Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 Guidance... · Web viewFailure to notify is a...

VERSION 1.1 ISSUED 26-11-08

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007

Guidance to Fish Health Inspectors Regarding the Enforcement of Provisions in Relation to Containment and Fish Farm Escapes

1) Overview

2) Summary of the provisions within the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 – Containment and fish Farm escapes

3) A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture

4) Site visits by Fish Health Inspectors

InspectionsAudits

5) Non-compliance and enforcement action

Annex 1 – Record Keeping Order – extract from Schedule 2 – records in relation to containment, prevention and recovery of escaped fish

Annex 2 – Containment Inspection Record Sheet

Annex 3 – Containment Audit Checklist

Annex 4 – Flowchart procedures for conducting containment inspections and audits

I. Containment inspection

II. Containment audit

III. Inspection of training records

IV. Conducting follow up inspections and audits

Annex 5 – Enforcement Notice

Annex 6 – Stipulations within the CoGP relating to containment and escapes

Annex 7 – Annex 13.2 of the CoGP - A Guide to Minimum Net Strengths

VERSION 1 ISSUED 24-11-08

Annex 8 - SSGA Predators Salmon and Trout1. Overview

The Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture, produced by the Scottish Executive in 2003, identified fish farm escapes and containment as a significant factor which could impact upon the future sustainability of both Aquaculture and wild fisheries. In addition to this, the Strategic Framework recommended the development of an Industry Code of Good Practice to ensure best practice throughout the finfish farming sector. The CoGP (‘A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’) has been in operation since the beginning of 2006. As a ‘regulatory back-stop to the code’ the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 (the Act) has been introduced and grants Scottish Ministers powers in relation to the measures in place for containment, the prevention of escapes of fish from fish farms and the recovery of escaped fish.

This document details guidance to the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) and offers advice on how to act when enforcing the new provisions of the Act. In addition to this guidance, a summary of the provisions of the act is provided, along with detail on the standard against which compliance will be measured – the CoGP. The guidance is a working document which is designed to be flexible.

The Act is a new piece of legislation and some of the provisions which it introduces are new areas of work for FRS. This guidance is designed to advise and assist inspectors enforcing this new legislation. It may be subject to change at any point, as deemed necessary by FRS and/or the Scottish Government Marine Directorate (SGMD).

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 - Guidance to Inspectors enforcing the provisions relating to containment and fish farm escapes

2


2. Summary of the provisions within the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 – Containment and fish farm escapes

The provisions to contain farmed fish and prevent escapes are detailed within Part 1 Section 5 of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007.

The Act permits:-

Inspection of fish farms to ascertain the risk of escape from the fish farm; ascertain whether fish have escaped from the fish farm; and to assess the measures in place for containment of fish, prevention of escaped fish from the farm, and for the recovery of escaped fish.

Powers to take samples and examine and/or take copies of documents or records.

Powers to arrange for follow-up tests as deemed necessary using samples taken during an inspection to ascertain measures in place in relation to containment, escapes, preventing escapes and the recovery of escaped fish.

Section 6 of the act covers enforcement notices which may be served on a person who carries on a business of fish farming where satisfactory measures are not in place to contain fish, prevent escapes and recover escaped fish.


3


3. A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture

This guidance is based on the requirements of the industry code of practice entitled ‘A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’ (the code or CoGP) with respect to containment, fish farm escapes and the recovery of escapees.

At present the Code is voluntary and a number of fish farm businesses are signed up. Details of participating companies are available as follows:-

for Scottish salmon farms see the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/aboutus/members.asp

for Scottish trout sites see the British Trout Association web site - www.britishtrout.co.uk/

for Scottish marine fish farms see the British Marine Finfish Association website – www.bmfa.uk.com/

The code represents the standard against which inspections will be conducted. It will be the responsibility of all Scottish fish farm businesses to comply to the standards in the section of the code relating to containment and escapes, whether these fish farms are signed up to the code or not.

For ease of reference the details within the code are reproduced in Annex 4 of this document.

Chapter 4 of the CoGP covers Containment and within this, section 4.9 details the points for compliance in relation to containment and fish farm escapes.


4

http://www.bmfa.uk.com/

http://www.britishtrout.co.uk/


4. Site visits by Fish Health Inspectors

The regime conducted by FRS Fish Health Inspectorate will involve both inspections and audits. Inspections may be conducted along with other statutory requirements (e.g. fish health surveillance), or conducted as a containment inspection within its own right. Audits will be conducted in addition to inspections and will involve greater scrutiny of records and procedures where necessary. Audits will not, routinely, be conducted at the same time as visits which encompass other statutory requirements. It is envisaged that the programme will be managed to make best use of time and resources and as a result it may be advantageous to combine containment inspections and audits with other routine statutory requirements.

The current fish health surveillance programme operates in accordance with Council Directive 91/67/EEC and involves inspection at every farm, at least on a yearly basis with sampling to test for certain notifiable diseases every other year, on farms holding susceptible species. 91/67/EEC will, in the near future, be replaced by Council Directive 2006/88/EC which is now in force and which is expected to be implemented by 1st

October 2008. The emphasis on surveillance will change to encompass a risk based approach.

There may be a need to reconsider the inspection process following the implementation of Council Directive 2006/88/EC. This will be determined when the new programme is adopted.

Scope

All Scottish fin fish farms will be subject to inspection in respect of containment and escapes.

Inspections and Audits

Inspection Procedure

Inspections will be conducted in association with routine statutory site inspections in accordance with the current fish health inspection and sampling regime. The procedure will include:

Enquiry into whether escape problems have been experienced on site (section A)

Inspection of the site (including holding facilities, and equipment) (section C)

The inspection may also include, where and when necessary:

Issuing advice (section G)


5


Enforcement action (section H)

A containment inspection record sheet is produced in Annex 2 of this document which details the questions to be asked during inspection. Where an inspection is conducted and the need for greater in depth auditing is identified (e.g. auditing site procedures or assessing equipment suitability on site), then, if possible this activity will be carried out there and then. If this is not possible then auditing will be conducted through a follow up visit.

Audit Procedure

In addition to inspection, a number of sites will be subject to greater scrutiny through a process of auditing. Audits will be conducted on approximately 10% of active sites per year i.e. 35 sites based on 350 active sites (this figure will also be inclusive of follow up visits as required).

A specialist inspector, responsible for containment will be responsible for identifying which sites should be audited and will have the responsibility for ensuring that the programme of audits is met. FRS will identify sites through a risk based approach in conjunction with an intelligence based approach.

Where escapes have been reported, the site experiencing the escape may be subjected to an investigation conducted in an attempt to confirm or determine, where possible, the reason behind the escape. Such sites may also be audited in relation to records, equipment standards and procedures to ensure they are compliant with the legislation and the CoGP.

The Intelligence Based Approach will centre around information from Fish Health Inspectors (i.e. observed issues relating to escapes and containment) and through third party notification1 of reported containment breaches, escapes, or concerns relating to containment, escapes and recovery of fish. Notification of the presence of escaped or suspected escaped fish within the waters of a management area or water catchment will also be considered as part of the intelligence based approach.

The Risk Based Approach will identify sites which are considered to be at risk with respect to their ability to contain fish. All Scottish fish farm sites will be subject to assessment and consideration with respect to risk. The following criteria will be used when determining which sites will be subject to audit:

If a site or business:

1 Third party notification will be investigated if they are considered as credible notification from a credible source. FRS and the Scottish Government will be responsible for determining what is credible and what is investigated.


6


is not signed up to ‘A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’ (CoGP), or any other standard which has incorporated “A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture”

has a history of escapes

has inadequate equipment considered ‘unfit for purpose and/or location’

demonstrates evidence of poor maintenance and/or poor practice

is non-compliant with the existing voluntary CoGP

Follows procedures which may increase the risk of escapes (determined by FRS) e.g. fish movements, grading

is located within an area where environmental conditions may compromise containment (e.g. a freshwater pond site being prone to flooding)

suffers regular or heavy predation pressure which may increase the risk of escapes

If an insufficient number of sites are identified by this approach then a random, rolling inspection programme may also supplement the regime. The exact number of sites to be audited will be determined following risk analysis and will be influenced by the number of follow up inspections and audits required and the number of escapes reported. If a company has been identified as high risk, is responsible for a large number of sites, and performs adequately at audit on one of its sites, then company wide procedures may be taken into account and only a percentage of if sites may require auditing.

With a view to ascertaining the risk of escape, whether fish have escaped and assessing the measures in place for containment, the basic procedure for audit will include all or some of the following:

Enquiry as to whether an escape has occurred (section A)

Inspection and analysis of records or documents (section B)

Inspection of the site (section C)

Inspection of site procedures (section D)

The audit may also include, where and when necessary:

The collection of samples (section E)

An escapes investigation (section F)

Issuing advice (section G)


7


Enforcement action (section H)

Working with an expert consultant to resolve the case (section I)

A containment audit checklist is produced in Annex 3 of this document this details the questions to be asked and has some comments in relation to procedure and interpretation. The audit checklist should be considered in association with the information contained below – Actions for inspections and audits.

Prior to conducting the audit, it may be beneficial to email, fax, or send a web link to the containment audit checklist to facilitate the farmer in preparing for the audit and gathering the necessary records together.

Actions for inspections and audits

These guidance notes should be read in conjunction with the Inspection Record Sheet and the Audit Checklist, located at Annex 2 and Annex 3 respectively.

A) Enquiry into whether escape problems have been experienced on site

Enquiry will be made to establish whether any escapes or suspected escapes have been experienced on site since the last visit by FHI.

Under The Registration of Fish Farming and Shellfish Farming Businesses Amendment (Scotland) Order 2002 (as amended), 4A.-(1) stipulates that a person who carries on the business of fish farming and is required to be registered under article 3 of The Registration of fish Farming and Shellfish Farming Businesses Order 1985, is required to notify the Scottish Ministers of:

(a) the circumstances on, or in the vicinity, of the fish farm which caused or are believed to have caused an escape, and

(b) any circumstances on, or in the vicinity of the fish farm which gave rise to a significant risk of an escape of fish.

This legislation specifies, in Schedule 4, the information to be submitted to the Scottish Ministers.

The CoGP stipulates (section 4.9.7.2) that ‘Any escape or suspected escape of live fish, including the circumstances that may have given rise to the escape, must be reported to the Scottish Executive within 24 hours of discovery’.

The CoGP also requires farmers (section 4.9.6.3) to record and report in accordance with current legislation all details of introductions, gradings, transfers, treatments, handling or any other incident or occurrence that might have led to an escape. The


8


records shall be available for inspection by any person authorised by Scottish Ministers to act as an Inspector.

Where an ‘escape event’2 is reported to have occurred, the inspector will confirm with the farmer, if this has been formally reported to Scottish Ministers by initial and final notification and within statutory deadlines. Contact with staff within the Aquaculture team of the Scottish Government Marine Directorate may also be made to confirm reporting. Should an escape have occurred but notification has not been made then the inspector will advise the site representative of the correct procedures with respect to reporting escapes as detailed in the document ‘What to do in the Event of an Escape of Fish from a Fish Farm’ located at:

www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46951/0024238.pdf

Failure to notify is a contravention to The Registration of Fish Farming and Shellfish Farming Businesses Amendment (Scotland) Order 2002 and may result in the inspector issuing a caution, taking a statement and gathering evidence.

The inspector will consider if any other staff members (if in existence and differ from the farmer assisting with the inspection e.g. the company manger or veterinarian) have reported the escape event without the knowledge of those site staff assisting with the inspection.

Under section 4.9.7.3 of the CoGP, any escape or suspected escape of live fish should be reported to the local District Salmon Fisheries Board and Fisheries Trust within 24 hours, where such Boards/Trusts exist.

To ensure compliance, where an escape event is reported, an enquiry will also be made to determine if notification to the appropriate DSFB and Fisheries Trust has also been made, where these exits. Follow up investigations will include contacting the DSFB and Fisheries Trust to ensure notification has been made.

Consideration will be given to any anomalies between the movement of fish on site and the present volume of stock on site which may suggest an escape of stock. Mortality rates, fish movements off site and harvesting and predation levels will be considered. These records will be checked during all routine fish health inspections and may form the basis of questioning to establish whether an escape of fish has occurred. “Black losses” (anomalies regarding the number of fish stocked will also be considered as part of this process.

Following an escape event, an enquiry will be made as to whether or not capture methods have been employed to recover escapees. Where farmers have made attempts to recapture escaped fish through the use of gill nets, inspectors will confirm that the appropriate permission has been sought in accordance with section 3A of The Inshore Fishing (Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2007. Failure to obtain such permission is an offence.

2 An ‘escape event’ can be defined as any circumstances on or in the vicinity of a fish farm which are believed to have caused an escape, or which may gave rise to a significant risk of an escape of fish.


9

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46951/0024238.pdf


In circumstances where attempts to recapture, using gill nets have been made, without the necessary permission, this should be reported to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Division of the Scottish Government.

Where an escape has occurred, the inspector will ask what action was taken to prevent and minimise the risk of further escape. Failure to taken action, could be considered as a contravention to the Act and the requirement to take satisfactory measures, depending upon the circumstances surrounding the escape, e.g. for an escape connected to a hole in the net we may expect action to include by repair and further net inspection; with regard to a procedural issues it would be justified to see a review or amendment to those procedures. In accordance with the CoGP point 4.9.6.3 the inspector will confirm with the farmer that records of all escape incidents are available in relation to this point.

B) Inspection and analysis of records or documents

Under Part 1, Section 1(3) of the Act, Scottish Ministers have made an order (reference to the SSI or ‘record keeping’ order) for the purpose of obtaining information in relation to the containment of fish on fish farms, the prevention of escapes of fish from fish farms and the recovery of escaped fish. This order may require fish farmers to provide information to the Scottish Ministers as specified [Part 1, Section 1(4)(a)], compile records [Part 1, Section 1(4)(b)], and retain records for a period of three years [Part 1, Section 1(4)(c)].

An inspector may i) require the production of; ii) inspect and; iii) take copies of any records which a person is required to retain as detailed in the order [Part 1, Section1(5)]. Whilst copies of records will not be routinely collected, they may be collected where a case may proceed to reporting to the procurator fiscal. Records which are collected may be accessed by third parties following request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Regulations and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations. There may be exemptions and exceptions to releasing certain information, especially if such is to be involved in any criminal proceedings.

An offence is committed if, without reasonable excuse, a fish farmer fails to maintain such records [Part1, Section 2 (1)(a)], knowingly provides any information or compiles a record which is false [Part 1, Section 2(a)(b)], or knowingly alters records so that they become false [Part 1, Section 2(1)(c)].

The inspector must use his/her judgment to consider if a reasonable excuse exists where a record is absent.

The details of the order made under Part 1, Section 1(3) are contained within Schedule 2 of The Fish Farming Businesses (Record Keeping) (Scotland) Order 2008.

Inclusive are records surrounding facilities, nets and moorings, ,navigation markers, boat operations, fish transfers, anti predator measures, contingency plans and environmental


10


information. The specific details concerned with these records are specified within the Order and reproduced within Annex 1 of these guidance notes. During the audit of records the FHI may inspect all or any of these records that they consider necessary to confirm their existence and maintenance.

The CoGP details specific requirements with respect to the maintenance of records:- under section 4.9.2. These requirements include records in relation to pens, nets and moorings, contingency plans net identification tags, training and escapes:

Under 4.9.2.1 - Pen, net and mooring specifications and details of all inspections, testing and maintenance should be documented and recorded

And under 4.9.2.2 - Records should be available for inspection by any person authorised by Scottish Ministers to act as an Inspector.

With respect to escapes of fish, section 4.9.7 of the CoGP stipulates that farms should have site specific contingency plans describing events to be taken during an escape

4.9.7.1 - Farmers should have site-specific contingency plans that describe actions to be taken in the event of any escapes. Guidance on what to do in the event of an escape is appended to SSI 193. The use of certain types of recapture net requires permission from the Scottish Executive.

These Contingency Plans will be subject to inspection during the examination of records as part of the audit.

In relation to records relating to nets the CoGP stipulates:

Sections 4.9.1.6.1 - Nets should carry a numbered ID tag and an inventory should be kept of all nets.

Section 4.9.1.6.2 - Information held should include: date of purchase/manufacture; supplier; location; and testing history; and antifouling history.

In relation to training records the CoGP indicates: Boatmen must be fully trained and competent, and should possess the necessary qualifications for the operations concerned. Training records should be kept and be readily accessible (section 4.9.4.2.)

And in relation to escapes

All details of introductions, gradings, transfers, treatments, handling or any other incident or occurrence that might have led to an escape must be recorded and reported in accordance with current legislation. The records shall be available for inspection by any person authorised by Scottish Ministers to act as an Inspector. Section 4.9.6.3.


11


Where records do not exists, fish farms will be advised to maintain them in a manner which will comply with the legislation and CoGP. Persistent failure to maintain records may result in the issuing of an enforcement notice and possibly further action.

C) Inspection of the site

Part 1, Section 5 (1) & (2) of the Act permits an inspector to carry out the inspection of a fish farm site to ascertain the risk of escape from the site, ascertain whether any fish have escaped and assess the measures in place for the containment of fish, the prevention of escapes and the recovery of escaped fish.

The visual examination conducted as part of an audit will be to a greater extent than that which is conducted as part of an inspection.

During an inspection, a visual assessment of the site will be conducted to look for any obvious containment issues and escape risks. Examples include, but are not limited to:-

Nets - holes in nets, fixing of nets to cages, presence of top nets Risk of escape from tanks, ponds and raceways Issues regarding grids or screens in association with ponds, tanks, raceways and

settlement ponds Risk of escape in relation to any activity conducted during the visit – e.g. fish

movements, grading, harvesting.

If evidence of an escape risk is apparent then this will be raised with the farmer. The site may then be recommended for further auditing.

An audit will involve greater scrutiny of the site. As well as considering those issues highlighted for inspection it will also include:

Assessment of the structural elements to the farm – type of cages, nets, tanks etc.

mooring ropes, chains, nets and other equipment are fit for purpose Correct installation

The auditing of sites will specifically cover the following points with respect to the CoGP:

That the design and construction of pens and the materials used are suitable for the environmental conditions of the site. Evidence should be provided by the farmer (from the manufacturer or other suitably qualified person) information on installation, the materials used, the strength of the design and it’s suitability for the environment in which it is to be deployed. (CoGP 4.9.1.1.2). Consultation with manufacturer may be required.

Pen units comply with health and safety guidelines in respect of accessibility, anchorage, buoyancy, strength and stability (4.9.1.2.1) Consultation with HSE may be required.


12


The installation of new equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions (4.9.1.2.1) Consultation with manufacturer may be required

Moorings should be of a type compatible with the pen installations deployed on site. These shall be designed, constructed and deployed such that the loads and stresses imposed by tidal and/or water surface movement are spread evenly, and the pen installation is allowed to move and flex satisfactorily. Moorings should be consistent with the type of seabed at the site. 4.9.1.4.1

Moorings should be designed and installed in consultation with the pen and moorings manufacturer, and every component should be inspected according to a regular and recorded plan. 4.9.1.4.2.

All nets should be manufactured by suppliers whose designs meet or exceed industry standards (refer to Annex 13 for guidance on minimum net strengths). 4.9.1.5.1.

The net mesh size should be capable of containing the entire range of fish sizes in every instance where new stock is introduced to either fresh or saltwater pen sites. 4.9.1.5.2.

The design of nets shall take account of the conditions that are likely to be experienced on the site and include an adequate safety margin. Nets should be manufactured from materials that are of a suitable quality for the purpose and be of a mesh size that retains the smallest fish in the pen. 4.9.1.5.3.

Exposure to ultraviolet light is likely to cause deterioration in the strength of the fabric of nets; nets should be treated with UV inhibitor and stored away from direct sunlight. 4.9.1.5.4.

Where a high degree of stress or other challenges to their integrity is anticipated, when new nets are being ordered features such as shock absorbing panels, reinforcing panels (e.g. at net corners) and anti-chafe panels, which may reduce the possibility of net failure, should be incorporated into the design and construction. 4.9.1.5.5.

Pen units in tidal waters must be marked and lit in accordance with requirements determined, in principle, by the Scottish Executive and in detail by the Northern Lighthouse Board in consultation, as appropriate, with any local Harbour Authority. 4.9.3.1.

29 In some cases, marker buoys or radar reflectors may be required for safety

reasons, e.g. as indicators of obstructions in the water. Such buoys should be of suitable size, colour, design and construction so that navigators are aware of potential obstructions created by the fish farm installation by day and night. 4.9.3.2.


13


Tank and pond systems should be designed to contain fish effectively, including provision for containment during periods of flooding. 4.9.5.1.

Both inflow and outflow of tank and pond systems should be screened to prevent the passage of fish. 4.9.5.2.

Where the outflow from tanks passes into a settling pond, the outflow from the settling pond should incorporate a screen of suitable size and construction to prevent the passage of fish. Screens should be inspected regularly. 4.9.5.3.

During inspection or audit, if any elements to the site appear damaged, fatigued or worn and represent a perceived escape risk then a record will be taken which may include a photograph to:

Identify the location

Record the problem – this could include gathering photographic evidence

Explain what the inspector would expect

D) Inspection of specific site procedures

In association with the Act [Part 1, Section 5(1) & (2)(c)(i) & (ii)] where and when possible procedures conducted on site which may give rise to an escape may be audited. Where an escape event has occurred due to a site operational procedure, a follow up audit may be arranged to coincide with such procedures to allow the appropriate auditing of them. Where a site is identified as conducting certain procedures frequently (e.g. regular grading) they may also be targeted for audit.

Site procedures may include, but are not restricted to: grading; fish movements; harvesting; net changing; fish transfers; treatments; boat operations; net changing; and ‘swim throughs’.

Containment check procedures may be audited when staff are conducting these processes at the time of the visit.

In addition, any corrective actions employed relating to escape incidents may also be subject to audit.

The following points from the CoGP will be considered:

Nets should be tested in accordance with manufacturer’s advice. 4.9.1.6.3.

Nets should be inspected regularly for damage. 4.9.1.6.4.


14


The system by which nets are attached to the pen and weighted should be regularly inspected. 4.9.1.6.5.

A predator risk assessment should be undertaken on a site-specific basis. 4.9.1.7.1.

Where anti-predator nets are deployed, the advice contained in Section II, Part 5 of the SSGA Code of Practice ‘Salmon Farming & Predatory Wildlife’ should be followed16. 4.9.1.6.2.

Fish farm workboat operations should be planned and conducted in such a manner as to prevent damage to nets and pens. 4.9.4.1.

Propellers that are used in a position likely to cause damage to nets should be fitted with guards or fitted into wells to minimise the risk of contact with any netting or ropes. 4.9.4.3.

Procedures such as fish input, grading, transfer of fish between sites and harvesting, which could increase the risk of fish escaping from pens or tanks, should be carefully planned and supervised to minimise any risk. 4.9.6.1.

A documented risk assessment and contingency plan should be in place before any such procedure is followed. 4.9.6.2.

Where fish are being transferred by helicopter, the receiving pen(s) should be marked with buoys clearly visible from the air. In the interests of animal welfare and environmental integrity, the member of fish farm staff responsible for receiving the fish should maintain radio contact with the helicopter crew. Where this is not possible, the pen(s) being stocked should be manned. 4.9.6.4.

E) The collection of samples

In accordance with the Act [Part 1, Section 5(3)(a) an inspector may take samples inclusive of samples of equipment to complement the site audit. The inspector will collect whatever samples are deemed necessary, and are practically possible, as part of the audit.

Under Part 1, Section 5(4) the inspector can arrange for the carrying out of any tests which he or she considers necessary using samples taken during an audit for the purposes prescribed in the Act [Part 1, Section 5(2)]. Examples may include samples of net or mooring rope for independent strength testing. Photographic evidence may also be collected.

F) An escapes investigation


15

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Typing error in CoGP – should read 4.9.1.7.2.


Investigations will be made where escapes have been experienced and reported, suspected and reported or where there is suspicion but no reports of escapes. In such situations, investigations will be conducted into establishing the reason behind the escape. An audit of on site records and procedures will be conducted to ensure compliance with the Act and CoGP.

G) Issue of advice

Where necessary, advice will be given in relation to complying with the Act and meeting the required standards of the CoGP. Inspectors will issue advice verbally and this may be followed up in writing. As this is new legislation, it will be important to raise industry awareness of their requirements whilst we promote how compliance can be achieved. Time scales for implementing and acting upon the advice which is given shall be agreed between the inspector and the farmer.

H) Enforcement action

In some situations enforcement action may be necessary. Advice will be given in relation to complying with the Act and meeting the required standards of the CoGP. However, where a site has been advised to amend or improve procedures and has failed to do so an enforcement notice instructing this action may be issued.

Part 1, Section 6 of the Act grants Scottish Ministers the powers to serve an enforcement notice on a person who carries on the business of fish farming. Such notices may be served where satisfactory measures are not in place for prevention, control and reduction of parasites, the containment of fish, the prevention of escape of fish and the recovery of escaped fish. A draft enforcement notice is provided in Annex 5 of this document. Details regarding the content of the Enforcement Notice are specified within Part 1, Section 6 of the Act.

The enforcement notice will specify and require the execution of such works and/or the taking of such other steps as the Scottish Ministers consider necessary. Enforcement notices will be issued by fish health Inspectors on behalf of the Scottish Ministers. Failure to meet the requirements of a notice may result in the submission of a case to the Procurator Fiscal.

I) Working with an expert consultant to resolve the case

Staff at FRS may not possess the necessary qualifications and experience in relation to the ‘structural engineering aspects’ of fish farming. As a result, there may, on occasion, be a requirement to seek expert advice and opinion through consultation. Such areas include net specialists, mooring installations and cage manufacturers. FRS will develop and maintain a list of suitable contacts who will act as consultants for the various specialised fields relating to escapes and containment.

5. Non-compliance and enforcement action


16


There may be ‘non-compliances’ in relation to record keeping, or taking adequate steps to preventing escapes and containing fish. In such circumstances fish farmers will be offered advice requiring them to take corrective action. They may be issued an Enforcement Notice requiring action to be taken within a defined time period. Repeat inspections may be conducted to ensure that the provisions are fulfilled in accordance with the notice. If the required action is not carried out satisfactorily then reports may be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration. The Procurator Fiscal will decide if there is a case to answer and if there is reasonable chance of a prosecution being successful.

We will conduct cases in accordance with the Fish Health Inspectorate Service Charter and wherever possible, advice will be given to assist and encourage fish farmers to comply with the requirements of the legislation in the first instance, however an enforcement notice will be issued where or when necessary. The following examples are designed to illustrate situations where advice has been has been given and may be followed up by an Enforcement Notice.

Issue Advice Follow up action/comments

1. Failure to maintain records Instruction to maintain and submit records

Audit records, follow up audit of site to ensure record maintenance

2. Poor equipment maintenance

Instruction to service and maintain equipment adequately

Audit service records

3. Equipment perceived to be unsuitable – not fit for purpose and location

Instruction to seek and follow professional advice over the suitability of the equipment for farming at the site concerned

Inspect/audit to verify advice taken and implemented where appropriate

4. Perceived escape risk due to an operational procedure

Instruction to revise operational procedure with a view to reducing perceived risk

Audit operational procedure to ensure revision adopted

5. Failure to review procedures following an escape incident

Instruction to revise operational procedure

Audit operational procedure to ensure revision adopted

6. Failure to follow relevant code of practice / operational guidelines

Instruction to follow CoP and necessary guidelines

Audit to ensure compliance

7. Lack of on site security Instruction to improve security including signs, restrict access, and fit security cameras where applicable

Audit to ensure measures have been put in place.

8. Persistent predation problems

Instruction to improve anti-predator measures on site

Audit to ensure compliance. If persistent problems occur and no further measures are deemed appropriate this may lead to a location issue.

9. Escape incident caused by Instruction to revise Standard Audit to ensure SOP’s are in


17


human error Operational Procedures and provide staff training

place and are being followed


18


ANNEX 1 – Record Keeping Order

Extract from Schedule 2 - Records in relation to containment, prevention and recovery of escape of fish

1. In relation to each facility, net, and mooring a record of:-

a) the name of the manufacturer;

b) any special adaptations;

c) the name of the supplier;

d) the date of purchase;

e) each inspection including-i) the name of the person conducting the inspection;ii) the date of each inspection;iii) the place of each inspection; andiv) the outcome of each inspection; and

f) the date and result of each repair, equipment test and antifouling treatment carried out.

2. In relation to each net a record of-

i) the mesh size;ii) the code which appears on the identification tag;iii) the place of use, storage and disposal; andv) the depth of water between the bottom of the net and the seabed as measured at the mean low water spring.

3. In relation to each facility a record of-

i) the date of construction;ii) the materials used in construction; andiii) its dimensions.

4. In relation to each mooring a record of-

i) the date of installation;ii) the design and weight of the anchors;iii) the length of the mooring ropes or chains.

5. A record of any navigation markers deployed.

6. In relation to any boat operations a record of –

a) all training and qualifications of each person working there in the use of each boat;


19


b) the type and size of each boat used for operations on the site; and

c) the type and size of any propeller guard fitted to each boat used for operations on the site.

7. In relation to any transfer of, or handling of, fish a record of-

a) all training of each person working there in relation to containment and prevention of escape of fish, and recovery of escaped fish; and

b) any assessment of the escape of fish carried out.

8. A record of any anti-predator measures undertaken including-

a) the type and location of each net, fence and scarer deployed;

b) the use of lethal means by any person involved in operations on the site; and;

c) any assessment of risk of escape of fish carried out.

9. A record of any contingency plan for preventing escapes of fish from fish farms and recovering any fish which have escaped prepared by a person carrying on the business of fish farming.

10. In respect of sites at which fish are farmed in inland waters, being waters which do not form part of the sea or of any creek, bay or estuary or of any river as far as the tide flows-

a) the type, method and date of construction of any flood prevention or flood defence measures in place;

b) the date of and results of any tests conducted on any such measures;

c) the date of any incident where the site was flooded; and

d) the water course height during any such flood incident.

11. A record of

a) the date of any severe weather event which caused damage to any facility, net or mooring, andb) any action taken to rectify such damage.


20


Annex 2 – Containment Inspection Record Sheet

Fisheries Research Services

RECORD SHEET

FHI

Issue No

Issued By

Date of this Issue:

of 52

Version 1.1

Neil Purvis

21/11/2008Containment and Sea Lice Inspection

Case No:

Site No:

Site Name:

Date of Visit:

/ / Inspector:

Containment Inspection

1. Have escape incidents or events 3been experienced on or in the vicinity of the site since the last FRS inspection?

YES NO

If Yes proceed with questions 2 – 8. If No skip to question 9.

2. Have these been reported to Scottish Ministers? (Legal Under the Registration of Fish Farming Business Amendment Order 2002; Code of Good Practice (CoGP) – Must – 4.9.7.2)

YES NO N/A

3. Have these been reported to local DSFB within 24 hours (where they exist)? (CoGP – Must – 4.9.7.3)

YES NO N/A

4. Have these been reported to the local fisheries trusts within 24 hours (where they exist)? (CoGP – Must – 4.9.7.3)

(If necessary contact with the DSFB and Fisheries trusts can be made to establish this)

YES NO N/A

3 An ‘escape event’ can be defined as any circumstances on or in the vicinity of a fish farm which are believed to have caused an escape, or which may gave rise to a significant risk of an escape of fish.


21


5. Were methods (if any) used to recover escapees? If yes give detail

YES NO N/A

6. If gill nets were deployed was this action agreed with local wild fish interests and was permission given by Scottish Ministers? (Legal4 CoGP – 4.9.7.1)

YES NO N/A

7. What action was taken to prevent and minimise the risk of further escapes? (Not covered in code but could be considered under satisfactory measures of the Act)

YES NO N/A

8. Are records of escape incidents available where applicable in accordance with the CoGP 4.9.6.3?

YES NO N/A

9. Inspection of the site

Is the site inspected as satisfactory with regards to containment? If no, please detail reason(s)

YES NO N/A

4 Include reference to legislation covering the use of gill nets


22


Annex 3 – Example of an FHI containment audit checklist

Fisheries Research Services

RECORD SHEET

FHI

Issue No

Issued By

Date of this Issue:

Page 1 of 14

Version 1.2

Neil Purvis

26/11/2008Containment Audit

Applicable to the following site(s)

Site Name: Site No: Case No: Date of last inspection:





Date of Visit: / / Inspector:


23


Point of compliance Conducted during

Yes / No / N/A Level of requirement

Comment Advice given or action taken

Section A - Enquiry into escape incidents

4.9.6.3 All details of introductions, grading, transfers, treatments, handling or any other incident or occurrence that might have led to an escape must be recorded and reported in accordance with current legislation. The records shall be available for inspection by any person authorised by Scottish Ministers to act as an Inspector

4.9.7.2 Any escape or suspected escape of live fish, including the circumstances that may have given rise to the escape, must be reported to the Scottish Executive within 24 hours

4.9.7.3 Any escape or suspected escape of live fish should be reported to the local District Salmon Fisheries Board and Fisheries Trust within 24 hours

1. Have escape incidents or events5 been experienced on or in the vicinity of the site since the last FRS inspection?

If yes:

2. Have these been reported to Scottish Ministers?

3. Have these been reported to local DSFB within 24 hours (where they exist)?

4. Have these been reported to local fisheries trusts within 24 hours (where they exist)?

(If necessary contact with the DSFB and Fisheries trusts can be made to establish this)

5. Were methods (if any) used to recover escapees? If yes give detail

Inspection and audit

If experienced CoGP6 – Must – 4.9.6.3

Legal7CoGP – must – 4.9.7.2

CoGP – Must – 4.9.7.3

CoGP – Must – 4.9.7.3

Closed question

5 An ‘escape event’ can be defined as any circumstances on or in the vicinity of a fish farm which are believed to have caused an escape, or which may gave rise to a significant risk of an escape of fish.6 CoGP – Industry Code of Good Practice – ‘A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture’7 Under the Registration of Fish Farming Business Amendment Order


24

purvisn, 12/02/08,

If not, issue advice about the legal requirements to report escapes and events which may have given rise to an escape of fish.


6. If gill nets were deployed was this action agreed with local wild fish interests and permission given by Scottish Ministers?

7. What action was taken to prevent and minimise the risk of further escapes?

8. Are records of escape incidents available where applicable in accordance with the CoGP 4.9.6.3?

Legal8CoGP – 4.9.7.1

Not covered in code but could be considered under satisfactory measures of the Act.

Section B - Inspection of Records Audit Legal - SSI9

Records should be inspected in accordance with the Record Keeping Order and the relevant points in the CoGP

4.9.2.1 Pen, net and mooring specifications and details of all inspections, testing and maintenance should be documented and recorded

4.9.2.2 These records should be available for inspection by any person authorised by Scottish Ministers to act as an Inspector

4.9.1.6.2 Information held should include: date of purchase/manufacturer; supplier; location and testing history and antifouling history (Point relevant to inventory on nets – relates to 4.9.1.6.1)

9. With regard to each facility, net and mooring at each site, a record should be maintained of:-

- The name of the manufacturer

Audit All records are legally required under the SSI

8 Section 3A of The Inshore Fishing (Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Amendment Order 20079 SSI = the Record Keeping Order entitled ‘The Fish Farming Businesses (Record Keeping) (Scotland) Order 2008


25

purvisn, 12/02/08,

A record of notifications sent to SG would be sufficient ( provided al escape incidents are reported).

purvisn, 12/02/08,

If gill nets were used without permission, then the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Division of Scottish Government (SG) should be informed.


- Any special adaptations

- The name of the supplier

- The date of purchase

- Each inspection including i) the name of the person conducting the inspection ii) the date of each inspection iii) the place of each inspection iv) the outcome of each inspection

- the date and result of each repair, equipment test and antifouling treatment carried out

Some requirement to maintain under CoGP – 4.9.2.1 and 4.9.1.6.2 – Should

10. In relation to each net a record of

- The mesh size

- The code which appears on the identification tag

- The place of use, storage and disposal

- The depth of water between the bottom of the net and the seabed as measured at the mean low water spring

11. In relation to each facility a record of-

- The date of construction

- The material used in construction

- Its dimensions

12. In relation to each mooring a record of-

- The date of installation

Audit Legal - SSI


26


- The design and weight of the anchors

- The length of the mooring ropes or chains

13. A record of any navigation markers deployed at each site at which fish are farmed

4.9.4.2 Boatmen must be fully trained and competent, and should possess the necessary qualifications for the operations concerned. Training records should be kept and be readily accessible

14. In relation to any boat operations at each site at which fish are farmed a record of

- All training and qualifications of each person working there in the use of each boat

- The type and size of each boat used for operations on the site

- The type and size of any propeller guard fitted to each boat used on the site

15. In relation to any transfer of, or handling of, fish at each site at which fish are farmed a record of

- All training of each person working there in relation to containment and prevention of escape of fish, and recovery of escaped fish; and

- Any assessment of the risk of escape of fish carried out

16. A record of any anti-predator measures undertaken at each site at which fish are farmed including

- The type and location of each net, fence and scarer deployed

- The use of lethal means by any person involved in

Audit Legal – SSI

Covered through CoGP 4.9.4.2 - should


27

purvisn, 12/02/08,

We will not be enforcing this provision with respect to well boats.


operations on the site

- Any assessment of risk of escape of fish carried out

4.9.7.1 Farmers should have site-specific contingency plans that describe actions to be taken in the event of any escapes. Guidance on what to do in the event of an escape is appended to SSI 193. The use of certain types of recapture net requires permission from the Scottish Executive

17. A record of any contingency plan for preventing escapes of fish from fish farms and recovering any fish which have escaped prepared by a person carrying on the business of fish farming.

Audit Legal – SSICoGP 4.9.7.1 - Should

18. In respect of sites at which fish are farmed in inland waters, being waters which do not form part of the sea or any creek, bay or estuary or of any river as far as far as the tide flows

- The type, method of and date of construction of any flood prevention or flood defence measures in place

- The date of and results of any tests conducted on any such measures

- The date of any incident where the site was flooded

- the water course height during any such flood incident

19. A record of-

- The date of any severe weather event which caused damage to any facility, net or mooring

- Any action taken to rectify any such damage

Audit Legal - SSI

20. Are records available that reflect the requirements of SSI Audit Legal – SSI


28


and CoGP? and CoGP – some points

Section C - Inspection of site

21. Are there any obvious containment issues on site?Consider – nets, top nets, holes in nets, inflows and outflows grids, flooding, boat operations

Inspection and audit

Legal – Act requires satisfactory measures to contain fish.

4.9.1.1.2 Pens, including all ancillary grading and swim through pens, should be designed and constructed so as to be capable of dealing with the weather and other environmental conditions likely to be experienced on the site. Farmers should obtain from the manufacturer or otherwise suitably qualified person information on installation, materials used, strength of the design and its suitability for the environment in which it is to be deployed.

22. Are pens and other equipment designed and constructed in a manner believed suitable for the environmental conditions of the site?

23. Is information available from the manufacturer or other suitable source on the installation, materials used strength, design and suitability for the environment it is being deployed?

Audit CoGP 4.9.1.1.2 - should

4.9.1.3.1 All new equipment should be installed in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Farmers should consider the potential benefits of having suppliers supervise the installation of pens and ancillary equipment

24. Has new10 equipment been installed?

25. If yes, has this been done with the manufacturer instructions?

26. Was supplier supervision considered during installation?

CoGP 4.9.1.3.1 –should

10 New equipment is defined as equipment purchased since the introduction of the CoGP or since the last audit of the site


29

purvisn, 12/02/08,

We should be satisfied that installation has considered meteorological and hydrographical data and takes on board manufacturers or expert advice


27. Was supplier supervision conducted during installation?

4.9.1.4.1 Moorings should be of a type compatible with the pen installations deployed on site. These shall be designed, constructed and deployed such that the loads and stresses imposed by tidal and/or water surface movements are spread evenly, and the pen is allowed to move and flex satisfactorily. Moorings should be consistent with the type of seabed at the site

28. Are moorings considered to be compatible with the pen installation on site?

29. Are moorings designed and constructed and deployed so that the loads and stresses imposed by tidal and surface waters are spread evenly?

30. Are moorings consistent with the type of seabed at the site?

CoGP 4.9.1.4.1 - Should

4.9.1.4.2 Moorings should be designed and installed in consultation with the pen and moorings manufacturer, and every component should be inspected according to a regular recorded plan.

31. Are moorings designed and installed in consultation with the pen and moorings manufacturer?

32. If not, have they been designed and installed by people with sufficient experience?

33. Has every component been inspected according to a regular recorded plan?

34. Is that plan available for inspection?

Audit CoGP – 4.9.1.4.2 - Should

4.9.1.5.1 All nets should be manufactured by suppliers whose designs meet or exceed industry standards (refer to Annex 13 for guidance on minimum net strengths).

35. Who manufactures your nets? (refer to records if recorded)

Audit


30

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Dive team reports would be sufficient

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Professional installation, or by those with sufficient experience. We can look at the history of the site – e.g. if it has been there for 20 years and not had problems in relation to moorings then we could consider these to be sufficient.

purvisn, 12/02/08,

We should be confident that moorings are installed with manufacturers advice in relation to the pen system used on site


36. Do all nets meet or exceed industry standards?CoGP 4.9.1.5.1 - Should

4.9.1.5.2 The net mesh size should be capable of containing the entire range of fish sizes in every instance where new stock is introduced to either fresh or saltwater pen sites

37. Is the net mesh size considered to be capable of containing all fish sizes present on site?

Audit CoGP – 4.9.1.5.2 - Should

4.9.1.5.3 The design of nets shall take account of the conditions that are likely to be experienced on site and include an adequate safety margin. Nets should be manufactured from materials that are of a suitable quality for the purpose and be of a mesh size that retains the smallest fish in the pen.

38. Does the net design take into account the conditions that are likely to be experienced on site?

39. Are nets manufactured from a suitable material?

Audit CoGP Should 4.9.1.5.3

4.9.1.5.4 Exposure to ultraviolet light is likely to cause deterioration in the strength of the fabric of nets: nets should be treated with a UV inhibitor and stored away from direct sunlight?

40. Are nets treated with a UV inhibitor?

41. Are nets stored away from direct sunlight?

Audit CoGP 4.9.1.5.4 Should

4.9.1.5.5 Where a high degree of stress or other challenges to their integrity is anticipated, when new nets are being ordered, features such as shock absorbing panels, reinforcing panels (e.g. at net corners) and anti-chafe panels, which may reduce the possibility of net failure, should be incorporated into the design and construction

42. Does the site experience a high degree of stress or other challenges to integrity?

Audit CoGP 4.9.1.5.5


31

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Only required for the top 2-3 meters

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Reference to Tom Hansen work.

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Particularly applicable at the point of smolt input.

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Most / all net manufacturers should meet the standard in the CoGP


43. If yes, are appropriate additional strengthening features added?

Should

4.9.1.6.1 Nets should carry a numbered ID tag and an inventory should be kept of all nets

44. Do nets carry numbered ID tags? Look at a percentage or sample of the nets of sites

45. Is an inventory maintained of all nets on site? Check a net number and cross reference net location to inventory record

Audit CoGP 4.9.1.6.1 - Should

4.9.1.6.3 Nets should be tested in accordance with manufacturer’s advice

46. Are nets tested in accordance with manufacturer’s advice?

If yes, specify

Audit CoGP 4.9.1.6.3 - Should

4.9.1.6.4 Nets should be checked regularly for damage

47. Are nets checked regularly for damage

Regularly = completed uniformly in time and manner (could be weekly, monthly, quarterly or yearly)

AuditCoGP 4.9.1.6.4 – should

Statutory to record the results of inspection

4.9.1.6.5 The system by which nets are attached to the pen and weighted should be regularly inspected

48. Is the system by which nets are attached to the pen and Audit CoGP –


32

purvisn, 12/02/08,

We should advice weekly checks for cage sites but we can not insist. The Farmer must demonstrate regular net checks for damage


weighted regularly inspected? 4.9.1.6.5 - Should

4.9.3.1 Pen units in tidal waters must be marked and lit in accordance with requirements determined, in principal, by the Scottish Executive and in detail by the Northern Lighthouse Board in consultation, as appropriate, with any local Harbour Authority

49. Are pen units required to be lit?

50. If yes, has this been done in accordance with the necessary requirements?

Audit CoGP – 4.9.3.1 Must

4.9.3.2 In some cases, marker buoys or radar reflectors may be required for safety reasons, e.g. as indicators of obstructions in the water. Such buoys should be of suitable size, colour, design and construction so that navigators are aware of potential obstructions created by the fish farm installation by day and night

51. Are marker buoys or radar reflectors of suitable size, colour, design and construction where used?

Audit Should CoGP 4.9.3.2

4.9.5.1 Tank and pond systems should be designed to contain fish effectively, including provision for containment during periods of flooding

52. Are tank and pond systems considered to be designed effectively to contain fish?

53. Is there a provision for containment during periods of flooding?

Audit CoGP 4.9.5.1 - Should

4.9.5.2 Both inflow and outflow of tank and pond systems should be screened to prevent the passage of fish?

54. Are inflow and outflows of tanks and pond systems screened to prevent the passage of fish?

Audit CoGP – 4.9.5.2 - Should

4.9.5.3 Where the outflow from tanks passes into a settling pond, the outflow from the settling pond should incorporate a screen of suitable size and construction to


33


prevent the passage of fish. Screens should be inspected regularly

55. If a settlement pond is in use, is the outflow of the settlement pond screened?

56. Is the screen of suitable size and construction to prevent the passage of fish?

57. Are screens inspected regularly?


Section D - Audit of on site procedures

4.9.6.1 Procedures such as fish input, grading, transfer of fish between sites and harvesting, which could increase the risk of fish escaping from pens or tanks should be carefully planned and supervised to minimise any risk

58. Are procedures carefully planned and supervised to minimise risk?

59. Are SOPs or Risk Assessments in place?


4.9.6.2 A documented risk assessment and contingency plan should be in place before any procedure is followed

60. Has a risk assessment been conducted for all fish transfer and handling activities?

61. Are there contingency plans detailing actions to be taken should containment be breached during any procedure?

Grading, fish movements on and off, treatments, harvesting, culling, swim-throughs, bath treatments, vaccinations, sampling, net changing.



34


4.9.6.4 Where fish are being transferred by helicopter, the receiving pen(s) should be marked with buoys clearly visible from the air. In the interests of animal welfare and environmental integrity, the member of fish farm staff responsible for receiving the fish should maintain radio contact with the helicopter crew. Where this is not possible, the pen(s) being stocked should be manned

62. Is helicopter transfer used on site?

If yes

63. Are receiving pen(s) clearly marked and visible from the air?

64. Is radio contact maintained between fish farm and helicopter crew?

65. If not, are the pen(s) being stocked manned?


4.9.1.7.1 A predator risk assessment should be undertaken on a site specific basis

66. Has a predator risk assessment been undertaken which is site specific?

Audit CoGP – 4.9.1.7.1 Should

4.9.1.7.2 Where anti-predator nets are deployed, the advice contained in section II Part 5 of the SSGA Code of Practice ‘Salmon Farming & predatory wildlife’ should be followed

67. Are anti predator nets deployed?

68. If yes, is this done in accordance with section II, Part 5 of the SSGA Code of practice?


4.9.4.1 Fish farm workboat operations should be planned and conducted in such a manner as to prevent damage to nets and pens

69. Are boat operations planned?


35


70. Are they conducted in such a manner which prevents damage to nets and pens?

4.9.4.3 Propellers that are used in a position likely to cause damage to nets should be fitted with guards or fitted into wells to minimise the risk of contact with any netting or ropes

71. Are propellers fitted with guards or in wells on boats used in a position likely to cause damage to nets or ropes?

Audit CoGP 4.9.4.3 - Should

Additional notes

Signature of Inspector…………………………………


36

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Just because there is no propeller guard does not necessarily amount to a failure. If boat operations are conducted in consideration of the knowledge of the site – i.e. tidal movements and location of nets and ropes then they can still meet this point without propeller guards.

purvisn, 12/02/08,

Consider the boat operators actions and attitude when travelling to/from and around the site.



37


Annex 4 – Flowchart procedure for conducting containment inspections and audits

i) Containment inspection


Start – Routine Fish Health Surveillance

Have escapes

been reported?

Issue advice regarding the notification of escapes

Inspection

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Issue advice or EN to rectify containment breaches

Are there any site reports of escapes?

Inspect site integrity paying attention to the reasons why escapes resulted in the past, if appropriate

End

Follow up action required. Evidence provided by the company to indicate compliance or repeat visit conducted by FHI

Yes

Observed Potential

containment breach?

Report sent to business

Report sent to business

Proceed to audit or end.

38


ii) Containment audit


Inspection

Are records satisfactory

?

No

Yes

No

Appropriate records

maintained?

Yes

Issue instruction to maintain records or issue Enforcement

Notice(EN)

Audit records

No Yes

Intelligence

Are there reports from

site or business of escapes?

Issue advice or EN to rectify containment breaches.

Proceed to 2

YesNo

Risk based Surveillance

Issue instruction or EN to modify records and maintain in

a satisfactory state.

Have escapes

been reported?


Issue advice regarding the notification of escapes


Potential breaches in containment

?

No

Yes

Proceed to 2

39



From 2

Inspection of procedures conducted on site which have resulted in escapes, or have the potential to to be the

cause of tan escape

Are procedures satisfactory

?

YesNo

End Issue instruction or EN to modify procedures to a

satisfactory state.

Issue advice or EN to undertake training and maintain records of that training in accordance

with CoGP

Issue advice or EN to maintain or to make available training records

Issue advice or EN to improve the standard of records. Specify

improvements to be made.Conduct follow up

inspection if necessary NoNoNo

Follow up action required. Evidence provided by the company to indicate compliance or repeat visit conducted by FHI

Reported sent to business

Proceed to further visit or end

40


iii) Conducting follow up inspection and audits


Inspect and assess site in relation to previous advice / EN

End

No

No

Yes

Caution and gather evidence

Put case to PF and proceed

Consider legal

proceedings?

No

Yes

Consider further advice / EN for

continued improvement

YesNo YesAre

corrective actions

effective?

Has any improveme

nt been made?

Evidence required to

support implementation

Consider further advice / EN for

continued improvement

Report to SG. SG to consider policy review,

development and modification to CoGP, if

appropriate

Satisfactory actions

implemented?

41


Annex 5 – Enforcement notice

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

In accordance with Section 6(2) of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 this enforcement notice has been served upon the person(s) specified below in relation to the practice of fish farming conducted at the Business specified below. Part 2 of this notice details the reasons why this has been served. The necessary corrective actions are detailed in Part 3.

Reference number: ……………Insert number ………

1. To: ………Insert name………………………… Position: ……Insert position ………….. Issued at: …Insert site name and address or address notice issued at………………… …………………………………………………………………………Specify address)

Name of fish site: …………Insert site name………………………………………………

Name of fish business: …………Insert business name……………………………………

Address of fish business (if different to above): ………Insert business address……… ………………………………………………………………………………………….

2. This notice has been served because: ………Insert reason for the serving of the notice ……………………………………………………………………………………... …..………………………………………………………………………………………

3. The following actions must be taken: ……….Insert action(s) to be completed… ………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. These actions must be completed by: ………...Insert date……………………………..

5. Specific requirements: ........................Insert any specific requirements of the notice as necessary……………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………...

Signed: …………………………………………………………… (Authorised Officer)Name in capitals: ………………………………………………………………………….


42


Date: …………………………………..PTO

Address: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Tel: ……………………………………………. Fax: ……………………………………..

E-mail: ……………………………………………………………………………………...

Please read the following notes carefully. If you are not sure of your rights or the implications of this notice, you should seek legal advice.

NOTES

1. The person upon which this notice has been served has the right to appeal to the sheriff against the notice. A period of 7 days, beginning on the day the notice is served, is granted for any appeal. Under such circumstances the notice is of no effect until the appeal is withdrawn or finally determined.

2. In an appeal the sheriff may make such an order as the sheriff thinks fit; and the decision of the sheriff in the appeal is final.

3. It is an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person(s) named above contravenes this enforcement notice. In such circumstances the person(s) may be subject to a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

4. Where the Scottish Ministers are satisfied that an enforcement notice is contravened in respect of the prevention, control and reduction of parasites, they may (whether or not proceedings have been taken for an offence) authorise an inspector to take any action they consider necessary in fulfillment of the requirements of the notice in that regard.

5. Any expenses reasonably incurred by an inspector in taking action authorised (as detailed above) may be recovered by the Scottish Ministers from the person on whom the enforcement notice was served.

6. The Scottish Ministers may publicise the serving of an enforcement notice and may do so to such an extent, in such manner and in such form as they think fit.

WARNINGFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS NOTICE IS AN OFFENCE


43


Annex 6 – Stipulations within the CoGP relating to containment and escapes

4.9 Containment

The effective containment of fish in marine and freshwater sites is a fundamental aspect of good management practice. Effective containment also limits the potential effect of escaped fish on wild populations. This CoGP is advised by the outcome of the Containment Working Group, set up independently as one of the Priorities for Action from the SFSA and chaired by HIAF15. Refer to Annex 13 for membership of this Working Group. Effective containment depends on maintaining fish farm installations and holding facilities in sound condition. The following provides recommendations for finfish farmers on the standards that should be applied to the design, construction and inspection of holding facilities.

4.9.1. Pen Systems

4.9.1.1. Design & Construction

4.9.1.1.2. Pens, including all ancillary grading and swim-through pens, should be designed and constructed so as to be capable of dealing with the weather and other environmental conditions likely to be experienced on the site. Farmers should obtain from the manufacturer or otherwise suitably qualified person information on installation, materials used, strength of the design and its suitability for the environment in which it is to be deployed.

4.9.1.2. Health & Safety

4.9.1.2.1. Pen units should comply with health and safety guidelines in respect of accessibility, anchorage, buoyancy, strength and stability.

4.9.1.3. New Equipment

4.9.1.3.1. All new equipment should be installed in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Farmers should consider the potential benefits of having suppliers supervise the installation of pens and ancillary equipment.

4.9.1.4. Mooring Systems

4.9.1.4.1. Moorings should be of a type compatible with the pen installations deployed on site. These shall be designed, constructed and deployed such that the loads and stresses imposed by tidal and/or water surface movement are spread evenly, and the pen installation is allowed


44


to move and flex satisfactorily. Moorings should be consistent with the type of seabed at the site.

4.9.1.4.2. Moorings should be designed and installed in consultation with the pen and moorings manufacturer, and every component should be inspected according to a regular and recorded plan.

4.9.1.5. Design & Construction of Pen Nets

4.9.1.5.1. All nets should be manufactured by suppliers whose designs meet or exceed industry standards (refer to Annex 13 for guidance on minimum net strengths).

4.9.1.5.2. The net mesh size should be capable of containing the entire range of fish sizes in every instance where new stock is introduced to either fresh or saltwater pen sites.

4.9.1.5.3. The design of nets shall take account of the conditions that are likely to be experienced on the site and include an adequate safety margin. Nets should be manufactured from materials that are of a suitable quality for the purpose and be of a mesh size that retains the smallest fish in the pen.

4.9.1.5.4. Exposure to ultraviolet light is likely to cause deterioration in the strength of the fabric of nets; nets should be treated with UV inhibitor and stored away from direct sunlight.

4.9.1.5.5. Where a high degree of stress or other challenges to their integrity is anticipated, when new nets are being ordered features such as shock absorbing panels, reinforcing panels (e.g. at net corners) and anti-chafe panels, which may reduce the possibility of net failure, should be incorporated into the design and construction.

4.9.1.6. Inspection and Testing of Nets and Net Attachments

4.9.1.6.1. Nets should carry a numbered ID tag and an inventory should be kept of all nets.

4.9.1.6.2. Information held should include: date of purchase/manufacture; supplier; location; and testing history; and antifouling history.

4.9.1.6.3. Nets should be tested in accordance with manufacturer’s advice.

4.9.1.6.4. Nets should be inspected regularly for damage.

4.9.1.6.5. The system by which nets are attached to the pen and weighted should be regularly inspected.


45


4.9.1.7. Anti-Predator Nets

4.9.1.7.1. A predator risk assessment should be undertaken on a site-specific basis.

4.9.1.6.2. Where anti-predator nets are deployed, the advice contained in Section II, Part 5 of the SSGA Code of Practice ‘Salmon Farming & Predatory Wildlife’ should be followed16.

4.9.2. Record Keeping & Inspection

4.9.2.1. Pen, net and mooring specifications and details of all inspections, testing and maintenance should be documented and recorded.

4.9.2.2. These records should be available for inspection by any person authorised by Scottish Ministers to act as an Inspector.

4.9.3. Navigation Markers

4.9.3.1. Pen units in tidal waters must be marked and lit in accordance with requirements determined, in principle, by the Scottish Executive and in detail by the Northern Lighthouse Board in consultation, as appropriate, with any local Harbour Authority.

4.9.3.2. In some cases, marker buoys or radar reflectors may be required for safety reasons, e.g. as indicators of obstructions in the water. Such buoys should be of suitable size, colour, design and construction so that navigators are aware of potential obstructions created by the fish farm installation by day and night.

4.9.4. Boat Operations

4.9.4.1. Fish farm workboat operations should be planned and conducted in such a manner as to prevent damage to nets and pens.

4.9.4.2. Boatmen must be fully trained and competent, and should possess the necessary qualifications for the operations concerned. Training records should be kept and be readily accessible.

4.9.4.3. Propellers that are used in a position likely to cause damage to nets should be fitted with guards or fitted into wells to minimise the risk of contact with any netting or ropes.

4.9.5. Tank and Pond Systems


46

purvisn, 12/02/08,

operated in Typing error in CoGP – should read 4.9.1.7.2.


4.9.5.1. Tank and pond systems should be designed to contain fish effectively, including provision for containment during periods of flooding.

4.9.5.2. Both inflow and outflow of tank and pond systems should be screened to prevent the passage of fish.

4.9.5.3. Where the outflow from tanks passes into a settling pond, the outflow from the settling pond should incorporate a screen of suitable size and construction to prevent the passage of fish. Screens should be inspected regularly.

4.9.6. Fish Transfers and Handling

4.9.6.1. Procedures such as fish input, grading, transfer of fish between sites and harvesting, which could increase the risk of fish escaping from pens or tanks, should be carefully planned and supervised to minimise any risk.

4.9.6.2. A documented risk assessment and contingency plan should be in place before any such procedure is followed.

4.9.6.3. All details of introductions, gradings, transfers, treatments, handling or any other incident or occurrence that might have led to an escape must be recorded and reported in accordance with current legislation. The records shall be available for inspection by any person authorised by Scottish Ministers to act as an Inspector.

4.9.6.4. Where fish are being transferred by helicopter, the receiving pen(s) should be marked with buoys clearly visible from the air. In the interests of animal welfare and environmental integrity, the member of fish farm staff responsible for receiving the fish should maintain radio contact with the helicopter crew. Where this is not possible, the pen(s) being stocked should be manned.

4.9.7 Escapes

4.9.7.1. Farmers should have site-specific contingency plans that describe actions to be taken in the event of any escapes. Guidance on what to do in the event of an escape is appended to SSI 193. The use of certain types of recapture net requires permission from the Scottish Executive.

4.9.7.2. Any escape or suspected escape of live fish, including the circumstances that may have given rise to the escape, must be reported to the Scottish Executive within 24 hours of discovery.

4.9.7.3. Any escape or suspected escape of live fish should be reported to the local District Salmon Fisheries Board and Fisheries Trust within 24 hours.


47


Annex 7 – Annex 13.2 of the CoGP - A Guide to Minimum Net Strengths

Mesh Size (mm) Minimum Breaking Strength (Kg/m)

6mm 15kg

8mm 20kg

10mm 24kg

15mm 36kg

25mm 60kg

NBFor 15mm mesh net – 1000mm/15mm = 66.66 meshes per metreFull “new” strength set at 4000kg - 4000/66.66 = 60Kg/Metre new netMinimum 60% full strength required at any time = 36Kg/Metre


48


ANNEX 8 – SSGA Predators Salmon and Trout

5 MANAGEMENT PRACTICEGiven that each site has different predator problems and environmental conditions, the following practices have been compiled after extensive consultation and may be put into practice depending upon circumstance to improve stock protection. It is fundamentally important that the design of salmon pens should include provision for the effective deployment of adequate anti - predator netting.

5.1 TOP NETS (figure 6)5.1 (i) FLAT TOP NETS

These should protect fish from surface feeding birds and otters. Top nets shouhd be deployed at the height of top rail and should be tensioned to prevent the nets being weighed down by herons. A mesh size of 10-15cm is recommended for the prevention of heron damage and should be smaller (c7.Scm) where otter damage is a problem. On the rare occasions where gannets are a problem, the mesh should be of a more visible colouc Cage structure should be sufficiently rigid to allow tensioning of the top nets.

5.1 (ii) RAISED TOP NETS AND WALK-UNDER TOP NETSThese are more expensive to install and maintain, but once installed are easier to work with and fully effective. These nets also provide protection to food hoppers, 10cm mesh is considered most effective, although mesh size should be reduced where otters are a problem. 17

SECTION II

5.2 UNDERWATER NETS (figure 7)These are deployed against diving birds and mammals and should conform with the following requirements:• located a minimum of I m from the cage by structures or ‘waisting” the cage net allowing for current speed and fouling,• maintained taut with the addition of appropriate weights.• in line with good farm hygiene nets should be cleaned regularly to remove fouling.• on no account should fouling be allowed to render the net unmanageable, and jettisoning of fouled nets is unacceptable.• generally 10cm knot-to-knot mesh size is best.• setting nets with the object of entangling predators is illegal,• orange underwater netting seems to be more effective than black.

5.2 (i) BOX NETSThis is the most common arrangement completely enclosing either single cages or units of up to eight cages. An additional false bottom on the cage net has been found to be effective in preventing seal attacks from below.

5.2 (ii) CURTAIN NETSThese nets are most effective if they extend well below the depth of the cage (suggested additional depth of Sm).Box nets are considered more effective than curtain nets as they offer protection against predators attacking from below. However it is recognised that curtain nets are much easier to deploy and maintain.

5.3 SEAL SCARERSThese devices are an important new development and are the subject of continuing research. The initial work on the development of seal scarers was undertaken by Dr Bruce Mate (Oregon State University, USA) and DAFS Marine


49


Laboratory Aberdeen. No quantitative data are available to assess accurately the effectiveness of these devices. However the experience of DAFS and farmers who have deployed them suggests that they can be at least as effective as anti -predator nets although, like nets, they are not 100% effective, They do not provide an effective remedy against diving birds. The SSGA is committed to encouraging research into the improvement of these devices and to providing the best advice to members for their effective deployment.

20SECTION II

Mode of Operation of Seal Scarers

The operating principles involve the production of high frequency signals at irregular intervals (range between 4and 50Khz). These are produced by a built -in signal generator arid an amplifier, connected to a hydrophone. Some devices have a scanning facility enabling a variable signal to be generated which can be coupled to a timing device to randomize the output. Some devices are designed to allow the farmer to enter programmes of their own and to vary set programmes.

Most seal scarers are powered by 12v 60-70 amp batteries rechargeable by wind generators. Experience has shown that the hydrophone should be moved around a fleet of cages to reduce habituation by the seals, Most devices will produce an intensity of sound which will hurt the eardrums of divers within a radius of 30m. As a precaution divers should not operate in the area when a unit is turned on. Canadian research has demonstrated that some seals will tolerate very unpleasant noise. even to the point of pain, if they are really hungry.

Current research is investigating sounds in the 10-100 KHz range, recorded on high fidelity tape and reproduced using an army of several speakers. The sounds can be made to appear to move about and to change in character so that it is impossible for seals to track them to their origin. This research is being conducted by Coastline Environmental Systems Inc of Vancouver in conjunction with the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, The results will be available in 1990.

Detection Methods

Research is underway into methods of detecting seals underwater. The seal scarer could then be switched on only when a seal came within range, thus reducing the requirement for continuous output. These detectors may be based upon infra -red, sonic or touch sensors. It is anticipated that these devices will become commercially available i n the near future. One example is the Electro-net alarmed underwater security barrier (Crimewatch International Ltd) which can be adapted for use to deter seals. These alarm systems consist of modular panels which, if touched, give visual and audible signals at the control point and can trigger a range of separate devices including seal scarers.Such a system is expected to have a high detection rate with a low false alarm rate. The operational life should be long and maintenance easy.

Some concern has been expressed about the possible effects of acoustical seal scarers on seals and other wildlife. Underwater video cameras are being employed to investigate the possibility of adverse effects and the Association will seek to encourage studies that could shed light on what may or may not be a problem.

21SECTION II

The Echoscope seal scarer has been reported to be effective against shags and eider ducks and is being tried by shellfish farmers.

DeploymentThe following recommendations are based on the collective experience of members and the advice of DM5 Marine Laboratory.I. There should be at least one device per8 cage flotilla. The maximum cage site being IS X Sm.2. Users should be thoroughly familiar with the operation of the devices to optimise their effectiveness.3. The hydrophone should be moved at least weekly around the cages and daily if a seal shows signs of becoming bolder


50


4. Maintenance is essential in accordance with the manufacturers instruction.The Association will be responsible for keeping members informed of developments and improvements in seal scarers and will encourage research in this area.

5.4 DISTURBANCE

The deliberate disturbance of local seal colonies by boat in order to reduce seal predation cannot be justified.

5.5 HUMANE SHOOTING OF “ROGUE” SEALS AND IMPLICATIONSIt has been emphasised that farmers should take all reasonable action to protect their stock from predators. However it is accepted that with regard to seals it is not yet possible to eliminate predation by barrier nets or seal scarers at all sites. In these circumstances killing the responsible animal may be the only remedy.

Shooting the occasional rogue seal can only be justified, provided:

• every effort is directed toward identifying the culprit and the species to which it belongs.• other recognised methods such as barrier nets or seal scarers have been properly deployed and found unsuccessful.

22

SECTION II

• shooting is carried out in line with the provisions of the Conservation of Seals Act.• the person delegated to shoot is adequately briefed and trained in the use of firearms and where appropriate is properly licensedby DAFS.• the appropriate calibre of rifle and weight of ammunition is used, (As set out in Section of the Conservation of Seals Act) It is illegal to use shotguns or low powered firearms eg .22.• shooting takes place within an area of approximately 1/2 mile (0.8km) round the salmon cages.• the destruction of seal colonies is totally unacceptable.

Two considerations are of prime importance when taking the shot, These are safety and humane killing. Guidelines to assist inachieving these objectives are given in Appendix 4.

5.6 COMPANY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

A firm control should be exercised over any shooting on salmon farms. Management have a responsibility to ensure compliance with the law licensing provisions, record keeping, training and, above all, the elimination of any indiscriminate shooting. It is recommended that Company firearms and shotguns together with ammunition be only issued to designated personnel who are fully trained in their use and knowledge about the predators involved,Copies of the Code of Practice should be given to all employees who have a responsibility for the security and protect ion of fish farm stocks.

5.7 INDUSTRY — ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBILITIES

Assistance: The provision of seals scarers or predator nets must not be viewed as a purely cosmetic provision to permit shooting. However it is recognised that specific sites for unknown reasons may suffer unacceptable levels of predation. Where such problems rise the Association is available to investigate problems and provide whatever assistance it can. Advice and assistance is also available from the R.S.P.B. and the N.C.C. and the S.M.R.U.

23SECTION II

Records: Since the shooting of wildlife is an emotive subject, it is important that the Association is able to obtain information on shootings. Farms are asked to maintain records of all shootings, both under licence and outwith licence,


51


and to make these available to the Association in confidence. This information on an industry basis will be used to assess the effectiveness of current methods and also provide an important input into review of policy.


52

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 Guidance... · Web viewFailure to notify is a...

Documents

Transcript of Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 Guidance... · Web viewFailure to notify is a...