DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper East River Watershed Plan Was Provided by an EPA- 319 Grant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper East River Watershed Plan Was Provided by an EPA- 319 Grant Nonpoint Source Implementation Plan for the Upper East River Watershed Prepared by: Outagamie County Land Conservation and Brown County Land & Water Conservation Departments March 2016 (This page intentionally left blank) Nonpoint Source Implementation Plan for Upper East River Watershed Prepared By: Outagamie County Land Conservation Department 3365 W. Brewster St. Appleton, WI 54914 & Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department 1150 Bellevue St. Green Bay, WI 54302 Final: March 2016 (This page intentionally left blank) Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Upper East River Watershed Setting .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 US EPA Watershed Plan Requirements ............................................................................... 3 1.4 Prior Studies, Projects, and Existing Resource Management and Comprehensive Plans .... 4 1.5 Wisconsin Ecoregion ............................................................................................................ 6 1.7 Climate .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.6 Topology and geology .......................................................................................................... 8 1.8 Soil Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 10 2.0 Watershed Jurisdictions, Demographics, and Transportation Network.................................. 13 2.1 Watershed Jurisdictions ...................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Jurisdictional Roles and Responsibilities............................................................................ 15 2.3 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 16 2.4 Population Demographics ................................................................................................... 17 3.0 Land Use/Land Cover ............................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Existing Land Use/Land Cover ........................................................................................... 19 3.2 Crop Rotation ...................................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Natural Areas & Recreational Areas ................................................................................... 23 4.0 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Designated Use and Impairments ....................................................................................... 25 4.2 Point Sources ...................................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Nonpoint Sources ................................................................................................................ 27 4.4 Water Quality Monitoring................................................................................................... 28 5.0 Pollutant Loading Model ........................................................................................................ 35 i 6.0 Watershed Inventory ............................................................................................................... 39 6.1 Barnyard Inventory Results ................................................................................................ 39 6.2 Streambank Inventory Results ............................................................................................ 41 6.3 Upland Inventory ................................................................................................................ 50 7.0 Watershed Goals and Management Objectives ...................................................................... 71 8.0 Management Measures Implementation ................................................................................. 73 9.0 Load Reductions ..................................................................................................................... 79 10.0 Information and Education ................................................................................................... 83 10.1 Alliance for the Great Lakes Survey ................................................................................. 83 10.2 Recommended Information and Education Campaigns ................................................... 86 11.0 Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 95 12.0 Funding Sources.................................................................................................................... 99 12.1 Federal and State Funding Sources ................................................................................... 99 12.2 Adaptive Management and Water Quality Trading ........................................................ 100 12.3 Phosphorus Multi- Discharger Variance (Wisconsin Act 378) ...................................... 101 13.0 Measuring Plan Progress and Success ................................................................................ 103 13.1 Water Quality Monitoring............................................................................................... 103 13.2 Tracking of Progress and Success of Plan ...................................................................... 109 13.3 Progress Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 111 14.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 115 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Upper East River Watershed. .......................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. East River emptying into Fox River in City of Green Bay. Photo Credit: Steve Ryan (Ryan Photography) ........................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 3. Map of Ecoregions of Wisconsin. Source: Omerik, et al 2000. ...................................... 6 Figure 4. Climate data for Wisconsin. Source: NOAA National Weather Service Forecast Office Milwaukee/Sullivan 2010 & 2010b. ............................................................................................... 7 Figure 5. Ice Age Geology of Wisconsin. ©Mountain Press, 2004................................................ 8 Figure 6. Digital Elevation Model. ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7. Soil Hydrologic Groups. ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 8. Soil Erodibility. ............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 9. Watershed Jurisdictions ................................................................................................. 14 Figure 10. Transportation.............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11. NLCD 2011 Land Use. ................................................................................................ 20 Figure 12. Crop rotations based on years 2009-2013. .................................................................. 22 Figure 13. Impaired stream segments. .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 14. East River from Hwy 54/57 Bridge in Green Bay, WI July 2012. Credits: Google ... 28 Figure 15. Current and past USGS East River Monitoring Sites. ................................................. 29 Figure 16. Monthly statistics from WY 2004-2007 at USGS Station at Monroe St., Green Bay, WI (USGS 040851378)................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 17. Suspended Sediment and Phosphorus Concentrations from 2012-2015 at USGS Station at Cty Hwy ZZ near Greanleaf, WI (USGS 04085108). .................................................. 31 Figure 18. Median summer (May-October) Total Phosphorus and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wisconsin Topic Ideas for National History Day Research
    Wisconsin Topic Ideas for National History Day Research General Topic Ideas for Students Interested in Exploring the History of Our State National History Day in Wisconsin Updated: Summer 2010 1 A Warning for All Researchers! What follows is a very GENERAL list of topic ideas for you to consider. This list is by no means complete or exhaustive of Wisconsin history. There are many, many more fantastic topics to consider! These topics are NOT THEME SPECIFIC. You will need to take a closer look at each potential topic and consider how it fits with the annual theme for NHD. This is a general list. All the topics listed in this book WILL NOT fit the annual theme. Selecting a topic from this list does not guarantee a WINNING PROJECT. Selecting a topic is just the first step. You will need to follow through with good research, a strong argument, and a clear presentation. Selecting a topic from this list isn’t the final step. Many of these topics need to be further NARROWED in order for them to be a suitable National History Day project. Why Choose a Wisconsin Topic? The National History Day program doesn’t have any requirements or give you any advantage in choosing a Wisconsin topic. Wisconsin history, however, is full of great ideas for your History Day project. It is easy to overlook the history right around us, but your National History Day project can help you to find these amazing local stories that helped shape your history! Armed with local resources and strong research, you can become an authority on your topic and your project could be more competitive than a topic that many other students across the state or nation could choose.
    [Show full text]
  • A Current Listing of Contents
    WOMEN'S SruDIES LIBRARIAN The University ofWisconsin System EMINIST ERIODICALS A CURRENT LISTING OF CONTENTS VOLUME 17, NUMBER 4 WINTER 1998 Published by Phyllis Holman Weisbard Women's Studies Librarian University of Wisconsin System 430 Memorial Library / 728 State Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706 (608) 263-5754 EMINIST ERIODICALS A CURRENT LISTING OF CONTENTS Volume 17, Number 4 Winter 1998 Periodical literature is the cutting edge ofwomen's scholarship, feminist theory, and much ofwomen's culture. Feminist Periodicals: A Current Listing ofContents is published by the Office of the University of Wisconsin System Women's Studies Librarian on a quarterly basis with the intent of increasing public awareness of feminist periodicals. It is our hope that Feminisf Periodicals will serve several purposes: to keep the reader abreast of current topics in feminist literature; to increase readers' familiarity with a wide spectrum of feminist periodicals; and to provide the requisite bibliographic information should a reader wish to subscribe to a journal or to obtain a particular article at her library or through interlibrary loan. (Users will need to be aware of the limitations of the new copyright law with regard to photocopying of copyrighted materials.) Table ofcontents pages from currentissues ofmajorfeministjournalsare reproduced in each issue ofFeminist Periodicals, preceded by a comprehensive annotated listing of all journals we have selected. As publication schedules vary enormously, not every periodical will have table of contents pages reproduced in each issue of FP. The annotated listing provides the following information on each journal: 1. Year of first publication. 2. Frequency of publication. 3. U.S. SUbscription price(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Wisconsin – Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary
    Proposed Wisconsin – Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan DECEMBER 2016 | sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management National Ocean Service W. Russell Callender, Ph.D. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries John Armor, Director Matt Brookhart, Acting Deputy Director Cover Photos: Top: The schooner Walter B. Allen. Credit: Tamara Thomsen, Wisconsin Historical Society. Bottom: Photomosaic of the schooner Walter B. Allen. Credit: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution - Advanced Imaging and Visualization Laboratory. 1 Abstract In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434 et seq.), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that considers alternatives for the proposed designation of Wisconsin - Lake Michigan as a National Marine Sanctuary. The proposed action addresses NOAA’s responsibilities under the NMSA to identify, designate, and protect areas of the marine and Great Lakes environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries. ONMS has developed five alternatives for the designation, and the DEIS evaluates the environmental consequences of each under NEPA. The DEIS also serves as a resource assessment under the NMSA, documenting present and potential uses of the areas considered in the alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Office of the Chancellor Chapman Hall 202 2310 E
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL January 15, 2021 Chancellor Mark Mone University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Office of the Chancellor Chapman Hall 202 2310 E. Hartford Ave Milwaukee, WI 53201 Via Electronic Mail Re: Preliminary Inquiry Regarding Possible Violations of 20 U.S.C. § 1011f Dear Chancellor Mone: Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 1011f, requires the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (“UWM”) to disclose gifts, contracts, and/or restricted and conditional gifts or contracts from or with foreign sources to the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”). These reports are posted at https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data- center/school/foreign-gifts. UWM is classified as a “Carnegie Research-1” or “R-1” institution and ranked 192nd in the nation by total R&D expenditure according to data reported by the National Science Foundation. The NSF reported UWM’s 2017 R&D expenditures at $54,000,000. Carnegie R-1 institutions conduct the bulk of U.S. academic research and are collectively entrusted with billions in taxpayer funds each year. They also tend to collaborate closely with foreign sources, accounting for over eighty-five percent of all funds reported to the Department. UMW’s self-described collaboration with foreign sources includes partnership agreements with over 200 institutions worldwide and information and support online for the development of international agreements. However, UWM has apparently never filed a Section 117 report. By comparison, Auburn University-Montgomery, ranked by NSF 788th in total R&D expenditures at $430,000, reported twenty-four foreign contracts in the period from 2013 to 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • UW–Madison's 30 Billion Dollar Impact on the Wisconsin Economy
    ECONOMIC IMPACT + INNOVATION $20 BILLION + $10 BILLION The University of Wisconsin–Madison’s $30 Billion Impact on the Wisconsin Economy NorthStar Analytics, LLC February 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Impact at a Glance For more information, visit go.wisc.edu/economic-impact 5 Executive Summary 6 Purpose and Scope 7 Model Specifcation and Methodology 8 Economic Impact of UW–Madison Campus Overall Impact; Jobs; Taxes 9 Economic Impact of UW–Madison Afliated Organizations Overall Impact; Jobs; Taxes 10 Economic Impact of UW-Related Startups Overall Impact; Jobs; Taxes 11 Who Benefts from UW–Madison’s Economic Impact? 13 Return on Public Investment 14 Innovation Driven by UW–Madison: A Statewide Impact 15 UW–Madison: A Driver of Innovation 17 Economic Impacts Not Covered in This Study 18 Summary 2 UW–Madison Economic Impact Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS NorthStar Analytics would like to thank the University of Wisconsin–Madison for their assistance in preparing the 2021 Economic Impact Study. The support and cooperation in assembling the needed data and shaping the report were outstanding. We thank Chancellor Rebecca Blank for her support. We worked very closely with Ben Miller and Megan Miller in the UW Ofce of Government Afairs and Strategic Partnerships, and received excellent help from each of them. Finally, we thank the University of Wisconsin Foundation for the fnancial support needed to complete this study. Dr. David J. Ward – Project Manager Mr. Jef Sachse – Senior Economist and IMPLAN Consultant Dr. Bruce Siebold – Consulting Economist Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Geology of Eastern South Dakota
    Pleistocene Geology of Eastern South Dakota GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 262 Pleistocene Geology of Eastern South Dakota By RICHARD FOSTER FLINT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 262 Prepared as part of the program of the Department of the Interior *Jfor the development-L of*J the Missouri River basin UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1955 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Douglas McKay, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price $3 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract_ _ _____-_-_________________--_--____---__ 1 Pre- Wisconsin nonglacial deposits, ______________ 41 Scope and purpose of study._________________________ 2 Stratigraphic sequence in Nebraska and Iowa_ 42 Field work and acknowledgments._______-_____-_----_ 3 Stream deposits. _____________________ 42 Earlier studies____________________________________ 4 Loess sheets _ _ ______________________ 43 Geography.________________________________________ 5 Weathering profiles. __________________ 44 Topography and drainage______________________ 5 Stream deposits in South Dakota ___________ 45 Minnesota River-Red River lowland. _________ 5 Sand and gravel- _____________________ 45 Coteau des Prairies.________________________ 6 Distribution and thickness. ________ 45 Surface expression._____________________ 6 Physical character. _______________ 45 General geology._______________________ 7 Description by localities ___________ 46 Subdivisions. ________-___--_-_-_-______ 9 Conditions of deposition ___________ 50 James River lowland.__________-__-___-_--__ 9 Age and correlation_______________ 51 General features._________-____--_-__-__ 9 Clayey silt. __________________________ 52 Lake Dakota plain____________________ 10 Loveland loess in South Dakota. ___________ 52 James River highlands...-------.-.---.- 11 Weathering profiles and buried soils. ________ 53 Coteau du Missouri..___________--_-_-__-___ 12 Synthesis of pre- Wisconsin stratigraphy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1929 Joint Resolution 43
    JOINT RESOLUTIONS 1079 session, together with drafts of bills to carry out these recom- mendations; and be it further Resolved, That the committee, as soon as practicable after its appointment, shall prepare an estimate of the expenses of said survey and study, and the county board of any county in the state is hereby authorized and empowered to appropriate such sum as it shall designate toward paying the total expense, authority so to do being hereby granted ; provided, that unless the appropriations shall equal the estimate of the expense, said investigation shall not be held. If the appropriation shall be insufficient, further estimates and appropriations may be pre- pared and made in like manner. [Jt. Res. No. 40, S.] [Deposited Apr. 30, 1929.] No. 43, 1929. JOINT RESOLUTION To amend section 10 of article V of the constitution, relating to the approval of bills by the governor, and to submit this amend- ment to vote of the people at the general election in Novem- ber, 1930. • WHEREAS, At the biennial session of the legislature for the year 1927, an amendment to the constitution was proposed and agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, which proposed amendment is as follows : " (Article V) Section 10. Every bill which shall have passed the legislature shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor ; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have orig- inated, who shall enter the objections at large upon the journal and proceed to reconsider it.
    [Show full text]
  • Boats Built at Toledo, Ohio Including Monroe, Michigan
    Boats Built at Toledo, Ohio Including Monroe, Michigan A Comprehensive Listing of the Vessels Built from Schooners to Steamers from 1810 to the Present Written and Compiled by: Matthew J. Weisman and Paula Shorf National Museum of the Great Lakes 1701 Front Street, Toledo, Ohio 43605 Welcome, The Great Lakes are not only the most important natural resource in the world, they represent thousands of years of history. The lakes have dramatically impacted the social, economic and political history of the North American continent. The National Museum of the Great Lakes tells the incredible story of our Great Lakes through over 300 genuine artifacts, a number of powerful audiovisual displays and 40 hands-on interactive exhibits including the Col. James M. Schoonmaker Museum Ship. The tales told here span hundreds of years, from the fur traders in the 1600s to the Underground Railroad operators in the 1800s, the rum runners in the 1900s, to the sailors on the thousand-footers sailing today. The theme of the Great Lakes as a Powerful Force runs through all of these stories and will create a lifelong interest in all who visit from 5 – 95 years old. Toledo and the surrounding area are full of early American History and great places to visit. The Battle of Fallen Timbers, the War of 1812, Fort Meigs and the early shipbuilding cities of Perrysburg and Maumee promise to please those who have an interest in local history. A visit to the world-class Toledo Art Museum, the fine dining along the river, with brew pubs and the world famous Tony Packo’s restaurant, will make for a great visit.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Surrounding States *For Those Chapters That Are Made up of More Than One State We Will Submit Education to the States and Surround States of the Chapter
    List of Surrounding States *For those Chapters that are made up of more than one state we will submit education to the states and surround states of the Chapter. Hawaii accepts credit for education if approved in state in which class is being held Accepts credit for education if approved in state in which class is being held Virginia will accept Continuing Education hours without prior approval. All Qualifying Education must be approved by them. Offering In Will submit to Alaska Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi South Carolina Texas Arkansas Kansas Louisiana Missouri Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Arizona California Colorado New Mexico Nevada Utah California Arizona Nevada Oregon Colorado Arizona Kansas Nebraska New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Utah Wyoming Connecticut Massachusetts New Jersey New York Rhode Island District of Columbia Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Delaware District of Columbia Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania Florida Alabama Georgia Georgia Alabama Florida North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Hawaii Iowa Illinois Missouri Minnesota Nebraska South Dakota Wisconsin Idaho Montana Nevada Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming Illinois Illinois Indiana Kentucky Michigan Missouri Tennessee Wisconsin Indiana Illinois Kentucky Michigan Ohio Wisconsin Kansas Colorado Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma Kentucky Illinois Indiana Missouri Ohio Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Louisiana Arkansas Mississippi Texas Massachusetts Connecticut Maine New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Vermont Maryland Delaware District of Columbia
    [Show full text]
  • Small Boats on a Big Lake: Underwater Archaeological Investigations of Wisconsin’S Trading Fleet 2007-2009
    Small Boats on a Big Lake: Underwater Archaeological Investigations of Wisconsin’s Trading Fleet 2007-2009 State Archaeology and Maritime Preservation Technical Report Series #10-001 Keith N. Meverden and Tamara L. Thomsen ii Funded by grants from the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, National Sea Grant College Program, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Transportation Economics Assistance program. This report was prepared by the Wisconsin Historical Society. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, the National Sea Grant College Program, or the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The Big Bay Sloop was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on 14 January 2009. The Schooner Byron was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on 20 May 2009. The Green Bay Sloop was listed on the National Register of Historic Places On 18 November 2009. Nominations for the Schooners Gallinipper, Home, and Northerner are pending listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Cover photo: Wisconsin Historical Society archaeologists survey the wreck of the schooner Northerner off Port Washington, Wisconsin. Copyright © 2010 by Wisconsin Historical Society All rights reserved iii CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS…………………..………………………….. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………….. vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………. ….. 1 Research Design and Methodology……………………… 3 2. LAKESHORING, TRADING, AND LAKE MICHIGAN MERCHANT SAIL………………………………………….. 5 Sloops…………………………………………………… 7 Schooners……………………………………………….. 8 Merchant Sail on Lake Michigan………………………. 12 3. THE BIG BAY SLOOP……………………………………... 14 The Mackinaw Boat……………………………………. 14 Site Description………………………………………… 16 4. THE GREEN BAY SLOOP………………………………… 26 Site Description………………………………………… 27 5. THE SCHOONER GALLINIPPER ………………………… 35 Site Description………………………………………… 44 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipwreck Surveys of the 2018 Field Season
    Storms and Strandings, Collisions and Cold: Shipwreck Surveys of the 2018 Field Season Included: Thomas Friant, Selah Chamberlain, Montgomery, Grace Patterson, Advance, I.A. Johnson State Archaeology and Maritime Preservation Technical Report Series #19-001 Tamara L. Thomsen, Caitlin N. Zant and Victoria L. Kiefer Assisted by grant funding from the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute and Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, and a charitable donation from Elizabeth Uihlein of the Uline Corporation, this report was prepared by the Wisconsin Historical Society’s Maritime Preservation and Archaeology Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, the National Sea Grant College Program, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association. Note: At the time of publication, Thomas Friant and Montgomery sites are pending listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Nomination packets for these shipwreck sites have been prepared and submitted to the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office. I.A. Johnson and Advance sites are listed on the State Register of Historic Places pending listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and Selah Chamberlain site is listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places. Grace Patterson site has been determined not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Cover photo: A diver surveying the scow schooner I.A. Johnson, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Copyright © 2019 by Wisconsin Historical Society All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS AND IMAGES ............................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Guaranteed Admission Agreement
    Guaranteed Admission Program Participation Form www.uwm.edu UWM Transfer Admissions, [email protected], 414-229-2222 The goal of the Guaranteed Admission Program is to create a seamless and successful transition for transfer students intending to complete their baccalaureate degree at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The Guaranteed Admission Program allows students the opportunity to receive academic advising from both McHenry County College and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. General Guidelines Students indicate their intention to participate in the program by filling out this form prior to or at the same time as the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee admission application. For full consideration, this form and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee application must be received no later than December 15th for spring semester enrollment and August 1st for fall semester enrollment. Instructions Step 1: Meet with your advisor McHenry County College to verify eligibility to apply. Step 2: Complete the application for admission to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee http://apply.wisconsin.edu/ and pay the $50 application fee. (Fee waivers are available for students who are Pell Grant eligible.) Submit official transcripts from high school and all colleges or universities attended by the application deadline (December 15 for spring semester, and August 1 for fall semester.) Step 3: Submit this form to University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee at any point prior or when you apply. Please either mail or e-mail this completed document to: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Attention: Transfer Admissions PO Box 749 Milwaukee, WI 53201 [email protected] My signature signifies that I wish to participate in the Guaranteed Admission Program.
    [Show full text]