**Minutes of the 29 October 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, Tom Wainwright, Kelly
Moore, Tom Nickelson, Mark Chilcote, Chuck Huntington; *Staff:* Heather
Stout, Justin Mills; *Visitors:* Laurie Weitkamp (NMFS), Bruce McIntosh
(ODFW), Ed Bowles (ODFW), Kaitlin Lovell (Trout Unlimited).

The meeting convened at 10:15 am.

1.  **Announcements.** Laurie Weitkamp was introduced, and was nominated
    to join the Oregon Coast Work Group, pending approval by the TRT.

2.  **Minutes.** Minutes of the 6 August meeting were approved with
    minor corrections. Action items from that meeting were reviewed.

3.  **Task Reports.**

> **Beaver Model.** Justin updated us on his work with the Beaver model.
> McComb and Spies have a paper on the model coming out soon. They have
> run the model for the entire Oregon Coast; a GIS layer is available.
>
> **CHART method revisions.** It was decided that the CHART report
> wasn\'t useful for the purposes of our \"impediments to recovery\"
> work, so that method is not being pursued.
>
> **Population Revisions.** Justin has preliminary results from applying
> the SONCC workgroup method (Principal Components Analysis of
> environmental variables across subbasins) to the Umpqua Basin.
> Generally, results follow ecoregions, but Elk Creek and Upper Cow
> Creek are outliers. Not all datasets used by the SONCC group were
> available.
>
> **ACTION:** Justin will pursue getting the hydrology-related datasets
> and vegetation layers, updating the analysis for our November meeting.

4.  **Viability Criteria.** Tom Nickelson, Mark, and Kelly reported on
    work they have done within the state process to develop criteria.
    Mark and Tom suggested population-level criteria for Abundance (2
    criteria), Productivity (2 criteria), and Persistence (1 criterion),
    as well as 5 criteria at the ESU level. Kelly presented an approach
    to Distribution criteria based on a watershed-scale spawning-habitat
    diversity index. Discussion was wide-ranging. Major concerns
    expressed were: abundance criteria were too small to be meaningful;
    abundance and persistence criteria were heavily based on
    stock-recruit models, with parameters estimated from very limited
    data and using methods with known statistical bias problems;
    confidence intervals were not adequately considered; diversity index
    considers only spawning habitat, not rearing habitat; ESU criteria
    were lower than what TRT had discussed previously.

> **ACTION:** Tom Wainwright will look up the methods for bias
> corrections in fitting the stock-recruit models.
>
> **ACTION:** Viability committee will reconsider population abundance
> criteria that are more realistic and reflect safe abundance under a
> variety of conditions.
>
> **ACTION:** Viability committee will work out details of the
> productivity criteria.
>
> **ACTION:** Viability committee will consider quantitative measures
> for distribution- and diversity-related risks.

5.  **State Coordination.** Bruce McIntosh reported on state work. The
    next Stakeholders Team meeting is November 15-16, with one day
    devoted to the biological status of coho, and the second day
    reviewing the overall state assessment. In early December they will
    present their draft report to the Oregon IMST. This will be followed
    by a two-month review period, with a final report completed in
    March.

> **ACTION:** Pete will attend the November Stakeholders meeting.

6.  **Future Meetings.** The Work Group will meet on 22 November, 16
    December, and 21 January (tentative). Tom Wainwright will present
    our draft recovery criteria to the Recovery Science Review Panel on
    2 December in Santa Cruz.

7.  **Public Comment.** Kaitlin Lovell noted that the Pacific Legal
    Foundation has filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue on all listed
    salmon species, an the SONCC lawsuit is moving forward in Hogan\'s
    court. She expressed concern with the proposed use of
    quasi-extinction thresholds as a baseline for delisting
    criteria\--this seems more related to an \"endangered\" level,
    rather than a \"threatened\" level; she suggests a focus on avoiding
    a \"threatened\" level under poor ocean conditions.

> **Adjourned.**