**[Southern Resident Killer Whale ]{.smallcaps}**

**[Research Plan Workshop]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}**

**[Hosted by]{.smallcaps}[:]{.smallcaps}**

**[Northwest Fisheries Science Center]{.smallcaps}**

**[Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ]{.smallcaps}**

**[Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada]{.smallcaps}**

**[[S]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[ummary
Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[J]{.smallcaps}[anuary 19 ]{.smallcaps}[--]{.smallcaps}[ 23,
2004]{.smallcaps}

[Watertown Hotel]{.smallcaps}

[Seattle, Washington]{.smallcaps}

I.  Workshop
    Overview...............................................................\...
    3

II. Opening Plenary
    Session.............................................................
    5

III. Prey
     Abundance.......................................................................
     8

IV. Vessel Interactions (Behavior and
    Energetics)....................................\... 16

V.  Prey
    Selection..........................................................................
    25

VI. Winter
    Distribution...................................................................
    34

VII. Prey Quality (Size/Fat
     Content)...................................................\... 43

VIII. Prey Quality
      (Contaminants).......................................................
      \... 49

IX. Vessel Interactions
    (Acoustics)\...\......................................................
    56

X.  Closing Plenary
    Session............................................................\...
    65

**Appendices**

A -- List of Participants

B -- Workshop Agenda

C -- NWFSC, DFO, and WDFW Funded FY2003 SRKW Research Projects

D -- Research Method Criteria Scoresheet

The significant decrease in the population of Southern Resident killer
whales (SRKWs) in the Puget Sound has both the general public and
scientific community deeply concerned. As part of the Conservation Plan
development associated with the May 2003 "Depleted" listing under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Northwest Fisheries Science
Center (NWFSC) is developing a comprehensive three-to-five year research
plan that will be used as the basis for focusing research efforts to
investigate the decline of the SRKWs. The NWFSC, in partnership with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), held a weeklong workshop for
approximately forty scientists in January 2004 to help identify the key
scientific questions and methods to address the questions to aid in the
recovery and conservation of SRKWs \[See Appendix A for a list of
workshop participants\]. The workshop results are intended to assist in
development of the longer term research plan.

The workshop built on two previous workshops held in May 2003 where many
of the same scientists convened to develop research questions relevant
to the effects of vessel interactions and limitations in prey quality
and abundance on SRKWs. Priorities established at these workshops helped
inform funding decisions for research during the summer, fall, and
winter of 2003.

With the content developed at the May 2003 workshops as a foundation,
the January 2004 workshop was convened with the following objectives in
mind:

1.  Define research questions and viable methodologies for conducting
    research on SRKWs.

2.  Prioritize research questions and methods for development of a
    three-to-five-year, long-range research plan for SRKWs.

Participants spent five days working toward these objectives \[See
Appendix B for a copy of the workshop agenda\]. The workshop was
comprised of three days of breakout sessions with half-day plenary
sessions to open and close the week. On opening day, representatives
from NWFSC, the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Regional Office, DFO, and WDFW
presented their perspectives on the purpose and value of the workshop as
well as the status of SRKW research in their respective organizations.
Results from the May 2003 workshops were then presented, followed by
brief presentations of 22 current research projects related to the SRKWs
\[See Appendix C\]. The day closed with a description of the format for
breakout sessions over the following three days.

Seven day-long breakout sessions were held to address the following
topics:

-   Prey Abundance

-   Vessel Interactions (Behavior and Energetics)

-   Prey Selection

-   Winter Distribution

-   Prey Quality (Contaminants)

-   Prey Quality (Size/Fat Content)

-   Vessel Interactions (Acoustics)

A similar format was used for all the breakout sessions. Each session
began with a 30-minute presentation regarding the current state of the
knowledge for that topic, followed by a brief discussion about the
presentation. Next, research questions were brainstormed building off
those developed at the May 2003 workshops. A comprehensive list of
questions was then prioritized according to the questions' ability to
address risk factors, management needs, and significant data gaps. The
remainder of the day was spent identifying, describing, and prioritizing
research methods for the highest priority questions. Each question was
addressed individually. Methods were first brainstormed, then discussed,
and finally prioritized using criteria developed by NWFSC, WDFW, and DFO
\[See Appendix D\]. At the beginning of each day following the breakout
sessions (i.e., Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday), the full group
reconvened briefly to receive short summary presentations on the
deliberations in each breakout session. A one-page overview of each
session was distributed to all participants.

At the conclusion of the workshop, the full group came back together for
a half day to synthesize priorities across all topics and make
recommendations for the long-term research plan. The discussion began by
highlighting key ongoing studies that did not fall under any of the
specific categories discussed during the workshop and identifying data
gaps and emerging technologies that should be considered as a research
plan is constructed. The participants were then divided into four
smaller groups, each tasked with creating priorities for the long-term
research plan as if they were the decision-makers. The group reconvened
to hear each small group present their "mock" research plans, and the
day closed with acknowledgements and next steps from representatives of
NWFSC, WDFW, and DFO.

The first draft of the research plan is scheduled to be finished in
mid-2004. A report summarizing the workshop deliberations is presented
below. It is organized by breakout session topics and includes the
session reports as well as more detailed summaries of the breakout
session deliberations. In addition, summaries of the opening and closing
plenary sessions are included.

**[A.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[Welcome and
Introductions]{.smallcaps}**

The 2004 Research Plan Workshop opened on Monday, January 19^th^, 2004
with a welcome from Usha Varanasi, Science Director, NWFSC, and opening
comments from Linda Jones, Deputy Science Director, NWFSC. Dr. Jones
then asked all workshop participants to briefly introduce themselves.
She also introduced the facilitation team, Katherine Friedman, LDA, and
Paul De Morgan, RESOLVE, who gave an overview of the proposed workshop
format and ground rules.

**[B.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[Agency Perspectives on
Workshop]{.smallcaps}**

After initial introductions, representatives from each of the hosting
agencies shared their agencies' perspective on the workshop and other
agency activities related to the SRKW population.

*Northwest Fisheries Science Center (Linda Jones)*

Linda Jones began by giving background on the impetus for the workshop.
As she explained, killer whales have been important in the Northwest for
centuries in native cultures. Attention towards them increased during
the mid-1970s when there were controversies about removing individuals
from the population for captive display. In the mid-1990s, the
population experienced a sharp decline to only 78 individuals. The
National Marine Fisheries Service was petitioned to list killer whales
under the Endangered Species Act in 2001, but instead listed them under
the MMPA. At that time, it became important to develop a long range
research plan that would emphasize the most important factors to address
in order to protect and restore the population.

Dr. Jones then gave a brief overview of data gaps and risk factors
previously identified as important areas of research. The data gaps she
discussed included taxonomy, winter distribution, and prey habits. Risk
factors mentioned were contaminants, changes in prey, and vessel
interactions. She encouraged the group to build off the solid foundation
of research which already exists to identify high priority research
questions and the best methods to help answer them.

*NOAA Fisheries, NW Regional Office (Lynne Barre)*

Lynne Barre, representing NOAA's Northwest Regional Office, presented
information on the Conservation Plan that NOAA Fisheries is required to
develop for SRKW under the MMPA as a result of their "depleted" listing
in May 2003. According to that designation, the plan is required to
include objective, measurable criteria which determine a recovered
population, a description of site-specific management actions necessary
for recovery, and estimates of time and cost to carry out the
recommended recovery measures. In addition, several components typically
included in conservation plans were described. Two of these components
are a discussion of critical information gaps and a discussion of
research and management actions for recovery. Ms. Barre indicated the
products of this workshop will be of value for these sections of the
Conservation Plan.

Ms. Barre then outlined the process for creating the Conservation Plan,
and clarified the distinction between the workshops held by the Regional
Office versus those held by NWFSC. The Regional Office's workshops, as
she explained, aim to identify management actions while the NWFSC
workshops identify research priorities and methods. When scientific
questions arise in the Regional Office's workshops, they are given to
NWFSC. Likewise, research results and management suggestions from NWFSC
workshops are given to the Regional Office. Research results guide
management actions and the long term research plan is a critical part of
the Conservation Plan.

*Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Marilyn Joyce)*

Marilyn Joyce of Canada's DFO spoke about Canada's Species at Risk Act
(SARA) and the conservation and research activities that have resulted
from killer whales being listed under the Act in June 2003. Ms. Joyce
also stressed the importance of coordinating across borders because SRKW
are a single population of animals and it is important that the public
see consistency.

Ms. Joyce explained the process of an animal becoming listed under SARA
and the protections and required actions that result. Once an animal is
listed, automatic prohibitions come into place and recovery planning
begins. The recovery plan consists of two stages, the recovery strategy
and recovery action plan. The strategy includes a description of the
species' needs and threats, identification of critical habitat,
population and distribution objectives, strategies for recovery, and
timeframes. The action plan, of which there may be more than one,
includes identification of species' critical habitat and measures to
protect it, measures to be taken to implement the recovery strategy, and
an evaluation of socio-economic costs and benefits of implementation.

For the Northern and Southern killer whale populations, the first
recovery strategy was being drafted in January 2004. After a technical
workshop, public and First Nations consultation, several redrafting
periods, and a peer review, the recovery strategy is projected to be
complete in March 2005. In the meantime, research, monitoring, and
public education initiatives will continue to work towards understanding
and protecting the killer whale populations.

*Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Harriet Allen) *

Harriet Allen, WDFW, emphasized the need for all agencies to collaborate
and work towards common goals. At the same time, Washington State is
focused on a separate process to determine whether the killer whale will
be listed. "Endangered" status is being recommended, and a final
document will be released at the April commission meeting in Spokane. If
"endangered" status is determined, they too will be required to develop
a recovery plan. It is their hope that by the time that happens, a
recovery plan with common strategies and issues will have already been
created for the SRKW population. Ms. Allen reinforced the importance of
the research questions and methods that would be developed at the
workshop, and highlighted the great opportunities that exist for
partnership and a common resolution.

**[C.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[Current Research]{.smallcaps}**

The next portion of the day was dedicated to briefing participants on
recent and current research relevant to SRKWs. Dawn Noren began by
providing an overview of the two workshops that NWFSC held in May 2003.
Prey relationships and vessel interactions were the topics, chosen
because they had been identified previously as possible risk factors for
SRKWs. The workshops aimed to identify important research questions.
Groups brainstormed questions, prioritized, and then further refined the
high-priority questions. Where time allowed, they also identified
potential methods to conduct the research. Requests for proposals for
SRKW research projects were then advertised by NWFSC based on the
questions and methods developed during the workshops.

The priorities used to determine which proposals received funding in
FY2003 were explained by Brad Hanson. In FY 2003, NWFSC received
\$750,000 from Congress specifically for research on killer whales. The
2000 SRKW Workshop and 2002 Status Review provided the basis for
identifying the primary information needs for SRKWs. Two categories of
information needs were identified: risk factors and data gaps. Within
those categories, projects were further divided into four primary
topics: taxonomy and winter distribution under the category of data
gaps, and vessel interactions and prey relationships under the risk
factor category. For FY2003 22 projects were funded, with relatively
equal support among topics. In selecting projects to fund, the team
relied on information from the May 2003 workshops as well as giving
priority to studies that continued ongoing short-term or longitudinal
research, analyzed archived data sets, and employed of non-invasive
techniques.

Following the introduction of the research, there were brief
presentations on 22 research projects. First, those who received funding
from NWFSC presented their research, followed by projects that were
supported by other agencies and organizations. Several of the
five-minute presentations were accompanied by corresponding one-page
summaries of the research in the meeting binders. Projects which were
funded by NWFSC in FY2003 but not presented at the workshop were also
summarized in the binders \[see Appendix C\]. Several brief question and
answer periods allowed for limited discussion of the projects.

At the end of the day, Mr. De Morgan and Ms. Friedman briefly explained
the format for the rest of the workshop, and the participants adjourned
to a reception.

Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Facilitator: Paul De Morgan

Recorder: Dana Gunders

Participants: Ken Balcomb, Paul Becker, Don Croll, Fred Felleman, John
Ford, Joe Gaydos, Brad Hanson, Eli Holmes, John Horne, Steven Jeffries,
Peggy Krahn, Shannon McCluskey, Sandie O'Neill, Bruce Sanford, Laurie
Weitkamp, Gina Yitalo

The Prey Abundance breakout session began with a 30-minute presentation
by Bruce Sanford of the WDFW regarding the current state of the
knowledge followed by a brief discussion about the presentation.

The morning was spent prioritizing research questions. Research
questions were brainstormed building off those developed at the May 2003
workshops. The comprehensive list of questions was then prioritized
according to the questions' ability to address risk factors, management
needs, and significant data gaps.

As part of initial discussion, the group agreed to focus on known prey
and known areas where killer whales forage in considering methods,
recognizing they would assess potential prey within the Prey Selection
breakout session (which took place later in the week after the Prey
Abundance session). They identified the overarching question related to
prey abundance as, "Are Southern Residents food limited?" However, as
this question was too broad, more specific research questions were
developed to inform research needs.

The remainder of the day was spent identifying, describing, and
prioritizing research methods for the highest priority questions. Each
question was addressed individually. Methods were first brainstormed,
then discussed, and finally prioritized using criteria developed by
NWFSC, WDFW, and DFO \[see Appendix D\]. A one-page report from the
breakout session was presented to the full group the following morning.
Below is a copy of the one-page overview followed by a more
comprehensive summary of the deliberations around the methods for each
question.

**[[Prey Abundance ]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Session
Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Research Question 1: **What is the temporal and spatial distribution
and abundance of known and potential prey relative to SRKW distribution?
\[vote count\]

[Method 1]{.underline} -- Scale-dependent metadata analysis (e.g.,
salmon data across summer feeding range) \[15\]

[Method 2]{.underline} -- Both mobile and stationary acoustic survey
\[6\] }

[Method 3]{.underline} -- Mobile acoustic survey guided by
historical/current fish/KW data (active) \[3\] } \[11\]

[Method 4]{.underline} -- Stationary acoustic survey (active and/or
passive) \[2\] }

[Method 5]{.underline} -- Chemical analysis to examine relative prey
location and relative prey identification and killer whale diet \[6\]

*\[The group agreed to focus on known prey and areas in considering
methods, recognizing they would assess potential prey within the Prey
Selection breakout session.\]*

**Research Question 2: **Is there a correlation between prey dynamics
and population dynamics?

** **[Method 1]{.underline}** -- **Analyzing existing data \[16\]

** **[Method 2]{.underline}** -- **Continue/expand collecting
demographic data

**Research Question 3: **Are trends (across time/regions) in body and/or
behavioral condition consistent with food limitation?

[Method 1]{.underline}** -- **Mine existing individual and group
behavioral data \[13\]

[Method 1]{.underline}** -- **Gross physical condition evaluation
(remote - photo) \[13\]

[Method 3]{.underline}** -- **Direct physical condition evaluation
\[10\]

[Method 4]{.underline}** -- **Blowhole analysis \[4\]

[Method 5]{.underline}** -- **Increase capacity/likelihood to obtain
killer whale scat \[2\]

**Other Research Questions:**

-   What is the correlation between prey and environmental conditions?

-   When does prey scarcity have maximum impact on reproductive success?

-   Are SRKW food limited?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Is there a time of salmonid prey scarcity?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Have there been major changes in the salmonid production of the
    greater Puget Sound area over last 100 years?

**[[Prey Abundance Session Summary]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

The group agreed this question was at the heart of the prey abundance
topic. There was some concern however, that this question included four
questions and that the questions should be more specific. It was
suggested that fish experts answer the prey aspect while killer whale
experts answer the distribution aspect and then correlate the responses
(as explained in Question 2).

***Method 1: ** **Scale-dependent m**etadata analysis (e.g., salmon data
across summer feeding range) ***

[Specific Topics to Address]{.underline}

-   Research Northern Resident killer whales (NRKWs) and Alaskan
    Resident populations to learn about the SRKW population.

    -   All seem to be doing the same thing, but eating different fish.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Behavior of the prey and prey aggregations.

-   Potential prey populations that SRKW may be relying on during other
    times of the year.

-   Pool run sizes up and down the coast, look at run reconstruction
    (are abundance/size changing over time) and also look at coded wire
    tag recoveries. Look at spatial horizontal distribution.

-   Identify geographical and temporal occurrences where salmonid
    abundance is limiting to killer whales.

-   Which specific salmon runs would be limiting?

-   Past and present temporal and spatial distribution of abundance of
    known and potential prey relative to SRKW distribution.

-   Changes in prey size (seems salmon have declined in size, but not
    number).

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Understand associations, and then extrapolate to other areas.

-   Need to set bounds and refine the question.

-   It is scale dependent.

-   Need to have some index for determining whether information is
    useful for informing what the whales are feeding on. Harvest
    terminal ranges.

-   Taking annual sums of biomass is fairly irrelevant because whales
    may not be able to exploit that year round.

-   Shannon McCluskey is doing a similar study.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   If a major range distribution shift is identified, validity could be
    questioned because whales could have gone undetected.

-   Ranging to suboptimal habitat is something that animals do when they
    are stressed or food supply is short. If they are ranging far to
    find the same prey, that is different than ranging to switch prey.
    This is probably related to habitat.

***Method 2: ** **Both mobile and stationary acoustic survey***

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Deployment of acoustic assessments is essential. Combining them with
    current catch data and historical records would be helpful.

-   Mobile and stationary surveys target two different data streams.

-   To have one without the other lessens their usefulness:

    -   Some in the group disagreed.

***Method 3: ** **Mobile acoustic survey guided by historical/current
fish/killer whale data (active)** ***

-   Conducted over one or two weeks.

***Method 4: ** **Stationary acoustic survey (active and/or passive)***

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Active component: Multi-beam echo sounders. Passive component:
    hydrophones. Hydrophone detection range could be much greater than
    echo sounder range. Passive system takes some gearing up.

-   Number of units to deploy: A lot, depends on depth.

    -   Multi-beams have 180 degree swath and cover about 200 meters.

    -   For Harrow strait, half a dozen (does not give continuous
        coverage).

    -   Number of units is function of beam angle, power issues, etc...

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cost: \$100-150k/package.

-   Duration: Stationary would be duration of months, ideally up to a
    year.

-   Permits would be necessary, but can piggy back on existing stations.

-   Can use moored sensors. With movement for underwater observatories,
    there might be additional infrastructure to provide observation
    points in the next 3-5 yrs.

-   Platforms do not require human presence.

-   It is possible to hook up a passive system to trigger the active
    system.

    -   Some would advise against it. It is just as interesting to know
        when fish are there and whales are not as to know the converse.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Active surveys, series of moored instruments looking up, picket
    fences of hydrophones and tagged fish coming through, giving an
    indicator of who is traveling where.

-   'Representative' spots: Select a place that seems to be a good
    indicator and put a passive acoustic and active acoustic. One
    mooring could be used as proxy for whole bay.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   Sounders potentially impact behavior and can be high (\~180db).

-   Differentiating between species using acoustics is very active area
    of research. Would not want to use as sole determinant, but getting
    better all the time (by combining size and vertical placement info).

***Method 5: ** **C**hemical analysis to examine relative prey location
and relative prey identification and killer whales diet***

[Data currently obtainable from chemical analysis:]{.underline}

-   Contaminants.

-   Onshore versus offshore via isotope analyses

-   Trophic level via isotope analyses.

-   Benthic/pelagic (from sulfur).

-   Fatty acids.

    -   Being developed to give more specific info on groups of
        salmonids.

    -   Trying to distinguish transient versus resident killer whales.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Skin.

    -   Genetics.

    -   Reproductive state.

    -   Isotopes to determine trophic levels and relative location to
        the shore.

    -   Provides diet data for at least 2 months. Ideal time would be to
        get them right after winter (early spring).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Differentiation among stocks of prey and salmon species

-   Isotopes will give trophic level, but not specific prey.

-   Identify both what they are eating and where.

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Any biopsy taken should try to get maximum information possible.

-   From Alaskan samples, methods are developed and have a lot of
    baseline information.

-   Fish is time consuming, but that is already funded.

-   Sample size: Whatever is possible. Under 20. Maybe 10 one year and
    10 another.

-   Cost:

    -   Added cost, not much because it is already being done.

    -   Getting money to do biopsy samples on whales is not easy.

    -   Currently getting biopsy samples as part of genetics work (on
        the Alaskan ones).

    -   Relatively inexpensive, except for PR and political expenses.

    -   Genetics would share cost, and specific whales would be chosen.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If you can get adequate signatures, or relative ID, then it would be
    worthwhile.

-   Invasive work needs a state permit.

-   Once you get permits, the process is relatively quick. If you
    already have permits, you would not want to proceed without
    consensus from scientific community that it is worthwhile.

-   Problem with original samples is that they predate current method
    development. So these have only have been analyzed for contaminants
    and a few have been analyzed for fatty acids.

-   A lot of work with isotopes is ongoing.

    -   WDFW, in collaboration with NOAA NWFSC, will be doing stable
        isotope data for all prey they have collected.

    -   Don Croll looked at carbon ratios from blubber samples of whales
        and compare to fish carbon and nitrogen ratios. A comparison
        across different killer whale populations could inform
        extrapolation.

***Other Methods Mentioned***

This question was identified as a priority because the group felt that
correlating prey and population dynamics could provide an opportunity to
take advantage of the excellent data that exists for the SRKW population
and help answer the question "Is prey limitation the problem?"

***Method 1: ** **Analyzing existing data***

***Method 2: ** **Continue/expand collecting demographic data***

*\[These methods only look at killer whale population dynamics since
prey dynamics were covered in Research Question 1: What is the temporal
and spatial distribution and abundance of known and potential prey
relative to SRKW distribution?\]*

[Specific Topics to Address]{.underline}

-   Population dynamics to examine: age-specific survivorships (broken
    down by sex,), inter-birth duration, age of first reproduction, and
    growth rate.

-   Demographic rates across Alaskan, Northern, Southern residents
    \[*intercommunity*\].

    -   Data for Alaskan residents not as good because of uncertainty of
        relationships.

    -   Increase analyses of Alaskan residents. PDO is supposed to be
        getting worse. Should possibly allocate more money towards
        surveys in Alaska.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Investigate each demographic rate (e.g., calf mortality) and look
    for patterns (e.g., individual, pod, yearly, etc.)
    \[*intracommunity*\].

-   In-depth analysis of life history to understand patterns within
    individual pod.

-   Prey correlation with *increase* in killer whale population as well
    as decline.

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Analyze other studies on marine mammals to support justifiable
    hypotheses.

-   Develop different hypothesis for different problems (different
    predictions with contaminants versus food).

-   Two levels: eliminating hypotheses and finding patterns that are
    consistent.

-   Could use metric of fitness or metric of prey
    distribution/demographics.

-   Use historical data from as early as possible.

[Concerns]{.underline}

***Method 1: ** **Mine existing individual and group behavioral data ***

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Mine existing data, before collecting more, then use trends to
    dictate what data to collect.

    -   If greater time is spent foraging or traveling in winter, then
        intensify focus on that time of year with meta data

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chinook salmon return is very predictable. Is that useful?

-   Direct blubber thickness data seems to be more valuable than remote
    data.

-   Use activity budgets.

    -   Many believe activity budgets have changed over last 20 years.
        Change over the course of a season is apparent.

    -   How do you know percent of time spent foraging?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rich Osborne and Jennifer Marsh are researching this.

-   Dawn Noren is researching dive times.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   Variability exists in data, especially with individuals.

-   A huge gap in time when they are unobserved (winter, night). Huge
    temporal mismatch.

-   This will not directly provide answers or information to help manage
    whales differently.

-   Food limitation is related to the number of successful attacks, not
    just foraging behavior. Therefore, information from activity budgets
    may not provide a complete picture.

-   Given the limited prey information available, it will be difficult
    to identify and/or understand the relationships.

-   Few, if any, studies on marine mammals have actually linked body
    condition with demographic rates.

    -   Steller Sea Lions are one of the best studied mammals on this
        topic, and researchers have encountered difficulties.

***Method 2: ** **Gross physical condition evaluation (remote - photo)
***

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Do remote work utilizing photo IDs.

-   Utilize peanut-head analysis.

    -   Difficult to see subtle weight differences in the measurements
        from photographs. Those seen were in mid-summer and had rapid
        deterioration.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Utilize dorsal fin analysis.

***Method 3: ** **Direct physical condition evaluation***

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Consider using blood work, but have to address how the blood is
    obtained.

-   Ketones from respiratory gases.

-   Get information from captive animals. Analyze animals that become
    anorectic and compare them to wild ones.

-   Blubber depth measurements using ultrasound techniques following
    methods of Michael Moore from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

***Method 4: ** **Respiratory **analysis ***

-   Use petri dish to cover the blowhole and collect respiratory gases
    for analysis

***Method 5: ** **Increase capacity/likelihood to obtain killer whale
s**cat ***

Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2004

Facilitator: Katherine Friedman

Recorder: Julie Mocklin

Participants: David Bain, Robin Baird, Lynne Barre, Mike Bennet, Marilyn
Dalheim, Ed Gerstein, Jim Ha, Linda Jones, Marilyn Joyce, Jennifer
Marsh, John Miller, Dawn Noren, Rich Osborne, Kim Parsons, Jeanette
Thomas, Shaari Unger, Rob Williams, Terrie Williams

The Vessel Interactions (Behavior and Energetics) breakout session began
with a thirty-minute presentation by Rob Williams the University of St.
Andrews, regarding the current state of the knowledge followed by a
brief discussion about the presentation.

The morning was spent with a healthy discussion leading to prioritizing
research questions. Research questions were building off those developed
at the May 2003 workshops. The comprehensive list of questions was then
prioritized according to the questions' ability to address risk factors,
management needs, and significant data gaps.

As part of initial discussion, some members requested that NWFSC endorse
a no-go zone to support research. In addition, even though a separate
workshop on acoustics was planned, participants kept in mind that
acoustics is a part of energetic costs. Further discussion included:

-   What are the energetic costs of behaviors in response to boat
    presence?

-   Are their any differences between pods? And what do these energetic
    costs mean in terms of prey?

In further defining the most important research questions, a number of
people agreed that habituation and tolerance are different and important
and thus need to be looked at separately. In essence, just because an
animal has habituated, does not mean there is not a cost. Comments
included:

-   Habituation has not been addressed with SRKWs and information
    gathered from NRKWs cannot be relied upon to make conclusions for
    SRKWs.

-   Masking zones are not clearly defined yet.

-   Data should be pulled in from other animals to look at habituation.

-   The broader question of "do whales habituate?" should be examined.

-   We are in the long run now. It is already too late to see initial
    responses.

-   If they are already affected, then how do we change or measure
    things in order to make regulations?

-   Need to look at the long-term energetic costs in terms of the
    differences of habituation among the pods and response differences.

Additional discussion of questions included:

-   Are there functional categories of surface behavior? Need to examine
    surface behavior in presence of boats, since they get a noise
    respite at the waters' surface.

-   Need to add temporal component to questions, such as, critical
    periods of time in life history, annual effects, etc

-   What about vessels can be changed?

-   There are different types of vessels and sources of impact. We must
    be careful to not just blame whale watching boats. There is a need
    to broaden our focus (looking at land based activity, aerial,
    identifying types and size and activity).

The remainder of the day was spent identifying, describing, and
prioritizing research methods for the highest priority questions. Each
question was addressed individually. Methods were first brainstormed,
then discussed, and finally prioritized using criteria developed by
NWFSC, WDFW, and DFO \[see Appendix D\]. A one-page report from the
breakout session was presented to the full group the following morning.
Below is a copy of the one-page report followed by a more comprehensive
summary of the deliberations around the methods for each question.

**[[Vessel Interaction (Behavior and Energetics)
Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Research Question 1: **What is it about boats that affect whales?
(type, distance, size, direction, activity - movement/operation, time
duration, density and number of boats).

(Methods 1-3 need to be done in conjunction with each other and
therefore not prioritized)

Method 1 - Controlled Experiments

Method 2 - Land-based Observation

Method 3 - Boat-based Observation* *

Method 4 - Geographic location, Pollution (air quality and exhaust from
boats), and Prey Responses were listed as methods but not discussed at
length.

**Research Question 2:** Do vessels affect whales' ability to find and
capture prey?

**Question 2 Part A**: Does vessel activity affect energy acquisition?

(Methods not prioritized because some need to be done in conjunction)

Method 1 - Underwater/video telemetry

Method 2 - Prey Field Monitoring

Method 3 - Captive Studies

**Question 2 Part B**: Does vessel activity affect energy expenditure?

*(Methods not prioritized because some need to be done in conjunction)*

Method 1 - Captive Studies

Method 2 - Telemetry

Method 3 - Land/Boat-based Observation

Method 4 - Aerial/Boat-based Observation

**Other Research Questions**

-   How is habitat use of SR pods affected by vessel activity?

-   What are the energetic costs of behaviors in response to boat
    presence?

-   What are killer whale energetics?

**[[Vessel Interactions (Behavior and
Energetics)]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**[[ Session Summary]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

The group discussed the best methods/approaches to study what it is
about boats that affect whales. After a healthy dialogue, everyone in
the session agreed that using controlled experiments are essential to
answering this question. Below is a summary of the brainstormed methods
that eventually led to the conclusion to use controlled experiments in
conjunction with Land Based and Boat Based Observation.

[Brainstormed List of Methods]{.underline}:

-   Aerial Videography (from plane).

-   Satellite imagery-linked to observers (multi-beam, side scan,
    retical binoculars, radar, angle boards used as tracking devices).

-   Observers on Whale Watching boats.

-   Setting up permanent land based video/theodolite tracking.

-   Independent boat based, focal follow.

-   Underwater observations.

-   Controlled experiments to tease apart acoustic/non-acoustic vessel
    problems.

-   Use controlled experiments with land based and boat based
    observation and compare methods.

-   On-board recording device-GIS, speed (VMS). This devise is a small
    transmitter that is placed on a vessel and is used to remotely track
    location and activity of vessels (speed differences, leap frogging,
    multiple vessels in one area, etc).

-   Use stationary arrays with and without vessels.

-   Combine group recording devices (dynamic) and CG vessel activity
    with satellite imagery (snapshots).

-   Need "no-boat" zone for controlled experiments (or control of
    boats). Coast Guard-vessel traffic control to maintain "no-boat"
    zone.

-   Group initially thought that historical analysis of ship logs for
    killer whale presence (POPs) was a good idea but then reconsidered
    and decided that there is enough focus on POPs already.

[Discussion on data needs and concerns regarding methods:]{.underline}

-   More information on whale activity/behavior is needed first in order
    to understand vessel impacts.

-   A method is needed that describes vessel activity.

-   The group agreed that controls were needed first, but also agreed
    that this may not be pragmatic in the San Juan Islands.

-   Is it feasible to study animals in two different regions (i.e.,
    NRKWs and SRKWs) and do control studies in that way?

-   It is important to execute land and boat based studies together. It
    is also possible to use land, sea and air.

-   The group agreed that these platforms of observation were important,
    in particular land and sea, and that it was important to use
    controls whenever and wherever possible.

**Methods 1-3 need to be done in conjunction with each other **

***Method 1: Controlled Experiments***

***Method 2: Land-Based Observation***

***Method 3: Boat-Based Observation***

***Method 1: ** **Controlled Experiments ***

[Feasibility]{.underline}

-   Would the Navy be able to cordon off a specific area?

-   Would whale watchers volunteer to stay away for an hour or so?

-   How could issues with recreational boaters be addressed?

-   Combining with winter surveys could be a great opportunity as there
    are no boats on the water then.

-   Would shutting down boats be a control or a new introduction?

-   Could the Olympic Sanctuary be an option/area to use as control?
    Though fishing/recreation still happens in sanctuary, NOAA could be
    used as enforcement, though good public relations would be needed to
    get the word out.

-   The whale watching community would comply but we definitely need
    advertising/visible PR ahead of time. Such an approach was tried
    in 1994. 120 vessels agreed to "no-sound in the sound" days. Had
    good compliance but again needed enforcement through government
    support. There is a concern that there are too many boats to inform
    and too many people transiting through areas. It may not be feasible
    to do enough replicates to consider it a control. In addition, there
    are no current laws that enforcers could be enforcing. This could
    suggest that we go to more remote areas. The Sanctuary is a
    possibility, but whales are not spending enough time there.

-   Another thought is to start whale watching one hour late or end an
    hour early each day.

-   A comment was made that there are shifts seen at night, but shipping
    traffic during nighttime may complicate things.

-   Regarding tolerance versus habituation: whale watchers could see how
    far away whales stay away from boats and then interpret individual
    differences (e.g., regarding biopsies, males are easier to approach
    than females).

# [Using NRKW's for Controlled Experiments]{.underline}

In further discussion, participants eventually agreed that using NRKWs
and extrapolating to SRKWs might be the best way to do controlled
experiments. What follows is a summary of the advantages and
disadvantages of this approach.

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   It is easier to experiment on NRKWs, and then results could be
    extrapolated to SRKWs.

-   NRKWs represent a good test bed to understand how to execute
    experiments and then determine if you can extrapolate.

-   Extrapolating is great idea, even though the magnitude of effect may
    be different, the direction of effect should be clear.

-   Using NRKWs is a great place to test hypotheses as they are easier
    and cheaper to work with.

-   Obtaining a better understanding of the big picture will help in
    making good management decisions.

-   It is important to keep in mind that NRKWs are threatened and they
    could benefit from experiments as well.

-   Another option would be to combine controlled experiments with NRKWs
    with observational studies of the SRKWS, making the 2 studies as
    similar as possible. For example, using observation, address J pod
    versus L pod. After we see the effects from NRKW experiments, we can
    focus future analysis accordingly. Should still try to do a smaller
    controlled study on the SRKWs later.

-   Physiological processes are solid so there is no problem
    extrapolating these from NR. Metabolic rates important and
    applicable for all.

-   We would also be able to assess habitat use.

# [Concerns]{.underline}

-   Regarding J and L pod habituation: since J pod approaches whale
    watchers more often, care should be taken in extrapolating results
    from NRKWs and different pods with the SRKW population.

-   The two resident groups have been separate for a long time and have
    distinct cultural differences, and this should not be ignored.

-   This is crucial since SRKWs do not beach rub. Non-linear
    relationships between the two pods *will* be seen; density, boat
    numbers are very different.

[General Discussion]{.underline}

######## Is there an accumulative effect throughout the season in behavior and vessel traffic?

-   Yes, transition of habitat use is seen.

-   Easier to approach whales in fall surveys than spring surveys (in SE
    Alaska).

-   Land based studies should be restricted geographically (to get
    better idea how applicable land-based studies are). In addition,
    have a 2^nd^ land based isolated platform where Whale Watching or
    fishing is not as focused; this allows us to see if the types of
    trends in SW San Juan's are applicable in other regions.

-   Also should target the A clan for NRKW studies since this group is
    most similar to SRKWs.

***Method 2: Land-**Based Observation***

[Types of Land-based Observation ]{.underline}

The following are types of energy acquisition methods that were
discussed before prioritizing:

-   Experiments on hulls attracting prey

-   Crittercam

-   Underwater video (if can not attach a Crittercam to the whales)

-   Multi-beam sonar to monitor prey response

-   Acoustic monitoring of ambient noise

-   Archival data

-   Observations

-   Acoustic tag on whale

-   Constructing behavior budgets

***(Methods need to be done in conjunction)***

*** **Method 1: Underwater/ video telemetry***

*** **Method 2: Prey Field Monitoring***

*** **Method 3: Captive Studies***

***(Methods need to be done in conjunction)***

*** **Method 1: Captive Studies***

*** **Method 2: Telemetry***

***Method 3: Land/Boat-Based Observation***

***Method 4: Aerial/ Boat-Based Observation***

The methods for Research Questions 2A (Does vessel activity affect
energy acquisition?) and 2B (Does vessel activity affect energy
expenditure?) overlap and compliment each other. What follows is a
general discussion of advantages and disadvantages for each method as
they address both parts of Question 2.* *

***Method 1 (Q2A) ** **Underwater/video telemetry (animal-borne;
crittercam; acoustic tag; Method 2(Q2B) ** **and TDR) ***

# [Advantages ]{.underline}

-   Crittercams are useful and important to validate data and the field
    of view is good.

-   Acoustic tag shows prey capture and swim speed.

-   Sonar-monitor prey field, drive by in vessel, see how prey react.

-   Combine crittercam with prey field monitoring. A picture of the
    situation, including the kind of fish present, emerges and this can
    be complemented by what crittercam shows.

-   It is important to know what is going on underwater.

-   If an animal does not like the tags they can remove them.

-   Progress has been made for tags staying on longer (Hanson, Hahn).

-   Easy to measure if animal is reacting or not.

# [Concerns]{.underline}

-   Unclear on prey field monitoring. We can assess what is out there
    but we need to know about preference and prey switching and this
    will not really tell us how much of what the whale really wants. To
    be effective it needs to be combined with the 1^st^ study.

-   Catch data problematic as you only catch what you target.

-   Crittercam duration of sample less important than how biased the
    sample is (e.g., is it all at the surface)? Continuous
    representation rather than just surface observations is needed.

-   What is the cumulative effect? An essential question revolves around
    the invasiveness of these efforts and the necessity of coordination
    among researchers so whales are not repeatedly 'harassed' (biopsy,
    tag, follow, etc.).

***Method 3:** **Land/Boat-Based Observation (Q2A) and***

***Method 1:** **Captive Studies (Q2B)***

# [General Discussion]{.underline}

-   How much energy in fish is available to the whale? We need to look
    at seasonal assimilation efficiency (e.g., needing more calories in
    winter).

-   All participants agreed that behavioral budgets could be used as a
    method for Energy expenditure (not acquisition).

-   How much energy is killer whale getting from particular fish?

-   We need to see how many calories each animal gets. Does it change
    for males versus females during seasons? We also need to measure how
    much is assimilated, how much is waste (energy expenditure)?
    Existing dolphin data could also be used to an extent.

-   Luna (L98) could be used as a captive study though he may not be a
    good representative of the population.

[Captive studies discussion]{.underline}

-   Captive studies need to be on fish as well as killer whales. Using
    playbacks of vessel noise and fish eating by other animals in order
    to examine fish response.

-   Captive studies for energetic metabolic rates\--energy costs which
    can then be related to field data. Risk is extrapolating to
    individuals in wild (males, female, pregnant, lactating, young). It
    is hard to get single applicable number. Also seasonal aspects are
    not well known.

-   We need to know rates of change, not specific numbers.

-   Trying to identify a specific number of fish that whales will need
    to eat in given period throughout year is potentially problematic.

-   Prey quality and abundance are both important pieces of information
    to obtain.

-   Perhaps 10% vessel impact is not enough to justify the costs in
    studying energetic costs.

-   Extrapolating to the population level can be difficult and can
    result in large errors (e.g., a rough estimate of energetic costs
    times a rough estimate of carrying capacity is used).

-   Obtaining historical information on caloric intake of captive killer
    whales and number of pregnant females could be helpful.

-   An attempt was made to obtain information from Sea World, but they
    record food in kilos only, (with no specifics on types and mixes of
    fish in batches or caloric content), so the needed details were
    unavailable.

-   Have energetics studies been done when there's been 10-20% increase
    in energy expenditure during a show (e.g., Sea World performance
    show)?

-   Birgit Kriete Study was done looking at range from rest to cruise
    swim to speed swim---a big difference was seen.

-   Can these behaviors be simulated and measured in captivity? Are
    these subtle changes?

-   In the wild we see slight increases in swimming speed and
    respiration rate. We can test validity in captivity.

***Method 4 (Q2B):** ** Aerial Boat-Based Observation***

# [Advantages]{.underline}

-   We can measure exact distances between points which can assist in
    calculating speeds, etc.

-   Aerial is a good idea because it is a quiet approach. .

-   Approach has been used to observe effects of vessels on manatees
    by R. Wells, and is also being used with right whales.

-   Can still get good resolution. WHOI has aerostat that works well,
    but is expensive, and needs stabilizing equipment. Freeze-framing is
    possible without getting the artifacts of digital.

-   Aerial technique is also used outside marine mammals (e.g., geometry
    of herds, predation).

-   Navy using it effectively as well.

# [Concerns ]{.underline}

Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Facilitator: Paul De Morgan

Recorder: Dana Gunders

Participants: David Bain, Robin Baird, Lynne Barre, Paul Becker, Don
Croll, John Ford, John Horne, Peggy Krahn, Sandie O'Neill, Dawn Noren,
Dave Rosen, Jeannette Thomas, Laurie Weitkamp, Terrie Williams, Gina
Yitalo

The Prey Selection breakout session began with a 30-minute presentation
by John Ford of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
regarding the current state of the knowledge followed by a brief
discussion about the presentation.

The morning was spent prioritizing research questions. Research
questions were brainstormed building off those developed at the May 2003
workshops. The comprehensive list of questions was then prioritized
according to the questions' ability to address risk factors, management
needs, and significant data gaps.

In the research question discussion, the group outlined the overarching
question of prey selection, "Are killer whales food limited?" The group
also referred to the basic questions of "What, when, and where are
killer whales eating?" They struggled with how to determine prey
selection year round when winter distribution is unknown and concluded
the discussion would focus on known areas, but that many of the methods
could be applied to winter distribution areas once those habitats are
known.

The remainder of the day was spent identifying, describing, and
prioritizing research methods for the highest priority questions. Each
question was addressed individually. Methods were first brainstormed,
then discussed, and finally prioritized using criteria developed by
NWFSC, WDFW, and DFO \[see Appendix D\]. A one-page report from the
breakout session was presented to the full group the following morning.
Below is a copy of the one-page report followed by a more comprehensive
summary of the deliberations around the methods for each question.

**[[Prey Selection ]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Session
Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Research Question 1: **What is the spatial and temporal variation in
the killer whale diet with respect to prey availability? \[vote count\]

[Method 1]{.underline} -- Active acoustic survey with focal follow and
tagging \[13\]

[Method 2]{.underline} -- Chemical analyses of killer whales and prey
\[11\]

[Method 3]{.underline} -- Prey fragment sampling---opportunistic \[6\]

[Method 3]{.underline} -- Data mining (e.g., NRKW stocks) \[6\]

[Method 5]{.underline} -- Active acoustic survey---systematic survey of
one or more areas to obtain information on prey (marine mammal count)
\[4\]

[Method 6]{.underline} -- Prey fragment sampling---systematic (e.g.,
vertical pull) \[3\]

[Method 7]{.underline} -- Developing new tags/improving existing ones
(small acoustic) \[2\]

*\[The group agreed to focus on known distribution in considering
methods, recognizing that as understanding of winter distribution
increases, studies on prey selection in those areas would be
necessary.\]*

**Research Question 2: **How does prey bioenergy availability and SRKW
energetics compare throughout the year?

** **[Method 1]{.underline}** -- **Dynamic bioenergy modeling (do
sensitivity analysis first)

*\[The group also discussed the idea of developing an ideal free
distribution model, but indicated prey availability information needed
to be able to implement this method at this time.\] *

**Research Question 3: **How flexible or facultative are killer whales
in diet choice? (Behavioral and physiological factors)

[Method 1]{.underline}** -- **Field studies (hydroacoustic with focal
follow and tagging) \[14\]

*(if had to choose just one, field studies won highest priority from
entire group) *

[Method 2]{.underline}** -- **Captive feeding studies \[12\]

[Method 3]{.underline}** -- **Correlate harassment with prey
availability \[1\]

**Other Research Questions (and brainstormed methods):**

-   What are the biases associated with different sampling techniques?

    -   Shake fish

    -   DNA analysis

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   When is foraging taking place (day/night)?

    -   Captive whales feed at night (when do they eat?)

    -   Question 1, Method 7

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What is the impact of increased competition for salmon from
    pinnipeds or humans?

**Other Methods (developed at end of day):**

**[[Prey Selection Session Summary]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

***Method 1:** **Active acoustic survey with focal follow and tagging***

There was significant interest in both stationary and mobile acoustics
surveys. After much discussion, the group agreed to consider two
separate acoustic methods: one mobile survey that incorporated focal
follow and tagging and another that included active and stationary
acoustics. Thoughts on Method 1 included the following:

[Research Approaches]{.underline}

*Determining Foraging Behavior *

-   There are some sounds associated with prey pursuit, but they are not
    expected to happen every time because killer whales may not need to
    use echolocation or swim fast.

-   Cannot be used as a predictor of foraging behavior. Calls are pretty
    typical, different from socializing or resting, but they could just
    be in that mode, not actually foraging.

-   Acoustics can determine socializing and resting very well and is
    potentially applicable to determining these activities at night.

*Determining Prey *

-   Acoustics should not be used solely to determine prey, but prey
    could be studied in conjunction with an acoustic focal follow study.

-   Active acoustics can get you information on what is out there year
    round, but there is the question as to whether you can differentiate
    among salmon species?

-   Stomach samples had something other than salmon; therefore something
    is missing in the diet data. Acoustics can help determine other
    species. Active/mobile can determine general availability. A
    different approach may be needed to determine what the whales are
    eating.

-   Test fishing may provide some information but there are a limited
    number of test fishery sites, furthermore these sites are often in
    non-foraging areas and are only a small sample size for Chinook.
    They mostly target Sockeye.

-   Is it desirable to monitor both prey and killer whales
    simultaneously? How to do that? Overlap?

    -   Multi beam preferred to echosounder because of swath. Monitoring
        of prey availability is recommended with an echosounder and
        foraging killer whales with a multi sounder. This method is
        trackable through aiming and multi beams. In terms of frequency,
        there could be some overlap with echolocation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How do you distinguish between swimming with fish and eating them?

    -   A fiord in Norway has wiring set up and has documented killer
        whales isolating schools of prey and driving them up to surface.

*Critter Cams/Tags*

-   Impact of Critter Cam on whales is small causing only short term
    changes in behavior (seconds to minutes).

-   Attachment:

    -   Mean attachment is 10.5 hours, many for 1-2 hrs and many for
        12-24. Longest is 42 hours.

    -   Suction cups will not result in longer than a few days.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Retrieval:

    -   One participant indicated they have never lost a tag with killer
        whales.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   One Critter Cam on killer whales (rest time-depth tags), only
    resulted in one hour of socializing footage and no foraging footage.

-   Degrees of information from various methods:

    -   Sonar: can point at whales.

    -   Beams: unusual event to find a whale using beams

    -   Critter Cam: very detailed whale movement and prey capture.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What about underwater cameras?

    -   The visibility is very low.

    -   Greater camera depth may result in better visibility (low light
        cameras, as with rockfish).

    -   Putting cameras on whales creates less bias and more data.

[Feasibility]{.underline}

-   Tags for SRKWs may come with restraints given political and other
    constraints. It might be better to put them on other populations
    with less scrutiny?

    -   In 2002 most political issues were handled through PR.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is a long gradual learning curve for tagging. It is possible
    to do 3 time depth tags/day. Critter Cams are larger and require a
    different deployment method.

-   Is it possible to differentiate salmon species reliably enough to
    resolve bias issues with video or acoustic tagging?

    -   The ease of differentiating salmon species is difficult to
        determine but could get at other biases such as: prey ingestion,
        location in vertical column, and species difference.

[Separate Mobile and Stationary Acoustics or Group
Together?]{.underline}

-   Cost: Don Croll spends \$300k/year on active monitoring and
    \$400k/year with stationary monitoring (reaping economy of scale
    benefits). Stationary monitoring is not recommended without using
    active acoustics.

    -   More 'off the shelf' products and usage exists, but capital
        costs remain high.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The stationary approach does not address the question.

-   Different equipment provides varied types and levels of detail of
    information, from simply documenting what is available to very
    detailed whale movement and prey capture.

-   Acoustic survey is a wide envelope. With both direct and indirect
    sampling, it would take advantage of clues gained from any other
    on-going sampling.

-   Tagging would be more effective with acoustics. Focal follows should
    implicitly include active acoustics because the expense is low and
    the effectiveness is greater.

-   Participants questioned if mobile predator tracking was already
    being done and whether differentiation in the type of mobile
    tracking was less important to discuss than how much tracking should
    occur for the whales versus their prey.

***Method 2:** **Chemical analyses of killer whales and prey***

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   The analysis would involve blubber biopsies of killer whales and
    capturing prey to get fatty acid signatures, stable isotopes, and
    other information.

-   The analysis is relevant to many issues such as: outer layer,
    genetics, reproductive status, and prey selection/abundance. The
    science center is now archiving DNA for every sample.

-   Size: new biopsy cores have been developed. John Durban has been
    successful pulling 3.5-3.8 cm cores.

-   Cost is variable but approximately \$600 for a complete analysis of
    the sample.

-   NWFSC uses the presence/absence of specific fatty acids instead of
    Sarah Iverson's QFASA approach.

    -   Can differentiate transient from resident ecotypes using
        statistical methods, such as PCA and CART analysis.

    -   Mixed diet not important.

    -   Able to differentiate some classes. Easy to tell with belugas,
        based on profiles of fatty acids.

***Method 3:** **Prey fragment sampling**---**opportunistic***

[Research Approach]{.underline}

-   Scales are collected when foraging activity is seen, and also use
    other information to look.

    -   It is unclear if researchers are using a common definition of
        foraging behavior.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Must consider scale drop-off rate (could handle each species to get
    relative rate).

-   Researchers that do these studies are confident that all samples are
    associated with predation events. Kathy Hisey rigorously tested the
    appearance of scales and did not find a problem.

-   Scale sampling can occur in combination with other field studies.

***Method 4:** **Data mining (e.g., **NRKW **stocks)***

-   Some has been done already, but still some to do.

***Method 5:** **Active acoustic survey**---**systematic survey of one
or more areas to obtain information on prey (marine mammal count)***

-   Recommended stationary acoustic sensor hotspots include Middle Bank
    and Salmon Bank.

-   Stationary sensors do not have power limitations.

***Method 6:** **Prey fragment sampling**---**systematic (e.g., vertical
pull)***

-   Vertical tows at stationary stations reveal availability of fish
    scales that are in the water column without whales present and
    selection of prey when whales are present.

-   Approach provides baseline of what exists in the water column, but
    does not provide information on the source of the scales (e.g.,
    result from predation or sloughed).

***Method 7:** **Developing new tags/improving existing ones (small
acoustic)***

The group felt it would be useful to compare bioenergetics by obtaining
biomass availability and comparing it to population needs. Such
information, it was suggested, might imply whales have to do something
different at different times of year

***Method 1:** **Dynamic bioenergy modeling (with sensitivity analysis
first) ***

[Sensitivity analysis ]{.underline}

-   If uncertainty is huge, it may not be worth doing at all.

-   If intent was to look at energy needs of killer whales and if a
    particular prey could meet those needs, variation in abundance and
    biomass data will drive the model, not volume of consumption.
    Support was voiced for sensitivity analysis.

-   Start with sensitivity analysis, but the desire is to understand
    differences. Does it matter if researchers are off by 100% on an
    individual animal? If multiplied by population and days per year,
    does this get too far from accurate and useful information?

[Inputs]{.underline}

-   Seasonal energetics:

    -   Field studies and behavioral observations.

    -   Applying it to a seasonal population could cause huge error, but
        may still be beneficial.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Foraging efficiency---abundancy highs and net food intake would be
    less.

-   Bomb calorimetry to determine energetic content of prey (currently
    happening).

-   Captive studies.

-   Data mining.

[Concerns ]{.underline}

-   How do you get the energetics? Through captive studies on metabolic
    rates?

-   How much do you gain by doing detailed analysis of whales or of
    fish? There are a lot of salmon around in summer and not in winter
    and it is not clear a detailed analysis is needed to reach that
    conclusion.

-   Over the winter much less bioenergy may be available and bottom fish
    stocks may cause the bottleneck.

-   Application of the model to certain whales, in certain areas, during
    certain times of year is worrisome for energetics because if
    metabolism is wrong in these discrete areas the model does not work.

-   Captive studies may not yield results that are relevant in the wild.

-   The relative quantities of bionergetic needs are of importance, and
    these can be determined from captive studies.

[Determine Main Diet]{.underline}

-   If the focus is about salmon in general over two months versus other
    periods when food may be limiting, then research should be focused
    when prey is limiting.

-   If Chinook is not the issue, it is recommended to measure the
    baseline energetic needs of whales and then determine which fish are
    of importance.

-   For Chinook, research could address biomass and average consumption
    to determine quantity as a food source.

    -   Try to determine if Chinook is main component of diet, not total
        biomass that they need.

    -   Estimates for consumption of 12 million available Chinook by
        killer whales range from 20% to 83%. The difference depends on
        the species in question, and this approach can be used to
        determine likelihood of Chinook consumption.

***Method 2:** **Ideal Free Distribution Model ****\[The group also
discussed the idea of developing an ideal free distribution model, but
indicated prey availability information needed to be able to implement
this method at this time.\] *

[General]{.underline}

-   Imagine killer whales go wherever feeding is best and it is possible
    to make predictions about where they go. This perspective elucidates
    potential risk factors---fishery nets, military test range, etc.
    Energy expenditure would be completely irrelevant.

-   May and June are active feeding months, so no matter where the
    whales were during the winter, the foraging must not be as
    profitable since they are coming back to the San Juan Islands
    region.

-   Work done in April/May in B.C. revealed much higher swimming speeds,
    higher search times, and similar foraging tactics though fewer and
    farther between.

[Feasibility]{.underline}

***Method 1:** **Field studies (hydroacoustic with focal follow and
tagging) ****\[If had to choose just one, field studies won highest
priority from everyone in group.\]*

-   Same as Question 1 (*What is the spatial and temporal variation in
    the killer whale diet with respect to prey availability?*), Method 1
    (*active acoustic survey with focal follow and tagging*).

-   Need to do focal follows of individual whales, obtain rates of fast
    non-directional swimming, and then collect scales to develop an idea
    of what portion of the attempts are successful---basically measure
    effort.

***Method 2:** **Captive feeding studies***

-   Both behavioral and physiological methods were recommended.

-   It is desirable to examine satiation time, how many days until
    motivated to eat, and to carry out these studies with different prey
    items.

-   Strength of captive studies is RELATIVE, not absolute.

***Method 3:** **Correlate harassment with prey availability***

-   Quantify when events of killer whales harassing prey occur and
    compare to salmon availability.

-   In the past, little harassment was found, only 1-2 instances per
    year. Harassment behavior is changing all the time. It is important
    to correct for effort but that may be difficult to do. One potential
    way to measure effort is to do follows of individuals and get rates
    of fast non-directional movement then collect scales and get an idea
    what portion of the attempts are successful.

-   Does harassment behavior indicate anything? Attempt to switch to
    different prey type? We have observed killer whales take a dolphin.
    Are they learning?

    -   With transients, there is a wide range of prey.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seasonality differences are interesting. Handling times are
    inversely related to hunger level.

    -   Reverse could be true, when whales are hungry they could be
        looking for new prey species.

**[[Other Discussions]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Difficulty in classifying behavior**

-   Is there some research concerning killer whale activity in foraging
    areas? What proportion of time on the feeding grounds are they
    actually foraging?

-   Identifying foraging can be problematic. There may be differences in
    the intensity of foraging. They may not move from one foraging area
    to another as much as they forage more intensely in some areas
    compared to others, but they may always be foraging.

-   They can be doing two things at once---categorize as travel and
    milling, not foraging since, given that predation is opportunistic,
    they are always foraging.

-   Seasonal changes exist in the amount of time whales spend in play.
    Playful behaviors manifest later in the salmon season along with
    fewer echolocation clicks and more social calls.

-   Certain hotspots exist with increased likelihood of observing prey
    pursuit. It is difficult to distinguish from travel if they do not
    find food. Some places are predictable while others are less
    predictable.

-   Important studies (late 80s/early 90s) by Heimlach-Boran and one by
    Russ Hoelzel. Both examined foraging for the same population and
    came up with radically different conclusions about the importance of
    different sites for foraging. Foraging areas may have changed over
    time.

    -   Both studies were multi year, boat-based studies, when whale
        watching boats were rare. The study site was from Haro Strait to
        the Eastern Juan de Fuca Strait in a 500x500 grid.

    -   It is possible that prey are changing, but classification of
        behavior in similar way is also an outstanding question.

**Stomach Samples**

At the end of the day the group had time to briefly discuss additional
questions that had originally received less priority.

**When is foraging taking place (day/night)?**

-   Are they foraging throughout the night?

-   For management purposes it might be interesting to know, as there
    may be some behavioral changes associated with day/night foraging.

-   When do captive whales feed? Do they feed at night?

    -   Some captive Steller sea lions will not eat at night, but do
        feed at night in wild.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Consider developing new tags/improving existing ones (small
    acoustic).

**What are the biases associated with different sampling techniques?**

-   Learn why there are discrepancies.

-   For biases about scales: Could you drag different species through
    water and then shake them in water to get a sense of how many scales
    fall off?

-   One of the biases is if scales sink out of reach before you get
    there. Maybe you could measure sinking rate too.

-   DNA analysis of what they are getting from scales versus tissue
    remains.

**What is the impact of increase in competition for salmon from
pinnipeds or humans?**

-   Potential for competition is much greater than 30 years ago.

-   Humans are primary competition for salmon.

-   Looking at competition with pinnipeds is a little premature.

**Compare what they are eating with what is available -- what motivates
them? satiation?**

-   Is there caloric value 'bang for bite' for different life histories?
    Is foraging different by life history stages? Answering these
    questions would assist in understanding the "supply and demand"
    (i.e., a sense of what is available and actual selection).

-   By definition, selection means you have to look at what is available
    versus what they are eating.

-   Cannot truly get good answer without knowing potential prey---should
    be part of all of the questions.

**Other Methods (developed at end of day):**

Date: Wednesday January 21, 2004

Facilitator: Katherine Friedman

Recorder: Jennifer Marsh

Participants: Ken Balcomb, John Durban, Fred Felleman, Joe Gaydos, Ed
Gerstein, Brad Hanson, Eli Holmes, Linda Jones, Marilyn Joyce, John
Miller, Brent Norberg, Rich Osborne, Kim Parsons, Shaari Unger

The Winter Distribution breakout session began with a 30-minute
presentation by Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research regarding
the current state of the knowledge followed by a brief discussion about
the presentation Points from this discussion are included below.

The morning was spent prioritizing research questions. Unlike other
breakout sessions, there were few research questions developed for the
winter distribution topic at the May 2003 workshops. Therefore, all
questions were brainstormed during this session. The comprehensive list
of questions was then prioritized according to the questions' ability to
address risk factors, management needs, and significant data gaps.

In the process of articulating the most important research questions to
address, the conversation among participants included a discussion of
"Why do whales leave Puget Sound and why are the L's absent for a longer
duration?" The discussion generated additional questions:

-   Are there some set of predictive oceanic indices (environmental
    concerns, risk factors, etc.)?

-   Do animals from different populations co-occur during the
    off-season?

-   Is there an increase in mortality during the winter? If so, is it
    prey limiting or are there other risk factors?

-   Does the social structure change in different geographical
    locations?

-   What is the winter distribution?

Once priority questions were established, the remainder of the day was
spent identifying, describing, and prioritizing research methods for the
highest priority questions. Each question was addressed individually.
Methods were first brainstormed, then discussed, and finally prioritized
using criteria developed by NWFSC, WDFW, and DFO \[see Appendix D\]. A
one-page report from the breakout session was presented to the full
group the following morning. Below is a copy of the one-page report
followed by a more comprehensive summary of the deliberations around the
methods for each question.

**[[Winter Distribution Session Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Research Question 1**: What is the winter distribution of SRKW?

[Method 1]{.underline}: Land based sighting networks

[Method 2]{.underline}: Marine based sighting networks

[Method 3]{.underline}: Acoustic mooring networks

[Method 4]{.underline}: Satellite tags

**Research Question 2:** How do we identify the risk factors on the
winter grounds?

[Method 1]{.underline}: Condition monitoring

[Method 2]{.underline}: Biopsies

[Method 3]{.underline}: GIS data sets

[Method 4]{.underline}: Data mining and monitoring population

[Method 5:]{.underline} Necropsy: short discussion

[Method 6:]{.underline} Fecal Follow: short discussion

**[[Winter Distribution Session Summary]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

***Discussion of Ken Balcomb**'**s Presentation***

[Regarding actual winter sightings]{.underline}

-   Sighting reports are scarce and not often reported. Few pictures are
    actually available, and some are from the shore (for example, Oregon
    whale watching docents taking pictures from the shore). Group
    composition of SRKWs might be determined from shore pictures.

-   The cetacean sighting network in BC and the Vancouver Aquarium
    collaboration, can log marine mammal sightings via online or with
    phone-in mechanisms. Pictures have been collected for three years.
    It would be useful to determine if these programs are complementary.
    DFO is trying to have the information available on the DFO website.

-   Overlooks are currently used as sighting locations. Whales can
    travel up to 80 miles a day, so by covering three-30 mile spots a
    24-hour day can be covered.

-   John Ford has information on his winter sightings.

-   Building a sighting network is important. Hydrophones and digital
    photography may be important in future sightings (to determine
    presence or absence of whales).

[Regarding offshore]{.underline}

The group identified four methods for discussion. The first two related
to the development of sighting networks (i.e., land based and marine
based) and the group engaged in a general discussion of those two before
exploring the specifics of each method. Issues included:

-   Sighting reports (sighting networks), passive (existing) and active
    (similar to breeding bird survey), coordinate with Christmas sea
    bird count, acoustic recordings.

-   Mailing lists can be developed from fisheries/surveys.

-   Dedicated/systematic shore-based visual monitoring can be
    established.

-   Outreach to marine operators (tugs, freighters, navy, coast guard);
    POP program.

-   Data collection from NOAA's sanctuary program can be utilized.

-   Photo emphasis is encouraged.

-   A custom statistical framework for data (central archive for data)
    can be developed.

-   Naturalist courses for cruise ships can be developed.

-   Coordination with Canadian efforts should be undertaken.

***Method 1:** **Land based sighting networks***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This method is very cost effective.

-   This method is already underway and can be expanded.

-   Voluntary efforts can produce helpful information.

-   Even one sighting gives useful information.

-   The public can connect to an animal and get interested in marine
    animals (outreach).

-   Though the information is limited it is the only information
    collected about range so far.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   This method is limited to the near shore.

-   This method has produced little data so far.

***Method 2:** **Marine based sighting networks***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   A lot of information is collected cost effectively through this
    method.

-   The method is more cost effective at the beginning.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   It is hard to establish a network.

-   It takes a lot of time produces little usable data.

-   The data value is limited (may be wrong).

-   The data points are sporadic and take a lot of time to collect.

***Method 3:** **Acoustic mooring networks ***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This method produces definitive answers and reliable data.

-   It may be possible to track movement into and out of the study area.

-   This method permits design influence.

-   This method allows for 24-hour monitoring.

-   This method is effective in other areas, including ORCALAB.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   This method is not yet proven in offshore areas.

-   A lot of potential variability exists.

-   A decision regarding using a delayed network or a real time system
    needs to be made. It will be hard to determine cost estimates for
    either approach to this method.

-   This method determines presence but does not indicate absence or
    presence (e.g., whales may be present, but quiet).

-   This method is expensive and easy to lose (e.g., trawlers often
    remove moorings).

***Method 4:** **Satellite tags ***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   It was suggested that this could be possible to accomplish with
    L-98.

-   Short term tagging could yield a few days of information that may
    otherwise be impossible to obtain.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   A bigger battery is necessary to obtain winter information on L-98.

-   L-98 is not a typical individual.

[Discussion of Possible Adverse Effects of Satellite Tags]{.underline}

-   Attachment technology is undefined and a substantial sample size is
    needed.

-   Capture operations are unclear. Capture operations in Norway may be
    similar to what happened previously in the Pacific Northwest. It may
    be better to deploy without a capture operation.

-   What is a remotely deployed tag? Tag size is decreasing, so you have
    a tethered style tag, or a tag that is not fully implanted. Try to
    stay in blubber layer for remote deployment. There are trade-offs:
    between infection and keeping the tag attached. Tagging is now more
    feasible since tags are getting smaller. Tags that Mate uses for
    large whales have decreased in size.

-   Does any research and development need to be done on other
    populations? It is useful to get information on animal welfare after
    tagging occurred. It will take much longer to develop reliable
    technique on killer whales somewhere else.

-   There is public concern related to capture and we need to consider
    public outcry.

[General Discussion of Satellite Tag Technology and Other
Issues]{.underline}

***Method 1:** **Condition monitoring (changes over winter months, pod
differences, regional differences)***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   Cost is not prohibitive for baseline data (relative to other
    technologies).

-   This method provides good information and quickly identifies
    emerging problems.

-   Data from this method is also useful for energetic studies.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   No methods currently exist.

-   Contrary to the advantage noted of cost not being prohibitive, high
    cost could result from long development time.

-   This method may not provide data for most other studies, but might
    contribute data for energetic studies. Touching the animal may
    result in only one sample.

-   Need to measure the same location on all animals for good results
    with ultrasonic technology.

***Method 2:** **Biopsies ***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This method provides a lot of important information including DNA
    and stable isotopes.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   A lot of information is inferred (e.g., inferring prey from biopsy).

-   This method is not widely accepted within the public domain.

-   It takes a long time to biopsy a whole community (adverse effect).

***Method 3:** **GIS data sets***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This method is an inexpensive way to obtain spatial information.

-   GIS is already necessary for winter distribution (low cost).

-   A good data set exists for fall and spring. Information from the
    edges of winter will be useful.

-   It is possible to start immediately since some information already
    exists.

-   Funding for a GIS computer is already in place and it would be
    advantageous to share data (Osborne).

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   The existence of many data gaps will restrict analysis and the
    ability to address questions directly or completely.

-   The sample size may be limited because it is based on information
    about winter distribution.

-   GIS by itself may not answer a question; and the expense of
    maintaining a system could be high if data is valid. A GIS manager
    may be needed.

***Method 4:** **Data mining and monitoring population ***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This is the cheapest and quickest method.

-   Much of the data is inexpensively retrieved with no bias in data
    collection, but seasonal bias exists.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   The sample size is an issue.

-   It is unclear what the sample sizes will be.

-   Does data provide clear answers? Biases?

-   Directness of data (direct or indirect).

***Method 5:** **Necropsy***

There was a general discussion about developing a network and a team
ready to respond to any stranding. This should include a "find it"
resource listing who to call, equipment location, and personnel
available to perform specific tasks up and down the coast. A
comprehensive packet with this information should be created. Necropsy
work requires people available to be on call. Additionally, improvements
are needed in necropsy procedures, communication, and coordination.
Questions about necropsy costs were asked. It was suggested that
resource funds were available through the Prescott Fund.

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   Investing money in development of this method would be a good idea.

-   The Prescott Emergency Fund exists. It is possible to spend the
    money and then apply for more funds.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   The Federal government is excluded from Prescott Fund.

-   The cost is \$2000 for sample analysis alone and does not include
    personnel, disposal, boat time, etc.

-   If an animal died in Oregon money would not be available to analyze
    tissues.

***Method 6:** **Fecal Follow***

# [Concerns]{.underline}

The conversation regarding winter distribution began without a list of
specific questions from the May 2003 workshops. As such, the
brainstormed list was more extensive for this session and the results
are included here:

-   How far offshore do the whales go?

-   Do animals from different populations co-occur during the
    off-season? Are there spatial and temporal patterns in offshore
    occurrence between populations?

-   Are SRKW tracking salmon movements or going to prey hotspots?

-   Is the broad distribution changing, or is it our ability to detect
    them that is changing?

-   How do the winter movements differ between sub pods?

-   Are there predictive oceanographic indices that can predict the
    whale's movements?

-   How much variability is there in the patterns? Is there a pattern at
    all during the winter, or is it variable?

-   What are the whales doing during the winter? Migrating, feeding,
    breeding?

-   Is there increased mortality in winter, and if so, is it prey
    limiting, or are there other risk factors that can be identified?

-   Who decides where they are going? (Matriarch)?

-   Who is the first to leave and who is the first to come back? Why do
    the whales leave Puget Sound, and why do the L's leave more often
    and for longer periods?

-   What are the temporal and spatial distribution patterns of SRKWs,
    and what is their potential prey?

-   Does the timing of births suggest winter mating activity is
    occurring, and is there a difference in birthing patterns between
    pods?

-   What is the typical winter behavioral budget?

-   Does the social structure change in different geographical
    locations?

-   Who is fathering the calves?

-   Is the inter-individual distance greater in the winter? (Change in
    pod cohesiveness)?

-   Do whales go north more often or south? Are the whales eating during
    the winter? To what depths are they diving?

-   What are the factors that SRKWs key in on for locating or
    associating with prey? Is it different from summer?

-   Are there calving grounds?

-   Are whales avoiding areas of high boat traffic in the winter (as
    calving strategy)?

A concern was raised that even if we study and get useful information on
winter distribution, will this really be helpful in making good
management decisions?

At the beginning of the discussion regarding methods, the group had a
broad conversation about winter/summer differences, identification of
risk factors, and reproduction.

# Winter/Summer differences?

-   How do we determine the risk factors if we do not know the
    distribution?

-   Are the prey items in the winter different from the summer?

-   What do we need to look at that may be different in winter and
    summer?

# Identifying Risk Factors

-   Listed risks that could have happened to whales included starvation,
    inter-population conflicts, chemical spills, oil spills, military
    activities, by-catch, etc. Bad mortality years could serve as a
    reference point with a retrospective examination of key factors that
    occurred during those years.

# Reproduction

Date: Thursday, January 22, 2004

Facilitator: Paul De Morgan/Dana Gunders

Recorder: Jennie Bolton/Julie Mocklin

Participants:

[Morning Session:]{.underline} Paul Becker, Fred Felleman, Joe Gaydos,
Steve Jeffries, Peggy Krahn, Julie Mocklin, Dawn Noren, Sandie O'Neill,
Kim Parsons, Dave Rosen, Laurie Weitkamp, Terrie Williams, Gina Ylitalo

[Afternoon Session:]{.underline} Dawn Noren, Kim Parsons, Dave Rosen,
Laurie Weitkamp, Terrie Williams, Gina Ylitalo

Due to the close relevance of the two Prey Quality subgroups,
Contaminants and Size/Fat Content, it was initially decided to combine
them in order to have more input into each topic. However, as the day
progressed, it was decided to separate during the afternoon. Therefore,
the two sessions were conducted with a slightly different format than
the other breakout sessions.

The morning began with two 20-minute presentations. The first was by
Dave Rosen of the University of British Columbia regarding the current
state of the knowledge of the size and fat content of potential prey.
This was followed by a presentation by Gina Ylitalo of The Northwest
Fisheries Science Center discussing the current state of knowledge for
contaminants in prey. Both were followed by brief discussions.

The rest of the morning was spent prioritizing research questions first
for the size/fat content topic and then for contaminants. For each
topic, research questions were brainstormed building off those developed
at the May 2003 workshops. The comprehensive list of questions was then
prioritized according to the questions' ability to address risk factors,
management needs, and significant data gaps.

The remainder of the day was spent identifying, describing, and
prioritizing research methods for the highest priority questions. Due to
time constraints, the group divided into two for the afternoon,
developing and prioritizing methods separately. Each question was
addressed individually. Methods were first brainstormed, then discussed,
and finally prioritized using criteria developed by NWFSC \[see Appendix
D\]. Late in the afternoon, the two groups reconvened and presented
results of the afternoon sessions to each other. All were given a chance
to add comments on both topics before the session was adjourned. Two
one-page reports from the breakout session were presented to the full
group the following morning. Below are copies of the one-page reports
followed by more comprehensive summaries for both of the topics of the
deliberations around the methods for each question.

**[[ Prey Quality (Size/Fat Content) Session
Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Research Question 1: **What is the spatial and temporal variation in
prey quality?

[Method 1]{.underline} -- Fish sampling (and analyses) in killer whale
foraging areas.

[Method 2]{.underline} -- Fish collected (and analyses: caloric content,
lipid classes, proximate composition analysis, mass/length) from
concurrent sampling in diff regions, seasons.

-   Sampling and analyses could be done in conjunction with sampling for
    contaminants, etc.

[Method 3 ]{.underline}-- Data mining.

[Method 4]{.underline} -- Sampling in conjunction with acoustic surveys.

**Research Question 2: **What are the demographic and physiological
indicators of nutritional stress in killer whales?

(Methods not prioritized because votes were practically equal):

[Method 1]{.underline} -- Data mining demographic information on SRKWs
particularly during winter (NRKWs, captive, Alaska residents for
comparison).

[Method 2]{.underline} -- Data mining on physiological indicators of
nutritional stress on other marine mammals.

[Method 3]{.underline} -- Nutritional experiments on captive cetaceans.

-   compare international warm-water captive whales (smallest blubber
    thickness would be seen in hot water region)

-   are there captive whales currently in poor condition that could be
    studied?

-   also, it takes a while for a captive animal learn to eat (study them
    in interim)

[Method 4]{.underline} -- Morphometric work on wild populations of
killer whales across regions.

-   aerial surveys and photogrammetry in conjunction w/ groundtruthing
    w/ captives.

-   group discussed area to target-good variation in fat ridge anterior
    to dorsal fin-would show fat variations seasonally. (just an idea
    for photo data mining)

[Method 5]{.underline} -- Ultrasound.

[Method 6]{.underline} -- Lipid characteristics (lipid class, lipid
concentration, and fat cell density and quantification) in biopsy
samples (utilizing samples from other studies).

**Research Question 3: **Are there temporal and spatial changes in prey
quality correlated with evidence of nutritional stress in killer whales?

Needed more information (from previous two questions) prior to
discussing methods.

**Research Question 4: **Is there a season when killer whale are food
stressed?

[Method 1]{.underline} -- Captive studies (analyze monthly caloric
budget)

[Method 2]{.underline} -- Study activity budgets for seasonal patterns

[Method 3]{.underline} -- Fish sampling (and analyses) in killer whale
foraging areas.

**[[Prey Quality (Size/Fat Content) Session
Summary]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

In the discussion of this question with the full prey quality group, the
following points and/or questions were raised:

-   What is the value of salmon in the spring?

    -   What rivers and what part of the season, fall versus spring runs
        (we know how the adult fish end up, because catch is measured
        for size and quality; but we don't know as much about the
        quality of fish in spring while they are still at large);

    -   Changes in Chinook spring runs have changed lipid content of
        fish that killer whale might encounter.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Perhaps because both summer and winter salmon runs are lower than
    historical levels, the killer whale population is not able to
    recover as well from lean seasons. That is, even if winters have
    always been somewhat food limited for killer whale, it is only a
    problem now because of unprecedented low summer runs.

-   Was it always true that there was a seasonal limitation in prey?

-   What are the minimum lipid levels that whales might encounter (and
    is there a difference between wild and hatchery fish)? These might
    be used to determine if minimal requirements for intake are being
    met.

For this question, the group felt that sampling prey and data mining
were the only viable methods of research. They recommended the following
aspects be analyzed for all three sampling methods:

-   Caloric content.

-   Lipid classes.

-   Proximate composition analysis.

-   Mass/length.

-   Scales (age).

    -   How much can you trust these? How do you know from just scooping
        out of water what body/location scales came from, and therefore,
        are they accurate indicators of age?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Contaminants.

-   Fishery management.

***Method 1:** **Fish sampling (and analyses) in SRKW foraging areas.
***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 2:** **Fish collected from concurrent sampling in different
regions and seasons***

-   Tap into fish sampling already being done for fishery research.

-   Sampling and analyses could be done in conjunction with sampling for
    contaminants, etc.

-   Analyze several aspects

***Method 3:** **Data mining. ***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 4:** **Sampling in conjunction with acoustic surveys. ***

In the discussion of this question with the full prey quality group, the
following points and/or questions were raised:

-   Nutritional stress can be manifested either as not getting enough
    calories or as deficiencies in individual key nutrients.

-   Indicators need to be available in the field.

    -   Not feasible to sample blood, for example.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Knowledge of mammalian physiology should be applied to management so
    that there could be more attention to resources when needs of the
    killer whale are greatest.

    -   Answering the question of "what is nutritional stress" when
        studying the decline of Steller sea lion stocks was impossible.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assuming the same indicators that work for other marine mammal
    species will work for killer whale is incorrect.

    -   Much more is known about pinniped physiology, but how much is
        applicable to killer whale?

    -   Morphometric or demographic indicators need to be tested for
        utility.

    -   Killer whale use and mobilize lipids in an entirely different
        way from pinnipeds.

    -   In cetaceans, there are species and environmental (e.g., water
        temperature) differences in these parameters as well, so it is
        not a given that what we know about other species can be applied
        to killer whale.

    -   Most of the literature on mammalian physiology is from
        terrestrial animals, and these data would have limited value for
        killer whale.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is historical information that might indicate that present
    whales are smaller (shorter length, shorter dorsal fins) than those
    described in the past.

***Method 1:** **Data mining demographic info**rmation** on SRK**Ws
particularly during winter **(NRKWs, captive, Alaska residents for
comparison**)***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 2:** **Data mining on physiological indicators of nutritional
stress on other marine ** **mammals***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 3:** **Nutritional experiments on captive cetaceans***

-   Compare international warm-water captive whales (see smallest
    blubber thickness in whales living in warmer water).

-   Are there captive whales currently in poor condition that could be
    studied?

-   It takes a while for whales to learn to eat in captivity (study them
    in the interim).

-   There is an ongoing isocaloric study with orcas that might provide
    some limited information on effects of dietary composition, but
    would not be under conditions of dietary stress.

***Method 4:** **Morphometric work on wild populations of **killer
whales** across regions***

-   Aerial surveys and photogrammetry in conjunction with groundtruthing
    with captives.

-   Might give information on which females are pregnant, which would
    help with demographic data collection as well.

-   Area to target: fat ridge anterior to dorsal fin.

    -   Would show fat variations seasonally (just an idea for photo
        data mining).

***Method 5:** **Ultrasound***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 6:** **Lipid characteristics in biopsy samples (utilizing
samples from other studies)***

-   Quantification.

The group agreed that answering this question requires analysis of the
information gained by answering Questions 1 and 2 above. Therefore, they
had no additional methods for this question.

***Method 1:** **Captive studies ***

-   Monitor and analyze monthly caloric budget (given seasonal variation
    in feeding captives).

-   Conduct body mass analysis.

***Method 2:** **Study activity budgets for seasonal patterns***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 3:** **Fish sampling (and analyses) in **killer whale**
foraging areas. ***

The group also felt a bioenergetics model, if enough data were inputted,
would provide insight into nutritional stress. Similarly, the above
methods could provide input into a bioenergetics model.

**Brainstormed Methods **(but not discussed in detail):

In the discussion of this question, the following points and/or
questions were raised:

Date: Thursday, January 22, 2004

Facilitator: Paul De Morgan

Recorder: Jennie Bolton

Participants:

[Morning Session:]{.underline} Paul Becker, Fred Felleman, Joe Gaydos,
Steve Jeffries, Peggy Krahn, Julie Mocklin, Dawn Noren, Sandie O'Neill,
Kim Parsons, Dave Rosen, Laurie Weitkamp, Terrie Williams, Gina Ylitalo

[Afternoon Session:]{.underline} Paul Becker, Fred Felleman, Joe Gaydos,
Steve Jeffries, Peggy Krahn, Sandie O'Neill

Due to the close relevance of the two Prey Quality subgroups,
Contaminants and Size/Fat Content, it was initially decided to combine
them in order to have more input into each topic. However, as the day
progressed, it was decided to separate during the afternoon. Therefore,
the two sessions were conducted with a slightly different format than
the other breakout sessions.

The morning began with two 20-minute presentations. The first was by
Dave Rosen of the University of British Columbia regarding the current
state of the knowledge of the size and fat content of potential prey.
This was followed by a presentation by Gina Ylitalo of the Northwest
Fisheries Science Center discussing the current state of knowledge for
contaminants in prey. Both were followed by brief discussions.

The rest of the morning was spent prioritizing research questions first
for the size/fat content topic and then for contaminants. For each
topic, research questions were brainstormed building off those developed
at the May 2003 workshops. The comprehensive list of questions was then
prioritized according to the questions' ability to address risk factors,
management needs, and significant data gaps.

The remainder of the day was spent identifying, describing, and
prioritizing research methods for the highest priority questions. Due to
time constraints, the group divided into two for the afternoon,
developing and prioritizing methods separately. Each question was
addressed individually. Methods were first brainstormed, then discussed,
and finally prioritized using criteria developed by NWFSC \[see Appendix
D\]. Late in the afternoon, the two groups reconvened and presented
results of the afternoon sessions to each other. All were given a chance
to add comments on both topics before the session was adjourned. Two
one-page reports from the breakout session were presented to the full
group the following morning. Below are copies of the one-page reports
followed by more comprehensive summaries for both of the topics of the
deliberations around the methods for each question.

During the afternoon session, the group agreed that coordination between
agencies (e.g. NOAA, DFO) on approaches for contaminant studies should
be pursued in all areas of research.

**[[ ]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Prey
Quality]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[
]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[(]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Contaminants]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[)]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[
Session Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Research Question 1: **What are the effects of elevated contaminant
levels on growth, reproduction, and survival? \[vote count\]

[Method 1]{.underline} -- Based on results of data mining, biopsy in
order to obtain an inter- and intra-comparison of contaminants across
killer whale populations \[4\]

[Method 2]{.underline} -- Build on ongoing work with harbor seals (as a
integrator) to correlate effects (ties into current research by Jeffries
et al. \[4\]

[Method 3]{.underline} -- Data mine information (i.e., inter- and
intra-comparison of contaminants across killer whale populations) to
identify data gaps \[2\]

[Method 4]{.underline} -- Literature and data survey for effects on
marine mammals (e.g., Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP))
\[1\]

[Method 5]{.underline} -- Use harbor porpoise as surrogate \[1\]

[Method 6]{.underline} -- Obtain tissue samples from odontocetes
carcasses from areas of known contaminants \[*not part of vote ... added
during second discussion*\]

**Research Question 2: **What are the sources of contaminants for killer
whales?

** **[Method 1]{.underline}** -- **Model food web pathways \[5\]

[Method 2]{.underline} -- Document and measure contaminant levels in
prey \[5\]

[Method 3]{.underline} -- Expand geographic range of harbor seal work
(coordinate with prey efforts) \[4\]

[Method 4]{.underline} -- Obtain biopsy information and understand
patterns \[3\]

[Method 5]{.underline} -- Conduct ambient air monitoring amidst killer
whale in presence/absence of whale watch activity \[1\]

[Method 6]{.underline} -- Data mine all known data (including early
samples)

**Research Question 3: **What are known factors that would exacerbate
the effect of bioaccumulated contaminants?

*\[The group identified factors including: disease, food limitation,
behavior (road rage), life stage, social status, air quality, and water
quality; they also indicated this would need significant information
before answering the question; they also indicated a challenge would be
to assess the various combinations of factors.\] *

[Method 1]{.underline}** --** Literature review

[Method 2]{.underline}** -- **Wait for results of Research Question 1

**Other Research Questions:**

-   What are the contaminant loads of different individuals?

-   Do/have contaminant levels changed over time? How? What is the rate
    of change?

-   What other contaminants should we be looking at?

**[[Prey Quality
(]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Contaminants]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[)]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[
Session Summary]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

The group began by discussing the physiological processes by which
contaminants are partitioned into blubber, and to what degree there is
metabolism. Females and young may have higher circulating levels of
lipids and contaminants. This is because females mobilize lipid during
lactation and transfer as much as 80-90% of their load of organochlorine
contaminants to their young via milk. Therefore, repeated circulation of
contaminants may be more of a problem for females and young compared to
adult males, where contaminants are mostly partitioned into their
blubber. In addition, some of the following points and/or questions were
raised:

-   At present we cannot interpret how a given level of contaminants
    impacts individual whales.

-   What are the physiological implications of high contaminant levels,
    and how do they relate to life-stage parameters and ecotype?

-   How do contaminant levels in SRKW compare to levels in other killer
    whale populations (including captive killer whales)?

    -   Perhaps fecundity rates of NR, SR and transient killer whales
        could be compared to see if these can be related to contaminant
        levels.

    -   Comparisons between populations is a vital tool for putting
        contaminant levels in context, while bearing in mind that
        contaminants is just one of many potential stressors on killer
        whale populations affecting fecundity.

    -   Transients have higher level of contaminants, but it is unknown
        if they are declining like the SRKW. As such, it is not possible
        to say whether higher levels in transients are having a negative
        impact on that population, nor interpret what this might imply
        for SRKW.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What tissues should we target to look for physiological effects?

-   How do the physiological implications relate to life-stage
    parameters and ecotype?

-   What are the contaminant loads of individuals and across pods, and
    how variable are they?

-   How have levels changed over time?

    -   Why is the problem with the population being seen now, when
        levels have been high for years?

    -   The population was increasing until 10-15 years ago. How does
        this relate to contaminant level changes during the last 20-30
        years? Some studies might imply that levels may actually be
        peaking only now, with a significant lag time after many of the
        compounds of concern have been banned. Additionally, some
        compounds such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, are rarely
        measured, but studies have indicated that they have been
        increasing and even overtaking PCB levels over the last 30
        years.

    -   May be able to use data sets from fish and harbor seals to
        determine temporal trends.

***Method 1: ** **Based on results of data mining, biopsy in order to
obtain an inter- and intra-comparison of contaminants across **killer
whale** populations ***

-   Include data from as many populations as possible including: SRKW,
    transients, NRKW, killer whales from AK

***Method 2: ** **Build on ongoing work with harbor seals (as a**n**
integrator) to correlate effects (ties into current research by Jeffries
et al.**)***

-   Use studies on harbor seals in Puget Sound to correlate effects of
    persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and perhaps to tie into local
    versus distant sources.

    -   Note that harbor seals, which eat herring and hake, and some
        squid, will have a more local signature than killer whales due
        to prey differences, and will have a different metabolic
        capability.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Examining harbor seals data can help address local management
    concerns.

-   Sampling of seals should be done everywhere along the coast where
    common prey species are collected, to compare to levels in killer
    whales. These efforts could be tied into current research by
    Jeffries et al.

***Method 3: ** **Data mine information (i.e., inter- and
intra-comparison of contaminants across **killer whale** populations) to
identify data gaps ***

-   Good data from Alaska populations with some gaps; fair amount on
    NRKWS.

-   Include Norway studies.

-   Address data gaps by additional sampling.

-   There are archived samples available to address trends.

***Method 4: ** **Literature and data survey for effects on marine
mammals (e.g., Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)) ***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 5: ** ** **Use harbor porpoise as surrogate ***

-   Literature search, data mine to find what information on levels and
    effects in NE Pacific porpoises is available.

-   Harbor porpoise, which eat baitfish and squid, have an advantage in
    that they are cetaceans rather than pinnipeds. However these
    probably would also have a more local signature than killer whales
    (studies have found differences in contaminant levels of coastal
    harbor porpoises between WA and CA).

***Method 6:** **Obtain tissue samples from odontocetes carcasses from
areas of known contaminants (Added during discussion at end of day)***

In the discussion of this question with the full prey quality group, the
following points and/or questions were raised:

-   Are the sources primarily from prey, some of which spend a
    significant amount of time in open ocean and would presumably be
    picking up contamination via global transport from Asia?

-   Are there local sources (e.g., hotspots in Puget Sound)?

-   What are the relative contributions from various sources?

-   Contaminant patterns can be used to elucidate information about prey
    selection, spatial trends, etc.

***Method 1:** **Model food web pathways***

-   Document and measure contaminant levels in known and potential prey.

-   Biopsy samples from killer whales will also be need for this method.

-   Important to identify relative contributions (i.e., local sources
    vs. global transport), because it can have direct effects on
    international treaties.

    -   For example, the international ban on the "dirty dozen" POPs and
        the treaty on long-range trans-boundary air pollution (LRTAP),
        were negotiated as the result in part of work in identifying
        sources by AMAP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Can the relative contribution of different geographic areas to
    killer whale contaminant loads be determined from contaminant
    signatures?

-   Modeling will not be useful until contaminant levels in prey are
    documented.

***Method 2:** **Document and measure contaminant levels in prey ***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 3:** **Expand geographic range of harbor seal work (coordinate
with prey efforts) ***

-   Link between geographic locations for prey and levels in harbor
    seals and killer whales to the extent possible.

    -   Sample seals in all locations where killer whale prey are being
        sampled, in order to use seals as an "integrator" in all these
        areas to aid in interpretation of data from a management
        perspective

    -   It makes a difference whether main source of exposure is from
        more local sources in WA or CA, or from global transport from
        Asia.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Harbor seal studies might aid in looking at levels and effects based
    more on local sources versus pelagic ones that will be more obvious
    in killer whales.

-   Harbor seals and porpoises would be a good indicator of local
    sources, but killer whales have a much wider range and eat prey that
    also have wider ranges.

Some folks were uncomfortable with the use of the word "surrogate"
relative to harbor seals or harbor porpoises with regard to killer
whales. There was more comfort with the term with respect to
physiological effects or endpoints, if certain effects could be expected
in both pinnipeds and cetaceans given similar contaminant levels. The
term "integrator" was suggested, that is, data obtained for other marine
species such as harbor seals (which are, after all, much easier to
sample than killer whales) can provide a context in which to interpret
data on patterns and effects, with an emphasis on local sources.

***Method 4:** **Obtain biopsy information and understand patterns ***

-   No specific discussion.

***Method 5:** **Conduct ambient air monitoring amidst killer whale in
presence/absence of whale watch activity ***

-   Contaminants in air, such as PAHs, may also affect whales but may
    not be bioaccumulative

***Method 6:** ** **Data mine all known data (including early
samples)***

In the discussion of this question with the full prey quality group, the
following points and/or questions were raised:

-   Both POPs (see note below) and chronic exposure to hydrocarbons from
    vessels exhaust may make animals more susceptible to respiratory
    bacterial or fungal infections, either by damaging lung tissue
    directly or by causing immunosuppression.

-   Presumably, there are critical life stages as well pertaining to
    effects of POPs.

-   Food stress may be a factor that exacerbates the effect of
    bioaccumulated contaminants.

-   Any of the other risk factors for SRKW could be considered
    important.

-   Is it worth data mining to find out what stressors might act in
    conjunction with contaminants to drive killer whale population
    declines?

\*\* Note: POPs, or "persistent organic pollutants," is a term used in
the literature and by AMAP, and includes organochlorines, brominated
flame retardants, and many other bioaccumulative organic compounds, both
man-made and naturally occurring. WDFW uses the term PBTs or "persistent
bioaccumulative toxics" to refer to these compounds and others, such as
mercury, which also concentrate in tissues and are transferred via food
webs.

***Method 1:** **Literature review***

***Method 2:** **Wait for results of Research Question 1** ****(What are
the effects of elevated contaminant levels on growth, reproduction, and
survival?)*

*\[The group identified factors including: disease, food limitation,
behavior (road rage), life stage, social status, air quality, and water
quality; they also indicated this would need significant information
before answering the question; they also indicated a challenge would be
to assess the various combinations of factors.\] *

[Difficulties with Information Gathering]{.underline}

-   Need to know the answer to Q1 *(What are the effects of elevated
    contaminant levels on growth, reproduction, and survival?*)* *in
    order to even get at methodology to address this question.

-   It would likely be difficult to get a sample size large enough given
    the size of the existing SRKW population.

-   Difficult to tie mortality to contaminants, since there are too many
    confounding factors.

    -   Some promising indicators used in other studies of marine
        mammals are loss of firstborns and immunosuppression. At
        present, these indicators are some of the most useful that can
        be tied directly to contaminants.

Date: Thursday, January 22, 2004

Facilitator: Katherine Friedman

Recorder: Jennifer Marsh

Participants: David Bain, Robin Baird, Ken Balcomb, Lynne Barre, Mike
Bennett, Edmund Gerstein, Jim Ha, Brad Hanson, John Hildebrand, Linda
Jones, Marilyn Joyce, John Miller, Jeffrey Nystuen, Rich Osborne,
Jeanette Thomas, Shaari Unger

The Vessel Interactions (Acoustics) breakout session began with a
30-minute presentation by Jeannette Thomas of Western Illinois
University regarding the current state of the knowledge followed by a
brief discussion about the presentation.

The morning was spent prioritizing research questions. Research
questions were brainstormed building off those developed at the May 2003
workshops. The comprehensive list of questions was then prioritized
according to the questions' ability to address risk factors, management
needs, and significant data gaps.

As a part of the initial discussion the group agreed to categorize the
research questions into three main areas: 1) Sound Source, 2) Path, and
3) Receiver (hearing and sound production, behavior and prey).

The remainder of the day was spent identifying, describing, and
prioritizing research methods for the highest priority questions. Each
question was addressed individually. Methods were first brainstormed,
then discussed, and finally prioritized using criteria developed by
NWFSC, WDFW, and DFO \[see Appendix D\]. A one-page report from the
breakout session was presented to the full group the following morning.
Below is a copy of the one-page report followed by a more comprehensive
summary of the deliberations around the methods for each question.

Because of the lengthy discussion earlier in the week on Vessel
Interactions (Behavior and Energetics) you will note that the discussion
for Vessel Interactions (Acoustics) is brief due to the participants not
wanting to engage in redundant conversation.

**[[Vessel Interactions
]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[(]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Acoustics]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[)]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[
Summary Report]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**Research Question 1: **What are the baseline acoustic conditions and
spectral characteristics of vessel noise and its propagation in SR
habitat for the purpose of predicting received levels under varying
conditions and the contributions from multiple vessels?

[Method 1]{.underline}: Field portable devices

[Method 2]{.underline}: Acoustic tags to measure sound

[Method 3]{.underline}: Establish long term monitoring stations

*(The group decided to briefly discuss the use of existing hydrophones,
either vessel based or fixed, as this had already been discussed
previously.)*

**Research Question 2: **What are energy and echolocation outputs of
whales around vessel noise?

[Method 1]{.underline}: Captive studies of animals trained to station
and echolocate

[Method 2]{.underline}: Ultra broadband tag

[Method 3]{.underline}: Build on Au/Ford work; array recordings; field
portable devices

**Research Question 3:** What are the directional characteristics of
hearing, and should we conduct TTS research?

[Method 1]{.underline}: Behavioral psychophysics

[Method 2]{.underline}: Evoke potentials

**Research Question 4: **How does sound propagation vary spatially,
temporally, and seasonally in the SRKW habitat?

[Method 1]{.underline}: Empirical methods measurements

[Method 2]{.underline}: Modeling

[Method 3]{.underline}: Mapping

**Research Question 5**: What is it about boats that affect whales?

[Method 1:]{.underline} Land based acoustic methods

[Method 2:]{.underline} Boat based acoustic methods

[Method 3:]{.underline} Whale based acoustics/behavior (call rates,
surface time, frequency modulation, frequency shift, increased source
level, increased redundancy)

[Method 4:]{.underline} Controlled experiments

**Research Question 6 (goes along with RQ 5):** What sources of noise
most likely affect SRKW reproduction, survival, etc.? (Methods not
extensively discussed)

[Method 1:]{.underline} Modeling exercise

[Method 2:]{.underline} Data mining

[Method 3:]{.underline} Boat based observation

[Method 4:]{.underline} Accumulative exposure

[Method 5:]{.underline} Long-term monitoring and photo-identification

[Method 6:]{.underline} Track acoustics over time

[Method 7:]{.underline} Comparative studies between NRKWs and SRKWs over
long-term

**[[Vessel Interactions (Acoustics) Session
Summary]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

Prior to discussing methods for Research Question 1, the group
considered whether any data mining could be accomplished to answer this
question. It was noted that published data on Haro Strait exists and a
contract report includes information on pinger propagation. Another
question the group considered concerned whether to distinguish sound
received at the whale as opposed to received at other locations. In
response, participants noted that noise received at the whale can be
measured with tags developed for that purpose.

***Method 1**:** **Field portable** devices***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   Use of these is event related, and boats are on site; it is a good
    opportunity.

-   Assuming skilled operators are using the device they are easy to
    use; video taping could be performed at the same time and result in
    identification of individuals as well as boats; GPS could be used to
    record position, etc.

-   While they are not very difficult to operate, and could be
    simplified to enable a broader range of users, it will be important
    to develop and/or utilize devices that are weatherproof and
    portable.

-   Could be custom made and systematic.

-   Measurements could be automated for ease of use.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   The system has to be straightforward to ensure operators can be
    trained.

-   If no notes are taken and the collection is not controlled, data can
    be uneven and it can be hard to determine sources of noise.
    Understanding where other sound sources are is necessary.

-   Approaching this method opportunistically could introduce too much
    bias. Too much bias will be introduced by not knowing which whale to
    score while acoustics are being monitored.

[General discussion]{.underline}

-   The method could be used in conjunction with aerial photography.

-   Important to have engine on to see what the noise is at the animal.

-   Could do continuous recording and also do focal follows on whales to
    set up equivalent noise exposure.

#### Method 2: Acoustic tags to measure sound

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   Only direct way to measure exposure level at the animal.

-   Can get information even with a sample size of one.

# [Concerns]{.underline}

-   Problems were raised regarding flow noise; animals moving very
    quickly; and sample size.

[General discussion]{.underline}

-   What are the relative costs for the tags?

-   Though the initial cost for a single tag is \$8,000, they can be
    used repeatedly.

-   How high of a sampling rate is desired for these tags? Another
    development issue revolves around the need for a broader band
    recorder.

-   L-98 could be a good platform for a carefully controlled study.

[Adverse Effects]{.underline}

-   Not much reaction for suction cup tags.

-   Need high frequency and long duration impacts. They are additive.

#### Method 3: Establish long term monitoring stations

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   These are a systematic way to collect seasonal data.

-   These have been valuable in Hawaii and are less biased than Method 1
    (field portable devices).

-   They do not necessarily have to be expensive.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   Relative cost may be high; especially considering the directness of
    measurements may be quite diffuse.

-   Trying to expand to remote sites is challenging, which contributes
    to high costs.

[Additional comments on long-term monitoring systems:]{.underline}

***Method 1:** **Captive studies of animals trained to station and
echolocate***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This is an opportunity to subject animals to masking stimuli that
    exist in the wild and the animals do not have to be highly trained.

-   If done in captivity, we could use the Navy or other systems already
    set up.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   It is important to have animals that are hoop trained and familiar
    with listening to a variety of noises. The distance between animal
    and monitoring hydrophone would have to be controlled.

-   Captive animals are confined and will receive different sound fields
    (in a pool or shallow water) so this is a less direct approach and
    ay result in unrealistic boat noise conditions.

#### Method 2: Ultra broadband tags

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This is the only way to get the information in a realistic setting
    (captivity is artificial).

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   Such tags do not exist currently. Also, it is a highly directed tag
    and there are sample size concerns.

-   The approach requires development, is less direct, less clear, has
    more potential for bias, and also raises cost concerns.

#### Method 3: Build on Au/Ford study

The study by Whitlow Au, John Ford and others is a recent publication on
the echolocation of resident killer whales with respect to detection of
Chinook salmon. The notion is to further develop field studies on
echolocation and its role in prey detection and the potential masking of
noise interfering with that detection. (Au, W.W.L., Ford, J.K.B., Horne,
J.K, and Newman Allman, K.A. 2004. Echolocation signals of free-ranging
killer whales (Orcinus orca) and modeling of foraging for Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115:901-909.

-   The group generally agreed this would be an excellent use of
    resources.

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   Good technique and the logistics are already worked out. It is a
    cost effective, easy method to use in the field. Also, the approach
    does not require putting a device on the animal.

-   May be able to use this for monitoring.

[Concerns]{.underline}

[General discussion]{.underline}

Prior to evaluating methods for this question, the group revisited their
decision to make Research Question 3 a priority. Following is a summary
of the conversation that occurred. Ultimately this question remained a
priority.

-   Why even address this question all? Dolphins have directional
    hearing capabilities.

-   Masking noise from the side may not be the same as masking noise
    from the front (similar as cocktail party effect in humans) and this
    is not a primary issue. TTS is more important than this question.

-   How would we work with this information in a management scenario? If
    we excluded the boats from the sides of whales as well as the front
    and back of whales, what are we left with? Most zones do not take
    into account direction (Directional acoustic tags on the animals)?

-   As far as TTS, maybe source levels of sounds are low enough that we
    do not need to discuss TTS. Bottlenose dolphins are not terribly
    sensitive to noise (SMM conference).

-   However, some sources have a high enough level to be of concern
    (e.g., being close to large vessels that can push 200 dB source
    levels).

***Method 1:** **Behavioral psychophysics***

***Method 2:** **Evoke potentials***

(Advantages and Concerns were discussed for both Methods 1 and 2 at the
same time)

# [Advantages]{.underline}

-   The Ridgeway portable unit may be used.

-   L-98 does not have to be trained.

-   Animal can leave any time if it does not want to participate.

# [Concerns]{.underline}

-   It takes a year to get the animal trained.

-   It is difficult to get all the electronics worked out. (e.g.,
    synchronizing the test tone to the computer is a challenge).

[General Discussion]{.underline}

***Method 1 **--** Empirical** **methods measurements***

***Method 2** **--** Modeling***

***Method 3 **--** Mapping***

[General Discussion ]{.underline}

-   This work is essential to interpreting behavior and subsequent
    management actions.

-   We need an idea of relative costs, etc. The three methods need to be
    developed.

-   Empirical data may come out of other measurements. As for modeling,
    use packages or models from other places.

-   Puget Sound is not an easy place to model.

-   These do not require the development of new software. We just need
    to know what is out there.

Note: participants did not discuss advantages and concerns for these
methods. All agreed that this discussion should happen at a later date.

##### General discussion

-   There are different mechanisms for how noise affects whales .

-   Methods for exploring noise affects on whales need to be developed
    (experimental work may be required).

-   It would be a valuable exercise to ask operators what they think is
    bothering the whales.

-   Existing data indicates that whale behavior in the presence of boats
    is different than the behavior in the absence of boats.

-   Information discussed during the vessel interaction (behavior and
    energetics) session could be useful: methods discussed included
    controlled experiments, land based observations, and boat based
    observations.

*Please Note: Methods discussed in this section overlapped with many of
the methods discussed in the Vessel Interactions (Behavior and
Energetics) Session. For more information on these methods, please refer
to notes from that section. *

***Method 1:** **Land based acoustic methods***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   Can be a lot more effective than just opportunistic observations.
    This ranked higher against the criteria, than observational data.

-   Fixed distances are known and can be measured more accurately.

-   Research has been done in this manner before.

# [Concerns]{.underline}

-   Hard to extrapolate from NRKWs to SRKWs.

***Method 2:** **Boat based acoustic methods***

a.  ***CTD with hydrophone***

b.  ***Active hydro-acoustics***

###### Note: Advantages and Concerns for Method 2 were not discussed

***Method 3:** **Whale based acoustics/behavior (call rates, surface
time, frequency ** ** ** ** **modulation, frequency shift, increased
source level, increased redundancy)***

a.  ***TDR**'**s***

b.  ***Tags***

c.  ***Video***

Note: See discussion notes on Advantages and Concerns from the Vessel
Interactions (Behavior and Energetics) Session.

***Method 4:** ** **Controlled experiments***

a.  ***P**layback of environmental sounds to whales; how it affects
    prey***

b.  ***A**ctive hydro-acoustics***

c.  ***V**ary noise characteristics independent of other variables***

Note: The group discussed controlled experiments from a land based
platform. They did not discuss whale based or boat based controlled
experiments.

***Method 4: ** **Controlled Experiments (Land Based Acoustic
Methods****)*

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   Fixed location allows for good distance measurements unobtainable
    from a boat. Source levels can be calculated as well.

# [Concerns]{.underline}

-   The approach may not provide a clear or complete answer. Also,
    sample sizes may be a problem without boats. Geographic biases are a
    potential problem as well as limitations on how well whale behavior
    can be detailed from land. Biases in ability to get information from
    different age/sex classes (well marked individuals only) may also be
    problematic. Optics and acoustic components are being discussed
    simultaneously.

-   Best to combine optics and acoustic components.

[General discussion]{.underline}

-   May still get information from just acoustic component, not
    behavioral component.

-   Group size affects behavior, so change in vocalizations needs
    behavioral components to explain it.

######## ***Observational Methods*: **there was a limited conversation noting that more discussion is ultimately needed.

***Boat Based Observational Methods:***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   More people ranked method 2 (boat based acoustic methods) higher
    than method 1 (land based acoustic methods).

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   Bias exists and there are no complete answers.

***Whale Based Acoustic/ Behavior Observational Methods***

[Advantages]{.underline}

-   This is useful because what whales are doing underwater is tracked
    and what is seen underwater can be calibrated.

-   Combining a tag with either method 1 (land based acoustic methods)
    or 2 (boat based acoustic methods), or with both methods combined,
    would improve their utility.

[Concerns]{.underline}

-   Sample size and bias issue. Tags are time limited and it is unknown
    when the tag will fall off; boat exposure cannot be controlled.

Though methods for Research Question 6 (What sources of noise most
likely affect SRKW reproduction, survival, etc.?) were not fully
discussed, there was consensus to use controlled experiments with
observational data.

## Though methods for Research Question 6 were not fully discussed, there was consensus to use controlled experiments with observational data.

## General Discussion:

-   It may not be possible to answer this large, important question
    until we answer many of the other questions.

-   Implicit in all questions is that data mining is important.

-   Discussion of the key measurable data is important.

-   In defense of modeling, assume all sources are important. What do we
    predict the impact of noise on the population would be? Vessel
    operators regulate themselves; follows rules of conduct.

-   It is critical to modify guidelines based on scientific information.

***Method 1:** ** **Modeling exercise***

###### Method 2: Data mining

-   Vessel traffic service counts

-   Boat registrations

###### Method 3: Boat based observation

***Method 4:** ** **Accumulative exposure***

***Method 5:** ** **Long-term monitoring and photo-identification***

###### Method 6: Track acoustics over time

***Method 7:** ** **Comparative studies between **NRKWs and SRKWs** over
long-term***

The workshop participants reconvened in plenary session for a half day
on Friday, January 23, to synthesize priorities and make recommendations
for the long-term research plan. The day began with three brief
presentations summarizing Thursday's breakout sessions. The group was
then asked to highlight key ongoing studies that may have been
overlooked during the workshop and identify data gaps and emerging
technologies that should be considered as a research plan is
constructed. The participants were then divided into four smaller
groups, each tasked with creating priorities for the long-term research
plan as if they were the decision-makers. The group reconvened to hear
each group present their "mock" research plans, and the day closed with
acknowledgements and next steps from representatives of NWFSC, WDFW, and
DFO.

**[A.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[Key Ongoing Studies]{.smallcaps}**

In order to ensure that the workshop convenors and all participants were
aware of the variety of additional ongoing studies, the group was asked
to identify studies not discussed over the course of the workshop. The
following studies were mentioned as part of this discussion:

-   Population Monitoring (Ken Balcomb).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   SoundWatch (Whale Museum).

    -   Activity around whales.

    -   Compliance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Northern Resident/Alaska effort.

-   Harbor seal work (State).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Habitat Use Studies (Jean Olson, Donna Hauser).

-   Whale movements relative to tidal currents (Katherine Frost).

-   Tissue sampling washed up animals in Puget Sound.

-   Acoustic arrays studies.

    -   At lighthouses.

    -   Whale call detection (ambient noise data as well).

    -   Passive array.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ongoing tag development (Brad Hanson, Don Croll).

-   Steller Sea Lions -- food limitation and other.

**[B.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[Data Gaps]{.smallcaps}**

Next, the conversation turned to a discussion of critical data gaps that
exist. Information needs that were discussed included:

-   Transient population dynamics.

-   Disease parameters (tap into knowledge in veterinary community).

-   Standard behavior classification system (hold small workshop as soon
    as possible).

-   NW-centric nature of the literature (expand out to other regions and
    countries).

-   Track military activity (to help identify when they're facing risks
    such as entanglement).

-   Track entanglement cases.

-   Energetics modeling effort (identify data gaps needed to complete
    model).

-   Mine data from vessel operators (survey, questionnaire...quick and
    easy, operators are eager to help).

**[C.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[New Research Approaches]{.smallcaps}**

Extending from the discussion of data gaps, the group discussed new
ideas for conducting and assembling research, such as:

-   Captive Studies:

    -   Seek partnership with aquarium (that does not already have
        killer whale(s)).

    -   Rent, buy, keep your own killer whale (faster and more accurate
        research).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Video for training (visually show behavior, habitat, etc. to
    standardize behavior classification).

-   Data management and coordination (Agencies' role):

    -   Canada/US need to coordinate research, timing, and prioritizing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Central killer whale website (data sharing site; would help
    coordination effort):

    -   Could be NOAA sponsored.

    -   Put old publications on webpages (PDF).

    -   Copyright concerns (address with EndNote software or links).

    -   Jim Ha efforts.

    -   Example -- Antarctic/Australia network.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Publicly available website.

-   PR effort (help support for research and why it is important).

-   Research may be enhanced by enlisting the help of the public through
    advertisements for sighting information and/or by enlisting the help
    of whale watchers to contribute sighting and/or behavioral data.

**[D.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[Small Group Research
Plans]{.smallcaps}**

After the general discussion of data gaps and research approaches, the
group divided into four subgroups and spent the next 30 minutes in a
mock NOAA/DFO/WDFW research planning session. Each group developed a
prioritized research plan, based on the results of the previous days'
deliberations. Once finished, the groups came back together to present
their plans to each other.

**[Group 1 ]{.underline}**

(Members: Joe Gaydos, Steve Jeffries, Dawn Noren, Kim Parsons, Dave
Rosen, Shaari Unger, Terrie Williams)

Group 1 divided their plan into two tiers. Tier 1 comprised the
immediate and relatively inexpensive actions to take in the near future.
Tier 2 included more expensive, long-term research activities.

[Tier 1 -- "Cheap Version"]{.underline}

-   Continue Population Monitoring (Ken Balcomb's work, photo IDs):

    -   SRKW.

    -   NRKW.

    -   Coordinate with already funded, ongoing Alaskan killer whale
        population monitoring.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Winter distribution studies (important, or else cannot answer any
    other questions):

    -   What is winter distribution?

    -   Use of existing acoustic arrays.

    -   Continue coastal sighting network.

    -   More PR to get people to report sightings (with coordinated
        follow up to get correct killer whale 'type' ID).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Vessel Interactions:

    -   More land and boat-based behavioral studies (boat coordination
        with other studies and whale watch boats) but need to link to
        acoustics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Data mining across all issues (important to so many topics;
    coordinate studies):

    -   Go beyond BRT to go to ecosystem and other marine mammals
        (especially odontocetes) for sound effects, physiology, etc.

    -   Central place for ongoing studies, information from all sources
        of research.

    -   Complete necropsy for all carcasses.

    -   Diet studies, especially with people on waterscoop scales and
        feces, test fisheries.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Are trends (time, regions) in body condition consistent with food
    limitation?

-   Have there been major changes in the salmonid production of greater
    than Puget Sound area over last 100 years?

[Tier 2 -- "Things that are important to do"]{.underline}

1.  Biopsy whales:

    a.  DietFA, stable isotopes, contaminants.

    b.  Contaminants.

    c.  Contaminant ratios for winter range.

    d.  Cross-sectioned nutritional status.

    e.  Genetics.

    f.  Pregnancy Status (it may be possible to determine with this
        method, but it should be ground tested with captive killer
        whales).

    g.  Stress (proteins in skin---see dolphin/tuna studies).

\*\*Need to know which whales where, when, etc. before going out there!
Develop protocol. May need to prioritize samples.

1.  Tagging:

    a.  Winter distribution (methodology development of long-term tags).

    b.  Diving/foraging (correlated with vessels).

    c.  Acoustics level received (correlated with vessels).

    d.  Mortality signal---if on land know where to pick up carcass.

    e.  Habitat use (correlated with vessels).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Small-scale acoustic/prey sampling---tagging and vessel operations
    (worthwhile because it would answer so many questions).

2.  Set up acoustic arrays for winter distribution (existing and new
    ones for gaps).

3.  Expand vessel interaction/noise studies.

[Examples of "Add-on" values]{.underline}

-   Physical condition index:

    -   Ultrasound (short-term).

    -   Develop photogrammetry.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fecal collection feasibility.

-   Necropsy of other cetaceans and response network (focus:
    contaminants, disease, head injury---need better system for
    necropsies, especially things not normally done like sound-trauma.
    Also need better response network).

-   Focal fish sampling (would be cheap).

-   Acute event response team (to respond immediately to oil spills and
    other crises).

**[Group 2]{.underline}**

(Members: Dave Bain, Ed Gerstein, Brad Hanson, Marilyn Joyce, Peggy
Krahn, John Miller, Gina Ylitalo)

[Research Plan]{.underline}

1.  Winter distribution:

    a.  Population level impact.

    b.  Secondary studies (feeds into).

    c.  Methods: Satellite tags (but placement of tags costly), monitor
        up and down the coast, ship time (through NOAA).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Health assessments (when they return from winter, how is their
    health?):

    a.  Population impacts.

    b.  Crosses multiple risk factors.

    c.  Temporal differences.

    d.  Inter-intra population differences (since NRKWs are relatively
        stable, they may not be subjected to the same contaminants or
        they may have different prey pressures).

    e.  Method: Take biopsies before and after and collect information
        over time.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Continuation of specific risk factor:

    a.  Vessel interactions:

        i.  Strong basis to suspect it is a contributor.

        ii. Justify current and potential management actions (from
            management standpoint, vessels are easy to manage).

        iii. Method: Continue studies of boat interactions (whale
             watching and other vessels in Puget). Expand upon network.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    a.  Prey Availability:

        i.  Prey selection (summer).

        ii. Do vessels affect prey? (do vessel acoustics mask sound of
            whales? do they block prey? have killer whales had to change
            foraging strategy?).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Synthesis:

    a.  Data management.

    b.  Modeling.

**[Group 3]{.underline}**

(Members: Robin Baird, Lynne Barre, Michael Bennett, Harriet Allen, Jim
Ha, Rich Osborne, Laurie Weitkamp)

Group 3 took a more "high-level" approach, generally planning how to
assess research projects and which research areas to explore first.

[Research Plan]{.underline}

Criteria (use matrix of these criteria to evaluate research projects):

-   Critical foundation of knowledge.

-   Management value (what gives us a handle to really take action).

-   Cost.

Priority (multiple methods at once: integrated approach crucial for
getting direct results):

1.  Winter distribution (would give us the biggest increase in knowledge
    and be foundation for many other areas as well).

2.  Prey selection (crucial to all other prey studies, also gives handle
    on management.).

3.  Vessel interaction (acoustic component very important).

**[Group 4]{.underline}**

(Members: Ken Balcomb, Paul Becker, Eli Holmes, Linda Jones, Jennifer
Marsh, Shannon McCluskey, Julie Mocklin, Jeannette Thomas)

Group 4 also had a higher-level research plan which they described as
"three-pronged." They intended for a large emphasis on all three prongs.

[Research Plan ]{.underline}

-   Foundation:

    -   Basic biology:

        -   Sociobiology.

        -   Genetics.

        -   Physiology.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Priority Research Questions:

    -   Winter Distribution:

        -   Development of remote monitoring methods (as well as
            continue passive collection).

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Prey Selection:

        -   Multiple methods.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Contaminants.

    -   Develop biopsy research plan (figure out exactly which animals
        to biopsy):

        -   Prey analyses.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Prey abundance:

        -   Data mining.

        -   Sonar research plan based on data mining (notice contrast
            because winter diet deserves expensive projects while prey
            abundance stick to cheaper, sonar).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Infrastructure (responsibility of government agency):

    -   Data sharing platform.

    -   Coordination.

    -   Standardization protocols (behavioral, necropsy).

    -   Outreach.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   R &D (extra, side prong):

    -   Tagging.

    -   Body condition.

    -   Pilot studies for other areas.

**[V.]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[Closing Remarks]{.smallcaps}**

In closing, representatives from each of the hosting agencies offered
remarks. Marilyn Joyce, DFO, Harriet Allen, WDFW, and Linda Jones,
NWFSC, all expressed their appreciation for the participants commitment
and indicated they had learned a lot from the deliberations that would
be useful as they proceeded with their efforts to conserve the SRKWs.

As part of the closing remarks, Linda Jones explained that NWFSC will
develop a report on the workshop and make it available to participants
and others. The NWFSC will then begin developing the long-term research
plan, with a goal of developing a first draft by mid-2004. There will be
a formal peer review process for the research plan. Once complete, the
research plan will be integrated into the NOAA Fisheries SRKW
conservation plan. A draft conservation plan is scheduled to be
available in December 2004, at which time a formal public review process
will be initiated.

The workshop concluded with additional thanks to all participants and
acknowledgements for the staff that completed the immense amount of
preparation work to ensure that the event went as smoothly and
effectively as possible.

**[[Workshop Objectives]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

1.  Define research questions and viable methodologies for conducting
    research on SRKWs.

2.  Prioritize research questions and methods for development of a 3-5
    year long-range research plan for SRKWs.

**[[Monday, January 19
]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[--]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[ Plenary
Session]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

1:00 -- 1:30 [Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review]{.underline}

-   Welcome (*Usha Varanasi, Science Director, NWFSC*)

-   Opening comments *(Linda Jones, NWFSC)*

-   Introductions and ground rules *(Katherine Friedman, LDA) *

-   Agenda review *(Paul De Morgan, RESOLVE)*

1:30 -- 2:15 [Overview of Workshop Purpose and Objectives]{.underline}

-   Northwest Fisheries Science Center (*Linda Jones*)

-   NOAA Fisheries, NW Regional Office (*Lynne Barre*)

-   Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (*Marilyn Joyce*)

-   Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (*Harriet Allen) *

2:15 -- 2:45 [Presentation on Results of Spring 2003
Workshops]{.underline}

-   Describe major research questions identified (*Dawn Noren, NWFSC*)

-   Introduce NOAA-funded research projects (*Brad Hanson, NWFSC*)

2:45 -- 5:15 [Brief Presentations on Current Research
Projects]{.underline}*** (includes break)***

-   Each presentation will briefly review the primary question, methods
    used, and preliminary results, if any.

-   Presentations will include projects funded by NOAA, WDFW, and DFO.

5:15 -- 5:30 [Setting the Stage for Rest of the Workshop]{.underline}

5:30 **ADJOURN**

6:00 -- 7:30 **RECEPTION** (*Portage Bay Cafe*)

**[[Tuesday, January 20
]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[--]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[ Concurrent
Breakout Sessions]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

Attendees will participate in one of two breakout sessions:

1.  Prey Abundance

2.  Vessel Interactions (behavior and energetics)

8:00 -- 8:30 **COFFEE AVAILABLE**

8:30 -- 8:45 [Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of Breakout Session
Approach ]{.underline}

8:45 -- 9:15 [Overview of the State of the Knowledge]{.underline}

-   Prey Abundance -- *Bruce Sanford, WDFW*

-   Vessel Interactions (Behavior and Energetics) -- *Rob Williams,
    Univ. of St. Andrews*

9:15 -- 11:15 [Identify and Prioritize Research Questions]{.underline}
***(includes break)***

-   Review existing research questions

-   Identify additional research questions

-   Discuss full list -- ask questions; consolidate as appropriate

-   Prioritize research questions

11:15 -- 12:30 [Discuss Approaches and Methods for Each Research
Question]{.underline}

-   Outline approaches and methods

-   Assess each one, using factors of importance

-   Prioritize approaches and methods

12:30-- 1:30 **LUNCH**

1:30 -- 4:30 [Continue to Outline, Assess, and Prioritize Proposed
Approaches and Methods]{.underline} ***(includes break)***

4:30 -- 5:00 [Develop Report for Plenary and Wrap Up]{.underline}

5:00 **ADJOURN**

**[[ Wednesday, January 21
]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[--]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[ Concurrent
Breakout Sessions]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

Attendees will participate in one of two breakout sessions:

1.  Prey Selection

2.  Winter Distribution^\*^[^1]

7:45 -- 8:15 **COFFEE AVAILABLE**

8:15 -- 8:30 **[Plenary Session]{.underline}**[: Overview of Tuesday's
Results]{.underline}

8:30 -- 8:45 [Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of Breakout Session
Approach ]{.underline}

8:45 -- 9:15 [Overview of the State of the Knowledge]{.underline}

-   Prey Selection -- *John Ford, DFO, Canada*

-   Winter Distribution -- *Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research*

9:15 -- 11:15 [Identify and Prioritize Research Questions]{.underline}
***(includes break)***

-   Review existing research questions

-   Identify additional research questions

-   Discuss full list -- ask questions; consolidate as appropriate

-   Prioritize research questions

11:15 -- 12:30 [Discuss Approaches and Methods for Each Research
Question]{.underline}

-   Outline approaches and methods

-   Assess each one, using factors of importance

-   Prioritize approaches and methods

12:30-- 1:30 **LUNCH**

1:30 -- 4:30 [Continue to Outline, Assess, and Prioritize Proposed
Approaches and Methods]{.underline} ***(includes break)***

4:30 -- 5:00 [Develop Report for Plenary and Wrap Up]{.underline}

5:00 **ADJOURN**

**[[ Thursday, January 22
]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[--]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[ Concurrent
Breakout Sessions]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

Attendees will participate in one of three breakout sessions:

1.  Vessel Interactions (Acoustics)

2.  Prey Quality (Size/fat content)

3.  Prey Quality (Contaminants)

7:45 -- 8:15 **COFFEE AVAILABLE**

8:15 -- 8:30 **[Plenary Session]{.underline}**[: Overview of Wednesday's
Results]{.underline}

8:30 -- 8:45 [Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of Breakout Session
Approach ]{.underline}

8:45 -- 9:15 [Overview of the State of the Knowledge]{.underline}

-   Vessel Interactions (Acoustics) -- *Jeanette Thomas, Western
    Illinois Univ.*

-   Prey Quality (Size/Fat Content) (15 min) -- *Dave Rosen, Univ. of
    British Columbia*

-   Prey Quality (Contaminants) (15 min) -- *Gina Ylitalo, NOAA NWFSC*

9:15 -- 11:15 [Identify and Prioritize Research Questions]{.underline}
***(includes break)***

-   Review existing research questions

-   Identify additional research questions

-   Discuss full list -- ask questions; consolidate as appropriate

-   Prioritize research questions

11:15 -- 12:30 [Discuss Approaches and Methods for Each Research
Question]{.underline}

-   Outline approaches and methods

-   Assess each one, using factors of importance

-   Prioritize approaches and methods

12:30-- 1:30 **LUNCH**

1:30 -- 4:30 [Continue to Outline, Assess, and Prioritize Proposed
Approaches and Methods]{.underline} ***(includes break)***

4:30 -- 5:00 [Develop Report for Plenary and Wrap Up]{.underline}

5:00 **ADJOURN**

**[[Friday, January 23
]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[--]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[ Plenary
Session]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

7:45 -- 8:15 **COFFEE AVAILABLE**

8:15 -- 8:30 [Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review]{.underline}

8:30 -- 8:45 [Overview of Thursday's Results]{.underline}

8:45 -- 9:30 [Step Back]{.underline}

-   What other information on killer whales is critical for us to have
    in order for us to manage or understand the populations?

9:30 -- 10:15 [Creating a Research Plan ]{.underline}

10:15 -- 10:30 **BREAK**

10:30 -- 11:00 [Brief Report out from Breakouts]{.underline}

11:00 -- 12:00 [Plenary Discussion]{.underline}

-   Cross cutting issues and implications?

12:00 -- 12:30 [Next Steps and Acknowledgments]{.underline}

12:30 **ADJOURN**

* (Names in bold font designate speakers who presented at workshop)*

**[NWFSC Funded SRKW Research Projects]{.underline}**

1.  Comparison of Past and Current Levels of Vessel Activity in SRKW
    Habitat in the San Juan Islands (**Richard Osborne**)

2.  Baseline Acoustics: Measurements of Boats and Background Noise in
    the Puget Sound (John Hildebrand, John Calambokidis, Ken Balcomb,)
    **Presented by Brad Hanson**

3.  Land Based Behavioral Monitoring of Vessel Impacts on Southern
    Resident Killer Whales (**David Bain**, Rob Williams, Jodi Smith)

4.  Boat-Based Behavioral Monitoring of Vessel Impacts on Southern
    Resident Killer Whales (**Jennifer Marsh**, James Ha)

5.  Behavioral Energetics of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the
    Presence of Vessels (**Dawn Noren**, Jennifer Marsh, James Ha)

6.  Killer Whale Time-Depth-Recorder Data Analysis (**Robin Baird**, M.
    Bradley Hanson)

7.  Killer Whale Captive Feeding Study (**Terrie Williams**, Daniel
    Monson)

8.  Killer Whale Prey Quality Analysis (Peggy Krahn, Gina Ylitalo,
    **Sandie O'Neill**, Jim West)

9.  Historical Analysis of Growth Rates and Condition of SRKWs (Adam U,
    **Eli Holmes**, Ken Balcomb)

10. Standardized Killer Whale Necropsy Protocol (**Joseph Gaydos**,
    Stephen Raverty)

11. Annual Southern Resident Killer Whale Survey (**Ken Balcomb**)

12. Coastal Sighting Network and Killer Whale Winter Location Monitoring
    (**Ken Balcomb**)

13. Killer Whale Winter Surveys (Linda Jones, **M. Bradley Hanson**,
    Dawn Noren)

14. Summer Range Habitat Use of Southern Resident Killer Whale Pods
    (**Donna Hauser**, Eli Holmes, Glenn VanBlaricom, Rich Osborne)

15. Correlation Analysis of SRKW Movements and Salmon Presence (Rich
    Osborne)

16. Relationships of Fluctuations in SRKW (*Orcinus orca*) Numbers and
    Behavior to Salmonid Population Dynamics (Shannon McCluskey, Glenn
    VanBlaricom, Rich Osborne)

**[SRKW Research Projects not Funded by NWFSC]{.underline}**

1.  SRKW Population Trends Relative to the Death of Old Individuals
    (**Richard Osborne**)

2.  SRKW Pods Annual and Monthly Trends in Arrivals and Departures from
    the Salish Sea (**Richard Osborne**)

3.  Temporal Trends in Contaminants Revealed from Harbor Seals (**Steven
    Jeffries**, Peter Ross, John Calambokidis)

4.  Spatial Patterns in Contaminants Revealed from Harbor Seals
    (**Steven Jeffries**, Peter Ross, John Calambokidis)

5.  Annual Population Assessment (**John Ford**, Graeme Ellis)

6.  Prey Selection Studies (**John Ford**)

7.  Population Dynamics Analyses (Peter Olesiuk) - **Presented by John
    Ford**

8.  Toxicology Studies (Peter Ross) - **Presented by John Ford**

**SRKW Project Report: Comparison of Past and Current Levels of Vessel
Activity in SRKW Habitat in the San Juan Islands**

**Investigator(s):**

Dr. Rich Osborne, Whale Museum**, **osborne@whalemuseum.org

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

How are habitat use and behavioral energetics of SRKW pods affected by
vessel activity?

How do vessels affect SRKW's ability to forage?** **

Data gap addressed: Habitat use.

**Project Abstract:**

*The objective of this study is to determine if/how the number of
vessels, types of vessels, and vessel activity around the SRKWs have
changed from 1990 to 2003 in the San Juan Islands. Investigators will
compile and analyze vessel activities from shoreline and on water
observations recorded from 1990 through 2003. Data will be analyzed to
determine how the vessel dynamics have changed over the course of each
day and between months in SRKW habitat. Analyses to determine changes in
these patterns over the past thirteen years will also be conducted.
(NMFS contract wording)*

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Whale watching vessel activity around S.R. killer whales May- September
averaged 7.0 boats in 1990, peaked in 1997 with an average of 28.2
boats, and has stabilized with averages between 18 and 22 boats over the
last six years (SD from +/- 10-15 each year). Maximum counts of 70-120
boats occurred 2-6 times each year on days during the eight peak weeks
of summer centered in July. These maximum events all occurred in the
early afternoons, continuing for up to two hours at a time and tended to
be centered along the western shoreline of San Juan Island where whale
watching boats converged with salmon anglers and kayakers. Over the last
six years average boat counts were \< 12 prior to 10 AM and after 17:00,
with daily peaks in the late morning and mid afternoon. Vessel types and
vessel density consistently varied by location. Higher over-all counts
and increased numbers of kayaks and private power boats occurred in
near-shore areas, and lower over-all counts dominated by commercial
vessels occurred when whales were centered in areas \> 3km from shore.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Data for this analysis consists of two primary data sets: 1) vessel
counts at Lime Kiln State Park when whales are present, and vessel
counts four times/day when whales are not present (May 20^th^ to August
10^th^ from 1990-2003), and 2) vessel counts every 30 minutes from a
vessel platform traveling in the vicinity of whales throughout the
region (May-September, 1996-2003). This methodology has worked well for
efficiently establishing a longitudinal data set to monitor changing
conditions over months and years.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Sampling has been inadequate in winter and the shoulder seasons
(October-April) and prior to 09:00 and after 17:00. A sampling regime to
address these time periods could be developed but wasn't for the present
study.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

The data set provides the necessary baseline on vessel activity for a
longitudinal assessment of S.R. exposure to whale watching vessel
traffic, and the sources of that traffic, but does not address killer
whales directly. As a contribution to addressing potential impacts on
killer whale energetics and foraging behavior, only the vessel-side of
those issues are indirectly addressed.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

Annual maintenance of this data set should be continued as a
longitudinal measure of the success of management programs. A sampling
regime to address early morning, evening and "off-season" whale watching
activity should be implemented. Future research should also include some
aerial photography/video coordinated with vessel and shore-based counts.
Aerial data could be used for calibration, and would allow more detailed
assessment of spatial dynamics between vessel types and whales. Aerial
photography/video would also provide valuable data for generating
testable hypotheses about vessel influences on both energetics and
foraging.

**SRKW Project Report: Baseline Acoustics: Measurements of Boats and
Background Noise in the Puget Sound **

**Investigator(s):**

John Hildebrand, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,

John Calambokidis. Cascadia Research,

Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

What are baseline acoustic conditions and vessel noise characteristics
in SRKW habitat?

**Brief Project Abstract:**

This study will provide baseline data to characterize the dynamic
environmental acoustic levels killer whales are exposed to in Haro
Strait. Investigators will conduct a survey of environmental noise at
different depths using a calibrated vertical hydrophone array. Acoustic
source level data will also be collected from a representative sample of
major vessel classes under typical operating conditions. Vessel classes
will include both propeller and water-jet driven craft. Acoustic source
level data with multiple vessels operating simultaneously during
controlled approaches, under varying distances and speeds will also be
collected.

**Preliminary Results, if any:**

During October 2003 we collected the following data: 1) vertical array
ambient noise data in high wind and sea-state conditions, 2) noise
measurements of commercial shipping vessels (three total) and 3) noise
measurements of small vessels (two total).  Poor weather conditions
required postponing the remainder of the data collection until
spring/summer 2004. On the positive side, the poor weather conditions
provided an opportunity to better coordinate and work with other Haro
Strait researchers.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Sonobuoys have proven to be an efficient means for acoustic data
collection during high wind and sea state conditions.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Sound propagation data were not collected during high wind and sea state
owing to high ambient noise. Whale watch vessels are present in limited
numbers and are less willing to cooperate with noise studies during
periods of high wind and sea state.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

To date, insufficient data have been collected to characterize baseline
acoustic conditions and vessel noise levels in the Haro Strait.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

The final project dataset will include a second field session to
provide:

1.  noise levels during different environmental conditions (e.g. wind,
    waves)

2.  more whale-watch operators and other vessel types

3.  better integration with vessel interactions studies

**SRKW Project Report: Land Based Behavioral Monitoring of Vessel
Impacts on SRKWs**

**Investigator(s): **

Dr. David Bain, University of Washington,

Dr. Rob Williams,

Jodi Smith, dyesqueen@rockisland.com

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

How are habitat use and behavioral energetics of SRKW pods affected by
vessel activity?

**Project Abstract:**

The study will provide data to start to characterize the effects of
vessel traffic on killer whale behavior off San Juan Island. Land-based
behavioral surveys of killer whales were conducted at two sites by the
research team in the summer of 2003 using an electronic theodolite in
conjunction with video cameras, a spotting scope, and binoculars. Small
group behaviors and focal individual behaviors were classified and
recorded in the presence and absence of vessel activity. The behavioral
data will also be used to estimate energetic costs to SRKWs associated
with vessels.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Focal whales were approached by at least one vessel during the first 15
minutes of tracking over 90% of the time. This precluded obtaining
sufficient control data on behavior in the absence of vessels, although
behavior near vessels appeared consistent with that exhibited by
Northern Residents.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Carefully defined behavioral definitions used by a small, well-qualified
staff allowed collection of reliable data. Using two theodolites to
track two focal individuals or one focal individual and many boats as
appropriate worked well. Combining focal animal tracking with scan
sampling provided complementary perspectives on the question.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Using one team to cover two sites was the best solution for 2003, but
future work would be better done by two teams per site, and that would
eliminate coordination problems due to lack of cell phone coverage on
San Juan Island. Using sites with longer passes of whales closer to
shore would be beneficial. Adding vertical linkage between the
theodolites and video cameras might have improved the usefulness of that
technique at the possible expense of impairing the theodolite operator's
view. The voluntary no-boat zone was ineffective at excluding all
vessels.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

Due to the timing of the study, the sample generated was insufficient to
provide conclusive answers to the basic questions. However, data should
be sufficient to address relative effects of vessel number and proximity
over a range of values.

**What are the future needs for this project? **

An effective means for excluding all vessels from the study site needs
to be developed to allow collection of baseline data (using infrared
gear to track at night should be considered). Incorporation of acoustic
data would be very valuable. Initiating work early in the season to
allow collection of a scientifically valid sample will be necessary.

**SRKW Project Report: Boat-based Behavioral Monitoring of Vessel
Impacts on Whales **

**Investigator(s):**

Jennifer Marsh, University of Washington, jam3@u.washington.edu

Dr. James Ha, University of Washington,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

How are habitat use and behavioral energetics of SRKW pods affected by
vessel activity?

Data gaps addressed: Habitat use.

**Project Abstract:**

This study was partially funded by the NWFSC and will ultimately be able
to examine how variables such as sea surface temperature, tides, time of
day, location, number of vessels, and salmon abundance influence the
social behavior of SRKW. Social behaviors examined include "percussive"
behaviors (tail slap, pectoral fin slap, breach), as well as spy hops
and synchronous surfacing. Boat-based behavior surveys were conducted
during the summer of 2003, resulting in the collection of 3320 minutes
of behavioral data. In addition, the behavior of killer whales and
surrounding boats were characterized using a scan sampling approach.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

The preliminary analysis of data controlled for the effects of group
size by calculating average rates/animal. Percussive behaviors,
synchronous surfacings, and spy hops were observed significantly more
often in the morning (between 0600h and 1000h) than at mid-day (1000 to
1400h) or in the afternoon (1400h to 1800h). Initial findings indicate
that, overall, the increasing presence of boats in the immediate
vicinity of the whales was related to a statistically significant
decrease in percussive behavior and synchronous surfacing, but did not
alter the rates of spy hopping. In fact, a strong negative relationship
was found between boat numbers and both percussive behaviors and
synchronous surfacings in the morning (more boats = less frequent
behavior), while a weaker positive relationship existed between boats
and these behaviors in the afternoon, and boat numbers had no effect on
these behaviors at mid-day. The relative effects of commercial and
private boat numbers were similar. While analyses of weekly salmon
abundance and SRKW behavior are forthcoming, limited sample size from
this first summer prevent us from examining the simultaneous effects of
physical parameters, vessel activity, and prey abundance and behavior.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked: **

Collection of behavioral data using handheld PALM III*xe* PDA units was
successful from our boat-based platform, and was most successful with
three research assistants aboard.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Two major problems arose in this first season of behavioral data
collection: (1) as initially proposed, attempts were made to
photo-identify all whales each day, but when whales were located after
9:30 am, and therefore after the whale watch fleet found them,
photo-identification became impossible, and (2) following whales all day
and over long distances was often hindered by the size of the research
vessel (17 ft outboard) due to sea condition and lack of fuel capacity.
Thus, the size of the research vessel negatively impacted our sample
size.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

The preliminary results of this study suggest that boat-based SRKW
social behavior recording is feasible, and provides high-quality data
from a wide range of geographic areas. In addition, the preliminary
results indicate that SRKW behavior may be affected by the number of
boats in the vicinity of whales. Further analysis will address these
effects in relation to other variables.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

It is clear that this project requires a larger sample size before
definitive conclusions can be made. Additional data is needed from a
wider range of geographic areas, times of day, boat numbers and
behavior, and salmon population variations. This need for additional
sample size dictates a multiple year design. On a more immediate level,
increased sample sizes will require a larger, safer, more stable
research vessel, and support for housing and transportation costs for
one investigator and several assistants.

**SRKW Project Report: Behavioral Energetics of SRKWs in the Presence of
Vessels**

**Investigator(s):**

Dr. Dawn Noren, Marine Mammal Group, NOAA NWFSC, Dawn.Noren@noaa.gov

Jennifer Marsh, University of Washington, jam3@u.washington.edu

Dr. James Ha, University of Washington,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

How are habitat use and behavioral energetics of SRKW pods affected by
vessel activity?

**Project Abstract:**

This past summer a two week pilot study was conducted (in collaboration
with Jennifer Marsh's project at no additional cost) to determine the
feasibility of conducting a vessel-based focal follow study to provide
data to characterize physiological characteristics (e.g. swim speeds,
respiration rates, dive times, surface durations, etc.) of SRKWs and
examine how vessel interactions and ecological variables influence these
characteristics. Investigators will also develop bioenergetics models
using the physiological parameters and previously published values for
metabolic rates for killer whales to determine energetic costs of killer
whales associated with vessels.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

This brief project focused only on three adult males (L41, L57, and J1),
which limits the preliminary analyses. Focal follows less than 15 min
were discarded. The four focal follows of L41 lasted from 15-72 min, the
one focal follow of L57 was 27 min, and the six focal follows of J1
ranged from 19-62 min. Surface Duration (R^2^=0.03, P\<0.001) and
Surface Duration to Dive Duration Ratio (R^2^=0.01, P=0.01) were
inversely related to the number of vessels present (surface duration and
surface to dive duration ratio decreased with increasing vessel number).
However, there was no significant relationship between dive duration and
number of vessels present. Although there were more vessels present when
the killer whale group size was greater (R^2^=0.32, P\<0.001), killer
whale groups size was not significantly correlated with any of the dive
and surface duration parameters. More data is required to make any solid
conclusions.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:** The data
collection program on the Palm Pilot was good, but modifications will be
made to increase accuracy of data collection.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:** It was
difficult to manually enter swim speed in the Palm Pilot during focal
follow operations. Pending funding, a Palm Pilot and GPS that can
interface electronically will be purchased to enhance accuracy of data
collection. Focal follows will also be limited to one hour in duration
to avoid observer fatigue.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**
This was a pilot study that does show promise in answering the question.
The challenge for next year will be to add focal follows from adult
females, which are harder to discriminate.

**What are the future needs for this project?** This project will
require two full field seasons which will require money to pay for
research assistants and better data collection equipment. Furthermore,
focal follows of adult females and some of the less distinctive adult
males will have to be conducted.

**SRKW Project Report:** **Killer Whale Time-Depth-Recorder Data
Analysis**

**Investigator(s): **

Dr. Robin W. Baird, Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia, WA.
rwbaird@dal.ca

Dr. M. Bradley Hanson, Marine Mammal Program, NOAA NWFSC.

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

What are SRKW prey?

Data gap addressed: Habitat use and foraging behavior.

**Project Abstract:**

A comprehensive analysis of the existing data collected from
remotely-deployed suction-cup attached time-depth recorders (TDRs) on
wild SRKWs in Haro Strait, Juan de Fuca Strait, and the southern Strait
of Georgia, is being conducted. The analyses use dive depths, dive
shapes, and changes in swimming velocity recorded by the TDRs to
characterize diving behavior, the occurrence of possible foraging
activities, and other behaviors (e.g., rest), both during the day and at
night. These data will then be used to evaluate potential prey of SRKWs,
foraging areas, and other killer whale behaviors that occur below the
waters' surface.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Forty TDRs were deployed on SRKWs between 1993 and 2002, and 419 hours
of dive data were collected. Analyses are focusing on the 34 deployments
\> 2 h in duration (total of 411 h of dive data), 27 of which include
velocity data. Data were collected from 21 deployments on L-pod whales,
10 deployments on K-pod whales, and 3 deployments on J-pod whales,
though some whales were tagged on more than one occasion. Similar
amounts of data were collected during the day (211 h) and at night (191
h). Dive data have only been collected in the summer (May-July) and
early fall (September-October), with almost half (16/34) of the
deployments in July. Data are currently being examined for
characterization of depth and velocity patterns in different behavioral
states (i.e., foraging, traveling, socializing, resting).

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Data analyses are ongoing. Follow data (i.e., periods when tagged whales
were followed and surface behavioral information was collected
simultaneous to dive data) are being used to characterize behavioral
states, as a method of ground-truthing sub-surface data.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Quantitative interpretation of velocity data is problematic due to
several reasons, including stalling of the velocity meter when the tags
are out of the water (creating artificial spikes in velocity), and high
"noise" levels due to movements of the tag on a whale's body. We are
continuing to explore the use of quantitative approaches to objectively
identify potential predation events as indicated by unique velocity
and/or dive patterns.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

This research cannot directly address prey species taken, though does
allow for assessment of habitat use and foraging behavior, in particular
the diel cycle of foraging, where in the water column whales are
foraging, etc.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

TDR/velocity data allow for characterization of use of the water-column
and for continuous behavioral data collection that is less biased than
surface behavioral observations, particularly at night. However,
ground-truthing is needed of the potential depth/velocity "signatures"
of behavioral events such as predation. This could be done through the
deployment of camera systems and/or tags with additional sensors (e.g.,
acoustic and/or pitch/roll sensors), or with monitoring tagged
whale/prey behavior with a boat-based echosounder. In addition, follows
of animals tagged with TDRs to assess biases in fish-scale sampling
methodologies is needed.

**SRKW Project Report: Killer Whale Captive Feeding Study **

**Investigator(s): **

Dr. Terrie Williams, University of California, Santa Cruz,
Williams@biology.ucsc.edu

Daniel Monson, University of California, Santa Cruz,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed: **

What are SRKW prey? This study tests a methodology that may be used in
the future on SRKWs. Are recent demographic trends in SRKWs consistent
with nutritional limitation, contaminant stress or both?

**Project Abstract:**

The killer whale captive feeding study is a preliminary study designed
to gain information that will be used to assess the validity of using
skin biopsies to determine information on killer whale prey. Skin
biopsies will be obtained to determine stable-isotopes of carbon,
nitrogen and sulfur. Potential diet of SRKWs, including salmon and
squid, will be fed to the whales in specific proportions to elicit
changes in stable isotope ratios in the skin. How prey quality affects
killer whale body condition (mass and blubber thickness) will also be
addressed. Variation in metabolic rates and caloric intake are also
being assessed.

**Preliminary results, if any: **

A preliminary examination of the feeding records of captive killer
whales at Sea World parks has been conducted. Because more details than
are currently recorded are needed for this study we are modifying the
diet reports for the animals. This will enable a quantitative assessment
of the seasonal changes in caloric intake of the whales. A pilot study
concerning skin biopsy techniques for tissue acquisition in odontocetes
has begun with bottlenose dolphins.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked: **Biopsy
tests indicate that surface healing occurs within 1 week when using
rongeur forceps for obtaining skin samples. However, multiple samples
were required. Therefore, standard skin biopsy punches will be used for
the tests.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked: **As
noted above, diet reports for captive killer whales will be changed to
provide increased details for caloric assessments of different food
items.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).
**These preliminary tests indicate that skin biopsies may be obtained
without complications in odontocetes and will be applied to larger
whales in the near future. ** **

**What are the future needs for this project? **Because we will be
redesigning the diet recording procedures for captive killer whales and
conducting caloric value assessments of the fish, we have requested
additional time for completion of the project. In this way we intend to
provide information about potential seasonal affects on condition and
diet as originally proposed.

**SRKW Project Report: Killer Whale Prey Quality Analysis**

**Investigator(s):**` `

Dr. Peggy Krahn, Environmental Assessment, NOAA NWFSC,
peggy.krahn@noaa.gov

Gina Ylitalo, Environmental Assessment, NOAA NWFSC,
gina.ylitalo@noaa.gov

Sandie O'Neill, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
oneilsmo@dfw.wa.gov

Jim West, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

Are current demographic trends in SRKWs consistent with nutritional
limitation, contaminant stress or both? How do contaminant
concentrations and patterns vary among SRKW prey species at different
locations along Western North America?

**Project Abstract:**

This study will investigate the quality of killer whale prey species by
determining contaminant concentrations and profiles, caloric content,
proximate composition, and lipid content and classes to determine and
quantify the quality of known prey species. The focus is to determine if
elevated contaminant concentrations in southern residents compared to
northern resident killer whales may be attributed to regional
differences in the organochlorine concentrations of their prey.
Investigators will assess whether prey quality may be contributing to
the decline of SRKWs. The study may help elucidate prey preferences of
SRKWs using ratios of OCs, as well as stable isotope determinations,
from known prey collected throughout their feeding range.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

A total of 188 whole body samples of salmon were collected for analyses:
40 chum from Puget Sound and 33 from the central BC coast (Kimsquit
stock), 30 pink from Puget Sound (Skagit stock) and 31 from northern BC
(Skeena stock), 29 sockeye from northern BC (Skeena stock), 14 resident
Puget Sound chinook and 11 Puget Sound coho. Biological data (sex,
length, weight, and age) of these fish were collected. These fish, along
with previously sampled chinook and coho from Puget Sound, are currently
being prepared for analyses. Analyses for organochlorines, stable
isotopes, caloric content, proximate composition and lipid content will
start in January 2004.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

We made great strides in obtaining known prey species from various
regions of the west coast of North America in the allotted time. In
addition to samples already collected, contacts have been made to
collect the chinook salmon and the remaining sockeye and coho samples in
summer 2004.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Due to the late implementation of the contract and the amount of time
necessary to co-ordinate sample collections outside the Puget Sound
region, we were unable to collect all the prey species proposed. Chinook
salmon runs were completed before the contract was in place and it was
too late to coordinate collection of sockeye from the Fraser River. We
were generally successful obtaining assistance from resource agencies
and commercial operations to collect non-Puget Sound fish, however,
arrangements made to collect coho from SE Alaska were not successful.
Additional delays occurred because space and equipment for sample
preparation were not available as anticipated.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

The data collected from chemical contaminant analyses, as well as
proximate composition and caloric content analyses of known SRKW prey
species will help determine if current demographic trends in SRKWs are
consistent with increased risk due to exposure to toxic contaminants and
nutritional limitation.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

Purchase of prey samples and shipment costs were higher than budgeted.
Additional time and funds may be needed in order to obtain the remaining
salmon samples. If this project is to be expanded to include additional
prey species of SRKW or to more fully investigate diet differences
between northern and southern resident KW, additional funding and time
will be required.

**SRKW Project Report:** **Historical Analysis of Growth Rates and
Condition of SRKWs**

**Investigator(s):**

Adam U, Center for Whale Research, adamcu@hotmail.com

Dr. Eli Holmes, REUT, NOAA NWFSC, Eli.Holmes@noaa.gov

Ken Balcolm, Center for Whale Research, orcasurv@rockisland.com

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed: **

Are recent demographic trends in SRKWs consistent with nutritional
limitation, contaminant stress or both?

**Project Abstract:**

In this study photogrammetic analyses will be conducted of the
photographic database of Southern Residents to measure growth rates of
young individuals from the 1970s to the present. Measurements of
specific individuals will be made from photographs taken over several
years to determine growth rates. The results will be analyzed to
determine if patterns of growth rate have changed in a way that may be
consistent with food limitation and thus suggest a causal mechanism for
the changes in survivorship found in the population viability analysis.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

The fins of all SRKWs born after 1977 were measured from age 1 to age 7
from photographs taken by the Center for Whale Research for ID purposes.
The whales were consistently growing from year-to-year, however the
deviations in year-to-year growth have yet to be analyzed to answer the
primary research question.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Photographs were scanned and measured digitally. For each year, 3
separate left-side photographs were measured. The variability in
height-to-width ratio among photographs taken in the same year was
minimal indicating that the measurement process was not overly sensitive
to the small, unavoidable, differences where the fins were measured. The
measurement process was tedious but effective.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Taking such measurements required access to a database with a
substantial collection of photographs. Finding photographs that were a
high enough quality required sifting through a large number of pictures.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

TBD

**What are the future needs for this project?**

3 months support for Adam U to finish write-up and analysis in Spring
2004.

**SRKW Project Report: Standardized Killer Whale Necropsy Protocol**

**Investigators: **

Dr. Joseph K. Gaydos, UC Davis Wildlife Health Center,

Dr. Stephen Raverty, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

Data gap addressed: Health assessment

**Project Abstract:**

Diseases in wild killer whales are poorly understood and have the
potential to adversely impact the small population of southern resident
killer whales. Stranded specimens are rare. As a result, they are
extremely valuable for investigations of disease processes in these
animals. Consequently, the development and dissemination of a
standardized necropsy protocol for killer whale would be of value to
ensure that the data collected are maximized. The objective of this
project is to compile all previous stranding and necropsy data on killer
whales worldwide and develop a standardized necropsy protocol to be
disseminated worldwide.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Using electronic and phone communications with biologists, stranding
responders, and veterinary pathologists from around the world, we have
compiled existing information on 165 documented dead killer whale
strandings, 20 captive killer whale deaths, and 12 killer whale
biopsies. While the dates for these data span from 1946 - 2003, 94% of
the submissions are from the last 3 decades (1973-2003). Of the stranded
wild killer whales found and reported, complete postmortem examinations
were conducted on only 13% (21/165) of the animals. In light of the
paucity of information that exists about diseases of free-ranging killer
whales, this represents a plethora of lost information. Because of
strong interest in this project from around the world and the good
response we received in collecting this data, we anticipate that a
standardized necropsy and disease testing protocol for killer whales
should help increase the percentage of necropsies performed on killer
whales that strand and die. Consequently these data should greatly
expand our knowledge of mortality factors and diseases in free-ranging
killer whales as they apply to the health of the southern resident
killer whale population.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Electronic (list-serves and electronic mail) and phone communication
have been very effective in soliciting voluntary help from biologists,
stranding responders, and veterinary pathologists from around the world.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

None to date

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

The first step of this program, collecting historical data on killer
whale strandings and diseases from around the world, has accomplished
its goal of informing us about the relative benefit of developing and
disseminating a standardized necropsy and disease testing protocol for
killer whales. Once the necropsy protocol is developed and disseminated
world-wide, we anticipate that researchers and stranding responders will
make a greater effort to perform complete postmortem examinations and
submit information about future killer whales strandings and necropsy
results.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

Future needs of the project are to finish developing and disseminate a
standardized necropsy and disease testing protocol for killer whales.
Eventually, a clearing house for this information needs to be
instituted. The US Navy's Marine Mammal Program and the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology have been suggested as possible options.

**SRKW Project Report: Annual SRKW Survey**

**Investigator(s):**

Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

What is the status of the SRKW population?

**Project Abstract:**

This study will document the individual SRKWs that are in the population
in late spring and early summer of 2004. The purpose of the project is
to continue the on-going long-term SRKW population monitoring effort and
to report the presence or absence of whales in this community.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Not Applicable yet.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

The method that has worked well for the past two decades is enumeration
by photo-identification of every living individual. The strategy is to
encounter and photograph every individual early in the season to
identify new calves, and ascertain losses.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Methods and strategies that have not worked are: reliance upon
contributed images from the public for photo-identifications. Typically,
the quality of photographs does not permit unequivocal identification,
and the coverage is incomplete.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

This study provides the absolute baseline on the status of the SRKW
population.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

The future needs for this project are: 1) additional trained personnel;
2) increased development of methods for determining health status of
whales from images; and 3) increased operational capability using
vessel, aircraft, and remote platforms.

**SRKW Project Report: Coastal Sighting Network**

**Investigator(s): **

Ken Balcomb**, **Center for Whale Research,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

Where are the SRKWs in winter?

Data gaps addressed: Winter distribution and habitat use.

**Project Abstract:**

This study will investigate where SRKW pods are in the late fall,
winter, and early spring

when they are not in Puget Sound or the Georgia Basin. Visits to ports
and harbors along the west coast, reports posted by the general public
on the killer whale sighting web site, and reports called in by the
general public on a toll free number will provide data on the
identification and location of SRKW pods during the late fall, winter,
and early spring in areas outside of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin.
These data will help identify full range habitat-use of the population,
potential foraging areas to begin studies of winter diet, and
anthropogenic threats to the population during winter.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Sightings reports from previous winters suggest that SRKW J pod remains
within or does not travel far from the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin
area during winter months, whereas SRKW K and L pods (or matrilines
within these pods) may travel at least as far south along the Pacific
coast as Monterey, CA and as far north as the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Thus far in the winter of 2003/04, SRKW J pod has remained in or near
the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin; SRKW K pod was last reported in the
area in early December; and, SRKW L pod was last reported in the area in
early November, 2003.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Visits to ports and harbors along the west coast and requests for
reporting by the public have resulted in usable information on the
whereabouts of KW's outside of the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin,
however only a few of these reports are confirmed SRKW's.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Thus far, one aerial survey yielded no SRKW sightings. More are planned.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

Winter distribution and habitat usage by SRKW pods will probably never
be completely known, and such usage apparently varies interannually and
between pods. Nonetheless, potential and relative exposures to
anthropogenic threats in different areas during winter can be surmised.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

The project would benefit by expanding efforts for sightings reports and
acoustic recordings of SRKW pods both within Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
and along the Pacific coast. There are potential data-sharing
opportunities (e.g., NUWC, DFO, etc.) and strategically important areas
that can be better covered with increased support and coordination.

**SRKW Project Report:** **Killer Whale Winter Location Monitoring**

**Investigator(s): **

Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

Where are SRKWs in winter?

Data gaps addressed: Winter distribution and habitat use.

**Project Abstract:**

This study will document whale locations and IDs by both biweekly
surveys and responses to sighting network leads to determine areas in
the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin that Southern Resident pods frequent
during the late fall through early spring. These data will help identify
full range and habitat-use of the population in Puget Sound and
potential foraging areas during the winter period.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

This project has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of
"Encounters" with SRKW's thus far in late fall and early winter 2003.
Encounters are defined as vessel intercepts of KW's during which
photographic images are taken sufficient to identify some or all of the
individual whales present. For the 69 days of monitoring as of this
report, we have had 28 Encounters with KW's, 26 of which were with
SRKW's (38% of days as compared to \<5% of winter days in prior years).
The Encounters were in Puget Sound, Georgia Basin and the Strait of Juan
de Fuca inshore waters.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

The strategy of responding to sighting network leads has worked quite
well, even though some of the leads are "cold" (late in day or next
day). The survey strategy has worked well in the fall when SRKW's could
be reasonably expected to be somewhere in the inshore habitat at times,
but that success can be expected to diminish as SRKW K and L pods
increasingly depart local waters. J pod can still be expected to be
reported.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

The strategy of having only one paid respondent to sighting network
leads has diminished our capability to keep track of three SRKW pods and
Transient KW's simultaneously, but we have nonetheless missed few "hot"
leads.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

This study has great potential to answer the basic question of winter
distribution and habitat usage of SRKW's in the Puget Sound and Georgia
Basin during this winter study period, however it is already apparent
that such usage is variable inter-annually and by pod. A one-year answer
cannot be expected to apply to all years and all whales.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

With perhaps three years of study, the extent of habitat usage
variability between years and between pods can be evaluated and
correlated with prey resource variables, vessel interaction variables,
etc. The project should be enhanced to support at least two, possibly
three respondents and a frequent dedicated survey in Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin waters from October to April in each study winter. When SRKW K
and/or L pods are absent from the inshore waters for twenty days or
more, some of this personnel effort could be re-directed toward surveys
aimed "homeward" on platforms of opportunity, etc. from coastal
embarkation points as far as 1500 miles from Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.

**SRKW Project Report: Winter Surveys **

**Investigator(s): **

Dr. Linda Jones, Division of the Science Director, NOAA NWFSC,

Dr. M. Bradley Hanson, Marine Mammal Program, NOAA NWFSC,

Dr. Dawn Noren, Marine Mammal Program, NOAA NWFSC,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

Where are SRKWs in winter?

Data gap addressed: Winter distribution.

**Project Abstract:**

This study will attempt to determine the location of SRKWs in mid-winter
when they are not in Puget Sound or the Georgia Basin. The study will be
conducted primarily using a 20 day shipboard survey of the west coast of
the U.S. on the McArthur II with supplemental information from aerial
surveys and the coastal sighting network. Visual and acoustic monitoring
from the ship will be used to locate the whales. These data will help
identify potential foraging areas to begin studies of habitat use, diet,
and anthropogenic threats to the population during winter.

**Preliminary results, if any: **

N/A -- cruise scheduled for late** **February 2004

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

N/A -- cruise scheduled for late** **February 2004

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

N/A -- cruise scheduled for late** **February 2004

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

N/A -- cruise scheduled for late** **February 2004

**What are the future needs for this project?**

N/A -- cruise scheduled for late** **February 2004

**SRKW Project Report: Summer Range Habitat Use of SRKW pods**

**Investigator(s): **

Donna Hauser, University of Washington (UW), dhauser@u.washington.edu

Dr. Eli Holmes, REUT, NOAA NWFSC, eli.holmes@noaa.gov

Dr. Glenn VanBlaricom, UW and U.S. Geological Survey,
glennvb@u.washington.edu

Dr. Rich Osborne, The Whale Museum,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

Data gap addressed: Habitat use.

**Project Abstract:**

This study will analyze summer location data of SRKWs to determine pod
variation in summer spatial and temporal distribution patterns. Spatial
differentiation in habitat use by the three southern resident pods (J,
K, and L pods as well as "superpod" assemblages) will be evaluated to
investigate differences in area use among pods. Five years of spatially
plotted commercial whale-watch operator sighting network data
(1997-2001) will be used to define important habitat areas for each pod,
relative use of each area, and to determine areas where overlap and
specialization in pod habitat choices occur.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Differences in summer habitat use exist among SRKW pods. Highest use of
the west side of San Juan Island and Haro Strait is common among all
pods, but other areas are characterized by some degree of
specialization. J pod has a relatively high use of areas circling the
San Juan Archipelago extending North, including Active Pass. K pod
appears to focus around the San Juan Archipelago with approximately
equal relative use, while L pod distinctly uses the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and the southeast portion of Vancouver Island, with a more
southerly distribution from the San Juan Islands. A superpod assemblage
displays a combination of area use by each of the individual pods.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Separation of study area into "quadrants" to determine use of each
quadrant by SRKW pods, relative to other pods, pooled over five years.
Comparisons between pod frequencies used log-likelihood ratio tests and
chi-square partitioning.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

Concurrent analysis of spatial and temporal variation in habitat use is
limited for some quadrants based on small sample sizes for some pods, in
particular years. As a result, it is difficult to assess how use of
areas, like Active and Boundary Passes, has changed over time for each
of the pods. Similar problems in sample size exist for analysis of
changes in habitat use within a season.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

This study does address differences in summer distribution patterns
among SRKW pods. It also identifies the need for future research to
explain the observed variation and potentially different impacts for
each individual pod.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

Either collection of more data for temporal analyses or another method.

**SRKW Project Report: Correlation Analysis of SRKW Movements and Salmon
Presence**

**Investigator(s)**

Dr. Rich Osborne, The Whale Museum,

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

What are SRKW prey? How does SRKW diet vary seasonally?

Data gap addressed: Diet and habitat use.

**Project Abstract:**

The study will conduct correlation analyses of killer whale movement
data in their summer range and relevant salmon run data to determine if
there are particular species/runs of salmon that are targeted by
different pods/subpods. Appropriate correlation analyses will be based
on timing and movement patterns of the whale pod/subpods and salmon from
the time they arrive in the spring until their fall departure. (NMFS
contract wording)

**Preliminary results, if any:**

No work or billing has yet occurred specific to this contract. However,
sighting information on the occurrence and movements of SRKWs from 1976
to the present have been collected and are still being compiled from
multiple sources and integrated into a single spatial data base in order
to address daily patterns of habitat-use by pods throughout their range
in the inland waters of Washington State and Southern B.C. Some of this
data (1996-2001 commercial whale watching vessel "pager data") has been
placed into a GIS environment (ArcView 3.2) and generated into daily
tracks for May-September by pod. A pilot analysis of pod movements
relative to Pacific Salmon Commission purse seine and gillnet test
fishing for June and July in 2000-2001 and 2003 found statistically
significant (p\< 0.001) correlations between large catches of Chinook
and Coho salmon in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca with excursions
into the Strait of Juan de Fuca by L-Pod 48 hours later, for 3 weeks
running in June of 2003. Correlations were insignificant for all other
weeks, pods, and time periods associated with large catches in the test
data (p\< 0.05). At this point it is not clear if the three weeks of
significant correlations in June of 2003 were coincidental or not.
Current efforts have focused on continuing to compile all killer whale
movement data into a single spatial data base, so that a more robust
analysis can be undertaken with a larger variety of salmon abundance
indicators.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Microsoft Access and ArcView are proving to be adequate to compile the
killer whale data set. Correlation analysis has not really begun so it
is too soon to address methods or strategies.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

It remains to be seen if existing salmon abundance data will be of a
high enough resolution spatially and temporally to correlate with daily
tracks of killer whales.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s).**

This study will not conclusively determine SRKW prey seasonally or
otherwise.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

Once daily pod tracks for killer whales are compiled and plotted, high
resolution salmon data at the same scale will have to be identified for
correlation. Salmon data at that resolution has yet to be identified. A
solution would be to conduct active sonar salmon surveys in a few
selected locations where SRKWs are known to feed and determine in what
way SRKW movements correlate with that data. It might then be possible
to generalize those findings to lower resolution salmon data in a
meaningful way.

**SRKW Project Report: Relationships of Fluctuations in SRKW (*Orcinus
orca*) Numbers and Behavior to Salmonid Population Dynamics**

**Investigator(s):**

Shannon McCluskey, University of Washington, shannon.mccluskey@noaa.gov

Dr. Glenn VanBlaricom, University of Washington,
glennvb@u.washington.edu

Dr. Rich Osborne, The Whale Museum, Osborne@whalemuseum.org

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed:**

What are SRKW prey? How does SRKW diet selection vary seasonally?

Data gaps addressed: Diet and habitat use.

**Project Abstract:**

This project will assess if linkages exist between the occurrence and
abundance of salmonids with the occurrence of SRKWs. Investigators will
use GIS-based analytical techniques to overlay salmon abundance and
distribution data and killer whale sightings within inland Washington
waters, and the data will be analyzed and compared for significant
relationships.

**Preliminary results, if any:**

Data are still being gathered to enter into a spatial statistical model
that will be developed to analyze relationships. At this point,
available data are in the first stages of being visually displayed in an
ArcGIS format. A simple data model illustrates that spatial and temporal
patterns do change in foraging resources annually as well as
intra-annually. These limited data suggests that spatial and temporal
patterns in these available resources may be descriptive at a variety of
spatial scales ranging from aggregations of catch areas into regions as
well as variation within catch areas.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have worked:**

Access has been gained to diverse sources of data on salmonid
distribution and abundance in the study area. Twelve years of ticket
catch data have been summarized and organized into a usable format.
Access to Canadian and OrcaNetwork whale sighting data have been
obtained. The OrcaNetwork sighting data are being entered into a
database on a continual real-time basis. A spatially explicit database
was used to assign each catch area a value for the week that the maximum
and minimum catch for each species occurred as well as the catch number
reported for that week.

**Brief comments on methods or strategies that have not worked:**

The week in which the maximum and minimum number of each species of
salmon for each statistical catch area was summarized and displayed
using ArcMap. The range of weeks between the maximum and minimum catch
was also displayed. However, this range does not accurately reflect the
period of time in which that species is available as potential prey to
the SRKWs in that particular catch area. Incorporating other salmon data
sets will more accurately represent the relative abundance and timing of
salmon runs through each of the statistical catch areas. However,
collation of appropriate salmonid data continues to be a cumbersome and
laborious process because of the fragmented nature of the raw data
files. In addition, we have yet to find a mutually agreeable protocol
for accessing crucially needed data on killer whale distribution and
abundance on a timely and consistent basis.

**Briefly comment on how well the study answers the basic question(s):**

The study will assess the basic assumption that the SRKWs are highly
dependent on salmon, and most specifically chinook, as their primary
prey resource. If the whales are not frequenting the same areas that the
highest numbers of salmon are passing through at the time, it will be
apparent through spatial and statistical data analysis. This approach
will be able to look at patterns through time and between pods of the
SRKWs, which a more spatially and temporally focused project could not
accomplish within a few years. While this study does not rely on direct
evidence of foraging (for example, fish scale samples found at the water
surface following observed predations) it will incorporate data from a
longer time period over a greater area, allowing a strong basis for
inference regarding biological interactions, and a more appropriately
scaled perspective for support of management decisions.

**What are the future needs for this project?**

In order to utilize the latest tools in spatial modeling, continued
training in GIS technologies is needed. Salmon data are currently still
being gathered and summarized into a usable format. The most urgent need
at this time is gaining functional access to all available SRKW sighting
data.

**WDFW/PSAMP/DFO Project Report: **

**Temporal Trends in Contaminants Revealed from Harbor Seals**

**Investigator(s):**

Steven Jeffries, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Dr. Peter Ross, Fisheries and Oceans-Canada

John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed: **

Contaminants

**Project Abstract: **

Harbor seals are top-level predators that occur widely in the North
Pacific and North Atlantic and have been sampled in many areas for
contaminant concentrations. In Puget Sound, contaminant levels
determined in harbor seals provide some of the most consistent data on
long term trends in contamination. We conducted analyses for a broad
range of chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in harbor seal pups found
dead or live biopsied from two regions of Washington State from 1984 to
1997 and examined trends in contaminants going back to 1972. In southern
Puget Sound, concentrations of PCBs and DDT have declined dramatically
since the 1970s but have stabilized beginning in the mid-1980s with only
a more gradual decline since then. Concentrations of both PCBs and DDTs
were lower in seals from Smith Island, a site in northern Puget Sound
farther from industrial areas, and had declined in a similar fashion
since the 1970s. Even though concentrations at both sites have declined,
harbor seals appear still at risk, with the current concentrations of
PCBs and the toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) in pups from southern
Puget Sound within the range identified as causing immunotoxicity in
seals. Most of the TEQ came from PCBs rather than PCDDs or PCDFs.

**Results: **

Inclusion of results from previously analyzed samples from the 1970s and
1980s (Arndt, 1973; Calambokidis *et al.,* 1978, 1984) provided a longer
time series and allowed evaluation of trends over a longer time period.
With these historical samples, both total PCBs and DDTs showed highly
significant declines by year in both southern Puget Sound and Smith
Island. For southern Puget Sound, the pooled dataset of 71 samples from
1972 to 1997 showed a highly significant decline for PCBs (log values,
r²=0.40, p=0.000) and for total DDT (log values, n=66, r²=0.36,
p=0.000). At Smith Island the pooled dataset of 28 samples from 1972 to
1997 showed a highly significant decline for PCBs (log values, r²=0.34,
p=0.001) and for total DDT (log values, r²=0.22, p=0.011). These results
indicate there was clear decline in PCB and DDT concentrations in harbor
seals between the 1970s and 1980s but that this decline has slowed and
become less pronounced in the 1990s.

**What are the future needs for this project? **Continued sampling of
reference sites on 5-year interval to monitor contaminant trends.

**WDFW/PSAMP/DFO Project Report: **

**Spatial Patterns in Contaminants Revealed from Harbor Seals**

**Investigator(s): **

Steven Jeffries, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Dr. Peter Ross, Fisheries and Oceans-Canada

# John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research

**SRKW research question(s) or data gap(s) addressed: **

Contaminants

# Project Abstract:

# The harbor seal (*Phoca vitulina*) can serve as a useful indicator of food web contamination by Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) because of its high trophic level, wide distribution in temperate coastal waters of the northern hemisphere, and relative ease of capture. In 1996-97, we live-captured 60 harbour seal pups from three regions, spanning remote (Queen Charlotte Strait, British Columbia (BC)), moderately industrialized (Strait of Georgia, BC) and heavily industrialized (Puget Sound, Washington State) marine basins straddling the Canada-USA border. Biopsy samples of blubber were taken and analyzed for congener-specific polychlorinated -biphenyls (PCBs), -dibenzo-*p*-dioxins (PCDDs) and -dibenzofurans (PCDFs) using high resolution gas chromatography / high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS). Harbour seals in Puget Sound were heavily contaminated with PCBs, while seals from the Strait of Georgia had relatively high concentrations of PCDDs and PCDFs. Pattern evaluation and Principal Components Analysis (PCA) suggested that proximity to sources influenced the mixture to which seals were exposed, with those inhabiting more remote areas being exposed to "lighter" (lower Henry's Law constant and *K*~OW~) PCB congeners that disperse more readily through atmospheric and other processes. Total Toxic Equivalents to 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TEQ) for the PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs suggest that Puget Sound seals are at greatest risk for adverse health effects, and that PCBs represent the class of dioxin-like contaminants of greatest concern at all sites.

**Results: **Concentrations of PCBs were particularly high in Puget
Sound seals, likely reflecting the historical use of this persistent
chemical in urban and industrial areas. PCB contamination of Puget Sound
has been exacerbated by the semi-enclosed nature of this basin, which is
characterized by low sedimentation, and hence, burial rates. PCB levels
were considerably lower in seals from Strait of Georgia sites and were
lowest in seals from Queen Charlotte Strait, concurrent with increasing
distance from urban and industrial areas. PCB concentrations in our
harbour seals were at the upper end of, or exceeded, those reported in
adult arctic ringed seals of varying ages, but were generally lower than
those reported in stranded European harbour seals. In contrast,
concentrations of PCDDs and PCDFs were lower in seals from Puget Sound
than in seals from the Strait of Georgia.

**What are the future needs for this project? **Continued sampling of on
5-year interval and expand geographic coverage to include additional
sites on outer Washington coast, San Juan Islands, Hood Canal, Strait of
Georgia, and Queen Charlotte Sound to monitor contaminant trends.

Table 1: Concentrations of total PCBs (µg/kg), PCDDs (ng/kg) and PCDFs
(ng/kg) in blubber biopsies collected from healthy harbour seal pups
from three basins in British Columbia and Washington^1^. All values are
expressed on a lipid weight basis.

+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
|               | QCS^a^   | St of Georgia^b^ | Puget Sound^c^ | ANOVA     | Tukey's HSD |
|               |          |                  |                |           |             |
|               |          |                  |                | *p*-value |             |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
|               |          |                  |                |           |             |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
| PCBs          | 1143 262 | 2475 174         | 18135 3082     | 0.000     | ac, bc      |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
| 2,3,7,8-PCDDs | 72 6     | 256 31           | 119 11         | 0.003     | ac, bc      |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
| PCDDs         | 96 10    | 279 32           | 119 16         | 0.002     | bc          |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
| 2,3,7,8-PCDFs | 22 2     | 16 2             | 10 1           | 0.080     | \-          |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
| PCDFs         | 26 4     | 25 13            | 10 1           | 0.458     | \-          |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
|               |          |                  |                |           |             |
+---------------+----------+------------------+----------------+-----------+-------------+

^1^Total PCB concentrations did not differ among Strait of Georgia
sites, leading us to pool seals from this basin. Minor differences were
noticed among Strait of Georgia sites for PCDDs and PCDFs. Data are
expressed on a lipid weight basis as mean +/- standard error of the mean
(SEM). Inter-basin differences were assessed using analysis of variance
(ANOVA); where significant, letters (a, b, c) indicate which two regions
differ (Tukey's post-hoc Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test).

Table 2: Toxic Equivalents (TEQ~98~) to
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-*p*-dioxin from PCB, PCDD and PCDF classes in
blubber biopsies collected from harbour seals in Queen Charlotte Strait
(QCS), the Strait of Georgia, and Puget Sound^1^.

+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|          | QCS^a^   | St. of   | Puget    | #        | ### Tuk  |
|          |          | Ge       | Sound^c^ | ## ANOVA | ey's HSD |
|          |          | orgia^b^ |          |          |          |
|          |          |          |          | ### *    |          |
|          |          |          |          | p*-value |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|          |          |          |          |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| PCB      | 12.5 2.1 | 32.8 2.1 | 158.1    | 0.000    | ac, bc   |
| TEQ~98~  |          |          | 21.4     |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| * noPCBs | *4.3     | *10.7    | *36.9    | *0.000*  | *ac, bc* |
| TEQ~98~* | 0.7*     | 0.6*     | 3.9*     |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| * moPCBs | *8.2     | *22.2    | *121.2   | *0.000*  | *ac, bc* |
| TEQ~98~* | 1.4*     | 1.5*     | 18.0*    |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| PCDD     | 10.5 1.6 | 17.4 1.4 | 12.2 1.0 | 0.024    | NS       |
| TEQ~98~  |          |          |          |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|          |          |          |          |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| PCDF     | 2.2 0.2  | 1.5 0.2  | 2.0 0.2  | 0.309    | \-       |
| TEQ~98~  |          |          |          |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|          |          |          |          |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| TEQ~98~  | 25.2 3.9 | 51.7 2.6 | 172.3    | 0.000    | ac, bc   |
|          |          |          | 22.4     |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|          |          |          |          |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

^1^Data are expressed on a lipid weight basis as mean (ng/kg) +/-
standard error of the mean (SEM). Inter-basin differences were assessed
using analysis of variance (ANOVA); where significant, letters (a, b, c)
indicate which two regions differ (Tukey's post-hoc Honest Significant
Difference (HSD) test). NS = not significant.

[Southern Resident Killer Whale Research]{.smallcaps}[ Workshop Name
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.smallcaps}

[ ]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[
]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[ Methods:]{.smallcaps}

[Research ]{.smallcaps}**[[Method]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**[ Criteria
Scoresheet]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[ ]{.smallcaps}[
]{.smallcaps}[1. ]{.smallcaps}

2\.

**[Research Question]{.smallcaps}:**
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 3.

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           | **Ranking** | **Method    | **Method    | **Method    |
| *Criteria** |             | 1**         | 2**         | 3**         |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Is the  |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   currently |             |             |             |
|             |     being   |             |             |             |
|             |     used?   |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | No Yes      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 5         |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Is the  |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |     widely  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   accepted? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | No Yes      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  What is |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    relative |             |             |             |
|             |     cost?   |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | Low High    |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Will    |             |             |             |
|             |     this    |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |     provide |             |             |             |
|             |     a CLEAR |             |             |             |
|             |     answer? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | No Yes      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Does    |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |  COMPLETELY |             |             |             |
|             |     answer  |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   question? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | No Yes      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  How     |             |             |             |
|             |     much    |             |             |             |
|             |     BIAS is |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |  associated |             |             |             |
|             |     with    |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |     method? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | Low High    |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Does    |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |     answer  |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    question |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   directly? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | Least Most  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Does    |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |     provide |             |             |             |
|             |     data    |             |             |             |
|             |     for     |             |             |             |
|             |     other   |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    studies? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | Limited     |             |             |             |
|             | Significant |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  How     |             |             |             |
|             |     much    |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | development |             |             |             |
|             |     is      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   required? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | Substantial |             |             |             |
|             | Limited     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  What    |             |             |             |
|             |     amount  |             |             |             |
|             |     of      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | information |             |             |             |
|             |     will    |             |             |             |
|             |     this    |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |     provide |             |             |             |
|             |     when    |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |     study   |             |             |             |
|             |     is      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |  completed? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | Limited     |             |             |             |
|             | Significant |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  How     |             |             |             |
|             |     long    |             |             |             |
|             |     will it |             |             |             |
|             |     take to |             |             |             |
|             |     answer  |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    question |             |             |             |
|             |     using   |             |             |             |
|             |     this    |             |             |             |
|             |     method? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 1-2 yrs 3-5 |             |             |             |
|             | yrs 6+ yrs  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 5 4 3       |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Are     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    suitable |             |             |             |
|             |     sample  |             |             |             |
|             |     sizes   |             |             |             |
|             |     l       |             |             |             |
|             | ogistically |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    feasible |             |             |             |
|             |     using   |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   suggested |             |             |             |
|             |     method? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | No Yes      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.  Does    |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |     provide |             |             |             |
|             |     good    |             |             |             |
|             |     value   |             |             |             |
|             |     (i.e.,  |             |             |             |
|             |     large   |             |             |             |
|             |     return  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    relative |             |             |             |
|             |     to      |             |             |             |
|             |     cost)   |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | Low High    |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 0 1 2 3 4 5 |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *           |             |             |             |             |
| *SUBTOTAL** |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.          |             |             |             |
|             |  Likelihood |             |             |             |
|             |     the     |             |             |             |
|             |     method  |             |             |             |
|             |     will    |             |             |             |
|             |     have    |             |             |             |
|             |     any     |             |             |             |
|             |     adverse |             |             |             |
|             |     impact? |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 5 = Less    |             |             |             |
|             | certain     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 3 =         |             |             |             |
|             | Moderately  |             |             |             |
|             | certain     |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 1 = Certain |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           |             |             |             |
|             | .  Severity |             |             |             |
|             |     of      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   potential |             |             |             |
|             |     impact  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 5 = No      |             |             |             |
|             | impact      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 4 =         |             |             |             |
|             | Short-term  |             |             |             |
|             | change in   |             |             |             |
|             | behavior    |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 3 = Minor   |             |             |             |
|             | injury      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 2 = Serious |             |             |             |
|             | injury      |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.          |             |             |             |
|             |   Frequency |             |             |             |
|             |     of      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   potential |             |             |             |
|             |     impact  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 5 = once    |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 4 = yearly  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 3 = monthly |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 2 = weekly  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 1 = daily   |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1           |             |             |             |
|             | .  Duration |             |             |             |
|             |     of      |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |   potential |             |             |             |
|             |     impact  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 5 =         |             |             |             |
|             | seco        |             |             |             |
|             | nds/minutes |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 4 = hours   |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 3 = days    |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 2 = weeks   |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 1 = months+ |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             | 1.          |             |             |             |
|             |  Proportion |             |             |             |
|             |     of the  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |  population |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | potentially |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    impacted |             |             |             |
|             |     by the  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             |    activity |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 5 =         |             |             |             |
|             | individual  |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 3 =         |             |             |             |
|             | p           |             |             |             |
|             | od/subgroup |             |             |             |
|             |             |             |             |             |
|             | 1 =         |             |             |             |
|             | community   |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **TOTAL**   |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Comments:

[^1]: ^\*^ This Breakout Session will follow a slightly different agenda
    as additional focus on identifying research questions is needed.