Spring has sprung!

A wetland near my house where you can hear the sound of frogs calling.  A sure sign of spring.

A babbling brook near my house.  I don't think it comes through on the video but there were about 1/2 dozen trout darting in this plunge pool presumably on their way to the estuary to become sea trout.

It is amazing how quickly the weather has turned here in my part of Nova Scotia.  Only a few weeks ago my yard was covered by a few feet of snow and I shot a video of a late March snowstorm.  This week the snow at the lower elevations has all but disappeared and as I hiked the wooded areas around my home I could see signs of spring all around.  Trees are beginning to bud, rivers are starting to swell, trout are migrating out to the estuaries to fatten up, fry are emerging, and all around animals are either returning or awakening from their winter slumber.  While nature blooms all around, I am naturally finding it harder to stay at my desk and stare at my computer, especially as from my home office I can see the brook that runs through my property and the pool by the bridge that every year holds salmon and brook trout.  Still while this a distraction my colleagues at ASF and I are working hard to advocate on the behalf of wild Atlantic Salmon and those that care for their future.  

My activities this week of course involved numerous emails, conference calls, and video conferences.  One of the things that all ASF staff have been involved with this past week has been the preparation for our upcoming board meetings.  ASF being an international organization has both a Canadian and an American Board of Directors, that twice a year meet  jointly to review our progress and guide our collective efforts going forward.  In the lead up to the big joint board meeting there are numerous committee meetings (Research, Regional Affairs, Finance, etc.) where directors work with ASF staff to provide more specific guidance and direction to each of the different departments.  These meetings are always incredible productive and valuable as our directors are a group of incredibly knowledgeable and dedicated volunteers.  This spring our meetings, which normally alternate between locations in the US and Canada, were scheduled to be held in St. Andrew's, NB near our headquarters.  Eager to meet with the directors to gain their usual biannual insight, but mindful of the Covid-19 restrictions, we have been exploring novel ways of holding our board meeting.

Potential logo for the Healthy Bays Network, a community driven network of  organizations committed to protecting NS bays from the threats posed by open-net pen finfish aquaculture.

As has been the case the last few weeks, Aquaculture has been another dominant issue.  Throughout the week I have done research on several topics (open applications, legislative requirements, government process, recommendations of geophysical conditions, etc.), worked on a couple of documents, and participated in numerous meetings in support of our efforts to stop the expansion of open net pen aquaculture.  Several of these activities involved a group that we are calling the Healthy Bays Network.  The Healthy Bays Network, or HBN, is a coalition of community based and environmental organizations that are all working to oppose open net pen finfish aquaculture.  With an active effort to expand open-net pen finfish aquaculture in NS, it was felt by many that there needed to be a way for groups opposed to open-net pen finfish to work more collaboratively and have more of a "provincial" voice.  As a result, the HBN was created and I along with the other supporting organizations (EAC, FPMB, PLB, APES, SMBP, TBC, etc) have been working to get the group going and develop action strategies.  Stay tuned as I am sure you will hear more from the HBN soon.  

Other activities that I was involved in this week including reaching out to partners to check in and support each other during these difficult times, updating information associated with the gold mine file, preparing for upcoming meetings, working on outreach activities, and exploring training and professional development opportunities.  

Aquaculture Review Board Process

Hi everyone,

My apologies for not posting a blog update last week but between preparing for Easter (see one of our resident Ester Bunnies now about three weeks old) and all the other activities on my plate it just slipped my mind.  

Last week was certainly an exciting one for those of us in the salmon conservation game as we heard last Thursday that Cermaq had decided to withdraw its plan to expand into NS.  As many of us had been working hard to draw attention to the threat that this expansion posed to endangered wild Atlantic Salmon this was very positive news.  

While the Cermaq expansion is no longer on the horizon, it does not mean that aquaculture is no longer a concern in NS.  Within hours of Cermaq's decision Cooke Aquaculture came out with their own announcement with plans to proceed with their planned expansion, and this week several licence renewals were granted and others opened for public comment.  You can find out which applications have been renewed and how to comment on those applications open for public comment on the NS Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture website https://novascotia.ca/fish/aquaculture/public-information/.

With these expansions happening I thought it might be a good idea to review the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act and associated regulations to try to better understand how aquaculture applications are reviewed and decided upon.  Needless to say the source material is not an easy read and so I decided to break down parts of the process into a more plain language description.  While I am not a lawyer and make no claims that the following is a perfect translation of the legaleze that make up the Act and the regulations I think anyone who suffers through my interpretaiton will at least get a better idea of the process and how they might be able to particpate.  

I have chosen to only write up the portion of the Act and regulations that pertain to the Aquaculture Review Board or ARB.  The ARB is a method under NS law to review new aquaculture applications and existing licenses with the have significant proposed changes.  Getting the option to explore an application for a particular bay, renewals, experimental licenses, licenses in designated aquaculture areas use a different process.  These and applications for shellfish aquaculture licenses will not be covered here.  

For those that don't want to read the whole thing here are the highlights.

ARB oversees the process and makes the decision on new licenses.  The ARB is appointed by the government but is independent from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.  They make their decisions on applications using a hearing or trial where the ARB acts as the judge/jury.  Like a trial you must be granted permission to participate (granted Intervenor Status).  The ARB  determines what evidence can be presented and how.  Members of the public can participate but are limited in what they can say and present.  To participate as an intervenor or as a member of the public you will need to follow the rules set out by the ARB.  Information on the ARB and its rules can be found at https://arb.novascotia.ca/

ARB PROCESS

Applications for new sites or renewals that change the area of an existing aquaculture site will be reviewed by the department then sent onto the Aquaculture Review Board (ARB).

Within 15 days of receiving the application from the department, the ARB will set a date for an adjudicative hearing of the application.  The date of the hearing must be between 60 and 90 days from the date the ARB met to set the date for the hearing.  60 days written notice of the hearing must be given on at least the Department’s website and in the Royal Gazette Part I. The notice must include the nature of the hearing, the time and place of the hearing, location of the aquaculture site that is being applied for, the species and method of cultivation, and the applicant’s name.  The ARB can choose to share other information but is not obligated to do so.  The ARB must choose to hold the hearing in a community that they determine is the closest and the most appropriate.

SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS

During the 60-day notice period, any member of the public may submit written comments to the ARB.  Those comments must be submitted in a manner to the ARB at least 15 days before the start of the hearing.  Your comments must identify who you are, your address, and your position on the application.  Your position must address one of the the following topics:

(a) the optimum use of marine resources;

(b) the contribution of the proposed operation to community and Provincial economic development;

(c) fishery activities in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(d) the oceanographic and biophysical characteristics of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(e) the other users of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(f) the public right of navigation;

(g) the sustainability of wild salmon;

(h) the number and productivity of other aquaculture sites in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

It is unclear what the ARB will do with comments that do not fit into one of these topics but it is possible that comments that do not address one of these topics might just be deleted or ignored. It is therefore important that submitted comments should be made to address one of these topic areas and clearly identify who is making the submission.

INTERVENOR STATUS

To present evidence at the ARB hearing you must request Intervenor Status.  Anybody can ask the ARB to be an intervenor but it is up to the ARB to decide who be intervenors. 

To ask to be an intervenor you must apply to the ARB in writing within 10 days of the notice of the hearing being announced (date it appears on Department website - https://novascotia.ca/fish/aquaculture/public-information/ and in the Royal Gazette Part I).  You must apply to be an intervenor in the manner determined by the ARB.     Your request to be an intervenor must demonstrate how you will be "substantially and directly affected by the hearing" and needs to summarize what you evidence will be presenting to the ARB.  Your evidence must address one or more of the following topics:

(a) the optimum use of marine resources;

(b) the contribution of the proposed operation to community and Provincial economic development;

(c) fishery activities in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(d) the oceanographic and biophysical characteristics of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(e) the other users of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(f) the public right of navigation;

(g) the sustainability of wild salmon;

(h) the number and productivity of other aquaculture sites in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

The ARB must decided to grant you or deny you Intervenor Status within 10 days of receiving your application.  If you prove to the ARB that you will be “substantially and directly affected by the hearing” than you must be granted Intervenor Status.  The ARB will let you know within 5 days of making their decision whether or not you have been granted intervenor status.  According to the regulations their decision is final, suggesting that you cannot appeal their decision.  All participants in the hearing (the applicant, everyone who was granted intervenor status, and the Minister or the Minister’s designate) will be notified by the ARB about who all the participants are going to be. 

The ARB will forward to all participants the application, a scoping report, and a development plan.  The topics to be included in the application and development plans are determined by the Department.  The scoping report is the report based on the applicant’s (the company) consultations.  Applicants are required to complete at least 1 public meeting in “the most appropriate community that is closest to the proposed site”.  However, the applicant (the company) can request that any of these documents can be deemed confidential.  If the company makes that request the ARB will not release that document to hearing participants until it, the ARB, has a chance to determine if the document(s) are confidential.  If the ARB rules a document confidential it will not be released to the Intervenors.

The ARB has the right to require that Intervenors combine all or part of their evidence to avoid repetitive or cumulative evidence.   

If Intervenors or the applicant submit any other documents or correspondence to the ARB they must give copies to all other hearing participants at the same time as they communicated with the ARB.  The same confidentiality rules apply here as described above for the application.  So, for example, an Intervenor could submit a document containing evidence to the ARB and request that it be held in confidence.  It would then be up to the ARB to decide if that document was indeed confidential.  If the ARB deems the document confidential the document would not be shared with the other participants.  If the ARB deems the document not confidential then the submitter would be required to share that document with all other participants when they are notified of the ARB’s decision. 

The ARB is required to copy all hearing participants on all their correspondence to one of the participants.  So if they inform one Intervenor or the applicant of a decision then they must  let all other Intervenors, the Minister (or designate), and the applicant know as well. 

The ARB has the power to make up new processes and protocols or to amend those set out in the regulations and in the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act if it deems that it is necessary.  The regulations identify three possible cases for this: there is no process or protocol in the regulations/Act, there are special circumstances for a given application, it is in the public interest for them to do so.

The ARB will start each hearing with the purpose and procedures including expected conduct, of that hearing.    Hearings can be adjourned and reconvened hearings as they see fit.  If a meeting is halted and will resume at a later date and time, then the ARB must provide reasonable notice of when and where the hearing will be resumed.

EVIDENCE

Evidence to be presented at a hearing must be relevant to the proposed application and location being reviewed and must address one of the following topics: 

(a) the optimum use of marine resources;

(b) the contribution of the proposed operation to community and Provincial economic development;

(c) fishery activities in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(d) the oceanographic and biophysical characteristics of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(e) the other users of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(f) the public right of navigation;

(g) the sustainability of wild salmon;

(h) the number and productivity of other aquaculture sites in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

The ARB can exclude any evidence they deem to be hearsay, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious.

Any person participating in the hearing may submit written evidence or present oral testimony to explain their position. Evidence from expert witnesses will only be accepted if it is in the form of a report that includes the experts name, address, qualifications, and a summary of the substance of the expert’s evidence. Any written or visual evidence that will be given at the hearing, including these expert witness reports, must be submitted to the ARB and all participants through an affidavit (written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation) at least 15 days before the hearing. Evidence that is generally considered and accepted as common knowledge may be accepted and included as evidence by the ARB.

The clerk of the ARB will log, number, and keep track of all evidence submitted to the ARB. If originals of evidence are not readily available, the ARB may accept copies or excerpt from the original. When presenting evidence, you may be required by the ARB to provide copies to all the other participants.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE HEARING

Members of the public can participate in ARB hearings.  To participate a member of the public must make a request to provide sworn oral statement to the ARB at least 15 days before the start of the hearing.  You request to participate must that provides your name, your place of residence, and your position on the issue.  You position and public statement during the hearing must address one of the following topics: 

(a) the optimum use of marine resources;

(b) the contribution of the proposed operation to community and Provincial economic development;

(c) fishery activities in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(d) the oceanographic and biophysical characteristics of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(e) the other users of the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

(f) the public right of navigation;

(g) the sustainability of wild salmon;

(h) the number and productivity of other aquaculture sites in the public waters surrounding the proposed aquacultural operation;

All public statements will be limited to no more than 6 minutes per person.  The ARB can impose other restrictions or conditions on public statements. 

QUESTIONS DURING THE HEARING

The Chair of the ARB determines the protocols for asking questioning during the hearing.  Therefore, the Chair of the ARB would determine things such as how many questions can be asked, who asks questions when, and whether a question is to be allowed or excluded for being repetitive or outside the scope of the hearing.  Questions must be directed to a specific person at the hearing.  If that person cannot answer the question, then the Chair may permit another person in that specific person’s group who is present to answer the question.    If the question is unable to be answered during that session of the hearing then the person(s) who was asked the question may defer giving an answer but must try to provide an answer before the end of the hearing.  If in the opinion of the ARB the hearing is able to end before an answer is given, then the person(s) who was asked the question must provide an answer to the clerk of the ARB within 7 days of the end of the hearing.  The clerk of the ARB will then distribute the answer to the person who asked the question and any other participant who requests a copy of the answer. 

At the end of the hearing, the official record of the hearing will be closed and no further evidence will be accepted.  There are two exceptions to this.  The first is that at the end of the hearing all participants can agree to keep the record open until the ARB reaches its decision.  The second exception is that the ARB may choose to reopen the record and accept more evidence if they decide they need more evidence on a specific issue(s).  The clerk of the ARB keeps the official record of each hearing.  The official record will include the application, any supporting documents, and all exhibits (presented evidence). 

ARB DECISION

The ARB will make a decision on the application within 30 days from the end of the hearing.  The ARB decision must include their reasons for arriving at that decision.  The ARB reasons must include the ARB’s findings based on presented evidence, any legal ramifications from evidence presented, and any changes that were made to the process or protocol from established procedures.  The ARB decision and reasons will be sent to each participant and published on the Department website.  Any participant may appeal the decision of the ARB to the Supreme Court of NS within 30 days.  An appeal to the Supreme Court does not stay the ARB’s decision.  The Minister has until 15 days from the end of the 30 day appeal period to act upon the decision of the ARB.

Some Monday Thoughts

Assessing Assessments

Electrofishing to assess juvenile salmon and trout populations in Ogden's Brook, Antigonish County, NS

Sorry folks this week's blog post is a bit more technically. It deals with my work to address the effectiveness of salmon assessments.

One of the things that I have been working on for ASF over the last few months has been an investigation into how salmon assessments are completed in Canada and the US.  I have a background and interest in this having worked on assessments with DFO, Provincial governments, academic institutions, and privately through my own business. Salmon assessments, and fisheries assessments in general, are all about collecting good scientific information on the demographics (numbers, age classes, size classes, males vs females, fecundity, etc) of a population.  Sometimes these assessments are done on their own and sometimes they are done in conjunction with other studies such as determining fish passage efficiencies around a dam, habitat assessments, an environmental assessment evaluating the impacts of an industry, etc.  The techniques used in assessments are also often quite varied and  vary depending on the target species, the intended purpose of the data to be collected, the environment, the time of year, the availability of resources, etc.  Some of the more common techniques used in salmon assessment involve trapping migrating fish as they pass through a fishway, using counting fences to funnel fish to a trap or counter, using fyke nets or rotary screw traps (smolt wheels) to intercept smolts on the way to the ocean, and electrofishing for juveniles.  Regardless of the type of assessment or whether it is done alone or part of a broader work, assessments are almost always used to gather data for some sort of management decision (setting harvest limits, evaluating environmental risk). 

Sarah and Keegan, two of my assessment crew getting setup to take morphometric measurements, in this case it was length, weight, DNA, and scales samples, which were being used to evaluate how salmon and trout populations change with respect to common river restoration efforts.

ASF is interested in the topic of assessments because of shifts in fisheries management.  A few years back, a ministerial advisory committee (MAC) was struck to develop recommendations for the federal Fisheries Minister with the aim of improving policies and regulations that would work to stem the decline of wild Atlantic Salmon populations (an oversimplification of the the MAC  and why it was struck but you get the idea).  The work of this committee fed into what became a series of ministerial recommendations, department policy shifts, and into the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan. These rather lengthy and involved processes led to a number of changes in management of wild Atlantic Salmon.  One of these changes you might have noticed is the change in language away from conservation limits/targets to talk of upper and lower stock reference limits.  This represents a shift in management from conservation targets for rivers that were based on egg deposition rates (2.4 eggs/m2 of habitat) to use of the precautionary approach management framework.  Under this new PA management framework there are two different benchmarks for rivers, a lower stock limit reference point which is more based on the biologic sustainability of the population and an upper stock limit reference points which is more based around harvest (once again an oversimplified of the PA management framework but I would like to give you an impression of shift in mentality that has taken place).   With these shifts in management strategies the question about whether or not our current methods of assessment are adequate and generate the right data to inform mangers had to be asked.  So it isn't surprising that when DFO was developing the implementation plan for the wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy, working in conjunction with partners like ASF, that these questions were asked and it was determined that the assessment system should be reevaluated. 

Deploying barrier nets to isolate a stretch of the river during an assessment.  The ability of fish to escape during an assessment is just one of the factors that can affect the quality of the data collected.

While this question into appropriateness of  assessments may seem to be a relatively simple thing to answer, like assessments themselves, it is a more complicated question than it might initially appear.  More than once I have been asked "how hard can it [assessments] be, you just count the fish", and my answer has always been it is incredibly hard.  Fish don't like to be captured and counted; keeping fish alive and stress free while you get the measurements you need can be difficult; and rivers with their changing flows, fluctuating temperatures, and debris are not always easy places to work.    Evaluating effectiveness of assessments is similarly challenging.  Currently assessment programs are scattered across five different provinces, in four different DFO regions, multiple salmon fishing areas, and within the jurisdiction of dozens of First Nations.  Assessments are currently done using every imaginable assessment technique and analyzed with dozens of different methods.  The salmon populations being assessed are at different levels with different management objectives (in southern Nova Scotia the goal is save the species from extinction while in part of Quebec management has to address harvest issues).  Also the rivers housing the populations being assessed vary from tiny ephemeral brooks to large complex river systems where the majority of the system may be inaccessible and from crystal clear waters where you can see the bottom regardless of the depth to dark tea colored waters where you cannot see an inch below the surface.  All of these factors mean the current management objectives and assessment programs used to inform those objectives are very complex.  However, by talking to fisheries managers, working with my fellow program directors, and researching the latest in assessment strategies and management approaches, I hope to be able to address this question and come up with ways that we can improve upon our current assessment program, which will hopefully lead to better more informed management decisions.

Kate, giving a young trout a good luck kiss and a pep talk (stay safe, get big, have lots of babies) before returning it to the river, an important part of all my assessments.

April 1 - What did you get up to?

As we couldn't get out fishing today due to the delayed start to the season, Danny and I took the dog for a hike near our home instead. What did you get up to instead of fishing today? Answer in the comments