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

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.

• The Government of British Columbia and representatives from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were interested in coming together to form an interagency working group on contaminants.
• Indigenous groups believe that cumulative effects of resource development should be taken into account in identifying and implementing priority management actions to enhance recovery of the Southern Resident Killer Whale and the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga.
• In engagement sessions in British Columbia, Indigenous groups suggested making a strong linkage to the integrated resource monitoring and assessment work already underway in the province. Other concerns focused on reducing industrial chemical pollution to improve shellfish and whale habitats; and, enhancing regulations to control polluters who contaminate First Nations' food.
• In engagement sessions in Québec and Maritimes, Indigenous groups suggested clarifying the specific chemicals that are currently problematic for the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga and the sources of this contamination; information should be provided about contaminated sites and the status of decontamination efforts; First Nations are interested in collaborating on the decontamination of sites and on raising awareness of pollution impacting St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga habitat. 
• Indigenous groups raised concerns about oil spill response and would like to see increased capacity for Indigenous groups, whale watching and fishing vessels to participate in rapid response efforts.
• Public participants who commented online frequently expressed concerns about oil spills and plastic pollution in the ocean. Some expressed a desire to eliminate the risk by stopping or limiting the transportation of oil by vessels; others agree that whale protection should be considered in oil spill response plans.
• Some online participants who commented on actions aimed directly at abating threats agreed that the rate of implementation of Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations should be accelerated. The Government of British Columbia and municipalities support this approach; under the assumption that resources will be made available to help off-set costs.
• Online participants also believe there is a need for stronger regulations and changes in aquaculture practices that some believe harm human health, whales and their prey, e.g., replacing open-net aquaculture with land-based enclosed farms, better monitoring/controlled use of pesticides, antibiotics, and fish foods at fish farms.
• Participants from all parties are concerned by chronic (continuous, lesser magnitude) spills, e.g., disposal at sea, bilge water, land runoff, oil leaks.

9.2 What Indigenous Groups Said

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

• Taking into account cumulative effects of resource development on the marine environment in the approach to Southern Resident Killer Whale recovery;
• Making a strong link between the Oceans Protection Plan and the Cumulative Effects integrated resource monitoring and assessment work underway in British Columbia;^{Footnote 42}
• Restoring marine ecotoxicology and contaminants expertise at Fisheries and Oceans Canada;
• Re-thinking expectations of First Nations' participation in oil spill response given:
  1. extremely rough conditions in the Salish Sea in the spring and fall (the most likely time for a spill); and
  2. currently available equipment;
• Reducing industrial chemical pollution to improve habitats for shellfish and the Southern Resident Killer Whale population;
• Enhancing regulations to control polluters who contaminate the food that First Nations eat;^{Footnote 43}
• Organizing the collection and analysis of St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga prey samples to monitor their level of contamination.

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

• Ensure consultation with all affected First Nations ^{Footnote 44}, including smaller communities with limited administrative, technical and fiscal capacity to attend meetings or feedback.^{Footnote 45}
• Develop a cohesive horizontal approach across Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Transport Canada and Natural Resources Canada with clear, harmonized mandates.^{Footnote 46}

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:

• Clarify the specific chemicals that are problematic for the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga and sources of contamination;
• Provide more information about contaminated sites affecting the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga and the status of decontamination;
• Collaborate with First Nations on the decontamination of sites and on raising awareness of pollution impacting St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga habitat;
• Provide financial assistance to coastal villages without water treatment systems who live in proximity to St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga habitat;
• Consult with First Nations about the establishment of marine protected areas and exclusion zones that may impact economic viability of Indigenous fishers;^{Footnote 47}
• Develop a rapid response system for oil spills, particularly between Québec and Sept-Iles where the strong currents demand immediate action;
• Form oil spill response teams that include whale-watching and fishing vessels and improve support to the Marine Mammal Response Network.

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:

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada has greatly reduced contaminants capacity due to previous programmatic changes and budget reductions. 
• Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada regulate contaminants to protect the environment and human health and consider available information that is not typically specific to the effects on marine mammals.^{Footnote 48}

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:

• Improve enforcement of Canadian regulations to reduce toxic chemical discharges at source and strengthen those laws to reduce point and non-point source discharge (e.g. provide federal support to regional governments to help with enforcement) ;   
• Introduce better monitoring and enforcement measures to prevent vessel discharge of bilge water.^{Footnote 49} Currently, the Canadian Coast Guard regulates and monitors discharge at sea;
• Take immediate action to ban identified contaminants rather than conducting new research;
• Re-invigorate connections and programs that have faded over time, e.g. regarding disposal at sea, and ensure roles and responsibilities of compliance branch are understood;
• Review agency mandates for enforcement to ensure sufficient protection is provided to endangered populations such as the Southern Resident Killer Whale.
• Maintain coastal monitoring stations over the long term to finalize the list of contaminants in the marine environment that pose a threat to Southern Resident Killer Whales;
• Consider impact on ocean wildlife, especially species at risk when approving and removing chemicals from use;
• Introduce cradle to grave management of chemicals;

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:

• Shorten time lines for upgrades to secondary treatment (or encourage voluntary compliance in shorter time lines) and include appropriate funding from all levels of government.
• Provide federal funding support to accelerate action at the regional or municipal level to upgrade their wastewater treatment systems.
• Provide a list of wastewater facilities in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island to the public along with their risk ranking (and thus timing for compliance).^{Footnote 50}
• Include managers of wastewater systems in planning and discussion to increase awareness of new contaminants.

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:

• Expand monitoring criteria for disposal at sea to include other chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyls, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, dioxins and furans);
• Improve information management and communications regarding these policies and best practices (within department, within government, more broadly to First Nations and international governments);
• Look at the United States cross-agency approach. ^{Footnote 52} Their management program includes several federal agencies.
• Create a regional ocean disposal advisory committee to feed policy direction in this area;
• Reinvigorate existing scientific monitoring and research activities (e.g., literature review) to help move forward policies and practices, taking into account polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

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:

• Share best practices across jurisdictions, e.g., Capital Regional District model storm water management bylaw;
• Determine how provincial and regional levels of government currently address small spills;
• Provide federal funding to regional or municipal governments to act on the environmental effects of contaminant loading from storm water;
• Determine the extent of impact of storm water on the Southern Resident Killer Whale population;
• Focus local actions on small spills at marine pleasure craft fuelling stations and waste-water tank discharge and bilge emptying in harbours and identify the lead(s) e.g., marinas, Canadian Coast Guard;
• Increase the presence of provincial or regional government representatives at future meetings to learn more about current policy and practices addressing small scale and/or chronic contaminant spills and leaks.

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:

• Conduct a mapping exercise to identify locations of contaminated sites and overlay important whale/prey habitat to inform remediation;
• Ensure future interagency coordination takes into consideration both federal and provincial contaminated sites;
• Raise awareness of this priority management action with all federal departments managing federal contaminated sites on the coast; and help to assemble best available knowledge (guidance) in coordination with the Government of British Columbia.

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:

• Environment and Climate Change Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada could initiate further discussion with other departments and partners such as Transport Canada, Canadian Coast Guard and Western Canada Marine Response Corporation to increase understanding of respective roles in emergency response planning;
• Regularly monitor industry to ensure compliance with regulations requiring spill reporting (beyond current industry self-regulation);
• Strengthen spill response plans, the coordination of incoming calls about an oil spill event, and communication with the shipping industry about spill response involving whales (multiple issues and specific measures are identified in detailed meeting notes);
• Ensure the protocols and response measures address the unique requirements of small spills or on-going leaks as well as large catastrophic oil spills;
• Use real-time detection to identify the location of Southern Resident Killer Whales in relation to oil spill response areas and share this information with involved agencies;
• Make the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation area response plans publicly available and test with stakeholders; develop plans for areas not yet covered in current plans;
• Continue to support collaborations with industry and other stakeholders to develop enhanced spill response measures;
• Strengthen enforcement of polluter pay principle, but expand to ensure the polluter is fully liable for damage compensation for environmental, fiscal and/or social impacts;
• Do not develop or expand fossil fuel projects or increase tanker traffic within the critical habitat of the Southern Resident Killer Whale population.

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:

• 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.
• Most of the comments directly addressed the above actions. All of these comments had a positive tone, expressing general agreement and support for the actions.
• The action that generated the most reactions was to reduce the amount and number of contaminants entering whale habitat. Given that the action presented is broad in scope, most of the comments were also broad. Common themes included general statements related to the need to reduce water pollution and toxic contamination produced by dumping of waste. Some participants were more specific and suggested banning toxic substances (13% of all respondents), reducing manufacturing of plastic products (10%) and increasing fines for pollution (10%).
• Raising awareness about what contaminants are harming whales and where they come from also generated a notable number of reactions (33% of all comments directly address an action). Some participants suggested incentivizing recycling initiatives.
• The need to clean up contaminated sites was put forward in notable numbers as well (20% of all comments directly addressing an action). A common theme was the need to protect and restore the ecological balance.
• As with the previous questionnaires that included open-ended approaches, participants suggested other actions not presented in the question. Most of these additional actions were related to regulations, monitoring, and enforcement, e.g. of agricultural run-off, of effluent from aquaculture (particularly Atlantic salmon fish farms).
• Additional actions related to regulations were brought forward by multiple groups, including the general public, environmental non-governmental organizations, and academia. The common theme was the need for stronger regulations and changes in aquaculture practices that some believe can harm human health, whale health and/or their prey, ^{Footnote 53} e.g. replacing open-net aquaculture with land-based enclosed farms, better monitoring and control of use of pesticides, antibiotics, and fish foods at fish farms.
• Enforcement was an action proposed mostly by the general public; this highlights the general perception that there is a need for more policing and monitoring, including disposal of contaminants and effluent.
• A notable number of comments included suggestions related to process improvements. Common themes related to this topic included the need for ensuring the measures are tested before being applied; ensure proper prioritization of actions; and statements emphasizing the importance of government collaboration and integration in addressing the issues impacting whales.
• Although there were no negative reactions directly related to the proposed actions, some participants (2% of all contaminants questionnaire respondents) took the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the way the government has approached protecting the whales, citing in some cases the perception that there is lack of political will to enact change.