Resources

Legislation

Summary of Community Meetings to Discuss Proposed Changes to the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation (FAWCR), 2007

Introduction

The Ministry of Environment (MoE) is presently reviewing the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation (FAWCR) with the goal of amending the regulation to incorporate current finfish aquaculture industry practices and improved scientific knowledge concerning wastes associated with the industry. This report summarizes the feedback received by the MoE from a series of community meetings hosted to engage with stakeholders early in the review process.

Back to top

Background

The Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation (FAWCR) is established under the Environmental Management Act (EMA). The regulation governs discharges of wastes to the environment from marine fish farm site operations. It is intended to be "performance-based" rather than prescriptive — specifying with required environmental objectives (e.g., specific standards at set distances from a net pen array) rather than prescribing the means by which environmental objectives should be achieved. A commitment to review the regulation for effectiveness and any needed amendments "within three to five years" was announced when the regulation was enacted in September 2002.

The regulation applies to all marine finfish aquaculture operations. It includes provisions for registration with MoE, waste discharge standards (including conditions for domestic sewage discharge), pre-stocking requirements, best management practices, monitoring and reporting, remediation, fees, offences and penalties. Finfish farm operators are required to meet sediment, chemical and biological standards at stations within, and at the perimeter of, the fish farm tenure at peak biomass conditions during each production cycle. Failure to do so triggers other requirements including fallowing of the farm site until sediment standards are met.

The scope of the regulation does not extend to such concerns as sea lice, fish escapes, fish health, land-based net washing, fish mortality disposal, mariculture (shellfish aquaculture) or site selection. These aspects of management and protection of human health and the environment fall under other federal, provincial and local government legislation and policies.

In early 2005, the Ministry of Environment (MoE) directed an established aquaculture technical committee that included representatives from the MoE, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the finfish aquaculture industry to review the existing regulation and provide comment on potential issues and aspects of the regulation that should be considered for amendment. Drawing on recommendations of the technical committee, MoE has identified a number of aspects of the regulation for potential amendment and initiated scientific studies of several issues. These include:

  1. the inclusion of hard seabed substrate compliance parameters in the regulation;
  2. incorporating an ecological threshold concept into the compliance matrix;
  3. clarifying intent and wording in the FAWCR and the Protocols for Marine Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) 1 to ensure clear communication of standards and associated requirements;
  4. enhancing compliance strategies associated with farm production cycles; and
  5. harmonizing regulatory requirements with those of other applicable ministries and federal agencies.

The process for revision of the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation includes scoping of issues through commissioned reviews, ministry studies and initial stakeholder discussions; preparation of a “Policy Intentions Paper for Consultation” (intentions paper) outlining MoE’s proposed intent for revisions to the regulation and any outstanding issues or questions ; consultation with affected stakeholders and the general public (using the intentions paper and response forms posted on the ministry website, and other means as appropriate); drafting of legal language for the revised regulation (for consideration by Cabinet); and implementation (e.g., training of ministry staff and external stakeholders, development of guidelines and/or best management practices) once the regulation has been amended. It is the ministry’s intention to complete the revision process by the spring of 2008.

______________________________

1 The PMEM document includes protocols on data generation and data assessment including those for tidal information, calibration of instrumentation and statistics.

As part of the scoping phase for this regulatory review, the team, as well as others from the ministry, hosted a series of six community stakeholder meetings facilitated by We Connect Project Management, an independent contractor. These meetings were hosted in:

  • Nanaimo June 18, 2007
  • Prince Rupert June 22, 2007
  • Campbell River June 27, 2007
  • Tofino June 28, 2007
  • Alert Bay July 4, 2007
  • Port McNeill July 5, 2007

Back to top

Purpose

The purpose of hosting these community stakeholder meetings as part of the scoping process for this review was to:

  1. Engage with stakeholders early in the amendment process and solicit their input on the proposed changes to FAWCR, as well as other waste management issues of concern, and
  2. Clearly define the parameters of the current regulation and the scope of the Finfish Aquaculture Waste Control Regulation.

This report is a summary of the feedback received at the community meetings. Given the purpose of these meetings, the report is divided into two primary sections. Section A outlines the proposed changes and objectives as presented by the review, as well as the feedback on each of these changes offered by the attendees. Section B of this report outlines all additional comments put forward at the community meetings for consideration by the ministry. Section B has been divided into three parts: common points brought up at several of the community meetings; other comments that were brought up once or twice; and First Nations specific comments.

It is important to note that this summary reflects the comments received from Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, Campbell River, Tofino, and Port McNeill. At the request of the participants in the Alert Bay meeting, their feedback has not been included in this report.

Back to top

Community Stakeholder Consultation Team

The team attending the community stakeholder meetings included:

  • Randy Alexander, Regional Manager, Nanaimo MoE
  • Bernie Taekema, Aquaculture Biologist, Nanaimo MoE
  • Teresa Conner, Environmental Management Analyst, Victoria MoE
  • Eric McGreer, Aquaculture Biologist, Nanaimo MoE
  • Kirsten White, Aquaculture Technician, Nanaimo MoE
  • Ken Howes, Manager, First Nations Relations, Victoria MoE
  • Lisa Mose, Facilitator, We Connect Project Management

Back to top

Section A: Feedback on the Proposed Amendments to the Regulation

1. Inclusion of Hard Seabed Compliance Parameters

The objectives as proposed by the ministry were to:

  1. set video specifications and deployment of protocols,
  2. develop video assessment standards,
  3. develop compliance parameters (tiered approach), and
  4. develop sampling / monitoring programs for both baseline and operational modes.

Feedback from meeting participants on the inclusion of hard seabed compliance parameters was:

  • Support was expressed for the need to include hard bottom standards into the FAWCR.
  • FAWCR needs standards for "hard bottom" impacts.
  • Consider using cups (sedimentation trays) for monitoring of hard bottom seabeds.
  • The most important data to capture with the video is the transition zone and where it is located in relation to the net pen — this needs to be the objective of the hard bottom monitoring.
  • Are hard bottom standards advanced enough for the regulation?
  • Research the possible advantages of still photography as well as, or instead of, video for:
    • efficiency — cost and better resolution may be advantages
    • reduced time to go through extensive video
    • video is "data rich", maybe so much that you get bogged down in data
    • video captures "zone of transition" for impacts, and video may inform where to take still photos
    • "geo referencing" is better with still photos
    • video may be good for reconnaissance and help to inform where higher resolution still photographs should be taken to establish the compliance points
  • Look into currents moving impacts from hard bottom sites to other places away from the net pen systems.

Back to top

2. Development of Ecological Threshold Concept

The objectives as proposed by the ministry were to:

  1. replace present edge of tenure compliance point with an ecological threshold 2,
  2. identify the ecological threshold based on assessment of relationship between biological community and free sulphide concentrations,
  3. confirm validity of ecological threshold concept for soft bottom sites,
  4. design and conduct research for use of DEPOMOD model as predictive tool, and
  5. develop sampling / monitoring program for both baseline and operational modes.

Feedback from meeting participants on the development of the ecological thresholds concept was:

  • Ecological threshold concept makes sense and is more science based.
  • Ecological threshold needs to be better defined for intentions paper 3.
  • Proposed changes may trigger compliance issues more with ecological threshold as the new method.
  • Ecological threshold is a move toward a better standard of measure.
  • MoE must consider impacts of cumulative activities; the ecological damage or impacts is a threshold phenomenon to do with stocking levels; if another farm is approved in close proximity to an established farm an ecological threshold could be crossed over creating a big problem; this situation is unfair to the farm first established; problems occur when stocking levels are approved above a point where the system cannot handle it.
  • There needs to be further consideration of the statistical analysis protocols for the new ecological threshold measures; depending on how the new protocol looks, the statistical analysis needs to be revised; there needs to be consultation on the statistics used for the new protocol and this needs to done later in the process when the new protocols are more firm.
  • The proposed concept of ecological threshold monitoring needs to be better communicated to the public to ensure they understand how this proposed change in the regulation will better protect the environment.

______________________________

2 Ecological threshold is "the point at which significant ecological (biological) change occurs as measured by a free sulphide surrogate" (soft ocean bottom sites).

3 The ministry will develop a Policy Intentions Paper for Consultation (intentions paper) to outline the proposed policy intent for the amendments to the existing regulation. The paper will form the basis for consultation with stakeholders on the proposed policy approach. Interested parties will be able to review the paper posted on the ministry's internet and provide feedback within the 45-day consultation period.

Back to top

3. Clarifying Intent and Wording in the FAWCR and the Protocols for Marine Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) to Ensure Clear Communication of Standards and Associated Requirements

MoE proposed that FAWCR should be amended to: incorporate technical changes, improve readability, and update the definitions, registration process, etc. For the PMEM document, MoE proposed that this should incorporate updated protocols including an expanded section on video assessment of hard bottom sites and statistical tools.

Meeting feedback from participants supported updating the intent and wording in FAWCR and PMEM for greater clarity.

Back to top

4. Enhance Compliance Strategies Associated with Farm Production Cycles

The objectives as proposed by the ministry were to:

  1. explore and review alternative sediment remediation options,
  2. clarify relationship between farm footprint(s), ecological threshold compliance stations and tenure boundary, and
  3. modify sampling program based on site specific factors.

Feedback from meeting participants on enhancing compliance strategies associated with farm production cycles was:

  • What is the process to achieve the proposed changes in Objective 4? If changed, will this objective ensure environment continues to be protected?
  • The intent looks to be making things easier for industry with multiple pens etc., not making it more stringent through the environmental parameters.
  • Are there ways to augment the natural remediation process of the ocean? For example, could you pump oxygen down into the sediments to speed up the soil remediation process?
  • Research getting oxygen down to the bottom to speed up benthic recovery as an alternative sediment remediation option.

Back to top

5. Harmonize Regulatory Requirements with those of other Applicable Ministries and Federal Agencies

The objective of harmonizing requirements with other regulatory agencies, including Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is to minimize the amount of redundancy in the required sampling and monitoring programs and other reporting requirements without a reduction in the quality of the data and information.

Feedback from meeting participants on harmonizing regulatory requirements with other applicable ministries and federal agencies was:

  • Importance of communication flow between agencies, organizations and farms.
  • Be cautious in integrating or harmonizing too much with DFO or other agencies because this may risk losing data and the unique benefits of each organization’s regulations; some overlap is not necessarily a bad thing, being focused too much on efficiency can lose the benefits of each organizations unique mandate.
  • Harmonize provincial and federal requirements (both science and monitoring) as well as DFO Harmful Alteration, Disruption and Destruction (HADDs).
  • Clarify which government agency has a responsibility to the public to research these far-field effects on the marine ecosystem.
  • Improve communication mechanisms and harmonization between the many different government agencies and different departments that regulate the Finfish Aquaculture industry.
  • Registration forms should be stored electronically in one place so all agencies can access.

Back to top

Section B: Additional Comments

1. Common Points Brought up at Several of the Meetings

The following points were common to many, if not all, of the six community stakeholder meetings:

  • Monitor and regulate far-field effects. Specifically, research the effects of SLICE (and other antibiotics) on other marine species (clams, prawns, seaweed, etc) and monitor water quality away from the net pens.
  • Research the regional cumulative effects of multiple fish farms and the assimilative capacity of the marine ecosystem in those regions.
    • Industry is set up to want to grow.
    • As the regulation becomes finer tuned, industry will be looking for more areas off the B.C. coast to set up more operations, so there will be more waste going into the ocean.
    • The assimilative capacity of a region must be considered before more fish farms are approved.
  • Provide public access to accurate and verified baseline, monitoring, auditing, and compliance data, rather than having to use the current Freedom of Information process.
  • MoE needs to be involved in the tenure application review and decision process before a tenure is issued, not after DFO and MAL have made decisions.
  • More frequent compliance parameter auditing is needed by MoE. Fish farm waste fees should go directly to support the FAWCR auditing program.

Back to top

2. Other Comments

The following comments were made by individuals at one or more of the meetings:

  • Sulphide information is based on the upper 2 cm of sediment and the biological information is based on the sediment grab which goes down 17 cm. There is a lack of information on the sulphides down the remaining 15 cm — research levels of sulphides deeper than 2 cm and determine if sulphides have negative impacts. Is the current approach of taking measurements only 2 cm below the surface sufficient? Review Doug Bright’s papers to review his concern with the sulphide impacts below 2 cm.
  • MoE should be more involved in the site selection to ensure waste control is managed well and that the site will not create waste control issues.
  • A positive aspect of the waste is creating organic compost from the fish.
  • Fish farms are opposed on the north coast.
  • Need to be aware of how the compliance penalties will be effective for larger operations as the industry moves away from small mom and pop operations.
  • FAWCR enforcement policies need to be binding. When a farm is out of compliance, penalties and fees must be issued and enforced.
  • Performance-based monitoring protocols have resulted in the public perception that fish farms are self-policing and therefore are less likely to be environmentally responsible.
  • Need more technical detail in order to effectively comment on the proposed changes.
  • Large-scale algae study is needed and monitoring of algae is needed.
  • Is there an opportunity to use remote sensing as a compliance tool?
  • Need better regulation of net conditions, cleaning, disposal and holes in the nets.
  • Thirty metre compliance station works well from industry perspective, as well as the above water regulatory requirements and the Best Management Practices (BMPs).
  • There is difficulty in finding a suitable reference station for some farms.
  • Environmental impacts are very site specific, which make a 'one size fits all' regulation very difficult.
  • Zinc levels are a rising concern. Zinc accumulates in the sediments, and does not break down or re-assimilate quickly on site and industry cannot cut back further on zinc levels in the feed and it is starting to build up.
  • Ministry of Agriculture and Lands need to update their database more frequently. There has been confusion of where companies' tenure boundaries are.
  • The front counter one window approach is not working as it should be and needs to be addressed. With several agencies dealing with different aspects of the industry, the central database and communication system needs to be further developed or fine-tuned.
  • Industry should have to put up a bond to ensure that if they go out of business, or if the site is decommissioned, the marine environment they have impacted is rehabilitated.
  • FAWCR review team needs to be a part of the Broughton Clam Beach Research Working Group.
  • There is concern about the Georgie Lake operation.
  • It is hoped that Cabinet will adopt closed containment as recommended by the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture.
  • The public does not have confidence in the government's science, not believe the reports from the government. Public confidence could start to be resolved by:
    • independent science done on fish farms
    • honest and transparent auditing system that is clearly communicated to the public
    • public access at a reasonable cost to accurate and verified monitoring and compliance data
    • effective enforcement actions that are followed through; the charges and fines need to be enforced; example: refuse and equipment from fish farms are washing up and on the sea bottom
    • consistent treatment by MoE of all industries; creating a level playing field and greater consistency
    • feedback and communication to the public on fate of incidents
    • FAWCR needs to have penalties and fines built into the regulation for contravention of the regulation
    • moving away from self-policing and the current performance based-standards; this system is perceived by the public to be industry self-policing and from the public’s perspective it is the MoE that is responsible for protecting the public’s resources. Performance based standards imply self policing which erodes public confidence as opposed to prescriptive standards which imply a more proactive government involvement
  • MoE needs to consider how an increase in water temperature (i.e., due to climate change) may affect sulphides and compliance parameters at farms.
  • Performance-based monitoring protocols have resulted in the public perception that fish farms are self-policing and therefore are less likely to be environmentally responsible.
  • FAWCR enforcement policies need to be binding. When a farm is out of compliance, penalties and fees must be issued and enforced.
  • There should be independent assessors or auditors at peak production, rather than auditing by industry.

Back to top

3. First Nations Specific Comments

Many of the meetings also commented on the effects to First Nations (FN) communities and the need to include FN in this review. While FN concerns were brought up at several meetings, the comments varied greatly. Comments related to FN were:

  • There is a need to integrate FN "Traditional Ecological Knowledge" into the regulation.
  • FN are concerned with both near field and far field effects.
  • MoE should have integrated FN concerns by now, as concerns about far field effects have been expressed for many years.
  • To engage FN in a meaningful way, MoE should start to have direct individual conversations with interested FN bands.
  • Implement a FN "Watchman Program" to have better understanding of the impact and develop a monitoring program that would allow the bands to monitor and have confidence that the farms near their communities are not impacting the environment.
  • Are MoE parameters comprehensive and rigid enough to ensure protection of the oceans from the impacts of fish farms? Need to evaluate the compliance thresholds currently used.
  • Requests for referral to FN should be done in a more easily understood manner. FN get referrals and it gets extremely confusing to determine what is being requested.
  • MAL meetings with FN should include MoE representatives to make meetings more productive.
  • FN with a lot of fish farms in their territories are interested in talking about compensations; fish farms have had a huge impact on FN traditional fishing areas; FN believe fish farms are having a big impact on their clamming, crabbing, oysters and prawns.


UPDATED: october 2007