What we heard: Overview of Government of Canada consultations on proposed Southern Resident Killer Whale recovery measures for 2019

On this page

• Background
• Consultation process
• Consultation Summary

Background

Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) were listed as Endangered under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003. SRKW are an iconic species and supporting their recovery is a key priority for DFO and the Government of Canada. In 2018, it was determined that SRKW are facing imminent threats to their survival and recovery. A number of short-term recovery measures were implemented in 2018, including fishery closures for recreational finfish and commercial salmon in some key foraging areas. On October 31, 2018, the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada announced new investments in SRKW recovery and the commitment to develop a suite of further short and long-term measures, beginning with immediate actions in Spring 2019.

Further to the October announcement, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Transport Canada (TC) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) established five Technical Working Groups to provide advice on short and long-term recovery measures for SRKW. The Technical Working Groups provided initial advice on short-term measures on March 1, 2019. This advice informed the development of proposed recovery measures developed by DFO, TC, and ECCC for consultation with Indigenous groups, stakeholders and the public. Also considered in the development of measures were recovery efforts underway in Washington State, science information, and consultation with Indigenous groups and stakeholders.

Consultations with Indigenous groups, stakeholders and the public on Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) recovery measures for implementation in 2019 were conducted jointly by DFO, TC, and ECCC.

Consultation process

Consultations were conducted using a variety of avenues to provide information on the proposed measures and receive input and feedback, including several rounds of correspondence to Indigenous communities, sectors, and other stakeholders, bi-lateral meetings, provision of a generic email address and a consultation website with a survey by which to provide written feedback, two sets of webinars (five total) and three public meetings in Victoria, Sooke, and Richmond for verbal feedback.

Consultation with Indigenous groups potentially impacted by recovery measures in the Mouth of the Fraser River, Gulf Islands, and Strait of Juan de Fuca, stakeholders, and the public on the development of short term measures for 2019 was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 ran through February and April 2019 and was used to seek feedback on proposals developed by the Technical Working Groups (TWGs), this was used to develop a proposed suite of SRKW recovery measures for 2019. Phase 2 ran from April 11 to May 3, 2019, and was used to seek input and feedback on the proposed measures.

Consultation summary

Public webinars

Webinars were held on March 15, 2019 to present and receive feedback on the proposals for potential measures put forward by the Technical Working Groups, which had been tasked with providing proposals to government by March 1, 2019. Three sessions were conducted: one each for stakeholders, Indigenous Groups and for the membership of the Technical Working Groups.

A second round of webinars were held April 18, 2019 to present and receive feedback on the proposed suite of SRKW recovery measures for 2019. Two sessions were conducted: one for stakeholders and a second for Indigenous groups. Approximately 120 participants joined the stakeholder webinar and one for the Indigenous webinar.

Comments/questions received included:

• Considerations around the concept of no-go zones (later reframed as Interim Sanctuary Zones): human powered crafts, implications to fisheries, exemptions, enforcement, safety concerns
• Questions on outreach and education strategies
• Questions on what regulations will be used, whether large vessels and whale watching be regulated and alignment with Washington State
• Considerations to address prey availability beyond salmon fisheries management measures including salmon enhancement, habitat restoration, addressing pinniped predation, and forage fisheries management.
• Questions around Department of National Defense activities

Public meetings

Three public meetings were held to present and seek input and feedback on the proposed suite of SRKW recovery measures for 2019:

1. April 23, 2019 in Victoria, BC; ~140 attendees
2. April 24, 2019 in Sooke, BC; ~115 attendees
3. April 25, 2019 in Richmond, BC; ~95 attendees

In each session, the proposed suites of measures (described as two options termed ‘Scenario A’ and ‘Scenario B’) were presented and participants given the opportunity to provide comments and ask questions of a panel comprised of representatives from DFO, TC, and ECCC. In Victoria and Sooke, the majority of attendees and speakers were from the recreational fishing sector. In Richmond, there were speakers representing the recreational and commercial fishing sectors, private citizens, and environmental non-governmental organization representatives.

Key comments/questions received included:

• For proposed fisheries management measures, strong concerns were expressed regarding ‘Scenario B’ (the more precautionary approach) due to the expected significant impacts on coastal communities dependent on recreational fishing (e.g., Port Renfrew, Sooke), with nominal support expressed for ‘Scenario A’ (less precautionary approach).
• Concerns over safety and access to fishing grounds with the proposed no-go/reduced use zone on Swiftsure Bank.
• Questions on how the recently announced Chinook salmon management measures (announced April 16, 2019) and proposed SRKW measures overlap.
• The position that recreational fisheries are a small portion of the problem and other sectors should also be addressed including commercial fishing, whale watching and other vessel traffic.
• Considerations to address prey availability beyond salmon fisheries management measures, including salmon enhancement, habitat restoration, addressing pinniped predation, and forage fisheries management.

Southern Resident Killer Whale consultation email inbox

Public input on the TWG proposals and proposed measures for 2019 was directed through a dedicated e-mail inbox activated on March 12, 2019: DFO.SRKW-ERS.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca. Approximately 430 e-mail responses were received providing comments on the proposed measures:

• Comments on proposed measures began to be received on April 13th, following a public webinar on reviewing the TWG proposals.
• Comments varied with some expressing concern over the potentially significant socio-economic impacts of proposed measures for 2019 on small coastal communities while other comments supported the most conservative protection measures
• See Section 6 for ‘Feedback Themes’

Southern Resident Killer Whale online survey

On April 18th, the consultation website was launched, and included a downloadable presentation of proposed measures and an online survey. The survey questions asked participants if they thought the proposed measures would have economic, environmental, cultural and/or social benefits or impacts to their interests, and which measures they supported. Approximately 1,650 on-line forms were received from April 18 to May 3, 2019. Comments varied; see Section 6 for ‘Feedback Themes’.

Geographic distribution of email responses and online surveys

Most e-mail and on-line survey respondents provided location information. Qualitatively, the geographic distribution of responses was as follows:

• BC: most responses were from BC and in particular Vancouver Island and Strait of Georgia Gulf Islands, followed by Vancouver Lower Mainland area and Interior/ Kootenay Regions.
• Nationally: the majority of provinces and territories were represented, with Ontario providing the most responses second to BC.
• International: responses were received from the USA (e.g., Washington, California, Texas, New York and Virginia) and overseas (e.g., UK, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Australia)

Feedback themes from email, online, and bi-lateral meetings

The following is a snapshot of the recommendations made in respondent comments which were generally received by individuals in communities and/or in sectors which would experience socio-economic impacts from implementation of the recovery measures:

• Support for ‘Scenario A’ and the 1 km voluntary fishing exclusion zone, but not support for ‘No go zone’ in Swiftsure Bank
  • No support for a fisheries closure of Otter Point to Sheringham Point (as proposed in ‘Scenario B’)
• Socio-economic concerns and potential impacts to Indigenous fishing rights with fishing closures, in particular for ‘Scenario B’
• Confusion as to the placement of a ‘No-Go Zone’ in Swiftsure Bank when large vessels would be allowed to transit the area via the Transit Separation Scheme
• Concern that restrictions in one management area would move impacts to adjacent areas
• Support to cull seals and sea lions to reduce predation pressure
• Support to stop the commercial herring fishery in the Strait of Georgia to support production of forage fish
• Support to increase hatchery production of Chinook Salmon
• Support to restore Salmon stream habitat
• The position that SRKW are at normal levels within natural variability and not endangered
• The position that science on SRKW not trustworthy; need to rely on those on the water
  • Need to include more traditional Indigenous and local knowledge
• The position that whale watching in Southern Gulf Islands should be banned
• The assertion that SKRW cannot survive if TMX built
• Support to stop discharge of harmful toxins

Outside of this local geographic scope, the feedback themes shifted to support for the most precautionary approach. A significant proportion of National (outside of BC) and International respondents supported high levels of protection for SRKW regardless of socio-economic impact, demonstrating the high existence value of this population to the national and international communities. However, few details on specific recovery measures supported were provided, and many responses were quite generic.