DOCSLIB.ORG

County Oregon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
County Oregon for County Oregon . Volume 1 Transportation System Plan Lincoln County, Oregon Prepared for Lincoln County Planning & Development Department and Oregon Department of Transportation October 2007 Final Adopted October 2008 Acknowledgments The following people were instrumental in the development of this Transportation System Plan: Lincoln County Matt Spangler, Director, Planning and Development Department Jim Buisman, P.E., Director, Public Works Department Cynda Bruce, Manager, Lincoln County ranii it Oregon Department of Transportation John deTar, Senior Planner, Region 2 Dorothy Upton, Senior Transportation Analyst, Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit Angela Kargel, Traffic Engineer, Region 2 Adam Roberts, Environmental Coordinator, Region 2 Robert Melbo, Rail Planner, ODOT Rail Division John Lucas, Senior Designer, Region 2 Roadway CH2M HILL Larry Weyrnouth, Project Manager and Planner, Corvallis Office Andra He~ques,P.E., Transportation Designer and Traffic Analyst, Portland Office Tim Newkirk, Associate Transportation Engineer, Bellevue Office Darren Muldoon, AICP, Associate Planner, Portland Office Tim Burkhardt, AICP, Senior Reviewer, Portland Office Jesse Manley, GIs Specialist, Portland Office Kathryn Westcott, Graphic Designer, Portland Office Vicki Starr, Document Processor, Corvallis Office Angelo Planning Group Serah Overbeek, Planner, Portland Office Darci Rudzinski, AICP, Planner, Portland Office Port of Newport Don Mann, General Manager Port of Toledo Bud Shoemake, General Manager Newport Municipal Airport Dennis Reno, General Manager Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Pam Barlow Lind, Tribal Planner Acknowledgments Volume 1 Page Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................ES-1 Plan Development ...................................................................................................... ES-1 Plan Elements and Organization ............................................................................. ES-2 Plan Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-2 Existing and Future Conditions and Needs .......................................... ES-5 Transportation Improvement Program ............................................. ES-7 Policy Recommendations ........................................................................... ES-18 Financing Plan Recommendations ........................................................... ES-20 Implementation ......................................................................................... ES-21 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Setting ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Goals and Objechves........................................................................................ 1-4 1.3.1 Goal #l Mobility. .................................................................................1-4 1.3.2 Goal #2 Livablllty ...............................................................................1-5 1.3.3 Goal #3 Coordination ........................................................................1-5 1.3.4 Goal #4 Public Transportation ....................................................... 1-6 1.3.5 Goal #5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........................................1-6 1.3.6 Goal #6 Accessibility ..........................................................................1-7 1.3.7 Goal #7 Environment......................................................................... 1-8 1.3.8 Goal #8 System Preservation ............................................................ 1-8 1.3.9 Goal #9 Capacity ................................................................................ 1-8 1.3.10 Goal #10 Transportation Funding ................................................. 1-9 1.3.11 Goal #ll Safety ................................................................................... 1-9 1.4 Transportation System Inventory ................................................................ 1-10 1.4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................ 1-10 1.4.2 Population ........................................................................................ 1-12 1.4.3 Employment ......................................................................................1-14 1.4.4 Future Development ........................................................................ 1-16 1.4.5 Roadway Inventory.......................................................................... 1-24 1.4.6 Intersections ...................................................................................... 1-33 1.4.7 Pedestrian Facilities.......................................................................... 1-36 ... 1.4.8 Bicycle Faclllhes ................................................................................ 1-36 1.4.9 Public Transportation ...................................................................... 1-37 1.4.10 Air/Rail/Water/Pipeline ............................................................... 1-43 1.4.11 Emergency and Evacuation Routes ...................................... 2 CONTENTS CONTINUED 2 Plans and Policies Review ..........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Federal ...............................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Safe, Accountable. Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)........................ 2-1 2.2.2 Siuslaw National Forest Road Analysis Report .............................2-2 2.3 State of Oregon .................................................................................................2-2 2.3.1 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) ...............................................2-2 2.3.2 Oregon Transportation Plan (2006)................................................ 2-3 2.3.3 Oregon Highway Plan (1999) ......................................................... 2-3 2.3.4 Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995) ....................................2-4 2.3.5 Oregon Aviation Plan (2000) ............................................................ 2-4 2.3.6 Oregon Rail Plan (2001) ................................................................... 2-4 2.3.7 Oregon Public Transportation Plan (1997) ..................................... 2-4 2.3.8 Access Management Rule (OAR 734-051) ....................................... 2-4 2.3.9 Freight Moves the Oregon Economy (1999) ...................................2-5 2.3.10 Airport Layout Plan, Newport Municipal Airport (DRAFT 2005) ....................................................................................2-5 2.3.11 Proposed Oregon Coast Highway Corridor Master Plan (1995) ..................................................................................................2-5 2.3.12 Pacific Coast Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan for US 101 in Oregon (1997) ..................................................................2-5 2.3.13 US 20/OR 34 Newport to Sweet Home Interim Corridor Strategy (1998)................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.14 Portland to Lincoln City Corridor: Interim Corridor Strategy, Oregon Highways 99W and 18, 1-5 to US 101 (1997)................... 2-6 2.4 Lincoln County Jurisdictions .......................................................................... 2-6 2.5 Lincoln County Ports ....................................................................................... 2-7 2.6 Lincoln County ............................................................................................... 2-7 2.6.1 Lincoln County Code ....................................................................... 2-7 2.6.2 Lincoln County Bicycle Plan (1992) ............................................... 2-10 2.6.3 Lincoln County Transportation System Plan (Draft, 1999) ........ 2-10 3 Existing Conditions and Needs .................................................................................3-1 3.1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Needs ....................................................3-1 3.1.1 Interface Between County and City Roads...................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ...........................................3-4 3.1.3 Study Intersections and Raw Traffic Counts ................................... 3-5 3.1.4 Operational Analysis of Existing Conditions .................................. 3-7 3.1.5 Safety Analysis ................................................................................... 3-9 3.1.6 State and Local Transportation Scheduled Improvements .......... 3-32 3.1.7 Bridge Conditions and Needs .......................................................... 3-36 3.1.8 Pavement Conditions and Needs ....................................................3-36 3.2 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Conditions and Needs ..........3-37 3.2.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................3-37
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OREGON RURAL HOSPITAL LISTENING TOUR: 2014 2014 RURAL HOSPITAL LISTENING TOUR FINAL REPORT 1 July 1, 2015
    OREGON RURAL HOSPITAL LISTENING TOUR: 2014 2014 RURAL HOSPITAL LISTENING TOUR FINAL REPORT 1 July 1, 2015 Organized by: The Oregon Office of Rural Health Sponsored by: The Oregon Rural Healthcare Quality Network In partnership with: The Oregon Health Authority The Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems The Office of Rural Health would like to acknowledge the following for their support and participation in production of this report: Max Brown, Department of Human Services Jon Collins, Oregon Health Authority: Office of Health Analytics Christopher Coon, Oregon Health Authority: Office of Health Analytics Fritz Jenkins, Oregon Health Authority: Designated State Health Programs Asante Ashland Hospital, Blue Mountain Hospital, CHI St. Anthony Hospital, Coquille Valley Hospital, Curry General Hospital, Good Shepherd Medical Center, Grande Ronde Hospital, Harney District Hospital, Lake Health District Hospital, Lower Umpqua Hospital, Mercy Medical Center, Mid-Columbia Medical Center, Peace Health Cottage Grove Hospital, Peace Health Peace Harbor Hospital, Pioneer Memorial Hospital, Providence Hood River Hospital, Samaritan North Lincoln Hospital, Samaritan Pacific Communities Hospital, Southern Coos Hospital, St. Charles Madras Hospital, St. Charles Prineville, St. Charles Redmond Hospital, Three Rivers Medical Center, Tillamook Regional Medical Center, Wallowa Memorial District Hospital, Willamette Valley Medical Center If you have any questions about this report, please contact: Oregon Office of Rural Health: Meredith Guardino|[email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Yaquina Estuary, Oregon
    PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE YAQUINA ESTUARY, OREGON Richard J. Callaway MarPoiSol P.O. Box 57 Corvallis, OR 97339 David T. Specht, Project Officer Coastal Ecology Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2111 S.E. Marine Science Drive Newport, Oregon 97365-5260 2 (Purchase Order #8B06~NTT A) Submitted August 9, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Area of Study .................................................................................................................. 1 Estuary Classification.............................................. .......................................... 1 Local Communities ............................................................................................... 7 Physical Setting .................................................................................................... 7 Climate ................................................................................................................. ? Winds ................................................................................................................... 8 Tides .................................................................................................................... 8 Currents .............................................................................................................. 9 Estuarine Dynamics and the Hansen-Rattray Classification Scheme ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Trauma Surge Plan-HPO Compress Part 1
    Oregon Healthcare Preparedness Region 1 Trauma Surge Plan TRAUMA SURGE PLAN: CORE PLANNING GROUP About Us Our Mission: To assist hospitals, hospital staff, and first responders in preparing for events which overwhelm the region’s trauma system through education and the provision of resources. The outcome is the safe management and care of the critically injured, and enhancement of a seamless transition of care. Who we are: A collaborative team of experts representing the region's emergency preparedness, first responder, and trauma center leadership. Core Planning Group Members: Tanya Shanks-Connors, Legacy Health Roy Ball, Legacy Health Angela Heckathorn, Legacy Health Mark Dollar, Legacy Health Kathryn Richer, NW Oregon Health Preparedness Organization Jonathan Jui, Multnomah County Emergency Medical Services Sherrie Forsloff, Oregon Health & Science University Mercedes Wilson, Oregon Health & Science University Acknowledgements This was truly a multi-discipline, multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction, and multi-year effort. Its success is due to our many partners in contributing agencies, as well as funders. We express our deep gratitude to the following for their support: o Clackamas County Emergency Management o Legacy Health o Multnomah County Emergency Management o Multnomah County Emergency Medical Services o NW Oregon Health Preparedness Organization o Oregon Health Authority o Oregon Health Science & University o Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization o U.S Department of Health and Human Services o Washington County Emergency Management For further information, or to contact a member of the Core Planning Group please go to our Hospital Emergency Preparedness website at: hospitalemergencypreparedness.org Oregon Healthcare Preparedness Region 1 | Trauma Surge Plan 1 | P a g e Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Siletz This Page Intentionally Left Blank for Printing Purposes
    History of the Siletz This page intentionally left blank for printing purposes. History of the Siletz Historical Perspective The purpose of this section is to discuss the historic difficulties suffered by ancestors of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (hereinafter Siletz Indians or Indians). It is also to promote understanding of the ongoing effects and circumstances under which the Siletz people struggle today. Since time immemorial, a diverse number of Indian tribes and bands peacefully inhabited what is now the western part of the State of Oregon. The Siletz Tribe includes approximately 30 of these tribes and bands.1 Our aboriginal land base consisted of 20 million acres located from the Columbia to the Klamath River and from the Cascade Range to the Pacific Ocean. The arrival of white settlers in the Oregon Government Hill – Siletz Indian Fair ca. 1917 Territory resulted in violations of the basic principles of constitutional law and federal policy. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance set the policy for treatment of Indian tribes on the frontier. It provided as follows: The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in the property, rights, and liberty, they never shall be invaded, or disturbed, unless in just, and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace, and friendship with them. 5 Data was collected from the Oregon 012.5 255075100 Geospatial Data Clearinghouse.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Country Welcome To
    Travel Guide To OREGON Indian Country Welcome to OREGON Indian Country he members of Oregon’s nine federally recognized Ttribes and Travel Oregon invite you to explore our diverse cultures in what is today the state of Oregon. Hundreds of centuries before Lewis & Clark laid eyes on the Pacific Ocean, native peoples lived here – they explored; hunted, gathered and fished; passed along the ancestral ways and observed the ancient rites. The many tribes that once called this land home developed distinct lifestyles and traditions that were passed down generation to generation. Today these traditions are still practiced by our people, and visitors have a special opportunity to experience our unique cultures and distinct histories – a rare glimpse of ancient civilizations that have survived since the beginning of time. You’ll also discover that our rich heritage is being honored alongside new enterprises and technologies that will carry our people forward for centuries to come. The following pages highlight a few of the many attractions available on and around our tribal centers. We encourage you to visit our award-winning native museums and heritage centers and to experience our powwows and cultural events. (You can learn more about scheduled powwows at www.traveloregon.com/powwow.) We hope you’ll also take time to appreciate the natural wonders that make Oregon such an enchanting place to visit – the same mountains, coastline, rivers and valleys that have always provided for our people. Few places in the world offer such a diversity of landscapes, wildlife and culture within such a short drive. Many visitors may choose to visit all nine of Oregon’s federally recognized tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Basin Morphology in the Central Coast Range of Oregon
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF WENDY ADAMS NIEM for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in GEOGRAPHY presented on July 21, 1976 Title: DRAINAGE BASIN MORPHOLOGY IN THE CENTRAL COAST RANGE OF OREGON Abstract approved: Redacted for privacy Dr. James F. Lahey / The four major streams of the central Coast Range of Oregon are: the westward-flowing Siletz and Yaquina Rivers and the eastward-flowing Luckiamute and Marys Rivers. These fifth- and sixth-order streams conform to the laws of drain- age composition of R. E. Horton. The drainage densities and texture ratios calculated for these streams indicate coarse to medium texture compa- rable to basins in the Carboniferous sandstones of the Appalachian Plateau in Pennsylvania. Little variation in the values of these parameters occurs between basins on igneous rook and basins on sedimentary rock. The length of overland flow ranges from approximately i mile to i mile. Two thousand eight hundred twenty-five to 6,140 square feet are necessary to support one foot of channel in the central Coast Range. Maximum elevation in the area is 4,097 feet at Marys Peak which is the highest point in the Oregon Coast Range. The average elevation of summits in the thesis area is ap- proximately 1500 feet. The calculated relief ratios for the Siletz, Yaquina, Marys, and Luckiamute Rivers are compara- ble to relief ratios of streams on the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plains and on the Appalachian Piedmont. Coast Range streams respond quickly to increased rain- fall, and runoff is rapid. The Siletz has the largest an- nual discharge and the highest sustained discharge during the dry summer months.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON (Acipenser Medirostris) AS an ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES UNDER the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
    PETITION TO LIST THE NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON (Acipenser medirostris) AS AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY WATERKEEPERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PETITIONERS JUNE 2001 NOTICE OF PETITION Environmental Protection Information Center P.O. Box 397 Garberville, CA 95542 (707) 923-2931 Contact: Cynthia Elkins Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 40090 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 841-0812 Contact: Jeff Miller WaterKeepers Northern California Presidio Building 1004 San Francisco, CA 94129 (415) 561.2299 ext. 14 Contact: Jonathan Kaplan Petitioners Environmental Protection Information Center (“EPIC”), Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), and WaterKeepers Northern California (“WaterKeepers”) formally request that the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) list the North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. In the alternative, petitioners formally request that NMFS list the North American green sturgeon as a threatened species under the ESA. In either case, petitioners request that green sturgeon critical habitat be designated concurrent with the listing designation. This petition is filed under §553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA” - 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559), §1533(b)(3) of the ESA, and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b). This petition sets in motion a specific administrative process as defined by §1533(b)(3) and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(b), placing mandatory response requirements on NMFS. Because A. medirostris is an anadromous fish, NMFS has jurisdiction over this petition. A Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between NMFS and the U.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians
    A Brief History of the Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians are made up of 3 tribes (4 Bands): 2 bands of Coos Tribes: Hanis Coos (Coos Proper), Miluk Coos; Lower Umpqua Tribe; and Siuslaw Tribe. Although both Coos bands lived in close proximity to one another on the Coos River tributaries, they spoke different dialects of the Coos language and had their own unique history and cultural differences. A days walk north from the Coos River, you found yourself in the Lower Umpqua territory with a much different spoken language that both the Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw bands shared; the Siuslaw language. The diversity of languages and cultures you can find along the West Coast attests to the longevity these bands sustained for hundreds of generations in the lands they call home. The tribes trace their ancestry back to the aboriginal inhabitants of the South-Central coast of Oregon. Their historic homelands extended from the richly forested slopes of the Coastal Range in the East to the rocky shoreline of the Pacific Ocean in the West, a vast region of some 1.6 million acres. They lived peacefully in an area characterized by moderate temperatures and abundant natural resources, including fish, shellfish, wildlife, and a rich variety of edible plants. This was their land; the Coos cosmology states that: Two young men from the Sky World looked down below, and saw only water. Blue clay they laid down for land, and tule mats and baskets they laid down to stop the waves from running over the land.
    [Show full text]
  • Predicting Scour in Weak Rock of the Oregon Coast Range
    PREDICTING SCOUR IN WEAK ROCK OF THE OREGON COAST RANGE Final Report SPR 382 Oregon Department of Transportation PREDICTING SCOUR IN WEAK ROCK OF THE OREGON COAST RANGE Final Report SPR 382 by Dr. Stephen E. Dickenson Associate Professor and Michael W. Baillie Graduate Research Assistant Dept. of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group Salem, OR 97301-5192 and Federal Highway Administration Washington, DC 20590 October 1999 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-OR-RD-00-04 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date October 1999 Predicting Scour in Weak Rock of the Oregon Coast Range 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Stephen E. Dickenson and Michael W. Baillie 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Oregon State University Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No. 202 Apperson Hall K5029A Corvallis, Oregon 97331 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Oregon Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Research Group and Washington, D.C. 20590 Final Report 200 Hawthorne SE, Suite B-240 Salem, Oregon 97301-5192 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. ABSTRACT Recent experience in the Coast Range Province of Oregon demonstrates that weak sedimentary bedrock in stream channels can be vulnerable to scour. The presence of erodible rock adjacent to bridge foundations and abutments necessitates monitoring of the channel to preclude costly repairs, or in an extreme case undermining of the foundations and bridge collapse.
    [Show full text]
  • Majoris Health Systems MCO Provider Directory
    Majoris Health Systems, Inc. Employee Information and Medical Provider and Facilities DIRECTORY May 2021 R-2031 Majoris Health Systems, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SAIF Corporation, has contracted with Majoris Am I required to see one of the Majoris doctors Health Systems, Inc., a state-certified managed if I am injured on the job and need medical care organization (MCO) to provide services to care? employees injured on the job. In most cases, yes. Once your claim is “enrolled” We understand that dealing with an injury can with Majoris Health Systems, (which means you sometimes be stressful and confusing. We have been given written notice of your therefore recommend that you become familiar requirement to treat within the MCO) you will be with the Majoris procedures before you may need required to treat with an MCO provider unless to seek care for a work-related injury or illness. one of the circumstances explained below applies. Following are answers to some of the more commonly-asked questions concerning our The situations in which you may receive managed care program. Should you have compensable care from a non-Majoris provider additional questions, please feel free to contact after your claim is enrolled are as follows: SAIF Corporation at 800.285.8525, or Majoris 1. You have a private physician, Health Systems directly at 800.525.0394. chiropractic physician, or nurse practitioner who qualifies as a primary What is Majoris Health Systems? care physician, chiropractic physician Majoris is a state-certified managed care or authorized nurse practitioner. organization that contracts with physicians, Your family physician, chiropractic physician, hospitals, and other health care providers to or authorized nurse practitioner may qualify to provide medical services to covered employees treat you under the managed care with work-related injuries or illnesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Deaths: the Near Destruction of Western
    DAVID G. LEWIS Four Deaths The Near Destruction of Western Oregon Tribes and Native Lifeways, Removal to the Reservation, and Erasure from History THE NOTIONS OF DEATH and genocide within the tribes of western Oregon are convoluted. History partially records our removal and near genocide by colonists, but there is little record of the depth of these events — of the dramatic scale of near destruction of our peoples and their cultural life ways. Since contact with newcomers, death has come to the tribes of western Oregon in a variety of ways — through epidemic sicknesses, followed by attempted genocide, forced marches onto reservations, reduction of land holdings, broken treaty promises, attempts to destroy tribal culture through assimilation, and the termination of federal recognition of sovereign, tribal status. Death, then, has been experienced literally, culturally, legally, and even in scholarship; for well over a century, tribal people were not consulted and were not adequately represented in historical writing. Still, the people have survived, restoring their recognized tribal status and building structures to maintain and regain the people’s health and cultural well-being. This legacy of death and survival is shared by all the tribes of Oregon, though specific details vary, but the story is not well known or understood by the state’s general public. Such historical ignorance is another kind of death — one marked by both myth and silence. An especially persistent myth is the notion that there lived and died a “last” member of a particular tribe or people. The idea began in the late nineteenth century, when social scientists who saw population declines at the reservations feared that the tribes would die off before scholars could collect their data and complete their studies.
    [Show full text]
  • PROGRESS REPORTS 2005 FISH DIVISION Oregon
    PROGRESS REPORTS 2005 FISH DIVISION Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Final Summary Report: Green Sturgeon Population Characteristics in Oregon This program receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and/or Wildlife Restoration and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against as described above in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information, please contact ADA Coordinator, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 3406 Cherry Avenue NE, Salem, OR, 97303, 503-947-6000, or write Office for Human Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. This material will be furnished in alternate format for people with disabilities if needed. Please call (503) 657-2000 ext. 406 to request. FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FISH RESEARCH PROJECT OREGON PROJECT TITLE: Green Sturgeon Population Characteristics In Oregon PROJECT NUMBER: F-178-R JOB NUMBER: 1 JOB TITLE: Green Sturgeon Population Characteristics In Oregon PROJECT PERIOD: 1 October 1999 – 30 September 2004 Prepared by: Ruth A. Farr J. Chris Kern Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 17330 Southeast Evelyn Street Clackamas, OR 97015 This project was financed in part with the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Wallop- Breaux) funds through the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]