Environmental groups accused the federal government in Federal Court last week of violating its own Species at Risk Act by failing to proclaim recovery strategies for four endangered ones, including the Pacific humpback whale, by the deadlines set by the statute.
The final recovery strategy for the humpback was released last October, about five years late. But when governments violate law by failing to meet deadlines — even realistic ones — hands may be wrung, but more shoulders are shrugged.
And not much changes, even when recovery strategies are promulgated. Threats are identified, critical habitat is “clarified … where possible,” examples are given of activities “likely” to destroy critical habitat — and, of course, goals and objectives are set.
Then, in time, come “action plans” that identify critical habitat and lay out steps to implement recovery while evaluating the socio-economic costs of doing so.
Interestingly enough, the recovery strategy for the humpback was released just after the joint review panel ended its Northern Gateway hearings, though Fisheries and Oceans officials indicated to the panel what was to come.
The strategy identifies “hot spots” of humpbacks as critical habitat — the waters off Langara Island at the Northern tip of Haida Gwaii, southeast Moresby Island, and southwest Vancouver Island including Barkley Sound, and around Gil Island, sitting like a loose-fitting plug where Douglas Channel empties into the Pacific.
As we all know, that’s the same Gil Island that tankers must navigate around if they’re to carry Alberta bitumen to China. DFO scientists say the whales frequent the area particularly in late summer and fall, and use its fjords more than any other mainland inlet.
They say increased vessel traffic or larger ships have “the potential to impact” the mammals’ ability to navigate and forage within the confined area. They state that their “ability to effectively undertake [their] life processes” is impeded by any ship passing within 400 metres of their path and that they tend to alter course without warning.
If direct contact with shipping doesn’t occur, low-frequency underwater noise might prevent them feeding or communicating with one another and drive them from the area.
The recovery strategy declares the level of concern from vessel traffic “high” and acoustic disturbance “low to moderate.”
And if there’s a spill? The document says that while individual whales would be killed, the effect on the viability of the whale population is “unlikely to plausible.”
It says that the risk to the critical habitat from a spill is “variable and depends on the ability of the toxin to dissipate” — the likelihood of which is reduced “in areas with restricted access to open water.”
So what did the joint panel conclude in its report giving conditional approval after hearing this sort of thing from Fisheries and Oceans?
It heard from Enbridge that tankers loading bitumen at Kitimat would make up about one-third of the traffic in Douglas Channel, and from Fisheries and Oceans that the pipeline operator’s attempts to assess the risks to whales from collisions were “inadequate.”
But the company promised to undertake a “vessel strike analysis” and other studies if and after the pipeline proposal is approved by Ottawa. The joint panel praised the offer for being “above and beyond industry standards.”
The company promised to ask tankers to slow down when passing through whale habitat to less than 10 knots, a speed at which collisions with whales are “rare.” Fisheries and Oceans testified that 23 per cent of whale-vessel collisions occur at speeds of 10 knots or less, and that slowing down would prolong the exposure to noise.
The panel found that the project “is not likely to result in significant adverse cumulative effects” on marine mammals. It expressed some concern that spills in confined waters could reach shore.
It said, though, that a large spill would not cause “permanent, widespread damage” because “the environment recovers to a state that supports functioning ecosystems similar to those existing before the spill.”
“The panel does not view reversibility as a reasonable measure against which to predict ecosystem recovery. No ecosystem is static.”
Neither are the humpbacks at Gil Island. Not so far.
