DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, CO 80401

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, CO 80401 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY AND NORTHWEST NATIONAL MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER WAVE ENERGY TEST PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT June 2012 DOE/EA-1917 U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, CO 80401 Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 Scoping and Public/Agency Involvement ......................................................................... 1-3 1.4.1 NNMREC Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.2 DOE Public Scoping .......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.3 DOE Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Organization of Environmental Assessment .................................................................... 1-6 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Ocean Sentinel Instrumentation Buoy ............................................................................. 2-2 2.2.3 TRIAXYS™ Wave Measurement Buoy .............................................................................. 2-9 2.2.4 Testing Vessel .................................................................................................................. 2-9 2.2.5 Wave Energy Converter Devices .................................................................................... 2-10 2.2.6 WET-NZ Multi-Mode Marine Power Conversion ........................................................... 2-11 2.2.7 Anchors and Mooring Systems ...................................................................................... 2-12 2.2.8 Anchoring and Mooring Systems Used in Future Tests ................................................. 2-18 2.2.9 Testing Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 2-21 2.2.10 Installation ............................................................................................................... 2-22 2.2.11 Operations and Maintenance.................................................................................. 2-27 2.2.12 Removal and Decommissioning .............................................................................. 2-31 2.2.13 Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................ 2-32 2.2.14 Applicant-Committed Measures ............................................................................. 2-33 2.2.15 Research and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 2-36 2.2.16 Adaptive Management Framework ........................................................................ 2-36 2.3 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 2-37 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................................ 2-37 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-1 3.1 Environmental Categories Evaluated and Dismissed from Further Analysis ................... 3-1 NNMREC and OSU Wave Energy Test Project June 2012 i Draft Environmental Assessment Contents 3.1.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Floodplains ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.5 Intentional Destructive Acts ............................................................................................ 3-3 3.1.6 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.7 Noise Impacts on Sensitive Human Receptors ................................................................ 3-4 3.1.8 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.1.9 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-5 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project ................................................ 3-20 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ......................................... 3-30 3.3 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... 3-30 3.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-30 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project ................................................ 3-31 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ......................................... 3-35 3.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-35 3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-35 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project ................................................ 3-40 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ......................................... 3-42 3.5 Marine Navigation ......................................................................................................... 3-42 3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-42 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project ................................................ 3-45 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ......................................... 3-46 3.6 Aesthetic Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-47 3.6.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-47 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project ................................................ 3-49 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ......................................... 3-52 3.7 Recreation Resources .................................................................................................... 3-55 3.7.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-55 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project ................................................ 3-55 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ......................................... 3-57 3.8 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-57 3.8.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-57 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Project ................................................ 3-59 NNMREC and OSU Wave Energy Test Project June 2012 ii Draft Environmental Assessment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ocean Shore Management Plan
    Ocean Shore Management Plan Oregon Parks and Recreation Department January 2005 Ocean Shore Management Plan Oregon Parks and Recreation Department January 2005 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Planning Section 725 Summer Street NE Suite C Salem Oregon 97301 Kathy Schutt: Project Manager Contributions by OPRD staff: Michelle Michaud Terry Bergerson Nancy Niedernhofer Jean Thompson Robert Smith Steve Williams Tammy Baumann Coastal Area and Park Managers Table of Contents Planning for Oregon’s Ocean Shore: Executive Summary .......................................................................... 1 Chapter One Introduction.................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter Two Ocean Shore Management Goals.............................................................................19 Chapter Three Balancing the Demands: Natural Resource Management .......................................23 Chapter Four Balancing the Demands: Cultural/Historic Resource Management .........................29 Chapter Five Balancing the Demands: Scenic Resource Management.........................................33 Chapter Six Balancing the Demands: Recreational Use and Management .................................39 Chapter Seven Beach Access............................................................................................................57 Chapter Eight Beach Safety .............................................................................................................71
    [Show full text]
  • O R E G O N North Pacific Ocean
    412 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 9 31 MAY 2020 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 7—Chapter 9 124° 123° NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage 18520 C O L http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml U M B I A 126° 125° 18521 R Astoria I V E R 46° Seaside Tillamook Head NEHALEM RIVER 18556 Vancouver 18558 TILLAMOOK BAY Portland Cape Lookout Cascade Head 45° SILETZ RIVER YAQUINA RIVER ALSEA RIVER 18581 18561 NORTH PA CIFIC OCEAN OREGON Heceta Head 44° 18583 SIUSLAW RIVER 18584 UMPQUA RIVER 18587 Coos Bay Cape Arago 18588 COQUILLE RIVER 43° 18589 Cape Blanco 18600 18580 Port Orford ROUGE RIVER 18601 CHETCO RIVER 42° 18602 CALIFORNIA 31 MAY 2020 U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 9 ¢ 413 Chetco River to Columbia River, Oregon (1) This chapter describes 200 miles of the Oregon coast rare clear skies; it is more likely in early winter. Winter from the mouth of the Chetco River to the mouth of the and spring winds are moderately strong, particularly south Columbia River. Also described are the Chetco and Rogue of Newport. From North Bend southward, winds reach 17 Rivers, Port Orford, Coquille River, Coos Bay, Umpqua knots or more about 5 to 15 percent of the time and 28 and Siuslaw Rivers, Yaquina Bay and River, Nehalem knots or more about 1 to 3 percent of the time. Extreme River and Tillamook Bay. The cities of Coos Bay and wind speeds usually occur in either winter or early spring North Bend on Coos Bay and Newport on Yaquina Bay and have climbed to around 50 knots.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Appendix
    Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-16-05 Technical Appendix: Socioeconomic Profiles, Economic Impact/Contribution, and Importance- Satisfaction Ratings of Recreating Visitors to the Outer Coast of Washington and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Volume 4, 2014 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service Office of National Marine Sanctuaries April 2016 About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, serves as the trustee for a system of 14 marine protected areas encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters. The 13 national marine sanctuaries and one marine national monument within the National Marine Sanctuary System represent areas of America’s ocean and Great Lakes environment that are of special national significance. Within their waters, giant humpback whales breed and calve their young, coral colonies flourish, and shipwrecks tell stories of our maritime history. Habitats include beautiful coral reefs, lush kelp forests, whale migrations corridors, spectacular deep-sea canyons, and underwater archaeological sites. These special places also provide homes to thousands of unique or endangered species and are important to America’s cultural heritage. Sites range in size from one square mile to almost 140,000 square miles and serve as natural classrooms, cherished recreational spots, and are home to valuable commercial industries. Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these programs is fundamental to marine protected area management.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office
    U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office Preserving Our History For Future Generations Historic Light Station Information OREGON CAPE ARAGO (CAPE GREGORY) LIGHT Location: GREGORY POINT/SW OF COOS BAY ENTRANCE Station Established: 1866 Year Current Tower(s) First Lit: 1934 Operational? YES Automated? YES 1966 Deactivated: n/a Foundation Materials: CONCRETE Construction Materials: REINFORCED CONCRETE Tower Shape: OCTAGONAL ATTACHED TO FOG SIGNAL BD Markings/Pattern: WHITE TOWER, GREEN LANTERN, RED DOME Relationship to Other Structure: ATTACHED Original Lens: FOURTH ORDER, FRESNEL 1866 CAPE BLANCO LIGHT Location: SOUTHERNMOST OREGON COAST Station Established: 1870 Year Current Tower(s) First Lit: 1870 Operational? YES Automated? YES 1980 Deactivated: n/a Foundation Materials: BRICK Construction Materials: BRICK Tower Shape: CONICAL ATTACHED TO WORKROOM Markings/Pattern: WHITE TOWER, GREEN LANTERN, RED DOME Relationship to Other Structure: ATTACHED Original Lens: FIRST ORDER, FRESNEL 1870 CAPE MEARES LIGHT Page 1 of 5 U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office Preserving Our History For Future Generations Location: SOUTHERN ENTRANCE TO TILLAMOOK BAY Station Established: 1890 Year Current Tower(s) First Lit: 1890 Operational? NO Automated? YES 1963 Deactivated: 1963 Foundation Materials: CONCRETE Construction Materials: BRICK SHEATHED IN SHEET IRON Tower Shape: OCTAGONAL ATTACHED TO WORKROOM Markings/Pattern: WHITE W/BLACK TRIM Relationship to Other Structure: ATTACHED Original Lens: FIRST ORDER, FRESNEL 1890 COQUILLE RIVER (BANDON) LIGHT Location: ENTRANCE
    [Show full text]
  • And Others Small Scale Marine Fisheries
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 243 658 SE 044 389 AUTHOR Martinson, Steven; And OtherS TITLE Small Scale Marine Fisheries: An ExtensionTraining Manual. TR-30. INSTITUTION Peace Corps, Washington, DC., Office of Program Development. SPONS AGENCY 'Peace Corps, Washington, DC. InformationCollection and Exchange Div. PUB DATE Apr 83 NOTE 578p.; Prepared by Technos Corp., San Juan, Puerto RiCO. PUB TYPE Guides = Classroom Use - Guides (ForTeachers) (052) EDRS PRICE MF03/PC24 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Developing Nations; *Fisheries; *Learning Activities; Marine Biology; Postsecondary Education; Science Education; *Skill Development; Technology; *Training Methods; *Training Objectiyes IDENTIFIERS *Peace Corps ABSTRACT This manual is designed for use in_a preservice training program 'for prospective volunteers whose PeaceCorps service Will be spent working with small-scale artisanalfighing communities in developing nations. The program consists of8'weeks of intensive training_to develop competencies in marinefisheries technology and fisheries extension work and in the ability to transferknowledge and skills. The manual includes an overview of the program,lists of program goals, information onstarting the program, lists of references and materialt needed,_tips on conductingthe program, and the complete 111 training sessions.Provided for each session-are: (1) session goals; (2) one or more exercisesdirected toward meeting these goals; (3) total time required to complete thesession or exercise; (4) overview statement describing the purposeof the session or exercise; (5) procedures andactivities (sequenced in time steps that describe what trainer andparticipants are required to do at a particular point in theprogram); (6) list of materials and equipment needed; and, when applicable, (7) trainer notes.Although each session builds toward or from the -ones) preceding and following it, individual sessions can be usedindependently with minor modification.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-2018 Fishing in Washington Sport Fishing Rules Pamphlet
    Sport Fishing Rules Pamphlet Corrections and Updates July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 Last updated June 28, 2017. Marine Area Rules Page 98, LANDING A FISH - A club or dipnet (landing net) may be used to assist landing a legal fish taken by legal gear. A gaff may only be used to land a legally hooked LINGCOD (in Marine Areas 1-3 and 4 West of Bonilla-Tatoosh line), HALIBUT, TUNA, or DOGFISH SHARK that will be retained. HALIBUT may be shot or harpooned while landing. Photo By Scott Mayfield General Information Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Dr. Jim Unsworth, Director Ron Warren, Assistant Director, Fish Program Contents General Information General Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission GENERAL RULES & INFORMATION Dr. Bradley Smith, Chair, Bellingham Jay Kehne, Omak Contact Information ..................................2 Larry Carpenter, Vice Chair, Mount Vernon Miranda Wecker, Naselle Update From WDFW ................................3 Barbara Baker, Olympia Kim Thorburn, Spokane Statewide General Rules .........................4 Jay Holzmiller, Anatone David Graybill, Leavenworth Salmon and Trout Handling Rules ............5 Rules Robert “Bob” Kehoe, Seattle License Information ...............................6-7 Catch Record Cards .................................8 Freshwater Catch Record Card Codes .......................9 How to Use This Pamphlet Definitions ..........................................10-11 FRESHWATER GENERAL RULES This pamphlet is effective July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 Statewide Freshwater Rules..............13-15 and contains information you need to legally fish throughout RIVERS .............................................17-73 Washington State (see WAC summary information below). Special Rules Introduction ..................17 Puget Sound Puget Puget Sound and Coast Rivers - Rivers & Coast 1 Read the General Information Pages. Special Rules ...................................18-46 Read the Licensing and Catch Record Card information.
    [Show full text]
  • Erosion and Flood Hazard Map of the Moolack Beach Area, Coastal
    STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES Suite 965, 800 NE Oregon St., #28 Portland, Oregon 97232 OPEN-FILE REPORT 0-97-1 1 COASTAL SHORELINE CHANGE STUDY NORTHERN AND CENTRAL LINCOLN COUNTY, OREGON Prepared by George R. Priest Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries November 1997 NQTICE The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries is publishing this paper because the information furthers the mission of the Department. To facilitate timely distribution of the information this report has not been edited to our usual standards. CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................2 3 . ANALYTICAL METHOD ..............................................................................................................................5 3.1 IvfM'PING THE EROSIONREFERENCE FEATURE ............................................................................................5 3.2 WINGTHE 60-YEARPOSITION OF THE ERF............................................................................................ 6 3.2.1 Shorelines Without Shoreline Protection Structures (SPS)................................................................ 6 3.2.2 Shorelines With SPS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SPECIAL PUBLICATION 6 the Effects of Marine Debris Caused by the Great Japan Tsunami of 2011
    PICES SPECIAL PUBLICATION 6 The Effects of Marine Debris Caused by the Great Japan Tsunami of 2011 Editors: Cathryn Clarke Murray, Thomas W. Therriault, Hideaki Maki, and Nancy Wallace Authors: Stephen Ambagis, Rebecca Barnard, Alexander Bychkov, Deborah A. Carlton, James T. Carlton, Miguel Castrence, Andrew Chang, John W. Chapman, Anne Chung, Kristine Davidson, Ruth DiMaria, Jonathan B. Geller, Reva Gillman, Jan Hafner, Gayle I. Hansen, Takeaki Hanyuda, Stacey Havard, Hirofumi Hinata, Vanessa Hodes, Atsuhiko Isobe, Shin’ichiro Kako, Masafumi Kamachi, Tomoya Kataoka, Hisatsugu Kato, Hiroshi Kawai, Erica Keppel, Kristen Larson, Lauran Liggan, Sandra Lindstrom, Sherry Lippiatt, Katrina Lohan, Amy MacFadyen, Hideaki Maki, Michelle Marraffini, Nikolai Maximenko, Megan I. McCuller, Amber Meadows, Jessica A. Miller, Kirsten Moy, Cathryn Clarke Murray, Brian Neilson, Jocelyn C. Nelson, Katherine Newcomer, Michio Otani, Gregory M. Ruiz, Danielle Scriven, Brian P. Steves, Thomas W. Therriault, Brianna Tracy, Nancy C. Treneman, Nancy Wallace, and Taichi Yonezawa. Technical Editor: Rosalie Rutka Please cite this publication as: The views expressed in this volume are those of the participating scientists. Contributions were edited for Clarke Murray, C., Therriault, T.W., Maki, H., and Wallace, N. brevity, relevance, language, and style and any errors that [Eds.] 2019. The Effects of Marine Debris Caused by the were introduced were done so inadvertently. Great Japan Tsunami of 2011, PICES Special Publication 6, 278 pp. Published by: Project Designer: North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) Lori Waters, Waters Biomedical Communications c/o Institute of Ocean Sciences Victoria, BC, Canada P.O. Box 6000, Sidney, BC, Canada V8L 4B2 Feedback: www.pices.int Comments on this volume are welcome and can be sent This publication is based on a report submitted to the via email to: [email protected] Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, in June 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Classification 4. Owner Off Property
    NPS Form 10-900 (3-82) 0MB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received nrr I Inventory—Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name historic New Cliff House Number of contributing resources: 1 and or common Hotel Gilmore Number of non-contributing resources: 0 2. Location street & number 267 Cliff Street N/A—not for publication city, town Newport vicinity of First Congressional District state Oregon code 41 county Lincoln code 041 3. Classification Category Ownership status (Caretaker) Present Use district public X occupied agriculture museum X building(s) X private unoccupied X commercial park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible __ entertainment __ religious object N/A in process _X _ yes: restricted government scientific |\j//\ being considered "noyes: unrestricted industrial transportation military other! 4. Owner off Property name Gudrun M. Cable; Sally M. Ford street & number city, town Rosebura Jl/Avicinity of state Oregon 97470 5. Location off Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Lincoln County Courthouse street & number 225 West Olive city, town Npwnnrt. State 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Statewide Inventory of Historic title Properties_____________ has this property been determined eligible? yes _X_no date 1986 federal JL. state county local depository for survey records state Historic Prpsprvatinn flffir^ 525 Trade Street SE city.town_______________Salem_______________________ state nrpgnn 07310 7, Description Condition Check one Check one excellent deteriorated unaltered _X_ original site good —— ruins _x_ altered moved date N/A A fair unexposed Describe the present and original (iff known) physical appearance The New Cliff House (Gilmore Hotel) was completed in 1913 for W.
    [Show full text]
  • 5-Review-Fish-Habita
    United Nations UNEP/GEF South China Sea Global Environment Environment Programme Project Facility UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.8/5 Date: 12th October 2006 Original: English Eighth Meeting of the Regional Working Group for the Fisheries Component of the UNEP/GEF Project: “Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand” Bangka Belitung Province, Indonesia 1st - 4th November 2006 INFORMATION COLLATED BY THE FISHERIES AND HABITAT COMPONENTS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA PROJECT ON SITES IMPORTANT TO THE LIFE- CYCLES OF SIGNIFICANT FISH SPECIES UNEP/GEF/SCS/RWG-F.8/5 Page 1 IDENTIFICATION OF FISHERIES REFUGIA IN THE GULF OF THAILAND It was discussed at the Sixth Meeting of the Regional Scientific and Technical Committee (RSTC) in December 2006 that the Regional Working Group on Fisheries should take the following two-track approach to the identification of fisheries refugia: 1. Review known spawning areas for pelagic and invertebrate species, with the aim of evaluating these sites as candidate spawning refugia. 2. Evaluate each of the project’s habitat demonstration sites as potential juvenile/pre-recruit refugia for significant demersal species. Rationale for the Two-Track Approach to the Identification of Fisheries Refugia The two main life history events for fished species are reproduction and recruitment. It was noted by the RSTC that both of these events involve movement between areas, and some species, often pelagic fishes, migrate to particular spawning areas. It was also noted that many species also utilise specific coastal habitats such as coral reefs, seagrass, and mangroves as nursery areas. In terms of the effects of fishing, most populations of fished species are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of high levels of fishing effort in areas and at times where there are high abundances of (a) stock in spawning condition, (b) juveniles and pre-recruits, or (c) pre-recruits migrating to fishing grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodlot Recreation
    Woodlot Management Home Study Course Module 9 Woodlot Recreation Preface Many woodlot owners enjoy outdoor recreation activities like hiking or snowmobiling on their property but are not purposefully managing for those activities. Others may tend to separate recreation and timber management even though they do recreational activities in 'areas managed for their timber values. Outdoor recreation can be improved by planning for it and can also be managed for along with the other uses of your land. This module will help you develop an outdoor recreation plan in keeping with your interests and woodlot potential. It contains basic, practical information if you use your woodlot for family recreation or if you allow occasional public use. If you expect a lot of use by groups or plan on starting an outdoor recreation business on your woodlot, you should refer to a companion study called the Woodlot Recreation Manual (1995). This manual by Glyn Bissex, a professor at Acadia University in the School of Recreation and Physical Education, provides more in-depth information on planning and marketing. This module is the ninth in a series of Woodlot Management Home Study Courses. Other modules in the series are # I Introduction to Silviculture, #2 Harvesting Systems, #3 Stand Spacing, #4 Wildlife and Forestry, #5 Stand Establishment, #6. Chain Saw Use and Safety, #7 Woodlot Ecology and #8 Wood Utilization and Technology. They are available free from the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Extension Services Division in Halifax, 424-5444; or Education and Publication Services in Truro, 893-5642. The Woodlot Recreation Manual by Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation
    1 NPS Form 10-900-b 0MB Wo. 1024-0018 (Jan. 1987) United States Department of the Interior ff-< National Park Service i.* - National Register of Historic Places 10 Multiple Property Documentation Form NATIONAL This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing__________________________________________ ) ____Lighthouse Stations of Oregon_______________________________ B. Associated Historic Contexts____________________________________________ ____Maritime Transportation, ca. 1857-1939__________________________ C. Geographical Data_____ The coast of Oregon LJ-See continuation sheet D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36QF& Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and Evaluation. / / ^ ____________________ August 21, 1992 Signature of certifying official Date Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer State or Federal agency and bureau &L I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register. /lN-6ignature of the Keeper of the National Register Date E. Statement of Historic Contexts Discuss each historic context listed in Section B.
    [Show full text]