Environmental Impacts of Salmon Farms: Lessons from New Brunswick
Inka MilewskiScience Advisor
Conservation Council of New Brunswick
June 27, 2011Shelburne, Nova Scotia
Environmental Impacts of Salmon FarmsKnown potential impacts
include:
• Increased suspended solids, turbidity and sedimentation
• Nutrient loading• Degradation of water quality from hazardous materials• Impacts to fish and fish habitat• Disease transmission• Invasive species, which could alter ecosystem
dynamics• Interference with traditional use of resources• Disruptions of wildlife and wildlife habitat,
including migratory birds and species at risk• Impacts of odour and noise on humans
Source: Transport Canada. 2011. Environmental Assessment Screening Report for proposed sites in St. Mary’s Bay
Environmental Impacts of Salmon Farms
• By volume, largest component of waste released from a salmon farm is organic (fecal and uneaten feed) waste and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus)
Carbon and nitrogen releases to the L’Etang Inlet, New Brunswick 2002
Sources Carbon (mt per year)
Nitrogen (mt per year)
Salmon Farms – 22 farms(APL 4.44 million fish)
949 2372.5
259.1657.0
Sewage plant (servicing 1200 people) 51.1 10.9
Pulp Mill 138.7 4.1
Fish plant (sardine processing plant) 1525.7 273.7
Runoff from land 299.3 10.95Precipitation - 18.2
Source: Strain and Hargrave. 2005. Salmon aquaculture, nutrient fluxes and ecosystem processes in southwestern New Brunswick. In. Hargrave (ed.) Environmental Effects of Marine FInfish Aquaculture: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry Vol 5.
Impacts of Organic (Carbon) Waste
• Sediments and the water column above become oxygen depleted and toxic
• Diversity of animals in and on the sediment drops; white bacterial mats cover the bottom
• Food chain connecting the benthic (bottom-dwelling) and pelagic (free-swimming) communities becomes uncoupled
• Increase in annual seaweed biomass
• increased incidence of toxic phytoplankton blooms
• localized oxygen depletions• loss of perennial submerged
aquatic vegetation (e.g., rockweed, eelgrass)
• a shift from filter-feeding (clams, mussels) to deposit-feeding (worms) animals
• increased disease in fish, crabs, and/or lobster
Impacts from Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous)
Waste
Crow Harbour/Penn Island, New Brunswick Study 2002-2004
Control site
Former Fish Farm Site
Crow Harbour/Penn Island, New Brunswick Study 2002-2004
• July 2000 site ~ 295,000 smolt put into 21 net pens covering an area of ~19 ha
• April 2002 harvesting began• July 2002 final feeding • August 2002 last fish
harvested • August 24, 2002 benthic
survey began ~ 5 months after most intensive feeding period and 3 weeks after last fish harvested
• Sampled again on August 27, 2003 and August 23. 2004
Sediment core sample coming on board and testing
2002 Crow Harbour benthic samples 2002 Control Site benthic samples
Black sediments indicate a lack of oxygen and the presence of anaerobic bacteria.
Reference/Control site 2003
Penn Island/Crow Harbour farm site 2003
Penn Island/Crow Harbour farm site 2004
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
Red
ox -
mV
NH
E
CrowHarbour
2002
CrowHarbour
2003
CrowHarbour
2004
ReferenceSite 2002
ReferenceSite 2003
ReferenceSite 2004
0 cm4 cm8 cm
Sediment Eh at a former fish farm in Crow Harbour and a reference site (mean values of 3 samples) – 2002-2004
Sediment Depth
Hypoxic
Anoxic
Surface Sediment Sulfides at a former fish farm in Crow Harbour and a reference site (2002-2004)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
CrowHarbour
2002
CrowHarbour
2003
CrowHarbour
2004
ReferenceSite 2002
ReferenceSite 2003
ReferenceSite 2004
Sulp
hide
s (u
M)
2002 2003 20040
5
10
15
20
25
30
35To
tal T
axa
2002 2003 20040
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Div
ersi
ty (H
')
Refe
renc
e Si
te
Refe
renc
e Si
te
Farm
Site
Farm
SiteNumber of species and
diversity did not recover at the farm site after two years
Environmental Monitoring of Salmon Farms
• only one environmental measure is monitored – sulphides in sediments
• DFO has not defined a sulphide limit that results in mandatory regulatory action ; HADD authorization may be required at 4500-6000 μM
• 40-60% biodiversity reduced at 500 to 1500 μM sulphides
• 60-70% reduced at 1500-3000 μM
• 70-90% reduced at 3000-6000 μM
• 90% reduced > 6000 μM
Environmental Monitoring of Salmon Farms In New Brunswick
• Prior to 2006, remediation plans were required when sulphides reached 1300 μM
• In 2006, remediation required when benthic sulphides reach 1500 μm
• Site must do more monitoring and submit report when sulphides are 3000-4500 μM and may be required to get HADD authorization from DFO
• Annually, 20% of NB farms require remediation plans
2006 Salmon Farm Sites
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Benthic Monitoring Results (2002-2010) for NB Lease Site 342 (Passamaquoddy Bay)
Sulp
hide
s Lev
els (
μM)
DFO HADD Levels
NB Remediation Action Level
2006 Salmon Farm Sites
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Benthic Monitoring Results (2002-2010) for NB Lease Site 059 (Deer Island)
Sulp
hide
Lev
els (
μM)
2006 NB Action Level2001 NB Action Level
2009: 2111.7 μM sulphides
2010: 1442 μM sulphides
Control site
Former Fish Farm
Nova Scotia Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP)
• First EMP began in 2002
• Plan was updated in March 2011
• EMP is focused on monitoring sulphides
• EMP approach is “increased risk requires increased monitoring”
• Sites with ≥ 50% of sampling stations with ≥1500 μM sulphides need more sampling and must adjust their Best Management Practices (BMP) to improve site performance
• Sites with ≥50% of sampling stations with ≥3000 μM of sulphides need more sampling and operator must submit a mitigation plan for maintaining or increasing production levels
• Sites with ≥70% of sampling stations with ≥6000 μM sulphides must work with regulators to examine mitigation options; some site may require DFO authorization to allow a (HADD) harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat on the site
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Nova Scotia Environmental Monitoring Re-sults Spectacle Island Farm Site – Port Mouton
Mea
n Su
lphi
de L
evel
μM DFO HADD Level
2011 NS more monitoring and enhanced management
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Nova Scotia Environmental Monitoring Results
Sandy Point – Shelburne Harbour
Mea
n Su
lphi
de L
evel
μM
DFO HADD Level
2011 NS more monitoring and enhanced management level
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Mea
n Su
lphi
de L
evel
s μM
Nova Scotia Environmental Monitoring ResultsBrier Island/Westport
Beyond the farm impactsBay-wide (Cumulative) Effects from multiple salmon farms
Sampled 1994-1999 examined sediment carbon, microbial
biomass and biological diversity 1994-95 results showed area was
strongly impacted 1996-1997 salmon farming stopped
due to ISA outbreak; Re-sampled in 1997 and 1999; carbon
and bacteria levels declined, no recovery in the biological community
farm operations had an effect on benthic habitat beyond the farm area
Pohle et al. 2001. Assessment of regional benthic impact of salmon mariculture within the Letang Inlet, Bay of Fundy. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58: 417–426. 2001
• For Lime Kiln Bay, salmon farms release 3.3 times more nitrogen and 1.6 time more carbon is cycled naturally in the water column and sediments.
• substantial changes to the functioning of the ecosystem have occurred due to the presence of the salmon farms
• Even in a larger, less intensively farmed area like the Campobello / Deer Island, fluxes of carbon and nitrogen from salmon aquaculture are 10 and 16 %, respectively, of those due to natural processes.
• Local impacts can be much greater than those measured on large scales
Source: Strain and Hargrave. 2005. Salmon aquaculture, nutrient fluxes and ecosystem processes in southwestern New Brunswick. In. Hargrave (ed.) Environmental Effects of Marine FInfish Aquaculture: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry Vol 5.
Beyond the farm impactsBay-wide (Cumulative) Effects from multiple salmon farms
Regulations and Management of Impacts? Inadequate and Incomplete
• information for managing ecosystem effects are currently incomplete
• multiple measures will be the most effective for managing ecosystem effects of aquaculture
• management focused primarily on near-field and site-specific regulatory applications
• far-field and cumulative effects could occur and will require new or modified management tools
• Benthic monitoring is less suitable for farfield monitoring
• finfish aquaculture has the potential to alter the trophic (food web) status of bays
• Mass balance calculations can be used to estimate the portion of aquaculture wastes to a system compared to nutrients from other sources
Our Oceans and Coasts in Trouble• A decline in many fish stocks
has occurred on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as a result of commercial overexploitation.
• Industry and development have, or are threatening to, impact most ecosystems.
• The coastal zone is particularly vulnerable and is of concern as these areas are considered highly productive ecosystems.
Need for sustainable aquaculture
• Activities that do not degrade the ecosystem on which they depend including:– preserving the form and function (ecological
relationships) of natural systems– preventing nutrient, chemical and biological
pollution– ensuring no net loss of protein
Source: Bardach, 1997: Sustainable Aquaculture. New York; John Wiley & Sons Costa-Pierce, 2002. Ecological Aquaculture: The evolution of the blue revolution Oxford: Blackwell Science