Southern Resident Killer Whale 
Research Plan Workshop 

Hosted by:
Northwest Fisheries Science Center
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Summary Report

January 19 – 23, 2004
Watertown Hotel
Seattle, Washington

Table of Contents 

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

I.	Workshop Overview

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.

II.	Opening Plenary Session

A.	Welcome and Introductions

The 2004 Research Plan Workshop opened on Monday, January 19th, 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.	Agency Perspectives on Workshop

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.	Current Research

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. 

III.	Prey Abundance Breakout Session

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 Session Report

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 – Scale-dependent metadata analysis (e.g., salmon data across summer feeding range) [15]

Method 2 – Both mobile and stationary acoustic survey [6]				 }	
Method 3 – Mobile acoustic survey guided by historical/current fish/KW data (active) [3] } [11]
Method 4 – Stationary acoustic survey (active and/or passive) [2]				 }

Method 5 – 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 – Analyzing existing data [16]
	Method 2 – 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 – Mine existing individual and group behavioral data [13]
Method 1 – Gross physical condition evaluation (remote - photo) [13]
Method 3 – Direct physical condition evaluation [10]
Method 4 – Blowhole analysis [4]
Method 5 – 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?
•	Is there a time of salmonid prey scarcity?
•	Have there been major changes in the salmonid production of the greater Puget Sound area over last 100 years?

Prey Abundance Session Summary

Research Question 1:	What is the temporal and spatial distribution and abundance of known and potential prey relative to SRKW distribution? 

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 metadata analysis (e.g., salmon data across summer feeding range) 

Specific Topics to Address
•	Research Northern Resident killer whales (NRKWs) and Alaskan Resident populations to learn about the SRKW population.
o	All seem to be doing the same thing, but eating different fish.
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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:
o	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
•	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.
o	Multi-beams have 180 degree swath and cover about 200 meters.
o	For Harrow strait, half a dozen (does not give continuous coverage).
o	Number of units is function of beam angle, power issues, etc…
•	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.
o	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.
•	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
•	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: 	Chemical analysis to examine relative prey location and relative prey identification and killer whales diet

Data currently obtainable from chemical analysis:
•	Contaminants.
•	Onshore versus offshore via isotope analyses
•	Trophic level via isotope analyses.
•	Benthic/pelagic (from sulfur).
•	Fatty acids. 
o	Being developed to give more specific info on groups of salmonids.
o	Trying to distinguish transient versus resident killer whales.
•	Skin. 
o	Genetics.
o	Reproductive state.
o	Isotopes to determine trophic levels and relative location to the shore.
o	Provides diet data for at least 2 months. Ideal time would be to get them right after winter (early spring).
•	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
•	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: 
o	Added cost, not much because it is already being done. 
o	Getting money to do biopsy samples on whales is not easy.
o	Currently getting biopsy samples as part of genetics work (on the Alaskan ones).
o	Relatively inexpensive, except for PR and political expenses.
o	Genetics would share cost, and specific whales would be chosen.
•	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.
o	WDFW, in collaboration with NOAA NWFSC, will be doing stable isotope data for all prey they have collected.
o	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

•	Do a few focus studies on prey and check correlation with terminal runs; then use terminal runs as a proxy. Conduct meta-analysis of terminal runs at the locations and times that killer whales are feeding. Compare trends with specific places.
•	Spot samples using net technology for prey. 
•	Some participants question whether there is enough evidence that salmonids are the main prey.

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

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
•	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].
o	Data for Alaskan residents not as good because of uncertainty of relationships. 
o	Increase analyses of Alaskan residents. PDO is supposed to be getting worse. Should possibly allocate more money towards surveys in Alaska. 
•	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
•	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
•	Can causality be determined or proven? Difficult to find correlation because both predators and prey oscillate.
•	Because salmon data is extremely variable between species, areas, and year, it is likely that salmon population demographic data could be found to exactly match some killer whale population dynamics. However, data does not necessarily indicate trends, so this could be a spurious relationship. 

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

Method 1: 	Mine existing individual and group behavioral data 
	
Research Approach
•	Mine existing data, before collecting more, then use trends to dictate what data to collect.
o	If greater time is spent foraging or traveling in winter, then intensify focus on that time of year with meta data
•	Chinook salmon return is very predictable. Is that useful?
•	Direct blubber thickness data seems to be more valuable than remote data.
•	Use activity budgets.
o	Many believe activity budgets have changed over last 20 years. Change over the course of a season is apparent.
o	How do you know percent of time spent foraging?
•	Rich Osborne and Jennifer Marsh are researching this.
•	Dawn Noren is researching dive times.

Concerns
•	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.
o	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
•	Do remote work utilizing photo IDs.
•	Utilize peanut-head analysis.
o	Difficult to see subtle weight differences in the measurements from photographs. Those seen were in mid-summer and had rapid deterioration.
•	Utilize dorsal fin analysis.

Method 3: 	Direct physical condition evaluation

Research Approach
•	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 scat 

•	Scat samples – true physiological measure of animals. 

IV.	Vessel Interactions (Behavior and Energetics)
 Breakout Session

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

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)
 Session Summary

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

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: 

•	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:

•	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
•	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

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
•	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
•	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
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 2nd 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 
•	Observational data: boat, whale, counts, focal follow (whale and boat).
•	Tracking Devices: theodolite, video, satellite imagery, multi-beam, side scan, reticle binoculars, radar, angle boards). 

Research Question 2:	Do Vessels Affect Whale’s Ability To Find And Capture Prey? 
PART A:	Does Vessel Activity Affect Energy Acquisition?

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

Research Question 2:	Do Vessels Affect Whale’s Ability To Find And Capture Prey? 
PART B:	Does Vessel Activity Affect Energy Expenditure? 

(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 
•	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
•	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 1st 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
•	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
•	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
•	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 
•	The approach is costly and it can be hard to focus on details. 
•	WHOI system is difficult and it gives small pictures.  In terms of the bigger picture, not sure how useful the approach would be for SRKWs. 

V. 	Prey Selection Breakout Session

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 Session Report

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

Method 1 – Active acoustic survey with focal follow and tagging [13]
Method 2 – Chemical analyses of killer whales and prey [11]
Method 3 – Prey fragment sampling—opportunistic [6]
Method 3 – Data mining (e.g., NRKW stocks) [6]
Method 5 – Active acoustic survey—systematic survey of one or more areas to obtain information on prey (marine mammal count) [4]
Method 6 – Prey fragment sampling—systematic (e.g., vertical pull) [3]
Method 7 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Captive feeding studies [12]
Method 3 – Correlate harassment with prey availability [1]

Other Research Questions (and brainstormed methods):
•	What are the biases associated with different sampling techniques?
o	Shake fish
o	DNA analysis
•	When is foraging taking place (day/night)?
o	Captive whales feed at night (when do they eat?)
o	Question 1, Method 7
•	What is the impact of increased competition for salmon from pinnipeds or humans?

Other Methods (developed at end of day):
•	Work with test fisheries to assist/complement killer whale studies (Question 1)
•	Net sampling (Question 1)

Research Question 1:	What is the spatial and temporal variation in the killer whale diet with respect to prey availability?

Prey Selection Session Summary

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
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?
o	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. 
•	How do you distinguish between swimming with fish and eating them?
o	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: 
o	Mean attachment is 10.5 hours, many for 1-2 hrs and many for 12-24. Longest is 42 hours. 
o	Suction cups will not result in longer than a few days.
•	Retrieval:
o	One participant indicated they have never lost a tag with killer whales. 
•	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:
o	Sonar: can point at whales.
o	Beams: unusual event to find a whale using beams
o	Critter Cam: very detailed whale movement and prey capture.
•	What about underwater cameras?
o	The visibility is very low.
o	Greater camera depth may result in better visibility (low light cameras, as with rockfish).
o	Putting cameras on whales creates less bias and more data.

Feasibility
•	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? 
o	In 2002 most political issues were handled through PR. 
•	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?
o	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?
•	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.
o	More ‘off the shelf’ products and usage exists, but capital costs remain high.
•	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
•	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. 
o	Can differentiate transient from resident ecotypes using statistical methods, such as PCA and CART analysis.
o	Mixed diet not important.
o	Able to differentiate some classes. Easy to tell with belugas, based on profiles of fatty acids.

Method 3:	Prey fragment sampling—opportunistic

Research Approach
•	Scales are collected when foraging activity is seen, and also use other information to look.
o	It is unclear if researchers are using a common definition of foraging behavior.
•	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)

•	Improving attachment duration should be the focus.
•	There was some concern that acoustic tags small enough to put on killer whales do not exist. 
o	One participant noted that Bill Burgess’ tags may be small enough.

Research Question 2:	How do prey bioenergy availability and Southern Resident killer whales energetics compare throughout the year?

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 
•	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
•	Seasonal energetics:
o	Field studies and behavioral observations.
o	Applying it to a seasonal population could cause huge error, but may still be beneficial.
•	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 
•	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
•	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.
o	Try to determine if Chinook is main component of diet, not total biomass that they need. 
o	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
•	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
•	Knowing a prey availability map is essential but a prey availability model is unlikely. 
•	Not enough information is available to make a prey availability model viable. 
•	The group decided that an ideal free distribution was not currently feasible and bioenergetic modeling was the only feasible option. 

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

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?
o	With transients, there is a wide range of prey.
•	Seasonality differences are interesting. Handling times are inversely related to hunger level.
o	Reverse could be true, when whales are hungry they could be looking for new prey species.

Other Discussions

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

Stomach Samples
•	It may be that over the winter, bioenergy availability is limited, and bottom fish stocks should be examined.
•	The seven existing samples of whale stomachs were acknowledged as one of the most important data sources available for addressing questions associated with prey. It was noted that they all had something in them besides salmon.
•	A caution raised about using a single stomach sample was that why that animal was stranded is unknown. The focus should be on prospective prey that we know more about. 
•	One participant indicated they agreed that squid were important, but added they were worried about reading too much into the finding of only a few bottom fish.
•	In these stomach samples, most had substantial non-salmonid prey. A worry was raised about the potential for bias from scale sampling.

Other Research Questions – General Discussion 

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?
o	Some captive Steller sea lions will not eat at night, but do feed at night in wild.
•	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):
•	Work with test fisheries to assist/complement killer whales studies (Question 1: What is the spatial and temporal variation in the killer whale diet with respect to prey availability?).
•	Net sampling (Question 1: What is the spatial and temporal variation in the killer whale diet with respect to prey availability?).

VI.	Winter Distribution Breakout Session

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

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

Method 1: Land based sighting networks
Method 2: Marine based sighting networks
Method 3: Acoustic mooring networks 
Method 4: Satellite tags

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

Method 1: Condition monitoring 
Method 2: Biopsies 
Method 3: GIS data sets 
Method 4: Data mining and monitoring population 
Method 5: Necropsy: short discussion
Method 6: Fecal Follow: short discussion

Winter Distribution Session Summary

Discussion of Ken Balcomb’s Presentation

Regarding actual winter sightings
•	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
•	There is no evidence that says SRKWs are not offshore and it is hard to get data further offshore. It would be interesting to get data out to the International Date Line.
•	Offshore sightings are typically within 12-15 miles offshore and none exist off the continental shelf.
•	One complication is that historic information includes sightings of offshore killer whales, and we did not know about the existence of offshore killer whales until relatively recently.

Research Question 1:	What is the winter distribution of Southern Resident Killer Whales?

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
•	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
•	This method is limited to the near shore.
•	This method has produced little data so far.

Method 2:	Marine based sighting networks

Advantages
•	A lot of information is collected cost effectively through this method.
•	The method is more cost effective at the beginning.

Concerns
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	How do you power smaller tags? Smaller tags are now down to the size of a 9-volt battery. For porpoise research, locations are collected 1-2 times per week for distribution information. 
•	A recommendation was made to have tagged packages ready to go in case of a live stranding or other event. 
•	Group capture of several whales at a time is possible. If more is learned about winter distribution, it is possible to conduct research in Monterey Bay or other locations outside the Pacific Northwest. It may be advantageous, as tagging is more accepted down south (try to tag offshore killer whales especially in Monterey).
•	High rates of recapture of offshores (photographically) were observed this year.
•	Land and marine based surveys should be continued while developing acoustic and satellite tag technology.
•	A different, longer-term tag is needed on L-98. It is recommended to tag L-98 with the same tag and hardware as offshore killer whales to test the technology. Long-term fixed attachments are a more proven method. 

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

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

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

Concerns
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	Is it possible to get the data? 
•	Analysis is established, but collection is not yet proven for killer whales.
•	Most of the questions addressed from a fecal sample could be addressed from a biopsy sample.

Brainstormed Research Questions

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?

General Methods Discussion

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
•	Are we looking at factors that prevent reproduction, or other issues? Contaminants may not be an issue in juveniles. Risk factors are different at different life stages. 
•	Blubber samples could be used for hormone analyses. Fecal sampling presents an opportunity to look at relative stress levels. 
•	Are there other factors that contribute to the poor nutritional state that may be related to lack of reproduction?
•	Not enough males may explain low reproductive rates in SRKWs. 
•	Why are there not more babies in the pods when we see so much sexual behavior?
•	Calves are born from September to April. Does wintertime breeding exist, especially when the pods are not supposed to be together?
•	Superpods and mating activity seen in May would result in an October birth. Activity through September and October would result in April babies.
•	Biopsies and fecal sampling can be used to look at rates of female receptivity in the population. Functional molecular loci (e.g., MHC) could provide information on the health of the population. 
•	Are births occurring that we have not seen? 
•	We do not know much about neonate mortality. Will captive industry data on cycling and reproduction be helpful? What are the triggering mechanisms? 
•	Having complete genetics of the entire population is an advantage. 
•	Inter-pod exposure could be calculated (using Center data) on an annual basis (how much contact they have had annually).
•	Entering data into Access database, going into Arcview; bad idea to duplicate efforts. 

VII.	Prey Quality (Size/Fat Content) Breakout Session

Date: Thursday, January 22, 2004
Facilitator: Paul De Morgan/Dana Gunders
Recorder: Jennie Bolton/Julie Mocklin

Participants: 
Morning Session: 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: 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

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

Method 1 – Fish sampling (and analyses) in killer whale foraging areas. 
Method 2 – 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 – Data mining. 
Method 4 – 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 – Data mining demographic information on SRKWs particularly during winter 		(NRKWs, captive, Alaska residents for comparison). 
Method 2 – Data mining on physiological indicators of nutritional stress on other marine 	mammals. 
Method 3 – 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 – 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 – Ultrasound. 
Method 6 – 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 – Captive studies (analyze monthly caloric budget)
Method 2 – Study activity budgets for seasonal patterns
Method 3 – Fish sampling (and analyses) in killer whale foraging areas. 

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

Prey Quality (Size/Fat Content) Session Summary

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?
o	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); 
o	Changes in Chinook spring runs have changed lipid content of fish that killer whale might encounter.
•	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).
o	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?
•	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. 

•	No specific discussion.

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

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.
o	Not feasible to sample blood, for example.
•	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.
o	Answering the question of “what is nutritional stress” when studying the decline of Steller sea lion stocks was impossible.
•	Assuming the same indicators that work for other marine mammal species will work for killer whale is incorrect. 
o	Much more is known about pinniped physiology, but how much is applicable to killer whale?
o	Morphometric or demographic indicators need to be tested for utility. 
o	Killer whale use and mobilize lipids in an entirely different way from pinnipeds.
o	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. 
o	Most of the literature on mammalian physiology is from terrestrial animals, and these data would have limited value for killer whale.
•	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 information on SRKWs 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.
o	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)

•	Aspects to analyze:
o	Lipid class.
o	Lipid concentration.
o	Fat cell density.
o	
Research Question 3: 	Are there temporal and spatial changes in prey quality correlated with evidence of nutritional stress in killer whales?

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. 

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

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. 

Research Question 5: 	How does foraging efficiency change with prey quality?

•	Do whales find themselves in situations where they cannot catch enough prey to meet their needs?
•	Develop activity budgets.
o	Classify other behaviors (rest, swimming, playing) and assume rest is foraging. 
o	Look at large scale, seasonal variations.

Research Question 6: 	What are the changes in social dynamics relative to prey quality?

•	How does social structure differ for foraging versus non-foraging?
o	Tap into Jennifer Marsh’s study.

Research Question 7: 	Is there a salmon size preference? 

Brainstormed Methods (but not discussed in detail):
•	Compare sizes of scales fund near foraging killer whales.
•	Data mine: look at time shift in scale size? 
•	What size is the largest fish whales can swallow and how likely are they to take fish this big?

Research Question 8: 	Does prey quality variation effect different life-history stages 				differently?

In the discussion of this question, the following points and/or questions were raised:
•	There may be stages during life history where food limitation would affect later fitness of the individual, and we need to understand if there are such critical stages. 
•	Older marine mammals are almost never seen dying of starvation; it is more typical for young to be abandoned and left to starve if the mothers are nutritionally stressed. 

VIII.	Prey Quality (Contaminants) Breakout Session

Date: Thursday, January 22, 2004
Facilitator: Paul De Morgan
Recorder: Jennie Bolton

Participants: 
Morning Session: 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: 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.

 Prey Quality (Contaminants) Session Report

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

Method 1 – 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 – Build on ongoing work with harbor seals (as a integrator) to correlate effects (ties into current research by Jeffries et al. [4]
Method 3 – Data mine information (i.e., inter- and intra-comparison of contaminants across killer whale populations) to identify data gaps [2]
Method 4 – Literature and data survey for effects on marine mammals (e.g., Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)) [1]
Method 5 – Use harbor porpoise as surrogate [1]

Method 6 – 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 – Model food web pathways [5]
Method 2 – Document and measure contaminant levels in prey [5]
Method 3 – Expand geographic range of harbor seal work (coordinate with prey efforts) [4]
Method 4 – Obtain biopsy information and understand patterns [3]
Method 5 – Conduct ambient air monitoring amidst killer whale in presence/absence of whale watch activity [1]
Method 6 – 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 – Literature review
Method 2 – 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 (Contaminants) Session Summary

Research Question 1:	What are the effects of elevated contaminant levels on growth, reproduction, and survival?

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)?
o	Perhaps fecundity rates of NR, SR and transient killer whales could be compared to see if these can be related to contaminant levels. 
o	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.
o	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.
•	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? 
o	Why is the problem with the population being seen now, when levels have been high for years?
o	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.
o	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 an 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. 
o	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.
•	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)

•	No specific discussion.

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

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

•	Data mine for known contaminants, then address data gaps for prey (i.e., lesser known prey such as squid, or in areas where contaminant levels are not known) by collecting and measuring contaminant levels. 
o	Use the pattern of contaminants to get information on the source of contaminants identify unique signals that might be used to identify sources, pathways 
o	Using all known datasets, including early ones (e.g., Calambokidis data) 
o	Get confirmation/agreement between agencies (i.e., DFO, NOAA) on approaches and methodology for contaminant studies 
i.	Intercomparison studies 

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

 
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
•	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. 
o	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.
•	Are there emerging technologies that could be pursued as possible field indicators of immunosuppression? 
o	Making use of scat, blowhole, or skin samples? 
o	New method: Use DNA from scat samples to reconstruct diets (heard at the last International Whaling Commission meeting). 
o	Ultrasound could be extended to novel applications.

IX.	 Vessel Interactions (Acoustics) Breakout Session

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 (Acoustics) Summary Report

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: Field portable devices 
Method 2: Acoustic tags to measure sound 
Method 3: 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: Captive studies of animals trained to station and echolocate
Method 2: Ultra broadband tag
Method 3: 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: Behavioral psychophysics
Method 2: Evoke potentials

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

Method 1: Empirical methods measurements
Method 2: Modeling
Method 3: Mapping

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

Method 1: Land based acoustic methods
Method 2: Boat based acoustic methods
Method 3: Whale based acoustics/behavior (call rates, surface time, frequency modulation, frequency shift, increased source level, increased redundancy)
Method 4: 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: Modeling exercise
Method 2: Data mining
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

Vessel Interactions (Acoustics) Session Summary

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?

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
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	Only direct way to measure exposure level at the animal.
•	Can get information even with a sample size of one.  

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

General discussion
•	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
•	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
•	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
•	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:
•	They can be used to collect additional data.
•	They could be used to obtain winter distribution information.
•	Sonobouys could be used to make the effort remote.

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

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

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

Concerns
•	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
•	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
•	Focused on one study, so does not give you information for other studies. May be a bias in odontocetes. 

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

 
General discussion
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
•	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
•	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 
•	A complete audiogram of a Lag was obtained in a week. 
•	Need to be conservative to cause a threshold shift.

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

Method 1 – Empirical methods measurements

Method 2 – Modeling

Method 3 – Mapping

General Discussion 
•	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.  

Research Question 5: 	What is it about boats that affect whales? (noise, type, 					distance, size, direction, scaring prey). 

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 
•	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
•	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.	Playback of environmental sounds to whales; how it affects prey
b.	Active hydro-acoustics
c.	Vary 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
•	Fixed location allows for good distance measurements unobtainable from a boat. Source levels can be calculated as well.

Concerns
•	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
•	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
•	More people ranked method 2 (boat based acoustic methods) higher than method 1 (land based acoustic methods).

Concerns
•	Bias exists and there are no complete answers.

Whale Based Acoustic/ Behavior Observational Methods

Advantages
•	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
•	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. 

Research Question 6:	What sources of noise most likely affect SRKW reproduction, 				survival, etc.?	(Note: This questions works in conjunction 				with Research Question 5: What is it about boats that affect 				whales?)

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

 

X.	Closing Plenary Session

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.	Key Ongoing Studies

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).
•	SoundWatch (Whale Museum).
o	Activity around whales.
o	Compliance.
•	Northern Resident/Alaska effort.
•	Harbor seal work (State).
•	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.
o	At lighthouses.
o	Whale call detection (ambient noise data as well).
o	Passive array.
•	Ongoing tag development (Brad Hanson, Don Croll).
•	Steller Sea Lions – food limitation and other.

B.	Data Gaps

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.	New Research Approaches

Extending from the discussion of data gaps, the group discussed new ideas for conducting and assembling research, such as:

•	Captive Studies:
o	Seek partnership with aquarium (that does not already have killer whale(s)).
o	Rent, buy, keep your own killer whale (faster and more accurate research).
•	Video for training (visually show behavior, habitat, etc. to standardize behavior classification).
•	Data management and coordination (Agencies’ role):
o	Canada/US need to coordinate research, timing, and prioritizing.
•	Central killer whale website (data sharing site; would help coordination effort):
o	Could be NOAA sponsored.
o	Put old publications on webpages (PDF).
o	Copyright concerns (address with EndNote software or links).
o	Jim Ha efforts.
o	Example – Antarctic/Australia network.
•	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.	Small Group Research Plans

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 
(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”
•	Continue Population Monitoring (Ken Balcomb’s work, photo IDs):
o	SRKW.
o	NRKW.
o	Coordinate with already funded, ongoing Alaskan killer whale population monitoring.
•	Winter distribution studies (important, or else cannot answer any other questions):
o	What is winter distribution?
o	Use of existing acoustic arrays.
o	Continue coastal sighting network.
o	More PR to get people to report sightings (with coordinated follow up to get correct killer whale ‘type’ ID).
•	Vessel Interactions:
o	More land and boat-based behavioral studies (boat coordination with other studies and whale watch boats) but need to link to acoustics.
•	Data mining across all issues (important to so many topics; coordinate studies):
o	Go beyond BRT to go to ecosystem and other marine mammals (especially odontocetes) for sound effects, physiology, etc.
o	Central place for ongoing studies, information from all sources of research.
o	Complete necropsy for all carcasses.
o	Diet studies, especially with people on waterscoop scales and feces, test fisheries.
•	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”
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.
2.	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).
3.	Small-scale acoustic/prey sampling—tagging and vessel operations (worthwhile because it would answer so many questions).
4.	Set up acoustic arrays for winter distribution (existing and new ones for gaps).
5.	Expand vessel interaction/noise studies.

Examples of “Add-on” values
•	Physical condition index:
o	Ultrasound (short-term).
o	Develop photogrammetry.
•	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
(Members: Dave Bain, Ed Gerstein, Brad Hanson, Marilyn Joyce, Peggy Krahn, John Miller, Gina Ylitalo)

Research Plan
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).
2.	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. 
3.	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.
b.	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?).
4.	Synthesis:
a.	Data management.
b.	Modeling.

Group 3
(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
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
(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 
•	Foundation:
o	Basic biology:
•	Sociobiology.
•	Genetics.
•	Physiology.
•	Priority Research Questions:
o	Winter Distribution:
•	Development of remote monitoring methods (as well as continue passive collection).
o	Prey Selection:
•	Multiple methods.
o	Contaminants.
o	Develop biopsy research plan (figure out exactly which animals to biopsy):
•	Prey analyses.
o	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).
•	Infrastructure (responsibility of government agency):
o	Data sharing platform.
o	Coordination.
o	Standardization protocols (behavioral, necropsy).
o	Outreach.
•	R &D (extra, side prong):
o	Tagging.
o	Body condition.
o	Pilot studies for other areas.

V.	Closing Remarks

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.

Appendix A 
List of Participants

Name	Organization	
Harriet Allen	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife	
Dave Bain	University of Washington	
Robin Baird	Cascadia Research Collective	
Ken Balcomb	Center for Whale Research	
Lynne Barre	NOAA NWR	
Paul Becker	National Institute of Standards and Technology	
Mike Bennett	Mosquito Fleet	
Jennie Bolton	NOAA NWFSC	
Don Croll	University of California, Santa Cruz	
Marilyn Dalheim	NMML, NOAA AFSC	
Paul De Morgan	RESOLVE	
John Durban	NMML, NOAA AFSC	
Fred Felleman	Ocean Advocates	
John Ford	Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada	
Katherine Friedman	Katherine Friedman & Associates	
Joe Gaydos	UC Davis Wildlife Health Center	
Ed Gerstein	Florida Atlantic University	
Dana Gunders	RESOLVE	
James Ha	University of Washington	
Brad Hanson	NOAA NWFSC	
Donna Hauser	University of Washington	
John Hildebrand	University of California, San Diego	
Eli Holmes	NOAA NWFSC	
John Horne	University of Washington	
Steve Jeffries	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife	
Linda Jones	NOAA NWFSC	
Marilyn Joyce	Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada	
Peggy Krahn	NOAA NWFSC	
Jennifer Marsh	University of Washington	
Shannon McCluskey	University of Washington, NOAA NWFSC	
John Miller	U.S. Navy	
Julie Mocklin	NMFS Contractor	
Brent Norberg	NOAA NWR	
Dawn Noren	NOAA NWFSC	
Jeffrey Nystuen	APL, University of Washington	
Sandie O’Neill	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife	
Rich Osborne	The Whale Museum	
Kim Parsons	NRC post-doc, NOAA NWFSC	
Dave Rosen	University of British Columbia	
Bruce Sanford	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife	
Jeannette Thomas	Western Illinois University	
Shaari Unger	U.S. Navy	
Laurie Weitkamp	NOAA NWFSC	
Rob Williams	University of St. Andrews	
Terrie Williams	University of California, Santa Cruz	
Gina Ylitalo	NOAA NWFSC	

Appendix B 
Workshop Agenda

Workshop Objectives

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 – Plenary Session

1:00 – 1:30	Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review
•	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
•	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
•	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 (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

5:30		ADJOURN

6:00 – 7:30	RECEPTION (Portage Bay Cafe)

Tuesday, January 20 – Concurrent Breakout Sessions

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 

8:45 – 9:15	Overview of the State of the Knowledge
•	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 (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
•	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 (includes break)

4:30 – 5:00	Develop Report for Plenary and Wrap Up

5:00		ADJOURN

 Wednesday, January 21 – Concurrent Breakout Sessions

Attendees will participate in one of two breakout sessions:
1.	Prey Selection 
2.	Winter Distribution*

7:45 – 8:15	COFFEE AVAILABLE

8:15 – 8:30	Plenary Session: Overview of Tuesday’s Results

8:30 – 8:45	Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of Breakout Session Approach 

8:45 – 9:15	Overview of the State of the Knowledge
•	Prey Selection – John Ford, DFO, Canada
•	Winter Distribution – Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research

9:15 – 11:15	Identify and Prioritize Research Questions (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
•	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 (includes break)

4:30 – 5:00	Develop Report for Plenary and Wrap Up

5:00		ADJOURN

 Thursday, January 22 – Concurrent Breakout Sessions

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: Overview of Wednesday’s Results

8:30 – 8:45	Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of Breakout Session Approach 

8:45 – 9:15	Overview of the State of the Knowledge
•	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 (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
•	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 (includes break)

4:30 – 5:00	Develop Report for Plenary and Wrap Up

5:00		ADJOURN

Friday, January 23 – Plenary Session

7:45 – 8:15	COFFEE AVAILABLE

8:15 – 8:30	Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review

8:30 – 8:45	Overview of Thursday’s Results

8:45 – 9:30 	Step Back
•	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 

10:15 – 10:30	BREAK

10:30 – 11:00	Brief Report out from Breakouts

11:00 – 12:00	Plenary Discussion
•	Cross cutting issues and implications?

12:00 – 12:30	Next Steps and Acknowledgments 

12:30		ADJOURN

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

 (Names in bold font designate speakers who presented at workshop)

NWFSC Funded SRKW Research Projects

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
17.	SRKW Population Trends Relative to the Death of Old Individuals (Richard Osborne)
18.	SRKW Pods Annual and Monthly Trends in Arrivals and Departures from the Salish Sea (Richard Osborne)
19.	Temporal Trends in Contaminants Revealed from Harbor Seals (Steven Jeffries, Peter Ross, John Calambokidis)
20.	Spatial Patterns in Contaminants Revealed from Harbor Seals (Steven Jeffries, Peter Ross, John Calambokidis)
21.	Annual Population Assessment (John Ford, Graeme Ellis)
22.	Prey Selection Studies (John Ford)
23.	Population Dynamics Analyses (Peter Olesiuk) - Presented by John Ford
24.	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 20th to August 10th 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, jhildebrand@ucsd.edu
John Calambokidis. Cascadia Research, calambokidis@cascadiaresearch.org
Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research, orcasurv@rockisland.com

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, dbain@u.washington.edu 
Dr. Rob Williams, rmcw@smru.ac.uk
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, jcha@u.washington.edu

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 IIIxe 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, jcha@u.washington.edu

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 (R2=0.03, P<0.001) and Surface Duration to Dive Duration Ratio (R2=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 (R2=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. brad.hanson@noaa.gov

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, dhmonson@ucsc.edu

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, westjew@dfw.wa.gov

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, jkgaydos@ucdavis.edu
Dr. Stephen Raverty, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Stephen.Raverty@gems3.gov.bc.ca 

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, orcasurv@rockisland.com

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, orcasurv@rockisland.com

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, orcasurv@rockisland.com

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, linda.jones@noaa.gov
Dr. M. Bradley Hanson, Marine Mammal Program, NOAA NWFSC, brad.hanson@noaa.gov
Dr. Dawn Noren, Marine Mammal Program, NOAA NWFSC, dawn.noren@noaa.gov

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, Osborne@whalemuseum.org

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, Osborne@whalemuseum.org

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 KOW) 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 Washington1. All values are expressed on a lipid weight basis.

	QCSa	St of Georgiab	Puget Soundc	ANOVA
p-value	Tukey’s HSD	
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	-	

1Total 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 (TEQ98) 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 Sound1. 

	QCSa	St. of Georgiab	Puget Soundc	ANOVA
p-value	Tukey’s HSD	
PCB TEQ98	12.5 2.1	32.8  2.1	158.1  21.4	0.000	ac, bc	
    noPCBs TEQ98	4.3  0.7	10.7  0.6	36.9  3.9	0.000	ac, bc	
    moPCBs TEQ98	8.2  1.4	22.2  1.5	121.2  18.0	0.000	ac, bc	
PCDD TEQ98	10.5  1.6	17.4  1.4	12.2  1.0	0.024	NS	
PCDF TEQ98	2.2  0.2	1.5  0.2	2.0  0.2	0.309	-	
TEQ98	25.2  3.9	51.7  2.6	172.3  22.4	0.000	ac, bc	

1Data 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.

 
  
Appendix D 
Research Method Criteria Scoresheet

Southern Resident Killer Whale Research Workshop        Name ____________________________
							          Methods:
Research Method Criteria Scoresheet				1.  
2.  
Research Question: _______________________________	3.  								
Criteria	Ranking	Method 1	Method 2	Method 3	
1.	Is the method currently being used?	No                             Yes
  0                                 5				
2.	Is the method widely accepted?	No                                Yes 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
3.	What is the relative cost?	Low                             High 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
4.	Will this method provide a CLEAR answer?	No                                Yes 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
5.	Does the method COMPLETELY answer the question? 	No                                Yes 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
6.	How much BIAS is associated with the method?	Low                             High 
   0     1      2      3     4    5				
7.	Does the method answer the question directly?	Least                            Most 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
8.	Does the method provide data for other studies?	Limited               Significant
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
9.	How much development is required?	Substantial               Limited 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
10.	What amount of information will this method provide when the study is completed?  	Limited                Significant
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
11.	How long will it take to answer the question using this method?	 1-2 yrs    3-5 yrs       6+ yrs
   5             4                3				
12.	Are suitable sample sizes logistically feasible using the suggested method?	No                                Yes 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
13.	Does the method provide good value (i.e., large return relative to cost)	Low                             High 
   0     1      2      3     4     5				
SUBTOTAL					
14.	Likelihood the method will have any adverse impact?	5  = Less certain
3  = Moderately certain
1  = Certain
				
15.	Severity of potential impact	5 = No impact
4 = Short-term change in behavior
3  = Minor injury
2  = Serious injury				
16.	Frequency of potential impact	5 = once 
4  = yearly
3  = monthly
2 =  weekly
1 = daily				
17.	Duration of potential impact	5 = seconds/minutes
4 =  hours
3 =  days
2 = weeks
1 =  months+				
18.	Proportion of the population potentially impacted by the activity	5 = individual
3 =  pod/subgroup
1 = community				
TOTAL					

Comments: