**Minutes of the 16 March, 2006 meeting of the Oregon Coast Work Group
(OCWF) of the Oregon and Northern California Coast (ONCC) Technical
Recovery Team (TRT), Corvallis, Oregon**

**Attendance**. *OCWG Members*: Tom Nickelson (by phone), Pete Lawson,
Laurie Weitkamp, Kelly Moore, Gordie Reeves, and Tom Wainwright;
*Staff*: Heather Stout and Rosemary Furfey; *Visitors*: Bruce McIntosh
and Kevin Goodson (both ODFW), and Les Helgeson (Native Fish Society).

The meeting convened at 10:25 am.

1\. **Agenda revisions**. The agenda was accepted.

2\. **Minutes**. Minutes of February 22 meeting was approved with minor
corrections.

3\. **Letters from NWR, NWFSC, State**. Pete and Rosemary reported that
letters stating NMFS' intent to continue working on Oregon coast coho
will be out soon. Kelly said that a letter from the State to NWFSC
requesting continued assistance is also pending.

4\. **OC conservation plan**. Kelly provided a revised outline for the
State's conservation plan. A "drafty draft" will be available in time
for the Apr. 20 Stakeholders meeting. Kelly and Bruce highlighted the
major changes/additions, such as a different approach to limiting
factors, and identified where the TRT could help (e.g., landscape
approach, gap analysis, time and cost evaluations). The group generally
approved of the additions/changes.

There was also some discussion of the TRT's recent letter to the State
describing discussion points about the plan from the February TRT
meeting. This discussion included clarification both of the State's
efforts and some of the suggestions in the TRT's letter. As a result of
this dialog, Gordie and Pete will put together guidance on how to apply
landscape processes given multiple land owners (within the next two
weeks).

**5. Public comment**. Les and Kevin voiced concern for pending BLM
decisions regarding land use activities on public lands and their
potentially negative impacts on salmon. Les also noted that state forest
practices rules are being re-evaluated and was concerned that changes
would also degrade salmon habitats. He urged the TRT to become more
involved in both processes as advocates for coho salmon.

6\. **Restoration criteria**. Tom W. asked the TRT whether the
restoration criteria in the viability document should be better defined,
revised, or changed, and what any changes should be. After considerable
discussion, the decision was made that the current criteria were
adequate but will be fleshed out further by the viability committee;
they will present their work at the April meeting.

**7. Task reports**.

-   Rosemary stated that the coho domain team at the NWR will review the
    conservation plan and remain engaged in the processes. She also
    announced that the next Stakeholders meeting is Apr. 20 at the Falls
    Cr. hatchery (Alsea). She provided copies of the Snohomish recovery
    plan, which has been recommended as a good example.

-   Heather outlined the remaining steps needed to finalize the
    population document. The final version is expected some time this
    summer.

8\. **Conservation plan framework**. Laurie led a brief discussion of
how the State might write the conservation plan, given the inadequate
time available to fully flesh out all parts. She proposed that the plan
describe a process rather than specific actions. The process would
explicitly describe how a variety of ideas, strategies, and information
would be incorporated into the plan. The group was receptive to the idea
and provided additional suggestions for things to be included.

9\. **Public comment**. Les provided several comments during various
discussions. He voiced concern that the Forest Practices Act does not
guarantee that current habitats will be maintained. During discussions
of the restoration criteria, he encouraged the TRT to better articulate
the trade offs between economic, cultural and environmental concerns,
and to describe what a fully restored ESU looks like.

10\. **Review tasks**. In addition to tasks mentioned above, Gordie will
present recent results from the CLAMs model at the May meeting.
Discussion of comments on the viability report was postponed for a
future meeting.

11\. **Schedule future meetings**. The next meeting (full TRT) will be
**April 27** in Arcata. Workgroup meetings were scheduled for **May 23**
and tentatively **June 20** (both in Corvallis).

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm.