JOOSE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT NO. JE0219 · broodstock facility. The two 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) structures are an addition to the original EIS ... 4.1 METHODOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Final Amended Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Redevelopment of Snow Island’s Atlantic Sea Smolt Ltd. Facility

1300 Route No. 2 (Parcel Nos. 849505 and 1022300) Rollo Bay West, Kings County, PEI

JOOSE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT NO. JE0219

Report prepared for:

AquaBounty Canada Inc. 718 Route No. 310 (Eglington Road)

Fortune, PE C0A 2B0

Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. DE Jardine Consulting P.O. Box 19 (1088 Colville Road) 223 Winsloe Road (Rte. No. 223) North Wiltshire PEI C0A 1Y0 Winsloe South, PE C1E 2Y2 www.jooseenv.com www.dejardineconsulting.ca

June 14, 2017

http://www.jooseenv.com/

http://www.dejardineconsulting.ca/

Final Amended Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Redevelopment of Snow Island’s Atlantic Sea Smolt Facility

Rollo Bay West, Kings County, Prince Edward Island

©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017 Project No. JE0219 - June 14, 2017 i ©DE Jardine Consulting 2017

Executive Summary

Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. (Joose Environmental) and DE Jardine Consulting (DE

Jardine) were contracted by AquaBounty Canada Inc. (AquaBounty) and its Subsidiaries to

complete an Amended Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed redevelopment

of Snow Island’s Atlantic Sea Smolt Ltd. (ASSL) Facility located at 1300 Route No. 2 (Parcel

No. 849505 and 1022300) in Rollo Bay West, Kings County, PEI.

As part of the Amended EIS, AquaBounty is proposing to construct one new structure. This

building will be a 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) recirculated aquaculture (RAS) Commercial Production

facility on the property in Rollo Bay West that was acquired in the summer of 2016. In addition

to this structure, a 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft²) RAS facility will replace the original flow through

broodstock facility. The two 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) structures are an addition to the original EIS

that included the renovation of the existing structure (Hatchery) and the construction of a 1,530

m2 (16,500 ft2) structure (Broodstock).

The subject property has operated as a licensed aquaculture facility since 1978. AquaBounty

would rear AquAdvantage Salmon, a sterile genetically modified salmon, from eyed egg to

market size within the facility. The proposed site will operate using recirculated groundwater.

Effluent from the facility will be screened using multiple mechanical barriers, various pieces of

dewatering and sludge concentrating equipment, sludge would be stored on site to be

repurposed later. Clear water would be introduced in a pond or constructed wetland and will be

discharged into the adjacent stream which runs through the subject site.

The subject site is located at civic address 1300 Route No. 2 in Rollo Bay West, Kings County,

PEI and is identified as Parcel Nos. 849505 and 1022300 (refer to Figure No. 1 and Drawing

No. 1, Appendix A). As previously indicated the site has been a licensed aquaculture facility

since 1978 with extensive commercial development of the property.

The Amended EIA for the proposed project was completed as per Section 9 of the PEI

Environmental Protection Act. The Amended EIA evaluated the potential environmental effects

of the proposed project taking into consideration all activities required for the construction,

operation and maintenance of the facility.

As part of the Amended EIS the following mitigation and environmental monitoring elements will

be adhered to during the construction and operation of the proposed facility, including:

Final Amended EIS - Proposed Redevelopment of Snow Island’s Atlantic Sea Smolt Facility


©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017 Project No. JE0219 - June 14, 2017 ii ©DE Jardine Consulting 2017

Mitigation

• During construction and operation (including accidents, potential malfunctions and

unplanned events) all provincial and federal codes, standards and best management

practices will be followed; and

• During operation mitigation for hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste will be

conducted as outlined in Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 in Sections 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 of this

report.

Environmental Monitoring

• During the construction period the construction manager will conduct regular

environmental monitoring site inspections to ensure all construction components adhere

to all provincial and federal regulations and codes; and

• Monitoring of the effluent being discharged into the adjacent stream including samples

being collected and analyzed for parameters required by the owners of the utility and the

PEI Department of Communities, Land and Environment (PEIDCLE) once a year.

Based on the information obtained during the completion of the Amended EIA, Joose

Environmental and DE Jardine Consulting has concluded that the potential environmental

effects of the proposed project on all valued environmental components (VECs - listed in

Section 6 of this report) would not be significant during the construction, operation and

maintenance of the proposed facility with the planned mitigation and monitoring elements in

place. Consequently, it is recommended that the proposed project should proceed as described

and outlined in this report.

The statements made in this Executive Summary text are subject to the limitations included in

Section 8.0, and are to be read in conjunction with the remainder of this report.



©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017 Project No. JE0219 - June 14, 2017 iii ©DE Jardine Consulting 2017

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 PROJECT NAME, PROPONENT INFORMATION AND AUTHORS OF EIS ....................... 1

1.2 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................. 1 1.2.2 Current Site Description, Historical and Adjacent Land Use ................................. 2

1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 2

1.4 REGULATIONS AND STATUTES FOR ASSESSING THE PROJECT ............................... 4

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 4

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY HISTORY .............................................. 5

2.2 ALTERNATIVES TO PROJECT (OPTIONS CONSIDERED) .............................................. 6

2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE ....................................................................................................... 7

3.0 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 8

3.1 PLANNING COMPONENT .................................................................................................. 8 3.1.1 Property Acquisition ............................................................................................. 8 3.1.2 Project Survey ...................................................................................................... 8

3.2 CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT ....................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Site Preparation.................................................................................................... 8 3.2.2 Site Access .......................................................................................................... 9 3.2.3 Site Structures ...................................................................................................... 9 3.2.4 Site Services (Water, Sewer and Power) .............................................................17 3.2.5 Water Supply for Holding Tanks ..........................................................................17 3.2.6 Storm Water Management ..................................................................................18 3.2.7 Fuel Storage ........................................................................................................19 3.2.8 Hazardous Materials Storage ..............................................................................19 3.2.9 Non-Hazardous Materials Storage ......................................................................20

3.3 OPERATION COMPONENT ..............................................................................................21 3.3.1 Use of Facility ......................................................................................................21 3.3.2 Operating Hours ..................................................................................................23 3.3.3 Holding Tanks Operation and Biosecurity ............................................................23 3.3.4 Wastewater Management ....................................................................................29 3.3.5 Air Quality and Noise ...........................................................................................31 3.3.6 Site Security ........................................................................................................31 3.3.7 Emergency Response and Training.....................................................................32 3.3.8 Litter ....................................................................................................................32

3.4 DECOMMISSIONING ........................................................................................................32

4.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................33

4.1 METHODOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................33

4.2 CONSULTATION ...............................................................................................................34



©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017 Project No. JE0219 - June 14, 2017 iv ©DE Jardine Consulting 2017

5.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................35

5.1 PHYSICAL SETTING .........................................................................................................35 5.1.1 Surficial Geology .................................................................................................35 5.1.2 Bedrock Geology .................................................................................................36 5.1.3 Topography and Regional Drainage ....................................................................36 5.1.4 Surface Water Drainage ......................................................................................36

5.2 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES .............................................................36

5.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................37

5.4 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................38

5.5 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................39

6.0 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT (VECS TABLE) ........................40

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................44

8.0 CLOSURE .........................................................................................................................45

9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................47

List of Figures and Tables Figure No. 1 Proposed Tank Layout Building 1)……………………………………………… 10 Figure No. 2 Current Main Structure (Building 1)………….. .. ……………………………… 11 Figure No. 3 Broodstock Structure (Building 2) - South and North Elevations…………….. 12 Figure No. 4 Broodstock Structure (Building 2) - West and East Elevations………………. 12 Figure No. 5 Broodstock Structure (Building 2) - Floor Plan………………………………… 13 Figure No. 6 Commercial Grow-Out Structure (Building 3) - South and North Elevations... 15 Figure No. 7 Commercial Grow-Out Structure (Building 3) - East and West Elevations….. 16 Figure No. 8 Commercial Grow-Out Structure (Building 3) - Layout……………………….. 16 Figure No. 9 Current Hatchery Facility (Building 1) - Flow Process………………………... 24 Figure No. 10 Broodstock Facility (Building 2) - Flow Process………………………………. 25 Figure No. 11 Commercial Grow-Out Facility (Building 3) - Flow Process…………………. 26

Table 1-1 Project Information …………………………………………………………………… 1

Table 1-2 Adjoining Properties - Current Land Use ………………………………………….. 2

Table 1-3 Approval Required …………………………………………………………………… 4

Table 2-1 Rollo Bay West - Proposed Project Timeline …………………………………….. 7

Table 3-1 List of CFIA Pathogens of Concern………………………………………………… 14

Table 3-2 Current Groundwater Production Well Description……………………………….. 18

Table 3-3 Hazardous Materials Storage………………………………………………………. 20

Table 3-4 Non-Hazardous Materials Storage…………………………………………………. 21

Table 3-5 Inventory, Rearing Space and Water Requirements for Current Hatchery

Facility……………………………………………………………………………….. 22



©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017 Project No. JE0219 - June 14, 2017 v ©DE Jardine Consulting 2017

Table 3-6 Inventory, Rearing Space and Water Requirements for Broodstock Facility…. 23

Table 3-7 Inventory, Rearing Space and Water Requirements for Commercial Grow-Out

Facility…………………………………………………………………………………. 23

Table 3-8 Effluent Water Quality Parameters…………………………………………………. 30

Table 5-1 Climate Normal Data 1981-2010 for Monticello (Env. Canada)…………………. 37

Table 6-1 Proposed Project - VECs Interaction and Mitigation……………………………... 40

List of Appendices Appendix A Figure and Drawings

Appendix B AquaBounty Background and Facility Approval/Licensing

Appendix C PEIDTIE Site Access Approval

Appendix D MSDS

Appendix E Terrestrial Environment - Supporting Information

Appendix F Questions/Comments and Associated Answers/Responses from Public and Technical Review Committee



©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017 Project No. JE0219 - June 14, 2017 1

©DE Jardine Consulting 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. (Joose Environmental) and DE Jardine Consulting (DE

Jardine) were contracted by the AquaBounty Canada Inc. (AquaBounty) and its Subsidiaries to

complete an Amended Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed redevelopment of

Snow Island’s Atlantic Sea Smolt Ltd. (ASSL) Facility located at 1300 Route No. 2 (Parcel Nos.

849505 and 1022300) in Rollo Bay West, Kings County, PEI.

As part of the Amended EIS, AquaBounty is proposing to construct two 3,700 square metres

(m2) or 40,000 square foot (ft2) recirculated aquaculture (RAS) facilities. These facilities will be

for commercial production and egg production on the property in Rollo Bay West that was

acquired in the summer of 2016. The 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) structures are an addition to the

original EIS that included the renovation of the existing structure (Hatchery) and the construction

of a 1,530 m2 (16,500 ft2) structure (Broodstock); the latter which will be replaced with the larger

(3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2)) RAS broodstock facility.

1.1 Project Name, Proponent Information and Authors of EIS

Information regarding the project name, proponent and authors of the Amended EIS is provided

in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Project Information

Project Name Proposed Redevelopment of Snow Island’s Atlantic Sea Smolt Ltd.

Aquaculture Facility

Proponent Information AquaBounty Canada Inc.

Contact: Ms. Dawn Runighan - Facility Manager

Authors of EIS DE Jardine Consulting: Mr. Don Jardine, B.Sc.

Joose Environmental: Mr. Peter Joostema, P.Eng., CESA, FEC

1.2 Project Information

1.2.1 Project Overview

AquaBounty is proposing redevelop ASSL Aquaculture Facility located at 1300 Route No. 2 in

Rollo Bay West, Kings County, PEI, which was acquired in the summer of 2016. The proposed

redevelopment is to renovate the existing structure and construct two new structures (3,700 m2

(40,000 ft2) each) to be used as a recirculated aquaculture (RAS) Commercial Production

Facility on the property in Rollo Bay West. AquaBounty will rear AquAdvantage Salmon, a

sterile genetically modified salmon, from eyed egg to market size within the production facility.

As described in the original EIS the Broodstock facility will house all female conventional

Atlantic salmon for egg production purposes.





1.2.2 Current Site Description, Historical and Adjacent Land Use

The subject site is located at civic address 1300 Route No. 2 in Rollo Bay West, Kings County,

PEI and is identified as Parcel Nos. 849505 and 1022300 (refer to Figure No. 1 and Drawing

No. 1 Appendix A). The subject property encompasses an area of 16.53 hectares (40.84

acres). The site is currently not operational but has been used as an aquaculture facility

(including broodstock facility originally) for the past 37 years. The main broodstock holding unit

and incubation facility was previously operated under the business name OvaTech and had

maintained Canadian Fish Health Certification for over 20 years until it was purchased back by

Atlantic Sea Smolt in 2012 (original owner). The site has not been in operation since October

2013.

Adjacent and surrounding land use to the proposed project site is summarized in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2. Adjoining Properties - Current Land Use

Direction Current Land Use Current Occupant

North Undeveloped land used

for Agricultural Purposes Agricultural

East Undeveloped forested

land Woodland

South

Undeveloped land used

for agricultural purposes

followed by residential

farm stead

Agricultural/Residential

West

Combination of

Undeveloped land used

for agricultural purposes

and forested areas

Agricultural/Woodland

1.3 Regulatory Framework

The EIS for the proposed project has been conducted based on the regulatory framework

outlined in Section 9 of the PEI Environmental Protection Act (EPA).

Section 9 of the PEI EPA sets out the requirements of the environmental assessment process

that the proponent of an undertaking must complete before a project can proceed. The term

“undertaking” as outlined in the PEI EPA includes any construction, industry, operation or other

project which will or may:

i. cause the emission or discharge of any contaminant into the environment;

ii. have an effect on any unique, rare or endangered feature or the environment;





iii. have a significant effect on the environment or necessitate further development

which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment; or

iv. cause public concern because of its real or perceived effect or potential effect

on the environment.

As stated in the subsections of Section 9 in the PEI EPA, the process must adhere to the

following:

(1) No person shall initiate any undertaking unless that person first files a written

proposal with the Department and obtains from the Minister written approval to

proceed with the proposed undertaking.

(2) The minister, in considering a proposal submitted pursuant to subsection (1),

may

- require the person submitting it to supply such additional information as

the Minister may require;

- require that person to carry out an environmental impact assessment

and submit an environmental impact statement; and

- notify the public of the proposal and provide opportunity for comment.

(3) An environmental assessment and environmental impact statement shall/have

such content as the Minister may direct.

(4) The approval required by this section is in addition to any other requirements

imposed by the province or a municipality.

As part of the process, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and corresponding EIS must

be completed and submitted to the Technical Review Committee (comprised of provincial

regulatory agencies and potentially federal regulatory agencies) for review of the proposed

project. At the end of the EIA process, a determination on the proposed project approval would

be made (i.e., not approved, approved or approved with conditions). Should the EIS be

approved, the Minister of the PEI Department of Communities, Land and Environment

(PEIDCLE) issues a written approval pursuant to Section 28 of the PEI EPA.





1.4 Regulations and Statutes for Assessing the Project

An outline of the environmental legislation, approvals and guidelines that may be applicable to

the proposed project is provided in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3. Approvals Required - Proposed Acquisition and Redevelopment of Snow Island’s

Atlantic Sea Smolt Facility - Rollo Bay West

Required Approval Legislative Authority Authority Status

Environmental Impact Assessment

Section 9 of the PEI EPA PEIDCLE

Amended application dated April 12, 2017. Original application dated February 19, 2016

Development Permit PEIDCLE Inspection Services Branch within the Department

PEIDCLE Inspection Services Branch within the Department

Permit to be obtained by AquaBounty

Groundwater Extractions Permit

PEIDCLE PEIDCLE Permit obtained by AquaBounty

Watercourse Alteration Permit

PEIDCLE (Section 6 of the PEI EPA)

PEIDCLE Permit obtained by AquaBounty

Compartmentalization Permit

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) - National Aquatic Animal Health Program

CFIA Permit to be obtained by AquaBounty

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject property which AquaBounty has acquired is an approximately 16.53 hectare (40.84

acres) parcel of land located in Rollo Bay West and has been a licensed aquaculture facility

since 1978. The current property consists of a main hatchery building, three smaller rearing

buildings and a tank field consisting of 4 fiberglass tanks each with a volume of 174 m³. The

facility’s current water supply comes from six different sources: four main production wells

(PWs), an artesian well, and a well for domestic use.

The proposed project would involve the renovation/re-development of the existing site in Rollo

Bay to enable AquaBounty to expand and scale up to commercial production of their operation

on PEI. This would include the renovation of the existing building and construction of two new

structures (3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) each) to be used as recirculated aquaculture (RAS)

Commercial Production facility and Broodstock facility.





2.1 Project Background and Regulatory History

AquaBounty Canada Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of AquaBounty Technologies Inc.; a

biotechnology company focused on enhancing productivity in the aquaculture market, with

corporate offices located in Maynard, Massachusetts, USA.

AquaBounty began operations in Prince Edward Island (PEI) in 1996 and has maintained a well

accredited aquaculture facility with high regards for the environment since that time. The facility

is regulated and inspected routinely by Environment Canada, United States Food and Drug

Administration (USFDA), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency (CFIA). Both the molecular laboratory and fish rearing facilities are operated

by well trained staff under Good Laboratory Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices; the

facility is most likely one of the only aquaculture facilities in the world which operates under

these well-structured guidelines.

AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., (ABT) was originally incorporated in 1991 under the name A/F

Protein, Inc., to pursue the commercial development of applications for antifreeze proteins

(AFPs). A/F Protein subsequently acquired license to the AquAdvantage® transgene, and was

reorganized in 2000 into two entities: A/F Protein, which retained the rights to AFP technologies;

and, AquaBounty Farms, Inc., which obtained the rights to AquAdvantage technology. In 2004,

AquaBounty Farms changed its name to AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., and has continued to

operate since that time from its corporate headquarters in Maynard, MA, and a wholly-owned

aquaculture research and development (R&D) subsidiary, AquaBounty Canada, Inc., in Fortune,

PEI.

AquaBounty Technologies has been developing their product, AquAdvantage® Salmon, since

the 1990’s. The product is a genetically modified salmon that exhibits rapid growth during early

life, reducing the time it takes the animal to reach market size. This was achieved by micro-

injection of a transgene containing the GH-1 gene from Chinook salmon and regulatory

sequences of an AFP gene from ocean pout into the egg of a conventional Atlantic salmon.

A product line was identified using genotypic and phenotypic testing and developed through

generations of breeding with conventional domestic Atlantic salmon lines. AquAdvantage®

Salmon are all-female, triploid (sterile) salmon that will be reared in land-based, fully contained

facilities. The eggs are produced by fertilizing eggs from conventional female Atlantic salmon

with milt (sperm) from AquAdvantage female broodstock that have undergone sex-reversal

(neomales). The fertilized eggs are then subjected to hydrostatic pressure shock, inducing

triploidy. The company has observed on average a 99.8% triploid production rate over the

course of years of production; note that not all the 0.2% non-triploid eggs are viable. The sterile

eggs will be raised in a land-based contained, recirculating aquaculture system for grow-out to

market size.





Products such as AquAdvantage® Salmon are subject to regulatory approval processes

designed to protect humans, animals, and the environment. The typical pre-approval

development process for products such as this is 7-10 years; there has been over 25 years of

research devoted to AquAdvantage® Salmon.

A complete regulatory history for AquaBounty, including links to the regulatory authorities which

include the approval documentation, is included in Appendix B.

2.2 Alternatives to Project (Options Considered)

Alternatives to the project were considered including: 1) expansion of AquaBounty’s current

facility in Fortune and 2) review of potential locations for the proposed new facility. Expansion

of the facilities at the Fortune location was not deemed a suitable alternative based on the

following:

- Limited biosecurity enhancement (all broodstock on one site);

- Possible limitations with groundwater; and

- Electrical limitations (single phase).

A review of alternative locations for the proposed facility determined that different sites were not

acceptable due to various factors including, but not limited to the following:

- surrounding land use and development;

- availability of groundwater resource;

- availability of existing aquaculture infrastructure (i.e., existing structure, holding tanks,

etc.);

- proximity to AquaBounty’s facility in Fortune; and

- historical use of the proposed site as an aquaculture facility (37 years); and

- significant cost to establish a new site with no history or infrastructure in place.





2.3 Project Schedule

The proposed new facilities will be completed in two phases over the next six months. The two

phases of the proposed project are outlined below:

Phase 1 (May - June 2017): renovation and upgrade of existing infrastructure located on the

subject site; and

Phase 2 (May 2017 - May 2018): construction of two new pre-engineered steel buildings to be

as part of the recirculated aquaculture (RAS) Commercial Production facility.

An outline of the proposed project schedule is provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Rollo Bay West - Proposed Project Timeline

Task Timeline

Existing Structure and Infrastructure

Remove bank of 1.5 m (5 ft.) combi tanks and install 3.7 x 1.5 m (12 x 5 ft.) tanks in hatchery to accommodate larger fish. May 2017

Install RAS system in existing hatchery including plumbing and electrical requirements

Remove tanks from behind old hatchery buildings and remove any materials from water way. (Permitting necessary before completing work) May - June 2017

Remove old silo building, tanks, and foundation (Permitting as required). General clean-up of the site and property.

New Structure and Associated Infrastructure

Begin construction of 55 X 67 m (180 X 220 ft. - 40,000 ft2) facility May 2017

Begin construction of 49 X 74 m (162 X 241 ft. - 40,000 ft2) facility July 2017

Construction of Bio filters and tank pads July 2017

Piping and Tank installation

Start Electrical Installation August 2017

Facility Operating Test December 2017

Start operation of Hatchery unit (eggs) February 2018

Start operation of Grow-out units May 2018

An overview of the proposed development is provided on Drawing No. 1, Appendix A.





3.0 PROJECT ACTIVITIES

A description of the project activities for the new facility has been broken down into four main

components including:

• Planning;

• Construction;

• Operation; and

• Decommissioning.

3.1 Planning Component

3.1.1 Property Acquisition

AquaBounty Canada Inc. has negotiated the Purchase and Sale Agreement, conducted a title

search, and inventoried the fixtures and personal property. The transfer of the property has

been completed.

3.1.2 Project Survey

A legal and topographical survey of the subject property was completed in November 2016.

The topographical survey of the subject site will assist with the layout and design of the

proposed facility.

3.2 Construction Component

During the construction component it is expected that the equipment to be used will include, but

is not limited to excavators, bulldozers/earth movers, and tandem dump trucks. During the

construction period the project manager will conduct regular environmental monitoring site

inspections to ensure all construction components adhere to all provincial and federal

regulations and codes.

3.2.1 Site Preparation

The site preparation for the new structure will involve grubbing limited areas of the site where

unsuitable fill materials exist and replacement with structural fill within the footprint of the new

buildings. The top soil and fill materials grubbed from the area to be developed will be

maintained on the subject site and will be utilized by AquaBounty for landscaping purposes.

Select borrow and other aggregate fill materials will be required to build up portions of the

subject site during construction for access and around existing/new infrastructure.





3.2.2 Site Access

Site access will be from the Bear River Road which has been reviewed and approved by PEI

Department of Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy (PEIDTIE) with the supporting

documentation provided in Appendix C. No significant issues associated with the site access

are expected. As the site is located approximately half a kilometer off an all-weather road which

has a daily flow of trucks and other heavy equipment, no major impact on existing traffic flow is

expected in the area due to daily operations on the site. The vehicle flow to the site would be an

average of 5 to 10 per day. The main flow would be when staff is coming to and leaving work.

3.2.3 Site Structures

The initial phase of the development will include the renovation of the existing main site

structure and removal of the old silo building, tanks, and foundation located on the eastern

portion of the subject site. The second phase of the development, to be initiated in May/June

2017 is the preparation and construction of two pre-engineered steel buildings (approximately

3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) each) on the northern portion of the subject site to be used as part of the

recirculated aquaculture (RAS) Commercial Production facility (refer to Drawing No. 2 in

Appendix A).

The current building (Building 1) at the subject property has dimension of 17 x 49 m (55 x 160

ft.) for a total floor space of 833 m2 (8,800 ft2). The renovation/redevelopment will make the bulk

of the space dedicated to the fish hatchery, with a small portion going towards staff

accommodations, offices, lunchroom, and work shop. This building will contain the following

equipment:

• incubation equipment for rearing the eggs to propagate broodstock populations;

• thirty (30) fiberglass tanks having a capacity of 0.220 m³;

• fifteen (15) fiberglass tanks having a capacity of 2.5 m³ and

• twelve (12) fiberglass tanks having a capacity of 14.8 m³.

The building will be used as a hatchery and early rearing area to support the broodstock

breeding program. It will operate as a 99.7% RAS (Recirculating Aquaculture System), thus

conserving water by using only small amounts as make-up water for the RAS system. The

make-up water will come from one (1) of two (2) groundwater production wells (PWs) located on

the property. Figure 1, shows the proposed layout of the structure; Figure 2 is a photo of the

current main building. The remaining out buildings will not be used to house fish and removed

from the property as indicated above.





Domestic heat to the facility is from a furnace oil fired boiler which heats up a water glycol

mixture that is circulated within the concrete floor of the domestic area. Heating within the

hatchery is a forced air system which utilizes heat generated from an oil fired furnace.

Oxygenation is a key water parameter for farming fish in land-based facilities. Passive aeration

can obtain saturation levels of 100% but in more intensive farming practices oxygen must be

introduced to make up for additional biomass and loading densities. The ASSL facility currently

utilizes oxygen generation or concentrating equipment which typically produces 90% oxygen

purity. AquaBounty will change over to a liquid oxygen system (LOX), which is stored on site in

an 11m³ insulated tanks. This tank is monitored by the supplier in real time and they

automatically fill it as LOX levels deplete. LOX purity is typically over 99%.

Figure 1 Proposed Tank Layout (Building 1)





Figure 2: Current Main Structure (Building 1)

With expansion at the site, broodstock and egg production utilizing flow-through rearing

conditions is no longer feasible. For future commercial production it will be necessary to

generate large quantities of non-transgenic salmon eggs. The eggs will have to be available

over the course of the year for stocking commercial production units. For these reasons, a

larger broodstock facility operated on RAS has been designed, which has the ability to produce

three spawning cycles per year. Construction of the revised 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) broodstock

facility is scheduled to begin in June/July 2017. After site preparation work is completed, the

concrete foundation of the new site structure will be poured. Upon completion of the concrete

foundation it is estimated that the pre-engineered steel structure will be erected within 25 days.

All components are pre-fabricated and will be shipped to the Rollo Bay West site directly from

the building manufacturer. A staging area is available to receive all components of the building

as they arrive prior to setup and a crane will be on site to offload all materials and lift them into

position during the assembly process.

The broodstock building will be constructed on the northern portion of the site (Building 2). This

pre-engineered steel building will have approximate dimensions of 50 x 74 m (162 x 241 ft.),

with a footprint of ~ 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft²). Upon completion of the exterior components of the

structure the interior construction will be initiated with the installation of bio-filters, tank pads,

tanks and RAS equipment. It will consist of 99.7% RAS (Recirculating Aquaculture Systems) to

produce multiple year classes of Atlantic salmon brood stock. It will use small amounts of make-

up water from one of the two (2) groundwater PW’s. Four (4) separate year classes of fish will

be housed in the new building (refer to Figures 3, 4 and 5).





Figure 3: Broodstock Structure (Building 2) - South and North Elevations

Figure 4: Broodstock Strcuture (Building 2) - West and East Elevations





Figure 5: Broodstock Structure (Building 2) - Floor Plan

Building 2 will enclose the following rearing equipment:

• hatchery equipment to incubate eggs for the propagation of the conventional broodstock;

• Three (3) 0.58 m³ early rearing tanks; four (4) 12.8 m³ intermediate rearing tanks;

• Six (6) 44.4 m³ rearing tanks for 2 year olds;

• Nine (9) 92.6 m³ rearing tanks for 3 year olds; and

• Nine (9) 146.3 m³ rearing tanks for 4 year olds.

The new facilities will comply to bio-security requirements associated with AquaBounty’s

company Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and the CFIA Compartmentalization Program

(refer to National Standards for the Aquatic Animal Health Compartmentalization Program and

Producer Guidance for the Creation of a Biosecurity Plan for Compartmentalization, April 2013).

AquaBounty’s SOPs are reviewed and maintained on a regular basis to be kept in date with the





latest changes and updates to regulations and policies. Every effort must be made to protect

the fish from vectors that may be carrying pathogens including:

• Biological vector defined as an organism, usually an arthropod, in whose body the

pathogen develops or multiplies before becoming infective for the recipient individual.

• Mechanical vector defined as a living organism that can passively transmit the

pathogen to an aquatic animal but is not infected by the pathogen (and therefore cannot

actively shed the pathogen).

Table 3.1 List of CFIA Pathogens of Concern

Pathogen Compartment

Program

IHN Y

VHS Y

ISA Y

IPN Y

EHN Y

OMV Y

Myxobolus cerebralis (Whirling disease) Y

Ceratomyxa Shasta Y

Gyrodactylus salaris Y

Construction of the pre-engineered steel building to be used as a Commercial Grow-out facility

(Building 3) is scheduled to begin in May/June 2017 with the initiation of site preparation and

construction of concrete footings. As indicated the new building is a pre-engineered steel

structure that will have all components fabricated and shipped to the Rollo Bay West site to be

assembled. A staging area will be developed to receive all components of the building as they

arrive prior to setup and a crane will be on site to offload all materials and lift them into position

during the assembly process. Upon completion of the exterior components of the structure, the

interior construction will be initiated with the installation of bio filters, tank pads, tanks and RAS

equipment. The building will have approximate plan dimensions of 55 x 67 m ~ 3,700 m2 (180 x

220 ft. ~ 40,000 ft2) as shown in Figure Nos. 6, 7 and 8. The 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) structure will

be used as a hatchery and grow-out facility, holding multiple year classes of fish until they are

ready for market at approx. 4.5 - 5 Kgs. The 3,700 m3 (40,000 ft2) Commercial Grow-out facility

will also operate as a 99.7 % RAS as previously described for the Hatchery and Broodstock

buildings





Building 3 will enclose the following rearing equipment:

• Three (3) 8.0 m³ early rearing tanks;

• Three (3) 51.3 m³ intermediate rearing tanks;

• Eight (8) 105 m³ Advanced Rearing 1 tanks;

• Six (6) 250 m³ Advanced Rearing 2 tanks; and

• Three (3) 71 m³ Purge tanks.

Figure 6: Commercial Grow-Out Structure (Building 3) - South and North Elevations





Figure 7 Commercial Grow-Out Structure (Building 3) - East and West Elevations

Figure 8: Commercial Grow-Out Structure (Building 3) - Layout





3.2.4 Site Services (Water, Sewer and Power)

Site services will include potable/domestic water supply provided to the current structure by the

existing single on-site groundwater well with sewer services provided by an on-site septic

system and associated tile field. A new potable well and on-site septic system will be

constructed on the northern portion of the site to service the two new structures to be

constructed as part of the proposed project. The new potable well and on-site septic system will

be constructed to meet all provincial regulations.

There is a power transmission line along Route No. 2. Power to the facility is routed from this

transmission line by Maritime Electric Company, Limited. Three phase power will be required for

site operations.

Being a land-based farm the facility requires emergency power to ensure the site is powered at

all times. As part of the existing infrastructure, a standby diesel generator which is capable of

supplying power to the existing facility is located on the subject property. Two additional diesel

generators will be added to supply back-up power to the new structures. In the event of an

electrical failure electricity is automatically delivered with no action by staff required. Once the

utility power is restored, the power load is transferred back to the utility automatically.

3.2.5 Water Supply for Holding Tanks

Each of the Rollo Bay West facilities will operate as a 99.7% RAS (Recirculating Aquaculture

System) using a small amount of make-up water provided from one (1) of our four (4)

engineered PW’s wells on the property. This technology allows for a very efficient and

conservative approach to the use of groundwater resources as it will require very small amounts

of new water to be used in the production of the fish. The layout of the proposed Rollo Bay

West facilities is shown on Drawing Nos. 1 and 2 (Appendix A).

Historical operations at the subject site operated as a groundwater based flow-through system;

water was extracted from the four (4) PWs located on the property, pumped into the facility, and

introduced to the rearing tanks. The historical operation had an approved extraction permit from

the PEIDCLE for 6,251 Litres per minute (LPM) or 1,375 imperial gallons per minute (igpm)

allocated for the property. Table 3.2 details the six (6) wells located on the property, four (4)

which can be deemed as high volume PWs. The locations of the wells and PWs are shown on

Drawing No. 2, Appendix A.





Table 3.2: Current Groundwater Production Well Descriptions

As part of the original EIA and environmental permitting procedure, PEIDCLE required that a

new groundwater extraction permit be obtained by AquaBounty as the estimated volume of

groundwater to be utilized by new aquaculture facility is higher than the requirements outlined in

Section E-9 of the EPA Water Well Regulations. As part of this process AquaBounty obtained a

groundwater extraction permit for 6,250 L/min (1,375 igpm) to be used as a back-up in the event

the RAS goes down for any length of time. The projected use of the allocated amount of water

would only be expected to be utilized for short term purposes and would comply with the terms

of the groundwater extraction permit issued by PEIDCLE in June 2016. As part of the

requirements for the groundwater extraction permit AquaBounty completed a hydrogeological

assessment including a stream assessment and 7-day pumping test in order to meet

PEIDCLE’s requirements (further details provided in Section 5.2).

3.2.6 Storm Water Management

Storm water flow in the area being developed will flow as per the existing drainage system for

the site. Silt fences will be installed in areas where drainage is flowing to the nearby stream to

protect against siltation of the stream. Storm water on the remainder of the site will drain by

infiltration or overland flow. Undeveloped portions of the properties will be maintained in a

natural state to help control storm water runoff.

Name Depth Pump Specifications Output

Main PW 76.2 m

(250 ft.) 30 HP Submersible

3,637 LPM

(800 igpm)

South PW 64.0 m


1,818 LPM

(400 igpm)

Lower PW 76.2 m


1,364 LPM

(300 igpm)

North PW 82.3 m


1,364 LPM

(300 igpm)

Cabin Well (Artesian) 36.6 m


418 LPM

(92 igpm)

Domestic Well N/A 1 HP Submersible 32 LPM

(7 igpm)





3.2.7 Fuel Storage

A total of five (5) approved petroleum aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are currently located

on the property and will be retrained for operation at the new facility including:

• A 9,000 L double wall steel vacuum monitored AST fabricated in 2010 is currently

located on the exterior to the Building 1. This tank will be re-located to the new

structures on the northern portion of the property;

• Two (2) fiberglass ASTs are located in the main generator building. A 568 L AST

fabricated in 2014 provides diesel to the standby generator. The second AST has a

capacity of 682 L and was fabricated in 2013 and provides furnace oil for the domestic

heating requirements;

• A single 909 L AST manufactured in 2013 which contains furnace oil for the domestic

heat is located in the workshop.

• A single 250 L fiberglass tank with secondary containment (steel crate) fabricated in

2010 is located next to the secondary generator building that services the North PW and

Lower PW.

All of the above noted ASTs are manufactured to ULC standards with the oil burning equipment

installed as per CSA B139 SERIES-15.

3.2.8 Hazardous Materials Storage

No hazardous materials are proposed to be stored on site with the exception of cleaner

disinfectant for the holding tanks and a small quantity of cleaning chemical for domestic

cleaning.

An inventory of the types of products stored at the proposed facility is provided in Table 3-3.





Table 3-3. Hazardous Materials Storage

Activity Potential Contaminants Human Health

Issues/Mitigation

Disinfection and cleaning of Holding Tanks: Backwashing of heat exchanger

- Atlantic 12 (Sodium Hypochlorite); - Ovadine; - Hydrogen peroxide; and - Liquid Dynemate Plus Minerals or hardness deposits may have precipitated during heating process and be present in backwash

Refer to MSDS sheet attached in Appendix D Mostly hardness and possibly other precipitates with minor health issue.

As indicated in the above table there will be a cleaner disinfectant stored at the proposed

facility. All materials such as detergents and other cleaning agents will be correctly labelled

and stored in their proper containers. If products have a material safety data sheet (MSDS), the

MSDS will be kept up-to-date and located in their storage location in a main binder for all staff to

have access to. An emergency spill response kit will be provided on site with staff trained in

the proper method of responding to spills, leaks or chemical exposure.

3.2.9 Non-Hazardous Materials Storage

Materials stored on site will be those typically involved in the aquaculture operations at the new

facility. Solid waste materials generated on site will be disposed as per the requirements of the

Waste Watch program operated by Island Waste Management Corporation (IWMC). All other

non-hazardous waste generated at the facility will be delivered to the IWMC facility located at

100 Selkirk Road, Route 309 Dingwells Mills, Kings County.

There are quantities of non-hazardous material which will be stored at the site. A list of these

with suggested mitigation procedures is provided Table 3-4.





Table 3-4. Non-Hazardous Materials Storage

Material Potential Issue Mitigation

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Litter, leaching of contaminants MSW to be sorted as per waste watch requirements and placed in secure storage containers. Waste, compost and recyclables to be transported to appropriate management facilities as required, eliminating odors and preventing overflow of storage containers.

Waste feed Products Nutrients Kept in containers and disposed of as per Waste Watch requirements.

Salmonid waste (include waste collected in effluent screening, mortalities, and inventory culls)

Litter, foul odours, pests Waste to be bagged and frozen on site until such time that it is transported to PEI Energy Systems located at 40 Riverside Drive, Charlottetown

3.3 Operation Component

The first phase of site operations is expected to begin in the Spring 2017 with the completion of

renovation upgrades to the existing main structure. The second phase of the project is

scheduled to begin in May 2017 and includes the construction of two new pre-engineered steel

building to be as part of the recirculated aquaculture (RAS) Commercial Production facility.

3.3.1 Use of Facility

Production: Due to space limitations at the AquaBounty facility in Fortune, commercial

expansion is not feasible at this location. With the acquisition of the subject property and

AquaBounty proposed plans to rear AquAdvantage salmon for commercial food production, the

site has the capacity to produce 250 metric tons per year of 4.5 - 5 Kg Atlantic salmon.

Stocking densities will be capped at approx. 86 Kg/m3 for all production units; the total onsite

biomass of the proposed site would be approximately 119,000 kilograms, with maximum feed

usage at 867 kilograms per day.

Broodstock: The broodstock facility at the proposed Rollo Bay West site will have the capacity

of producing upwards of 13 million eggs per year. The eggs produced at the subject site would

be transferred as green eggs (not fertilized) to the AquaBounty Bay Fortune facility where

fertilization and incubation would take place. Eyed eggs from conventional Atlantic salmon

crosses established as part of the breeding program would be transferred back to the Rollo Bay

West facility to propagate the next generations. When rearing broodstock, stocking densities

are much lower than those of production stocking densities; the total onsite biomass of the





proposed site would be approximately 114,000 kilograms, with maximum feed usage at 165

kilograms per day.

Existing Hatchery Facility: The existing facility at the proposed Rollo Bay West site will have

the capacity to producing approximately 2 million green eggs, as well as rear fish for

performance trials. These eggs will be transferred directly back into AquaBounty’s breeding

program to further propagate and improve the genetic lines of the broodstock. The total onsite

biomass would be around 48,325 kilograms with a maximum daily feed load of 153 kilograms

per day. Based on the above an estimated 120 m3/year of waste product (i.e., semi-solid

manure) will be collected.

The feed used at the facility is a dry, extruded pellet supplied by Skretting, a commercial

salmonid feed manufacturer located in St. Andrew’s, NB. Tables 3.5 to 3.7 describe the number

of fish that will be retained on site. Similar to AquaBounty’s Fortune facility, the proposed

facilities will be operated under Good Laboratory Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices;

SOPs will be developed for the site to ensure the best husbandry, containment, and bio-security

practices are in place and followed. The fish and facility will be monitored by both DFO and

CFIA for fish health and bio-security and all additional provincial and federal regulatory

requirements will be met.

Table 3.5: Inventory, Rearing Space and Water Requirements for Existing Hatchery Facility

Age Fish size

(kg) # of Eggs Produced

# of Fish

Biomass (Kg)

m3

Required

Rearing Density (kg/m

3)

Volume of Water Required

(igpm)

4 yr. olds 10 2,128,000 266 2,660 89 30

3 yr. olds 6 - 296 1,776 59.2 30

2 yr. olds 1.6 - 555 888 29.6 30

1 yr. olds 0.125 - 9,000 1,125 37.5 30

Total 2,128,000 10,117 6,449 215.3 5.7





Table 3.6: Inventory, Rearing Space and Water Requirements for Broodstock Facility

Table 3.7: Inventory, Rearing Space and Water Requirements for Commercial Grow-Out Facility

3.3.2 Operating Hours

The regular operating hours for the proposed facility when in operation will typically be 7:00 am

to 5:00 pm. An employee of AquaBounty will be living on-site in the staff accommodations unit

located at the existing main structure (Building 1) to ensure site is operational and 24-hour

security of the facility. On-call personnel will also live in close proximity to the facility for the

answering of alarms in a timely and efficient manner. The site will not be accessible to the

general public for bio-security and safety reasons.

3.3.3 Holding Tanks Operation and Biosecurity

The general process flow for the proposed aquaculture facilities to be operated on the property

is shown on Figure 9, 10 and 11.

Age Fish size (kg) # of Eggs Produced

# of Fish Biomass

(Kg) m

3

Required


3)

Volume of Water Required

(igpm)

4 yr. olds 10 13,152,000 1,644 23,844 1,317 18

3 yr. olds 6 - 2,187 18,726 834 22

2 yr. olds 1.6 - 3,279 5,193 266 19

1 yr. olds 0.125 - 3,463 562 51 22

Total 13,152,000 10,573 48,325 2,468 27

Age Fish size (kg) # of Fish Biomass

(Kg) m

3

Required


3)

Volume of Water Required (igpm)

17 month 4.5 14,396 64,782 710 86

14 month 2.23 14,666 32,705 460 71

11 month 1.0 14,940 14,940 460 32

8 month 0.34 15,219 5,174 460 11

5 month 0.066 20,217 1,334 150 9

2 month 0.003 20,908 63 16 4

Total 100,346 118,998 2,256

63





Figure 9: Current Hatchery Facility (Building 1) - Flow Process





Figure 10: Broodstock Facility (Building 2) - Flow Process





Figure 11: Commercial Grow-Out Facility (Building 3) - Flow Process





Containment will be provided for all holding tanks on the property and CFIA protocols will be in

effect for all fish handling operations.

The following procedures will be covered in a set of SOPs outlining the exact protocols that will

be followed at the facility:

Biosecurity measures include, but are not limited to:

1. Enclosing the tanks:

a) All tanks will be located inside a secure engineered structure consisting of a roof,

four walls, and a concrete watertight floor.

b) Each tank will be covered with appropriate sized nylon netting to contain the fish

within the tank.

c) Drainage from each tank will pass through a minimum of four physical barriers

prior to exiting the buildings.

2) Securing the facility from visitors:

a) Each building will have a single point of entrance.

b) All windows and doors will be locked at all times.

c) All visitors will have to sign in to enter the facilities general area and state their

prior location. They must also declare if they have been to any other fish rearing

facilities within the last week. If visitors do not meet the requirements they may

be prohibited from entering.

d) If granted permission to enter the general area visitors must step their footwear

into an iodophor disinfectant foot bath and sanitize their hands with an alcohol

based hand sanitizer.

e) All visitors would then be escorted by an employee to the visiting area (i.e., office

or boardroom).

f) Visitors will not be granted access to the fish rearing areas of the facilities.

g) The site will have a live-in staff member on site to monitor and respond to alarms.





h) The site will incorporate a video surveillance system that will monitor the

grounds as well as the exterior and interior of the buildings.

i) All buildings will be monitored by a 24/7 alarm monitoring system that will

monitor security points and environmental equipment.

j) Alarms will be dispatched to an alarm reporting station which alerts staff and the

appropriate authorities to the alarm.

3) Site and area specific equipment and staff:

a) Employees are expected to adhere to the strict bio security guidelines set out by

AquaBounty Canada. Employees are expected to present themselves daily to

work with clean clothes and have showered prior to arriving.

b) Staff will be designated for working in specific buildings and will only be allowed

entry into another building after showering and changing their clothes.

c) Staff entering any fish rearing areas must change into area specific coveralls and

rubber boots in the anti-room.

d) Staff must disinfect hands and boots upon entry to the fish rearing areas.

e) Staff which work in an AR unit at the facility will not be granted access to the

ERA/IRA sections of the same facility.

f) General equipment (nets, brooms, brushes, buckets, holding tanks, oxygen

meters, and pumps) will be dedicated to a specific building.

g) Equipment entering a rearing tank must be disinfected before entering another

tank.

h) Specialized equipment (computers, tag readers, tools) that is needed to be

moved between buildings will be permissible provided that has been thoroughly

disinfected using a sanitizer or heat.

4) Cleaning and disinfection procedure: AquaBounty Canada has a set of very

thorough cleaning and disinfection SOP’s in place for pathogen barriers, equipment,

and eggs. These SOP’s are based on Aquatic and Zoo sanitary guidelines and

protocols set by OIE and CFIA. Additional recommendations from product





manufacturers and veterinarians were also considered in the creation of these

documents.

3.3.4 Wastewater Management

Containment and Effluent:

All tanks within the facilities will be equipped with screens constructed from rigid PVC or

stainless steel and range in size from 0.1 cm to 2.5 cm depending on the life stage being

contained.

The incubation system will be operated on its own RAS. This system will have 6 physical

barriers including the rearing unit in place to prevent the downstream passage of eggs or

alevins.

All rearing tanks will have at least one physical barrier either in the tank itself or in the attached

side box to prevent the release of fish from the rearing unit. No less than 5 physical barriers will

be in place to prevent the downstream passage of fish. All tanks will be tightly covered with

nylon netting with sizes ranging from 0.64 cm to 1.90 cm (¼” to ¾”) as required to prevent fish

from jumping from the tanks. This will also serve as a barrier to contain fish within the tank

should a flooding event occur.

Effluent from the hatchery will be directed to the settling pond on site. Effluent from the

production and broodstock facilities will be directed to holding tanks where it will be held and

pumped out by certified septic waste operators when necessary. Excess water will pass back

into the stream after passing through the settling pond or wetland. When water is introduced to

the holding tank/settling pond it must first pass through three perforated stainless steel screens

leaving the facility building. These barriers will be cleaned daily. All containment barriers will be

inspected daily by staff and all inspections and findings will be recorded on the appropriate

facility forms. Any material removed from the screens will be frozen on site and sent to the

incinerator at the PEI Energy Systems plant in Charlottetown for disposal. The holding tanks

will allow solids to settle out before the water re-enters the stream located on the property.

Sludge from the holding tanks will be removed when it impacts the flow which would be after

several years of operation. The sludge will be disposed at a provincially approved location (this

will be dependent on the characteristics of the sludge).

Effluent treatment technologies in commercial aquaculture tend to address first and foremost

the removal of particulate wastes (solids) from the process flow. The application of technologies

to separate particulate waste from the system is paramount to fish health, productivity and

environmental management. In recirculating aquaculture systems, mechanical filtration using





rotary drum filters is effective at removing the vast majority of solid metabolic wastes greater

than 40 µm from the process water. Once removed, it is generally necessary to further

concentrate the waste solids prior to disposal.

Radial-flow clarifiers, an effective device for removing solid wastes in effluent streams, will be

utilized at the facilities. The simple devices have no moving parts and rely on overflow rate and

an efficient hydraulic design to concentrate solid wastes. Water enters a radial-flow clarifier

inside a central cylinder designed to dampen turbulence. The flow and solids are directed

downward to facilitate solids settling before the clarified water flows radially toward an overflow

weir located around the perimeter of the unit. A 60˚ cone-shaped bottom is effective for

concentrating the wastes and facilitates flushing through a bottom port. Used in conjunction

with rotary drum filters, radial flow clarifiers can effectively concentrate the drum filter backwash

water to more than 8% solids content in a mechanically simple process and with minimal

pressure losses (i.e., low energy requirement). The backwash from rotary drum filters will be

further processed prior to discharge using settling tanks and cones. A reduction of 97%, 79%

and 53% for TSS, nitrite and nitrate, respectively is expected. Once concentrated in the cone

settlers, the total monthly volume of semi-moist manure to be collected is expected to be about

44 to 55 cubic meters. The semi-moist manure will be disposed of on agricultural land and tilled

into the soil. The applied volume will not exceed 120 m3/hectare/application. AquaBounty will

follow the Guidelines for Manure Management of Prince Edward Island.

Table 3.8 outlines the expected water quality parameters of the effluent leaving the facility at

either location. Effluent water quality will be assessed on a yearly basis during times of the

highest biomass (September).

Table 3.8: Effluent Water Quality Parameters

Note: Maximum values - based on operations at the AquaBounty facility over a 3 year period with the

highest levels selected.

The volume of effluent waters that will be discharged from our facility will be less than the

incoming make-up water required to maintain the RAS system from our freshwater PW’s. The

RAS system will have a daily percentage of water that will be evaporated from the system into

the air. This moisture will be removed from the building by way of exhaust fans connected to the

RAS equipment in the bio-filtration area of the facility.

Parameter Expected

Level Parameter Expected Level

Temperature (˚C) ~ 11.0 Nitrate-N (ppm) ≤ 6

pH ~ 8.0 Ammonia (ppm) ≤ 0.6

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) ~ 7.0 Total Phosphorus (ppb)

≤ 500

Total Nitrogen (ppm) ≤ 7 TSS (mg/l) ≤ 6





Sanitary sewage from the facility will be discharged to the existing approved on-site septic

system and the new on-site septic system to be constructed on the northern portion of the

subject site to service the two new buildings. The new on-site septic system will be constructed

to meet all provincial regulations.

No processing will take place at the Rollo Bay site; the fish will be transported by truck to the

approved processing site. Once the commercial grow-out is fully operation, fish removed from

the facility will be sent to a CFIA and Provincially approved fish processing facility. AquaBounty

envisions this facility will be located where existing wastewater treatment facilities are currently

in place (Charlottetown or Souris Industrial Parks). Wastewater from the processing plant will be

treated appropriately to ensure that the effluent meets the requirements for the wastewater

treatment plant. The volume of waste from the facility will be minimal 910 kg/day which is

approximately twenty-five times less than a typical lobster processing facility (i.e., 22,700

kg/day). An example of a small scale fish processing facility that meets all provincial and

federal requirements for a licensed fish processing plant can be found in Victoria, Prince

Edward Island. Bio Food Tech located on Belvedere Avenue currently has a small fish

processing plant which is licensed for fish processing.

3.3.5 Air Quality and Noise

The main air quality issues associated with the new facility would include:

• emissions from vehicles;

• fugitive fine particulate matter (dust) possible during construction activities at the site for

a short-term period; and

• Vehicles operating on site will also be expected to meet provincial vehicle inspection

requirements including emissions from exhaust systems.

No odours are expected from aquaculture operations (i.e., fish farming) at the subject property

as everything will be contained and secured within the site structures.

Noise is not expected to be a major issue thus noise measures other than those listed will not

be necessary. The existing tree buffers will be maintained around the subject property.

3.3.6 Site Security

Access to the site will be limited to employees and visitors who are conducting business.

Security for the subject site will include key access exterior doors having locks, barred windows,





motion detectors, door contacts, and the facility being equipped with security cameras. Security

measures will be implemented as necessary for protection of the operations on site; there will

be 24 hour monitoring. If an alarm situation is detected by the security system, the information

is transmitted over the telephone line to the central security dispatching centre in Halifax. To

ensure that the message is being sent in the event that the telephone link is disabled, the same

information is sent simultaneously by GSM digital cell back-up. Once in receipt of the alarm

situation, the dispatcher immediately activates a text message to the mobile phones carried by

facility personnel which indicate the channel number in alarm. Also the dispatcher telephones

the facility and relays the same information verbally. Attempts at texting and telephone contact

continue until an employee acknowledges the situation. The dispatcher has back-up telephone

contacts in case no answer is received at the facility (i.e., after normal operation hours). It

should be noted that an AquaBounty employee will be living on-site within the staff

accommodations located in the existing main structure (Hatchery facility).

3.3.7 Emergency Response and Training

Multiple fire extinguishers will be provided inside all buildings and emergency call numbers for

the local fire department, EMS, RCMP and environmental emergency response will be posted in

prominent locations. The site is located in the Town of Souris Fire District and a fire hall is

located within 7 km of the proposed site.

All site staff will be trained in emergency response basics and will be aware of all protocols for

notification in the event of emergency situations.

3.3.8 Litter

Litter is not expected to be a major issue on the site and litter picking will be conducted when

necessary.

3.4 Decommissioning

It is expected the life capacity of the proposed facility will be a minimum of 20 years. At some

point it is understood the proposed facility will be decommissioned at the end of its service life.

At that time the site will be decommissioned in accordance with the applicable standards,

guidelines and regulations for that period.

Since its initial construction the building had undergone several transformations to meet the

requirements of various owners. Some of the existing infrastructure is not adequate for its

required function and will be decommissioned and replaced; other items have been deemed

surplus or redundant and must be removed from the building. These items will be disposed of

as per Waste Watch requirements or taken to a provincially approved facility. Please note that if





during the removal and decommissioning of the old silo building, tanks, and foundation located

on the eastern portion of the subject site hazardous building materials are identified, proper

procedures for disposal according to applicable provincial regulations will be taken. The

removal of these structures is considered to be an improvement to the overall aesthetics of the

property

4.0 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The details of the environmental impact assessment including methodology and consultation

process are outlined in the following sections.

4.1 Methodology of Environmental Assessment

An EIA is an important process for reviewing potential environmental effects associated with the

development of proposed projects. In order to enable the review of potential issues, an

understanding and description of the environment where the proposed development will occur,

or have a possible impact on, was developed from the review of existing information available

for the area. The potential positive and negative interactions between the proposed project

activities and the environment were identified. In the event negative interactions were

anticipated and the potential effects were deemed a concern, mitigation methods were put forth

for consideration.

As identified in the PEIDCLE Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (Revised January

2010) a complete process is completed in stages as outlined below:

• Stage 1: Describing the proposed project and establishing environmental baseline

conditions for the subject site.

• Stage 2: Determining the potential environmental issues and limits of the EIA in relation

to the proposed project.

• Stage 3: Accessing the potential environmental effects of the project.

• Stage 4: Identifying mitigation measures to remove/minimize potential adverse effects to

the environment.

• Stage 5: Establish environmental monitoring and follow-up programs (if required).





The EIA focuses on the evaluation of Valued Environmental Components (VECs) that are those

aspects of the ecosystem of associated socio-economic systems that are important to the public

and other stakeholders. The VECs for the proposed project were selected based on the

interactions between the proposed project activities and the environmental and known or

perceived public concerns related to social, cultural, economic or aesthetic values. All Phases

of the proposed project are assessed including:

• Construction;

• Operation and Maintenance;

• Accidents or malfunctions; and

• Unplanned events due to weather or other factors.

4.2 Consultation

As part of the consultation process meetings were held with representatives of the PEIDCLE to

discuss the proposed project in order to determine the required scope of the environmental

assessment and the overall level required for the biophysical component of the study.

AquaBounty representatives also met with their design consultant and the following provincial

and the following federal organizations:

• PEI Department of Agriculture and Fisheries;

• PEI Department of Communities, Land and Environment;

• Environment Canada;

• Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and

• Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

The proposed site was visited by the consultants (Joose Environmental and DE Jardine

Consulting) in order to review what current site conditions and operations on the adjacent

properties.

Personnel from AquaBounty met with representatives from the community to advise them of the

proposed project and to receive initial feedback regarding the proposal.





PEIDCLE are reviewing the proposed new facility and will lead any required aboriginal

consultation.

Stakeholders and the general public will be invited to participate in the environmental

assessment process of the proposed project. It has been determined, in consultation with

PEIDCLE and AquaBounty that a Level II Public Consultation will be required for the proposed

project which includes a public information session. The purpose of the public consultation is to

inform the residents in the local area and general public about the proposed project and any

potential environmental issues. Upon submission of the EIS document, AquaBounty will post a

notice in the Guardian and Eastern Graphic to advise the public of the proposed project and to

announce the date, time and location of the public information session. The public notice will

provide contact information for the PEIDCLE assessment coordinator to provide comments and

request additional information. The EIS will be posted on the Government of PEI website

(www.gov.pe.ca) along with other related information regarding the proposed project.

Comments/questions regarding the proposed project can be submitted to the PEICLE

assessment coordinator for a period of ten (10) days following the public information session.

Comments/questions regarding the proposed development obtained from the public and the

technical review committee during the process will be outlined in Table F-1 (Appendix F) along

with corresponding answers/responses.

5.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The following sections provide an overview of the existing environmental setting at the subject

site.

5.1 Physical Setting

5.1.1 Surficial Geology

Based on an available surficial geology map, the native surficial soils of the subject site consist

of glacial till deposits, principally comprised of a combination of gravel, sand, silt and clay. The

characteristic permeability of these soils is moderate. Information obtained for soils of PEI in

Kings County for the area (Soils of Prince Edward Island, Kings County - 1:75000 mapping)

indicates that the surficial soil type at the subject site consists predominately of a Charlottetown

(Ch) map unit. The Ch soils are well suited for a variety of crops although erosion hazard is a

limiting factor. These soils have good drainage and permeability characteristics with the slope

class for the area being undulating to gently rolling.

http://www.gov.pe.ca/





5.1.2 Bedrock Geology

Based on an available geology maps, bedrock in the area of the subject site consists of Upper

Paleozoic (Pictou Group) Lower Permian Megacyclic Sequence III - that is made up of redbeds;

conglormerate, sandstone and siltstone (H.W. van de Poll, 1977). The bedrock bedding strike is

approximately east-west along the axis of PEI and the flat-lying bedrock dip is north to northeast

at one to three degrees (van de Poll, 1983). The depth below ground surface to the bedrock is

variable but an overburden thickness of approximately 3 to 5 m would be typical in this area.

5.1.3 Topography and Regional Drainage

Based on available topographic mapping and observed site topography, the subject property is

located on a groundwater divide with the southern portion (location of the main structures)

sloping downward in a valley that extends to the Rollo Bay Stream that flows west to east

across the southern portion of the property. The northern portion of the property slopes upward

away from the Rollo Bay Stream. The southern portion of the property slopes downward to the

north at an average gradient of approximately twelve (12) percent with the northern portion of

the property sloping downward to the south at an average gradient of approximately five (5)

percent).

5.1.4 Surface Water Drainage

Surfaces at the site currently consist of a combination of farmland and woodland on the northern

portion of the subject site with the southern being developed near the south boundary and

combination of grassed vegetation, wetland, pond and Rollo Bay Stream to the north of the site

structures. Surface water is anticipated to drain by infiltration and overland flow into the

wetland/pond/Rollo Bay Stream from both the southern and northern portions of the property.

5.2 Surface and Groundwater Resources

The subject site is located within the Rollo Bay watershed with Rollo Bay Stream flowing across

the southern portion of the property west to east. As part of the Amended EIA the proposed

aquaculture facility located on the subject site will now be operating as a 99.7% RAS

(Recirculating Aquaculture System), thus conserving water by using only small amounts as

make-up water for the RAS system. Consequently AquaBounty will no longer be a significant

user of the groundwater in this watershed and therefore no significant influence on the

groundwater resources or residential wells area expected in the Rollo Bay West area.

As part of the original EIS process AquaBounty was planning on using a flow through

groundwater system and there the extraction of groundwater for operation of the aquaculture

facility would have an impact the baseflow of the Rollo Bay Stream as determined by PEIDCLE.





As part of obtaining a groundwater extraction permit for the new facility, AquaBounty completed

stream flow monitoring and a 7-day pump test to determine what level of impact the future

groundwater extraction for the operation of the aquaculture facility will have on the Rollo Bay

Stream. The results of the pump test and stream flow monitoring were analyzed and compared

to the Bear River stream flow monitoring data to assess the impacts on the stream. Results

indicated there is an impact on the upstream portion of the adjacent stream with a reduction of

baseflow below the applicable PEIDCLE criteria (i.e., 35 %) especially during the summer

months (i.e., low flow period). The groundwater assessment determined that this could be

mitigated by replenishing the upper reaches of the stream with reintroduction of discharge water

to a point approximately 300 m upstream of the facility. The volume of discharge water required

to mitigate the reduction in baseflow to the upper reaches of the adjacent stream ranges

between 40 and 80 igpm. AquaBounty will retain the groundwater extraction permit for the

facility as a back-up in the event of a failure of the RAS within one of the facilities at the subject

site. The use of the groundwater would only be for short term duration during repairs to the

RAS. AquaBounty is committed to maintaining the overall health of the stream and will

implement the mitigation as required by the PEIDCLE during the operation of the facility.

5.3 Atmospheric Environment

Air quality in the area surrounding the subject site is affected by activities associated with local

traffic and commercial operations such as farming.

The nearest climate station with climate normal data is located at Monticello, which is located

approximately 15 km from the proposed site. Climate normal data is available from Environment

Canada for the 1981 to 2010 time period with Table 5-1 showing the normal values for each

month during this time interval.

Table 5-1. Climate Normal Data 1981-2010 for Monticello (Environment Canada)

Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Year

Daily Avg Temp (C)

-6.9 -7.0 -2.8 2.4 8.6 14.0 18.5 18.4 14.3 8.6 3.4 -2.4 5.8

Rainfall (mm)

32.6 28.9 42.2 60.0 86.7 90.7 79.3 88.9 107.9 114.8 110.6 61.8 904.4

Snowfall (cm)

68.3 52.9 44.8 26.8 3.40 0 0 0 0 0.2 13.5 55.9 265.8

Total Prec. (mm)

101 81.7 87.0 86.8 90.1 90.7 79.3 88.9 107.9 115.0 124.1 118 1,170

Wind Speed (km/hr)

na na na na na na na na na na na na na





Weather extremes for the Monticello station recorded during the period of record (1943 to 2010)

as listed below:

• Extreme Maximum Temperature 34.0 °C recorded on August 10, 2001;

• Extreme Minimum Temperature: - 34.4 °C recorded on February 7, 1993;

• Extreme daily rainfall: 106.4 mm recorded on August 15, 1971;

• Extreme daily snowfall: 42.0 cm recorded on March 5, 1964;

• Extreme snow depth: 244 cm recorded on January 24, 1971;

• Average date of last spring frost: May 29th;

• Average date of first fall frost: October 15th; and

• Average length of frost free period: 138 days.

5.4 Terrestrial Environment

No rare or native plant species or endanger wildlife are suspected to be presence on the subject

site as the property has been used for aquaculture proposes for 37 years. All development will

be located within the existing developed areas or areas previously disturbed (i.e., historical clear

cutting) on the subject site.

The results of a bird, mammal and botanical database review conducted by Ms. Fiep de Bie and

Ms. Dianne Griffin are included in Appendix E. A summary of Ms. Fiep de Bie’s findings is

outlined below:

“Approximately 60% of the proposed 36.7 acre site is woodland and 40% field. Some areas are

mixed hard and softwoods and some are softwood only. There is a black spruce plantation and

a white spruce plantation at this site. Trees in the non-plantation forest (other than a fairly recent

clear-cut) are 14-16 meters in height and considered young woods.

This habitat may support various common wildlife species such as Red squirrel, Raccoon,

Snowshoe hare, Red fox and Coyote. The stream on the property will attract wildlife species

and it is advised to maintain and enhance a riparian zone to protect the stream and support a

wildlife corridor.





During the 2006-2010 Maritime Breeding Bird Survey, five “Sensitive”, one “May be at Risk” and

one “At risk” bird species were found within the 10 x 10 km survey square (20NS53), in which

the AquaBounty site is located. Species with S1, S2 and S3 ranking found in the square are:

Killdeer (S3B, Sensitive), Common Tern (S2B, May be at risk), Olive-sided Flycatcher (S3B At

risk), Philadelphia Vireo (S1 S2B, Sensitive), Eastern Kingbird (S3B, Sensitive), Rose-breasted

Grosbeak (S3B, Sensitive) and Bobolink (S3B, Sensitive). The status of the Olive-sided

Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) is threatened under COSEWIC. An Olive-sided Flycatcher was

found in survey square during the Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas surveys, but not at the

AquaBounty site. A Bobolink (threatened) was found in the square, but no location was found.

There were two Barn swallow (threatened) records in 2008, and UTM coordinates for only one

sighting (May 31, 2008). It was not found at the proposed construction site.”

A summary of Ms. Dianne Griffin’s findings are outlined below:

“The vegetation on the AquaBounty site consists of some native species near or at the stream

edge as well as a number of introduced or weedy species around the existing tanks and into the

proposed expansion area.

The native species include Broad-leaved Cat-tail, Soft Rush, Speckled Alder, Red Raspberry,

Larch, Wild Rose and grasses. Two Cedar bushes were obviously planted for ornamental

purposes.

Non-native species include Evening Primrose, Queen Anne’s-lace, asters, goldenrods, grasses,

Common St. John’s-wort, Tuffed Vetch, Yarrow, Common Plantain and Strawberry.

There are no rare, uncommon or floral species of special concern within or near the commercial

operation expansion area on this property. It is primarily land which has been heavily disturbed

by development and the invasion of weedy plants.

The woodland north of the stream consists of White Spruce and Balsam Fir with some Pussy-

willow and Wild Rose on the edge. The woodland ground herbaceous plants include Wood

Fern and other common plants.”

5.5 Human Environment

The subject site has been developed at its present location as a licensed aquaculture facility

since 1978 (37 years). Prior to development as an aquaculture operation the area was utilized

as farmland and woodlot.





As noted in Section 4.2 PEIDCLE are reviewing the proposed new facility and will lead any

required aboriginal consultation.

A representative of the PEI Executive Council Office on Intergovernmental and Public Affairs

was contacted as part of this assessment to determine if there are any archaeological concerns

regarding the proposed project. The response from the representative indicated they did not

have any concerns however it was noted that during construction operations should items of

potential cultural significance be discovered activities will be halted until they are assessed by

archaeological authorities (as per the PEI Archaeology Act and Archaeology Act Regulations).

The site has been an active aquaculture facility for 37 years and has been actively farmed for

over a century prior to this so no major findings are expected.

6.0 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT (VECS TABLE)

A qualitative review of the potential interaction that the construction and operation of the

proposed Rollo Bay West aquaculture facility would have on the specific VECs that are of

particular value or interest to regulatory agencies, the public and other stakeholders are outlined

in Table 6.1.

The residual impacts rating for each of the VECs assessed is based on the following

significance:

0 = No residual impacts expected as the environmental effects are not considered

significant.

1= Insignificant - interaction occurs however based on the mitigation in place the

environmental effects are not consider significant.

2= Significant - interaction could result in an environmental effect even with

mitigation in place.

Table 6-1. Proposed Project - VECs Interactions and Mitigation

VECs Description of Effects Required Mitigation Residual Impact Rating

Land Use Project footprint is consistent

with current land use in the

developed area of the site

(existing aquaculture facility

since 1978). Adjacent and

None 0






surrounding land use consists of

a mix of residential, agricultural

land and woodlot. The subject

site has historically been utilized

as a licensed aquaculture facility

since 1978 and prior to that was

utilized as farmland dating back

to 1935 or earlier.

Groundwater

Resources

Water for domestic use will be

supplied to the current facility

with the existing on-site potable

well.

A new potable well will be drilled

on the northern portion of the

property to service the two new

structures.

The aquaculture operation will

operate as a 99.7% RAS

(Recirculating Aquaculture

System), thus conserving water

by using only small amounts as

make-up water for the RAS

system. The groundwater

supply wells will only be used to

supplied make-up water and in

the event of a failure of the RAS

within one of the facilities at the

subject site. Currently

AquaBounty has a groundwater

extraction permit and will be

retaining it for emergency

purposes.

None

The new potable well will be

constructed according to the

Provincial Regulations.

Testing and monitoring

completed to determine volume

of water and periods during the

year to divert a portion of the

discharge from the facility

upstream (approximately 300 m)

to replenish stream baseflow.

Will only be required if RAS is

down for an extended period of

time.

0

1

Wastewater Sanitary wastewater will be

discharged to the current onsite

septic system for the existing

facility.

Sanitary wastewater for the two

new structures to be

None

New on-site septic system to be

constructed according to

0

1






constructed on the northern

portion of the subject site will be

discharged into a new on-site

septic system.

Refer to Section 3.3.4 for details

on handling of effluent

generated at the proposed

facility.

Provincial Regulations.

Terrestrial

Environment

Disturbance of the terrestrial

environment will be minimal and

limited to the previously

disturbed areas (i.e.,

aquaculture operation). No rare

plants or at risk species

reported on site.

None 0

Aquatic

Environment

Potential disturbance of aquatic

environment from effluent

discharges from the on-site

facilities and possible release of

fish into the stream.

Effluent from the facility will be

treated according to provincial

regulations which will meet or

exceed the current applicable

standards. The release of fish

from the facility is highly unlikely

with the security measures in

place to prevent any release of

GMO salmon in the surrounding

environment (refer to Section

3.3.3). In the highly unlikely

event that some did escape

these fish are sterile and are not

capable of breeding with any

native species.

1

Air Quality Excess noise and dust caused

for the short term and locally

during the construction phase of

the development.

Appropriate noise suppression,

dust control as per standard

construction practices that

adheres to the applicable

PEIDCLE and PEI Occupational

Health and Safety Regulations.

1

First

Nation/Aboriginal

Communities

PEIDCLE are reviewing the

proposed new facility and will

lead any required aboriginal

consultation.

None 0






Health and Safety Project activities during

construction and operation

(including accidents, potential

malfunctions and unplanned

events) could result in risk to the

public or workers if not carried

out in a safe and proper

manner. The construction and

operation of the facility is

subject to the PEI Occupational

Health and Safety regulations.

Proper safety procedures must

be followed during the duration

of the project as per applicable

provincial and federal

regulations.

Proper safety procedures must

be followed during the duration

of the project as per applicable

municipal, provincial and federal

regulations. In addition, the

facility will be constructed and

operated following all applicable

provincial and federal codes

(including best management

practices for construction.

1

Road

Transportation

During construction, materials

and supplies will be transported

to the site with construction

workers traveling to the site by

passenger vehicle.

During operation, employee

vehicles and light trucks to

delivery supplies will be

accessing the facility on a

regular basis.

During construction and

operation, the project site will be

accessed by existing roadways

with all facility related vehicles

obeying provincial traffic laws

and corresponding Transport

Canada Regulations.

1

Archaeology,

Paleontology

and/or Heritage

Resources

Project will have minimal ground

disturbance. Construction of the

facility will require removal of fill

materials and placement of

structural fill. The areas of the

site to be developed have been

previously disturbed (farmland

and licensed aquaculture facility

for 37 years) and it is unlikely to

interact with archaeology,

paleontology and heritage

resources.

A representative of the PEI

Executive Council Office on

Intergovernmental and Public

Affairs was contacted as part of

this assessment to determine if

there are any archaeological

concerns regarding the proposed

project. The response from the

representative indicated they did

not have any concerns however

it was noted that during

construction operations should

items of potential cultural

significance be discovered

0






activities will be halted until they

are assessed by archaeological

authorities (as per the PEI

Archaeology Act and

Archaeology Act Regulations).

Environmental

Effects

Environmental effects refer to

forces of nature (i.e., severe

weather, earth quakes, etc.) that

could affect the project

physically or hamper

construction or operation of the

facility.

Compliance with provincial and

federal codes, standards and

best management practices that

inherently account for the

potential environmental effects

on the project.

1

Significance of residual impacts rates as follows: 0 = None; 1= Insignificant; 2 = Significant.

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Amended EIA for the proposed project was completed as per Section 9 of the PEI EPA.

The Amended EIA evaluated the potential environmental effects of the proposed project taking

into consideration all activities required for the construction, operation and maintenance of the

facility.

As part of the Amended EIS the following mitigation and environmental monitoring elements will

be adhered to during the construction and operation of the proposed facility, including:

Mitigation

• During construction and operation (including accidents, potential malfunctions and

unplanned events) all provincial and federal codes, standards and best management

practices will be followed; and

• During operation mitigation for hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste will be

conducted as outlined in Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 in Sections 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 of this

report.





Environmental Monitoring

• During the construction period the construction manager will conduct regular

environmental monitoring site inspections to ensure all construction components adhere

to all municipal, provincial and federal regulations and codes; and

• Monitoring of the effluent being discharged into the adjacent stream including samples

being collected and analyzed for parameters required by the owners of the utility and the

PEI Department of Communities, Land and Environment (PEIDCLE) once a year.

Based on the information obtained during the completion of the Amended EIA, Joose

Environmental and DE Jardine Consulting has concluded that the potential environmental

effects of the proposed project for all VECs would not be significant during the construction,

operation and maintenance of the proposed facility with the planned mitigation and monitoring

elements in place. Consequently, it is recommended that the proposed project should proceed

as described and outlined in this report.

8.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of AquaBounty Canada Inc. and its

Subsidiaries. The report may not be used by any other person or entity without the express

written consent of Joose Environmental Consulting Inc., DE Jardine Consulting and AquaBounty

Canada Inc. and its Subsidiaries. Any uses which a third party makes of this report, or any

reliance on decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Joose

Environmental accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a

result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.

Some of the information presented in this report was provided through existing documents and

interviews. Although attempts were made, whenever possible, to obtain a minimum of two

confirmatory sources of information, we in certain instances have been required to assume that

the information provided is accurate.

The information and conclusions contained in this report are based upon work undertaken by

trained professional and technical staff in accordance with generally accepted engineering and

scientific practices current at the time the work was performed. The conclusions and

recommendations presented represent the best judgement of Joose Environmental based on

the data obtained during the assessment. Due to the nature of the assessment and the limited

data available, Joose Environmental cannot warrant against undiscovered environmental





liabilities. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should not be construed

as legal advice.

This report was prepared by Mr. Don Jardine, B.Sc. and Mr. Peter H. Joostema, FEC, P. Eng.,

CESA. We trust this report contains all of the information required at this time, and we are

available at your convenience should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

JOOSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC. and DE JARDINE CONSULTING

________________________________ _________________________

Peter H. Joostema, FEC, P.Eng., CESA Don Jardine, B.Sc.

Principal Environmental Engineer Senior Environmental Scientist

[email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





9.0 REFERENCES

Canada’s Historic Places - http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/register-repertoire.aspx Committee on the Status of Endanger Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) - October 2014 Environment Canada - Atmospheric Environmental Services. Monticello Climate Normal for period 1981 - 2010. Government of Canada - Species at Risk: www.sararegistry.gc.ca

Historical Places of Prince Edward Island - http://www.gov.pe.ca/hpo/ PEI Department of Communities, Land and Environment - An Assessment of Fish and Fish Habitat in Rollo Bay Stream, prepared by Rosie MacFarlane, dated December 7, 2015. Prest, V. K. (1973) Surficial Deposits of Prince Edward Island - Geology Survey of Canada Map 1366A. Soil of Prince Edward Island - Research Branch Agriculture Canada (1988). Van de Pol, H.W. (1983) Geology of Prince Edward Island - Department of Energy and Forestry, Energy and Minerals Branch. Google Earth- U.S. Dept of State Geographer ©2016 Google, ©2009 GeoBasis-DE/BKG Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO Information from Personal Sources PEI Department of Communities, Land and Environment:

- Mr. Greg Wilson, Manager Environmental Land Management - Mr. Dale Thompson, Environmental Officer - Ms. Roseanne MacFarlane, Freshwater Fisheries Biologist

PEI Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development:

- Mr. Neil McNair, Director of Aquaculture PEI Executive Council Office - Intergovernmental Public Affairs

- Dr. Helen E. Kristmanson, Director, Aboriginal Affairs and Archaeology - Ms. Erin Mundy, Archaeologist

Souris Wildlife Federation:

- Mr. Fred Cheverie

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/

http://www.gov.pe.ca/hpo/



©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017

APPENDIX A Figure and Drawings




APPENDIX B AquaBounty Regulatory History

Aqua Bounty Canada Inc ©2017

Regulatory History

In the US, ABT established an Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) file in 1995 with the

Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) of the United States Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) to pursue the development of AquAdvantage® Salmon (AAS), a genetically-engineered

Atlantic salmon with a rapid-growth phenotype for use in commercial aquaculture.

The development of AquAdvantage Salmon was pursued from that point on with oversight

by the Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation (ONADE), subject to the traditional paradigm for

review and approval of veterinary drug products per the submission of a New Animal Drug

Application (NADA). An environmental assessment of the facility submitted by ABT to CVM in

December 2001 resulted in the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in

December 2003. In 2006, a new paradigm for GMO review and approval was released by the

CVM, and ABT’s submission was tailored to the new approach.

Figure 1 GMO Paradigm Obligate Review Process

Since ABT had already submitted studies detailing the development and characterization

of the plasmid form of the AquAdvantage transgene, development of the AquAdvantage Salmon

Plasmid Transgene

Integrated Transgene

Product Definition

Phenotype

Durability

Food Safety

Claims

Approval

Post-Approval


line, and characterization of the integrated AquAdvantage transgene therein, step-wise review

of the Transgene Construct (opAFP-GHc2) and the Integrated Transgene (EO-1α) proceeded

directly. These reviews resulted in CVM requests for additional information that was submitted

in the form of Supplements to the existing submissions to which they were most directly related.

CVM consideration of the human food safety studies submitted in 2004 (Composition of

Muscle-Skin) and 2006 (Allergenicity of Muscle-Skin) was completed after the reviews

for characterization of Phenotype and Durability, which required animal safety, effectiveness,

and methods-development studies. In anticipation of prospective product approval, a four-

person team from ONADE and the FDA Foreign Inspection Service (FIS) conducted a formal

inspection of the aquaculture facility in Fortune, PE, on October 7-9, 2008 and the facility was

approved by the FDA for the manufacture of AquAdvantage eggs. By 2009, ABT completed the

dossier required for subsequent step-wise reviews and NADA approval. For research on transgenic fish, the ABT Fortune facility was judged effective by Environment

Canada in reducing potential impact to a level compliant with the legal requirement for “no

release” in 1996 and has been inspected annually by Environment Canada enforcement for

physical containment. The facility was also subject to regular inspections under Schedule II of

the Fish Health Protection Regulations by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) from

1996 to 2015. Since 2012, the Fortune facility has been inspected periodically by CFIA under

the National Aquatic Animal Health, Compartmentalization Program.

Representatives of ABT met with Canadian regulatory authorities in November 2000 to present

a draft development plan for AquAdvantage Salmon, at which time advice was solicited

regarding the prospective requirements for a product approval in Canada. Representatives of

ABT met with Canadian authorities again in April 2005 to present a detailed review of U.S.

technical and regulatory developments that had occurred in the interim.

In November 2008, ABT provided an incremental summary of developments within the GMO-

review paradigm.

United States Food and Drug Administration – New Animal Drug Approval As mentioned previously, the regulatory process with the FDA was long and detailed, primarily

because AquaBounty Technologies was the first company to ever request approval for a

transgenic animal for manufacture and human consumption. For the purposes of U.S.

regulatory approval, the prospective Product Definition, Product Claim, and Conditions-of-Use

for AquAdvantage Salmon are as follows:

• Definition: A triploid Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) bearing a single copy of the stably

integrated α-form of the opAFP-GHc2 gene construct at the α-locus in the EO-1α line.


• Claim: AquAdvantage Salmon grow to a mean body weight of 100 g within 2700 degree-

days of first-feeding when fed to satiety in water temperatures characteristic of present

day farming operations.

• Use: Eyed-eggs for triploid, hemizygous, monosex fish sold for grow-out in physically

contained, freshwater production facilities.

As per the paradigm in Figure 1 above, AquaBounty was required to provide data to the FDA

on the following topics. All studies completed and data collected by AquaBounty, and all

contract research organizations used for analysis operated under Good Laboratory Practices

and Good Clinical Practices.

Characterization of the transgene construct and transgene integrant;

Inheritance and stability of the transgene integrant;

Safety of the genetic change to the salmon;

Growth efficacy of the product;

Triploid efficacy; and

Nutritional and hormone compositional analysis for food safety and allergenicity potential.

The following link will direct you to all USFDA approval documents and review material available

to the public.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration – AquAdvantage Salmon Approval Docs

Environment Canada - New Substance Notification Submission

The Government of Canada follows the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA

1999) to ensure that all new substances, including organisms, are assessed for their potential

harm to the environment and human health. This process is overseen by Environment Canada

(EC) and Health Canada (HC). The New Substances Notification Regulations (NSN) under this

Act describes the information that must be provided to EC prior to the manufacture of products

such as AquAdvantage Salmon in Canada.

In 2011 AquaBounty Technologies began compiling information for a NSN for AquAdvantage®

Salmon; the final package was submitted in April 2013 to Environment Canada. This package

included, but was not limited to information on the following areas.

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm280853.htm


Detailed description of AquAdvantage Salmon, including the product development, product

identification, and biological and ecological characteristics;

Manufacturing methods, location descriptions, and quality control and assurance systems:

o A lot of detail was included on multiple redundant physical barriers (containment) of

AquAdvantage Salmon, including over 100 photographs of the facility.

Methods of introduction and disposal;

Proposed and potential environmental effects of the product;

The potential for adverse human health effects; and

All other information collected or submitted to other regulatory bodies was included in the

notification.

As part of the review process, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) was tasked in conducting

an environmental and indirect human health risk assessment for the AquAdvantage Salmon

product and recommending any necessary measures to manage risks. This peer reviewed

information was then provided to the Minister of Environment for consideration during the

regulatory approval process. Areas of risk concern evaluated during the assessment included:

Does the product have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the

environment or its biological diversity;

Does the product constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life

depends; or

Does the product constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Also as part of the risk assessment, a DFO employee with previous fish rearing experience

visited the facility in Fortune and reviewed all fish rearing units and all levels of physical

containment and security in the facility.

This National Science Response Process on the Environmental and Indirect Human Health Risk

Assessment of AquAdvantage® Salmon can be found using the following link.

Summary of the Environmental and Indirect Human Health Risk Assessment of AquAdvantage®

Salmon

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2013/2013_023-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2013/2013_023-eng.html


Later in 2013, after the review of over 18,000 pages of documentation, AquaBounty

Technologies receives authorization to manufacture eggs at AquaBounty Canada’s hatchery for

commercial sale. Environment Canada advises AquaBounty Technologies that based on the

current proposal in the New Substances Notification (Organisms), AquAdvantage® Salmon is

not considered to be a risk to the environment.

The following links will take you to information about the review process and product on EC

and/or DFO’s websites.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2013/2013_023-eng.pdf

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-11-23/pdf/g1-14747.pdf

Health Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency - Novel Foods and Novel Feeds Submissions In 2012, AquaBounty Technologies submitted documentation for a Novel Foods Pre-Market

Submission for AquAdvantage® Salmon to Health Canada and an application to the Canadian

Food Inspection Agency to register AquAdvantage® Salmon as a Novel Feed. During the

review process both agencies assessed the product’s safety and nutritional components for

both food and for use in animal feeds.

Health Canada is responsible for ensuring that all novel foods in Canada are safe for human

consumption and is nutritious. AquaBounty Technologies was required to submit detailed

information to Health Canada outlining exactly how the product was developed and all

supporting information for the review process that was required. The information was evaluated

by trained scientists, and the following areas were examined:

How the modified product was developed, including the genetic modification in the product;

How AquAdvantage Salmon compares to conventional Atlantic salmon in terms of

composition (e.g., fats, proteins and carbohydrates) and nutrition quality;

The potential for production of new toxins in the food;

The potential for causing allergic reactions; and

The microbiological and chemical safety of the food.

CFIA is responsible for evaluating and regulating all feed ingredients, including novel feeds

derived from GM organisms. Before being allowed on the Canadian market as a feed ingredient,

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2013/2013_023-eng.pdf

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-11-23/pdf/g1-14747.pdf


AquAdvantage salmon was required to undergo a pre-market assessment and approval. The

purpose of all feed assessments is:

to ensure the feed ingredient is safe in terms of animal health;

to ensure the feed ingredient is safe in terms human health via food residues and

worker/by-stander exposure;

to ensure the feed ingredient is safe for the environment; and

to ensure the feed ingredient is effective for its intended purpose (i.e. nutritious).

ABT was required to provide extensive data to satisfy the requirements for the safety and

nutrition assessments, including how AquAdvantage Salmon was developed, how the rapid

growth during early life trait functions and nutritional composition of the fish.

In May 2016, both agencies determined that AquAdvantage salmon are just as safe and

nutritious as conventional salmon for both humans and livestock.

The following links will take you to information about the review process and product on Health

Canada’s and CFIA’s website.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/aquadvantage-salmon-saumon-faq-eng.php

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/aquadvantage-salmon-saumon-eng.php

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/aquadvantage-salmon-saumon-decision-eng.php

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/approved-under-review/decision-

documents/dd2016-117/eng/1463076782568/1463076783145

Health Canada - AquAdvantage Salmon Approval Docs

Summary of Regulatory Approvals: In 2008, The FDA inspects and approves AquaBounty Canada’s hatchery in PEI as an

authorized manufacturing site for production of AAS eggs.

In 2009, The FDA inspects and approves AquaBounty Panama’s site for the production of

AquAdvantage® Salmon for import into the US.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/aquadvantage-salmon-saumon-faq-eng.php

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/aquadvantage-salmon-saumon-eng.php

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/aquadvantage-salmon-saumon-decision-eng.php

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/approved-under-review/decision-documents/dd2016-117/eng/1463076782568/1463076783145

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/approved-under-review/decision-documents/dd2016-117/eng/1463076782568/1463076783145

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1068309


In 2010, AquaBounty Technologies receives section complete letters from the FDA on all

seven parts of the New Animal Drug Application for AquAdvantage® Salmon. The FDA

convenes its Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) in a public meeting to review

its findings of AquAdvantage® Salmon, which concluded that it is indistinguishable from

Atlantic salmon; that it is safe to eat; and that it poses no threat to the environment under its

conditions of use. The VMAC concurs with the FDA; AquAdvantage® Salmon is safe to

consume, and safe for the environment.

In 2011, the FDA consults with the National Marine Fisheries Service of NOAA and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, which concur with the FDA’s “no effect” findings that the

AquAdvantage® Salmon do not pose a threat to the environment.

In 2012, the FDA releases its draft environmental assessment (EA) and publishes in the

Federal Register a preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for AquAdvantage®

Salmon.

In 2013, publication of a Significant New Activity Notice by Environment Canada.

AquaBounty Technologies receives authorization to manufacture eggs at AquaBounty

Canada’s hatchery for commercial sale. Environment Canada advises AquaBounty

Technologies that based on the current proposal in the New Substances Notification

(Organisms), AquAdvantage® Salmon is not considered to be a risk to the environment.

In 2015, the USFDA formally approves the manufacture and sale of AquAdvantage salmon

as detailed in our application.

In 2016, both the Novel Foods (Health Canada) and Novel Feeds (CFIA) applications are

approved.

Post Approval AquaBounty is still monitored by Environment Canada Enforcement for physical containment of

AquAdvantage Salmon; AquaBounty is inspected as required by enforcement. AquaBounty is

also part of the National Aquatic Animal Health Compartmentalization Program that is

administered by CFIA. The facility is inspected for biosecurity measures as required and

submits fish for health screening as part of the Compartment maintenance.

On a semi-annual basis AquaBounty must supply the FDA with Periodic Drug Experience

reports and if any adverse events occur the Company is required to report them to the FDA in a

timely manner.




APPENDIX C

PEIDTIE Site Access Approval

From: Jonathan VeinotTo: Peter Joostema ([email protected])Cc: Dawn RunighanSubject: FW: Entrance permittingDate: Friday, April 7, 2017 11:01:40 AM

Peter, Please see the reply below from Kevin Campbell of transportation. Jon

Jon Veinot / Assistant Facility [email protected]://www.aquabounty.com(902) 687-2600

From: Kevin Campbell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April-07-17 10:03 AMTo: Jonathan Veinot <[email protected]>Subject: Re: Entrance permitting Good morning, we only issue Entrance Way Permits for entrance ways on Arterial Highways or seasonalroads. In the case of your new entrance way on Route 307, Bear River Road, that only need approval fromthis Department and since a work order was issued for the installation that means approval as well. Let me know if you require anything further.

>>> Jonathan Veinot <[email protected]> 4/6/2017 2:49 PM >>>Hi Kevin, I was just looking for a note outlining the issuant of permits for new entrances. Thanks in advance, Jon





http://www.aquabounty.com/


Jon Veinot / Assistant Facility [email protected]://www.aquabounty.com(902) 687-2600

-------------------------

Statement of Confidentiality

This message (including attachments) may contain confidential or privileged information intended for a specificindividual or organization. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the senderimmediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy,print or rely on this email, and should promptly delete this email from your entire computer system.

Déclaration de confidentialité

Le présent message (y compris les annexes) peut contenir des renseignements confidentiels à lintention d'unepersonne ou d'un organisme en particulier. Si vous avez reçu la présente communication par erreur, veuillezen informer l'expéditeur immédiatement. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous n'avez pas le droitd'utiliser, de divulguer, de distribuer, de copier ou d'imprimer ce courriel ou encore de vous en servir, et vousdevriez le supprimer complètement de votre système informatique.

-------------------------


http://www.aquabounty.com/




APPENDIX D Cleaning/Disinfectant Solutions - Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETSECTION I - PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION AND PREPARATION INFORMATION:

Product Name: Sodium Hypochlorite WHMIS Class:C,E

Trade Name: ATLANTIC-12 Product Use: Disinfection, odour control, laundry, water, sewage and industrial waste treatment.

Supplier Name & Address: Distributor Name & Address:Atlantic Chemical & Aquatics Inc.380 Bluewater RoadBedford, NSB4B 1J3(902) 835-5884

Prepared by: Atlantic Chemical & Aquatics Inc.Emergency Phone Number: CANUTEC (613) 996-6666 Preparation Date: April 16 2014

SECTION II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS:

Ingredients CAS# WT % ACGIH-TLV LC 50 LD 50Sodium Hypochlorite 7681-52-9 7-13 Not Available Not Available Not Available

SECTION III - PHYSICAL DATA:

Boiling Point (°C): 105 Special Gravity(H20=1): 1.168 Vapour Pressure(mmHg):22@20(°C)Freezing Point (°C):-15 Vapour Density(Air=1): Not Available Evaporation Rate(BuAc=1): Not AvailablePercent Volatile (Wt%):80 pH(100%): 12.8 Min. Physical State: LiquidSolubility in Water: Soluble Odour: Typical chlorine bleach Viscosity @ 20°C: Water thinAppearance: Clear lime-yellow solution

SECTION IV - FIRE AND EXPLOSION DATA:

Flammability: Not flammable Flash Point deg.(C,TCC): None LEL: None UEL: NoneHazardous Combustion Products: None Means of Extinction: If involved in fire useSpecial Fire Hazards: None water, carbon dioxide or other Class B extinguishers.

SECTION V - REACTIVITY DATA:

Conditions for Chemical Instability: Yes ..x.... No....... If YES, Under which condition: High TemperaturesIncompatible Materials: Metals, reducing and oxidizing agents, Hazardous Decomposition Products: Nonesolvents, acids, nitrogen compounds and most organic substances.

SECTION VI - TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES:

Route of Entry: ..x..Eyes ..x.. Skin Contact ......Skin Absorption ..x..Inhalation ..x..IngestionEffects of Acute Exposure: Will cause moderate irritation to skin and severe irritation and pain to eyes. Fumes may irritate mucous membranes and cause coughing or pulmonary edema. If ingested product will cause membrane irritation and pain and inflammation to digestive tract.Could cause vomiting and shock.Effects on Chronic Exposure: Same as Acute Exposure.Irritancy: Moderate to severe.Carcinogenicity: Not by IARC conclusions.Teratogenicity, Mutagenicity, Reproductive Effects: Not established.Synertistic Materials: None Respiratory Tract Sensitization: May irritate mucous membranes if exposure is prolonged.

SECTION VII - PREVENTATIVE MEASURES:

Personal Protective Equipment: Wear PVC or rubber gloves and eye goggles or shield. Also wear regular foot wear, but rubber bootswhen handling spills. When handling product, it is preferred that you wear a plastic jacket or apron. Have safetry showerand eye wash fountain available close by.Enigeering Controls: General ventilation is adequate. Ventilate storage tank outside.Leak and Spill Procedure:Leaking product may be transferred to clean plastic containers. Dilute small spills with water and add sodium sulfite or sodium metabisulfite and flush to sewer. For large spills contact CANUTEC and supplier.Waste Disposal: In accordance with Federal, Provincial and local government requiarements.

Storage Requirements: Use polyethylene, polypropylene, FRP or PVC containers. Store product at -10 to 30°C and awayfrom sunlight or heat.Special Shipping Information: Material is TDG regulated, UN #1791, Class 8, Packing Group 111. Do not drop containers.

SECTION VIII - FIRST AID:

Eye: Immediately flush with water for 15 minutes. Call a physician.Skin: Immediately flush with water. Call a physician if irritation develops.Inhalation: If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If symptoms persist, call a physician.Ingestion: Do not induce vomiting. Rinse mouth with water, then drink one glass of water. Call a physician immediately.Never give anything by mouth if victim is unconscious or rapidly losing consciousness or is convulsing.THE INFORMATION CONTIANED HEREIN IS BASED ON DATA CONSIDERED TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE,

TO BE ACCURATE. HOWEVER, NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF

THIS DATA OR THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE USE THEREOF.

SYNDEL LABORATORIES LTD Telephone: (250) 752-5256 958 Chatsworth Road (800) 663-2282 Qualicum beach, BC V9K 1V5 Fax: (250) 752-5188 Canada

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

OVADINE

Section I - IDENTIFICATION PRODUCT: Ovadine SYNONYMS: Povidone Iodine solution

Section II - HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

COMPOSITION % TLV HAZARD

Povidone Iodine 10-12% n. av. none known

Section III - HEALTH & FIRST AID INFORMATION INHALATION: There is no evidence of adverse effects from inhalation of povidone iodine solutions. INGESTION: There is no evidence of adverse effects in rats that received up to 30 mg/kg/week for 12 weeks of 10% povidone iodine solutions. The possibility exists that in certain individuals povidone iodine solutions may cause diarrhea or intestinal problems. EYE CONTACT: There is no evidence of eye irritation from contact with povidone iodine solutions. If contact does occur the eye should be flushed with water. SKIN CONTACT: There is no evidence of skin irritation either for intact or abraded skin from contact with povidone Iodine solutions. If contact does occur the affected area should be flushed with water. OTHER HEALTH INFORMATION: LD50 36.16 ml/kg orally in female and male rats. This is for 10% aqueous povidone iodine solutions with lower and upper limits of 29.13 ml/kg and 46.99 ml/kg. This compound is classified as practically non-toxic as a 10% aqueous solution.


Section IV - PHYSICAL DATA SOLUBILITY IN WATER: completely miscible APPEARANCE AND ODOUR: dark reddish brown liquid with slight iodine-like odour pH: 6.5 - 7.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1.02 - 1.04 AVAILABLE IODINE: 0.97% - 1.07%

Section V - FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS FLASH POINT & METHODS USED: none FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR; % BY VOL. LOWER: none FLAMMABLE LIMITS IN AIR; % BY VOL. UPPER: none SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES & PRECAUTIONS: none UNUSUAL FIRE & EXPLOSION HAZARDS: none

Section VI - REACTIVITY

STABILITY: stable HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: will not occur CONDITIONS & MATERIALS TO AVOID: heat causes decrease in available iodine HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: may produce iodine vapours

Section VII - EMPLOYEE PROTECTION CONTROL MEASURES: Iodine may be neutralized with sodium thiosulfate. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: Use with adequate ventilation.


PROTECTIVE CLOTHING: Wear gloves and protective clothing when using this product. EYE PROTECTION: Wear eye protection when handling this product.

Section VIII - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS: Ensure that any leaks or spills are cleaned up. SPILL OR LEAK PRECAUTIONS: Do not allow to flow into water supplies. Absorb any leaked material or neutralize with sodium thiosulfate. WASTE DISPOSAL: May usually be disposed of in landfill. Seek the advice of a professional disposal service. Ensure disposal method complies with local, provincial and federal regulations governing disposal.

Section IX - REGULATORY CONTROLS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION: Not regulated under the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act. OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENT: none

Section X - PRECAUTIONS: HANDLING, STORAGE & USAGE Store in a cool place away from direct light in a tightly closed container. PREPARED BY: MSDS Dept . DATE: Update December 20, 2010

Material Safety Data SheetLA0548

Hydrogen Peroxide 35%

1. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATIONProduct Id: LA0548Product Name: Hydrogen Peroxide 35%Synonyms: NoneChemical Family: None KnownApplication: Oxidizing agent. Bleach & water chemicals.

Distributed By:Univar Canada Ltd.9800 Van Horne WayRichmond, BCV6X 1W5

Prepared By: The Environment, Health and Safety Department of Univar Canada Ltd.Preparation date of MSDS: 07/Oct/2016Telephone number of preparer: 1-866-686-4827

24-Hour Emergency Telephone Number (CANUTEC): (613) 996-6666

2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATIONPotential Acute Health Effects:Eye Contact: Corrosive. May cause conjunctivitis, corneal burns and permanent damage. Symptoms may occur withdelay.Skin Contact: Corrosive. May cause burns resulting in permanent damage. Prolonged exposure may cause severeirritation and white discoloration. Burning may result in localized erythema (redness) or even blistering of the skin.Inhalation: Causes severe respiratory irritation. Vapors may cause pulmonary edema. Toxic effects may be delayed.Ingestion: Ingestion of high concentrations causes rapid release of oxygen which may expand the esophagus orstomach resulting in severe damage (bleeding, ulceration or perforation). Expected to cause burns to the gastrointestinaltract. Aspiration into the lungs may occur during ingestion or vomiting, resulting in lung injury.

3. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

Ingredients Percentage(W/W)

LD50s and LC50s Route & Species:

Hydrogen Peroxide7722-84-1

30-60 LD50 (oral, male rat): 1193 mg/kg (35% solution) ; LD50(oral, female rat): 801 mg/kg (60% solution) ; LD50 (oral,male rat): 75 mg/kg (70% solution) ; LD50 (oral, mouse):

2000 mg/kg (90% solution) ; LD50 (dermal, rabbit):approximately 690 mg/kg (90% solution) ; LD50 (oral, rat):

805 mg/kg (70% solution) ; LC50 (inhalation, rat) ;>0.17mg/l/4h (50% solution) ; LD50 (dermal, rabbit) : >

6500 mg/kg (70% solution)

LA0548Hydrogen Peroxide 35%

Page 1 of 6

Note: No additional remark.

4. FIRST AID MEASURESEye Contact: In case of contact, or suspected contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at least 15minutes and get medical attention immediately after flushing. Have an ophthalmologist make an evaluation of eye injury.Skin Contact: In case of contact, immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. Get medicalattention. Remove contaminated clothing and launder before reuse.Inhalation: Remove person to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, get immediatemedical attention.Ingestion: Do NOT induce vomiting. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious or convulsing person. Seekimmediate medical attention. If vomiting occurs spontaneously, keep head below hips to prevent aspiration of liquid intothe lungs.Notes to Physician: Hydrogen peroxide at this concentration is a strong oxidant. Direct contact with the eye is likely tocause corneal damage especially if not washed immediately. Careful ophthalmologic evaluation is recommended and thepossibility of local corticosteroid therapy should be considered. Because of the likelihood of corrosive effects on thegastrointestinal tract after ingestion, and the unlikelihood of systemic effects, attempts at evacuating the stomach viaemesis induction or gastric lavage should be avoided. There is a remote possibility, however, that a nasogastric ororogastric tube may be required for the reduction of severe distension due to gas formation.

5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURESFlash Point: None.Flash Point Method: Not applicable.Autoignition Temperature: Not available.Flammable Limits in Air (%): Not Available.Extinguishing Media: Do not use CO2 extinguisher on this material; use only water spray or appropriate foam. Do notuse organic compounds on this material.Special Exposure Hazards: Strong oxidizer. Contact with combustible materials may cause a fire. Release of oxygenmay support combustion. Contact with incompatible materials (e.g. metals, alkalis and reducing agents) will causehazardous decomposition resulting in the release of large quantities of heat, steam and oxygen gas. Exposure to heatmay cause hazardous decomposition. A severe detonation hazard may exist when mixed with organic liquids, e.g.kerosene or gasoline. Isolate and restrict area access. Fight fire from a safe distance and from a protected location. Stayupwind. Stop leak only if safe to do so. Containers exposed to intense heat from fires should be cooled with water toprevent vapor pressure build-up which could result in container rupture.Hazardous Decomposition/Combustion Materials (under fire conditions): Oxygen. Steam.Special Protective Equipment: Fire fighters should wear full protective clothing, including self-contained breathingequipment.NFPA RATINGS FOR THIS PRODUCT ARE: HEALTH 3 FLAMMABILITY 0 INSTABILITY 1 SPECIAL OxidizerHMIS RATINGS FOR THIS PRODUCT ARE: HEALTH 3, FLAMMABILITY 0, REACTIVITY 1

6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURESPersonal Precautionary Measures: Wear appropriate protective equipment.Environmental Precautionary Measures: Prevent entry into sewers or streams, dike if needed.Procedure for Clean Up: Restrict access to unprotected personnel. Stop leak only if safe to do so. Small spills: Flusharea with water. Large spills : Dike with earth, sand or inert sorbent material to contain spill. Remove liquid withcompatible pumps or vacuum equipment. Place in suitable container for disposal. Flush area with water. Keep materialswhich can burn away from spilled materials. Spontaneous combustion hazard : - combustible materials exposed tohydrogen peroxide should be immediately submerged in or rinsed with large amounts of water to ensure that all hydrogenperoxide is removed. Residual hydrogen peroxide that is allowed to dry (upon evaporation hydrogen peroxide canconcentrate) on organic materials such as paper, fabrics, cotton, leather, wood or other combustibles, can cause thematerial to ignite and result in a fire.

7. HANDLING AND STORAGEHandling: For food plant and other industrial use only. Handle and open containers with care. Never touch eyes of facewith hands or gloves that may be contaminated with this product. Do not ingest. Avoid inhalation of chemical. Emptycontainers may contain hazardous product residues. Keep the containers closed when not in use. Protect againstphysical damage. Use appropriate personnel protective equipment.


Page 2 of 6

7. HANDLING AND STORAGEStorage: Do not store near combustible materials. Store in a cool, dry, well ventilated area. Keep containers tightlyclosed. Do not store this material in containers made of light metals. Recommended container materials: glass, polyvinylchloride, polyethylene, ceramics, polypropylene. Use adequate venting devices on all packages, containers and tanksand check correct operation periodically. Do not confine product in unvented vessels or between closed valves. Risk ofoverpressure and bursting due to decomposition in confined spaces and pipes. Do not store on wooden floors or woodenpallets.

8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTIONEngineering Controls:Use process enclosure, local exhaust ventilation, or other engineering controls to keep airborne levels belowrecommended exposure limits.Respiratory Protection: If exposure exceeds occupational exposure limits, use an appropriate NIOSH approvedrespirator. In case of spill or leak resulting in unknown concentration, use a NIOSH approved supplied air respirator.Gloves:Natural rubber gloves. Butyl rubber gloves. Nitrile gloves.Skin Protection: Skin contact should be prevented through the use of suitable protective clothing, gloves and footwear,selected for conditions of use and exposure potential. Consideration must be given both to durability as well aspermeation resistance.Eyes: Chemical goggles; also wear a face shield if splashing hazard exists.Other Personal Protection Data: Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are proximal to the work-stationlocation.

Ingredients Exposure Limit - ACGIH Exposure Limit - OSHA Immediately Dangerousto Life or Health - IDLH

Hydrogen Peroxide 1 ppm TLV-TWA 1 ppm TWA1.4 mg/m3 TWA

75 ppm

9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIESPhysical State: LiquidColor: Clear ColorlessOdor: PungentpH <2 (20°C)Specific Gravity: 1.13Boiling Point: 119°C /246.2°FFreezing/Melting Point: -56°C / -68.8°FVapor Pressure: 48 Pa @ 30°CVapor Density: Not Available.% Volatile by Volume: Not Available.Evaporation Rate: Not Available.Solubility: Completely miscible.VOCs: Not Available.Viscosity: 1.8 mPa.s @ 0°CMolecular Weight: 34.02 g/MolOther: Not Available.

10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITYChemical Stability: Stable.Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur.Conditions to Avoid: High temperatures. Spontaneous combustion hazard : - Combustible materials exposed tohydrogen peroxide should be immediately submerged in or rinsed with large amounts of water to ensure that all hydrogenperoxide is removed. Residual hydrogen peroxide that is allowed to dry (upon evaporation hydrogen peroxide canconcentrate) on organic materials such as paper, fabrics, cotton, leather, wood, or other combustibles, can cause thematerial to ignite and result in a fire.Materials to Avoid: Metals. Reducing agents. Alkalis. Combustible material. Organic materials. Heavy metals and theirsalts.Hazardous Decomposition Products: Steam. Oxygen.


Page 3 of 6

10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITYAdditional Information:No additional remark.

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATIONPrinciple Routes of ExposureIngestion: Ingestion of high concentrations causes rapid release of oxygen which may expand the esophagus orstomach resulting in severe damage (bleeding, ulceration or perforation). Expected to cause burns to the gastrointestinaltract. Aspiration into the lungs may occur during ingestion or vomiting, resulting in lung injury.Skin Contact: Corrosive. May cause burns resulting in permanent damage. Prolonged exposure may cause severeirritation and white discoloration. Burning may result in localized erythema (redness) or even blistering of the skin.Inhalation: Causes severe respiratory irritation. Vapors may cause pulmonary edema. Toxic effects may be delayed.Eye Contact: Corrosive. May cause conjunctivitis, corneal burns and permanent damage. Symptoms may occur withdelay.

Additional Information:Acute Test of Product:Acute Oral LD50: 805 mg/kg (rat)Acute Dermal LD50: >6500 mg/kg (rabbit)Acute Inhalation LC50: Not Available.

Carcinogenicity:

Ingredients IARC - Carcinogens ACGIH - CarcinogensHydrogen Peroxide Group 3 A3

Carcinogenicity Comment: No additional information available.

Reproductive Toxicity/ Teratogenicity/ Embryotoxicity/ Mutagenicity: It is not possible to conclude that hydrogenperoxide is mutagenic. Positive results have been obtained in cultured humans cells. Negative results have beenobtained in relevant studies using live animals. Positive results have been obtained in short-term mutagenicity tests.

12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATIONEcotoxicological Information:

Ingredients Ecotoxicity - Fish SpeciesData

Acute CrustaceansToxicity:

Ecotoxicity - FreshwaterAlgae Data

Hydrogen Peroxide LC50 (48 hr) carp: 42 mg/L. ;LC50 (96 hr) fish : 37.4 mg/l

EC50 (24 hr) Daphnia : 7.7mg/l

NOEC (72 hr) Algae : 0.1mg/l

Other Information:Under ambient conditions quick hydrolysis, reduction or decomposition occurs. Hydrogen peroxide quickly decomposesto oxygen and water.

13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONSDisposal of Waste Method: Disposal of all wastes must be done in accordance with municipal, provincial and federalregulations.Contaminated Packaging: Empty containers should be recycled or disposed of through an approved wastemanagement facility.

14. TRANSPORT INFORMATIONDOT (U.S.):DOT Shipping Name: HYDROGEN PEROXIDE, AQUEOUS SOLUTIONDOT Hazardous Class 5.1 (8)DOT UN Number: UN2014DOT Packing Group: IIDOT Reportable Quantity (lbs): Not Available.


Page 4 of 6

14. TRANSPORT INFORMATIONNote: No additional remark.Marine Pollutant: No.

TDG (Canada):TDG Shipping Name: HYDROGEN PEROXIDE, AQUEOUS SOLUTIONHazard Class: 5.1 (8)UN Number: UN2014Packing Group: IINote: No additional remark.Marine Pollutant: No.

15. REGULATORY INFORMATIONU.S. TSCA Inventory Status: All components of this product are either on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)Inventory List or exempt.

Canadian DSL Inventory Status: All components of this product are either on the Domestic Substances List (DSL), theNon-Domestic Substances List (NDSL) or exempt.

U.S. Regulatory Rules

Ingredients CERCLA/SARA - Section302:

SARA (311, 312) HazardClass:

CERCLA/SARA - Section313:

Hydrogen Peroxide Listed Not Listed. Not Listed.

California Proposition 65: Not Listed.MA Right to Know List: Listed.New Jersey Right-to-Know List: Listed.Pennsylvania Right to Know List: Listed.

Additional Notes: Not Available.

WHMIS Hazardous Class:C OXIDIZING MATERIALSD1B TOXIC MATERIALSE CORROSIVE MATERIALF DANGEROUSLY REACTIVE MATERIAL


Page 5 of 6

16. OTHER INFORMATIONAdditional Information: This product has been classified in accordance with the hazard criteria of the

Canadian Controlled Products Regulations (CPR) and the MSDS contains all theinformation required by the CPR.

Disclaimer: NOTICE TO READER:Univar, expressly disclaims all express or implied warranties of merchantability andfitness for a particular purpose, with respect to the product or information providedherein, and shall under no circumstances be liable for incidental or consequentialdamages.

Do not use ingredient information and/or ingredient percentages in this MSDS as aproduct specification. For product specification information refer to a ProductSpecification Sheet and/or a Certificate of Analysis. These can be obtained fromyour local Univar Sales Office.

All information appearing herein is based upon data obtained from the manufacturerand/or recognized technical sources. While the information is believed to beaccurate, Univar makes no representations as to its accuracy or sufficiency.Conditions of use are beyond Univar's control and therefore users are responsible toverify this data under their own operating conditions to determine whether theproduct is suitable for their particular purposes and they assume all risks of their use,handling, and disposal of the product, or from the publication or use of, or relianceupon, information contained herein. This information relates only to the productdesignated herein, and does not relate to its use in combination with any othermaterial or in any other process.

©2015 Univar Inc. All rights reserved. Univar, the hexagon, the Univar logo andMasterLine are the registered trademarks of Univar Inc.

***END OF MSDS***


Page 6 of 6

SAFETY DATA SHEET

SECTION 1: IDENTIFICATION

PRODUCT NAME: LIQUID DYNEMATE PLUS SUPPLIER’S NAME & ADDRESS : WEST PENETONE INC. USE : Chlorinated alkaline cleaner 10,900 SECANT ST. ANJOU, QUEBEC, H1J 1S5 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS : WEST PENETONE : (514) 355-4660 CANUTEC : (613) 996-6666

SECTION 2: HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

Corrosive to eyes and skin. Harmful if swallowed. Inhalation of spray mist will irritate respiratory passages.

SECTION 3: COMPOSITION AND INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

% CAS # : ACGIH TLV : LD50 OF MATERIAL LC50 OF MATERIAL Potassium hydroxide 10-15 1310-58-3 2 mg/m3 Rat-oral 365 mg/kg Not applicable Sodium hypochlorite 1-5 7681-52-9 None Rat-oral 5.3 g/kg Not applicable

SECTION 4: FIRST AID MEASURES

EYE CONTACT: Flush with plenty of water for 15 minutes. Consult physician SKIN CONTACT: Flush with plenty of water for 15 minutes. Consult physician if irritation develops or persists. INHALATION: Give fresh air. INGESTION: Do not induce vomiting. Drink plenty of water and contact physician immediately.

SECTION 5: FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES

MEANS OF EXTINCTION : Not applicable HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS : Not applicable SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS FOR FIREFIGHTERS: Not applicable

SECTION 6: ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES

SPILL CONTROL MEASURES : Use absorbent material or mop up. Rinse area with plenty of water.

SECTION7: HANDLING AND STORAGE

STORAGE AND HANDLING PROCEDURES : Store away from acids. Keep from freezing.

Page 1 of 3

LIQUID DYNEMATE PLUS Page 2 of 3 Date prepared : March 3, 2014 MSDS : Liq Dynemate Plus SDS EN

SECTION 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION

EXPOSURE LIMITS: See Section 3 PERSONAL PROTECTION : Rubber or neoprene gloves. Splash proof goggles or face shield, rubber apron and boots. ENGINEERING CONTROLS : No special measures required.

SECTION 9: PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

APPEARANCE : VAPOR PRESSURE, mm Hg AT 20ºC : Clear, light green liquid Not applicable ODOR VAPOR DENSITY (Air = 1) :Faint chlorine Not applicable ODOR THRESHOLD : SPECIFIC GRAVITY AT 20ºC: Not applicable 1.25 pH : SOLUBILITY IN WATER :> 13 Complete FREEZING POINT : COEFFICIENT OF WATER/OIL DISTRIBUTION :Not available Not available BOILING POINT : AUTO IGNITION TEMPERATURE : Approx. 100 ºC None FLASH POINT : DECOMPOSITION TEMPERATURE: None Not available EVAPORATION RATE, water = 1 : VISCOSITY:1 Not available FLAMMABILITY (SOLID, GAS): Not applicable

FLAMMABLE LIMITS : UPPER: Not applicable LOWER : Not applicable

SECTION 10: STABILITY AND REACTIVITY

CONDITIONS OF STABILITY : Product is stable INCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS TO AVOID :Acids REACTIVITY : Not reactive HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS : None. POSSIBILITY OF HAZARDOUS REACTIONS: Chlorine gas when mixed with acids.

SECTION 11: TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

ROUTE OF ENTRY: Skin and eye contact (acute) Ingestion Inhalation ACUTE HEALTH EFFECTS: Severe irritation and/or burns to skin and eyes. Inhalation of spray mist will irritate respiratory passages. Ingestion will severely irritate gastro-intestinal tract. EFFECTS OF CHRONIC EXPOSURE: None known EXPOSURE LIMITS AND TOXICITY: See Section 3

LIQUID DYNEMATE PLUS Page 3 of 3 Date prepared : March 3, 2014 MSDS: Liq Dynemate Plus SDS EN

SECTION 12: ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION

ECOTOXICITY: Not available PERSISTENCE AND DEGRADABILITY: Not available BIOACCUMULATIVE POTENTIAL: Not available MOBILITY IN SOIL: Not available OTHER ADVERSE EFFECTS: None known

SECTION 13: DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL : Consult local and / or provincial authorities

SECTION 14: TRANSPORT INFORMATION

T.D.G. classification: corrosive liquid n.o.s. (potassium hydroxide), class 8, UN 1760, PG III

SECTION 15: REGULATORY INFORMATION

WHMIS classification: E DSL compliant

SECTION 16: OTHER INFORMATION

PREPARED BY : PIERRE STEWART DATE : March 3, 2014 MANAGER TECH. SERVICES VERSION: 9 PHONE NO : (514) 355-4660 SUPERCEDES: Version 8, June 30, 2012 THE INFORMATION PRESENTED HEREIN HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM SOURCES DONSIDERED TO BE DEPENDABLE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF WEST PENETONE’S KNOWLEDGE. THE INFORMATION RELATES TO THIS SPECIFIC MATERIAL. IT MAY NOT BE VALID FOR THIS MATERIAL IF USED IN COMBINATION WITH ANY OTHER MATERIALS OR IN ANY PROCESS. IT IS THE USER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO SATISFY ONESELF AS TO THE SUITABILITY AND COMPLETENESS OF THIS INFORMATION FOR HIS OWN PARTICULAR USE.




APPENDIX E

Terrestrial Environment - Supporting Information

Joose Environmental Project No. JE0219

©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2016 Page 1

DE Jardine Consulting Winsloe South, PEI [email protected] Prepared for: DE Jardine Consulting and Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. Prepared by: Fiep de Bie, 34 Edgehill Terrace, Stratford, PE (March 2016).

Aqua Bounty purchase of Atlantic Sea Smolt Facility, 1300 Route 2, Rollo Bay West.

Re: Modifications and some new construction.

Aqua Bounty proposed construction site

Objectives:

Research the prevalence of wildlife and breeding status of avian species in the study area.

Check for records of rare or endangered species (COSEWIC), records of nesting areas and

special habitats.

Method used:

- Consulting the Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas 2006-2010.

- Consult with Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas surveyors on rare avian species observed in the

survey square (20NS53).

- Obtain location of rare species in the Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas (Greg Campbell, Bird

Studies Canada).

- Consult eBird for sightings in and near the Aqua Bounty site.

- Consult Nature PEI records and PEI birding list server.

- Consult Provincial Forest maps for habitat.




- Check Conservation data ranking and Species at Risk status - Atlantic Canada Conservation

Data Centre.

- Consult and confirm COSEWIC website for Species at Risk status for avian species.

- Consult PEI “Field Checklist of Birds” (8th edition, 2014) for seasonal frequency of birds.

Results:

SRank of provincial birds: SRank denotes provincial status of birds by the Atlantic Canada

Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC). Classification “S5” indicates an abundant species breeding

in the province and “S4” refers to a fairly common species breeding in PEI. Classification “S3”

refers to species breeding on PEI that are uncommon throughout its range in the province, “S2”

are species breeding on PEI that are provincially rare, and “S1” are species breeding on PEI that

are extremely rare in the province. The majority of species detected during the Maritime

breeding bird Atlas surveys (2006-2010) were classified as S4 and/or S5 by the ACCDC, with the

exception of seven avian species.

During the 2006-2010 Maritime Breeding Bird Survey, five “Sensitive”, one “May be at Risk” and

one “At risk” bird species were found within the 10 x 10 km survey square (20NS53), in which

the Aqua Bounty site is located. Species with S1, S2 and S3 ranking found in the square are:

Killdeer (S3B, Sensitive), Common Tern (S2B, May be at risk), Olive-sided Flycatcher (S3B At

risk), Philadelphia Vireo (S1 S2B, Sensitive), Eastern Kingbird (S3B, Sensitive), Rose-breasted

Grosbeak (S3B, Sensitive) and Bobolink (S3B, Sensitive). The status of the Olive-sided Flycatcher

(Contopus cooperi) is threatened under COSEWIC. An Olive-sided Flycatcher was found in

survey square during the Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas surveys, but not at the Aqua Bounty site.

A Bobolink (threatened) was found in the square, but no location was found. There were two

Barn swallow (threatened) records in 2008, and UTM coordinates for only one sighting (May 31,

2008). It was not found at the proposed construction site.

Field Checklist:

Seasonal frequency of birds in Prince Edward Island can be found in the “Field Checklist of

Birds” (8th edition, 2014) produced by the Government of Prince Edward Island. Codes for

seasonal frequency are (O) occasional; (R) rare; (H) hypothetical; (U) uncommon; (A) accidental;

(IR) irregular; (FC) fairly common; (C) common; and (VC) very common. Most species found near

or at this development, according to the Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas are very common (50 or

more birds per day an observer may expect to see), common (10-49 birds per day) and fairly

common (1-9 birds per day). A few birds, such as the Olive-sided Flycatcher are uncommon in

the spring and autumn, and fairly common in the summer. A Philadelphia Vireo is considered

rare at any season.



The Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas does not list any federal endangered Species at Risk

(COSEWIC) for this particular atlas square. It would require a field visit to confirm these

findings. With the resources and time available no federally listed species at risk were found at

the proposed site.

Habitat:

Approximately 60% of the proposed 36.7 acre site is woodland and 40% field. Some areas are

mixed hard and softwoods and some are softwood only. There is a black spruce plantation and

a white spruce plantation at this site. Trees in the non-plantation forest (other than a fairly

recent clear-cut) are 14-16 meters in height and considered young woods.

This habitat may support various common wildlife species such as Red squirrel, Raccoon,

Snowshoe hare, Red fox and Coyote. It is advised to carry out construction before or after the

avian breeding season (late April – mid-August). The stream on the property will attract wildlife

species and it is advised to maintain and enhance a riparian zone to protect the stream and

support a wildlife corridor.

Resources:

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife (COSEWIC).

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/index_e.cfm

Maritimes Breeding Bird Atlas

http://www.mba-aom.ca/

Atlantic Data Conservation Data Centre

http://www.accdc.com/index.html

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/index_e.cfm

http://www.mba-aom.ca/

http://www.accdc.com/index.html



Botanical Report, Aqua Bounty Site, Rollo Bay

I visited the Aqua Bounty site today on Property #s 849505 and 1022300 in Rollo Bay. The dominant manmade features of the development currently on site are the building and associated outdoor fish tanks, including the tank shell portions to be assembled for new tanks. The stream is immediately adjacent to the footprint of the current and proposed fish rearing facility. The vegetation on the Aqua Bounty site consists of some native species near or at the stream edge as well as a number of introduced or weedy species around the existing tanks and into the proposed expansion area. The native species include Broad-leaved Cat-tail, Soft Rush, Speckled Alder, Red Raspberry, Larch, Wild Rose and grasses. Two Cedar bushes were obviously planted for ornamental purposes. Non-native species include Evening Primrose, Queen Anne’s-lace, asters, goldenrods, grasses, Common St. John’s-wort, Tuffed Vetch, Yarrow, Common Plantain and Strawberry. There are no rare, uncommon or floral species of special concern within or near the commercial operation expansion area on this property. It is primarily land which has been heavily disturbed by development and the invasion of weedy plants.

The woodland north of the stream consists of White Spruce and Balsam Fir with some Pussy-willow and Wild Rose on the edge. The woodland ground herbaceous plants include Wood Fern and other common plants. It appears that the proposed expansion of the Aqua Bounty operation will have no impact on the woodland as it will be located on the other side of the stream.

Diane Griffin D. Griffin Consulting March 16, 2016

FACT SHEET — BANK SWALLOWS (Riparia riparia)

ONTARIO STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION

5720 Timberlea Blvd., Suite 103, Mississauga, ON L4W 4W2 Phone: (905) 507-0711 Fax: (905) 507-0717 Web: www.ossga.com www.theholestory.ca

AGGREGATE POP-OUTS FACT SHEET

BANK SWALLOWS (Riparia riparia)

Photo: John Reaume

Essential materials for building a strong Ontario

BANK SWALLOWS in Pits & Quarries Guidance for Aggregate Producers

With habitats around the world, the bank swallow population in Canada is in decline, with an estimated drop of over 95 per cent since 1970 in Ontario alone. While the exact reason for this decline is unknown, loss of nesting sites and young broods as a result of habitat destruction/disturbance has been cited as a possible reason. BACKGROUND: The bank swallow (Riparia riparia), can nest in colonies from 3 to about 2,000 burrows and average about 70 burrows. Sand and gravel pits often provide suitable habitats for bank swallow colonies and have become important nesting sites for this species.

The bank swallow eats flying insects and spends the winter in South America. It returns to Canada between late April and May to breed. Burrow numbers generally continue to increase until mid-to-late June and colonies often remain active until mid-August. BANK SWALLOWS IN PITS & QUARRIES • Bank swallows are attracted to pits and quarries. They build

nests in stockpiled product or banks and they prefer sand or silty sand.

• Breeding season is early May to mid-August in southern Ontario and late-May to mid-August north of Sudbury.

• Excavation or construction during the spring and summer can negatively affect bank swallows or their nesting sites (Environment Canada, 2011).

• These birds will take advantage of stockpiled product and small banks up to large extraction faces offering suitable habitat within a pit, which has the potential to reduce operational access to these areas during the breeding season.

YOUR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY Bank swallows and their nests are protected under the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. It is an offence for anyone to kill, hunt, capture, injure, harass, take or disturb a migratory bird nest or eggs. Offenders are liable to a fine or imprisonment. A review is currently underway to determine whether the bank swallow should be declared a species at risk in Ontario. WHAT YOU CAN DO • Pre-plan in March to late April (or mid-May north of Sudbury) by altering working faces and stockpiles to prevent harassment

or harm to bank swallows. Manage these areas throughout the breeding season to make these potential nesting sites unattractive. See next page for details.

• Provide alternate nesting sites in an inactive portion of your pit or quarry. See next page for details.

Photo: Mark Browning The nest is built at the end of a burrow dug mostly by male bank swallows into a vertical bank of sand or silt, or similar material.

FACT SHEET — BANK SWALLOWS (Riparia riparia)

ONTARIO STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION

5720 Timberlea Blvd., Suite 103, Mississauga, ON L4W 4W2 Phone: (905) 507-0711 Fax: (905) 507-0717 Web: www.ossga.com www.theholestory.ca

HOW TO CREATE & PROTECT HABITAT DO set aside pre-existing suitable habitat or create new habitat in inactive area(s) of a pit or quarry before the breeding season begins by creating vertical faces of 70 degrees or more in piles or banks. These areas should be off-limits to excavation for the duration of the breeding season from May - August. Heavy machinery near colonies is likely to disturb the swallows and reduce nesting productivity. DO cordon off these areas and inform all pit employees of the location of the colony and to avoid disturbing the colony until further notice when bird colonies are established, or suitable faces are created. This will help conserve active colonies. (Using sand piles, or pylons with or without police tape, are easy and effective ways to cordon off nesting sites.) HOW TO DISCOURAGE BANK SWALLOWS FROM NESTING DO discourage bank swallows from nesting in areas that will be excavated over the breeding season by contouring faces to have a less vertical slope (either by sloping off or piling material on the face to create a slope that is less than 70°). Vertical faces located high up on a slope may have to be altered from above if possible, or extraction in these areas should be scheduled for after mid-August when the birds have left. Photo: Charles M. Francis

DO install bird deterrent devices before breeding season starts, such as plastic owls (Great Horned Owls), to discourage bank swallows from establishing a colony in suitable banks. DON’T use deterrent devices (e.g. plastic owl) once a colony has been established since this could interfere with the bank swallow’s ongoing nesting activities. OTHER GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS DO secure access to your stockpiled material throughout the season by ensuring no vertical faces remain in the stockpile. (Slopes less than 70 degrees will prevent birds from nesting.) DO extract material ahead of the breeding season and create suitable habitat in the process by creating vertical faces greater than 70 degrees. DO devote a few minutes to removing vertical faces at the end of the work day so that bank swallows don’t begin to build in these faces overnight or over a weekend. DON’T operate heavy machinery or excavate material within 50 metres of a colony. However, moving heavy equipment past a colony once is unlikely to cause any problems.

Photo: Robert McCaw

RESOURCES:

Environment Canada. 2011. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) Know Your Legal Obligations (CW66-297/1-2011E-PDF). Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ec/CW66-297-1-2011-eng.pdf

Quarry Products Association Northern Ireland. Biodiversity Advice Notes Sand Martin Riparia riparia. Retrieved from http://www.qpani.org/pdf/sandmartinadvicenotes.pdf

DATE: April 26, 2013

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ec/CW66-297-1-2011-eng.pdf

http://www.qpani.org/pdf/sandmartinadvicenotes.pdf




APPENDIX F

Questions/Comments and Associated Answers/Responses from Public and Technical Review Committee

©Joose Environmental Consulting Inc. 2017 Page 1 of 18

Table F-1: Questions/Comments and Associated Answers/Responses to Amended EIS

1. Question/Comment: Page 19, Section 3.2.7 states “All of the above noted AST’s are manufactured to ULC standards with the oil burning equipment installed as per CSA B-149-15.” Please note that the correct code for oil burning appliances is CSA B-139.

Answer/Response: Correction made in Amended EIS report correct code is B139 SERIES-15.

2. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the possible causes and potential duration of an RAS failure. Also please outline in detail the short-term solution which will be implemented in the event of failure of the RAS.

Answer/Response: Each RAS is equipped with various fail safes to ensure operation and back-up pumps will be maintained on site for every system; replacement of a pump should not exceed 2 hours. In the event of a power failure we will have emergency back-up generators on standby with appropriate fuel storage for our region. In the event of a complete power failure oxygen can be supplied to each tank. We do not expect any failure in the bio filters within the RAS systems. In over 13 years of operation of 3 bio filters in Fortune we have never experienced a failure. If a bio filter had to be re-seeded for some reason, it is expected that the seeding would take place within a few days by introducing water from an adjacent system. The fish would be on reduced feed ration until the bio filter was operating properly. In the event of loss of water to the facility, the RAS system can operate on a closed loop. Feed would not be presented to the fish at this time.

3. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the protocol which will be in place for cleaning the screens, including estimated frequency and precautionary measures to eliminate the possibility of GMO escapes.

Answer/Response: Each facility will have its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that will detail the location, size, and number of screens employed for containment purposes. There will be a minimum of four physical containment barriers employed at all times. Each screen within the facility will be checked daily by staff members and cleaned as required. This process is documented using data capture forms included in the SOP. In the event that a screen or barrier has to be removed for cleaning, repair, or replacement, there will still be a minimum of four barriers in place during the procedure. Each facility will have sufficient inventory stock of screens/barriers; this inventory is also checked on a monthly basis.

4. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the security measures that will be in place to reduce the possibility of intentional release of GMO fish by people.

Answer/Response: All facilities will be equipped with various security measures, such as, motion detectors, door contacts, audible alarms, and video surveillance. Access to the facility is through locked, sound doors and windows will be secured. On-call staff is available at all times to respond to an alarm within minutes. All visitors to the site are chaperoned at all times. All staff hired by the company goes through a rigorous interview process and references must be supplied.

5. Question/Comment: Please provide details on any chemicals which will be used, either in treatment of recirculated water or in cleaning of the facility, and the impact of these chemicals on effluent quality.

Answer/Response: All chemicals to be used at the site have been included in Table 3-3 on page 20 of the Amended EIS report. The Material Data Safety Sheets are included in Appendix D of the document. It was concluded in the Amended EIS report that there would be no impact on the environment from use of the chemicals listed. All chemicals are routinely used in aquaculture operations with no documented ill-effects using the recommended concentrations.


6. Question/Comment: Please confirm that only sanitary wastewater will be routed to the in-ground septic system and that no effluent from the fish rearing operation will go in-ground.

Answer/Response: Only sanitary wastewater will be routed to the in-ground septic system.

7. Question/Comment: Please note that conducting botanical surveys prior to the growing season (March 16, 2016) is not an accepted method of assessing the plant community. Also note that the botanical report included in Appendix E states that “It appears that the proposed expansion of the Aqua Bounty operation will have no impact on the woodland as it will be located on the other side of the stream.” This statement is no longer relevant as the majority of the footprint of new development will take place in the woodland north of the watercourse. Will detailed botanical surveys be conducted in this area to allow for an assessment of potential impacts prior to development?

Answer/Response: The botanical survey was conducted by a qualified botanist and included the properties on both sides of the stream thus comments offered by this botanist are relevant. The property on the north side of the stream is secondary growth and was formerly agricultural production, so the site has been altered from its natural state. The Souris Wildlife Federation has been contacted as the watershed group which is active in the area and they have no reports of rare plants in the area. Further to the above, we were advised by PEIDCLE officials that the original botanical and wildlife surveys were sufficient for the proposed amendment of the originally approved project.

Question/Comment 2: Please note that the Souris and Area Branch of the PEI Wildlife Federation is not a recognized authority on the presence of rare plants in the area and should not be utilized in this capacity in the future.

Answer/Response 2: Thank you - Comment has been noted.

8. Question/Comment: Please note that breeding bird surveys should be completed in the area of the proposed development during the breeding season to show what is actually there. The Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas data used shows what birds might be present within a 100 km

2 not what birds are there.

Answer/Response: The wildlife and bird surveys were conducted by a qualified individual and the appropriate documents were consulted as per PEIDCLE requirements. The Souris Wildlife Federation was also consulted about any occurrence of rare birds in the area and they report that none have been reported or observed.

Question/Comment 2: Please see question/comment 2 for # 7.


9. Question/Comment: Should this proposal have been reviewed at the Federal level prior to the Provincial EIA?

Answer/Response: AquaBounty is in communication with Environment Canada on a continuous basis. It has been determined by Environment Canada that no additional assessments will have to be completed.

10. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the potential impact of groundwater pumping at the maximum permitted rate. For what distance and in what manner could this potentially impact upon groundwater?

Answer/Response: A detailed hydrogeological assessment was carried out as part of the original EIS report completed in May 2016 in coordination with the PEIDCLE and following the Groundwater Allocation Permitting process. In the previous assessment the proposed facility would operate as a flow through system and based on the hydrogeological assessment completed at that time there would be no significant influence on the residential wells in the area. With the introduction of RAS systems the groundwater use for the proposed facility will be reduced by approximately 75%


resulting in even less influence residential wells in the area. Refer to Section 5.2 of the Amended EIS report for additional details.

11. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the volume of water required to charge the RAS, how frequently the RAS will be drained/recharged and under what circumstances/time of year.

Answer/Response: There are several RAS systems within the three buildings (n = 9). Not all of the RAS systems will be brought on-line at the same time, each will be filled slowly and at different times. We will not require large amounts of water at one time to start a RAS system. Once each RAS system is filled it will not be drained. The numbers and size/volume of holding tanks for the proposed facility is provided in Section 3.2.3 of the Amended EIS report.

Question/Comment 2: Please provide the volume of water needed to start an RA system; if the volume varies by system (n = 9) please provide the volume required to start each system.

Answer/Response 2: The numbers and size/volume of holding tanks for the proposed facility is provided in Section 3.2.3 of the Amended EIS report and have been included here:

Grow-out facility ~ 2,518 m³; Broodstock facility ~ 24,721 m³; and R&D facility~ 222 m³.

It is important to note that the initial start-up does not involve the facilities being filled to capacity. The systems will be filled over time as the fish develop in size requiring more space.

12. Question/Comment: In the event of a catastrophic system failure, how will the water within the RAS be drained and how will any fish mortalities be disposed of?

Answer/Response: a) All fish mortalities will be collected and incinerated at the Waste Treatment facility in Charlottetown. If required carcasses will be stored frozen during this process until they can be disposed.

b) The water within the RAS would be drained slowly (water quality would be maintained during this process).

Question/Comment 2: Please provide details on to where and by what means the water within the RAS would be drained in the event of a failure.

Answer/Response 2: AquaBounty currently has the ability to discharge 1,375 igpm according to the current water extraction permit. Water drained from any system would follow the same path it would during normal operations. The biofilters in the RAS are remarkable at purifying water. We have found instances where the water quality exiting our facilities (99 trips through a tank full of fish) has been better than the incoming ground water which we initially introduce to our facilities. This includes higher oxygen levels, lower nitrogen and nitrate levels and zero E.coli. The water in the facilities is all but potable. There will be no contaminants either in the water or sludge leaving the facility.

13. Question/Comment: Please provide the estimated daily water usage (make up water) required for the RAS.

Answer/Response: Please refer to Section 3.3.1 - Tables 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of the Amended EIS report.

14. Question/Comment: Please indicate whether upstream pumping will be required and if so, if the necessary landowner permission has been granted.

Answer/Response: Further discussions were required with PEIDCLE to determine the volume of


upstream pumping or other possible mitigation measures that could be employed. AquaBounty has spoken to the land owner about placement of the effluent pipe; a formal agreement has not been proposed.

15. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the how fish will be euthanized on site. Will fish be bled on site? Will any level of processing of the carcass take place on site or will whole, intact fish carcasses be exported?

Answer/Response: Fish will be stunned and exsanguinated as they are transferred to a transport truck whole and intact.

Question/Comment 2: Please provide details on the frequency of slaughter, anticipated quantity of blood per slaughter and how the blood will be handled, stored and disposed of.

Answer/Response 2: Fish will be slaughtered one (1) to three (3) days per week. Live fish are directed through a stunner/ bleeder which euthanize and exsanguinates the fish. Fish will then slide into an ice slurry transport tank to bleed out and delivered to the processing facility. Blood will be disposed at the processing facility as per their provincial regulations the facility has to operate under.

Question/Comment 3: Please indicate if additional permits or paperwork will be required from CFIA for the onsite bleeding of fish.

Answer/Response 3: Permits are not necessary unless processing is to occur. Fish will not be bled out in the facilities.

16. Question/Comment: Section 3.3.4. Wastewater Management states that: “Excess water will pass back into the stream after passing through the settling pond or wetland.” Please clarify if there is a settling pond and wetland and separate wastewater streams into each. Also please clarify what is meant by “…back into the stream…” as Section 3.2.5 indicates that the RAS will be fed by groundwater.

Answer/Response: A wetland or equivalent will be constructed on site to serve as a final water treatment method with guidance from PEIDCLE.

Question/Comment 2: Please provide details on the location and construction of the wetland or equivalent.

Answer/Response 2: A constructed wetland is an engineered sequence of water bodies designed to filter and treat waterborne pollutants found in sewage, industrial effluent or storm water runoff. Constructed wetlands are used for wastewater treatment or for greywater treatment, and can be incorporated into an ecological sanitation approach. Vegetation in a wetland provides a substrate (i.e., roots, stems and leaves) upon which microorganisms can grow as they break down organic materials. This community of microorganisms is known as the periphyton. The plants remove about seven (7) to ten (10) percent of pollutants, and act as a carbon source for the microbes when they decay. Constructed wetlands are of two basic types: subsurface flow and surface flow wetlands. The exact design of the wetland has yet to be finalized, but will be located south of the proposed structures. Many regulatory agencies list treatment wetlands as one of their recommended "Best Management Practices" for controlling urban runoff.

Question/Comment 3: Please note that the response did not address either of the items where clarification was requested above.

Answer/Response 3: Water exiting the wetland will drain “into” the stream. There will be no settling pond for the new facilities all waste will be collected and stored in a tank onsite for disposal later.

17. Question/Comment: Section 3.3.4 Wastewater Management: Please provide the mesh size of the “…three perforated stainless steel screens…” that the wastewater leaving the facility must pass through before entering the settling pond or holding tanks.


Answer/Response: Screen sizes are determined by stage of life to be contained. Smaller screens are used on small fish and eggs, ~1mm. Larger screens are used for larger fish up to 20mm. Each life stage will always have a minimum of four (4) barriers in place at any time.

18. Question/Comment: Please clarify how the effluent from the two new buildings will be handled if/when the RAS is down and the switch is made to flow-through. Will the effluent from the two new buildings be piped to the settling pond? Also, please include a diagram showing the path of any flow-through effluent (including piping and other infrastructure) from the two new buildings.

Answer/Response: The new facilities cannot operate on flow through as the water requirement is too great. Effluent will follow the same process always. If RAS is “down” there will be zero discharge. No diagram required for this issue.

Question/Comment 2: Please confirm that, in the event that the RAS is down in one or both of the new buildings, there will be no water flow into or out of the building(s).

Answer/Response 2: If an entire RAS system was to fail (or all systems) there would be no water flow into or out of the buildings (zero discharge). However, if a component on a RAS system was to fail, the system could operate at a reduced rate. Additional make-up water (groundwater) will only be used to alleviate stress to the fish (i.e. lower ammonia levels) or to add water to a system that may have been lost during maintenance; this would be done with small volumes of water. None of the buildings/systems on site will be able to operate on flow-through.

Question/Comment 3: Please confirm that only the existing building will have the capacity to operate on flow-through if the RAS is down.

Answer/Response 3: The existing building “will not” have the capacity to operate on flow through given the new design. The reduced piping size will not have the capacity to handle the flowrate from the production wells (PWs).

19. Question/Comment: Section 3.3.4: Please provide an estimate of the flow expected from the hatchery building into the settling pond.

Answer/Response: 5.7 imperial gallons per minute (igpm) or 25.9 Litres per minute (L/min).

20. Question/Comment: Section 3.3.4: Please indicate the characteristics of the settling pond sludge which will be evaluated prior to determining disposal options. Also, please indicate disposal options under the various scenarios possible.

Answer/Response: Sludge will be disposed of as fertilizer and immediately tilled into the land or transferred to a wastewater treatment facility (i.e., such as those used for septic waste).

Question/Comment 2: Please provide an answer to the first question above to allow an evaluation of potential risk to the receiving field(s) and groundwater below. Also please provide an estimate of what the sludge will contain in terms of nutrients and toxic contaminants.


Answer/Response 2: We do plan to use the existing settling pond that is on site for 100% of the water effluent from the Hatchery building. All solid waste captured from that building will enter the storage tanks and/or will be incinerated. There will be no new settling ponds for the new buildings. We may direct some excess water effluent from the new buildings to the existing settling pond. The volume of water effluent directed to the existing settling pond will be far less that proposed in the original EIS and far less than was ever directed to that pond during previous operations. The quality of the effluent will also be much better than it has been during any of the previous operations, where there was 0% solid collection prior to discharge. For this reason we do not foresee there being excessive amounts of sludge accumulating within the settling pond. We also do not anticipate the sludge being toxic in any form or being different in terms nutrients than it has been for the past 40 years. The statement that was questioned was there from the original EIS application that had been accepted. We do not expect the conditions to be any different now, other than the fact that less effluent will enter this pond than was originally proposed. We will introduce no toxic contaminants in the settling pond and we expect that there will be some nutrients found in the solids at the bottom of the settling pond such as nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium compounds. The statement in Section 3.3.4 of the Amended EIS report mentioning sludge to the settling pond has been removed. The waste (manure) from the storage tanks will be applied to the land as it would be for any agricultural operation.

21. Question/Comment: Please describe the path of water as it circulates through the RAS, including the sequence of solid waste removal. Also please confirm that the only water intentionally discharged from the RAS (other than that lost to evaporation and splash out) will be that used to flush out waste material and provide an estimate of the water lost to the system for this purpose.

Answer/Response: Water exiting a rearing tank passes through a drum filter. At this point the water flow

is divided into two flows RAS and waste. RAS water passes though the bio-filter, CO₂ stripper, pumped to the gas management tower, ozonized, through the Low Head Oxygenation (LHO), through the Ultra Violet (UV) sterilizer and back to the rearing tanks. For wastewater refer to Section 3.3.4 of the EIS report. Total water discharge: Grow out Facility will be 63 igpm (286 L/min), Broodstock Facility 27 igpm (123 L/min) and Hatchery Facility 5.7 igpm (25.9 L/min).

22. Question/Comment: Please provide detailed information on the mechanics of the bio-filtration system to be used by the RAC to aid in maintaining water quality.

Answer/Response: Rotating drum-filter, moving bed bio-filter, CO₂ stripper (degasser), ozonization systems, LHO, UV Sterilizer. Exact details are proprietary information held by Aqua Bounty Technologies and the engineering firm Water Management Technologies.

23. Question/Comment: Please confirm the location(s) where fish euthanized at the facility will be processed and how the processing waste will be handled and disposed of.

Answer/Response: The processing of the fish and associated processing waste are not part of this EIA. Please refer to Section 3.3.4 of the EIS report.

Question/Comment 2: Please note that this is a legitimate concern that is relevant to the EIA. As such, please confirm that the possible locations for processing are Charlottetown and the Souris Industrial Park (as stated in the EIS) and list any other locations being


considered.

Answer/Response 2: Fish that are harvested from the Grow-out facility will be transported to an approved fish processing facility. Waste generated at the processing facility is not the responsibility of AquaBounty. The processor is responsible to adhering to the regulations that are put in place by CFIA or any other regulator. At this time, a facility has not been identified. The facility or facility location chosen will also be capable of handling the wastewater from the processing procedure, such as the Charlottetown Industrial Park or any approved processing facility.

24. Question/Comment: Section 1.2.1 Project Overview: please confirm that the broodstock building will house conventional Atlantic salmon only and that the hatchery and grow out buildings will house AquAdvantage salmon.

Answer/Response: AquAdvantage salmon will not be housed in the Broodstock building.

25. Question/Comment: Section 3.2.3 Site Structures: This section describes how the existing hatchery building will be heated. Please describe how the two new buildings will be heated.

Answer/Response: The new buildings will utilize stand-alone heat pumps.

26. Question/Comment: Section 3.2.7 Fuel Storage makes reference to “main” and “secondary” generator buildings. Please add these structures to Drawing No. 2 of Appendix A.

Answer/Response: The approximate location of the secondary generator structures has been included on Drawing No. 2, Appendix A of the Amended EIS report.

27. Question/Comment: Section 3.2.7 Fuel Storage: please clarify the type of fuel contained within the 900 L and 250 L ASTs.

Answer/Response: Diesel and/or Furnace Oil.

28. Question/Comment: Please provide additional details on how manure removed from the radial flow clarifiers will be handled (i.e., storage location, application location(s), timing of application, etc.) and how potential odours will be mitigated.

Answer/Response: Storage of manure will occur on site in holding tanks. Possible customers have already shown interest in purchasing the product for agricultural use. Product removal and land application will occur during the “Growing Season” in PEI. No removal or application will occur during times that the earth is frozen. The same practice used for other manure application on PEI will be used for this manure.

Question/Comment 2: Please clarify if “practice” refers to incorporation into the soil soon after application.

Answer/Response 2: Yes, that will be the plan as this will enable growers to obtain the maximum benefit from the application of the material to their fields.

Question/Comment 3: Please note that, should manure be sold, imported or exported, the handling of the manure would fall under the Fertilizers Act and Regulations which, in this case, would fall under the authority of the CFIA.


29. Question/Comment: Section 3.3.6 Site Security states that “Access to the site will be limited to employees and visitors conducting business.” Please indicate how access will be restricted – will the entire site be surrounded by security fencing? If not what measures (other than those outlined in Section 3.3.6) will be in place to restrict access.

Answer/Response: Some fencing will be required around the outlying perimeters of the buildings. Further details on the security systems imposed by Aqua Bounty are considered proprietary.

Question/Comment 2: Please clarify if this means that all three buildings will be enclosed by security fencing.

Answer/Response 2: At this time we do not intend to enclose all three (3) structures with security fencing. The exact location of the fencing has not been determined yet, however, some


fencing will be used around the structures.

30. Question/Comment: Please indicate if bleach, iodine or similar chemicals will be used for disinfection in the facility and, if so, how these chemicals will be removed/treated from effluent prior to release.

Answer/Response: Bleach will be used strictly for equipment cleaning only (i.e., sinks, balance surfaces). Iodine based products (i.e., Ovadine) will be used for sanitation and biosecurity purposes. Ovadine is an approved aquatic disinfectant and begins to degrade once mixed to manufacturers specifications which is the protocol that will be used at the facility. Refer to Section 3.2.8 and Appendix D of the Amended EIS report.

31. Question/Comment: Please provide figures for the proposed daily, monthly and annual groundwater usage at the facility and the potential impacts on groundwater levels. Has the potential impact upon neighbour’s wells been assessed? Also please include information on the pump test completed for the initial proposal.

Answer/Response: The breakdown for the proposed use of groundwater is as follows:

97 igpm; 137,808 imperial gallons per day (igpd); 4,134,240 imperial gallons per month (igpmo); and 50,299,920 imperial gallons per year (igpy).

Prior to AquaBounty acquiring the subject property the subject site operated as an aquaculture facility which utilized a flow through system and had an approved groundwater allocation of approximately 1,400 igpm from the PEIDCLE. The previous aquaculture facility operated at the site since 1978 with no reported issues to residential wells in the area. As part of the current proposal and included in the original EIS report (May 2016) a detailed hydrogeological assessment was carried out in coordination with the PEIDCLE as per the Groundwater Allocation Permitting process. The detailed hydrogeological assessment included five (5) day pumping testing at a rate of 1,375 igpm utilizing all production wells (PWs) on the subject property. In addition, stream monitoring was completed for a period of eight (8) months. The information collected from the hydrogeological completed as part of the assessment was reviewed by PEIDCLE and an Groundwater Allocation Permit of 1,375 igpm was issued to AquaBounty for use at the current site with mitigation included for the reduction of stream base flow and no significant impact to the residential wells in the area. With the introduction of RAS systems the groundwater use for the proposed facility will be reduced significantly resulting in even less influence on residential wells in the area. It is anticipated that the normal average daily water use will be 100 - 120 igpm for all facilities combined. Refer to Section 5.2 of the Amended EIS report for additional details.

32. Question/Comment: The predicted effluent water quality parameters given in the Amended EIS report are very similar to those provided for the original proposal, even though stocking density and biomass has increased. Is this due to the more efficient waste removal provided by the RAS?

Answer/Response: Yes - with the operation of the proposed facility using RAS there is more efficient waste removal with the predicted effluent water quality being similar to the original proposal.

33. Question/Comment: Given the reality of climate change and the potential for storms of increasing severity, please outline measures which will be implemented to prevent the release of GM salmon due to a catastrophic weather event which causes a breach of the facilities containment measures.


Answer/Response: The designed facility is of sound construction; a pre-engineered steel building built on a solid 1.83 - 2.44 m (6 - 8 ft.) concrete foundation with steel doors. All fish produced at the facility will be housed in tanks located inside this building. Section 5.3 of the EIS report contains information on extreme climate events in the past including the maximum daily precipitation event of 106.4 mm August 15, 1971. Future storms are projected to increase in severity but the engineered structure is anticipated to be able to withstand climate events during its design life. It is also important to note that the AquAdvantage salmon are sterile; they cannot reproduce.

34. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the market for GMO salmon, including where it will be sold and how it will be labelled.

Answer/Response: The question is considered outside the scope of the current EIA. Marketing of production from the facility is proprietary information which will not be disclosed to protect business interests.

Question/Comment 2: For clarification, please indicate if GM salmon will be sold in North America or elsewhere.

Answer/Response 2: AquAdvantage salmon can be sold wherever there is approval for sale of the product. At this time, AAS is approved for sale in Canada and the USA.

35. Question/Comment: The DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) 2013 publication Summary of the Environmental and Indirect Human Health Risk Assessment of AquAdvantage Salmon states that this review was based on a 95% sterilization success rate. The Amended EIS indicates a 99.8% efficacy rate. Please indicate how Aqua Bounty will demonstrate that this higher rate of sterilization is being achieved.

Answer/Response: The regulators have imposed a minimum 95% sterilization rate for AquAdvantage salmon. AquaBounty routine achieves 99.8% + sterilization rates with their procedures. AquaBounty has a validated assay that they use to ensure that each batch of eggs produced meets the guidelines set in place by the regulatory bodies that oversee AquAdvantage salmon production.

36. Question/Comment: The only PEI representative involved in the DFO CSAS process appears to represent the commercial aquaculture perspective. Please indicate how expertise re: possible local/regional recreational fisheries impacts have been considered during this review and what the conclusions were.

Answer/Response: The Environment Canada NSN process is not subject to review under the EIA and is covered by a separate regulatory process which is beyond the scope of the provincial EIA process.

37. Question/Comment: Section 2.2 Alternatives to Project (options considered) states that the Fortune facility was not deemed a suitable alternative due to “Possible limitations with groundwater”. Please explain how the Rollo Bay site differs from the existing Fortune site in this respect.

Answer/Response: It is stated that ground water is a “Possible Limitation”, however, the availability of property to expand at the Fortune site is a definite limitation.

Question/Comment 2: Please provide details on the groundwater limitations at the Fortune facility. Does this mean that AquaBounty is utilizing the maximum groundwater allocation permitted at the Fortune location?

Answer/Response 2: The operations at the Fortune facility are not part of this review. The limitation at the Fortune site is property. Having a geographical distinct location for expansion is also a benefit to the company. None of these statements mean that we are utilizing the maximum groundwater allocation permitted at our Fortune location.


38. Question/Comment: At the public information session, an Aqua Bounty employee stated that water would be circulated through the system at a rate of 40 l/hour. Please confirm if this amount is correct and if it refers to an individual tank, building or the entire RAS.

Answer/Response: Unsure on what this question is referring to as none of the AquaBounty employees at the meeting can recall making this statement. Flow rates are as stated in the document or in the answers to the questions.

39. Question/Comment: The Aqua Bounty facility in Panama has had issues related to compliance with applicable legislation. How can Aqua Bounty guarantee that there will be no issues here?

Answer/Response: Aqua Bounty Employees will oversee all the day to day activities that occur within the site and will ensure that all applicable legislation will be followed.

40. Question/Comment: Please provide details on what measures will be implemented to prevent eggs from being released into nearby waterways should a vehicle transporting eggs overturn or otherwise be involved in a highway accident.

Answer/Response: Fertilized eggs are transported in rigid shipping containers approved by regulators. In the unlikely event eggs may escape from the rigid shipping containers, they will be recovered and placed in secure containers in a timely manner.

Question/Comment 2: Please indicate how, in the event of an accident in which eggs escape the rigid shipping containers, the scattered eggs will be recovered from a waterway.

Answer/Response 2: To clarify the Answer/Response from above: The eggs are wrapped in toweling and placed inside the container. The lid is secured with heavy duty packing straps and is taped with packing tape. The container is then wrapped in bubble wrap and placed inside a cardboard outer that is also sealed. This is a highly unlikely scenario as the rigid containers are structurally solid. Fish eggs can be recovered using nets, tweezers, vacuum etc.

41. Question/Comment: Please describe security measures that will be implemented to prevent unauthorized removal of eggs or fish by staff and the deliberate or accidental release of eggs or fish into natural waterways.

Answer/Response: Please refer to the answers to Question Nos. 4 and 40 above.

42. Question/Comment: Please provide details on what measures will be implemented to mitigate any odour issues originating from the settling pond.

Answer/Response: The main goal of the settling ponds or constructed wetland is to not to capture waste. This will occur in previous stages. But rather reduce nitrate and phosphorus levels in the water through a natural process. No odours should emanate from the constructed wetland.

43. Question/Comment: Note that the EIA application contains an error in the primary contact email address, a spelling error in the estimated project cost, and conflicting descriptions of the buildings to be constructed in the attached Project Description.

Answer/Response: The EIA application has been revised and resubmitted with the correct information.

44. Question/Comment: Note that the EIS Executive Summary states that “…Aqua Bounty is proposing to construct one new structure” while in the same paragraph states that “The two new 3,700 m

2 (40,000 ft

2) structures are in addition to the original EIS…” Please clarify

how many new structures will be constructed and the square footage of each.

Answer/Response: The Amended EIS includes the new structure from the original EIS and a new Grow out facility for a total of two (2) buildings each roughly 40,000 ft

2.


45. Question/Comment: There is no mention of disease protocols and how water and effluent will be treated to minimize transmission to Island populations. Please provide additional information on how local fish populations will be protected from the disease risks posed by the facility.

Answer/Response: Diseases are already present in wild populations. Biosecurity measures are in place to prevent those diseases from entering AquaBounty’s facilities. The facility is designed to prevent the escape of pathogens as per Table 3.1 in Section 3.2.1 of the Amended EIS report.

46. Question/Comment: Please explain why, with the efficiencies of the RAS promoted in the EIS, the issue of “Possible limitations with groundwater” contributed to the apparent unsuitability of the Fortune location.

Answer/Response: Please refer to the answer provided to Question 37 above.

47. Question/Comment: Section 3.2.5 Water Supply for Holding Tanks: In the last paragraph, please define what is meant by “…short term purposes” with regards to groundwater usage.

Answer/Response: Please refer to the answer provided to Question 2 above.

Question/Comment 2: Please confirm that “…short term purposes” with regards to groundwater usage, (as stated in the response to question 2 above) will not exceed 2 hours in duration at any time and that no additional groundwater will be required in the new buildings.

Answer/Response 2: This cannot be confirmed. The facilities are designed to operate with well water requirements well below the permitted groundwater extraction permit for the subject site. The extraction permit is for the property owned by AquaBounty Canada (i.e., Parcel Nos. 849505 and 1022300). The water allocation will be used on its property as needed. Replacing a pump should not exceed 2 hours although it is possible that a repair could take longer. There will be no request for increased pumping allocation for the new buildings.

48. Question/Comment: Table 6.1, Proposed Project – VEC’s Interaction and Mitigation, Groundwater Resources, Required Mitigation: states that upstream pumping will only be required if the RAS is down for “…an extended period of time.” Please define “extended period of time”.

Answer/Response: In the event RAS system is down for a period of greater than 24 hours additional flow may be required up to the extraction permit limit of 1,375 igpm. Depending on the time of year (i.e., recharge or drought period) upstream pumping will be required to a maximum of 80 igpm.

Question/Comment 2: As per the response to Question 18 above, please confirm that, in the event of an RAS failure, the groundwater extraction permit allocation will only be used in the hatchery building. Also note that the upstream pumping requirement, as per the Groundwater Extraction Permit, is 80 IGPM from July through September and 120 IGPM during the remainder of the year.

Answer/Response 2: The extraction permit is for the property owned by AquaBounty Canada (i.e., Parcel Nos. 849505 and 1022300). The water allocation will be used on its property as required within the operations at the subject site. The comment of the upstream pumping requirements has been noted. .

49. Question/Comment: Page 30 of the EIS references “semi-moist manure” while Page 22 refers to “semi-solid manure”. Please clarify whether manure is semi-moist or semi-solid.

Answer/Response: Semi Moist refers to moderately or slightly wet or damp. Semi Solid refers to highly viscous; slightly thicker than semifluid. Both will occur.

50. Question/Comment: Section 4.2 Consultation: Please provide details of the results of the Federal and Provincial consultations which took place prior to submission of the EIS.


Answer/Response: AquaBounty has had extensive discussions with representatives within the Provincial Government including Finance PEI (Innovation Division), PEI Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (PEIDAF) and PEI Department of Communities, Land and Environment (PEIDCLE). Communication was also held with Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Health Canada (HC) and Environment Canada (EC).

51. Question/Comment: Section 5.4 Terrestrial Environment falsely states that “No rare or native plant species or endanger wildlife are suspected to be presence on the subject site as the property has been used for aquaculture proposes for 37 years. All development will be located within the existing developed area with no impact to the trees and vegetation on the subject site”. This statement is not true. Please update the EIS to reflect what is actually proposed.

Answer/Response: The area of the proposed development in the Amended EIS on the northern portion of the subject site was previously agricultural land prior to the present non-uniformed regrowth of trees on this section of land. This comment was provided without any evidence to support the claim being made (i.e., “This statement is not true”). A qualified botanist and wildlife technologist did check the area on the north side of the stream as part of the originally approved project. The Souris Wildlife Federation was contacted and they are not aware of any reports of rare or endangered species in the area. PEIDECL staff also advised that this original study was sufficient for the purposes of this revised project.

Question/Comment 2: The statement made in the EIS, specifically that “all development will be located within the existing developed area with no impact to the trees and vegetation on the subject site” was not and is not true. I’m not exactly sure what a “non-uniformed regrowth of trees” is, but the area was clearly forested prior to clearing for this development. Orthophotos from 1968 show the area of the northernmost building in forest at that time, with no subsequent evidence of clearing for agriculture. There are stumps in the newly cleared area that are almost 25 inches in diameter; to imply that this forested area was devoid of any wildlife habitat value is simply false.

Answer/Response 2: These observations have been noted. Aerial photos from 2000 and 1958 (see attached) shows that portions of the area were devoid of forest at that time. At no time has it been stated in the document or in our responses that the area was devoid of wildlife or wildlife habitat.



52. Question/Comment: Section 5.4 Terrestrial Environment, Diane Griffin findings, last paragraph states that “It appears that the proposed expansion of the Aqua Bounty operation will have no impact on the woodland as it will be located on the other side of the stream.” This statement is false as the Amended EIS indicates two new buildings to be constructed north of the stream. Please update the EIS to reflect what is actually proposed.

Answer/Response: The area of the proposed development in the Amended EIS on the northern portion of the subject site was previously agricultural land prior to the present non-uniformed regrowth of trees on this section of land. Section 5.4 of the Amended EIS reported has been updated to reflect this comment.


Answer/Response 2: See response 2 to Question No. 51


53. Question/Comment: Note that the EIS needs to be updated to show that portion of the forested area north of the stream which was removed prior to submission of the Amended EIS. This update should include a revised orthophoto showing the cut-over area.

Answer/Response: The area of the proposed development in the Amended EIS on the northern portion of the subject site was previously agricultural land prior to the present non-uniformed regrowth of trees on this section of land. The most recent orthophoto available on the provincial mapping site was used for the current Amended EIS report.

Question/Comment 2: Please update the ortho (either manually or electronically) to show the cut-over area.

Answer/Response 2: Noted - update to Drawing No. 1 has been made.


Answer/Response 3: See response 2 to Question No. 51.

54. Question/Comment: Please provide information on the food consumption requirements of GM salmon compared to non-GM salmon.

Answer/Response: Information on food consumption at the proposed facility is included in Section 3.3.1 of the EIS report. The question on the comparison between non-GM salmon and GM-salmon is considered outside the scope of the current EIA and is not an environmental issue.

55. Question/Comment: Although the Aqua Bounty Fortune facility runs on an RAS, there is a steady wastewater outflow from the facility. Will there be a steady outflow from the Rollo Bay facility? What assurances can AquaBounty provide that water will be used as efficiently as possible?

Answer/Response: There will be a steady outflow however the RAS is 99.7 % efficient and as water is added water is displaced.

56. Question/Comment: Will the GM salmon be treated with antibiotics or other chemical medications? If so, please provide details on the type and quantity of each required and include a comparison of antibiotics and other chemical medications required by GM salmon as compared to non-GM salmon. How will these products be removed from wastewater prior to discharge to ensure that ground and surface waters are not contaminated?

Answer/Response: No antibiotics or medications are planned for use unless instructed so by a veterinarian. At our current operations, we do not use antibiotics or medications and do not expect to have to do so at the new facilities.

57. Question/Comment: Please explain why the grow-out of AquAdvantage salmon was not included in the initial EIS for the Rollo Bay facility.

Answer/Response: AquaBounty Inc. head office decided to move ahead with a Grow out facility after receiving additional regulatory approvals which occurred after the initial EIA was completed and approved. Based on business reasons, the AquaBounty decided to move forward with the proposed development of the Grow-out facility at the Rollo Bay site and that is why an amendment has occurred.

Question/Comment 2: Please clarify what additional regulatory approvals were received following initial EIA Approval.


Answer/Response 2: AquaBounty Canada received the Health Canada Novel Foods and the CFIA Novel Feeds approval on May 19, 2016.

58. Question/Comment: Please provide an estimate of the annual quantity of fossil fuels that will be required to operate the facility.

Answer/Response: The hatchery building will require furnace oil for heating the domestic areas only. (3,000 L/ year). The new structures will not require any for the daily operations. Diesel fuel for all standby generators will be used when required (i.e., power failure).

59. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the anticipated benefit of the facility to the local economy, including the number of new positions and the date by which these positions may be staffed.

Answer/Response: Operation of the new facilities in Rollo Bay will have a positive economic impact to the area. Restaurants, hotels, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, suppliers, academic institutions, consultants, etc. will all benefit from the added business. AquaBounty currently interacts with hundreds of businesses in PEI and Canada. At this time, Aqua Bounty plans to fill 20-30 new positions with the expansion of the Rollo Bay site. We have received a lot of interest from the local labour force and they will be evaluated first. More specialized positions may have to be filled by skilled workers, which will allow us to recruit quality individuals to PEI. The time lines for hiring are directly correlated with the approval of the Amended EIS and construction timeline.

60. Question/Comment: Please indicate if any of the fish manure to be used as fertilizer will be resold. If so, please indicate the estimated quantity for resale and how this component of the manure will be managed/handled.

Answer/Response: At this time there is no plan to sell the manure.

61. Question/Comment: PEISC - Table 6.1 Proposed Project - VEC’s Interactions and Mitigation: The aquatic environment is perhaps the environment where the proposed development has the strongest potential to impact upon. Please revise the EIS to include the aquatic environment as a VEC in Table 6.1.

Answer/Response: The revision has been made to Section 6.0, Table 6.1 of the Amended EIS report.

Question/Comment 2: Please provide a copy of the revised section for review prior to submission of the final EIS.

Answer/Response 2: Table 6.1 in the Amended EIS report has been updated to include the Aquatic Environment and it was submitted for review and accepted prior to the final Amended EIS being submitted.


62. Question/Comment: Please note that to reduce risk of incidental take of migratory birds related to human- induced light, ECCC-CWS recommends implementation of the following Best Management Practice’s (BMP’s):

The minimum amount of pilot light warning and obstruction avoidance lighting should be used on tall structures. Warning lights should flash, and should completely turn off between flashes.

The fewest number of site illuminating lights possible should be used in the project area. Only strobe lights should be used at night, at the lowest intensity and smallest number of flashes per minute allowable by Transport Canada.

Lighting for the safety of employees should be shielded to shine down and only to where it is needed.

LED lights should be used in place of other lights where possible. LED light fixtures are less prone to light trespass (i.e. are better at directing light where it needs to be, and do not bleed light into the surrounding area), and this property reduces the incidence of migratory bird attraction.

Answer/Response: The above noted BMP’s will be implemented where it is considered feasible and applicable to the proposed facility.

63. Question/Comment: Section 1.4, Regulations and Statutes for Assessing the Project: Please explain the absence of the Fisheries Act in the list of legislation that may be applicable to the proposed project. Given that there is a proposed discharge from the facility, the proponent should be aware of the obligations under the Pollution Prevention Provisions (Section 36(3)) of the Fisheries Act.

Answer/Response: AquaBounty is aware of the requirements of the Fisheries Act and no approvals are required as no substances that are deleterious to fish habitat are expected to be released from operation of the proposed facility.

64. Question/Comment: Note that the water/effluent flow and discharge description is difficult to follow. Please clarify the following from Section 3.3.4, Wastewater Management, Containment and Effluent:

“Excess water will pass back into the stream…”.

What excess water? “…water is introduced to the holding tank/settling pond…” and “Sludge from the holding tanks/settling pond will be removed when it impacts the flow…”. Are the holding tanks and settling pond not at two separate locations?

Please provide the location within the facility where the radial flow clarifiers will be located.

“Table 3.8 outlines the expected water quality parameters of the effluent leaving the facility at either location”. On the site plan drawing, please identify the locations where effluent will leave the facility and the infrastructure required to convey the effluent to the holding tanks and settling pond.


On the site plan drawing, please identify the location where the “excess water” will flow into the stream. Also please provide details on the overflow elevation of the settling pond and how the level of the settling pond is maintained.

Answer/Response: The water/effluent flow and discharge for the proposed facility and associated answers to Question 64 are provided as follows:

Water/effluent leaving the hatchery facility will enter the settling pond and then flow into the stream;

Water/effluent leaving the two (2) 40,000 ft2 buildings will be discharged to

the upper portion of the stream or another method (i.e., infiltration gallery, etc.) approved by PEIDCLE;

Excess water refers to water that leaves the facility as overflow and through the various pieces of water treatment equipment;

Holding tanks will be at the proposed new facility;

Radial flow separators will be outside the proposed facilities;

Water quality monitoring will occur prior to entering the water shed; and

Water levels will be maintained using a constructed weir. Edits made to Drawing No. 2 (Appendix A) of the Amended EIS to show the locations noted above.

Question/Comment 2: Please provide additional details on what constitutes “excess water” and how water is determined to be excess as opposed to being recirculated. Also, for the 2 new buildings, please clarify which water will be discharged to the holding tanks and which water will be discharged to the upstream watercourse/infiltration gallery. Are these separate streams and if so how will the water quality differ?

Answer/Response 2: Excess water refers to the clear water over flow that is released from the facility. This clear water will be used for mitigation purposes. To maintain stable operation, control systems are used to maintain a constant level. This system is set at a point to where it continuously releases a small amount of clear water. This allows the operator to ensure the system does not drain or overfill. For example, if you are introducing 10 igpm of new well water to the facility you will have roughly the same amount although slightly less exiting on the back end of the water treatment system as clear water overflow which is deemed as “excess water” flow. It is not equal in and out as some of the water is lost from the system through evaporation, fish splashing, waste removal and the other various components of the water treatment system. The waste line off the drum filters will direct solids as slurry to the cone settlers. Here solids will be settled and dewatered. The solids will go to the storage tank. The water will go through a drum filter where the waste will be directed back to the cone settlers and water will be released to the wetland. All water that enters the watercourse will meet the parameters that have been outlined in Section 3.3.4 - Table 3.8 of the Amended EIS report.

Question/Comment 3: As requested, please identify on the site plan drawing the locations where effluent will leave the facility and the infrastructure required to convey the effluent to the holding tanks and settling pond.

Answer/Response 3: Completed and shown on Drawing No. 2 in Appendix A of the Amended EIS report. .


65. Question/Comment: Hazardous materials should be managed so as to minimize the risk of chronic and/or accidental releases. Please provide a contingency plan which includes a consideration of the potential accidents and malfunctions while also considering site-specific conditions and sensitivities.

Answer/Response: Please refer to Section 3.2.8 of the Amended EIS report - No hazardous materials are proposed for the operation.

66. Question/Comment: Please note that comments from Environment and Climate Change Canada, including a fact sheet on bank swallows (Riparia riparia) is attached for information purposes.

Answer/Response: Comments have been noted with fact sheet included in Appendix E of the Amended EIS report.

67. Question/Comment: Please provide a plan which details how, in the event of an escape/release of GM salmon, Aqua Bounty could respond to minimize the release of fish, i.e the placement of instream barriers, electrofishing, etc.

Answer/Response: In the unlikely event that a complete loss of containment occurs, the following actions will be taken: identification and repair of the containment failure; determination of the extent of the breach; recovery/euthanization of animals, notification of appropriate regulatory authorities (e.g. Environment Canada); and coordination with those authorities.

68. Question/Comment: Please provide details on the potential impacts of the effluent on the Rollo Bay estuary and clam beds.

Answer/Response: The proposed facility will operate according to provincial regulations with all effluent either meeting or exceeding the applicable standards for discharge into the stream which ultimately flows to the Rollo Bay estuary. The subject site has historical operated as an aquaculture facility since 1978 with no reported negative effects on the stream or clam beds from the operations with the proposed facility being operated at current higher standards.

69. Question/Comment: Please provide details on how the pumping of groundwater at the maximum rate for an intermittent and/or extended period of time could potentially affect groundwater in the area and what the area of impact could be.

Answer/Response: Please refer to the answer to Question 31.

70. Question/Comment: We have experienced impacts on our well water (dirt/sediment) which we believe have been related to groundwater usage by the nearby golf course during a dry summer. What will be the impact of the additional groundwater usage on our groundwater resource?

Answer/Response: Please refer to the answer to Question 31. Further the comment on the dirt/sediment impacts on the well from the nearby golf course is difficult to address as stated. The location of the private well mentioned, the well construction details, historical water quality and quantity information would have to be disclosed along with scientific evidence of impacts from pumping of groundwater at “the nearby golf course” would have to be provided.

71. Question/Comment: If the RAS were to fail and equipment/replacement parts were not readily available, what will be the impact on nearby residential wells if a flow through system operates while the RAS is down?


72. Question/Comment: If the RAS is down for an extended period of time, is AquaBounty willing to consider jeopardizing the health of fish in order to minimize impact on resident’s wells? Will pumping rates be strictly adhered to in this instance?

Answer/Response: Please refer to the answer to Question 2. It should be noted that AquaBounty would not exceed the current permitted extraction rate of 1,375 igpm and in addition it would


not be possible to extract enough water to operate on flow through.

73. Question/Comment: With the current GW extraction permit, our calculations indicate that AB can draw 9 million litres of water per day over a month period and over 13,000,000 litres in a 24 hour period. Are these figures correct? Does the maximum pumping rate allowed apply to all 4 wells in total? How often will AB be allowed to pump at the maximum rate - once a week, month and year?

Answer/Response: Figures are correct. The extraction permit applies to a total draw from the existing PWs at the approved flow of 1,375 igpm.

74. Question/Comment: Please provide supportive data that there will be no short or long term impacts on resident’s water quality.


75. Question/Comment: Please indicate if Aqua Bounty will install metres to record the groundwater pumping rate and if the pumping rates will be made available to the public.

Answer/Response: AquaBounty will adhere to all requirements outlined in the PEIDCLE Groundwater Extraction Permit including the monitoring of flow from the PWs

76. Question/Comment: Please explain how the potential hazard to wild Atlantic salmon populations has been addressed.

Answer/Response: Please refer to Section 3.3.3 of the Amended EIS Report (i.e., Holding Tanks Operation and Biosecurity).

77. Question/Comment: The issue is complicated and highly technical yet the credentials of the authors of the EIS appear inadequate. How can we be assured that the information is accurate and that the technology is proven?

Answer/Response: The authors have considerable experience in conducting and reviewing projects for environmental impacts and readers can be assured that the requirements for environmental impact assessment on Prince Edward Island have been met.

78. Question/Comment: Please indicate if there will be a period of depuration prior to slaughter of fish. If so, will this period of depuration involve a switch to flow-through? How long will the switch to flow-through for this purpose last and how often annually will it occur?

Answer/Response: Yes, the fish will go through depuration. No there will be no switch to flow through. All new incoming water enters the depuration tanks first and then travels to the recirculation systems.


2000 Aerial Photo


1958 Aerial Photo

Documents

JOOSE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT NO. JE0219 · broodstock facility. The two 3,700 m2 (40,000 ft2) structures are an addition to the original EIS ... 4.1 METHODOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT