Draft Section 4(f) Statement

South and East Beltways Study

Lincoln, Nebraska

Prepared for

Federal Highway Administration

Nebraska Department of Roads

Lancaster County

City of Lincoln

October 2000

(Revised 2/01)

DRAFT SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT

for

South and East Beltways Study

Lincoln, Nebraska

Page

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND H.4

1.1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement H.4

1.2 Applicability of Section 6(f) H.5

1.3 Beltway Alternatives H.5

1.4 Potential Section 4(f) Resources H.6

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND USE EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES H.7

2.1 MoPac East Trail H.7

2.2 David Murdock Trail H.9

2.3 Henry Wunibald Farmyard (LC00: S-143) H.9

2.4 Steve Johnson Farmyard (LC00: E-52) H.10

2.5 Penterman Farmyard (LC00: E-53) H.10

2.6 Teresa Retzlaff Farmyard (LC00: E-87) H.11

2.7 Stevens Creek Stock Farm (LC00: E-88) H.12

2.8 Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (LC00: E-118) H.13

2.9 Lithic Scatter (25LC125) H.13

2.10 Euroamerican Trail (25LC147) H.13

3.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES AND MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM H.14

3.1 MoPac East Trail H.14

3.2 David Murdock Trail H.15

3.3 Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (LC00: E-118) H.16

4.0 IMPACTS OF AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES H.16

4.1 MoPac East Trail H.16

4.2 David Murdock Trail H.16

4.3 Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (LC00: E-118) H.17

4.4 Comparison of the Alternatives H.17

Appendix H-A Coordination Letters H.19

Table H.1 Potential Section 4(f) Resources Located along Beltway Alternatives H.8

Table H.2 Section 4(f) Resources Located along Beltway Alternatives H.14

Table H.3 Comparison of Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources by Beltway Alternative H.17

11Feb01

DRAFT SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT

for

South and East Beltways Study

Lincoln, Nebraska

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The City of Lincoln, Lancaster County and the Nebraska Department of Roads, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are proposing to construct a beltway around the south and east sides of the City of Lincoln, Nebraska. The south and east beltways would complete a circumferential transportation system by linking with U.S. Highway 77 (US 77) on the west and Interstate 80 (I-80) on the north. The approximately 13 km (8 mi) long south beltway would connect US 77 with Nebraska Highway 2 (N-2), while the 21 km (13 mi) long east beltway would connect N-2 with I-80.

The beltway system is viewed as an essential component of the regional transportation network that would move through traffic around the congested urban area, as well as reduce delay and improve traffic flow on the existing urban street system. The south and east beltways could be constructed together, completing the loop around the City, or separately as stand alone projects with independent utility.

• Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This Draft Section 4(f) Statement is being circulated as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the South and East Beltways Study. It has been prepared under the direction of FHWA, the lead federal agency in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Other chapters of the DEIS provide more detailed information on the beltways study, including purpose and need (Chapter 1), and evaluation of a universe of beltway alternatives as well as non-beltway options. The process used to screen all of the alternatives is fully described in Chapter 2, including selection of the four finalist beltway alignments approved by FHWA as the alternatives to be carried forward. Evaluation of the four finalist alternatives (SM-4, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1) and the no build alternative is detailed in Chapter 3. The no build alternative is considered in the DEIS analyses as a baseline alternative and in the Section 4(f) Statement as an avoidance alternative.

In addition, the Purpose and Need Statement for the beltway project was reviewed by five agencies in June 1996. Concurrence was received from the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (Appendix A of DEIS) indicating that the statement was satisfactory and the information provided was adequate to advance to the next stage of development.

The same five agencies reviewed the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS, dated 13 November 2000) and concurred that it was satisfactory (Appendix A). The PDEIS was also reviewed by the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in November 2000 and they concurred with the findings of the PDEIS and the findings of the appendices as they related to Section 106 consultation (Appendix E).

• Applicability of Section 4(f)

Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 provides that the Secretary of the DOT shall not approve any program or project that requires land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance, or land of a historic (including archeological ) site of national, state or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.

The word "use" in this case means property that is acquired for construction of a permanent transportation facility or, if not acquired, that proximity impacts are so severe that the activities, features or attributes that make that site significant are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment would only occur when the utility of the resource in terms of prior significance is substantially diminished or destroyed. More specifically, not all impacts invoke protection under 4(f), but rather those that affect the present value of the property to the public and the public uses of that property. Any inconvenience to property owners, from whatever source, is not relevant to Section 4(f). In general, temporary occupancy of land for construction easements are not a use under Section 4(f) so long as it is of temporary duration, involves only minor work, has no permanent adverse physical impacts, and includes full restoration of the land to preconstruction conditions.

For archeological sites, Section 4(f) applies only to sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that warrant preservation in place. Section 4(f) does not apply if the FHWA and SHPO determine that the archeological resources are important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and have minimal value for preservation in place.

Additionally, when proposed mitigation measures are used in a constructive use determination, only the net impact need be considered in the analysis.

1.3 Beltway Alternatives

The DEIS evaluation of project alternatives is based on the results of five years of data collection, analysis, and public and agency scrutiny. The study considered a wide range of alternatives. These alternatives were evaluated and those considered most practical and with the least environmental impact were carried forward to more detailed levels of analysis. The planning process included four levels of analysis, each representing a more comprehensive and rigorous evaluation. The overall process was envisioned as a funnel, with the alternatives continually being reduced in number until the best candidates remained to be carried forward in the DEIS analysis. These were identified as the four finalist alternatives, and included one south beltway alternative (SM-4) and three east beltway alternatives (EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1). Although the analysis of benefits and impacts has been completed, selection of the preferred alternative(s), will not occur until receipt and consideration of comments on this DEIS. Discussion of the final selection will be included in the Final EIS document.

The avoidance of impacts to, or use of, resources protected under Section 4(f) was a consideration in the beltway alternative evaluation process. The four finalist alternatives represent previous efforts to minimize Section 4(f) uses. In particular, all south beltway alternatives were previously eliminated which impacted Wilderness Park and its trails. On both the south and the east beltways, site-specific shifts in alignments were made to avoid impacts to historic properties.

All of the build alternatives serve the project purpose and provide a solution to the traffic needs, but all have different environmental impacts. Although the SM-4 alternative is the only remaining recommended south alternative, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1 represent different alternatives for an east beltway, each with different benefits and trade-offs. Although all of the finalist alternatives are considered feasible, the determination of whether the alternatives are prudent, will need to wait until receipt and consideration of comments and the selection of the preferred alternative which will take into account the goals, objectives and values of the Lincoln-Lancaster community.

Other than the proposed future roadway network improvements, the no build alternative will do nothing to address the problem of increasing traffic on the south and east fringes of the City of Lincoln, nor will it specifically address reduction of traffic on major urban arterial streets, or high truck use and through traffic on certain rural roadways on the fringe of the metropolitan area. The no build alternative has a certain level of environmental impact associated with proposed roadway improvements in the City's 1 and 20 Year Program.

1.4 Potential Section 4(f) Resources

Because selection of the preferred alternative will not occur until after circulation of the Draft EIS and receipt of comments, this Draft 4(f) Statement addresses potential 4(f) resources along all four finalist beltway alternatives.

Public Parks, Recreation Areas, or Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuges. The only public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges impacted by the beltway alternatives are two publicly-owned recreational trails. The MoPac East Trail would be crossed by all three east alternatives, and the David Murdock Trail would be crossed by EC-1. There are no other such recreational resources within approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of any of the beltway alternatives.

It should be noted that the City of Lincoln is considering two new park areas within the beltway study area which could result in the beltway crossing future public recreation land; however, Section 4(f) only applies to existing resources. In addition, if these park lands are concurrently planned with the proposed roadway project, they would not be considered 4(f) properties in the future. The first location is an extension of Wilderness Park (and trails) south to Hickman which would be crossed by SM-4. The second is a new park location in the vicinity of Stevens Creek and the MoPac East Trail which would be crossed by EM-1.

Historic Sites. As part of Section 106 consultation for the beltway study, exhaustive surveys were completed for identifying and evaluating historic standing structures and archeological resources within the beltway study area (see DEIS, Section 3.23). Based on the findings, 32 historic standing structures and four archeological sites were determined to be on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These 36 sites were then assessed for adverse effects from the beltway alternatives (Appendix F). Five historic standing structures and two archeological sites were considered to be adversely affected by beltway routes. In letters dated 27 November 2000 and 1 February 2001 (Appendix E), the SHPO concurred with the findings of the Assessment of Adverse Effects, as well as the Determination of Boundaries report (Appendix G). All seven sites considered adversely affected are evaluated herein for potential impacts under Section 4(f).

In addition, there is one historical directional sign (LC00:E-118) which may require protection during construction and nearby repositioning, if it is not moved prior to the beltway project for County road widening. Although the SHPO has indicated that the beltway project will have no adverse effect on the sign (with the condition of protection during construction and repositioning nearby), the site is evaluated herein as a 4(f) resource because the historic boundary for the sign has been defined as a 1.5 m (5 ft) diameter circle of land around the sign (Appendix I). Use of the land beneath the sign requires consideration of this property as a 4(f) resource.

The potential Section 4(f) resources are listed in Table H.1. Locations of the trails are shown in Figure 2.25 of the DEIS. Location of the historic sites are shown in Figure 3.3 of the DEIS.

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND USE EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES

This section contains a brief description of each potential Section 4(f) resource and an evaluation of the potential use of that resource for the beltway project for the purpose of determining Section 4(f) applicability. More detailed descriptions of the historic sites can be found in the references cited in Section 3.23.1 of the DEIS. For historic resources that are evaluated for constructive use, a section is included describing the activities, features or attributes which make that resource of value to the public.

2.1 MoPac East Trail

Description. The MoPac Trail, which follows the old Missouri Pacific Railroad line, originates within urban portions of the City of Lincoln, extends east through suburban developments, and continues east into agricultural areas. The trail is owned by the City of Lincoln to 150 m (500 ft) east of 84^th Street. From this point east, the MoPac East Trail is owned by the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (LPSNRD) and extends to Elmwood; future plans include extending the route to Omaha. In the east beltway area, the trail is located in the vicinity of A Street.

The MoPac East Trail was developed along abandoned railroad rights-of-way, and is not in the rail conservancy program. The trail has a 30 m (100 ft) right-of-way. Roadway intersections have been variously treated with both at-grade and grade separated crossings. Visually, the trail occurs in open settings. The MoPac East Trail has two trailheads in the study area at 98^th Street and in Walton. The trail has a rock treadway, with a screened limestone surface, on the old rail bed for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A second trail, for equestrian use, is located on one side of the rail bed or the other. This trail has been cleared of brush, and has an earth surface.

Use of the trail is limited to daylight hours. Through the east beltway study area, both hiker/biker and equestrian usage is considered very heavy according to LPSNRD.

Use Evaluation.All of the east beltway alternatives cross the MoPac East Trail requiring use of the trail right-of-way. Use of the land requires evaluation of the property as a 4(f) resource.

2.2 David Murdock Trail

Description. The David Murdock Trail, which follows the old Chicago-Rock Island Railroad line, also originates within urban portions of the city, extends east through suburban developments, and continues east into agricultural areas. The trail is owned by the City of Lincoln and ends at 112^th Street about 0.6 km (0.4 mi) east of the EC-1 alternative. The trail terminus has no trailhead, and all former railroad right-of-way to the east has been sold to adjacent landowners. In the east beltway area, the trail is located in the vicinity of Havelock Avenue.

The Murdock Trail was developed along abandoned railroad rights-of-way, and is not in the rail conservancy program. The trail has a 30 m (100 ft) right-of-way. Roadway intersections have been variously treated with both at-grade and grade separated crossings. Visually, the trail occurs in more open settings. There are no trailheads in the study area. The Murdock Trail has a rock treadway, with screened limestone surface, located on the old rail bed for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Use of the trail is limited to daylight hours. At the location of the EC-1 alternative, hiker/biker usage is considered light according to City of Lincoln Parks and Recreation Department. The light usage is due to the abrupt trail terminus which has no connectivity to other destinations, and the lack of trailhead facilities.

Use Evaluation. The EC-1 route crosses the Murdock Trail requiring use of the trail right-of-way. Use of the land requires evaluation of the property as a 4(f) resource.

2.3 Henry Wunibald Farmyard (LC00: S-143)

Description. The NRHP-eligible Henry Wunibald Farmyard consists of a 1 ½ story farmhouse, mortise and tenon gable roof barn, hollow clay tile coop, shed (former kitchen) and metal quonset-style shed. The period of significance is 1900-1960s. This property is considered significant under Criterion A as a complex of buildings associated with agricultural development, and under Criterion C for the house, barn and shed (former kitchen).

Current and Primary Activities, Features or Attributes. The historic standing structures occur on an approximately 7.3 ha (18 ac) private residential acreage, with the associated pasture belonging to three different adjacent landowners. Because this site is privately owned, the primary value to the public is the preservation of the physical features of the site-those being the historic standing structures and associated agricultural acreage within the site boundary.

Use Evaluation. The SM-4 alternative will be 300 m (1,000 ft) from the farmhouse and 91 m (300 ft) from the associated agricultural acreage which defines the property boundary. Based on the Assessment of Adverse Effects, the SM-4 alternative will have an adverse visual effect on the farmyard, but no noise impact based on guidelines and criteria established by FHWA (June 1995).

Although the SM-4 route adversely affects the property, it would not make the property ineligible for the NRHP. The associated agricultural acreage is not harmed by visual impact and there is no noise impact under Section 4(f). The visual intrusion to the farmyard does not diminish the characteristics that make this property eligible for the NRHP. At approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) distance, the beltway will look similar to a section line road on the horizon. Therefore, the property is not considered substantially impaired which is the threshold for constructive use under Section 4(f).

2.4 Steve Johnson Farmyard (LC00: E-52)

Description. The NRHP-eligible Steve Johnson Farmyard consists of a Folk Victorian house, garage (summer kitchen), large gable roof barn, two-pen granary, chicken coop and outhouse. The period of significance is 1890s-1900. This property is considered significant under Criterion A as a complex of buildings associated with agricultural development, and under Criterion C as a typical example of Folk Victorian architecture in the house and outbuildings.

Current and Primary Activities, Features or Attributes. The historic standing structures are located on an approximately 2 ha (5 ac) private residential acreage, with the remaining associated cropland belonging to an adjacent landowner. The farmyard faces and is very close to Yankee Hill Road-a major county road providing access for rural areas. Because this site is privately owned, the primary value to the public is the preservation of the physical features of the site-those being the historic standing structures and associated agricultural acreage within the site boundary.

Use Evaluation. None of the beltway alternatives require incorporation of land from this site. The EF-1 alternative is 1 280 m (4,200 ft) away, located in a cut on the other side of a creek, and is not considered to have an adverse effect under Section 106. Since there is no adverse effect, it is not considered to substantially impair the property under Section 4(f).

The EM-1 alternative will be 701 m (2,300 ft) from the farmhouse and 300 m (1,000 ft) from the associated agricultural acreage which defines the property boundary. Based on the Assessment of Adverse Effects, the EM-1 alternative will have an adverse visual effect on the farmyard, but no noise impact based on guidelines and criteria established by FHWA (June 1995).

Although the EM-1 route adversely affects the property, it would not make the property ineligible for the NRHP. At approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) distance, the beltway will look similar to a section line road on the horizon and will not dominate the view from the buildings. The associated agricultural acreage is not harmed by visual impact; and there is no noise impact under Section 4(f). Therefore, the property is not considered substantially impaired which is the threshold for constructive use under Section 4(f).

2.5 Penterman Farmyard (LC00: E-53)

Description. The NRHP-eligible Penterman Farmyard consists of a small bungalow house with matching garage, gambrel roof barn with intact horseyard, and two small sheds. The period of significance is the 1920s. This property is considered significant under Criterion A as a complex of buildings associated with agricultural development.

Current and Primary Activities, Features or Attributes. The historic standing structures are located on an approximately 4 ha (10 ac) private residential acreage. The farmyard faces and is very close to Yankee Hill Road-a major county road providing access for rural areas. Because this site is privately owned, the primary value to the public is the preservation of the physical features of the site-those being the historic standing structures.

Use Evaluation. The EF-1 alternative is 180 m (600 ft) away from the closest building, and 107 m (350 ft) from the edge of the site boundary. The beltway will have no effect on the historic significance of site, although it will impact the integrity of the setting. Based on the Assessment of Adverse Effects, the EF-1 alternative will have an adverse visual effect on the farmyard, but no noise impact based on guidelines and criteria established by FHWA (June 1995).

Although the currently proposed EF-1 alternative requires no right-of-way from the Penterman Farmyard, the property is close enough to the Yankee Hill Road intersection overpass that the use of mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls, shifts in the alignment, and/or other measures are necessary to avoid right-of-way impacts. In order to avoid the need for a temporary easement on the historic property, the alignment of Yankee Hill Road can be shifted south approximately 37 m (120 ft) at its furthest distance. Changes to the alignment would tie in to the existing Yankee Hill Road approximately 366 m (1,200 ft) east and west of the EF-1 alignment. The new alignment of Yankee Hill Road would require taking a (non-historic) residence south of Yankee Hill Road and east of EF-1.

Although the EF-1 alternative will dominate the view from the property, the characteristics that make this property eligible for the NRHP are not diminished, and would not affect the value or use of the property for the public. Therefore, the property is not considered substantially impaired which is the threshold for constructive use under Section 4(f).

2.6 Teresa Retzlaff Farmyard (LC00: E-87)

Description. The NRHP-eligible Teresa Retzlaff Farmyard consists of a stone Tudor style cottage, gable roof barn, granary, hog house, and small polygonal shed. The period of significance is 1890s-1920. This property is considered significant under Criterion C as an excellent example of vernacular building types.

Current and Primary Activities, Features or Attributes. The site is a farmyard located on a working family farm. Some of the historic standing structures are in active use, including the residence. The farmyard faces and is very close to Van Dorn Street-a major county road providing access for rural areas. Because this site is privately owned, the primary value to the public is the preservation of the physical features of the site-those being the historic standing structures.

Use Evaluation. The EF-1 alternative is 150 m (500 ft) away from the closest building, and 91 m (300 ft) from the edge of the site boundary. The beltway will have no effect on the historic significance of site, although it will impact the integrity of the setting. Based on the Assessment of Adverse Effects, the EF-1 alternative will have an adverse visual effect on the farmyard due to proximity, the elevation of Van Dorn Street, and possible removal of any trees in the County road right-of-way. There is no noise impact based on guidelines and criteria established by FHWA (June 1995).

Although the proposed EF-1 alternative requires no right-of-way from the Teresa Retzlaff Farmyard, the property is close enough to the Van Dorn Street intersection overpass that the use of mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls, shifts in the alignment, and/or other measures may be necessary to avoid right-of-way impacts. In order to avoid the need for a temporary easement on the historic property, the alignment of Van Dorn Street can be shifted north approximately 37 m (120 ft) at its furthest distance. Changes to the alignment would tie in to existing Van Dorn Street approximately 366 m (1,200 ft) east and west of the EF-1 alignment.

Although the EF-1 alternative will dominate the view from the property, the characteristics that make this property eligible for the NRHP (those being the vernacular building types) are not diminished, and would not affect the value or use of the property for the public. Therefore, the property is not considered substantially impaired which is the threshold for constructive use under Section 4(f).

2.7 Stevens Creek Stock Farm (LC00: E-88)

Description. The NRHP-listed Stevens Creek Stock Farm consists of a compact grouping of 18 buildings in excellent condition representing an extended courtyard arrangement. The period of significance is 1867-1970. This property is considered significant under Criterion A representing early settlement of the county and the development of agriculture in Nebraska. Several structures are significant under Criterion C representing a distinctive entity in Nebraska architecture.

Current and Primary Activities, Features or Attributes. The site is the farmyard and all of the contiguous agricultural acreage of a working family farm. Some of the historic standing structures are in active use, including some of the residences. An attribute of note is the relative isolation of the farmyard in the center of the property. Because this site is privately owned, the primary value to the public is the preservation of the physical features of the site-those being the historic standing structures and associated agricultural acreage within the site boundary.

Use Evaluation. None of the beltway alternatives require incorporation of land from this site. The EM-1 alternative will be 945 m (3,100 ft) from the 1867 farmhouse and 488 m (1,600 ft) from the associated agricultural acreage which defines the property's west boundary. Based on the Assessment of Adverse Effects, the EM-1 alternative will have no adverse effect on the property since the property is well buffered visually and physically by Stevens Creek, trees, a

32 ha (80 ac) tract of another landowner, and the orientation of the buildings to the east. Additionally, the associated agricultural acreage is not harmed by visual impact. Since the EM-1 route has no adverse effect under Section 106, it is not considered to substantially impair the property under Section 4(f).

The EF-1 alternative is 610 m (2,000 ft) from the 1891 farmhouse and closest barn, 792 m (2,600 ft) from the 1950s ranch house, and 61 m (200 ft) from the associated agricultural acreage which defines the property's east boundary. Based on the Assessment of Adverse Effects, the EF-1 alternative will adversely affect the property by changing the character of the setting by introducing a large transportation facility, and by being visible from certain buildings (1891 house, top of barn cupolas and silo). There is no noise impact based on guidelines and criteria established by FHWA (June 1995).

Although the EF-1 route adversely affects the property, it is not considered to substantially impair the site. The beltway will have no effect on the historic significance of site, although it will impact the integrity of the setting. However, the beltway will not dominate the view from the buildings; the associated agricultural acreage is not harmed by visual impact; and the there is no noise impact under Section 4(f). The buildings are relatively isolated in the middle of the 97 ha (240 ac) site and surrounded on all but the north side by trees and creeks (the beltway would not be visible to the north). With 0.6 km (0.4 mi) distance or more from the buildings, the beltway will look similar to a section line road on the horizon and will not dominate the view from the buildings. Therefore, the property is not considered substantially impaired which is the threshold for constructive use under Section 4(f).

2.8 Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (LC00: E-118)

Description. The NRHP-eligible Road Sign is a cast concrete directional sign from the 1920s. This sign is considered significant under Criterion C under an umbrella of multiple property nominations for early Lancaster County concrete road signs as a contribution to broad transportation patterns.

Current and Primary Activities, Features or Attributes. The site is a small directional sign located at the intersection of two gravel County roads, and located within the County road right-of-way. The primary value to the public is the preservation of the sign itself.

Use Evaluation. The road sign may require protection during construction and nearby repositioning, if it is not moved prior to the beltway project for County road widening. Although the SHPO has indicated that the beltway project will have no adverse effect on the sign (with the condition of protection during construction and repositioning nearby), the site is evaluated herein as a 4(f) resource because the historic boundary for the sign has been defined as a 1.5 m (5 ft) diameter circle of land around the sign (Appendix G). Use of the land beneath the sign requires consideration of this property as a 4(f) resource.

2.9 Lithic Scatter (25LC125)

Description. Site 25LC125 is a diffuse lithic scatter on a slope overlooking a small tributary of Stevens Creek. Artifacts observed include flakes, cores, and shatter made of both quartzite and chert. Additionally some fire cracked rock was also observed. Testing at this site indicated that intact subsurface deposits of cultural material are present (to approximately 50 cm (20 in) below surface).

Use Evaluation. The footprint of the EM-1 alternative extends across a portion of the area mapped as Site 25LC125. Consultation with the SHPO indicates that appropriate mitigation of this site would include excavation and recordation for data recovery purposes. As such the site does not warrant preservation in place, and would not meet the criteria to be evaluated as a 4(f) resource.

2.10 Euroamerican Trail (25LC147)

Description. Site 25LC147 described as a segment of discontiguous pioneer wagon ruts extending for a length of 0.4 km (0.25 mi). The ruts are presumed to be a continuation of Road 324 identified on the Lancaster County Surveyor's map from 1866. Wagon ruts from this road were previously identified east of Stevens Creek and are thought to be related to the Shirley Road Ranch (presumed located east of the creek) which was a station along the Plattsmouth to Fort Kearny Road trail. The SHPO has indicated that they would consider the three resources (the tracks east and west of the creek, and the Shirley Road Ranch) as a discontinuous archeological district. The district is considered significant under Criterion A for its relevance to early transportation and settlement, as well as under Criterion D for its ability to yield information important in history.

Use Evaluation. The footprint of the EC-1 alternative extends over a portion of the land mapped as part of the 0.4 km (0.25 mi) trail segment. Consultation with the SHPO indicates that the wagon ruts warrant preservation in place, and as such would meet the criteria to be considered as a 4(f) resource.

In October 2000, the site was revisited by UNL and the SHPO to more specifically define the location of the ruts. Ruts were determined visible for a length of 80 m (260 ft) at the west end of the mapped location. The ruts ended approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) west of the EC-1 alternative.

Therefore, it was determined that EC-1 crosses the archeological district in an area where the ruts are not visible, where the primary importance of the area is what can be learned from data recovery, where the resource has minimal value for preservation in place, and where the integrity of the archeological district is not adversely affected other than for data recovery purposes.

3.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES AND MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

Based on the above use evaluation, three of the resources meet the criteria of Section 4(f). These are listed in Table H.2.

3.1 MoPac East Trail

Impacts. Right-of-way requirements for each of the potential crossings are 0.3 ha (0.7 ac) for EC-1 and EF-1, and 0.3 ha (0.8 ac) for EM-1. The impacted locations are shown in DEIS Exhibit EC1-3 for the EC-1/MoPac East Trail Crossing; Exhibit EM1-3 for the EM-1/MoPac East Trail Crossing, and Exhibit EF1-3 for the EF-1/MoPac East Trail Crossing. Such a crossing would require construction of a grade separation as part of the beltway project to provide for trail continuity.

Construction of the beltway will introduce a new roadway element into these segments of the trail, and may adversely impact the visual and audible experience of the trail users for a short distance. However, these impacts on the trail are considered negligible considering the trail is part of an urban trail system that already crosses many roadways (approximately 1 per 1.6 km (1 mi)), and considering the length of the trail (over 14 km (9 mi)).

Coordination. The consulting team has coordinated with the owner of the trail to discuss project impacts and measures to minimize harm. A letter from LPSNRD is included in Appendix H-A of this Section 4(f) Statement documenting their concerns and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures.

Measures to Minimize Harm. For the MoPac East Trail, design of the beltway/trail intersections will include (1) grade separations to safely accommodate the trail, (2) separate access through confined areas for the hiker/biker and equestrian trails (or a physical divider), and (3) underpasses for all equestrian trail crossings since horses are hesitant to use overpasses. Design of the trails will follow AASHTO and ADA trail guidelines, and will be coordinated with LPSNRD. Specific details on the crossings will not be determined until final design.

Net Impacts. Since replacement trail crossings will be provided, there will be no adverse impact on existing pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.

3.2 David Murdock Trail

Impacts. Right-of-way requirements for the potential crossing is 0.3 ha (0.8 ac). The impacted location is shown in DEIS Exhibit EC1-5. This crossing would require construction of a grade separation as part of the beltway project to provide for trail continuity.

Construction of the beltway will introduce a new roadway element at the end the trail, and may adversely impact the visual and audible experience of the trail users for a short distance. However, these impacts on the trail are considered negligible considering the trail is part of an urban trail system that already crosses many roadways (approximately 1 per 1.6 km (1 mi)), and considering the length of the trail (over 11 km (7 mi)).

Coordination. The consulting team has coordinated with the owner of the trail to discuss project impacts and measures to minimize harm. A letter from the City of Lincoln Parks and Recreation Department is included in Appendix H-A of this Section 4(f) Statement documenting their concerns and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures.

Measures to Minimize Harm. For the Murdock Trail, design of the beltway/trail intersection will be handled as an overpass since it is not an equestrian trail. Design of the trail will follow AASHTO and ADA trail guidelines, and will be coordinated with the City of Lincoln. Specific details on the crossings will not be determined until final design.

Net Impacts. Since replacement trail crossings will be provided, there will be no adverse impact on existing pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.

3.3 Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (LC00: E-118)

Impacts. The road sign may require protection during construction and nearby repositioning, if it is not moved prior to the beltway project for County road widening. Repositioning the sign is a minor impact, required for operation and safety of an existing roadway

Coordination. The SHPO has concurred that the beltway project will have no adverse effect on the sign, with the condition of protection during construction and repositioning nearby (see letter dated 26 September 2000, Appendix H-A of this Section 4(f) Statement).

Measures to Minimize Harm. Conditions for protection and repositioning of the sign have been defined by the SHPO. If either EM-1 or EF-1 is selected as the preferred alternative, the road sign will be protected from damage during construction of the beltway, and upgrade and paving of Adams Street. The sign will be repositioned about 6.1 m (20 ft) from the upgraded road and as near its current location as is practicable (assuming the County roads have not been upgraded prior to beltway construction).

Net Impacts. With the condition of protection during construction and repositioning nearby, there will be no adverse impact on the road sign.

4.0 IMPACTS OF AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES

4.1 MoPac East Trail

Because of the length of the MoPac East Trail and its orientation perpendicular to the east beltway study area, any east beltway alternative (remaining or previously eliminated) will require crossing the trail. The only avoidance alternative is the no build alternative.

No Build Alternative. Although the no build alternative will have no impacts on the MoPac East Trail that can be identified at this time, there will be impacts to the trail as County roads are hard surfaced to accommodate a growing suburban population (as part of the proposed future roadway network improvements). An example would be the recent paving of 148^th Street across the MoPac East Trail. Additional information on impacts of the no build alternative is detailed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

4.2 David Murdock Trail

The EM-1 and EF-1 alternatives both avoid crossing the Murdock Trail, as does the no build alternative. Impacts of these alternatives are detailed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, and a summary comparison of the impacts of the east alternatives is provided in Chapter 4.

EM-1. The EM-1 alternative meets the project purpose and need, and avoids impacts to the David Murdock Trail, but still impacts two other Section 4(f) resources--the MoPac East Trail and road sign.

EF-1. The EF-1 alternative meets the project purpose and need, and avoids impacts to the David Murdock Trail, but still impacts two other Section 4(f) resources-the MoPac East Trail and the road sign.

No Build Alternative. Although the no build alternative will have no impacts on the Murdock Trail that can be identified at this time, there will be impacts to the trail as County roads are hard surfaced to accommodate a growing suburban population (as part of the proposed future roadway network improvements). An example would be the recent paving of 148^th Street across the MoPac Trail.

4.3 Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (LC00: E-118)

The EC-1 alternative avoids impacts to the road sign, as does the no build alternative. Impacts of these alternatives are detailed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS, and a summary comparison of the impacts of the east alternatives is provided in Chapter 4.

EC-1. The EC-1 alternative meets the project purpose and need, and avoids impacts to the road sign, but still impacts two other Section 4(f) resources--the MoPac East Trail and David Murdock Trail.

No Build Alternative. The no build alternative will have no impact on the road sign. However, the no build alternative will not meet the project purpose and need.

4.4 Comparison of the Alternatives

A summary comparison of the alternatives is provided in Table H.3, based on the above Section 4(f) considerations.

¹Does not meet project purpose and need.

Based on a comparison of impacts to Section 4(f) resources, all of the east alternatives have relatively low net impacts after mitigation. All of the east alternatives are considered feasible. It has not yet been determined if the alternatives are prudent. This determination will be made following circulation of the Draft Section 4(f) Statement.

28Feb01

Appendix H-A

Coordination Letters