Science Advisory Report 2019/040

Re-evaluation of the Placentia Bay-Grand Banks Area to Identify Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas

Summary

• 14 EBSAs were identified, delineated and described within the Placentia Bay Grand Banks study area. These EBSAs represent approximately 35% of the total area examined.
• Seven of the EBSAs are in coastal areas (Bonavista Bay, Smith Sound, Baccalieu Island, Eastern Avalon, St. Mary’s Bay, Placentia Bay and South Coast) and seven EBSAs are in offshore areas (Northeast Slope, Virgin Rocks, Haddock Channel Sponges, Lilly Canyon-Carson Canyon, Southeast Shoal, Southwest Slope and Laurentian Channel).
• Most of the EBSAs are associated with areas of relief/shelf break/slopes with several areas adjacent to one another on slope edges (e.g. SW shoal, Laurentian Channel). Each EBSA was identified based on features important to that area and sometimes bathymetry or other physical features were used to delineate boundaries.
• A number of sources of information, including research survey data, published and unpublished studies, local and traditional ecological knowledge (LEK/TEK), and expert knowledge were considered for the identification of EBSAs in the study area. However, it is recognized that additional information may exist, or become available, that could potentially identify more specific areas of significance within each of the EBSAs, refine the boundaries of the EBSAs, or result in the identification of additional EBSAs.
• The 2007 EBSAs were not taken into consideration when identifying or delineating these new EBSAs. This process started anew and was data intensive. Comparisons were made with previous EBSAs post-hoc.
• Dealing with information and data originating from multiple sources and various collection methods presents a challenge in combining the available material into metrics that can then be compared. To address this, coastal and offshore components of the study area were assessed separately.
• A total of 272 biological and geomorphological layers of data were examined to complete the analyses required to identify EBSAs in the study area. 123 offshore biological layers were resampled using a 20 km x 20 km grid and 113 coastal layers were reviewed at the scale at which the data were available. Of these, 77 coastal layers were based on Community-based Coastal Resource Inventory (CCRI) data.
• Most EBSAs were identified based on the aggregation of several taxa in an area because few available data sets allowed for the assessment of life history events being undertaken by a species in a given area. Published literature was often used to determine areas of fitness consequences, especially for fish species. All identified EBSAs had at least one unique feature with the exception of the Baccalieu Island EBSA.
• The approach with coastal EBSAs should be viewed as precautionary as many of the data were not available at the appropriate scale to delineate boundaries effectively. In the absence of fish data, seabirds were used as indicator species and foraging ranges were sometimes used to delineate seaward boundaries.
• Many of the habitat features that underlie significant ecological and biological processes in the coastal zone were poorly resolved for this process. Such features include areas of high primary productivity such as kelp forests and upwelling sites.
• The majority of data for fish was based on DFO Research Vessel (RV) survey data which were seasonal surveys – spring and fall. There were limitations with these data, for example,  recruitment information was not incorporated and substrates were not sampled.
• Deep waters, i.e., those waters off the continental shelf and slope, represent portions of the study area that remain relatively understudied and therefore undefined. Therefore, the distribution and diversity of deep-water habitats and the biota they support were poorly described in this study. Some major ecosystem features were not included (e.g. phyto- and zooplankton, seafloor habitat types).
• Given the limitations of some of the available data in the study area, as well as changes in environmental and community structure observed in the ecosystem in recent times, it is important to revisit EBSA delineations periodically (5-10 years) as more information becomes available from scientific research, monitoring and LEK/TEK.
• EBSAs were identified based on scales relevant to ecological processes and therefore extensions of some areas were drawn beyond the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
• A full bioregion analysis is recommended for the re-evaluation of future EBSAs (as some EBSA boundaries are likely artifacts of the study areas that were considered). When determining management measures, the rationale provided for each EBSA should be carefully considered. Underlying ecological properties within each EBSA need to be clearly defined with respect to the temporal and spatial extent of the layers, as well as the associated uncertainties of each.
• In general, this version of EBSAs in the PBGB study area were similar to the previously identified set of EBSAs, even though both sets were identified using different approaches. The EBSAs described in this document should be considered as the current set for the PBGB study area because this process used the most recent available data.
• The secondary EBSA criteria of naturalness and resilience were not used to identify EBSAs. These factors could be assessed to prioritize sites for protection. 
• More than 80% of offshore data layers were based on DFO RV survey data. Although this is a multispecies survey, some species groups and sizes are under sampled (icthyoplankton, juveniles, small-sized taxonomic groups, pelagic fish, benthic infauna, and some species of corals and sponges).
• Migratory pathways for most species were not identified due to the seasonality of available data. In some cases, migratory pathways could be inferred but generally this was not a defining factor for most EBSAs.
• The resolution of the data used to identify EBSAs, in particular those in the offshore, had some effect on the size and shape of the areas that were described. The issue of having many small areas versus fewer large areas was discussed and generally, it was agreed that our understanding of the ecosystem exists at coarse scales and it is difficult to identify and describe relatively small EBSAs.

This Science Advisory Report is from the January 17-18, 2017 Re-evaluation of the Placentia Bay – Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area to identify Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas. Additional publications from this meeting will be on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available.

Complete document (PDF, 560 KB)

Accessibility Notice

This document is available in PDF format. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.