**Minutes of the 21 January 2005 meeting of the Oregon Coast Work Group
(OCWG) of the Oregon and Northern California Coast (ONCC) Technical
Recovery Team (TRT), Corvallis, Oregon**

**Attendance.** *OCWG Members:* Pete Lawson, Mark Chilcote, Kelly Moore,
Gordie Reeves, Tom Wainwright; *Staff:* Heather Stout, Justin Mills;
*Visitors:* Jeff Lockwood, Rosemary Furfey, Lance Kruzic (NMFS/NWR).

The meeting convened at 10:15 am.

1.  **Minutes.** Minutes of the 16 December meeting were approved.
    Action items from that meeting were reviewed.

2.  **Recovery Criteria.** We reviewed and discussed the latest outline
    of recovery criteria for the ESU, compared our criteria with the
    state\'s criteria, and discussed the schedule for getting a draft
    out by the end of February. Discussion focused on four issues:

> *Hatchery fish.* What is the importance of hatchery fish regarding
> abundance, production, and genetic risks? It was noted that this
> isn\'t a big issue in general for Oregon Coast coho now---there is an
> average of less than 5% hatchery fish on spawning grounds. However,
> hatchery fish on the spawning grounds can influence productivity
> estimates and the harmonic mean abundance criterion, and
> locally-abundant hatchery fish could pose genetic risks in some
> populations. We reached four conclusions:
>
> **DECISION:** The productivity criterion should be based on the
> natural return ratio, i.e., with naturally produced fish in the
> numerator, and total (natural + hatchery) spawners in the denominator.
>
> **DECISION:** We will add a criterion for proportion of hatchery fish
> on spawning grounds for independent populations, with a limit of 10%
> as in the Oregon Native Fish Conservation Policy interim criteria.
>
> **DECISION:** The genetic abundance criterion will remain based on
> naturally produced spawners only.
>
> **DECISION:** Spawner distribution criteria will be based on naturally
> produced spawners only.
>
> *Future habitat conditions.* There are two places where assumptions
> about future habitat conditions are important in the recovery
> criteria. First, in the ESU delisting 3^rd^ criterion (removal of
> threats and factors for decline), we need to consider how this
> criterion leverages the listing. This issue will be postponed to our
> "impediments to recovery" report. Second, in the population
> persistence criterion, model results are very sensitive to assumptions
> about future conditions, especially trends in habitat. The various
> models incorporate such trends in different ways, and it is not clear
> what default assumption we should make. For now, this decision is left
> to the modelers, with a request for sensitivity analyses on habitat
> trends where possible.
>
> *Productivity.* The proposed metric for productivity (estimating
> average recruit-to-spawner ratios for the years in which spawner
> abundance was below the median abundance for the population, adjusted
> for marine survival) could produce "false negatives" in some
> situations when marine survival has changed substantially during the
> data period or when there is a substantial hatchery influence on the
> population. We saw no immediate solution to this, and it was suggested
> that we leave the criterion as is for now, but the viability committee
> will reconsider it.
>
> *Persistence criterion.* There are remaining issues of how we will
> reconcile results from multiple models, and the timeframes for model
> calibrations. This will be discussed by the viability committee.
>
> Finally, we discussed restructuring the report, noted the need for a
> "punchlist" of criteria needed for the three statuses (not endangered,
> not threatened, restored), and set a viability committee meeting for
> 27 January.

3.  **Population Definitions.** We considered two issues regarding the
    proposed population definitions, that need resolution before the
    viability analysis can continue:

> *Umpqua population matrix*- Heather handed out a spreadsheet of
> support for the straw fish of a population conformation with a Lower
> Umpqua, Middle Umpqua, North and South Umpqua. Justin also handed out
> the principle components analysis and the map of the clusters. Based
> on Lance's comments, the team decided that the North and South Umpqua
> were different based on hydrology, gradient, and some biogeography
> (Umpqua Chub, summer steelhead differences). The problematic area was
> the middle Umpqua where the Elk, Calapooya and the mainstem would be
> together in the middle Umpqua piece. These 5^th^ fields each clustered
> to different ecoregions and have different hydrology than either the
> North or the South Umpqua. The middle Umpqua is transitional and not
> coastal like the lower Umpqua.
>
> **DECISION:** The team preliminarily decided to leave the middle
> mainstem, Elk and Calapooya in the Lower Umpqua population, but will
> revisit the decision in the next meeting due to Tom Nickelson's
> absence.
>
> *Dependent populations*- The team determined in the population
> document that dependent populations are important to the recovery of
> the ESU based not only on their reflection of the robustness of nearby
> independent populations, but also for their potential to provide a
> place where new alleles can be "fixed" into smaller populations which
> may not persist over a 100 year time period. The 48 dependent
> populations in the population document are made up of a large size
> range of basins from those with less than a mile of coho salmon
> habitat to as much as 18 miles. Some of the very small basins would
> have abundances that would be at quasi-extinction (50 fish) levels
> under ocean conditions as great as 3% marine survival. This level of
> marine survival is one that is often seen over a 100 year time series.
> The team felt that for systems that were very small, those populations
> would not persist long enough to fix alleles and to provide that
> function for the ESU.
>
> **DECISION:** Therefore, we chose a threshold of historical production
> potential of less than 2000 smolts as tabulated in Table III-2 of
> Lawson et al. (2004) for exclusion from the designation of dependent
> population. This results in 12 fewer populations than were presented
> in Lawson et al. (2004). The historical population totals 56 or 57
> depending on the Umpqua decision with these new configurations.
> Exclusions are Indian Creek, Canyon Creek, Red Rock Creek, Austin
> Creek, Asbury Creek, Henderson Creek, Grant Creek, Moore Creek, Little
> Creek, Gwynn Creek, Squaw Creek and Blowout Creek

4.  **Task Reports.**

> *TRT Coordinator Update*- Rosemary handed out Recovery Division
> retreat minutes and discussed the products coming up. Jeff Lockwood,
> Lance Kruzic and Rosemary are on the recovery team. The initial
> recovery plan has been promised to Congress by December 05. The
> Pacific Coast Recovery Fund report identifies the top 5 recovery
> actions, top 5 threats. This is the biennial report to Congress. The
> final determination for the proposed listing of OCN coho is
> anticipated in July due to a request by the State of Oregon. There is
> a Stakeholders meeting in late February. Judge Hogan ruled on the same
> type of challenge to the SONCC regarding hatchery fish- the Threatened
> Status is maintained.
>
> *Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Critical Habitat Proposals* --Rosemary
> posted a map of the proposed Critical Habitat. Comment period ends on
> February 14, 2005. There are several frameworks which make this
> proposal confusing- there is the analytic framework #1 that is based
> essentially on the CHART ratings and includes some economic analysis.
> Framework \# 2 excludes 4 ESUs based on the requirements of the Forest
> Plan, Oregon Plan, the fact that there are large areas of Federal
> Land, and the economic cost to coastal communities. There does not
> appear to have been any analysis associated with this and no
> administrative record supporting this proposal. One additional piece
> to this is the proposal to delete sections of critical habitat that
> are determined by professional judgement. Gordie commented that the
> Forest Plan has been gutted so reliance on that is not appropriate.
> The CHARTs will be reconvened to review new information, comments, and
> edits to economic analysis.

5.  **Review Tasks.** Remap populations, revise dependent population
    table, proceed on recovery criteria analyses after viability
    committee meeting.

6.  **Schedule.** Future meetings are scheduled for January 27
    (viability committee) , February 10 at FSL, Corvallis; March 15 at
    FSL; and April 13 in Arcata at the NMFS Regional Office.

7.  **Public Comment.** None.

> **Adjourned.** The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 pm.