Status of Endangered Species of Cetacea in the Western Bay of Fundy

8/20/2019 Status of Endangered Species of Cetacea in the Western Bay of Fundy

1/62

STA

;OS OF

ENDANGERE lJ S

P

GI S

IN l:HE W 6S

T RN

BAY OF FUN f Y

D E

GASKIN

G.J.D. SMITH

0 8

YURICK


2/62

A REPORT

TO

THE NATIONAL MARINE

FISHERIES

SERVICE

STATUS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES OF

.,CETACEA

IN THE WESTERN

BAY OF FUNDY

AND UNIQUE

FEATURES OF

THIS

REGION WHICH

COMMEND

ITS

PROTECTION

D.E.GASKIN

G.J.D.SMITH

D.B.YURICK

DEPARTMENT

OF

ZOOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

GUELPH

ONTARIO CANADA

NIG

2Wl

SEPTEMBER

1979

@

DATA IN

THIS

REPORT MAY

ONLY

BE CITED

WITH THE

WRITTEN pERMISSION OF THE SENIOR AUTHOR

- - - - - -


3/62

2

CONTENTS

1.0 .

INTRODUCTION.

.• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. 0 U R R U L U VITAE OF

SENIOR

AUTHOR 5

3 0

INPUT RELEVANT

TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE STATUS

OF

ENDANGERED SPECIES

OF

CETACEA IN THE

APPROACHES

TO THE

BAY OF

FUNDY

. .

6

3.1 COHHENTS ON

DOCUr·1ENTS PRESENTED BY CONSULTING

BIOLOGISTS ON BEHALF

OF

THE PITTSTON CO

MPA

NY

WITH REFE

RE NCE TO THEIR

APPLICATION

TO

BUILD A

SU

PERTA

N

KE

R

TER

M

NAL

A

ND OI

L RE

FIN

E

RY

AT

EASTPORT

M ,

AT

T

HE

LO

WER

E

ND

OF

HEAD HA

RB

OU

R

PASSAGE, NEW

BRU

NSWICK, CANADA 7

3 1 1

m E N T S

DR

. H. E.

ON TWO

HI NN

E N T S PRESE

NTED

BY

8

3.

1 1

1 .

3 1 1 2

3 1 1 3

3 1 1 4

HUMPBACK WHALES

RIGHT WHALES

DIRECT EFFECTS

OF OIL ON WHALES

COHMEN

TS

ON PRO POSE D FUTURE R

ESE

A

RC

H

IN

THIS AREA

AS SUGGESTED BY DR

. WNN

8

14

17

18

3 1 2

COfvlMENTS

ON TWO

DOCUI

·1ENTS

DR. EDWARD

S.

GILFILLAN

PRESENTED

BY.· .

20

3.1

2 1

3 1 2 2

3 1 2 3

DOCUMENT

#1

STATE

MENT

OF

DR.

EDWARD

S.

GILFILLAN ON BEHALF OF THE PITTSTON

COMPANY

BEFORE THE

ENDA

NGERED SPECIES

REVIEW BOARD:

WHALES)

DOCUMENT

#2 (

CRITI

Q

UE

OF

NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIE

S #7

CONSULTATION

-

THRESHOLD EXAMINATION)

'

CONCLUSIONS

;

20

26

31

3.2

RECORDS

BY

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

OF RIGHT

AND

HU

MPBAC

K

WHALES IN

BAY OF FUNDY APPROACHES

RESEARCH GROUP

THE WESTERN

.

.

32

4.0 INPUT

RELEVANT

TO CONSIDERATIONS OF

AND

VALUE OF THIS REGION

TO CANADA,

REFERENCE TO

CETACEANS

THE

UNIQUENESS

WITH

SPECIAL

33


4/62

3

4.1 THE

APPROACHES TO

THE

BAY OF FUNDY AS A

UNIQUE

FIELD LABORATORY FOR

MARINE

RESEARCH IN EASTERN

CANADA, WITH

SPECIAL

REFERENCE TO

CETACEANS

35

4.1.1.

FINBACK

WHALES 36

4.1.2.

HARBOUR

PORPOISE

38

4.1.3. OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES 51

4.2 EXISTING LEVELS OF CONTMlINATION IN

CETACEANS

52

N THIS REGION WHICH ALREADY PUT THEM AT RISK

4.3 ON-GOING STUDIES IN

THIS

AREA Y CANADIAN

RESEARCH WORKERS ".... . . . . 54

4.4

Sut1MARY

OF PUBLISHED

RESEARCH FROM THIS REGION

55

5.0 REFERENCES CITED 56

CKNOWLEDGMENTS

To

l l those

members

o f the

Universi ty

o f Guelph

cetacean and seabird research group Who gav

e

s t er l ing assis tance

in

what was

of ten

arduous .

work

under

inclement

w e t h ~ c o n d i t i o n s

and

to

some

f ine and steady typing by Ms

Marilyn

Botter

3

without which t h i s manuscript would not

have

been ready

on

t ime


5/62

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The question of possible, probable or

certain

jeopardy to endan

gered species of Cetacea in the western approaches to the Bay of Fundy

is to be considered by the Endangered Species Review

Board

of the

United

States,

following the application of the

Pittston

Company to

build

a supertanker terminal and on refinery in the vic-inity

of

Eastport, ine,

The

viewpoint of the National Marine Fisheries Service

of

the

United States differs

from

that of the Pittston

Company

concerning the

degree of risk involved to certain species of large Cetacea in this

region i this development proceeds.

The National

Marine

Fisheries Service requested that the authors

prepare this present

report

for consideration, so

that

the fullest

volume

of

evidence could be presented concerning the

status

of

endangered Cetacea in the vicinity of the proposed refinery and terminal

site.

We have endeavoured to provide

NMFS

with the

maximum

benefit

accruing

from

the extensive period

since

1969) during

which

University

of Guelph personnel have been carrying out research on marine mammals

in the Bay of Fundy

The report is essentially divided into

two

parts; the

first ,

is

addressed only to the

specific status

of endangered Cetacea in the

region, and contains the opinion of the senior author concerning

state-

ments

made

by -the two biologists consulting

for

the Pittston

Company

and

recently

submitted to the Board

on

behalf of the Company The second,

considers input relevant to considerations of the uniqueness and value

of

this

region for

research,

and especially with reference to its value

to the nation

of

Canada as a "fie1d laboratory" for research on

Cetacea.


6/62

5

2.0 CURRICULUM

VITAE

OF SENIOR

AUTHOR

Dr. D.E.

Gaskin, born 2 June 1939, presently Associate Professor

of Marine Biology at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

N G

2Wl.

He has held a position at the University of

Guelph

since

December

1968. Currently

Dr.

Gaskin is responsible

for

the

Marine

Biology Option and

its facilities

at the University of Guelph, and oper

ates

a small research

station

at

Lord's

Cove,

Deer

Island

New

Brunswick

as a base

for

cetacean

studies

by the University.

Dr. Gaskin graduated with Special Honours in Zoology at the

University of

Bristol

England, in early 1961. Following this he

joined the

Institute

of Oceanography of the United

Kingdom

and the

Ministry

of

Agriculture Fisheries and

Food,

holding a joint appointment

during 1961 and 1962 while he served with the floating whaling factory

expedition

S

outhern Venturer", operating in the Southern

Ocean

in the

vicinity of the Falkland Islands Dependencies . After this appointment

he accepted a post with the Fisheries Research Division of the New

Zealand

Government

and, based in Wellington, studied the

humpback

and

sperm whale populations of the Western South

Pacific

and

the

Ross

Sea

until early 1965. He returned to this region again in 1966-67 on appoint

ment

with the

Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, to

work the summer season as a biologist on the Japanese whale research

vessel

Chiyoda Maru

#5 in the South Pacific.

With

the cessation

of

whaling in New Zealand

Dr.

Gaskin accepted

a faculty appointment at Massey University, New Zealand, and lectured in

ecology, fisheries and population

dynamics until

December 1968, when he

moved to Canada. Dr. Gaskin received his Ph.D.

after part-time

study at

Ma

ssey i n 1968 .

As well as the degree of Ph .D., Dr. Gaskin is M.I.Biol.

(London)

and F.R.E.S. (London).

He

has published about

65

papers,

most

of

them

concerning Cetacea, in refereed primary scientific

literature

has

published

two

books on the Cetacea, and

is

currently

writing

another

for

Heinemann Educational Books International. Dr. Gaskin has

worked

in

various capacities with the International Whaling Commission since 1962,

including being New Zealand scientific representative until 1968, and an

advisor to the

Small Whale

Subcommittee of the

Scientific Committee

of

the IWC.

He is

currently a member

of

the Population Biology Grants Committee

of the National Research Council of

Canada.


7/62

'

..

;

...

...

6

3.0

INPUT

RELEV NT

TO

CONSIDER TIONS OF

THE

ST TUS

OF END NGERED

SPECIES OF

CET CE

IN THE PPRO CHES TO THE B Y OF FUNDY

In one of the

documents

submitted to the Endangered Species

Review Board

by

one of the consulting biologists Dr. H.E. Winn

for

the Pittston

Company,

t

was rightly

pointed out

that

blue, sei and

sperm

whales

rarely

occur in the approaches to the

Bay

of

Fundy.

We concur with this opinion,

and

the o l l o w ~ n section is there-

fore addressed

solely

to the occurrence,

distribution

and possible

population

size

of

right

ahd humpback whales in

this

region, with

special reference to the level of risk that we believe the development

in question

would

pose

for

these populations.

In view of the

wearisome

volume

of testimony

which

has

been

pro

duced concerning application

and

counter-applications for the

refinery

and

terminal

the authors, who

have much

personal experience with this

region,

have

included on y new information we deem relevant to the

discussion.

The

records

of

Cetacea

used

by

us, except

when

we

need

to

cite

existing literature

to agree with, or contend with, statements

by

the

consulting biologists are those

from

1978 and

1979, with occasional

references to unpublished data of ours

relating

to 1970-1977.


8/62

7

3.1 O W ~ E N T S ON

DOCUMENTS

PRESENTED Y

CONSULTING BIOLOGISTS

ON

BEHALF

OF

THE PITTSTON O M P N ~ WITH

REFERENCE TO THEIR

APPLICATION TO BUILD

A

SUPERTANKER TERMINAL AND OIL REFINERY

AT

EASTPORT, Me AT THE LOWER END OF HEAD HARBOUR PASSAGE,

NEW

BRUNSWICK, CANADA

Since four documents were submitted by the consulting

biologists

on behalf of the company and these documents are sometimes

difficult

to follow andeven the addenda poorly

integrated

with the

primary documents, I have chosen to deal with

them

in

separate

ways.

Since the document containing the

main

case for the company supplied

byDr. H.E. Winn is considerably better organized than that provided

by

Dr.

E.S.

Gilfillan,

I have considered

his

points

and criticised them

in relation to

humpback

whales

(section 3.1.1.1.), right

whales

(section

3.1.1.2.), direct effects of oil on whales (section 3.1.1.3.), and

conclusions and

comments on

suggestions

for future

research in the

region

(section

3.1.1.4.). The

main

document submitted by .

Gilfillan,

and the

addendum

to t were in my opinion so-chaot

lca

llyurqan lzed that

I have chosen to deal with

first

document

1 (section 3.1.Z.1.)

and

then document #2

(section 3.1.2.2.),

paragraph bY paragraph, rather

than by \',riting a summarizing opinion.

All four

documents

provided

by

the consulting biologists are very

long onspeculation andsingularly short

on data.

Bothworkers,

although providing impressive credentials, lack the more than ten and a

half

years'

workingexperience in the Quoddy region, specifically with

cetaceans, possessed by myself and G.J .D.:Smith . .

lama

·fraid the

paucity of

their

local knowledge

is

revealed again and again in their

documents.


9/62

8

3.1.1. COMMENTS

ON

TWO

DOCUMENTS

PRESENTED BY DR. H.E. WINN ON

BEHALF OF THE PITTSTON COMPANY WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR

APPLICATION TO BUILD A SUPERTANKER TERMINAL AND OIL

REFINERY

AT

EASTPORT, Me.,

AT THE LOWER END OF HEAD

HARBOUR PASSAGE, N W BRUNSWICK, CANADA

BY:

DR.

D.E. GASKIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF

ZOOLOGY,

UNIVERSITY

OF

GUELPH, ONTARIO.

In the following pages, I will refer to

Dr. H.

Winn's statement

entitled "Analysis of data relative to the

Pittston Company's o

i l

refinery

proposed

for

Eastport,

Maine:

Its potential relation to

endangered species of Whales", as DOCUMENT #1.

I

will refer to his

Addendum

to Statement of May 2, 1979

. . .

" as DOCUMENT #2.

In

many

cases

t is

possible to discuss the

two

documents

together.

Most local place names used in

this

and subsequent

sections

given in

fig.l .

3.

1. 1. 1.

HUMPBACK vJHALES

Winn

gives two estimates for the humpback whale in these docu-

ments, and

cites

r ~ i t h e l l (1973), and

Winn

et al. (1975), as providing

evidence that this population is "in a reasonably healthy state" with a

population of around 1200 animals.

The

actual figures given by these

authors were

1259

by

Mitchell and 785-1157

by

Winn et al. Winn

does

not

cite ~ i t h e l l

as saying, as he does on p. 6 of the 1973 paper

"It

should be emphasized that this figure is undoubtedly high". Winn et

al.

do cite this statement in

their

1975 paper. Winn et al. also gave some

speculations as to

why

their figure might be conservative. In document

#2

Winn

says that "newer estimates"

indicate

that the population is in

fact "around 2,000 tndivt

dual

s".

He

does not give a reference

for

these

"newer estimates".

In view of the great uncertainty about the val i

dity

of of the

methods for

estimating whale numbers, whether catch data are

available

or not, any estimate must be

viewed

with suspicion. At least these

problems have

been

discussed quite openly in the last few years in the

Scientific

Committee

of the

IWC

and

at

the

FAO

Marine

Mammals

Scientific

Consultation in Bergen,

1976

(see

Mammals

in the Seas, Vol.

I,

pp. 16

et ~

Winn et al. (1975) noted that the major nursery grounds for hump

backs in the Caribbean, the Silver

and Navidad

Banks, contained at

best

estimate, 85%

of the total population at this stage of their annual


10/62

migration.

I t

is

pertinent

here to consider data from the same region

collected by Stephen Price of the University of Guelph, formerly a

postgraduate of McGill University, With whom I have had recent discus-

sions.

He has extensive data

from

the Turks through to the lower

islands

of

the

Lesser

Antilles,

collected both

by

ship survey and

aerial

survey. In comparison to the

estimate of

785-1157 obtained by

Winn

et

a1. (1975). Price found only 350-400 for

the

Silver

and Navidad

bank region - a estimate

for

the total population being

417

animals.

This is

e v i d ~ n c e

in

direct contradiction

to Winn's consideration that

1,200 might be on the IIconservative side . These data

would

be made

available by

Price

under certain safeguards, but he is

presently

pre

paring them

for publication

in the Reports of the International Whaling

Commission,

or

some

other

suitable journal.*

Another major

factor

not considered

at all by

Winn in

his state-

ment is the

drastic

change which has been taking place in the summer

distribution of humpbacks on the feeding grounds of Canadian waters

during the last few years. This distribution change has taken the form

of

massive inshore

movement

from

the

Grand

Banks

and

associated offshore

shallow areas, and has

been

documented

by Lien and Merdsoy (1979) and

Whitehead et a1 . (1979, manuscript report to WW , in prep. for publica

tion). The inshore movement may in large part be attributable to the

overfishing of

the

Newfoundland

capelin stocks

on which

this population

has largely fed hitherto. They are now believed to be

moving

inshore

in search

of alternative

food

supplies,

with the result that not only

might

recruitment

success have been drastically cut in the last two

years, but entanglements with cod

traps

and

other

gear have ~ i n ~

creased alarmingly, probably with

mortality

to some whales', and certainly

degrees 'of injury to quite a number (Lien & t ~ e r d s o y 1979). Several

agencies are attempting to develop methods to force wha l es .rto avoid

set

gear and

boat

collisions, but this research can do n o t h

a b o u t

the

root

cause

of

the

situation,

namely

the disappearance ' of the capelin

stock during 1977-79.

Almost certainly as part of this general trend, humpback whales

(two mothers with

calves),

entered the

Campobello

Island region during

July-September 1979, spending extended periods within Head Harbour

Passage itself. In

view of

the continuing depression of the capelin

stock, we can expect that humpbacks will now form a

regular

fraction of

the large

baleen whale population

which

frequents the

Head

Harbour

Passage region during the summer months. From a very preliminary sift-

ing of reports received

from

the east and south coasts of

Grand Manan

and southwes

tern Nova

Scoti a,

increases

in

numbers

of

humpbacks

seem to

have occurred in a

parts of

the

Bay

of

Fundy

approaches duri

ng

the

1 would also l ike to point out

that

Price

reports

very different ratios

of cal l ers to non-ca l l ers among his

humpbacks

than those obtained

by Winn

et al.

This

also

has bearing

on

the population estimates by

the latter

authors.


11/62

summer of 1979.** Our 1978-79 records of humpback whales are summar

ized in fig. 2 .

In my comment on the statements

by Gilfillan

I noted that we have

recorded a

significant

percentage of

fin

whales for

which

repeat

sightings were not made, indicating that

~ h i l

say, eight fin whales

can be

present

at

one time in the approaches to

Head

Harbour Passage,

careful study reveals

that

these are not always

same individuals.

Since Winn contends that only a very few humpbacks

would

be at

risk in the case of a spill in

this area,

i t is

up

to

him

to demonstrate

that there is l i t t le interchange of humpbacks between the various

feeding grounds off the eastern seaboard (and especially in the Bay of

Fundy and northern Gulf of

Maine)

within short periods. Such evidence

as

we

have suggests

that

what is true for the fin whales is also true

for the humpback whales. During August

1979

we

at

first thought

that

we were dealing with one pair of humpbacks, since only one mother-calf

pair was

seen at any time. That

is,

until

we

obtained

good

photographs

of the underside of the flukes of the two mothers,

when

i t became quite

clear

that

we

had

two

pairs

of animals working through the area.

One

of these females bore a post-dorsal fin marking which resembled very

closely

indeed

that

of

a single

humpback

filmed by myself off

Long

Island,

N.S.,

during August 1974. The slight

differences

might well be

what could be expected

after

a six year gap. We

must

therefore

seriously consider that interchange between the New Brunswick and Nova

Scotian

Fundy

coasts is a regular occurrence.

Our

unpublished studies

on

the

fin

whales'

off

the Nova Scotia coast in cooperation with

Dr. R.G.B. Brown of the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1974-77) showed

that

i t

was a

regular

event

for

the

fin

whales off the shoals

outside

the Digby Neck to move 20-25 miles within a short period of time. At one

po

i

nt in 1977

i t was

evident that the

main

group of fin wha l es (as we

called

i t ,

had

moved

until i t

was much closer

to Grand Manan than to the

Nova

Scotia coast.

If

they are in fact as mobile as we suspect, this factor would

increase the

possible

number of humpbacks involved in any Bay of Fundy

approaches spill

situation from

a very few to several tens

of

animals.

There is adequate documentation of such local movements

of

other

whales,

especially

small odontocetes, to follow changes in

distribut

ion

of prey. y

own

group recorded position shifts of 30-60 km by harbour

porpoises Phocoena phocoena fitted with radio transmitters (Gaskin

et

al.

1975)

during 48 h periods,

and much larger

short-term movements were

recorded by Martin et al. (1971) by delphinids off the coast of

California.

Exchange

movements

similar

to those which

seem

to have

taken place among fin whales in the Bay of Fundy were recor-ded by WUrsig

(1978)

off

the coast of Argentina by Tursiops truncatus.

**Two

other adult humpbacks were also present in the Campobello Island

region between and at least the middle of September 1979.


12/62

<

<

>

o

p

/

)

J

B

S

C

N

P

W

E

T

H

O

F

M

A

1

0

2

H

A

B

R

H

I

.

A

.

i

j

)

_

r

~

:

~

~

C

/

X

S

~

\

J

>

~

~

~

,

"

I

S

L

"

6

~

P

A

A

M

A

.

,

B

I

o

L

T

~

)

:

B

I

[

S

S

y

L

E

T

•

H

O

0

I

D

O

O

I

S

'

G

(

:

n

_

c

I

c

R

I

T

l

<

l

:

~

:

z

:

L

O

c

s

:

A

D

C

a

V

>

U

s

I

T

l

~

O

~

0

0

4

0

o

~

"

-

V

>

V

>

W

H

T

H

E

.

0

/

I

S

L

o

o

Q

:

C

-

<

'

"

~

W

H

T

I

N

~

O

·

I

S

A

N

D

;

0

B

O

F

U

.

I

T

l

.

~

~

S

R

G

)

.

.

~

I

S

L

O

Q

c

W

o

R

G

I

O

N

I

S

L

I

J

A

S

C

J

D

3

:

I

T

l

.

L

-

Q

.

o :

z

I

T

l

o

.

:

z

-

I

T

>

-

Q

G

M

A

O

M

A

m

6

4

6


13/62

"

.

c

a

i

c

c

s

a

<

.

D

·

•

0

,

"

.

N

D

-

: c

3

c

>

~

-

u

n A

•

>

d

J

-

c

.

>

z

G

)

r

r

J

V

4

5

·

0

0

'

r

n

2

.

C

P

,

>

0

c

.

.

Q

•

0

2

.

c

'

1

2

l

P

(

T

h

s

e

C

Q

r

d

1

0

.

n

o

t

c

f

r

m

e

'

t

J

M

I

N

T

H

M

O

G

M

A

C

E

G

M

A

2

4

,

6

.

1

,

2

-

2

6

A

t

t

t

t

t

t

1

0

2

I

R

6

6

4

G

)

:

:

.

-

N

:

E

:

:

>

r

r

n

r

n

3

.

n

.

c

n

r

r

n

.

.

\

0

'

-

c

\

0

'

-

\

0


14/62

13

To these considerations must, in

my

opim on , be added the

fact

that Winn's estimate of the western North Atlantic humpback population

could be twice the actual number, and that

the inshore movement

is

leading to a great

risk

of increased accidental

mortality

among hump-

backs (especially young animals) on the feeding grounds. The loss

of

the

normal

food source could very well

greatly

decrease expected

recruitment durin9 the next few

years, or

longer,

i f

the capelin stock

does not recover. Yet another factor reported by Price is that the

St. Lucian whalers have recently entered the

humpback

fishery, and may

in the last two years have taken

(or

struck and lost) more animals than

the whalers in the

traditional

humpback fishery at Bequia. He also

reports that the whalers of St. Vincent are trying to buy bombs for

their

shoulder guns to

start

hunting

humpbacks. The

catch by the West

Greenland

fishery

must not be

neglected,

either.

If

we put

all

these

factors together,

i t

is more than possible that there is

at

present O

net recruitment to

this

population - i t might even be declining already.

It

should be quite evident

that if

we are talking about adding a

circumstance

which would

put several tens of

humpbacks

at

risk

in the

case of a very large

spill ,

and I point out again

that

the wording of

the

EPS

permit indicates

that

they expect such an event within the

lifetime

of the permit, then we are

certainly

putting this population

further in jeopardy.

The

latest evidence points to the probability

that this population

may

not in fact be nearly so "healthy" as Winn

would

blithely

have us believe. This contention has

recently

been most

forcibly put by Lien and

Merdsoy

(1979). I support their concern.

Since beginning

this

section I have learned from one of my

colleagues that one of the bases for suggesting "newer estimates place

the populations at nearer 2,000

individuals

(the statement made by Winn

in his document

2

but not referenced), may be a result of taking the

1972

estimate

of

western North

Atlantic

humpback

whales

(of

about 1,200,

which even Mitchell who made

the

estimate at the IW meeting

prior

to

documenting i t pUblicly in 1973, considered unreliable and probably too

high), and adding increments based on a "normal

productivity

increase

during

the

period

9 7 3 ~ 7 9

There

is

in fact, no evidence

t l l

to

suggest that the

humpback

whale population has increased since 1972; the

condition of several of the pelagic

fish

stocks, as well as capel in, may

have been such as to have started putting the brakes on any incremental

net

increases even in the early

1970

1s

ON LUSIONS

The humpback

whale population estimates

we

have been given to

work

with are largely based on the assumptions of a

biologist now

openly

favourl ng the

Pittston

Company. There i s s trong evi dence

that

a) His estimates may in the first place have been

far

too high

so this situation needs to be re-examined carefully,


15/62

4

b) The humpback whale population in the western North

Atlantic

now faces circumstances very different from those i t faced early in

the 1970's, and

c) Contention that humpbacks never occur in the general vicinity*

of

the

refinery

area

is

now

no longer

true.

Mother

humpbacks

with

calves used the Head Harbour Passage area throughout the summer of

1979, moving at intervals back and forth around the

eastern

coast of

Campobello Island, and spending extended periods right in the Passage,

and

d) He lacks the data to show that interchange

is

not a

signifi

cant possibility during periods of only a few days, and there

is

therefore

no proof

at

all

that

onl

y

a few local animals

would

be

impacted .

In view

of

the above points and the previous

discussion,

I cannot

accept

either

his

estimates of the

size of

the

humpback

whale popula-

tion at face value, or his contention that the number of animals

potentially at

risk

is very small. Nor can I accept his oft-repeated

proviso that in view of the assurances by the Applicant the

chances

of an oil

spill

of any magnitude is very small Nor does the

EPA apparently accept

i t

either, even though they granted

Pittston

a

permit.

3.1.1.2. RIGHT WHALES

The situation where right whales in this region are concerned is

somewhat

simpler, and the area of contention

is

less.

Winn does not hesitate to admit that the best estimate of the

population can only be tens of

individuals

following Mitchell1s report

(1974). I agree. He also disagrees that one can state (as do

Reeves

et al. 1978, and Gilfillan ' i n his documents) that the population is

increasing. Winn correctly points out that there

is

no evidence one way

or the other. In my

comments

on the statement by

Gilfillan

I pointed

out

that

the slow rate

of

recovery of numbers since 1935 is such

that

the only reasonable assumption

at

present is that the

net

recruitment

rate

is

0

per annum Documentation in the IWC reports concerning the

right

whale population in the North

Pacific,

based on data supplied by

the Japanese over quite an extensive period, indicates that for one or

more

reasons, the population seems to have stabilized at a

much

lower

level than that

of

the initial population.

Some

possible

factors

which

might be involved in this

situation

were summarized by Gaskin (1976).

*Sixty square miles I bel ieve

was

the

figure

himself estimated to be

reasonable. I think the evidence for interchange over short periods,

although scanty,

is enough

to merit consideration of the whole Bay of

Fundy approaches out to the shelf of the northern Gulf of Maine as the

vicinity of the

refinery .


16/62

15

I

find

myself in contention with

Wino

on two

issues.

One of these

is that

the "few

sightings

in 1971 that occurred

up

to the

latitude

of

Deer Island have not occurred

since".

This is not so . He bases this

on

a telephone conversation with

me

a

few months

ago,

yet

during

that short

discussion I warned him that I could not see my way clear to giving him

accurate information

at

that

time since

we

were obviously in an adver-

sary

position The fact

that he

found t

necessary to "quote" a (vague)

statement I

made

suggests that his own sources of data are very

weak.

Our recent

information is as follows.

SOUTHERN GRAND M N f ~

Several reports of singles, or females with

calves,

during 1978,

in the

vicinity

of White Head Island and the shoal regions to the south,

by

coastal fishermen familiar with

this

species.

Two

right

whales sighted by

Mr.

Davis

Pike of Lubec, Me.,

off

Southwest Head in the

last

days of August 1979.

EASTERN GRAND MANAN

Two

or three records of

single

right whales with calves sighted by

local

fishermen

from Long

Island southwards during 1978. At

least

one

sighting

not far

from

Great

Duck Island,

during August 1979.

We

have

not

yet

been able to complete contacting

all

spotters

active

this season

along that coast.

GRAND MANAN

CHANNEL

A

right

whale seen

between Grand Manan

and

West

Quoddy

Head

during

the

first

week of September 1979

(report

from

Mr.

Pike, seen

by

a worker

for

"All ied Whal

e").

In

early

August 1979 our

associates at Marine

Research Associates

of Lord's Cove New Brunswick, with whom we have worked

closely for

nearly

a decade, sighted

six right

whales in the Channel

between

the

coast of Campobello Island and Northern Head

Grand

Manan. While they

had

difficulty

approaching close to the school,

t

appeared

that there

was

one, and perhaps two,

young

with the group.

WOLVES ISLANDS:

Single

right

whales occur

regularly

in the

vicinity

of the

Wolves

Islands during the

summer

months, and have

done

so since 1971.

They

are


17/62

16

usually reported by herring fishermen, but our own team sighted

one

there, as did

MRA

in July 1977.

Auxilliary

spotters reported one

animal in 1978, and another this year, as the result of only single

visits

to these

islands.

The

Wolves

are not

regularly

surveyed.

DEER

ISLAND - CAMPuBELLO ISLAND

REGION:

We have a single unconfirmed report of a

right

whale off East

Quoddy light in the Fall

of

1977, following our own record (Arnold and

Gaskin, 1972) of 5 right whales within Head Harbour Passage for an

extended period in 1971.

SIGHTINGS SUMMARY:

See

fig.

2.

GRAND

BASIN:

In 1976-1978 reports were also forwarded to us of confirmed

right whale

sightings

off the

Digby

Neck region of

Nova Scotia.

Dr.

R.G.B. Brown of the Canadian Wildlife Service reported that one animal

was accompanied by a calf. We must point out that many other areas in

which

right whales may occur within the Bay of Fundy are not covered by

observers because of

manpower limitations.

DISCUSSION

The western North Atlantic population of right whales

is

admitted

to be very small

by

all authorities.

They

do appear to have several

feeding grounds of importance, including the approaches to the

Bay

of

Fundy, the banks

off

southeastern

Nova

Scotia (I

have

the

sighting

data

from the former whaling

station at

Blandford, N.S., in

this

regard),

and

the Cape Cod

region. There is no evidence one

way

or another to say

i

we

are dealing with a number of small local groups, as implied by

Winn,

or mobile groups which can shift from one feeding ground to

another with rapidity. This aspect has already been discussed at length

in the

section

on

the

humpback,

and I will not repeat

i t

here, only

point out forcibly once more that Winn's "worst case" of the loss of 5

right whales takes neither the strong likelihood of such shifts into

account, nor the probable long residence time of oil spilled in this

region*.

Even oil

which went ashore, and

i t is

very likely to

go

ashore

See my reasons given in the comment on Gilfillan s statements.


18/62

17

in the Bay of Fundy, will be continually taken off the shallow shelf

areas by

the

large

tidal

amplitude and flow and put back into the

general

restricted circulation

again.

The

number

of right

whales

which

might be involved in a

spill

in

this

region

is

almost

certainly far greater

than

Winn

implies, and

i f

the population is

more

mobile than has hitherto been anticipated, then

i t could prove to De considerably smaller in size than the possible

maximum figure of

low

hundreds cited by Winn. Are the Nova Scotia,

Cape Cod and Bay of

Fundy

right whales

different?

Or are the groups

made

up

a mix of s em i-Tocal and transitory animals in the way des

cribed for the fin whales in the last section?

Even

the most basic

data are lacking about

this

population.

When

one considers the steady

deterioration

of

the general coastal and inshore and near-offshore

marine environment on the eastern seaboard during the last

few

decades,

I regard i t as a

virtual certainty

that this population exists on a

knife-edge,

with no margin for error on our part. The 1968

report

by

Neave and Wright,

which

I discussed in the

comment

on the statement by

i l f i l l a n ~

if

taken

at

face value as

we

think

i t

should be,

despite

the

comments by Schevill in the sa

me

year in the Journal of Mammalogy

could imply that the

Bay

of Fundy approaches, including the shelf in

the

offshore

region, could contain as many as

30

right whales during

the summer months. This

is

almost

certainly

a very significant fraction

of the

total

population. The oceanographic

circulation

in the Bay of

Fundy is such

that

if a major

spill

occurred, these animals have to be

at

risk.

3.1.1.3.

. DIRECT

EFFECTS OF OIL

ON WH LES

Winn gives a series of

useful,

but what are mainly anecdotal

accounts

of

whales

off

the New England coast moving into an oil

spill

and carrying out feeding behaviour, or appa

rent

feeding behaviour.

Since there were

no

immedi

ate bel

ly-up

reacti ons, his specul ati on is

that

these animals were not harmed. He has

certainly shown

us

that

whales do not seem to

realize

the significance of

oil slicks

and there

fore do

not

avoid them. He uses virtually useless citations of work by

Brownell (1971) and Hess (1978) to support his views. All they

said

is

that there is

at

present no record of whales being found

that

have died

of

oil

poisoning or suffocation. This

is

really irrelevant, since in

the

great

majority of cases the deaths of whales go totally unobserved.

A

l i t t l

arithmetic

shows

that

even the

strandings

(which are well

documented

these

days) can only account for a small

fraction

of the

deaths that must occur naturally or by accident.

c h ~ f e r

(1972) has

discussed the

fate

of dead marine mammals quite

carefully,

and

comes

to

the

same

conclusion.

carcasses,

he points

out,

break up

at

sea,

and float up only for a brief period. t is well

known by

anyone with

whaling experience

that

dead rorquals sink unless compressed

air is

forced into the body

cavity.

Floating rorquals found dead on the


19/62

18

whaling grounds

called

Dauhval by the

Norwegian

whalers) are animals

which have lost the radar reflectors and radio beacons placed on

their

bodies

after

the whales had

been

harpooned. They are

still

animals

which have had

compressed

air pumped into

their

body

cavities.

Winn

goes

on

to

cite

cases of grey whales

swimming

through

oil

slicks without p p ~ r n t harm off

California,

but the circumstances

were

the same as with his

own

observations, and one has to ask

What was

the

follow-up period"? Evidently only a

few

hours, in

most

cases.

These

animals would have to be followed

for

days or possibly even weeks,

before any

ill-effects might

manifest themselves.

The

answer

is

of

course, that we simply

do

not

know what

the direct

effects

of

oil slicks

are

on

baleen whales.

The

research has not

been

done,

and i t would be

damnably difficult to do i t properly.

3.1.

1.4.

CONCLUSIONS,

AND

COMMENTS

O

PROPOSED

FUTURE

RESEARCH

IN THIS

AREA

AS

SUGGESTED BY DR. H.E. WINN

In conclusion, I regard the right

whale

population in the

immedi-

ate

area of

Campobello

-

Grand

Manan Islands as almost

certainly

being

larger

"than a

few

local animals" and

more

regular in occurrence during

the

summer

months than Winn implies. The number present in the region

is a significant fraction of a population of very small absolute

size

which at

the present time

must

be

assumed

to

have

close to 0%

net

pro

ductivity. The

projected development

must

pose a very real

threat

to

the continued existence of

this

population.

FUTURE RESEARCH IN THIS

AREA

SUGGESTED BY DR. WINN

In document

1 Winn

indicates that the Applicant should

make

available

$150,000 for research in the vicinity of the refinery site on

real

numbers

and possible impacts of the development .

An

area of some

60 sq miles is mentioned.

The

suggestion that such a program should be

carried

out

is

commendable. I believe NOAA

would

also

be

in agreement.

Nevertheless, in

view

of the decided bias that runs all the way

through the four

documents

I

have

been

asked to examine, I

for

one

would not like to see this research carried out

by

biologists retained

by the-rTttston Company.

I would also like to gently

remind

both the biologists

on

retainer

to the Pittston Company, and the

NOAA biologists, that ALL

the waters of

the Fundy approaches

o r t ~

West

Quoddy Head

are in fact

CANADIAN

territorial

waters over

which

they

have no jurisdiction at

all. Before

they begin planning grandiose research schemes for these waters,

some


20/62

9

close consultation with the government agencies of the other sovereign

power in the northern Gulf of Maine is going to be

most

decidedly

necessary. Whether or not the Canadian government might approve a

research

project

sponsored

by

a corporation anxious to build a major

complex to

which

the Canadian government has already stated t

is

cate

gorically

opposed and see

t

funded

by

that

corporation

is

a point

that both

U S parties had

best consider very

carefully


21/62

20

3.1.2

COMMENTS

ON TWO

DOCUMENTS

.PRESENTED Y DR. E.S.

GILFILLAN

ON

BEHALF OF THE PITTSTON COMPANY WITH

REFERENCE

TO THEIR

APPLICATION

TO

BUILD A SUPERTANKER

TERMINAL AND

OIL

REFINERY

AT

EASTPORT, Me. AT THE

LOWER

END

OF HEAD

HARBOUR PASSAGE,

NEW

BRUNSWICK,

CANADA

BY:

DR. D.E. GASKIN,

ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF

ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, ONTARIO.

3.1.2.1. COMMENTS

ON

DOCUMENT #1, WHICH IS LARGELY

CONCERNED WITH HIS OPINIONS

ON

THE

POSSIBLE IMPACT

OF

A POTENTIAL OIL SPILL

IN

THIS REGION

ON

THE FOOD OF THE WHALE

SPECIES FOUNDTHERE, ESPECIALLY ENDANGERED

SPECIES

Dr. Gilfillan claims what appears to be formidable theoretical

and practical experience with oil

spillage situations

in the ocean, and

their effects on

marine life.

It

is

therefore

a

great pity

that

this

experience is not revealed in his statement before the Endangered Species

Board. His statGment contains

errors

of

fact,

virtually

no data,

and an

absence

of

evidence that suggests any local knowledge of conditions

within the Head Harbour Passage region and adjacent areas.

His thesis appears to

rest

on the following points:

1)

An

admission

that

zooplankton organisms are

significantly

affected

by oil concentrations in the

2) Since residency time of

oil

short,

such concentrations are hardly

ces except

for

short periods of time,

recover.

3) (Phyto) Plankton production

low.

4) t is

therefore

"axiomatic"

low also

.

200

p.p.b

. range .

in

open

water situations

is quite

ever

realized

in such circumstan-

after

which the zooplankton will

in the

Bay

of

Fundy is

reportedly

that production of zooplankton is

5)

Copepods

are supposedly the main food of the whales in the

Bay.

6) Most of the zooplankton in the

spill

will not be

killed,

according to

this

document, and

"at no

time

would

whales be

totally

loosing (sic) food even in the spill

area".

Little

or no ref'erenc

i

ng is supplied

peculiar document, which is

full

of errors

to support statements in this

and misrepresentations .

-

_


22/62

I will

for

the time being accept that the level of 200 p.p.b.

represents

a threshold

at

which

significant retardation

of zooplankton

and phytoplankton producti vity can occur, although there is evi dence

that

problems can arise

at

far lower levels.

The main misrepresentation is in attempting to imply

that

Head

Harbour Passage

is

a

true

open

water

situation,

or even

that

the

cir

culation in the Bay of Fundy truely represents an

open

water situation

The oceanographic

literature

summarized in several Canadian

publications,

especially

Environment

Canada

Technical Report 428, with

which Dr. Gilfillan should be familiar, tends to forcibly contradict

such a conclusion. The residency of water in the

Passamaquoddy

Bay

region for example, can be as long as 70 days. The drift bottle work

of

Bumpus et al.

(1959, 1960

indicates that

water

move ment

is primarily

inshore,

especially in the western coastal waters of the Quoddy region

so presumably oil liberated within the Bay of Fundy would tend to stay

there and

go

ashore sooner or later.

My

own research group has carried

out approximately

three

thousand oceanographic station

s t u ~ s

(of

surface

and subsurface 1ayers to about 15

m

within the

Irme

r

Ouoddy

region

outside Deer

Island and

Campobello Island,

supported by

current

meter and surface

drift

marker

studies,

during the period 1977-79 alone.

Our preliminary

analyses reveal oceanographic conditions which are

much

more

locally complex than are generally

believed,

and the preserice of

many

anomalies which

would mix

oil into the local water column. The

high tidal amplitudes would also

result

in significant mixing of

oil

in

the shallower waters, especially in the shelving areas of Passamaquoddy

Bay and on the eastern

side

of Deer

Island.

Our drift marker

studies

lend credence to the concept

of signifi

cant

residence time of local water bodies in this semi-enclosed region.

We

have

identified

areas

of

upwelling and shear zones between water

bodies (which also

correlate strongly with major bird and whale feeding

areas)

between

Deer

Island and

Campobello Island. High densities

of

zooplankton, copepods and euphausiids are also

present

within intermed

iate

zones with lower surface

current

speeds. These zones can be

identified by use of infra-red film, in

which

the weed patches,

retained

over long periods and moving back and forwards with the

tidal

incursions

and

excursions, show up

as brilliant yellow. We have evidence

that

suggests that

the residence time of material n these

"slick"

areas is

much

longer than has higherto been supposed by Canadian oceanographers,

and plan a long series of definitive experiments in 1980.

The

weed

slick

areas are zones of concentration of euphausiids and

herring;

we

hypothesize

that

the fish and zooplankton enter these areas to reduce

their

rate

of locomotive energy consumption, and

stay

in these eddies

for

extended periods, often apparently for several tide phases. Baleen

whales in this region continually work the edges of these slicks,

passing back and forth beneath them to feed. The dynamics of these

eddies indicates that

these are

also

the areas in which

oil

would be

trapped in

large

quantities, yet under circumstances

(these

eddies

may

be

turning

with peripheral speeds of 2+ knots) that

oil

containment would be

impossible.


23/62

22

Fig 3

SURFACE TEMPERATURE REGIME

INNER

QUODDY, FLOOD TIDE

JUNE

1977

8

0

on

..

U U

u

en

.

en

.

en

.

en

.......

co

I

I

I

•

( j

81

0

co

0

.......

LO

LO

Q0;D

.

'

.....

.

'

"

..

1;

II

n

0-0

-0

o

w

Z

V l

0:::

I :: ::

W ......1-- 0:::

I--

: : : :ow

:::>

Z

I-

0 1

W

D

•

V l

I-

...... 0

:: ::. w

...... Z

I

......

O:: ::

0::: Z 0:::

W W

:z: I-

:z:

w

...... 0

'g


24/62

I

23

Fig.4 S

URFACE TE

MPERATURE

REGIME,

I

NN

ER QUODDY,

EBB

TIDE,

JU

NE 1977

0

0

0 ,

u

u

u

( ) )

))

))

( ) )

r-

co

81

I I

~

0

0 LO

co

r-

LO

.......

L.LJ

O-J f -

L.LJ

C l

0 ,

'"

-,

-,

H t H t t ~

•

.H+J4 +++++i-H + +++H -+

f- -

H-t,..

. ...

'

0 ,

-c

'i:J

{7

~

)

f -

C l

::E:

L.LJ

Z

-J

f - ......

o ::E:

0:::

:z:

0:::

L.LJ

L.LJ

Z

f -

z

L.LJ

C l

0

0

°

;;

/

/


25/62

24

The upwelling zones, of which

there is at

least one outside the

inner topographical

sill

at the entrance to Head Harbour Passage

which operates on the flood, and another

on

the inner side of the

sill

which operates on the ebb, show significant surface spreading. The

influence

of the Head Harbour Passage upwellings can extend at the

surface nearly

to

Nancy Head

off

Campobello

Island,

inwards to the

coast of

the inner

chain of islands outside Deer

Island,

and nearly to

Bliss

Island

to the

northeast.

We have already summarized much of this

information; i t is presently being prepared

for

publication through

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Smith, Gaskin and Clow, in

prep. .

See

fig.4

for

spreading during June 1977.

Two

further

points need making. The Environmental Protection

Agency has granted permits for this

refinery,

and

i t

is interesting to

note

some of

the wording.

EP

anticipates that there will be a minimum of one major spill

within the 25

year

life span of the permit, and also, presumably based

on

the long experience of the

EP

with such

situations,

that

up

to 2

barrels of

spillage per

day

at the actual

diffusor site

can be expected,

since this is the level

set.

No doubt they

would

take action

i f

they

could show that such a level

was

being exceeded, but our

own

experiences

in

New

Brunswick indicate

that

i t is a

lot

harder to monitor these

activities in practice than in theory.

Nevertheless, let us consider these two

points.

The wording of

the EP document suggests that we have l i t t l choice but to prepare for

IIWORST

C SE

situations

on at least one occasion.

The

wording also

indi

cates

that we can be prepared

for up

to about 60 barrels of spillage per

month, every month

of

the year, in this region - 700-750 barrels in one

year

unless very

tight

operational standards are maintained.

The

record

for terminals the world over gives no reason to suppose that such

standards would be other than averaqe at best,

at

Eastport. I

would

even allow that they might be strict

at first

but

would

later lapse, in

the way of human nature.

Given

the residency time of oil in the waters adjacent to the

passage,

i t seems

likely

that

the threshold level for retardation of

phyto- and zooplankton productivity might be reached after a few years

of operation, especially i f

one or two accidental spills of

greater

magnitude occurred.

Gilfillan states that since (phyto) plankton

is

low, i t

is

ax

ioma

t.ic

that

zooplankton

levels

will

also

be

low

. Yet he admits

that much

is

brought in

from

the Gulf of

Maine. The

drift bottle work,

and studies on zooplankton in the Quoddy region show that significant

concentration

of

zooplankton occurs in this area. What on earth does he

think supports the major juvenile herring fishery in this r g i o n ~

The

levels of plankton to which he refers are of course average

levels. I

will

agree immediately that much of the

Bay

of

Fundy

does

have

low

levels. It happens that the Grand and Deer Islan-d--

Campobello region is not one of

them.

This is one of the

few

areas in


26/62

25

the world where dense (90+/cu.m.)

surface swarms

of euphausiids

regul-

arly occur (Brown) Barker and Gaskin) in press 1979) Canadian Journal

of Zoology; A. r ~ c y 1973) Final Report to Parks Canada, 177 pp).

group has abundant docu mentation of this swarming on both

sides of

the

Bay of

Fundy. For data on the biomass of euphausiids in the Bay of

Fundy

I

refer

Gilfillan

to the

work

by

Corey

and Kulka,

which

he should

be able to

find

easily since i t is recent . In

1978

the approaches to

Head Harbour contained enough fish (probably

juvenile

herring) and

euphausiids to support up to ten finback whales at one time from early

July through to the middle or end

of

September.

Our detailed

photo-

graphic surveys

of

recognisable individuals showed that while some

individuals

remained in the area for extended periods) others left and

returned

after a period of absence, and yet others appeared once or

twice and were not seen again) suggesting that

some

worked several

areas

for

food, and others were simply lion passage" through the area.

This type of behaviour has also been documented for small odontocete

whales in a

series

of papers

from 1977

to

1979

by B. and

M WUrsig.

I

am

sure Dr. Gilfillan is aware

of

those important

studies.

His statement that copepods are the food of the whales in the

Bay

is largely erroneous.

Only

the right whale is

more

or less an

obligate

copepod feeder)

and we

suspect from their diving behaviour while

present in this region that they are

exploiting

euphausiids rather than

copepods. Surely even a brief review of the literature e

xtant

would

show Dr.

Gilfillan

that humpback wh ales are incapable of e

xploiting

copepods because of the coarse nature of their baleen. North Atlantic

humpback

whales are

fish or

euphausiid feeders .

I Jinn

has already

made

this

point in his documents.

His final suggestion) that fresh zooplankton will be brought

into

the area to replenish oiled stocks is probably true. Because of the

long residency time

of

water bodies in the

Passamaquoddy

region however)

and the consequent long residency time of floating

oil

(we worry parti-

cularly

about

the

shear zones

outside Deer Island;

in these oil may be

carried in significant quantities down into the water column and still

be

retained

in the

Quoddy

region)) the

new influx of

zooplankton will

also be subjected to exposure.

t

is interesting that while he talks

of

(and references) the

ability of plankton (phytoplankton) to rid itself of oil i placed in

clean

water

he

carefully

ignores

all

the

literature

withlmplications

for

significant

or lethal

effects

of zooplankton) and fish

fry

e.g. by

Mironov (1970), Kuenhold (1970),

etc

..


27/62

26

3.1.2.2.

COMMENTS ON DOCUMENT

#2

CRITIQUE

OF

N TION L M RINE

FISHERIES

#7

CONSULT TION - THRESHOLD EX MIN TION

Paragraph

#1)

first

part

His comments here are

largely

devoted to demolislring a "s tr aw man

about the supposed implication of NMF experts thinking that whales are

involved in the photosynthetic process.

He

reads

this

implication

into

the loose wording used in a document written, like his

own,

under

pressures of deadlines. He knows

NMFS

does not mean

this,

so

why

does

he waste our time?

Paragraph #1, second part, and Paragraph

#2

What

does he

mean by

the "Eastport area"?

Have

v e

suddenly

moved

down from

considering the approaches to

the Bay

of Fundy in

his first

document

to the actual approaches

of

the

town

only?

He

really should be

consi

stent!

He makes two statements which are simply errors in this

section.

1)

"there

is no suggestion in the 1iterature that right wha les use

the "Eastport area"

(my

quotes) as a nursery area". In this document

he actually cites the paper by Arnold and Gaskin (1972), but declines

to mention that

on

p.

1477

of

this p ~ p r

the

first

page, incidentally,

that

one

of the

5 animals reported

therein

was a calf,

and

that

on

one

occasion apparent nursing behaviour

was

observed

One

can only conclude

that his

cituations are to be treated with

great caution, since

they are

very

selective!

We have reliable records

of sightings of single

female right

whales with calves off the coast of

Grand

Manan, and 6 right whales

were observed in the

Grand

Manan Channel between Campobello Island and

Grand

Manan by Marine Research Associates in the first week of August.

At least one, and possibly two, young animals were in

this

group.

Conditions precluded close approach, although the

identity

of the

animals

was

in no doubt.

MR

have worked

closely

with

my

own group

for

10 years,

all

are

trained

whale observers. Further reliable recent

records were considered in

section

3.1.1.2.

More

forgivable

is

his statement

that

humpback

whales

do

not use

the

"Eastport

area

(again

my quotes),

since this

was

the case

up

to

autumn 1978. He should be aware

that

inshore movements of several

species of whales, including humpbacks, have been

on

the increase in

waters

of

the Atlantic provinces for several years. This seems to be in

part

related

to the

collapse

of the capelin

fishery

through

overfishing

on the

Banks

(Lien &Merdsoy, 1979). The

result

has

been

a

significant

increase in damage to set fishing gear, and

injury

and probably some

mortality

to humpback whales (Whitehead et al . 1978-79).


28/62

27

During the

summer

months of 1979 two ' female humpbacks with

calves worked extensively in the vicinity of Campobello Island. Div

ing times

indicated

feeding, and observers documented nursing

behaviour, with the females taking the calves under the long pectoral

flipper,

in characteristic posture .

e

have many photographs of these

animals. At times they

worked

as

far

south as Cutler

Maine

(we

assume

these

were

the

same animals), but

also

spent several extended periods

right

in the

mouth

of

Head

Harbour Passage, between East Quoddy

light

house at the tip of

Campobello

Island,

and Spruce Island.

The

data

supplied

by

the workers cited above leads us to expect

that

presence

of humpbacks in

this

herring-rich area

is

likely to be a

regular

and

annual event

for

the foreseeable

future.

Unfortunately, one

of

the calves was caught

accidentally

in a

seine off

Lubec at the beginning

of

September 1979; t was

released,

with

much damage

to the net, and possibly with

significant injury

to

the whale. One report indicated that a portion of net was still tangled

in the baleen plates. Coupled with the

reports

of Whitehead et al. and

Lien and Merdsoy,

t

is

apparent

that

the

humpback

whale

is

in

immed-

iate danger as a viable population

quite

regardless of any actual

hunting.

Paragraph

3

Gilfillan does not seem to realize the

significance

of his cita

tion

"i t

seems

likely

that they (right whales) use the

whole

of the

Gulf of

Maine

and the

Bay

of Fundy as a

summer

feeding area (Katona, and

v.Jinn,

separate citations)."

Our studies on the finback whales during summer in this area

strongly indicate that

while some

stay

in the Head Harbour Passage

area,

others roam,

return

at intervals, or pass through, feeding for a rela

tively short period before moving on.

e

suspect a regular interchange

at least between the Digby Neck area of Nova Scotia, and

Grand

Manan,

and probably further afield.

It

is equally

likely ' that right

whales behave in

much

the same

way

-

Gilfillan virtually

admits this Given the probable residence

time

of oil

in

this

semi-enclosed area, the

likelihood

is

that

substan

t ially more than ,t he maximum of 5 right whales seen

at

one time would

become involved in a major spill situation. Gilfillan goes to

great

pa.ins to

point

out (top

of

p. 2,

lines 6-9),

that

however

there

are

often

fewer than 5 animals in the area

at

a time; often

there

are none .

Not only does he

fail

to tell us whether these are the same individuals

or a procession of different individuals through the area -

he

cannot,

since

such data

do

not exist - he also

fails

to point out that for most

of the time in most areas of this region no professional or even trained

amateur observers are looking

for

the animals, since

this is

precluded

by the present

manpower

1

imitations

of both my research group and

Katona's. These are the only two whale research teams

presently

working

in the approaches to the

Bay

of Fundy.


29/62

28

Paragraphs #4 &5

I would agree with Gilfillan

up

to a point

(the NM S

document

is

lacking in data) that

i t

is

difficult

to

make

a direct case for the

damage of whales by

oil slicks.

On the other hand, i t is

equally

impos

sible

to

show

on

present

data

that

they

are

not

damaged

by them.

Such

studies have not been done. There have been-sporadic observations of

wha l es in oil s l i c (see ~ i n n l s major docu ment); observers have

reported

no apparent injuries but were not able to indicate i the whales

suffered injury which was not immediately obvious. I suggest that since

these

animals

are mammals,

the medical

literature

on

oiled survivors

from

Atlantic

Convoys during

World

War II should be examined. Deaths

as a

result

of even relatively small quantities of

oil entering

the

lungs were

rarely

immediate, but could

ta

ke

place 24-96 hours later ,

i I recall

correctly.

This is an area beyond my competence, but I can

say that

neither

Gilfillan or

NM S

have produced evidence one

way

or

the

other

yet, where whales are concerned. See also

section

3.1.1.3.

Since

we

are

considering material with a

relatively

high level of

toxicity to mammalian lung membranes, the onus of proof should be on the

company to show that oil entering the lungs of endangered species of

cetaceans, or being ingested into their alimentary canal, is not harm-

ful.

I was amused to see one of my own statements (p. 2, para. 5, line

13,

appear

anonymously,

slightly out

of

context,

to state

that

whales

tend

also

to avoid

oil

contamination). I think I only

said

that they

might;

we

now have

other reports,

some summarized by

Winn

in his docu

ment, that they don1t.

Paragraph #6

With reference to the NM S statement he

says,

lithe impression is

left

that right whales are

exclusively

surface feeders . I did not

get

that impression from

that

section of their document. But of course,

this allows

him

to set

up

a

straw

man again,

and show that they do not

feed

at

the

surface

most of

the

time. .

I have pointed out that

we

are afraid that massive quantities

of

oil

would mix downward

into

the water

column

along the margins

of

the

shear

zones

outside Deer Island

- animals feeding in the

Head

Harbour

region

after

a spill

of some

proportion

would

be at risk

no

matter i

they fed at or below the

surface.

Paragraph #7

Once

again I

return

to the question of the long residency time of

water

in the

Pasamaquoddy region,

which he has

consistently

ignored. I

do not

believe

his statement in nature zooplankton

would

never be

exposed to that much

0;

1 (how much oi I?) for anythi

ng 1;

ke a two week

per iod'' is necessarily

true. If

ever that was l

i

ke

ly

to happen in an


30/62

29

area,

then

this

is the

area.

Paragraph #8

Once again he uses the same generalizations, and I reply with

spec

i

l cs .

ltJhat

about the chronic spill level

likely

in this region,

the EPS

prediction

of 1 major

spill

(I think they

said

of

catastrophic

proportions) within the 25 year life of the permit, and the long

resi

dency time of water in the Passamaquoddy region?

Paragraph 9

I assume he is

right

about the

mis-application

of these citations

by NMFS, but this does not change the major

thrust

of

my

question, as

above.

Paragraphs #10,

11

&

12

He

is quite right. The effect of an oil spill in Head Harbour

Passage on the population of right whales in the western North Atlantic

is difficult to assess. Why is the spill

just

going to be in Head

Harbour Passage? There are plenty of

opportunities

for .P i

tts

ton Corp.,

tankers to collide anywhere in the approaches to the Passage iiself.

After all, i f new supertankers with

all

the most modern navigational

aids can collide in

open

water

off

Tobago, why should they

necessarily

do i t

in a narrow passage? But he

is right.

It

is

difficult to

assess,

and that is why this refinery should not be

built

at Eastport. The

company biologists have l i t t l or no data about any aspect of this

situation.

I agree that

right

whales use this area for only 3-4

months

of

the

year.

But he then goes

on

to

tell

us that only 5% of the population

is

at

risk

at

anyone

time : This he does in the absence of data to

show that a much greater number of animals might not pass through a

particular feeding ground within a short time.

I think he has taken a casual remark by Steve Katona and turned i t

into

a

definite

statement

that

the Northwest

Atlantic

right

whale popula

tion is

increasing.

I know of no such definitive information or proof

of anything except that more observers are now reporting right whales.

The

International Whaling Commission

has no such evidence, so

Gilfillan

(who seems to have to find out

early all his

information

by

telephone

calls rather than

by

doing research) certainly does not.

It is indicative of the disarray in the company

advisors

position

that

Winn (p. 7)

contradicts

Gilfillan, stating accurately that "There

*The paper y Reeves et

al .

(1978) is open to some serious

quanti tat ive cri t icisms. Even Winn has pointed th is

out.


31/62

30

is

(sic)

no adequate data to make such a statement

The

population

could just as possibly be decreasing or fluctuating". There is in fact

no evidence to support the value

of 5

population production given

by

Gilfillan.

The

best

assumption is

0%,

based on the negligible recovery

since 1935, and the probability that the population has stabilized

at

a

low level

(see

Gaskin (1976) with reference to the

N.

Pacific

stock).

Paragraphs #]3 , 14, 15, 16 17

He

argues that only

oil

from the diffusor is going to

spill

or

seep

into

the area

from

the normal operation .

If

the

NMFS

considered

only this asa source then I think they are in error . I note that he

only cites a company source document to indicate

that

oil will be taken

up

by bacter-fa. No such

studies

have been made in the actual region.

His

justification

for whales not being

disturbed

by two ship

passages

per

rlay

is

laughable.

Incidentally,

I thought

that

was

only

the

figure

fQr supertankers - what happened to produce tankers and

service

vessels since the Augusta hearings some years ago?

The particularly humorous point

was to see a paraphrase from one

of my papers - "right whales did not appear to be unduly concerned by

repeated observations from within 30 metres over a period of 3 days"

cited by

Gilfillan.

Firstly; right

whales are

familiar

with 10 m lobster boats in

this

area, that is the kind of vessel we were using. Somehow, I think

Gilfillan

is really stretching a point to use

this

to

justify

that they

would

have no reaction to a 250,000 ton vessel

SecondJy; my exact words were (Arnold

&

Gaskin, 1972, p. 1477)

we

were often able to observe these animals from less than 20 m,

though they

became

more wary of the boat as the period of observation

increased".

This is not e

xactly

the same thing as making repeated

observations from with·in 30 metres over a period of 3 days". In

fact,

only one day of close observation (August 29th)

was

noted in this paper.

We

were

not

able to approach these whales close

enough

for good filming

after

August 29th.

My

opinion, based

on

personal experience, is

that

these animals most

certainly

would react in a negative fashion to contin-

ual and

frequent

ship passage in the whole region.

I notice that

nowhere

does he mention the record by

Neave

and

Wright (1968)

of

15

right

whales in the approaches to the

Bay

of

Fundy.

While

Schevill

(1968) s

t

ronq

ly criticised their

methodology, from

questioning many

auxilliary

observers in the

Bay

of Fundy including

some of those initially recruited

by Neave and Wright

we now

conclude

that this sighting

was

not only bona

fide,

but not even particularly

unusual.


32/62

31

3.1

Documents

Status of Endangered Species of Cetacea in the Western Bay of Fundy