DOCSLIB.ORG

Door County Solid Piers Generic EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Door County Solid Piers Generic EA 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) Form 1600-1 Rev. 3-87 CONTACT PERSON: Tere Duperrault TITLE: Water Management Specialist ADDRESS: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 110 South Neenah Avenue Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235 PHONE NUMBER: (920) 746-2873 Department of Natural Resources District or Bureau :NER List Designation: Type III 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 7 Definition of a Solid Permanent Structure .......................................................... 8 The Public Trust Doctrine and Riparian Rights .................................................. 8 Public Trust Doctrine.................................................................................... 8 Riparian Rights: Relevant Court Cases...................................................... 10 Statutory History......................................................................................... 11 Authorities and Approval .................................................................................. 13 Applicant Information and Site Descriptions................................................ 13 Estimated Costs and Funding ..................................................................... 18 Past Public Involvement and Public Comments .......................................... 18 PURPOSE OF STUDY.......................................................................................... 20 Study Area and Description of the Bay of Green Bay ...................................... 20 Existing Physical Conditions........................................................................ 20 The Littoral Zone and Biological Characteristics ......................................... 25 Social and Economic Characteristics ............................................................... 26 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF SOLID PIER STRUCTURES. .. .................... 27 Physical Impacts ........................................................................................ 27 Hydro geological Impacts of Blasting to the Littoral Zone............................ 27 Physical Impacts of Solid Piers to the Aquatic Environment and Littoral Zone28 Limitations of a Literature Review .......................................................... 29 Effect of Solid Piers on the Longshore Current and Littoral Transport ... 30 Significance of Blocking Longshore Currents and Littoral Drift............... 33 Wave Reflection from Solid Piers........................................................... 37 Changes to Lakebed Depths.................................................................. 38 Summary of Physical Impacts of Solid Piers to the Aquatic and Littoral Environments 39 SCUBA Dive Observations on Existing Structures and Proposed Sites 39 Physical........................................................................................... 39 Chemical .......................................................................................... 40 Biological.......................................................................................... 41 Terrestrial Manipulation/Impacts ....................................................................... 41 Biological Impacts ............................................................................................. 46 General Fisheries........................................................................................ 46 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF SOLID PIER STRUCTURES CONT ........................ 3 Smallmouth Bass ................................................................................... 49 Summary of Aquatic Biological Impacts ...................................................... 50 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 50 Wildlife............................................................................................................. 50 Waterfowl .................................................................................................... 51 Colonial Waterbirds..................................................................................... 51 Shorebirds................................................................................................... 51 Mammals..................................................................................................... 51 Herptiles ...................................................................................................... 51 Mollusks ...................................................................................................... 51 Summary of Wildlife Impacts....................................................................... 52 Cultural............................................................................................................ 52 Economic .................................................................................................... 52 Social .......................................................................................................... 53 Safety.......................................................................................................... 53 Archeological/Historical ............................................................................... 54 Natural Scenic Beauty General ................................................................... 55 Computer Imaging................................................................................. 56 Literature Review Regarding Perception of Natural Scenic Beauty....... 56 Potential Impacts on Natural Scenic Beauty ......................................... 57 Site Simulations of Potential Impacts on Natural Scenic Beauty........... 58 Methods ........................................................................................... 58 General ........................................................................................ 58 Image Specific Methods for Sites................................................. 59 Results and Discussion .................................................................... 60 Simulation Images....................................................................... 60 General Visual Effects........................................................................... 61 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................... 62 Department Alternatives.................................................................................. 63 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.. Comments....................................................................................................... 63 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................... 68 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 69 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of study area. ............................................................................... 21 Figure 2. Map of watersheds draining to the Bay of Green Bay (From Bertrand, Lang and Ross 1976).......................................................................................... 22 Figure 3. Generalized map of currents in Green Bay (From Bertrand, Lang and Ross 1976).................................................................................. 24 Figure 4. Some possible physical environmental effects of solid piers (Keillor 1997) .............................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 5. Photos of Michigan Island - Buildup of sand on the East side of the dock , 9-5-90 ................................................................................. 32 Figure 6. Drawing depicting change in erosion pattern both on and offshore from a structure .............................................................................................. 33 Figure 7. Photo depicting changes in shoreline (deposition/starvation of beach) Caused by dock near Dyckesville, WI. North of Bay Shore County Park taken 6-5-96 ......................................................................................... 36 Figure 8. Drawing from Braun (1995) showing changes in lakebed depths ........ 38 Figure 9. The development of downdrift erosion downdrift of a groin.................. 34 Figure 10. Underwater Photos of O’Brien Solid Pier ............................................. 42 Figure 11, 12 and 13. Underwater Photos of Standish Solid Pier ....................... 43 Figure 14. Underwater Photos of Lama Wama Solid Pier Sturcture .................... 44 Figure 15. Water Chemistry Data at Dive Sites. .................................................. 45 5 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Copies of 12 applications................................................................... APPENDIX B Minutes of May 5, 1997 public meeting.............................................. APPENDIX C Computer imaging for aesthetics report............................................. APPENDIX D Coast Guard letter, June 27, 1997.................................................... APPENDIX E State Historical Society letter, August 21, 1997 ................................ APPENDIX F List of Solid Structure Environmental Assessment committee
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase I Avian Risk Assessment
    PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy October 2007 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] [email protected] Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy is proposing a utility-scale wind-power project of moderate size for the Garden Peninsula on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in Delta County. This peninsula separates northern Lake Michigan from Big Bay de Noc. The number of wind turbines is as yet undetermined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be constructed on private lands (i.e., not in the Lake Superior State Forest) in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are may be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Remnant Lake Sturgeon Populations in the Green Bay Basin
    Assessment of Remnant Lake Sturgeon Populations in the Green Bay Basin, 2002-2003 Report to the Great Lakes Fishery Trust Project Number 2001.113 Principal Investigators: Robert Elliott and Brian Gunderman 920-866-1762 (voice) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 920-866-1710 (fax) 2661 Scott Tower Drive [email protected] (email) New Franken, WI 54229 [email protected] (email) Rod Lange and Terry Lychwick (retired) 920-448-5127 (voice) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 920-448-5129 (fax) P.O. Box 10448 [email protected] (email) Green Bay, WI 54307-0448 [email protected] (email) Tom Meronek and Greg Kornely 715-582-5052 (voice) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 715-582-5005 (fax) P.O. Box 208 [email protected] (email) Peshtigo, WI 54157 [email protected] (email) Report prepared by Brian Gunderman and Robert Elliott 2004 Abstract Habitat loss and overharvest during the late 1800s dramatically reduced lake sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan. There is currently widespread interest in rehabilitating sturgeon populations, but information regarding the abundance, distribution, and population dynamics of remaining populations is required for restoration efforts to be successful. The objectives of this study were to (1) estimate the abundance of adult lake sturgeon during the spawning run in four Green Bay tributaries, (2) describe and quantify reproductive success in these rivers, (3) describe spawner habitat availability and use in these systems, (4) determine the distribution and contribution of discrete spawning stocks to the mixed population of sturgeon inhabiting Green Bay, and (5) estimate the overall population size of lake sturgeon residing in Green Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Sturgeon Bay Smart Growth Plan
    Town of STurgeon Bay ComprehenSive plan 2030 prepared by Town of Sturgeon Bay Comprehensive planning Commission phyllis utley – Chair paul Skup Carol Schuster Barb Schmelzer Steve wilkie adopted by Town of Sturgeon Bay Board of Supervisors Dan Cihlar – Chair harry porter paul Skup nancy anschutz – Town Clerk lynn gustafson – Treasurer with thanks to eileen andera • Deb Skup pat Judy • lynda larsen university of wisconsin Cooperative extension Service greg lamb • rob Burke Door County planning Department Becky Kerwin • mariah goode and in memory of Dwayne partain • Blanche partain – 2 – inTroDuCTion Town of STurgeon Bay SmarT growTh plan in 1999 the State of wisconsin mandated that all units of government develop and adopt a 20 year comprehensive plan by the year 2010 if they wish to have a say in local land use decisions. The Town of Sturgeon Bay felt that it was important to be proactive in setting ground rules for development so as to insure that the future of the town reflect the wishes of its residents. in 2000 a volunteer committee was established to develop such a plan. Because input from citizens is so important in developing a comprehensive plan, a community survey was sent to every registered voter and/or land owner in the town. The survey asked about citizen concerns and preferences for all areas involved with the future of the town. areas covered included housing, transportation, agriculture, environment and culture, economic considerations, and land use. forty six percent of those who received the questionnaire responded. The results of the survey showed that 74% of the respondents felt that the town should establish planning guidelines for future development.
    [Show full text]
  • CORA Code – Great Lakes Fishing Regulations
    CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN Adopted August 31, 2000 Effective September 7, 2000 Revised March 4, 2019 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN CONTENTS PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS PART FIVE: NON-COMMERCIAL FISHING I. Purpose……………………………………1 XVII. Recreational Fishing……………………….…28 II. Scope and Application……………………1 XVIII. Tribal Charter Boat Operations………………28 III. Definitions……………………………...1-4 XIX. Subsistence Fishing……………………….28-30 PART TWO: ZONES PART SIX: LICENSES AND INFORMATION IV. Commercial Fishing Zones………………4 XX. License and Registration Definitions and Regulations…………………………………...30 V. Tribal Zones………………………........4-8 XXI. License Regulations……………………....31-32 VI. Intertribal Zones………………………8-10 XXII. Harvest Reporting and Sampling………....32-34 VII. Trap Net Zones…………………........10-12 XXIII. Assessment Fishing……………………… 34-35 VIII. Closed or Limited Fishing Zones……12-14 PART THREE: GEAR PART SEVEN: REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT IX. Gear Restrictions……….…………......14-17 XXIV. Tribal Regulations……………………………35 X. State-Funded Trap Net Conversion Operations……………………………17-18 XXV. Orders of the Director…………………..........35 XXVI. Jurisdiction and Enforcement…………….35-37 PART FOUR: SPECIES XXVII. Criminal Provisions………………………….37 XI. Lake Trout…………………………...18-19 XII. Salmon……………………………….19-21 PART EIGHT: ACCESS XIII. Walleye…………………………….…21-23 XXVIII. Use of Access Sites……………………..37-38 XIV. Yellow Perch………………………...23-26 XV. Other Species………………………...26-27 XVI. Prohibited Species……………………… 27 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS SECTION I.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8, Transportation
    Door County Comprehensive and Farmland Preservation Plan 2035: Volume II, Resource Report CHAPTER 8: TRANSPORTATION 174 | Chapter 8: Transportation Door County Comprehensive and Farmland Preservation Plan 2035: Volume II, Resource Report INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overview of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) and Door County Highway Department, followed by an inventory of the existing transportation network within Door County, including: the roadway system; air, water, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation; and transportation service providers. This chapter also provides an inventory of transportation planning done for the county, including regional railroad, county highway, airport, bicycle and pedestrian planning, and publicly-subsidized transportation. STATE AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The WisDOT, officially established in 1967, works with federal, state, and local agencies to meet changing and growing travel needs in Wisconsin. The WisDOT is responsible for planning, building, and maintaining Wisconsin's network of state highways and the interstate highway system. The department also plans and promotes air, rail, water, and bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The department shares in the costs of building and operating all modes of transportation at the county and municipal levels. The primary funding source for maintaining, rehabilitating, and reconstructing county highways and local roads is the state’s disbursement of general transportation aids. This is the largest WisDOT funding program, providing payments to counties for costs associated with such activities as road reconstruction, filling potholes, snow removal, and marking pavement. All local governments are required to file a certified plat with WisDOT each year indicating any increase or decrease in the mileage of public roads or streets.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinants of Ethnic Retention As See Through Walloon Immigrants to Wisconsin by Jacqueline Lee Tinkler
    Determinants of Ethnic Retention As See Through Walloon Immigrants to Wisconsin By Jacqueline Lee Tinkler Presented to the Faculty of Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In History THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON May 2019 Copyright © by JACQUELINE LEE TINKLER All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to express my gratitude to Kenyon Zimmer who firs supported this research idea as head of my Thesis Committee. When I decided to continue my research into the Walloon immigrants and develop the topic into a Dissertation project, he again agreed to head the committee. His stimulating questions challenged me to dig deeper and also to broaden the context. I also want to thank David Narrett and Steven Reinhardt for reading the ongoing work and offering suggestions. I am also deeply indebted to the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Arlington for the financial support which enabled me to make research trips to Wisconsin. Debora Anderson archivist at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay, and her staff were an invaluable help in locating material. Janice Zmrazek, at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction in Madison, was a great help in locating records there. And I want to give special thanks to Mary Jane Herber, archivist at the Brown County Library in Green Bay, who was a great help in my work. I made several research trips to Wisconsin and I was privileged to be able to work among the Walloons living in the settlement area.
    [Show full text]
  • Dredging in Door County EA
    ~:NV .L RON~J J>N'l'AL ANALYS I S ON DREDGI NG lN f>OOK COUNTY 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EJS) Den~ltlllenl ol Natural Rosourcos (DNA) Fom>\600·1 Rev. 6·2001 Region or Bureau Northeast Type list Designation NOTE TO REVIEWERS: This document is a DNA envlrO<lmental Contact Psts<;Hl! analysis that evaluates probabfo Gnvironmental effects and deci<fes on the need for an EIS. The at.tach.cd analysis includes a descrlptlon ol llle Carrie Webb proposal and the affected environment. Tho DNA has roViewed Lhe attaohmenl$ ond, upon Certification, accepts rosponsiblUty for their scope and contsnt to fulfill requirements Ins. NR 150.22, Wis. Adm. Code. Tille: Water Management Specialist A<.'dress: 2984 Shawano Ave. Green Bay, WI 54313 Number: 920·662·5453 DREDGING IN DOOR COUNTY Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Purpose of the Environmental Analysis Authorities and Approvals Study Design Proposed Physical Changes Affected Environment Physical Environment Biological Environment Cultural Environment Environmental Consequences Physical Biological Cultural Summary of Adverse Impacts That Can Not Be Avoided DNA Evaluation of Project Significance Alternatives References Comments from the Public List of Figures & Tables Figure 1 - Map of study area and substrate type ~:tWTRONl1llNT11L 1\Nl\LYS!S ON ORF.flGINC IN DOOR (;QUN'l'Y 2 Figure 2- Aerial photo of 4 application proposals Figures 3 & 4 - Aerial photos of dredged channels Figure 5- Aerial photo of plume from dredging Table 1 -Summary of study results Appendices A - Application Plans B - List of Threatened and Endangered species C1 - Dredging study C2 - Dredging study attachments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1999 and 2000 there was a dramatic increase in dredging applications on Green Bay and lake Michigan In Door County due to low water levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment
    Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fox River/Green Bay Natural Resource Trustees February 2013 Prepared by: Stratus Consulting The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a mission to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. http://www.fws.gov/ The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is dedicated to the preservation, protection, effective management, and maintenance of Wisconsin’s natural resources. It is the one agency charged with full responsibility for coordinating the many disciplines and programs necessary to provide a clean environment and a full range of outdoor recreational opportunities for Wisconsin citizens and visitors. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ The Oneida Indian Tribe’s Environmental Health and Safety Division protects and improves the health of the human and natural environment consistent with the Oneida Tribe’s culture and vision. They provide the highest level of environmental, health, and safety excellence to the Oneida Tribe. https://oneida-nsn.gov/ The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s Environmental Services Department aims to serve the Menominee Nation by defending the environmental integrity of the land, air, and water base which makes up the cultural and earth resources of the Menominee People. The protection of these resources will help to assure they are sustained for future generations of Menominee. http://www.menominee-nsn.gov/ Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fox River/Green Bay Natural Resource Trustees February 2013 Prepared by: Stratus Consulting i Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Walleye Management Strategy for Little Bay De Noc, Lake Michigan
    Walleye management strategy for Little Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan Michigan DNR Fisheries Division Marquette Fisheries Research Station and Northern Lake Michigan Management Unit July 2012 Summary The purpose of this document it to provide a brief overview of: 1) the historical background of walleye stocks and fisheries in the Michigan waters of Green Bay; 2) recent changes in habitat conditions pertinent to walleye management; and 3) the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) current understanding of reproduction of Green Bay walleye stocks. This information provides the basis for the walleye management objectives for northern Green Bay and Little Bay de Noc (LBDN), and development of decision criteria specific to walleye management in LBDN. This approach can provide a template for walleye management decision-making in other areas of northern Green Bay, such as Big Bay de Noc (BBDN). Background on walleye stocks in the Michigan waters of Green Bay Walleye have provided commercial and sport fisheries in the Michigan waters of Green Bay for many years. Historical commercial harvest of walleyes for Lake Michigan came almost exclusively from northern Green Bay (Michigan Water Resources Commission 1963). For Michigan waters of Green Bay, walleye yields appeared to be highest in LBDN, followed by BBDN, and then the southern ports of Cedar River, Ingallston, and Menominee. The exact location of where walleyes were taken from cannot be pin-pointed from this information since commercial fishing licenses at this time stipulated that fish landed at ports could be taken from waters within 50 miles of the port. Nevertheless, available information suggests that walleye abundance was higher in LBDN than BBDN.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NFS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (January 1992) Wisconsin Word Processing Format (Approved 1/92) United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions inffow to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NFS Form 10-900A). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Falque, Joachine J., House other names/site number N/A 2. Location street & number 1059 County Trunk Highway C N/A not for publication city or town Town of Brussels N/A vicinity state Wisconsin ____code WI county Door code 029 zip code 54204 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that thisX nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant, nationally statewide X locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Performance Report
    STUDY PERFORMANCE REPORT State: Michigan Project No.: F-81-R-2 Study No.: 494 Title: Continued monitoring of yellow perch and walleye populations in Michigan waters of Green Bay, Lake Michigan Period Covered: October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001 Study Objectives: (1) Continue monitoring population dynamics of yellow perch and walleye populations through creel surveys, netting, and tagging. (2) Intensify efforts to sample age-0 walleye using trawls and seines. (3) Obtain walleye diet information throughout the year from different areas in the Michigan waters of Green Bay. (4) Align yellow perch tagging and early- life history sampling efforts with lakewide programs. Summary: Fish communities in Michigan waters of Green Bay (Big and Little bays de Noc, and open waters south to the Menominee River) were assessed through creel surveys, assessment netting, and a tagging program. Creel surveys have been conducted annually 1985-2001, whereas assessment netting and tagging have been done annually, 1988-2001. Sampling during 2001 was completed according to schedule, and data from these surveys and assessments will be presented in future reports. Creel surveys were conducted during 2000 at Little Bay de Noc, Big Bay de Noc, Cedar River, and Menominee River sites. All sites were surveyed during the open-water season, but only Little Bay de Noc and Menominee River were surveyed during the ice season. Combining estimates from all sites and seasons, sport anglers harvested 143,671 yellow perch and 33,884 walleyes during 2000. Assessment netting in 2000 captured 1,609 fish representing 23 species. Fish were identified and counted, and 22% were measured and examined to determine sex, maturity, and stomach contents.
    [Show full text]
  • Potawatomi Tower NR Final.Docx
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 Wisconsin Word Processing Format (Approved 1/92) United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900A). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Potawatomi State Park Observation Tower other names/site number N/A 2. Location street & number 3740 County PD N/A not for publication city or town Town of Nasewaupee N/A vicinity state Wisconsin code WI county Door code 029 zip code 54235 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant nationally statewide X locally.
    [Show full text]