1982 (PL 97-348) designated undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf

coasts as part of the Coastal Barrier Resources System and made these discrete areas ineligible for most

new Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance. The Coastal Barrier

Improvement Act of 1990 (PL 101-591) reauthorized the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and expanded the

Coastal Barrier Resources System to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Florida Keys, Great

Lakes, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The laws encourage the conservation of storm prone,

biologically rich coastal barriers. Areas within the Coastal Barrier Resources System can be developed

provided that private developers or other non-Federal parties bear the full cost. The USFWS is the lead

Federal agency for the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583) provides for the preservation, protection,

development, and where possible, the restoration of the nation’s coastal zone, including the Great Lakes,

through three national programs including the National Coastal Zone Management Program. The program

is a voluntary partnership between the Federal government and U.S. coastal and Great Lakes states and

territories that aims to balance protection of natural resources and coastal resource use and development.

State programs are approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and are



Consequences

administered by one or more state agencies. Federal activities that are reasonably likely to affect the coastal

zone must be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable polices of the states’

coastal zone management plans. All Federal activities inside the coastal zone are subject to consistency

review and require consultation with the appropriate state agency for consistency determinations.

Consultation involves reviewing the State Coastal Zone Management Plan and preparing and submitting a

consistency determination to the appropriate state agency for concurrence.

The potential for coastal barriers or coastal zones to be impacted by FSFL program projects would be

identified using FSA’s Environmental Screening Worksheet (FSA-850). This evaluation requires

coordination with the USFWS and relevant state agencies to determine whether coastal zones and barriers

could be affected by a proposal before funding or approval is granted. FSA will not approve actions or

activities that could significantly affect coastal barriers. FSA requires its programs to be consistent with

Federal and State Coastal Zone Management Programs (USDA FSA 2016b).


The Coastal Barrier Resources System currently includes 585 units, which comprise nearly 1.3 million

acres of land and associated aquatic habitat (USFWS 2017d). An online mapping tool is available to identify

the locations of coastal barriers to determine whether projects would affect them. In Massachusetts, there

are 86 units covering 213 miles of shoreline, 19,847 upland acres and an associated 84,079 acres of adjacent

aquatic habitat (USFWS 2017e). In Florida, there are 131 units covering 466 miles of shoreline, 69,265

land acres and an associated 697,185 acres of adjacent aquatic habitat (USFWS 2017f). Washington does

not have any designated Coastal Barriers as these are limited to the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of

Mexico, Great Lakes as well as the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.

All 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and territories (with the exception of Alaska) participate in the

National Coastal Zone Management Program. Links to each state’s Coastal Zone Management Plan can be

found on NOAA’s website (NOAA 2017). The Massachusetts coastal zone includes roughly all land within

a one-half mile of coastal waters and salt marshes, as well as all islands (Massachusetts Office of Energy

and Environmental Affairs 2017). The Massachusetts Coastal Management Program is administered by the

Office of Coastal Zone Management and serves as the lead for coastal policy and technical assistance in

the state. All of Florida is designated as coastal zone. Its Coastal Zone Management Program is administered

by eight state agencies enforcing 24 state laws. The Florida State Clearinghouse, administered by the

Department of Environmental Protection Office of Intergovernmental Programs, is the primary contact for

receipt of consistency evaluations from Federal agencies (Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2017). Washington’s coastal zone management program was the first to be approved in the nation. The

program is administered by the Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance

Program and applies to the fifteen coastal counties which front on salt water (Washington Department of

Ecology 2017).



For proposed activities that are located within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, FSA is required to

request a property determination from the USFWS prior to project approval to determine whether the

activity is eligible for Federal funding. The request includes providing the USFWS with maps and project



Consequences

descriptions. If USFWS determines that the project would be located in the Coastal Barrier Resources

System, FSA would not fund the project.

Impacts to Coastal Zones are avoided through the process of consultation with the state agencies that

administer the state’s coastal zone management program. If the agency concurs or provides suggested

mitigation measures or BMPs that could be incorporated into the project, the project can be funded by FSA.

Alternatively, if the agency does not concur with FSA’s consistency determination, the project could be

denied funding or the FSA National Office could determine that the project meets the standard of complying

with the enforceable policies of the state Coastal Zone Management Plan to the maximum extent

practicable.


The potential impacts of making aquaculture storage facilities eligible for FSFL funds are the same as those

described above for the No Action Alternative. FSA would be required to consult with USFWS to ensure

activities it funds would not impact the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Impacts to Coastal Zones would

be the same as described above with the required determination of consistency with the enforceable policies

of the NOAA-approved state coastal zone management plans.

3.4 WILDERNESS AREAS, WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS, NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY,

NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS


Wilderness Areas are lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition by the

Wilderness Act (PL 88-577) and are managed by the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), USFWS, or U.S. Forest Service (USFS). FSA policy calls for consultation with the

appropriate management agency when activities it funds would develop land, or create a disturbance or

nuisance that was not there before, within or near the boundary of a Wilderness Area.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) establishes the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, comprised of

rivers designated by the legislature of the states through which they flow. The Act provides protection to

the free flowing, scenic and natural values of such rivers. Wild and Scenic Rivers are managed by an

interagency council of four Federal agencies: NPS, BLM, USFWS, and USFS. The Nationwide Rivers

Inventory is a register of river segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic or recreational river

areas. The inventory is compiled and maintained by the NPS. It is FSA policy to ensure that its activities

do not impact rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory.

National Natural Landmarks Program (36 CFR 62), administered by the NPS, identifies natural areas that

“best illustrate the biological and geological character of the United States” and works to enhance the

scientific and education value of such areas. The program recognizes areas preserved by Federal, State and

local agencies as well as private organizations and individuals. The Secretary of the Interior designates

National Natural Landmarks. Designation as a National Natural Landmark does not change the ownership

of an area, does not impact legal right and privileges or use of the area by its owners, and does not limit or

dictate activities on that land, however Federal agencies consider these areas in their planning and impact

analyses.



Consequences

FSA policy includes not approving actions that would have a significant adverse effect on Wild and Scenic

Rivers or rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory and strives to ensure that National Natural

Landmarks are not negatively impacted by agency activities.


Because, FSFL funds are available for producers throughout the U.S. and its territories, there is the potential

for aquaculture storage and handling facilities that are funded by the program to be proposed for locations

near Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory.

Given this geographic scale of the program, it is not feasible to describe all such areas that could be present

near lands eligible for enrollment. Since mollusk aquaculture is concentrated in Massachusetts, Florida and

Washington, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers

Inventory in these states are used as examples in this analysis.

An interactive map of Wilderness Areas is available online at the University of Montana’s website entitled

Wilderness.net (University of Montana 2017). Massachusetts has a single 3,244-acre Wilderness Area,

Monomoy Wilderness located on two islands at the elbow of Cape Cod and managed by the USFWS. There

are 17 Wilderness Areas in Florida totaling more than 1.4 million acres managed by the USFS, USFWS

and NPS. Washington has 31 Wilderness Areas totaling nearly 4.5 million acres. Most are managed by the

USFS but USFWS, NPS and BLM also manage Wilderness Areas in Washington.

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System maintains an interactive website that provides maps and

visitor information for each state. The NPS supports a similar system for the Nationwide Rivers Inventory.

Table 3-2 provides a summary of the Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, rivers listed on the

Nationwide Rivers Inventory, and National Natural Landmarks in Massachusetts, Florida, and Washington.

Table 3-2. Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and Rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers

Inventory in Massachusetts, Florida and Washington

Wilderness Areas Wild and Scenic Rivers

Nationwide

Rivers Inventory National

Natural

Landmarks Number Acres Miles Name Segments Miles

Massachusetts 1 3,244 147.1

Sudbury,Assabet, Concord

Taunton

Westfield

32 229 11

Florida 17 1.4M 49.2 Loxahatchee

Wekiva 57

2,09

8 18

Washington 31 4.5M 197

Illabot Creek

Klickitat

Pratt

Skagit

Snoqualmie (Middle Fork)

White Salmon

133 1,85

8 18

Sources: University of Montana 2017, Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2017; NPS 2017a, NPS 2017b



The 2009 FSFL PEA eliminated this resource from analysis because the land on which construction funded

by FSFLs could occur is privately owned. Since that analysis FSA has updated its Environmental Quality



Consequences

Programs Handbook (1-EQ), which now defines the need to coordinate and consult with the agencies that

manage these protected lands that may be affected by FSA programs that support activities near their

borders. Because it is FSA’s policy not to approve actions that would have a significant adverse effect on.

Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers or rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory and strives

to ensure that National Natural Landmarks are not negatively impacted by agency activities; no significant

impacts to these resources are anticipated.


The potential impacts of the making aquaculture storage facilities eligible for FSFL funds are the same as

those described above for the No Action Alternative. FSA would be required to coordinate and consult, as

appropriate, with the appropriate land management agency during the site-specific Environmental

Screening Worksheet (FSA-850) to ensure activities it funds would not impact Wilderness Areas, Wild and

Scenic Rivers, rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, or National Natural Landmarks.

3.5 SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS


Sole Source Aquifers are those designated by the EPA as those that supply at least 50 percent of the drinking

water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. Such areas have no alternative drinking water supply that

could physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking water.

The Sole Source Aquifer Program is authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523), the primary

Federal law that ensures the quality of drinking water.


The EPA is the Federal agency responsible for evaluating and listing sole source aquifers. Maps and

descriptions are available for each EPA region (EPA 2017c, d, e). The EPA has designated 7 sole source

aquifers in Massachusetts, 2 in Florida and 12 in Washington (See Table 3-3). Maps of these aquifers as

well as those located in other states can be found using EPA’s Sole Source Aquifer Mapping tool (EPA

2017f).



Consequences

Table 3-3. Sole Source Aquifers in Massachusetts, Florida and

Washington

State Sole Source Aquifers

Massachusetts Broad Brook Basin of the Barnes Aquifer

Canoe River Aquifer

Cape Cod Aquifer

Head of the Neponset Aquifer

Martha's Vineyard Aquifer

Nantucket Aquifer

Plymouth/Carver Aquifer

Florida Biscayne Aquifer

Volusia-Floridan Aquifer

Washington Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer

Camano Island Aquifer

Whidbey Island Aquifer

Cross Valley Aquifer

Newberg Area Aquifer

Cedar Valley Aquifer

Lewiston Basin Aquifer

Central Pierce County Aquifer System

Marrowstone Island Aquifer System

Vashon-Maury Island Aquifer System

Guemes Island Aquifer System

Troutdale Aquifer System

Source: EPA 2017c,d,e.

FSA’s Environmental Screening Worksheet (FSA-850), which includes required review of EPA sole source

aquifer maps, would be required before FSFL funding or project approval would be granted.



The 2009 FSFL PEA concluded that construction of on-farm storage facilities did not have the potential to

impact sole source aquifers, and thus eliminated the resource from detailed analysis. The program proposed

at that time did not include equipment or facilities that would potentially use or discharge water.


Based on scoping done for this project, it is likely that most aquaculture storage and handling facilities

funded by the FSFL would discharge water into an adjacent surface water sources, however some closed

systems could use municipal sewer or an underground wastewater disposal system. Sole source aquifers

would be protected from significant impacts by EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program, which

provides permitting, and oversight to Class V wells, which include those employed by some aquaculture

facilities for wastewater disposal.

3.6 WATER QUALITY


The principal law governing pollution of the nation’s surface water resources is the CWA, which utilizes

water quality standards, permitting requirements, and monitoring to protect surface water quality. Surface



Consequences

waters include rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, reservoirs, and other impoundments that support everyday life

through provision of water for drinking and other public uses, irrigation, and industry.

The CWA is administered by the EPA and its objective is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical,

and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Section 304(a) of the CWA sets minimum pollutant criteria

standards for all Waters of the U.S. to ensure that water quality remains suitable for aquatic or marine life,

and for human health and safety. The EPA’s National Recommended Water Quality Criteria set forth

minimum criteria for approximately 150 pollutants including toxic chemicals, metals, pH, physical

properties (such as temperature, turbidity, total suspended solids), dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and bacteria.

In most cases, EPA gives qualified states the authority to enforce water quality standards and issue permits

that are protective of those standards. States must enforce the minimum criteria set by EPA and may adopt

more stringent standards. The CWA is also aimed at restoring waters that do not meet these minimal criteria.

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify impaired waters, or those surface waters that do not

meet minimum water quality standards.

In Florida, water quality standards are developed and regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. Water quality criteria for Florida are defined in Rule 62-302.500 and 62-302.530 of the Florida

Administrative Code. The Washington State Department of Ecology is responsible for developing and

regulating water quality standards in Washington. Chapter 173-201A of the Washington Administrative

Code defines the criteria for water quality within the state. Within Massachusetts, water quality standards

are developed and regulated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and are laid

out in 314 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 04.

The CWA requires that no permitted discharge degrade the surface water quality beyond those standards

outlined by the EPA, or those codified by individual state programs. The discharge of pollutants is

controlled, in part, through the issuance of permits including the following.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPDES permits are required under Section 402 of the CWA for any discharge of pollutants from a point

source into any Waters of the U.S. The purpose of the NPDES permit is to translate the general requirements

of the CWA into specific provisions tailored to the operations of each entity discharging pollutants. The

EPA administers the NPDES program and in most cases has delegated administration to states, tribes, and

territories. Typically, state departments of environmental quality or public health administer the NPDES

with oversight from the EPA. Pollutants are broadly defined by the CWA and may be refined under state

law by a state’s permitting authority. NPDES permits outline limits of what can be discharged, monitoring

and reporting requirements, and other provisions to ensure that the discharge does not degrade water quality

of the receiving waters, or endanger public health.

NPDES permitting requirements for aquaculture vary depending on the aquaculture production method

employed, the species produced, the weight of animals produced annually, the weight of feed utilized

monthly, and the number of days per year that the farm discharges water (EPA 2006).

Aquaculture farms can be designated as Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) facilities, which

EPA defines as (40 CFR 122.24, EPA 2006) follows.

Hatcheries, fish farms, or other facilities that contain, grow, or hold aquatic animals in ponds,

raceways, or similar structures which discharge at least 30 days per year and:



Consequences

o produce more than approximately 20,000 pounds harvest weight of cold water fish or other

aquatic animals (including, but not limited to, trout and salmon) per year and feed more

than approximately 5,000 pounds of food during the calendar month of maximum feeding;

or

o produce a harvest weight of more than approximately 100,000 pounds of warm water fish

or other aquatic animals (including, but not limited to, catfish, sunfish, and minnows) per

year in structures other than closed ponds that discharge only during periods of excess

runoff.

Other aquaculture production facilities, designated on a case-by-case basis, that the EPA Director

determines are significant contributors of pollution to Waters of the U.S.

CAAPs are considered point sources subject to NPDES permitting. CAAPs that produce more than 100,000

pounds of aquatic animals annually require NPDES permits with Effluent Limitation Guidelines

requirements (reporting and BMPs) that are specific to the production system and location of the facility.

Aquaculture systems that are not subject to Effluent Limitation Guidelines include closed pond systems,

mollusk systems (including nurseries), shrimp ponds, crawfish production, alligator production, aquaria,

and net pens used to rear native species of commercial or sport fish for less than four months. Note that

some states have more stringent requirements than EPA, and may require NPDES permits for facilities

other than those that meet the definition of CAAP (EPA 2006).

Aquaculture facilities that do not meet the definition of CAAPs do not require NPDES permits (unless

designated a CAAP by the EPA Director or required by state regulation) include facilities that:

discharge less than 30 days per year

produce less than approximately 20,000 pounds harvest weight of cold water fish or other aquatic

animals (including, but not limited to, trout and salmon) per year and feed less then approximately

5,000 pounds of food during the calendar month of maximum feeding.

produce a harvest weight of less than approximately 100,000 pounds of warm water fish or other

aquatic animals (including, but not limited to, catfish, sunfish, and minnows) aquatic animals per

year or closed ponds, which discharge only during periods of excess runoff.

NPDES permit holders must notify the permitting authority (generally a state agency but in some cases,

EPA) of significant changes of their aquaculture operations including increasing production levels, changes

in structures or facilities configuration.

Florida is fully authorized by EPA to administer its NPDES program. Washington is partially authorized,

while Massachusetts is not authorized to administer the state NPDES program. Within Florida and

Washington, NPDES permits would be coordinated through the states’ environmental program offices; the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Washington Department of Ecology, respectively.

While Massachusetts does not administer NPDES, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and

Environmental Affairs helps to coordinate permit requests from Massachusetts based businesses or

residents to the EPA.



Consequences

Construction Stormwater

Permits are also required under Section 402 of CWA for construction that causes ground disturbance to

ensure that receiving waters will not be degraded from contaminated runoff from the construction site. As

with the NPDES program, most states have assumed authority from the EPA for implementing their own

Construction Stormwater programs, and in some instances counties or municipalities have assumed

jurisdiction. Ground disturbing activities greater than a threshold (typically 1 acre) require a Construction

General Permit from the agency that manages the Construction Stormwater Program at the proposed

location. Permits require the development of Stormwater Management Plan or Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (naming convention depends on agency with jurisdiction) which details BMPs that ensure

that erosion/sedimentation does not leave the construction area and a schedule of inspections to be

conducted by the agency that issues the permit.

Ocean Discharge Criteria

In addition to NPDES permits under Section 402, discharge of pollutants into the ocean or territorial sea,

may require additional compliance under Section 403 of the CWA, which regulates discharges to the

territorial sea (0-3 miles), contiguous zone (3-12 miles), and ocean (more than 12 miles). Discharges that

comply with all requirements of a States’ regulatory guidelines or permit requirements, are assumed to meet

the requirements of Section 403. No unreasonable degradation to the marine environment would occur if

discharge of pollutants is in compliance with the State’s water quality standards.


For this PEA the affected environment would be any surface waters adjacent to the locations where FSFL

funded storage and handling facilities for aquaculture could be constructed that could receive runoff during

construction activities or from direct discharge from aquaculture facilities. Due to the programmatic nature

of this document, it is impossible to determine the location of FSFL-funded facilities, which surface waters

could be affected, what the surface water quality standards are at those locations, whether storage and

handling facilities would be collocated with existing CWA-permitted aquaculture production operations,

and if so, what the permitting requirements of those operations are.

Storage and handling facilities funded by the Proposed Action could be collocated with existing aquaculture

production facilities. Pollutants typically associated with aquaculture production include nutrients, bacteria,

and nitrogen from feed and waste, particularly at large production operations such as finfish farming.

Production operations require NPDES permits as detailed above in Section 3.6.1 depending on the type and

volume of product produced, feed utilized, and the number of days per year that the operations discharge.

FSFL-funded facilities could also be stand alone, in cases where grow out producers have no existing on-

shore footprint. Molluscan shellfish aquaculture involves some artificial feeding of larvae and juveniles in

hatcheries but during the grow out phase, no supplemental feeding occurs and the culture removes nutrients

and organic matter from water surrounding grow out beds through the process of feeding. Molluscan

shellfish generate wastes that are deposited in sediments during the grow out phase but, as filter feeders,

are net consumers of particulates and nutrients.



Consequences



As concluded in the 2009 FSFL PEA, the FSFL program has potential to generate short term minor impacts

to water resources due to ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of new buildings or

structures or the alteration of existing buildings or structures. Ground disturbing activities have the potential

to increase erosion and runoff leading to increased sedimentation of nearby waters. For any activity that

disturbs more than 1 acre of land, a Construction General Permit, which includes a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (or state-required equivalent), would be required. Depending on the location of the

construction site, either the state (if it has been authorized to implement the NPDES stormwater program)

or EPA would administer the permit. In areas where EPA is the permitting authority, operators of regulated

construction sites are generally permitted under the Construction General Permit. Adherence to the terms

of the Permit would limit impacts to surface waters under the No Action Alternative. Depending on site

location, the local permitting authority may have additional requirements or more stringent construction

regulations with regard to surface water quality than those outlined by EPA in the CWA.


Through the FSA-required Environmental Screening, the permitting authority and any required permits

would be identified. Depending on the size, discharge frequency, and design of the FSFL aquaculture

storage facility, NPDES permitting for discharging into adjacent surface waters may be required. FSA relies

on the permitting authority and expertise of the ADEQ and EPA, the agencies charged with protection of

water quality under the Federal Clean Water Act and related State regulations. As such, they have

determined that compliance with Federal and State regulations protecting water quality supports the

determination that the FSFLs, whether they require NPDES permits or not, would cause no significant

impact to water quality. The permitting process would ensure that discharges do not degrade surface water

quality in exceedance of EPA or state program standards.

Impacts to water quality from the operation of storage and handling facilities and equipment funded by

FSFLs is expected to be minimal as no feeding or other production methods would be employed using these

facilities. Impacts would be limited by adherence to NPDES permitting requirements, which would

minimize degradation to local surface waters and prevent any long-term negative impacts from the FSFL-

funded facility. In cases where the FSFL facilities are constructed at existing aquaculture production

operations, the permitting authority would be notified and the operation’s existing NPDES permit would

be modified to cover the new facility as appropriate. In the case of molluscan shellfish, storage and handling

facilities could be constructed on shore or on floating structures. In these cases NPDES permitting could

be required depending on the state where the facility is located.

As with the No Action Alternative, temporary minor impacts to water quality could occur during

construction but would be minimized by implementing the conditions required by the Construction General

Permit, and specifically, through adherence to BMPs identified in an approved Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan.


4.0 Cumulative Impacts, Irreversible and 4-1 April 2017

Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, IRREVERSIBLE AND

IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The cumulative impacts analysis is important to understanding how multiple actions in a particular time

and space (e.g., geographic area) impact the environment. The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects

as “…the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-

Federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR § 1508.7). Whereas the individual impact of one

project in a particular area or region may not be considered significant, numerous projects in the same area

or region may cumulatively result in significant impacts.

4.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The FSFL Program has disbursed loans totaling $1.8 billion to date. Annual appropriation for the program

is $300 million and an average of 2,100 FSFLs were made in each year between 2000 and 2015. The

Proposed Action would not add to that total, rather funding within that appropriation would be available

for the type of storage and handling facilities included in the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is not

anticipated to increase production, only provide an additional option for live storage and handling.

Numerous Federal programs exist to assist aquaculture operations including programs by the NOAA as

well as the USDA. NOAA offers both competitive grants as well as financial assistance opportunities.

NOAA also offers long-term loans for aquaculture activities through the NOAA Fisheries Finance Program.

Some of the available grant programs are listed below.

Sea Grant Marine Aquaculture Grant Program

NOAA Small Business Innovation Research Program

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program

Marine Fisheries Initiative Program

In addition to NOAA, other Federal funding opportunities exist through the Small Business Innovation

Research Program (not NOAA specific, as above), USDA- National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and

the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Molluscan shellfish storage under the Proposed Action would most likely occur in coastal areas where

development and recreation may be concentrated. Florida’s economy thrives on the coastal nature of the

state. Much of the state’s economy centers on the $65 billion per year tourism industry and tax revenues

from development. In 2010, it was estimated that over 90 percent of Florida’s 18.5 million inhabitants

resided in coastal areas of the state (Schrope 2010). Florida is just one example of the pressure placed on

coastal areas. Nationwide, coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total land area of the U.S. (not

including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the total population. Projections show the trends for

increased populations through high-density development are likely to continue as the demand for access to

coastal areas continues to remain high.




4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Wildlife and Habitat and Water Quality may experience additive and interactive effects from

implementation of the Proposed Action. The other resources analyzed in detail in Section 3 of this document

(including Coastal Barriers, Coastal Zones, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Nationwide Rivers

Inventory and National Natural Landmarks, and Threatened and Endangered Species and their Critical

Habitats) are dismissed from cumulative effects analysis because no impacts to these resources are

anticipated based on program requirements. FSA requirements prohibit impact to these resources and the

FSA-required site specific Environment Screening would reveal the presence of these resources.

4.1.2.1 Wildlife and Habitat

Potential contributions to cumulative impacts could include removal of existing vegetation and wildlife

habitat, if FSFL funds were used to construct facilities in previously undisturbed areas. In the case of

molluscan shellfish storage, such areas would be expected to be located along shorelines near offshore grow

out areas. While the footprints of individual FSFL-funded storage and handling facilities is expected to be

small, they would contribute to vegetation and habitat loss in shoreline areas already impacted by recreation

and residential and commercial development. Based on annual program funding and information gathered

during scoping, the number of loans made to support the Proposed Action is expected to be small. The

limited number of loans would be spread nationwide, therefore, impacts to any geographic area are

anticipated to be minor and not result in significant cumulative impacts to wildlife and habitat.

4.1.2.2 Water Quality

The Proposed Action could result in increased sedimentation due to runoff during construction. Though

impacts are expected to be temporary and minor and the intensity controlled through implementation of

BMPs prescribed in the site Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (or equivalent), they could affect water

quality in nearby surface waters. Similarly, adherence to NPDES permitting requirements would ensure

individual operations do not degrade surface waters beyond EPA or state program standards. As with

cumulative impacts to wildlife and habitat, since the number of loans made to support the Proposed Action

is expected to be small and spread over a large geographic area, and because the proposed action is not

expected to result in an increase in production of aquaculture products, impacts in any geographic area are

anticipated to be minor and not contribute measurably to cumulative impacts to water quality.

4.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

NEPA requires that environmental analysis include identification of any irreversible and irretrievable

commitments of resources which would be involved should an action be implemented. The term irreversible

refers to the loss of future options and commitments of resources that cannot be renewed or recovered, or

can only be recovered over a long period. Irreversible commitments apply primarily to the use of

nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to factors such as soil productivity, that

are renewable only over a long period. Irretrievable refers to the loss of production or use of natural

resources. For example, when a road is built through a forest, some, or all of the timber production from an

area is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as a road. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action

is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production over time.




Making FSFL funding available for the storage and handling of aquaculture products is not expected to

result in any irretrievable resource commitments. Irreversible losses may result from construction that

changes existing land use for the life of the storage facility.






5.0 List of Preparers 5-1 April 2017

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS, PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED

Preparers

Elizabeth Burak Project Manager

Cardno-GS

Joey Herring Senior Biologist

Ecosphere Environmental Services

Dana Banwart Senior Biologist

Cardno-GS

Mike Harrison Environmental Scientist

Cardno-GS

Matt Smith Water Resources Specialist


Kylan Frye Biologist


Contributors, Persons and Agencies Contacted

Toni Williams USDA FSA National Office

FSFL and Sugar Loan Program Manager

Nell Fuller USDA FSA National Office

National Environmental Compliance Manager

Rebecca Deaton USDA FSA National Office

NEPA Program Manager

Caleb O’Kray USDS FSA National Office

Price Support Division

Eric Bodzinski USDS FSA Massachusetts

Farm Loan Specialist

David Carey Connecticut Department of Agriculture

Director, Bureau of Aquaculture & Laboratory Services

Tom Kruchten USDA National Office

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Amanda May USDA FSA Maine

Agriculture Program Specialist

John Kendig USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Washington

Soil Conservationist

Sheryl Ivanov USDA FSA National Office

Environmental Compliance Specialist

HL Kellam USDA FSA Virginia

Director

William Leflore USDA FSA Mississippi

Loan Specialist

Thomas Nii USDA FSA Hawaii

Loan Specialist

Rod Hamilton USDA FSA Washington

Agriculture Program Specialist


5.0 List of Preparers 5-2 April 2017

Contributors, Persons and Agencies Contacted (cont.)

Paul Zajicek National Aquaculture Association

Executive Director

Dana Morse Maine Sea Grant Extension

Sebastian Belle Maine Aquaculture Association

Bill Dewey Taylor Shellfish, Washington

Farmer, Public Policy and Communication Director

Margaret Barrette Pacific Coast Shellfish Association

Executive Director

David Fyfe Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Shellfish Specialist


6.0 References Cited 6-1 April 2017

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal

Production Point Source Category. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

11/documents/caap-aquaculture_compliance-guide_2006.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2017.

EPA. 2017a. Section 404 of the CWA: How Wetlands are Defined and Identified. Available at:

http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/fact11.cfm.

EPA. 2017b. Level III and Level IV EcoRegions of the Continental United States. Available at:

https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. Accessed

January 25, 2017.

EPA. 2017c. Sole Source Aquifer Program Region 1, New England. Available at:

https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155fe31

356b. Accessed January 16, 2017.

EPA. 2017d. Sole Source Aquifer Program Region 4, Southeast. Available at:

https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/region4/water/groundwater/web/html/r4ssa.html. Accessed:

January 16, 2017.

EPA. 2017e. Sole Source Aquifer Program Region 10, Pacific Northwest. Available at:

https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/sole+source+aquifers/SSA. Accessed: January 16, 2017.

EPA. 2017f. Interactive Map of Sole Source Aquifers. Available at:

https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155fe31

356b. Accessed January 16, 2017.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2016. Aquaculture Best Management

Practices Manual. Available at:

http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/64045/1520653/BMP_RULE_AND_MANU

AL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed January 27,2017.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2017. Florida Coastal Zone Management Program

Federal Consistency. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/federal/index.htm. Accessed

January 16, 2017.

Lee, R., A. Lovatelli and L. Ababouch. 2008. Bivalve Depuration: Fundamental and Practical Aspects.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Fisheries Technical Paper. No.

511. Rome, FAO. 2008. 139p.

Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 2017. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone

Management. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/. Accessed January 17, 2017.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. Population Trends Along the Coastal

United States: 1980 to 2008. Coast Trend Report Series. September.

NOAA. 2017. NOAA Office for Coastal Management Coastal Zone Management Programs. Available at:

https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/mystate. Accessed January 16, 2017.



National Park Service (NPS). 2017a. Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Available at:

https://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html. Accessed January 30, 2017.

NPS. 2017b. National Natural Landmarks Directory. Available at:

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/nation.htm. Accessed January 30, 2017

National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). 2015. Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish: 2015

Revision. Available at:

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FederalStateFoodPrograms/ucm2006754.htm.

Accessed on August 26, 2016.

Schope, M. 2010. Unarrested Development. Nature Reports: Climate Change. Vol. 4. April.

Southeastern Massachusetts Aquaculture Center .2017. BMP for the Shellfish Culture Industry in

Southeastern Massachusetts (Version 09-04a). Available at:

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/agr/aquaculture/shellfish-bmps-v09-04a.pdf. Accessed January 27,

2017.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 2016. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. Available at:

http://srac.msstate.edu/theracs.html. Accessed September 28, 2016.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Services. 2016. Available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/aquaculture.aspx. Accessed April 26, 2016

USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). 2009. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Farm Storage

Facility Loan (FSFL) Program. June 2009.

USDA FSA. 2014. FSA Handbook FSFL Program for State and County Offices. Short Reference 1-FSFL

(Revision 1). July 9, 2014.

USDA FSA. 2016a. FSA’s Handbook FSFL for State and County Office. Short Reference 1-FSFL

(Revision 2). November 11, 2016.

USDA FSA. 2016a. FSA Handbook Environmental Quality Programs for State and County Offices. Short

Reference 1-EQ (Revision 3). November 4, 2016.

USDA FSA. 2016b. USDA FSA Notice EQ-142 Wetland Screening Tool. May 1, 2016.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2013. 2012 Census of Agriculture: Census of

Aquaculture (2013) Volume 3, Special Studies, Part 2. Available at:

https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Aquaculture/Aqua.pdf .

Accessed April 26, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Environmental Conservation Online System: listed

species believed or known to occur in Massachusetts. Available at:

http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=MA&status=listed. Accessed

January 16, 2017.

USFWS. 2017b. Environmental Conservation Online System: listed species believed or known to occur

in Florida. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-

report?state=FL&status=listed. Accessed January 16, 2017.



USFWS. 20017c. Environmental Conservation Online System: Listed Species Believed or Known to

Occur in Washington. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-

report?state=WA&status=listed. Accessed January 16, 2017.

USFWS. 2017d. Coastal Barrier Resources System. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/ecological-

services/habitat-conservation/cbra/Maps/index.html. Accessed January 16,2017.

USFWS. 2017e. Massachusetts Coastal Barrier Resources System. Available at:

https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/maps/Locator/MA.pdf.

Accessed January 16, 2017.

USFWS. 2017e. Florida Coastal Barrier Resources System. Available at:

https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/maps/Locator/FL.pdf

Accessed January 16, 2017.

University of Montana. 2017. Wilderness.net. Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/. Accessed January

24, 2017.

Washington Department of Ecology. 2017. Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program.

Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/czm/prgm.html. Accessed January 17, 2017.

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2017. Wild and Scenic Rivers System Website. Available at:

https://www.rivers.gov. Accessed January 27, 2017.





Appendix A A-1 April 2017

APPENDIX A

AQUACULTURE SUMMARY TABLES






Appendix Table A-1. Aquaculture Methods by U.S. States-2013

State

Total

Farms1

Aquaculture Method (Number of farms)

Po

nd

s

Flo

w-t

hro

ug

h

Rec

ircu

lati

ng

Sy

stem

s

No

n-R

ecir

cula

tin

g

Sy

stem

s

Cro

pla

nd

use

d f

or

cra

wfi

sh

Ca

ges

or

Pen

s

Aq

ua

po

nic

s

Mo

llu

sks

on

Bo

tto

m

Mo

llu

sks

off

Bo

tto

m

Oth

er

Alabama 156 122 5 5 2 8 3 Alaska 22 1 1 3 8 5 19 Arizona 13 7 7 6 2 6 Arkansas 85 79 1 4 1 3 2 California 124 74 18 25 31 5 2 4 18 Colorado 16 6 10 4 1 1 Connecticut 28 2 3 1 2 6 1 24 7 Delaware 3 1 3 Florida 393 153 38 86 65 3 21 14 77 34 1 Georgia 62 41 8 7 4 4 4 2 Hawaii 45 24 7 15 18 5 5 1 1 Idaho 28 10 17 1 4 1 Illinois 23 15 3 3 2 4 4 Iowa 31 25 3 8 2 4 Kansas 4 4 1 1 Kentucky 30 27 5 4 1 Louisiana 500 121 13 5 5 316 35 1 25 7 10 Maine 35 2 5 3 10 8 11 18 4 Maryland 18 2 1 4 4 3 6 1 Massachusetts 145 3 7 3 4 79 3 87 111 1 Michigan 32 26 9 8 9 1 2 3 Minnesota 35 30 3 7 4 1 Mississippi 224 224 2 1 2 Missouri 35 28 6 3 1 2 Montana 4 2 3 1 2 Nebraska 21 15 8 4 2 4 Nevada

New Hampshire 7 2 6 4 2

New Jersey 59 5 11 2 5 10 40 8

New Mexico 2 1 1

New York 44 16 10 10 14 2 7 6 3 12 2

North Carolina 146 83 35 16 3 2 5 20 4 2

North Dakota

Ohio 61 52 6 16 11 2 1 1

Oklahoma 7 7 1 3

Oregon 37 14 8 2 5 15 4 1

Pennsylvania 56 35 37 12 10 1 4 4

Rhode Island 21 2 13 15 18

South Carolina 32 16 9 6 5 4 2 6 2

Tennessee 15 12 5 3 1 1

Texas 98 75 3 15 1 7 1 4 4



Appendix Table A-1. Aquaculture Methods by U.S. States-2013

State

Total

Farms1

Aquaculture Method (Number of farms)

Po

nd

s

Flo

w-t

hro

ug

h

Rec

ircu

lati

ng

Sy

stem

s

No

n-R

ecir

cula

tin

g

Sy

stem

s

Cro

pla

nd

use

d f

or

cra

wfi

sh

Ca

ges

or

Pen

s

Aq

ua

po

nic

s

Mo

llu

sks

on

Bo

tto

m

Mo

llu

sks

off

Bo

tto

m

Oth

er

Utah 9 6 8 2

Vermont 6 4 1 5 3

Virginia 119 17 18 19 10 40 1 54 39 2

Washington 143 9 9 12 19 10 108 49 2

West Virginia 19 7 13 4 2 2 1

Wisconsin 80 60 25 16 12 7

Wyoming 6 5 1 1 1

TOTAL 3093 1479 391 360 291 341 303 71 505 352 36

Source: USDA NASS 2013.

1Some farms employ more than one methodology; therefore, total number of farms reported by state may not be equal to

the sum of those employing differing methodologies.



Appendix Table A-2. Aquaculture Farms by Water Source and Product Produced

State Total

Farms

Water Source1 (Number of Farms) Product2 (Number of Farms)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

On

-fa

rm S

urf

ace

Wa

ter

Off

-farm

Wa

ter

Sa

ltw

ate

r

Fo

od

Fis

h

Mo

llu

sks

Cru

sta

cea

ns

Sea

Veg

eta

ble

Alabama 156 100 93 3 6 147 11

Alaska 22 22 22 1

Arizona 13 10 3 3 13

Arkansas 85 75 20 3 55 3

California 124 68 16 24 33 71 27 1

Colorado 16 6 9 3 1 13 1

Connecticut 28 3 1 25 3 25

Delaware 3 3 1 2 1

Florida 393 194 53 13 169 58 132 20 5

Georgia 62 36 22 6 45 4 3

Hawaii 45 9 11 16 16 23 3 12 2

Idaho 28 6 21 3 27

Illinois 23 10 10 3 1 17 1

Indiana 7 4 7 4

Iowa 31 12 22 2 11 2

Indiana 7 4 7 4

Iowa 31 12 22 2 11 2

Kansas 4 2 4 1 4

Kentucky 30 10 23 1 20 11

Louisiana 500 286 235 19 48 8 39 407

Maine 35 6 9 25 11 22 2

Maryland 18 6 1 12 2 10 2

Massachusetts 145 6 9 133 10 132 2

Michigan 32 18 22 19

Minnesota 35 16 24 5 13 1

Mississippi 224 99 159 216 5

Missouri 35 17 22 23 3

Montana 4 1 3 4

Nebraska 21 19 8 17

Nevada

New Hampshire 7 6 1 1 4 1

New Jersey 59 4 6 50 4 50 1

New Mexico 2 2 1

New York 44 18 21 3 16 21 15

North Carolina 146 56 78 26 93 22 19

North Dakota

Ohio 61 20 43 3 3 27 4

Oklahoma 7 1 7 3

Oregon 37 7 13 2 17 15 17

Pennsylvania 56 25 43 5 44 1

Rhode Island 21 21 21



Appendix Table A-2. Aquaculture Farms by Water Source and Product Produced

State Total

Farms

Water Source1 (Number of Farms) Product2 (Number of Farms)

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

On

-fa

rm S

urf

ace

Wa

ter

Off

-farm

Wa

ter

Sa

ltw

ate

r

Fo

od

Fis

h

Mo

llu

sks

Cru

sta

cea

ns

Sea

Veg

eta

ble

South Carolina 32 13 16 10 13 9 10

South Dakota 7 3 5 6

Tennessee 15 4 13 1 12 1

Texas 98 50 40 11 14 72 23

Utah 9 4 7 9

Vermont 6 6 6

Virginia 119 9 24 2 89 26 80 17

Washington 143 7 14 3 128 14 125 3

West Virginia 19 2 16 1 19

Wisconsin 80 43 47 5 67 1

Wyoming 6 2 3 1 4

Total 3093 1304 1204 137 872 1296 756 566 10

Source: USDA NASS 2013. 1 Water Sources defined by USDA NASS 2013 follows (Note: some farms utilize water from more than one source,

therefore total number of farms represented by source is greater than the total number of farms in the U.S. in these

data):

Groundwater

On-farm surface water - defined as streams, ditches, lakes, ponds, springs, and reservoirs

Saltwater - water from a sea or ocean, including brackish water

Off-farm water – that which comes from a Federal supply such as an irrigation district, commercial company

or municipal or community water system 2 Products represented in the table represent those that would be eligible under the FSFL Program. Other products include

ornamental fish, baitfish, and sport fish. Therefore, total number of farms shown do not represent all farms in the

U.S.



Appendix Table A-3. Number of Farms and Sales Data for Selected Aquaculture Product

Type-2013

Farms

(#)

Sales

($1,000)

Sales

Average

per

Farm ($)

Number of Farms

Less

than

$25,000

$25,000

To

$49,999

$50,000

To

$99,999

$100,000

to

$499,999

$500,000

to

$999,999

$1,000,000

or more

Total U.S. 3,093 1,371,707 443,488 1,249 321 380 708 193 242

Food fish 1,296 732,147 564,928 511 109 111 320 115 130

Crustaceans 566 84,880 149,965 313 54 87 84 15 13

Mollusks 756 328,567 434,613 260 106 111 183 37 59

Sea Vegetables 10 (D) na na na na na na na


(D)= withheld to avoid disclosing data on individual operations; na=not available.

Appendix Table A-4. States with Greatest Production of Aquaculture Products-2013

Product

State with

Greatest

Production

Number of

Farms

Total 2013

Sales

($1,000)

Primary

Species

Produced

Farms

Producing

Primary

Species

2013 Sales

of Primary

Species

Food Fish Mississippi 216 202,808 Catfish 213 (D)

Crustaceans Louisiana 405 35,301 Crawfish 394 33,908

Mollusks Florida 132 19,641 Hard clams 119 (D)

Massachusetts 132 (D) Oysters 126 10,970

Sea Vegetables Florida 5 (D) na na na


(D)= withheld to avoid disclosing data on individual operations; na=not available.





Appendix B B-1 April 2017

APPENDIX B

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTS FOR

MASSACHUSETTS, FLORIDA, AND WASHINGTON




















Date post:	15-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency · 2017-04-10 · 2.1.2.1 Overview ......

Documents