Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update S a l m o n A q u a c u l t u r e W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t R e v i e w & U p d a t e Prepared for: BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Environment & Resource Management Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch By: G3 Consulting Ltd. 4508 Beedie Street Burnaby, BC V5J 5L2 December 2000 Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report C O N T E N T S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________ 1 1.1 BC Salmon Aquaculture Review____________________________________________________1 1.2 Earlier Literature Review__________________________________________________________2 2.0 CLOSED CIRCULATING MARINE SYSTEMS ______________________ 3 2.1 Existing Closed System Designs ___________________________________________________3 2.1.1 Procean AS_______________________________________________________________4 2.1.2 Future SEA Technologies____________________________________________________4 2.2 Comparison of Capital Costs of Enclosures & Netpen Systems____________________________5 2.2.1 Enclosures (Future SEA Technologies, Inc.) _____________________________________5 2.2.2 Netpens _________________________________________________________________6 2.3 Comparison of Operational Systems & Costs of Enclosures & Netpen Systems_______________7 2.3.1 Operational Systems Comparison _____________________________________________7 2.3.2 Comparison of Operational Costs_____________________________________________10 2.4 Waste Discharge, Closed & Open Systems__________________________________________12 2.4.1 Ecological Footprints ______________________________________________________17 2.4.2 NGO Reports (United States)________________________________________________18 2.4.3 Enclosed Systems ________________________________________________________19 2.4.4 Net Cage Systems ________________________________________________________21 2.5 History of MariCulture Corporation’s SARGO System __________________________________21 2.6 Land-Based Recirculating Systems ________________________________________________22 3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - OTHER JURISDICTIONS ___________ 28 3.1 New Brunswick________________________________________________________________28 3.1.1 Recent Changes to Waste Management Regulations _____________________________29 3.1.2 Update of Waste Discharge Regulations _______________________________________29 3.1.3 Recent Changes to Monitoring, Reporting & Enforcement Mechanisms _______________30 3.2 Norway _________________________________________________________________32 3.2.1 Recent Changes to Waste Management Regulations _____________________________32 3.2.2 Update of Waste Discharge Regulations _______________________________________32 3.2.3 Recent Changes to Monitoring, Reporting & Enforcement Mechanisms _______________33 3.3 Scotland _________________________________________________________________35 3.3.1 Recent Changes to Waste Management Regulations _____________________________36 3.3.2 Update of Waste Discharge Regulations _______________________________________36 3.3.3 Recent Changes to Monitoring, Reporting & Enforcement Mechanisms _______________38 3.4 Chile _________________________________________________________________42 3.4.1 Recent Changes to Waste Management Regulations _____________________________43 3.4.2 Update of Waste Discharge Regulations _______________________________________43 3.4.3 Recent Changes to Monitoring, Reporting & Enforcement Mechanisms _______________44 3.5 Washington _________________________________________________________________44 3.5.1 US Federal Regulatory Roles________________________________________________44 3.5.2 State Regulatory Roles_____________________________________________________46 3.5.3 Ongoing Pollution Control Hearings___________________________________________47 3.5.4 Recent Legislative Changes Pertaining to Waste Management______________________48 3.5.5 Anticipated Legislative Changes______________________________________________48 3.6 Alaska _________________________________________________________________49 4.0 TOXIC PLANKTON BLOOMS & AQUACULTURE__________________ 50 4.1 HAB Sources & Movements______________________________________________________51 4.1.1 PSP ___________________________________________________________________51 4.1.2 DAP (ASP)______________________________________________________________51 i G3 Consulting Ltd. Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report 4.2 Relationships of Blooms to Aquaculture_____________________________________________52 4.2.1 Effects of Nuisance Blooms on Aquaculture_____________________________________52 4.2.2 Aquaculture Effects on Plankton______________________________________________53 5.0 SYNOPSIS _________________________________________________ 56 5.1 Closed Systems _______________________________________________________________56 5.1.1 Enclosures (Ocean Bag Systems) ____________________________________________56 5.1.2 Need for Innovative Alternatives______________________________________________57 5.1.3 Ecological Footprints & Sustainability__________________________________________58 5.2 Aquaculture Regulations_________________________________________________________58 5.2.1 New Brunswick___________________________________________________________59 5.2.2 Norway_________________________________________________________________59 5.2.3 Scotland________________________________________________________________59 5.2.4 Chile___________________________________________________________________60 5.2.5 Washington State_________________________________________________________60 5.2.6 Alaska__________________________________________________________________61 5.2.7 Implications & Opportunities for BC ___________________________________________61 5.3 Toxic Algal Blooms_____________________________________________________________61 LITERATURE SOURCES ________________________________________ 63 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS __________________________________ 72 APPENDICES__________________________________________________ 73 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1: Comparison of Different Cage Sizes & General Costing___________________________7 TABLE 2-2: Capital Costs of Open Netpen Steel Cage (15 m x 15 m x 15 m) & Future SEA Enclosed Bags (15 m x 12.5 m)_________________________________________________7 TABLE 2-3: Bag & Netpen Starting Conditions____________________________________________8 TABLE 2-4: Performance Traits for Coho Growth Tests in SEA System Bags vs. Netpens ________8 TABLE 2-5: Bag & Netpen Starting Conditions____________________________________________9 TABLE 2-6: Performance Traits for Atlantic Salmon in SEA System Bags vs. Netpens ___________9 TABLE 2-7: Confirmed Observations of Sea Lice in Bag vs. Netpen Grown Atlantic Salmon _______10 TABLE 2-8: Comparison of Land-Based & Sea-Based Systems _____________________________26 TABLE 3-1: Rating Criteria, Draft New Brunswick Environmental Monitoring Program ____________30 TABLE 3-2: Frequency of Investigations Under MOM, Norway ______________________________34 TABLE 3-3: Aquaculture Regulatory Framework in Washington State_________________________45 TABLE 4-1: Toxic & Nontoxic Algal Species from the West Coast of North America______________51 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Distribution of Nitrogen in Salmonid Cage Culture_______________________________13 FIGURE 2: Required unit processes and some typical components used in recirculating aquaculture production systems _________________________________________________24 FIGURE 3: The ECO-TRAP particle trap______________________________________________25 ii G3 Consulting Ltd. Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY G3 Consulting Ltd. (G3) prepared this report for BC MELP, Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch (Victoria), with the following objectives: • evaluate the costs, operations, waste management capability and examine the feasibility of “closed” circulating systems compared with “open” netcage systems in BC; • review any new regulatory tools and mechanisms with respect to waste management that could be applicable to BC; and • document emerging research with respect to plankton blooms and netcages. In 1996, Hatfield Consultants Ltd. and EVS Environment Consultants prepared a review of literature for MELP pertaining to environmental effects of salmon netcage aquaculture in BC. The current report updates information on selected topics, augmented by current information on additional topics of concern identified in the terms of reference. Major risks of open cage culture include attacks by predators; escapes of fish; toxic algal blooms; and diseases entering from external environment. Counterbalancing these risks is the cheaper operation of cage culture compared to other systems. Proponents of extra large open cages (e.g., 30 m2) cite more swimming in the enlarged volume as a performance enhancer. Improved anti- predator systems would reduce the negative aspects of open netpen farming as would the adoption of stronger cages, better anchoring systems and avoidance of certain fish transfer procedures deemed of high risk. This trend identifies the need to improve protocols above and beyond actual hardware and tools used. In response to growing concern regarding waste reduction limitations from open cage and netpen systems, closed systems have received much attention, given their potential for controlling waste reduction and removal. Enclosures may reduce some risks, although fish may still escape through damaged bags. Bags provide some control over depth of water for intake (thereby possibly reducing some algae entrainment) and enabling short-term isolation by using oxygen systems. Bags also shield fish from predators. They do not reduce disease risk. On-land systems reduce all the above risks except that of algae blooms. Given sufficient oxygen they may isolate their systems from intake during a bloom. These systems have generally proven too expensive (very high capital and operating costs). Risks of equipment failure are countered by back-up systems (gen-sets, oxygen systems, extra pumps, etc.), which are also expensive. Closed Systems Closed recirculating systems have been used in BC to raise hatchery fish for many decades, and are advantageous as commercial operations. Closed systems have considerable potential for waste removal and treatment, and reduced escape and predation problems; however, these systems are complex and expensive to buy and operate. Many designs exist, particularly in Europe and the US. Advantages of such systems include: reduced land and water requirements; a high degree of environmental control, allowing year-round growth at optimum rates; the feasibility of locating in close proximity to prime markets; and improved waste control and removal. Such systems have often failed to become viable, however, due to poor design, inferior management, or flawed economics (this argument also holds for enclosed systems in certain cases). Closed systems remain perceived as expensive ventures that are as much an art as a science. Enclosures (Ocean Bag Systems) Enclosures, such as ocean bag systems (e.g., Future SEA), may provide the waste control of recirculating systems with the advantage of a lower operating cost. While capital costs appear 10 times those of open netpens and one-sixth those of recirculating systems (including capital investment of system and set up costs), cost of production appears only minimally higher than iii G3 Consulting Ltd. Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report that of open netpens. The principal advantages of bag enclosures over open cages or nets include their potential to reduce escapes and predation, their higher stocking densities, and removal of greater than 80% of solid waste. Pilot studies have demonstrated some promise of a more efficient operation regarding escapes, densities and feed ratios. This result apparently relates, at least in part, to the stronger current of enclosed tanks, which promotes faster swimming. Recent research has demonstrated that fish perform better when swimming faster. Improvements include lower feed conversion rate (better conversion), higher growth rates, reduced aggression, possibly reduced stress, and higher survival. Much of this research has been conducted in Sweden in the early 90s but has since been repeated. With regard to waste treatment, there are no reliable data available (independent third party monitoring) that provide levels of efficiency of present waste traps and concentrators in enclosures over open netpens (which must rely on tidal and current action to disperse waste and do not remove it). Siting of enclosures, as currently designed, appears to remain limited to more quiescent bays, as they run the danger of collapsing in higher-velocity waters (e.g., Bay of Fundy experience). It remains for the SEA System to be more thoroughly and further tested under commercial conditions to comprehend their actual limitations and advantages. Their potential limitation to more areas with less flushing action may underscore the need for waste treatment of such systems. The prevalent waste removal system encountered for enclosed bag/tank systems is the use of waste traps and concentrators, such as that promoted by Future SEA Technologies, which focusses on particle load, and leaves the dissolved nutrient fraction untreated. Current research has demonstrated that over 70% of the N released by an aquaculture facility (closed or open) occurs in the dissolved fraction. Of this fraction, at least 80% is directly available to aquatic plants (plankton and macrophytes), potentially causing eutrophication and toxic algal blooms. Some innovative alternatives are currently under research and pilot operation, including the use of source-reduction and integrated culture. Great potential exists for treating and using sludge once removed from an aquaculture facility. Irrigating salt-tolerant crops (halophytes) with saline effluent may be a useful strategy for preventing eutrophication of coastal waters by direct discharge. Halophytes have demonstrated a capacity to act as biofilters of nutrients (particularly nitrate) in aquaculture effluent and are currently being developed as biomass, forage and oilseed crops using saltwater irrigation. Need for Innovative Alternatives The present concern regarding continuing deterioration of coastal ecosystems and its subsequent impact on aquaculture and other uses calls for the application of a “precautionary principle” to any development activity that might not be sustainable. Researchers and proponents of the aquaculture industry are currently investigating new techniques, methods, options and tools to increase the cost efficiency and ecological sustainability of aquaculture. Innovative approaches include drawing on experiences of the agriculture industry through use of integrative culturing using polycultures. Other means include source-reduction (e.g., use feeds designed to protect the environment), or adoption of indigenous fish of lower trophic level. Ecological Footprints & Sustainability The area required to assimilate nutrients released from aquaculture indicates how densely farms can be placed in an area without risking self-pollution, formation of algal blooms, and other adverse impacts. The footprint for waste assimilation, as well as the strain on the environment, can be reduced by integrating seaweeds in intensive aquaculture. Suggestions for sustainable aquaculture (i.e., farming with low ecological footprint) include use of source reduction technology (e.g., increased feed efficiency) and a focus on intensive rather than extensive systems to reduce area use. Others promote use of enclosed systems in which water is filtered for particulate and dissolved nutrients before release to the environment. Such treatment may be accomplished through use of seaweeds as biofilters or high-technology cleaning solutions. iv G3 Consulting Ltd. Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report More research is required to determine ecological footprints of the various aquaculture types in temperate climates like BC. Small, intensive farming facilities with recirculating systems may incur many hidden costs and impose greater ecological footprints than larger, less intensive facilities. Aquaculture may contribute to environmental degradation, but, paradoxically remains dependent on the supply of clean waters, seed larvae supply and other ecosystem services. Moreover, aquaculture production should not be viewed as an alternative to fishing unless farms exclusively use herbivorous fish. Many farms, particularly in BC, use carnivores (e.g., salmon, trout) that depend on diets of wild fish (in the form of high protein fishmeal). Such a practice is not sustainable. Aquaculture Regulations As in BC, regulation of salmon aquaculture in each jurisdiction investigated (with the exception of Alaska, where it is illegal) is in a state of flux. The aquaculture industry underwent rapid growth through the 1980s and early 1990s, with the support of governments eager to provide employment in depressed regions, to develop alternative food supplies, and to relieve pressure on wild fisheries. Governments were reluctant to impose heavy regulatory restrictions on the industry, and when issues of environmental concern began to arise more frequently (e.g., disease, waste accumulation, and escapes of exotic species), mechanisms for environmental evaluations and enforceable standards were often not in place. In addition, responsibility for salmon aquaculture has often exhibited considerable overlap between government departments, each with their own agenda. The New Brunswick aquaculture industry is, at present, overseen by a single agency, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DFA). Aquacultural waste management in NB is not subject to a specific regulatory framework, but certain provisions of the NB Aquaculture Act and the federal Fisheries Act are applicable. The Sustainable Development Section (SDS) of the DFA and the NB Salmon Growers Association are co-operating closely on development of an industry Code of Practice. Protocols being developed will particularly address four waste management components: blood-water and mortalities, viscera and effluent from processing, accumulated waste under cages, and debris at sites, in water or on beaches. The Aquaculture Environmental Coordinating Committee has recently drafted a second Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) for salmon aquaculture sites in southwest NB, and is developing an Environmental Remediation Guide. The EMP is intended to be a cost-effective management tool for obtaining and evaluating basic data and information pertaining to organic enrichment in sediments. On April 7, 2000, the Government of Norway proposed changes in the Act Relating to the Breeding of Fish, Shellfish, Etc., including ones strengthening environmental provisions. Such changes are seen as representing modernization in attitudes regarding industry co-operation with authorities on environmental issues. The changes detail the responsibility and authority of the Ministry of Fisheries with respect to the aquaculture industry and care of the surrounding environment. Environmental supervision is to be directed by a set of regulations established in co-operation with the Ministry of Environment. Following a public hearing, new regulations may be implemented in 2001. Norwegian fisheries and environment authorities have, in co-operation with relevant professional groups, financed development of the regulatory tool and methods for environmental supervision and monitoring. Elements of the procedure, known as MOM (Modelling-Ongrowing Fish Farms-Monitoring), include parameters that should be measured, methods that should be used, frequency of measurements and interpretation of results obtained. Regulation and monitoring of Scottish aquaculture has adapted and grown with the industry, and political changes have brought new environmental regulations. Most notably, Scotland has been granted greater autonomy within the UK, and jurisdiction of the EU has become more established. The Environment Act 1995 promotes cleanliness of tidal waters, conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and amenity of coastal waters, and conservation of aquatic flora and fauna. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is the competent authority responsible for regulating pollution from cage fish farms. SEPA sets numeric or descriptive v G3 Consulting Ltd. Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report conditions on discharges from fish farms to control their impact in tidal waters, and also defines appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure that Discharge Consents are appropriate. SEPA recently issued a Guidance manual on Regulation and Monitoring of cage fish farms. Scotland has well-established monitoring programs to ensure compliance with the legislation. The complexity of regulatory and monitoring issues the aquaculture industry presents has required new techniques be developed, including mathematical modelling to set environmental targets for some medicines. A national approach has been needed that would benefit the industry and the regulators and allow focus to be brought to wider issues requiring research and development. SEPA routinely monitors cage fish farms to ensure compliance with Consents to Discharge, ensure EQSs and other standards are being met, measure effects on the environment, determine any action to be taken and audit results of self-monitoring. SEPA monitors for compliance with Consent conditions through monthly paper or electronic returns from the operator that detail the medicinal treatments undertaken and the biomass of stock held. Fish farm shore bases are also routinely inspected, including records of stock held, medicinal treatments, chemical storage facilities, disposal facilities for dead fish and other solid wastes and facilities for net washing and disposal of net-washings. Growth of the Chilean industry has far outpaced the capabilities of the authorities to regulate production, technological developments and controls. This situation has given rise to considerable autonomy for the industry, with questionable results in environmental degradation of production sites, control of disease and incidence of transfer, and use of antibiotics and associated impact on the aquatic system. Though the aquaculture industry relies on a high degree of self-regulation, many companies struggle to undertake such regulation, given increasing competition. The evolution of Chilean salmonid production since the early 1980s has led to state regulations adapting to industrial change in a reactive rather than proactive manner, and lagging behind the development of the industry. The recently developed Chilean EIA System is applicable to both public and private sector projects and activities, and is intended to ensure environmentally sustainable implementation. The process identifies potential adverse environmental impacts in order to avoid, minimize, or counteract them, and contributes to the decision-making process regarding siting, design and technology. EIA regulations also prescribe abatement, restoration or compensation measures that must be incorporated into projects to prevent adverse impacts. Projects and activities likely to have an environmental impact must undergo an EIA. Control of diseases by regular treatment is largely unregulated in Chile compared with restrictions in other salmon farming countries. As the use of antibiotics remains the industry’s most negative aspect environmentally, treatment regimes in Chile require closer scrutiny by regulatory authorities. In 1985, the Washington State Legislature adopted a policy that "aquaculture is agriculture" and designated the Department of Agriculture (WDOA) the lead state agency for promoting and marketing cultured salmon. Responsibility of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was limited to administering fish disease control and prevention regulations developed jointly with the WDOA. Washington State fisheries managers are particularly interested in the consequences of escapes of Atlantic salmon and effects on wild salmon should they co-mingle with other fish and wildlife in waters of the state, given that many Pacific salmon stocks in Washington have recently been listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The WDFW hopes to re-establish its position of actively managing all fish and shellfish of the state, including private sector aquaculture products. While acknowledging that marketing, commodity boards, and promotion of agriculture products appropriately resides with the DOA, WDFW feels it should be reassigned all aspects of management of live commercial aquaculture fishery products, and be provided with the necessary resources. WDFW also believes that, while it is important to maintain a viable finfish and shellfish industry in the state, it is imperative that commercial aquaculture in no way jeopardizes natural resources of the state, and that only by joining the responsibility of managing both aquaculture and wild resources under one agency will such management goals be achieved. vi G3 Consulting Ltd. Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report Salmon aquaculture is highly restricted in Alaska. Section 16.40.100, “Aquatic farm and hatchery permits,“ under Alaska Statute Title 16, Fish and Game Code, states, “Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the commissioner may not issue a permit under this section for the farming of, or hatchery operations involving, Atlantic salmon.” In British Columbia, the development and adherence to a “performance based management” system would allow the industry to develop within clear guidelines and procedures. Toxic Algal Blooms During the past decade, there has been a worldwide increase in marine microalgae that are harmful to finfish, shellfish, and human consumers. Correlative field data, coupled with experimental evidence, suggest that some algal species not normally toxic may become so when exposed to altered nutrient regimes from overenrichment. Outbreaks of some species have also coincided with El Niño events, suggesting that global climate change and warming trends may also encourage their growth. Approximately 20 of the 5,000 known phytoplankton species along the west coast produce toxins or are directly lethal to fish, while an estimated 25 additional species are responsible for other problems, such as water discolouration or “red tides.” Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) results from a number of saxitoxin derivatives produced by dinoflagellates of the genus Alexandrium. Domoic acid poisoning (DAP; also called amnesic shellfish poisoning, ASP) is caused by the pennate diatom, Pseudo-nitzchia pungens and related species. Though other toxic species associated with diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) are present in BC (e.g., Dinophysis spp.), DSP has not yet been reported. Along coastal BC, upwelling during spring and summer in response to strong and persistent northwest winds may bring cold, nutrient-rich waters that support rich phytoplankton blooms in the surface layer. Along the coast of BC, Washington and Oregon, surface nutrient concentrations are generally high everywhere during the winter, but are higher nearest the coast in summer when phytoplankton blooms may occur. The Columbia and Fraser Rivers are sources of high nitrate, phosphate and silicate in both winter and summer. Effects of nuisance blooms on the aquaculture industry can be devastating, with economic losses in BC estimated at $20 million, attributable particularly to the chloromonad flagellate Heterosigma. One method of bloom avoidance by netpen fish farms is to skirt the perimeter of pens with polyester tarps, preventing advection of surface blooms of Heterosigma into the pens. Closed systems are generally recognized as being more protected from nuisance algal blooms than open cage systems, due to the optional positioning of water intakes in most enclosed and closed recirculating systems. A unique feature of the SEA System is its ability to draw water from varying depths using an adjustable intake. This feature apparently enables the aquaculture facility to consider and avoid algal blooms, which can be depth-dependent. Aquaculture facilities may release dissolved and solid nutrients to the aquatic environment, causing hypernutrification and eutrophication. Besides the increase of phytoplankton production, eutrophication may cause additional effects that may be more sensitive and relevant indicators of receiving-environment impact, such as changes in energy and nutrient fluxes, pelagic and benthic biomass and community structure, fish stocks, sedimentation, nutrient cycling, oxygen depletion, and shifts between perennial and filamentous benthic algae. Excessive N and P discharge (hypernutrification) from aquaculture operations may stimulate algal blooms and create nuisance conditions. Salmon farms may contribute ammonium, phosphate and organic nutrients to the water column exploited by phytoplankton. The lack of direct evidence of hypernutrification and eutrophication may be due to the usually high water exchange rates. Phytoplankton populations in this enriched water may increase some distance from the farm area (away from where impact studies usually are performed). Moreover, since the structure of plankton communities often displays high natural variability, eutrophication effects cannot be proven without extensive monitoring programs designed specifically to detect such effects. Therefore, the lack of reported effect may be a function of inadequate study design, low sensitivity, and inappropriate end-point measurements. vii G3 Consulting Ltd. Pollution Prevention & Remediation Branch Salmon Aquaculture Waste Management Review & Update Final Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION G3 Consulting Ltd. (G3) has prepared this report for the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch. Objectives of this project, as defined by MELP, were to: 1. evaluate the costs, operations, waste management capability and examine the feasibility of “closed” circulating systems compared with “open” netcage systems in BC; 2. review any new regulatory tools and mechanisms with respect to waste management that could be applicable to BC; and 3. document emerging research with respect to plankton blooms and netcages. Worldwide, salmon-farming operations provide about one-third of the total annual salmon harvest. In 1995, the harvest of farmed fish accounted for approximately 37% of salmon production in BC. Salmon farming is most productive in cool waters well flushed by tidal action and protected from ocean storms. The southern BC coast, comprising a network of islands, peninsulas and quiet bays, is particularly well suited for salmon aquaculture, given its good marine water quality, accessible shoreline, ready supply of fresh water, safe moorage, and proximity to population centres. When the salmon aquaculture industry was first introduced to the BC coast in the early 1970s, chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) were farmed almost exclusively. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), with their faster growth rate and greater tolerance for higher stocking densities, were later introduced. By 1988, 101 salmon-farming companies operated in BC. Economic and environmental factors have since resulted in ownership being consolidated into 16 companies. Species diversification in BC finfish aquaculture has been the subject of research for several years, following the lead of Norway and Japan (more than 50 finfish species reared). Use of blackcod in BC aquaculture has been researched for several years, with this species now approaching commercialization (Pennell, pers. com.). With aquaculture of blackcod and halibut being developed in BC (Pennell, pers. com.), the future of the BC finfish aquaculture industry appears to be growing faster than projected by the recent Coopers & Lybrand report (1997; cited by Marvin Shaffer & Associates Ltd. et al., 1997; Pennell, pers. com.). The rapid growth of the BC salmon-farming industry in the 1980s caused public concern about possible impacts on other coastal users and the marine environment. It was recognized that a co- ordinated regulatory system was required. Federal and provincial governments subsequently established roles in regulating the industry: • Fisheries and Oceans Canada maintains regulatory authority for health of fish in aquaculture facilities, food and public health safety, conservation and protection of wild fish stocks and habitat, and protection of navigable waters; • the BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries licenses aquaculture operations and controls most operational aspects of salmon aquaculture; and • MELP regulates siting and waste discharge permits. 1.1 BC Salmon Aquaculture Review In July 1995, as part of a moratorium on granting new salmon aquacultural tenures, the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP) and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) requested that the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO, 1997a through f) conduct a review of the adequacy of current methods and processes used by the two ministries to regulate and manage the industry in BC. The BCEAO had been 1 G3 Consulting Ltd.