STA':;OS OF ENDANGERElJ SPE GIES

IN l:HE W 6STERN BAY OF FUN f)Y

D.E. GASKIN
G.J.D. SMITH
0.8. YURICK

O~

A REPORT TO THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

STATUS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES OF

.,CETA CEA
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

"-'----

...

CONTENTS

1.0 . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 4
CURRICULU ~l

3.0

INPUT RELEVANT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE STATUS

OF ENDANGERED SPECIES OF CETACEA IN THE APPROACHES
TO THE BAY OF FUNDY
~. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .

3.1

Cm~ MENTS ON TWO

DR . H. E. HI NN

3. 1. 1. 1 .

3.1.1.2.
3.1.1.3.
3.1.1.4.

3.1.2.

3.1.2.2.
3.1.2.3.

4.0

..

.. .. 6

DOCUr ~ENTS

PRESENTED BY
8

HUMPBACK WHALES
RIGHT WHALES
DIRECT EFFECTS OF OIL ON WHALES
COHMEN TS ON PRO POSE D FUTURE RESEARCH IN
THIS AREA AS SUGGESTED BY DR . WINN

8
14

17
18

COfvlMENTS ON TWO DOCUI1ENTS PRESENTED BY.

DR. EDWARD S. GILFILLAN

3.1 .2.1.

3.2

COHHENTS ON DOCUr1ENTS PRESENTED BY CONSULTING

BIOLOGISTS ON BEHALF OF THE PITTSTO N CO MPANY
WITH REFE RE NCE TO THEIR APPLICATIO N TO BUILD A
SU PERTANKE R TERMINAL AND OI L REFIN ERY AT
EASTPORT, Me , AT THE LO WER END OF HEAD HARB OU R
PASSAGE, NEWBRU NSWICK, CANADA

3.1.1.

'

VITAE OF SENIOR AUTHOR

2. 0

.
20

DOCUMENT #1 (STATE MENT OF DR. EDWARD S.

GILFILLAN ON BEHALF OF THE PITTSTON
COMPANY BEFORE THE ENDANGERED SPECI ES
REVIEW BOARD:
WHALES)
,
DOCUMENT #2 (CRITI QUE OF NATIONAL
MARINE FISHERIE S #7 CONSULTATION THRESHOLD EXAMINATION)
'"
CONCLUSIONS
;

RECORDS BY UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH RESEARCH GROUP

OF RIGHT AND HU MPBAC K WHALES IN THE WESTERN
BAY OF FUNDY APPROACHES
INPUT RELEVANT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE UNIQUENESS
AND VALUE OF THIS REGION TO CANADA, WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO CETACEANS

20
26
31

. 32

33

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

4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.1.3.

FINBACK WHALES
HARBOUR PORPOISE
OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES

4.2

EXISTING LEVELS OF CONTMlINATION IN CETACEANS

IN THIS REGION WHICH ALREADY PUT THEM AT RISK

4.3

ON-GOING STUDIES IN THIS AREA BY CANADIAN

RESEARCH WORKERS

4.4

Sut1MARY OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH FROM THIS REGION

5.0

35
36
38
51
52
"........ 54
55

REFERENCES CITED.............................................. 56

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To all those members of the University of Guelph
cetacean and seabird research group Who gav e
sterling assistance in what was often arduous .
work under inclement weath~conditions,
and ,
to some fine and steady typing by Ms Marilyn
Botter 3 without which this manuscript would not
have been ready on time!

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, t~a i ne,
The viewpoint of the
United States differs from
degree of risk involved to
region if this development

National Marine Fisheries Service of the

that of the Pittston Company concerning the
certain species of large Cetacea in this
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.

2.0

CURRICULUM VITAE OF SENIOR AUTHOR

Dr. D.E. Gaskin, born 21 June 1939, presently Associate Professor

of Marine Biology at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
N1G 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 "Southern 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.

'

3.0

-,

...... ...
;

INPUT RELEVANT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE STATUS OF ENDANGERED

SPECIES OF CETACEA IN THE APPROACHES TO THE BAY OF FUNDY

In one
Review Board
the Pittston
sperm whales

of the documents submitted to the Endangered Species

by one of the consulting biologists (Dr. H.E. Winn) for
Company, it was rightly pointed out that blue, sei and
rarely occur in the approaches to the Bay of Fundy.

We concur with this opinion, and the follow~ng 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 l 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.

3. 1

- ,

COW~ENTS ON DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY CONSULTING BIOLOGISTS ON

BEHALF OF THE PITTSTON COMPAN~ 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 ~wo consulting

biologists on behalf of the company, and these documents are sometimes
difficult to follow and even 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 fo r the company, suppl ied
by Dr. 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 it were in my opinion so -chaot lca l lyurqan l zed 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 on speculation and singularly short on data. Both workers,
although providing impressive credentials, lack the more than ten and a
half years' working experience in the Quoddy region, specifically with
cetaceans, possessed by myself and G.J .D.: Smith . ."lamafraid the
paucity of their local knowledge is revealed again and again in their
documents.

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, NEW 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 it 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~itchell (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 ~1itchell 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

-.\

--.

migration. It 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 be~t estimate for the total population being 417 animals.
This is evid~nce 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 WWF , 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 also ~in~
creased alarmingly, probably with mortality to some whales', and certainly
degrees 'of injury to quite a number (Lien & t~erdsoy, 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 noth ~i n'g "about 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 ina 11 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.

.--..

--

-.

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 ~hile 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 : ~ e same individuals.
Since Winn contends that only a very few humpbacks would be at
risk in the case of a spill in this area, it is up to him to demonstrate
that there is little 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 it 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 it 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 it was evident that the "main group" of fin wha l es (as we
called it), had moved until it 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 distribution
of prey. My 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 J~ly and at least the middle of September 1979.

,~

~SO

00'

67"00'

"

.'l

._ r:;

~~

II

V:> U

.~

V:>
.;;: r;,

('

'"~ Q.~
~" O

- V:>

~CJD

__A

S~
C/ "X;-S

~"X;-

I.:..J

G'

(HABRH

1000

2000 m

CARRYING PLACE
COVE & WEST QUODDY
HEAD (OFF MAP)

WHITEHORSE
ISLAND

~ISLAND

BLISS

<>

po

<:l

/) /J

ISLAND

WHITE

p.~

j/~ SPRUCE
-..~.
.;
~. ~~
ISLAND

.. \;J':>

:;;~

ct/
~

'"
::;

~~

~~!lo'9?

c.R

c::::s

<l

.A.
if' .

j)'

:!{AD

IDOO

.'

,/'

(~/' ~~

~[)i !S'S'y

~ RIS
~
_ ("\WA~

LETITE

LITTLE

ISLAND

LORDS
COVE

PASSAMAQUODDY
BAY

6700'

,
,J

,I

CJ

-'

45 00'

66 .45'

GRAND MANAN
OFF MAP)

.:

BLACKS
HARBOUR

. ,.,

INNER
BAY OF FUNDY
.
(OUTER QUODDY
c W
REGION)
ISLANDS

-l

><

I'T1

-l

:z:

.......

ITl

-l

.......
o
:z:

.L::.

ITl

3:

o
:z

.......

G)

ITl

;:::0

-<

o
o'
o

.0
C

"

(/)

ITl

...s.

:I:

:z

(/)

ITl

:I:

""'0

:I:

()

......

"

......
......

-~700'

"
"

'

<7

cj

a.

0c:s

<>dJ

.0

""',~

,}

P'

ai'

not c o nf i rmed

~ .

1000
0
IHH HHR

, ., 6
.,-.2+4
. 6illA

2 000 rn
!~

~~

. 1
~

ANIMALS IN THE
GRAND MANAN CHANNEL

"l ~. ~

~ - ,. lP(ThisreCQrd)
~'"

.' C>

r!liJ'VP'

&

Di~~

~<> DOP

"

,I

'tJ

10

:1

45 00'

t
6 6 4S'

,.,. 2

~2

-I

):>

(/)

rn

G)

):>

........

';;:c:I

--l

):>

co

3:
-u

:::r:
c

-'.

."

'.. .r~

-',!",

2+

\.0

\.0
'-J

co

'-J

\.0

.......

..........

(/)

rn

';;:c:I

........

........

3:

rn

(/)

(/)

rn

):>

:J:

--l
:E:

:J:

........

G)

';;:c:I

a~
.

ANIMALS OFF
EASTERN GRAND MANAN

,,/

,1

......

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, if 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, it is more than possible that there is at present NO
net recruitment to this population - it 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 IWC meeting prior to
documenting it pUblicly in 1973, considered unreliable and probably too
high), and adding increments based on a "normal ll productivity increase
during the period 1973~79. There is in fact, no evidence atall 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 1 s .

-.

--,

CONCLUSIONS
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 iss 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,

14

b) The humpback whale population in the western North Atlantic

now faces circumstances very different from those it 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
Nor does the
chances of an oil spill of any magnitude is very small
EPA apparently accept it either, even though they granted Pittston a
permit.
ll

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 ~Iinn 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".

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 it 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

MANAf~:

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, it 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

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:

GRAND

~1ANAN

See fig. 2.

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
if 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 it 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 it is very likely to go ashore

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

-.

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 if
the population is more mobile than has hitherto been anticipated, then
it 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 it 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
Gilfillan~ if taken at face value as we think it should be, despite the
comments by Schevill in the same 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.

--......

. DI RECT EFFECTS OF OIL ON WHALES

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 apparent feeding behaviour.
Si nce there were no immedi ate "bel ly-up'' reacti ons , hi s 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 little 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. Sch~fer (1972) has
discussed the fate of dead marine mammals quite carefully, and comes to
the same conclusion. ~10st carcasses, he points out, break up at sea,
and float up only for a brief period. It 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

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 app~rent 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 it would be
damnably difficult to do it properly.

3.1. 1.4.

CONCLUSIONS, AND COMMENTS ON 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 nort~f 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

19

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 it is cate
gorically opposed, and see it funded by that corporation, is a point
that both U.S. parties had best consider very carefully.

r-

--.
--,

.-'"

-"

..

.-

20

3.1.2

COMMENTS ON TWO DOCUMENTS .PRESENTED BY 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 200 p.p.b . range .
2) Since residency time of oil in open water situations is quite
short, such concentrations are hardly ever realized in such circumstan
ces except for short periods of time, after which the zooplankton will
recover.
3) (Phyto) Plankton production in the Bay of Fundy is reportedly
low.
4) It is therefore "axiomatic" that production of zooplankton is
low also .
.---"

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 to support statements in this
peculiar document, which is full of errors and misrepresentations .

\ L:..-
'

.....

II

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 movement 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 studi~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 i 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.

22

Fig.3 SURFACE TEMPERATURE REGIME, INNER QUODDY, FLOOD TIDE, JUNE 1977

'8

..

on

.
en

en

.
.......
en
I

(j

Q0;D

81

u
en

co
I

LO

co

.......

LO

..' .....
..

1;/

'

"

II .
.

on

0-0
-0

Vl

Z
......

0::: I-

::!::

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

I-- ::!::ow
:::> ...... Z I-
0-1

W
D

Vl
-~

I-
......

::!::.

......
Z
- I 1- ......

O::!::
0::: Z 0:::
W

:z:
:z:

......

'g
o~

I-

23

Fig.4 SURFACE TE MPERATURE REGIME, I NN ER QUODDY, EBB TIDE, JU NE 1977

'0
0

..

0",

81

.<j

QY ,D

..

())

())

())

())

r-,
I

co

co

r-,
r

I/I

I
LO

LO

.~

' ",

0",

0",

-c

'"

-,
-,

U)

Cl
L.LJ
Z

O:::f- f- ......
L.LJ ...... 0 ::E:
f- ::E: z 0:::

:::>......

L.LJ

O-J

fL.LJ
Cl

".H+J4+++++++i-H + +++H -++f--H-t,...,...

s
~

f+H+H-++++-H-+-H-+-H+ t--H-t++-++-H-+--H -t--t--~++" ,

o
o
o

-,

'i:J

{7
~.

U)

f......
::E:
......

Cl
L.LJ

Z
-J f- ......

0:::
L.LJ

::E:

:z: 0:::
L.LJ

f-

......

L.LJ
Cl

'0
0

!;;
~

/
/

-.

24

The upwelling zones, of which there is at least one outside the

inner topographical II 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; it 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.
ll

'.

Two further points need making. The Environmental Protection

Agency has granted permits for this refinery, and it is interesting to
note some of the wording.
EPA 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 EPA 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 if they
could show that such a level was being exceeded, but our own experiences
in New Brunswick indicate that it is a lot harder to monitor these
activities in practice than in theory.
Nevertheless, let us consider these two points. The wording of
the EPA document suggests that we have little choice but to prepare for
IIWORST CASE 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 "ave raqe" 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.
II

Given the residency time of oil in the waters adjacent to the

passage, it seems likely that the threshold level for retardation of
phyto- and zooplankton productivity might be reached after a few years
of operation, especially if one or two accidental spills of greater
magnitude occurred.
Gilfillan states that "s ince (phyto) plankton is low, it is
"axioma 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 region?~
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 r~anan and" Deer Islan-d--
Campobello region is not one of them. This is one of the few areas in

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~acKay 1973) Final Report to Par ks Canada, 177 pp). t~y
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 it 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 extant would
show Dr. Gilfillan that humpback wh ales are incapable of exploiting
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.
It is interesting, that while he talks of (and references) the
ability of plankton (phytoplankton) to rid itself of oil if 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 ..

26

3.1.2.2.

COMMENTS ON DOCUMENT #2 "CRITIQUE OF

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES #7
CONSULTATION - THRESHOLD EXAMINATION

Paragraph #1) first part

His comments here are largely devoted to demolislring a "s traw 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 vIe 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 l es 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~per, 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. MRA 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).
ll

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 . We 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; it 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, it 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 "it 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. We 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
tially 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 1imitations 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.

28

Paragraphs #4 & 5
I would agree with Gilfillan up to a point (the NMFS document is
lacking in data) that it is difficult to make a direct case for the
damage of whales by oil slicks. On the other hand, it 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 slic:~s (see \~innls major docu ment); observers have
reported no apparent injuries but were not able to indicate if 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,
if I recall correctly. This is an area beyond my competence, but I can
say that neither Gilfillan or NMFS 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
left
that
this
feed

With reference to the NMFS statement he says, lithe impression is

that right whales are exclusively surface feeders". I did not get
impression from that section of their document. But of course,
allows him to set up a "straw man" again, and show that they do not
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 if
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

29

area, then this is the area.

Paragraph #8
Once again he uses the same generalizations, and I reply with
spe c i fl 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, if new supertankers with all the most modern navigational
aids can collide in open water off Tobago, why should they necessarily
do it 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 little 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 it
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 by Reeves et al. (1978) is open to some serious

quantitative criticisms. Even Winn has pointed this out.

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 exactly the same thing as "making repeated
observations from within 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.

31

3.1.2.3.

CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING DOCUMENTS #1 AND

#2 SUBMITTED BY DR. E.S. GILFILLAN

Before I can accept ~ of his statements, he must prove that oil

from a massive spill will leave the region rapidly, despite all the
cumulative evidence in the Canadian literature that the residence time
of water is 70 days even within Passamaquoddy Bc. ~. He must also prove
that there is not a constant exchange of individual right whales
through the feeding grounds in this region. I only need to point to
the preliminary comments by Roger Payne and his group concerning their
research on the right whales of Argentina; their first assumption was
that they were dealing with the 30-40 whales they thought they had
counted "at one time" in the "3 Gulfs" area of Patagonia. Intensive
photographic studies of individual whales finally revealed that about
415 (I think that was his completed estimate), passed through and used
the region during the total season. Until we have such data for this
region, Gilfillan's "es t ima tes " are in my opinion (based on my nearly
twenty years' whaling and whale research experience, and 11 years in
this particular area) just so much aimless speculation.
Far more research effort is needed in the outer Bay approaches,
but I have had much cause over the last 6-7 years to ret ract the
statement made by Arnold and Gaskin back in 1972 that "as with the
other species, the assumption is made that the whales are not extra
ordinarily abundant in the region", Further data have revealed that
there is a population of right whales which makes regular use of the
approaches to the Bay of Fundy, usually up to northern Grand Manan and
often among the Wolves Islands, each year. I disagree with Gilfillan
that their presence is not regular. I disagree with him that they do
not have calves with them in this area, and I disagree with him that
humpback whales with calves do not use this area.
Based on my extensive experience in this region, I find both his
documents contain a high level of assumption . The data are so minimal
that his "analyses" would never grace a r.espectab1e scientific journal.

3.2

RECORDS OF RIGHT AND HUMPBACK WHALES IN THE APPROACHES TO THE

WESTERN BAY OF FUNDY OBTAINED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
CETACEAN RESEARCH GROUP

While most of these have been dealt with in sections of 3.1,

these records (or those most pertinent to the discussion) have been
summari zed in fig. 2.

33

4.0

INPUT RELEVANT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE UNIQUEI~ESS AND VALUE

CANADA~ WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
CETACEANS

OF THIS REGION TO

The Bay of Fundy approaches are ecologically unique. The tidal

range averages more than 7 m, and this causes extensive vertical
mixing, and hence :ooler surface water temperatures during the summer
months than in adjacent regions. Production or concentration of produc
tion, is relatively high, and strong tidal currents and upwellings
produce nutrient enrichment at certain locations which are, within
broad limits, geographically constant in summer. Large local eddies
also bring about concentrations of zooplankton between June and
October, in amounts which attract numerous large baleen whales, and
are sufficient to keep them in the region for most of the summer and
early fall. Considerable quantities of herring and mackerel enter the
Bay from late spring onwards, and these are prey for three or four
species of small toothed cetaceans, the most abundant being the harbour
porpoise Phocoena phoceona.
A less fortunate feature of the Gulf of Maine in general and the
Bay of Fundy in particular, is vulnerability to the influences of

industrial, agricultural and forestry technologies. The prevailing

major current flow up the eastern seaboard of America passes important
agricultural and industrial regions, and large urban conglomerates,
collecting out-wash from river systems as it goes. Mixing occurs
between this water mass and the waters of the Gulf of Maine on a signi
ficant scale for about half the year. The Gulf of Maine Eddy carries
this mixed water inshore in a counter-clockwise direction . This
phenomenon is probably responsible for the relatively high levels of
dieldrin and polychlorinated biphenyls found in the fauna of the region,
since these compounds are not commonly produced or used locally.
During the remainder of the year, exchange between the water bodies is
more restricted, and outflow from Passamaquoddy Bay and river systems
within the Bay of Fundy tends to remain within the region. Extensive
spraying of spruce budworm in the forests of New Brunswick in the 1960's,
and pulp mill activities in that province and in northern Maine, have
certainly contributed heavily to the high levels of DDT and mercury
found in the fauna of the Bay. Two moderate oil-spills have already
occurred near Saint John, and the proposals for more major projects has
greatly increased concern for the environmental well-being of the region.
There is no other part of coastal Canada which really resembles
the ecological situation found in the Bay of Fundy; from the Canadian
point of view the combination of factors, rather than the existence of
any single factor or species of animal, makes it completely unique.
The presence of the Fisheries and Oceans Canada Biological Station
in St. Andrews, and adjacent to it the Huntsman Marine Laboratory,
provides a very strong federal government/university combination with a
particular strength in ecological research. The fact that the Bay of
Fundy is of re l a t i ve l y small size, contains a good mix of temperate zone
marine fauna, and supports fisheries of considerable economic importance

34

to the Maritime Provinces, makes it a "f i el d l aboretory " of inestimable

importance to Canada, as well as providing important economic and re
creational revenue.

35

4.1

THE APPROACHES TO THE BAY OF FUNDY AS A UNIQUE FI ELD LABORATORY

FOR MARINE RESEARCH IN EASTERN CANADA, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO CETACEANS

The Cetacea which can occur ' in the approaches to the Passamaquoddy
region are: Finback whale BaZaenoptera phy saZus , Humpback whale
Me gapt era novaeangZiae, Minke whaleBaws nopt era ~cuDorostra ta , Right
whale Euba Zaena glacia Zis , Pilot whale (pothead) Clobicephala me Zaena,
White-sided dolphin Lagenor hynchus acutus , and Harbour porpoise
Phocoena phocoena.

One of the great attractions of this region is the accessi bility

of several species of cetacean on a regular basis, close to two labora
tory complexes with excellent facilities for research,and ocean-going
capability. In fact the Inner Quoddy region in particular can be worked
using relatively small and ine xpensive vessels under conditions of
relative safety, as long as care is taken to avoid being trapped by
sudden changes in wind and fog in the areas with extensive ledges, adja
cent to Head Harbour Passage.
The Unive rsity of Guelph group has worked at
localities in the Maritime Provinces, and has long
area as the one which provides the opti mum balance
tions for the ki nd of ecologica l researc h wh ich we
large and small cetaceans.

about seven other

since settled on this
of favourable condi
wish to undertake on

LoJe view therefore, with great concern any development which \"i11
inevitably lead to environmental deterioration, and the loss of this
unique Canadian "field laboratory". Needless to say, what is t rue for
study of Cetacea in this region, is also true for al most every major
group of marine organisms, and on which research teams at the Biological
Station are working.

36

4.1.1.

FINBACK WHALES

This is the most common species of "l ar ge whale in the Bay of

Fundy at the present time, appearing during June or July in all three
sub-regions of the approaches when euphausiid shrimp concentrations
start to form in surface waters. Up to ten different individuals have
been counted in the Inner Quoddy region at one time (in the vicinity
of Deer Island and northern Campobello Island) although three to six is
more usual. The maximum count off Brier Island - Long Island at any
one time was fifteen, in August 1974. Once the animals have moved into
the inshore belt of water in both sub-regions, their appearance is
relatively predictable until autumnal changes break up the euphausiid
shrimp shoals in surface waters, and drive the schools of young herring
deeper. He have fewer observations from the eastern Grand ~1anan area,
but their occurrence there is also usually regular. Finback whales are
often reported off Swallowtail Head, and further south, off the Brazil
shoal, and Old Proprietor shoal, at Grand Manan. These areas are less
accessible than the Inner Quoddy region and Brier Island, and one
cannot rely on finding animals nearly so readily as in the other areas.
Off western Grand Manan, Finbacks have been reported to concentrate off
Dark Harbour during the fall. We have reason to believe that these
include some of the same animals which were present off Deer Island and
Campobello a month earlier. In 1978, Finbacks were still present off
Deer Island well into November.
Finback whales are reported regularly by boats out on the very
edge of the Bay of Fundy, working along the shelf region crossing the
northern Gulf of Maine. From the scientific and/or recreational point
of view however, these animals are virtually out of reach except to an
ocean-going vessel. One of the great natural advantages of "both the
Inner Quoddy and the Brier Island regions is that Finback whales can be
studied at close quarters for extended periods of time, using inexpen
sive, relatively small fishing boats. This is one of the few parts of
the world \rlhere such studies are possible. The feeding areas of the
Inner QUOdDy and Brier Island animals seem to be quite limited and
related to tidal conditions, according to the preliminary observations
by Arnold and Gaskin (1972) and Gaskin (1976). The ledge system running
parallel to the northwestern coast of Digby Neck, about five to ten
miles offshore, and on the New Brunswick coast the shelf off White
Island and the "sill" close to the tip of Campobello Island, seem to be
critical features in the feeding systems for the Finback whales in the
two sub-regions.
The distribution of contacts with Finback whales during 1978-79
are shown in fig. 5. These plots are only approximate, and these
data are still in the process of being analyzed. Some amendments to
this figure will almost certainly be necessary after analysis is complete.

11

fI

...

-3

rI

.'

c::::s

ill

01

~
. O/!'.

3l~ 1_ 0:"'3Y/ F./\....

10

82

r2~
2

-,

21.0 oS
e2
/:?
e303 1e
e fJ2 04 ~2
e2 4
.
e3 01
1 \ J

04 03

Ji

02

-01 -01
01
_-2

.-2 -2

\02

'-3

~~~

;-Vo

<J

~ 1&02 h~
1II!!4i:P
-:
-il:7
~ UD
t?1L.
~3 ~ f 1 ~- a.sl ~2.

<l

-2

1--2

01

./

66 4S'

02

81

66"5'

"

.1

~5 00'

::E:

:z:

=:::

:z:

:z:

:r::
rn

=:::

rrt

-l

)::

.......
:z:
o
.......

A
Vl

:;;0
)::

-l

-....J

-....J
CO

Vl

rri

)::

:r::

CO
)::

.......
:z:

"Tl

"Tl

Vl

:;;0

n
o

rn

:;;0

U"l

to

"Tl
......

W
-....J

38

4. 1.2

HARBOUR PORPOISE

,
\ I
I

I
I

The Harbour porpoi se is by far the most abundant cetacean in the

Bay of Fundy, and is almost certainly one of the most important species
of the upper trophic levels in the coastal marine food web, feeding on
herring, mackerel, small gadoid fish, and squid.
After several years of study, the University of Guelph research
group concludes that the Bay of Fundy approaches, especially the islands
of southern New Brunswick, represent the real stronghold of this species
in the western North Atlantic, south .of Newfoundland. After surveying
all the Atlantic province s during 1969-74, we concluded that while
significant populations occur in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in
Newfoundland waters, nowhere else can the species be found in such
numbers in a relatively small area, so regula rly, and so accessibly for
scientific research. Therefore any further environmental deterioration
in the western shore regions of the Bay of Fundy is viewed by us with
great concern, since it would destroy a unique "field laboratoryll for
the study of this important species. At the 1976 Whaling Commission
meetings in London, concern for the status of this species in European
waters was expressed by nearly half the delegates present (Report of the
International Whaling Commi ssion, Vol . 27, p. 474 et ~.). The popula
tion of Harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea is believed to have
collapsed (Dr. S. Andersen, pers. comm.), and the species seems to be
now disappearing from the continental side of the English Channel and
the southern Nor-th Sea, including the coast of Holland (Dr. P.J.H. Van
Bree, pel's. comm.).
The species seems to be relatively short-lived; our studies indi
cate a maximum life span of only about 13 years (Gaskin and Blair, 1977),
with the average of about 8-9 years. Only one calf is produced at a time
under normal circumstances; although twinning undoubtedly occurs it is
unlikely that both calves could be weaned. While we have evidence that
some females may calve in as many as three successive years, others have
resting years between pregnancies. Sexual maturity is attained in the
fourth year of life. The short life span does not seem to be countered
therefore, by a high reproductive rate. The species is not likely to
be able to respond favourably to show much reproductive flexibility if
subjected to intensive exploitation or increas ed mortal i ty from other
sources.

Some individuals have been seen in almost every month of the year,
but most of the population arrives in the coastal areas when the surface
water temperature reaches 8-10C, and leaves at the time of fall cooling.
The migration pattern is essentially onshore-offshore, rather than
north-south. Our studies showed that the "main herds ll arrived at the
same time of year, from southern Maine to southern New Brunswick. The
wintering areas are not known, but are probably the southern edges of
the Brown's Bank and George1s Bank, where water temperatures are 7-9C
in most winters. This species may have a relatively high metabolic rate,
and is the smallest of the cold water cetaceans. It has colonized a

39

niche which on the whole permits it to avoid competition with the White
whale to the north and the wide-ranging more pelagic species such as
White-sided, White-beaked, Common, and Bottlenosed dolphins to the east
and south. Generally the White whale occurs in colder and less saline
waters than the Harbour porpoise; however the latter has been recorded
in the Western Passage and Letite Passage adjacent to Deer Island in
December and February (A. MacKay and R. Bosein, pers . comm.). In early
April 1970. with v'~ter temperatures ranging from a low of 1.9C to a
high of only 3.8C, as many as 14 sightings were made in Letite in one
day. Consequently it cannot be doubted that a small fraction of the
population - probably submature males - overwinters in the Bay of Fundy.
On the other hand, density measurements in April were estimated as 0.9
animals/search hr in good s i ght i ng conditions. compared with up to
9 .. 0/hr in late August and early September.
Mature females are already accompanied by their calves by the
time they arrive in the immediate coastal zone; calving evidently takes
place further offshore. In most seasons these animals leave the coastal
zone again in early October - by which time a significant percentage of
the females is already pregnant again. Mating also usually seems to
occur in offshore waters, although it has been observed among the inner
island chains and in the coves of Deer Island from ti me to time. In all
three sUb-regions of the Bay of Fundy approaches, the Harbour porpoise
population peaks at the same time - between mid-July and mid-September.
The population of the Brier Island region seems to be the smallest, with
several dozen animals seen r egularly at the Fundy mouth of Grand
Passage, but only small numbers in the rest of the area other than in
the approaches to the Digby Gut, where quite large numbers occur.
The densest concentrations of Harbour porpoises recorded in our
studies from 1969-79 were between Northern Head and Swallowtail Head,
off upper Grand Manan, and in Head Harbour Passage . Concentrations in
the Inner Quoddy region in August. particularly in Letite and its
approaches, outside Head Harbour Passage, and over the shelf of White
and Spruce Islands, are nearly as high and occur over a larger area
(fig. 9 ). The size of schools increa ses as the season progresses. with
up to 15 animals per group being seen in the Letite area in September.
Shortly after, these groups are only encountered on the edge of the
Grand Manan Channel current, about half way between Deer Island and the
Wolves Islands. They seem to stay in this outer area for a week or so,
then disappear. The formation of large schools. final concentration in
the Letite and Head Harbour approaches, and movement to the offshore
current boundary all appear t o be stages which presage the start of the
offshore winter migration . In fact, the overall migration pattern
closely relates to that of the principal food species, herring and
mackerel. There is some suspicion that predation on squid is heaviest
in the late summer and early fall, when short-finned squid Ill ex most
commonly occur in the Inner Quoddy region. Workers at the College of
the Atlantic report that later in the fall. large numbers of Harbour
porpoises occur in the Grand Manan Channel between northern Maine and
western Grand Manan.

40

In the accompanying figures (figs 6-12), and by 'zones in table

one, . we have provided a breakdown of relative population densities of
harbour porpoise sightings in the Quoddy region for the most recent
year possible, 1978. We regret that sightings for 1979 are still being
analysed and cannot be made available at such short notice. Wind and
vi s -j bil i ty conditions made worki ng hazardous in the outer areas of the
Quoddy region in October and part of November 1978; data for some
sectors are there~~re not available for those months. We have also
extracted data relevant to the distribution of nursery areas for this
species for the period 1976-1979 (table 2, fig.13). The areas directly
adjacent to the approaches to Head Harbour Passage form a significant
nursery area for this population. Perhaps due to changes in herring
distribution during the last few years, the number of mother-calf pairs
sighted in the Inner Quoddy region is lower than in the period 1970-1975
(table 3). More mothers and calves seemed to be distributed in the
Outer Quoddy region during 1976-79, and these data are not included in
the current report. There is much fluctuation in numbers from local
area to local area, associated with opportunistic feeding; frequent
exchange between the Deer Island - Campobello region, the Wolves region,
Point LePreau region, and Grand Manan region has been demonstrated by
animals bearing radio transmitters (Gaskin et al. 1975).
The sightings per unit effort data displayed in table 1 and figs. 7
- 12 show some distinct patterns. These effort data are based on a
total of 1,746 animals recorded during the field season of 1978. Head
Harbour Passage is an important early season feeding area for the first
animals which can enter as early as April, but usually arrive in the
first two weeks of June. The data suggest that, as in other years,
animals arrive in "waves" as the summer progresses. Large mature animals
may predominate in the early part of the season, with immatures arriving
later.
When the second "wave" arrives, it may not necessarily move in
shore immediately (fig. 8 ); this presumably depends on when herring
move in numbers from the Outer Quoddy area (only the inner limits of
which are displayed on these figures) into the coastal Inner Quoddy
region adjacent to Deer Island. During July and August concentrations
of animals increase in all areas, but particularly in Head Harbour
Passage and the adjacent approaches. Even by late November and early
December, when the population has declined below the level attained in
early June, Head Harbour Passage is still the most significant feeding
ground for the animals at the tail-end of the migration, and on the
basis of limited sighting records from the winter months, remains so
throughout the year.

0
0

1. 52

7.49
4.24

0.32
0.63
0

AUGUST
SEPTEI1BER
OCTOBER
NOVEI~aER/

DECEI"SER

0.45

1.03

0.13

JULY

0.82

0
0

0.18

3.74
0.56

0.60

0.49

Simpsons Irish Letite Littl e

Fish
Harbour Passage Water Passage Letite

12.57

8.70

4.70

1. 96

0.56

~1outh

7.04
4.64

4.45
3.15
n.s.

0
n.s.
0

0.52

3.90

n.s.

5.67

2.28

0.28

3.68
0.74

2.32

1. 33

1.82

5.44

4.16

1. 04

0.15

1.83

n.s.

7.52

9.45

3.04

3.47

8.54

3.60

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

-----8.70----- I

6.90

7.85

Is 1and
The
Head
Outer
Outer
"River" Channels Harbour Quoddy Campobello

LeTang White White

Leti te
in Harbour horse Island
Passam.

0.19

2.89

4.74

4.19

1.64

0.50

TOTAL
REGION

RELATIVE DENSITIES OF HARBOUR PORPOISE POPULATION IN THE INNER QUODDY REGION DURING THE PERIOD JUNE TO NOVEMaER - DECEMBER, 1978.
(UNCORRECTED VALUES OF PORPOISES SIGHTED/HRS SEARCH TIME.)

JUNE

MONTH

ZONES

TABLE 1.

.......

42

Fig.6 KEY TO POPULATION DENSITIES OF HARBOUR PORPOISES

(RELATIVE VALUES, EXPRESSED IN SIGHTINGS/ HR) RECORDED

FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH RESEARCH VESSEL DURING
THE PERIOD JUNE TO NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1978.

: : .
[ill
. ....
:

':

.:

-:'

':

'

. ' I'.

:.,'

II

::' .

LESS THAN 1.0 / hI

I,

1.0 TO 1.9/ hr

2.0 TO 3.9 / hr

4.0 TO 6.0 I hr

IN EXCESS OF 6.1 / hr

NOTE; AREAS LEFT WHITE INDICATE ZERO CONCENTRATION IN

INNER ZONES. AREAS NOT SEARCHED ARE SO INDICATED.

43

Fig.?

POPUL~TION DENSITY IN QUODDY REGION-JUNE 1978.

HARBOUR PORPOISE
s

...

.",

- ,

Cl

LJ..J

:r:
u

0:::
~

LJ..J

(/)

o
z

'44
Fig.8 HARBOUR PORPOISE POPULATION
DENSITY IN QUODDY REGION - JULY 1978.
'8

o
o

L.L.I

::::>

c:e-l
I-~
c:e
.... .
I

a
z

o
I

-~
0<>
<>

!~

:i
~

o
L.L.I
:J::
U

0:::

c:e

L.L.I
Vl

z:

HARBOUR PORPOISE

Flg.9

POPULAT~ON
g

45

DENSITY

AUGUST 1978

0",

(:)

(:)

c::(

L1J

(:)

r- (:)

c::(

:::>

L1J
c::(

:::>

c::(

-l

(:)

:z:

L1J

::r:

0:::
c::(

L1J
(/)

:z:

I-<

(:)

-l

:z:
........

z:

-,

(:)

'~

o
:z:

's

Fig.IO .

-,

:z

-,

47

Fig.ll

HARBOUR

-,

DE~SITY
PORPO_I_SE~:;OPULA~

OCTOBER 1978

LLI
(/)

:::>
c::J:
U (/)
LLI Z

- ,

co 0

.....

Of
LLI .....
:I: 0
UZ
0::: 0
c::J:U
LLI
(/) 0:::
LLI
f- :I:

Of
Zc::J:
I.LJ

(/) 3:
c::J:
LLI 0

0:::c::J:
c::J:ca
0::: LL
LLI 0

:::>

.......
0
LLI
:I:
U
0:::
c::J:
LLI
(/)

a
z:

48
F;g ~12

HARB OUR PORPOISE POP ULATIO N DE NSITY - NOVEMBER/DECE MBER

1978

w
V>

:::>
0::(

u v>

wz

ceo
>--<

Of-
WI--< .

:r: 0

uz

0::0

o::(u

V> 0::

f--:r:
Of-

zo::(

Cb

W
V> 3:
0::(
WO
0::0::(

.:.

0l\~

o::(co

~ .",() ~~
- ~ ..::'. ..::'~::.
. . . . .
"

,."0 .': I . '

\\, OM "::'.. . :
q V .."" . ,.0, ', ."" .. :

.. .

. ", Ie: .

. : .::.
..
eO '

..

::~ ..
"

'

.
.

:;:

I
:::>

);:::.-:-:.:/::\.'

~
~

.
.:' ~ ~

"

0:: u,

WO

'.
".

. ~I.

1l...

'.'

~...

o
o

5!

..

..

o
W

:r:
U
0::
0::(

'0

...

o
-e

V>

:z:

49

..

0",

(!J

z
.......

-,

I- (/)
c::( c::(

uw
....... 0:::

o c::(
z

(/)

. . . . =

(!J

z
.......

>

:r:

0:::

"0:::
0::: W

c::(

c::( (/)

(!J

I-

.......

>-

<,

-......=
0

...--l

(!J

.......
- '-.

- .'

'0

...-c

W
-J

V)

0:::

>-

(/)

U")

.......

I
...--l c::(
...--l

::a:

II

0
0

l!

50

TABLE 2. TOTAL NUMBERS OF MOTHER-CALF PAIRS OF HARBOUR PORPOISES

SEEN IN THE INNER QUODDY REGION OF THE WESTERN APPROACHES
OF THE BAY OF FUNDY BY MONTH AND YEAR, 1976-1979.

TABLE 3. TOTAL NUMBERS OF MOTHER-CALF PAIRS OF HARBOUR PORPOISES

SEEN IN FISH HARBOUR AND ADJOINING PASSAGES OUTSIDE DEER
ISLAND, NEW BRU NSWICK, WESTERN APPROACHES OF THE BAY OF
FUNDY, DURING THE PERIOD 1970-1975 (June-September) .

YEARS

-.

~-.

TOTALS

1970 1971
20

1972 1973 1974 1975

24

33

168

32

51

4.1.3

OTHER CETACEAN SPECIES

MINKE WHALE
Although not as commonly observed as the Finback, largely because
it is smaller and frequently unobtrusive in its behaviour, the Minke
whale, which feeds on alewives, capelin and herring, is a regular summer
migrant to the approaches to the Bay of Fundy. Several individuals are
usually present in the Quoddy region each summer; one often "patrols"
day after day during July-September in the vicinity of White Island and
Spruce Island, and others may penetrate Blacks Harbour, Letite Passage,
the Western Passage, and Passamaquoddy Bay, and another off Carrying
Place Cove. There are several recent records of young Minke whales
stranding in Passamaquoddy Bay; from time to time they enter herring
weirs in pursuit of fish and become trapped.

WHITE-SIDED AND WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHINS

Sporadic sightings of "large black and white sea porpoises" are
reported to us by fishermen from all three sub-regions, during the
winter and summer months in the Inner Quoddy region, but infrequently.
In summer, White-sided dolphins have been seen off Whitehorse Island in
1973 and 1979, and twice off the Digby Gut, Nova Scotia in 1970 and
1972, by University of Guelph workers. A stranded specimen was found on
Barnes Island by us during 1974, and a large school was stranded in
Lingley Cove, t~aine (Geraci, 1975). The species is regularly sighted in
the vicinity of Long Island and Brier Island. r~ajoritems of diet are
likely to be squid, herring, and mackerel. The White-beaked dolphin
may also occur in the Bay of Fundy approaches, but its presence has yet
to be confirmed by a specimen.

-....,

PILOT WHALE
A school of about 30 animals near Bliss Island was recorded and
filmed by University of Guelph workers within a few yards of shore in
August 1969, following reports of an unusually heavy run of squid into
the Quoddy region. A school of small whales, believed to be pilots,
were reported by several people to us during early July 1979, about half
way between the Wolves Islands and the northern tip of Grand Manan.
Estimates of the number varied from 75-120 animals. July-August 1979
was another period during which abnormally strong runs of squid occurred.
Smaller schools have been reported to us from the vicinity of Brier
Island, Nova Scotia in 1975 and 1976. This species does not seem to be
a resident or regular visitor to the Bay of Fundy.

52

4.2

EXISTING LEVELS OF CONTAMINATI8N IN CETACEANS IN THIS REGION

WHICH ALREADY PUT THEM AT RISK

One of the reasons that the present authors cannot favour the
proposed development at Eastport is that for nearly a decade we have
been studying the levels of various organic and inorganic contaminants
-j n rna ri ne mamma 1s and other upper troph i cleve -, ani rna 1s of thi s
region.
Studies published to date have been summarized in section 4.4.
Work on PCB levels in harbour porpoise, all organochlorine compounds
in several species of seabird and their main food species, and heavy
metals in seabirds, are still in progress.
In tissues of harbour porpoise we have found DDT levels in excess
of 500 p.p.m., PCB's in excess of 200 p.p .m. (both in blubber), together
with significant quantities of HCB's and chlordanes. In the liver of
this species mercury levels of 90 p.p.m. have been recorded in some
specimens, and in a few animals, brain levels of about 8 p.p.m. - close
to those at which one might expect, on the basis of clinal studies on
other mammals, that some symptoms of Hg poisoning might start to mani
fest themselves.
In pelagic shearwaters which carry out most of their vital summer
migratory feedin~ between Cape Cod and Newfoundland, DDT levels in fat
frequently exceeded 50 p.p.m., and PCB levels frequently were in excess
of 100 p.p.rn. (Gaskin et al. 1978). Significant traces of dieldrin,
oxychlordane, mirex and HCB were also found in these birds.
At present we have no idea of the synergistic effects these com
pounds can have when ingested together, even though the deleterious
effects of a number have been examined individually with reference to
other, terrestrial s~ecies of bird. The development of another major
industrial complex in this region is something to be avoided at all
costs. This general region is crucial feeding ground for a large frac
tion of the mammal and bird populations of the eastern seaboard.
Controls on industrial and agricultural pollutants entering the sea are
still very limited. We are totally opposed to developments which will
serve to increase the amount of potentially highly to xic petroleum
related compounds entering the marine food chain, to join the organo
chlorines and methylated heavy metal compounds which may already be
putting these populations at risk in this region. There is evidence
that the sizes of the Tern colonies in the vicinity of Cape Cod have
decreased considerably in recent years; some of this can be attributed
to increased human interference with the breeding colonies, but more may
be associated with decreased reproductive success. Many of the compounds
named above have been implicated in one way or another with reproductive
failure in birds and mammals.
One glaring omission in our discussion obviously concerns levels
of such compounds 'i n endangered species of marine mammal; we have had

53

no opportunity. to examine tissues from right, humpback. or even finback

whales from this region. Significant levels of several compounds
however. were found by Addi son et a 1. (1972); these i ncl uded up to 40
p.p.m. of DDT from North Atlantic whale oils (almost certainly all from
finback s) and about 7 p.p.m. of PCB's. If animals from the Bay of Fundy
could be sampled. we expect that PCB levels would be much higher than
those found in animals taken off the coast of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.
The semi-closed circulation of the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of
Maine. discussed at length in Environment Canada Technical Report #428.
and in brief in section 4.0 of the present report. is almost certainly
responsible for facilitating the build-up of a gradient of contaminants
from inside the Bay out to the North Atlantic Ocean. This is a ve}'y
important reason for keeping industrial development of Fundy to a
minimum if environmental quality, and the important fishing industries
are to be maintained. Once a source of contamination is established
within the Bay, the build-up of levels will almost certainly involve net
accumulation from year to year.

54

4.3

ON-GOING STUDIES IN THIS AREA BY CANADIAN RESEARCH WORKERS

At present the University of Guelph research group is the only

Canadian team study ing the cetacean and seabird populations of the
region on a consistent basis. This research is supported by funds
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(formerly National Research Council), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Supplementary funds have been received from time to time from
the Canadian Wildlife Service, Shell Canada, and the Canadian National
Sports~en's Fund.
Studies being carried out at present are concentrated on the
population discrimination~ population dynamics, distributional ecology,
reproductive cycles and energetics of harbour porpoise; distribution,
movements and behavioural ecology of finback, minke, and where possible,
right and humpback whales; and the system dynamics of the interrelation
ships of upper trophic level animals (including seabirds), with their
prey species. The comparative feeding ecology of Shearwaters, often
associated with finback whales, was studied by S.P. Barker (1976)~ and
similar comparative studies of Bonaparte's gulls and Common and Arctic
terns are currently being made by B.M. Braune.

55

4.4

SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH FROM lHIS REGION

Published studies on marine mammals of the Bay of Fundy can be

summarized as follows. There are some useful allusions in eastern
U.S., and canadian regional reviews (Sergeant and Fisher, 1957;
Mansfield, 1967; Sergeant, Mansfield and Beck, 1970; Katona, 1975;
Katona et al. 1975" Le athen ~ood et a1. 1976). In a much earlier paper
Gilpin (1875) reviewed the smal l cetaceans known to occur off Nova
Scotia and in the Bay of Fundy. Fisher and Harrison (1970) published
some data and useful speculation on the reproductive cycle of the
harbour porpoise, largely based on specimens collected in the 1950's.
Schevi11, Watkins and Ray (1969) described phonation of harbour porpoise
temporarily held in captivity in the vicinity of Pendleton1s Passage,
Passamaquoddy Bay. Preliminary results of long-term studies by the
University of Guelph group on DDT, dieldrin, PCBls, mercury, mirex, and
other pollutants have been published (Gaskin et al. 1971, 1972, 1973,
1976, 1979). Some data concerning predation on Ha rbour porpoise by
white shark were published by Arnold (1973). The structure of the
stomach of this species, and the nature of its diet and feeding habits
in this region were published by Smith (1972) and Smith and Gaskin
(1974). Aspects of diet and energetics of cetaceans have been discussed
by Brodie (1975) and Gaskin (1978). Details of functional anatomy of
the locomotor system of Harbour porpoises have been recently published
by Smith, Brown and Gaskin (1976), the structure of the heart and
coronary system by Rowlatt and Gaskin (1975) and Halina and Gaskin
(1978), the vascular system of the liver by Hilton and Gaskin (1978),
and renal morphology by Hedges, Gaskin and Smith (1979). The prolific
lungworm parasites of Harbour porpoise were studied by Arnold and Gaskin
(1975), and the problem of age determination by Gaskin and Blair (1977) .
Thesis work~ yet to be published in primary literature by the University
of Guelph group includes a study on the morphology of the adrenal of the
harbour porpoise (Louisy, 1973), and the histology of the parathyroid
and consideration of its role in calcium metabolism (Mertens, 1975), and
the efficiency of locomotion and energetics by Yasui (1978).
Considerable attention has also been focussed on the ecology of
the speci es. Pre1iminary results of movements revealed by radi 0
telemetric studies were pUblished by Gaskin, Smith and Watson (1975).
Watson (1976) studied the behaviour and distributional ecology of harbour
porpoises in the Fish Harbour area of Deer Island. A detailed review and
bibliography of the species was published by Gaskin, Arnold and Blair
(1974), and the morphometrics of Pacific, Atlantic and Baltic Harbour
porpoise populations were analyzed by Yurick (1977). The dynamics of
harbour porpoise ecology in the Quoddy region are currently being
studied by D.B. Yurick . A preliminary analysis of population size and
seasonal changes in density was published by Gaskin (1977). Some data
on the baleen whales of the Inner Quoddy sub-region were published by
Arnold and Gaskin (1972), and further discussion of feeding in the Brier
Island region by Finback and Minke whales can be found in the paper by
Gaski n (1976).

56

5.0

REFERENCES CITED

Addison, R.F., M.E. Zinck, & R.G. Ackman. 1972. Residues of organo
chlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in some
commercially produced Canadian marine oils. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada 29: 349-355.
Arnold, P.W. 1972. Predation on harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena,
by a white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada 29: 1213-4.
Arnold, P.l~., & D.E. Gaskin. 1972. Sight records of right wha l es
(Eubalaena glacialis) and finback whales (Balaenoptera physalus)
from the lower Bay of Fundy. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29: 1477
78.
Arnold, P.W., & D.E. Gaskin. 1975. Lungworms (Metastrongyloidea,
Pseudaliidae) of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Can. J.
Zool. 53: 713-735.
Barker, S.P. 1976. Comparative feeding ecology of Puffinus (Order
Procellariformes) in the Bay of Fundy. M.Sc. Thesis, University
of Guelph
Brown, R.G.B., S.P. Barker, & D.E. Gaskin. 1979. Daytime surface
swarming by Me anycti hanes norvegica (M. Sars) (Crustacea,
Euphausiacea off Brier Island, Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Zool.
57: in press.
Brownell, R.R. 1971. "Whales, Dolphins and Oil Pollution." pp. 225
275 (chapter 12) in: Biological and Oceanographic Survey of the
Santa Barbara Channel Oil Spi l l , I. Biology and Bacteriology,
D. Straughan (editor), Alan Hancock Foundation Publication,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Fisher, H.D., & R.J. Harrison. 1970. Reproduction in the common
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) of the North Atlantic. J. Zool.
London 161: 471-486.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Department of the Environment, Halifax,
Canada. Summary of physical, biological, socioeconomic and other
factors relevant to potential oil spills in the Passamaquoddy
region of the Bay of Fundy. Tech. Rept. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
428: 1-229.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations "Mammals in
the Seas: Vol. I", Proceedings of the working groups at the
Scientific Consultation on Marine Mammals, Bergen, Norway.
September 1976, FAO Publications, Rome, 264 pp.
Gaskin, D.E. 1976'. Evolution, Zoogeography, and Ecology of Cetacea.
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 14: 247-346.

57

Gaskin, D.E. 1977. Harbour porpoise Phocoena 2hocoena (L.) in the

western approaches to the Bay of Fundy 1969-75. Rep. Int. Whal.
Commn. 27: 487-492.
Gaskin, D.E. 1978. Form and function in the digestive tract and
associated organs in Cetacea, with a consideration of metabolic
rates and specific energy budgets. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann.
Rev. 16:31~ -345.
Gaskin, D.E., P.W. Arnold, & B.A. Blair. 1974. Phocoena phocoena L.
t~amma1ian Species.
Soc. t~ammal. NS 42: 1-8.
Gaskin, D.E., & B.A. Blair . 1977. Age determination of harbour porpoise,
Phocoena phocoena (L.), in the western North Atlantic. Can. J.
Zoo 1. 55: 18-30.
Gaskin, D.E., R. Frank, M. Holdrinet, K. Ishida, C.J. \;Jalton, & M.
Smith. 1973. Mercury, DDT and PCB in harbour seals (Phoca
vitulina) from the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada 30: 471-475.
Gaskin, D.E., M. Holdrinet, & R. Frank. 1971. Organochlorine pesticide
residues in harbour porpoises from the Bay of Fundy region.
Nature 233: 49 9-500.
Gaskin, D.E., M. Ho1drinet, & R. Frank. 1976. Five year study of DDT
levels in harbour porpoises in the Bay of Fundy, 1969-1973.
lnternat i ona1 Conference on f1ari ne Hamma 1s , sponsored by FAD,
at Bergen, Norway, August-September 1976, 4 pp., 2 figs.
Gaskin, D.E., M. Holdrinet, & R. Frank. 1978. Organochlorine residues
in shearwaters from the approaches to the Bay of Fundy. Arch.
Environm. Contam. Toxico1. 7: 505-51 3.
Gaskin, D.E., K. Ishida, & R. Frank. 1972. Mercury in harbour porpoises
(Phoeoena phocoena) from the Bay of Fundy region. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada 29: 1644-1646.
Gaskin, D.., G.J.D. Smith,' & A.P. ~vatson. 1975. Preliminary study of
movements of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Bay of
Fundy, using radio telemetric methods. Can. J. Zool. 53: 1466
1971.
Gaskin, D.E., K.l. Stonefield, P. Suda, & R. Frank. 1979. Changes in
mercury levels in Harbour porpoises from the Bay of Fundy, Canada,
and adjacent waters during 1969-1977. Arch. Ehvironm. Contam.
Toxieol. 8 (in press).
Gilpin, J.B. 1875. On the smaller cetaceans inhabiting the Bay of Fundy
and shores of Nova Scotia. Proc. Nova Scotia Inst. Nat. Sci.
4: 21- 34.

58

Halina, W.G~, & D.E. Gaskin. 1978. The coronary system of the harbour
porpoise Phocoena phocoena (L.). Can. J. Zool. 56: 1643-1653.
Hedges, N.A., D.E. Gaskin, & G.J.D. Smith. 1979. Renal morphology and
renal vascular system of the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena
(L.). Can. J. Zool. 57: 868-875.
He ss , W. N. 1973. l he "Amoco Cadiz" oil spill: a preliminary scienti
fi c report. U.S. Department of Commerce Publication, 133 pp.
Hilton, J.W., & D.E. Gaskin. 1978. Comparative volumes and vascular
microanatomy of the intrahepatic venou s system of the harbour
porpoise , Phocoena phocoena (L.). Can. J. Zool. 56: 2292-2298.
International Whaling Commission.
1977, 522 pp.

Twenty-seventh Annual Report, London, .

Katona, S.K. 1975. Whales in the Gulf of ~1aine, 1975. Gulf of Maine
Whale Sighting Network, College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor,
Nai ne. 2 pp.
Katona, S.K., D. Richardson, & R. Hazard. 1975. A Field Guide to the
Whales and Seals of the Gulf of Maine. Maine Coast Printers,
Rockland, Maine. 97 p.
W.W. 1970. The influence of crude oils on fish fry. pp. 315
317 in: Marine Pollution and Sea Life, FAD and Fishing New Books
Publication, London, 624 pp.

Kuehnhold~

Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, & H.E. Winn. 1976.

and porpoises of the western North Atlantic:
identification. NOAS Tech. Rep., NMRS ei re .

vJhales, dolphins
A guide to their
396: 176 p.

Lien, J.,& N. Merdsoy . 1979. The humpback is not over the hump.
Natural History 88: 46-49.
Louisy, M.V. 1973. The anatomy and histology of the adrenal glands of
Phocoena phocoena L. M.Sc. thesis, University of Guelph. 97 p.
MacKay, A.A. 1973. A comparative resource analysis of the Deer Island
and Grand Manan Archipelagos, Bay of Fundy. Marine Research
Associates, Final Report to Parks Canada, 177 pp.
Mertens, G.A. 1975. Morphology and histology of the parathyroid gland
of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena L.). M.Sc. thesis,
Un ivers i ty of Guel ph. 70 p.
Mironov, O.G. 1970. The effect of oil pollution on flora and fauna of
the Black Sea. pp. 222-224 in: Marine Pollution and Sea Life,
FAD and Fishing News Books, London, 624 pp.
o

Mitchell, .D. 1973. Draft report on humpbacks taken under special

scientific permit, eastern Canadian land stations, 1969-71. Rep.
I nt. Wha 1. Commn. 20: 11 4- 12 9.

59

Mitchell, E.D. 1974. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and

other whale stocks. p. 108-169 in: The Vihale Problem (\l1.E.
Schev;ll, editors), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
419 p.
.Neave, D.J. & B.S. Wright. 1968. Seasonal mig rations of the harbour
porpoise (Phocoena pho coena) and other Cetacea in the Bay of
Fundy. J. Mammal. 49: 259 -264.
Reeves, R.R., J.G. Mead, &S. Katona. 1978. The right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis) in the wes te rn North Atlantic. Rep. Int. \lJhal. Commn.
28: 303-312.
Rowlatt, U.M., & D.E. Gaskin. 1975. Function al anatomy of the heart
of the harbour porpoi se Phocoena phocoena (L.). J. Morph.
146: 479-494.
Schafer, W. 1972. Ecology and paleoecology of marine environments.
Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 568 pp.
Schevill, W.E. 1968. Sight records of Phocoena phocoena and of
cetaceans in general. J. Mammal. 49: 794-796.
Schevill, W.E., W.A . Watkins, & C. Ray. 1969. Click structure in the
porpoise, Phocoena phocoena . J. Mammal. 50: 721-728.
Sergeant, D.E., & H.D. Fisher. 1957. The smaller Cetacea of eastern
Canadian waters. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 14: 83-115.
Sergeant, D.E., A.W. Mansfield, &B. Beck. 1970 . Inshore recor ds of
Cetacea for eastern Canada, 1949-68. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
27: 1903-1915.
Smith, G.J.D. 1972 .. The stomach of the harbour porpoise Phocoena
phocoena L. Can. J. Zool.50: 1611-1616.
Smith, G.J.D., K.W. Browne, & D.E. Gaskin. 1976. Functional myology of
the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (L.). Can. J. Zool.
54: 716-729.
Smith, G.J.D., & D.E. Gaskin. 1974. The diet of harbour porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena) in coastal waters of eastern Canada, with
special reference t o the Bay of Fundy region. Can. J. Zool.
52: 772-782.
Smith, G.J.D., D.E. Gaskin, & D.J. Clow. in prep. Fine-scale surface
water temperature patterns in the Quoddy region of the Bay of
Fundy, 1977-78, and the correlation of feeding distributions of
sea mammals and birds with certain phenomena. Manuscript,
University of Guelph.

Watkins, W.A., &W.E. Schevill. 1976.

rattle. J. f1ammal. 57: 58-66.

Rigth whale feeding and baleen

60

Watson, A.P. 1976. Behaviour and distributional ecology of harbour

porpoise in the Fish Harbour region of southern New Brunswick.
M.Sc. thesis, University of Guelph. 91 p.
Whitehead, H., P. Harcourt, & K. Ingham. 1979. The baleen whales in
the ecosystem based upon the spawning capelin near the Bay de
Verde Pen -insula, Newfoundland. Pub l i cat ic.i pre-print in
manuscript, Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, England .
Winn, H.E., Edel, R.K., &A.G. Taruski. 1975. Population estimate of
humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the West Indies by
visual and acoustic techniques. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
32: 499-506.
Yurick, D.B. 1977. Populations, subpopulations, and zoogeography of
the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (L.). M.Sc. thesis,
University of Guelph, 148 pp.