First Reflection
Reflections on the Proposed Oyster Farm in Antigonish Harbour
Click here to read this document with full footnotes.
Introduction
Whereas FoAH agrees that there are potential positive impacts of oyster aquaculture, we also understand that there are potential negative impacts – environmental, social and economic. Our understanding is that the actual impacts are specific to a given oyster farm and a given site. That is, impacts cannot be generalized as positive or negative without a good understanding of methods of operation of an oyster farm and of environmental, social and economic characteristics of the site. We would suggest that this is particularly true of the proposed oyster farm for the northern portion of Antigonish harbour given its very large size, relative to both oyster farms in Nova Scotia and to the size of the northern harbour.
Environment
Antigonish Harbour is an estuary. Estuaries are considered to be ‘fragile’ and ‘delicate’ ecosystems, and are ‘one of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth’. In addition to providing social and economic benefits to communities, estuaries deliver invaluable ecosystem services. Ecosystem services include fundamental life support processes upon which all organisms depend – estuaries are populated by a host of productive, interrelated and mutually dependent aquatic and terrestrial species.
Antigonish harbour is home to i) eelgrass (DFO ecologically significant species); ii) piping plovers (NS endangered species); iii) american eel (IUCN endangered species); and iv) salmon, trout, bass and smelt (NS restricted fishing species). Dunn’s and Mahoneys are protected beaches, and Dunn’s is proposed as a provincial park. Clearly, there is significant interest in protecting the harbour’s environmental integrity.
At the same time, Antigonish harbour is comparatively little studied. For example, the Nova Scotia Community College’s Applied Geomatics Research Group developed a mapping tool for DFO, to assist in the identification of sites suitable for shellfish aquaculture. Of over ten data categories considered important to assessing suitability, only two are available for Antigonish harbour (invasive species – green crab only; and traditional ecological knowledge -- fishing areas). Data on eelgrass distribution, depth, currents, flush time, channel configuration, ice impact, fetch, and average temperature and salinity are not available. DFO’s Community Aquatic Monitoring Program (CAMP) has over ten years of data on species diversity and abundance, dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, and water temperature and salinity at six points around the harbour, only one of which is in the northern harbour. However these data are point data taken only on one to five days in summer. While the data are suggestive of good harbour health, they do not include the seasonal biophysical data needed to determine site suitability for shellfish aquaculture. Finally, there is some of what might be considered anecdotal information, observations of various individuals who have lived on and/or have used the harbour over decades.
Our environmental concerns include:
Eelgrass provides ‘nursery’ services to a range of species, including protected species, species that are both recreationally and commercially fished and the mammals and birds that feed in the harbour. Eelgrass beds crashed in 2001 – the 95% reduction from the year before was attributed to green crabs. There is some evidence of a reduction in green crab numbers and of recovery of eelgrass, although anecdotal evidence suggests that the eelgrass beds have yet to reach the distributions of the past. There is good scientific evidence of the negative impact of oyster baskets on eelgrass, primarily through shading. DFO is currently researching what is behind observations that eelgrass beds around oyster farms in open bays are healthier than before but early thinking suggests that this is true of sediment heavy waters where oyster water filtering has increased light penetration. Antigonish harbour is not sediment heavy. An additional threat to eelgrass comes from sinking oyster baskets to weather the winter – DFO is also currently researching this. Damage to eelgrass would have cascading effects through plant and animal life, and in turn the biological and physical processes that keep our harbour functioning productively, cleanly and safely.
Oysters have been demonstrated to have positive impacts on polluted waters (waters with excessive heavy metal concentrations, sediment concentrations and/or nutrient loading that results in eutrophication). They do this by filtering water, removing pollutants. Antigonish harbour does not appear to have these pollution problems. There is very little data on Antigonish harbour water quality, but the CAMP data show i) an abundance and diversity of species that is unusual in the context of maritime estuaries around the Gulf of St. Lawrence; ii) dissolved oxygen levels that have improved over the last five years and are now very good – dissolved oxygen is second to water as a prerequisite for life of fish, invertebrates, bacteria and plants.; and iii) absence of the phytoplankton blooms that suggest that eutrophication is a problem. In addition, anecdotal information from people who have used the harbour for decades suggest that populations of migratory fish are increasing. We are concerned that removing nutrients that are not excessive, including metal micronutrients, could affect other species that need these to thrive. Competition for food would have unknown results for diversity and abundance of species. ‘Cleaner water’ is a seductive concept, however if the water is already clean in many respects, supporting a diversity of life, we do not know what removing nutrients may imply for other aquatic life. Perfectly clean water would support no aquatic life at all.
Oysters do sequester carbon, at least temporarily depending on what is done with the oyster shells. However they do this by building shells with calcium carbonate as a major component. That is, oysters don’t just remove carbon from the water column but also calcium. Removal of calcium contributes to acidification of the water (already a global problem resulting from climate change), and to reduced availability of calcium to other shellfish as well as to the oysters in the oyster farm itself (see footnote 6, item 1.). This is essentially analogous to intensive farming of soil without replenishing nutrients needed for plant growth. There is no information at the level of detail required to understand what the net effect of removal of carbon and calcium from the water column would be in Antigonish harbour.
Interference in the nutrient content of the water and deposition of feces on the sea bed have potential to alter the balance between suspension and bottom feeders (fewer of the former, more of the latter), another source of change to habitat and of particular concern with regard to suspension feeders such as the migratory fish (e.g. american eel, salmon, trout, bass, smelt), that depend on a healthy estuary ecosystem to transition from fresh water to the ocean, and to the terrestrial species (e.g. great blue heron, bald eagle, common loon, various goose and duck) that feed in the estuary. Anecdotal information indicates that populations of some migratory species are in fact improving in the harbour after the serious population declines of the past, but still do not approach historical populations.
We have no understanding of the resilience of the proposed oyster farm (untested) equipment to storms however both in Nova Scotia and PEI there have been instances of the destruction of baskets and tie lines, most recently during Dorian, resulting in the spread of detritus over many kilometres of shoreline. Again, the size of the proposed farm is of concern here, something in the order of 30,000 to 35,000 plastic baskets will be needed to meet the proponents production goals. Nor is it clear how any such destruction would be cleaned up.
We understand the intent is to process oysters at site. This necessarily involves both withdrawal of and discharge to harbour waters. There is therefore the possibility of negative impacts as a result of discharges of process water of as yet unknown quality into the harbour. We also have no information on antifouling methods of oyster baskets and tie lines – any chemical antifouling would be another source of water pollution.
Academic papers reviewing the literature on the negative and positive impacts of oyster farms note that some negative impacts can be mitigated (avoided, minimized, compensated or eventually reclaimed). However, in order to frame mitigation for a negative impact, the first requirement is to understand what the negative impact is. With so little information on the biophysical characteristics of the harbour, it is not possible to predict what any negative environmental impacts might be, and therefore how to mitigate. Worse, because there is so little baseline data on the biophysical characteristics of the harbour now, in the event of an early approval and the expectation of a start to operations in 2020, it will not be possible, even with a rigourous monitoring program, to evaluate any environmental impact relative to pre oyster farm conditions.
Finally, while the environmental integrity of the harbour is of value, we must note that negative environmental impacts are not just environmental, but can have real negative impacts on people, communities and economies.
Social
Antigonish harbour is a public space and resource, a commons. A commons is generally understood to be safely accessible to all members of a community, including its air, water, flora and fauna. The resources of the harbour thus have been held by all and have not been privately owned until now. The effect of granting 120 acres of oyster farm leases to one person or family changes the nature of our commons. Effectively, that person will be able to make rules on access and use by others.
Our social concerns include:
Our primary concern in this regard is public safety. The northern portion of the harbour is used by recreational and commercial boaters (whether paddlers or fishermen/harvesters). The proponent has advised that some types of boats will be free to traverse the oyster lease areas and that there will be access to the channel and the open sea. However, we are unsure that this can be the case unless the proponent’s responsibility for risk and liability is confirmed. Nor does this address the fact that virtually no boater follows highways as cars do – boaters travel the waters on paths that safely respond to changes in sea bed topography (and thus depth), wind, waves and currents. Even while avoiding an oyster farm, paddlers in particular can be blown off course. Entanglements within the oyster farm seem probable, therefore there is a risk to public safety. In addition of course, storm damage and the resultant widely spread detritus represents an additional risk to public safety.
There is also some concern about public safety risk as a result of the increased traffic an effectively industrial size facility implies for the narrow Seabright road.
There are over 30 households (most, but not all permanent residents) and 50 properties with waterfront on the northern portion of the harbour, and yet more with water views. In addition to these, there are the users of the harbour that come from elsewhere, as Nova Scotia residents or tourists. That a single individual would be able to capture for almost exclusive use and personal profit approximately 10% of the surface area of the northern portion of the harbour, traditionally a commons, seems disproportionate in the extreme.
While some people may like the look of oyster farms, we think more will regard the new views of what has become an iconic panorama for county marketing purposes as an eyesore, reducing pleasure in the natural environment of property owners and visitors. It is not clear to us that one harbour resident’s desire for an oyster farm should prevail over the many others who have desires for no oyster farm.
The opposition to the proposed oyster farm of many of property owners along the shores of the northern portion of the harbour, often on grounds of disturbed view and concern about property values, noise, odor and traffic dust, has been dismissed by some as NIMBYism. Many of FoAH’s supporters in fact do not live in the immediate area. Irrespective, NIMBYism is basically taking a position of opposition on narrow self interest grounds and we believe that there are also those who take a position of support on narrow self interest grounds. We are sympathetic to people’s self interest – we all have some and act in many instances accordingly – however we would hope that most people would arrive at decisions about the proposed oyster farm based not on narrow self interest, but on judgements as to the net environmental, social, safety and economic consequences of the project.
We will not speak of indigenous interests and rights, except to note that there were a number of questions at the St. FX panel discussion on how the proposed oyster farm interrelates with indigenous communities and we believe these questions need to be answered.
Economic
The proposed oyster farm would be the first effectively industrial scale use of the northern portion of the harbour but is not the first economic use. Commercial fishermen, wild oyster harvesters, property owners who periodically rent, property developers, real estate and residential construction goods and services and town and country providers of tourist accommodations and services are all economic users. Fishing, and indeed hunting of ducks in particular, are not just recreational sport for the well heeled, but provide needed food to some families. With challenging boating conditions, potentially lower property values, reduced view scape, and unknown environmental effects on fish stocks and bird life it is not clear what the economic impacts will be on other economic users of the harbour or how this may compare to any economic value the proposed oyster farm may create for tourist and business services in Antigonish.
Our economic concerns include:
The proponent has most recently advised that his will be a family business that he expects will create 8 to 10 jobs. Whether these are additional to his four member family, part time, seasonal, full time and/or contractual rather then permanent has not been explained. But we are less than confident in Mr. Porter’s employment expectations. Shellfish aquaculture is not a large employer in Nova Scotia, accounting for under 300 employees in each of the two most recent years, about 80% of whom are part time or seasonal. That is, 300 employees spread across about 160 aquaculture leases covering a total of 14,000 acres, for an average of about 2 per lease and about 2 per 100 acres. Mr. Porter’s number (8 to 10 for 120 acres) is about three times the Nova Scotia average, despite presumed economies of scale and his description of his oyster farm as innovatively mechanized. Even 8 to 10 employees, if actual, would represent a maximum of two full time jobs in his family business, and the rest would be part time and/or seasonal.
In Antigonish, the fishery, forestry, tourism, farming and construction components of the local economy all depend on seasonal employees and struggle, reportedly, to hire at their times of need. The introduction of another seasonal employer would make this task harder.
Any negative environmental effects could have economic consequences. The potential for negative livelihood effects on other economic users of the harbour have to be considered in face of an assertion that the oyster farm will contribute to the Antigonish County economy.
We consider it possible that the project could be a cost, rather than a benefit, to taxpayers. We do not know what the public costs are related to the proposed project. Potential costs include:
tax payer funded government grants, loans, and other incentives
government regulatory and monitoring costs
any subsidization of upgrades to the Town Point road
any necessary gear clean up costs in the event of wind, wave or storm damage
tax consequences of i) interference as a result of exclusive use of a large area in the livelihoods of current oyster harvesters or as a result of environmental effects on eel and fin fish commercial/recreational and/or subsistence fishers; ii) land values of harbour water front and water view properties; iii) any reduced potential for residential builds; iv) reduced ambience of the Antigonish area as a tourist draw; and/or iv) business failure.
We also have no information on what revenues might accrue to governments as a result of the project to balance against potential costs.
Privatizing parts of Antigonish harbour will mean that the holder of the lease, Mr. Porter will have the rights to take from the commons and therefore turn the commons into a tradable commodity. He will be able to sell the rights to others – local, provincial or international -- with no requirement to inform or consult with the community. Distant ownership in particular could remove any economic benefits from the county economy.
Conclusion
We believe that we have legitimate concerns about i) potential negative effects on the harbour environment; ii) consequent potential for negative livelihood effects on people who use the harbour to earn income and/or harvest food for their families (fishers, hunters, tourist accommodation owners, etc.); iii) recreational users of the harbour (constraints to access to over 10% of the northern harbour, public safety); and iv) what the balance is between economic positives and negatives, to others than the Porter family. Our concerns suggest that any supposed net positive effect of the proposed oyster farm is speculative only. We believe there is real potential for negative environmental, social and economic impacts, in face of limited community benefit. And we wonder why the interests of one private user of what has always been a public resource should take precedence over the interests of so many other property owners and users of the harbour.
Academic Journals referenced
Gallardi D (2014) Effects of Bivalve Aquaculture on the Environment and Their Possible Mitigation: A Review. Fish Aquac J 5: 105: doi 10.4172/2150-3508.1000105. https://research.library.mun.ca/8245/
Ahmed OO, Solomon OO (2016) Ecological Consequences of Oysters Culture. J Fisheries Livest Prod 4:198. doi: 10.4172/2332-2608.1000198. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/ecological-consequences-of-oysters-culture-2332-2608-1000198.php?aid=83576
Barrie M.Forrest et al (2009)t Bivalve aquaculture in estuaries: Review and synthesis of oyster cultivation effects. Aquaculture Volume 298, Issues 1–2, 16 December 2009, Pages 1-15. Without payment, only the abstract is available, at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848609008278
Brett R.Dumbauld et al (2009) The ecological role of bivalve shellfish aquaculture in the estuarine environment: A review with application to oyster and clam culture in West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture Volume 290, Issues 3–4, 19 May 2009, Pages 196-223. Without payment, only the abstract is available, at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0044848609001926