**Minutes of the 16 Dec 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:* Pete Lawson, Kelly Moore, Tom Nickelson,
Gordie Reeves, Tom Wainwright; *Staff:* Heather Stout, Justin Mills;
*Visitors:* Kaitlin Lovell (Trout Unlimited), Bridgette Lohrman
(NMFS/NWR), Jeff Lockwood (NMFS/NWR), Robin Waples (NMFS/NWFSC), Mike
Ford (NMFS/NWFSC), Michael Banks (OSU) Tod Jones (ARED, Inc.).

The meeting convened at 10:15 am.

1.  **Minutes.** Minutes of the 22 November meeting were approved with
    minor corrections. Action items from that meeting were reviewed.

2.  **Recovery Criteria.** We reviewed and discussed the latest draft of
    recovery criteria for the ESU, focusing on three issues:

> a\) For the proposed ESU diversity criteria for independent
> populations that don\'t meet sustainability criteria, what should the
> definition of "critical abundance" be? Similarly, for dependent
> populations, what level of occupancy should be required? Discussion
> focused on the proposed requirement for four spawners per mile: Does
> this guarantee that habitat is functional? Should we use direct
> habitat criteria instead? Are juveniles a better indicator of habitat
> quality? No conclusion was reached.
>
> b\) For population persistence, what is the definition of
> "quasi-extinction"? Discussion focused on whether "quasi-extinction"
> is being interpreted as "functionally extinct" or "endangered" or
> something else. Three schemes relating the terms "threatened,"
> "endangered," "quasi-extinct," and "extinct."
>
> **DECISION:** We will define "quasi-extinction" as "functionally
> extinct" and drop the term "quasi" from our criteria, as this means
> that "quasi-extinct" and "extinct" are essentially synonymous.
>
> c\) For population genetic diversity (effective abundance), what
> should the criterion be? Robin Waples noted that genetic effective
> population size criteria are inherently vague, so our distinction
> between 550 and 590 spawners was probably meaningless. He suggested
> rounding to the nearest 100 spawners.
>
> **ACTION:** To settle these questions, we scheduled a special
> viability work session for January 6^th^ in Newport.

3.  **Presentation: Genetic Structure of Oregon Coast Coho Salmon.**
    Michael Banks presented a "premature" report on the ongoing OSU
    analysis of microsatellite DNA in Oregon coast coho. The coastwide
    pattern found is similar to that found by Ford et al. However, 97%
    of the genetic variation is within populations, so their work is
    focusing on local variation within watersheds. Important issues for
    the TRT work include within-population diversity (how to preserve
    genetic substructure and local migration rates), population
    independence (what does the data tell us about migration among
    populations), and substructure within the Umpqua Basin.

4.  **Population Document.** We have received three comments on the
    public review draft of the historical populations report\--from
    Kaitlin Lovell, Jeff Lockwood, and Lance Kruzic. These will be
    considered in revising the report. A major issue for viability is
    the role of dependent populations: should we emphasize the larger
    dependent populations (those with more than trivial amounts of coho
    habitat)? We considered different lower bounds (based either on
    stream miles or smolt capacity) for the definition of dependent
    populations, and the number of basins that would be removed by
    implementing these bounds. We discussed the role of these
    populations in terms of ESU genetic diversity and their potential
    role in metapopulation stability. This issue was tabled until the
    next meeting.

> **ACTION**: Check with Mary Ruckelshaus and Paul McElhany about how
> their TRTs have dealt with similar populations.
>
> Justin presented his revised principal components analysis (PCA) of
> environmental variability and population structure, using the same
> methods as Santa Cruz Lab has done for the SONCC ESU. The method
> heavily weights climatology, then ecoregions and geology. When looking
> at clusters for the whole coast, the Umpqua has major variability.
> Examining the Umpqua separately, there are obvious
> longitudinal/elevation bands due to high correlation of climate
> variables with elevation; these bands cross 4^th^-field HUCs and
> don\'t follow watershed boundaries.
>
> **ACTION:** Justin will finish this analysis by the January meeting.
>
> We also considered subdividing the upper Umpqua into multiple
> populations, based on comments from Lance Kruzic. We discussed run
> timing (influenced by hatchery fish), biogeography (fish and amphibian
> species distributions), and smolt production potential for various
> subbasins. A suggestion was made that we consider splitting the upper
> Umpqua into three populations: Elk/Calapooia (Middle Umpqua), North
> Umpqua, and South Umpqua. No decision was made.
>
> **ACTION:** Heather will compile biogeographic arguments relating to
> population substructure in the upper Umpqua. Justin will calculate IP
> for the possible subpopulations, and provide that to Tom N for smolt
> production estimates.

5.  **Task Reports.**

> Jeff Lockwood updated us on state/federal coordination issues. (1) The
> critical habitat proposal is out, and NMFS is requesting comments on a
> proposal to exclude areas under specific management plans (e.g. the
> Oregon Plan or Forest Plan) from designations. (2) NMFS is developing
> the annual Pacific Salmon Restoration Fund report to Congress, which
> will include an interim recovery plan outline; the report is due in
> early February.

6.  **Comments from NWFSC.** Robin Waples and Mike Ford offered thanks
    to the workgroup for hard work, noting that this group is unique in
    being jointly run between the Northwest and Southwest science
    centers, and being remote from both. Regarding viability issues,
    they suggest we look more closely at the latest drafts from Puget
    Sound and Lower Columbia TRTs to see how quasi-extinction and
    dependent populations are dealt with.

7.  **Schedule.** We will finish an internal draft of the recovery
    criteria report by January 31^st^, and aim to release a co-managers
    draft by the end of February. Next meeting is January 21^st^, IMST
    meets January 18-19^th^, and we are considering February 22 for a
    full TRT meeting. We will have a special viability worksession in
    Newport on January 6^th^.

8.  **Public Comment.** We briefly discussed issues raised in an e-mail
    from Kaitlin Lovell concerning the upper limit of threatened status,
    and its relationship to endangered status.

> **Adjourned.**