Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Terms of Reference

National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee (NMMPRC): Part II

National Peer Review – National Capital Region

February 23-26, 2016
Vancouver, BC

Chairperson: Garry Stenson

TOPICS

1.  Habitat Requirements for Killer Whale (Northeast Pacific northern and southern resident populations), Fin Whale (Pacific), and Blue Whale (Atlantic)
Context

When an aquatic species is listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as Threatened, Endangered or Extirpated, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is required to identify and protect habitat required for the survival and recovery of the species, which is linked to the population and distribution objectives established in a species’ recovery strategy. The identification is based on the best available information at the time, which is typically provided in the form of scientific advice (peer-reviewed research documents and scientific advisory report).

In support of the requirements under SARA, DFO Science has been asked to undertake an assessment of important habitats for Killer Whale (Northeast Pacific northern and southern resident populations), Fin Whale (Pacific population), and Blue Whale (Atlantic population). The Guidelines for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Aquatic Species at Risk (DFO 2015) must be consulted (or followed to the extent possible) and alternate approaches, if any, justified. This advice will be considered (by the relevant recovery teams and Species at Risk Program at DFO) in the identification of critical habitat for applicable recovery strategies or action plans for these species.

Objectives

Element 1: Describe the habitat properties that Killer Whale (Northeast Pacific northern and southern resident populations), Fin Whale (Pacific population), and Blue Whale (Atlantic population) need for successful completion of life-cycle processes necessary for survival and recovery. Describe the function(s), feature(s), and attribute(s) of the habitat, and to the extent possible, describe how the biological function(s) are supported by the specific habitat feature(s).

This information can be provided in a summary table.

If this advice refines or expands previously identified critical habitat, provide a clear indication of whether any change is proposed to the functions, features, attributes identified in the recovery strategy or action plan.

Element 2: To the extent possible, provide information on the spatial extent of the areas in the distribution of Killer Whale (Northeast Pacific northern and southern resident populations), Fin Whale (Pacific population), and Blue Whale (Atlantic population) that are likely to have the habitat properties identified in Element 1.

Clear maps in the highest resolution available are required for this element. Effort should be made to quantify and geo-reference the amount of habitat of various types as thoroughly as possible. Advice on both the total amount and geographic location of the habitats is needed for the subsequent elements. Guidelines for identifying the quality and quantity of habitat available at present and that which is needed for a species to achieve recovery goals for abundance, range, and a certain number of populations are available in DFO (2007a).

Provide a clear statement as to whether the identified habitat is sufficient for the survival and recovery of the species, given the population and distribution objectives identified in the species’ recovery strategy (Beauchamp et al. 2009, DFO 2011, Gregr et al. 2006). If current data is inadequate to determine whether identified habitat is sufficient, or if it is not sufficient, provide a clear statement explaining why the best available information is inadequate and identify the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in order to provide advice necessary to support complete identification of critical habitat (e.g. schedule of studies, data required, modeling approaches that should be used).

Provide advice on the degree to which the supply of important habitat meets the demands of the species both at present and when the species has recovered.

Element 3: Identify the activities most likely to destroy the habitat properties identified in elements 1 and 2 and provide information on the extent and consequences of these activities.

The information from this element can subsequently be used to support the identification of activities that are likely to damage or destroy critical habitat.

The activities identified may be occurring within or outside the boundaries of the habitat identified in Element 2, but may still have an impact on the habitat identified in Element 2. The activities should be both likely to occur and likely to result in destruction of the function of that habitat.

Provide the threshold level (if available) at which the activity will render the habitat unable to serve its function when needed by the species. Provide an explanation as to how the activity may impact habitat function including a consideration of whether timing plays a role in the activity (i.e. mechanism through which the impact occurs, such as a pathway of effects).

If this advice refines or expands previously identified critical habitat, provide a clear indication of whether any change is advised to the activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat identified in the recovery strategy or action plan. The identified activities should be consistent with the threats identified in the species’ recovery strategy. If this is not the case, this advice should provide an explanation for any deviation.

2.  Population status of the Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) in Transient Killer Whale foraging habitat in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia
Context

In coastal waters of British Columbia, Harbour Seals (Phoca vitulina) are the most frequently documented prey species of Transient Killer Whales. Until the early 1970s, there were active programs to cull both Harbour Seals and Steller Sea Lions in British Columbia. By the time these programs were concluded, Harbour Seal abundance in British Columbia had been reduced to ~10,000 individuals.  By the 1990’s, their numbers rebounded tenfold to their pre-cull abundance (Olesiuk 1999), and 2008 estimates indicate that the population had stabilized with ~105,000 individuals inhabiting Canadian Pacific waters (DFO 2010).

As a primary prey species for the threatened Transient Killer Whale population, the availability of the Harbour Seal plays an important role in recovery of the species.  The Recovery Strategy for Transient Killer Whales (DFO, 2007b) identifies the need to determine the quantity, quality and distribution of Transient Killer Whale prey necessary to sustain or increase the current population level. Ongoing monitoring of the Harbour Seal will assist in meeting this objective.

In 2012 (DFO, 2013a), DFO Science Advice on the habitat necessary for the survival or recovery of the Transient Killer Whale was developed and is currently being considered for identification as critical habitat for Transient Killer Whales.

DFO Species at Risk Program has requested Science advice on the current population status of Harbour Seals to assist in further refining the features, functions and attributes of the habitat necessary for survival or recovery of the Transient Killer Whale. Based on surveys conducted since the last assessment in 2008, an updated abundance assessment for Harbour Seals in British Columbia has been developed.  This information will be used to meet recovery strategy objectives involving prey availability, as identified in the Recovery Strategy for Transient Killer Whales (DFO, 2007b).

In addition to supporting recovery of the Transient Killer Whale population, information on Harbour Seal abundance and distribution is routinely required for responding to issues such as environmental assessments, habitat referrals, siting of finfish and shellfish aquaculture facilities, evaluating impacts on local fishery resources, and in considering requests for culling and the issuance of nuisance seal licenses.

Objectives

Update the state of knowledge regarding the population status and distribution of the Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia.

3.  Assessment of the risk of ship strike to large cetaceans in the Pacific Region
Context

Large whale species occupy shelf-break regions that frequently coincide with shipping lanes, where large vessels such as cruise ships, cargo and container ships and tankers converge as they approach coastal ports. Southwestern Vancouver Island includes a large shelf-break region that coincides with the shipping traffic approaches to Juan de Fuca Strait. This shipping corridor connects to numerous ports in the Vancouver Lower Mainland area, including Port Metro Vancouver, one of the largest ports on the west coast of North America, as well as to ports in Puget Sound, WA. Vessel collisions with whales are an anthropogenic source of mortality for several species, including Blue, Fin, and Humpback Whales world-wide (Laist et al. 2001, Jensen and Silber 2004). Ship strikes resulting in mortalities to these species have been reported from British Columbia, Washington and California (Gregr et al. 2006, Douglas et al. 2008, Ford et al. 2009). Although the number of reported ship strikes is low, such records are known to underestimate the true frequency of occurrence: in many cases, ship strikes are undetected by ship operators, and whale carcasses sink before drifting into coastal waters where they might be reported incidentally by coastal mariners.  As a result, statistics based on direct estimates of wounds, or recovery or sightings of whale carcasses, under-represent the true frequency of ship strikes (Laist et al.  2001; Douglas et al. 2008). Modelling whale distributions and ship traffic distribution offers an alternate approach to assess the risk of an encounter and the likelihood of the encounter having a lethal outcome.

The SARA Recovery Strategies for Blue, Fin and Sei Whales (Gregr, 2006), Humpback Whales (DFO, 2013) and North Pacific Right Whales (DFO, 2012) identify ship strikes as a threat to the recovery of these species. An assessment of ship strike risk for Humpback and Fin Whales for the west coast of Vancouver Island, modelling whale distributions and ship traffic distributions has been conducted.

The DFO Species at Risk Program has requested Science advice regarding methods to assess the threat to SARA-listed large whale species from ship strikes, and to provide estimates of the risk of mortality to large baleen whales off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Results and advice arising from this assessment will assist both DFO’s SARA program and Fisheries Protection Program when considering potential impacts to species and habitats arising from projected increases in shipping traffic, and will provide information for consideration by DFO’s Oceans Program in the development and management of a protected areas network.

Objectives

Expected Publications

Participants

References

Beauchamp, J., Bouchard, H., de Margerie, P., Otis, N., Savaria, J.-Y., 2009. Recovery Strategy for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Northwest Atlantic population, in Canada [FINAL]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 62 pp.

DFO. 2007a. Documenting Habitat Use of Species At Risk and Quantifying Habitat Quality. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2007/038.

DFO. 2007b. Recovery Strategy for the Transient Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, vi + 46 pp.

DFO. 2010. Population Assessment Pacific Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2009/011.

DFO. 2011. Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ix + 80 pp.

DFO. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica) in Pacific Canadian Waters. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 51 pp.

DFO. 2013a. Information in Support of the Identification of Critical Habitat for Transient Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) off the West Coast of Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/025. 14pp.

DFO. 2013b. Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Canada.  Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. x + 67 pp.

DFO 2015. Guidelines for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Aquatic Species at Risk.

Douglas, A.B., J. Calambokidis, S. Raverty, S.J. Jeffries, D.M. Lambourn and S.A. Norman. 2008. Incidence of ship strikes of large whales in Washington State. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2008, 88(6), 1121–1132 p.

Ford J.K.B., A.L. Rambeau, R.M. Abernethy, M.D. Boogaards, L.M. Nichol and L.D. Spaven. 2009. An Assessment of the Potential for Recovery of Humpback Whales off the Pacific Coast of Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc.2009/015. iv + 33 p.

Gregr, E.J., J. Calambokidis, L. Convey, J.K.B. Ford, R.I. Perry, L. Spaven, M. Zacharias. 2006. Recovery Strategy for Blue, Fin, and Sei Whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, and B. borealis) in Pacific Canadian Waters. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Vancouver: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vii + 53 pp.

Jensen, A.S. and G.K. Silber. 2003. Large Whale Ship Strike Database. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-, 37 pp. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, M. Podesta. 2001.Collisions between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1):35-75.

Olesiuk, P.F. 1999. An assessment of the status of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in British Columbia. CSAS Res Doc 99/33.

Date modified: