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

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

Ce document est également disponible en français.

Table of Contents

• Complete Text
• 1. Executive Summary
• 2. Project Background
• 3. Summary of Engagement Strategy
  • 3.1 Targeted Input
  • 3.2 Open Public Engagement
• 4. Summary of What We Heard
  • 4.1 Who Did We Hear From?
  • 4.2 Understanding the Findings
  • 4.3 How the Following Sections are Organized
• 5. Prey Availability
  • 5.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 5.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 5.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 5.4 What the General Public Said
• 6. Entanglements
  • 6.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 6.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 6.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 6.4 What the General Public Said
• 7. Acoustic Disturbance and Vessel Presence
  • 7.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 7.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 7.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 7.4 What the General Public Said
• 8. Vessel Strikes
  • 8.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 8.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 8.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 8.4 What the General Public Said
• 9. Contaminants
  • 9.1 Summary of Key Themes
  • 9.2 What Indigenous Groups Said
  • 9.3 What Governments and Other Stakeholders Said
  • 9.4 What the General Public Said
• 10. Conclusions - Readiness to Move Actions Forward
  • 10.1 Common Themes across All Threats
  • 10.2 Roles and Leadership
  • 10.3 Improved Coordination and Communication
  • 10.4 Future Engagement and Consultation
  • 10.5 Region-specific Actions
• 11. Appendices
  • Appendix A: Who We Heard From
  • Appendix B. Profile of Respondents – Let’s Talk Whales Online Engagement
  • Appendix C: Engagement Questions

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.

• There were some divergent views expressed around:
  1. Reducing human interaction with whales to reduce noise or using technological solutions to overcome noise emission problems, e.g., making ships quieter.
  2. Taking immediate action versus taking more time to generate and/or integrate evidence to implement priority management actions that will be effective at achieving objectives, e.g., demonstrated positive impact on whales by lowering noise levels.
  3. Introducing priority management actions that are voluntary (incentive programs) versus mandatory (legislation, regulation, monitoring and enforcement).
     • Some stakeholders, including the shipping industry, felt that incentive programs could be effective to reduce vessel acoustic footprints and easier to implement.
     • Other participants felt that while priority could be given to immediate voluntary actions, stronger regulations, monitoring and enforcement will be needed. Government should increase and sufficiently resource on-the-water enforcement to reduce harassment and disturbance of whales by vessels and to ensure compliance.
• Generalized actions to reduce acoustic disturbance were supported by most participants from the general public, Indigenous groups and some stakeholders, e.g., environmental non-governmental and non-profit organizations. Participants from the general public would like to see reduced activity on the water, supported with enforcement, whether through exclusion zones, noise caps, acoustic refuges, and/or slow down zones.
• Indigenous groups called for more urgent action to protect critical habitat from the impacts of vessel noise and industrial development; for scientific measurement of noise levels to consider multiple vessels in critical habitat at a given point in time, not just single vessel noise levels; and, for the scope of any proposed area-specific vessel regulations to be clarified.
• Online participants who commented on actions aimed at directly abating threats supported changing vessel routes and creating sanctuaries to reduce human interaction with the whale populations. Some industry/business stakeholders were not convinced that refuges would work and argued that the concept needs to be made operational.
• Industry stakeholders expressed strong concern that they were not included among the technical experts who informed the science assessment or as observers in the process to identify the priority management actions. As a result, they questioned the validity of the findings and called for adaptations to the process towards a more fulsome, multi-stakeholder analysis within a formal framework, taking into account the marine safety and economic impacts of priority management actions.
• Indigenous groups and other stakeholders provided specific feedback on the priority management actions, and also shared concerns about the engagement process;

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

• Noise from vessels varies by type of vessel, oceanographic conditions and bottom topography;
• Reducing vessel speed may prolong the length of time that vessels are in the area where whales are present.

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:

• Focus initially on actions that target vessels that make the greatest noise contribution in key areas of whale habitat;
• Ensure actions to reduce acoustic threats result in a reduction in noise levels and noise exposure to the three endangered whale populations;
• Adopt noise reduction targets that are ecologically relevant and can be used as the basis to assess effectiveness of noise reduction measures;
• Provide scientific evidence supporting priority management actions aimed at decreasing acoustic disturbance in or near whale habitat;
• Include the International Maritime Organization 2014 guidelines on vessel noise reduction in the Science-Based Whale Review;
• Take into consideration economic, operational, marine safety, and jurisdictional realities;
• Undertake deeper, highly coordinated engagement with other levels of government, Indigenous groups, the maritime industry and other key stakeholders to realize these actions in the most practicable way;
• Use existing structures to develop and put in place new incentives to reduce vessel noise, e.g., Green Marine;

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:

• It was emphasized by representatives who remained after the break at the Québec meeting on the noise threat that some elements of the proposed priority actions could be initiated quickly.
• Discussions should be continued with existing tables such as the Marine Transportation and Marine Mammal Protection Working Group and parallel actions and duplication should be limited.
• Engage people working in the whale-watching industry in refining and implementing actions that impact them;
• Increase the distance between whales and pleasure craft and whale watch vessels (as per the priority management action identified);
• Ensure measures to reduce acoustic disturbance address the significant contribution of whale-watching vessels (some research suggests that up to 1/3 of lost foraging time is attributed to these vessels) ^{Footnote 29}, in addition to the significant contribution from large commercial shipping vessels;
• Involve the whale-watching industry as partners in conservation, as their livelihood depends on a healthy, sustained whale population; they are interested in partnering on education and awareness efforts as well as monitoring and reporting to increase knowledge about whale presence and behaviours.

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

Suggestions included:

• Establish acoustic refuge areas (designated geographic areas; seasonal areas) that provide a refuge for each of the three whale populations from vessel noise and disturbance (as per the priority management action identified);
• Link to the marine spatial planning process under the Oceans Act;
• Prohibit all seismic oil and gas development activities in marine protected areas;
• Ensure the refuge areas apply to recreational and whale watching vessels, as well as commercial vessels.

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).

7.2 What Indigenous Groups Said

Suggestions from Indigenous participants included:

• Take more urgent action to protect critical habitat for the three endangered whale populations from the impacts of vessel noise and industrial development;
• Consider the cumulative effects of increased vessel traffic on the three endangered whale populations and ensure that scientific measurement of noise levels considers multiple vessels in critical habitat at a given point in time, not just single vessel noise levels;
• Clarify the scope of possible removal or restrictions of vessels, area-specific regulations and/or guidelines included in priority management actions;
• Address underwater noise generated by seismic studies conducted by the oil and gas industry in critical habitats, as well as sonar from military vessels.

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:

• Sufficient scientific evidence is available to justify removal of vessels to reduce acoustic disturbance to North Atlantic Right Whales;
• Vessel traffic should be completely removed from North Atlantic Right Whale critical habitat or high use areas immediately as opposed to a more gradual approach;
• Fishing activities should be modified in North Atlantic Right Whale critical habitat and/or high use areas.

Suggestions included:

• Clarify the specific areas and/or times of year during which vessel traffic would be prohibited or restricted and whether all vessel types would be equally affected;
• Provide information on existing noise levels associated with fishing activities in North Atlantic Right Whale habitat (noise emitted from different types of fishing activity and vessels);
• Take steps to encourage fisheries to turn off noise-generating devices in sensitive areas where North Atlantic Right Whales are present;
• Develop actions to reduce seismic and sonar noise in North Atlantic Right Whale critical habitats;
• Consider how actions to decrease acoustic disturbance link to feedback on priority management actions to reduce the threats of vessel collision, vessel presence and entanglement, e.g. suggestions to improve monitoring and notification of North Atlantic Right Whale location, capacity for regulation and enforcement.

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:

• Take into account the industry feedback already provided to the Government of Canada on the economic, practical and operational impacts of priority management options (as part of consultations in 2016 and 2017 to develop an Action Plan to reduce the impact of noise on the beluga whale and other marine mammals at risk in the St. Lawrence Estuary); ^{Footnote 32}
• Work within existing structures and agreements with the province of Québec's Ministry of Transportation to build on the work of established multi-stakeholder groups aimed at reducing the threats of underwater noise and vessel strikes to the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga;
• Provide more details on the management action that was identified in the science assessment report to move shipping lanes and the pilot station that are currently in areas important to the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga; reducing vessel speed could be a practical alternative to moving shipping lanes;
• Identify possible acoustic refuge areas for the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga (as per the priority management action identified); clarify the types of activities to be permitted in these areas and take steps to create them; in general, the area of the St. Lawrence Estuary that is important to belugas is between l'Isle-aux-Coudres and Rimouski and the scientific literature has identified 28 "hot spots" that are high use areas of the beluga population;
• Rather than restricting all vessel traffic in the entire St. Lawrence Estuary, minimize the impact on fishermen by banning just certain types of vessel engines in acoustic refuge areas.;
• Involve environmental non-governmental organizations in acoustic monitoring in marine protected areas;
• Create exclusion zones where whale-watching vessels are not permitted in Parc Marin Saguenay St. Laurent;
• Strengthen the enforcement of whale-watching regulations for Parc Marin Saguenay St. Laurent and for marine mammals outside the boundaries of the marine park, particularly in the middle of the St. Lawrence Estuary;
• Promote the use of sailboats as whale-watching vessels to reduce noise levels;
• Clarify the purpose of seasonal bans on dredging (e.g., to reduce noise? to prevent the release of contaminated sediments?) and the relative contribution of noise from dredging compared to vessel traffic;
• Consider the impacts of climate change on the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga habitat and identify actions to mitigate impact;
• Support research that investigates why the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga seems to be abandoning the Manicouagan estuary.

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:

• Provide more information and clarity on actions already underway to reduce noise disturbance in British Columbia coastal waters, particularly the Salish Sea, and reasons why some actions are not yet underway; ^{Footnote 33}
• Consider delaying decisions on the Government of Canada's vessel noise reduction implementation plans to late Spring or early summer 2018 to allow integration of key studies, such as the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority ECHO program Vessel Slow Down Research Trial aimed at reducing the noise exposure from commercial vessels;
• Engage with governments, Indigenous groups and industry stakeholders, including ECHO members, to identify where and how government can leverage expertise, capacity and work to date; and to provide input into a collaborative implementation work plan.

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:

• Improve integration of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Fisheries and Oceans Canada on whale science;
• Build or enhance the limited trans-boundary activities already underway aimed at reducing underwater noise.

Other proposed actions

• Improve and utilize existing hydrophone networks, e.g., Salish Sea Hydrophone Network, to quantify ocean noise budget through Southern Resident Killer Whale range and to improve reporting of acoustic disturbance incidents.
• Reduce vessel sonar (sounder) noise; for example, ask vessels in the vicinity of whales and in easy-to-navigate waters to shut their sounders off;
• Address acute noise from pile driving, assuming that this type of activity will increase with expanded port activities.

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:

• 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).

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

• The tone of the comments was overwhelmingly positive, with most expressing their support for the actions, and very few comments (4% of all respondents) expressing caution or dissatisfaction.
• Among the responses directly addressing actions, most (69%) were related to modifying vessels so that they emit less noise. Although the majority of comments were general, some were more specific and included references to the implementation of modern technology to deal with the issue and the need to offer incentive programs.
• Approximately one-third of the comments directly addressed the actions that were related to changing the routes of vessel traffic.^{Footnote 34} Some participants note the need for guidelines for route-changing and included comments that directly reference oil tankers.
• Another action that generated a notable number of comments (27%) was the proposed creation of sanctuaries. Most of the comments were general and highlighted the public's broad agreement with the action. Nonetheless, this action was also the one that generated the most caution or negative reaction, although this was limited to only 10 comments.
• Among the less positive reactions were concerns expressed by a participant identified with the tourism industry who felt that the benefits of creating whale sanctuaries have not been sufficiently proven. Others point out difficulties in developing recovery efforts due to unpredictable whale behaviour, i.e., changing patterns of travel.
• Aside from the actions presented in the question, participants also included other actions that they think are important. Among these, the main themes that emerged are related to regulations, monitoring, and enforcement. These were mentioned mostly by the general public, but the theme was also prevalent among self-identified government participants, primarily from the federal government.
• Most of the comments related to regulations highlight the need for stronger penalties, developing guidelines, and licensing for the whale-watching industry.
• Some participants noted that regulations are already in place and felt that better monitoring and enforcement is what is really needed.
• Another emerging action proposed, not only by the general public, but also common among environmental non-governmental organizations, is to address the perceived impacts of acoustic disturbance events such as seismic activity associated with mining and drilling projects or sonar activity from the military.