Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales

Technical Workshop Proceedings November 15-17, 2017

Editors: Andrew W. Trites David A.S. Rosen

Hosted by:

Marine Mammal Research Unit Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales Technical Workshop Proceedings November 15–17, 2017 UBC Marine Mammal Research Unit

Editors: Andrew W. Trites David A.S. Rosen

These workshop proceedings should be cited as:

Trites, AW and Rosen, DAS (eds). 2018. Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales. Technical Workshop Proceedings. November 15–17, 2017. Marine Mammal Research Unit, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 64 pages

The information contained in this document is provided as a public service. Although we endeavour to ensure that the information is as accurate as possible, errors do occur. Therefore, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information. It is important to note that the opinions and suggestions contained in this document do not necessarily reflect a consensus of every workshop participant, nor the institutions or organizations they represent.

Cover image credit: Oil painting “Hide and Seek” by Bruce Muir (2017)

Marine Mammal Research Unit Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries University of British Columbia Room 247, AERL, 2202 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4

Tel.: (604) 822-8181 Email: [email protected] Web: www.mmru.ubc.ca

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 4 Overview of Workshop ...... 6 Goals...... 6 Terminology ...... 6 Assumptions & Limitations...... 6 Participants...... 6 Proposed Management Actions...... 6 Workshop Structure...... 6 Summary of Discussions on Potential Management Actions ...... 7 A: Increase abundance of Chinook coast-wide by reducing removals by fisheries ...... 7 B: Increase abundance of Chinook in specific-areas and times by adjusting removals by fisheries ..... 8 C: Increase accessibility of Chinook by decreasing acoustic & physical disturbances ...... 11 Conclusions ...... 13 What Actions to Take ...... 13 Measuring Efficacy of Actions ...... 13 Future Refinement and Planning ...... 14 Acknowledgements ...... 14 Appendix A: Participants ...... 15 Appendix B: Agenda ...... 17 Appendix C: Participant Presentation Summaries ...... 20 Day 1 – Prey Requirements of Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) ...... 20 Day 2 – Availability of Chinook Salmon...... 31 Day 3 – Evaluation of Potential Mitigation Measures ...... 38 Appendix D: Management Action Tables ...... 40 Appendix E: Table Definitions ...... 49 Appendix F: Notes from Group Discussions—Increase coast-wide Chinook abundance by reducing fisheries ...... 51 Appendix G: Notes from Group Discussions—Increase Chinook abundance at specific times and places 55 Appendix H: Notes from Group Discussions—Increase Chinook accessibility at specific times ...... 60

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 3

Executive Summary to implement this coast-wide action. The scientific justification and confidence in this This workshop assembled scientists and action producing the desired benefits to SRKW managers with technical expertise on killer were ranked unknown or low. whales and Chinook salmon to identify and Action B. A more directed approach that evoked evaluate short-term management actions that greater scientific confidence was to limit might increase the immediate abundance and fisheries in times and places that correspond to accessibility of Chinook salmon for southern SRKW foraging activities. The assumption of this resident killer whales, given the current size of action is that limiting fishing where SRKW Chinook salmon stocks. The workshop did not normally feed would reduce direct competition consider ways of producing more Chinook with them, and increase their foraging success. salmon (which will be the subject of a Most of the vessels fishing within SRKW habitat subsequent workshop), but rather considered are recreational. While scientific confidence in ways of making more of the fish that are this action was greater than for the “blanket” presently in the ocean available to southern closures of fisheries throughout BC, there were resident killer whales (SRKW). still concerns about its potential effectiveness. Workshop participants presented and discussed Chief among these were uncertainties about technical information on the prey requirements how much prey are needed for SRKW to of SRKW, the availability of Chinook salmon, and successfully forage and meet their needs, current protections for SRKW. Participants then uncertainty in predicting foraging patterns and split into four groups with an even distribution of identifying which locations are most important, expertise to review three potential non- and whether partial or total fishery closures exclusive Management Actions: within SRKW habitat would significantly increase the numbers of Chinook that SRKW could A. Increase the abundance of Chinook for capture. The scientific justification and SRKW by reducing coast-wide fishery confidence in this action producing the desired removals. benefits to SRKW were ranked low to medium. B. Increase the abundance of Chinook for SRKW by adjusting fishery removals at Action C. This action was designed to increase specific times and in specific areas of Chinook accessibility to SRKW by decreasing SRWK habitat. acoustic and physical disturbance from vessels. C. Increase the accessibility of Chinook by This action was considered and discussed in the decreasing underwater noise and the context of all vessels—and not fishing vessels physical presence of vessels where SRKW alone (which are believed to make up a relatively forage. small portion of all the vessels encountered by SRKW). Reducing incidences of disturbance can Action A. One way to significantly increase the be achieved by 1) excluding all vessels from numbers of fish in SRKW habitat—and thereby important SRKW habitat, and 2) implementing a increase the foraging success of SRKW—might 200 m exclusion zone around SRKW. Such a be to prevent fisheries from catching Chinook protective bubble would limit how close vessels earlier in their migration before they enter SRKW could approach SRKW, but would not protect foraging areas. However, there was considerable whales if they chose to approach vessels within uncertainty among workshop participants about their habitat. The scientific justification and the underlying theory and the practical capacity

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 4 confidence in this action producing the desired Chinook can include improvement in body benefits to SRKW were ranked medium to high. condition of SRKW, increased use of foraging areas, and less time travelling and feeding (and Based on the current state of knowledge and more time resting and socializing). However, use best available data, workshop participants had of these metrics requires a commitment to data higher confidence in the effectiveness of Action C (limiting vessel disturbances to make the collection and analyses (and forethought into Chinook that are already present easier for how to interpret them) so that the effectiveness SRKW to catch) than they did in increasing the of the actions can be assessed and modified as abundance of Chinook by closing or adjusting necessary. fisheries (Actions A & B). This workshop was a first step in bringing With >900 stocks of Chinook salmon migrating together scientists and managers with killer through BC waters at different times and whale and Chinook salmon expertise from strengths, there is currently insufficient evidence to support being able to surgically manage Canada and the United States to identify and fisheries to avoid catching the stocks destined evaluate short-term management actions that for SRKW habitat. Nor is there evidence that might be taken to increase the immediate fishery reductions would add significant abundance and accessibility of Chinook salmon numbers to the estimated 600,000 Chinook for SRKW, given the current size of Chinook thought to currently move through inside waters stocks. Going forward will likely require a to Puget Sound and the Fraser River. smaller group of managers and scientists with It will be critical to employ well-thought-out expertise in killer whales and Chinook to develop experimental designs that allow continual detailed strategies, design the experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of any implementations, and identify the required Management Action enacted. This is likely to be analyses to ensure that any of the Management important for the stakeholders and public Actions undertaken are effective in improving seeking reassurance that SRKW will realize the the status and well-being of southern resident full benefit of the intended action. killer whales. Performance measures that can be used to determine whether SRKW captured more

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 5

Overview of Workshop actions regarding rebuilding Chinook stocks are to be addressed in a future workshop. Thus, we Goals. To identify short-term management only considered short-term actions that could be actions that might be taken to increase the implemented through existing legislation and immediate abundance and accessibility of regulations. Chinook salmon for southern resident killer whales, given the current size of Chinook stocks. Participants. Participants with technical know- Thus, we evaluated short-term fishery ledge about killer whales, Chinook salmon, and management actions that would provide fisheries management were invited from Canada immediate benefits to southern resident killer and the United States. These included 46 whales (SRKW). We did not consider ways of individuals working for state and federal producing more Chinook salmon, but rather governments, consulting companies, nonprofit considered ways of making more of the fish that organizations, and universities (Appendix A). are in the ocean available to SRKW to ultimately Proposed Management Actions. Given the increase the birth rates and decrease the death afore-mentioned conditions, five potential (non- rates of SRKW. exclusive) Management Actions were developed Terminology. “Availability” means being able to in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans be used or obtained. This term is used by some Canada (DFO) and US National Marine Fisheries to mean accessibility, while for others it reflects Service (NMFS) biologists and managers. the combination of both accessibility and However, workshop participants proposed abundance. We used this later definition when facilitating discussions by grouping the five referring to the availability (i.e., availability = potential actions into these three: abundance + accessibility) of prey for killer A. Increase abundance of Chinook coast-wide whales. “Accessibility” was defined as the ease by reducing removals by fisheries. of obtaining or using prey; and "abundance” B. Increase abundance of Chinook in specific- referred to the quantity or amount of Chinook areas and times by adjusting removals by salmon in areas where killer whales forage. fisheries. Assumptions & Limitations. For the purposes of C. Increase accessibility of Chinook by attaining the goals of the workshop, we assumed decreasing acoustic and physical that: disturbances.

1. The SRKW population trajectory is in The goal of these three Management Actions decline and will not improve under current was to increase the short-term abundance or conditions. accessibility of 4-5+ year old Chinook salmon in areas where SRKW forage. SRKW consume 2. The status of SRKW is related to the Chinook 3+ years old, but prefer Chinook that are abundance and accessibility of Chinook 4 years and older. salmon. Workshop Structure. On Days 1 and 2 of the Workshop participants did not consider the workshop, experts gave presentations in their veracity of these assumptions, and focused fields to inform the scientific validity of any of instead on evaluating management actions that the three potential management actions could increase the abundance and accessibility (Appendices B and C). Day 3 of the workshop was of adult Chinook salmon (currently in the ocean) dedicated to working in four groups to within regions where SRKW forage. Potential independently discuss the possible actions.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 6

Discussions were guided by (but not limited to) a would ultimately move “downstream” and enter series of criteria developed in consultation with areas where SRKW forage. Nor is it clear how NMFS and DFO prior to the workshop (Appendix many more fish might join those already moving D). through key foraging areas used by SRKW as a result of this action. The overall goal was for workshop participants to consider how the three actions could be Based on the evidence presented at the workshop, scientific confidence that this implemented, and the likelihood that they would Management Action was feasible or would increase the abundance and accessibility of provide the desired benefit to SRKWs was Chinook for southern resident killer whales to overwhelmingly low or unknown. consume. While consensus building within groups was desirable, care was taken to The lack of endorsement for taking this action document all opinions. was primarily due to:

 Concern over being able to obtain real-time scientific information on the movements of Summary of Discussions on different salmon stocks to implement Potential Management Actions selective fishery reductions coast-wide;  Uncertainty concerning whether reducing The following summaries reflect the discussions catches in “distant” fisheries would increase held on Day 3 of the workshop concerning each the abundance of Chinook by enough to of the Management Actions. Notes combining improve SKRW body conditions. information transcribed during group Mathematical models indicate that such an discussions, and from tables filled out by action would not significantly increase the workshop participants are contained in biomass of Chinook salmon for SRKW. This Appendices F, G and H. is partly based on the observation that The summarized discussions that follow contain some of the >900 Chinook salmon stocks in 1) the rationale underlying the three proposed BC waters that are most prevalent in SRKW Management Actions; 2) the scientific diets are also currently the most abundant confidence of the workshop participants in the Chinook runs. feasibility of implementing each Management  A general consensus that fishery actions Action, and whether it would provide the desired that focus on key stocks targeted by SRKW benefit to SRKWs; 3) associated uncertainties would be more effective than general coast- and unintended consequences associated with wide fishery reductions. Key stocks thought each action; and 4) ways in which the actions to be most important to SRKW during spring might be experimentally implemented to and summer are returning to Puget Sound evaluate the effectiveness of each action, and (pre-May and post-Aug), the Fraser River refine them as necessary. (May–Aug), lower southwest Vancouver Island (Aug–Sep), and lower Strait of Georgia (Aug–Sep). Puget Sound fish are A: Increase abundance of Chinook coast-wide present during summer, but in lower by reducing removals by fisheries proportions relative to Fraser Chinook. Selectively reducing fishery catches (commercial  Uncertainty about how many more fish and recreational) throughout British Columbia SRKW need and could be provided by would leave more fish in the ocean and thereby reduced fisheries given that about 600,000 increase the abundance of Chinook. However, it Chinook move through inside waters is less certain which fish not taken by fisheries (300,000 Fraser River and 300,000 Puget

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 7

Sound). Percentages of Fraser-bound fish increase by initially consuming more caught before they enter the river is Chinook in terminal areas, and later preying relatively low for some stocks, such as the on juvenile fish (in the case of seals)—with 5-year-old spring and summer Chinook unintended impacts on overall Chinook (about 3–4%)—and higher for some 4-year numbers. old fish (~25%).  And finally, there may be challenges for  Recognition that not every fish saved from international coordination, and impacts to fisheries will be available to SRKW due to First Nations and Indian tribes. density dependent effects. It is not a linear Despite these concerns, a few workshop relationship, as seen after 1990 when ocean participants favoured this Management Action— fisheries were reduced in response to on the premise that any precautionary measure declines of wild Chinook runs. Returns of was worth implementing, despite it having a low some Chinook stocks increased following probability of success. fishery restrictions, while others did not.  Recognition that the percentage of spring In contrast to this belief, most participants and summer Fraser Chinook caught in agreed that implementing sweeping changes offshore mixed-stock commercial and lacking scientific justification would ultimately recreational fisheries that are headed to prove counterproductive to efforts to recover Juan de Fuca Strait is small. SRKW due to a lack of stakeholder and public buy-in, and a potential perception that this  Recognition that in-season adaptive action was based on political rather than management would be difficult to scientific considerations. implement to make this an effective action. It would likely be too late to close fisheries in-season by the time it was recognized that B: Increase abundance of Chinook in specific- salmon numbers of particular stocks areas and times by adjusting removals by consumed by SRKW were low. Large fisheries offshore aggregate fisheries are managed This Management Action is also designed to based on pre-season abundance forecasts increase the abundance of 4-5+ year old Chinook of Canadian and US stocks in those fisheries. salmon of key stocks — but within “core SRKW These forecasts are not updated in-season, areas” at biologically appropriate times of the and would be challenging to do so until year. In other words, to increase the abundance after fishing occurred. of large Chinook salmon where and when SRKW  Increased availability of Chinook resulting are foraging. from fishery closures may be partially offset by removals by other predators (e.g., One means of increasing Chinook abundance NRKW). In other words, SRKW may not during times that SRKW seek prey would be to consume the fish left by fisheries. create refuges (or exclusion zones) over a portion of SRKW critical habitat when SRKW are  The possibility of other unintended expected to be present. Operationally, this might consequences, whereby efforts to leave be accomplished by imposing selective area more Chinook in the ocean might increase closures during specific months, and the numbers of other consumers. For redistributing fishing effort to places not used by example, NRKW might be the ultimate SRKW. The period of highest recreational fishing beneficiaries of increased Chinook use in Canada is from June to early September abundance—and might ultimately encroach (Father’s Day to Labour Day). on SRKW habitat as their numbers increase. Similarly, seals and sea lions might also Adjusting removals by fisheries in specific areas used by SRKW at specific times of year was

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 8 considered to have more merit than coast-wide There was some consensus that the abundance fishery closures (Management Action A) for of Chinook that occurred in previous “good” several reasons. Most notably, adjusting fishing SRKW years could provide a baseline measure of effort by time and space is more likely to directly what targeted abundance should be. However, increase the abundance of Chinook for SRKW at in the absence of this knowledge, it is unknown specific times, and in specific areas where they what level of increase or stability is required to are likely to forage. It would avoid the “dilution” measurably change SRKW condition or effect of fishing in areas and at times “upstream” demographics. Some predictive models indicate of where SRKW forage. a 30% rise in Chinook abundance is required—a level approaching the “best” historic years— In addition to an increased likelihood of while other models indicate that a complete providing greater benefits to SRKW, this type of fishery closure would still be insufficient to targeted fishery closure would likely have a produce SRKW recovery, given the broad lower socioeconomic impact than would broad ecological and physical changes that have (“upstream”) fisheries closures. Such an occurred in the North Pacific Ocean. approach would likely result in higher stakeholder and public buy-in. Some uncertainty was also expressed in the ability to identify which locations are most An additional positive effect of selective fisheries important, and what times of year are most closures would be to alleviate potential physical critical for SRKW. and acoustic disturbance (see Management Action C), although the ultimate benefit of this In considering this action, it was generally felt it would depend upon the proportion of fishing should only be applied to: vessels present relative to other vessels (which 1) Fisheries that catch a significant portion of may be very low). the key stocks of 4+ Chinook sought by SRKW Despite having more merit than Management (e.g., those that catch >5% of returning fish); Action A, workshop participants ranked their 2) Fisheries whose catches consist of a high scientific certainty of the effectiveness of proportion of 4+ year old Chinook (e.g., >10- increasing Chinook numbers by adjusting fishery 20% of the fishery); and removals within SRKW critical habitat to be low 3) Fisheries occurring within the time and high- to medium. In general, the effectiveness of area- use areas of SRKW foraging (based on field based closures was ranked low, while the observations of SRKW). effectiveness of maximum size limits on fish For commercial fisheries, these actions would caught was ranked higher. apply to locations with the highest Chinook The uncertainty expressed over implementing catch. However, these areas are generally this Management Action reflects several critical outside (to the north) of SRKW range (with the unknowns, such as how much prey are required exception of Fishery Management Area 123). for SRKW to meet their needs. It was unclear, for Similarly, the critical time for closures would example, what the desired abundance of specific likely be during summer (but not exclusively) Chinook stocks should be at specific times of when the greatest numbers of Chinook are year. Using current “conditions” as a baseline caught. was considered problematic because catches Ideally, closures of commercial and recreational and abundance are lower now than they have fisheries would accommodate real time changes been historically, while the number of other in the presence and absence of foraging SRKW. competing predators consuming Chinook However, differences in the spatial and temporal (including NRKW) are higher. scale at which recreational and commercial fisheries operate make it more difficult to effectively adjust recreational fishery removals

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 9 of Chinook compared to adjusting commercial During winter, J pod can be found foraging in the fishery removals in real time. An action that Strait of Georgia where Chinook winter adapts to the daily movements of SRKW would abundance has been high over recent years (and likely be too difficult to effectively communicate fishing effort low relative to summer months), and logistically manage. The effectiveness of suggesting that fishing limitations may have such an action would also likely prove to be too minimal additive benefit to J pod. difficult to evaluate. While fisheries might be adjusted to increase the Additional questions were raised regarding how quantity of Chinook available, they might also be SRKW might react to partial closures within their adjusted to increase the quality of individual critical habitat. For example, would whales Chinook consumed (through size-limits that bypass areas where fishing was occurring and leave bigger fish in the ocean). Body size of concentrate foraging efforts in undisturbed Chinook has become smaller over time, which areas where abundance is theoretically higher? means that each Chinook consumed by SRKW is Similarly, would lots of Chinook in a noisy site now providing fewer calories on average than it with lots of vessel disturbance be as effectively did in the past. beneficial for SRKW as would feeding on a lower Another point of consideration relates to the abundance of Chinook in a quiet, undisturbed predictability of foraging patterns of SRKW from location? These questions highlight the one year to the next. While SRKW are generally considerable uncertainty about the relative considered to be predictable in their annual importance of Chinook abundance vs. the movements, there can be considerable accessibility of Chinook within an area. Killer variability between years. Thus, the effective- whales tend to spend a large proportion of time ness of specific fishery closures under in small areas, but it is unclear how big an area is Management Action B is inherently limited by required to be effective, or what degree of the natural unpredictability of SRKW foraging connectivity is needed between areas. behaviour. Field studies are planned to define SRKW Given the foregoing uncertainties, workshop foraging patterns and their relationship to participants recognized that implementing this fishing efforts. In the meanwhile, the picture is (or any) Management Action must be done far from clear. experimentally (with a statistically appropriate Implementing this Management Action would experimental design), so that the effectiveness be complex given that the three pods of the of the action can be evaluated and adaptively SRKW population (J, K and L) use different changed as required. This would entail foraging areas, and are not equally dependent evaluating the effectiveness of specific closures on the same Chinook stocks. on an ongoing basis, and suitably adjusting the specific implementation of this Management For example, K and L pods feed during winter off Action as necessary. Specific monitoring would the US west coast down to California. The stocks be required to ascertain the effect of this action important to these two pods vary in size and on Chinook abundance and SRKW foraging robustness (Klamath, Columbia, and coastal behaviour within specific areas. Chinook salmon stocks). The potential to mitigate numbers of Chinook belonging to the Determining whether restrictions placed on different stocks through control of fisheries is fishery catches have positive effects on SRKW is also likely to prove unfeasible. It was noted, for problematic. Determining whether foraging example, that stocks in southern California are at success improves will require concurrent studies dire numbers, and there are few immediate of salmon movements and SRKW foraging options to revitalize these stocks, either through efficiency (using longer-term observations and fisheries management or other actions. underwater tracking technologies).

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 10

While the ultimate goal of this action is to rates. This Management Action would improve the population dynamics of SRKW by specifically minimize acoustic interference with increasing their birth rates and reducing death echolocation during hunting and communication rates, such measures of population recovery between pod members, and would minimize may respond on time scales that are too long to physical interference from vessels that may be linked to the proposed actions. disrupt surface chases, preclude prey sharing, or cause animals to cease foraging and move out of Estimates of SRKW body condition were an area. One model suggests that increasing the generally felt to be a more useful short-term accessibility of Chinook salmon (i.e., the ability of metric of nutritional status of individual whales, SRKW to catch them) by 30-50% would with the caveat that changes in physical significantly improve the demographics of condition can be caused by a number of factors SRKW. (such as disease) and are not necessarily indicative of inadequate prey. Nevertheless, This proposed action to minimize the negative correlating metrics of SRKW health (body effect of vessels on SRKW incorporates 1) vessel condition, hormones) with salmon abundance exclusion zones in key foraging areas (akin to could help to identify when salmon abundance is Management Action B), and 2) a protective too low and fisheries need to be restricted. exclusion zone around SRKW at all times. Obtaining aerial images of SRKW returning in Workshop participants recognized that it is May, and again in the fall will provide essential unrealistic to close all potential SRKW foraging monitoring data on changes in body condition areas at all times. However, they emphasized the relative to the abundance of Chinook. need for quality data to make decisions about which areas should be closed, and at which times Implementing this Management Action would of year to do so. Implementing this action require continued studies of SRKW diet and requires a rigorous experimental design to foraging behaviour (times and locations) to evaluate its effectiveness. inform the management of key Chinook stocks important to SRKW at the proper times of year. It was further recognized that SRKW often forage It would also require implementing an adaptive in the presence of many vessels (recreational management strategy, with annual evaluations and commercial fishing, whale watching, and of winter and summer SRKW distributions and recreational vessel traffic). Given this overlap stock-specific Chinook abundances. between vessels and SRKW, this action would be minimally effective if it is only applied to fishing

vessels because numbers of fishing vessels are C: Increase accessibility of Chinook by believed to be relatively small compared to other decreasing acoustic & physical disturbances types of vessels (although significant numbers of Some workshop participants felt the accessibility fishing vessels may gather in prime areas at of Chinook in areas where SRKW forage would be certain times). It is not clear how challenging it significantly increased if 1) disturbances caused might be to implement this action for different by the presence of vessels was reduced by 50%, classes of vessels from a regulatory view, and if 2) disturbances caused by underwater involving multiple legislative changes (i.e., noise from vessels were reduced by 100%. Other Fisheries Act, Transport Canada, etc.). workshop participants merely wanted significant There was general consensus that a 200 m reductions without specifying target levels. exclusion zone was reasonable — despite the Reducing the frequency of physical and acoustic scientific questions surrounding the biological disturbances would theoretically facilitate SRKW effectiveness of this distance (a portion of the being more successful at capturing prey— participants suggested a more precautionary thereby allowing them to be in better physical 400 m zone, but no one suggested a distance less condition and have higher survival and birth

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 11 than 200 m, which is the approach distance whales. Although whales might be expected to currently required in the United States). This avoid such noisy corridors and move to less Action would theoretically provide “bubble” disturbed areas, the presence of salmon may protection around whales as they move into motivate them to stay put. known foraging areas. Finally, while the intent of this Management Unfortunately, building a moving bubble around Action is to improve the foraging of SRKW by SRKW has its limitations, even when perfectly making it easier for SRKW to catch the fish that implemented. For example, it would not prevent are present, it would likely have to be whales from moving into a foraging area where implemented for all killer whales (transient and vessels are already present. While regulations resident) because it is unrealistic to expect would prevent approaching the whales closer operators to readily distinguish between the two than 200 m, it cannot legislate against whales ecotypes of killer whales. moving towards vessels and exposing Workshop participants ranked the scientific themselves to vessel noise and movements that certainty that reducing physical and acoustic may degrade their foraging environment. Nor disturbances by vessels would significantly would operators necessarily be required to limit increase the accessibility of Chinook for SRKW as their acoustic footprint if they are already in the medium to high. area. This range in certainty is higher than the other One means of reducing the potential for vessels two Management Actions considered, and to affect the ability of SRKW to access Chinook reflects the extent and importance of knowledge would be to require them to pull their gear and gaps. While there was an accepted link between turn off their fish finders or engines (if safe to do noise and poor foraging success, the dose- so) should whales approach within a specified response of SRKW foraging behaviour in relation distance within identified foraging areas. Speed to vessel noise and numbers was less clear. restrictions could also be implemented within Other identified potential knowledge gaps critical foraging areas used by SRKW. include sound profiles of critical areas, and As a side note, it was mentioned that the diurnal pattern of SRKW foraging. It was felt that majority of recreational Fishfinders operate at these questions could be clarified through two frequencies (50 and 200 kHz), and are preset further studies, while the exclusion zone should to the lower frequency that has a broader and be experimentally implemented. Despite these deeper cone of ultrasound coverage than the gaps, vessel exclusion zones were generally felt higher frequency. The hearing range of killer to be a prudent measure. whales extends from ~0.6 KHz to >100 kHz, with The efficacy and design of exclusion zones can the greatest sensitivity between 20–50 kHz. To only be improved through intensive monitoring avoid potential impacts within the hearing range during implementation. Operator compliance of SRKW, manufacturers or users could preset evaluations could include AIS (Automatic their devices to the higher 200 kHz frequency to Identification System) monitoring, cameras and prevent overlap with the SRKW dynamic range, radar. As has been demonstrated in other and users could be educated about using the marine programs, education of vessel operators higher setting around whales. (particularly recreational) is often as important Mediating vessel behaviour when killer whales as regulatory enforcement. Specific guidance approach them is particularly problematic in would also likely be required for those fishing transportation corridors within SRKW critical (target messaging in key areas such as Salmon habitat that have high numbers of moving Bank), and perhaps as part of licensing vessels. Under such circumstances, there seems procedures. little chance of creating a “quiet zone” for the

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 12

The biological effectiveness of this action on significantly increase the ability of SRKW to catch SRKW would have to be closely monitored. the salmon that are present in foraging areas. While this action is likely to improve targeted foraging opportunities for SRKW, it is unclear Measuring Efficacy of Actions what effect it will have on their well-being. There are a number of performance measures Evaluating the efficacy should include potential that can be used to assess the effectiveness of short-term effects such as behavioural measures (e.g., the amount of time whales spend in Management Actions on SRKW. However, each feeding areas), the acoustic levels within those requires a commitment to data collection and areas, and an analysis of foraging success vs. analyses, and forethought about how to acoustic profiles, and longer-term studies on interpret them. Possible metrics include: changes in physical condition and hormone Body Condition. Aerial photographs of SRKW profiles of SRKW. retuning in May, and again in the fall will provide In addition to implementing an experimental essential monitoring data on changes in body framework to evaluate the benefit of areas of condition relative to the abundance and action versus no action, restricting the accessibility of Chinook during spring and movement and presence of vessels should be summer, as well as relative measures of feeding done adaptively. This would entail establishing conditions during winter when the SRKW are connections between SRKW health and Chinook believed to be primarily along the outer coast of abundance (e.g., scenarios indicate suite of options for high Chinook/low whale condition, the United States. An invaluable database of low Chinook, etc.). body conditions has grown in recent years, but is not yet sufficient to determine an ideal body condition or what a significant improvement Conclusions looks like. What Actions to Take The four discussion groups had evenly balanced Table 1. Scientific justifiability of the Management expertise on killer whales, Chinook salmon and Actions and the likelihood that they would provide fisheries management — and came to similar the desired benefit to SRKWs. Note that the conclusions about the scientific justifiability of likelihood of success correlated positively with the Management Actions considered, and the scientific justification — “?” represents unknown. likelihood that they would provide the desired Scientific Justifiability Management Action benefit to SRKWs (Table 1). ? Low Med High

Overall, there was little confidence (unknown– A. Increase abundance of Chinook coast-wide low) that reducing fishery catches coast-wide X X would benefit SRKW, and slightly more by reducing removals by fisheries confidence (low–med) that restricting catches within specific areas of SRKW critical habitat B. Increase abundance of Chinook in specific- X X would significantly increase Chinook abundance. areas & times by adjust- ing fishery removals In contrast to doubts about being able to significantly increase the numbers of fish in C. Increase accessibil- ity of Chinook by SRKW habitat, there was greater confidence X X decreasing acoustic & (med–high) that reducing acoustic noise and physical disturbances physical disturbances by vessels would

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 13

Physiological Status. Significant advances have interval between calving times, increasing been made in developing ways to assess the success at age of first reproduction, and well-being of free-swimming whales. Fecal increasing reproductive potential (improved age samples, respiratory (blow) samples, blubber & sex composition of pods). However, changes in biopsies, and skin samples are increasingly used reproduction and survival rates occur over to assess health, nutritional status, exposure to relatively long periods and are unlikely to be disease, stress levels, and reproductive status. useful or dependable measures of the Validation of methodologies to assess and immediate effects of the actions considered. interpret physiological status relative to environmental conditions (i.e., perceived Future Refinement and Planning stressors) is ongoing. This workshop was an important first step in Area Use. The percentage of time a whale bringing fisheries managers and killer whale and spends in particular areas is likely to be a useful Chinook salmon experts together to identify and metric. This is based on the assumption that evaluate short-term management actions that more time moving between areas is indicative of might be taken to increase the immediate lower available prey—while less travelling is abundance and accessibility of Chinook salmon presumed to reflect relatively good foraging. for SRKW, given the current size of Chinook stocks. Activity Budgets. The percentage of time killer whales engage in resting, foraging, travelling, As a next step, a smaller group of managers and and socializing is presumed to reflect feeding scientists with expertise in killer whales and conditions—as it has been observed that killer Chinook could develop detailed strategies, whales typically travel more and forage less in design the experimental implementations and bad salmon years and in the presence of vessels required analyses to ensure the effectiveness of (they also tend to do less resting and socializing). the actions taken to improve the status of southern resident killer whales. Acoustic Behaviour. Foraging activity could be captured by hydrophones. Changes in the frequency of calls between SRKW might reflect Acknowledgements changes in feeding conditions. The workshop was supported through Fisheries Foraging Success. Individual SRKW might be and Oceans Canada’s Ocean and Freshwater followed from shore or from a distance on the Science Contribution Program awarded to water to document successful prey captures. Andrew Trites and Brian Hunt at the UBC Suction-cup electronic tags that record Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. We are underwater behaviours can be attached for brief grateful for the logistical support provided by periods to determine where, when and how Pamela Rosenbaum (UBC Marine Mammal frequently SRKW catch Chinook and whether Research Unit), and for the rapporteur support they are more successful following from Madeline Young (International Year of the implementation of the Management Action. Salmon). We are also grateful to Earth and Reproduction & Survival. The overall goal of all Oceans Sciences, and to the Institute for the the Management Actions considered during this Oceans and Fisheries for providing meeting workshop was to support SRKW recovery by rooms. ultimately increasing the number of female calves, increasing calf survival, reducing the

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 14

Appendix A: Participants

Lynne Barre US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Lance Barrett-Lennard Ocean Wise [email protected]

Penny Becker Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife [email protected]

Gayle Brown Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Sean Cox Simon Fraser University [email protected]

Thomas Doniol-Valcroze Fisheries and Oceans Canada thomas.doniol-valcroze@dfo- mpo.gc.ca

John Durban US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Peter Dygert US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Holly Fearnbach SR3 [email protected]

Mike Ford US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

John Ford University of British Columbia [email protected]

Jeff Grout Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Brad Hanson US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Marla Holt US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Kirt Hughes Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife [email protected]

Brian Hunt University of British Columbia [email protected]

Lisa Jones Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Chris James NW Indian Fisheries Commission [email protected]

Ruth Joy SMRU Consulting [email protected]

Peter Katinic Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Robert Kope US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Karen Leslie Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Wilf Luedke Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Marla Maxwell Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Teresa Mongillo US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Jennifer Nener Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Dawn Noren US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 15 Jan Ohlberger University of Washington [email protected]

Martin Paish Sport Fishing Institute of BC [email protected]

Brian Riddell Pacific Salmon Foundation [email protected]

David Rosen University of British Columbia [email protected]

Teresa Ryan University of British Columbia [email protected]

Bryan Rusch Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Mei Sato Oregon State University [email protected]

Mark Saunders International Year of the Salmon [email protected]

Sharlene Shaikh Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Eva Stredulinsky Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Jennifer Tennessen US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Mary Thiess Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Sheila Thornton Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Andrew Trites University of British Columbia [email protected]

Bob Turner US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Eric Ward US National Marine Fisheries Service [email protected]

Rob Williams Oceans Initiative [email protected]

Brianna Wright Fisheries and Oceans Canada [email protected]

Madeline Young International Year of the Salmon [email protected]

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 16 Appendix B: Agenda

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 17

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 18

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 19 Appendix C: Participant Presentation Summaries The following synopses of workshop presentations were provided by participants, and have been edited for style.

November 15, 2017 1. High proportions of physically mature Day 1 – Prey Requirements of Southern males &/or lactating females in the Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) groups (i.e. nutritionally-needy individuals) A. SRKW status and demographic update (Eric Ward, NWFSC) 2. Leadership capacity within the group  SRKW are likely to continue to decline. (i.e. multiple old, mature females) How quickly that happens depends on 3. Lower maternal relatedness among what assumptions we make about future group members (this can occur environmental conditions, sex ratios at through deaths of common ancestors birth being different from 50:50, potential as well as group growth) effects of inbreeding, and other factors  Prey sharing is a prevalent behaviour in that reduce fecundity or survival. RKWs, where animals share prey with  SRKW are an anomaly in that they are the their closest maternal relatives only killer whale population in the NE - Adult RKW females are the primary Pacific that hasn't increased exponentially. provisioners of their groups, sharing This is true since the 1970s, including the consistently even in years of low period since the last 2011-2012 salmon abundance (which makes workshops. them particularly vulnerable to food  As noted in the last independent panel shortages). report and work since, there is increased - Adult males share the least with their opportunity for competitive effects of group. This is likely because they have other killer whale populations on SRKW (NRKW in particular have spatial overlap huge caloric requirements and they with SRKW). are also the least maternally related  Recent trends in SRKW appear to be (on average) to their group. somewhat decoupled from aggregate  While a mother’s provisioning of her salmon indices. In the last 5-10 years, daughters stops at daughter’s salmon indices have been at or near reproductive maturity, sons are historic highs and these periods have seen provisioned throughout their lifetime high population growth of other killer - Adult males depend on close female whales. But the trajectory for SRKW is relatives to be provisioned, and, in the somewhat opposite. absence of such relatives, their survival decreases. This relationship is B. Influence of sociality on the prey needs of especially apparent in years of low Southern Resident Killer Whales (Eva salmon abundance. Stredulinsky, DFO)  Relevant notes from outside of this  Splitting of RKW groups is correlated to presentation: coast-wide Chinook abundance - According to SRKW photogrammetry  This relationship is amplified by: work (J. Durban, H. Fearnbach et al.), while adult males have females

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 20 provisioning them, they consistently D. Coastal occurrence of SRKWs based on have the best body condition of all sightings and acoustic data (Ruth Joy, SMRU age-sex classes. So it seems, in Consulting) general, they are only vulnerable to Project goals food shortages when they are lacking 1. To better understand the fine-scale older female animals to provision spatial and temporal distribution of them. SRKW during “Chinook season” (May- October), focusing on current and C. Killer whale genetics, and paternity in the proposed Canadian Critical Habitat. southern resident population (Michael 2. To better understand where foraging Ford, NOAA) occurs. Main points  Multiple datasets: some opportunistic  The whales have highly skewed male presence only, some more systematic with reproductive success – ~50% of the associated effort. current population descended from just  One of the key datasets was collected by two males Brian Gisborne with 2887 tracklines of  Four apparent cases of close inbreeding effort distributed across 815 days. He (2.5% of all inferred matings) observed SRKW 158 times across effort  Less close inbreeding is certainly mostly concentrated in the occurring, but hard to detect with spring/summer/fall months. nd current data  The 2 key source of data is that from the BCCSN and OrcaMaster datasets. These  Consequences of inbreeding in the are presence only datasets for which we population still under study - will have will have to derive either a pseudo effort results next year datalayer from absence data, or else a  No evidence of inbreeding avoidance presence only approach. We’d like to  Population has had low effective size avoid making assumptions about ‘effort’. (~25) for at least several generations  The overarching methodological plan is to Implications for prey conservation/use fit a Bayesian spatial-temporal model  Old, large males are important and they using approximate methods (instead of need a lot of food, but the population particle MCMC) to estimate the probability of SRKW presence in the Salish may not need very many of them Sea in the months from May to October.  Inbreeding depression may mean We will be incorporating as much data as population needs more prey than a we can (scared about the Chinook data comparable outbred population now though!!), with the intent to start  Based on the work by Eva Stredulinksy, with integrating Brian’s data with the the whales seem to put a lot of resources sightings databases. into males, and this seems almost  Deliverable date is March 2018. maladaptive from a population

perspective even if it perhaps makes sense from an individual whale perspective

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 21 E. Coastal occurrence of southern resident G. Dtags as a tool for behavioural studies of killer whales based on satellite tagging and resident killer whales (Brianna Wright, acoustic recorder detections (Brad Hanson, DFO) NWFSC) See: Wright, B.M., Ford, J.K.B., Ellis, G.E.,  Acoustic recorder detections and satellite- Deecke, V.B., Shapiro, A.D., Battaile, B.C. & linked tag location data from SRKW have Trites, A.W. 2017. Fine-scale foraging provided a much more complete picture of movements by fish-eating killer whales SRKW fall, winter, and spring occurrence (Orcinus orca) relate to the vertical  Acoustic recorder detection data showed distributions and escape responses of that the area near the Columbia River was salmonid prey (Oncorhynchus spp.). used much more than expected by K/L Movement Ecology 5:3. pods  Satellite tagged members of K and L pods H. Acoustic cues recorded from animal-borne ranged from Cape Flattery, Washington to tags to quantify foraging events in Pt. Reyes, California, remaining on the endangered fish-eating killer whales (Marla continental shelf, and generally close to Holt, NWFSC) the coast  34% of dives contained echolocation click  High use sites for K/L pods included areas bouts off the Columbia River and Gray’s Harbor,  The majority of click bouts were slow northern California, and the northern clicks on repeated shallow dives, Olympic Peninsula interpreted as searching for prey at the  K/L pods primarily occur in a relatively surface. This makes SRKW vulnerable to narrow band of the continental shelf near vessel masking noise and boat presence the coast  Dive depth and year were important  Satellite tagged members of J pod ranged explanatory variables of click presence from the continental shelf waters of the  Co-occurrence of buzzes and prey central west coast of Vancouver Island to handling sounds indicate prey capture northern Georgia Strait  Males had higher presence of buzz and  High use sites for J pod included northern prey handling sounds on per dive basis, Georgia Strait and the western end of Juan consistent with having higher feeding de Fuca Strait rates to support a larger total body size  K/L and J pods appear to have nearly  Integration of the acoustic data analysis exclusively separate winter ranges results with other tag sensor data is  In general, SRKWs appear to display critical input for the development of the similar range and site fidelity patterns foraging detector, presented by J. between years Tennessen  Results ultimately will be used to predict foraging in order to determine vessel and F. Assessment of potentially important SRKW habitat outside of designated Critical noise effects on behavior, including Habitat (John Ford, DFO & UBC) different phases of foraging that involve the use of sound No summary provided

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 22 I. Using kinematic data from multisensor tags K. Seasonal diet of southern resident killer to identify predation events by southern whales (Brad Hanson, NWFSC) resident killer whales (Jennifer Tennessen,  SRKW annual seasonal diet is generally NWFSC) dominated by Chinook  Kinematic detection of predation events  Predation event samples and feces show can be an effective way to identify and similar diet patterns, but feces shows quantify subsurface foraging behavior, more diversity particularly when other data streams such  Chinook are the primary species in as acoustics may be incomplete or absent. summer diet and originate mainly from The significant kinematic variables that the Fraser River predicted occurrence of visually-  In early fall coho increase in prevalence in confirmed prey capture events were the diet maximum standardized peak in the jerk  Chum predominate over Chinook in fall signal (rate of change of acceleration), roll prey samples collected in Puget Sound at maximum jerk peak (roll in the dorsal-  Fall fecal samples show Chinook still are a ventral axis during the time of jerk peak) slightly greater proportion than chum with and vertical rate of ascent. greater diet diversity  We built a detector using these three  Limited data are available on predictor variables and validated its winter/spring diet of J pod in their Salish performance with acoustically-confirmed Sea range prey capture events, achieving nearly an  Although coastal winter/spring diet (K/L 80% true positive rate and < 1% false pods) is dominated by Chinook, positive rate. particularly from the Columbia River,  We ran the detector on the full data set Central Valley, and Puget Sound, diet is and found that dives containing predation more diverse than is other seasons event detections were longer, deeper,  Prey consumed in coastal waters were initiated with a greater vertical rate of from a relatively narrow band of shallow descent, male predation rate was 2x that water of females, and males were more likely  Chinook consumed by SRKW tended to be than females to be successful on deep younger than those consumed by NRKW dives.

L. Southern resident killer whale foraging J. SRKW Winter Diet: Scale/Tissue Samples needs and interpretation of body condition (Brianna Wright, DFO) (Dawn Noren, NWFSC)  Scale/tissue samples collected from 42  Southern Resident killer whale population successful SRKW foraging events (October requires a significant amount of kcals per to March; 1975 to 2016) indicate that day. Chinook remains a component of the diet  Individual prey requirements are dictated throughout the year. by sex and age. Required kcal consump-  Other salmonid species identified within tion increases with age, and due to the the winter prey sample set include chum, sexual dimorphism, males require more coho and steelhead. kcals/day than females, beginning around  Further research on winter diet is required the age of 13 when “sprouting” of the to characterize the species composition. large dorsal fin can start to occur.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 23  Lactating females may require 50% higher death in stranded killer whales from the kcal/day compared to non-lactating Northeast Pacific Ocean. females, but data from animals in human  Lactating females, including well-fed care suggest that this higher level of individuals, can lose weight and show signs energy requirement typically occurs of decreased condition. Body mass and during the earlier (0-6) months of the >12 blubber thickness measured at three sites month-long lactation period. (1 lateral and 2 dorsal sites) on a Furthermore, the relative increase in primiparous female in managed care energy requirements for lactating females concomitantly decreased during the first varies across females as well as across 3-4 months of lactation. Blubber thickness lactating periods in multiparous females. at three sites on a multiparous female did  Although two studies (Noren 2011 and not seem to change much during the Williams et al. 2011) used different gestation period, despite her body mass approaches to estimate prey requirements increasing as the fetus developed. Unlike of Southern Resident killer whales, the the primiparous female, the multiparous results were only slightly different. female, who was much larger and older, Estimates of total consumption of Chinook did not lose body mass or show a salmon by Southern Resident killer whales reduction in blubber thickness during the using the two different methods were first three months of lactation. similar and suggest that the population of  Blubber thickness at three sites (dorsal, Southern Resident killer whales may lateral, and ventral) measured on the consume a significant proportion of Fraser anterior dorsal fin insertion girth increases River Chinook during summer months. A significantly with body length (age). third study (Hanson et al. in prep) that  Blubber thickness measured at the three assessed consumption of specific salmon sites also tend to increase with the ratio of runs also found that the percent the anterior dorsal fin insertion girth/body consumption of Chinook abundance length (degree of robustness), but the varied by run, and that Chinook relationship is only significant for the consumption by Southern Resident killer dorsal blubber thickness. whales is potentially significant relative to  There is no relationship between body the Chinook abundance for some runs. length and the degree of robustness when  Chinook availability may be inadequate to all killer whales (neonates through adults) support SRKW population growth to are included. recovered status.  As expected, degree of robustness is  Morphometrics are being used to assess greater in killer whales that have died from body condition in Resident killer whales. ship strikes, blunt force trauma, and short- Efforts are being made to 1) assess how lived diseases. blubber thickness changes with body mass  It is difficult to differentiate killer whales during gestation and lactation in healthy that died from extended periods of illness whales in human care, 2) assess from those that may have starved to death relationships between blubber thickness because both groups of animals are less (an indicator of nutritional status) and robust. girth:length ratios, and 3) determine  Killer whales that died from extended whether these measurements are periods of illness tended to be the least correlated to body condition and cause of robust, but the sample size is low.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 24  Morphometrics can provide information - These data are consistent with on body condition, but in order to nutritional stress in SRKWs. determine the proximate mechanism * Matkin, C. O, M. J. Moore, and F.M.D. (poor nutrition or disease), other Gulland. 2017. Review of Recent Research biological samples (e.g., breath, blubber on Southern Resident Killer Whales biopsies to asses lipid content and fatty (SRKW) to Detect Evidence of Poor Body acids that can elucidate nutritional status, Condition in the Population. Independent fecal material, etc.) Science Panel Report to the SeaDoc Society. DOI 10.1575/1912/8803 M. Photogrammetry and body condition (John Durban, SWFSC) N. Hormone assessments of nutritional and  In March 2017, an independent science reproductive status of SRKW (Sheila panel reviewed recent research on Thornton, DFO) southern resident killer whales (SRKWs)  Hormones, metabolites, and metabolic and concluded "There are multiple lines of byproducts provide information relevant evidence that indicate the presence of poor to stress physiology, reproductive status, body condition in SRKWs” (Matkin et al. nutritional status and health of SRKW, and 2017*). Photogrammetric studies of whale are important factors in assessing the body condition represented a significant physiological status of an animal. component of this research. Reproductive hormones  Collaborative research was summarized,  Blood samples from captive KWs have and some new data were presented. provided some parameters for the pattern Notably, inference was made from large and range of reproductive hormone levels (population-wide) sample sizes of during gestation (~18 months) and post- photogrammetry measures collected from parturition (Suzuki 2003, Robeck et al, SRKWs between 2008 and 2017 and 2006, 2016, 2017; O’Brien 2017). comparative data from northern resident  Progestagens are a class of sex steroid killer whales (NRKWs) from 2015 and hormones that bind to and activate the 2016. progesterone receptor. In captive KW, progestogen levels rise immediately after  The key conclusions were: conception and remain elevated for the - Body condition of SRKWs has been duration of the pregnancy, then begin to declining since 2008. fall in the week prior to parturition and - Declines in body condition have been return to baseline within days post-partum linked to known mortalities in several (Robeck et al, 2016). cases, including 5/6 most recent  In captive KW, testosterone values rise in mortalities (the other death attributed the luteal phase, and if conception occurs, by blunt force trauma). values continue to rise, and are - SRKWs were in worse condition than significantly different from pre- and post- NRKWs in 2015 and 2016. conception values by the fifth month of - J-pod (as indicated by the J16 matriline) gestation (Robeck and Monfort, 2006, was in worse condition in May Robeck et al, 2017). compared to September, in both 2016  Metabolic assessment of wild cetaceans is limited, due to difficulty in obtaining and 2017.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 25 samples for analysis; however, advances in in summer months, n=11 animals over 28 analytical techniques and approaches pregnancies; males NSD with season; have been successful in determining n=14). hormone levels in fecal samples,  A low T3/GC ratio is thought to be respiratory samples (‘blow’), and blubber indicative of nutritional stress, whereby an biopsies. animal is reducing overall metabolic rate  Wasser et al (2017) evaluated fecal through T3 suppression, and elevating GCs progesterone (P4) and testosterone (T) to stimulate mobilization of endogenous levels in SRKW, and classified pregnant stores to support metabolic processes. females by early stage gestation (high P4,  Wasser et al (2017) found that the low T) and mid- to late-stage gestation unsuccessful mid- to late-stage gestation (high P4, high T). demonstrated ~69% fetal SRKW pregnancies were correlated with a loss in SRKW (24 unsuccessful pregnancies low T3/GC ratio (significantly lower than in 12 females – fecal samples collected successful pregnancies), and suggested from 2008-2014). Seven of these that nutritional stress is impacting unsuccessful pregnancies (33%) were pregnancy success and limiting population likely from the second half of gestation. growth.  While significant progress has been made Stress hormones in hormonal analysis from various matrices  Glucocorticoids (GC; cortisol and collected in the field, diurnal and seasonal corticosterone) are steroid hormones variability of GCs need to be taken into produced in the adrenal cortex that account to obtain better resolution of regulate glucose metabolism through impacts (e.g., noise vs nutritional stress), stimulation of gluconeogenesis, and caution must be undertaken when mobilization of amino acids, inhibition of temporally extrapolating these hormonal glucose uptake in muscle and adipose “snapshots, as the impacts of intermittent tissue, and stimulation of fat breakdown. foraging bouts on the immediate  Glucocorticoids are shown to increase due hormonal state of the animal may lead to to external or internal stressors and have erroneous conclusions. widespread genomic and non-genomic effects. Glucocorticoid receptors are expressed in almost every cell in our body. O. Behavioral response of SRKW to acoustic  Thyroid hormone (triiodothyronine, T3) disturbance (Marla Holt, NWFSC) produces an overall increase in metabolic  Effects of sound exposure including processes within the body. In response to auditory, behavioral and physiological extended nutritional and thermal stress, effects T3 levels fall to conserve on-board energy - Frequency range of best hearing stores and reduce metabolism. sensitivity in killer whales is 20-50 kHz,  In captive animals, serum cortisol methods then don’t hear well below 600 Hz or were validated using sera obtained from above 114 kHz captive KW (Suzuki et al, 2006), and  SRKW soundscape/critical habitat is assessed in males and pregnant females dominated by vessel traffic (Robeck et al, 2016, 2017). These studies  Vessel noise has potential to mask acoustic indicate that significant circadian and signals of whales seasonal oscillation occurs, and these - Vocal responses to noise should be fluctuations differ between sexes (e.g., interpreted as an anti-masking strategy captive females exhibit decreased cortisol by the whales Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 26  Energetic cost of vocal responses in  Cumulative energetic costs associated bottlenose dolphins are small (Noren et with all changes in behavior combined are al.) relative to other costs of boat relatively low. disturbance such as loss of foraging time  Time spent foraging can be significantly  Number of vessels and vessel speed are reduced in the presence of vessels and is important explanatory variables of noise likely to have the largest impact on vital exposure in SRKW rates.  Boat sonar use (for navigation at 50 kHz)  Future work should model the combined has the potential to affect resident killer effects of increased energy expenditure whale auditory function (e.g. masking) or and lost foraging opportunities on killer behavior whale body condition and fitness.  There is a high need to understand how vessel attributes, operating behavior and Q. Anthropogenic activities affect accessibility associated noise affect SRKW behavior, of salmon for resident killer whales (Lance especially foraging behavior given the Barrett-Lennard, Coastal Ocean Research implicated energetic cost associated with Institute) loss of foraging time with boat disturbance  Aggregations of fishing vessels on SRKW foraging hotspots decreases accessibility P. Energetic costs of killer whale responses to of salmon prey due to an interference disturbance (Dawn Noren, NWFSC) effect.  Overall, the energetic costs of surface  SRWK often pursue salmon at or near the active behaviors in response to surface. These chases are readily disturbance are relatively low due to the disrupted by nearby vessels. propensity of killer whales to perform tail  slaps (very low energetic cost) more often In view of the small size, declining than other more expensive surface active average body condition and negative behaviors (e.g., breaches), and that in population trajectory of the SRKW general, surface active behaviors are population, fishing restrictions on performed sporadically. foraging hotspots and measures to  Energetic costs of producing echolocation increase minimum approach distances of clicks and social sounds, as well as boats to SRKW should be considered, modifying the total cumulative energy of especially in years of poor salmon returns sounds produced in response to acoustic and/or when killer whale body condition disturbance, are relatively low. Though, is poor. producing sounds at depth can slightly reduce a killer whale’s total body oxygen R. Responses of killer whales to boats (Rob stores at depth, which may slightly shorten Williams, Oceans Initiative) total dive duration. This magnitude of the impact is directly related to the total Responses of killer whales to boats (based cumulative energy of the sounds on experimental data from focal whales) produced, which is dictated by duration,  Subtle, but significant effect of 1 boat frequency, and amplitude (loudness) of following guidelines the sounds.  More dramatic avoidance response to 1  Energetic costs associated with changes in boat breaking guidelines swim speed and daily activity budgets are  Avoidance responses disappear with many relatively low. (4-17) boats

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 27  Based on scan-sample data of all whales, other power boats) caused NRKWs to all activity states: increase the probability that they  Time-discrete Markov chain modelling of would switch to travel activity state, scan-sample data: evaluate effects of but no evidence to suggest that they boats and location would decrease probability of switching  Activity budgets differed inside and to feeding state, than when no boats outside Robson Bight Michael Bigg were around. Ecological Reserve (i.e., spatial variability Population viability analyses in behaviour has to be taken into account  Lacy et al (2017) did individual based when considering area based models of SRKWs, running scenarios on management tools to mitigate prey (Ford/Ward), PCBs (Hall), and noise (a disturbance) factor that could increase (mitigation) or  Activity budgets differed in the presence decrease (additional noise & masking) and absence of boats foraging success proportionally  Whales were more likely to travel and less  The best estimate is that SRKWs need 30% likely to feed when boats were present more Chinook than the long term average than when boats were absent – akin to the best year (1979?) we had in  Replicating the study with SRKWs the dataset  NMFS-funded study (2003-2005)  That alone is insufficient to reach recovery  Had to create no-boat (control) data based target. on no boats within 100m, because boats  Meeting recovery target required both were ubiquitous prey abundance & accessibility  NRKW study had 12X larger sample overall, & 8X larger sample of no-boat data Foraging areas: focal follows (within same zone in RBMBER)  Identifying & protecting feeding hotspots  The two studies (Williams et al (2006) &  We already have a lot of data to tell us Lusseau et al (2009)) reported similar where we could do fine-scale findings management of fishing (e.g., time-area  Effect sizes were 18% (NRKW) and 25% closures) around SRKW feeding hotspots (Ashe et al. 2010) (SRKW) reduction in feeding in presence of boats relative to control conditions Niche partitioning Physical presence vs noise (NRKW)  Beerman et al. (2016) found that NRKWs  Difficult to tease apart the physical partitioned their foraging habitat, with presence from the acoustic effect, but females and calves foraging closer to shore there are a few lines of evidence to suggest and males foraging throughout Johnstone that crowding (i.e., physical presence) Strait. does matter:  It would be worth reanalyzing focal follow – Dose-response curve to ship noise: data (e.g., Williams et al. 2009, Ashe et al. Received level alone was essentially 2010) to explore whether SRKWs have a uninformative, despite relatively large similar niche partitioning sample size. In other words, this is Physics empirical evidence that behavioural  more noise equals less acoustic habitat context matters  SRKWs are losing a lot of acoustic – Kayaks: Lusseau (NOAA tech report) communication space, and some acoustic found that presence of kayaks (and no foraging space (Williams et al. 2010).

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 28  As we try to make noisy areas quieter, let’s  Paternity patterns indicate a few old males also try to keep quiet areas quiet. (J1, L4) sired many offspring  No real evidence of inbreeding avoidance Conclusions - Contrasts to NRKW – many number of  Presence and noise of boats do disrupt clans is the difference? Perhaps just feeding activities in SRKWs and NRKWs fewer options available to SRKW  We can identify areas used preferentially - Cost of inbreeding might be less than for feeding (Salmon Bank). losing the benefits of group living  One population viability analysis found  Slight increase in survival with that we need a 30% increase in Chinook heterozygosity salmon accessibility to reach one stated  No evidence that SRKW group was significantly larger in the relatively recent SRKW recovery goal (Lacy et al. 2017) past (prior to settlement)– was thought  One risk assessment tells us that it may that historical group number was much only take a 5-10% chronic impact on higher foraging efficiency (i.e., a 5-10% drop in - Interesting for recovery targets accessibility of Chinook salmon) over long-  Studies outside Core Area term average salmon accessibility to cause  Passive acoustic monitoring, satellite serious, population-level effects (Williams tagging: Habitat distinction between K,L et al. 2016) and J's  What proportional increase in abundance - J's don’t go south of Cape Flatery, would it take to reach a 30% increase in make use of upper Georgia Strait accessibility, given other predators in the - Whales tend to vocalize less in winter system (Chasco et al. 2017) compared to summer  Recent modelling work with variety of data sets off SW Vancouver Island and S. Synthesis & discussion of key points from Juan de Fuca Strait – focus on presence Day 1 (John Ford) only models, machine learning,  SRKW are not doing well and we are not maximum entropy models likely to reach the recovery criteria  Area of entrance to Juan de Fuca – without making serious changes important to both NRKW  SRKW population status is an anomaly – - Acoustic monitoring suggests NRKW NRKW, Alaskan, Biggs KW are all doing found more frequently and in higher well numbers than previously thought – - Lower survival, fecundity, fewer especially G clan reproductive females, fewer juveniles - Possibility for competition should be  The current number of reproductive factored in females is about the same as 1976 – same  Foraging dives are kinematically distinct probability of a population increase? - match well with what would be  This year there have been a few expected for Chinook predatory unexpected deaths behavior – buzzes, clicks, crunching –  Recent trends decoupled from Chinook – prey sharing some record high abundances (but they - Males higher frequency of buzzes and were high migrating Chinook (and thus clicking, fair amount of surface available to Alaskan KW?) foraging, make more deep dives  Social stability of KW correlated with compared to females Chinook abundance  Capture rate of males higher than females  Male survival is lower if socially - hasn't been seen with focal fallow disconnected studies in NRKW  Steelhead relatively important for SRKW

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 29  DFO SRKW winter diet – Chinook  Cautionary notes in interpreting hormone predominated, chum second, lower levels – one good bout of feeding can Fraser important adjust hormone levels but not body  Summer, fall, winter – reviewed existing condition info and new data on fall in Puget Sound - T3 elevation - number chum jumped to similar  Metabolic cost of vocalization is not that numbers seen in NRKW – important not much to lose sight of importance of chum  A lot of interannual variability in especially when Chinook numbers are anticipated decrease in noise exposure low based on DTAG work - Fecal samples in Puget sound – higher - Coincided with increase in vessel speed numbers of Chinook - Vessel speed and vessel counts - Outer coast – Chinook, steelhead, are important variables (not distance) halibut - Distance effect could be lost? - Hunting in shallow water - There were a lot of other variables that - Taking younger Chinook than NRKW complicated boat and acoustic scene  SRKW in summer maybe requiring 13-60% - Boat sonar hasn’t received enough of selected runs available to whales over attention – supposed to be directional course of summer and narrow but not in practice – needs - Chinook availability may be inadequate more attention to support SRKW recovery  Surface active behaviours and swimming  Blubber thickness to body length ratios are also minor in energetic cost  Relationship to girth length ratio - But overall activity will be affected  High amount of precision with high close to boats because of the reducing resolution drone photos foraging abilities (proportion of time  2016 SRKW are in poorer condition than in spent feeding is lower – up to 6 times 2008 reduced prey intake) - Not just females but calves themselves  Compilation of non-systematic obser- are showing poor body condition vations is important - Comparing NRKW better condition  How animals find prey aggregations, across the board pursue, what can get in the way - J Pod in better condition in September - Easily affected by boats than in May at least in recent years – - Chases can occur over 100s of meters, same observation in NRKW as well as prey sharing, which is a - Inconsistent with Wasser – SRKW problem if boats are in the way coming in early in summer in good body - Different of escape responses of condition based on hormone analysis chinook and chum - Transients much more robust in body  SRKW need 30% more Chinook than long condition –growing despite high levels term average as well as increased feeding of contaminants – not metabolizing efficiency by decreasing noise blubber - Further work needed on noise  Successful and unsuccessful pregnan- - Big gap – how noise levels and cies based on hormone assessments frequency content affect echolocation - Do not know if aborted or lost as ability neonates in first weeks or months Discussion - Could be combo of both  Sheer numbers and recovery rates - High calf mortality in first 6 months suggested in recovery plans are not - Periodic nutritional stress – often necessarily helpful with the SRKW – we will associated with unsuccessful pregnan- never be satisfied cies

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 30  Consider number of reproductive females size and quality are not readily available in instead? the fall.  Body condition? Can be assessed with  Photographic evidence supported the both aerial photogrammetry and hormone assertion that poor condition, which was analysis linked to mortality, and by implication to  Males appear to be more vulnerable than fecundity, may reflect nutritional stress. females based on caloric need, but we will However, unless a large fraction of the first see the problem in females population experienced poor condition in  Vulnerability of males is buffered by prey a particular year, and there was ancillary sharing information suggesting a shortage of prey  Percentage of time animals spend foraging has reduced, as well as time resting, and in that same year, malnutrition remained more time is spent travelling only one of several possible causes of poor  Comparisons between NRKW and SRKW condition. extremely powerful  The maximum long-term increases in abundance of Chinook salmon that might theoretically be available to SRKW would

be achieved by eliminating all ocean November 16, 2017 fishing (typically at least 20% increase in Day 2 – Availability of Chinook Salmon ocean abundance of age-4 and age-5 T. Conclusions of the Independent Science hatchery and wild fish due to elimination Panel on the Effects of Salmon Fisheries on of ocean fishery interception of immature SRKW (Sean Cox, Simon Fraser University) fish) and by maximizing recruitment  NOAA and DFO appointed an expert through manipulation of freshwater science panel to provide an independent exploitation rates to maximize review of the evidence available and recruitment (6- 9% increase in advice on future research. recruitments of wild fish; no impact on  In 2012, the panel concluded that the hatchery fish). SRKW population increased at an average  The best potential for increased Chinook rate of 0.71% per year, and would be salmon abundance was restoration of expected to increase at about 1% per year freshwater habitat, reducing downstream in the long term if sex ratio at birth were migration mortality and a change in ocean 50:50. conditions.  The panel believed that the existing  The panel saw many potential reasons why delisting criterion of 2.3% growth rate was not all foregone Chinook salmon catch unlikely to be achieved given current would be available to SRKW, and was circumstances or by reducing Chinook therefore skeptical that reduced Chinook salmon fisheries. But if the total salmon harvesting would have a large abundance continued to increase, a point impact on the abundance of Chinook would be reached where a reappraisal of salmon available to SRKW. their status would be likely.  The statistical analysis by NOAA and DFO  The evidence for strong reliance on scientists were excellent, but the Panel Chinook salmon in the summer was believed considerable caution was convincing, but it was also clear that SRKW warranted in interpreting the correlative switch to alternative, more abundant results as confirming a linear causal chum salmon when Chinook of suitable relationship between Chinook salmon abundance and SRKW vital rates.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 31  The Panel was not confident that W. Abundance Trends & Status of Chinook understanding the interaction between Salmon Consumed by SRKW (Canadian Chinook salmon fisheries, other predators Stocks) (Mary Thiess, DFO) and SRKW vital rates, was sufficient to  Due to the complex range of Chinook expect the model predictions of increased Salmon life histories, it is often difficult to SRKWs to be accurate. The Panel expected estimate abundance of a given Chinook the model predictions to overestimate the population over time and space (i.e., there impact of reductions in Chinook salmon catch on SRKW. are multiple age classes in a given return year for any given stock). U. Effects of Chinook abundance on SRKW  Differences in life history strategy among (Eric Ward, NWFSC) Chinook populations of interest to SRKW  In the previous workshops, NOAA and may help identify factors limiting SRKW DFO pursued studies described as recovery (i.e., poor returns of age-4 and 'correlative' linking indices of salmon age-5 Spring and Summer run stocks to the abundance to killer whale demographics Fraser River via Juan de Fuca Strait).  These kinds of studies have been  Many of the reductions in total Chinook problematic for a number of reasons. abundance have been absorbed through These include low sample sizes, analyses reduced fisheries impacts, rather than largely on a single population, results and reduced terminal runs. estimates that are sensitive to the time period used or stocks included. The take  Many of the Canadian Chinook Salmon home for us at NOAA has been this line of stocks that are important prey for SRKW work is probably not likely to be are also of concern under the Wild Salmon informative with respect to identifying Policy (e.g., Fraser Spring and Summer the Chinook stocks that are most Runs). important to whales  I provided several recommendations for X. Recent trends in abundance of Chinook metrics. It seems like metrics that are salmon stocks (Washington, Oregon, informative with respect to measure California) (Robert Kope, NWFSC) change are important. Combined with well-designed data collection, it seems Recent years like we also want to try to have high  Except for the extreme southern end of power to detect change. range, abundance of most stocks has not  I also provided some thoughts on new declined in the past 6 years. data collection. Instead of demographic  Columbia River summer and upriver bright rates, it seems like some of the more fine stocks have had recent record high resolution data in space or time would be abundance. more promising (photogrammetry or health info) Immediate outlook  Nearly all runs appear to be lower than last year. V. Recreational fishery interactions with killer  Nearly all Columbia River Chinook and whales (Martin Paish) coho stocks have returned at levels below No summary provided forecast and below their 10-year averages.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 32  The outlook for California stocks in the likely have the potential to reduce Chinook next few years is bleak. stock productivity  Fisheries having higher exploitation rates Y. Trends in body sizes of Chinook (Jan on older, larger fish may also be Ohlberger, University of Washington) contributing to reduced numbers of these fish returning to spawn and accessibility to  Many Chinook salmon populations along the West coast of North America are SRKW returning at younger ages compared to a  Preliminary analyses of DFO data on few decades ago. However, age trends fecundity of female Chinook suggests that vary within and among regions, with a trend toward reduced fecundity may BC populations showing no consistent exist in at least two stocks – Lower trend toward younger mean ages. Shuswap River and Quinsam River.  The size-at-age of older fish has declined in  Trends toward earlier maturation and most populations coast-wide. Among declining size at age are likely to reduce those population examined, an exception the productivity of affected Chinook are the southernmost populations from CA stocks even if survival rates and the and southern OR, as well as some Puget productive capacity of rearing and Sound populations. spawning environments were at average  The causes of declining mean body sizes levels are likely complex and involve multiple  A study that investigates the likely causal drivers, which should be further factors leading to changes in Chinook investigated in future studies. Potential stocks as noted in my presentation could drivers include fishing, climate change, be useful to assess whether the trends are hatchery practices as well as predation by short-term and may reverse or are longer- a growing number of Alaskan and term and may not reverse Northern resident killer whales.

AA. Climate change and Pacific Northwest Z. Factors influencing abundance and salmon: a review of what might happen productivity of Chinook salmon consumed (Robert Kope, NWFSC) by SRKW (Gayle Brown, DFO)  Trends identified in propensity toward No summary provided earlier maturation, within the 6 stocks of focus in the presentation and also BB. Chinook Salmon: Ancient Fishing (Teresa observed in other Chinook stocks from (Sm’hayetsk) Ryan, University of British southeast AK to OR can be expected to Columbia) reduce abundance of Chinook that appear  Chinook salmon has special significance to to be most common in the diet of SRKW First Nations in British Columbia as a food source and as part of the legacy of First  The same expectation holds for trends Nations cultures, including their observed in decreasing size at age in older, connections to killer whales larger female and male Chinook in the Big  Ancient Aboriginal fishing technology Qualicum, Quinsam, Lower Shuswap and captured high volumes of fish such as the Harrison rivers use of stone tidal salmon traps; a current  Trends toward early age of maturation and project is being developed to test these declining size at age are factors that each stone traps as a rebuilding mechanism for

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 33 salmon populations and measuring the freshwater habitat degradation, hatchery delivery of marine derived nutrients from influences, age specific exploitation are salmon to the forest ecosystem some underlying factors. There are  Consistency in the size and abundance of exceptions such as the south Thompson resources was much different in the past River, Columbia River, and more recently than it is today; Babine and Elwha Chinook and the Columbia River ‘June Hogs’ Cowichan River chinook. (Chinook) were known for their very large  Since 1985 the Pacific Salmon Treaty has size; these large fish would be important defined the overarching management of to killer whales Chinook from southeast Alaska to Oregon.  In the past, Aboriginal fishing strategies Renegotiation about every 10 years incorporated mechanisms for allowing the provides opportunity for adaptive largest fish and female fish to pass through to escapement facilitating consistent management of Chinook. Significant qualities for reproductive success of larger reductions in catch were implemented in fish; today many tribes are working to each of the last 3 PST agreements. Over restore salmon the period of the PST, coast-wide catches  Several tribes/First Nations in the Pacific of Chinook have been reduced by about Northwest are experiencing severe 50%. The fisheries offshore of the west hardship as a result of the decline in coast of Vancouver Island have been salmon populations; as an example, the Yurok tribe allocation has been reduced reduced by over 70%. from 100,000 to 650 fish in the Klamath  Canada also implemented several policies River fisheries and programs to reduce fishing over-  Habitat impacts have caused declines in capacity and effort, to improve selectivity many fish populations such as the Klamath of fisheries, and become more and also in other California and Columbia precautionary in fishery management. River Chinook populations with many listed under the Endangered Species Act DD. Fine-scale catch and effort data with emphasis on southern BC areas (Wilf CC. Overview of past and present management of Chinook fisheries. Historical overview of Luedke, Bryan Rusch) trends in Chinook catch among fisheries  In the Juan de Fuca area recreational and regions within the jurisdiction of the fisheries were restricted beginning in 2009 Pacific Salmon Treaty (Wilf Luedke, Bryan with greater restrictions starting in 2012 Rusch DFO) under ‘Zone Management’ of Fraser spring  In the 1970s-80s there was generally high and summer chinook. chinook productivity, high fishing effort  These restrictions reduced impact on and fleet capacity, high exploitation led to larger age 4 and age 5 wild chinook a co-operative effort to reduce fishing … returning to the Fraser and other areas of through the PST. the Salish Sea.  Chinook production became more variable, and declined in many areas, after EE. Fine-scale catch and effort data with consecutive El Nino in the early and late emphasis on US areas (Kirt Hughes) 1990s and general changes in ocean No summary provided conditions. Productivity has remained low in some systems. Other factors such as

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 34 FF. Synthesis and discussion of key points from  Fecundity needs to be measured by size Day 2 (Brian Riddell, Pacific Salmon and age Foundation)  Climate change – reality is the situation we have today is the situation we will be  Unclear whether there is clear seasonality dealing with for a long time in SRKW feeding and diet   Important to acknowledge that SRKW How are we going to conserve Chinook pods have different trends and minimize the effects?   The projected value in fisheries reductions Synchronicity in stocks is much greater is probably overstated now – alarming because no noise to create balance  Natural mortality rates likely substantially  Appropriate harvest rate needs to be higher than shown – probably true but no determined by productivity of stock. A way to measure, measured in past stable value does not make sense.  All Chinook stocks are different and  marine survival must be taken into Need long-term conservation plans. account Cannot compensate for reducing fisheries.  Hatchery production is much bigger than Discussion natural production – competition in  Exploration of the conclusion from the marine environment Independent Science Panel that that  Metrics must be developed to conduct restrictions in fisheries may not lead to net assessments on the effect of Chinook on increase in available Chinook salmon SRKW because forgone salmon available to - Due to small populations size the predators ability to measure things statistically is - What is the evidence that 4 and 5- probably not a good metric year-old chinook are taken by  Recreational sounders operate at two pinnipeds in open water? frequencies – consider the upper range - Overall, they do not make up a huge (~200 kHz), which may not have as big of proportion of pinniped diet – but hard an effect on SRKW to know for certain because don’t  There needs to be a lot of consultation and swallow otoliths be prepared for push back  The reasonable expectation is that - Education and communication is key reducing fishing is going to give fewer - Evidence based and measurable – results than expected people need to be armed with good  Most Chinook fisheries are fished at less information than half of sustainable harvest rates - BC boaters may be causing more already interference than recreational fishers  The biggest consumers of biomass are  Determine/use indicator populations for killer whales, then sea lions Chinook  In some areas like the Cowichan, pinnipeds  Fisheries recoveries and trawls provide are selectively eating Chinook reliable data for Chinook distribution  At the mouths of rivers harbour seals take coast-wide both juveniles and returning adults  Smaller Chinook – younger maturing fish in  Most predation by other marine mammals southern stocks occur in estuaries – not direct competition  One of the biggest concerns is loss of for SWKW larger, older aged fish - Overall feeling – pinnipeds are not a - Random breeding in hatcheries always big part of accessibility issue for SRKW results in selecting younger aged fish –  Of large concern is the decline in body size now starting to compensate by of older fish selectively breeding older fish

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 35 - KW may be selecting for this, cropped Contaminants and Health off the bigger size classes  Coordination on water quality and - Now northern residents have contaminants with Puget Sound increased – will start to move down Partnership, Action Agenda for Puget size classes Sound, - Fisheries are also taking larger fish http://www.psp.wa.gov/action_agenda_c - Combination of both enter.php  Chinook are such great prey for SRKW for  numerous reasons: predictable in time and Report and recommendations for PBDEs, location, high lipid content, big https://www.eopugetsound.org/articles/r  Must start to look at biomass eport-potential-effects-pbdes-puget- - Declining trend in SRKW pop size sound-and-southern-resident-killer- despite abundance of Chinook staying whales relatively the same (except for the  Oil spill response plans, lower end of their range) http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov - Take a step beyond biomass and look /protected_species/marine_mammals/kill at caloric content – monitor oil er_whale/rpi_oil_spills.html content?  2015-2017 SRKW health workshops - What is causing decreased GG. Southern resident killer whale recovery reproduction? (Lynne Barre, NOAA) - What is causing increased mortality? Background - Recommendations and priorities,  Southern Residents listed as endangered http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.g under the Endangered Species Act in 2005 ov/publications/protected_species/ma  Critical Habitat designated in 2006 rine_mammals/killer_whales/srkw_he  Recovery Plan completed in 2008 althpriority_dec2015.pdf  10 Years of Research and Conservation  Update on body condition, Report 2014 http://www.seadocsociety.org/?s=killer+  Species in the Spotlight Action Plan 2016 whale+body+condition  Next steps: Health database, develop Recovery Program health index, photogrammetry and links to  Open, transparent and inclusive process biomarkers and prey, track and sample for recovery planning and implementation animals of interest (fecal, breath), body  Comprehensive recovery program to condition and blubber thickness/content, address all of the threats- limited prey, and stranding investigations- causes of high levels of contaminants, disturbance death, disease and pathogens of vessels and sound (also risk from oil Vessels and Sound spills/disease)  Be Whale Wise, www. bewhalewise.org  Science-based decision making http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov  2011 Vessel Regulation implementation /protected_species/marine_mammals/kill and review (Technical Report available er_whale/ soon)  Dtag research studies Highlights for Recovery Implementation  Land-based viewing, thewhaletrail.org http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov  Coordination with Port of Vancouver ECHO /protected_species/marine_mammals/kill project, er_whale/planning_implementation.html https://www.portvancouver.com/environ

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 36 ment/water-land-wildlife/marine- reductions, mitigation for impacts to mammals/echo-program/ salmon and their habitats  Petition to consider Whale Protection  Contaminants minimized through mon- Zone, itoring inputs, mixing zones, threshold http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov levels, spill prevention and cleanup plans /protected_species/marine_mammals/kill  Sound/acoustic impacts (i.e., pile driving, er_whale/vessel_regulations.html docks, marinas, sonar, seismic) minimized Prey through monitoring and shut downs, promoting vessel regulations and  Coordination with coast wide salmon guidelines recovery effort  Workgroups and research to fill data gaps  Bilateral expert panel review of salmon and inform risk analyses fisheries and SRKW (Hilborn et al. 2012), http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov Developing coastal critical habitat /protected_species/marine_mammals/kill http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/p er_whale/effects_fisheries.html rotected_species/marine_mammals/killer_  Next steps: 2018 workshop focused on whale/critical_habitat.html increase prey abundance Education and Outreach ESA section 7 Consultations http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/p  Ensure that federal actions will not rotected_species/marine_mammals/killer_ jeopardize endangered Southern whale/rpi_education_outreach.html Residents or modify/destroy critical habitat. Types of actions: HH. Southern Resident Killer Whales and DFO’s - Fisheries plans and regulations Species at Risk Program: Protection and - Hatchery production and plans recovery (Lisa Jones, DFO) - Hydropower actions - Upland projects (Flood Insurance Species at Risk Act Program)  Purpose to prevent wildlife from - Water treatment plants, sewer outfalls becoming extinct, secure recovery of listed species (Extirpated, Endangered - In-water construction and Threatened), manage species of - Pile driving sound, increase in vessels Special Concern to prevent them from (docks, marinas), dredging becoming at further risk (contaminated sediments)  Provides legal protection to individuals of - Tidal and wave energy projects, LNG species and for habitat critical to survival terminals and recovery of listed species - Navy and Coast Guard operations Northern (NRKW) and Southern (SRKW) - Research on Southern Resident killer Resident Killer Whales: SARA timeline and whales process Mitigation for actions that impact quantity,  2003: NRKW listed as Threatened & SRKW quality and availability of salmon prey for listed as Endangered the whales  2008: Recovery Strategy finalized;  Reductions in prey abundance short-term identifies recovery goals, 3 key threats and long-term (fishery/hatchery/hydro/ (prey availability, contaminants & disturbance), strategy for recovery, Critical habitat) minimized through caps, hatchery Habitat (amended in 2011) production offsets, timing of hatchery

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 37  2017: Action Plan finalized; identifies 98 - Provision to allow Minister of Fisheries recovery measures to address threats and and Oceans to authorize, by licence, recovery populations activities that may disturb marine  2017: Science-based Whale Review and mammals, but would otherwise Symposium held; identifies 5 new recovery provide benefits to the conservation measures and additional threat of vessel and protection of the species. strikes - Provision that requires reporting to DFO of any accidental contact with a SRKW Critical Habitat (CH) marine mammal (e.g., entanglement,  Existing CH identified in the Recovery collision). Strategy for the Northern and Southern  Licensing requirements, and Fishery Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Notices could be used to provide a form of Canada. (DFO 2011) and protected from protection destruction by CH Order.  Be Whale Guidelines provide voluntary  Additional habitat of special importance guidelines for responsible behavior around (proposed additional CH) to SRKW marine mammals to reduce disturbance to identified as waters off southwestern them. Vancouver Island, including Swiftsure and

La Perouse Banks (Ford et al. 2017); process started by SAR team to consider November 17, 2017 this additional habitat as CH in an amendment to the Recovery Strategy. Day 3 – Evaluation of Potential Mitigation Includes proposed new CH for NRKW as Measures well. II. Synthesis and discussion of key points from Work planning and implementation phase Day 3 (Mark Saunders, Year of the Salmon) of SAR recovery process  There was a good balance of fish and whale  98 recovery measures in Action Plan being scientists and managers, and a lot of prioritized and relevant activities common ground between them. (management, science, education) to  The four discussion groups assessing the abate the identified threats to RKW are being identified; activities may be carried three Management Actions all seemed to out by DFO, in collaboration with DFO or be heading to the same end. identified for lead by other groups.  A small group of whale and Chinook  35 of these recovery measures address the people—both managers and scientists— threat of reduced prey availability, with 24 should hold a subsequent meeting to identified as high priority develop the detailed strategies.  3 of these recovery measures are a  The devil is in the details and the challenge combination of research and management will be to find the time for these busy approach people to do the work. It might be two Other “Protections” meetings—one to design the strategies and  Marine Mammal Regulations: required analyses, and then one once the - Proposed amendment to introduce a work is completed. 100m minimum approach distance,  My overall impression is that there is a with alternative approach distances reasonable likelihood that tactics targeted tailored for particular circumstances at the stocks we know the whales utilize possible could result in more fish for the whales. - Provision prohibiting flight maneuvers  How much fish is required could be of aircraft intended to bring the aircraft potentially be calculated by stock closer to a marine mammal. reconstructions for photogrammet-

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 38 ric baseline years when the SRKW appear  At the very least, SRKW are at the end of the healthy. The challenge is to determine gauntlet and are consuming smaller fish. If what combination of tactics (size limits, smaller fish are of lower energetic value space and time closures) will actually and if northern resident populations provide demonstrably more fish. continue to grow, the impact on SRKW will  I suspect it is important to provide more grow. large fish, which is complicated given the  The larger fish are much larger targets given declining size-at age. acoustic target strength is related to the  Making better use of what fish are available swim bladder and increases exponentially could be realized by improving foraging with length. It could be small fish are success by reducing vessel disturbance both actually harder to detect and physically and acoustically. catch. Interesting that the Chinook dive  The declining size at age for Chinook as a response would effectively reduce their key research gap. If killer whales/fisheries target strength as the swim bladder are selecting for large fish are they collapses with depth and a down turned genetically modifying the population? fish presents a smaller cross section target.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 39 Appendix D: Management Action Tables The following sheets were completed by workshop participants, and formed the basis for group discussions of the three Management Actions on Day 3. Definition of terms are in Appendix E.

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 40

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 41

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 42

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 43

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 44

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 45

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 46

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 47

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 48 Appendix E: Table Definitions Workshop participants received tables prior to the workshop with the following column headings and examples in an attempt to quantify and identify specific actions, goals, and methods of implementation regarding the broad management goals.

1. Broad Management Objective: • Other measures (e.g., gear restrictions,  Option A: Increase abundance of Chinook size limits, hatchery vs. wild retention, coast-wide by reducing removals by etc.) fisheries  Option B: Increase abundance of Chinook 6. How to Implement: Provide specific details by reducing removals by fisheries on how any of the following might be  Option C: Increase accessibility of Chinook implemented in specific areas at specific times of year Examples: • Regulatory measures 2. Broad Action: • Licenses  Option A: Reduce removals of Chinook by • Openings fisheries • Size limits  Option B: Adjust removals of Chinook by • Retention limits fisheries • TAC—Total Allowable Catch  Option C: Decrease acoustic and physical disturbance of foraging killer whales by 7. What Stocks to Manage: vessels • All Chinook populations • Targeted populations (which ones?) 3. Targeted Sector: Commercial or Recreational • Which pods (Option D)?

4. Desired Increase: Describe the baseline and 8. Desired Reductions: Describe the proposed intended outcome of the Management reduction sought in the proposed Action implementation method to achieve the Examples: Management Objective • Numbers of fish in foraging areas Example: • Accessibility of fish in foraging areas (e.g., • % decrease or reduction sought in uninterrupted foraging time and space) removals, effort, presence, etc. • Unknown 9. Where to Implement: 5. Specific Actions: How will the broad Examples: Management Action be attained? • Coast wide Examples: • In foraging areas • Reduce removals (com) • Seaward of foraging areas • Reduce daily possession limits (rec) • In SRKW Critical Habitat • Reduce annual limits (rec) • Reduce number of harvesters (com & rec) 10. Time of Year to Implement • Reduce fishing effort (com & rec) Examples: • Reduce physical overlap with foraging • Year round whales and key foraging areas (com & rec). • Seasonal • Reduce acoustic levels around foraging • Spring whales and in key foraging areas (com & • Summer rec) • Fall

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 49 11. Scientific Confidence: How scientifically • Short (weeks) justifiable is this Management Action? • Medium (months) • Low • Long (years) • Medium • Short duration for many years • High • Unknown • Unknown • No consensus • No consensus 17. Evaluation Criteria: What thresholds can be 12. Scientific Basis: What science informs this quantified to facilitate adaptive Management Action? management and determine whether the • Itemized list of important information Management Actions need adjusting? • Itemized list of threshold criteria and 13. Knowledge Gaps: What information is performance measures missing and needed to evaluate whether this Management Action will achieve its 18. Other Considerations: What needs to be intended goal? discussed or taken into account before • Itemized list of important information deciding to implement this Management Action? 14. Likely Benefit: What is the likelihood that the • Itemized list of considerations Management Action will significantly benefit SRKWs e.g., improve birth and survival rates; 19. Effects on NRKW: What is the potential body condition, increase resting times, etc.? effect of the Management Action on • Low northern resident killer whales? • Medium Examples: • High • Unknown • Unknown • Unlikely to have any effect • No consensus • Might benefit them, etc. • Itemized list of considerations 15. Performance Measures: What specific metrics can be used to quantify the effect of 20. Effects on Other Species: What is the the proposed Action on SRKW? e.g., Where, potential effect of the Management Action when, and how should the information be on northern resident killer whales? collected? What would the information Examples: mean? • Unknown • Itemized list of performance measures for • Unlikely to have any effect SRKW, Chinook abundance, and Chinook • Might benefit them, etc. accessibility • Itemized list of considerations

16. Timeframe: How long would the 21. Comments: Anything missing that should be Management Actions have to be noted? implemented before the stated goal is • Itemized list of comments achieved (i.e., the threat is abated)?

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 50 Appendix F: Notes from Group Discussions—Increase coast-wide Chinook abundance by reducing fisheries These notes combine information transcribed during group discussions, and from tables filled out by workshop participants. They capture the ‘as is’ comments of participants on this potential Management Action, and are provided without interpretation.

1. Option A: Increase abundance of Chinook . Many stocks doing OK - don’t know exact coast-wide by reducing removals by fisheries level of increased abundance needed . Example: Harvesting 3-4% of Fraser before 2. Broad Action: they get to the river. Overall in . Reduce overall removals of Chinook by summer/inland 300,000 Fraser/300,000 fisheries Puget Sound=600,000 fish moving through Inland waters; what more is needed? 3. Targeted Sector: . Action viewed as a blunt instrument – 100% . Most groups did not distinguish in their closures would reallocate pressure to discussions between commercial and terminal and freshwater fisheries recreational fisheries, given the overall lack . Some First Nations would benefit some of support for this option fisheries; not others . However, consideration of this option did serve to generate a broader discussion 5. Specific Actions regarding the relationship between SRKW . Harvest linked to abundance estimates: and their prey adaptive management, harvest control rule . In years of low abundance reduce harvest 4. Desired Increase: rates: reductions in TAC, effort, IFMP, . From KW point of view need: more food, closures. feed frequently, well-distributed prey, . Therefore also need to set threshold for more abundance than observed in periods what qualifies as low abundance year of decline . Current management approach: align with . Overall goal of Action is to increase managing fisheries for fish stocks and add abundance of stocks of importance (from consideration for SRKW prey ID) . Challenge: by the time you realize salmon . You would think that the primary need is to numbers are low, too late to impose increase abundance in stocks that have had meaningful management recent declines, but some stocks most . For recreational fisheries, while bag limits prevalent in prey samples are also the most can address removing fewer fish, they abundant runs generally target bigger fish (therefore . Not just a need to increase abundance minimal relief for SRKW that rely on larger (biomass), but must also consider size/age older Chinook) given SRKW prey preferences . Is it feasible to introduce additional . Prime goal therefore is increase in Yr 4 & 5+ recreational size limits? biomass to level of “good” years (but not . Limiting fisheries related incidental necessarily best) mortality - need to better understand . Question of what levels of prey to use as a effects of catch and release comparative baseline . Suggestions for pilot study using tidal . Current baseline: catches and abundance harvesting (First Nations traditional are lower than historic; other predators are approach which also mirrors KW behaviour) higher than historic numbers . Potential for license buybacks

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 51 6. How to Implement 9. Where to Implement . Generally felt that time and area . By definition, Coast wide (California to restrictions (see Options B & C) are a more SEAK) on any stocks that are potentially feasible approach. However, this Option available to SRKW could be implemented through: . A small minority felt that such actions . Change in harvest response were warranted (“can’t hurt”) as a . Closures via IFMP preventative measure . License buyback . Majority preferred some version of . Allocation reductions Management Option B/C . Shift pressure to terminal . Adjust daily, annual limits, catch and 10. Time of Year to Implement release, size limits (recreational) . By definition, all the time. . Majority preferred some version of 7. What Stocks to Manage Management Option B/C . Total closure may result in an overall increase of 20-30% increase in Chinook 11. Scientific Confidence abundance in the critical habitat of SRKW . Low: even with precautionary approach, . Next step down: All stocks of Fraser River not well supported and those in US waters . High confidence that coastwide closures . If not total closure, need to target what the will likely increase abundance short term whales are eating; some are largest stocks (especially if terminal/FW fisheries are . May take a stock-specific view and manage included), but: coastwide — get to it though differences in . long term effect is unknown time/space importance . other predators may benefit . But what about overall role of California . no consensus on whether this will result in stocks — biologically important to SRKW, improvements for SRKW but no harvest (nor likely to recover in . Additionally, most recreational fisheries foreseeable future) are terminal . Loss of support for hatcheries will likely 8. Desired Reductions result and lead to a possible decrease in . Tough to give number abundance . Model Fraser River returns to river with . In theory, you would increase removals in timing to look at density- build box car that you will be focused on mature fish model link to metabolic needs of whale (terminal fishery). More efficient salmon . Sufficient to increase in Yr 4 & 5 biomass to management on a terminal fishery; level of good years (but not necessarily however, allocation difficulties would best) result . Proposed reduction would be cessation of anthropogenic pressure on Chinook 12. Scientific Basis population. . Good evidence that Chinook availability . Alternate proposed reduction would be to are impacting SRKW cease ocean removals of Chinook. . Body condition indicative of overall poor However, if ocean fishery closures occur, a nutrition in the RKW population; food reallocation to terminal fisheries may result limited in a net increase in overall removals . Stocks of importance identified from prey samples (John Ford et al; Hanson, Mike Ford)

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 52 . Knowledge of foraging areas measures for some variant (such as . Caloric need modelling Options B and C): . Very little consensus, if any, that this type . Needs to be something done every year, of Action will appreciably increase seasonally abundance to SRKW. . Whale measures- compare to baselines of . Total closure may result in an overall when whales were doing better increase of 20-30% increase in Chinook . Body condition- use 2008 as baseline and abundance look at differences . But, most modelling indicates a lack of . Pregnancy rates- more successful significant increase in key biomass for pregnancies, photogrammetry and SRKW hormones . Monitor demographics (pregnancy rates, 13. Knowledge Gaps birth rates, age-specific survival) . Foraging efficiency and predation rate? . Body condition (particularly of females . What are the current removals on stocks and calves) of importance? . Foraging behaviour (although questions of . What is the NRKW contribution to the how to interpret), including foraging bout reductions of 4 and 5+ yr olds that enter length (within a year) into SRKW range? . Hormones (stress, nutritional status) . Will this lead to more fish for the whales? . Foraging efficiency (Dtags) . How do you perform fishery sampling . Fisheries surveys to monitor ocean without fisheries? abundance of salmon in SRKW range . Winter diet of J Pod – will Chinook . Evaluate abundance outside the range of management actions be enough given the SRKW (evaluate effects of predation) variable nature of their diet? . Monitor terminal run size . Continued scientific study likely unneeded, given lack of enthusiasm for 16. Timeframe this option (although many of the same . Short term: immediate effect on Chinook Knowledge Gaps apply to other Options abundance; under consideration) . Medium (months)- whale body condition could be observed over months (but for 14. Likely Benefit several years), also observable changes in . Consensus was that benefit was likely SRKW foraging behaviour “Low” . Long (years) – annual basis for salmon . Some discussion of overall reductions in abundance measures, and also to observe fisheries would help even if small impact, any significant impact on SRKW population and a few (one) said it should be done as characteristics precautionary measure even if not likely to have any benefit 17. Evaluation Criteria . Another aspect of precautionary . Percent reductions in catch compared to approach: broad view of all stocks, even if previous years- measure overall not seen in diet samples; these other abundance through state escapement stocks could be important or fill gaps if surveys (including age composition) primary prey stocks decline . Hard to link to longer term SRKW population level impacts 15. Performance Measures . Body condition improvements beyond a . Very little support for this Option. set threshold However, it did lead to a broader . Modelling (FRAM?) discussion of potential performance . Demographic changes that favour an increased trajectory

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 53 . Changes in observed foraging success is . Coastwide fishery reductions would observed increase prey for NRWK (and also competition from this group) 18. Other Considerations . Likely more substantial effect on NRKW, as . Economic impacts of coastwide fishery higher up on migration route. reductions are less likely to benefit killer whales and more likely to impact broad 20. Effects on Other Species stakeholder groups . Likely minimally beneficial . Public pressure: coastwide closure is often . Could increase number of competitors suggested and is widely supported in some advocacy circles, so need better 21. Comments communication to provide clear rationale . What is the baseline we are working with of why this isn’t the best option (KW distribution and condition, Chinook . Support of other more viable options can supply)? Are we setting the bar too low? help explain more surgical approach to . Don’t forget: Chum, coho and steelhead provide more reliable benefit vs coast also very important wide blunt approach with more . Generally more terminal fisheries, some uncertainty and bigger impacts to other marine fishing for chum; stock ID of chum sectors needed, chum may be able to fill key gap if . Most feel a clear benefit has to be the summer Chinook are limited demonstrated to warrant consideration; a . Details of Chinook population needed small minority felt it was still feasible as a (m/f) precautionary measure . Unknowns on ecosystem-based effects . Loss of motivation to maintain hatcheries . If successful, what would the new salmon will have a negative effect set point be? What would the efforts be habitat capacity and productivity? 19. Effects on NRKW . Forage fish management . Beneficial

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 54

Appendix G: Notes from Group Discussions—Increase Chinook abundance at specific times and places These notes combine information transcribed during group discussions, and from tables filled out by workshop participants. They capture the ‘as is’ comments of participants on this potential Management Action, and are provided without interpretation.

1. Option B: Increase Abundance of Chinook in . On whale side, want to decrease number of Times and Specific Areas individuals in poor body condition – possibly use 2008 body condition as baseline 2. Broad Action: . Question: Would we need as much of an . Adjust removals of Chinook by fisheries increase in abundance if only want the fish in SRKW habitat? 3. Targeted Sector: . Focus on fisheries that meet two criteria – 5. Specific Actions those exploited at high rates (over 5%), and . Overall: Reduce catches where the fisheries are known to be a component of the KW overlap with foraging killer whales diet . In locations where foraging occurs, and . Commercial within the seasons where foraging occurs, . Locations: those with highest Chinook identify the important stocks that contribute catch; generally outside (to the north) to that time/area abundance, and manage of SRKW range accordingly . Seasons: those with highest Chinook . But need to know when they are moving catch - summers through an area, and where those fish originate . Recreational . There is a sequencing as you go down the . Locations: Area 121 and 123 sport coast; further north, fish are not in the SRKW catch, pockets of fisheries in and habitat around vicinity of mouth of Fraser River . Effort reductions, allocations, or closures . Seasons: some all year, some summer may all be options.

. Selective area closures in summer months; 4. Desired Increase: redistribution of fishery to other areas when . Overall goal is to increase abundance of 4 & feasible 5+ yr old Chinook at key times/places . Identify current removals on the stocks of important for SRKW foraging importance . Maintain summer abundance, and seek . Spring stocks are not as exploited in opportunities to increase winter abundance commercial fishery; e.g., removals on LF may . Increase Chinook (chum and coho, too) in be managed key foraging areas over broader time (into . Move fisheries to river mouths? That is October for chum) where most of the fish are already removed . Commercial fisheries already catching low . Bump up harvest in areas after they have percentage of important stocks (some weak gone by core SRKW feeding areas stocks) when overlapping with whales . West Coast Troll fishery in May, August, . Commercial September, so only small increases may be . Summer June/July/Aug: possible - Expand Swiftsure fishery closure, - Other locations: Sharingham to Port Renfrew (not a lot of fishing effort

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 55 remote, most prey samples from . To be most effective, probably need to there), smaller areas around Victoria or consider a total no-go zone (i.e., no West Side of San Juan Island boats of any kind – fishing & boating) . April/May: Shoulder areas could also be . One option would be that you could do important (less whale presence in anything in an area except Chinook inland in May in recent years)? fishing, but this does not . North fisheries: Upstream effects of simultaneously mediate disturbance catching fish that would then head (see Option D) south and be available to the whales . Animals spend a large proportion of later: Langara etc. (AK/PST fisheries) time in small areas. How big does an represent largest catches, no size limits, area need to be to be effective? Do we South Thompson catches, WCVI need connectivity between areas? catches, large fish mostly 4-5 year olds . Correlating body condition to salmon . In years when abundance low abundance could Inform development implement size limits of low abundance trigger (could inform . Trade-offs: reductions in northern other management actions outside fisheries less direct/diffuse/diluted, not fisheries as well) all of the fish would then be “available” . However, still need to refine metrics for to the whales, so less direct benefit evaluating whale condition (body . Limit troll fishery? Only occurs in two condition, reproduction, hormones) areas . Commercial . Recreational . Selective closures and redistribution of . Size limits: Reduce catch of 4, 5+ yr olds effort (Fraser); 85 cm . Implemented through time-area . Mark selective (in US): focus on catch of closures under the Fisheries Act hatchery fish (longer term option for . Integrated Fisheries Management Canada; if Fraser aren’t marked they Plans: must be implement in wouldn’t get “caught”) hypothesis-driven approach (presumes . Recreational fishery in winter in valid evaluation methods) northern Strait of Georgia (small scale) . Data exists to look at fine scale place . J-pod winter feeding areas: size limits and time for fisheries effort, catch, and (less data on J-pod age and runs of prey standing stock in winter in the this area) . Explore real time management based . J-pod Jan/Feb diet data show a few on CTC indices (perhaps linked to older fish in prey samples measures of SRKW health such as . North fisheries: similar tradeoffs (i.e., whale body condition indicators) less direct benefit to SRKW) applies also . Possible closure of only some to recreational fisheries important areas to test effect . Potential option of license buybacks 6. How to Implement . Create management measures to . General protect specific stocks in troll fisheries. . Two approaches (non-conflicting): limit . Imposing size limits probably not fishing in areas where SRKW are foraging feasible in commercial context and limit fishing in northern areas to . Recreational allow more Chinook to reach those . Selective closures and redistribution of critical SRKW foraging areas effort implemented through changes in . Create refuge areas over a specific Fisheries Act percentage of critical habitat during a . Possible closure of only some time when SRKW use that habitat. important areas to test effect . Focus on hot spot foraging areas

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 56 . Potentially incorporate tidal fishing . It may be possible to redistribute fishing effort (although much of it is upstream rather than reduce fishing of SRKW predation) . Some effort will drop as a natural . Impose size restrictions (although need consequence (10%) of sporadic closures, data on survival of catch-and-release) particularly in commercial fishing

7. What Stocks to Manage 9. Where and when to Implement . Those known to be a part of the diet and are . Generally, in core SRKW foraging areas exploited (near shore) in those times of importance, . In other words, stocks that migrate through and in areas where directed fisheries and SRKW habitat and are targeted by SRKW at bycatch occur on stocks of importance specific times of year . Goals: Open the tap, increase the flow of . Could identify and focus on stocks that fish, then increase the accessibility of the primarily support SRKW (decrease NRKW fish in areas where whales are feeding competitive influence?) . Therefore need to: . Focus on core habitat areas (near shore) at . Increase accessibility by limiting key times of years. fishing in these (hotspot) . Focus on Fraser River for summer inland areas/times: feeding areas - Summer (JKL pods): Haro Strait . Winter: coastal feeding areas (US), Strait of Juan de Fuca (Cdn), . Stocks that we know the whales eat; focus Swiftsure Bank and Pt Renfrew. on more local/coastal than far north - Winter (relevant only to pass- migrating stocks (this may be more overall through): (J pod) Comox Area, abundance that fishery driven, long-term Swiftsure, (K&L pod) Columbia issue) River, coastal WA. . Summer (JKL pods): Haro Strait (US), Strait . Increase abundance: of Juan de Fuca (Cdn), Swiftsure Bank and - Alter fishing effort in other Pt Renfrew. times/place to ultimately make . Winter (relevant only to pass-through): (J abundance higher at these pod) Comox Area, Swiftsure, (K&L pods) times/places Columbia River, coastal WA. - Focus on certain northern areas to get more fish to the whales? 8. Desired Reductions . Must consider relevant time of year as well: . Seasonal, hourly, and location-specific . Suggested period Canada: June to mid- redistributions of fishing effort, with aim to September? (this is the highest use period – increase abundance in a percentage of Father’s Day to Labour Day) habitat (i.e., catch reduction in portion of . Puget Sound: May, fall months? SRKW habitat) probably not spending a lot of time in Puget . Overall goal is to reduce catch of 4, 5+ yr old Sound. for key stocks Chinook in feeding areas . San Juan Islands (same as in Canada) . However, difficult to give quantitative . Columbia River area? SRKW are not going reduction goal; no knowledge on how much down the coast very far. Most not going is enough down past La Push. . Best available knowledge indicates a 30% . Exception: Range is year round for J Pod rise in abundance is required (approaching “best” historic years) 11. Scientific Confidence . Uncertainties include effect of other . Generally medium (combination of high predators on “newly available” fish, and low aspects). changes in the impact of abundance over . Medium to High confidence we can make time smart decisions once data is available,

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 57 . Lower confidence that we currently have . Most critical: Don’t know where whales will the data to make surgical, well-supported be, so don’t know if they will reap the mitigation measures benefits . Locally more confident that Actions would . Also, low benefit in winter due to low have effect on abundance, but really don’t fishing effort, and elevated in summer due know the extent or what its ultimate impact to seasonal increase in fishing effort will be on SRKW 15. Performance Measures 12. Scientific Basis . Catch reduced in particular areas (Note: are . Detailed raw data available to be surgical these offset by increased effort in other on places and times, although only partial areas? Catch amount the same but not in knowledge of SRKW foraging locations place and time where whales are foraging) . Need to get a specific working group . Body condition/photogrammetry- develop together to iron out details based on: index, early May real time data on whales - Whale distribution and prey consumed to inform June/summer salmon season, eye - Chinook distribution- where and when patch measurements (note: not all whales caught and by whom usually seen in early May) . September condition: trigger chum actions 13. Knowledge Gaps for fall, trigger for actions to support . SRKW use of west side of Vancouver Island, increased prey in winter/coastal by . Better diet data. Example: J-pod diet in comparing condition in different years (may winter in Georgia Strait be better condition in September than May . October and later seasonal body condition during a year, but is September condition . How long can whales fast? How important worse than in previous Septembers?) is summer feeding to carry through more . Improved CPUE for the whales: higher difficult foraging winter period? Key times density of fish assumed to support more of year for KW nutrition? efficient foraging . Development of CPUE baseline and . Increased use of areas that have the differences/variability for whales (compare closures/reductions/size limit (more time in with recreational CPUE?) inland waters, SW side of San Juan) . Diet info indicates preference for 4+ but . Comparison of foraging behaviour in may be biased on surface sampling/sharing foraging areas/times (vs. pre-5 yr period) . Unknown whether wild or hatchery stocks, male or female important 16. Timeframe . Better aggregate model of seasonal . Short duration for many years occurrence (and foraging behaviour). That . Restrictions in overlap areas would be is, need a good, time-specific overlap within same season, while flow-through (human/whale) foraging map. would be on months timescale. . What stocks are important – further information is required 17. Evaluation Criteria . Where and when should closures be . Adaptive strategy: every year evaluate implemented to will have the greatest winter and summer whale distribution and impact on stocks of importance? Chinook abundance . Further refine body condition as an 14. Likely Benefit indicator: identify high, med, low as criteria, . Low, Medium how many individuals in different condition . Some uncertainty. For example: If action . Pregnancy rates/other hormones increases fish abundance, will SRKW stay in indicators, reproductive rates area longer (reap benefit)? . CPUE for the whales (longer term observations and Dtag data)

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 58 . Comparison of foraging behaviour in 20. Effects on Other Species foraging areas/times (vs pre-5 yr period) . Likely positive . Possible comparison between selected . Potential increase in other predators, i.e., open/closed areas. salmon sharks, sea lions . Determine how many 4+ show up to summer critical areas (acoustic survey, but 21. Comments not great in past) . Fishing restrictions also lowers disturbance . Evaluation criteria of the management (although extent depends on proportion of change – AEQ – adult equivalency industry boats to other vessels). . Options for retention limits – issues with . May also decrease depredation survivorship (introduces uncertainty) . This Option would be easier to convince . Evaluating the fishery would use AEQ; need public that it would benefit whales, and a different metric to evaluate effect of therefore get buy in decreased removals (i.e., need to quantify . Hatchet instead of a sledge hammer. the amount of increase of the targeted . What are key or critical times of year for stocks in the specific location and time) nutrition? Would be easier if they were . Degree of uncertainty re: understanding synchronous breeders. spatial assessment - “Faith-based . What will the seasonal foraging map look management” like? . Adaptive management aspects could move . If there are stocks of less importance to to Objective A (coast wide closures) as an SRKW, then could focus fishing on them option in response to noted declines . Tag fish on their way into the Strait and see where they get caught 18. Other Considerations . Accommodate real time changes on when and where the whales go and feed, adaptive process so you can adapt . But, challenges if too changeable to be able to communicate and evaluate effectiveness . Economic impacts . Coordination between US/Canada . In future think about pod difference K/L pods vs J pod . Need to monitor how fishing effort responds. . Canadian commercial fisheries doesn’t really overlap in time/space with SRKW (except 123) . How large is the area and when? . Allocation policies – e.g., rec fisheries actions have implications for commercial TAC

19. Effects on NRKW . Neutral to positive . Goal of time/area considerations to benefit SRKW, positive benefits to NRKW that overlap with SRKW (Gs) . Overlap at Swiftsure – may actually lead to greater competition

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 59 Appendix H: Notes from Group Discussions—Increase Chinook accessibility at specific times These notes combine information transcribed during group discussions, and from tables filled out by workshop participants. They capture the ‘as is’ comments of participants on this potential Management Action, and are provided without interpretation.

1. Option C: Increase accessibility of Chinook in . In many cases education may be more specific areas at specific times of year effective than regulation (also hard to “enforce” in legal system) 2. Broad Action: . Specific guidance for fishers (target . Decrease acoustic and physical disturbance messaging in key areas such as Salmon of foraging killer whales by vessels Bank), perhaps in licenses . Exclusion zones 3. Targeted Sector: - MPA or Transport Canada vessel . All vessels (not just fishery-related) regulation, or ATBA by regulation . SRKW forage in areas where there are many - No-boat areas should coincide with a vessels, recreational and commercial fishing, proportion of coastal key foraging areas whale watching, recreational vessel traffic. - Need to make decisions about how/where/when – unrealistic to close 4. Desired Increase: all potential SRKW foraging areas all the . General time - Increased foraging success and prey - Should closures be seasonal or only when sharing opportunities whales present? - Models suggest a goal of 30-50% increase - Should closures only come into effect in accessibility when the whales are in poor condition . Specific and/or salmon abundance low? - Create quiet area/acoustic sanctuary - As this is not a matter of interference from vessel sound that interferes with rather than direct competition, such foraging efficiency and communication closures must apply to all boaters, - Lower boat numbers that may physically including commercial whale watchers interfere/preclude quality foraging - Increase enforcement in no-go zones opportunities - can work in association with vessel limitations (vs. exclusion) – e.g., limit 5. Specific Actions number of vessels viewing whales – . Some actions are static while others require Whaleless Wednesdays changes in the presence of whales. . Bubble areas . Selective exclusion zones to minimize - consideration of 200 m no-approach zone acoustic and physical disturbance. seems reasonable (although see . Bubble areas: Minimal approach distance Knowledge Gaps) (protective bubble) - limiting approach/viewing guidelines . Speed restrictions in critical SRKW foraging through vessel regulations areas - additional consideration for fishers: . Reduce noise in critical frequencies from should they pull up gear and get out of echosounders the way if are/will be in the presence whales? Define “in the presence” by 6. How to Implement distance. . Regulatory tools different depending on different goals (e.g., fishery closures, MPAs)

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 60 . Echosounder . Exclusion zones: - Reduce or alter use of sonar in the - In potential (largely summer) primary presence of whales foraging zones or critical habitats; - default frequency overlaps with whale others to be considered as required auditory spectrum - Maybe consider specific area uses by - short-term: voluntary educational different pods program to change from default - Focus on inland (not coastal areas) - longer-term: whale friendly settings - Suggested areas: West side of San Juan (“whale mode”), goes to sleep when not Island, Boundary Pass, Swanson in use Channel, mouth of Fraser River, SW . Speed restrictions edge of Vancouver Island/N side of - Limit speed in the presence of whales Strait of Juan de Fuca, Harrow strait, - not really an issue when active fishing Columbia River, Puget Sound, Juan de - more of an issue with recreational Fuca Strait, northern Strait of Georgia boaters 10. Time of Year to Implement 7. What Pods to Manage . Exclusion zones . Most regulations would apply to all SRKW - Summer issue primarily for acoustic pods and physical disturbance . Exclusion zones may be more selective: All - Seasonal by area; partial exclusions pods in summer, possible only J-pod in based partly on X% of foraging time winter. - Mainly summer (possibly winter for J- . Question of whether applies to all killer pod) whales, including transients (difficult for . Bubble zone most people to tell apart) - all the time

8. Desired Reductions 11. Scientific Confidence . Exclusion zone . Overall Medium to High - 100% compliance (zero presence) . Definite link between noise and poor . Distance/approach foraging - high compliance . But Low confidence when focused just on fishing vessels, as not convinced fishing is . Overall goals: large contributor in many cases. However, - 50% reduction in vessel impacts (based may have a significant impact in certain on Lacey et al 2017) areas and immediate areas (partic. for - Minimize cumulative noise within sonar) sensitive frequencies within foraging . High for presence/speed, although habitat and provide opportunity for considerable debate on regarding sufficient foraging in completely response relationship between vessel undisturbed areas. presence (not noise) and foraging - Protecting them regardless of location to efficiency allow minimal disturbance.

- Minimize physical deterrence of 12. Scientific Basis foraging. . Considerable body of knowledge, although - Reduced competition gaps remain

. High confidence in importance of several 9. Where to Implement foraging areas, but important to note that . Bubble zone should be in effect whales are not always there everywhere. . Location of prey sample collection . Speed restrictions in foraging habitats

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 61 . Overflight data- DFO data (boats/effort), . Unknown/difficult to know how San Juans area exclusion/protected areas will correlate to . Soundwatch/Straitwatch data on where either fish presence or whale presence in a vessels not following given time period guidelines/regulations . Unclear what effect control measures will . Good evidence that use more energy to have on SRKW population if only talking echolocate in noisy environment. about fishing vessels . Profiles of echosounders (83 kHz) overlap . Likely to improve targeted foraging with orca acoustic profiles. opportunities, but unclear what effect will . Known that noise affects communication have on population . Good evidence (although not consensus) of reduction of foraging opportunities and 15. Performance Measures other social behaviours with physical . Presence of whales should increase in presence of vessels. protected areas, more foraging, improved rates of success 13. Knowledge Gaps . Need experimental framework to evaluate . Best available information on foraging benefit of areas of action vs no action areas . Behavioural studies, such as study of . Winter feeding habitat has not been fully foraging success vs acoustic profiles explored . Longer-term: changes in physical . Overlays of all boat activity (including condition and hormone profiles of SRKW recreational fishing effort) and SRKW foraging 16. Timeframe . Need baseline data for performance . Should have an almost immediate measures - background noise levels in behavioural effect protected areas, . Changes to individual health and . What is right distance for approach? population characteristics are longer-term Scientific justification for 200 or greater distances 17. Evaluation Criteria . What is the effect of different size . Acoustic monitoring (incl Dtags) bubbles? . Increases in foraging success rates, time . Unclear what current foraging efficiency is spent foraging (and potential data (including ight time foraging effort and contrasts for open areas) success rate) . increased body condition, reproduction,  or how it would change with recreational long term demographic fishing vessel noise levels or vessel . AIS/VMS presence. Not sure of sensitivity profile. . Level of compliance/enforcement . Need ability to differentiate physical and . Radar/cameras to monitor no-boat areas acoustic effects of vessel presence for compliance rates . Direct competition has not been . Observations on vessel proximity on quantified whales . Sonar impacts have not been quantified . Potential for observer data on compliance . Need to know what the hunting range is. akin to Soundwatch/Straitwatch . How does detectability of smaller fish . Activity budgets bladders (due to decreasing size at age) affect killer whale foraging abilities 18. Other Considerations . This only works if it is applicable to all 14. Likely Benefit vessels! . Overall: Medium to High . Shipping lanes . High for minimal approach distance . Ship strike risk

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 62 . What is enforceable? 21. Comments . Exclusion of boats may have incidental . Side benefits to no boat areas for multiple negative (displacement) effects on other species individuals . Consider using language to support an . First Nations adaptive process and build in connections . vessel safety implications between SRKW health and Chinook . consultation via IFMP abundance (e.g., scenarios indicate suite . Ability of fishermen to identify SRKW of options for high Chinook/low whale . Would need to apply to all whales condition, low Chinook, etc.). . Socio economic impacts / needs . Voluntary change in sonar setting seems consultation an “easy” fix . Boater education an important method 19. Effects on NRKW (changes in speed may also affect . None to some small benefit to NRKW, but behaviour – also other boaters) smaller than for SRKW . Discussions focused on salmon fishery, but others may have significant effect (at 20. Effects on Other Species other times of year) . Unknown, likely little to no benefit . Reducing physical presence will also bring . Perhaps some acoustic benefits down acoustic overlap (sonar, engine) (particularly other cetaceans)

Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales—Technical Workshop Proceedings 2018 • page 63

Marine Mammal Research Unit Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries University of British Columbia Room 247, AERL, 2202 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4

Tel.: (604) 822-8181 [email protected] www.mmru.ubc.ca