Examen scientifique de la région de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador du MPO portant sur cinq projets d'installations piscicoles marines de Grieg Aquaculture dans la baie de Placentia, à Terre-Neuve

Abstract

Grieg Aquaculture (GA) has submitted applications for five Atlantic Salmon aquaculture licenses in Placentia Bay located on the south coast of Newfoundland (Channel Harbour, Gilbert’s Cove, Jude Island, Paradise Sound, St. Leonard’s). The Proponent’s site applications were submitted to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and referred to Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for siting advice. DFO Science has been asked for a review of the predicted exposure zones associated with the range of aquaculture activities and the predicted impacts on species and the habitats that support them. The proponent has submitted a site application package for each site that includes a Baseline Assessment Report in accordance with the Aquaculture Activities Regulations (AARs). DFO is developing a siting framework to promote a consistent approach to aquaculture site reviews. This framework will include four standardized questions the Regional Aquaculture Management Office (RAMO) uses to ensure a comprehensive review of site applications and inform DFO advice to the Province: 1. Based on the available data for the site and scientific information, what is the expected exposure zone from the use of approved fish health treatment products in the marine environment, and the predicted consequences to susceptible species? 2. Based on available data, what are the Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs); Species At Risk (SAR); fishery species; and ecologically significant species (ESS) and their associated habitats that are within the predicted benthic exposure zone and vulnerable to exposure from the deposition of organic matter? How does this compare to the extent of these species and habitats in the surrounding area (i.e. are they common or rare)? What are the anticipated impacts to these sensitive species and habitats from the proposed aquaculture activity? 3. To support the analysis of risk of entanglement with the proposed aquaculture infrastructure, which pelagic aquatic species at risk make use of the area, and for what duration and when? 4. Which populations of conspecifics are within a geographic range where escapes are likely to migrate? What are the size and status trends of those conspecific populations in the escape exposure zone for the proposed site? Are any of these populations listed under Schedule 1 of the Species At Risk Act (SARA)? In relation to these particular site applications, significant scientific advice has previously been provided for many elements of the above four questions (DFO 2016, DFO 2018). The RAMO is seeking science advice, as a priority, in particular on questions one and two, as well as any new scientific information relevant to the other questions that may now be available.