Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Bioregional Marine Refuge Management Plan part 1 and 2

On this page

• Abbreviations
• Executive summary
• Part 1: Marine refuge management
• 1. Introduction
  • 1.1 History of OECMs and marine refuges in the SS-BOF
• 2. Goal, guiding principles, objectives, and priority actions
  • 2.1 Goal
  • 2.2 Guiding principles
  • 2.3 Objectives and priorities
• 3. Legislative, regulatory and policy framework
  • 3.1 Regulations
  • 3.2 Policies and guidance
• 4. Roles, responsibilities and coordination
  • 4.1 Governing authorities
  • 4.2 Coordination committee and collaborative forums
• 5. Management framework
  • 5.1 Commercial fisheries
  • 5.2 Oil and gas exploration and development
  • 5.3 Scientific research and monitoring
  • 5.4 Marine renewable energy
  • 5.5 Submarine cables
  • 5.6 Marine transportation
  • 5.7 Military activity
• 6. Surveillance, compliance and enforcement
• 7. Evaluation and reporting
  • 7.1 Management plan review
  • 7.2 Reporting
• Part 2: Marine refuge site profiles
  • 1. Northeast Channel Marine Refuge
  • 2. Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge
  • 3. Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge
  • 4. Jordan Basin Marine Refuge
  • 5. Western And Emerald Banks Marine Refuge
  • 6. Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge
• Glossary
• Acts of parliament
• Regulations
• References
• Annex A: OECM criteria and distinction
• Annex B: Operational guidance with respect to oil and gas activities in marine refuges on the scotian shelf
• Annex C: Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Marine Refuge activity review flowchart and templates
• Contact us

Abbreviations

AMREP

Areas of Marine Renewable-Energy Priority

AOI

Area of Interest

AUV

Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

BCBs

Biodiversity Conservation Benefits

BPRs

Biodiversity Protection Regulations

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CCGS

Canadian Coast Guard Ship

CER

Canada Energy Regulator

CNSOPB

Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board

C and P

Conservation and Protection

CSAS

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat

DFO

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

DND

Department of National Defense

EBSA

Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area

ECMR

Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge

EEZ

Exclusive Economic Zone

FFHPP

Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program

FSC

Food, Social, and Ceremonial

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IPCA

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area

LCCA

Lophelia Coral Conservation Area

MARLANT

Canada’s Maritime Forces Atlantic

MARLOAs

Maritime Forces Atlantic Operating Areas

MPA

Marine Protected Area

MPC

Marine Planning and Conservation

NECMR

Northeast Channel Marine Refuge

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRCan

Natural Resources Canada

OECM

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measure

ORER

Offshore Renewable Energy Regulations

RM

Resource Management

ROPOS

Remotely Operated Platform for Ocean Science

ROV

Remotely Operated Vehicle

SBA Policy

Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas

SDL

Significant Discovery License

SS-BOF

Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy

UNCLOS

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNDRIP

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

US

United States

VMS

Vessel Monitoring System

WEBMR

Western and Emerald Banks Marine Refuge

WUAs

Works, Undertakings, and Activities

Executive summary

The Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy (SS-BOF) Bioregion is home to rich marine life. It is also home to productive and diverse ecosystems. These provide food and shelter for a variety of species, including important commercial species. Within the SS-BOF Bioregion there are 6 marine refuges. These are area-based fisheries closures established under the Fisheries Act. They qualify as Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs). Marine refuges are recognized as OECMs. This is because they provide biodiversity and conservation benefits contributing towards marine conservation targets. The existing marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion prohibit bottom-contacting fishing activities. This is to protect vital benthic ecosystems and species such as cold-water corals and sponges. Collaborative efforts with relevant authorities are undertaken to assess activities, including:

• oil and gas development
• scientific research and monitoring
• marine renewable energy
• marine transportation

This is to ensure they are in line with the biodiversity conservation objectives of the site.

The SS-BOF Bioregional Marine Refuge Management Plan intends to coordinate the management of existing and future marine refuges. Ones that are established according to:

• the Fisheries Act
• the Government of Canada Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (2022), by providing guidance and approaches for management to DFO's Maritimes Region
• other governing authorities
• marine users
• the public

The plan presents an overview of each SS-BOF marine refuge as well as objectives related to:

• conservation
• research and monitoring
• the social, cultural, and governance dimensions
• climate change

Activities currently occurring or most likely to be proposed in the SS-BOF marine refuges are described. Along with how more governance and management actions support the overarching legislative, regulatory, and policy framework.

Management of the marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion is currently led by DFO Maritimes with input from:

• First Nations and Indigenous organizations
• federal and provincial government departments
• marine industries
• environmental non-governmental organizations
• academia

The Marine Refuge Coordination Committee is a multi-sectoral table. It is the primary forum for soliciting input into the management of the sites. Input is from:

• other governing authorities
• rights holders
• stakeholders

Mi'kmaw content in this document and references to the potential for future co-governance approaches have been drafted in partnership with the Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office and other Mi'kmaq organizations.

Part 1: Marine Refuge Management

1. Introduction

The Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy (SS-BOF) Bioregion is a productive and diverse ecosystem, providing food and shelter for a variety of species including microscopic plankton, habitat forming coral and sponge species, commercially important groundfish and shellfish, and species at risk such as the North Atlantic right whale (DFO, 2014). As a result, the bioregion has a diversity of habitats such as:

• coastal habitats
• offshore banks and basins
• steep slopes and underwater canyons
• the largely unknown abyssal plain (DFO, 2014)

These waters have provided natural resources and sustenance for the Mi’kmaq, Peskotomuhkati, and Wolastoqey (Maliseet), who have longstanding traditional and cultural connections to the marine environment and species. Providing for Indigenous peoples since time immemorial, these waters remain an economically and culturally important resource, including as an important source of food.

Commercial fisheries within the waters of the SS-BOF have been occurring for centuries, starting in the 1500s when Portuguese, Spanish, French and British fishing vessels visited for the summer season groundfish fishery, and subsequently established permanent fishing communities along the coast of Nova Scotia. Today, the waters of the SS-BOF support a diverse array of marine activities, including:

• fishing
• shipping
• oil and gas
• marine renewable energy
• aquaculture
• telecommunications
• defence
• research (DFO, 2014)

Canada’s oceans and aquatic ecosystems are under growing pressures from human activities. In 2010, to help address these pressures, Canada committed to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Target 11 to conserve and protect 10% of its coastal and marine waters by 2020. With this target surpassed in 2019, Canada recommitted to conservation and is working to conserve 30% of coastal and marine areas by 2030. The development of a national conservation network is being led by DFO and is a key part of Canada’s strategy for conserving marine biodiversity and for reaching its conservation targets. Canada’s national conservation network consists of various types of spatial conservation measures, including different types of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). As defined by the CBD, an OECM is:

OECMs are a category of conservation initiatives that meet specific criteria but can be managed or governed in different ways that provide biodiversity conservation benefits (BCBs) but may or may not have been established primarily for the protection of biodiversity. In 2016, in the absence of international guidance, a DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) process (DFO, 2016a) outlined interim guidance on identifying OECMs in Canadian waters. In November 2018, parties to the CBD adopted voluntary guidance for identifying and managing OECMs, and in 2019, based on recommendations from the Canadian National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards (DFO, 2019), the Government of Canada developed minimum protection standards for MPAs and OECMs. DFO reconciled these three processes, and along with operational experience gained since these measures were first implemented, published the “Government of Canada Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures” in December 2022 (DFO, 2022a).

The Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (DFO, 2022a) interprets the CBD definition and concepts in the Canadian context providing a domestic operational policy framework for recognizing marine OECMs in Canada. The criteria required for an area-based measure to be recognized as an OECM is described in Annex A. There is potential for different area types to be recognized as OECMs. Examples include:

• Indigenous-led protection or conservation of marine areas
• protected historical sites, such as shipwrecks, that conserve the surrounding marine environment
• application of a Species at Risk Act critical habitat prohibition by ministerial order
• marine mammal management areas
• fisheries-area closures, and
• sacred natural sites or important ecological components with high biodiversity value

A marine refuge is an area-based fisheries closure established through the Fisheries Act that meets the OECM criteria (DFO, 2022a). Marine refuges are management tools established and managed by DFO to conserve biodiversity and, in some cases, to achieve fisheries management objectives while contributing towards marine conservation targets. Marine refuges offer targeted protection to species and their habitats from the impacts of fishing. Activities other than fishing are managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term conservation of biodiversity, details of which are discussed further in this plan. These measures help protect important species and their habitats, including unique and significant aggregations of corals and sponges. As of November 2024, 60 area-based fisheries closures have been recognized as marine refuges in Canada, accounting for 5.67% of Canada’s 14.66% marine conservation achievement. In the SS-BOF Bioregion, marine refuges make up 13.4% (63 624 km²) of the bioregion’s 14.8% conservation accomplishment.

The Government of Canada recognizes existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which was endorsed by the Government of Canada in 2016 and implemented in legislation in 2021^{Footnote 3}, provides a road map to advance lasting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Canada aims to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples by recognizing the relationships and ongoing management of their ancestral lands and waters. In the SS-BOF Bioregion, DFO will work with First Nations and Indigenous organizations in the planning, design, and management of marine refuges established pursuant to the Fisheries Act, to ensure Indigenous rights, use, and knowledge are recognized and accounted for in the establishment and management of these sites.

1.1 History of OECMs and Marine Refuges in the SS-BOF

DFO has made efforts to conserve biodiversity in the waters off Nova Scotia and in the Bay of Fundy protecting many of the special and sensitive benthic habitats through the establishment of Fisheries Act marine refuges. Fisheries Act closures for the purpose of conservation, formally known as conservation areas, have been established in the SS-BOF Bioregion since 2002 (Figure 1).

The Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Bioregional Marine Refuge Management Plan is intended to coordinate the management of existing and future marine refuges established pursuant to the Fisheries Act by providing guidance and approaches for management to DFO, other governing authorities, marine users, and the public. In the future, other types of marine OECMs could exist in the SS-BOF Bioregion and they would have their own management system independent of this management plan^{Footnote 4}. As of November 2024, there are 6 marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion (Figure 2), which provide protection to sensitive benthic areas in locations where the primary risk is from commercial bottom-contact fishing gear. All activities proposed in SS-BOF marine refuges will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, therefore the management plan describes a general approach for regulating activities but the results could be different in each case. Detailed information about each site, including history, conservation features, research activities and management actions can be found in Part 2 - Marine Refuge site profiles.

A network plan of conservation areas for the SS-BOF Bioregion has been designed^{Footnote 5} to represent the broad range of ecosystems and biodiversity of coastal and offshore waters. The network plan will help guide the selection of new conservation areas, including marine refuges. Existing marine refuges and MPAs (Figure 2) are already part of the network plan, with marine refuges contributing to many of the objectives identified in this systematic planning process (DFO, 2018a).

2. Goal, guiding principles, objectives, and priority actions

2.1 Goal

The primary goal of this management plan is to support a coordinated and effective approach between governing authorities, rights holders, and stakeholders for management, conservation, research, monitoring, and stewardship measures to enable the conservation of biodiversity, productivity, and habitats within marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion.

2.2 Guiding principles

The SS-BOF is within the traditional ancestral and unceded territories of the Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey (Maliseet) Nations and the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik. DFO strives to continue working with Indigenous peoples in the SS-BOF and looks to incorporate the values and guiding principles of the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey (Maliseet) Nations and the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik into the management of marine refuges. The following Mi’kmaq values have been integrated:

• Netukulimk (neh-doo-goo-limgp) is the use of the natural bounty provided by the Creator for the self-support and well-being of the individual and the community
• Etuaptmumk (eh-doo-ahp-duh-mumk) (Two-Eyed Seeing) is a balanced respect, appreciation, and consideration for Indigenous and Western knowledge

Additionally, the 10 Canadian OECM guiding principles located in the Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (DFO, 2022a) reflect different components of the CBD voluntary guidance and provides interpretation for the Canadian marine context:

• OECMs are complementary to MPAs
• OECMs contribute to conservation networks
• OECM decision making recognizes, respects, and upholds constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights
• OECM decision making recognizes Indigenous and local knowledge and practices
• OECM decision making recognizes and takes into account ecological, social, cultural and economic values
• OECM decision making uses best-available knowledge and applies the precautionary approach
• OECM decision making ensures transparency and accountability
• OECM decision making takes into account equity
• OECMs decision making uses an integrated ecosystem approach
• OECM decision making includes evaluation and adaptation

2.3 Objectives and priorities

Conservation objectives

Marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion have stated conservation objectives designed to protect species, habitats or other components of the sites’ ecosystem to ensure the provision of long-term BCBs. Due to the diversity of marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion, each site has its own conservation objectives and priority actions specific to its ecological features (Table 1). The conservation objectives are directly related to the desired biodiversity outcomes, also known as the BCBs^{Footnote 6}, for each site. Additional information about each site can be found in Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Bioregional Marine Refuges.

Conservation objectives and associated priority actions for marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion

Marine Refuge (date of establishment)^{Footnote 7}:

Northeast Channel Marine Refuge (2002)

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect cold-water corals including significant concentrations of large gorgonian corals (e.g., Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis).
2. Protect benthic habitats and associated communities

Priority actions:

• Manage human activities to avoid or mitigate:
  • damage to or loss of cold-water corals
  • disturbance of benthic habitats and communities

Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge (2013)

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect globally unique concentration of Vazella pourtalesii, a structure-forming species of glass sponge.
2. Protect benthic habitats and associated communities.

Priority actions:

• Manage human activities to avoid or mitigate:
  • damage to or loss of Vazella pourtalesiit
  • disturbance of benthic habitats and communities

Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge (2016)

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect cold-water corals including significant concentrations of large gorgonian corals (e.g., Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis).
2. Protect deep-water habitats (continental slope, continental rise and abyssal plain) and associated benthic communities.

Priority actions:

• Manage human activities to avoid or mitigate:
  • damage to or loss of cold-water corals
  • disturbance of benthic and deep-water habitats and communities

Jordan Basin Marine Refuge (2016)

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect cold-water corals (e.g., Primnoa resedaeformis, Paramuricea sp. and Desmophyllum pertusum) including the diverse bedrock pinnacle feature known as the Rock Garden.
2. Protect benthic habitats and associated communities.

Priority actions:

• Manage human activities to avoid or mitigate:
  • damage to or loss of cold-water corals
  • disturbance of benthic habitats and communities

Western and Emerald Banks Marine Refuge (2016)

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect continental shelf habitats and associated benthic and demersal communities.
2. Support productivity objectives for groundfish species of Aboriginal, commercial, and/or recreational importance, particularly North Atlantic Fisheries Organization Division 4VW haddock.
3. Protect benthic habitats that support juvenile and adult haddock and other groundfish species.

Priority actions:

• Manage human activities to avoid or mitigate:
  • damage to or loss of groundfish habitat and species, particularly 4VW haddock
  • disturbance of continental shelf habitats and communities
• Increase understanding of:
  • the role of the marine refuge as a reference area of low fishing activity for the Bioregion
  • what contributions the marine refuge provides to regional productivity and stock assessment
• Evaluate, review, and minimize harmful interactions associated with future fish harvest activities

Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge (2022)

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect cold-water corals including significant concentrations of large gorgonian corals (e.g., Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis) and Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa).
2. Protect deep-water habitats (continental slope, continental rise and abyssal plain) and associated benthic communities.

Priority actions:

• Manage human activities to avoid or mitigate:
  • damage to or loss of cold-water corals
  • disturbance of benthic and deep-water habitats and communities

Social, cultural, and governance objectives and priority actions

Social, cultural, and governance objectives are aimed at supporting effective stewardship by promoting and facilitating collaboration and knowledge-sharing within DFO, but also among:

• other federal and provincial governing authorities
• rights holders and Indigenous organizations
• ocean users
• others with an interest in the bioregion’s marine refuges (Social, cultural, and governance objectives and associated priority actions for marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion)

This includes promoting compliance with the closures’ prohibited activities and direct actions that advance management objectives and strategies, as well as fostering a greater understanding of marine refuges among ocean users and the public. In addition to these objectives and priority actions relevant to all the bioregion’s marine refuges, there are also site-specific management priorities listed in Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Bioregional Marine Refuges.

Social, cultural, and governance objectives and associated priority actions for marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion

Social/cultural/governance objective:

• Ensure that human activities within marine refuges are consistent with conservation objectives to achieve BCBs

  Priority actions:

  • Promote awareness of marine refuge boundaries with users to support compliance with prohibitions
  • Work with DFO Conservation and Protection (C and P) and other relevant authorities to implement surveillance and enforcement measures
  • Review and adjust management, as needed, to ensure that allowed activities are consistent with marine refuge conservation objectives
• Establish and maintain cooperative arrangements with relevant governing authorities to meet conservation objectives for the marine refuges and achieve BCBs

  Priority actions:

  • Collaborate with other relevant governing authorities to ensure that marine refuges are considered in the management of non-fishing activities and to ensure that the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is satisfied that any risks to the biodiversity conservation benefits have been avoided or mitigated effectively
  • Create a multi-sectoral SS-BOF Marine Refuge Coordination Committee with participation from relevant governing authorities (see section 4.2 coordination of governance for more information)
  • Ensure a socially and culturally relevant conflict resolution mechanism is in place
• Engage ocean users, First Nations and Indigenous communities, other relevant governing authorities, researchers, and other interested parties in the management of the SS-BOF marine refuges

  Priority actions:

  • Increase transparency of management decisions
  • Encourage participation from relevant rights holders and stakeholders in the multi-sectoral SS-BOF Marine Refuge Coordination Committee to increase collaboration and information-sharing
  • Develop and maintain a comprehensive webpage for each marine refuge as a means of communicating management activities with interested parties
  • Provide opportunities for increased participation and representation of federal and provincial departments, First Nations and Indigenous organizations, and stakeholders in the management and monitoring of marine refuges
  • Incorporate Indigenous and local knowledge to inform decision-making and support the management and monitoring of marine refuges
  • Use existing forums to share information about the management of marine refuges
• Lead, participate in, and support public outreach to raise awareness of marine refuges and the features they are designated to protect

Priority actions:

• Develop and provide publicly-accessible information regarding marine refuges, cold-water corals and sponges, and frontier areas to a broad audience (e.g., permanent or temporary exhibits, participating in local events/school programming, and sharing information through social media platforms)
• Maintain up to date DFO webpages to educate and meet basic inquiries from the public
• Provide support for the development of educational materials related to marine refuges, cold-water corals and sponges, and frontier areas by ocean literacy experts
• Develop an education and outreach strategy to support consistent and systematic efforts
• Work with First Nations and Indigenous organizations on the development of outreach materials

Research/monitoring objectives and priority actions

Research and monitoring activities are necessary to ensure conservation objectives and biodiversity outcomes are achieved. In addition to the following objectives and priority actions relevant to all the bioregion’s marine refuges (Research/monitoring objectives and associated priority actions for marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion), there are also site-specific research priorities listed in Part 2 - Marine Refuge site profiles.

Research/monitoring objectives and associated priority actions for marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion

Research/monitoring objectives:

• Monitor and evaluate the design, management, and effectiveness of the marine refuges to ensure each site is meeting its defined conservation objectives and to support adaptive management
• Research and monitor the status of populations and habitats associated with marine refuges’ conservation objectives to ensure biodiversity outcomes are achieved
• Research and monitor ecosystem pressures (i.e., impacts from human activities occurring within or adjacent to marine refuges and the effects of climate change)
• Conduct research to increase our understanding of the marine refuges’ conservation objectives and biodiversity outcomes
• Monitor and evaluate human dimensions (e.g. social, cultural, economic impacts, etc.) of marine refuges

Priority actions:

• Develop and implement monitoring plan(s) for the bioregion’s marine refuges with ecological, social, and governance indicators
• Collaboratively conduct long-term monitoring of the sites with external partners (e.g., academia, industry groups, rights holders and Indigenous organizations, other governing authorities, etc.)
• Work with partners in DFO Science, Resource Management, Conservation and Protection, Policy and Economics, and external to DFO to conduct research and evaluations of the marine refuges (see section 7. Evaluation and reporting for more information)
• Conduct peer-reviewed evaluations (e.g., DFO’s CSAS process) of marine refuge ecosystem monitoring activities on a consistent basis
• Collaborate with external partners (e.g., federal and provincial governing authorities, rights holders and Indigenous organizations, stakeholders, academia, etc.) through co-designing/co-executing and providing resources to support their research and monitoring efforts

Climate change objectives and priority actions

Anthropogenic climate change has caused rapid and unprecedented shifts in environmental conditions throughout the global ocean (Morley et al., 2018); including:

• warming ocean temperatures
• ocean acidification
• oxygen depletion
• sea-level rise (Harley et al., 2006)

These changes to the physical environment have led to, and will continue to lead to, changes in:

• biodiversity
• species distribution
• productivity
• connectivity
• abundance
• overall ecosystem function (Ocean Protection Council, 2021; Lotze et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2020)

Conservation measures such as marine refuges may increase ecosystem resiliency and buffer some of the impacts associated with global climate change through the protections they provide (Jacquemont et al., 2022; Tittensor et al., 2019). Increasing connectivity, representativity, and protecting sites that may act as potential carbon sinks or sites with higher genetic, functional, and species diversity, are just a few of the ways marine refuges help provide enhanced ecosystem resiliency to the impacts of climate change (Ocean Protection Council, 2021; O’Regan et al., 2021; Snelgrove et al., 2018). Nevertheless, while spatial protection measures offer certain advantages, they alone will not fully mitigate the biological consequences linked to climate change (Lewis et al., 2023). Warming ocean temperatures projected for the SS-BOF Bioregion will lead to potential changes in habitat and species distribution within marine refuges within the next 20 years under both low and high emission scenarios (Lewis et al., 2023). It is critical that the management of marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion be adaptive in the face of inevitable change (Bryndum-Buchholz et al., 2022; O’Regan et al., 2021). In this sense, resilience to climate change is realized both by increasing an ecosystem’s capacity to adapt to changing environmental conditions, through targeted protective measures, and by ensuring that spatial conservation measures continue to provide BCBs even when the biodiversity itself is changing. Both site- and network-level management actions within marine refuges can contribute to bolstering resilience to climate change. A list of climate change objectives and priority actions can be found below.

Climate objectives and associated priority actions for integrating climate change within the management of marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion

Climate change objective: Identify site- and network-scale vulnerabilities to climate change.

Priority actions:

1. Increase understanding of:
   • ecological and physical baselines
   • projected changes in habitat and/or species distributions
   • climate vulnerabilities at the species, habitat, and ecosystem level including the greater Gulf of Maine
   • current contributions to climate change resiliency
2. Conduct climate vulnerability assessments tailored to site-specific conservation objectives.

Climate change objective: Ensure climate change is incorporated into the management of marine refuges.

Priority actions:

• Develop climate resilience-focused priorities for each site
• Define clear climate change adaptation strategies at a site- and network- scale
• Consider ecosystem and climate change resiliency in the selection of future marine refuges
• Increase communication and collaboration related to climate change across government agencies, rights holders, stakeholders, and partners

Climate change objective: Incorporate climate change into the SS-BOF marine refuge monitoring plan(s).

Priority actions:

• Define climate change research and monitoring priorities for each site
• Develop long-term climate change monitoring indicators such as key species, habitats, and oceanographic variables
• Identify site- and species-specific climate change thresholds for management action

Climate change objective: Adaptively manage marine refuges to respond to climate change related threats and impacts.

Priority actions:

• Apply site- and species-specific climate change indicators and thresholds to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of existing conservation measures and objectives to ensure the long-term provision of biodiversity and conservation benefits
• Define and identify potential approaches to facilitate adaptive management of the SS-BOF marine refuges

3. Legislative, regulatory and policy framework

The following regulations and policies are overarching components of the establishment and management of marine refuges. Due to the variety of activities that currently occur, or have the potential to occur within these sites, section 5 management framework provides information about the general approach to managing types of activities but activities in marine refuges will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that risks to the BCBs of the area are mitigated effectively.

3.1 Regulations

The Fisheries Act is the legislative means by which threats to fish and fish habitat are managed to ensure the sustainability and productivity of Canada’s fishery resources, including management of:

• commercial and recreational fishing
• Indigenous communal-commercial licences
• Indigenous rights-based fisheries

A marine refuge is a fisheries-area closure established by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard under the Fisheries Act that meets OECM criteria. SS-BOF marine refuges are established where fisheries may pose a risk to sensitive, vulnerable, or unique marine areas and/or species. Marine refuges are established through the closure of fisheries via variation orders, conditions of licence, or Biodiversity Protection Regulations (BPRs). For more information regarding the management of commercial fisheries as it pertains to marine refuges, please see section 5.1. As of November 2024, all marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion have been established via variation orders and then incorporated into license conditions at the next issuance of licenses. License conditions are issued with commercial fishing licenses and describe the “conditions” under which fishing can take place. This includes information about gear, species, bycatch, as well as areas where fishing is and is not permitted to occur under the license. The use of BPRs, as a means of site establishment was introduced in 2019 though amendments to the Fisheries Act, have not been pursued to date for the purpose of marine refuge establishment in Canada. At this time, variation orders and/or conditions of licence afford a more efficient and flexible means to establish a marine refuge, allowing for adjustments as necessary without the need to pursue regulatory amendment.

For activities other than fishing, the Fisheries Act provides a legal basis for conserving and protecting fish and fish habitat. The Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (FFHPP) of DFO is responsible for administering the fish and fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. The provisions of the Fisheries Act include:

• a prohibition against causing the death of fish, by means other than fishing (section 34.4)
• a prohibition against causing the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat (section 35)
• a framework of considerations to guide the Minister’s decision-making functions (section 34.1)

The fish and fish habitat provisions apply across the SS-BOF Bioregion and are applied in the same manner in marine refuges. When applying these provisions, FFHPP employs a risk-based approach to determine the likelihood and severity of potential impacts to fish and fish habitat that could result from a given work, undertaking or activity (WUA). These provisions apply to a variety of activities that do or could occur in marine refuges. If the WUA does not meet the conditions in a code of practice, a request for review is submitted and FFHPP will review the project to determine if:

• the project will impact an aquatic species at risk
• the project could result in the death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat
• the project will require an authorization under the Fisheries Act

If death of fish, or the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat is likely to result from a project, an authorization from the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard as per Paragraph 34.4(2)(b) or 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations is required. The authorization includes:

• terms and conditions the proponent must follow to avoid, mitigate, offset (i.e., counterbalance impacts)
• monitor the impacts to fish and fish habitat resulting from the project

Failure to abide by these terms and conditions is a contravention of the Fisheries Act and may result in fines.

Projects proposed in marine refuges will be assessed based on the level of sensitivity of the features and the dependence of species on the habitat. FFHPP will work with proponents to avoid and mitigate impacts to site-specific conservation objectives and priority actions. This could include moving projects outside of sensitive habitats or timing activities to avoid sensitive life history stages (e.g., spawning). For a detailed description of the regulatory review process for WUAs under the Fisheries Act, please refer to the FFHPP regulatory review process map.

3.1.1. Indigenous fisheries

The Government of Canada recognizes existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was endorsed by the Government of Canada in 2016 and implemented in legislation in 2021,^{Footnote 8} provides a road map to advance lasting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court of Canada has found that where an Aboriginal group has a right to fish for food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes, it takes priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource^{Footnote 9}. The treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood applies to the Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey (Maliseet) First Nations and the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik in waters off the East Coast of Canada, as the modern day beneficiaries of the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760-1761.^{Footnote 10} These treaty rights can only be limited for conservation reasons or other compelling and substantial public objectives.^{Footnote 11} Communal commercial licences issued pursuant to the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations are addressed in SS-BOF marine refuges established pursuant to the Fisheries Act in the same manner as non-Indigenous commercial fishing.

3.2 Policies and guidance

In 2022, the Government of Canada Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (DFO, 2022a) a science-based, domestic operational policy framework that includes supporting guiding principles and assessment criteria to recognize marine OECMs, such as marine refuges, was released. This Canadian policy is consistent with international guidance regarding OECMs, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity 14/8 decision. The purpose of an OECM is to protect marine biodiversity by providing long-term biodiversity conservation benefits (BCBs). A BCB is the net positive change in biodiversity or prevention of its loss, resulting from the governance decisions and management actions within an area. BCBs are most likely to be directly provided when an OECM has a stated biodiversity conservation objective designed to protect species, habitats, or other components of the OECM’s ecosystem. Indirect BCBs may be provided by OECMs that do not have explicit biodiversity conservation objectives. Fisheries Act closures, such as marine refuges established to protect coral and sponge concentrations (as in the case with most of the SS-BOF marine refuges), may provide indirect benefits for the species that use this habitat, as well as direct BCBs to the coral and sponge concentrations themselves. Existing or foreseeable activities in federal marine OECMs will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the risks to the BCBs have been avoided or mitigated effectively.

Establishment of marine refuges is guided by DFO’s Sustainable Fisheries Framework (DFO, 2022b). The Framework is a collection of policies and tools used to uphold conservation, protection, and sustainability of Canada’s fishery resources. The policies and tools provide guidance and direction regarding the maintenance of fishery productivity and associated fishery monitoring, as well as managing the impacts of fisheries on:

• forage species
• bycatch
• sensitive benthic areas

The Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas (SBA Policy) has been used since 2009 to guide the establishment of many marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion to date (DFO, 2009). The SBA Policy supports the conservation and protection of marine habitat from the impacts of fisheries. It outlines a process for preventing fishing from causing serious or irreversible harm to benthic features that are ecologically and biologically significant with separate processes for historically fished and frontier areas. A frontier area is a marine ecosystem area in deep water (deeper than 2000m) or in the Arctic where there is no history of fishing and little if any information available concerning the benthic features (habitat, communities and species) and the impacts of fishing on these features. An ecological risk assessment framework for cold-water corals and sponge dominated communities is also available (DFO, 2013). Additional policies and tools will be developed and added to the Sustainable Fisheries Framework as required.

In 2015, a Coral and Sponge Conservation Strategy for Eastern Canada (DFO, 2015) was co-developed by the 5 DFO management regions located in Eastern Canada, i.e.:

• Quebec
• Maritimes
• Newfoundland and Labrador
• Central and Arctic
• Gulf

The strategy is to be reviewed and updated in 2024. All marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion except Western and Emerald Banks Marine Refuge are focused on the protection of coral and sponge habitats; therefore, this strategy contributes to both marine refuge implementation and management. In the strategy there are 3 primary objectives:

• conservation
• management
• research

Targets and actions for each objective are identified and are implemented regionally. The strategy is not a management plan, rather it guides regional management decisions for the protection of corals and sponges to be made through a collaborative and integrated management approach.

In 2019, the Government of Canada established protection standards^{Footnote 12} to better conserve sensitive and important parts of our oceans. These protection standards are based on the recommendations provided to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard from the independent National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards. The protection standard for OECMs, including marine refuges, states that all activities will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the risks to the biodiversity outcomes of the area have been avoided or mitigated effectively. Therefore, risks posed by non-fishing activities in marine refuges are effectively avoided or mitigated through the application of other legal instruments, such as the regulatory review process under the Fisheries Act, or integrating marine refuges into existing management processes. A description of how different types of activities are managed in marine refuges is included in section 5 management framework.

Policies that guide establishment of marine refuges and OECMs more broadly continue to evolve; collectively they provide a framework for the establishment and management of existing and future sites as Canada continues its path towards 30% conservation and protection of all lands and waters nation-wide by 2030.

4. Roles, responsibilities and coordination

This section describes the various governing authorities and their roles in the SS-BOF Bioregion. It also includes a description of the coordination mechanism to ensure that activities permitted in marine refuges are consistent with the conservation objectives as they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

4.1 Governing authorities

4.1.1 Lead relevant governing authority

Fisheries and Oceans Canada: DFO Maritimes Region is the lead relevant governing authority for marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion with a variety of sectors involved in the ongoing management of these sites. Some of the sectors/programs and their roles are described below:

Conservation and Protection (C and P): C and P promotes and ensures compliance with legislation, regulations, and fishery management measures to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of Canada’s aquatic resources and the protection of species at risk, fish habitat, and oceans. This sector’s primary responsibilities include surveillance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement of the Fisheries Act and related regulations.

Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (FFHPP): This program administers project review and ensures conformance with conditions of authorization for development projects taking place in and around fish habitat under the fish and fish habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. In the context of marine refuge management, FFHPP is responsible for ensuring that WUAs that could impact fish and fish habitat, as may be proposed within marine refuges, do not contravene the conservation objectives of the sites.

Marine Planning and Conservation (MPC): Marine refuges are co-developed and managed by MPC and Resource Management. The work undertaken by MPC is diverse and includes:

• leading the selection, designation, and management of Oceans Act MPAs
• marine planning
• coordinating the development of a bioregional conservation network plan

MPC provides overall management coordination for established marine conservation sites and is the lead sector responsible for the implementation of this plan.

Resource Management (RM): Marine refuges are co-developed and managed by MPC and RM. While RM has the lead role during the establishment of a marine refuge, afterwards they maintain an essential role regarding on-going engagement with Indigenous fish harvesters and other members of the fishing industry via issuance of licence conditions, fisheries advisory committees, as well as permitting scientific fishing activities in the sites. Please refer to section 5.3 scientific research and monitoring for more information.

Science: DFO Science conducts peer-reviewed research on biodiversity and ocean environments of marine refuges, while also promoting collaborative research projects with a range of partners and stakeholders. DFO Science leads the monitoring of marine refuges through:

• conducting field studies
• the identification of ecological indicators
• the development, implementation, and reporting on monitoring plans

4.1.2 Other relevant governing authorities^{Footnote 13}

Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB): Responsible for the regulation of oil and gas activities in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area (the Accord Acts, 1988). In April 2022, Natural Resources Canada and the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables jointly announced that the CNSOPB’s mandate would be expanded to include the regulation of offshore renewable energy development in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Area. To implement this change, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act is being amended via Bill C-49, which was tabled in Parliament in May 2023. However, these changes will not take effect until the federal and provincial parliamentary processes are complete.

Global Affairs Canada: Administers consent process for marine scientific research when foreign investigators request access to Canadian waters. Global Affairs Canada is the first point of contact for foreign research applications and sends applications to DFO for review. Information on activities proposed in marine refuges are included in the process.

Indigenous Governments: DFO will continue to work with Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey (Maliseet) Nations, the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik and Indigenous organizations in the planning, design, and management stages of marine refuges established pursuant to the Fisheries Act, to ensure Indigenous rights, use, and knowledge are recognized and accounted for in the establishment and management of these sites. DFO is also committed to exploring co-governance of existing or future marine refuges should interest be expressed by the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey (Maliseet) or the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik. Co-governance would be a significant step towards lasting reconciliation.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: Responsible for telecommunications, including licencing for submarine cables (Telecommunications Act).

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan): Jointly responsible, with the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables, for administration of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, which, amongst other things, establishes the CNSOPB as an independent governing authority on behalf of the federal and provincial government of NS. NRCan also:

• conducts marine geological studies
• participates in marine spatial planning activities with DFO
• provides marine hydrocarbon and mineral resource assessments

Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Responsible for:

• recreational fishing
• marine plant harvesting
• training and development
• licensing of buyers and processors
• aquaculture
• the Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board
• enforcement (Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act)

Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables: Jointly responsible, with Natural Resources Canada, for administration of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, which, amongst other things, establishes the CNSOPB as an independent governing authority on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables is responsible for the regulation of marine renewable energy within waters under provincial jurisdiction (Marine Renewable-energy Act) and conducts research to ensure the use of mineral and petroleum resources is sustainable and that the ability to use innovative and new technology to support climate change and clean energy programs is possible.

Transport Canada: Responsible for ship safety and ship source pollution prevention for all commercial and fishing vessels (Canada Shipping Act) including the administration and enforcement of the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations and the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations. Transport Canada also represents Canada at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

4.2 Coordination committee and collaborative forums

A combination of collaborative forums are used to ensure that activities within marine refuges are managed in alignment with the conservation objectives of each site resulting in BCBs. DFO has the primary authority and responsibility for the implementation and management of marine refuges established pursuant to the Fisheries Act, but is open to exploring co-governance of existing or future marine refuges should interest be expressed by the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey (Maliseet) or the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik.

The ongoing participation and involvement of federal and provincial departments, First Nations and Indigenous organizations, industry, academia, and public interests outside of DFO is essential for the protection of the SS-BOF marine refuges. As described in section 5 management framework, a variety of regulatory tools, policies, and management decisions are used in combination to uphold the conservation objectives of marine refuges. To support the collaboration of governing authorities, as well as engagement of rights holders and stakeholders, the Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Marine Refuge Coordination Committee is a multi-sector forum for sharing information and supporting the implementation of this management plan for all current and future marine refuges in this region. The SS-BOF Marine Refuge Coordination Committee consists of representatives from federal and provincial governments, First Nations and Indigenous organizations, industry, environmental organizations, and academia, and is chaired and administered by DFO. The primary activities of the Coordination Committee are:

• exchange information and views amongst a core group of government and non-government organizations with interests in the SS-BOF Bioregion marine refuges
• review the development of management plan components, and associated materials
• input into the research/monitoring and management activities of governing authorities, organizations or bodies active in the bioregion’s marine refuges

Additionally, existing bilateral forums with provincial governments, other federal departments, First Nations and Indigenous organizations, and ocean users will be used to support the ongoing management of the marine refuges. For example, existing fishery advisory processes are venues to discuss issues related to marine refuge management and evaluation activities.

5. Management framework

This section provides a description of some of the activities currently occurring or most likely to be proposed in the SS-BOF marine refuges, and how additional governance and management actions support the Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Framework (section 3 legislative, regulatory, and policy framework). Since marine refuges are area-based fisheries closures under the Fisheries Act, activities other than fishing are managed through a combination of regulatory tools and management actions, some of which are under the mandate of governing authorities other than DFO. The management outcomes for most of the following activities are not predetermined and will be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the conservation objectives of the individual marine refuge and the risks associated with the proposed activity.

Note, this section is structured around current and foreseeable potential activities; if another activity were to be proposed, it would still result in review/consideration via section 3 legislative, regulatory, and policy framework. Currently, SS-BOF marine refuges are located offshore therefore nearshore/coastal activities were not scoped into this section. If new or emerging activities were proposed in a marine refuge or a coastal marine refuge was designated, the OECM protection standard (DFO, 2019) would apply and DFO would work with the relevant governing authorities to ensure that BCBs are not compromised. Additionally, marine spatial planning is being advanced within the SS-BOF Bioregion as an approach to guide the sustainable use of the ocean to achieve shared ecological, economic, cultural, and social objectives (DFO, 2023). Marine spatial plans will consider both economic and conservation aspects; they can identify potential areas for development of new activities (e.g., offshore renewable energy) and existing activities as well as areas that should be avoided or restricted for conservation reasons.

5.1 Commercial fisheries

Overview of activity

Commercial fishing is categorised as commercial communal, where licenses are issued to Indigenous communities, and commercial (non-Indigenous harvesters). Fishing within the SS-BOF Bioregion holds significant historic and present value, both economically and socially. Bottom-contact fishing gear used in the SS-BOF includes but is not limited to:

• traps/pots
• bottom trawls
• bottom and mid-water gillnets
• seines
• bottom handline/jig
• drag nets
• dredges
• rakes
• bottom longline

Other fishing gear used within the bioregion that is not bottom-contacting includes but is not limited to:

• pelagic longline
• handline/angling
• buoy gear
• trolling
• some drift gillnets
• purse seines
• diving
• harpoons/spears

The impacts from fishing gear are largely dependent on:

• the habitat features
• the location and scale of the fishery
• how the gear is rigged, deployed and retrieved
• any additional threats facing the feature(s) that is being impacted by the gear (Donaldson et al., 2010).

Management system

Commercial fisheries are managed through a combination of harvest controls including quotas, fishing effort, gear restrictions, fishing seasons, and restricted areas (DFO, 2021a). As outlined in section 3 legislative, regulatory, and policy framework, marine refuges are fishery closures pursuant to the Fisheries Act that can be implemented through variation orders, conditions of license, and/or BPRs.

Restrictions to specific commercial fishing gear types occurs during the design and establishment of a marine refuge based on the conservation objectives of the site and are enforced by DFO C and P once the site is established. Due to the benthic nature of the conservation objectives for the SS-BOF marine refuges (e.g., corals, sponges, and groundfish habitat) bottom-contact fishing could harm the habitats and species being protected by the conservation measures. As a result, bottom-contact fishing gear including:

• bottom and mid-water gillnet
• bottom trawl
• bottom handline/jig
• Danish or Scottish seine
• dredge/dragging
• bottom longline
• fish traps
• traps/pots

are prohibited within the boundaries of existing SS-BOF marine refuges. These restrictions and other site-specific information are available in Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Bioregional Marine Refuges.

Should additional information such as the distribution of species that are the focus of the conservation objectives or the impacts on the commercial fishing industry be discovered after the marine refuge is established (e.g., from scientific research or monitoring activities), adaptive management will be pursued. For example, the boundaries of the site can be adjusted to maximize the protection of the conservation objectives after consultation with relevant rights holders and stakeholders.

5.2 Oil and gas exploration and development

Overview of activity

A variety of activities are necessary to explore for and then produce petroleum offshore. These activities can include but are not limited to:

• seismic surveys
• seabed surveys (side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling, etc.)
• exploratory and production drilling (Oak, 2020)

Potential interactions with marine refuge conservation objectives depends on both the stage of the project and the type of equipment/technique used. Bottom disturbance, sedimentation, exposure to chemicals and pollutants (DFO, 2021b), and noise are the primary types of pressures that have the potential to negatively interact with the conservation objectives of marine refuges in this bioregion.

All production fields and related infrastructure on the Scotian Shelf have been decommissioned as of 2020. As of 2024, there are no active Exploration Licenses in the SS-BOF Bioregion, although Significant Discovery Licenses (SDL) are in place, including 1 which overlaps with the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge (Figure 3). The SDL was issued in 1990 and currently has no expiration date. The Northeast Channel Marine Refuge and part of the Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge overlap with the Georges Bank Moratorium Area (the closure has been extended on a 10-year interval since 1988, with the next re-evaluation set for December 31st, 2032).

Management system

The CNSOPB is a joint provincial/federal agency and is the lead governing authority for offshore oil and gas exploration and production activities in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area. Under the authority of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation (Nova Scotia) Act (the Accord Acts, 1988), the CNSOPB is responsible for administering exploration, development, and production rights of petroleum resources located in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area. Any activity related to the exploration or development of oil and gas requires approval from the CNSOPB.

The CNSOPB requires an environmental assessment for all petroleum exploration and development projects that require authorizations under the Accord Acts. Strategic Environmental Assessments have also been prepared. Marine refuges are considered “Special Areas” in Strategic Environmental Assessments, federal Impact Assessments, and Accord Act Environmental Assessments conducted for oil and gas activities. As such, they receive additional focus on potential impacts which requires dedicated mitigative measures to be applied within these areas.

DFO and the CNSOPB maintain a Memorandum of Understanding to effectively collaborate and align the roles and responsibilities of both agencies consistent with the Oceans Act, Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act, and the Accord Acts, in support of informed and responsible petroleum development in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area. To provide consistency and transparency, an operational guidance document was developed by DFO in collaboration with CNSOPB in 2024 specific to proposed activities in marine refuges. The operational guidance is available in Annex B. Note, the 2019 minimum protection standards state that if there are oil and gas licences issued in a marine refuge, but no extraction is taking place, the overlapping area(s) will continue to count toward Canada’s marine conservation target. Once oil and gas extraction begins, the overlap area can no longer count towards the marine conservation target or be part of a marine refuge. Therefore, the guidance is focused on oil and gas exploration and development activities, not production or decommissioning activities.

5.3 Scientific research and monitoring

Overview of activity

Research and monitoring activities in the offshore areas of the SS-BOF Bioregion are primarily conducted by multiple federal departments, academic researchers, and ocean users such as the fishing industry. DFO promotes, funds, and conducts scientific research and monitoring, and identifies monitoring priorities for conservation areas in the region. Both research and monitoring are integral to marine refuge management, as they collectively increase our understanding of these environments, can provide evidence for the effectiveness of management actions, and identify changes in the environment that may require response from DFO. There are a wide range of research and monitoring activities that occur in the SS-BOF, some of which have the potential to negatively interact with the conservation objectives of marine refuges. With the wide variety of projects and methodologies, potential environmental impacts are often variable and dependent on the activity and the ecosystem component of concern.

Management system

Section 52 licenses

Within Canada, a Fisheries (General) Regulation section 52 license (henceforth s.52 license) is required when fishing for experimental, scientific, educational, aquatic invasive species control, or public display purposes. A standardized s.52 application is submitted to the DFO Licensing Unit. DFO RM reviews the application for potential impacts to site-specific conservation objectives and involves other DFO sectors in the review, if necessary. DFO Science is responsible for tracking and validating the applicant’s reporting.

Foreign vessel clearances

Foreign researchers interested in conducting marine scientific research within waters under Canadian jurisdiction must request advanced consent by writing directly to Marine Science Research in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The request is then evaluated for approval under Canada’s Foreign Vessel Clearance Request process. DFO reviews incoming research requests as they relate to Departmental mandates for marine science, resource management, and conservation. Reviews related to activities conducted in marine refuges are completed by DFO RM consistent with the approach used to review s.52 applications.

Marine refuge activity plans

For research and monitoring activities not captured by the processes described above, proponents wishing to conduct activities within marine refuges are requested to submit an activity plan or a tracking document to MPC, depending on the types of activities they are proposing. This provides DFO sufficient information to ensure the risks to the conservation objectives are adequately avoided or mitigated. For informational purposes, activity plans submitted to DFO will be shared with the Coordination Committee. Additional information on this process, including templates, is in Annex C.

5.4 Marine renewable energy

Overview of activity

Marine renewable energy includes energy generated from wind, wave, and tidal resources in coastal and offshore marine environments. Due to the presence of immense offshore wind resource potential, an emerging area for development in Atlantic Canada is offshore wind energy. Due to the bottom contacting elements often associated with infrastructure development (pile driving, mooring, anchoring, etc.), renewable energy development is likely to negatively interact with the conservation objectives of marine refuges, particularly those in the SS-BOF Bioregion established under the SBA Policy. However, the interactions between renewable energy development and marine refuge conservation objectives will likely vary depending on the stage of the project, the type of equipment/technique used, and the mitigation measures applied.

Management system

The Government of Nova Scotia regulates marine renewable energy resource projects under provincial jurisdiction through the Nova Scotia Marine Renewable-energy Act. Under the Marine Renewable-energy Act two areas have been established as Areas of Marine Renewable-Energy Priority (AMREP) including the Bras d’Or AMREP and the Fundy AMREP (Figure 4). Currently, there is no overlap between AMREPs and SS-BOF marine refuges.

The Canadian Energy Regulator Act provides NRCan, through the arm of the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), with the legislative authority to regulate offshore renewable energy projects within marine waters under federal jurisdiction. The CER is in the process of developing Offshore Renewable Energy Regulations (ORER), that outline safety and environmental protection requirements for offshore renewable energy projects and are expected to be published in 2024 (NRCan, 2020).

Work is underway to develop and implement amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act (Accord Acts) which were presented federally in 2023 via Bill C-49. These amendments would support a joint management arrangement for offshore renewable energy projects in the jointly managed Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Area and expand the mandate of the CNSOPB to include the regulation of offshore renewable energy in the joint management area. This mandate expansion will be reflected by a name change to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator (NRCan, 2022). The proposed ORER are intended to serve as the basis for future regulations under the amended Accord Acts.

Canada is working to ensure the development of these regulations is coordinated with coastal provinces like Nova Scotia to ensure these regulations can serve as a model in future joint management arrangements for offshore renewable energy projects.

DFO MPC will continue to engage with the province of Nova Scotia, NRCan, and the CNSOPB on the development and management of marine renewable energy projects to ensure alignment with marine refuge conservation objectives.

5.5 Submarine cables

Overview of activity

In the SS-BOF, there are numerous submarine cables that provide different services to Nova Scotians and international neighbours (Breeze and Horsman, 2005). The 2 primary purposes of submarine cables are to enable telecommunications and to transfer electricity. There are 2 methods of installing submarine cables, surface laying and burial. Surface laying is the process of laying cables directly on the seafloor and is the less intrusive method of installation (Carter et al., 2014). The burial of cables, which is more intrusive, minimizes potential interactions with other ocean users and movement of cables via currents. It involves direct impacts to the seafloor in creating the burial path and in dumping the extracted sediments outside of the work area (Carter, 2010). Though infrequent, the maintenance and repair of submarine cables is sometimes required and may result in similar impacts as the initial installation (Ford-Ramsden and Burnett, 2014). Potential environmental impacts associated with submarine cables are varied, but are largely dependent on the type of cable, installation method, and habitat features along the cable route. When considering the conservation objectives for the SS-BOF marine refuges, bottom disturbance of sensitive benthic organisms is the primary potential impact, although noise is also a concern.

Management system

Under UNCLOS, foreign states maintain the right to install cables in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of coastal states (Article 58.1); however, coastal states may provide input and advice to best protect the marine resources within their EEZ.

In Canada, the International Submarine Cable Licenses Regulations of the Telecommunications Act apply to the territorial sea (out to 12 nm) of Canada but its jurisdiction does not extend to cables that traverse the adjacent EEZ (12-200 nm). For cable projects solely within Canada’s EEZ, permits may be granted under the Fisheries Act, Oceans Act, Accord Acts, and Species at Risk Act.

In addition to regulatory aspects, there are also international best management practices to support the installation and routing of submarine cables. For example, the Oslo/Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-east Atlantic guidance document outlines best practices (OSPAR Commission, 2012). These guidelines specify that the laying of cables should avoid MPAs and other ecologically important and sensitive habitat areas (OSPAR Commission, 2012).

In the case of SS-BOF marine refuges, DFO will work with submarine cable proponents to avoid marine refuges to the extent possible. When avoidance is not possible, DFO will work with the proponent to use installation and maintenance methods that are minimally invasive and prioritize practices that minimize environmental harm (e.g., minor rerouting to avoid areas of known coral or sponge concentrations).

5.6 Marine transportation

Overview of activity

Marine transportation varies among the SS-BOF marine refuges but can include several different vessel types and activities, such as:

• general cargo
• bulk carrier
• containers
• tankers
• passengers/cruise ships
• fishing vessels
• pleasure crafts
• science
• military vessels

Activities associated with marine transportation can include but are not limited to vessel movement/presence, mooring and anchorage, and discharge (DFO, 2020a). There are a variety of discharges associated with shipping, including:

• operational discharges, e.g.:
  • ballast water
  • waste disposal
  • air emissions
  • sewage/grey water
  • cargo sweepings
  • bilge water
• incidental or accidental discharges e.g.:
  • lost cargo
  • hull fouling
  • oil
  • other contaminants

The primary environmental pressures of concern for the SS-BOF marine refuges associated with marine transportation include:

• bottom disturbance
• introduction of non-indigenous species
• noise
• exposure to contaminants (DFO, 2020a)

Note, the pressures associated with marine transportation are applicable to other classes of activities described in section 5 as marine vessels are used when conducting those activities.

Management system

Marine transportation within the SS-BOF marine refuges is primarily managed by Transport Canada. Transport Canada is responsible for overseeing and regulating:

• navigation
• marine pollution
• government ports and harbours
• recreational boating
• among others

Note, freedom of navigation, a principle of customary international law, limits the ability of Transport Canada to impose regulations regarding the mobility of marine transportation through marine refuges as they are primarily located in Canada’s EEZ. The Canada Shipping Act is the umbrella legislation that regulates many marine transportation-related activities. Provisions regarding vessel traffic related activities, such as vessel speed, presence, and navigation are regulated through the Canada Shipping Act and the regulations that derive from it. The Canada Marine Act encompasses regulations for commercial ports overseen by individual authorities and includes provisions for safety and environmental protection.

While there is potential for impacts associated with marine transportation within marine refuges, the potential interaction with conservation objectives is anticipated to be low. For example, due to the offshore locations and depths of current marine refuges in the SS-BOF Bioregion, anchoring is unlikely to occur unless it was a result of a safety of life at sea situation. However, even in these extreme cases, most of the area covered by marine refuges in the region are depths that preclude benthic interaction associated with marine transportation. With regard to the introduction of aquatic invasive species, various regulatory tools are in place to minimize risks associated with marine transportation. For example, the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations include requirements for anti-fouling systems for vessels that engage in international voyages and reduces the probability of transfer and establishment of invasive species associated with biofouling. IMO regulations that came into force in 2017 require ballast water treatment systems to be in place aboard all vessels registered to signatory countries that travel internationally by 2024 (IMO, 2017). Treated ballast water, like antifouling systems, will serve to reduce the potential for traffic-based introductions by enforcing international best practices. However, until treatment systems are in place onboard all vessels in September 2024, ballast water exchange in designated locations will still be the predominant mitigation measure. Canada’s Ballast Water Regulations state that vessels must exchange ballast in water at least 200 nm from shore where depths reach at least 2,000 m or in a designated alternate ballast water exchange area (Transport Canada, 2021) (Figure 5). Three SS-BOF marine refuges overlap with one of these designated alternate ballast water exchange areas including:

• Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge
• Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge
• Northeast Channel Marine Refuge (Figure 5)

5.7 Military activity

Overview of activity

The Canadian Armed Forces make up the unified military forces of Canada and are inclusive of Canada’s Maritime Forces Atlantic (MARLANT). MARLANT engages in a range of operations and activities in the region, including:

• Maritime surveillance
• sovereignty patrols
• training and combat readiness exercises
• search and rescue
• providing support to other government departments for law enforcement and environmental protection

The primary ecological pressures of concern for SS-BOF marine refuges associated with marine military operations are:

• ship-source pollutants and accidental discharges
• underwater noise
• contamination from weapons and equipment
• seabed interactions from moorings, sinking targets, and ordinances

Military training exercises are restricted to designated exercise areas known as Maritime Forces Atlantic Operating Areas (MARLOAs). Each exercise area is zoned for specific types of activities involving surface, sub-surface, and air training operations. Refer to Figure 6 for specific activity zoning off Nova Scotia. Foreign military vessels may also operate in the regional exercise areas with permissions from MARLANT. MARLOAs overlap with all of the SS-BOF marine refuges except for Jordan Basin Marine Refuge (Figure 6).

Management system

The Department of National Defense (DND) is committed to sustainable management within the MARLOAs and has developed an environmental policy to ensure that military testing, training, and exercises comply with all applicable environmental laws and standards. MARLANT assesses potential effects of marine military activities and implements measures to avoid and mitigate impacts to marine life. Measures implemented in all operations include the avoidance of bottom-contact activity in areas with bottom-contact restrictions such as marine refuges. DND regularly coordinates with DFO to stay informed about avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring measures as well as conservation objectives relating to MPAs, marine refuges, and sensitive species and habitats.

6. Surveillance, compliance and enforcement

Coordinated surveillance and enforcement is necessary for marine refuges given their remote offshore locations, the variety of ocean uses, and management jurisdictions. Federal departments involved in compliance and enforcement in the EEZ include:

• DFO
• Transport Canada
• Environment and Climate Change Canada

Additionally, the CNSOPB ensures compliance verification and enforcement for petroleum related activities, and supports the above noted departments through various regulatory mechanisms.

Marine refuge restrictions are enforced through regulatory management and enforcement approaches. This includes promoting compliance with legislation, regulations, and management measures through education and shared stewardship. Compliance awareness and promotion are integral to the continued management of marine refuges. Sharing of information, allowing for stakeholders and site users to remain up to date on regulations and licensing, remains one of DFO’s top priorities in marine refuge management. Targeted outreach and education efforts, such as the distribution of information packages or one-on-one discussions, may be employed as needed to increase understanding and encourage compliance amongst specific users or user groups.

DFO is the lead agency for the enforcement of fishery-related activities in marine refuges. The primary means of surveillance and enforcement in marine refuges is through DFO’s C and P program. Fisheries monitoring, surveillance, and audit activities provide the ability to observe marine harvesters’ compliance. Incidents of potential non-compliance can be detected through several different activities. These include but are not limited to:

• aerial and vessel patrols
• Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) reports
• At-Sea Fishery Observer reports
• fisher logbooks

Many fishing fleets in the DFO Maritimes Region are required to carry an automated VMS unit, which transmits vessel position via satellite and is often the first indication of suspicious activities which can be further investigated. Targeted patrols may occur if suspicious activity or suspected violations are detected in a specific area. The At-Sea Observer program uses third-party companies to monitor and report on activities onboard fishing vessels. Observer data is useful for fisheries compliance monitoring, and for gathering information on catch composition, including by-catch and discards. Aerial surveillance platforms allow for the identification of targets in marine refuges from a great distance for additional follow-up during non-dedicated marine refuge patrols.

Information is collected and analyzed by C and P to decide whether additional investigation is required to support potential enforcement action. Enforcement actions may include:

• warnings
• seizures
• arrests
• charges
• prosecutions

7. Evaluation and reporting

7.1 Management plan review

This management plan is intended to guide management of the SS-BOF marine refuges for 10 years. A review of progress towards meeting plan objectives will be conducted regularly and DFO will engage with the SS-BOF Marine Refuge Coordination Committee on a regular basis regarding objectives and priority actions. Over this period, changes to legislation, regulations, priorities, commitments, or site information like new science or the designation of new site(s) could necessitate an earlier review and update to the public on particular management issues. This could take the form of companion documents or result in an earlier update of the management plan. The DFO website will be kept up to date and serve as a resource for current information.

7.2 Reporting

Various types of progress reporting efforts that document accomplishments as they relate to the objectives and priorities identified in the plan will be pursued. Reports that provide the findings of ecosystem monitoring programs and management effectiveness will also be published as they are completed, and data will be made publicly available whenever possible. In addition to reporting on the biological and ecological assessments to inform site management, effort will be made to evaluate the related educational and social impacts. Reports, documents, and updates on the SS-BOF marine refuges will be published on the DFO website as they become available.

Part 2 - Marine refuge site profiles

1. Northeast Channel Marine Refuge

Description

The Northeast Channel Marine Refuge (NECMR) lies on the outermost portion of the Scotian Shelf in the Gulf of Maine, extending directly south from the tip of Nova Scotia at Cape Sable Island (Figure 7). NECMR lies between Browns Bank and Georges Bank, and was first established as a coral conservation area in 2002 prior to the implementation of the SBA Policy. In 2016, based on CSAS guidance on OECMs, the conservation area was evaluated and recognized as a marine refuge. This marine refuge protects dense concentrations of cold-water corals, primarily octocorals such as bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea) and seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis). These cold-water corals are structure-forming, creating habitats for other species within the ecosystem. Cold-water corals are particularly sensitive to mobile and fixed fishing gears that contact the bottom through both direct (e.g. removal and/or damage) and indirect (e.g. smothering by sedimentation) impacts (DFO, 2010). Due to this sensitivity, bottom-contact fishing is prohibited in NECMR. A Limited Fisheries Zone was established on the western edge of the marine refuge that is closed to all bottom-contact fishing gear except for groundfish longline with an At-Sea Observer.

Fundian Channel-Browns Bank Area of Interest (AOI) is a proposed Oceans Act MPA. Announced in 2018, coral conservation is a priority for the site and NECMR is fully included within the site boundaries currently under consultation. If designated, NECMR will be replaced by proposed regulatory measures that protect coral communities from bottom-contact activities throughout the channel feature, including areas currently outside the marine refuge.

Summary

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect cold-water corals including significant concentrations of large gorgonian corals (e.g., Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis).
2. Protect benthic habitats and associated communities.

Legislative authority: Fisheries Act closure in license conditions

Date established: 2002

Size:

• Marine Refuge: 391 km²
• Limited Fisheries Zone: 33.7 km²

Notable species: Cold-water corals, such as:

• bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea)
• seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis)
• armoured sea fan coral (Acanthogorgia armata)
• bamboo corals (Keratoisis grayi, Acanella arbuscula) Paramuricea spp.
• sea pens (Balticina finmarchica, Kophobelemnon sp., Pennatula spp.)
• soft corals (Anthomastus spp.)
• cup coral (Desmophyllum dianthus)

Main habitat types:

• continental rise
• shelf channel
• slope

Restrictions: The marine refuge is closed to all commercial bottom-contact fishing gear including:

• bottom and mid-water gillnet
• bottom trawl
• bottom handline/jig
• Danish or Scottish seine
• dredge/dragging
• bottom longline
• fish traps
• traps/pots

A Limited Fisheries Zone exists on the western edge of the marine refuge (in 5Z) allows for groundfish longline fishing with an At-Sea Observer and remains closed to all other bottom-contact fishing.

Coordinates:

• Marine Refuge:
  • 42° 04′ N 65° 44′ W
  • 42° 07′ N 65° 38′ W
  • 41° 57′ N 65° 26′ W
  • 41° 50′ N 65° 34′ W
  • 41° 57′ 18″ N 65° 42′ W
  • 42° 00′ 30″ N 65° 42′ W
  • 42° 00′ 30″ N 65° 40′ 30″ W
• Limited Fisheries Zone:
  • 42° 04′ N 65° 44′ W
  • 42° 00′ N 65° 45′ W
  • 41° 57′ 18″ N 65° 42′ W
  • 42° 00′ 30″ N 65° 42′ W
  • 42° 00′ 30″ N 65° 40′ 30″ W

Conservation milestones

The area was initially identified as being significant to corals through reports from harvesters that described the presence and abundance of several coral species in this area (Breeze et al., 1997; DFO, 2006). Visual surveys conducted by DFO Science in 2000 and 2001 confirmed a high density of various cold-water corals (Mortensen et al., 2005). A DFO-industry working group was established to advise on protection measures for this area, including options on boundaries for a closure to bottom-contact fishing gear (Breeze & Fenton, 2007). In the spring of 2002, DFO consulted with industry on a boundary proposal and concerns from various fleets were brought forward, including groundfish longline representatives which noted the historical and active fishing presence in the area. A zoning scheme was put in place to allow for some continued activity by this fleet in a portion of the closure to better understand the presence of corals and fishery interactions, with a final adjustment being made in 2003 to simplify monitoring and management. This Limited Fisheries Zone is open only to longline gear for groundfish with an At-Sea Observer and is closed to all other bottom-contact fishing activity.

Ecological features

Habitat

The Northeast Channel, also referred to as the Fundian Channel, is a large channel between Georges Bank and Browns Bank that extends into the deeper slope area as a depositional fan feature (Stortini, 2015). In the southern part of the channel feature, the substrate is mixed including relief areas of exposed bedrock, boulders, and cobbles providing suitable habitat for aggregations of cold-water corals (Stortini, 2015). A persistent clockwise gyre over Browns Bank, upwelling at the continental shelf, and strong tidal currents result in constant flow in and out of the channel promoting the mixing of important nutrients for filter-feeding organisms (DFO, 2020; Kostylev et al., 2001).

Species of conservation focus

Twelve species of cold-water corals have been identified within the protected area from depths of 190 m to 2000 m (Bennecke & Metaxas, 2017; Cogswell et al., 2009; Mortensen et al., 2005). Cold-water corals are considered ecologically significant species as they add structural complexity to the seafloor, providing important habitat for many species. The Northeast Channel contains aggregations of large gorgonian corals including bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea) and seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis) and is thought to contain the densest concentration of seacorn coral in the Maritimes, and possibly Atlantic Canada (King et al., 2016). Anthipatharia spp. (black/thorny corals), which are extremely rare and listed as threatened under the International Union for Conservation of Nature, have also been found in the deeper waters of the channel.

Other species

Other species found within NECMR include a variety of fish and invertebrates such as echinoderms and crustaceans, which are often found living on coral colonies. Commercially important groundfish species found within NECMR include:

• Atlantic cod
• haddock
• cusk
• Atlantic halibut

Past research

Initial visual data surveys from DFO Science in 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2005 confirmed the presence of large aggregations of cold-water corals in the area. For example, 45 Campod (a towed camera system) transects and 7 transects using the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) ROPOS (Remotely Operated Platform for Ocean Science) were conducted in 2004 (Mortensen et al., 2005). The 2005 mission recorded the state of seacorn coral and bubblegum coral both within and outside the western boundary of NECMR. DFO, Dalhousie University, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducted several ROV (using ROPOS) transects throughout the channel and into deeper waters in 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2019 to analyze the existing coral populations (Bennecke & Metaxas, 2015; Cogswell et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2022). Research vessel trawl survey data supplemented with other available data has been used to identify significant benthic areas and to create presence probability distribution models for corals within and around the marine refuge to aid in the identification of coral hotspots (Kenchington et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2022) (Figure 8).

Ongoing research

Cooperation between DFO and Dalhousie University allows for continued exploration of this area through Contribution Agreements. These missions aim to determine cold-water coral population recovery, areas of density, and recruitment development. The broader scope of the project centres on the understanding of factors that shape the distribution of deep-water corals in the Gulf of Maine and adjacent continental slope.

Climate change

As a consequence of climate change, NECMR is expected to experience shifting environmental conditions, primarily warming bottom and surface temperatures at a faster rate than other areas within the SS-BOF bioregion (Brickman et al., 2021). Environmental changes such as increasing ocean temperatures, may cause poleward and vertical distribution shifts of cold-water corals, like bubblegum coral and seacorn coral (Poloczanska et al., 2016). There are several interrelated variables influencing suitable habitat for cold-water corals resulting in different predicted outcomes in climate change scenarios. For example, based on 1 site-level climate change modelling scenario, the probability of occurrence and the extent of suitable habitat for bubblegum coral is expected to increase within NECMR (Wang et al., 2022). However, these corals may be exposed to novel environmental conditions by 2046-2065 as bottom temperatures within the NECMR are projected to increase outside of the known thermal range for bubblegum coral (3°C - 7°C) (Wang et al., 2022). Therefore, despite the predicted increase in suitable habitat based on certain variables, it is unknown if the bubblegum coral within NECMR will be able to adapt to the increased bottom temperatures (Wang et al., 2022). Through continued monitoring, research, and the adaptive management of the NECMR, the early detection of climate change impacts is possible, resulting in increased opportunity for the persistence and sustainability of bubblegum coral.

Conservation network

NECMR contributes to various regional priorities and targets established through the SS-BOF bioregional conservation network (King et al., 2021) including the representation of important oceanographic and geomorphic features such as the Gulf of Maine, shelf channel, and continental slope. Additionally, this site contributes to other bioregional conservation network targets such as the protection of biogenic habitat including small and large gorgonian coral aggregations, and the protection of habitat for depleted species including cusk. NECMR has also been recognized to have hydrographic connectivity with other conservation areas in the SS-BOF bioregion including Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge.

Site-specific priorities

• Potential expansion of coral protection measures as part of the Fundian Channel Browns Bank AOI and potential designation as an Oceans Act MPA. If not put in place, a revised marine refuge boundary would be required to address coral protection needs
• Monitoring and surveillance of commercial fishing activity adjacent to the marine refuge

2. Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge

Description

The Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge includes 2 distinct areas located adjacent to Emerald Basin on the central Scotian Shelf (Figure 9). Established as the first site in Canada using the SBA Policy, this site was first designated as a conservation area in 2013 under the Fisheries Act, restricting bottom-contact fishing. In 2016, based on CSAS guidance on OECMs, the conservation area was evaluated and recognized as a marine refuge.

This marine refuge protects globally significant aggregations of the glass sponge Vazella pourtalesii, commonly known as the Russian Hat sponge. Vazella pourtalesii has been found to create extensive benthic habitat that locally enhances biodiversity (Hawkes et al., 2019). Cold-water sponges are particularly sensitive to mobile and fixed fishing gears that contact the bottom through both direct (e.g. removal and/or damage) and indirect (e.g. smothering by sedimentation) impacts (DFO, 2010). Due to this sensitivity, bottom-contact fishing is prohibited in Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge.

Summary

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect globally unique concentration of Vazella pourtalesii, a structure-forming species of glass sponge.
2. Protect benthic habitats and associated communities.

Legislative authority: Fisheries Act closure in license conditions

Date established: 2013

Size:

• Marine Refuge: 259 km²
• (Sambro Bank: 62 km² Emerald Bank: 197 km²)

Notable species: Russian hat glass sponges (Vazella pourtalesii)

Main habitat types:

• shelf bank
• shelf basin
• shelf flat

Restrictions: The marine refuge is closed to all commercial bottom-contact fishing gear including:

• bottom gillnet
• bottom trawl
• bottom handline/jig
• Danish or Scottish seine
• dredge/dragging
• bottom longline
• fish traps
• traps/pots
• midwater gillnet

Coordinates:

• Sambro Bank:
  • 43° 56′ 00″ N 63° 07′ 00″ W
  • 43° 56′ 00″ N 63° 03′ 00″ W
  • 43° 54′ 00″ N 63° 00′ 00″ W
  • 43° 50′ 00″ N 63° 07′ 00″ W
• Emerald Basin:
  • 44° 20′ 00″ N 62° 40′ 00″ W
  • 44° 20′ 00″ N 62° 35′ 30″ W
  • 44° 15′ 00″ N 62° 32′ 00″ W
  • 44° 09′ 00″ N 62° 32′ 00″ W
  • 44° 09′ 00″ N 62° 40′ 00″ W

Conservation history

Vazella was first discovered by scientists in 2001 (Fuller et al., 2008), but interactions and knowledge within the fishing industry has existed for decades (Honeyman, 1889). In 2006, the significance of Vazella was noted through the Region’s ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSA) identification process. In 2010, the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council, put in place a voluntary closure for trawling in a portion of the known Vazella sponge grounds. A 2010 CSAS National Advisory Process on sponges, corals, and hydrothermal vents suggested increased in situ research into potential sponge sites along the Scotian Shelf (DFO, 2010). A research effort was undertaken in 2011 to validate predicted Vazella distribution sites. Findings from the cruise were a key component of the successful application of the SBA Policy to the Vazella sponge grounds on the Scotian Shelf, leading to a conservation area being put in place in 2013 (Beazley et al., 2017a; Beazley et al., 2018). To assist DFO with the boundary design, targeted consultations with a multi-fleet industry working group and license holders were undertaken. In 2016, Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank became a case study for the EU Horizon 2020 Project, SponGES: Deep-sea Sponge Grounds Ecosystems of the North Atlantic: an integrated approach towards their preservation and sustainable exploitation, with the co-ordination office in Norway. The collaborative research that followed has made this area the best biologically and ecologically characterized sponge species and habitat worldwide.

Ecological components of interest

Habitat

Sambro Bank and Emerald Basin are both located within the Scotian Shelf in an area due south of Halifax. Emerald Basin is a large basin feature that is connected to the surrounding shelf and slope environments of the Scotian Shelf. The waters of both sites include inundations of warmer, more saline water that is high in nutrients from the slope. Emerald Basin is made up of 2 components and is overlain by Scotian Drift, a hard substrate occurring in patches over soft sediment up to boulder-sized substrate.

Species of conservation focus

Globally unique concentrations of the glass (i.e., Hexactinellid) sponge Vazella pourtalesii have been found within Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge. Vazella within the marine refuge have been identified from depths of 75 m to 275 m growing to a maximum height of 110 cm (Fuller, 2011; Hawkes et al., 2019). Vazella are considered to be ecologically significant due to both their rarity and their contributions to the health of benthic ecosystems through habitat creation, water filtration, and the linking of benthic and pelagic environments (DFO, 2010; Hawkes et al., 2019). Their importance to biogeochemical cycling is observed through the hotspots of carbon processing that these sponges facilitate in addition to their role to the silicon cycle (Maldonado et al., 2021).

Other species

Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank are important habitat for various other fish and invertebrates species including northern shortfin squid, various species of zooplankton, tuna, swordfish and some shark species (King et al., 2016). Hawkes et al. (2019) recorded 77 different invertebrate species associated with the sponges. The marine refuge has also been found to be important habitat for species of commercial importance such as white hake, silver hake, and Acadian redfish (Grinyó et al., 2023; King et al., 2016).

Past research

An initial transect with the remotely operated vehicle ROPOS in 2001 and a Campod transect in 2002 confirmed the presence of Vazella within the marine refuge (Fuller, 2011). In 2011, DFO conducted additional Campod transects in Emerald Basin, including several within the marine refuge. The collaborations with the SponGES project brought the ROV, ROPOS to the region in 2017, which was deployed from CCGS Martha L. Black. It confirmed large Vazella aggregations within the marine refuge and enabled novel physiological experiments on the sponges to be conducted (e.g., Bart et al., 2020; Wurz et al., 2021). The probability of Vazella occurrence was modelled across its distribution using a suite of environmental variables to aid in the identification of Vazella habitat and to evaluate presence in unsampled areas both in the present (Beazley et al., 2018) (Figure 10), and under future conditions (Beazley et al., 2021a).

Ongoing research

Three benthic landers equipped with camera systems and passive acoustic receivers were deployed in September 2021 in areas of differential aggregation sites within Sambro Bank (Kenchington et al., 2021). The benthic landers were retrieved in May 2022 and the data is currently being examined in order to better understand ecosystem activities and characteristics of these sponge sites including occurrence and behavior of Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) (Grinyó et al., 2023). One benthic lander was redeployed in August 2022. In June 2022 collaborative efforts between NRCan and DFO sent an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) into Sambro Bank to collect high resolution bathymetry data and to test if an AUV could be used as a monitoring tool for sponge concentrations within the marine refuge (King et al., 2022).

Climate change

Projected climate change models show that Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge is expected to experience rapidly warming surface and bottom temperatures as a result of climate change (Beazley et al., 2021a). The Vazella population within Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge has persisted through varying environmental conditions since 1889, demonstrating that the species may be resilient to climatic variability (Beazley et al., 2018). Despite Vazella’s ability to persist through some variable environmental change, the thermal thresholds of Vazella remain unknown and it is therefore unclear as to how long the species will be able to persist as temperatures continue to rise as a result of climate change (Beazley et al., 2021a). Overall, projected climate change scenarios show that suitable habitat for Vazella within the marine refuge is expected to increase in the future (Beazley et al., 2021a). Continued monitoring and research in the Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge is critical to inform adaptive management strategies of Vazella and other conservation benefits.

Conservation network

Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge contributes to various regional priorities and targets established through the SS-BOF bioregional conservation network (King et al., 2021) including the representation of important oceanographic and geomorphic features such as:

• the LaHave and Emerald Basins
• shelf basin
• shelf flat

Additionally, this site contributes to other bioregional conservation network targets such as the protection of biogenic habitat including sponge (Vazella pourtalesii) aggregations and the protection of an area with high fish species richness. Through hydrodynamic connectivity models developed specifically for Vazella (Wang et al., 2021) connectivity has been found between Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge and NECMR.

Site-specific priorities

• Research changes of Vazella populations prior to and following closures, including areas with significant fishing activity adjacent to the sites’ boundaries (i.e. Sambro)
• Revisit protection needs for Vazella populations including evaluation of boundaries of marine refuge

3. Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge

Description

The Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge lies adjacent to the United States (US) border on the southern edge of Georges Bank extending to the limit of the Canadian EEZ (Figure 11). Established in 2016 under the Fisheries Act, this marine refuge protects two deep (over 2000 m), steep-sided canyons that host dense concentrations of large gorgonian (mainly bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea)) and other corals that act as important habitat to other invertebrates and various species of fish. Corsair and Georges Canyons are ecologically linked to the extensive chain of canyons that extend up the eastern seaboard of North America, many of which have also achieved conservation status under various US laws. Cold-water corals and sponges are particularly sensitive to mobile and fixed fishing gears that contact the bottom through both direct (e.g. removal and/or damage) and indirect (e.g. smothering by sedimentation) impacts (DFO, 2010). Due to this sensitivity, bottom-contact fishing is prohibited in Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge. In 2016, based on CSAS guidance on OECMs, the conservation area was evaluated and recognized as a marine refuge.

Summary

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect cold-water corals including significant concentrations of large gorgonian corals (e.g., Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis).
2. Protect deep-water habitats (continental slope, continental rise and abyssal plain) and associated benthic communities.

Legislative authority: Fisheries Act closure in license conditions

Date established: 2016

Size:

• Marine Refuge: 8,797 km²
• Limited Fisheries Zone: 31.2 km²

Notable species: Cold-water coral species including:

• bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea)
• seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis)
• bamboo corals (Acanella arbuscula, Keratoisis grayi)
• other gorgonians such as:
  • Paramuricea spp.
  • Chrysogorgia sp.
  • Anthothela grandiflora
  • the cup coral
  • Flabellum sp.
  • sea pens (Pennatuloidea)
  • Anthomastus spp.
  • Clavularia sp.
  • Stolonifera (SO.) spp

Main habitat types:

• abyssal plain
• continental rise
• shelf bank
• shelf flat
• slope

Restrictions: The marine refuge is closed to all commercial bottom-contact fishing gear including:

• bottom gillnet
• bottom trawl
• bottom handline/jig
• Danish or Scottish seine
• dredge/dragging
• bottom longline
• fish traps
• traps/pots
• midwater gillnet

Two Limited Fishing Zones adjacent to Georges Canyon remain open for Red Crab, a trap fishery.

Coordinates:

• Marine Refuge:
  • 41° 9' 59.366" N 66° 17' 41.547" W
  • 41° 11' 45.000" N 66° 16' 45.000" W
  • 41° 12' 15.000" N 66° 16' 15.000" W
  • 41° 12' 15.000" N 66° 15' 0.000" W
  • 41° 12' 45.000" N 66° 14' 15.000" W
  • 41° 14' 0.000" N 66° 14' 30.000" W
  • 41° 15' 0.000" N 66° 14' 30.000" W
  • 41° 15' 30.000" N 66° 15' 0.000" W
  • 41° 15' 30.000" N 66° 15' 30.000" W
  • 41° 16' 0.000" N 66° 15' 30.000" W
  • 41° 16' 45.000" N 66° 16' 0.000" W
  • 41° 16' 45.000" N 66° 14' 0.000" W
  • 41° 16' 45.000" N 66° 13' 30.000" W
  • 41° 16' 30.000" N 66° 12' 30.000" W
  • 41° 17' 30.000" N 66° 11' 15.000" W
  • 41° 17' 45.000" N 66° 10' 15.000" W
  • 41° 18' 7.500" N 66° 10' 0.000" W
  • 41° 18' 30.000" N 66° 9' 45.000" W
  • 41° 18' 45.000" N 66° 10' 0.000" W
  • 41° 19' 15.000" N 66° 10' 0.000" W
  • 41° 19' 45.000" N 66° 10' 15.000" W
  • 41° 20' 0.000" N 66° 10' 15.000" W
  • 41° 20' 30.000" N 66° 10' 45.000" W
  • 41° 20' 45.000" N 66° 10' 30.000" W
  • 41° 21' 15.000" N 66° 10' 45.000" W
  • 41° 21' 30.000" N 66° 10' 45.000" W
  • 41° 21' 45.000" N 66° 11' 0.000" W
  • 41° 22' 30.000" N 66° 11' 0.000" W
  • 41° 23' 15.000" N 66° 11' 45.000" W
  • 41° 23' 30.000" N 66° 12' 30.000" W
  • 41° 24' 0.000" N 66° 13' 30.000" W
  • 41° 24' 30.000" N 66° 13' 30.000" W
  • 41° 24' 30.000" N 66° 12' 30.000" W
  • 41° 24' 15.000" N 66° 12' 0.000" W
  • 41° 24' 15.000" N 66° 11' 30.000" W
  • 41° 24' 0.000" N 66° 11' 0.000" W
  • 41° 23' 15.000" N 66° 10' 15.000" W
  • 41° 22' 30.000" N 66° 9' 0.000" W
  • 41° 22' 0.000" N 66° 8' 45.000" W
  • 41° 22' 0.000" N 66° 8' 15.000" W
  • 41° 21' 30.000" N 66° 8' 15.000" W
  • 41° 21' 30.000" N 66° 7' 45.000" W
  • 41° 21' 0.000" N 66° 7' 45.000" W
  • 41° 20' 45.000" N 66° 7' 15.000" W
  • 41° 21' 0.000" N 66° 6' 15.000" W
  • 41° 21' 37.500" N 66° 5' 15.000" W
  • 41° 21' 15.000" N 66° 4' 0.000" W
  • 40° 11' 9.213" N 64° 22' 2.502" W
  • 40° 3' 1.741" N 65° 22' 0.138" W
  • 41° 8' 55.473" N 66° 16' 49.357" W
  • 41° 9' 26.775" N 66° 16' 9.740" W
  • 41° 11' 30.000" N 66° 15' 45.000" W
  • 41° 12' 22.500" N 66° 13' 15.000" W
  • 41° 13' 7.500" N 66° 12' 37.500" W
  • 41° 13' 45.000" N 66° 12' 37.500" W
  • 41° 14' 45.000" N 66° 13' 45.000" W
  • 41° 15' 15.000" N 66° 13' 45.000" W
  • 41° 15' 30.000" N 66° 14' 15.000" W
  • 41° 16' 15.000" N 66° 13' 45.000" W
  • 41° 16' 15.000" N 66° 13' 15.000" W
  • 41° 16' 0.000" N 66° 13' 15.000" W
  • 41° 16' 0.000" N 66° 11' 30.000" W
  • 41° 17' 15.000" N 66° 10' 0.000" W
• Limited Fisheries Zones:
  • 41° 9' 59.366" N 66° 17' 41.547" W
  • 41° 11' 45.000" N 66° 16' 45.000" W
  • 41° 12' 15.000" N 66° 16' 15.000" W
  • 41° 12' 15.000" N 66° 15' 0.000" W
  • 41° 12' 45.000" N 66° 14' 15.000" W
  • 41° 14' 0.000" N 66° 14' 30.000" W
  • 41° 15' 0.000" N 66° 14' 30.000" W
  • 41° 15' 30.000" N 66° 15' 0.000" W
  • 41° 15' 30.000" N 66° 14' 15.000" W
  • 41° 15' 15.000" N 66° 13' 45.000" W
  • 41° 14' 45.000" N 66° 13' 45.000" W
  • 41° 13' 45.000" N 66° 12' 37.500" W
  • 41° 13' 7.500" N 66° 12' 37.500" W
  • 41° 12' 22.500" N 66° 13' 15.000" W
  • 41° 11' 30.000" N 66° 15' 45.000" W
  • 41° 9' 26.775" N 66° 16' 9.740" W
  • 41° 8' 55.473" N 66° 16' 49.357" W
  • 41° 16' 45.000" N 66° 14' 0.000" W
  • 41° 16' 45.000" N 66° 13' 30.000" W
  • 41° 16' 30.000" N 66° 12' 30.000" W
  • 41° 17' 30.000" N 66° 11' 15.000" W
  • 41° 17' 45.000" N 66° 10' 15.000" W
  • 41° 17' 15.000" N 66° 10' 0.000" W
  • 41° 16' 0.000" N 66° 11' 30.000" W
  • 41° 16' 0.000" N 66° 13' 15.000" W
  • 41° 16' 15.000" N 66° 13' 15.000" W
  • 41° 16' 15.000" N 66° 13' 45.000" W

Conservation milestones

From 2013-2015 in the United States there was a focus on exploration and science in the series of canyons along the shelf edge, a chain of features that includes Georges and Corsair Canyons in Canadian waters. A survey in 2014 conducted by Dalhousie University and NOAA in collaboration with DFO Science ran 2 transects – 1 inside Corsair Canyon and 1 deeper. The survey discovered high densities of gorgonian corals, such as bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea), and a variety of other coral species (DFO, 2018a). This survey offered the first confirmed insight into the special features of this area and led to dedicated discussions with the commercial fishing industry and other rights holders and stakeholders (Jordan Basin Marine Refuge was included in these consultations). Several boundary proposals for a closure were explored, including the expansion of the canyon closure to the deeper waters out to the EEZ. This approach is similar in design to canyon conservation measures in the United States, and is consistent with the “frontier areas” definition under the SBA Policy. A frontier area is defined as an area without a history of fishing in Canadian waters, which is interpreted to mean waters deeper than 2000 m.

Ecological components of interest:

Habitat

Corsair and Georges Canyons are 2 glacially formed, large, steep sided, deep (over 2000 m) submarine canyons that cut into the seabed (Stortini, 2015). The canyon walls are composed of ridges and gullies containing outcroppings of boulders providing suitable habitat for large gorgonian coral species. The canyon floors are composed of mostly soft sediment including sand and mud.

Species of conservation focus

Various species of cold-water coral have been identified within Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge from depths of 330 m to 2100 m. The marine refuge has been found to contain significant aggregations of large habitat forming gorgonian corals such as bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea) and seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis). Other identified coral species include:

• bamboo corals (Acanella arbuscula, Keratoisis grayi)
• Paramuricea spp.
• Chrysogorgia sp. Anthothela grandiflora
• the cup coral, Flabellum sp.
• sea pens (Pennatuloidea)
• Anthomastus spp.
• Clavularia sp.
• Stolonifera (SO.) spp

Other species

Commercially important species such as Atlantic halibut, lobster, cusk and other groundfish are present in the site. Numerous invertebrates including echinoderms, anemones, squids and octopuses are also observed in the marine refuge. Cetacean species including Cuvier’s beaked whale, True’s beaked whale, and Sowerby’s beaked whale (listed as Special Concern under the Species at Risk Act) have been regularly acoustically detected within the marine refuge.

Past research: Two surveys have been undertaken since establishment in 2016. In 2017, 2 ROPOS dives were conducted in Georges Canyon; this corroborated statements from the red crab fishery that labelled portion of Georges Canyon as ‘Mud Cove”, having a muddy bottom with few gorgonian corals observed. In 2019, ROV transects were conducted within and around the marine refuge, focused on Corsair Canyon, discovering dense aggregations of corals, including some outside the eastern boundary. Additional research in the area suggests that connectivity among the Paragorgia aborea and Primnoa resedaeformis populations in northwest Atlantic originates from Georges Canyon and Heezen Canyon to the south (US waters) (Metaxas et al., 2019). Research vessel trawl survey data supplemented with other available data has been used to identify significant benthic areas and to create presence probability distribution models for corals within and around the marine refuge to aid in the identification of coral hotspots (Kenchington et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2022) (Figure 12).

Ongoing research

Cooperation between DFO and Dalhousie University allows for continued exploration of this area through Contribution Agreements. These missions aim to determine cold-water coral population recovery, aggregation density and recruitment development. The broader scope of the project centres on the understanding of factors that shape the distribution of deep-water corals in the Gulf of Maine and adjacent continental slope.

Passive acoustic monitoring with a stationary, bottom-mounted recorder has been conducted in Corsair Canyon since 2020, providing information on the presence and habitat use of cetacean species. In recordings analyzed from September 2020 to August 2021, beaked whale echolocation clicks were detected and identified as Sowerby’s beaked whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and probable True’s beaked whales. All 3 species were regularly detected, indicating that they commonly forage in this area throughout the year (J. Stanistreet, unpublished data). In addition, calls produced by North Atlantic right whales were detected on a single day in March 2021. Analysis is underway for the daily presence of other baleen whale species including blue, fin, sei, and humpback whales (H. Moors-Murphy, pers. comm.).

Climate change

Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge is expected to undergo changing environmental conditions due to climate change (Murillo et al., 2022). Under projected environmental conditions, existing aggregations of bubblegum coral within the Corsair and Georges Canyons may experience both novel environmental conditions and a decrease of suitable habitat by 2046-2065 (Wang et al., 2022). As a result, it is unknown if the bubblegum coral within Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge will be able to adapt to shifting environmental conditions (Wang et al., 2022). The importance of this site for cold-water coral species is significant, particularly because this site has been found to provide larval connectivity for bubblegum coral across the various conservation areas within the SS-BOF bioregion (Wang et al., 2022). Connectivity between conservation areas within the SS-BOF bioregion and across the Gulf of Maine is critical for the retention and expansion of the distributional range for cold-water corals as environmental conditions continue to change as a result of climate change (Metaxas et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022). Monitoring the impacts of changing environmental conditions on coral species and larval connectivity across the bioregion will be critical to inform the adaptive management of Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge.

Conservation network

Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge contributes to various regional priorities and targets established through the SS-BOF bioregional conservation network (King et al., 2021) including the representation of important oceanographic and geomorphic features such as:

• continental rise
• continental slope
• abyssal plain

Additionally, this site contributes to other bioregional conservation network targets such as the protection of biogenic habitat including:

• sea pen fields
• small gorgonian coral
• large gorgonian coral aggregations

Site-specific priorities

• Continued Canada/US collaboration to ensure complete understanding of canyon environments along the shelf break/Georges Bank
• Renewal of the Georges Bank oil and gas exploration moratorium beyond 2032
• Research and exploration of frontier habitat (depth > 2000m)
• Following 2024 survey, examine current boundary configurations in light of all research findings since establishment

4. Jordan Basin Marine Refuge

Description

The Jordan Basin Marine Refuge lies offshore of Yarmouth in the Gulf of Maine (Figure 13). In 2005, DFO conducted several camera transects in the area that identified deep-sea features of conservation interest, initially centred on a bedrock pinnacle feature called the “Rock Garden”. Several other surveys were conducted, confirming the biodiversity value of the area. As a result, a Fisheries Act closure under the SBA Policy was implemented in 2016. The area contains 2 large bedrock outcrop features that provide habitat for large concentrations of seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis), Paramuricea sp., and other benthic invertebrates resulting in high overall biodiversity within the basin feature. Cold-water corals and sponges are particularly sensitive to mobile and fixed fishing gears that contact the bottom through both direct (e.g. removal and/or damage) and indirect (e.g. smothering by sedimentation) impacts (DFO, 2010). Due to this sensitivity, bottom-contact fishing is prohibited in Jordan Basin Marine Refuge. In 2016, based on CSAS guidance on OECMs, the conservation area was evaluated and recognized as a marine refuge.

Summary

Conservation objectives

1. Protect the diverse benthic community known as the Rock Garden, including cold-water corals such as:
   • Primnoa resedaeformis
   • Paramuricea sp.
   • Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa)

Legislative authority: Fisheries Act closure in license conditions

Date established: 2016

Size:

• Marine Refuge: 49 km²

Notable species: Cold-water corals with particularly high abundance of seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis) and Paramuricea sp.

Main habitat type: shelf flat

Restrictions: The marine refuge is closed to all commercial bottom-contact fishing gear including:

• bottom gillnet
• bottom trawl
• bottom handline/jig
• Danish or Scottish seine
• dredge/dragging
• bottom longline
• fish traps
• traps/pots
• midwater gillnet

Coordinates:

• Marine Refuge:
  • 43°20’30” N 67°0’0” W
  • 43°17’30” N 67°0’0” W
  • 43°15’30” N 67°6’0” W
  • 43°17’30” N 67°6’0” W
  • 43°20’30” N 67°3’0” W

Conservation milestones

In June 2014, a research cruise led by NOAA, Dalhousie University, and DFO conducted a ROV survey in several sites within the Gulf of Maine. Within Canada, 2 areas that were targeted revealed significant cold-water coral concentrations; Corsair and Georges Canyons and Jordan Basin. The importance of 2 large bedrock outcrop features were confirmed and a fisheries closure was advanced under the SBA Policy following a consultation process (DFO, 2018a). The consultation process began in 2015 and included dedicated discussions with fishing industry representatives, license holders, and other interested rights holders and stakeholders (Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge was included in these consultations).

Ecological components of interest

Habitat

The Jordan Basin Marine Refuge is a broad complex feature capturing 2 prominent bedrock features, including a large outcrop called the “Rock Garden”. The substrate within this marine refuge is soft sediment with pebbles, cobbles, small boulders, shell hash, and bedrock ridges (Breeze and Horsman, 2005).

Species of conservation focus

Jordan Basin Marine Refuge has been found to have large dense fields of cold-water corals primarily seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis) and Paramuricea sp. Primnoa resedaeformis has been recognized as a structure-forming species that provides important habitat for other species and is associated with a high fish and invertebrate diversity (DFO, 2010). Originally described as the “Rock Garden” the northern bedrock feature in the closure is covered in anemones, sponges, sea stars, crustaceans, and other epifauna.

Other species

Within Jordan Basin there are numerous species of groundfish, including those of commercial importance such as:

• Atlantic cod
• haddock
• white hake
• redfish
• pollock

Past research

Since 2005, a DFO-led survey using Campod, a towed camera system, identified numerous underwater features of interest within Jordan Basin. These surveys identified 2 prominent bedrock ridges that contained high densities of coral species as well as sensitive invertebrate communities. In 2006, 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2019, additional benthic surveys were conducted within Jordan Basin. These additional surveys allowed for further exploration of the area as well as measuring coral colony size and abundance. Research vessel trawl survey data supplemented with other available data has been used to identify significant benthic areas and to create presence probability distribution models for corals within and around the marine refuge to aid in the identification of coral hotspots (Kenchington et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2022) (Figure 14).

Ongoing research

Cooperation between DFO and Dalhousie University allows for continued exploration of this area through Contribution Agreements. These missions aim to determine cold-water coral population recovery, aggregation density, and recruitment development. The broader scope of the project centres on the understanding of factors that shape the distribution of deep-water corals in the Gulf of Maine. The next ROV survey for this general area is being planned for 2024, and may include work within the marine refuge or surrounding waters.

Climate change

As a consequence of climate change, Jordan Basin Marine Refuge is expected to experience shifting environmental conditions, primarily warming bottom and surface temperatures at a relatively rapid rate when compared to other areas of the SS-BOF bioregion (Murillo et al., 2022). The impacts of shifting environmental conditions within Jordan Basin Marine Refuge is largely unknown due to the absence of climate change modelling for species of conservation importance such as seacorn coral. However, due to the relative shallow depths and southern location, the possible climate change induced poleward and vertical distribution shift of cold-water corals may have a considerable impact on biodiversity and conservation benefits provided by Jordan Basin Marine Refuge (Poloczanska et al., 2016). Climate change modelling for species of conservation importance such as seacorn coral, Paramuricea sp. or Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa will be integral to the continued management of Jordan Basin Marine Refuge to ensure conservation objectives and biodiversity outcomes are achieved. Additionally, transboundary collaborations should be considered to increase conservation of cold-water coral aggregations as potential connectivity across the entire Gulf of Maine and Jordan Basin is high (Metaxas et al., 2019).

Conservation network

Jordan Basin Marine Refuge contributes to various regional priorities and targets established through the SS-BOF bioregional conservation network (King et al., 2021) including the representation of important oceanographic and geomorphic features such as the Gulf of Maine and continental shelf flat. Additionally, this site contributes to other bioregional conservation network targets such as the protection of an area with high species richness of small invertebrates. Hydrodynamic connectivity models show downstream links between Jordan Basin Marine Refuge and other conservation areas within the SS-BOF bioregion including both NECMR and Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge for the large corals and Vazella sponges (Wang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022).

Site-specific priorities

• Focus research effort on bedrock features similar to the “Rock Garden” in and adjacent to the marine refuge. Information gathered could result in the identification of additional coral concentrations and lead to the adjustment of the boundaries of the marine refuge or identification of additional locations for protection

5. Western And Emerald Banks Marine Refuge

Description

The Western and Emerald Banks Marine Refuge (WEBMR) often referred to as the “Haddock Box” lies offshore of Halifax, Nova Scotia in the eastern Scotian Shelf (Figure 15). Historically this area was an important commercial groundfish fishing area, however, due to high catches of juvenile haddock DFO put in place conservation measures in 1987 (prohibiting mobile gear) and 1993 (prohibiting fixed gear) restricting those fisheries (DFO, 2018b).

In 2017, based on CSAS guidance on OECMs, the site was evaluated and recognized as a marine refuge. As a result, the marine refuge is closed to all bottom-contact fishing gear. As part of this evaluation, a separate Limited Fishing Zone was delineated based on an active scallop fishery (scallop rakes/dredges). Although the Limited Fisheries Zone has low overall fishing effort it was not included as part of Marine Conservation Target contributions for WEBMR. WEBMR includes the majority of the Emerald-Western-Sable Island Bank Complex EBSA and has been recognized as important habitat for a variety of regionally significant species and as an area of high species diversity (King et al., 2016).

Summary

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect continental shelf habitats and associated benthic and demersal communities.
2. Support productivity objectives for groundfish species of Aboriginal, commercial, and/or recreational importance, particularly North Atlantic Fisheries Organization Division 4VW haddock.
3. Protect benthic habitats that support juvenile and adult haddock and other groundfish species.

Legislative authority: Fisheries Act closure in license conditions

Date established: 2017 (originally established in 1987, revised in 2017)

Size:

• Marine Refuge: 10,234 km²
• Limited Fisheries Zone: 2,548 km²

Notable species:

• structure-forming benthic biogenic habitats including:
  • sea pen (Pennatuloidea) fields
  • horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus) reefs
• benthic bioturbating habitat including:
  • sand dollar (Echinarachnius parma) beds
• others including:
  • Haddock
  • Atlantic cod
  • American plaice
  • winter skate

Main habitat types:

• shelf bank
• shelf basin
• shelf flat

Restrictions: The marine refuge is closed to all bottom-contact fishing gear known to interact with groundfish including:

• bottom gillnet
• bottom trawl
• bottom handline/jig
• Danish or Scottish seine
• dredge/dragging
• bottom longline
• fish traps
• traps/pots
• midwater gillnet

Coordinates

• Marine Refuge:
  • 43°21'00"N 63°20'00"W
  • 43°01'00"N 63°20'00"W
  • 43°04'00"N 62°30'00"W
  • 43°04'00"N 62°00'00"W
  • 43°19'00"N 61°18'00"W
  • 44°02'00"N 61°18'00"W
  • 44°02'00"N 61°42'00"W
  • 43°42'00"N 62°44'00"W
  • 43°45'59"N 61°18'00"W
  • 43°50'00"N 61°18'00"W
  • 43°50'00"N 61°30'00"W
  • 43°30'00"N 61°30'00"W
  • 43°30'00"N 61°18'00"W
  • 43°08'18"N 61°48'00"W
  • 43°49'37"N 61°49'00"W
  • 43°58'01"N 61°28'00"W
• Limited Fisheries Zone:
  • 43°08'18"N 61°48'00"W
  • 43°19'00"N 61°18'00"W
  • 43°30'00"N 61°18'00"W
  • 43°30'00"N 61°30'00"W
  • 43°50'00"N 61°30'00"W
  • 43°50'00"N 61°18'00"W
  • 43°45'59"N 61°18'00"W
  • 43°58'01"N 61°28'00"W
  • 43°49'37"N 61°49'00"W

Conservation milestones

In 1986, the Scotia-Fundy Groundfish Advisory Committee recommended closing this area to groundfish fishing activity due to its role as important nursery habitat for juvenile haddock (Frank et al., 2000). In response, this area was designated as a fisheries closure under the Fisheries Act prohibiting mobile gear groundfish fishing activity in 1987. The intent of this closure was to protect juvenile haddock and allow for continued stock rebuilding. In 1993, the prohibition of fishing within the closure was extended to include all groundfish gear types (fixed and mobile gear) and has remained in effect until the present (Frank et al., 2000). In 2016, the Emerald-Western-Sable Island Bank Complex was delineated as an EBSA due to importance as habitat for several benthic fish, high levels of year-round larval fish diversity, importance as a juvenile fish nursery area, and high concentrations of eggs and larvae of several species (King et al., 2016). The revised EBSA encompasses a large portion of WEBMR.

Ecological components of interest

Habitat

WEBMR is an area of large bank habitat encompassing all of Emerald Bank and most of Western Bank as well as a shelf trough known as the ‘Western Gully’. This site spans a complex array of sediments and bedforms including post-glacial sand and gravel, glacial and post-glacial marine mud, glacial diamict (homogenous mixture of mud, sand, gravel, and cobble clasts), and glacial sublittoral sand (Philibert et al., 2022) resulting in relatively high habitat heterogeneity. Additionally, the area has a unique feature in which a partial gyre encircles the Western – Sable Island banks area in the winter and summer months. This partial gyre feature serves as a retentive mechanism resulting in increased retention levels of pelagic larvae and their food (Shackell and Frank, 2000). Larger banks typically host higher diversity of species and habitat (Frank and Shackell, 2001). The combination of a large bank area, high habitat heterogeneity, and a large partial gyre has resulted in WEBMR being an area of high representativity with relatively high species richness and abundance.

Species of conservation focus

WEBMR has been found to be an area of high benthic diversity containing multiple species recognized to contribute to key ecosystem functions. Those have been identified as benthic ecologically or biologically significant areas (Kenchington, 2014). Specifically, structure-forming benthic biogenic species such as sea pen fields and horse mussel reefs and benthic bioturbating species such as sand dollar beds have been identified within WEBMR (Beazley et al., 2017b; Kenchington et al., 2016). Additionally, WEBMR has been identified as important spawning and nursery habitat for the Scotian Shelf haddock stock, as well as many other fish species (Shackell & Frank, 2000).

Other species

Other ecologically and biologically important species such as Russian hat sponges (Vazella pourtalesii) have been recorded within WEBMR. Western and Emerald Banks are also noted as important habitats for depleted species that have been assessed as at-risk by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada such as Atlantic cod, American plaice and winter skate (King et al., 2016; Shackell et al., 2021). Furthermore, the area known as the Western Gully within WEBMR may be of importance to various cetacean species including humpback whales, blue whales, sei whales, minke whales, sperm whales, and common dolphins (King et al., 2016).

Past research

Research related to WEBMR has been collected through a variety of methods since its original designation as a fisheries closure in 1987. For example, in 2003 and 2005, benthos sampling of 4 sites within the marine refuge was conducted contributing to the identification and classification benthic macrofauna species assemblages and habitat composition of the closed area (Rincón and Kenchington, 2016). Additionally, research vessel trawl survey data supplemented with other available data has been used to create presence probability distribution models for ecologically or biologically significant benthic species such as Vazella pourtalesii found within and around the marine refuge to aid in the identification of significant benthic areas (Beazley et al., 2017b; Kenchington et al., 2016) (Figure 16).

Region-wide survey programs such as the multispecies research trawl survey (1970 to present), the Industry/DFO Halibut Longline Survey (1998 to present) and the 4VsW Sentinel Monitoring Program (1995-2012 in WEBMR) have been used to evaluate long-term trends in the haddock stock and the overall effectiveness of the WEBMR closure. Reviews of the effectiveness of the area have considered it likely that the closure provides, at a minimum, localized benefits to groundfish stocks other than haddock (O’Boyle, 2011), such as American plaice and winter flounder (Frank et al., 2000). However, a full recovery of the groundfish community since 1992 collapse has not been observed (Shackell et al., 2021).

Ongoing research

WEBMR lacks a site-specific monitoring program with research and monitoring of the site being conducted through region wide groundfish survey programs. A survey using Campod in WEBMR is planned for the future to further classify benthic habitat and ecology within site.

Climate change

Future climate projections show considerable bottom and surface temperature warming within WEBMR by 2046-2065 (Beazley et al., 2021a). The impact of shifting environmental conditions on species of conservation importance such as Atlantic haddock within WEBMR is largely unknown due to the absence of climate change modelling for the area. However, climate change models project that the distribution of the Gulf of Maine Atlantic haddock stock will shift northward into the Scotian Shelf in search of colder temperatures (Kleisner et al., 2017). Additionally, under projected environmental conditions suitable habitat for Vazella pourtalesii is predicted to shift including a moderate increase within WEBMR by 2046-2065 (Beazley et al., 2021a). Other important structure-forming benthic species reside within WEBMR such as sea pens and horse mussels; it will be important to continue monitoring and research within WEBMR to identify potential climate change impacts to these species. As WEBMR is projected to experience changes in environmental conditions as a result of climate change, additional modelling of species of conservation importance including Atlantic haddock and structure-forming benthic species will be critical for the continued adaptive management of WEBMR to ensure conservation objectives and biodiversity outcomes are achieved.

Conservation network

WEBMR contributes to various regional priorities and targets established through the SS-BOF bioregional conservation network (King et al., 2021) including the representation of important oceanographic and geomorphic features such as:

• the LaHave and Emerald Basins
• Western and Sable Banks
• shelf bank
• shelf basin
• shelf flat

Additionally, this site is an area of high regional representativity contributing to various bioregional conservation network biodiversity hotspot targets including the protection of areas with high ichthyoplankton, fish, and invertebrate species richness. WEBMR also contributes to the protection of habitat for depleted species including Atlantic cod, ocean pout and white hake.

Site-specific priorities

• Implement a site-specific monitoring program aimed to characterize benthic habitat and the effectiveness of the site as a conservation measure to meet multiple biodiversity conservation objectives, including at the bioregional network scale
• Enhance the characterization of the benthic habitat within the marine refuge based on recent species distribution models
• Evaluate the boundaries of the marine refuge, with particular attention on the eastern boundary given the features identified in the EBSA profile

6. Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge

Description

The Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge (ECMR) is located offshore of Nova Scotia, to the east of Sable Island, at the break of the continental shelf (Figure 17). The marine refuge includes the continental slope, and extends eastward from the boundary of the Gully MPA to the Laurentian Channel and then south to the Canadian EEZ. ECMR is comprised of 2 underwater canyons, Shortland Canyon and Haldimand Canyon, and a substantial portion of the continental slope and abyssal plain in the eastern portion of the bioregion. Much of this deep-water is considered frontier area as there is no history of bottom-contact fishing activity, and little to no information on benthic features or the impacts of fishing on those features.

Eastern Canyons was announced as a proposed marine refuge in 2018 to protect extensive and fragile gorgonian coral concentrations and habitat, and minimize future impacts on the deep-water frontier area. Following a consultation process in 2021-2022, the final marine refuge was established using variation orders under the Fisheries Act in June 2022 and encompassed the pre-existing Lophelia Coral Conservation Area (LCCA), which had been in place since 2004. The Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa) reef is the only known cold-water coral reef in eastern Canada.

Summary

Conservation objectives:

1. Protect cold-water corals including significant concentrations of large gorgonian corals (e.g., Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis) and Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa).
2. Protect deep-water habitats (continental slope, continental rise and abyssal plain) and associated benthic communities.

Legislative authority: Fisheries Act closure in license conditions

Date established: 2022

Size:

• Marine Refuge: 43,976 km²
• Limited Fisheries Zone: 76.4 km²

Notable species: Cold-water coral species including:

• the reef-building Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa)
• bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea)
• seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis)
• bamboo corals (Acanella arbuscula, Keratoisis grayi),
• Acanthogorgia armata
• sea pens (Anthoptilum grandiflorum, Balticina finmarchica, Pennatula spp)
• soft corals (Anthomastus spp., Nephtheidae spp.)

Main habitat types:

• abyssal plain
• continental rise
• shelf bank
• shelf channel
• slope
• slope channel

Restrictions: The marine refuge is closed to all communal commercial and commercial bottom-contact fisheries including:

• bottom gillnet
• bottom trawl
• bottom handline/jig
• Danish or Scottish seine
• dredge/dragging
• bottom longline
• fish traps
• traps/pots
• midwater gillnet

A Limited Fishing Zone on the western edge of the marine refuge permits groundfish longline fishing with an at-sea observer while remaining closed to all other bottom-contact fisheries.

Coordinates:

• Marine Refuge:
  • 43° 54' 51.339" N 58° 44' 20.541" W
  • 43° 56' 30" N 58° 40' 0" W
  • 43° 57' 0" N 58° 34' 30" W
  • 44° 0' 0" N 58° 28' 0" W
  • 44° 2' 0" N 58° 26' 0" W
  • 44° 6' 0" N 58° 25' 0" W
  • 44° 8' 0" N 58° 25' 0" W
  • 44° 13' 0" N 58° 29' 0" W
  • 44° 14' 0" N 58° 28' 0" W
  • 44° 12' 0" N 58° 25' 0" W
  • 44° 12' 0" N 58° 23' 0" W
  • 44° 7' 0" N 58° 20' 0" W
  • 44° 7' 0" N 58° 18' 0" W
  • 44° 10' 0" N 58° 17' 0" W
  • 44° 10' 0" N 58° 14' 0" W
  • 44° 8' 0" N 58° 12' 0" W
  • 44° 10' 0" N 58° 5' 0" W
  • 44° 18' 0" N 57° 59' 30" W
  • 44° 18' 0" N 57° 55' 0" W
  • 44° 15' 0" N 57° 54' 0" W
  • 44° 13' 30" N 57° 52' 0" W
  • 44° 13' 30" N 57° 49' 30" W
  • 44° 16' 0" N 57° 46' 0" W
  • 44° 18' 0" N 57° 45' 0" W
  • 44° 21' 0" N 57° 41' 0" W
  • 44° 21' 0" N 57° 37' 30" W
  • 44° 18' 30" N 57° 37' 30" W
  • 44° 18' 30" N 57° 35' 0" W
  • 44° 20' 0" N 57° 33' 0" W
  • 44° 20' 0" N 57° 31' 0" W
  • 44° 22' 30" N 57° 26' 30" W
  • 44° 23' 0" N 57° 24' 0" W
  • 44° 23' 30" N 57° 18' 0" W
  • 44° 24' 0" N 57° 16' 0" W
  • 44° 24' 0" N 57° 14' 30" W
  • 44° 25' 0" N 57° 13' 30" W
  • 44° 30' 0" N 57° 13' 0" W
  • 44° 30' 0" N 57° 10' 0" W
  • 44° 27' 30" N 57° 8' 0" W
  • 44° 27' 0" N 57° 7' 0" W
  • 44° 28' 0" N 57° 6' 0" W
  • 44° 29' 0" N 56° 58' 30" W
  • 41° 56' 0" N 56° 8' 0" W
  • 41° 38' 0" N 56° 31' 0" W
  • 41° 21' 0" N 56° 58' 0" W
  • 43° 35' 0" N 59° 8' 0" W
  • 43° 35' 0" N 58° 35' 0" W
  • 43° 47' 0" N 58° 35' 0" W
  • 43° 54' 51.339" N 58° 44' 20.541" W
• Limited Fishing Zone:
  • 44° 17' 30" N 57° 33' 30" W
  • 44° 17' 30" N 57° 29' 30" W
  • 44° 12' 0" N 57° 29' 30" W
  • 44° 12' 0" N 57° 35' 30" W
  • 44° 15' 30" N 57° 35' 30" W
  • 44° 17' 30" N 57° 33' 30" W

Conservation history

LCCA was established in June 2004 after DFO scientists observed aggregations of reef building corals, Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa) in the previous year (Breeze and Fenton, 2007). DFO regularly conducted multi-species trawl surveys in the Eastern Canyons area between 2002 and 2016 which noted the presence of coral species. Additional data on coral presence was collected from multiple research missions using camera and video systems, with a survey in 2018 providing a systematic survey of the area (Beazley et al., 2016). Models have been created to predict the distribution of corals in the area (Beazley et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2022). As a result, beginning in 2020, DFO engaged on the design of ECMR:

• the Province of Nova Scotia
• Indigenous organizations and local First Nations communities
• fishing industry stakeholders
• environmental non-government organizations

This collaborative process was guided by available science and knowledge of commercial (including commercial communal) bottom-contact fisheries operating within the area, with the aim of minimizing impacts of site establishment on active fisheries while upholding the conservation goals for the area (DFO, 2022a).

Ecological components of interest

Habitat

ECMR protects a mosaic of benthic habitats. The Shortland and Haldimand Canyons are a mix of sand and mud with a varied distribution of boulders, rocks, and ledges. ECMR primarily protects deep-water frontier habitat, as 91% of the refuge is beyond 2000 m in depth. There exists little information on the benthic features, ecology, or fishing impacts within the deep-water frontier habitat; however, modelling suggests that this area could include cold-water coral habitat. The marine refuge includes depths from 100 m to over 5000 m.

Species of conservation focus

ECMR is home to the only known cold-water coral (Desmophyllum pertusum) reef in eastern Canada. The area also hosts large aggregations of gorgonian corals, including:

• bubblegum coral (Paragorgia arborea)
• seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis)
• bamboo corals (Acanella arbuscula, Keratoisis grayi)

Gorgonian corals are slow-growing and some species can live for hundreds of years (Sherwood & Edinger, 2009). These corals provide important biogenic habitat, refuge, and nurseries for other species. Other species of cold-water corals identified within ECMR include Acanthogorgia armata and the soft corals Anthomastus spp. and Nephtheidae spp. (Cogswell et al., 2009).

Other species

Sea pens, tube-dwelling anemones, and large sponges have all been found in ECMR. These sessile species provide structure and habitat for other species and play important roles in the transfer of nutrients across trophic levels. Commercially important groundfish species such as Atlantic halibut and redfish are found within the ECMR. Cetacean species including the northern bottlenose whale, Scotian Shelf population (listed as Endangered under the Species at Risk Act), and Sowerby’s beaked whale (listed as Special Concern under the Species at Risk Act) are regularly observed within the marine refuge (DFO, 2016; DFO, 2017). Northern bottlenose whales have been recorded moving along the contours of the Scotian Shelf between Shortland Canyon, Haldimand Canyon, and the Gully MPA. As a result, under the Species at Risk Act, portions of ECMR have been designated as both critical habitat and important habitat for the Scotian Shelf population of northern bottlenose whales (DFO, 2022b).

Past research

Information concerning the Eastern Canyons area has been collected through a variety of methods over 2 decades. In 1997, prior to the designation of LCCA, marine harvester knowledge identified the presence of deep-sea corals along the Scotian Slope as well as within the Gully. DFO conducted imaging surveys in 1997 which observed live Desmophyllum pertusum fragments near the Stone Fence, which is now included in ECMR. This survey was followed up with a Campod survey of Stone Fence in 2003 which led to the designation of LCCA in 2004 (Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2017). Additional surveys were conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2015 and used to assess the effectiveness of the closure (Beazley et al., 2021b). Invertebrate diversity and abundance within the closure was observed to increase over time and be higher when compared to areas outside of the closure, suggesting that biodiversity benefits have accrued through the management actions. Between 2003-2017 the Fishery At-Sea Observer Program and the region-wide multispecies research trawl survey program reported the presence of corals in the Eastern Canyons area. Research vessel trawl survey data supplemented with other available data has been used to create presence probability distribution models for corals within and around the marine refuge to aid in the identification of coral hotspots and significant benthic areas (Kenchington et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2022) (Figure 18). Finally, Campod video and images were collected in a 2018 survey to validate coral distribution models based on previously collected data (Beazley et al., 2019). Vessel-based visual and acoustic surveys were conducted to study the distribution of northern bottlenose whales in multiple years between 2001 and 2022.

Ongoing research

ROV surveys were conducted in the Gully MPA and ECMR in August 2022, as a collaborative research effort between Dalhousie University and DFO. The research cruise surveyed specific sites along transects to record video data and collect live coral samples. Sites were selected based on specific research objectives, including how gradients in depth, substrate, and other factors influence coral and sponge habitats and their functioning, and evaluate life history strategies and potential vulnerabilities.

Climate change

ECMR is projected to experience a lesser degree of change in environmental conditions compared to other sites within the SS-BOF bioregion (Murillo et al., 2022). Within ECMR, the amount of suitable habitat and the probability of occurrence of cold-water corals, specifically bubblegum coral, is expected to increase as the population distributions of cold-water corals may shift poleward and deeper as climate change continues (Poloczanska et al., 2016). Additionally, climate change models predict that the environmental conditions within ECMR will remain within the current recorded range for bubblegum coral representing potential climate refugia for the cold-water coral species (Wang et al., 2022). However, current climate projection models only have estimates up until 2046-2065, therefore, it is unclear whether this site will remain a climate refugia for cold-water coral species past 2065 as temperatures continue to rise. Moreover, ECMR is a vital seed source for cold-water corals including Desmophyllum pertusum; coral seed source sites are important for the dispersal of cold-water corals throughout the SS-BOF bioregion (Wang et al., 2022). Monitoring ECMR as a potential climate refugia site may allow for the identification of indicators and thresholds that can be used to find other potential climate refugia sites within the SS-BOF bioregion.

Conservation network

ECMR contributes to various regional priorities and targets established through the SS-BOF bioregional conservation network (King et al., 2021) including the representation of important oceanographic and geomorphic features such as:

• the Western and Sable Banks
• abyssal plan
• continental rise
• continental slope

Additionally, this site contributes to other bioregional conservation network targets such as the protection of biogenic habitat including sea pen fields, small and large gorgonian coral aggregations, and the protection of habitat for depleted species including redfish, roughhead grenadier, roundnose grenadier, smooth skate, thorny skate, and white hake. Hydrodynamic connectivity models show connectivity paths from the ECMR to the Gully MPA (Wang et al., 2022).

Site-specific priorities

• Engagement with commercial fishing industry operating adjacent to ECMR through a review of gear drift surveillance, enforcement, and communication
• Through research and exploration increase understanding of deep-water habitats and potential impacts of human activities
• Review the Limited Fisheries Zone, and evaluate presence of corals through review of At-Sea Observer results and optical surveys

Glossary

Adaptive management

Adaptive management is an ongoing and iterative process of improving management policies and practices through a cycle of applying new knowledge gained through learning based on monitoring and evaluation, as well as reflecting changes in policies and practices.

Area-Based Measure

Any spatially defined measure implemented to achieve 1 or more objectives. Not all area-based measures are necessarily MPAs or OECMs, but all MPAs and OECMs are area-based measures.

Biological diversity (biodiversity)

Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. (CBD 1992)

Biodiversity conservation benefit (BCB)

A biodiversity conservation benefit may also be referred to as a biodiversity outcome under the CBD. A BCB is the net positive change in biodiversity or prevention of its loss resulting from the governance decisions and management actions within an area. One or more BCBs can directly result from implementing measures in an area to protect species, habitats, or other components of the ecosystem. Measures implemented for a different purpose may result in indirect BCBs. BCBs contribute to the in situ conservation of biodiversity. The term BCB and its definition are consistent with the 2016 CSAS science advice and the CBD’s OECM definition.

Conserved areas

“Conserved areas” include both marine protected areas and areas that satisfy the criteria for “other effective area-based conservation measures.” (IUCN Guidance, 2012, 2019)

Cultural and spiritual values

These include recreational, religious, aesthetic, historic, and social values related to tangible and intangible benefits that nature and natural features have for people of different cultures and societies. (IUCN Guidance, 2012, 2019)

Ecosystem

A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit. (CBD 1992)

Ecosystem approach

A strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. (CBD 2004; National Framework for Canada’s Network of MPAs, 2011)

Ecosystem functions

An ecosystem function or process is an intrinsic ecosystem characteristic whereby an ecosystem maintains its integrity. Ecosystem functions include decomposition, production, nutrient cycling, and fluxes of nutrients and energy. Ecosystem functions are critical to the proper operation of the ecosystem.

Etuaptmumk

Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing) is a balanced respect, appreciation, and consideration for Indigenous and Western knowledge. Two-Eyed seeing is learning to see from 1 eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledge and ways of knowing and learning to use both eyes together for the benefit of all.

Important habitat

An important habitat is one that has biodiversity conservation value. Important habitats may:

1. be unique and/or rare
2. support climate change adaptation and mitigation, including carbon sequestration
3. provide refuge for species affected by climate change
4. have special importance for the life-cycle of a species
5. have importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitat
6. be vulnerable, fragile, or slow to recover
7. have comparatively higher biological productivity or diversity
8. be in a highly natural state
9. be listed in conservation network objectives

Important species

Species may be considered important for a variety of resource, ecological, or cultural reasons. Important species include those that are:

1. ecologically significant, including keystone species
2. depleted or rare
3. species of social or cultural importance
4. listed in conservation network objectives

In situ conservation of biodiversity

The conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings, and in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive characteristics. (CBD; Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Canada’s Response to the UN CBD, 1995)

Long term

Long term, relative to the establishment of an area-based measure recognized as an OECM as well as OECM governance and management, means that there is obvious intent (e.g. through legal or regulatory means or through a public commitment) to maintain the compliance with this Guidance and therefore OECM status year-round, with no end date.

Marine Protected Area (MPA)

A clearly defined geographical space recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. (IUCN Guidance, 2012, 2019; National Framework for Canada’s Network of MPAs, 2011)

Marine refuge

A marine refuge is 1 type of OECM. In the Canadian context, it is a fisheries-area closure established under the Fisheries Act that meets the criteria in this Guidance and is recognized as an OECM by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Netukulimk

Netukulimk is the use of the natural bounty provided by the Creator for the self-support and well-being of the individual and the community. Netukulimk is achieving standards of community nutrition and economic well-being without jeopardizing the integrity, diversity, or productivity of our environment.

OECM governance and management system

The OECM governance and management system is the totality of governance rules and decisions (such as statutes, regulations, licences, permits, or formal agreements) and management actions (such as programs, policies, processes, traditional and cultural practices, and voluntary best practices) that co-exist within a given OECM. These decisions and actions prohibit, limit, allow, or manage activity(ies) in order to ensure that risks to the OECM’s BCBs posed by those activities are effectively avoided or mitigated.

Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measure (OECM)

A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values. (CBD 2018)

Protected area

A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. (IUCN 2008)

Rights Holder

In this management plan, “rights holder” generally refers to Indigenous peoples whose rights are laid out in s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and further defined in the Fisheries Act, 2019 (ss. 2.3, 2.4), and in other federal statutes.

Under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and mirror provincial legislation, oil and gas licences may confer some rights to licence holders.

Coastal landowners may possess property rights which may need to be considered according to each candidate OECM’s boundary.

Stakeholder

People and organizations who are involved in or affected by an action or policy and can be directly or indirectly included in the decision-making process. Stakeholders may be local [i.e. adjacent to (or within) the OECM] or have an economic, environmental, or social cultural interest and knowledge of the area without physically residing there.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

UNDRIP is a comprehensive international human rights instrument on the rights of Indigenous peoples around the world. It affirms and sets out a broad range of collective and individual rights that constitute the minimum standards to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and to contribute to their survival, dignity and well-being.

In Canada, the UNDRIP Act received Royal Assent and came into force on June 21, 2021. This Act provides a roadmap for the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples to work together to implement the Declaration based on lasting reconciliation, healing, and cooperative relations.

Acts of parliament

• Canada Energy Regulator Act, S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 10
• Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1987, c. 3
• Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1988, c. 28:
• Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation (Nova Scotia) Act, S.N.S. 1987, c. 3: (PDF, 1.1 MB)
• Canada Shipping Act, S.C. 2001, c. 26
• Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14
• Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act, S.N.S. 1996, c. 25 (PDF, 1.8 MB)
• Marine Renewable-energy Act, S.N.S. 2015, c. 32
• Oceans Act, S.C. 1996, c. 31
• Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29
• Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38
• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, S.C. 2021, c. 14

Regulations

• Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations, SOR/2011-237
• International Submarine Cable Licences Regulations, SOR/98-488
• Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations, SOR/2012-69

References

Bart, M. C., de Kluijver, A., Hoetjes, S., Absalah, S., Mueller, B., Kenchington, E., Rapp, H. T., & de Goeij, J. M. (2020). Differential processing of dissolved and particulate organic matter by deep-sea sponges and their microbial symbionts. Scientific reports, 10(1), 17515.

Beazley, L., Pham, C., Murillo, J., and Kenchington, E. (2017a). Cruise Report for the DFO/SponGES CCGS Martha L. Black Oceanographic Mission (MLB2017001), August 31 to September 7, 2017. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3242: vi + 42p.

Beazley, L., Kenchington, E., and Lirette, C. (2017b). Species Distribution Modelling and Kernel Density Analysis of Benthic Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) and Other Benthic Fauna in the Maritimes Region. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 3204, vi-159.

Beazley, L., Wang, Z., Kenchington, E., Yashayaev, I., Rapp, H. T., Xavier, J. R., Murillo, F. J., Fenton, D., & Fuller, S. (2018). Predicted distribution of the glass sponge Vazella pourtalesi on the Scotian Shelf and its persistence in the face of climatic variability. PLoS One, 13(10), e0205505.

Beazley, L., Lirette, C., & Guijarro, J. (2019). Characterization of the corals and sponges of the Eastern Scotian slope from a benthic imagery survey. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 3302.

Beazley, L., Kenchington, E., Murillo, F. J., Brickman, D., Wang, Z., Davies, A. J., Roberts, E. M., & Rapp, H. T. (2021a). Climate change winner in the deep sea? Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of the glass sponge Vazella pourtalesiit. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 657, 1-23.

Beazley, L., Kenchington, E., Korabik, M., Fenton, D., & King, M. (2021b). Other effective area-based conservation measure promotes recovery in a cold-water coral reef. Global Ecology and Conservation, 26, e01485.

Bennecke, S. & Metaxas, A. (2017). Effectiveness of a deep-water coral conservation area: Evaluation of its boundaries and changes in octocoral communities over 13 years. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 137, 420-435.

Breeze, H., Davis, D. S., Butler, M., and Kostylev, V. (1997). Distribution and Status of Deep Sea Corals off Nova Scotia. Marine Issues Committee Special Publication, 1.

Breeze, H., & Fenton, D. (2007). Designing management measures to protect cold-water corals off Nova Scotia, Canada. Bulletin of Marine Science 81(1), 123-133.

Breeze, H., and Horsman, T. (2005). The Scotian Shelf: an atlas of human activities.

Brickman, D., Alexander, M. A., Pershing, A., Scott, J. D., & Wang, Z. (2021). Projections of physical conditions in the Gulf of Maine in 2050. Elementa, 9(1), 1–15.

Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Boerder, K., Stanley, R. R. E., Hurley, I., Boyce, D. G., Dunmall, K. M., Hunter, K. L., Lotze, H. K., Shackell, N. L., Worm, B., and Tittensor, D. P. (2022). A climate-resilient marine conservation network for Canada. Facets, 7 (April), 571–590.

Buhl-Mortensen, P., Gordon, D.C., Buhl-Mortensen, L., & Kulka, D.W. (2017). First description of a Lophelia pertusa reef complex in Atlantic Canada. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 126, August 2017, Pages 21-30, 126, 21–30.

Carter, L. (2010). Submarine cables and the oceans: connecting the world (No. 31). UNEP/Earthprint.

Carter, L., Burnett, D., and Davenport, T. (2014). The relationship between submarine cables and the marine environment. In D. R. Burnett, Beckman, R. and Davenport, T.M. (Eds.), Submarine Cables: The handbook of law and policy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

CBD. (2018). Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 14/8: Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.

Cogswell, A.T., Kenchington, E. L. R., Lirette, C.G., MacIsaac, K., Best, M. M., Beazley, L. I., & Vickers, J. (2009). The current state of knowledge concerning the distribution of coral in the Maritime Provinces. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2855, v-66.

DFO. (2006). Coral conservation plan Maritimes Region (2006-2010). Oceans and Coastal Management Report 2006-01.

DFO. (2009). Policy for Managing the Impacts of Fishing on Sensitive Benthic Areas.

DFO. (2010). Occurrence, susceptibility to fishing, and ecological function of corals, sponges, and hydrothermal vents in Canadian waters. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2010(41).

DFO. (2013). Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (ERAF) for Coldwater Corals and Sponge Dominated Communities.

DFO. (2014). Regional Oceans Plan – Maritimes Region: Background and Program Description.

DFO. (2015a). Coral and sponge conservation strategy for Eastern Canada 2015.

DFO. (2016a). Guidance on identifying “other effective area-based conservation measures” in Canadian coastal and marine waters. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2016(002), 1-13.

DFO. (2016). Recovery Strategy for the Northern Bottlenose Whale, (Hyperoodan ampullatus), Scotian Shelf population, in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 70 pp.

DFO. (2017). Management Plan for the Sowerby's Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon bidens) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series.

DFO. (2018a). Closures to protect sensitive benthic areas: Corsair/Georges Canyons and Eastern Jordan Basin.

DFO. (2018a). Design Strategies for a Network of Marine Protected Areas in the Scotian Shelf Bioregion. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2018/006.

DFO. (2018b). 4VWX5 groundfish – Maritimes Region.

DFO. (2019). National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards.

DFO. (2020). Biophysical and Ecological Overview of the Fundian Channel – Browns Bank Area of Interest (AOI). DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2020(034).

DFO. (2020a). Science Advice for Pathways Of Effects for Marine Shipping In Canada: Biological and Ecological Effects. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2020/030.

DFO. (2021a). Commercial Fisheries.

DFO. (2021b). Coral and Sponge Mitigations in Relation to Exploratory Drilling Programs in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2021(028), 1-26.

DFO. (2022a). Government of Canada Guidance for Recognizing Marine Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures.

DFO. (2022a). Backgrounder – Government of Canada protects sensitive species and habitats off Nova Scotia.

DFO. (2022b). Sustainable Fisheries Framework.

DFO. (2023). Marine spatial planning.

Department of Justice Canada. (2023). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Implementation Secretariat.

Donaldson, A., Gabriel, C., Harvey, B. J., and Carolsfeld, J. (2010). Impacts of fishing gears other than bottom trawls, dredges, gillnets and longlines on aquatic biodiversity and vulnerable marine ecosystem. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2010(011), v-84.

Ford-Ramsden, K., and Burnett, D. (2014). Submarine cable repair and maintenance. In D. R. Burnett, Beckman, R. and Davenport, T.M. (Eds.), Submarine Cables: The handbook of law and policy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Frank, K.T., Shackell N.L., and Simon, J.E. (2000). An evaluation of the Emerald/Western Bank juvenile haddock closed area. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57(4), 1023-1034.

Frank, K. T., & Shackell, N. L. (2001). Rapid Communication/communication rapide area-dependent patterns of finfish diversity in a large marine ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences, 58(9), 1703-1707.

Fuller, S.D., Murillo Perez, F.J., Wareham, V., and Kenchington, E. (2008). Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Dominated by Deep-Water Corals and Sponges in the NAFO Convention Area. NAFO SCR Doc 08/22, Serial No. N5524, 24 p.

Fuller, S. D. (2011). Diversity of marine sponges in the Northwest Atlantic.

Grinyó, J., Aguzzi, J., Kenchington, E., Costa, C., Hanz, U., & Mienis, F. (2023). Occurrence and behavioral rhythms of the endangered Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) in the Sambro Bank (Scotian Shelf). Frontiers in Marine Science, 10.

Harley, C. D. G., Hughes, A. R., Hultgren, K. M., Miner, B. G., Sorte, C. J. B., Thornber, C. S., Rodriguez, L. F., Tomanek, L., and Williams, S. L. (2006). The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters, 9(2), 228–241.

Hawkes, N., Korabik, M., Beazley, L., Rapp, H. T., Xavier, J. R., & Kenchington, E. (2019). Glass sponge grounds on the Scotian Shelf and their associated biodiversity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 614, 91-109.

Honeyman, D. (1889). Glacial boulders of our fisheries and invertebrates, attached and detached. Proceedings and Transactions of the Nova Scotian Institute of Natural Science, 7(3), 205–213.

International Maritime Organization. (2017). International Convention for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments (BWM).

Jacquemont, J., Blasiak, R., Le Cam, C., Le Gouellec, M., and Claudet, J. (2022). Ocean conservation boosts climate change mitigation and adaptation. One Earth, 5(10), 1126–1138.

Kenchington, E. (2014). A General Overview of Benthic Ecological or Biological Significant Areas (EBSAs) in Maritimes Region. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 3072, iv-45.

Kenchington, E., Beazley L., Lirette, C., Murillo, F.J., Guijarro, J., Wareham, V., Gilkinson, K., Koen-Alonso, M., Benoît, H., Bourdages, H., Sainte-Marie, B., Treble, M., and Siferd, T. (2016). Delineation of coral and sponge significant benthic areas in eastern Canada using kernel density analyses and species distribution models. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Research Document, 2016(093), vi-178.

Kenchington, E., Lirette, C. and De Clippele, L.H. (2021). Cruise Report in Support of Maritimes Region Research Project: Use of Passive Acoustics to Quantify Fish Biodiversity and Habitat Use. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 3231, iv-52.

King, M., Fenton, D., Aker, J. and Serdynska, A. (2016). Offshore Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the Scotian Shelf Bioregion. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2016(007), viii-92 p.

King, M., Koropatnick, T., Gerhartz Abraham, A., Pardy, G., Serdynska, A., Will, E., Breeze, H., Bundy, A., Edmondson, E., and Allard, K. (2021). Design Strategies for the Scotian Shelf Bioregional Marine Protected Area Network. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2019/067. vi + 122 p.

King, E.L., Normandeau, A., Carson, T., Fraser, P., Staniforth, C., Limoges, A., MacDonald, B., Murillo, F. J., and Van Nieuwenhove, N., (2022). Pockmarks, a paleofluid efflux event, glacial meltwater channels, sponge colonies, and trawling impacts in Emerald Basin, Scotian Shelf: autonomous underwater vehicle surveys, William Kennedy 2022001 cruise report. Geological Survey of Canada Open File, 8933, 1.

Kleisner, K. M., Fogarty, M. J., McGee, S., Hare, J. A., Moret, S., Perretti, C. T., & Saba, V. S. (2017). Marine species distribution shifts on the U.S. Northeast Continental Shelf under continued ocean warming. Progress in Oceanography, 153, 24–36.

Kostylev, V.E., Todd, B.J., Fader, G.B., Courtney, R.C., Cameron, G.D., & Pickrill, R.A. (2001). Benthic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry, surficial geology and sea floor photographs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 219, 121-137.

Lewis, S. A., Stortini, C. H., Boyce, D. G., and Stanley, R. R. E. (2023). Climate change , species thermal emergence, and conservation design : a case study in the Canadian Northwest Atlantic. FACETS, 8, 1–16.

Lotze, H. K., Tittensor, D. P., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Eddy, T. D., Cheung, W. W. L., Galbraith, E. D., Barange, M., Barrier, N., Bianchi, D., Blanchard, J. L., Bopp, L., Büchner, M., Bulman, C. M., Carozza, D. A., Christensen, V., Coll, M., Dunne, J. P., Fulton, E. A., Jennings, S., … Worm, B. (2019). Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(26), 12907–12912.

Maldonado, M., Beazley, L., López‐Acosta, M., Kenchington, E., Casault, B., Hanz, U., & Mienis, F. (2021). Massive silicon utilization facilitated by a benthic‐pelagic coupled feedback sustains deep‐sea sponge aggregations. Limnology and Oceanography, 66(2), 366-391.

Metaxas, A., Lacharite, M., & De Mendonca, S.N. (2019). Hydrodynamic connectivity of habitats of deep-water corals in Corsair Canyon, Northwest Atlantic: a case for cross-boundary conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 159.

Morley, J. W., Selden, R. L., Latour, R. J., Frölicher, T. L., Seagraves, R. J., and Pinsky, M. L. (2018). Projecting shifts in thermal habitat for 686 species on the North American continental shelf. PLoS ONE, 13(5), 1–28.

Mortensen, P.B., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Gordon, D.C., Fader, G.B., McKeown, D.L., & Fenton, D.G. (2005) Effects of Fisheries on Deepwater Gorgonian Corals in the Northeast Channel, Nova Scotia. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 41, 369-382.

Murillo, F. J., Wang, S., Kenchington, E., & Lirette, C. (2022). Climate-Change Refugia for the Bubblegum Coral Paragorgia arborea in the Northwest Atlantic. Mendeley Data, V1. doi: 10.17632/bzpzzw9tdc.1

Natural Resources Canada. (2020). Discussion Paper - Canada’s approach to offshore renewable energy regulations.

Natural Resources Canada. (2022). Canada and Nova Scotia announce intent to expand the mandate of offshore energy regime to support the transition to a clean economy and create sustainable jobs.

Oak, T.G. (2020). Oil and gas exploration and production activities in areas with defined benthic conservation objectives: A review of potential impacts and mitigation measures. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2020(040), vi - 55 p.

Ocean Protection Council. (2021). Climate Resilience and California ’s Marine Protected Area Network.

O’Boyle, R. (2011). Benefits of marine protected areas and fisheries closures in the Northwest Atlantic. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2948, iii-68

O’Regan, S. M., Archer, S. K., Friesen, S. K., and Hunter, K. L. (2021). A Global Assessment of Climate Change Adaptation in Marine Protected Area Management Plans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 1–16.

OSPAR Commission. (2012). Guidelines on best environmental practice (BEP) in cable laying and operation.

Philibert, G., Todd, B.J., Campbell, D.C., King, E.L., Normandeau, A., Hayward, S.E., Patton, E.R., and Campbell, L. (2022). Updated surficial geology compilation of the Scotian Shelf bioregion, offshore Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8911.

Poloczanska, E. S., Burrows, M. T., Brown, C. J., Molinos, J. G., Halpern, B. S., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kappel, C. V., Moore, P. J., Richardson, A. J., Schoeman, D. S., & Sydeman, W. J. (2016). Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(MAY), 1–21.

Rincón, B., & Kenchington, E. L. (2016). Influence of benthic macrofauna as a spatial structuring agent for juvenile haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) on the Eastern Scotian Shelf, Atlantic Canada. Plos one, 11(9), e0163374.

Shackell, N. L., & Frank, K. T. (2000). Larval fish diversity on the Scotian Shelf. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57(9), 1747-1760.

Shackell, N. L., Keith, D. M., & Lotze, H. K. (2021). Challenges of gauging the impact of area-based fishery closures and OECMs: A case study using long-standing Canadian groundfish closures. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 612859.

Sherwood, O. A., & Edinger, E. N. (2009). Ages and growth rates of some deep-sea gorgonian and antipatharian corals of Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66, 142–152.

Snelgrove, P. V. R., Soetaert, K., Solan, M., Thrush, S., Wei, C. L., Danovaro, R., Fulweiler, R. W., Kitazato, H., Ingole, B., Norkko, A., Parkes, R. J., and Volkenborn, N. (2018). Global Carbon Cycling on a Heterogeneous Seafloor. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 33(2), 96–105.

Stortini, C.H. (2015). A description of the habitats and special natural features within the Scotian Slope Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area in the Maritimes Region. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 3136, iv-53.

Tittensor, D. P., Beger, M., Boerder, K., Boyce, D. G., Cavanagh, R. D., Cosandey-Godin, A., Crespo, G. O., Dunn, D. C., Ghiffary, W., Grant, S. M., Hannah, L., Halpin, P. N., Harfoot, M., Heaslip, S. G., Jeffery, N. W., Kingston, N., Lotze, H. K., McGowan, J., McLeod, E., … Worm, B. (2019). Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean. Science Advances, 5(11), 1–16.

Transport Canada. (2021). List of Canada’s designated alternate ballast water exchange areas and fresh waters - TP 13617E (2021).

Wang, S., Kenchington, E., Wang, Z., & Davies, A. J. (2021). Life in the fast lane: Modeling the fate of glass sponge larvae in the Gulf Stream. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 701218.

Wang, S., Murillo, F.J., & Kenchington, E. (2022). Climate-change refugia for the bubblegum coral Paragorgia arborea in the northwest Atlantic. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1129.

Wilson, K. L., Tittensor, D. P., Worm, B., and Lotze, H. K. (2020). Incorporating climate change adaptation into marine protected area planning. Global Change Biology, 26, 3251–3267.

Annex A: OECM criteria and distinction

OECM definition:

Geographically defined area other than a protected area which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity - Convention on Biological Diversity

OECM criteria:

A. The area-based measure being considered as a candidate OECM is in place for the long term. Its contribution to marine conservation coverage (i.e. meeting marine conservation targets) can only be included once, either as an OECM or as an MPA).

B. The candidate OECM is a spatially defined area and information on its BCBs is collected.

B1. The boundaries, size, and depth, where necessary, are defined and documented.

B2. Existing or anticipated BCBs within the candidate OECM’s ecosystem are identified and documented. At a minimum, these must include:

1. a benefit for an important species; AND
2. a benefit for an important habitat; AND
3. an additional benefit.

B3. The governance decisions and management actions in the area that provide the BCBs are identified and documented.

B4. Information on the ecosystem functions and services in the area is collected and documented.

C. The candidate OECM is governed for the long term by a lead RGA in coordination or co-led with other RGAs.

C1. The RGAs have the jurisdiction to make and enforce long-term decisions with no end date.

C2. The RGAs recognize and respect Aboriginal and treaty rights and consult rights holders.

C3. The RGAs take into account the views of local communities and stakeholders.

C4. The governance approach is tailored to meet the candidate OECM’s distinct needs and context.

D. The candidate OECM is managed for the long term by a lead RGA in coordination or co-led with other RGAs.

D1. These authorities undertake long-term management actions that may be adapted, as necessary, over time.

D2. Rights holders and stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the management actions.

E. The candidate OECM is governed and managed in ways that provide BCBs over the long term.

E1. The OECM’s governance and management system is adaptive and effectively avoids or mitigates risks from existing and foreseeable activities to the BCBs that the OECM provides.

E2. Monitoring is underway or will take place over time to provide the information to determine the ongoing effectiveness of the governance and management system in providing BCBs.

E3. The OECM governance and management system continues to take into account ecosystem functions and services and other relevant values as it adapts.

Comparisons and distinctions between MPAs and OECMs:

Annex B: Operational guidance with respect to oil and gas activities in Marine Refuges on the Scotian Shelf

The following is operational guidance for proposed oil and gas exploration, development and production activities that overlap with Fisheries Act marine refuges in the Scotian Shelf. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) is a joint provincial/federal agency and is the lead regulator for offshore oil and gas exploration and production activities. The CNSOPB is responsible for administering exploration, development and production rights of petroleum resources located offshore Nova Scotia. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) also has regulatory authority related to offshore oil and gas activities under the Fisheries Act and Species at Risk Act if they result in prohibited effects to fish, fish habitat, and/or aquatic species at risk. Because of this, DFO and the CNSOPB have a history of collaboration, especially regarding the management of activities in conservation areas, such as Oceans Act marine protected areas and Fisheries Act marine refuges. This collaboration is further supported through a Memorandum of Understanding and joint annual work plan maintained by both entities.

In 2019, the Government of Canada adopted protection standards for marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), including marine refuges. Regarding the marine refuges, the protection standards state:

Also, to the release of the protection standards, the Government of Canada has committed to conserving 30% of its oceans by 2030. To support these commitments, a conservation network process is currently underway in the SS-BOF Bioregion. This document is intended to provide clarity and guidance for both regulators and activity proponents on how best to work together in light of these updates to the management of marine refuges and the future expansion of conservation areas on the Scotian Shelf.

This guidance, developed by DFO in collaboration with the CNSOPB, is in addition to existing CNSOPB and DFO guidelines, regulations and procedures. Therefore, adherence to the Statement of Canadian Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment, Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB et al. 2010), Nova Scotia Offshore Drilling and Production Regulations (and associated guidelines), Offshore Chemical Selection Guidelines (NEB et al. 2009), and Environmental Protection Plan Guidelines (C-NLOPB et al. 2011) is expected. Spatially and seasonally appropriate mitigation measures identified in relevant Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) also apply. SEAs are published on the CNSOPB’s website.

Oil and gas activities plan in marine refuges

If an oil and gas exploration, development or production activity is proposed in a marine refuge on the Scotian Shelf, the activity proponent must develop a plan in consultation with DFO and the CNSOPB to ensure that the proposed activities are consistent with the conservation objectives of the site. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard will evaluate the plan to determine if the risks to the conservation objectives of the site are avoided and/or adequately mitigated. To support this determination, the plan should include:

• a detailed description of the proposed activity
• the potential post-mitigation effects of the activity with respect to the conservation objectives for the area
• the mitigation measures that are planned to limit impacts of the activity on the site objectives
• the follow-up and/or monitoring activities that will be used to determine the effectiveness of those measures and a schedule for sharing the results with CNSOPB and DFO
• the frequency with which updates concerning the implementation of the mitigation measures and the results of monitoring activities will be provided to DFO and CNSOPB

The oil and gas activities plan in marine refuges will be submitted to DFO and CNSOPB at the same time as the activity authorization application is submitted to the CNSOPB. DFO will provide a written a response to the proponent within 60 days of the plan being submitted.

Recommended mitigation measures for marine refuges

To support the development of the plan, a variety of recommended mitigation measures based on category of activity and conservation area are provided below. Note, the following is based on best available knowledge at the time of writing, and as a result will be updated as the understanding of oil and gas activity interactions with ecosystem components continues to evolve. Additionally, it is recommended that activity proponents contact DFO and the CNSOPB early in their planning to identify regulatory requirements and obtain the latest spatial conservation measure information.

The following mitigation measures are organized by marine refuge and were compiled from:

• Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)
• project-specific Environmental Assessments (EAs)
• Impact Assessments (IAs)
• DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) documents

Mitigation measures for seismic and seabed surveys, and exploratory drilling in each of the 6 SS-BOF marine refuges.

• Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge
• Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge
• Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge
• Jordan Basin Marine Refuge
• Northeast Channel Marine Refuge
• Western and Emerald Banks Marine Refuge

Corsair and Georges Canyons Marine Refuge

Located along the Canada-United States border, this site contains several habitat-forming species of cold-water corals. The Georges Bank Moratorium prohibits oil and gas exploration and drilling. First introduced in 1988, the moratorium is reassessed every 10 years and is currently in effect until December 31st, 2032. The Georges Bank moratorium area overlaps with part of this site.

Seismic and seabed surveys mitigation measures

• Conduct site-specific surveys in previously un-surveyed areas, and in areas where coral and sponge species are present or are predicted to be present. This should include collecting information on currents, turbidity, and sediment (rates and samples)
• Conduct pre-drilling ROV transect surveys using underwater video to characterize the benthic community and habitats and to determine presence/absence of corals, sponges, or other sensitive features. Visual data and acoustic data (bathymetry and backscatter) should be collected at high enough resolution to identify corals and sponges
  • Recommendations for visual survey data collection and analysis are:
    • video altitude of 1-2 m, maximum vessel speed of 0.5 knots
    • collect data on abundance, density, spatial distribution and condition of corals and sponges encountered to the functional group taxonomic level
    • all video and associated log reports should be provided to DFO
  • All video data should be reviewed by a qualified individual and information regarding concentrations of corals and sponges should be shared with DFO Science
• Avoid intrusive seabed surveys (surveys that would interact with the benthos) in Significant Benthic Areas^{Footnote 14}

Exploratory drilling mitigation measures

• If possible, avoid this area during drilling activities. Spatial avoidance is the best mitigation option for concentrations of corals and sponges
• Should drilling be considered within the marine refuge, a zero discharge (e.g., skip and ship) of separated drill cuttings should be used to collect and dispose separated drill cuttings onshore. If this is not possible:
  • drilling discharge dispersion models/zones of influence (1.5 mm probable no-effects threshold (PNET)) predictions should be used to determine a necessary buffer size^{Footnote 15} around Significant Benthic Areas
  • conduct follow-up monitoring including a post-drilling ROV survey to inform and verify the extent of sediment deposition

Consider and evaluate technologies that may reduce the quantity of generated solids when drilling in areas with sensitive benthic species (e.g., slim hole well design, reduced number of sections or drilling without barite/bentonite by using heavy brine and cellulose).

Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge

Established June 8 2022, this large marine refuge contains significant areas of large gorgonian coral concentrations, the only known living Desmophyllum pertusum (formally known as Lophelia pertusa) coral reef in Canada’s Atlantic waters, and deep-water frontier area. Additionally, the Eastern Canyons Marine Refuge overlaps with critical habitat and important habitat for Northern Bottlenose Whales. Eastern Canyons also shares a boundary with the Gully Marine Protected Area.

Seismic and seabed surveys mitigation measures

• Conduct site-specific surveys in previously un-surveyed areas, and in areas where coral and sponge species are present or are predicted to be present. This should include collecting information on currents, turbidity, and sediment (rates and samples)
• Conduct pre-drilling ROV transect surveys using underwater video to characterize the benthic community and habitats and to determine presence/absence of corals, sponges, or other sensitive features. Visual data and acoustic data (bathymetry and backscatter) should be collected at high enough resolution to identify corals and sponges
  • Recommendations for visual survey data collection and analysis are:
    • Video altitude of 1-2 m, maximum vessel speed of 0.5 knots
    • Collect data on abundance, density, spatial distribution and condition of corals and sponges encountered to the functional group taxonomic level
    • All video and associated log reports should be provided to DFO
  • All video data should be reviewed by a qualified individual and information regarding concentrations of corals and sponges should be shared with DFO Science

Avoid intrusive seabed surveys (surveys that would interact with the benthos) in Significant Benthic Areas.

Exploratory drilling mitigation measures

• Avoid this area during drilling activities. Spatial avoidance is the best mitigation option for concentrations of corals and sponges
• Should drilling be considered within the marine refuge, a zero discharge (e.g., skip and ship) of separated drill cuttings should be used to collect and dispose separated drill cuttings onshore. If this is not possible:
  • Drilling discharge dispersion models/zones of influence (1.5 mm probable no-effects threshold (PNET)) predictions should be used to determine a necessary buffer size^{Footnote 16} around Significant Benthic Areas
• Conduct follow-up monitoring including a post-drilling ROV survey to inform and verify the extent of sediment deposition

• Consider and evaluate technologies that may reduce the quantity of generated solids when drilling in areas with sensitive benthic species (e.g., slim hole well design, reduced number of sections or drilling without barite/bentonite by using heavy brine and cellulose)

Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge

Emerald Basin and Sambro Bank Marine Refuge is focused on the conservation of globally significant concentrations of Vazella pourtalesii, a species of glass sponge.

Seismic and seabed surveys mitigation measures

Avoid intrusive seabed surveys (surveys that would interact with the benthos) within the sites.

Exploratory drilling mitigation measures

• Avoid these areas during drilling activities. Spatial avoidance is the best mitigation option for concentrations of corals and sponges
• Should drilling be considered near the marine refuge, a 0 discharge (e.g., skip and ship) of separated drill cuttings should be used to collect and dispose separated drill cuttings on-shore. If this is not possible:
  • Drilling discharge dispersion models/zones of influence (1.5 mm probable no-effects threshold (PNET)) predictions should be used to determine a necessary buffer size around marine refuge
• Conduct follow-up monitoring including a post-drilling ROV survey to inform and verify the extent of sediment deposition

Jordan Basin Marine Refuge

This site contains dense aggregations of corals including seacorn coral (Primnoa resedaeformis) and other benthic invertebrates.

Seismic and seabed surveys mitigation measures

• Avoid intrusive seabed surveys (surveys that would interact with the benthos) within the site

Exploratory drilling mitigation measures

• Avoid this area during drilling activities. Spatial avoidance is the best mitigation option for concentrations of corals and sponges
• Should drilling be considered near the marine refuge, a zero discharge (e.g., skip and ship) of separated drill cuttings technique should be used to collect and dispose separated drill cuttings onshore. If this is not possible:
  • Drilling discharge dispersion models/zones of influence (1.5 mm probable no-effects threshold (PNET)) predictions should be used to determine a necessary buffer size around marine refuge
• Conduct follow-up monitoring including a post-drilling ROV survey to inform and verify the extent of sediment deposition

Northeast Channel Marine Refuge

This site contains dense aggregations of large and small gorgonian corals. The Georges Bank Moratorium prohibits oil and gas exploration and drilling and fully overlaps with this site. First introduced in 1988, the moratorium is reassessed every 10 years and is currently in effect until December 31st 2032.

Note, this site is contained in the Fundian Channel-Browns Bank Area of Interest for potential Oceans Act MPA designation. An overlapping Oceans Act designation would take precedent and would result in the MPA protection standards being applied to the area in the future.

Seismic and seabed surveys mitigation measures

Avoid intrusive seabed surveys (surveys that would interact with the benthos) within the site.

Exploratory drilling mitigation measures

• Avoid this area during drilling activities. Spatial avoidance is the best mitigation option for concentrations of corals and sponges
• Should drilling be considered near the marine refuge, a zero discharge (Skip and Ship) of separated drill cuttings technique should be used to collect and dispose separated drill cuttings onshore. If this is not possible:
  • Drilling discharge dispersion models/zones of influence (1.5 mm probable no-effects threshold (PNET)) predictions should be used to determine a necessary buffer size around marine refuge

Conduct follow-up monitoring including a post-drilling ROV survey to inform and verify the extent of sediment deposition.

Western and Emerald Banks Marine Refuge

Western and Emerald Banks Marine Refuge contains a significant spawning and nursery ground for haddock as well as other economically important groundfish species.

Seismic and seabed surveys mitigation measures

• Schedule surveys to avoid or minimize interaction with haddock spawning
• Conduct project-specific underwater sound modelling to inform the analysis of effects of underwater sound and potential seismic programs on spawning groundfish, eggs and larval stages. Monitoring should also be conducted
• Conduct pre-drilling ROV transect surveys using underwater video to characterize the benthic community and habitats and to determine presence/absence of corals, sponges, or other sensitive features. Visual data and acoustic data (bathymetry and backscatter) should be collected at high enough resolution to identify corals and sponges
  • Recommendations for visual survey data collection and analysis are:
    • Video altitude of 1-2 m, maximum vessel speed of 0.5 knots
    • Collect data on abundance, density, spatial distribution and condition of corals and sponges encountered to the functional group taxonomic level
    • All video and associated log reports should be provided to DFO
  • All video data should be reviewed by a qualified individual and information regarding concentrations of corals and sponges should be shared with DFO Science

Avoid intrusive seabed surveys (surveys that would interact with the benthos) in Significant Benthic Areas.

Exploratory drilling mitigation measures

• If possible, avoid this area during drilling activities. Spatial avoidance is the best mitigation option for concentrations of corals and sponges. However, given that portions of this marine refuge do not contain concentrations of corals and sponges, exploration activities may be feasible with mitigation consistent with measures described below
• Should drilling be considered within the marine refuge, a zero discharge (e.g., skip and ship) of separated drill cuttings should be used to collect and dispose separated drill cuttings onshore. If this is not possible:
  • Drilling discharge dispersion models/zones of influence (1.5 mm probable no-effects threshold (PNET)) predictions should be used to determine a necessary buffer size^{Footnote 17} around Significant Benthic Areas
  • Conduct follow-up monitoring including a post-drilling ROV survey to inform and verify the extent of sediment deposition

Consider and evaluate technologies that may reduce the quantity of generated solids when drilling in areas with sensitive benthic species (e.g., slim hole well design, reduced number of sections or drilling without barite/bentonite by using heavy brine and cellulose).

Annex C: Scotian Shelf-Bay of Fundy Marine Refuge Activity Review flowchart and templates

Maritimes tracking table for research/monitoring activities in marine refuges

Marine refuges are Fisheries Act closures that meet other effective area-based conservation measure (OECM) criteria. The protection standard for federal OECMs, including marine refuges, states that existing or foreseeable activities in federal marine OECMs will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the risks to the biodiversity conservation benefits have been avoided or mitigated effectively. The following list of research/monitoring activities are considered nil to low risk for the conservation objectives of the region’s marine refuges.

Exemption List:

• Drop camera
• Pelagic tow camera
• AUV or ROV with no specimen collection
• Oceanographic data collection (e.g., CTD)
• eDNA collection
• Marine mammal and seabird research (with no benthic interaction)

If all of your proposed research/monitoring activities are captured in the exemption list, please complete the Tracking Table below and submit it to DFO.MARRefuges.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca. If all of your research/monitoring activities are not captured, please complete an Activity Plan and submit it for review. We would also like to emphasize that the following Tracking Table does not satisfy the requirements of the Species at Risk Act, the Oceans Act, or the Fisheries Act, nor does it substitute for any permits or licences required under those statutes. It is your responsibility to ensure any necessary authorizations are acquired prior to undertaking any activity.

Contact us

General information

Marine Planning and Conservation
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
1 Challenger Drive, PO Box 1006
Dartmouth, NS
Canada
B2Y 4A2
Tel: 902-426-9919
Email: DFO.MARRefuges.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Conservation and Protection Enforcement
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Tel: 800-565-1633

Joint Rescue Coordination Centre/Search and Rescue
National Defence Canada
Tel: 1-800-565-1582

Marine Accidents, Spills and Environmental Emergencies
Canadian Coast Guard/ Environment and Climate Change Canada
Tel: 1-800-565-1633