Unfortunately, we do not. I say “we” because the Pacific Salmon Foundation has written a response to that and provided it to the department about our concerns about the nine assessments. The one very obvious one that's not done is sea lice. Sea lice has not been reviewed in any way since 2012. We have almost a decade of more knowledge on that one.
Our concerns are both statistical and about how you define “minimal harm”. Your definition is surely going to differ from my definition and everybody else's. We have a fundamental problem on how we actually assess these things. We have documented our concerns about the PRV paper, about the Tenacibaculum paper and about the absence of sea lice.
The assessments don't even consider the cumulative effects of these things. They seldom act on their own. They don't consider the ecological effects. Something that comes from it is VHSV, which is a virus from herring to salmon and back to herring. That's a perfect example of our concerns about the farms amplifying bacteria and so on.