Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Engagement on the science-based whale review

Engagement on the science-based whale review: A summary of what was heard, March 2018

Engagement on the science-based whale review: A summary of what was heard, March 2018 (PDF, 1.28 MB)

A summary of what was heard
March 2018

Engagement on the Science-based Whale Review
A Summary of What was Heard

Prepared by the consortium of Nielsen, Delaney + Associates, PubliVate.
Contract #: FP918-17-0001

Ce document est également disponible en français.

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

In November 2016, the Government of Canada announced its Oceans Protection Plan, which outlined several new initiatives aimed at addressing threats to populations of marine mammals in Canadian waters. To support this effort, Fisheries and Oceans Canada led a science-based review of the effectiveness of the current management and recovery actions for three at-risk whale populations: the Southern Resident Killer Whale, the North Atlantic Right Whale and the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga. The Science-Based Whale Review work rolled out in three phases (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Phases of the Science-Based Whale Review

Figure 1. Phases of the Science-Based Whale Review

While Fisheries and Oceans Canada has worked with Indigenous groups, stakeholders and industry for many years to identify recovery actions for these endangered whale populations, this engagement process focused on the timely and efficient implementation of priority management actions. The three key objectives of the engagement were to:

  1. Educate parties about the ongoing threats to the three endangered whale populations and the priority management actions identified by scientists to support their recovery.
  2. Identify specific actions and clarify roles of those able to reduce negative impacts of human activities on these whales.
  3. Confirm the role of different sectors and collaborative approaches to support and implement effective management actions.

This What Was Heard Report on the Science-Based Whale Review includes results for all three endangered whale populations. The feedback the Government of Canada received during the engagement will inform further discussions and implementation planning for enhanced recovery efforts for these whale populations. It summarizes what was heard from:

The report summarizes the common themes that emerged in meetings, written submissions, and the online Let's Talk Whales public engagement. It presents feedback on priority management actions to address five of the threats to one or more of these endangered whale species: prey availability, entanglements, acoustic disturbance and vessel presence, contaminants, and vessel strikes.

Highlights of What Was Heard

Participants felt that the number of whales in each of the three endangered whale populations is critically low. With some exceptions, people who participated in the online Let's Talk Whales public engagement were overwhelmingly positive about the types of actions that scientists identified to enhance whale recovery.

For all three whale populations, governments, Indigenous groups and stakeholders agreed that it is essential to take immediate action to improve recovery efforts and to reduce these five threats. It was suggested that the approach to prioritization and implementation should:

Indigenous participants felt strongly that the process to develop and implement priority management actions should:

There were differences in what people viewed as the most critical actions to help recover each of the endangered whale populations. Key differences of opinion centered on the strength of the scientific evidence supporting the proposed actions, which actions should be highest priority, the time lines for implementation and the extent to which existing legislation, regulations, monitoring and enforcement are adequate to support proposed actions.

Prey Availability

Entanglements

Acoustic Disturbance and Vessel Presence

Vessel Strikes

Contaminants

2. Project Background

Phase 1: Scientific Review Process

In Phase 1, Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientists assessed the overall effectiveness of the recovery actions undertaken to date at reducing the key threats to the three endangered whale populations. They also identified areas for immediate improvement in recovery efforts and priorities for new or enhanced efforts, most of which could be initiated within five years.

An assessment of the threats affecting each whale population forms the basis for recovery measures that are identified in recovery strategies and action plans required under the Species at Risk Act  (2002). Footnote 3, Footnote 4, Footnote 5 For the Science-Based Whale Review, Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientists also identified priority management actions to abate the key threats to these three whale populations from a scientific perspective only, to help support recovery. These priority management actions, including timing and prioritization, were informed by:

In some cases new actions were identified, while in others, actions already identified in published Recovery Strategies or Action Plans were further refined. For the Southern Resident Killer Whale, a newly emerged threat of vessel strikes was identified. For the detailed methodology, please refer to the complete Phase 1 science assessment reports.

The findings from the Science-Based Whale Review do not replace documents already developed under the Species at Risk Act, but are complementary to those documents. Results are intended to help focus management efforts, and augment the prioritization of recovery measures in those documents.

The priority management actions identified in Phase 1 have implications for Canadians, all levels of Government, Indigenous groups, industry (both large and small business) and the many non-governmental groups who work to protect the environment.

Phase 2: Engagement Process

Through the engagement process, the Government of Canada sought feedback on the priority management actions and on how governments, Indigenous groups, stakeholders (environmental groups; industry; key partners) and the public can work together on implementation.

The engagement activities took place from June 15 to September 19, 2017. See Section 3 – Summary of Engagement Strategy for details.

The three key objectives of the engagement were to:

Phase 3: What Was Heard Report

This ‘What Was Heard’ report on the Science-Based Whale Review includes results from the engagement process for all three endangered whale populations. The report summarizes what was heard from participants at regional in person/webinar meetings across the country, written submissions (e-mails, letters), and the public through the online portal (Let’s Talk Whales).

The feedback the Government of Canada received during the engagement will inform further discussions and implementation planning for enhanced recovery efforts for these whale populations. These efforts could also have benefits for other whale populations in Canada.

3. Summary of Engagement Strategy

The Science-Based Whale Review was launched as part of the Oceans Protection Plan in recognition of increasing threats to three endangered whale populations. While Fisheries and Oceans Canada has worked with Indigenous groups, stakeholders and industry for many years to identify recovery actions for these populations, the engagement strategy focused on the next step - the timely and efficient implementation of priority actions.

The findings included in this report are from multiple channels based on two main engagement strategies:

Figure 2 provides a snapshot of the time line engagement components and time line.

Figure 2. Science-Based Whales Review Engagement Components and Time-Line

Figure 2. Science-Based Whales Review Engagement Components and Time-Line

3.1 Targeted Input

Regional in person/webinar meetings (by invitation) were held and/or written submissions were received from:

The targeted regional engagement sessions were held from June 15 through June 30, 2017. Each meeting (in person and/or webinar) was facilitated by Delaney and Associates or an independent consultant. The sessions focused on priority management actions identified in the Phase 1 science assessment report specific to one of the three endangered whale populations.

The meeting format consisted of an introduction to the purpose of the meeting and a brief presentation on the priority management actions identified in the Phase 1 scientific assessment report for one of the three endangered whale populations. Each meeting included information to help situate the Science-Based Whale Review in the context of other whale and ocean management related efforts such as Species at Risk Act processes, and the Oceans Protection Plan, among others. Participants were invited to ask clarifying questions and to provide feedback on priority management actions for one or more of the main threats.

Participants provided feedback through a combination of open discussion and, in the Pacific region, through structured activities, e.g., rating current state of the priority management actions to identify quick wins, ease of implementation, readiness to provide leadership/partner, and opportunities for collaboration.

Transcriptions of discussion were prepared and coded by consultants, in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

In response to the expressed need by stakeholders for additional time to provide comments, Fisheries and Oceans Canada offered the opportunity to provide written feedback following the in person/webinar meetings.

For additional information on in person/webinar meetings and written submissions, see Appendix A – Who We Heard From:

3.2 Open Public Engagement

Canadians (individuals and groups) provided input through an online portal and by sending e-mails/letters to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

The online portal (Let's Talk Whales) was open from August 8 to September 19, 2017. Feedback was collected through:

How can we, as Canadians, take action now to reduce impacts on at-risk whales and help their recovery?

3.3 Adapting and Strengthening the Engagement Process

When announced in November 2016, the Oceans Protection Plan committed the Government to deliver the Science-Based Whale Review by summer 2017. The science-based assessment reports were finalized at the end of April 2017 and made available for engagement sessions.

Engagement sessions took place from mid to late June 2017. Participants raised concerns about timing, in particular the proximity to summer holidays, the engagement activities being held during the busy season for the fishing and whale-watching industries, and the short time frame between the materials being available and the sessions taking place. Indigenous groups also raised concerns that financial support did not accompany the engagement request.

The Government of Canada responded to the early feedback on the limited time for review and comment, providing additional time for follow-up written submissions, strengthening communication and outreach to partners and looking into additional mechanisms to engage stakeholders on this issue.

Feedback received through participant evaluations was reviewed by the consultant group and the Government of Canada to inform future engagements.

4. Summary of What We Heard

4.1 Who Did We Hear From?

A total of 117 groups or organizations and 182 individuals participated in the regional in person/webinar meetings. An additional 31 written submissions were received as follow-up to those meetings. See Appendix A for details on Who We Heard From.

A total of 893 individuals registered to participate in the online engagement Let's Talk Whales (for all three endangered whale populations), of which:

Most people who provided their feedback online self-identified as general public (see Figure 3). When asked to self-rate how well-informed they were on each of the threats, most people felt they were informed to some degree. Ninety percent of respondents were either actively engaged in the issues (16%), felt well-informed (46%), or that they knew some facts (28%) (see Figure 4). Footnote 8

In addition, close to 2000 written submissions were received from the general public. Most of these submissions (over 85%) were e-mails sent to Fisheries and Oceans Canada as part of environmental non-governmental organization campaigns to increase engagement (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, David Suzuki Foundation, and Georgia Straight Alliance). These e-mails were copies of form letters created by the campaigns; in some cases, respondents added their own feedback to the form letter. Environmental non-governmental organizations also posted ideas on the Ideas Forum.

Figure 3. Profile of People Who Provided Feedback Online

Figure 3. Profile of People Who Provided Feedback Online

Figure 4. How Well-Informed Did Online Respondents Feel about the Threats to the Endangered Whale Populations (self-rated)

Figure 4. How Well-Informed Did Online Respondents Feel about the Threats to the Endangered Whale Populations (self-rated) Footnote 9

4.2 Understanding the Findings

The two main components of the engagement strategy were designed as complementary and therefore provide different types of feedback:

Therefore, results of the Phase 2 engagement process should be viewed as a mosaic of opinions from a range of people, from those with a high level of in-depth expert knowledge on the issues through to people new to the issues who were interested enough to visit the online portal, respond to the surveys and offer their own ideas.

The findings from the engagement of governments, Indigenous groups and stakeholders and the public engagement were analyzed separately, as was the regional or whale-specific feedback. The analysis took into consideration that:

Caution is needed in reviewing the results of the in person/webinar meetings and public online engagement. The online engagement was not designed to yield results that would be representative of the Canadian population. In person/webinar participation generally was impacted by the short timelines and the timing of the engagement session (i.e., over the summer).

4.3 How the Following Sections are Organized

Sections 5 to 9 each focus on one of the major threats to the endangered whale populations identified in Phase 1:

Each section includes a brief description of the threat and feedback on priority management actions Footnote 10 received from meetings, written submissions, and via the online portal (Let's Talk Whales). Feedback is organized by a summary of key themes (for the whale populations affected by the threat) and by what we heard from Indigenous groups, Government and other stakeholders, and the general public.

Section 10, Conclusions - Feedback on Readiness to Move Forward, presents common themes that apply to all three endangered whale populations and that have implications for the federal government and all regions across Canada.

5. Prey Availability

Southern Resident Killer Whales are highly specialized predators and forage primarily on Chinook salmon. The survival and recovery of this endangered whale appears to be strongly linked to Chinook salmon abundance. In particular, a sharp decline in Chinook salmon abundance that persisted for four years during the late 1990s was associated with mortality rates up to 2-3 times greater than expected. Footnote 11 This lack of prey availability persists today and is one of the key threats to the recovery of the population.

Similarly, the decline of the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga population in the late 1990s and changes in population dynamics coincided with changes in several environmental conditions, including a decline in the abundance of demersal fish and some pelagic prey Footnote 12, suggesting that food supply may have become limited and may still be playing a role in the current decline.

Changes in food supply that affect North Atlantic Right Whales include decreases in food availability (they feed on tiny zooplankton called copepods) and quality (i.e., nutritional value), and some shifts in distribution, including shifts that move their food supply to areas of high overlap with known threats. For example, in summer 2017, North Atlantic Right Whales were seen in record numbers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, an area where they have not been known to congregate in large numbers.Footnote 13

5.1 Summary of Key Themes

Indigenous groups, governments, and other stakeholders provided feedback on the threat of prey availability for the Southern Resident Killer Whale. Indigenous groups provided feedback on prey availability for the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga. Footnote 14

5.2 What Indigenous Groups Said

Southern Resident Killer Whale

Representatives from Indigenous groups expressed strong concerns about delaying concrete, substantive Southern Resident Killer Whale priority management actions and did not feel that the Science-Based Whale Review consultation process had balanced input from the full range of Indigenous groups and other stakeholders. They expressed that inaction can be expected to threaten the existence of the Southern Resident Killer Whale and to have a dramatic overall effect on the food chain and Aboriginal rights to fish.

Feedback from Indigenous participants included:

St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga

In responding to priority management actions identified in the Phase I scientific assessment, participants focused on the actions seeking to improve prey abundance through reduced competition and habitat enhancement.

Suggestions from Indigenous participants included:

5.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said

St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga

The Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêches et de l'Alimentation du Québec commented that consideration should be given to managing the grey seal population and suggested this approach could reduce competition for St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga prey.

Southern Resident Killer Whale

Plan and manage fisheries to reduce human competition for Southern Resident Killer Whale prey

Some people supported implementing measures to reduce human competition for Southern Resident Killer Whale prey stocks in important foraging areas during key times, e.g., during years of poor Chinook returns. They believe that no further research is required before acting. A specific suggestion was to immediately reduce fishing pressure in already-identified foraging areas, including those areas with depleted Chinook stocks that transit Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat.

However, other participants felt that, before taking action, more work needs to be done to:

Form and formalize a TransboundaryFootnote 20 Working Group of science and management.

The feasibility of implementing many of the prey-related priority management actions is dependent on transboundary management with the United States and work within the framework of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. There was general support for moving forward transboundary work over the short-term.

Protect and preserve the freshwater habitat of important Southern Resident Killer Whale prey stocks.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada currently relies on existing legislation, e.g., the Fisheries Act, to protect local fish stocks and local habitat in the marine environment. With respect to freshwater habitat, the Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing serious harm to fish unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. This applies to work being conducted in or near waterbodies that support fish that are part of or that support a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery (e.g. Chinook Salmon). At the provincial levels, some actions are underway to protect Chinook habitat, such as new provincial groundwater regulations.

Addressing the threats to freshwater habitat was noted as more important than controlling harvest levels (the low hanging fruit) by some meeting participants and in some written submissions.

Suggestions included:

Implement fisheries management measures to foster healthy and abundant populations of herring and sand lanceFootnote 22 to support greater availability of Chinook.

Depletions of local populations of forage fish due to harvesting are a concern in the region. This depletion may be contributing to decreased Chinook biomass in the marine environment and, therefore, a reduction in the primary food source for Southern Resident Killer Whales.

Participants at the in person/webinar meetings and those who sent in written submissions supported:

Some participants expressed concerns about:

Participant suggestions included:

5.4 What the General Public Said

The main question on the Let's Talk Whales online platform presented a list of four actions identified by scientists to help mitigate the threat of reduced prey availability. Participants were asked to rank the actions according to how important they felt they were to helping the whales (see Figure 5, below).

Figure 5: The General Public’s Ranking of Identified Actions to Address the Threat of Reduced Prey (Food) Availability

Figure 5: The General Public’s Ranking of Identified Actions to Address the Threat of Reduced Prey (Food) Availability

Of the 265 who responded : Footnote 23

6. Entanglements

Entanglement and entrapment of whales in fixed fishing gear, and other types of lines in the water, is a known threat, especially for the North Atlantic Right Whale. Interactions with fishing gear are a major cause of serious injury and death for this population, and an important impediment to recovery. Footnote 24 As of 2012, 83% of the North Atlantic Right Whale population was found to have scars indicative of an entanglement in fishing gear at some time in their lives, and the rate of serious entanglement detected has increased significantly over the past 30 years. Footnote 25 Linking entanglements to a particular location or gear type in Canada is difficult given the whales are highly mobile and often only ropes remain on an entangled whale; this part of the gear is unmarked and not identifiable.

6.1 Summary of Key Themes

Indigenous groups, Governments and other stakeholders provided feedback on the threat of entanglements for the North Atlantic Right Whale. This threat was not discussed for the Southern Resident Killer Whale or the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga.

6.2 What Indigenous Groups Said

Indigenous groups are supportive of protecting North Atlantic Right Whales but also need to be able to fish to support themselves and their communities. They feel a responsibility to be involved in implementing actions. There is interest in conservation and in increasing community capacity to prevent risks and respond to entanglement events.

Some of the priority management actions that relate to fishing could infringe on Indigenous rights. The Government of Canada must be aware of this and its duty to consult.

Suggestions from Indigenous participants included:

6.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said

In general, participants at in person/webinar meetings believe that additional capacity and funding is needed to prevent and respond to entanglements. Enhanced or new funding is needed to support Government of Canada activities as well as the activities of external partners.

Participants suggested funding is needed to:

Implement temporary fishery closures to remove fishing gear from whale critical habit and high use areas.

For the North Atlantic Right Whale, temporary fishery closures were identified in the science assessment report as a priority management action. Areas of focus for this action are:

  1. Currently identified critical habitat in Grand Manan Basin, Roseway Basin;
  2. Other identified high use areas

Participants supported the idea of modifying fishing activity in critical habitat. Some participants supported the idea of temporary fishery closures as a way to remove fishing gear from areas where whales are present and could potentially become entangled. For example, support was expressed for the recent step by the Government of Canada to close the snow crab fishery a few days early in an area where a large and sustained concentration of North Atlantic Right Whales were detected and were becoming entangled. Environmental non-governmental organizations have been promoting planned seasonal closures as a management action, rather than active removal of fixed fishing gear during the season in real time when whale presence is detected (i.e., dynamic area management), assuming real time detection is possible.

However, in general, participants felt that more specific information was needed to understand the practicalities of implementing fishery closures and the impact on Indigenous groups, local fishermen, and the fishing industry as a whole.

Participants suggested additional details were needed about:

Suggestions from other participants included:

Remove rope from the water column by using ropeless gear where North Atlantic Right Whales are present.

Participants were interested in exploring gear modification, but the focus on using ropeless gear was questioned. It was felt that more needs to be done to understand what gear and what type of rope is problematic to whales and what modifications would be feasible, workable, safe and practical.

Participant suggestions included:

Improve response to North Atlantic Right Whale Entanglements.

Participants agreed that response to North Atlantic Right Whale entanglement events needs to be strengthened in a number of ways.

Participants suggested to:

Introduce new gear marking, retrieval and reporting.

New gear marking and gear retrieval programs could help identify the source of gear involved in North Atlantic Right Whale entanglements. Although fishing gear (buoys and balloons) is already marked for ownership, gear marking of the rope components is needed as the gear retrieved is often only rope. Coloured markings could be used to identify gear used in each type of fishery as well as each type of line (e.g., end lines versus groundlines).

Participants felt that introducing new gear marking and gear reporting requirements could be relatively easy to implement and could help build understanding of the types of gear causing harm to North Atlantic Right Whales. However, they requested more specific information to help them understand actions and their implications.

Specific suggestions included:

6.4 What the General Public Said

The Let's Talk Whales online portal included an open-ended question designed to ask for opinions on the actions identified by scientists in the Phase 1 science assessment to address the threat of entanglement. The list of actions included:

7. Acoustic Disturbance and Vessel Presence

All whales vocalize and some whales echolocate to communicate and socialize with each other, find food and navigate.

Noise generated by human activities, whether chronic (e.g. shipping noise, ferry operations, whale-watching etc.) or acute (e.g. pile driving, blasting, seismic surveys, military sonar etc.), can interfere with the ability of whales to conduct these essential life processes. The presence of vessels can also affect the behaviour of whales, for example, by causing them to turn their attention away from activities like foraging, feeding, socializing and breeding to avoid the vessel.

Because different types of whales hear and vocalize at different frequencies, underwater noise affects different types of whales in different ways. For example, baleen whales such as the North Atlantic Right Whale hear and vocalize at different frequencies than toothed whales such as the Southern Resident Killer Whale and the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga. It is estimated that ambient (background) underwater noise levels have increased an average of 15 dB in the past 50 years throughout the world's oceans Footnote 28 (a 3dB increase represents a doubling of noise levels).

7.1 Summary of Key Themes

Indigenous groups, governments and other stakeholders provided feedback on the threat of acoustic disturbance for all three endangered whale populations: the North Atlantic Right Whale, the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga and the Southern Resident Killer Whale. Comments related to the threat of vessel presence were provided for the Southern Resident Killer Whale and the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga.

Participants noted that the issue of underwater noise is not as straightforward as removing vessels or reducing vessel speed; for example:

Feedback on specific priority management actions for this threat should be read with this context in mind. Many of the priority management actions are region-specific; however, the following comments consistently emerged for all three endangered whale populations with respect to acoustic disturbance.

Reduce vessel traffic in key areas or implement new vessel-specific regulations, guidelines or incentive programs to decrease acoustic disturbance.

Suggestions included:

Industry/business stakeholders stressed the importance of taking actions that balance economic activities with the protection of marine mammals and their habitat.

Increase the minimum distance between the three endangered whale populations (individuals or groups) and pleasure crafts and whale-watching vessels.

Few whale-watching industry representatives were present at the in person/webinar meetings focused on acoustic disturbance due to it being 'high season' for their work. A written submission from tourism industry provided some supplemental feedback from the whale-watching industry.

Suggestions included:

Identify and create acoustic refuge areas within foraging and other key areas of habitat of the endangered whale populations.

Suggestions included:

In addition to the concept of acoustic refuge areas, there was support from some participants for the creation of a network of Marine Protected Areas (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Specific Feedback on Marine Protected Areas

Many participants felt that the creation of Marine Protected Areas could greatly enhance the recovery of all three endangered whale populations. Protected areas can include nursery habitat, migratory corridors, feeding areas, as well as the habitats of whale prey.

Marine Protected Areas are intended to manage all human activities within the area and to address all of the threats at the same time, giving whales a safe and quiet place to live, e.g., protecting whales and their prey from contaminants, providing refuge from threats of underwater noise, vessel strikes, and harmful impacts of a range of activities (entanglements from fishing gear, whale watching vessels and pleasure crafts, oil and gas activities).

Suggestions included:

7.2 What Indigenous Groups Said

Suggestions from Indigenous participants included:

7.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said

North Atlantic Right Whale

Remove vessels and/or restrict fishing activities in critical habitats or high use areas to decrease the level of noise and the threat of acoustic disturbance.Footnote 30

For the North Atlantic Right Whale, removal of vessels and restrictions on fishing activities are identified priority management actions to reduce the threat of entanglements and vessel strikes (see Section 6 and 8). These actions would also decrease the level of vessel noise in proposed areas.

While it is generally agreed that noise can be harmful, participants discussed the limited scientific evidence on the impact of underwater noise on North Atlantic Right Whales. There is a study which showed a decrease of stress hormones in North Atlantic Right Whales in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when aerial/vessel traffic was stopped.Footnote 31 In general, baseline noise levels and acceptable levels are not well understood. It is not yet known to what extent removing noise completely from specific areas will make a difference for North Atlantic Right Whale population recovery.

Participants held differing views on whether:

Suggestions included:

St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga

For the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga, the Phase 1 science assessment report identified a number of specific priority management actions to reduce acoustic disturbance generated by human activity. The discussion focused on actions concerning safe approach distances to whales, modifying vessel routes, and creating acoustic refuges.

Suggestions included:

Southern Resident Killer Whale

For the Southern Resident Killer Whale, the Phase 1 science assessment report identified a number of specific priority management actions to reduce the threat of acoustic disturbance.

Implement area-specific vessel regulations, guidelines or incentive programs to reduce the overall acoustic impact on Southern Resident Killer Whales in or near their habitat, particularly in the Salish Sea.

Participants considered implementing area-specific vessel regulations and/or guidelines that reduce noise in the Salish Sea to be a long-term undertaking.

Suggestions included:

Establish a Canada-US transboundary committee aimed at reducing shipping noise in the Salish Sea.

Participants at the multi-stakeholder meeting identified establishing a transboundary committee as a quick win but also viewed it more as a process recommendation rather than a direct action.

Suggestions included:

Other proposed actions

7.4 What the General Public Said

The Let's Talk Whales online portal included an open-ended question designed to ask for opinions on the actions identified by scientists in the Phase 1 science assessment to address the threat of underwater noise. There was a list of specific actions included in the question as examples:

Given the open-ended approach a wide range of responses were received. Nonetheless, two-thirds of all responses directly addressed the list of actions.

8. Vessel Strikes

Strikes from vessels, whether they are commercial or recreational, can injure or kill whales. Collisions with vessels are a threat to St. Lawrence Estuary Belugas and North Atlantic Right Whales and have recently emerged as a threat for Southern Resident Killer Whales.

The mechanisms by which whales can detect and prevent being struck by a vessel are not completely understood. For North Atlantic Right Whales, risk analyses focused on vessel speed suggest that the probability of lethal injury from vessel collisions decreases when vessel speed is reduced, e.g., reducing vessel speed to less than 13 knots increases the likelihood that a whale struck by a vessel will avoid serious injury or death. Footnote 35, Footnote 36

8.1 Summary of Key Themes

Indigenous groups, governments and other stakeholders provided feedback on the threat of vessel strikes for the North Atlantic Right Whale.

8.2 What Indigenous Groups Said

In general, Indigenous participants supported the approach of removing vessel traffic from areas where North Atlantic Right Whales are present and/or restricting vessel speed in those areas.

Indigenous participants felt that:

Suggestions from Indigenous participants were:

8.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said

North Atlantic Right Whale

Remove vessel traffic from North Atlantic Right Whale critical habitat and high use areas.

Some participants felt it would be relatively easy to reduce or eliminate commercial shipping vessels in North Atlantic Right Whale critical habitat by relocating shipping lanes (e.g., Grand Manan basin) and encouraging greater compliance with guidelines (e.g., Roseway basin). Removal of commercial shipping vessels away from North Atlantic Right Whale critical habitat in Grand Manan Basin and Roseway Basin is mostly accomplished. However, reducing the numbers of other vessels could be more difficult (e.g., whale watching for Grand Manan Basin, fishing, fisheries enforcement, military, and pleasure vessels for both critical habitat areas).

Participants requested that more specific information be provided about the potential effectiveness of the priority management actions and the expected operational, marine safety and economic impacts on the shipping industry.

Participant suggestions included:

Some participants said that the Government of Canada needs new management tools to allow faster, more responsive action to the changing movements of North Atlantic Right Whales. To be effective, government needs the ability to react quickly. Participants made a similar suggestion with respect to the threat of entanglement.

Implement vessel speed restrictions in areas where North Atlantic Right Whales are present.

As with actions aimed at removing or reducing vessel traffic, participants requested more specific information about the implementation of vessel speed restrictions in areas where North Atlantic Right Whales are present.

Participant suggestions included:

Increase awareness and monitoring of vessel traffic restrictions in North Atlantic Right Whale critical habitat.

Participants held different views about whether voluntary measures would be sufficient to remove vessel traffic or if new regulations would be needed:

8.4 What the General Public Said

The Let's Talk Whales online portal included an open-ended question designed to capture general thoughts on some of the actions identified by scientists in the Phase 1 science assessment to address the threat of vessel strikes. The actions included for this particular threat were:

9. Contaminants

Marine mammals can be exposed to a variety of toxic chemical compounds originating from human activities, mainly through their diet, but also through sediments, water and air in their environment.

Southern Resident Killer Whales are vulnerable to accumulating high concentrations of certain chemicals because they are long-lived apex predators that feed almost exclusively on Chinook salmon. Footnote 39 Footnote 40

St. Lawrence Estuary Belugas have a varied diet and eat many kinds of fish and even some shellfish. They live downstream of the many large urban and industrial centers of the Great Lakes Basin year-round exposing them to a variety of contaminants.Footnote 41

North Atlantic Right Whales feed at a lower level on the food chain than the Southern Resident Killer Whale and the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga on tiny zooplankton called copepods, making them relatively less vulnerable to accumulating high concentrations of chemicals.

9.1 Summary of Key Themes

Indigenous groups, governments and other stakeholders provided feedback on the threat of contaminants primarily for the Southern Resident Killer Whale. Indigenous groups provided feedback for the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga.

9.2 What Indigenous Groups Said

With respect to the priority management actions for addressing contaminants, participants suggested:

With respect to engagement of Indigenous groups, participants' suggestions included:

St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga

There is some information of the evolution of contaminants affecting the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga over time. Some toxic chemicals were banned many years ago, but persist in the marine environment and are still found in St. Lawrence Estuary Belugas. Contaminants are known to interfere with St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga reproduction.

The discussion focused on actions to raise awareness of the sources of contaminants, reduce discharges in beluga habitat, clean up wastewater effluents, and develop oil spill response capacity.

Indigenous participant suggestions included:

9.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said

As a necessary first step to move priority management actions forward to reduce the threat of contaminants, it will be necessary to re-establish or re-invigorate structures and processes and to clarify roles and responsibilities for contaminants in marine mammals. At this time:

Southern Resident Killer Whale

Adequately enforce existing, and/or newly added or expanded, Canadian regulations aimed at reducing toxic chemical compound discharges at source.

This priority action was among those rated as quick wins by participants at the in person/webinar meeting.

Specific suggestions related to regulation and enforcement included:

Participants also discussed the need for clearer roles and responsibilities for the protection of marine mammals from contaminants. They suggested this could begin with a comprehensive stakeholder and situational mapping process to improve understanding of current roles and respective agency enforcement and prioritization processes for chemicals.

Accelerate the rate of compliance with the Canadian Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (2012) in wastewater treatment facilities that border the Salish Sea.

The upgrade schedule for facilities that border the Salish Sea is financially constrained and an accelerated rate of compliance with the Canadian Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations would require additional financial resources, e.g., assistance from the federal government (Infrastructure Canada) or other funding sources.

Participant suggestions included:

Review policies and best management practices for ocean dredging and disposal at sea and modify them to include an examination of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Footnote 51 to minimize contaminant exposure.

This priority management action was rated as a quick win by participants at the in person/webinar meeting.

Participant suggestions included:

Identify or implement new programs that mitigate small scale and/or chronic contaminant spills and leaks and provide support.

Generally, small spills are addressed by provincial and municipal levels of government. However, little is known about where and how programs exist to address this issue sufficiently. Further, the mandate of regional government pertains primarily to health and recreational impacts or effects.

Participant suggestions included:

Ensure that assessment and remediation plans for contaminated sites are planned to reduce the risk of lifetime contaminant exposure in the whale population.

This priority action was among those rated as quick wins by participants at the in person/webinar meeting where there is fulsome data and analysis.

Participant suggestions included:

Develop a spill response plan including training, equipment, and deterrence methods and ensure that the protection of the Southern Resident Killer Whale population and their habitat is made a high priority in spill response and monitoring protocols in Canada.

Current initiatives are underway to help prevent, respond to and mitigate the impact of oil spills on the Southern Resident Killer Whale population. Participants were not clear on the federal government's role in the context of emergency response planning relative to other partners.

Suggestions included:

Form an interagency contaminants working group to identify roles and responsibilities for actions to reduce the impacts of contaminants on Southern Resident Killer Whales and their environment.

Given many of the priority actions are outside the current mandate or jurisdiction of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it was recognized that there is high value in forming a new interagency contaminants working group. The objectives of this working group should include: increasing capacity for action on contaminants and improving communication and facilitating collaborative action.

Provincial and United States government participants were interested in the interagency working group approach and discussed how best to establish the group.

9.4 What the General Public Said

The Let's Talk Whales online portal included an open-ended question designed to ask for opinions on the actions identified by scientists in the Phase 1 science assessment that aimed at abating the threat of contaminants. The actions presented within the question were:

10. Conclusions - Readiness to Move Actions Forward

Without exception, all who provided input said they were committed to collaborating with the Government of Canada and others to advance recovery of the three endangered whale populations. This includes those who had expressed frustration during the summer engagement process. Footnote 54

10.1 Common Themes across All Threats

Participants agreed it is essential to take prompt action to improve recovery efforts for the three endangered whale populations and to mitigate the threats of reduced prey availability, entanglements, acoustic disturbance and vessel presence, vessel strikes, and contaminants.

Everyone who provided input at in person/webinar meetings said that governments should work with and support collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve governments, Indigenous groups, industry, scientists and other stakeholders. Where possible, future engagement or consultations should be stream-lined and tap into these existing collaborations.

Suggestions for setting priorities and implementing actions included:

Indigenous participants felt strongly that the process to develop and implement priority management actions should:

Differing Opinions:

There were differences in what people viewed as the most critical actions to help recovery of the three endangered whale populations. Key differences centered on the strength of the scientific evidence supporting the proposed actions, which actions should be highest priority, the timelines for implementation, and the extent to which existing legislation, regulations, monitoring and enforcement are adequate to support proposed actions.

Some participants felt that current evidence, along with the urgency to act, provided a clear enough path to guide immediate action, without delay.

Other participants felt that more definitive scientific evidence, e.g., impacts of acoustic disturbance on whales, and further analysis and deeper engagement of all parties is needed to better inform moving forward with some priority management actions, particularly regulatory approaches.

Another difference of opinion centered on the approach to regulation, monitoring, and enforcement.

10.2 Roles and Leadership

The nature of the engagement process did not lend itself to the clear identification of roles in implementation or identification of leads for specific priority management actions. However, there was a clear expectation that the Government of Canada would:

10.3 Improved Coordination and Communication

There was a strong message to increase coordination and communication to leverage efforts, avoid duplication and stream-line engagement and consultation processes:

Specific suggested mechanisms included:

10.4 Future Engagement and Consultation

There was no single preferred format of engagement among participants, with in person and webinar both identified among the preferred options. Similarly, some indicated a preference for working through existing tables while others did not.

Participants identified a range of others who should be at those tables moving forward on priority management actions to enhance recovery for each of the three endangered whale populations, including:

And they indicated a strong interest in engagement to advance the identification, planning and implementation of Marine Protected Areas.

Where possible, federal departments should work with and support existing collaborative, multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve governments, Indigenous groups, industry, scientists and other stakeholders, tapping into these established networks and partnerships for future engagement and consultations. Regional stakeholders/groups should be involved in planning the engagement approach to ensure strong linkages with existing networks/partnerships and feasible timelines and logistics for all involved.

Indigenous participants requested that future engagement/consultation:

Pertinent scientific analysis and reports developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada should be available to all parties well in advance and presented in a clear format that links priority management actions to the supporting evidence. In addition, engagement should continue to build on work that has already been done and plan to integrate important inputs that can inform discussion, such as Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat reviews.

10.5 Region-specific Actions

Participants suggested the following regional actions that could be moved forward in the near term:

Pacific Region (Comments on the Southern Resident Killer Whale)

Québec and Maritime Regions (Comments on the North Atlantic Right Whale)

Québec Region (Comments on the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga)

In conclusion, strong commitment and collaboration are required to reduce the threats to each of the three endangered whale populations and support recovery. The way forward is emerging through research and engagement but concrete actions must be implemented to support recovery of these populations.

11. Appendices

Appendix A: Who We Heard From

Appendix A1. Summary of Targeted Engagement Session Participation
Focus Footnote 57 Date Location In person Webinar Total
North Atlantic Right Whale
Engagement with Indigenous Groups on the threats of entanglement, vessel strikes, vessel presence and noise disturbance  June 28 Dartmouth 2 6 8
Vessel Strikes and Other Threats June 28 Webinar only 0 20 20
Entanglement (English) June 29 Webinar only 0 20 20
Entanglement Footnote 58 (French) June 29 Webinar only 0 0 0
TOTAL 2 46 48
North Atlantic Right Whale and St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga
Multi-threat engagement with the Province of Québec June 20 Québec 7 0 7
Multi-threat engagement with Indigenous Groups June 22 Québec 0 9 9
TOTAL 7 9 16
St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga
Noise June 21 Québec 18 0 18
TOTAL 18 0 18
Southern Resident Killer Whale
Contaminants June 15 Vancouver 10 15 25
Noise June 15 Vancouver 22 19 41
Food June 20 Webinar only 0 23 23
Multi-threat feedback from Indigenous Groups June 26 Vancouver 7 4 11
TOTAL 39 61 100
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS – ALL TARGETED ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS 65 116 182
Appendix A2.1 Organizations in Attendance at Targeted Engagement Sessions where Priority Actions for the North Atlantic Right Whale were Discussed
Indigenous Group Industry/Business ENGO/Not-for-profit Other Government Department Provincial/Municipal Academia/research group U.S. Government
  • Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council
  • Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office
  • Unama'ki Institute of Natural Resources
  • Nunatukavut
  • Passamaquoddy
  • Association de gestion halieutique autochtone Mi'kmaq et Malécite (AGHAMM)
  • Secrétariat Mi'gmawei Mawiomi
  • Mashteuiatsh
  • Institut de développement durable des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador (IDDPNQL)
  • Agence Mamu Innu Kaikusseth (AMIK)
  • Essipit
  • First Nations Finance Authority
  • Grand Manan Fishermen's Association
  • Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council
  • Coldwater Lobster Association
  • Fundy North Fishermen's Association
  • New England Aquarium
  • JASCO Applied Sciences
  • Canada-NS Offshore Petroleum Board
  • Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Armateurs du St. Laurent
  • Office des pêcheurs de crevette de la ville de Gaspé
  • Campobello Whale Rescue Team
  • Conservation Council of NB
  • WWF
  • Mingan Island Cetecean Study (MICS)
  • Canadian Wildlife Federation
  • Transport Canada
  • MARLANT Safety and Environment (Department of National Defence)
  • NB Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries
  • NL Department of Fisheries and Land Resources
  • NS Department of Energy
  • Office des pêcheurs de crevettes de la Ville de Gaspé
  • QC Ministère de l'Agriculture, Des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
  • QC Ministère des Forets, de la Faune and des Parcs
  • QC Ministère de Développement durable, de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques
  • QC Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l'Électrification des Transports
  • Secrétariat aux affaires maritimes
  • Canadian Whale Institute
  • Dalhousie University (MEOPAR Whale Research)
  • St. Mary's University
  • NOAA Protected Species Branch
Appendix A2.2 Organizations in Attendance at Targeted Engagement Sessions where Priority Actions for the Southern Resident Killer Whale were Discussed
Indigenous Group Industry/Business ENGO/Not-for-profit Other Government Department Provincial/Municipal Academia/research group U.S. Government
  • Huu-ay-aht First Nation
  • First Nations Summit
  • Tsleil-Waututh Nation
  • Metis Nation of BC
  • Cowichan Tribes
  • A-Tlegay Fisheries Society
  • Sechelt First Nations
  • Nicola Tribal Association
  • Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance
  • Musqueam Indian Band
  • British Columbia Chamber of Shipping
  • Port of Vancouver
  • Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Stantec)
  • BC Ferries
  • BC Pilots
  • BC Council of Yacht Clubs
  • Boating BC
  • Canadian Ferry Operators Association
  • China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company known as COSCO
  • Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada
  • Cruise Lines International
  • CSI International
  • Fraser River Pile and Dredge
  • Hemmera
  • JASCO
  • Northwest Seaport Alliance
  • Seaspan
  • SRMU Consulting
  • Vancouver Aquarium
  • Western Shipping
  • Sport Fisheries Advisory Board
  • SMH Consulting
  • Pacific Eco-Tech
  • Georgia Strait Alliance
  • South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition
  • Natural Resources Defense Council
  • Oceans Networks Canada
  • World Wildlife Fund- Canada
  • David Suzuki Foundation
  • Raincoast Conservation
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • Health Canada
  • Department of National Defence
  • Transport Canada
  • British Columbia – Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
  • British Columbia – Ministry of Environment
  • British Columbia – Min. of Transportation
  • Capital Regional District
  • Province of British Columbia—Ministry of Agriculture
  • NOAA Fisheries
Appendix A2.3 Organizations in Attendance at Targeted Engagement Sessions where Priority Actions for the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga were Discussed
Indigenous Group Industry/Business ENGO/Not-for-profit Other Government Department Provincial/Municipal Academia/research group U.S. Government
  • Association de gestion halieutique autochtone Mi'kmaq et Malécite (AGHAMM)
  • Secrèterait Mi'gmawei Mawiomi
  • Mashteuiatsh
  • Institut de développement durable des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador (IDDPNQL)
  • Agence Mamu Innu Kaikusseth (AMIK)
  • Essipit
  • Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council
  • Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office
  • Unama'ki Institute of Natural Resources
  • Nunatukavut
  • Passamaquoddy
  • Société Duvetnor
  • Corporation des pilotes du Bas St.-Laurent
  • Fédération maritime du Canada
  • Administration portuaire du Saguenay
  • Société des traversiers du Québec
  • Innovation maritime
  • Nature Québec
  • WWF—Canada
  • Alliance verte
  • Meriscope
  • Group for Research and Education on Marine Mammals (GREMM)
  • Transport Canada
  • Parcs Canada
  • Parc Marin Saguenay – St.-Laurent
  • QC Ministère de l'Agriculture, Des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
  • QC Ministère des Forets, de la Faune and des Parcs
  • QC Ministère de Développement durable, de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques
  • QC Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l'Électrification des Transports
  • Secrétariat aux affaires maritimes
Appendix A3. List of Governments, Indigenous Groups, and Other Stakeholders who Provided Written Comments as follow-up to Targeted Engagement Sessions (by whale population)
Group Commented on North Atlantic Right Whale Commented on St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga Commented on Southern Resident Killer Whale
Governments
  • Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec
  • Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques
  • Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
  • Parc Marin Saguenay - St-Laurent
  • Secrétariat aux affaires maritimes
  • Pacific Salmon Commission (United States and Canada)Footnote 59
Indigenous Groups
  • Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council
  • Bureau du Ninonwentisio, Nation huronne-wendat
Environmental Non-Governmental and Not-for Profit Organizations
  • Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
  • Canadian Wildlife Federation
  • David Suzuki Foundation
  • West Coast Environmental Law Association
  • Whale and Dolphin Conservation and The Humane Society of the United States
  • Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
  • Canadian Wildlife Federation
  • David Suzuki Foundation
  • Mériscope
  • Nature Québec
  • West Coast Environmental Law Association
  • Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
  • Canadian Wildlife Federation
  • David Suzuki Foundation
  • Georgia Strait Alliance
  • Orca Salmon Alliance
  • World Wildlife Fund
  • West Coast Environmental Law Association
Industry/Business
  • Armateurs du St.-Laurent
  • Canadian Ferry Association
  • Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador
  • Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Armateurs du St.-Laurent
  • Croisières AML
  • Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Société de développement économique du St.-Laurent
  • Joint letter:
    • Alliance verte
    • Armateurs du St.-Laurent
    • Chambre de commerce maritime
    • Corporation des Pilotes du St-Laurent Central
    • Fédération maritime du Canada
    • Innovation maritime
    • Société de développement économique du St.-Laurent
  • British Columbia Chamber of Shipping
  • Port of Vancouver
  • Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Kinder Morgan Canada)
  • Vancouver Aquarium
Academia/Research Group
  • Canadian Whale Institute
  • Mingan Island Cetecean Study (MICS)
Total 31 written submissions

Appendix B. Profile of Respondents – Let’s Talk Whales Online Engagement

Registrations by Province

Province Count Percentage
Alberta 42 5%
British Columbia 269 30%
Manitoba 17 2%
New Brunswick 25 3%
Newfoundland and Labrador 7 1%
Nova Scotia 49 5%
Ontario 214 24%
Prince Edward Island 5 1%
Québec 151 17%
Saskatchewan 8 1%
Undisclosed 106 12%
Total 893 100%

Registrations by Type of Participants (Self-identified)

Group Count Percentage
Academia or think tank 28 3%
Business or industry organization: Manufacturing 3 <1%
Business or industry organization: Natural resources 6 1%
Business or industry organization: Other 12 1%
Business or industry organization: Services 10 1%
Business or industry organization: Tourism or entertainment 13 1%
Business or industry organization: Transportation 6 1%
Environmental non-governmental organization 53 6%
General public 524 59%
Government organization: Federal 66 7%
Government organization: Municipal 2 <1%
Government organization: Provincial / Territorial 9 1%
Indigenous Peoples or Organization 11 1%
Youth (less than 25 years of age) 37 4%
Other organization 33 4%
Undisclosed 80 9%
Total 893 100%

Appendix C: Engagement Questions

In Person/Webinar Meetings

  1. Do you have any further questions about the background information that was just presented or about the materials you were provided before the meeting that need to be answered before being able to participate in the workshop?
  2. In reviewing the science review priorities, are there any that you believe you are already advancing? Those that could be initiated relatively easily? And which ones would be more difficult and not yet underway?
  3. Based on the previous discussion, we identified science review priorities as having the potential to be relatively easy to implement. What do we need to do to implement these?
  4. Some of the science review priorities will require long-term planning and commitment. In order to be successful, we will need to work together over the long-term. What are the initial steps that could be taken now to promote their successful implementation?
  5. What role do you see for yourself or your organization in implementing each science review priority? [Leader – you can do a lot of the implementation of this priority; Helper – you can support some of this priority; Observer – you cannot directly support this priority, but are an observer.]
  6. How do we best work together in the near future to continue with the actions required to address this threat to the species?  We would like to receive your input on your preferred format for ongoing engagement and collaboration.
  7. Are there other stakeholders or partners that you believe we need to include in the process who are not around the table today?

Let's Talk Whales Online Public Engagement: Questionnaires

Food availability

Improving food availability could mean keeping vessels out of certain areas where prey is found, so there is less interference with whales and their prey species. It could also mean reducing the amount of fish that humans are allowed to catch per year, which could decrease supply and increase cost in the marketplace, and/or restricting the use of habitat for important whale prey species. This complex food web requires managing the ecosystem as a whole. Here are some actions identified by scientists (generalized and in no particular order). Please rank these actions in order of how important you feel these actions are to help the whales.

Option 1: Make it easier for certain types of whales to find and catch fish through quieter oceans.

Option 2: Reduce competition with commercial and recreational fisheries (for the prey species the whales rely on).

Option 3: Protect and preserve the habitat of important whale prey species.

Option 4: Ensure that the prey that the whales rely on have enough prey to eat themselves.

Underwater Noise

Here are some actions identified by scientists to help address the threat of underwater noise (generalized and in no particular order): Increase the minimum distance that is allowed between vessels and whales, modify vessels so that they emit less noise, change how and where vessel traffic moves (e.g. routes; speed) and create areas in important whale habitat where noise disturbance is restricted or excluded (sanctuaries). What are your thoughts on these actions?

Vessels

Here are some actions identified by scientists to help address the threat of vessel strikes and vessel presence (generalized and in no particular order): educate vessel operators on collision risks, change how and where vessel traffic moves (e.g. routes; speed), create areas in important whale habitat where vessel presence is restricted or excluded (sanctuaries) and increase the minimum distance that is allowed between vessels and whales. What are your thoughts on these actions?

Contaminants

Here are some actions identified by scientists to help address the threat of contaminants (generalized and in no particular order): Reduce the amount and number of contaminants entering whale habitat; raise awareness about what contaminants are harming whales and where they come from; cleanup sites that are already contaminated, on land and in water; take whales into account in chemical spill response and monitoring; and clean up wastewater effluent. What are your thoughts on these actions?

Entanglements (not identified as significant threat to Southern Resident Killer Whales)

Here are some actions identified by scientists to help address the threat of entanglements (generalized and in no particular order): remove fishing gear from areas highly used by whales when whales are present; modify fishing gear to reduce entanglement risk; and have an effective network of responders to disentangle whales. What are your thoughts on these actions?

Let's Talk Whales Online Public Engagement: Ideas Forum

How can we, as Canadians, take action now to reduce impacts on at-risk whales and help their recovery?

Date modified: