DOCSLIB.ORG

Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Report Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Report Town of Ennis December 2018 Prepared by: Madison County ® DOWNTOWN ENNIS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY REPORT MADISON COUNTY December 2018 Prepared for: Town of Ennis Prepared by: Great West Engineering, Inc. 2501 Belt View Dr. Helena, MT 59 TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report Table of Contents 1.0 Project Identification ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Physical Characteristics of the Area ............................................................................... 2 1.3 Project Objective .............................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Site Location Analysis ........................................................................ 3 2.1 Alignment 1 – Modify Existing MDT Bridge ................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Land Ownership ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ....................................................................... 4 2.2 Alignment 2 – 140 feet downstream of Highway 287 Bridge ...................................... 5 2.2.1 Land Ownership ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ....................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Other Impacts ........................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Alignment 3 – 530 feet downstream of Highway 287 Bridge ...................................... 6 2.3.1 Land Ownership ....................................................................................................... 6 2.3.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ....................................................................... 6 2.4 Alignment 4 – Old Highway Alignment ........................................................................... 7 2.4.1 Land Ownership ....................................................................................................... 8 2.4.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ....................................................................... 8 2.4.3 Other Impacts ........................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................. 9 2.6 Basis of Selection for Preferred Alignment Alternative ............................................... 10 3.0 Pedestrian Bridge Alternatives ....................................................... 11 3.1 Alternative A – Relocation of Varney Bridge ................................................................ 11 3.1.1 History and Significance of the Existing Bridge ................................................... 11 3.1.2 Existing Bridge Configuration ................................................................................ 12 3.1.3 Present Condition................................................................................................... 13 3.1.4 Safety Considerations ............................................................................................ 15 3.1.5 Asbestos & Paint .................................................................................................... 15 3.1.6 Bridge Configuration .............................................................................................. 16 3.1.7 Useful Life ............................................................................................................... 17 3.1.8 Construction Duration ............................................................................................ 17 3.1.9 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 17 TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report i 3.2 Alternative B - New Single-Span Pedestrian Bridge .................................................... 19 3.2.1 Bridge Configuration .............................................................................................. 19 3.2.2 Safety Considerations ............................................................................................ 20 3.2.3 Useful Life ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2.4 Construction Duration ............................................................................................ 20 3.2.5 Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Alternative C - Retrofit Existing MDT Highway 287 Bridge ......................................... 22 4.0 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................ 23 4.1 Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Cost Comparison ........................................................................................................... 23 4.3 Basis of Selection for Preferred Alignment Alternative ............................................... 24 5.0 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................ 25 5.1 Preferred Alternative Discussion .................................................................................. 25 6.0 Background & Design Information .................................................. 26 6.1 Geotechnical Considerations ........................................................................................ 26 6.2 Hydraulic Discussion ..................................................................................................... 26 6.3 Access Road & Work Bridge Construction ................................................................... 26 6.4 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................ 26 6.5 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 27 6.6 Floodplains .................................................................................................................... 27 6.7 Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 30 6.8 Agricultural & Forest Lands .......................................................................................... 30 6.9 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 30 6.10 River Corridor Use ...................................................................................................... 32 7.0 Project Implementation .................................................................... 33 7.1 Overall Approach ........................................................................................................... 33 7.2 Project Implementation Tasks ...................................................................................... 33 7.2.1 Grant Administration .............................................................................................. 33 7.2.2 Design Phase ......................................................................................................... 33 7.2.3 Contracting Phase .................................................................................................. 33 7.2.4 Construction Phase ................................................................................................ 34 7.2.5 Project Closeout Phase .......................................................................................... 34 7.3 Necessary Permits, Regulatory Approvals and Easements ........................................ 35 7.4 Applicable Statutes, Rules, Regulations, & Standards ............................................... 35 TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report ii List of Figures Figure 1: Location Map of Lions Park ........................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: View of the Lions Park trail ............................................................................................ 1 Figure 3: Site Map and Bridge Location Alternatives .................................................................. 3 Figure 4: View along Highway 287 Bridge looking southeast along Alignment 1. .................... 4 Figure 5: View looking from Lions Park southeast along Alignment 2. ...................................... 5 Figure 6: View looking from Lions Park southeast along Alignment 3 ....................................... 6 Figure 7: View looking southeast along Alignment 4. .................................................................. 7 Figure 8: View of the original Jeffers Bridge installed in 1897. (Photo courtesy of Jon Axline, MDT) ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 9: Location
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1. Name of Property historic name: Dearborn River High Bridge other name/site number: 24LC130 2. Location street & number: Fifteen Miles Southwest of Augusta on Bean Lake Road not for publication: n/a vicinity: X city/town: Augusta state: Montana code: MT county: Lewis & Clark code: 049 zip code: 59410 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this _X_ nomination _ request for detenj ination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the proc urf I and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X_ meets _ does not meet the National Register Criterfi commend thatthis oroperty be considered significant _ nationally X statewide X locafly. Signa jre of oertifying officialn itle Date Montana State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency or bureau (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments. In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification , he/eby certify that this property is: 'entered in the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined not eligible for the National Register_ _ see continuation sheet _ removed from the National Register _see continuation sheet _ other (explain): _________________ Dearborn River High Bridge Lewis & Clark County.
    [Show full text]
  • Zenas King and the Bridges of New York City
    Volume 1, Number 2 November 2014 From the Director’s Desk In This Issue: From the Director’s Desk Dear Friends of Historic Bridges, Zenas King and the Bridges of New Welcome to the second issue of the Historic Bridge York City (Part II) Bulletin, the official newsletter of the Historic Bridge Hays Street Bridge Foundation. Case Study: East Delhi Road Bridge As many of you know, the Historic Bridge Foundation advocates nationally for the preservation Sewall’s Bridge of historic bridges. Since its establishment, the Historic Bridge Collector’s Historic Bridge Foundation has become an important Ornaments clearinghouse for the preservation of endangered bridges. We support local efforts to preserve Set in Stone significant bridges by every means possible and we Upcoming Conferences proactively consult with public officials to devise reasonable alternatives to the demolition of historic bridges throughout the United States. We need your help in this endeavor. Along with Zenas King and the Bridges our desire to share information with you about historic bridges in the U.S. through our newsletter, of New York City (Part II) we need support of our mission with your donations to the Historic Bridge Foundation. Your generous King Bridge Company Projects in contributions will help us to publish the Historic New York City Bridge Bulletin, to continue to maintain our website By Allan King Sloan at www.historicbridgefoundation.com, and, most importantly, to continue our mission to actively promote the preservation of bridges. Without your When Zenas King passed away in the fall of 1892, help, the loss of these cultural and engineering his grand plan to build two bridges across the East landmarks threatens to change the face of our nation.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    MRS Form 10-900-b 0MB No. 1024-0018 (Jan. 1987) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form 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_______________________________________ _____Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota________________________________ B. Associated Historic Contexts____________________________________________ Historic Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota, 1873-1945 C. Geographical Data State of Minnesota 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 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and Evaluation. Signature of certifying official Nina M. Archabal Date State Historic Preservation Officer______________________ __________ , _____ State or Federal agency and bureau Minriesota Historical Society 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. Signature of the Keeper of the National Register E. Statement of Historic Contexts Discuss each historic context listed in Section B.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Bridges in South Dakota, 1893-1943
    NEB Ram 10-900-b * QB ND. 1024-0018 (Jan. 1987) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES QC I & 0 133 MULTIPLE PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION FORM N&T1GH&L j This farm is fear use in documenting rtultiple property groups relating to cne or several historic ccnbexts. Se4 instrtcticns in Guidelines for OQndetinq Naticnal Register Etarrns (National Ragister Bulletin 161. CtrrpiLete each iten by marking "x" in the appccptriate box or hy entering the regjested infcaitHbkn. Rar additional space use cxxtiinuaticn sheets (Ram lO-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing___________________________________ Historic Bridges in South Dakota, 1893-1943 B. Associated Historic Contexts____________________________________ Historic Bridges in South Dakota, 1893-1943 C. Geographical Data The State of South Dakota DQg 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 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and Evaluation. Signature o£ certifying official Date State or Federal agency and bureau I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating E. Statement of Historic Contexts HISTORIC BRIDGES IN SOUTH DAKOTA, 1893-1942 THE FIRST SOUTH DAKOTA BRIDGES AND THEIR BUILDERS Prior to the early 19th century and the establishment of the European- American fur trade in South Dakota, the region's transportation network consisted of the trails and water routes of the Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to Our First Digital Newsletter by Paul Brandenburg, Board President of the Historic Bridge Foundation
    Volume 1, Number 1 Summer 2014 Welcome To Our First Digital Newsletter By Paul Brandenburg, Board President of the Historic Bridge Foundation Welcome to the new electronic edition of the Historic Bridge Foundation newsletter--Historic Bridge Bulletin. Providing relevant information and education regarding all aspects of historic bridges has always been at the core of our mission. Earlier this year, the Board jumped at the opportunity to restart the “publication” of a newsletter using the latest electronic technology. We were further encouraged by the response received when we requested articles for publication. We now have commitments to complete the first three newsletters. We enjoy hearing about your work with historic bridges. Please consider sharing your experiences by contributing an article for future newsletters. Clearly a project of this magnitude does not happen by itself and I thank Kitty for the excellent work as Executive Director and Nathan as Editor for the Historic Bridge Bulletin in producing a quality product for your review in record time. bridge maintains the same center of gravity in all operating Chicago’s Movable positions. Today, across the country, the fixed trunnion is one of the two most common types of bascule bridge, the other common type being the Scherzer-style rolling Highway Bridges lift bascule which include A Mixed Preservation Commitment leaves that roll back on a track and have a variable By Nathan Holth center of gravity during operation. Additionally, Chicago has been said to have more movable many of Chicago’s bascule bridges than any other city in the world. Many of these bridges are notable for bridges have historic significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report
    HISTORIC HIGHWAY BRIDGES IN MARYLAND: 1631-1960: HISTORIC CONTEXT REPORT Prepared for: Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland State Department of Transportation 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Prepared by: P.A.C. Spero & Company 40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 412 Baltimore, Maryland 21204 and Louis Berger & Associates 1001 East Broad Street, Suite 220 Richmond, Virginia 23219 July 1995 Revised October 1995 Acknowledgements "Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report" has been prepared with the generous assistance of the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration's Environmental Management Section and Bridge Development Division, and the historic and cultural resources staff of the Maryland Historical Trust. The preparers of this report would like to thank Cynthia Simpson, Rita Suffness, and Bruce Grey of the State Highway Administration Environmental Management Section, and Jim Gatley, Alonzo Corley, and Chris Barth of the State Highway Administration Bridge Development Division for their aid in providing access to key research materials. Thanks are also extended to Ron Andrews, Beth Hannold, Bill Pencek, Mary Louise de Sarran, and Barbara Shepard--all of the staff of the Maryland Historical Trust, and to the members of the Advisory Committee appointed to review this report. In addition we extend special appreciation to Rita Suffness, Architectural/Bridge Historian for the Maryland State Highway Administration, for providing us with numerous background materials, analyses, research papers, histories, and a draft historic bridge context report which she authored, for use in preparing this report. The final report was prepared by P.A.C. Spero & Company. Research, analysis, graphics preparation, and report writing were conducted by Paula Spero, Michael Reis, James DuSel, Kate Elliot, Laura Landefeld, and Deborah Scherkoske of P.A.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety and Reliability of Bridge Structures
    SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES Safety and Reliability of Bridge Structures Edited by Khaled M. Mahmoud Bridge Technology Consulting New York City, USA Front Cover: Kanchanaphisek Bridge, Samut Prakan Province, Thailand Photo courtesy of Parsons Brinckerhoff, USA Back Cover: (From top to bottom) Grimselsee Bridge, Bern, Switzerland Rendering courtesy of Christian Menn, Switzerland Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, Kingston, New York, USA Photo courtesy of New York State Bridge Authority, USA Cover Design: Khaled M. Mahmoud Bridge Technology Consulting, New York City, USA CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK Typeset by Vikatan Publishing Solutions (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed and bound in the USA by Edwards Brothers, Inc, Lillington, NC All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publisher. Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein. Published by: CRC Press/Balkema P.O. Box 447, 2300 AK Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] www.crcpress.com – www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk – www.balkema.nl ISBN: 978-0-415-56484-7 (Hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-86158-5 (Ebook) Table of contents Preface IX 1 Bridge safety, analysis and design The safety of bridges 3 T.V.
    [Show full text]
  • A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types
    A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types TRANSPORATION RESEARCH BOARD NAS-NRC PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT This report, not released for publication, is furnished for review to members or participants in the work of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). It is to be regarded as fully privileged, and dissemination of the information included herein must be approved by the NCHRP. Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SPONSORSHIP This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research team. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15, by Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage. Margaret Slater, AICP, of Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) was principal investigator for this project and led the preparation of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • SIA Occasional No4.Pdf
    .. --;- 1840· MCMLXXXIV THE SOCIETY FOR INDUSllUAL ARCBE<LOGYpromotes the study of the physical survivals of our industrial heritage. It encourages and sponsors field investigations, research, recording, and the dissemination and exchange of information on all aspects of industrial archeology through publications, meetings, field trips, and other appropriate means. The SIA also seeks to educate the public, public agencies, and owners of sites on the advantages of preserving, through continued or adaptive use, structures and equipment of significance in the history of technology, engineering, and industry. A membership information brochure and a sample copy of the Society's newsletter are available on request. Society for Industrial Archeology Room 5020 National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560 • Copyright 1984 by Victor C. Darnell All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without permission, in writing. from the author or the Society for Industrial Archeology. Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 84-51536 • Cover illustration: 'The above illustration is taken direct from a photograph and shows a square end view of a Parabolic Truss Bridge designed and built by us at Williamsport, Pa. The bridge is built across the Susquehanna River and consists of five spans of 200 ft. each with a roadway 18 ft. wide in the clear. Since the bridge was built a walk has been added on the north side. This is one of the longest iron high way bridges in the State of Pennsylvania and is built after our Patent Parabolic Form.' The bridge was built in 1885 and had a short life, being destroyed by flood in the 1890s.
    [Show full text]
  • STRUCTURAL STUDY of IRON BOWSTRING BRIDGES HAER No
    tow A STRUCTURAL STUDY OF IRON BOWSTRING BRIDGES HAER No. IA-90 Iowa Department of Transportation Ames Story County Iowa '" WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service Washington, DC HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD * STRUCTURAL STUDY OF TRON BOWSTRING BRIDGES tOWtt HAERNo.IA-90 u Location: Iowa Department of Transportation Ames, Story County, Iowa Dates of Construction: 1873,1875, 1878 Designer/Builder: Various — See HAER documentation for individual structures Present Use/Owner: Various — See HAER documentation for individual structures Engineer: Eugene M. Farrelly, August 1996 Project Information: Three iron bowstring bridges, built by three Ohio bridge fabricating companies in the 1870s, were selected for engineering analysis and evaluation based on modern structural theory and structural theory as it was known at the time the bridges were constructed. This report is part of the Iowa Historic Bridges Recording Project II, conducted during the summer of 1996 by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). Dr. Dario Gasparini, Professor of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, with assistance of civil engineering students Eugene M. Farrelly and Dawn M. Harrison, completed this report under contract with HAER. (continued) STRUCTURAL STUDY OF IRON BOWSTRING BRIDGES / HAERNo.IA-90 (Page 2) Project Information (continued): See HAER No. IA-19 for documentation of the Freeport Bridge (1878) and its fabricator, the Wrought Iron Bridge Company of Canton, Ohio. See HAER No. IA-58 for documentation of the Fremont Mill Bridge (1873) and its fabricator, the Massillon Bridge Company of Massillon, Ohio. See HAER No. WY-1 for documentation of the North Platte River Bowstring Truss Bridge (1875) and its fabricator, the King Bridge and Manufacturing Company of Cleveland, Ohio.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge Companies
    3 BRIDGE COMPANIES Luten Bridge Brochure Pages: Bridge companies such as Luten Bridge mailed or personally delivered brochures, pamphlets, and postcards to potential clients such as county or city governments in an effort to procure contracts. This image shows the frontispiece of a 1921, leather-bound, Luten promotional calendar and address book (Author’s Collection). The Luten Bridge Company was one of the most prolific builders of concrete arch bridges in Tennessee. The Harriman Bridge, a seven span closed spandrel arch built in 1918, is typical of Luten’s work (Author’s Collection). 152 BRIDGE COMPANIES BRIDGE COMPANIES In the early nineteenth century, local builders or engineers built most bridges. However, formal bridge companies began to appear in the mid-1800s. Although only a handful existed by 1870, from then until the end of the century, a plethora of companies flourished in the United States. In 1901 twenty-eight bridge and structural companies consolidated to form the American Bridge Company, becoming one of the largest bridge companies in the country. In 1902, American Bridge consolidated with nine other firms to form the United States Steel Corporation. Although a number of national and regional companies continued to operate, the heyday of experimentation and enterprising start-up companies effectively ended. In the 1910s, the federal review process for bridge construction and standardized bridge plans further changed the industry. Still, numerous bridge companies continued to provide structural steel and construction teams for highway projects until the Great Depression. In the 1930s, a combination of factors that included bank closures, the reduction in road and bridge construction, and changing trends in the field resulted in the demise of most of the bridge companies in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
    NFS Form 10-900 j————~~ pf(lWtt> **OVL-—i \ °MB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the 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 (NFS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Hale Bridge other names/site number 2. Location street & number 100th Street over Wapsipinicon River _______ D not for publication city or town _______ 5.8 miles northwest of Oxford Junction _______ | vicinity state ___Iowa_____ C0codede I/IA___ county Jones code 105 zjp code 52323 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 1 hereby certify that this V 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.
    [Show full text]