Latest News
April 30, 2023 - FOI Update from Privacy Commissioner
We have finally received a response from the Ministry of the Environment regarding the proposed project with the intervention of the privacy and information commissioner’s office. It is 513 pages, and can be reviewed by clicking on the following links:
The Ontario Aquaculture Association held a conference in Orillia on March 21 and 22, 2023 and GB Salmon was there as a presenter. We attended and the following sound clip is the GB salmon presentation by Gerry Sullivan in its entirety:
The GBS Powerpoint Presentation can also be viewed by clicking this link.
February 2, 2023 - FOI Update from Privacy Commissioner
In an effort to remain informed on the status of GB Salmon‘s application With the Ministry of the Environment we filed freedom of information requests in November 2021 and subsequently had to file a complaint with the privacy commissioners office in the fall of 2022 because the ministry had failed to even acknowledge our request. It would appear that the privacy commissioners office has also had some difficulty in getting a response from the Ministry of the environment. And order has now been issued to the MOE:
ORDER PO-4346
Appeal PA22-00248
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks January 31, 2023
Summary: On November 10, 2021, the requester submitted a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (the ministry) for access to records. The requester appealed to this office on the basis that the ministry failed to provide an access decision within the prescribed time limit under the Act. This order finds the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation pursuant to section 29(4) of the Act. The ministry is ordered to issue a final decision regarding access by February 14, 2023, without any recourse to a time extension.
Statutes Considered: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, ss. 26, 27, 28 and 29.
BACKGROUND:
[1] On November 10, 2021, the requester submitted a request to the ministry for the following records:
A proposed Aquaculture facility at 83 Berford Lake Road in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.
[2] On November 10, 2021, the requester received an autoreply email from noreply@ontario.ca acknowledging receipt of the request and payment of the application
-2-
fee and advised that a representative from the ministry may be in contact for additional information.
[3] On June 7, 2022, the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (this office) received a deemed refusal appeal from the requester (now the appellant) indicating that since November 10, 2021, there has been no response from the ministry. As a result, file PA22-00248 was opened.
[4] On August 16, 2022, the ministry wrote to the appellant and acknowledged receipt of the request and payment of the application fee.
[5] On September 13, 2022, this office sent a Notice of Inquiry (the Notice) to the appellant and the ministry stating that the appellant had filed an appeal which claimed the ministry was in a deemed refusal because the ministry had not issued a decision letter within the time period set out in section 26 of the Act. The Notice indicated that the ministry should issue a final access decision letter to the appellant as soon as possible. The Notice also indicated that should a resolution not be reached by October 4, 2022, an order requiring the ministry to issue a decision letter to the appellant could be issued.
[6] On September 26, 2022, the ministry issued third-party notices pursuant to section 28(1)(a) of the Act. The third-party notice stated the following in part:
A decision on whether the information will be disclosed will be made by October 31, 2022.
[7] On November 4, 2022, this office contacted the ministry and requested an update with respect to the issuance of a final decision. The ministry advised that a third party had requested “extra time for consultation as they were having some emailing issues on their end” and that the third party had confirmed that they would be responding by November 10, 2022. The ministry also advised that a final decision would be issued shortly.
[8] On Nov 21, 2022 and Nov 28, 2022, this office attempted to contact the ministry with respect to the issuance of a final decision. On December 1, 2022, the ministry responded and advised that efforts were being made to issue a decision “in the next few weeks”.
[9] On December 13, 2022, this matter was transferred to me.
[10] Subsequent to the above, I contacted the ministry regarding the status of the
decision letter. On December 23, 2022, the ministry responded and advised the following in part:
-3-
We are still in the process of finalizing our review and compiling the release package. This continues to be a priority for me and I am doing my best to have a decision made as soon as I can.
[11] To date, the ministry has not issued a decision regarding access to the information responsive to this request. To ensure there are no further delays in processing this request, I am ordering the ministry to issue a decision regarding access.
DISCUSSION:
[12] Section 26 of the Act states that the head of an institution shall, subject to sections 27 (time extension), 28 (third party notice) and 57 (payment of fees), give written notice of its decision on an access request within 30 days after the request is received.
[13] Where a head fails to issue a decision on access within the legislated framework, section 29(4) of the Act applies. This section states:
A head who fails to give the notice required under section 26 or subsection 28(7) concerning a record shall be deemed to have given notice of refusal to give access to the record on the last day of the period during which notice should have been given.
[14] The ministry received the appellant’s request on or about November 10, 2021, and did not issue an access decision or extend the time for its decision pursuant to section 27 of the Act within the 30-day statutory requirement.
[15] Therefore, I find the ministry to be in a deemed refusal situation pursuant to section 29(4) of the Act.
[16] To ensure that there are no further delays I will order the ministry to issue a final access decision to the appellant no later than February 14, 2023, without recourse to any further time extensions under section 27 of the Act.
ORDER:
1. I order the ministry to issue a final access decision to the appellant regarding access to the records in accordance with the Act without recourse to any further time extensions, no later than February 14, 2023.
2. In order to verify compliance, the ministry shall provide me with a copy of the response referred to in provision 1 by February 14, 2023. This copy should be forwarded to my attention c/o Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, 2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A8.
January 31, 2023
Soha Khan
Acting Adjudicator
January 8, 2023 - FOI Update from Privacy Commissioner
We have today contacted The Privacy and Information Commissioner’s office concerning the freedom of information request that was filed with the Ministry of the Environment last year. It relates to the licensing application filed by GB Salmon and includes environmental impact studies that were conducted on their behalf. It was indicated in early December that we could expect a reply by the third week of the month, but have received nothing to date. Any news received will be shared here with the public.
In retrospect of the past years events and efforts we will remain optimistic and continue to exercise vigilance to stop the proposed project. We have requested a presence at licensing hearings and a prior opportunity to review all materials being submitted by the company in support of their application. We have several experts who will review and challenge the application to insure diligence and due process.
The Town Hall meeting hosted by Bruce Peninsula Water Watch in June made evident the strong public opposition to the project. The position statements that were forwarded to us for publication by candidates in the fall municipal election affirms that we now have representation by a mayor and council members who will oppose the project.
Working in collaboration with students and faculty at McMaster University we have initiated a sample collection program to assist in gathering data for a long-term study on existing water quality in Colpoys Bay. Anyone interested in assisting can contact us directly.
October 1, 2022 - Thank you to MPP Rick Byers who dropped by this morning seeking information and concerns regarding the proposed GB Salmon fish factory.
October 1, 2022: Opposition to land based salmon farming grows:
Municipal Elections are underway and we have invited all of the candidates to share their views and thoughts with regard to the proposed GB Salmon project. To date we have received the following responses and will continue to share them here.
October 7, 2022 - Letter from Don Tedford (Candidate for Mayor)
Thank you for connecting with me about the proposed fish farm. I have been involved for over thirty years in the planning and development processes at the municipal level. It would be my goal to make sure that all required environmental studies and land use planning concerns have been completed and presented in an open and transparent manner to the public.
I have reviewed any and all information that has been made available to me for this fish farm. And if a decision had to be made at this time I could not support the fish farm based on the Ministry of Environment and Climate Control (MOECC) requirements.
It is important to remember that the decision will not be made by one person, and Council will need to make a decision that is in the best interest of all residents..
Thanks again for reaching out and giving me an opportunity to discuss my current position on the fish farm.
Don Tedford
Candidate for Mayor
Town of South Bruce Peninsula
October 7, 2022 - Letter from Kathy Durst (Council candidate for re-election)
My position on the proposed fish farm is this : If on Council and the current proposal by Georgian Bay Salmon, as presented at the public meeting, came to me for a vote, I would vote to deny access to Town right of way for their infrastructure. This is
the only tool we have as the fish farm is on property zoned and regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture.
At present, neither Council, the Ministries, nor First Nations have received any applications or completed studies to review. Council is very frustrated with Georgian Bay’s lack of communication. My extensive municipal experience working with Council, developers and the community, on such projects leads me to believe that, for whatever reasons, they are still very early in the process. In that case, it may be years before this comes to Council. However, if that should happen, here are some conditions required for my approval:
A sustainable fish farm that promises:
-zero effluent discharge and monitored by a third party,
-zero antibiotics and growth hormones
- zero chance of fish escape,
- humane harvest practices.
In other words, “Zero harm to Colpoy’s Bay”
Kathy Durst
September 22, 2022 - Berford Lake engineer nails it with this letter!
“The Town does indeed have a mandate to be involved as a key advocate, reviewer and decision-maker alongside others (e.g., County, GSCA, MNRF, MECP, SON) before any approvals are ever issued to ensure we safeguard the public welfare and environment.”
Protecting our groundwater, wetlands, surface water and habitat
This article expands on my June 8 th article [1] that voiced my concern regarding ensuring we protect of our highly vulnerable groundwater aquifer that is used as a drinking water source for those in the area surrounding the proposed fish farm. In this article, I want to have a look at a few things I have heard that strike me as unrealistic or incorrect, as well explore some of the policy and legislation that is in place to protect the public welfare and environment.
The fish farm is proposed to be constructed on an 11.5 acres portion of the 219 acres property located at 83 Berford Lake Road. Figure 1 shows GB Salmon’s preliminary design layout.
Figure 1: GB Salmon Preliminary Design Drawing (Source: GB Salmon [2])
Figure 2 shows a simplified version of the preliminary design, adding the Environmental Hazard (EH, EH-1) and Rural (RU1) zoning for the property, Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) boundaries, PSW setbacks (120 m), as well as the setback for the water-course. The Grey-Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) has similar mapping and advises contacting their office to confirm the accuracy of the approximate boundaries depicted on Figures 1 and 2 [4].
Looking at Figures 1 & 2, I immediately wonder how the road and pipelines proposed to be constructed through the overlapping PSW setbacks can be said to comply with Section 29 of the TSBP Zoning By-laws [5]? Section 29, among other things, does not allow construction in EH areas plus requires completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and obtaining a permit obtained from the GSCA. I disagree that the proposed fish farm complies with all zoning by-laws such that Town’s sole issue is whether to allow the pipeline to be constructed under the road allowance. More later on that topic. As an aside, Section 6.24 of the Zoning By-laws applies an additional setback (not shown) from the EH boundary in the 2019 version; however, the on-line 2020 version [5] contains an error making the status of this setback unclear.
I heard that GB Salmon was granted an aquaculture license because the land is zoned as agricultural. However, Figures 2 and 3 identify the Land Use as “Rural”, not “Agricultural”. Rural is typically low intensity agricultural lands because the soils are marginal. So what am I missing here? Who identified this property as suitable for the world’s largest fish farm, when it is not in keeping with the past or current uses of this property or the surrounding lands, overlies a highly vulnerable aquifer and is adjacent to PSW? By comparison in a residential community of single family bungalows, this is akin to constructing the world’s tallest apartment building and justifying such as appropriate because the lands are zoned “residential”.
Figure 3: Land Use for 83 Berford Lake Road and Surrounding Lands (Source: GSCA [6])
To understand why this matters, let’s review the Environmental Objectives of the TSBP Official Plan [7]:
1. To protect the ecological features and functions in the Town, including rivers and streams, valleylands, wetlands, wildlife habitat and linkages, fish habitat, woodland and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI’s).
2. To prevent development and/or site alteration on lands adjacent to provincially-significant wetlands, the habitat of threatened or endangered species, fish habitat, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat or hazardous lands pending the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) demonstrating that the proposed methods of remediating any potential impacts on these and/or cultural heritage features are satisfactory to the regulatory agencies responsible for such resources.
3. To prevent the occurrence of development on lands having inherent environmental hazardous such as poor drainage, inundation, flooding, erosion, steep slopes or any other physical conditions which could endanger life or property.
4. To ensure that any existing or potential adverse impacts of one land use on another are adequately investigated and mitigated as a prelude to new development, and that appropriate measures are taken to minimize or eliminate these impacts and/or afford protection against them.
5. To prevent development which would impair the quality of adjacent water bodies including surface water and groundwater resources.
6. To correct or prohibit existing or potential sources of pollution by requiring the application of standards established by the Ministry of Environment or other regulatory agencies.
These objectives confirm that the Town has more than just the proposed pipeline under the road allowance to consider. The Town’s stated objectives include protecting surface water, wetlands, groundwater, habitat and heritage.
As an aside, the Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) mentioned in the TSBP Official Plan and Zoning By-laws are typically conducted by biologists and ecologists. To understand potential impacts to surface water &/or groundwater requires a licensed Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist, whose contributions to a report are identifiable by their work being signed & sealed. I see no way that the GSCA can issue a permit or the Town can satisfy Environmental Objective #5 (above) without a P.Eng. or P.Geo. having first appropriately characterized the adjacent water bodies/wetlands and groundwater system.
When dealing with environmental matters, it helps to know the definition of “contaminant”. In Ontario, our Environmental Protection Act [8] defines:
“contaminant” means any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or combination of any of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect;
where “adverse effect” means one or more of,
(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,
(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life,
(c) harm or material discomfort to any person,
(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person,
(e) impairment of the safety of any person,
(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use,
(g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and
(h) interference with the normal conduct of business;
While I applaud the clarity of strong verbs contained in the Town’s Environmental Objectives like “ensure”, “prevent”, “correct” and “prohibit”, the words that follow them are rather subjective (lacking precise meaning) like those used to define “adverse effect”. This strongly suggests to me the need for public involvement to ensure the definitions used reflect our community values whenever there is a major development plan proposed that intends to degrade our environment.
As an environmental professional, I have a duty to “safeguard the public welfare and the environment” which guides how I approach issues. When engineers solve some form of problem, they typically apply science AND incorporate a factor-of-safety they deem appropriate. Good designs take into account what might happen in a reasonable worst-case. As such, safeguarding often means aiming higher than just meeting the bare minimum.
In Ontario, our environmental process is strongest at the approvals stage. Backend compliance and enforcement are weak. I have submitted my share of quarterly monitoring reports to provincial ministries confirming the ongoing uncontrolled release of contamination to the environment from various sites across Ontario with the expectation that such contamination will continue for the foreseeable future. The public should not assume we will be informed nor that there will be any fines,
penalties, shutdown of operations or other means that force a contaminating party to expeditiously and completely make whole any injured parties (be they human or the environment). Approvals based naively on the best-case scenario should be expected to be sorely lacking if something closer to the worst-case scenario happens. The community then is stuck with no meaningful recourse. Court cases are costly and can take a decade or more – what are we to do in the meantime? Hence, land use restrictions are applied at the approvals stage when threats are identified that pose a potential risk deemed too high that said activity cannot be allowed to proceed, despite all well-intentioned assurances that all appropriate best management practices will be used.
The potential for contamination causing adverse effects will undoubtedly be weighed against the proposed economic benefit to our community. Municipalities consider environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning [9]. The promise of 200 full-time local jobs is certainly enticing, but as I understand it, that number has since been reduced by some 90%. So if employment will be comparable to that of a grocery store or coffee shop, then perhaps the low environmental footprint of those facilities should be used to set the bar when the community considers whether the threat level to the public and environment from a fish farm is really worth it.
A big part of assessing a threat level is how well the threat can be contained/controlled. I read a comment last year that the province would not allow any discharge of contaminants to Colpoy’s Bay. Great if it were true (i.e., zero threat), but unrealistic at best. I suggest that more correctly, the fish farm will likely seek approval similar to the Town’s wastewater discharge into Colpoy’s Bay. Let’s substitute the benign term “mixing zone” because it tends to downplay the intent. Instead, I prefer “contaminant attenuation zone” which more clearly communicates the intent to directly discharge contaminants into the natural environment and then have them dilute over some distance/volume/time in the environment to reach some acceptable level at some specified distance from the end-of-pipe. Zero discharge is a pipe dream! Instead there will be some threat to be characterized and communicated to the public along with the proposed controls such that the community may assess whether that is a risk we wish to take. Remember threat analysis considers the adequacy of protection when things go wrong.
Regarding groundwater, I went searching for what prevailing legislation is in place that ensures the interests of private potable well users are protected. Here’s what I found.
Post-Walkerton, the Clean Water Act (2006) recognized Ontarians were not adequately protecting our water supplies so the province and municipalities set about creating Source Water Protection Areas to protect the 80% of Ontarians connected to municipal water supplies. The “multi-barrier approach” to source water protection has 6 stages: source water protection, water treatment system, inspection, testing, distribution and lastly drinking water (at the tap). As part of this effort, the Town established a Source Protection Area to protect the municipal supply by limiting the type of activities that may be conducted within the Source Protection Area, in particular those activities identified as potentially threatening the water supply. The other 20% of us on private water systems seem to remain largely forgotten, including currently as it pertains to the fish farm potentially adversely impacting our highly vulnerable aquifer. Our multi-barrier approach typically reduces to just solely relying on source water protection. We cannot treat, inspect or test for whatever unknown list of contaminants may be associated with the fish farm, nor should we have to. Interested parties can learn more at the Conservation Ontario website [10] which then links to the MECP website [11].
Figure 4: Private Water Wells [source: https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-well-records]
Having gone down the rabbit-hole, the websites confirmed that those of us on private well water systems utilizing the highly vulnerable aquifer have reason to be concerned. There is ample content on what we can do to identify and characterize the concern, but a paucity on what we can do as individuals to protect our drinking water source apart from advocating to the municipality and province because both have the ability to identify our wells as “designated private drinking water sources” that may then be included in the source water protections offered by the Clean Water Act. Yes, source water protection within a municipality can extend beyond the province’s initial objective to ensure, at a minimum, that the municipal supplies were protected.
In the meantime, lower and upper tier municipal governments are obligated to implement the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) as a minimum standard [12]. With regards to source protection for drinking water, Section 2.2 of the PPS states “Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: ...” (a list of items) which includes (item f) “implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to :
1. protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and
2. protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions.
I take this to mean that the province requires the Town ensure source water protection of the highly vulnerable aquifer utilized by those residences with private water wells in the vicinity of 83 Berford Lake Road. Lastly, Section 2.2.2 of the PPS states: “Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored”.
So whether it is by the Town’s Zoning By-laws, Official Plan, the Clean Water Act or the PPS, I see the Town’s mandate for involvement as much more than just approving a pipeline along the road allowance.
While I could not attend the Berford Lake Ratepayers meeting in August 2022, I learned from attendees that 1) the fish farm plans to excavate some 20 feet into the bedrock, and 2) does not plan to conduct a hydrogeologic study. That’s a very large excavation if it will extend across the entire 11.5 acres site footprint. I assume this will involve a substantial number of earth-moving vehicles (excavators, loaders, dump trucks, jack hammers) and possibly explosives over a period of time that might last months (think:traffic, noise, dust, vibration, vehicle emissions). I also expect significant construction dewatering will be required to lower and maintain the water table 15-20 feet lower for months (think: continuous pumping, water storage/treatment/release, stormwater management, impacts to water wells, impacts to wetland water levels, disruption to wildlife like nesting birds, etc.). Given that in-ground pools cannot be left empty in high water table conditions, I anticipate the dewatering efforts will continue until at least when the tanks are ready to be filled with water from Colpoy’s Bay. No doubt the noise and vibration from the fish farm construction activities will have a far-reaching and lengthy impairment to the properties in the surrounding area necessitating that adverse effect to be mitigated. I similarly expect a hydrogeologic study will be required to assess any adverse effects to PSW and groundwater followed by appropriate mitigation of any potential adverse effects.
Over and over again, the municipal and provincial policy and legislation consistently says that vulnerable surface and ground waters must be protected … by now, such should be firmly entrenched standard procedure in land use planning and all related permitting and development approvals!!
I hope you agree with me that the Town does indeed have a mandate to be involved as a key advocate, reviewer and decision-maker alongside others (e.g., County, GSCA, MNRF, MECP, SON) before any approvals are ever issued to ensure we safeguard the public welfare and environment. I hope you also agree that while the public may not have a mandate per se, this is our community and we are the ones that will be stuck with the consequences if things go awry. On that basis, the community deserves a seat at the table.
Richard Sydor, Bedford Lake
References
[1] https://www.smellsfishy.org/latestnews
[2] https://www.gbsalmon.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/GBS-Presentation-Dec-2021-final.pdf
[3] https://maps.brucecounty.on.ca/Geocortex/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=BruceMaps
[4] https://www.greysauble.on.ca/mapping-gis/grey-sauble-conservation-authority-regulations-mapping/
[5] https://www.brucecounty.on.ca/sites/default/files/TSBP%20CZBL%20122%202009%20Office%20Consol%20Jan%202022_0.pdf (alternative: https://www.brucecounty.on.ca/living/land-use/south-bruce-peninsula)
[6] https://home.waterprotection.ca/source-protection-plan/assessment-reports/grey-sauble-source-protection-area-approved-assessment-report/
[7] https://www.brucecounty.on.ca/sites/default/files/SBP%20Official%20Plan_Off%20_Consol_Jan%202019.pdf
[8] https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e19#BK24
[9] https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf
[10] https://conservationontario.ca/conservation-authorities/source-water-protection
[11] https://www.ontario.ca/document/best-practices-source-water-protection
[12] https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf
September 21, 2022 - Letter from Terry Bell (council candidate for re-election)
My name is Terry Bell, candidate for re-election to Council in South Bruce Peninsula, and I would like you to post my message:
I oppose the fish farm as a council candidate, taxpayer and sportsman. I would oppose it at all three levels of government, Municipal, Provincial and Federal.
I get very nervous when any industry is attempting to "set up shop" on our beautiful bay. Colpoys Bay must not be threatened in any way by anyone in any industry. My family have always enjoyed swimming in the bay ever since our children were toddlers. I have been fortunate enough to sail on it and continue to marvel at how clear and clean the water is. Our community is truly blessed to have this pristine natural treasure.
Terry Bell (council candidate for re-election)
September 12, 2022: Letter from Garry Michi (Candidate for Mayor)
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the Bruce Peninsula Water Watchers (BPWW) to publicly express my thoughts on the proposed GB Salmon project.
The Fish Farm Project is currently the biggest issue in Colpoys Bay, Berford Lake, Mallory Beach and Wiarton areas.
Michi for Mayor is NOT in favour.
7 (b) The Fish Farm Project
• The Fish Farm aquaculture project operated by Georgian Bay Salmon (Georgian Bay Innovation Group) is compatible with agriculture.
• We live, swim, fish and hunt in this community, a UNESCO Biosphere and do NOT want an industrial business contaminating our water natural resource. • Tourists come here to visit and experience the beauty of our pristine water and beautiful beaches, The Fish Farm has potential to threaten our future tourism. • Information detailing this project is difficult to get. Constituents noticed there is nothing on the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (TSBP) website describing the development. • This project is currently at the provincial government level for approval without input from the residents in the area that will be affected, this is not acceptable. • Berford Lake is a very fragile eco-system, any pollutants may have astronomical affects.
• Our team attended the BPWW public meeting Friday, June 3, 2022 @ 7:00 p.m. at the Meeting Place. BPWW www.smellsfishy.org hired McMaster University to conduct a study and Dr. Barry Zadjlic whose area of expertise is environmental guidelines derivation, toxicity, test method, analysis, design and review of environmental monitoring programs was on hand to provide insight and to answer questions. Our team concluded that there is no scientific proof that guarantees our pristine water will not be impacted.
• If this project gets pushed through, Taxpayers can not TRUST that monitoring and mitigation measures will be adhered to by this big corporation. Sure, government agencies can enforce these rules, but we want to make sure GB Salmon minimizes any impact to the quality of our water in Georgian Bay.
• GB Salmon's intention was to break ground spring 2022, but Saugeen Ojibway Nations (SON) halted the project as they were not consulted or involved in the process.
• The TSBP has not been transparent to our taxpayers, specifically those that live in Berford Lake, Colpoys Bay & Mallory Beach areas.
• Constituent's in Berford Lake, Colpoys Bay & Mallory Beach feel that the TSBP is trying to slip it through without proper consultation & collaboration with our residents and First Nations. First Nations are the keepers and stewards of these lands and waterways and Georgian Bay is their active fishing grounds.
• Our team has been in contact with Bill Walker MPP and the pending application is with the MNRF & MECP.
• Our team has contacted the owners GB Salmon, Gerry Sullivan, President. GB Salmon is pushing to finalize environmental impact studies this summer and again have public meetings this fall. When our team gathers more information, we will report on garryisyourvoice.com.
• GB Salmon claims that growth to the local economy ($30 Mil) – skilled construction labour to build ($270 Mil facility, provide 200+ jobs) with only 25 full time jobs.
• GB Salmon may get all government funding and potentially operate for a short time and then walk-a-way. We have seen this before just look at the Sprung Greenhouse Project in Newfoundland.
• Regarding the other two GB Salmon locations in Norway & Nfld. • Are these operations in water systems or on land?
• Is the science tested and/or proven at these other locations? We need to know!
• TSBP needs to conduct more research into the Fraser River Fish Project for comparison.
Information addressed by GB Salmon:
• The town is waiting for GB Salmon’s Environmental assessment to clearly define standards minimizing impacts to our area, for review and comments. • Our Mayor and Councillors do not have the authority to approve or deny the Fish Farm license. Our town is just another agency to review, comment and wait for expert opinions from other government agencies (e.g. MNRF, MECP, MTCS, SGCA, MTO, SON's, etc.)
• The TSBP does not have the expertise on staff to make sure the findings are valid. Any procedures to measure and monitor effluent must be public to ensure our pristine waters of Georgian Bay are not adversely affected.
• Our TSBP has both duty and responsibility to follow Provincial Policy Statements. The provincial government must make a positive recommendation to the Federal government for issuance of license.
• Our TSBP needs to collaborate with our Indigenous Communities. Saugeen Ojibway Nations (SON) and Neyaashiinigmiing both have the power to stop the Fish Farm. The Ministry of Natural Resources will listen to SON.
• TSBP may have potential to withhold permission for GB Salmon to cross our municipal roadways, but provincial and federal licensing may supersede and address this issue.
GB Salmon Issues to be Addressed:
• A detailed Operational Plan and drawings noting all operational plan requirements, monitoring and measurement procedures should be included. • Factors affecting energy consumption example lights & pumps, heating & cooling systems, oxygen generation, feeding systems UV units, and backup generators. • Conduct a Traffic Study that identifies the daily number of trucks, size of trucks, greenhouse gas emissions, hours of operation, wear-and-tear on the roadways capital costs to improve these roadways and negotiate a Haulage Agreement with TSBP.
• Need to address how the sludge will be stored on site and outline spill handling procedures.
• Data gathered from a current detailed Hydrogeologist Study is required for comparisons, monitoring and mitigation processes to analyze into the future.
• Recognise our resident’s water wells located in the area concerned and identify what measures are being put in place to mitigate decreased water levels and water quality. If the Fish Farm affects the quality of our drinking water, they must provide potable water to all residence at GB Salmon’s cost.
• At the BPWW presentation 3 key elements were identified:
1. End of Pipe (what is really going back into the water)
2. Ask the Right Questions (to obtain the correct answers from GB Salmon) 3. TSBP Defines Monitoring, Measurements and Mitigation of our water by a third party (not the owner/operator).
• Clearly identify in their Environmental Report, all environmental impacts (examples: all wildlife, deer, cattle horses, fish species, birds, quality and levels of our water, air pollution, etc.).
Thanks again BPWW for the opportunity to engage in discussion and collaborations with my constituents about the contentious Fish Farm Project. Michi for Mayor in the upcoming Municipal Election, October 2022.
Garry Michi
Candidate for Mayor
The Town of South Bruce Peninsula
September 6, 2022: Letter from Caleb Hull (Candidate for Councillor)
Aquaculture Project on Berford Lake Road and Colpoy’s Bay
I am hopeful of innovative businesses investing in our area and am confident that the discussion around preserving wetlands, aquifers, watersheds, and safe drinking water will not hamper efforts to encourage new projects. We live in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and are “Ontario’s Natural Retreat.’ Dialogue on new projects and their potential threats to these designations should be expected - especially considering our Economic Development Plan indicates that we should be preserving our natural environment. The community is clear in that they want sustainable growth that does not make significant impacts on the environment and that preserving clean drinking water is the highest priority. This is also my priority.
I receive my drinking water from our local water system and have always been proud of the clean water we have in Georgian Bay. When I became aware of an industrialized aquaculture farm marketed to be ‘the largest in the world’ and potentially being developed on Berford Lake Road, my immediate thoughts were… why isn’t this being created as a closed loop system? Why operate a salt water project in fresh water? What aspects of the water will be ‘cleaner’ and what remnants will be returning to Colpoy’s Bay? Why is this project being developed on a wetland and watershed and not an area that needs revitalization like a quarry? Does it need to be the ‘largest in the world’ to be profitable? Who will clean this project up after its lifespan is over? We have a thriving tourist industry around fishing, and water recreation. Will the economic gains from the fish farm threaten this thriving industry? Does the company named Georgian Bay Salmon’ create a competitive edge against traditional fishers who sell true wild caught freshwater salmon?
The concerns I hear from neighbour are…
“Isn’t this project good for our community? Increasing our local food production is a must!”
“Are home owners really this scared of a fish farm? Is it really a serious issue or are they just ‘not-in-my-backyard people?’”
“I worry about potential pathogens, hormones, therapeutants, antibiotics, and other pollutants that may damage or disturb native fish populations or pose risks to human health.”
“Is our ‘clean water protection zone’ really protected if we have water circulating seasonally into this area?”
“Can the pipe be shut off and cleared if pests or diseases are found?”
“How will water be monitored? Are they self-monitored or will an accredited party do this?”
“How will the salt water and fish waste be dealt with?”
“How will we manage the large transport going through town when we already feel at capacity with trucks?”
“Will there be time taken to ensure current technology will be implemented before projects get started?”
“There is a lot of hard surfaces being proposed on this wetland area. This is a major change to our local landscape. How does this effect drainage or surface water quality?”
“What preventative measures will be done to prevent migratory birds from being attracted to the site?”
“Will the operation of this site negatively impact our dark skies?”
“Can this even be stopped if all levels of government have already approved it?”
“Can’t we simply not allow access under our road allowances? If we do this, does this open us up to legal pushback? We are so sick of legal fees.”
“What has current council agreed to? Why do we not have access to all the information?”
We deserve to be able to ask the tough questions and get answers. All of our concerns must be met with scientific research and data by qualified agencies before anything is initiated. Our community deserves clarification and peace of mind. I will not support anything until our community has that peace of mind and can be assured that this project is safe.
What can be done now?
1. The new council needs to obtain all available documents regarding this project and the public needs to be aware of its progress. The community needs to have access to up-to-date information to make clear decisions.
2. On behalf of the community, the town must request access to information from all of levels of government and their relevant ministries so we can understand how each are involved in this project.
3. The town needs to notify our citizens at every opportunity for public comment and ensure thorough engagement has taken place so no community member feels left out of the discussion.
Going forward
We need to consider implementing a sustainability committee as a formal committee of council. In 2019, I made a delegation to council requesting a committee be formed. This was denied. A committee of qualified and experienced citizens can listen to our community and offer advisement to council on the variety of ways we can reduce our negative impacts on the environment. A sustainability committee can also help understand and educate our community on other potential detriments to our shorelines and waterways like road salt contamination, hazardous waste, pollutants, nitrogen/phosphorus run off from farm land etc.
-Caleb Hull
September 4, 2022: Letter from Bill Klingenberg (Candidate for Councillor)
Thank you for your email. My position on the proposed Aquaculture or Fish Farm is that in its current form, I am in opposition. I was at that meeting in June and heard the many concerns, past experiences with fish farming and the risks that go with it. Like everyone else, I feel that information and technical data on what is being proposed is lacking. Colpoy's Bay, and surrounding lands, are an environmental gem and sensitive for so many fish and wildlife. I'm not sure what ability the municipal council has in the approval process as it is mostly under Provincial authority however, the municipality does have commenting ability and the authority to govern its roads and lands. Hope this helps.
Bill Klingenberg
September 3, 2022: Letter from Gerrie Huenemoerder (Candidate for Councillor)
That is a huge industrial building in the middle of a biosphere. So while we have a limit on housing being built & land severances, let’s just clear cut & build this building.
On top of that, the water issue is really the big environmental factor.
The fact that they are not really being open about their studies, their capabilities to put back clean water should be enough reason to say NO.
So many times in my lifetime have I seen beautiful clean water contaminated by a giant corporation.
They could build this near Kingston & use Lake Ontario water & flush it back in & it can flow to the ocean. Maybe the fact that Lake Ontario water is already contaminated is why they aren’t doing it there.
I’m a reasonable environmental thinking person & this rings many alarm bells. So I am still a NO on this project.
I know of other people with big development projects that have been looking for council approval
For years… nothing… I think we can do better.
Gerrie Huenemoerder
September 2, 2022: Letter from Crystal Marler (Candidate for Councillor)
Hello, Thank you for reaching out. I have been following this closely for a long time and went to the public meeting in June. Got a very lovely sign that is up in the front of my property. This company and project are very concerning to me, so much so that I have reached out to get invovled with the Bruce Peninsula Biosphere Association. On a Municipal level it doesn't seem like too much can be done but I will use my voice regardless of if I get in or not to write emails to our Provincial and Federal Government, to raise awareness by having conversations with other community members and anything else to oppose this development. I have reached out to the BPWW to be on their email list and would love to get more involved. I am not opposed to all fish farms just this company, the size and the location.
Kind regards,
Crystal Marler
August 30, 2022: Letter from Ann Marie Hadcock (Candidate for Deputy Mayor)
I am not in favour of an industrial-sized fish farm in South Bruce Peninsula. I believe that we must be good environmental stewards of our home, preserve our natural areas and pristine waters.
-Ann Marie Hadcock
August 30, 2022: Letter from Gwen Gilbert (Candidate for Deputy Mayor)
Hi Dan.
I have included a comment which I believe would be beneficial for the viewers of your site when trying to make an informed decision as to their candidate of choice at election time. Thanks for your consideration of also posting this clarification of my interest and previous involvement with Bruce Peninsula Water Watch.
Regards
Gwen
Thanks for allowing us the opportunity to submit a letter that includes our position on the proposed fish farm. The previous letter is the viewpoint of not only myself but is also supported by my colleague, Ana Vukovic.
I would also like to point out, Dan, that I have held this position since I first learned about the proposed industrialized fish farm. I have been involved with your organization since I first learned of your desire to educate and inform the people of the potential health, environmental and social impacts to our residents. This is supported by my attendance at the meeting with the Ontario Farmer magazine in November 2021, documented in a previous article on this site. Please know that I did not just jump on the bandwagon because it may garner me a few extra votes in this election. I have been faithful with my support to the Bruce Peninsula Water Watch Group in the past and I will continue to support this organization long after the outcome of this municipal election is known because I believe in it’s purpose and vision. The proposed fish farm Is a very real concern that is near and dear to my heart. We must never allow this industrialized fish farm to destroy our lands and the pristine waters of Colpoys Bay.
Regards
Gwen Gilbert
Candidate for Deputy Mayor
August 28, 2022 - Letter from Ana Vukovic (Candidate for Councillor) and Gwen Gilbert (Candidate for Deputy Mayor)
Stop the Fish Factory! We live on the beautiful Bruce Peninsula, a popular tourist destination known for its camping, hiking and fishing, it’s fresh air and its clean water. It has 2 national parks(the Bruce Peninsula Park and the Fathom Five National Marine Park), more than 1/2 dozen nature reserves, and the Bruce Peninsula Bird Observatory. The Bruce Trail runs from the beginning to the end of the Peninsula. The BP is a key area for both plant and animal wildlife and is part of the Niagara Escarpment World Biosphere Reserve. The Peninsula has the largest remaining area of forest and natural habitat in Southern Ontario and is home to some of the oldest trees in eastern North America. It is an important flyway for migrating birds and is habitat to a variety of animals, including black bear, massasauga rattlesnake and the barred owl. Some of the rarest wild flowers and orchids can be found in our area. Canada is home to 77 orchid species, 44 of which can be found on the Bruce Peninsula. We must not allow industrialization to destroy that which has made our area world famous. We must not allow industrialization to destroy our pristine clean waters of which Colpoys Bay is famous for. We must protect our land and waters that we have worked so hard to preserve for others to enjoy. We are not willing to let anyone experiment with our pristine waters of Colpoys Bay and we are not prepared to let a Fish company dump millions of liters of waste water that contains who-knows-what back into Colpoys Bay daily for 4000 citizens to drink. We must always protect Colpoys Bay, a part of Georgian Bay and the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ana Vukovic
Gwen Gilbert
August 27, 2022
Today, Bruce Peninsula Water Watch was provided an opportunity to make a presentation at the annual meeting of the Berford Lake Rate Payers Association. There was a good attendance from Cottagers.
Real concerns about potential impacts on both Colpoys Bay, and water tables adjacent to Berford Lake resident’s wells and the proposed site were voiced.
Our thanks for an opportunity to voice our concerns and the overwhelming support and encouragement we have received to date.
August 26, 2022
On November 10, 2021 a Freedom of Information request was filed with the Ministry of the Environment regarding the GB Salmon project. Information sought includes:
“copies of all applications and correspondence relating to Georgian Bay Innovation Group 365 Evans Ave., Toronto Suite 503, request for permits to take water in excess of 50,000 L per day from Georgian Bay and CCA discharge permits.”
We also requested “status information and all inter-office memos regarding review for the issuance of any permits that may be required.” This should include the Environmental Assessment and supporting documentation that is required as part of the application process.
The MOE failed to respond within the 30 day legislated response period so a complaint was filed with the Information Privacy Commissioners office in early August and a response acknowledging receipt of the request was subsequently received from MOE on August 16.
We also continue to monitor the Environmental Registry and are registered to receive notification of permit applications filed by GB Salmon.
It is our intent to insure public engagement in MOE review process of any permit application filed by GB Salmon.
August 25, 2022
With the onset of the fall 2022 municipal election campaigning we now have a list of the new candidates seeking election and the incumbents seeking reelection. Below is the list of certified candidates.
Candidates will be provided an opportunity to voice platforms at the upcoming all-candidates meeting as announced below.
In the weeks to follow is our intent to seek official policy statements from all candidates and we will post said position statements here.
August 6, 2022 - Massive salmon farm gets green light from Ohio DNR
Wriiten by James Proffitt June 1, 2022
This sounds so familiar. It would appear that citizens are the last to be consulted and the agendas of these large corporations are favoured by government.
https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2022/06/salmon-farm-ohio-dnr/
June 8, 2022 - “ My concern relates to potential impacts to human-health via groundwater.” writes one resident
Protect our drinking (ground)water supply!
My concern is for ensuring the future protection of the drinking water supply for those of us in the Berford Lake / Big Mud Lake area that rely on well water. Others have already raised concerns regarding the separate issue of potential impacts to Colpoy’s Bay. My concern relates to potential impacts to human-health via groundwater. To my knowledge, this important topic has not been raised to date.
For water well users, our source of drinking water has been identified as a “Highly Vulnerable Aquifer” (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks [MECP] Ontario Source Protection Atlas mapping).
Water Source Protection
Ours is a shallow bedrock aquifer that also has a shallow depth to the water table. That makes it particularly susceptible to contamination. It also has a low ability to “heal” itself once contaminated. The thin, permeable soils and shallow depth to the water table make it easy for the aquifer to be contaminated. Bedrock aquifer flow rates are typicallly higher too, so the 1-10 m/yr flow rate in a sand to silty sand aquifer might be 10-100x faster in a bedrock aquifer (starting rule-of-thumb), allowing contamination to spread farther and faster. The physical, chemical and biological processes that allow an aquifer to “heal” (i.e., return back to the uncontaminated condition) are also substantially reduced for a bedrock aquifer. Bedrock aquifers are more difficult and take longer to characterize because the rate and direction of flow can be quite variable by location, as well as vary seasonally and year-to-year.
It is critical that we understand that once an aquifer is contaminated it takes decades to return back to an uncontaminated condition. There is no “quick fix”. The best tool in our toolbox is PREVENTION. To ENSURE our highly vulnerable water supply remains protected is to not allow any type of large-scale, contaminant-intensive activities to occur on or near the aquifer (a land use restriction). The proposed fish farm appears to fit this category. The alternative to prevention is risk reduction which would involve allowing for the fish farm to proceed and allowing contaminants to be released on the property with the hope that our water supply will not become contaminated.
Post Walkerton (let’s never forget this terrible and needless tragedy where 7 people died and 100s made ill by drinking contaminated water), the provincial and municipal governments undertook studies intended to protect Ontario’s groundwater resources as an irreplaceable source of drinking water. The “Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study” final report was issued in July 2003 (prepared by Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc.). Interestingly, “public involvement and awareness” was identified at the very top in the diagram of the multi-faceted approach to protecting our water supply.
Ref: pg 1-3 of 2003 Groundwater Study report (originally from CCME, 2002)
The report (available on-line) makes many recommendations to protect our groundwater supplies, including adopting:
Land Use Restrictions
Environmental Farm Plans,
Best Management Plans (BMPs)
Nutrient Management Plans for “best possible efficiency”
Spill and Contingency Plans
Incorporating Groundwater Protection into Official Plans
Better Enforcement
Appendix H of the report provided example planning policies for an official plan to increasingly prohibit certain land uses as the level of aquifer vulnerability increases.
A short-coming of these studies is the focus on municipal wells. There are many 1000s of people in Ontario on private water wells that deserve to be protected too. Our neighbourhood community consists of multiple private water wells utilizing the same aquifer. We need our own Wellhead Protection Area that says no contaminants may be released to our highly vulnerable aquifer because those contaminants would be headed straight to our wells. What is our alternative water supply and who would pay for it in perpetuity? We don’t have a “Plan B”.
The “Source Protection Plan for Grey Sauble Source Protection Area” (Oct. 2015) presents the required actions related to various drinking water threats. It stipulates a range of protective environmental policies that the proposed fish farm may have to comply with depending on the specific nature of their proposed activities. It is helpful but nowhere near as definitive as a Wellhead Protection Area. [http://home.waterprotection.ca/source-protection-plan/]
I maintain the exact same principles of protection apply for our collection of many private water wells as applies to any one municipal well. Thus government agencies, using their own studies, principles and requirements should readily agree that this highly vulnerable aquifer warrants appropriate protection. We the taxpayer paid for these studies, so we should hold the government to following their own rules.
Some well owners may think this doesn’t concern them because they live near the lake so believe their well water really just comes from the lake. Not true. Groundwater flows by gravity from high to low, and lakes represent the low. It is far more likely your water originated 100s - 1000s of metres away (as precipitation infiltrating down through the surrounding lands) and was on its way to discharge to the lake before it was intercepted and removed by your well.
Ref: pg 4-13 of 2003 Groundwater Study report
Various provincial regulations recognize the increased threat posed to shallow bedrock aquifers. Here are a few examples:
The MECP set generic numerical standards for contaminants in soil, groundwater and sediment in Ontario Regulation 153/04 (Record of Site Condition). Of note, the Table 6 Standards applicable to our “shallow bedrock aquifer” (i.e., <2 m overburden soils in a potable groundwater condition) assume dilution does not occur in the aquifer. Dilution was one of those beneficial “healing” processes I mentioned earlier that help reduce contaminant concentrations between the starting point of contaminant release and the end point (your glass of drinking water).
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has requirements for nutrient storage facilities (Ontario Regulation 267/03) to “maintain separation distances to bedrock and groundwater (aquifer)”. Section 65, for example, of the regulation refers to a range of scenarios comparable to the 2m overburden thickness and also has requirements for construction of layers of “hydraulically secure soil”, presumably to mitigate (reduce, not eliminate) the ability of any contaminant releases to find their way to the aquifer. I do not know the proposed construction details for the fish farm, but the key point here is (if allowed to proceed) there should be a sufficient “hydraulically secure” barrier constructed between the fish farm infrastructure (tanks, filters, pumps, pipes, etc.) and the bedrock.
Ontario also has requirements for both small and large subsurface sewage disposal systems. I assume the fish farm will have some form of large septic system designed to handle the waste flows associated with the projected number of on-site staff. The link provided below discusses how small systems have prescriptive requirements but that larger systems require site investigations and criteria set on a site-specific basis. Sections 22.5.11, 22.5.12, 22.5.13, 22.5.20 mention concerns related to shallow bedrock.
[https://www.ontario.ca/document/design-guidelines-sewage-works/large-subsurface-sewage-disposal-systems]Septic systems also have heightened environmental concerns over municipal treatment systems. Septic systems are far more sensitive to any releases of paints, fuels, solvents, cleaners, etc., such as what one might commonly see used at large-scale operations. These contaminants are likely to pass straight through to contaminate the aquifer. Wastewaters released from septic systems are not monitored for contaminants like we see for municipal wastewater discharges, resulting in contaminant discharges to be more likely to go unnoticed. Significant prevention efforts are clearly required.
I also assume there will be some significant form of backup power generation fueled by diesel. All steps must be taken to prevent diesel from contaminating our drinking water. I cringe every time I see a fuel tank that doesn’t even have the bare minimum spill containment measures around their tanks. We just can’t afford to be so lax.
At this point, I need to delve a bit deeper into the technical details. Any design calculations must be based on site-specific studies and parameters appropriate for our shallow bedrock aquifer. This means no assuming default parameters applicable to a sand environment and no use of one-time measurements to characterize a dynamic bedrock aquifer flow system. It is also unreasonable to assume no leaks, spills or other releases of contaminants will ever happen, so these need to be factored into any assessment, design calculation and regulatory review process. In particular, I suspect any planned sewage disposal system and the fish farm process waters likely share, in part, a similar list of contaminants (nitrates, phosphorus, ammonia, pathogens, etc.). Any contaminant loading calculations to our aquifer should be combined and not assessed separately, including consideration for how the contaminants for one release may inhibit the reduction of contaminant concentrations in the other. Calculations should also reflect current industry practice and be consistent across the various provincial regulations. Lastly, the proposed facility will handle massive quantities of contaminated water so the facility design should include a proportional level of protective design features, ongoing monitoring and contingency planning, especially in the event of a catastrophic release. Regulations require planning for fires, but how about management of the large volumes of contaminated firewater that would be produced?
Given the importance of this concern to the community and consistent with the 2003 Groundwater Study recommendation, I believe public awareness and involvement are important. I suggest the concerned citizen group request from the regulators, on behalf of the community, that the public be included in all related communications and correspondence, and also included in the full document review and approval process.
Thank-you for allowing me to share my concern and personal opinion on the best way forward.
Richard Sydor (Berford Lake)
June 4, 2022 - Epilogue to Public Meeting held June 3, 2022
Approximately one year ago activity was noted at GB Salmon’s proposed site On Berford Lake Road.
The simple question “what are you doing” was only the first of many that would result in the public meeting held at the Propeller Club last evening.
The biggest question to date has been “what might the potential impact of a project like this have on Colpoy’s Bay and surrounding area be?”
The answers to many of those questions were delivered in engaged dialogue with Biometrician Dr. Barry Zajdlik, McMaster University MSc students from Dr. Pat Chow Fraser’s graduate class, and Wetland Specialist Dr. Olena Volik from the University of Waterloo.
We were delivered a healthy dose of science and the affirmation that the potential for impact is very real and that our concerns are warranted.
We learned that there are many more questions to be asked and answered, “knowledge gaps” to be completed and studies along with collection and analysis of baseline data to be concluded before the project is allowed to proceed.
Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) delivered a position statement.
Mayor Janice Jackson was in attendance and responded to sometimes emotional questions and comments.
Newly elected MPP Rick Byers also attended-24 hours into his new job expressing his desire to learn about the project and constituents concerns.
The capacity crowd was engaged, and there was dialogue-exactly what a public meeting should be.
Take aways from last night's meeting will help to formulate an action plan and list of objectives moving forward.
First and foremost on the list will be representation in the MOE review process for issuance of a license to both take water and return treated effluent to the bay.
We continue to monitor the environmental registry for GB Salmon’s submissions including environmental assessments and modelling. It is our intention to review extensively and challenge that submission.
For those unable last nights meeting a video will soon be made available on this site
June 3, 2022 - McMaster University Masters of Science students deliver their final written report on the potential impact of GB Salmon RAS in Wiarton.
https://greatlakeswetlands.ca/publications/1014/ To download the pdf click on the download icon.
April 25, 2022 - McMaster University Masters of Science candidates deliver their report on the potential impacts of the proposed Georgian Bay Salmon facility on Colpoy’s Bay.
Late last summer we approached academics at several universities in Southwestern Ontario seeking objective scientific insight on this proposed project. Doctor Pat Chow Fraser and Doctor Karen Kidd from the biology department at McMaster University responded by offering a course to Masters of Science candidates to study the potential impacts of the proposed Georgian Bay Salmon facility on Colpoys Bay. On Friday April 22 the students delivered their findings and the results of their very dedicated and enthusiastic work can be viewed here:
April 16, 2022 - blogTO.com published a story ’Popular nature escape in Ontario could soon be wrecked by unwanted factory.’ in their news feed relating to the proposed project that elicited the following responses.
https://www.blogto.com/travel/2022/04/bruce-peninsula-fish-factory/
Message: It is very short sighted of the Mayor Janice Jackson and the council of SBP to not instantly challenge the fish farm. Don't let this be your leadership legacy! Your decision to fight against the Fish Farm or support them will impact futire generations. There is no neutral territory on this issue.
You will either move forward in a positive way protecting our biosphere, environment and fresh water against this fish farm OR under your leadership the fish farms were provided the opportunity to irreparably damage our biosphere causing any species of creatures to suffer
Such a decision could easily begin the demise of one of five of the largest of freshwater lakes in the world. A trickle down effect could spiral for generations to come. Fresh drinking water could be compromised.
I haven't even yet touched on the lack of respect and the impact on our indigenous neighbours and their traditional fishing. I need more knowledge to do that accurately. This is a big decision. It is a leadership mountain to either die or thrive.
Message: Massive and inappropriate use of antibiotics to treat or prevent disease in farmed fish fosters the development of resistant bacteria that have the potential of harming humans. This was the finding of a recent study conducted by researchers from France’s Institute of Development and Research (IRD) and Center for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for Development (CIRAD)
Message: Apparently farmed fish is one of the worst things you can eat on the planet, anyways. Boycott?
Message: I wonder if the people behind GB salmon would drink, bath and so on the waste water for a prolonged period of time. My guess is they would not.
Message: The question is, does this project impact the ecosystem more or less than the equivalent protein farmed or raised in other ways? This sound like NIMBYism.
Message: My experience is the amount of 'protein' farming on the peninsula is pretty negligible compared to other areas in the province. Also, tourism is a big industry in the Bruce so this could negatively impact it. I would be interested in knowing the impact of the waste water on local drinking water supplies
View more videos on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmKpruMyGNh8sZ-m9S0a_Mg
Please show your support and sign the petition https://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-ca/684/577/962/demand-a-stop-to-georgian-bay-innovation-groups-plans-to-take-water-from-georgian-bay/
April 2, 2022 - Town of South Bruce Peninsula responds to the request for Freedom of Information Documents
In November of 2021 Bruce Peninsula Water Watch filed a Freedom of Information request with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula regarding matters concerning the proposed fish factory. Attached is a letter from the Town in response to the request. Although 309 pertinent pages were identified by the Town, we were only provided with approximately 70 pages of correspondence and information. The reasons for refusal were also noted- and we may elect to refute some or all the access denials at a later date. Clearly evident is that contrary to claims made by municipal government officials to date, there was in fact substantial interaction with the town by officers of Georgian Bay Innovation Group.
The mayor is also evidenced to have been in direct correspondence with the realtor and the company regarding the purchase of the property-the propriety of which may be subject to scrutiny.
The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act along with exemptions can be found here: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m56
View PDF Attachment: Freedom of Information Documents from the Town of South Bruce Peninsula
View more videos on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmKpruMyGNh8sZ-m9S0a_Mg
Please show your support and sign the petition https://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-ca/684/577/962/demand-a-stop-to-georgian-bay-innovation-groups-plans-to-take-water-from-georgian-bay/
Developing news and what we’ve learned so far:
January 6, 2022 - The following article appeared in the Owen Sound Sun Times on Jan. 5
Aquatic studies will determine future of salmon farm plan
Author of the article: Denis Langlois
Publishing date:Jan 05, 2022
https://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/news/local-news/aquatic-studies-will-determine-future-of-salmon-farm-plan
January 5, 2022 - Public Info Sessions: no new answers…just more questions.
The recent public information sessions hosted by GB Salmon/Georgian Bay Innovation Group were attended by a near capacity audience on both the evening sessions. Although it was indicated the company would not field questions at the first session, dissension and insistence by members of the audience were successful in convincing the presenters to yield to a question session. The second session did make provision for a question period.
The company did indicate that a portal for public engagement would be provided on the website but there is nothing available yet.
Doctor Patricia Chow-Fraser was in attendance with a number of post graduate students at the second session and were allowed to pose a few questions that received quite perfunctory response.
Today we were forwarded an email that was sent to GB Salmon with questions that have arisen as a result of their attendance:
Dear GB Salmon,
I attended the information session on December 14, 2021 and was unable to get some of my questions answered. I hope you will be able to post these questions and answers on your website:
1) Why do you need to use water from Colpoy Bay once it is operational? If you can recirculate 99%, why not recirculate 100% of the water and have it truly land-based? Is there any existing land-based aquaculture facility that returns water to the natural environment, and if so, please provide data to show how the treated effluent affects ambient concentrations.
2) What are the environmental studies you are conducting currently—what parameters are you measuring?
3) Will you agree to have the results of your modelling studies peer reviewed by two independent experts?
4) Will you be operating the facility at night? Will this have an impact on light pollution given that the entire peninsula is a Dark Sky community?
5) Who will be conducting environmental monitoring of Colpoy Bay? Will these results be posted for the community to see?
6) Why are you using the provincial standard (20 µg/L) instead of the ambient concentration of Colpoy Bay, which is definitely 3 or 4 times lower?
I appreciate you providing answers to these questions. Thank you.
Regards,
Dr. Patricia Chow-Fraser
Professor, Department of Biology
McMaster University | 1280 Main St. W.
Life Sciences Building, Room 224
Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1
December 10, 2021
The first of two GB/Salmon-GBIG Public Information Sessions on Thursday evening left local residents with more new questions than answers.
Clearly, interest in the project remains high as there was a large attendance at the Propeller Club for the evening. A question and answer period was provided. The company had earlier indicated it will answer questions through an online forum to be provided on their website at questions@gbsalmon.ca
Is it possible that the second public information session scheduled for Tuesday December 14 will provide clarification and direct answers to the many questions and concerns raised and left unanswered in Thursday's meeting?
A few quick takeaways from the Thursday session included:
Mayor Janice Jackson and councillor Kathy Durst did attend but did not address residents.
After a brief intro by a spokesperson from the marketing firm retained to organize the event, Tim Boosamra spoke, very quickly stating that this company had no affiliations with “any other companies”, no doubt referencing Georgian Bay Biomed (See https://www.collingwoodtoday.ca/local-news/georgian-bay-biomed-site-still-quiet-fees-owed-to-town-since-2019-unpaid-3773339)
Representatives from Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd were in attendance and are involved in conducting the environmental impact studies required for the project.
An organization chart presented by Boosamra showed that Ted Young would be the “Community Liason Specialist”
Ted Young is a former resident with a family farm south of town. He spoke, lending character reference to his longtime friend GB Salmon CEO Gerry Sullivan. He stated that the company’s choice for the Colpoys Bay site was a result of his invitation to Mr. Sullivan to visit, and suggestion that they consider locating in this area, noting they immediately determined “it was a perfect fit” with the water sealing the deal.
Ted Young also stated that “we have an arrangement with First Nations and they are on board”, though we received the following earlier this afternoon from SON:
‘We’re still in the early stages of this process, we’re gathering the necessary information to begin formal consultation. SON has not made a determination in either direction at this point as we have not concluded our consultation process. Rest assured that SON is involved at this point in time, and that we will work through our established protocols to make a determination about this project in SON Territory including the potential impacts on SON Rights.’
Wayne Caldwell from the University of Guelph who is a specialist in rural planning is also involved in the project.
A videographer appeared to be in attendance. The company has indicated that video (hopefully unedited and in its entirety) will be uploaded to the internet for public viewing.
Please visit the Residents Speak Out section of the website to view comments. Follow us on Facebook at Bruce Peninsula Water Watch or Instagram @brucepeninsulawater watch to voice your concerns.
December 8, 2021 - Information Sessions Scheduled For Proposed Salmon Farm In South Bruce Peninsula
The following article was published by Bayshore Broadcasting:
https://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/2021/12/08/atlantic-salmon-farm-information-sessions-scheduled-in-wiarton-this-month/
December 6, 2021 - Toronto firm plans RAS facility in Georgian Bay site
The following article published by Aquaculture North America:
https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/toronto-firm-plans-ras-facility-in-georgian-bay-site/
December 2, 2021 - Company proposing land-based salmon farm near Colpoy's Bay to host information sessions | Wiarton Echo
The following article has just been posted to the Wiarton Echo and Owen Sound Sun Times:
https://shorelinebeacon.com/news/local-news/company-proposing-land-based-salmon-farm-near-colpoys-bay-to-hold-information-sessions-2
December 1, 2021 - IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION
Last week, Ontario Farmer published an article about the Fish Factory. As part of the research the reporter spoke with GIBG and obtained information including conceptual and planning drawings of the proposed facility and location that were shared in an earlier post on this website.
We have just learned that Georgian Bay Innovation Group has now launched a new website and now refers to the company as GB Salmon. www.gbsalmon.ca
We are in the process of researching this new entity to see if it is a new company with ownership change, etc. A corporate search will yield those results and will be published to this site as soon as we are in receipt of it.
GB Salmon is indicating that two public information sessions will be held within the next two weeks.
Information provided on the website provides the following details to secure a spot to attend.
December 9 & December 14
When: 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Where: Wiarton Propeller Club, 575 Edward St, Wiarton, ON
Space is limited due to covid-19 regulations.
Please register by email rsvp@gbsalmon.ca
Please contact by email provided to reserve a spot.
If you are not provided a spot, we invite you to attend to show your support against this proposed industrial Fish Factory in a peaceful show of opposition outside the Propeller Club between 6-8pm.
November 26, 2021: Paving the way to industrialization of agricultural land?
The existing official Town of South Bruce Peninsula official plan reads:
Agriculture
Agriculture will continue to be an important component of the Town’s economy and a dominant feature of the rural landscape. Agricultural uses and areas and farm-related commercial and industrial uses will be protected from encroachment by incompatible and uses. Farm sizes which maintain the economic viability of individual/stand alone agricultural operations shall be encouraged as a means of ensuring a thriving agricultural community, and discouraging the acquisition of farm holdings by permanent or recreational non-farm residents
But the following appeared yesterday on the CKNX news site:
Bruce County considers smaller agricultural lots
Blackburn News, by Janice Mackay
Bruce County’s Planning and Development Committee has asked staff to initiate an amendment to the County Official Plan to add policy criteria for consideration of smaller agricultural lots.
A report also directs staff to update the policies on industrial and commercial uses in agricultural areas.
The Committee previously expressed interest in identifying opportunities to advance policy changes or tools in the near-term to support development objectives.
And a review of feedback on the Plan the Bruce: Agriculture project identified policy changes to support that. Policy changes could include more policy detail to support proposals for smaller new agricultural lots and broadening permitted uses to reflect more flexible Provincial policy and guidelines.
One intended outcome of these changes would be to reduce the number of routine site-specific Official Plan Amendments that are required under current Official Plan policies.
November 24, 2021: Disappointing and alarming news…..
The following article appeared in Ontario Farmer magazine today. Though we have been pushing for answers to our many questions and the public information session that Georgian Bay Innovation Group promised in July, we have had no response from the company, Municipal, Provincial or Federal governments to date. This project has been shrouded in secrecy on many levels since we first learned of it, yet the author of this article seems to have obtained information pertaining to some of the detailed operational plans for the project….
We have filed Freedom of information requests with the MNR, MOE and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula pertaining to any and all information regarding this project yet await a response. Repeated inquiries to MPP Bill Walker’s office have yielded a big fat zero. We have received an anonymous email authored by a gentleman claiming to be privy to information regarding the project and he has indicated a planned start date of February 2022. He also alleges “It is my belief that GBIG is deliberately being less than transparent.” If there is any merit to these allegations the project may be further advanced than we have been told by people that no doubt know a lot more than they have disclosed.
Only leads one to wonder if the bad manners to date foreshadow the dubious integrity of Georgian Bay Innovation Group, our political representatives/employees and the ministries involved. “Wait they say”…..when the ground is broken it will be too late.
The face of our beautiful peninsula and waters will be forever changed. This is a wakeup call.
The following was also published to Ontario Farmer Wednesday November 24:
November 10, 2021 - Graduate course offered at McMaster University in January will undertake to study the proposed aquaculture facility
In July and August we undertook to contact academics and experts from several universities, seeking assistance in obtaining accurate information on the potential effects of the proposed fish factory.
We have just today received confirmation that a graduate course offered at McMaster University in January will undertake to study the proposed aquaculture facility on Berford Lake Road. Dr. Pat Chow-Fraser will be “developing the course from the perspective of conducting an objective study based on literature review of the impact of such a proposed operation on the limnology and fishery of Colpoy Bay and associated waters, the health of the local population (impact on drinking water, recreation, etc) and socioeconomic fibre of the region.”
Dr. Pat Chow-Fraser has been a professor of biology at McMaster University for over 30 years and has occupied the position of Chair in the department. She is an expert in Great Lakes water and has spent her career trying to better understand some of Canada's most delicate aquatic ecosystems.
Also involved with the course and study will be Dr. Karen Kidd.
Karen Ann Kidd is a Canadian aquatic ecotoxicologist. She is the Jarislowsky Chair in Environment and Health and Professor of Biology at McMaster University and member of the International Joint Commission.
The course will be attended by graduate students of varying disciplines.
Dr. Olena Volik, a wetlands specialist at the University of Waterloo has also been an invaluable expert who has, and will continue to provide scientific and factual information on potential impact of this proposed project.
Contact us.
If you have any further questions or further information regarding this topic, or if you can help in any way, please leave your contact information and we will get back to you as soon as we can.
Thank you.
Sign the Petition.
Join Bruce Peninsula Water Watch and the growing number of concerned people and sign this petition opposing the proposed Fish Factory. Protect Colpoy’s Bay and Georgian Bay.
Donate.
Please help Bruce Peninsula Water Watch protect Colpoy’s Bay. Click on the ‘DONATE’ section of our website to learn how to make a donation to aid in the fight. Any amount helps. Thank-you!