Search

Search Results

• 2641. [Image] The Case Study of China; Reforms and Resources: The Implication for State Capacity in the PRC

  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Case Study of China; Reforms and Resources: The Implication for State Capacity in the PRC Year: 1997 Title: The Case Study of China; Reforms and Resources: The Implication for State Capacity in the PRC Year: 1997 Close

• 2642. [Image] Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon)

  	Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Close

• 2643. [Image] Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon)

  	Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Close

• 2644. [Image] Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon)

  	Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Close

• 2645. [Image] Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon)

  	Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Close

• 2646. [Image] Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon)

  	Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium ...
  	Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Title: Autzen Stadium, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon); University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Author: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill; Ellerbe Becket; Rouzie, A. William Year: 1967 Autzen Stadium, costing approximately $3 million, and taking only nine months to build, was creatively designed within an artificial crater, avoiding the need for multilevel ramps. The 41,000 seat stadium was named for the Autzen Foundation, headed by UO alumnus Thomas Autzen, who contributed to the project. In 2003, the $90 million expansion of the 1967 facility increased capacity from 41,700 to 58,000 seats. Close

• 2647. [Article] Status of Winter Rearing Habitat in Four Coho Population Units_ODFW AQI Winter Report Final 2008

  Abstract -- We described the status of habitat in four Oregon coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population units (Nehalem, Siuslaw, Coquille, South Umpqua) during winter 2007, estimated the potential ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status of Winter Rearing Habitat in Four Coho Population Units_ODFW AQI Winter Report Final 2008 Abstract -- We described the status of habitat in four Oregon coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population units (Nehalem, Siuslaw, Coquille, South Umpqua) during winter 2007, estimated the potential winter rearing capacity of streams within those population units, and described the differences observed in stream habitat between winter and summer with emphasis on slow water and secondary channel habitats. Sample sites were randomly selected and spatially balanced within the distribution of coho salmon (juvenile and adult) in Oregon coastal watersheds south of the Columbia River. Twenty five sites were targeted within each of the four population units. Each survey was approximately 1000 m in length and adhered to protocols in Moore et al (2007). The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (HLFM) was used to estimate habitat capacity and quality for rearing juvenile coho. The HLFM predicted that the Nehalem and Siuslaw basins could support the highest density of juvenile coho, and the South Umpqua the least. Seasonal changes in habitat were similar to that reported in a previous study. Winter surveys facilitated the assessment of habitat status and estimating capacity because the surveys were conducted at the time when habitat is most limiting to survival of juvenile coho. Winter surveys were particularly valuable in capturing secondary channel and slow water habitat units such as beaver ponds and alcoves. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the number of survey sites necessary to represent each population unit within the desired confidence range of 30% recommended in the Coho Conservation Plan. Twenty five target sites were not adequate to describe the winter parr capacity within a 95% confidence interval of +30% in each population unit. Confidence intervals of estimates of parr per km ranged from 34 to 60% and mean parr per m2 ranged from 20 to 45%. Title: Status of Winter Rearing Habitat in Four Coho Population Units_ODFW AQI Winter Report Final 2008 Abstract -- We described the status of habitat in four Oregon coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population units (Nehalem, Siuslaw, Coquille, South Umpqua) during winter 2007, estimated the potential winter rearing capacity of streams within those population units, and described the differences observed in stream habitat between winter and summer with emphasis on slow water and secondary channel habitats. Sample sites were randomly selected and spatially balanced within the distribution of coho salmon (juvenile and adult) in Oregon coastal watersheds south of the Columbia River. Twenty five sites were targeted within each of the four population units. Each survey was approximately 1000 m in length and adhered to protocols in Moore et al (2007). The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (HLFM) was used to estimate habitat capacity and quality for rearing juvenile coho. The HLFM predicted that the Nehalem and Siuslaw basins could support the highest density of juvenile coho, and the South Umpqua the least. Seasonal changes in habitat were similar to that reported in a previous study. Winter surveys facilitated the assessment of habitat status and estimating capacity because the surveys were conducted at the time when habitat is most limiting to survival of juvenile coho. Winter surveys were particularly valuable in capturing secondary channel and slow water habitat units such as beaver ponds and alcoves. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the number of survey sites necessary to represent each population unit within the desired confidence range of 30% recommended in the Coho Conservation Plan. Twenty five target sites were not adequate to describe the winter parr capacity within a 95% confidence interval of +30% in each population unit. Confidence intervals of estimates of parr per km ranged from 34 to 60% and mean parr per m2 ranged from 20 to 45%. Close

• 2648. [Article] Stream Habitat Conditions in Western Oregon 2005 Monitoring Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2007-5

  Abstract -- Monitoring programs under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds were designed to assess the status and trend in fish populations and aquatic habitat in Oregon’s coastal basins. Although ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Stream Habitat Conditions in Western Oregon 2005 Monitoring Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2007-5 Abstract -- Monitoring programs under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds were designed to assess the status and trend in fish populations and aquatic habitat in Oregon’s coastal basins. Although the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds was initiated in response to the petition to list Oregon coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), monitoring was subsequently expanded to include other salmonids. Through coordinated surveys we are able to evaluate freshwater habitat, fish distribution, and abundance of juvenile and adult coho salmon and steelhead trout. The habitat survey project has the broadest geographic scope of inference and ties to other program components as well – basin surveys, surveys at habitat restoration sites, adult and juvenile coho surveys, and life cycle watersheds (Flitcroft et al. 2002). The Oregon Plan facilitated cooperation and partnerships to study the contemporary life history dynamics of coho salmon in the Oregon coastal ESU (Evolutionary Significant Unit). A viability and status assessment of Oregon coastal Coho (Chilcote 2005) and the Conservation Plan for the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (Nicholas 2006) evaluated the relationship of aquatic habitat to the productivity of coho salmon populations and recommended actions to promote recovery. The habitat portion of the viability assessment was based on a review of aquatic and riparian habitat collected by the Aquatic Inventories Project (ODFW) from 1990 to 2004 (Rodgers et al. 2005). The authors of the habitat assessment (Rodgers et al 2005) and viability assessment (Chilcote 2005) concluded that coho productivity in 22 coastal coho populations was limited by the complexity of stream habitat used by juvenile coho during their first winter of freshwater residence. The term “stream complexity” integrates geomorphic and structural characteristics of streams and associated aquatic habitat. Complex geomorphic features may be observed in low gradient streams flowing through wide valley floors with multiple channels and off-channel habitats. Structural complexity refers to the size and configuration of pools, large wood pieces and jams, substrate, and undercut banks. The combination of geomorphic and structural features provides cover and refugia during high winter flows for juvenile coho. Stream reaches that can or have the potential to create these conditions are commonly located in lower reaches of moderate size streams in areas with wide valley floors and are considered to contain high quality habitat for juvenile coho. Burnett et al. (2007) developed spatial models to estimate high-quality habitat rearing potential, termed intrinsic potential, in coastal streams. A stream’s intrinsic potential was modeled using valley width, gradient, and stream flow. Historically, streams identified as having high intrinsic potential may have been the most productive for juvenile coho salmon; restoration of these reaches may be the key to recovery of coho salmon. The viability assessment and Coho Plan recommend that we monitor the trends in total amount and spatial distribution of these habitats in coastal drainages. This report discusses the findings from aquatic habitat surveys conducted in summer 2005 in coastal drainages. Our objectives are to describe and compare channel morphology, instream habitat and complexity, and riparian conditions in all wadeable streams in five monitoring areas. The sample design permitted us to post stratify the sample sites into three additional frames: sites within coho and steelhead distribution, sites outside coho distribution, and sites within high intrinsic potential for coho. We also used two habitat models to integrate habitat attributes to describe the habitat quality and capacity for different life stages of juvenile coho and steelhead. Title: Stream Habitat Conditions in Western Oregon 2005 Monitoring Report Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2007-5 Abstract -- Monitoring programs under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds were designed to assess the status and trend in fish populations and aquatic habitat in Oregon’s coastal basins. Although the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds was initiated in response to the petition to list Oregon coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), monitoring was subsequently expanded to include other salmonids. Through coordinated surveys we are able to evaluate freshwater habitat, fish distribution, and abundance of juvenile and adult coho salmon and steelhead trout. The habitat survey project has the broadest geographic scope of inference and ties to other program components as well – basin surveys, surveys at habitat restoration sites, adult and juvenile coho surveys, and life cycle watersheds (Flitcroft et al. 2002). The Oregon Plan facilitated cooperation and partnerships to study the contemporary life history dynamics of coho salmon in the Oregon coastal ESU (Evolutionary Significant Unit). A viability and status assessment of Oregon coastal Coho (Chilcote 2005) and the Conservation Plan for the Oregon Coast Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (Nicholas 2006) evaluated the relationship of aquatic habitat to the productivity of coho salmon populations and recommended actions to promote recovery. The habitat portion of the viability assessment was based on a review of aquatic and riparian habitat collected by the Aquatic Inventories Project (ODFW) from 1990 to 2004 (Rodgers et al. 2005). The authors of the habitat assessment (Rodgers et al 2005) and viability assessment (Chilcote 2005) concluded that coho productivity in 22 coastal coho populations was limited by the complexity of stream habitat used by juvenile coho during their first winter of freshwater residence. The term “stream complexity” integrates geomorphic and structural characteristics of streams and associated aquatic habitat. Complex geomorphic features may be observed in low gradient streams flowing through wide valley floors with multiple channels and off-channel habitats. Structural complexity refers to the size and configuration of pools, large wood pieces and jams, substrate, and undercut banks. The combination of geomorphic and structural features provides cover and refugia during high winter flows for juvenile coho. Stream reaches that can or have the potential to create these conditions are commonly located in lower reaches of moderate size streams in areas with wide valley floors and are considered to contain high quality habitat for juvenile coho. Burnett et al. (2007) developed spatial models to estimate high-quality habitat rearing potential, termed intrinsic potential, in coastal streams. A stream’s intrinsic potential was modeled using valley width, gradient, and stream flow. Historically, streams identified as having high intrinsic potential may have been the most productive for juvenile coho salmon; restoration of these reaches may be the key to recovery of coho salmon. The viability assessment and Coho Plan recommend that we monitor the trends in total amount and spatial distribution of these habitats in coastal drainages. This report discusses the findings from aquatic habitat surveys conducted in summer 2005 in coastal drainages. Our objectives are to describe and compare channel morphology, instream habitat and complexity, and riparian conditions in all wadeable streams in five monitoring areas. The sample design permitted us to post stratify the sample sites into three additional frames: sites within coho and steelhead distribution, sites outside coho distribution, and sites within high intrinsic potential for coho. We also used two habitat models to integrate habitat attributes to describe the habitat quality and capacity for different life stages of juvenile coho and steelhead. Close

• 2649. [Article] Status of Winter Rearing Habitat In Four Coho Population Units, 2007 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2008-7

  Abstract -- In a recent assessment of coastal coho salmon by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2005), the authors concluded that productivity in 21 of 21 coastal coho populations was limited ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status of Winter Rearing Habitat In Four Coho Population Units, 2007 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2008-7 Abstract -- In a recent assessment of coastal coho salmon by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2005), the authors concluded that productivity in 21 of 21 coastal coho populations was limited primarily (13) or secondarily (8) by the complexity of stream habitat used by juvenile coho during their first winter of freshwater residence. The Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (Nicholas 2006), written in response to the assessment, concluded that recovery of coho populations will depend largely on improvement of freshwater habitat. The Conservation Plan (Nicholas 2006) presents population specific goals for the amount and quality of winter habitat needed to achieve desired status of coho populations. Monitoring objectives in the Plan are 1) describe the status of freshwater habitat in each population unit with a focus on features important to overwinter survival of juvenile coho, 2) estimate carrying capacity in each population unit with + 30% confidence, and 3) measure progress towards meeting the habitat goals of the Conservation Plan. This report describes the first two monitoring objectives for winter habitat in four population units: the Coquille, South Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Nehalem. Winter habitat surveys are conducted to describe the freshwater habitat conditions that may limit the survival of juvenile coho during the season at which the conditions are limiting. The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (Nickelson et al. 1992a, Nickelson et al. 1992b, Nickelson 1998) estimates the capacity of streams to support juvenile salmon based on quantitative descriptions of summer and winter habitat. The model assigns value to the size, type and complexity of habitat units, giving highest value to slow water pools such as alcoves and beaver ponds, and pools with large wood. Because winter habitat limits the capacity of most coastal streams to support juvenile coho (Rodgers et al. 2005), accurate estimates of winter habitat are essential to life cycle modeling and to meet objectives of the Conservation Plan. Rodgers et al. (2005) estimated potential carrying capacity of stream habitat within each coastal coho population unit, but statistical confidence was limited by the source and manipulation of the data. Although the data set was extensive, most of the reaches were not randomly selected, and a regression model was used to extrapolate conditions from summer to winter (Rodgers et al. 2005). Summer surveys provide applicable information, but at low flow conditions. Summer weather and stream flows are predictable and conducive to field work; study sites are more accessible, work days are longer and warmer, lower water levels enable walking in the channel more easily, and water clarity is high. However, while more difficult logistically, winter surveys provide estimates during high flow conditions thought to be most important to juvenile coho survival. The winter surveys are conducted during “base flow” when off-channel habitats and secondary channels are inundated, but not over floodplain. The winter 2007 survey sites were selected using the Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) sample design (Stevens 2002) from a pool of sites previously surveyed during summer. This provided an opportunity to describe status within coho population units and refine the summer to winter conversion regression model. More sites are visited during summer than winter, and the sample pool will expand if we can use summer surveys to predict winter conditions. A thorough description of seasonal habitat variation will determine the appropriateness of using summer habitat data to assess habitat conditions during the winter. The objectives of this report are to provide the status of winter habitat surveyed in 2007 in four Oregon coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population units (Nehalem, Siuslaw, Coquille, South Umpqua), estimate the potential winter capacity of streams within those population units, and describe the differences observed in stream habitat between winter and summer with emphasis on slow water and secondary channel habitats. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the number of survey sites necessary to represent each population unit within the desired confidence recommended in the Conservation Plan (Nicholas 2006). Title: Status of Winter Rearing Habitat In Four Coho Population Units, 2007 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2008-7 Abstract -- In a recent assessment of coastal coho salmon by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2005), the authors concluded that productivity in 21 of 21 coastal coho populations was limited primarily (13) or secondarily (8) by the complexity of stream habitat used by juvenile coho during their first winter of freshwater residence. The Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan (Nicholas 2006), written in response to the assessment, concluded that recovery of coho populations will depend largely on improvement of freshwater habitat. The Conservation Plan (Nicholas 2006) presents population specific goals for the amount and quality of winter habitat needed to achieve desired status of coho populations. Monitoring objectives in the Plan are 1) describe the status of freshwater habitat in each population unit with a focus on features important to overwinter survival of juvenile coho, 2) estimate carrying capacity in each population unit with + 30% confidence, and 3) measure progress towards meeting the habitat goals of the Conservation Plan. This report describes the first two monitoring objectives for winter habitat in four population units: the Coquille, South Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Nehalem. Winter habitat surveys are conducted to describe the freshwater habitat conditions that may limit the survival of juvenile coho during the season at which the conditions are limiting. The Habitat Limiting Factors Model (Nickelson et al. 1992a, Nickelson et al. 1992b, Nickelson 1998) estimates the capacity of streams to support juvenile salmon based on quantitative descriptions of summer and winter habitat. The model assigns value to the size, type and complexity of habitat units, giving highest value to slow water pools such as alcoves and beaver ponds, and pools with large wood. Because winter habitat limits the capacity of most coastal streams to support juvenile coho (Rodgers et al. 2005), accurate estimates of winter habitat are essential to life cycle modeling and to meet objectives of the Conservation Plan. Rodgers et al. (2005) estimated potential carrying capacity of stream habitat within each coastal coho population unit, but statistical confidence was limited by the source and manipulation of the data. Although the data set was extensive, most of the reaches were not randomly selected, and a regression model was used to extrapolate conditions from summer to winter (Rodgers et al. 2005). Summer surveys provide applicable information, but at low flow conditions. Summer weather and stream flows are predictable and conducive to field work; study sites are more accessible, work days are longer and warmer, lower water levels enable walking in the channel more easily, and water clarity is high. However, while more difficult logistically, winter surveys provide estimates during high flow conditions thought to be most important to juvenile coho survival. The winter surveys are conducted during “base flow” when off-channel habitats and secondary channels are inundated, but not over floodplain. The winter 2007 survey sites were selected using the Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) sample design (Stevens 2002) from a pool of sites previously surveyed during summer. This provided an opportunity to describe status within coho population units and refine the summer to winter conversion regression model. More sites are visited during summer than winter, and the sample pool will expand if we can use summer surveys to predict winter conditions. A thorough description of seasonal habitat variation will determine the appropriateness of using summer habitat data to assess habitat conditions during the winter. The objectives of this report are to provide the status of winter habitat surveyed in 2007 in four Oregon coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population units (Nehalem, Siuslaw, Coquille, South Umpqua), estimate the potential winter capacity of streams within those population units, and describe the differences observed in stream habitat between winter and summer with emphasis on slow water and secondary channel habitats. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the number of survey sites necessary to represent each population unit within the desired confidence recommended in the Conservation Plan (Nicholas 2006). Close

• 2650. [Article] The Status and Trend of Physical Habitat and Rearing Potential in Coho Bearing Streams in the Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-5

  Abstract -- In 1997, the Oregon Coastal Restoration Initiative (OCSRI 1997) identified the quality of stream habitat as a potential factor influencing the decline of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: The Status and Trend of Physical Habitat and Rearing Potential in Coho Bearing Streams in the Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-5 Abstract -- In 1997, the Oregon Coastal Restoration Initiative (OCSRI 1997) identified the quality of stream habitat as a potential factor influencing the decline of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. In 1998, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) implemented a monitoring program that utilized a random, spatially balanced survey design to provide statistically rigorous information on the status and trend of habitat conditions in Oregon coastal streams. In response to the ESA listing of coho salmon, the State of Oregon published a comprehensive review of aquatic habitat in the Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) in 2005 (Rodgers et al 2005). The NOAA Fisheries more recently published a request for additional information in the 2009 Federal Register notice (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009). This report will serve as an update to Rodgers et al (2005), and will provide an analysis of the current status and trends in aquatic habitat from 1998 through 2008 within the Oregon Coastal Coho ESU. The status and trend of instream physical habitat conditions in the Oregon Coastal coho ESU were assessed from twelve variables collected by the ODFW habitat monitoring program from 1998-2008. Habitat conditions were described at the scale of the ESU, four monitoring areas/strata within the ESU, and by six land use categories (agriculture, urban, private non-industrial and industrial forest, and public state and federal forest). The condition of habitat was compared among monitoring areas and land use categories. In addition, the habitat condition at random survey sites was compared to that at sites experiencing minimal human disturbance (i.e. reference sites). Potential winter rearing capacity for juvenile coho salmon was calculated for all available habitat and for high quality habitat at the monitoring area scale and in selected population units. We calculated the rearing potential from high quality habitat because modeling (Nickelson and Lawson 1998) demonstrated that during periods of prolonged poor ocean survival, only areas with high quality habitat will be able to support coho at full seeding during poor marine conditions. The final objective of this report is to discuss whether sufficient habitat capacity exists to support productivity of juvenile coho at the monitoring strata scale during periods of low marine survival. Title: The Status and Trend of Physical Habitat and Rearing Potential in Coho Bearing Streams in the Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2009-5 Abstract -- In 1997, the Oregon Coastal Restoration Initiative (OCSRI 1997) identified the quality of stream habitat as a potential factor influencing the decline of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. In 1998, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) implemented a monitoring program that utilized a random, spatially balanced survey design to provide statistically rigorous information on the status and trend of habitat conditions in Oregon coastal streams. In response to the ESA listing of coho salmon, the State of Oregon published a comprehensive review of aquatic habitat in the Oregon Coastal Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) in 2005 (Rodgers et al 2005). The NOAA Fisheries more recently published a request for additional information in the 2009 Federal Register notice (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009). This report will serve as an update to Rodgers et al (2005), and will provide an analysis of the current status and trends in aquatic habitat from 1998 through 2008 within the Oregon Coastal Coho ESU. The status and trend of instream physical habitat conditions in the Oregon Coastal coho ESU were assessed from twelve variables collected by the ODFW habitat monitoring program from 1998-2008. Habitat conditions were described at the scale of the ESU, four monitoring areas/strata within the ESU, and by six land use categories (agriculture, urban, private non-industrial and industrial forest, and public state and federal forest). The condition of habitat was compared among monitoring areas and land use categories. In addition, the habitat condition at random survey sites was compared to that at sites experiencing minimal human disturbance (i.e. reference sites). Potential winter rearing capacity for juvenile coho salmon was calculated for all available habitat and for high quality habitat at the monitoring area scale and in selected population units. We calculated the rearing potential from high quality habitat because modeling (Nickelson and Lawson 1998) demonstrated that during periods of prolonged poor ocean survival, only areas with high quality habitat will be able to support coho at full seeding during poor marine conditions. The final objective of this report is to discuss whether sufficient habitat capacity exists to support productivity of juvenile coho at the monitoring strata scale during periods of low marine survival. Close