Vol. 134, No. 13 — March 25, 2000

Regulations Amending the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations

Statutory Authority

Canada Shipping Act

Sponsoring Departments

Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

Description

The Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations (PCSPPR), made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act, were developed in the early 1990s to address concerns about the damage done to sensitive marine areas as a result of the discharge of human fecal excreta and sewage (hereinafter referred to as sewage) from pleasure boats. The Regulations prohibit the discharge of sewage from pleasure craft into designated waters. In addition, while in designated waters, any pleasure craft equipped with a toilet must have a holding tank and fittings appropriate for the removal of the tank's contents by shore-based pumping facilities. These Regulations do not apply to greywater which is wastewater from receptacles other than toilets, such as sinks.

The provisions of the PCSPPR also affect non-pleasure craft, under the Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Reg-ulations (NPCSPPR), in that these boats are also prohibited from discharging sewage in those areas set out in the schedule to the PCSPPR. Non-pleasure craft, however, are not required to have holding tanks.

The PCSPPR are applicable to specific bodies of water. To date, British Columbia and Manitoba have each designated three inland bodies of water in the Schedule to the Regulations.

This initiative will add 14 marine and fresh water sites to the Schedule. The sites, nominated by British Columbia for inclusion and described in greater detail in the proposed regulatory text, are:

— Christina Lake
— Horsefly Lake
— Kalamalka Lake
— Pilot Bay, Kootenay Lake
— Stuart Lake
— Carrington Bay, Cortes Island
— Cortes Bay, Cortes Island
— Mansons Landing and Gorge Harbour, Cortes Island
— Montague Harbour, Galiano Island
— Pilot Bay, Gabriola Island
— Prideaux Haven, Northeast of Lund
— Roscoe Bay, West Redonda Island
— Smuggler Cove, West-Southwest of Halfmoon Bay
— Squirrel Cove, Cortes Island

The discharge of sewage into the aquatic environment has been shown to have serious impacts on human and ecological health.

Public health risks arising from contact with the large numbers of different disease-producing organisms that can be found in human waste are significant. Exposure to these organisms directly or through ingestion of contaminated seafood can cause serious illnesses.

The decomposition of sewage and chemicals associated with the treatment of sewage, such as chlorine, also has severe ecological effects. As these substances break down and are consumed into the surrounding environment, they will use up oxygen from the surrounding water. In sensitive areas, this will lead to the smothering organisms at the bottom of the food chain, and subsequent changes to the ecological structure of freshwater and marine communities.

Aesthetic or visual degradation of water quality is another negative result of sewage pollution. In British Columbia, where the pristine environment is a key attraction, a negative public perception of that environment could be very detrimental to that province's tourism industry.

The growing number of recreational boats in use in certain lakes and in the coastal waters of British Columbia has exacerbated the problem of sewage pollution. Sewage effluent from vessels is directly responsible for annual swimming beach and shellfish harvesting closures. On many inland lakes, sewage is being released into community water supplies and recreational areas, causing significant public health risks. Requests to address this problem have been received from a broad spectrum of the public, environmental groups, government and non-government agencies.

Determination of Sites

In British Columbia, areas that would benefit from protection under the PCSPPR are first identified at the local level by provincial, municipal or private stakeholder groups through applications to the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. These applications are then reviewed by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to ensure that each area being considered has met screening criteria outlined in a study entitled A Process to Designate Areas Under the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations. This study is also known as the Acres Report and was commissioned by the province in 1993. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (No. 144421) between Canada and British Columbia, those areas which ultimately pass the provincial selection process are then nominated by the province for inclusion in the Regulations by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. After a review of the submission, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans develops and processes a regulatory amendment to designate the selected areas in the schedule to the PCSPPR. Because Transport Canada is responsible for the administration of the NPCSPPR, it is also involved in the processing of the final site designations.

The 14 sites nominated for designation in this initiative have been selected by recreational and commercial boating stakeholders from a larger set of 50 sites initially nominated by the Province of British Columbia in 1996. The 50 sites were chosen by the province based on the Acres Report. Under criteria identified in that report, potential lake and marine locations are screened for attributes that were identified as important by stakeholder groups and scientists consulted during the study.

Potential lake nominees are evaluated to ascertain whether a lake is used for seasonal domestic water supply and whether it is used extensively by boaters or houseboats. All of the nominated lake areas in this submission are used for drinking water and have a large amount of recreational boating and swimming use.

A more complex rating system is used for marine water-bodies. Under this system, areas with shellfish harvesting beds are treated as a priority for designation. This is due to public health concerns related to the consumption of contaminated seafood. Flushing action, boater density, and presence of swimming beaches are also considered important, and are rated for each site. An aggregate score for all of these factors is used to set the priority for designation. The presence of marine parks and animal habitat is used as a secondary factor. All of the marine areas in the 14 sites nominated in this submission neighbour or shelter shellfish harvesting areas, and all have a low rate of flushing, a high boating density, or a critical combination of the two. All of these areas are used extensively for recreational purposes during the summer.

Alternatives

Since 1990, extensive advertising and information campaigns have been implemented but have not been effective in reducing the occurrence of swimming beach and shellfish harvesting closures due to sewage contamination. Since 1997, over 130 000 copies of Protecting the Aquatic Environment — A Boater's Guide have been distributed to recreational boaters. This guide provides information on sewage regulations and encourages voluntary compliance. Additionally, the Green Boat program supported by the Green Boat Society to encourage environmentally responsible boating has been operational for over two years. This program uses demonstrations, partnerships and voluntary Green Boat checks to educate boaters on an individual basis about the merits of environmentally friendly boating. Unfortunately, instances of shellfish and swimming beach closures continue to increase yearly.

Consequently, though these non-regulatory education programs and information campaigns will continue to be employed, they have proven ineffective at changing behaviour significantly enough to achieve the objective of reduced sewage discharge. It was also determined that a campaign of persuasion and/or a voluntary compliance scheme would not encourage sufficient numbers of boaters to install holding tanks.

In addition, reports by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that strict no-discharge regulations have resulted in the dramatic improvement of water quality in several U.S. states where this information is now being carefully recorded.

Sewage Treatment Devices

The use of alternate marine sewage treatment devices to a holding tank was discussed during consultations. Sewage treatment devices process boat waste effluent to varying degrees. In the United States, sewage treatment devices (called Marine Sanitation Devices Type I or Type II) macerate and chemically treat sewage to varying degrees before release. Type III Marine Sanitation Devices are holding tanks. Because Type I and II Marine Sanitation Devices treat sewage chemically, often with chlorine, formaldehyde, ozone, or perchloric acid, the resulting effluent is often more toxic to the environment than the sewage itself. As well, sewage treated in this manner still exerts the same biological oxygen demand from the surrounding water and is not entirely sterilized of viral and bacterial presence.

Also, the use of sewage treatment devices is not within the scope of these amendments to the schedule to the Regulations. For these reasons, in the areas nominated for no-discharge status the use of these devices would not affect the high rates of closure of swimming beaches and shellfish harvesting areas. Advancements in sewage treatment technology are being monitored by the CCG and its advisory bodies, and may be considered in future regulatory amendments, if warranted.

Blanket Designations

During consultations, members of the public mentioned the idea of blanket designations as an alternative to specific site designations. This concept would recognize the application of the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations over large areas in the Province of British Columbia, possibly over the entire province itself. While this approach would be simple to administer from a regulatory standpoint, it would be prohibitive to apply practically and would not satisfy the intent of the Regulations as written. The current Regulations are designed to protect those most sensitive areas where the discharge of sewage will do the most damage. They do not prohibit vessels from moving from a designated area to discharge sewage in an area where the effluent would do considerably less harm, and they do not require all vessels to install holding tanks as blanket designations would. The application of blanket designations would require the installation of pump-out facilities throughout British Columbia.

Shoreline restrictions or contour line restrictions were also suggested by some stakeholders. Such restrictions would prohibit sewage discharge within a certain depth or a certain distance from shore. While this scheme would be advantageous for some vessels that do not venture near shore, it would still require all others to install holding tanks.

With adequate stakeholder support and the necessary consultation, blanket, shoreline or contour line restrictions may be considered in the future to complement existing designations. Until then, the current regulatory initiative to designate 14 of the most critically affected areas is the only practical way to specifically target areas in need of protection.

Benefits and Costs

Very large numbers of different disease-producing organisms can be found in the fecal discharges of ill and healthy persons. Public health risks arise from contact with disease-causing bacteria, viruses or yeast and from infection by internal parasites such as worms and their eggs. Exposure to these and other organisms can cause dysentery, infectious hepatitis, salmonella, various types of diarrhea, and many other illnesses. As previously mentioned, the indiscriminate release of sewage has also been linked to illness caused from the consumption of contaminated shellfish and other seafood. Sewage discharge contaminates bivalve shellfish which leads to the closure of productive commercial, recreational and aboriginal shellfish fisheries.

On average, 30 coastal shellfish harvesting areas are closed each year due to sewage discharge from boats anchored at those sites. Of those 30 closures, some of the 14 sites nominated in this submission are in the most sensitive areas. The aquaculture industry will benefit from these designations as the reduction of sewage discharge in these sensitive areas will lead to a reduction of harvesting closures.

The ecological impact of sewage discharge occurs, in part, through the effect it has on the amount of dissolved oxygen in the surrounding water and the resulting stress this causes on aquatic animals. Sewage and chemicals used to treat sewage, on decomposition, will rob oxygen from the surrounding water, a process known as biological oxygen demand. The greater the amount of sewage or chemicals added to a marine area, the greater the amount of oxygen extracted from the surrounding water. Furthermore, the nutrient component of sewage can cause algae bloom. Both the growth and decomposition of algae will also cause a biological oxygen demand. A decreased amount of oxygen will cause eutrophication, or changes to the ecological structure of a marine or fresh water community. This is manifested in the smothering of organisms at the bottom of the food chain. Once all of the oxygen is consumed, the water becomes unfit for most forms of life.

The tourism and the aquaculture industries are the main areas of the economy most severely affected by the discharge of sewage. They will also benefit the most from the designation of these 14 areas under the PCSPPR. Designating these sites will improve recreation areas in the vicinity, decrease health hazards, make drinking water safer, enhance fish and wildlife habitat and increase property values.

Tourism will benefit from the designation of these sites in that a reduction of raw sewage discharge will improve the preservation of British Columbia's world-renowned wilderness. Tourism is a strong and vital part of the Canadian economy and, in British Columbia, a pristine environment is a key attraction and public perception of that environment is an important consideration. In 1991, almost 50 000 United States residents visited Canadian marine waters on private vessels. It is important to note that United States vessels with toilets are already fitted with holding tanks in order to comply with their own sewage discharge requirements.

The costs associated with the new designations will be borne by vessel owners. Some vessels fitted with marine toilets will require the installation of a sewage-holding tank. Costs per vessel can vary greatly. Holding tanks cost between $300 and $800 plus the cost of installation. It is encouraging to note that the availability of "bladder" type sewage holding tanks can be retro-fitted to older vessels for $300 to $600 inclusive. Most newer vessels are being constructed with holding tanks already installed, and the large number of Canadian pleasure vessels that venture into United States waters are required to comply with United States regulations and are, therefore, already fitted with holding tanks.

A number of private companies are waiting to provide pump-out services once these regulations come into effect and will benefit from these Regulations. Various municipal and provincial agencies are either contributing to, or preparing to construct, pump-out facilities. For those boaters choosing to pump out at a shore-side facility, the cost will vary from being free to $10 per service. Barge and sewage "pick-up" services proposed by some private interests will presumably cost more. Communities with a municipal sewage system can more readily and cost-effectively absorb the added volume from a pump-out facility.

Consultation

During the process of identifying the 14 sites being designated in this regulatory amendment, the public in British Columbia has been consulted at many different levels and through various mechanisms. Community groups and societies, environmentalists, scientists, concerned citizens, boating organizations, First Nations, political representatives, media and business organizations have brought forward various applications to designate bodies of water under the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations. At the local level, applications were reviewed with affected and interested parties, and were often supported by local governmental bodies.

These applications were then reviewed by Regional Environmental Protection Managers of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and screened against the criteria set out in the Acres report. During the drafting of the Acres criteria, many different stakeholder groups were consulted, including the Marine Trades Association and its members, the Council of B.C. Yacht Clubs, the Vancouver Port Authority, First Nations, environmental groups, individual yacht clubs, and the general boating public. This consultation involved public forums, informational interviews, and a questionnaire in Pacific Yachting Magazine. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and B.C. Parks, provided scientific support. Environment Canada supported the designation of areas through the Pacific Shellfish Classification Committee. This support was based on Environment Canada's ongoing scientific water quality and pollution source assessment work in selected shellfish growing areas and the need to protect the aquaculture industry in these areas from boat waste contamination.

Based on criteria established in the Acres Report, 50 initial sites were then nominated to the CCG for designation. In an effort to ensure the most comprehensive dialogue with those who would be most affected by this initiative, the CCG consulted directly with the Recreational Boating Advisory Council. The Recreational Boating Advisory Council, linked to local marine advisory councils and the National Recreational Boating Advisory Council, provides advice on a spectrum of current issues that affect policy and regulation, and represents a broad base of recreational boating activity throughout British Columbia. In 1998, with the endorsement of the Recreational Boating Advisory Council, 21 of these sites were chosen to move forward for designation.

In 1999, with help from Transport Canada, a regional Canadian Marine Advisory Council working group identified 7 of the remaining 21 sites as "problematic" to industry because these were areas where commercial vessels operate and that the imposition of a no-discharge rule would be operationally infeasible at this time. The Canadian Marine Advisory Council represents various commercial marine stakeholders and provides advice to Transport Canada on current marine issues affecting industry. An adjusted submission of 14 nominated sites was established in recognition of this information.

It is important to note, that while 36 of the original 50 nominated sites are not included in this submission as outlined above, they will be reviewed and further consulted on with affected stakeholders at a future date. It is the intention of the CCG to continue to work with Transport Canada, the Province of British Columbia and all stakeholders to ensure the conservation of all water-bodies where marine-sourced sewage discharge is a problem.

Since the nomination of the original sites to the CCG, the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has taken a lead role in consulting with any group or organization that requests a meeting to discuss the regulations and proposed site designations. Between 1994 and 1999, other forms of consultative contact have included presentations to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Council of B.C. Yacht Clubs, individual yacht clubs, power squadrons, Capital Regional (and Vancouver Regional District) Public Forums and the Canadian Marine Advisory Council. The news and intent of the regulations has been widely spread through the use of youth outreach programs, yachting magazine articles, the Internet, public announcements, newspaper articles, and press releases by the British Columbia Government.

In addition to the efforts of the British Columbia Government to meet with stakeholders, the CCG has also appeared at a number of meetings to explain the intent and direction of the Regulations. From 1998 to mid-1999, the CCG has attended eight public meetings in Canada and one in the United States to discuss the proposed sites.

The CCG has received many written submissions from the public. Forty letters are currently on record regarding the nominated sites in this submission. Of those, 28 are in support of the designations, and 13 are against or have questions about the regulations. Of the 13 documents voicing objection to the proposed sites, 11 originate from the Council of B.C. Yacht Clubs. Thirteen Internet electronic messages have also been received. Two of these expressed general support for the regulations, two registered concerns with the regulations, and the remainder voiced general technical questions relating to compliance with the regulations.

The following concerns were expressed during the consultation sessions and in letters received from the public and stakeholder groups:

1. the intention to request an exemption from prepublication in Part I of the Canada Gazette for this amendment of the PCSPPR to designate the 14 sites and a perceived lack of public consultation with affected communities;

2. the proposed de-linking of the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations from the Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations;

3. the implication, by amending the PCSPPR, that the boating community is solely responsible for the problems caused by sewage in the marine environment when municipalities are also responsible for untreated land-sourced discharge into that environment;

4. the amount of scientific or environmental evidence required to justify designating a site;

5. the time frame for compliance with the regulations;

6. the lack of sewage pump out facilities and concerns about municipal sewage treatment;

7. the lack of an option to use sewage treatment devices to treat and release sewage effluent (see the "Alternatives" section above for discussion of this option); and

8. the ability to enforce the regulations (see the "Compliance and Enforcement" section below for details on this subject).

1. Exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the lack of public consultation

When the Recreational Boating Advisory Council became involved in the identification of sites to move forward for designation in this submission, there was concern expressed by yachting organizations regarding the CCG decision to bypass prepublication and move the submission directly to publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The original decision to request an exemption from prepublication was intended to reflect the extensive consultations conducted by the Province of British Columbia. However, in recognition of the stakeholder concerns over this matter, the regulations designating the 14 nominated sites are being published in Part I of the Canada Gazette. The concerns regarding a perceived lack of consultation were unfounded as this document demonstrates.

2. De-linking of the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations and the Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations

The Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations are linked to the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations by a shared schedule of sites where sewage discharge is prohibited. The non-pleasure craft regulations are administered by Transport Canada. Non-pleasure craft owners, under the Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations, are subject to the same sewage discharge prohibition when in the areas set out in the schedule to the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations. However, non-pleasure craft, unlike pleasure craft, are not required to be fitted with a holding tank.

A proposal to de-link the regulations by adding a schedule of sites to the Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations was suggested in mid-1999 by Transport Canada and the Canadian Marine Advisory Council. While doing this would address the fact that Transport Canada administers the regulations applicable to non-pleasure craft and the CCG of Fisheries and Oceans administers the regulations applicable to pleasure craft, a de-link is strongly opposed by the recreational boating sector. The 14 sites in this submission have been endorsed by both the commercial and recreational boating sectors in an attempt to move forward with protecting sensitive areas from sewage discharge. As de-linking is a separate issue, it has not been addressed in this submission. A review of the linkage between the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations and the Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations will be considered in future CCG and Transport Canada policy discussions.

3. The implication that the boating community is solely responsible for sewage disposal

A number of boaters expressed concerns that the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations will be applied to a community that contributes only small amount of all the sewage now entering Canadian waterways. These amendments, they contend, imply that the boating community is solely responsible for the problems caused by the sewage being released into the marine environment.

It was explained that, even though the total amount of sewage discharged from vessels may be relatively minor, when this effluent is concentrated in poorly flushed or sensitive areas, it will cause environmental damage and public health risks. Due to the relative concentration of biomass, releasing a 20-gallon waste holding tank has the same impact as discharging several thousand gallons of sewage from an efficiently operated municipal treatment plant. The Government of Canada has a commitment to sustainable development and a clean environment that will meet the needs of present and future generations. Sewage discharge from vessels presents significant public health hazards and economic impact in all of the waterways in this submission.

Sewage pollution is an issue of international concern. Many countries have passed or are adopting stringent vessel discharge controls. In British Columbia, the nomination of sites is a small part of a comprehensive provincial liquid waste management plan in which all sectors of society are being asked, or will soon be required, to participate. Boaters are one of the last groups being approached to help tackle the problem of marine sewage pollution.

4. Scientific evidence

There was some concern expressed by stakeholders who believe nominated sites should undergo water sampling to ascertain the amount of existing sewage pollution. While water sampling at specific sites would show the relative amount of pollution, there are other scientific means that can be applied to demonstrate the need for sewage discharge control in specific areas. Gathered historical data and work done by Environment Canada and other organizations has helped to develop models that can be applied to determine the need for sewage discharge regulation. For health reasons, aquaculture sites are often recommended for closure by Environment Canada, based not on measured pollution indicators, but on the risk that exists when boats with marine toilets are in the area.

That a problem exists can be evidenced in the ever greater number of beach and aquaculture facility closures and in frequent warnings about poor drinking water quality in areas of high boating activity. The characteristics and factors leading to sewage pollution have been identified in the Acres report, and have been used to determine which areas to nominate for protection under the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations. In fact, for many of the proposed sites in this submission, it is not that a water body is damaged that has resulted in its nomination for protection. In many cases, these regulations are being engaged to protect vulnerable sites before pollution and subsequent ecological damage can occur.

5. Compliance time frames

A few stakeholders expressed concerns over the fact that they would be expected to comply with the Regulations at their coming into force. Retro-fitting vessels with holding tanks is more complicated and time-consuming than installing holding tanks in boats during their construction. Therefore, the submission was adjusted so that, once the Regulations have come into force, new boat owners will have 6 months to comply and existing boat owners will have 12 months to comply. Stakeholders agreed that this was a reasonable time frame.

6. Lack of pump-out facilities

During consultations, concerns were expressed, even by committed supporters, about the lack of adequate pump-out facilities in, or adjacent to, the proposed sites for designation. In marine locations, these concerns have been somewhat allayed by the proximity of non-designated areas where a holding tank may be legally discharged. While the discharge of sewage effluent into large, well-flushed areas will cause significantly less damage than discharge into sensitive areas, it has been noted that certain stakeholders oppose the discharge of effluent into any water-body.

For nominated sites on inland waterways, the availability of pump-out facilities is of greater consequence, as boaters do not always have a way of leaving a designated area to discharge their tanks. Of the five inland water-bodies in this submission, this is a concern on Christina, Kalamalka and Horsefly lakes.

On Christina Lake, plans are currently under development for the construction of a pump-out facility. It is anticipated that this structure will be in place prior to the coming into force date of this amendment.

Both Kalamalka Lake and Horsefly Lake are a source of drinking water; Kalamalka for the city of Vernon, and Horsefly for lakeside cottages and resorts. Boating on these lakes occurs mostly by trailerable boats that are not fitted with marine toilets. These Regulations are directed specifically at the occasional 6-to 8-metre boat with toilet facilities that has been trailered to these sites. As no pump-out facilities currently exist in these areas, boaters will have the option of using shore facilities and/or holding accumulated effluent for disposal once off the lakes.

7. The lack of an option to use sewage treatment devices to treat and release sewage effluent

This subject was discussed previously in the Alternatives section and is not within the scope of this amendment.

8. The ability to enforce the regulations

Discussed below in the Compliance and Enforcement section.

Compliance and Enforcement

The objective of the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations is to eliminate the discharge of sewage from vessels in designated areas. An effective abatement program requires three essential elements: education, equipment and enforcement.

The object of educational programs is to encourage voluntary compliance with environmental regulations. Education programs, supported by the CCG and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, have been underway for several years. These programs emphasize the positive benefits of "no-discharge zones" and are directed at a range of target audiences. The CCG has helped to develop a national initiative, the Green Boat Society, to educate the boating public on how to reduce boating impact on the environment. This initiative includes four editions of Protecting the Aquatic Environment — A Boaters Guide, the Green Boat Check, a voluntary environmental inspection, and evolving partnerships with a range of boating organizations. As well, Environment Canada has had a summer student 'green team' delivering proposed site information to every boat moored in the Georgia Basin.

Public notification and awareness of newly designated sites will be established through press releases, media interviews, signage at site locations, and identification on hydrographic charts.

Holding tank requirements for pleasure craft in designated areas are outlined in the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations and apply to pleasure craft fitted with marine toilets.

Enforcement is the third element of the compliance continuum and is applied where necessary. Persons designated by the Province of British Columbia as a conservation officer pursuant to the Environment Management Act and as a deputy conservation officer pursuant to the Wildlife Act have been designated as pollution prevention officers under paragraph 661(1)(a) of the Canada Shipping Act for the purpose of enforcement of the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations and the Non-Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (1994), British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks — Conservation Officer Service will provide regulatory enforcement action, as required. Experience over the past eight years with existing designations of Okanagan, Shuswap and Mara Lakes has indicated that education and equipment are the most important elements for compliance as there have been few enforcement actions. However, in the event of contraventions, the Canada Shipping Act provides for court imposed penalties which include fines of up to $1,000,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. No increase in the cost of enforcement is anticipated.

Contact

Stephen Mundschutz, Boating Safety Officer, Office of Boating Safety, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6, (613) 990-0124 (Telephone), (613) 996-8902 (Facsimile), mundscs@dfo-mpo.gc.ca (Electronic mail), http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca (Internet Web site).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to sections 656 (see footnote a) and 657 (see footnote b) of the Canada Shipping Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Stephen Mundschutz, Office of Boating Safety, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 200 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E6, Tel. (613) 990-0124, Fax: (613) 996-8902.

Ottawa, March 23, 2000

MARC O'SULLIVAN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE PLEASURE CRAFT SEWAGE POLLUTION PREVENTION REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. Section 4 of the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:

4. Every owner of a pleasure craft

(a) shall comply with these Regulations while in a body of water described in an item of Part 1 of the schedule;

(b) that is manufactured on or after the date set out in column 2 of an item of Part 2 of the schedule shall, in the body of water described in column 1 of that item, comply with these Regulations as of that date; and

(c) that is manufactured before the date set out in column 2 of an item of Part 2 of the schedule shall, in the body of water described in column 1 of that item, comply with these Regulations as of the date set out in column 3 of that item.

2.The schedule (see footnote 2) to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

SCHEDULE (Sections 4 and 5)

PART 1

BODIES OF WATER

British Columbia

Item	Name and Location of Body of Water
1.	Shuswap Lake (lat. 50°56' N, long. 119°17' W), north of Salmon Arm
2.	Mara Lake (lat. 50°47' N, long. 119°00' W), east of Salmon Arm
3.	Okanagan Lake (lat. 49°45' N, long. 119°44' W), west of Kelowna

Manitoba

Item	Name and Location of Body of Water
1.	Red River, from the Canada — USA border to Lake Winnipeg
2.	Assiniboine River, from Red River upstream to St. James Bridge in the City of Winnipeg
3.	Shoal Lake, Manitoba portion (lat. 49°37' N, long. 95°10' W)

PART 2

DATES OF COMPLIANCE

British Columbia

Item	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
	Name and Location of Body of Water	Date of Compliance	Date of Compliance — pleasure craft manufactured before the date in Column 2
1.	Christina Lake (lat. 49°07' N, long. 118°15' W), east of Grand Forks	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
2.	Horsefly Lake (lat. 52°23' N, long. 121°10' W), east of Horsefly	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
3.	Kalamalka Lake (lat. 50°10' N, long. 119°21' W), south of Vernon	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
4.	Pilot Bay (lat. 49°38'20" N, long. 116°52'15" W), Kootenay Lake east of Nelson	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
5.	Stuart Lake (lat. 54°36' N, long. 124°40' W), northwest of Fort St. James. Portion of the lake south of Jennie Chow Island (District Lot 7114, Coast Land District), including a three-kilometer buffer from the mouth of the Tachie River	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
6.	Carrington Bay (lat. 50°09' N, long. 125°00' W), on the northwest coast of Cortes Island, in the Strait of Georgia. All water east of a line extending from the southern point of land to the northern point of land at the mouth of Carrington Bay, including Carrington lagoon	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
7.	Cortes Bay (lat. 50°04' N, long. 124°55'W), on the east coast of Cortes Island, in the Strait of Georgia. All water west of a line drawn across the narrowest point of the harbour entrance	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
8.	Manson's Landing and Gorge Harbour (lat. 50°04' N, long. 124°59' W), on the southwest coast of Cortes Island, in the Strait of Georgia. All water east of a line extending from the southern boundary of Manson's Landing Provincial Park to the western headland defining the entrance to Gorge Harbour, including Manson's Landing Provincial Marine Park, Deadman Island and Gorge Harbour	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
9.	Montague Harbour (lat. 48°53' N, long. 123°24' W), on the southwest coast of Galiano Island, in the Strait of Georgia. Northern approach: all water south of a line southeast from Ballingall Islet to Galiano Island and east of a line from Ballingall Islet to Wilmot Head on Parker Island. Western approach: all water east of a line connecting Parker Island to Philmore Point on Galiano Island, including Julia Island. Montague Harbour includes Montague Harbour Marine Provincial Park	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
10.	Pilot Bay (lat. 49°12' N, long. 123°51' W), Gabriola Island, on the north coast of Gabriola Island, in the Strait of Georgia, east of Nanaimo. All water south of a line extending east from Tinson Point to the main shoreline of Gabriola Island, including the marine area within Gabriola Sands Provincial Park	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
11.	Prideaux Haven (lat. 50°09'N, long. 124°41' W), in Desolation Sound, northeast of Lund. All marine waters in the area within the following boundaries: from a point located at a bearing of 263° and a distance of 2 080 m from the southwest corner of District Lot 4354, Group One, New Westminster District, along a line drawn directly north at a distance of 350 m to the southeasterly shores of Eveleigh Island, thence along the said southeasterly shores to the most easterly point of said Island, at Lucy Point, thence on a bearing of 77° and a distance of 1 180 m to Copplestone Point, thence along the shores of Laura Cove, Melanie Cove, the southeasterly shores of Prideaux Haven and Eveleigh Anchorage to the point of commencement	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
12.	Roscoe Bay (lat. 50°10' N, long. 124°46' W). All marine waters of a bay on the east side of West Redonda Island, including all water west of a line drawn due north from Marylebone Point to the opposite shore on West Redonda Island	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
13.	Smuggler Cove (lat. 49°31' N, long. 123°58' W). The cove lies to the southwest of Secret Cove. All marine water east of a line drawn from the westernmost point of Isle Capri to the westernmost point of Wibraham Point enclosed within the boundaries of Smuggler Cove Marine Park	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001
14.	Squirrel Cove (lat. 50°08' N, long. 124°55' W), on the east coast of Cortes Island, in the Strait of Georgia. All water in the basin northwest of Protection Island	September 30, 2000	April 1, 2001

COMING INTO FORCE

3. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[13-1-o]

Footnote a

S.C. 1993, c. 36, s. 4

Footnote b

S.C. 1993, c. 36, s. 5

Footnote 1

SOR/91-661

Footnote 2

SOR/94-714

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).