Technical Input on the Federal

Aquaculture Regulation for British

Columbia

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 issues
raised by First Nations in nine workshops across B.C. It is not intended to replace the
voice of individual First Nations, but rather to enable them to engage effectively in policy
formulation.
Background
Currently the management of the aquaculture industry in B.C. is being transferred from
provincial 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. Supreme
Court ruling in the Morton case. In the decision, the judge ruled that fish reared in ocean
cages 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 aquaculture
industry will require significant reform in order to balance the management responsibilities
and jurisdictions of both the federal and provincial governments. DFO is engaging with
First Nations and stakeholders as it prepares to develop and implement new regulation
and policies.

Nine regional meetings were co-hosted by the First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC) and
DFO 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 about
the 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 environment
and Aboriginal rights and Title. These issues were compiled by the FNFC and presented
to DFO in May 2010 (FNFC 2010). The compilation indicated a high level of agreement
about aquaculture regulation priorities, but less clarity on the technical issues surrounding
three areas that were discussed in the meetings: licence conditions, pollution prevention
and 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 over
the next few months and to help further discussions between Canada and First Nations
with 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 current
public discourse, than finfish aquaculture impacts are nonetheless deserving of attention
(McKindsey 2006; Kaiser 2001). This paper highlights areas of both finfish and shellfish
aquaculture where consideration for how they will be regulated is needed and potential
implications 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 for
evaluating 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 adaptive
management 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 renewal
processes of any finfish farm applications in their territories (FNFC 2010). Moreover, they
wish 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 that
the role of a First Nation could be stipulated in any given finfish aquaculture licence. Other
concerns from First Nations that have direct implications on the licencing process are out-
lined in the following table.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 4

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

Comments from Community Ses- Process for Obtaining Licences

sions

Increase the accountability and trans- Licences and their conditions should be reviewed every
parency of the licence. few years with the flexibility to make licence amendments
through adaptive management.
Provisions should include a right to sue if the government
fails to enforce the regulation.
A licence should be dependent upon Approval could be in the form of a provision for obtaining
project approval by the First Nation an “Aboriginal” tenure from the territorial holder(s) in the
territorial holder(s) area of a proposed farm.
Aquaculture operations should be It should be a condition of licence for finfish aquaculture
managed jointly between government operators to participate in a joint First Nations and gov-
and First Nation territorial holders ernment run area-based monitoring program that monitors
through a co-management agree- cumulative effects at a regional or area level. E.g., moni-
ment. 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, sea
lice levels on farmed fish, monitoring data, stocking, trans-
ferring, harvesting information, etc).
Environmental impacts must be lim- Licence approval should be subject to an environmental
ited. impact assessment under CEAA (see terms in section be-
low on Environmental Assessment) as well as any other
applicable 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 the
follow-up program is implemented (DFO 2002a).
Shift to closed containment technol- Include a provision for incentives to switch to closed con-
ogy for growing finfish. tainment systems. This could consider user charges for
using open netpen technology. The amount charge
should 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 all
finfish products be labeled as being produced in open
netpen or closed containment systems.
Stipulate a timeline for phasing-out open netpen aquacul-
ture technology.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 5

Fines
First Nations expect sanctions that create incentive for companies to comply with the
regulations (Baldwin and Cave 1999). Effective sanctions would include setting suitably
high fines for non-compliance, but it could also consider other forms of incentive such as
user 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 outright
prohibited. Mandatory disclosure puts public and marketplace pressure on companies to
comply 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 Fines for Aquaculture Contraventions

Sessions

Fines should be set so as to dis-
courage non-compliance and to
recover costs of restoring damages
caused by the contravention.
Revenue from fines should be di-
rected to affected First Nations in
order to remediate environmental
damage.
Fines should be equal to the con-
travention.
Fines for contravening pollution regulations should be up to
$100,000 in a summary conviction, and up to $500,000 for
indictable 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 to
prosecution.
Fines and tickets should be directed at company owners or
shareholders.
A graduated sanctions model should be set up for repeat
offenders with the threat of loss of licence.
An administration system for ensuring fines are directed to
remediation work would need to be provided for in the
regulation. The system could be part of a co-management
arrangement.
Fines should be set higher for non-compliance of activities
that 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 and
thus 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.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 6

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

Comments from Community Supporting Laws and Regulations

Sessions

Concerns about adverse im- Fisheries Act (Sec. 35). Prohibits harmful alteration, disruption or
pacts to fish and fish habitat: destruction of fish habitat.
decreases to wild fish and in-
vertebrate populations; degra-
dation to ocean floor and inter-
tidal habitat.
Concerns about adverse im- Fisheries Act (Sec. 36). Prohibits deposition of deleterious sub-
pacts of substances used in stances in waters frequented by fish.
aquaculture as well as waste Migratory Birds Convention Act (Sec. 5.1) and Migratory Birds
effluent from fish feces and un- Regulation Sec. 35(1). Prohibits the deposition of harmful sub-
eaten food. stances in waters frequented by migratory birds. No contamina-
tion in drainage or runoff should enter the water.
Concerns about control, de- Fisheries Act (Sec. 32). Prohibits destruction of fish (fish, shellfish
struction and deterrence of crusaceans, marine animals) without a permit.
birds and marine mammals at- Migratory Birds Regulation (Sec. 5). Prohibits killing, injuring, cap-
tracted to an aquaculture site. 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 in Fisheries (General) Regulation (Sec 33). A licence is required for
netpens. unintentional capture of wild fish or shellfish in netpens (by-
catch).
By-catch licence conditions should include monitoring for wild
fish 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- Health of Animals Act (Sec. 8) prohibits concealing the existence
mission to wild marine species of a reportable disease or toxic substance among animals.
and ocean pollution. 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 a
CEAA environmental assessment for disposing of mortalities is
required before the permit may be issued.
Concerns about the adverse Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). A CEAA pro-
effects of finfish aquaculture on ject review is triggered by a permit under the Fisheries Act Sec
the biophysical, social, cultural, 35, CEPA dumping at sea, or Navigable Waters Protection Act.
and economic environments. An approval is granted by DFO upon determining no significant
environmental risks are associated with a project.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 7

In addition to existing laws and regulations, the aquaculture regulation should require a
signed 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 provincial
governments in the development of aquaculture management plans developed on an
area-basis. If First Nations have a mechanism through this process to participate in a
management 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 include
establishing coast-wide strategic planning, ecosystem-based management zones, and
developing a set of siting criteria that reflect the actual zone of influence of a finfish farm on
the environment. The following tables (Table 4 - 7) list considerations that should be taken
into account when creating conditions of a licence.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 8

Table 4. Conditions of a finfish aquaculture licence to reduce marine ecosystem impacts.
Comments from Community Conditions of Licence to Reduce Ecosystem Impacts
Sessions

Projects should be managed on Area-level management will require a greater scope of envi-
an area or ecosystem-based
rather than limited to the site level. and support by government than is presently required.
Create areas of finfish-free aquac- With First Nations input, develop a regional or coast-wide plan
ulture in areas with environmental for aquaculture. Define wild salmon protection areas or other
sensitivities.
Fish farms should avoid environ-
mentally sensitive areas.
ronmental assessment, monitoring, and ecosystem research
environmentally sensitive areas where finfish aquaculture will
be prohibited and where it will be allowed. In addition, any
areas where finfish aquaculture may be permitted with restric-
tions should also be identified, such as closed containment.
Aquaculture siting should not conflict with existing local marine
or land use plans.
Licence approval should be conditional on meeting a set of
siting criteria:
• Distance from sensitive fish habitat, including avoidance of
migration routes.
• Distance from sensitive bird or wildlife habitat, or marine
protected areas.
• Distance from lands used by First Nations.
• Water depth and water quality and exchange
• Site protection (e.g., sheltered or open site)
• Distance between aquaculture facilities.
• Distance from shellfish habitats and shellfish aquaculture
leases.
• Distance from herring spawning areas.
• Set production levels on the carrying capacity of the site.
Criteria for each variable should be established with traditional
ecological knowledge and current scientific research on hy-
drographical, epidemiological, and biological conditions.
The criteria should be subject to a formal review every few
years so that they can be updated as new scientific informa-
tion becomes available. (The BC siting criteria have not been
revised since 2000.)
A proponent should be required to address any siting issues
specific to a project that may be revealed during a CEAA envi-
ronmental assessment of the project. These additional issues
would need to be incorporated into the licence conditions for
that project.
Siting decisions should be made erring on the side of caution
(the precautionary principle), especially if an effect is not fully
understood.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 9

 Comments from Community Conditions of Licence to Reduce Ecosystem Impacts
Sessions

Set prohibitions for conducting aquaculture activities during

sensitive timing windows for wild fish, other species or natural
occurrences. Maintain separation of age classes of fish.
Increase monitoring to include far- Define the terms of environmental monitoring during construc-
field effects as well as near field tion, operations and post-operations to ensure effectiveness of
effects. mitigation practices and performance. Performance should be
evaluated 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 traditional
ecological knowledge.
The use and rearing of transgenic finfish species in aquacul-
ture should be prohibited.

Table 4. Regulating escapes from fish farms.

Comments from Community Licence Conditions for Regulating Fish Escapes

Sessions

Prohibit farm fish escaping into Develop best management practices for preventing farm fish
the environment. escapes and make compliance a condition of licence.
Require the aquaculture operator develop and follow an es-
capes management plan. The plan would include mitigation
measures for preventing escapes, a recapture plan, record-
keeping of all escapes, and a notification protocol.
Incidents of escapes should be subject to increasing fines with
the number of escaped fish or repeat incidents.
Farm fish should be tagged or marked for tracing the source
of escaped fish.
Mitigation measures for preventing Equipment and structures must be designed and maintained
escapes. to withstand stresses from hydrological and meteorological
forces.
Predator deterrence methods must be in place to prevent
damage to nets from predators. Records of all predator inci-
dents must be kept.
Best practices must be followed for preventing escapes during
stocking, 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 procedures
put in place to detect and attend to any wear and tear. Stan-
dards must be set for stress testing of nets.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 10

 Comments from Community
Sessions
Recapture licences should be of- An escape contingency plan must be in place for dealing with
fered to First Nations.
Information about escapes must
be tracked and made public.
Table 5. Regulating the deposit of deleterious substances and pollution prevention.
Comments from Community
Sessions
Deleterious substances, including
all organic wastes and chemical
substances, must be prevented
from entering the ocean and de-
grading marine habitat.
Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation
Licence Conditions for Regulating Fish Escapes
recapture in the event of a significant escape.
Recapture licences should be issued promptly. First Nations
should be given priority access to these licences.
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 details
associated with any escape.
Establish and commit funding to a coast-wide escapes moni-
toring program (e.g., the Atlantic Salmon Watch Program) that
manages the data on escapes and is publicly available.
Regulating Pollution
Prohibit depositing deleterious substances in the waters
around a facility under Sec. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.
Authorizations for depositing deleterious substances will need
to be supported by standards and guidelines on measuring
and 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 DFO
and EC information requirements for environmental assess-
ment (DFO 2002b; EC 2002) should be reviewed and revised
with the latest scientific and First Nations traditional knowl-
edge.
A prohibition against washing finfish nets on beaches should
also be included in the regulation.
Delineate an ecologically appropriate area for each facility that
may 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 during
construction and installation, operations (fish feed and faecal
material), decommissioning, and site rehabilitation. All these
activities, not just operations, should be regulated.
Encourage the development of mitigation measures to reduce
pollution.
11
 Comments from Community Regulating Pollution
Sessions

Incomplete knowledge about all Require lists of all products and chemicals used. Prohibit use
products and chemicals used and of chemicals that have not been tested for effects on relevant
their effects on the environment is species.
preventing the establishment of
meaningful indicators and in-
formed targets.
Studies are showing contaminants Set threshold levels of key indicators of contaminants or pol-
in species commonly used by First lutants (e.g., arsenic, copper, zinc, mercury, suspended solids,
Nations as traditional foods. 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 as
in marine invertebrates and vertebrates of local First Nations
significance. 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 feed
so that contaminants in the marine ecosystem can be traced
to aquaculture.
Increased nutrient loading into the CEPA regulates nutrients to water. At present, soluble nutri-
ocean may be creating algal ents (dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus) from wastes must
blooms and unhealthy ecosystem follow BC water quality guidelines for ammonia concentrations
conditions. in marine waters. Guidelines for mitigating water quality prob-
lems using optimal feed formulations should be practiced (EC
2001). 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 and
sediment quality.
Encourage technologies to minimize wastes such as inte-
grated multi-trophic aquaculture systems, or techniques for
funneling and collecting wastes.
Concerns about pollution from fish Provide for compensation for First Nations food, social and
farms degrading shellfish beds ceremonial fisheries have been adversely affected by finfish
used by First Nations. aquaculture pollution.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 12

 Comments from Community Regulating Pollution
Sessions

Effects of pollution discharge from Jointly with First Nations, develop a marine waste-monitoring
fish farms must be monitored.
model in each area where there are finfish farms.
• Monitor pollution effects on resources identified by First
Nations within an ecosystem. Compare data with baseline
data collected before the facility was in place using a sci-
entifically defensible study design (controls and replication).
• Environmental fate and persistence modeling should be
used 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 under
and near netpens as well as at control and reference sites.
Monitor for effects of ingesting farm waste materials on
marine species.
• Monitor health of the ocean floor using suitable indicators
(e.g., organic matter, biodiversity, sediment quality, redox
potential, 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 kelp
beds.

Fish Disease and Parasite Infection

First Nations have concerns that disease and parasites from fish farms are transferred to
wild 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 they
are transferred between provinces or brought into the country. The inspection applies to
live 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 move
into 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 their
scope. For instance, the species protected in Schedule 1 of the regulations are limited to
the Salmonidae. The inclusion species need to include species of non-salmonids that are
being 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-

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 13

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

The federal Health of Animals Act regulates diseases and toxic substances that may affect
animals 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 and
provisions 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 latter
includes responsibility for surveillance of wild aquatic resources, for example DFO’s sea lice
monitoring program falls within this mandate.

Despite the fish health regulations under the Fisheries Act and the Health of Animals Act, a
regulation is lacking that directly addresses the risk of disease or parasite transmission
from 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 wild
species are not adversely affected by disease transmission.

Table 6. Regulating fish disease and parasite infection.

Comments from Community Licence Conditions for Managing Disease and Parasites
Sessions

Disease and parasites from fish
farms may adversely affect wild
fish and possibly invertebrate
species.
A disease and parasite regulation that is designed to minimize
the risk of the transfer of disease and parasite between farm
fish and wild fish is needed.
Amend the Fish Health Protection Regulations to encompass
non-salmonid species that are being cultured and expand the
disease agents to include parasites.
Develop standards and guidelines through the National Aquatic
Animal Health Program (NAAHP) to prevent the introduction or
spread of disease and parasitic infection.
• Ensure the standard for parasitic infection on farm fish is
the 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 fish
and other species to farm sites where disease or parasite
transfer may occur.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 14

 Comments from Community Licence Conditions for Managing Disease and Parasites
Sessions

Spread of sea lice from fish farms Encourage zero tolerance standard for sea lice on fish grown in
must be controlled.
Concern about toxic effects of
therapeutants on wild species.
finfish farms through application of user charges, certification,
mandatory disclosure of sea lice levels, etc.
Monitor sea lice on fish farms. Increase monitoring abundance
of sea lice on farm fish to bi-weekly from monthly.
Require that a sea lice management plan be maintained and
implemented for each farm. Mitigation required should include:
increased monitoring, harvesting the most affected fish, thera-
peutic management of the infestation, fallowing, single year
classes, timing of harvesting, and other farm husbandry tech-
niques to reduce the abundance of lice.
Sea lice audits on salmon farms should be conducted with
First 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 interaction
between fish farms and wild salmon and other marine species.
Research should be mandated to understand effects of sea
lice 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-migration
period. The level of effort should ensure on-going data collec-
tion of sea lice levels on wild stocks at a regional or coast-wide
level.
Establish standards and guidelines for sea lice loads. Pres-
ently the trigger level is 3 motile lice per fish. This standard
should be reviewed by independent researchers to ensure it is
adequate.
Strictly regulate the use of therapeutants to treat disease or
parasites. 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 required
under the Fish Inspection Act that all fish farm products are
labelled 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 are
conducted by DFO to ensure the proposed project does not harm fish and fish habitat

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 15

(Fisheries and Oceans Aquaculture Science and the Environment website). DFO evaluates
an 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 as
cumulative 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 Nations
concerns are addressed.

The CEAA environmental assessment process requires DFO to consult with affected First
Nations 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.

Comments from Community Implications for Environmental Assessment

Sessions

Appropriate scale and indicators Delineate an area and ecosystem-based project area with First
must be determined to charac- Nations participation so that valued components that include
terize baseline conditions.
those 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 likely
inadequate 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-defined
area (diseases and parasites incidence and prevalence in wild
populations);
•ocean floor ecosystem (abundance, biodiversity, biophysical
and 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, research
sea lice interactions with wild stocks in regions outside of the
Broughton Archipelago.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 16

 Comments from Community Implications for Environmental Assessment
Sessions

First Nations participation in en- First Nations must be informed about any environmental as-
vironmental management of aq- sessment for an aquaculture project. They must be invited and
uaculture must be increased. assisted 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 and
land 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 the
description of baseline conditions and into the determination of
project specific environmental thresholds. First Nations input
and traditional knowledge must be integrated into the environ-
mental assessment.
Cumulative effects must be con- The effect of a project on the environment must consider exist-
sidered before issuing an aquac- ing and foreseeable future effects from other projects and activi-
ulture licence. ties. CEAA’s operational policy recommends the level of effort
expended to assess the cumulative effects be related to the
particular environmental sensitivities or risk involved, a project’s
potential effects and the nature of the environmental setting
(CEAA 2007). Given these considerations, a cumulative effects
assessment of a finfish aquaculture project should be subjected
to 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 should
consider 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. The
government should be required to lead a joint management plan
for aquaculture that takes into account environmental and
socio-economic interests. The coast-wide aquaculture plan
would be based on baseline conditions of environmental condi-
tions along the coast.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 17

 Comments from Community Implications for Environmental Assessment
Sessions

Concerns about First Nations As the responsible authority of a CEAA assessment, DFO
not having meaningful input into makes a decision about whether the residual adverse effects
decision making about aquacul- caused by a project are likely to be significant. The issue is go-
ture. 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 be
made in collaboration with the affected First Nation(s) in the
area. Zero tolerance of adverse impacts should be communi-
cated as the goal.
Once an aquaculture project is A follow-up monitoring program should be required. The li-
operational, there is inadequate cence should be conditional on the accuracy of the environ-
monitoring to ensure compli- mental assessment’s predictions about the facility’s effects and
ance. the 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, their
own environmental management plans, and environmental as-
sessment commitments must be included in the evaluation sys-
tem. Operational monitoring to assess performance should be
conducted at the expense of the aquaculture licencee. Results
of the follow-up program should be used to modify mitigation
measures 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 or
mitigated at all stages of the project (design, construction, operations and maintenance,
and decommissioning). This is usually accomplished by applying best practices for
achieving targets set for each potential environmental effect. EMPs also clarify environ-
mental commitments, roles and responsibilities, environmental monitoring, notification and
reporting protocols, and emergency procedures.

These environmental plans should be subject to review and input by First Nations. Once
approved, 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 but
should 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

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 18

 • 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 in
effect during construction, operations and post-operations stages. An aquaculture li-
cencee’s requirements for environmental monitoring would be contained in the licence
conditions 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 up
with conduct their own audits and inspections.

Table 8. Considerations for environmental monitoring of finfish aquaculture.

Comments from Community Implications for Environmental Monitoring

Sessions

Monitoring of aquaculture effects Inclusion of far-field effects would require the implementa-
on the environment must include tion of an area-based monitoring program designed to ana-
far-field as well as near-field effects. lyse cumulative effects of all aquaculture facilities and other
activities within an area or region.
Monitoring of indicators appropriate to the area should be
required.
A region or coast-wide monitoring program needs to be
mandated to ensure data from the individual fish farms are
analysed and interpreted at a meta-level. Such information
would be used to revise regulations and other regulatory
tools such as standards, guidelines and best practices.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 19

 Comments from Community
Sessions
Many of the environmental con-
cerns First Nations have are not
being addressed.
Monitoring should be expanded to The licence should require monitoring on a variety of vari-
include variables of interest to First ables that address issues of concern to local First Nations:
Nations.
Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation
Implications for Environmental Monitoring
Monitoring should be extended to include local First Nations
in all aspects of monitoring, that is, identifying indicators or
issues to be monitored, setting thresholds, conducting in-
dependent monitoring and inspections, and reviewing all
monitoring data.
A monitoring agreement between government, the operator
and First Nation territorial holders would be a condition of
the licence or other federal regulatory tool. The operator
should be required to post a security bond in the event the
operator fails to meet the terms of a monitoring agreement.
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, factors
contributing to the escape, and recapture efforts. Regular
monitoring of streams for escaped or colonized fish.
Pollution. Fish faeces and uneaten feed; all substances
used on the facility, including medicinals (antibiotics, vac-
cines, anaesthetics), additives (water treatment such as
flocculants, 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 in
sediments or species. Monitor indirect social or economic
effects 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 the
kind 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 plans
are being followed.
By-catch in netpens. Identify and enumerate all by-catch.
Conduct stomach content testing of farm fish.
20
 Comments from Community Implications for Environmental Monitoring
Sessions

Current regulations are not ade- The regulation should provide targets for the indicators be-
quately protecting the environment. ing monitored. First Nations traditional knowledge should
be incorporated into setting these standards.
Monitoring for environmental impacts must be done ac-
cording to specified protocols (e.g., sampling plan and
methodology) that are developed with First Nations input.
Concerns about the trustworthi- Monitoring should be conducted by independent, third par-
ness of data collected by industry. ties. Procurement best practices are needed to ensure
First Nations are offered the first opportunity to conduct
monitoring.
An adaptive management ap- Knowledge gained through monitoring or additional re-
proach must be used to manage search must be used to revise operations and management
environmental impacts. practices, mitigation measures, and government guidelines
and 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 advise
DFO on emerging research issues around environmental impacts. Such a committee
would 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 feed
and 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 generally
viewed as having less of an environmental impact than salmon farming. Accordingly, the
regulation 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 in
the new regulation, but State of Knowledge reviews (see below) would provide scientific
justification for creating more stringent environmental regulations. In 2006, DFO Science
Branch produced a series of reviews on the potential environmental impacts of shellfish
aquaculture on fish habitat and a review of models and monitoring tools for managing the
impacts (Landry et al. 2006; McKindsey et al. 2006; Anderson et al. 2006; Chamberlain et
al. 2006; and Cranford et al. 2006). The potential environmental impacts include, in broad
terms, 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,

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 21

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

The State of Knowledge reviews also made it apparent that little research is available to
allow 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 marine
ecosystem by moving nutrients around the different trophic levels, for example, transferring
pelagic nutrients from the phytoplankton to the sediments. Such a reassignment does not
occur without affecting many other elements in the marine food web. Unfortunately, the
ecological interactions are complex and not often easy to observe or measure. Scientists
are 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 to
development 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 outdated
and do not consider such risks as introduction or transfers of organisms on native species
and 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 on
reforming 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 environmental
sustainability.

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 burden
between 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 a
considerable cost to small business owners, including most First Nation licencees (Cross
undated). The licence should clarify what elements of a monitoring program the licencee is
responsible 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-

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 22

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 which
it 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 intensity
of 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 would
have lower environmental management and operational monitoring requirements. If data
indicate indicator values are exceeding set thresholds, then a licencee may be required to
shift to a higher monitoring intensity. Likewise, a reduction in monitoring intensity could be
achieved 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 no
straight forward methods or variables are available to indicate ecosystem effects by shell-
fish aquaculture (Chamberlain et al. 2006). Instead, extensive studies and models of an
areas 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 preliminary
risk 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 low
risk of impacting fish habitat and thus should not be expected to conduct comprehensive
cumulative effects assessments. While far-field and cumulative effects monitoring is obvi-
ously an activity requiring the resources and expertise of the regulating agency, far-field
and cumulative effects monitoring also creates an opportunity for DFO to collaborate with
First 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 determining
performance of a farm. Flexibility is needed since the characteristics of the aquaculture
operation and the site conditions at the location will determine appropriate measures and
values. 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 reflection
of the change that society will accept. As such, their values need to be set and accepted
by all affected parties, including First Nations (Cranford et al. 2006).

As noted above, flexibility will be needed in order to accommodate the uncertainties

around environmental impacts and their detection for any given site. To maximize the

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 23

flexibility, a collection of tools such as standards and best practices should be appended
to a licence, rather than written directly into the licence. In this way, licence conditions can
be 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 the
tenure areas in the foreshore and nearshore. This co-management of aquaculture will
need to be explicitly laid out in the licence, probably in the form of a co-management
agreement. Such an agreement would also address expectations toward achieving envi-
ronment, social and economic sustainability. Given the myriad challenges First Nations
face 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). There
should 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.

Comments from Community Implications for Shellfish Regulation

Sessions
First Nations operating shellfish aq- Provisions in the licence should be made for co-management
uaculture in their traditional territo- agreements, which include mechanisms for shared decision
ries should not be required to hold making, with First Nations and DFO to jointly manage shellfish
tenures and licences for shellfish aquaculture. Where aquaculture operations exist in First Na-
aquaculture. tions territories, such arrangements should consider regulat-
ing aquaculture outside of the tenure/licence system.
Active and non-active tenures claimed by First Nations
through the provincial Economic Measures MOU process
should be respected in the licence.
Create areas of shellfish-free aq- With First Nations input, develop a regional or coast-wide
uaculture in areas with environ- plan for shellfish aquaculture to ensure that shellfish farms are
mental sensitivities, including First sited appropriately (e.g., MAL Shellfish Aquaculture Action
Nations harvesting sites. Plans 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 should
have 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.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 24

 Comments from Community
Sessions
Lack of clarity around jurisdiction in Interjurisdictional regulation should be coordinated and
deciding where aquaculture is
permitted causes expense and un-
certainty to shellfish operators.
A project should be evaluated on Siting should be considered on an area or ecosystem basis
an area or ecosystem-based level to evaluate the ecological carrying capacity of the marine
rather than on a site level.
Implications for Shellfish Regulation
streamlined.
Regional or municipal governments should not have authority
to override First Nations decisions on shellfish aquaculture
siting.
ecosystem and its ability to sustain shellfish aquaculture op-
erations. This requires an understanding of the ecosystem
characteristics and functions.
Models used to predict geochemical changes and nutrient
loading at an area level would provide information on where
to 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 ecosystem
productivity 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 and
production levels within a ecosystem. Impose production
limits 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 have
adverse effects on non-target species and should be prohib-
ited by the regulation.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 25

 Comments from Community
Sessions
Shellfish aquaculture is commonly
believed to have low environmental
impacts, but the potential environ-
mental impacts of a project should
be managed and monitored.
Shellfish farms should avoid envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas.
Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation
Implications for Shellfish Regulation
At the project level, require an environmental management
plan that describes the planned mitigation, monitoring and
management of each environmental impact.
In high risk areas, an ecosystem-based monitoring program
should be implemented to analyse cumulative effects of all
aquaculture facilities and other activities.
Positive effects on the ecosystem should also be measured
and 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 or
during harvesting should be prohibited. Farms tenures
should 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.
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 few
years 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.
26
 Comments from Community Implications for Shellfish Regulation
Sessions
The time, expense and complexity Applying for tenure, a licence and any other approvals, such
of obtaining a tenure and licence as an environmental assessment under CEAA, should be fa-
should be reduced. cilitated through an integrated process.
Resources should be allocated to support First Nations appli-
cants through the application and environmental assessment
process.
First Nations have to overcome Provide adequate capacity funding and programming to as-
many barriers without adequate sist First Nations in starting and operating their aquaculture
support or assistance in order to businesses (e.g., establish an interim measures program).
operate an aquaculture business.
Increase environmental monitoring Terms of environmental monitoring during construction, op-
to include far-field effects as well as erations and post-operations should be required in a licence
near field effects on relevant indica- to ensure effectiveness of mitigation practices and perform-
tors. ance.
The scope of an operational monitoring program should take
into account the size, production capacity, species being cul-
tured as well as the sensitivity of the habitat.
Indicators and thresholds to measure compliance with the
licence conditions should incorporate First Nations traditional
ecological 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 research
on effects become available.
Concern about invasive species DFO should be responsible for conducting thorough and de-
interacting with native species. 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 poorly
understood, 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 in
their effectiveness (McKindsey et al. 2007). More emphasis
needs 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 unauthorized
species should be severe.
Prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 27

Policies and Best Management Practices
A wide array of policies and best management practices will be needed to support the
new regulation for shellfish and finfish aquaculture. The two foundational DFO policies that
will 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 ensure
that 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 covering
topics of siting, day-to-day management of aquaculture, science, and monitoring and
compliance (Urban 2010). At this point in the process, it is premature to delve too far into
contents 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.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 28

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 the
Potential 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 for
the 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 Sustainable
Resource Management. Victoria, B.C.

Environment Canada. June 2001a. Environmental Assessment of Marine Finfish Aquaculture Pro-
jects: Guidelines for Consideration of Environment Canada Expertise. Environmental Assessment
Section, 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.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 29

First Nations Fisheries Council. April 23, 2010. First Nations Views and Priorities on a Proposed
Federal 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 and
Oceans 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. Environmental
Impacts 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 Title
and 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.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 30

Glossary

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

facilities.

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

Ecological carrying capacity. The maximum stocking density for which there are no
unacceptable 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 array

of 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 quality

of the environment or some aspect of the environment. Environmental monitoring is used
in the preparation of environmental impact assessments, as well as in many circumstances
in which human activities carry a risk of harmful effects on the environment. All monitoring
strategies 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 and
published. Operational monitoring is undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of environ-
mental management strategies in meeting regulatory requirements, i.e., meeting specific
operational thresholds. Surveillance monitoring is employed to determine if there are de-
tectable differences between impact and control sites, or significant changes over time that
cannot 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 been
adopted into a project.

Technical Input to the Federal B.C. Aquaculture Regulation 1