Page

1.0 BACKGROUND F.4

2.0 METHODOLOGY F.4

3.0 RESULTS OF LEVEL 1 SCREENING F.5

4.0 RESULTS OF LEVEL 2 SCREENING F.5

5.0 RESULTS OF LEVEL 3 SCREENING F.8

6.0 PUBLIC COORDINATION F.16

7.0 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS F.16

7.1 Determination of Boundaries F.16

7.2 Evaluation of Stevens Creek Stock Farm 320 Hectares (800 Acres) F.16

7.3 Evaluation of Sartore (Herter) Farmyard 40 Hectares (100 Acres) F.16

7.4 Noise Evaluation F.17

7.5 Evaluation of Urban Sprawl F.17

7.6 Reevaluation\Evaluation of Other Sites F.17

7.7 Reevaluation of a Historic District F.19

7.8 Resolution of Other Issues F.20

8.0 Reevaluation of Effects F.20

9.0 Potential Mitigation F.21

10.0 Status of Section 106 Consultation F.21

Appendix F-A Documentation of Additional Investigations F.23

Table F.1 Sites on or Eligible for the NRHP by Nearest Beltway Alternative F.6

Table F.2 Summary of NRHP Sites Adversely Affected by the Beltway

Alternatives F.9

Table F.3 List of Adverse Effects to Sites on or Eligible for the NRHP F.10

11Feb01

1.0 BACKGROUND

This report has been prepared in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Based on the recommendations of the Historic Survey Report, Archeological Evaluation, and supplemental investigations requested by the SHPO for this project, there were 34 sites in the Lincoln South and East Beltways Study area which were either on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These included 30 historic and 4 archeological sites.

The SHPO concurred with the recommendations of eligibility for historic and archeological sites; all other sites were determined not eligible.

Since that time, two additional cast concrete road signs were identified within the study area in June 2000 (Appendix G) and have been included in this assessment.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

A preliminary assessment of adverse effects to NRHP sites was conducted by a team of technical persons who have been involved in the Beltway project over the course of several years. For the historic sites, the team included:

Bill Callahan Nebraska State Historical Society, SHPO

Ed Kosola Federal Highway Administration, NEPA Coordinator

Cindy Veys Nebraska Department of Roads, Environmental Supervisor

Len Sand Nebraska Department of Roads, Environmental Analyst Supervisor

Ed Zimmer City-County Planning Department, Historic Planner

Roger Figard City Engineer

Virendra Singh City Public Works Department, Long-Range Planning Supervisor

Kelly Sieckmeyer City Public Works Department, Engineer

Jim Linderholm HWS, Principal-in-Charge

Mike Gorman HWS, Project Manager, Transportation Engineer

Lisa Richardson HWS, Transportation Engineer

Amy Zlotsky OES, Environmental Scientist

For the archeological sites, the team included:

Terry Steinacher Nebraska State Historical Society, SHPO

Stan Parks University of Nebraska, Research Archeologist

Stacy Stupka-Burda University of Nebraska, Research Archeologist

Mike Gorman HWS, Project Manager, Transportation Engineer

Lisa Richardson HWS, Transportation Engineer

Amy Zlotsky OES, Environmental Scientist

Methodology for the assessment followed 36 CFR Part 800.5, as described in the revised guidance dated 18 May 1999. The preliminary assessment of effects included three levels of screening.

3.0 RESULTS OF LEVEL 1 SCREENING

The original 34 sites and the two new sites (road signs) were reviewed to determine which beltway corridors could potentially affect them (Table F.1). However, only the four remaining beltway corridors were considered in the evaluation; these are SM-4, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1. Based on this review, 3 historic sites and 1 archeological site were determined not to be affected by any of these four corridors. Eliminated from further consideration were sites LC00: S-6, LC00: S-31, LC00: S-47 and 25LC1.

4.0 RESULTS OF LEVEL 2 SCREENING

The remaining 32 sites (29 historic and 3 archeological) were compared with the most recently refined corridor concepts. Materials available to the reviewers included site survey data forms, descriptions, maps, and photographs of the sites. For each corridor, materials available included recent aerial photography, existing and future contour maps, revised centerline concepts and cut and fill information.

Using the list of examples of adverse effects found in 36 CFR Part 800.5 (a) (2), a matrix of potential adverse effects was determined for each site along each corridor. Of the seven example types of effects, five were considered possible with the beltway project. In addition, other types of effects were considered, but none were identified as appropriate to this project. The types of effects evaluated were:

• Physical destruction of or damage to all of part of the property [800.5 (a) (2) (i)].

An example would be where the EC-1 route crosses wagon ruts from an EuroAmerican trail (site 25LC147).

• Removal of a property from its historic location [800.5 (a) (2) (iii)].

An example would be the possible need to reposition the Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (site LC00: E-118) by an estimated 6.1 m (20 ft) when Adams Street is paved and upgraded to current standards.

¹ List includes two additional road signs identified in June 2000.

• Change of character of property's use or physical features within the property's setting that contribute to historic significance [800.5 (a) (2) (iv)].

An example would be where the SM-4 route crosses near the Henry Wunibald farmyard (site LC00: S-143) requiring (1) construction of a new lane to access the farmstead, and (2) changing the previous isolation of the property by placing it within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the beltway.

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant features [800.5 (a) (2) (v)].

An example would be where EF-1 crosses within 180 m (600 ft) of the Penterman farmyard creating visual impacts.

• Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration (exception for Indian tribes) [800.5 (a) (2) (vi)].

After Level 3 Screening, no examples of this type of effect were found.

Among other things, the teams evaluated the physical characteristics of and type of historic site; the distance between the property and the beltway; the topography in between the property and the beltway; any existing screening; whether the beltway was in a cut or fill section; whether the property was already affected by other transportation facilities; and any changes in access.

Based on the matrix, sites were either determined to be (a) not adversely affected by the beltway project, (b) adversely affected, or (c) possibly adversely affected, but needed field verification.

5.0 RESULTS OF LEVEL 3 SCREENING

A field investigation was conducted by the team members to survey the sites in question. The field trip included viewing sites from the corridor centerlines and viewing the centerlines from the sites. Based on the field review, the team finalized the preliminary assessment of adverse effects. Seven sites were determined to be impacted by the four routes. These were:

• one historic site on SM-4
• one archeological site on EC-1
• one historic and one archeological site on EM-1
• three historic sites on EF-1

A summary of the seven adversely affected sites is provided in Table F.2. More detailed information from the assessment of adverse effects is provided in Table F.3.

Table F.3

LIST OF ADVERSE EFFECTS

TO SITES ON OR ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Lincoln South and East Beltways Study

6.0 PUBLIC COORDINATION

The Preliminary Assessment of Adverse Effects to NRHP and NRHP-Eligible Sites was made available for review and comment by the consulting parties and general public. A total of 32 letters were received, including 20 which mentioned being members of CARS-Citizens for for Accountable Route Selection.

Comments were reviewed, summarized and discussed by the teams listed above. Additional investigations were conducted, and information from the comments and investigations was incorporated into (1) this Assessment of Adverse Effects to NRHP and NRHP-Eligible Sites to be submitted to the SHPO, and (2) the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, where appropriate.

7.0 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

As recommended in the consulting party/public comments, several additional investigations were conducted.

7.1 Determination of Boundaries

Boundaries were determined for all historic properties eligible for the NRHP. Boundaries were delineated in a report prepared by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) and reviewed by the SHPO (Appendix G). In particular, the determination included an evaluation of agricultural acreage (crop and pasture land) as a potential contributing component of eligible farmsteads.

7.2 Evaluation of Stevens Creek Stock Farm 320 Hectares (800 Acres)

The boundary for the Stevens Creek Stock Farm was assumed to be the 65 ha (160 ac) listed on the NRHP plus the additional 32 ha (80 ac) of cropland immediately east of the NRHP site (for a total of 97 ha (240 ac)). It does not include the remaining 227 ha (560 ac) which Charles Retzlaff reportedly had acquired by 1888, and which the SHPO considered eligible for listing in a letter dated 18 September 1995. Additional investigation of these parcels (32 ha (80 ac) in Section 3, Stockton Township and 194 ha (480 ac) in Section 34, Stevens Creek Township) revealed that they are at least 1.6 km (1.0 mi) away and not contiguous with the original homesteader's property and buildings (located in Sections 4 and 5, Stockton Township). Consultation with the SHPO indicated that it was not appropriate to have a discontinuous site.

7.3 Evaluation of Sartore (Herter) Farmyard 40 Hectares (100 Acres)

Since initiation of the historic boundaries evaluation, the Sartore property was listed on the NRHP. The NRHP site is defined as a 8.1 ha (20 ac) parcel and corresponds to the independently delineated boundary in the UNL report (Appendix G). However, the NRHP nomination form contains language which allows for increasing the size of the NRHP site, pending completion of the evaluation of an additional 40 ha (100 ac). Based on review of the UNL report, the SHPO indicated that the remaining 40 ha (100 ac) of the Sartore property would not be considered eligible for listing due to (a) agricultural terracing which has altered the natural contours of landscape, and (b) a portion of the land is overgrown with numerous exotic trees such as Chinese elm and no longer contributes to the knowledge or understanding of the Herter Farmstead.

7.4 Noise Evaluation

A noise evaluation (Appendix C) was conducted for all sensitive receptors in the beltway study area, including three residences on or eligible for the NRHP (Henry Wunibald, Penterman and Teresa Retzlaff) . None of the other historic residences are located within the 300 m (1000 ft) range of accuracy for the noise model, and therefore were not modeled. Noise impacts generally occur within 76 m (250 ft) of the edge of pavement.

None of the three historic residences were predicted to have noise impacts based on guidelines and criteria established by FHWA (June 1995) which define noise impacts as predicted future noise levels of 66 dbA or greater, or an increase in noise of over 15 decibels.

7.5 Evaluation of Urban Sprawl

As recommended in the consulting party/public comments, an assessment was made regarding the potential for the beltway project to cause urban sprawl. A discussion of this topic is included in Sections 3.2 and 3.31 of the DEIS. Based on this discussion, it was determined that it is the Lincoln-Lancaster County planning process and policies that will dictate whether urbanization will occur in the beltway corridors. The presence of a beltway does not necessarily equate to urban sprawl when growth follows a locally approved plan. Toward that end, the City has already begun work on the Stevens Creek Basin Planning Initiative with the goal of preparing a long range conceptual plan for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update process. It is expected that any urbanization of the basin and other fringe areas will occur according to approved Subarea Plans.

7.6 Reevaluation/Evaluation of Other Sites

Several of the consulting party/public comments listed additional sites for consideration on the NRHP. All of the sites within the beltways study area were reinvestigated by UNL.

Of the properties mentioned with standing structures, four had already been evaluated, determined not eligible by experienced professionals in the field, and had received concurrence by the SHPO as not eligible. These were the Maahs Barns (LC00: E-68), Williss Farm (LC00: E-80); Want Schoolhouse (LC00: E-101), and Hulda Otto House (LC00: E-144). It should be noted that the investigators for the original historic survey (On Site, 1998) did visit the entire Willis Farm; however, only the barn was described in the report because the historic integrity of the other structures was compromised. Despite previous evaluation, UNL reinvestigated these properties, and determined that the original findings were still appropriate (Appendix F-A, memo from UNL dated 17 October 2000). To be eligible for the NRHP, properties must possess both significance and integrity.

Maahs Barns. In addition to the conclusions in the On Site report (no architectural significance, loss of historic association, setting and fabric, neglect), UNL noted that the setting had been highly impacted by the intrusion of five large steel grain bins and a modern house.

Williss Farm. In addition to the conclusions in the On-Site report, UNL noted that the house lacks historic integrity considering the many modern alterations including the west addition; replacement windows; replacement siding; addition of shutters; replacement entrance over the east door is not in keeping with the architectural style or feel of the house; and it appears that the original chimney has been removed.

Want Schoolhouse. In addition to conclusions in the On Site evaluation (plug holes from blown in insulation, house likely moved to this location), UNL noted that the building sits on a new poured concrete foundation; one door has been replaced with an insulated steel door; and full-light French patio doors have been added on the south facade. None of these features are in keeping with the architectural style of the school. Intrusions of a modern house within 12 m (40 ft) and a trailer park within 15 m (50 ft) affect the integrity of the setting as well.

Otto House. Reconsideration of the Otto house had been previously requested and addressed due to suggestions by owners of the Stevens Creek Stock Farm that there was potential significance relative to an individual. Neither significance nor integrity could be established, and the SHPO concurred with the recommendation of not eligible. Despite previous documentation, the property was revisited by UNL investigators who concluded that the original evaluation was solid.

Many other older properties were visited during the historic survey, but were not considered to have retained a sufficient degree of historic integrity to warrant inclusion in the original historic survey report. The Otley farmstead and Speidel barn, were two such properties. Nevertheless, the properties were revisited by UNL investigators who again concluded that they did not meet the minimum standards to be included in a survey.

Otley Farmstead. The integrity of the Otley farmstead and surrounding farmyard is no longer intact. Specifically, the original porch supports have been replaced with wrought iron supports; the house has been clad in wide lap siding; two additions have been constructed including a new entrance to the structure; the windows have been replaced with no original molding remaining; and the chimney has been removed. The assertion of the uniqueness of indoor plumbing is not considered germane to NRHP eligiblity. Of the other buildings in the farmyard, the only intact historic structures were the two granaries; however, these were not considered to be outstanding examples in the study area.

Speidell Barn. The integrity of the Speidell barn is no longer intact. In particular, the board and batten siding and decorative scalloping has been replaced with corrugated metal on two sides; and the agricultural setting has been altered to a park-like setting with many exotic trees planted around the building.

Three properties were mentioned as having archeological sites. These were the Otley, Wagoner and Skoda properties.

Otley Sites. The Otley archeological site was investigated by UNL; found to be located outside of the study area (approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) from the edge of the project right-of-way); and was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. A site form has been completed for the site and submitted to the SHPO for their records (Site Number 25LC162).

While in the field, Mr. Rod Otley mentioned another Euroamerican archeological site on Edwin Otley's property. The site, located in an upland setting, encompasses approximately 0.1 ha (0.25 ac), and consists of red brick, redware (crockery) and flatglass within an agricultural field). In addition, there appeared to have been a couple of dumping episodes along an intermittent drainage, including tin cans, a barrel stay, more red brick, automotive body pieces from a circa 1920 car body, and unidentifiable metal pieces. UNL recommended that the site was not eligible for the NRHP. A site form has been completed for the site and submitted to the SHPO for their records (Site Number 25LC163).

Wagner Site. The Wagner property was reported to contain a buried "old Indian well" in an island of trees. According to the UNL investigators who spoke with the owner, the reported location is not within the project right-of-way and, since the site was buried prior to acquisition, there are many islands of trees in the area, and there is no way to determine its exact location (Appendix F-A, memo from UNL dated 17 October 2000).

Skoda Site. It has been reported by Mr. Rod Otley that another person living in the SW1/4 Section 21, T10N, R8E Stevens Creek Township told him that "something" had been found during excavation for the Skoda house in the late 1990's, and that "Indians came out and held a ceremony" after which construction was completed. UNL investigators were unable to verify any of this information through the SHPO, local Native American community, or other local authorities. Permission for access to the Skoda property was denied to the study team on more than one occasion. See Appendix F-A, memo from UNL dated 19 September 2000.

7.7 Reevaluation of a Historic District

One of the properties requested for evaluation, the German/Trinity Lutheran Church (located near 162^nd Street and Old Cheney Road), is not in the defined study area and therefore was not surveyed. The church is 2.4 km (1.5 mi) east of the farthest east beltway alignment, and is considered outside the scope of the beltways project.

A request was made for reevaluation of a historic district centered on the German/Trinity Lutheran Church. Such an evaluation was not conducted because:

• The reconnaissance survey for the beltways study already identified all resources for a distance of 1.6 km (1.0 mi) beyond the farthest east alignment. The church is yet another 0.8 km (0.5 mi) farther east.
• The intensive survey for the beltways study already documented the local trends that resulted in the lack of resources to support a rural historic district centered around the Stevens Creek bottoms (which was the area of earliest settlement in Lancaster County due to the available natural resources). These trends include century long changes in agricultural operations; a poor agricultural economy resulting in abandonment of farmsteads; increasing consolidation of farm units; and urban pressure from the growing Lincoln community. These trends have resulted in urban and agricultural intrusions in the overall physical context, including suburban acreages, rural and municipal water distribution systems, radio and communication towers; transmission lines and electrical substations; a private airstrip, golf courses, recreational trails, and commercial and industrial enterprises. Certainly, the contributions of early settlers were important; however, similar patterns occurred in counties throughout Nebraska. In contrast to eastern Nebraska, there are millions of acres in the western part of the state where modern impacts are much less intrusive than they are in the beltway study area.

(c) Whether or not resources exist to support a rural historic district for the German Evangelical Lutheran community extending beyond the beltway study area, those resources have already been documented to be extremely sparse in the area impacted by the beltway alternatives.

• A religious property cannot be eligible for the NRHP simply because it was the place of religious services for a community or was the oldest structure used by a religious group in a local area. In fact, the historic significance of a religious property must be based on "architectural or artistic values, or for important historic or cultural forces that the property represents (NR Bulletin 15). In addition, the original 1883 church burned and was replaced in 1917 with the current structure and although over 50 years old, the integrity of the 1917 structure has been significantly compromised due to modern overlay siding and additions placed on the front and rear of the structure.

7.8 Resolution of Other Issues

Some of the consulting party/public comments listed additional features missing from the beltway constraints map such as prairies, wetlands, transmission lines, etc. This map has been updated in the DEIS (see Figures 2.1 and 2.25).

Other consulting party/public comments are addressed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. These comments related to noise (Section 3.13), lighting (Section 3.14), wildlife (Sections 3.17 and 3.22), visual aethetics (Section 3.25), indirect effects (Section 3.31) and cumulative effects (Section 3.32).

8.0 REEVALUATION OF EFFECTS

Based on the consulting party/public comments and additional investigations, the list of eligible sites remains unchanged from that determined by FHWA in a letter dated 7 October 1999, and for which concurrence was obtained by the SHPO in letters dated 3 June 1998, 11 June 1998, 7 December 1998, 7 September 1999 and 2 June 2000. The only exceptions are the addition of the two more recently identified road signs which are considered eligible for the NRHP.

Based on the additional investigations, sites on or eligible for the NRHP were reevaluated and Table F.3 was updated with current information. However, the list of sites which were determined to be adversely affected remains unchanged from the December 1999 preliminary assessment (Table F.2).

9.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION

Mitigation will follow guidelines of the Nebraska SHPO and will include, as appropriate:

• archeological survey of bottomlands where access has been previously denied
• monitoring at archeological sites, as appropriate
• excavation and recordation and/or photo documentation and detailed mapping for impacted archeological sites
• consideration of additional alignment shifts to the extent possible (weighed against the possible loss of other residences or archeological sites)
• landscaping, berming and other visual screening for the standing structures
• public or private conservation easements
• moving structures
• Documentation for the Historic American Buildings Survey or Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER)

10.0 STATUS OF SECTION 106

In November 2000, the SHPO reviewed the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS), and concurred with the findings of the PDEIS and the findings of the appendices (specifically the Assessment of Adverse Effects and the Determination of Boundaries report) as they related to Section 106 consultation (see Appendix E, letters dated 1 February 2001 and 27 November 2000).

11Feb01

Appendix F-A