**Meeting Minutes**

Oregon Coast and Northern California Coast (ONCC) Coho Technical
Recovery Team (TRT)

Oregon Coast Work Group (OCWG)

October 14, 2003

Corvallis, Oregon

**Attendance**: *OCWG Members*: Tom Nickelson, Gordie Reeves, Pete
Lawson, Mark Chilcote, Kelly Moore; *Staff*: Heather Stout, Rosemary
Furfey, Bridgette Lohrman; *Visitors*: Stan van de Wetering, Siletz
Tribe.

The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m.

1\. **Introductions**: Stan van de Wetering, fishery biologist with the
Siletz Tribe, introduced himself.

2\. **Minutes Approval** **(Stout)**: There were no comments or
corrections to the draft minutes from the August 21^st^, 2003 OCWG
meeting.

3\. **Agenda Revision (Stout)**: Each proposed agenda item was reviewed
and the group agreed to delete the following two agenda items: Draft
Output from Bjorkstedt's Independence Index, and the Draft Population
Delineation.

4\. **Decision on Draft Metapopulation Structure (Lawson)**: Pete
reported that he has sent out the latest draft document and said that
Gordy will pull out the most technical metapopulation structure
information and put it into an appendix. The group agreed that the
metapopulation processes section was too technical to include in the
main section of the population document which is meant for the general
public.

5\. **Decision on how to use Intrinsic Potential in Bjorkstedt's
Independence Index (Nickelson)**: Tom gave an update on what the smaller
OCWG work group discussed last Friday (10/10). Tom received the
Intrinsic Potential (IP) data for the Nehalem watershed and he tested
different ways to convert this information into an estimate of the
number of smolts produced historically in the watershed. He described
the parameters and assumptions he used to make his calculations. The
results of his calculations compared favorably with historic records for
salmon production in three watersheds: Nehalem watershed: estimated 2.7
million smolts compared to an estimated 270,000 adults historically;
Alsea watershed: estimated 180,000 adults compared to 150,00 adults
historically; and the Nestucca watershed: estimated 115,000 adults
compared to 115,000 adults historically. Kelly will work with Gordy to
compute the remaining IP data while Tom is on vacation. Tom agreed to
write-up a description of his methodology to estimate historic abundance
when he returns. Heather also needs Eric Bjorkstedt's description of his
methods and how its applied to define different types of populations.

6\. **Decision on "Vertical Line" discussion (Chilcote)**: Mark began by
summarizing the results of recent population discussions. These focused
on placement of the "horizontal line" (isolation or stray rate which
distinguishes functionally and potentially independent populations) and
vertical line (population size or viability which distinguishes
dependent from potentially independent populations) discussions. This
resulted in identification of four population categories: ephemeral,
functionally independent, potentially independent, and dependent. There
was far ranging discussion about where the horizontal line should be
located. The group agreed that the ephemeral population category will
most likely describe California coho populations because the Oregon
Coast coho populations are not isolated enough to be in this category.
The group agreed that most of the Oregon Coast coho populations will be
in the functionally independent and dependent population categories.

After discussion of this topic, Kelly agreed to write-up this
information describing why stray rates are an important factor in these
populations, and that straying does occur and it's not an unwanted
dynamic. Another important point is that in the past, it was assumed
that "nomads"were not considered to survive. More recently, we have
become aware for a few systems where they are potentially an important
component of population dynamics.

Mark continued with a description of his methodology to calculate the
"vertical line" ( the point of population size between a dependent and
potentially independent population) which relates to the size of the
population and is therefore linked to its viability. Mark also described
how the Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT is using viability curves to
decide on the placement of the vertical line. It was discussed that for
populations to the right of the "vertical line," if in pristine
conditions, are assumed to persist for more than 100 years.

7\. **Public Comment Period**: No public comments.

8\. **Task Reports**:

a\) Rosemary reported on a recent NOAA/State coho recovery coordination
meeting on (10/7) attended by Geoff Huntington (OWEB), Tom Byler
(Governor's Office), and Ed Bowles (ODFW), together with NOAA staff: Rob
Walton, Mike Crouse, Rob Jones, and Rosemary Furfey. The group discussed
ODFW's proposed direct take fishery for Siltcoos and Tahkenitch Lakes,
upcoming publication (03/04) of the proposed status review and listing
determination, review of the Oregon Plan, and possible State/NOAA ways
to coordinate public and stakeholder involvement in recovery planning.

b\) Heather reviewed the deadlines for production of the draft
population report. The deadline for all materials to Heather for the
report is November 7^th^. The first draft will be available on November
24^th^ for the OCWG, with one week for review and comment (December
2^nd^). The next draft will be sent to the whole TRT on December 9^th^.
The document will be approved in concept at the December TRT meeting
(date and location to be confirmed).

9\. **Outreach Update**:

a\) Rosemary will be making presentations to the following watershed
council meetings: Nestucca/Neskowin (10/16); Coquille (10/20); and
Umpqua (10/21). She will also make a presentation to the Siuslaw
National Forest Coast PAC on 10/23. Gordie Reeves, joined by Pete
Lawson, will make a presentation on the CLAMS model for Bob Lohn and
staff in Portland on 10/22. Finally, a NOAA national recovery
coordinator workshop will be help east of Portland during the last week
of October.

b\) Heather and Bridgette will make a presentation to the Salmon/Drift
Creek watershed council on 10/14.

c\) Bridgette presented the findings from her Needs Assessment conducted
for watershed council coordinators within the ESU. Her results provide
excellent information on how to effectively communicate recovery
information with watershed council members.

10.** Review Tasks (Stout)**: In conclusion, it was agreed that Tom
would write-up the "horizontal line" information, Pete will describe the
"vertical line" information, Kelly will write-up the stray rate
discussion, and Mark will describe his vertical line methodology. All
products are due on November 7th.

11\. **Adjourn**.