**\--DRAFT\--**

**Minutes of the 18 May 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:* Chuck Huntington, Mark Chilcote, Pete
Lawson, Tom Wainwright; *Staff:* Heather Stout, Justin Mills, Rosemary
Furfey; *Visitors:* George Pess (NMFS/NWFSC), Michael Pollock
(NMFS/NWFSC), Kelly Burnett (USFS/FSL), Kaitlin Lovell (Trout
Unlimited).

The meeting convened at 10:15 am.

1.  **Introductions.** Our speakers for the morning, George Pess and
    Michael Pollock, were introduced to the group.

2.  **Minutes.** Minutes of the 20 April meeting were approved as
    written.

3.  **Presentation.** George Pess and Michael Pollock from the NWFSC
    Habitat Program in Seattle gave two presentations about the role of
    beavers in salmon conservation. The first, titled "Relations between
    beaver and coho salmon in the Pacific Northwest: Implications for
    the recovery of a threatened species," discussed studies of beaver
    as habitat modifiers in the Stillaguamish basin, Washington. The
    conclusions were that beavers are important in habitat restoration,
    and that restoration projects are likely to be more successful if
    they are designed for beaver colonization. The second talk was on
    "Beaver ponds in large river floodplains," and focused on the role
    of beavers in large floodplains, where usual restoration methods
    don\'t work well. The study tried to define the channel
    characteristics of dam sites and identify factors affecting beaver
    presence or absence. They found considerable variation in beaver
    density, with preferred habitat having a combination of surface and
    ground flows with attenuated surface flows. Following the
    presentations, we discussed how the information could be used on the
    Oregon coast, noting: 1) a need to work with the state in beaver
    management and trapping policies as part of recovery plan
    development; 2) existing work on developing a beaver component of
    the CLAMS project; 3) historical beaver abundance could have
    substantially affected the distribution of coho habitat relative to
    our calculations of intrinsic potential, particularly in volcanic
    areas where beaver ponds could provide habitat in areas of low
    IP; 4) beavers could be a tool for rebuilding alluvial sections from
    bedrock; and 5) beaver ponds have an affect on stream temperature
    constraints for salmon.

4.  **Population Document Comments.** We have received comments on the
    comanager\'s draft of the historical populations document from OWEB
    (including comments from Wayne Hoffman, Mid-Coast Watershed
    Council), Carl Schreck (IMST) and Bill Pearcy (IMST). ODFW comments
    are expected next week. We will discuss the comments at the June
    meeting. Pete and Heather will summarize them and suggest responses
    at that meeting.

5.  **Viability Committee Report.** The viability committee presented a
    draft outline of population viability criteria. Three issues were
    discussed: marine survival of wild vs. hatchery fish, how to
    subdivide basins for within-population diversity, and the
    relationship between genetic effective population size and spawner
    abundance.

    1.  *Marine survival.* Tom Wainwright presented figures comparing
        estimated marine survival of wild fish from ODFW life-cycle
        monitoring stations with estimated Oregon Production Index (OPI)
        hatchery fish marine survival. On average, wild fish had marine
        survivals 2 to 3 times higher than hatchery fish, except in the
        lowest-survival observation where they were about equal. This is
        an important consideration in establishing productivity criteria
        using extinction-risk models; if we base modeling on
        hatchery-fish marine survivals, much higher freshwater
        productivity is required for viability than if we use observed
        wild-fish survivals.

    2.  *Basin subdivision.* The proposed criteria include requiring
        that populations occupying larger basins be spread among
        subunits of the basin. The initial proposal was to use
        5^th^-field HUCs as subunits, but we also considered using Level
        4 Ecoregions as subunits. HUCs have little ecological meaning,
        but provide roughly equal-sized subunits; ecoregions don\'t
        capture much distribution in some large basins. One comment was
        that we really need to be restoring process, not necessarily
        imposing our assumptions as to what constitutes good habitat. No
        firm conclusion was reached.

    3.  *Effective population size.* Mark Chilcote summarized his review
        of the relationship of genetic effective population size
        (proposed as a primary abundance criterion) to spawner
        abundance. Effective population size is affected by variation in
        family size, by pedigree of spawners, and by spatial structure
        of the population. There are recent studies in British Columbia
        that suggest that effective size is more strongly related to
        basin size than to spawner abundance.

6.  **Limiting Factors Committee Report.** There are three prongs to the
    limiting factors work: a Tillamook Basin account, an impediments to
    recovery analysis, and basin descriptions. Chuck distributed an
    outline of the Tillamook Basin account, which will start with a
    description of the natural system, then describe a timeline of
    changes to the system, and end with a discussion of recent status
    and ESA effects. Justin has been preparing preliminary analyses of
    impediments to recovery, but that work will need to be linked to
    population viability criteria. The basin descriptions will summarize
    specific conditions of each basin, with an emphasis on the
    functionally and potentially independent populations. There was a
    suggestion of running current habitat conditions through the Reeves
    et al. Limiting factors model to predict current capacity. Dependent
    populations will be included in maps, but probably won\'t have
    individual text.

7.  **Task Reports.**

    1.  *State-Federal Coordination*. Rosemary provided updates on
        several topics. The Legislative Salmon Anchor Habitat Workgroup
        is holding a conference June 24^th^, coordinated by the OSU
        Natural Resources Institute, to focus on Elliott, Clatsop, and
        Tillamook state forest lands. The proposed hatchery policy and
        listing decisions will be announced May 28^th^, with a FR notice
        published in early June. This will include all ESUs; notably
        Oregon Coast coho is now on the same schedule. Rosemary and
        other recovery coordinators are continuing work on a "Recovey
        Plan Outline" to guide the plan preparation process; the target
        is to finish recovery plans by the end of 2005. The
        state-federal public stakeholder group is in final stages of
        formation. Facilitator interviews will be held this week, and a
        kickoff meeting is planned for June 21^st^ in Salem. She also
        provided a handout from the state describing the Coastal Coho
        Project.

    2.  *CHART update.* Justin reported that the critical habitat
        process for coastal coho is back on, but is unsure of the
        schedule.

    3.  *HMSC SeaFest.* The Hatfield Marine Science Center SeaFest is on
        June 19^th^. Justin will organize a "station" with coho recovery
        information.

    4.  *Population report roll-out.* Comanager\'s comments will be
        incorporated during June. Allowing time for printing, this means
        a target roll-out of the public draft in late July or early
        August.

8.  **Future meetings**. Tentative workgroup meeting schedule is: 11
    June, 16 July, 9 August, and 28 September. The September meeting is
    planned to be with the full TRT, possibly in Ashland.

9.  **Public Comment.** Kaitlin Lovell raised a question about the scale
    of the state limiting factors assessments, and whether they are
    consistent with the approach taken by the TRT. Nobody at the meeting
    knew the answer. She also asked for clarification about the role of
    the stakeholder group, specifically whether they would be reviewing
    the TRT products. Rosemary responded that they would not review the
    products per se, but rather would review how they are incorporated
    into the state plan assessment.

**Adjourned.**