**\--DRAFT\--**

**Minutes of the 25 February 2004 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:* Kelly Moore, Mark Chilcote, Tom
Nickelson, Gordie Reeves, Pete Lawson, Tom Wainwright, Chuck Huntington;
*Staff:* Heather Stout, Rosemary Furfey, Justin Mills; *Visitors:*
Kaitlin Lovell (Oregon Trout), Jeff Lockwood (NMFS NW Regional Office),
and Bridgette Lohrman (NMFS NW Regional Office).

The meeting convened at 10:25 am.

**1. Brief discussion** of the implications of the recent appeals court
decision on the Alsea case; not enough is known at this time to guess
the implications of this for the TRT process.

**2. Introductions.** Bridgette Lohrman, Jeff Lockwood, and Kaitlin
Lovell were introduced.

**3. Review of Minutes (Stout).** The 22 January work session was
reviewed, but no formal minutes were adopted as that was not a regular
workgroup meeting.

**4. Viability Committee Report (Nickelson).** The viability committee
(Mark Chilcote, Tom Nickelson, Tom Wainwright) met twice during February
to begin work on recovery criteria for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU.
They identified a scope of work, drafted a time line, and began work on
some tasks.

They considered direction from the Workgroup that we should be concerned
with criteria for both ESA delisting and "broad sense" recovery. Given
this, the recovery definition and scope of work puts an emphasis on
"broad sense" recovery goals, viewing ESA delisting criteria as
mileposts along the road to recovery, not as goals in isolation from the
broader context. Starting with the definition developed by the Oregon
Legislature\'s Joint Interim Task Force on Salmon Recovery after an
interagency workshop, the committee proposed the following definitions
of recovery and related terms:

> **Recovery** means that the populations of naturally produced fish
> comprising the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU are sufficiently abundant,
> productive, and diverse (in terms of life histories and geographic
> distribution) that the ESU as a whole: a) will be self-sustaining, and
> b) will provide environmental, cultural, and economic benefits.
>
> **Populations** are as defined in our population paper.
>
> **Naturally produced fish** are fish whose parents spawned in the
> wild, regardless of parental origin.
>
> **Self-sustaining** populations are able to survive prolonged periods
> of poor ocean, climatic, and environmental conditions without
> reproductive contribution from other sources.
>
> **Environmental, cultural, and economic benefits** include: providing
> nutrients to freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems; providing food
> resources for scavengers such as bears, eagles and stream
> invertebrates; ceremonial use by native Americans; viewing and nature
> study by coastal residents and tourists; and subsistence,
> recreational, and commercial harvest.

The committee identified 7 tasks: 1) develop a definition of recovery;
2) identify measurable attributes of population status; 3) identify
possible population metrics for each attribute; 4) define form of
recovery criteria for each metric; 5) conduct analyses to define values
for these criteria; 6) develop ESU-level attributes, metrics, and
criteria; 7) write a "recovery goals and criteria" report.

They proposed the following timeline:

*February:* Report to OCWG on draft recovery definition, population
attributes, and population metrics (see attachment).\
*March:* Release interim draft recovery definition, population
attributes, and population metrics for (informal?) co-manager comment.\
*June:* Complete analyses leading to proposed recovery and delisting
criteria.\
*September:* Release draft report for co-manager review.\
*November:* Release revised draft report for public review.

*Discussion:* The workgroup discussed several parts of the report.
Regarding the definitions, it was noted that the definition of
self-sustaining should refer to the entire ESU, rather than to component
populations. It was suggested that the definition of a self-sustaining
ESU should refer to "persistent populations" as defined in our
population report, and needs to include the role of non-persistent
populations in the ESU. It was also suggested that using the term
"recovery" for the broad-sense goals including economic and social
factors would be confusing given that the ESA defines the term in a more
limited sense. It was suggested that we might use the term "restoration"
for the broader goals, or keep the adjective "broad-sense" attached to
the definition. The committee will consider these suggestions and
propose a revised recovery definition.

The workgroup also discussed the role of model-based approaches in
setting recovery/delisting criteria, particularly how to deal with
changes in conditions over time(esp. in freshwater habitat). One
suggestion was to use the CLAMS' projections of changes in upland
vegetation and large wood in streams as a proxy for trends in freshwater
capacity and/or survival, which could be incorporated as changes in
parameters of viability models. The committee will consider this in
developing their analyses.

Two general concerns about the process were also discussed. First, the
workgroup emphasized that whatever numerical criteria are developed,
they need to be understandable both by scientists and by the public.
Second, there are concerns about conflicts developing between the TRT
process and the state Oregon Plan evaluation. We decided to postpone a
decision on how to communicate our work on recovery criteria to the
state until the next workgroup meeting.

**5. Public Comment.** Kaitlin Lovell offered three comments regarding
the process: 1) She has received calls concerned about the independence
of the TRT, noting that to outsiders the process appears to be
influenced by state politics. She suggested that we need to pay greater
attention to the "transparency" of the process. 2) She noted that
federal law links the term "recover" to "delisting," so we should use a
different term for broader goals. 3) She noted that under the law,
delisting mirrors listing, so that under the Hogan decision, if the ESU
contains hatchery stocks we would need to consider them in developing
recovery criteria. Jeff Lockwood raised a concern that limiting factors
analyses are focusing on a single factor for each population, and
suggested approaches that reflect simultaneous influence of multiple
factors. Bridgette Lohrman asked that we consider the feasibility of an
online newsletter regarding recovery planning to improve communications
with outsiders.

**6. Limiting Factors Committee Update.** The limiting factors committee
(Chuck Huntington, Pete Lawson, Kelly Moore, Gordie Reeves) had not
formally met, but proposed an outline for their report. Their effort is
intended to supplement, not duplicate, the state process, and will focus
on two or three parts: A Tillamook Case Study, modification of the
decision support model used for the ESA Critical Habitat Determinations,
and a review of existing watershed assessments. The Tillamook Case Study
will be pulled together from existing documents by Chuck and Kelly.
Modifications of the decision support model would allow it to rank
habitat factors with regard to their influence on the overall habitat
score for a given basin. Issues of incorporating temperature into the
model and how to treat summer vs. winter habitat were discussed.

The limiting factors committee will meet March 4^th^.

**7. Population Document Update.** The report is still being edited.
Final comments from the workgroup are due March 5^th^. A glossary is
being prepared, and citations checked (workgroup members, please provide
those for your sections!).

**8. Regional Office Report (Furfey).** Rosemary has been/will be
involved in several meetings with the state. The NOAA-state coordination
group is preparing for a public unveiling of the state evaluation of the
Oregon plan, including a proposed committee structure for coordinated
recovery planning. There has been discussion of pulling Oregon Coast
coho out of the March listing Federal Register notice, and putting it on
a different timeline; no decisions yet. She attended a state Native Fish
Conservation Policy Taskforce meeting yesterday, where a 1-page summary
of the proposed four recovery-planning committees (Oversight Team,
Technical Recovery Team, Oregon Plan Core Team, and Public Advisory
Committee) was presented. The coordination committee wants a kickoff of
the "stakeholder" group by the end of March. She is also on a panel at
the First Biennial Conference of Watershed Coordinators, February 26-27
in Wilsonville.

**9. PECE (Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts) Process Report
(Lockwood & Lohrman).** Bridgette is currently working on a review of
local watershed assessments in Oregon, considering their adequacy as
"local recovery plans" (i.e. what in them fits the recovery handbook
guidelines, what doesn\'t). The state PECE process is also doing a
"broad" evaluation of these plans. Jeff reported on part of the state
work under the PECE process for Oregon coast coho. The habitat
assessment group (one of about 14 groups involved in the process) is
looking at limiting factors in water quality, water quantity, and
physical factors; they are not looking at regulatory authority or
available resources. It appears that they are not addressing all
components of the policy.

**10.Other Business.** The overall workgroup timeline was discussed.
Late fall is a likely target for release of the viability report, but
the overall timeline was tabled until next meeting when the limiting
factors group has a proposed timeline and the implications of the
appeals court decision are clearer. It was announced that Justin Mills
will be assigned to the TRT for GIS and analytic support starting March
15.

**11. Future meetings.** The workgroup will meet in Corvallis at 10:00
a.m. on the following dates: March 16, April 20, May 18. Locations to be
arranged.

**12. Public Comment.** Kaitlin Lovell raised a question regarding the
PECE process: How do changes in the NW Forest Plan\'s Aquatic
Conservation Strategy affect the evaluation of effectiveness of the
Oregon Plan and possibly factors in the VSP criteria such as growth rate
and spatial structure? She also commented that the Federal Data Quality
Act makes scientific rigor more important, and noted that that act has
been used to challenge ESA decisions.

**Adjourned.**