Filter content

by selecting applicable filters below

System

Water Type

Feed Dependent

Species

Indicator 2.6.6

Requirement

The UoC shall define the Waterbody Unit of Management (WUM), following the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.6). An exception applies where a WUM is already defined, in which case the UoC shall provide evidence of the defined WUM.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The following characteristics should be used to define the Waterbody Unit of Management (WUM):

    • The WUM reflects a logical geographic scope, for example, a lake and its catchment area.

    • The boundaries of the waterbody reflect the ability to realistically manage eutrophication risk within it.

    • Boundary setting should consider hydro-morphology, bathymetry, water movement and stratification characteristics.

      • Areas with high risk of adverse impacts due to cumulative effects, for example HIEs in larger waterbodies, should be a separate WUM.

      • Areas established for water quality monitoring at a national or regional level.

    • The Water Quality Advisory Committee (WQAC) can resolve issues with defining the WUM where the WUM boundaries are not clear.

Evidence of Implementation

  • A map of the WUM which includes the components outlined in Appendix 8 (8.6).

    • The map should be updated on an annual basis where required.

  • The results of measurements to confirm if the WUM is a HIE (if applicable).

Auditors Should Confirm

  • A map of the WUM has been developed and presented by the UoC, according to the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.6).

Indicator 2.6.5

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that the Receiving Waterbody (RW) has been classified per site as Type A, B or C, following the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.5).

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The UoC should initially define the boundaries of the Receiving Waterbody (RW) based on hydrological characteristics, which determines its sensitivity to nutrient enrichment.

    • Hydrodynamically isolated embayments (HIEs) should be treated as separate waterbodies during the classification process.

  • Marine waterbodies include:

    • Off-shore and inshore coastal systems.

    • More enclosed waterbodies susceptible to seawater intrusion through tidal exchange or storm surges.

    • Exposed near-shore waterbodies (i.e. not in a bay or channelised system) and offshore waterbodies will be classified as Type C.

    • Once the boundaries of the RW are defined, HRT should be calculated unless the RW is an exposed near-shore or offshore waterbody.

      • The area and average depth of the waterbody need to be determined.

    • The cross-sectional area of the waterbody outflow or channel is required to calculate flow rate.

    • A transect should be determined from one side of the outflow/channel to the other side.

      • The length (in metres) of the transect is multiplied by the average depth of the transect to determine the cross-sectional area.

      • The cross-sectional area in then multiplied by the flow velocity (V). The result of this calculation is the flow rate (Q).

      • If a marine waterbody has HRT ≥5 days, it is a Type A, if it is ≤ 5 days, it is Type C.

    • Determining flow rate and levels of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) will distinguish between Type B and C freshwater bodies.

    • Flow rate can be obtained from regulatory bodies. Low flow then needs to be calculated by plotting the cumulative distribution of the data and calculating the 25^th^ percentile of the cumulative distribution.

    • This can be calculated in Microsoft Excel using the cumulative distribution function. The 25^th^ percentile (or quartile) can then be calculated.

  • Waterbody types designated under national legislation should be used only if the following are met:

    • The classification includes area-based water quality monitoring.

      • Targets are used to determine good ecological status. An example is the Water Framework Directive.

Evidence of Implementation

  • A map of the Receiving Waterbody, which outlines:

    • The area and average depth of the waterbody; and,

      • The location where flow rate (Q) was determined; or,

    • That the site is in a RW which is an exposed near-shore or off-shore marine RW (Type C only).

    • The waterbody classification, which includes outputs from HRT, flow rate and TSS calculations.

      • The methods used to measure flow rate and TSS, in accordance with Appendix 8 (8.5 and 8.12).

      • If applicable, evidence that demonstrates alternative methodologies to calculate TSS or flow rate are equivalent to the ones in Appendix 8 (8.5).

Auditors Should Confirm

  • A map has been presented by the UoC which outlines the RW, and which supports the classification of the RW.

  • The results of the HRT calculation and flow rate/TSS measurements conducted by the UoC.

    • These results will support the RW classification determined by the UoC.

  • Evidence presented by the UoC, demonstrating the methods used to measure flow rate and TSS, in accordance with Appendix 8 (8.5 and 8.12).

Useful Resources

[Steps to determine whether the RW is a HIE are as follows:]

1. If the site is in a waterbody that has been identified as a HIE by a regulatory body, this will form the boundaries of the RW.

2. Review the characteristics of the RW and determine if at least one of the following is identified:

  • The RW has poor connectivity to deep offshore waters, and/or;

  • The RW is sheltered from energetic conditions e.g., inflows, currents, exposure to onshore or monsoonal winds, and/or;

  • The hypolimnion is periodically or permanently poorly flushed.

> Where the RW shares these characteristics, it is possible to demonstrate the RW is not a HIE. The steps to demonstrate that the RW is not a HIE are as follows:

1. Identify the narrowest point in the embayment opening (red line in Figure 1).

2. Establish two transects of length, which start at the narrowest point and extend in and out of the embayment (red dashed line in Figure 1).

3. Collect water samples at 0.5m depth from an equal number of equally spaces sites in each transect.

4. Analyse water samples for concentrations of chloride, conductivity, salinity, TN or TP. Analytical methods for TN and TP can be found in Appendix 8 (8.12).

5. Plot the concentrations of the parameter analysed in step 4 against their position on the transects.

6. Based on the results from step 5, determine whether there is a statistically significant increasing or decreasing trend in concentrations moving from the furthest offshore to the most enclosed site.

7. An embayment is hydrologically isolated when a statistically significant increasing or decreasing trend in concentrations has been determined.

Figure 1. Tracer sampling points along a transect for HIE determination.

Indicator 2.6.4

Requirement

Indicator scope: cages The UoC shall ensure that cages are sited under at least one of the following conditions: – In water that is at least twice the cage depth; or, – ≥10m above the bottom of the waterbody; or, – During periods at >75% peak biomass, the velocity of the current below the cages is >0.1 m/s, measured according to Appendix 8 (8.4).3333An exemption applies to sites situated in areas classified as having a “hard bottom”. Evidence is required to support the classification “hard bottom”.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The UoC should initially determine the depth of the waterbody in comparison to the depth of the cage.

  • Measurements should take place at the lowest water level and from the bottom of the cage.

  • Depth should also be measured from the outer circumference of the culture containment space, i.e. excluding predator nets, mortality collection chambers etc.

  • In tidal systems, the depth should be measured at mean low water spring tide (MLWS).

  • If the depth of the water column (surface to seafloor) is less than 10m or less than double the cage depth, the UoC should measure the current velocity below the cage to determine whether the >0.1 m/s threshold is met.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Results of measurements which demonstrate that all cages in the UoC meet the depth/current velocity requirements in Indicator 2.6.4.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The UoC has provided evidence demonstrating that all cage systems meet the siting requirements outlined in Indicator 2.6.4.

  • If mean current velocity is used to meet the requirement, the UoC has provided evidence that measurements were taken during periods with >75% peak biomass.

Useful Resources

Indicator 2.6.3

Requirement

Indicator scope: cage-fed systems with feed of a diameter ≥3mm. The UoC shall ensure that feed used contains <1% fines, following the method outlined in Appendix 8 (8.3).

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Indicator 2.6.3 complements the other water quality indicators by addressing the direct release of uneaten feed in the form of fines into the environment.

  • Setting a maximum percentage of fines in the feed addresses the efficient and proper transport, storage and physical delivery of feed pellets to the site.

  • Poor performance in any of the above phases of feed handling will result in a higher percentage of fines (fine particles of feed) and potentially greater impacts on water quality, due to an increase in suspended organic particles and nutrients released into the environment.

  • Sampling of feed lots includes feed delivered as material in bulk, big bags and small bags to the site.

  • Testing by the feed manufacturer to the UoC is permissible where there is no significant risk of feed deterioration during subsequent handling, storage or application.

    • The UoC should demonstrate that deterioration in feed does not take place during the processes outlined above.

    • The UoC should report the schedule and location of testing of feed if it is not conducted on-site.

  • Rationale for not testing on site should also be reported.

Evidence of Implementation

  • The method used to determine the percentage of fines in feed, in accordance with Appendix 8 (8.3).

  • The determination and documentation of a schedule and location for the testing of feed.

  • If testing takes place prior to delivery to the site, the rationale should be documented for not testing on site.

  • Calibration of sieving machines (if used) in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • The rationale for the timing and location of feed sampling.

  • The UoC has appropriate testing technology on site and that, if applicable, it is calibrated as required.

  • The method used to determine the percentage of fines in feed, in accordance with Appendix 8 (8.3).

  • Review testing results and confirm that results demonstrate feed contains <1% of fines.

Indicator 2.5.6

Requirement

Indicator applicability: cage culture, suspended marine mollusc systems The UoC shall report to ASC the benthic status, according to ASC data submission procedures.

Indicator 2.4.5

Requirement

The UoC shall log all handling and containment incidents and near misses.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • This indicator requires the UoC to log (i.e. register) all handling and containment incidents, including near misses, in order to inform the risk assessment (see Indicator 2.4.3) and the training (2.4.4) on situations that could result, or have resulted, in registered escapes.

Evidence of Implementation

  • A documented register of all handling and containment incidents and near misses.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Presence of the register.

  • Interviews with employees to confirm that employees are aware of the register and that it is being used.

Indicator 2.4.4

Requirement

The UoC shall ensure that any person involved in handling activities is trained on handling procedures to minimise escapes.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • Training and handling procedures includes:

    • An understanding of which staff are involved in animal handling (including external services providers that conduct activities at the site).

    • Coverage of relevant training content, e.g. correct handling process, correct use of equipment and emergency protocols.

    • Appropriate means of training delivery relevant to the site-specific conditions (e.g. considering whether a workshop is sufficient or whether ‘live training’ on-site is more appropriate).

Evidence of Implementation

  • Training documents and records of staff attendance.

  • Presence of relevant procedures/protocols.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Training documents and records of staff attendance.

  • Presence of relevant procedures/protocols.

  • Interviews with staff.

Indicator 2.4.3

Requirement

The UoC shall carry out a site-specific handling and containment risk assessment, approved by a member of management, following the method outlined in Appendix 3.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • This Indicator requires the UoC to conduct a site-specific risk assessment to proactively identify and mitigate risks associated with handling and containment of cultured animals. The Indicator emphasises the need for tailored evaluation rather than a generic approach as site-specific circumstances might require different responses. Management approval ensures that the assessment is formally reviewed, acknowledged and integrated into wider management structures.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Documentational evidence of a risk assessment, the identification of appropriate risk levels and any mitigation actions taken (including the implementation thereof). The evidence should also include proof of management approval and periodic review of the risk assessment to ensure that it remains relevant.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Presence of a documented risk assessment, which:

    • Is specific to the conditions of the site.

    • Covers all handling and containment risks.

  • That the risk assessment identifies:

    • Risk factors and the associated risk levels.

    • Mitigation actions and records the implementation, including the desired outcome (i.e. reduction of risk level).

    • That the risk assessment is approved (e.g. signed off) by management and shows evidence of periodic review to keep it relevant.

Indicator 2.4.2

Requirement

The UoC shall implement escape prevention measures that include the installation, inspection and maintenance of containment structures suitable for the species, life stages and environmental conditions under which the site is operating.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • This Indicator requires the UoC to prevent the escape of cultured animals. It focuses on three key aspects:

    • Installation of containment structure; these structures must be appropriate for:

      • The species; consider size and behaviour

      • Different life stages; consider that smaller animals require different mesh sizes compared to bigger animals

      • Environmental conditions; consider currents, tides, floodings, floating debris, natural predators that can damage the containment structure.

  • Inspection of containment structures to check for structure integrity, including:

    • Signs of damage or weaknesses; consider especially moving elements of the construction for ‘wear and tear’ signs

    • Environmental conditions that impact the structure (e.g. erosion)

    • Species-specific behaviours (e.g. net-biting, burrowing)

    • Maintenance of containment structure:

      • Regular maintenance needs to be conducted so that containment structures are kept in, or restored to, a good state, or to prepare for known severe weather events (e.g. forecasted storms, flooding, etc.).

Evidence of Implementation

  • Escape prevention measures are installed according to construction specifications that incorporate environmental conditions and species-specific characteristics.

  • Documents demonstrating inspection and maintenance is occurring regularly and when needed (e.g. after a storm).

Auditors Should Confirm

  • Escape prevention measures have been installed according to construction specifications and are appropriate to environmental conditions and species-specific characteristics.

  • Documents have been presented which demonstrate inspection and maintenance has occurred regularly and as required.

Useful Resources

Indicator 2.4.1

Requirement

The UoC shall not stock transgenic animals.

How Do I Interpret This Requirement?

  • The stocking and culture of transgenic animals is not permitted on ASC certified sites.

  • Transgenic animals are not common in aquaculture, but transgenic stocks of Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, channel catfish and Nile tilapia are known to exist.

Evidence of Implementation

  • Evidence that non-transgenic animals are stocked should be presented to the auditor. This could consist of a declaration from the hatcheries that non-transgenic animals are used.

    • In case of doubt regarding origin, submitting animals for DNA-testing could be considered.

Auditors Should Confirm

  • All stock is from non-transgenic origin.