Technical Aquaculture Report July 15 Final

8/8/2019 Technical Aquaculture Report July 15 Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/technical-aquaculture-report-july-15-final 1/31

Technical Input on the Federal Aquaculture Regulation for BritishColumbia

Report to the First Nations Fisheries Council

July 15, 2010

By Diane Urban, Ph.D., R.P. Bio

Vancouver, B.C.

B.C. First Nation Fisheries Council

2010



Table of Contents

................................................................................................Introduction 3

...............................................................................................................Background 3

..........................................................................................................................Goals 3

.......................................................................Part 1: Finfish Aquaculture 4

....................................................................................................................Licences 4

..........................................................................................................................Fines 6

........................................................................Other Authorizations and Licences 6

..............................................................................................Conditions of Licence 8

......................................................................Fish Disease and Parasite Infection 13

..........................................................Environmental Assessment Requirements 15

..............................................Mitigation and Environmental Management Plans 18

...............................................................................................................Monitoring 19

...............................................................................................Additional Research 21

.................................................................Part 2: Shellfish Aquaculture 21

..................................................................................................................Licences 22

..............................................Policies and Best Management Practices 28

................................................................................................References 29

......................................................................................................Glossary 1

B.C. First Nations Fisheries Council

2010



Introduction

This paper was commissioned by the First Nations Fisheries Council as a tool for First Na-tions as they interact with DFO on the proposed federal aquaculture regulation for B.C.

The material discussed in this paper explores the regulatory implications of the issuesraised by First Nations in nine workshops across B.C. It is not intended to replace thevoice of individual First Nations, but rather to enable them to engage effectively in policyformulation.

Background

Currently the management of the aquaculture industry in B.C. is being transferred fromprovincial to federal jurisdiction under the department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada(DFO). This shift in jurisdictional authority is a result of the February 2009 B.C. SupremeCourt ruling in the Morton case. In the decision, the judge ruled that fish reared in oceancages qualify as a fishery, and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the federal govern-ment. It was ordered that the federal government enact regulations for the governance of

all forms of aquaculture (with the exception of marine plants) within 12 months of the rul-ing. An extension was subsequently granted, extending the jurisdiction of the Province un-til December 18, 2010. As a result of the Morton case, management of the aquacultureindustry will require significant reform in order to balance the management responsibilitiesand jurisdictions of both the federal and provincial governments. DFO is engaging withFirst Nations and stakeholders as it prepares to develop and implement new regulationand policies.

Nine regional meetings were co-hosted by the First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC) andDFO in February and March 2010. The purpose of these meetings was to learn the views

and priorities of First Nations on the proposed federal aquaculture regulation and to facili-tate initial dialogue with DFO with respect to the development of the regulation. The meet-ings were held in Chilliwack, Kamloops, Prince George, Alert Bay, Port Hardy, Bella Bella,Nanaimo, Haida Gwaii and Prince Rupert.

The First Nations participating in the community sessions expressed deep concerns aboutthe proposed aquaculture regulation and a desire to be engaged in drafting the regulation.Collectively, they generated a lengthy list of management issues relating to the environmentand Aboriginal rights and Title. These issues were compiled by the FNFC and presentedto DFO in May 2010 (FNFC 2010). The compilation indicated a high level of agreementabout aquaculture regulation priorities, but less clarity on the technical issues surrounding

three areas that were discussed in the meetings: licence conditions, pollution preventionand policies.

Goals

The goal of this paper is to further explore the technical issues surrounding licence condi-tions, pollution prevention and policies associated with a federal B.C. regulation for shell-fish and finfish aquaculture. This paper was drafted prior to the July 10, 2010 publication

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 3



of the draft Pacific Aquaculture Regulations and so does not directly address those regula-tions. The information provided in this paper is intended to assist First Nations in develop-ing their own responses in the course of any bilateral consultation they have with DFO overthe next few months and to help further discussions between Canada and First Nationswith respect to the ongoing development of operational policies and procedures as well as

area-based aquaculture management plans related to aquaculture in B.C..

It should be noted that the First Nations in attendance at the community meetings ex-pressed more concerns about environmental impacts of finfish aquaculture than impacts of shellfish aquaculture. Shellfish aquaculture impacts, while perhaps less a part of currentpublic discourse, than finfish aquaculture impacts are nonetheless deserving of attention(McKindsey 2006; Kaiser 2001). This paper highlights areas of both finfish and shellfishaquaculture where consideration for how they will be regulated is needed and potentialimplications of regulation for First Nations.

Part 1: Finfish Aquaculture

The contents of a finfish aquaculture licence should specify what activities are being man-aged, and outline all conditions, requirements and prohibitions. Standards or guidelines forevaluating performance should be stated within a licence along with mitigation measures,environmental monitoring, record-keeping, and notification requirements. Although in-complete knowledge about environmental effects of aquaculture practices may make it dif-ficult to definitively set licence conditions, a provision should be made to allow for adaptivemanagement of licence conditions.

Recommended content of a finfish aquaculture licence is proposed in the following sec-tions.

Licences

First Nations wish to have an active role in the licence application, review and renewalprocesses of any finfish farm applications in their territories (FNFC 2010). Moreover, theywish to be active in the day-to-day management of finfish farms. A provision for First Na-tions participation in the regulation of aquaculture should be a condition of licence so thatthe role of a First Nation could be stipulated in any given finfish aquaculture licence. Otherconcerns from First Nations that have direct implications on the licencing process are out-lined in the following table.




Table 1. Considerations on the process for obtaining finfish aquaculture licences.

Comments from Community Ses-

sions

Process for Obtaining Licences

Increase the accountability and trans-parency of the licence. Licences and their conditions should be reviewed everyfew years with the flexibility to make licence amendmentsthrough adaptive management.

Provisions should include a right to sue if the governmentfails to enforce the regulation.

A licence should be dependent uponproject approval by the First Nationterritorial holder(s)

Approval could be in the form of a provision for obtainingan “Aboriginal” tenure from the territorial holder(s) in thearea of a proposed farm.

Aquaculture operations should bemanaged jointly between governmentand First Nation territorial holders

through a co-management agree-ment.

It should be a condition of licence for finfish aquacultureoperators to participate in a joint First Nations and gov-ernment run area-based monitoring program that monitors

cumulative effects at a regional or area level. E.g., moni-toring beyond the scale of the individual project.

Information and data about all aspects of aquaculture op-erations should be made available to First Nations signa-tories (baseline data, production levels, chemical use, sealice levels on farmed fish, monitoring data, stocking, trans-ferring, harvesting information, etc).

Environmental impacts must be lim-ited.

Licence approval should be subject to an environmentalimpact assessment under CEAA (see terms in section be-low on Environmental Assessment) as well as any otherapplicable regulatory permits or authorizations, such as a

Fisheries Act Sec. 36 authorization. A follow-up monitoring program agreement should be in-corporated as a condition of the licence to ensure that thefollow-up program is implemented (DFO 2002a).

Shift to closed containment technol-ogy for growing finfish.

Include a provision for incentives to switch to closed con-tainment systems. This could consider user charges forusing open netpen technology. The amount chargeshould be calculated taking into account the cost of envi-ronmental externalities.

Require mandatory disclosure to the public about envi-ronmental performance of individual fish farms that can

help consumers make informed choices. Require that allfinfish products be labeled as being produced in opennetpen or closed containment systems.

Stipulate a timeline for phasing-out open netpen aquacul-ture technology.




Fines

First Nations expect sanctions that create incentive for companies to comply with theregulations (Baldwin and Cave 1999). Effective sanctions would include setting suitablyhigh fines for non-compliance, but it could also consider other forms of incentive such asuser charges and mandatory disclosure (see Table 2). User charges can be effective when

applied to activities that are undesirable from a regulatory perspective, but not outrightprohibited. Mandatory disclosure puts public and marketplace pressure on companies tocomply and is suitable particularly when the activity or effects are controversial.

Table 2. Options for developing a system of fines for finfish aquaculture contraventions.

Comments from Community

Sessions

Fines for Aquaculture Contraventions

Fines should be set so as to dis-courage non-compliance and torecover costs of restoring damagescaused by the contravention.

Fines for contravening pollution regulations should be up to$100,000 in a summary conviction, and up to $500,000 forindictable offence (based on regulations for the mining,wood and pulp, oil and gas, agriculture, etc., industries).

Contravention of licence which results in high cost or seri-ous damage should be indictable. Operators that repeat-edly contravene the licence conditions should be subject toprosecution.

Fines and tickets should be directed at company owners orshareholders.

A graduated sanctions model should be set up for repeatoffenders with the threat of loss of licence.

Revenue from fines should be di-

rected to affected First Nations inorder to remediate environmentaldamage.

An administration system for ensuring fines are directed to

remediation work would need to be provided for in theregulation. The system could be part of a co-managementarrangement.

Fines should be equal to the con-travention.

Fines should be set higher for non-compliance of activitiesthat are more risky than others, e.g., higher fines for es-capes.

Disclosure of contraventions through forms of public com-munications (e.g., mandatory disclosure, certification, etc.)could be used to discourage non-compliance and encour-age high environmental performance.

Other Authorizations and Licences

The Pacific Aquaculture Regulations will be enacted under the federal Fisheries Act andthus will be confined to its purposes and provisions [see Fisheries Act , Sec. 43(a-m)]. Be-yond the Fisheries Act , there are a great many other statutes that apply to aquaculture.

These should be referenced within the regulations. In particular, any permits and authori-zations required under external regulation should be noted. This includes, but is not lim-ited to, the statutes in the table below.




Table 3. Laws and regulations that may require permits for finfish aquaculture activities.


Sessions

Supporting Laws and Regulations

Concerns about adverse im-pacts to fish and fish habitat:decreases to wild fish and in-vertebrate populations; degra-dation to ocean floor and inter-tidal habitat.

Fisheries Act (Sec. 35). Prohibits harmful alteration, disruption ordestruction of fish habitat.

Concerns about adverse im-pacts of substances used inaquaculture as well as wasteeffluent from fish feces and un-eaten food.

Fisheries Act (Sec. 36). Prohibits deposition of deleterious sub-stances in waters frequented by fish.

Migratory Birds Convention Act (Sec. 5.1) and Migratory Birds

Regulation Sec. 35(1). Prohibits the deposition of harmful sub-

stances in waters frequented by migratory birds. No contamina-tion in drainage or runoff should enter the water.Concerns about control, de-struction and deterrence of birds and marine mammals at-tracted to an aquaculture site.

Fisheries Act (Sec. 32). Prohibits destruction of fish (fish, shellfishcrusaceans, marine animals) without a permit.

Migratory Birds Regulation (Sec. 5). Prohibits killing, injuring, cap-turing or harass a migratory bird without a permit and Sec. 24(3)prohibits killing migratory birds while attempting to scare them.

All animals harmed or killed, including animals drowned in nets,should be reported.

Concerns about by-catch innetpens.

Fisheries (General) Regulation (Sec 33). A licence is required forunintentional capture of wild fish or shellfish in netpens (by-

catch).By-catch licence conditions should include monitoring for wildfish presence in the netpens, including third party observers,analysing stomach contents of farm fish, record-keeping and re-porting of by-catch.

Concerns about disease trans-mission to wild marine speciesand ocean pollution.

Health of Animals Act (Sec. 8) prohibits concealing the existenceof a reportable disease or toxic substance among animals.

Fish Health Protection Regulations. Prohibits the import of cul-tured fish or eggs of wild fish without an import permit.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). A permit is re-quired for disposing mortalities or other material at sea. A CEPA

dumping at sea permit is on the CEAA Inclusion List, therefore aCEAA environmental assessment for disposing of mortalities isrequired before the permit may be issued.

Concerns about the adverseeffects of finfish aquaculture onthe biophysical, social, cultural,and economic environments.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). A CEAA project review is triggered by a permit under the Fisheries Act Sec35, CEPA dumping at sea, or Navigable Waters Protection Act .

An approval is granted by DFO upon determining no significantenvironmental risks are associated with a project.




In addition to existing laws and regulations, the aquaculture regulation should require asigned agreement (some kind of co-management agreement or protocol) between an aq-uaculture proponent and the First Nation territorial holder(s) as a condition of licence. An-other consideration would be First Nations bilateral engagement with federal and provincialgovernments in the development of aquaculture management plans developed on an

area-basis. If First Nations have a mechanism through this process to participate in amanagement and decision-making role it may avert numerous issues at the siting and li-censing stage.

Conditions of Licence

For the regulation to be effective in managing environmental issues, the licence should es-tablish provisions and prohibitions that extend to all stages of aquaculture development(construction and installation, operations and maintenance, decommissioning, and rehabili-tation). The purpose of these prohibitions and provisions would be to ensure that any bio-physical, socio-cultural, and economic values that may be affected by aquaculture are

properly and transparently managed. General prohibitions and provisions should includeestablishing coast-wide strategic planning, ecosystem-based management zones, anddeveloping a set of siting criteria that reflect the actual zone of influence of a finfish farm onthe environment. The following tables (Table 4 - 7) list considerations that should be takeninto account when creating conditions of a licence.







Sessions

Conditions of Licence to Reduce Ecosystem Impacts

Set prohibitions for conducting aquaculture activities duringsensitive timing windows for wild fish, other species or naturaloccurrences. Maintain separation of age classes of fish.

Increase monitoring to include far-field effects as well as near fieldeffects.

Define the terms of environmental monitoring during construc-tion, operations and post-operations to ensure effectiveness of mitigation practices and performance. Performance should beevaluated at an area or ecosystem level, not limited to the ten-ure.

Indicators and thresholds to measure compliance with the li-cence conditions should incorporate First Nations traditionalecological knowledge.

The use and rearing of transgenic finfish species in aquacul-ture should be prohibited.

Table 4. Regulating escapes from fish farms.

Comments from CommunitySessions

Licence Conditions for Regulating Fish Escapes

Prohibit farm fish escaping intothe environment.

Develop best management practices for preventing farm fishescapes and make compliance a condition of licence.

Require the aquaculture operator develop and follow an es-capes management plan. The plan would include mitigationmeasures for preventing escapes, a recapture plan, record-

keeping of all escapes, and a notification protocol.Incidents of escapes should be subject to increasing fines withthe number of escaped fish or repeat incidents.

Farm fish should be tagged or marked for tracing the sourceof escaped fish.

Mitigation measures for preventingescapes.

Equipment and structures must be designed and maintainedto withstand stresses from hydrological and meteorologicalforces.

Predator deterrence methods must be in place to preventdamage to nets from predators. Records of all predator inci-dents must be kept.

Best practices must be followed for preventing escapes duringstocking, transfers, testing, treatment or harvest of fish.

Best practices must be followed for operating vessels in prox-imity to cages or other facility equipment.

Preventative maintenance, inspection and repair proceduresput in place to detect and attend to any wear and tear. Stan-dards must be set for stress testing of nets.





Licence Conditions for Regulating Fish Escapes

Recapture licences should be of-fered to First Nations.

An escape contingency plan must be in place for dealing withrecapture in the event of a significant escape.

Recapture licences should be issued promptly. First Nationsshould be given priority access to these licences.

Information about escapes mustbe tracked and made public.

Immediate notice must be given to First Nation territorial hold-ers of incidents of more than an agreed upon number of es-caped fish. First Nations should receive a monthly report of escapes.

Management systems must be established to record detailsassociated with any escape.

Establish and commit funding to a coast-wide escapes moni-toring program (e.g., the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program) thatmanages the data on escapes and is publicly available.

Table 5. Regulating the deposit of deleterious substances and pollution prevention.


Regulating Pollution

Deleterious substances, includingall organic wastes and chemicalsubstances, must be preventedfrom entering the ocean and de-grading marine habitat.

Prohibit depositing deleterious substances in the watersaround a facility under Sec. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act .

Authorizations for depositing deleterious substances will needto be supported by standards and guidelines on measuringand monitoring effects to ensure compliance with the condi-

tions in the authorizations. Appropriate near and far-field indi-cators and thresholds will need to be established.

Existing guidelines for avoiding organic accumulation in DFOand EC information requirements for environmental assess-ment (DFO 2002b; EC 2002) should be reviewed and revisedwith the latest scientific and First Nations traditional knowl-edge.

A prohibition against washing finfish nets on beaches shouldalso be included in the regulation.

Delineate an ecologically appropriate area for each facility thatmay be affected by discharge from the facility. This area

should be determined based on ecosystem management, ma-rine dispersion models and First Nations knowledge.

Pollution and increased suspended solids can occur duringconstruction and installation, operations (fish feed and faecalmaterial), decommissioning, and site rehabilitation. All theseactivities, not just operations, should be regulated.

Encourage the development of mitigation measures to reducepollution.






Incomplete knowledge about allproducts and chemicals used andtheir effects on the environment is

preventing the establishment of meaningful indicators and in-formed targets.

Require lists of all products and chemicals used. Prohibit useof chemicals that have not been tested for effects on relevantspecies.

Studies are showing contaminantsin species commonly used by FirstNations as traditional foods.

Set threshold levels of key indicators of contaminants or pol-lutants (e.g., arsenic, copper, zinc, mercury, suspended solids,redox potential, sulphides, and persistant organic pollutants).

Require third-party monitoring (independent of operator) of metals, persistent organic pollutants (including pesticides,PCBs, PBDEs), oxytetracycline, SLICE in sediments as well asin marine invertebrates and vertebrates of local First Nationssignificance. Monitor for near-field and far-field effects.

Prohibit the use of copper on nets as an anti-foulant coating.Conduct research to develop markers to be added to fish feedso that contaminants in the marine ecosystem can be tracedto aquaculture.

Increased nutrient loading into theocean may be creating algalblooms and unhealthy ecosystemconditions.

CEPA regulates nutrients to water. At present, soluble nutri-ents (dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus) from wastes mustfollow BC water quality guidelines for ammonia concentrationsin marine waters. Guidelines for mitigating water quality prob-lems using optimal feed formulations should be practiced (EC2001). Additional indicators and guidelines should be estab-lished that address local concerns such as impacts to far-field

shellfish beds.Develop standards and guidelines for protecting water andsediment quality.

Encourage technologies to minimize wastes such as inte-grated multi-trophic aquaculture systems, or techniques forfunneling and collecting wastes.

Concerns about pollution from fishfarms degrading shellfish bedsused by First Nations.

Provide for compensation for First Nations food, social andceremonial fisheries have been adversely affected by finfishaquaculture pollution.






Effects of pollution discharge fromfish farms must be monitored.

Jointly with First Nations, develop a marine waste-monitoringmodel in each area where there are finfish farms.

• Monitor pollution effects on resources identified by FirstNations within an ecosystem. Compare data with baselinedata collected before the facility was in place using a sci-entifically defensible study design (controls and replication).

• Environmental fate and persistence modeling should beused to predict impacts followed up with monitoring. In-clude toxicity and bioaccumulation effects on marine spe-cies (plankton, algae, invertebrates, vertebrates).

• Collect species and community structure data (e.g., spe-cies and abundances, and diversity, evenness, and similar-ity indices) of fish and invertebrates that accumulate underand near netpens as well as at control and reference sites.

Monitor for effects of ingesting farm waste materials onmarine species.

• Monitor health of the ocean floor using suitable indicators(e.g., organic matter, biodiversity, sediment quality, redoxpotential, sulphides, BOD, etc.)

• Monitor shellfish populations and contaminant load of in-vertebrate species at far-field locations within the zone of influence of a finfish aquaculture facility. Monitor kelpbeds.

Fish Disease and Parasite Infection

First Nations have concerns that disease and parasites from fish farms are transferred towild fish and possibly invertebrate species. Control of infectious disease in wild and cul-tured fish stocks is presently managed by the Fish Health Protection Regulation (Fisheries

Act ). This regulation is implemented through inspection of wild and cultured fish as theyare transferred between provinces or brought into the country. The inspection applies tolive and uneviscerated dead cultured fish, eggs (including fertilized eggs or gametes) of cultured and wild fish and products of dead, uneviscerated cultured fish destined to moveinto Canada or across provincial boundaries within Canada (DFO 1984). Facilities also un-dergo periodic inspections (the schedule is stipulated in the regulation). A Fish Health Cer-tificate is granted if facilities pass inspections. Only then may a permit to import fish or fish

eggs be granted.

Amendments to the Fish Health Protection Regulations are needed to broaden theirscope. For instance, the species protected in Schedule 1 of the regulations are limited tothe Salmonidae. The inclusion species need to include species of non-salmonids that arebeing cultured or tested for culture. As well, diseases covered by the regulation in Sched-ules 2-4 should be reviewed and updated. More critically, the regulations were not de-




signed to manage the dynamic situation where farm fish contract disease from wild fishand re-infect wild fish. This, then, creates an important regulatory gap.

The federal Health of Animals Act regulates diseases and toxic substances that may affectanimals or that may be transmitted by animals to persons. The Canadian Food Inspection

Agency (CFIA) is the mandated authority of the Act. It contains numerous prohibitions andprovisions for controlling spread of disease, but typically for terrestrial farm stock. At pre-sent, the CFIA, along with DFO, has developed a National Aquatic Animal Health Program(NAAHP) under the Act to regulate health of aquatic animals. The CFIA is the lead admin-istrator of the program and DFO supports the program with scientific research. The latterincludes responsibility for surveillance of wild aquatic resources, for example DFO’s sea licemonitoring program falls within this mandate.

Despite the fish health regulations under the Fisheries Act and the Health of Animals Act , aregulation is lacking that directly addresses the risk of disease or parasite transmissionfrom farm fish to wild fish. A disease and parasite regulation that requires the development

and implementation of risk management tools, including research, standards and guide-lines, methods for reducing disease or parasite load rate is needed to ensure that wildspecies are not adversely affected by disease transmission.

Table 6. Regulating fish disease and parasite infection.


Licence Conditions for Managing Disease and Parasites

Disease and parasites from fishfarms may adversely affect wildfish and possibly invertebratespecies.

A disease and parasite regulation that is designed to minimizethe risk of the transfer of disease and parasite between farmfish and wild fish is needed.

Amend the Fish Health Protection Regulations to encompassnon-salmonid species that are being cultured and expand thedisease agents to include parasites.

Develop standards and guidelines through the National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP) to prevent the introduction orspread of disease and parasitic infection.

• Ensure the standard for parasitic infection on farm fish isthe wild fish ambient baseline level or less.

• Develop a strategy to identify and respond to the emer-gence of new diseases or parasitic infections.

Prohibit lights at night on fish farms to reduce attraction of fishand other species to farm sites where disease or parasitetransfer may occur.





Licence Conditions for Managing Disease and Parasites

Spread of sea lice from fish farmsmust be controlled.

Encourage zero tolerance standard for sea lice on fish grown infinfish farms through application of user charges, certification,mandatory disclosure of sea lice levels, etc.

Monitor sea lice on fish farms. Increase monitoring abundanceof sea lice on farm fish to bi-weekly from monthly.

Require that a sea lice management plan be maintained andimplemented for each farm. Mitigation required should include:increased monitoring, harvesting the most affected fish, thera-peutic management of the infestation, fallowing, single yearclasses, timing of harvesting, and other farm husbandry tech-niques to reduce the abundance of lice.

Sea lice audits on salmon farms should be conducted withFirst Nations monitors present. Their frequency should in-crease to audits on 100% of the farms during the smolt out-

migration period.

Support independent research on sea lice and the interactionbetween fish farms and wild salmon and other marine species.Research should be mandated to understand effects of sealice on wild fish and their populations.

Monitor sea lice incidence and densities on wild fish stocks(e.g., not limited to salmonids) during the salmon out-migrationperiod. The level of effort should ensure on-going data collec-tion of sea lice levels on wild stocks at a regional or coast-widelevel.

Establish standards and guidelines for sea lice loads. Pres-ently the trigger level is 3 motile lice per fish. This standardshould be reviewed by independent researchers to ensure it isadequate.

Concern about toxic effects of therapeutants on wild species.

Strictly regulate the use of therapeutants to treat disease orparasites. Research and risk assessment on effects of thera-peutants on species in the marine ecosystem should be com-plete before therapeutants are permitted.Provide a requirement for labelling in addition to those requiredunder the Fish Inspection Act that all fish farm products arelabelled as aquaculture products. Other mandatory label re-quirements should include their farm of origin.

Environmental Assessment Requirements

All licence applications for projects with the potential to damage fish habitat (Fisheries Act

Sec. 35(2) undergo an environmental impact assessment under the Canadian Environmen-

tal Assessment Act (CEAA). Presently, screening level environmental assessments areconducted by DFO to ensure the proposed project does not harm fish and fish habitat




(Fisheries and Oceans Aquaculture Science and the Environment website). DFO evaluatesan application based on the significance of residual impacts to the environment, which in-cludes marine ecosystems and species, indirect social and economic effects as well ascumulative effects. DFO and Environment Canada (EC) have guidelines for conducting en-vironmental assessments (see DFO 2002a, DFO 2002b and EC 2002), but these guide-

lines have not been updated and should undergo a formal review and revision. Environ-mental assessment requirements should be broad enough to ensure that First Nationsconcerns are addressed.

The CEAA environmental assessment process requires DFO to consult with affected FirstNations on an aquaculture project. This process offers First Nations an opportunity to re-view and have input into a project.

Table 7. Considerations for improving environmental assessment of finfish aquaculture de-velopments.


Implications for Environmental Assessment

Appropriate scale and indicatorsmust be determined to charac-terize baseline conditions.

Delineate an area and ecosystem-based project area with FirstNations participation so that valued components that includethose of interest to First Nations within a potential zone of influ-ence may be measured and monitored. Presently the size of the area that must be assessed for project effects is a 5 km di-ameter area around a facility (DFO 2002b). This size is likelyinadequate in many situations.

Specific variables that need to be included in a description of the baseline conditions will depend on the project but the cate-

gories of valued components must include:

•migration routes of wild fish species, mammals, and birds(migratory pathways, stop-overs, feeding or rearing grounds,spawning locations, etc.);•species at risk and their habitats;•ecosystems at risk and environmentally sensitive areas;•health of wild fish and shellfish stocks in the pre-definedarea (diseases and parasites incidence and prevalence in wildpopulations);•ocean floor ecosystem (abundance, biodiversity, biophysicaland chemical analysis of sediments, ecosystem description);

•carrying capacity, tolerance level or assimilative capacity of the ecosystem;•streams (locations, fish habitat, species present and abun-dance);•knowledge gaps (conduct scientific research with First Na-tions involvement to study areas where not enough informa-tion is known about potential impacts). For example, researchsea lice interactions with wild stocks in regions outside of theBroughton Archipelago.






First Nations participation in en-vironmental management of aq-uaculture must be increased.

First Nations must be informed about any environmental as-sessment for an aquaculture project. They must be invited andassisted to participate in defining the environmental assessment

terms of reference, collecting data, gathering information, re-viewing environmental assessment reports and making deci-sions about the significance of project effects.

Evaluation of a project must consider First Nations marine andland use plans, including First Nations shellfish harvesting areas(avoid conflicts with First Nations plans for resource use or habi-tat restoration and rehabilitation).

Traditional ecological knowledge must be incorporated into thedescription of baseline conditions and into the determination of project specific environmental thresholds. First Nations inputand traditional knowledge must be integrated into the environ-

mental assessment.Cumulative effects must be con-sidered before issuing an aquac-ulture licence.

The effect of a project on the environment must consider exist-ing and foreseeable future effects from other projects and activi-ties. CEAA’s operational policy recommends the level of effortexpended to assess the cumulative effects be related to theparticular environmental sensitivities or risk involved, a project’spotential effects and the nature of the environmental setting(CEAA 2007). Given these considerations, a cumulative effectsassessment of a finfish aquaculture project should be subjectedto a high level of effort. Cumulative effects are biophysical ef-fects as well as changes on health and socio-economic condi-tions, physical and cultural heritage, and other non-biophysical

matters (CEAA 2007). Assessment of cumulative effects shouldconsider the carrying capacity of the receiving environment de-termined quantitatively (DFO 2002a) and a risk-based assess-ment of the cumulative effects.

At the project level, the ability to assess cumulative effects of aquaculture is limited. There is a need for a coast or region-wide assessment of cumulative effects of aquaculture. Thegovernment should be required to lead a joint management planfor aquaculture that takes into account environmental andsocio-economic interests. The coast-wide aquaculture planwould be based on baseline conditions of environmental condi-

tions along the coast.






Concerns about First Nationsnot having meaningful input intodecision making about aquacul-

ture.

As the responsible authority of a CEAA assessment, DFOmakes a decision about whether the residual adverse effectscaused by a project are likely to be significant. The issue is go-

ing to be around how significance is defined. Wherever possi-ble, thresholds should be defined so that the decision is trans-parent and defensible. In any event, the decision should bemade in collaboration with the affected First Nation(s) in thearea. Zero tolerance of adverse impacts should be communi-cated as the goal.

Once an aquaculture project isoperational, there is inadequatemonitoring to ensure compli-ance.

A follow-up monitoring program should be required. The li-cence should be conditional on the accuracy of the environ-mental assessment’s predictions about the facility’s effects andthe effectiveness of the mitigation. A proponent must demon-strate an evaluation system for measuring a facility’s perform-ance. The success of an operator in meeting siting criteria, theirown environmental management plans, and environmental as-sessment commitments must be included in the evaluation sys-tem. Operational monitoring to assess performance should beconducted at the expense of the aquaculture licencee. Resultsof the follow-up program should be used to modify mitigationmeasures or facility operations. Relevant scientific research re-sults should also inform modifications.

Mitigation and Environmental Management Plans

A finfish aquaculture licencee should be required to demonstrate in a series of environ-

mental management plans (EMPs) how environmental effects will be avoided, minimized ormitigated at all stages of the project (design, construction, operations and maintenance,and decommissioning). This is usually accomplished by applying best practices forachieving targets set for each potential environmental effect. EMPs also clarify environ-mental commitments, roles and responsibilities, environmental monitoring, notification andreporting protocols, and emergency procedures.

These environmental plans should be subject to review and input by First Nations. Onceapproved, EMPs should be made a condition of the licence, that is, the licence is condi-tional on meeting the objectives and commitments set out in the EMPs.

The topics of the environmental management plans will be dependent on the facility butshould consider the following at a minimum:

• Water and sediment quality

• Fish habitat

• Environmentally sensitive areas

• Parasite and disease transmission between farm fish and wild fish




• Fish health

• Fish escapes

• Pollution prevention

• Emergency spill response

• By-catch in aquaculture facilities

• Wildlife and predator management

• Species at risk

• Stocking, harvesting or transporting fish

• First Nations relations

• Community economic development

Monitoring

Regulations should require operators to develop a monitoring program that would be ineffect during construction, operations and post-operations stages. An aquaculture li-cencee’s requirements for environmental monitoring would be contained in the licenceconditions which should include commitments in the environmental management plans.

The monitoring data would then be reviewed by government regulators to ensure opera-tors are in compliance with the regulations. Government regulators would also follow upwith conduct their own audits and inspections.

Table 8. Considerations for environmental monitoring of finfish aquaculture.

Comments from CommunitySessions Implications for Environmental Monitoring

Monitoring of aquaculture effectson the environment must includefar-field as well as near-field effects.

Inclusion of far-field effects would require the implementa-tion of an area-based monitoring program designed to ana-lyse cumulative effects of all aquaculture facilities and otheractivities within an area or region.

Monitoring of indicators appropriate to the area should berequired.

A region or coast-wide monitoring program needs to bemandated to ensure data from the individual fish farms areanalysed and interpreted at a meta-level. Such information

would be used to revise regulations and other regulatorytools such as standards, guidelines and best practices.





Implications for Environmental Monitoring

Many of the environmental con-cerns First Nations have are notbeing addressed.

Monitoring should be extended to include local First Nationsin all aspects of monitoring, that is, identifying indicators orissues to be monitored, setting thresholds, conducting in-

dependent monitoring and inspections, and reviewing allmonitoring data.

A monitoring agreement between government, the operatorand First Nation territorial holders would be a condition of the licence or other federal regulatory tool. The operatorshould be required to post a security bond in the event theoperator fails to meet the terms of a monitoring agreement.

Monitoring should be expanded toinclude variables of interest to FirstNations.

The licence should require monitoring on a variety of vari-ables that address issues of concern to local First Nations:

Disease and parasite outbreaks on farms. Incidence, preva-lence, or intensity of disease or parasites in farm fish and

wild fish to establish background levels.Sea lice. Monitoring of sea lice on farm fish and wild fish.

Escapes. Number of escaped fish, their life-stage, factorscontributing to the escape, and recapture efforts. Regularmonitoring of streams for escaped or colonized fish.

Pollution. Fish faeces and uneaten feed; all substancesused on the facility, including medicinals (antibiotics, vac-cines, anaesthetics), additives (water treatment such asflocculants, lime, and zeolites to remove ammonia); vita-mins, hormones and colourants; and pesticides.

First Nations traditional fish and shellfish resources. Con-duct baseline biophysical inventories of traditional re-sources. Variables to consider include species, abundance,diversity, habitat characteristics, and contaminant levels insediments or species. Monitor indirect social or economiceffects of finfish aquaculture on First Nations harvesters.

Farm Product Traceability. All fish products should be la-belled with the country of origin, farmed or wild, and thekind of containment system (open netpen or closed).

Sustainability. Monitor to ensure avoidance of adverse envi-ronmental, economic, and social effects production limits;and monitor cumulative effects at an area or regional scale.

Equipment. Monitor use, maintenance and inspection of netpen nets, predator nets, and cages.

Operations. Require record-keeping to ensure that all op-erational protocols and environmental management plansare being followed.

By-catch in netpens. Identify and enumerate all by-catch.Conduct stomach content testing of farm fish.





Implications for Environmental Monitoring

Current regulations are not ade-quately protecting the environment.

The regulation should provide targets for the indicators be-ing monitored. First Nations traditional knowledge shouldbe incorporated into setting these standards.

Monitoring for environmental impacts must be done ac-cording to specified protocols (e.g., sampling plan andmethodology) that are developed with First Nations input.

Concerns about the trustworthi-ness of data collected by industry.

Monitoring should be conducted by independent, third par-ties. Procurement best practices are needed to ensureFirst Nations are offered the first opportunity to conductmonitoring.

An adaptive management ap-proach must be used to manageenvironmental impacts.

Knowledge gained through monitoring or additional re-search must be used to revise operations and managementpractices, mitigation measures, and government guidelinesand standards, as well as re-focus monitoring or research

to areas requiring attention.

Additional Research

A scientific advisory committee of independent specialists should be appointed to adviseDFO on emerging research issues around environmental impacts. Such a committeewould include scientists from First Nations.

When a new environmental issue emerges and little is known about its effects an aquacul-ture operator should contribute to research into the subject and its potential impacts in or-der to ascertain the environmental risk. An example is research on the effects of fish feedand waste on wild species, or the effects of a new disease treatment on non-target spe-

cies.

Part 2: Shellfish Aquaculture

Shellfish aquaculture is a smaller industry than finfish aquaculture in B.C. and is generallyviewed as having less of an environmental impact than salmon farming. Accordingly, theregulation of shellfish aquaculture in B.C. has been less demanding than for finfish aquac-ulture.

It is not clear if DFO intends to maintain the status quo regarding shellfish aquaculture inthe new regulation, but State of Knowledge reviews (see below) would provide scientific

justification for creating more stringent environmental regulations. In 2006, DFO ScienceBranch produced a series of reviews on the potential environmental impacts of shellfishaquaculture on fish habitat and a review of models and monitoring tools for managing theimpacts (Landry et al. 2006; McKindsey et al. 2006; Anderson et al. 2006; Chamberlain etal. 2006; and Cranford et al. 2006). The potential environmental impacts include, in broadterms, waste impacts, changes to ecological processes in the marine environment, intro-duction of alien species (intended and non-intended), predator control, and disease out-breaks. A key conclusion of these reports is that the risk of impacts increases with size,




intensity, the number of farms within an ecosystem area and the hydrographic conditionsof the ecosystem.

The State of Knowledge reviews also made it apparent that little research is available toallow accurate predictions of the effects of shellfish aquaculture on the environment. Shell-

fish, in particular bivalves (clams, mussels, scallops) play a key ecological role in the marineecosystem by moving nutrients around the different trophic levels, for example, transferringpelagic nutrients from the phytoplankton to the sediments. Such a reassignment does notoccur without affecting many other elements in the marine food web. Unfortunately, theecological interactions are complex and not often easy to observe or measure. Scientistsare continuing to study interactions of shellfish aquaculture with the environment and re-search results should allow for more enlightened regulations and management.

Until scientists are better able to predict aquaculture impacts, a precautionary approach todevelopment should be applied. This approach would entail matching the level of envi-ronmental management or monitoring required to the expected risk of each operation.

The uncertainty around predicting environmental effects also implies that shellfish aquacul-ture will be managed with incomplete information so environmental management require-ments should be modified as new information becomes available.

Another area DFO may consider revising are the DFO guidelines for conducting environ-mental assessments of shellfish aquaculture (DFO 2002c). These guidelines are outdatedand do not consider such risks as introduction or transfers of organisms on native speciesand ecosystems or risk of disease introduction and spread.

Licences

First Nations found the previous aquaculture regulatory regime politically irrelevant to their Aboriginal status, unnecessarily cumbersome, expensive and alienating (e.g., Olding 2006;Cross undated, Urban 2003). The following comments about the licences are thoughts onreforming the regulations and policies in a way that is more responsive to First Nation aspi-rations of co-management, shared decision making, and economic and environmentalsustainability.

One of first priorities is to ensure the roles and responsibilities for environmental manage-ment and monitoring are clearly delineated in the licence in order to fairly share the burdenbetween regulators and operators. Aquaculture entails a large commitment to environ-mental management: environmental baseline data for licence approval (through CEAA),

operations monitoring, and follow-up program monitoring. These obligations can add aconsiderable cost to small business owners, including most First Nation licencees (Crossundated). The licence should clarify what elements of a monitoring program the licencee isresponsible for, what is best undertaken by the regulator, a third party, or some form of monitoring partnership.

Furthermore, any monitoring program the licencee is required to undertake must be scien-tifically defensible, that is, the data must be shown to provide effective and accurate infor-




mation that addresses specific questions pertaining to the management of the activity. A monitoring regime should also be cost conscious. If there are options, indicators for whichit is relatively inexpensive to collect data should be considered.

Another option to minimize the financial burden to small operators would involve a tiered

system of environmental monitoring (e.g., Cranford et al. 2006, p. 95) whereby the intensityof monitoring is related to the environmental risk. The general trend with shellfish aquacul-ture is that environmental risk increases with the size of the operation relative to the eco-system and the particulars of the operation (Cranford et al. 2006). A low risk farm wouldhave lower environmental management and operational monitoring requirements. If dataindicate indicator values are exceeding set thresholds, then a licencee may be required toshift to a higher monitoring intensity. Likewise, a reduction in monitoring intensity could beachieved where data support such a move.

Intensive monitoring efforts as required under CEAA to assess far-field and cumulative ef-fects of a farm operation should involve DFO in both operational and surveillance monitor-

ing. Shellfish aquaculture can have far-field and cumulative effects on fish habitat that oc-cur on many trophic levels, and consequently the effects are often unpredictable and diffi-cult to causally link to shellfish aquaculture (Chamberlain et al. 2006, T. 1). At present nostraight forward methods or variables are available to indicate ecosystem effects by shell-fish aquaculture (Chamberlain et al. 2006). Instead, extensive studies and models of anareas habitat features, community structure and ecosystem function indicators are re-quired for understanding net effects at a bay or ecosystem scale. Deploying this level of scientific effort would be unrealistic for all areas where there are leases. As a compromise,Chamberlain et al. (2006) suggest conducting extensive studies in cases where preliminaryrisk assessment indicates a significant alteration of fish habitat and the ecosystem is likely.

Farms in areas of low farm density with well-flushed systems would probably have a lowrisk of impacting fish habitat and thus should not be expected to conduct comprehensivecumulative effects assessments. While far-field and cumulative effects monitoring is obvi-ously an activity requiring the resources and expertise of the regulating agency, far-fieldand cumulative effects monitoring also creates an opportunity for DFO to collaborate withFirst Nations and First Nations organizations (e.g., tribal councils) as part of a co-management or ecosystem-based management process.

A licence should also define indicators and set standards or thresholds for determiningperformance of a farm. Flexibility is needed since the characteristics of the aquaculture

operation and the site conditions at the location will determine appropriate measures andvalues. Thresholds should be set based on scientific knowledge of the response of indica-tors to the type and size of shellfish farming. Ultimately though, thresholds are a reflectionof the change that society will accept. As such, their values need to be set and acceptedby all affected parties, including First Nations (Cranford et al. 2006).

As noted above, flexibility will be needed in order to accommodate the uncertaintiesaround environmental impacts and their detection for any given site. To maximize the




flexibility, a collection of tools such as standards and best practices should be appendedto a licence, rather than written directly into the licence. In this way, licence conditions canbe modified more readily as new information becomes available.

Finally, First Nations expect their right to practice shellfish harvesting and aquaculture will

be recognized and accommodated in the licence (Olding 2006). In other words, the gov-ernment must be willing to share authority and decision-making with First Nations over thetenure areas in the foreshore and nearshore. This co-management of aquaculture willneed to be explicitly laid out in the licence, probably in the form of a co-managementagreement. Such an agreement would also address expectations toward achieving envi-ronment, social and economic sustainability. Given the myriad challenges First Nationsface in operating shellfish enterprises, there would be numerous areas where the govern-ment would need to commit support. For example, programs and funds to help First Na-tions start and run businesses and streamlining and coordinating the licencing process(Olding 2006; Urban 2003). Some First Nations disagree with the principle of acquiring a

lease or licence to practice in the foreshore of their traditional territories (Deo 2002). Thereshould also be a consideration of waiving or reducing the fees associated with licences.

The following table lists some of the ways the proposed regulation could address the con-cerns heard by First Nations regarding shellfish aquaculture.

Table 9. Considerations for shellfish aquaculture regulation.


Sessions

Implications for Shellfish Regulation

First Nations operating shellfish aq-

uaculture in their traditional territo-ries should not be required to holdtenures and licences for shellfishaquaculture.

Provisions in the licence should be made for co-management

agreements, which include mechanisms for shared decisionmaking, with First Nations and DFO to jointly manage shellfishaquaculture. Where aquaculture operations exist in First Na-tions territories, such arrangements should consider regulat-ing aquaculture outside of the tenure/licence system.

Active and non-active tenures claimed by First Nationsthrough the provincial Economic Measures MOU processshould be respected in the licence.

Create areas of shellfish-free aq-uaculture in areas with environ-mental sensitivities, including FirstNations harvesting sites.

With First Nations input, develop a regional or coast-wideplan for shellfish aquaculture to ensure that shellfish farms aresited appropriately (e.g., MAL Shellfish Aquaculture ActionPlans and MAL Aquaculture Opportunity Studies). Data from

biophysical inventories should be used to assess the risk of environmental effects of shellfish aquaculture. Shellfish aq-uaculture areas should be delineated and each area shouldhave set limits on the type of culture operation, size, produc-tion level for the area or ecosystem.

Shellfish farm siting should not conflict with existing local ma-rine or land use plans, or marine resource use.





Sessions


Lack of clarity around jurisdiction indeciding where aquaculture ispermitted causes expense and un-

certainty to shellfish operators.

Interjurisdictional regulation should be coordinated andstreamlined.

Regional or municipal governments should not have authorityto override First Nations decisions on shellfish aquaculturesiting.

A project should be evaluated onan area or ecosystem-based levelrather than on a site level.

Siting should be considered on an area or ecosystem basisto evaluate the ecological carrying capacity of the marineecosystem and its ability to sustain shellfish aquaculture op-erations. This requires an understanding of the ecosystemcharacteristics and functions.

Models used to predict geochemical changes and nutrientloading at an area level would provide information on whereto site shellfish aquaculture, the carrying capacity of an area,and the indicators and thresholds that are most relevant (in-cluding health of native shellfish species populations and eel-grass). The results of such modeling should inform siting cri-teria (see Chamberlain et al. 2006).

Research is needed to develop reliable models of ecosystemproductivity processes to establish siting criteria and monitor-ing indicators and thresholds.

Manage shellfish aquaculture at the area level to evaluate far-field and cumulative effects on the ecosystem. This will re-quire expanding the scope of the environmental assessment,research and monitoring so that a more holistic understand-ing of aquaculture’s impacts to fish habitat is obtained.

Consider the suitability of shellfish aquaculture type, size andproduction levels within a ecosystem. Impose productionlimits as appropriate.Insecticides are not used in shellfish aquaculture in Canada,but are used elsewhere to control nuisance species (McKind-sey et al. 2006). Such chemical control measures can haveadverse effects on non-target species and should be prohib-ited by the regulation.





Sessions


Shellfish aquaculture is commonlybelieved to have low environmentalimpacts, but the potential environ-

mental impacts of a project shouldbe managed and monitored.

At the project level, require an environmental managementplan that describes the planned mitigation, monitoring andmanagement of each environmental impact.

In high risk areas, an ecosystem-based monitoring programshould be implemented to analyse cumulative effects of allaquaculture facilities and other activities.

Positive effects on the ecosystem should also be measuredand taken into account when assessing the net effects of shellfish aquaculture on the marine ecosystem (e.g., McKind-sey et al. 2006).

Removal of macrophytes to enhance farm site conditions orduring harvesting should be prohibited. Farms tenuresshould not be granted if they are located in seagrass habitat.

There is presently little regulation around disease, but the un-intentional introduction of disease agents (bacteria, viruses,parasites, protozoans) could have impacts on wild stocks.

Shellfish farms should avoid envi-ronmentally sensitive areas.

Licence approval should be conditional on meeting a set of siting criteria determined by First Nations for each project(e.g., Cross and Brackett 2006).

• Distance from sensitive fish habitat.

• Distance from sensitive bird ,wildlife habitat or marine

protected areas.

• Distance from macrophyte beds (e.g., eelgrass).

• Consideration of First Nations social values and interests.

• Site protection (e.g., sheltered or open site), water depth,

current velocity, and water quality.

• Distance between aquaculture facilities or from sites

identified by First Nations in site selection MOUs.

• Effects of alien species on native shellfish populations.

• Distance from naturally occurring shellfish habitats.

• Set production levels on the carrying capacity of the site.

Criteria for each variable should be established using tradi-tional ecological knowledge and current hydrographical, epi-

demiological, and biological knowledge of the ecosystem. The criteria should be subject to a formal review every fewyears so that they can be updated as new scientific informa-tion becomes available. Siting decisions should be made err-ing on the side of caution (the precautionary principle) if a po-tential effect is not fully understood.





Sessions


The time, expense and complexityof obtaining a tenure and licenceshould be reduced.

Applying for tenure, a licence and any other approvals, suchas an environmental assessment under CEAA, should be fa-cilitated through an integrated process.

Resources should be allocated to support First Nations appli-cants through the application and environmental assessmentprocess.

First Nations have to overcomemany barriers without adequatesupport or assistance in order tooperate an aquaculture business.

Provide adequate capacity funding and programming to as-sist First Nations in starting and operating their aquaculturebusinesses (e.g., establish an interim measures program).

Increase environmental monitoringto include far-field effects as well asnear field effects on relevant indica-tors.

Terms of environmental monitoring during construction, op-erations and post-operations should be required in a licenceto ensure effectiveness of mitigation practices and perform-ance.

The scope of an operational monitoring program should takeinto account the size, production capacity, species being cul-tured as well as the sensitivity of the habitat.

Indicators and thresholds to measure compliance with thelicence conditions should incorporate First Nations traditionalecological knowledge. High quality indicators of environ-mental impact are causally related to shellfish aquaculture,efficient to measure, and ecologically and socially significant.

A follow-up monitoring program agreement should be incor-porated as a condition of the licence to ensure that the envi-ronmental management plan is implemented and effective.

Far-field effects should be managed as part of an ecosystem-based management program.

Monitoring requirements should be revised as new researchon effects become available.

Concern about invasive speciesinteracting with native species.

DFO should be responsible for conducting thorough and de-tail impact assessments on introduced and transferred spe-cies.

The effects of alien species introductions on native species,ecosystem functions and on shellfish aquaculture are poorlyunderstood, but have the potential to be great. Furthermore,best practices for reducing or eliminating the risk of introduc-

tions such as dips, quarantine, sterile strains are limited intheir effectiveness (McKindsey et al. 2007). More emphasisneeds to be on predicting the risk of exotic species to eco-systems and the bivalve farming industry itself, and halt intro-ductions of potentially harmful species.

Sanctions against introducing and transferring unauthorizedspecies should be severe.

Prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms.




Policies and Best Management Practices

A wide array of policies and best management practices will be needed to support thenew regulation for shellfish and finfish aquaculture. The two foundational DFO policies thatwill inform best management practices for aquaculture regulation are the Wild Salmon Pol-icy and the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (‘no net loss’). On the strength of these two policies, policies and best management practices should be designed to ensurethat the conservation and protection of fish habitat takes precedence over other consid-erations. First Nations will likely wish to be closely involved in the development of any poli-cies and best practices.

In an earlier piece, 37 best practices for managing aquaculture were suggested coveringtopics of siting, day-to-day management of aquaculture, science, and monitoring andcompliance (Urban 2010). At this point in the process, it is premature to delve too far intocontents of best practices. As the federal aquaculture regulation is closer to finalization,First Nations will want to ensure their concerns are addressed in the implementation of aq-

uaculture management.




References

Baldwin, R. and M. Cave. 1999. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice. Ox-ford University Press.

Callier, M.D., C.W. McKindsey, G. Desrosiers. 2008. Evaluation of Indicators Used to Detect Mussel

Farm Influence on the Benthos : Two Case Studies in the Magdalen Islands, Eastern Canada. Aq-uaculture, 278(1-4): 77-88.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). 2007. Addressing Cumulative Environmen-tal Effects Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Operational Policy Statement.Website accessed April 19, 2010.http://www.acee-ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=1F77F3C2-1

Chamberlain, J., A.M. Weise, M. Dowd and J. Grant. 2006. Modeling Approaches to Assess thePotential Effects of Shellfish Aquaculture on the Marine Environment. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res.Doc. 2006/032.

Cranford, P., M. Dowd, J. Grant, B. Hargrave and S. McGladdery. 2003. Ecosystem level effects

of Marine Bivalve Aquaculture. In: A Scientific Review of the Potential Environmental Effects of Aq-uaculture in Aquatic Ecosystems. Vol. 1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 2450.

Cranford, P.J., R. Anderson, P. Archambault, T. Balch, S.S. Bates, G. Bugden, M.D. Callier, C.Carver, L.A. Comeau, B. Hargrave, W.G. Harrison, E. Horne, P.E. Kepkay, W. K. Li, A. Mallet, M.Ouellette, and P. Stain. 2006. Indicators and Thresholds for Use in Assessing Shellfish Aquacul-ture Impacts on Fish Habitat. DFO Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res. Doc. 2006/034.

Cross, S.F. Undated. Improving Access to Aquaculture Resources for First Nations. Report forthe Aboriginal Aquaculture Association. Campbell River, B.C.

Cross, S. F. and J. Brackett. 2006. Aboriginal Certification of Environmental Sustainability in Aq-uaculture (ACES Program). Report for Aboriginal Aquaculture Association. Campbell River, B.C.

D'Amours, O., P. Archambault, C.W. McKindsey, L.E. Johnson. 2008. Local Enhancement of Epi-benthic Macrofauna by Aquaculture Activities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 371: 73-84.

Deo, K. 2002. First Nations and Shellfish Aquaculture: Consultation, Accommodation and Partici-pation. Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria. Victoria, B.C.

Emmett, B. 2002. Activities and Potential Environmental Effects Associated with Shellfish Aquacul-ture in Baynes Sound. Report for Coast and Marine Planning Office, B.C. Ministry of SustainableResource Management. Victoria, B.C.

Environment Canada. June 2001a. Environmental Assessment of Marine Finfish Aquaculture Pro- jects: Guidelines for Consideration of Environment Canada Expertise. Environmental AssessmentSection, Pollution Prevention Division, Environmental Protection Branch. Atlantic Region.

Environment Canada. June 2001b. Environmental Assessment of Shellfish Aquaculture Projects:Guidelines for Consideration of Environment Canada Expertise. Environmental Assessment Sec-tion, Pollution Prevention Division, Environmental Protection Branch. Atlantic Region.




First Nations Fisheries Council. April 23, 2010. First Nations Views and Priorities on a ProposedFederal Aquaculture Regulation for B.C.

Landry, T., M. Skinner, A. LeBlanc, D. Bourque, C. McKindsey, R. Tremblay, P. Archambault, L.Comeau, S. Courtenay, F. Hartog, M. Ouellette and J. Sevigny. 2006. A Scientific Review of Bi-valve Aquaculture: Interaction Between Wild and Cultured Species. In: A Scientific review of the

Potential Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in Aquatic Ecosystems. Volume V. Fisheries andOceans Canada (2006).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Aquaculture Science and the Environment. Environmental As-sessment and Siting of Aquaculture Operations. Website accessed May 11, 2010.http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/science/environment-eng.htm#n1

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1984 (revised 2004). Fish Health Protection Regulations: Manual of Compliance (Fish. Mar. Serv. Misc. Spec. Publ. 31(Revised): iv+50p. Website accessed June 9,2010. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/enviro/aah-saa/regulation-reglements-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2002a. Guide to Consideration of Cumulative Environmental

Effects under CEAA Relative to Aquaculture Projects. Operational Policy Guidance. Office of Sus-tainable Aquaculture.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2002b. Interim Guide to Information Requirements for Envi-ronmental Assessment of Marine Finfish Aquaculture Projects. Office of Sustainable Aquaculture.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2002c. Interim Guide to Information Requirements for Envi-ronmental Assessment of Marine Shellfish Aquaculture Projects. Office of Sustainable Aquaculture.

Kaiser, M.J. 2001. Ecological Effects of Shellfish Cultivation. In Black, K.D., Ed. EnvironmentalImpacts of Aquaculture. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield, U.K.

McKindsey, C.W., T. Landry, F.X. O'Beirn, I.M. Davies, 2007. Bivalve aquaculture and exotic spe-

cies : a review of ecological considerations and management issues. J. Shellfish Res., 26(2): 281-294.

McKindsey, C.W., M.R. Anderson, P. Barnes, S. Courtenay, T. Landry, and M. Skinner. 2006. Ef-fects of Shellfish Aquaculture on Fish Habitat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec.Res. Doc. 2006/011.

Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. Siting Criteria for Marine Finfish Aquaculture Application Guide.Website accessed May 14, 2010.http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/siting_reloc/marineff_applic_guide_main.htm#

Olding, T. 2006. Shellfish Aquaculture and the New Relationship: Nov. 17/06 Workshop Back-

ground Paper. Environmental Law Centre, University of Victoria, B.C.Urban, D. 2010. Aquaculture Policy and Past Inquiry Recommendations on BC First Nations Titleand Rights. Report to the First Nations Fisheries Council. Vancouver, B.C.

Urban, D. 2003. The Ocean as Source of a Past and Future: Keeping the Connection Alive Through Shellfish Aquaculture for First Nations in BC. Report to the Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development, Ottawa, Ontario. Vancouver, B.C.




Glossary

By-catch. The incidental capture or containment of non-target species within aquaculturefacilities.

Cumulative impacts. Any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result fromthe project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carriedout.

Ecological carrying capacity. The maximum stocking density for which there are nounacceptable impacts to the marine ecosystem. Waste production which exceeds the ca-pacity of the environment to assimilate, remove or disperse it.

Ecosystem-based management. A management approach that recognizes the full arrayof interactions within an ecosystem, including humans, rather than considering single is-

sues, species, or ecosystem services in isolation. An ecosystem is linked by the move-ment of species, materials, and ocean currents.

Environmental monitoring. A scientific process to characterise and monitor the qualityof the environment or some aspect of the environment. Environmental monitoring is usedin the preparation of environmental impact assessments, as well as in many circumstancesin which human activities carry a risk of harmful effects on the environment. All monitoringstrategies and programs have reasons and justifications which are often designed to es-tablish the current status of an environment or to establish trends in environmental pa-rameters. In all cases the results of monitoring will be reviewed, analysed statistically andpublished. Operational monitoring is undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of environ-

mental management strategies in meeting regulatory requirements, i.e., meeting specificoperational thresholds. Surveillance monitoring is employed to determine if there are de-tectable differences between impact and control sites, or significant changes over time thatcannot be attributed to natural variations.

Production carrying capacity. The stocking density at which harvests are maximized.

Residual Impacts. Potential impacts remaining after mitigation measures have beenadopted into a project.

Technical Aquaculture Report July 15 Final

Documents