3.23 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.23.1 Existing Conditions

As part of the south and east beltways study, several cultural resources investigations were conducted in the study area. The purpose of the investigations was to provide compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act which requires that historical resources (both standing structures and archeological materials) be considered during the planning and execution of any federally funded project. Under this legislation, historical resources are defined as those listed in or considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Eligibility is based on two primary considerations (1) the degree of historic integrity, and (2) the overall significance of the resource. Integrity requires the site to retain enough of its early materials, appearance, and feeling to illustrate its history clearly. Significance requires that the resource relate to a historical context and must be based on at least one of the following four criteria: (a) association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, (b) association with the lives of persons significant in our past, (c) embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or high artistic values, and (d) likelihood to yield information important to historical understanding.

Survey Investigations. Survey investigations were conducted to identify existing cultural resources. A survey of historic standing structures was conducted by On-Site Preservation and Photography (On-Site); a survey of archeological resources was conducted by the University of Nebraska Department of Anthropology (UNL). Following completion of the initial surveys, several additional surveys were requested and conducted by UNL.

Project Scope. The project scopes for the two surveys were developed in consultation with the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), NDOR, FHWA and the City of Lincoln. The scope of the historical survey was to identify historic standing structures, and to evaluate those sites using the federally-established criteria to determine eligibility for the NRHP. The survey included two components: (1) a reconnaissance-level survey to identify all historic resources within the 200 km² (80 mi²) study area, and (2) an intensive-level survey of the Stevens Creek Bottoms, the area of some of Lancaster County's earliest settlements.

The scope of the archeological survey was to identify archeological sites within defined 0.4 km (0.25-mi) wide corridors, and to evaluate those sites using the federally-established criteria to determine eligibility for the NRHP. The survey included two components: (1) an intensive archeological survey of all project stream crossings from valley margin to valley margin, and (2) an intensive survey of a ten-percent sample of upland areas. Corridors covered by the surveys were SM-4, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1, as well as several diagonal alignments connecting the south and east corridors. All aspects of the archeological survey were coordinated with the Nebraska State Historical Society Highway Archeology Program. It should be noted that although the 10-percent upland survey was completed, the bottomland survey was incomplete due to landowners who denied permission to survey. Any of the unsurveyed parcels along the final beltway route would be surveyed once they have been acquired.

Public Participation. Both investigations incorporated public participation opportunities, including running announcements on the public access channel, newspaper articles in the Lincoln Journal Star, Waverly News and Hickman Village Voice, and questionnaires mailed to landowners within the study area. A feature story on the archeological survey was aired on the Channel 10/11 6:00 P.M. evening news on 21 July 1998. Extensive discussions were held with landowners with a familiarity with historic standing structures in the area; and contact was made with 193 landowners during the process of obtaining permission of access for the archeological survey. In addition, representatives of various advocacy groups were contacted, including Friends in the East-Mid Beltway, Citizens for Accountable Route Selection, Preservation Association of Lincoln, Stevens Creek Preservation Association, Nebraska Indian Commission, Waverly Planning Commission, Lincoln Trails Committee, Native American Tribes, and several homeowners associations.

Survey Documents. Findings of the survey inventories and evaluation of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were presented in the following documents:

• Archeological/Cultural Resources Survey of Lincoln South and East Beltways Study, Lancaster County, Nebraska. Phase I Records Search. Prepared by Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. January 1996.
• Lincoln South and East Beltways Historic Survey Report. Prepared by On-Site Photography and Preservation, Lincoln, Nebraska. August 1998.
• (DRAFT) Archeological Inventory and Evaluation of Lincoln's South and East Beltway: Investigation Along the Southern Route SM-4, Lancaster County, Nebraska (Not For General Distribution). Prepared by Archeological Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. January 1998.
• Archeological Inventory and Evaluation of Lincoln's South and East Beltway: Investigations Along the Eastern Alternatives EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1, Lancaster County, Nebraska (Not For General Distribution). Prepared by Archeological Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. August 1998.
• Archeological Inventory and Evaluation of Lincoln's South and East Beltway, Lancaster County, Nebraska (For General Distribution). Prepared by Archeological Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. December 1998.
• Evaluations of the Hulda Otto House, Guenzel Farmstead and Wunibald Farmstead for Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Prepared by Archeological Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. July 1999.
• Archeological Inventory and Testing of Lincoln's South and East Beltway: Alternatives SM-1, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1, Lancaster County, Nebraska (Not for Public Distribution). 2 Volumes. Prepared by Archeological Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. January 2000.

It should be noted that some of the archeological documents were not made available to the public because they contain information on the location of protected cultural sites. In order to provide information to the public (minus locality data), one comprehensive report (Number 5 above) was prepared for general distribution which covers information on all the archeological sites. All owners were notified of any archeological findings on their properties.

Documents prepared for general distribution are available for review at the offices of the City of Lincoln Public Works and Utilities Department, Engineering Services (531 Westgate Boulevard).

Findings of the Reconnaissance (and Supplemental) Surveys of Historic Standing Structures. The reconnaissance survey identified 144 sites over 50 years old-the cut-off limit for historic resources according to NRHP guidelines. Of these, two sites were already listed on the NRHP (Steven Creek Stock Farm and Ehler's Round Barn). Based on a comparative analysis and evaluation of historic integrity, 28 other sites were determined to be eligible for listing. The majority of the eligible sites are farmyards and barns which individually, and as a group, contribute to the overall understanding of agricultural development in rural Lancaster County. The 30 sites included 12 farmyards, 8 individual barns, 4 residences, 1 school, 3 cast concrete road signs, and 2 grain elevators. Since that time, two additional cast concrete road signs were identified within the study area in June 2000 (Appendix G).

Results of the survey showed that historical resources nearer to central Lancaster County have already been affected by growth pushing eastward from the City of Lincoln. In general, the concentration of historic resources increases with distance from the City. This is attributable to the growth throughout the twentieth-century of Lincoln as a center of business, commerce and government, and the increasing impact of the city on its surroundings.

Findings of the Intensive-Level Survey of the Stevens Creek Bottoms. The intensive-level survey focused on the Stevens Creek Bottoms--a small area within the overall study area. Because Stevens Creek was known to be the location of the earliest settlement in the County, the purpose of the intensive level survey was to develop a cultural context (narrative history) with which to evaluate any cultural landscapes or the potential for any historical districts. Thirteen sites were surveyed within the defined area-generally within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of either side of Stevens Creek. These sites included 10 farms, 1 automobile garage, and 2 relocated school buildings.

Although the survey revealed broad patterns of nineteenth century immigrant settlement and the consequent early development of agriculture in Lancaster County, only one site (Norma and Bob Lemke Residence) was considered eligible for the NRHP (other than the already listed Stevens Creek Stock Farm). No cultural landscapes were identified, and no historical districts were considered appropriate. The low-incidence of Register-eligible properties in the Stevens Creek Bottoms can be attributed to the steady adaptation of the farm to the changing demands of agriculture. As a result, the physical manifestation of early settlement has eroded with time, and few resources in the area retain the historic integrity necessary for the determination of eligibility.

Findings of the Archeological Surveys. The Archeological Survey Reports included a records and archives search. Information obtained was used to develop a narrative which covers the physiographic and environmental background of the region, general overview of Great Plains culture history, Native American cultures in Eastern Nebraska, and documented accounts of Indians in Lancaster County. The Schrader Site, located 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the centerline of SM-4, was the only recorded archeological site within the entire beltway study area that was already listed on the NRHP.

The archeological survey of the south and east beltways identified 47 previously unrecorded sites along SM-4, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1. Of these 47 sites, 28 are indicative of Native American activities. Euroamerican activities are represented by 17 sites, and 1 site is a multicomponent site which contains both prehistoric and historic material. After further investigation, 1 site is considered non-cultural. Controlled subsurface testing was conducted on 18 sites selected in consultation with the SHPO. Upon completion of testing, two archeological sites were recommended eligible to the NRHP. Based on surface evidence, a Euroamerican wagon road was also recommended eligible to the NRHP.

The majority of the sites were located along the east beltway alignments. The relatively small number of sites in the south beltway study area was thought to be related to the lack of well-defined terraces above the floodplain along the SM-4 route. Most prehistoric sites tend to be located on terraces. Along SM-4, there are sudden slopes rising from the floodplain to the uplands. Any sites or materials that might once have been present were either washed away down the steep slopes, or remain deeply buried in the floodplain. In contrast, the relative abundance of prehistoric sites in the east beltway study area is due to the presence of terraces at the stream crossing locations. These areas were favorable environmental settings for prehistoric groups which were attracted to the reliable year-round water sources. At the time of occupation, villages or other long-term sites were close enough to streams for water to be available, but high enough in the landscape to prevent recurrent flooding.

NRHP and NRHP-Eligible Properties. Based on the recommendations of the Historic Survey Report, Archeological Evaluation, and supplemental investigations requested by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), there are 36 sites in the study area which are either on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. These include 32 historic (Figure 3.3) and four archeological sites. The SHPO and FHWA have concurred with the recommendations of eligibility; all other historic and archeological sites were determined not eligible (Appendix A). The historic resources being considered as part of the Section 106 consultation with the SHPO are listed in Table 3.23. This table provides the site number, site name (with historic name in quotation marks), type of site, and closest beltway corridor.

In addition to historic and archeological sites, the project included a good faith effort to contact Native American groups for the purpose of identifying traditional cultural properties; none were identified.

Information from the surveys was used in developing alignments to avoid impacts to historic resources to the extent possible.

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

3.23.2 Impacts of the Four Finalist Alternatives

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

Results of Level 1 Screening. The original 34 sites were reviewed to determine which beltway corridors could potentially affect them (previous Table 3.23). 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.

Results of Level 2 Screening. The remaining 30 sites (27 historic and 3 archeological) were compared with the most recently refined corridor concept. 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. Among other things, the teams evaluated the physical characteristics of and type of historic property; 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 (a) not be adversely affected by the beltway project, (b) be adversely affected, or (c) possibly be adversely affected, but needed field verification.

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 (Table 3.24). Of the seven sites, the beltway would require incorporation of land from only the two archeological sites. These takings are discussed further in the Section 4(f) Statement (Appendix H).

Additional Sites. Two additional cast concrete road signs which were identified in the study area in June 2000 (Appendix G) have been added to Table 3.23. Neither of these signs will be impacted by finalist beltway alignments.

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 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) the Assessment of Adverse Effects to NRHP and NRHP-Eligible Sites to be submitted to the SHPO, and (2) this Draft Environmental Impact Statement, where appropriate.

Additional Investigations. As recommended in the consulting party/public comments, several additional investigations were conducted. These included:

• Determination of boundaries for all historic properties eligible for the NRHP (see Appendix G).
• Evaluation of the Stevens Creek Stock Farm 320 ha (800 ac) (see Appendix F).
• Evaluation of the Sartore (Herter) Farmyard 40 ha (100 ac) (see Appendix F).
• Noise evaluation of the sensitive receptors, including three residences on or eligible for the NRHP (Henry Wunibald, Penterman and Teresa Retzlaff) (see Section 3.13 and Appendix C).
• Evaluation of urban sprawl (see Sections 3.2 and 3.31).
• Reevaluation/evaluation of other sites, including four that had already been evaluated, two previously not considered to have retained a sufficient degree of historic integrity to warrant inclusion in the original historic survey report, and three archeological sites (Appendix F).
• Reevaluation of a historic district centered on the German/Trinity Lutheran Church (Appendix F).
• Resolution of various other issues (see Appendix F).

Reevaluation of Effects. Based on the consulting party/public comments and additional investigations, the list of eligible sites remained 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 were 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 the Assessment of Adverse Effects was updated with current information. However, the list of sites which were determined to be adversely affected remained unchanged from the December 1999 preliminary assessment (see Appendix F).

In letters dated 1 February 2001 and 27 November 2000 (Appendix E), the SHPO concurred with the findings of the Assessment of Adverse Effects (Appendix F) and the Determination of Boundaries report (Appendix G).

Section 4(f) Resources. All of the seven sites in Table 3.24, as well as the road sign at 112^th and Adams, have been included in the Section 4(f) Statement (Appendix H) which further addresses transportation impacts to historic resources. Based on the 4(f) evaluation, the only historic resource which falls under Section 4(f) is the road sign.

3.23.3 Proposed Mitigation

Proposed mitigation is included in the Assessment of Adverse Effects (Appendix F). 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)

3.23.4 No Build Alternative

Under the no build alternative, deterioration of some historic properties will likely continue while others may be preserved and maintained. The no build alternative probably maintains the characteristics of the area that motivate certain owners to invest in maintaining historic properties. However, even with the no build scenario, development pressures will continue to accelerate in both the south and east beltways areas under current growth policies. There is reason to believe that continued changes in farming, farm consolidation, escalating agricultural land prices, and proliferation of non-farm residential acreages will contribute to urbanization. With no evidence of major public or private funding for historic preservation, the same processes that caused the decline of former historic structures will continue into the future.

Although the no build alternative may avoid the specific impacts to cultural resources of the beltway alternatives; construction of the proposed future roadway network improvements are likely to impact other cultural resources along roadways to be paved and/or widened in the 1 and 20 Year Program.

3.24 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SITES

3.24.1 Existing Conditions

Environmental risk sites are those facilities and/or locations where hazardous substances, hazardous waste or petroleum products were or can be released into the ground water, surface soils or subsurface sediments. The beltway could impact these sites during roadway construction by direct contact with contamination present in contaminated media (surface soil, subsurface sediments, and ground water). The assessment of the impact of the beltway project on environmental risk sites considered the extent of contamination at the facility and extending from the facility.

Existing conditions have been determined by accessing regulatory records through inquiries under the Federal Freedom of Information Act made to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nebraska State Fire Marshal (SFM). Each agency provided a list of sites regulated by those agencies occurring in the study area. Regulatory records examined and date of the database included the following:

1. NPLThe National Priorities List (NPL) documents sites which have been identified for priority remedial actions under the Superfund Program by EPA. Database date: 4/14/00.

2. CERCLIS The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Index System (CERCLIS) is a compilation of sites in which the EPA investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. Database date: 4/14/00.

3. Landfills The Landfills list is a listing maintained by the NDEQ of closed or operating registered solid waste landfills.

4. RCRIS The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS) is a compilation by the EPA and the NDEQ of reporting facilities that generate or transport hazardous waste or facilities that treat, store or dispose (TSD) of hazardous waste. RCRIS also contains a listing of TSD facilities required to complete corrective action. Database dates: 3/29/00 and 4/17/00.

5. UST The UST list is a compilation by the SFM of registered underground storage tanks (UST) and facilities that previously had tanks. Database date: 5/9/00.

6. LUST The LUST list is a compilation by the NDEQ of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) indicating the type of release from the tank and status of the site (active or closed). Database date: 4/12/00.

7. Surface Spills A listing of releases to land or water of petroleum products or hazardous substances that have occurred and been reported. Database date 4/12/00.

The above regulatory lists were reviewed for environmental risk sites occurring within the study area (and up to 1.6 km (1 mi) from each alternative). In addition, other potential environmental risk sites not identified on the above regulatory lists have been identified based on current or previous land uses.

Review of potential environmental risk sites in the study area identified one NPL site, two CERCLA sites, five RCRA generators, no registered Landfills, five LUST sites, two UST facilities (sites with tanks and not appearing on the LUST list), and 17 surface spills (more than one on some properties). Several of the 32 sites identified have no potential for conflict or impact by the beltway project based on distance from features, type of site, and type of contamination; therefore, the number of potential impact sites is reduced.

The NPL site occurs north of Waverly over 2.4 km (1.5 mi) northeast of the east beltway alignments, and the two CERCLA sites occur in Waverly near the NPL site and in Walton southwest of the intersection of South 120^th and A Streets. None of these sites are considered potential impact sites based on the distance each is located from the alignments and the type of contamination.

Five hazardous waste generators are located in the study area, however none are located in close proximity to any of the alignments to warrant further consideration for impact to the project.

Contaminant plumes resulting from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) are relatively small and expected to be approximately 150 m (500 ft) long by 75 m (250 ft) wide based on the type and volume of releases noted, low permeability of soils and sediments within the study area and the resulting low ground water flow and contaminant migration velocities. Therefore, LUST sites within approximately 150 m (500 ft) of the proposed beltway alignments were considered for potential impact. No known LUST sites occur within this distance and no impact sites are identified.

The UST list was also searched for sites within approximately 150 m (500 ft) of linear features which currently have underground tanks installed, but, have not reported any releases from the tanks. Potential plumes from these sites would be of similar type and size as those noted at known LUST sites. Two UST sites are located at the intersection of US 77 and Saltillo Road.

Seventeen surface spills were identified in the study area. These spill have occurred from above ground storage tanks, pipelines, fixed facilities, and motor vehicles. In some cases, insufficient information is included in the regulatory database to determine the exact location and extent of the spill, therefore, these spills are assumed to occur in the study area. Eleven of the 17 spills are identified as potential impact sites and occur in seven locations along the beltway alignments.

Two major above ground petroleum storage facilities with petroleum pipelines are located near the intersection of US 77 and Saltillo Road. Releases from these facilities could result in more extensive surface contamination due to the volume stored, absence of spill prevention measures in the past and length of operation. Both of these sites have had releases from the tanks or other portions of the facility and are included in the surface spill list.

Another potential environmental risk site occurring in the study area is the United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) grain storage facility in Cheney. This site has not been identified by the NDEQ or EPA as a potential hazardous waste site; however, past activities at similar facilities included the use of hazardous substances (grain fumigants) which have since contaminated surface soils, subsurface sediments and ground water in the vicinity of these type of facilities. This site is located approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) west of the EC-1 alignment. Contaminated surface soils and subsurface sediments could be expected near the facility and contaminated ground water could be expected at distance from the site.

In addition, impacts from unreported releases, unregistered facilities and facilities with insufficient location information are unable to be assessed. The potential does occur that these sites may exist along the project alternatives. Due to the rural setting of the majority of the project, contaminated media may also be encountered in areas impacted by unreported releases, in particular from unregistered tanks at farm operations that do not appear on regulatory agency lists, and from undocumented rural landfills.

Prior to right-of-way acquisition, Phase I and Phase II environmental evaluations may be conducted for improved properties (with structures) to determine site-specific operational histories, historical land use, and potential waste streams during demolition.

3.24.2 Impacts of the Four Finalist Alternatives

The total number of environmental risk sites with potential to be impacted by the beltway alternatives are summarized in Table 3.25. Descriptions of the individual facilities are discussed under each alternative.

SM-4 Alternative. Two underground tank facilities are located at the intersection of US 77 and Saltillo Road. These are Major Oil Company (SMF #4708) and Shoemaker's Truck Stop South (SFM #11650) located on the southeast corner and the northeast corner of this intersection, respectively. Each facility appears on the UST list and not on the LUST list indicating that no release from the underground tanks has been documented to date. However, since these sites still have underground tanks installed, there is a potential that a release has occurred and not been noted. The risk of exposure to potential contamination from these sites would be higher with excavation below approximately 3 m (10 ft) below ground level. Minimal risk of exposure would be expected with shallower excavation activities.

Table 3.25

NUMBER OF RECORDED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SITES

WITH POTENTIAL FOR BELTWAY IMPACTS

Major Oil Company is the only business relocation required on any of the beltway alternatives. Regulatory records indicate that underground storage tanks are installed at the site and no release of petroleum products has been documented at this site. However, the NDEQ has documented thousands of releases from underground storage tanks in the State of Nebraska. Upon taking the business, State regulations require that the underground storage tanks be removed and a soil assessment completed to determine if a release has occurred. There is a potential that when the underground storage tanks are removed, petroleum contamination may be encountered. It would be the responsibility of the tank owner/operator to notify state and local authorities regarding the contamination. In the event that petroleum contamination is encountered during construction, removal and on-site treatment mitigation measures may need to be addressed as discussed in Section 3.24.3.

Seven spills have occurred at or near the intersection of US 77 and Saltillo Road. Information in the regulatory database is insufficient to determine the exact location of some of the spills. Information on these spills are summarized in Table 3.26. Surface and subsurface soil and ground water contamination would be expected at these sites, and could be mitigated as described in Section 3.24.3.

EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1 Alternatives. Four surface spills have occurred along I-80 and US 6 in the vicinity of the proposed east beltway interchange. Since all of the east beltway alternatives join I-80 at the same location, the potential impacts for each east alternative are the same. These spills are summarized in Table 3.27. Surface contamination would be expected and could be mitigated by removal and disposal at a licensed landfill as described in Section 3.24.3.

Table 3.26

POTENTIAL SURFACE SPILL SITES

ON SM-4

Table 3.27

POTENTIAL SURFACE SPILL SITES

ALONG EC-1, EM-1 AND EF-1

3.24.3 Proposed Mitigation

Contaminated media encountered in the project area could include contaminated soil and/or sediment and ground water. Mitigation measures include avoidance, removal of the contaminated media or on-site treatment. Selection of an appropriate mitigation strategy will depend on the type and concentration of the contaminant and the type and quantity of media contaminated. Contaminated media may be encountered in or near areas of identified releases.

Avoidance.If possible, contamination should be avoided by realignment of the beltway feature. This approach is difficult because the contamination occurs in the subsurface and the surface extent is typically uncertain. Furthermore, right-of-way acquisition may preclude realignment.

Removal.Contaminated soil and sediment may be removed and managed off-site in accordance with requirements of the State of Nebraska for special waste or hazardous waste. If contaminated soil meets the classification of a special waste then the most common management option involves disposal at a licensed Subtitle D landfill in accordance with NDEQ Title 132. If contaminated soil is classified as a hazardous waste, disposal must be at a licensed hazardous waste disposal site in accordance with NDEQ Title 128.

On-Site Treatment.Contaminated water generated from any de-watering activities may require treating prior to discharge. Cost of treatment would vary depending on the type and concentration of contaminant, receiving waterway, volume of discharge and treatment system required. Permits issued by NDEQ may be required for this option for water discharges in accordance with NDEQ Title 119 and contaminant emissions to ambient air in accordance with NDEQ Title 129.

3.24.4 No Build Alternative

The no build alternative will have no impact to existing environmental risk sites and would avoid the expenses of any mitigation measures, other than those required for construction of the proposed future roadway network improvements.

3.25 VISUAL AESTHETICS

3.25.1 Existing Conditions

Visually, the project area is characterized by rolling hills and an agricultural landscape. Narrow strips of woodlands occur along the stream courses which break up the typical scenery of large fields of row crops. Existing farm ponds dot the drainages between the hills. This rural landscape is regularly dissected by a grid of paved and unpaved section line roads spaced at 1.6 km (1 mi) intervals in both directions. Portions of the project area are characterized by suburban residential acreage residences.

3.25.2 Impacts of the Four Finalist Alternatives

The beltway will introduce a linear freeway facility into a rural landscape, including associated bridges, overpasses and interchanges. Although the size of a freeway facility is out-of-character for the beltway study area, the visual effect of an additional linear roadway is not greatly different than that of the existing grid system of section line roads except for those residences in close proximity to the beltway. For these residences, the visual isolation of the existing landscape will be replaced with a view of a 4-lane freeway facility, not unlike US 77 through the south beltway study area.

To estimate the potential visual impact of each alternative, a determination was made of the number of residences within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the beltway right-of-way (Table 3.28).

3.25.3 Proposed Mitigation

Public concern has been increasing for Lincoln's major transportation corridors. This was recently observed in the adoption of a new 'Boulevard' concept for future Public Way Corridors to create a positive physical image for the community along the mile-line section roadways within Lincoln's future urban area. The Boulevard concept is a 37 m (120-ft) multiple-use corridor which expands to 40 m (130 ft) at mile-line intersections and allows for landscaping, open space, pedestrians, and cyclists, while accommodating utilities and the addition of future traffic lanes. There is an opportunity to apply a similarly 'green' concept to the beltway corridor. Accommodating landscaping and open space would have a clear benefit to adjacent properties, but is likely to require the acquisition of additional right-of-way or easements and will need to be weighed against the additional loss of private property

As part of final design, consideration will be given to visual impacts on residential properties. Measures to screen the road from the residence will be evaluated including landscaping, berming and fencing which can be accomplished within the road right-of-way or on additional road right-of-way acquired for this purpose.

3.25.4 No Build Alternative

The no build alternative will have no impact on visual aesthetic, other than paving and or widening proposed future roadway network improvements in the 1 and 20 Year Program.

3.26 ENERGY

3.26.1 Methodology

The proposed project will affect energy usage by providing a new roadway for automobiles--which consume fossil fuels as an energy source. To compare energy impacts of the alternatives an analysis was made of fossil fuel consumption. The analysis involved a comparison of the finalist alternatives and the no build alternative. Typically, both direct and indirect energy consumption would be calculated for a transportation system. The direct energy consumption includes the amount of energy consumed by vehicles operating on the roadway network, and was calculated by multiplying the total vehicle kilometers (miles) traveled within the County by the energy consumption rate per vehicle. Indirect energy requirements, which are not quantified in this analysis, include construction and maintenance of roadways, and are dependent on such factors as roadway length, pavement type, number of bridges, etc.

The direct energy analysis compares the anticipated direct energy consumption level between the finalist alternatives and the no build alternative for long-range planning conditions. The direct energy consumption figures have been calculated using speed sensitive formulae developed by FHWA (1981). The analysis also makes an allowance for anticipated improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, and assumes that the fleet would consume 23.8 percent less fuel per kilometer traveled than vehicles operating presently.

3.26.2 Impacts of the Four Finalist Alternatives

Table 3.29 shows the anticipated annual vehicle kilometers traveled (vehicle miles traveled (VMT)), average 24-hour travel speeds, and fuel consumption for the finalist alternatives and no build alternative. Annual vehicle kilometers (miles) traveled would be minimally higher (4.5 to 5.8 percent) with the beltway alternative versus the no build alternative. At the same time, average travel speeds would be 0.6 to 0.8 km/h (0.4 to 0.5 mph) faster, or 1.4 to 1.9 percent faster. This increase in travel speeds would enable vehicles to operate in a more fuel efficient environment, with savings derived from these conditions offsetting the fuel required to support the minimal increase in the vehicle kilometers traveled (VMT). Direct energy consumption under the finalist alternatives is approximately 6,412,000 to 6,494,000 billion barrels (bbl) of oil, representing a 4.5 to 5.6 percent decrease over the no build alternative. Therefore, energy consumption with the beltway alternatives is considered a small improvement over the no build conditions.

A beltway alternative would also require a one-time non-recoverable expenditure of energy for the construction of the roadway. However, this expenditure would be compensated for over time by the ongoing annual savings in direct energy requirements. Also, none of the energy resources to be used during construction are in short supply, and no unusual demands on energy supply would result from constructing the beltway.

All of the beltway alternatives would require similar energy consumption for construction and operation of a roadway facility, in comparison to the no build alternative which requires no additional expenditure of energy, other than that required for construction of the proposed future roadway network improvements. However, post-construction operational requirements will be less with the more efficient beltway (freeway) alternatives as opposed to the no build alternative. Savings in operational energy requirements would more than offset construction energy requirements and thus, in the long-term, result in a net savings in energy usage.

3.26.3 Proposed Mitigation

No mitigation is proposed since energy consumption with the beltway alternatives is less than that with the no build alternative.

3.26.4 No Build Alternative

Regional travel increases and proposed future roadway network improvements are included in the no build alternative resulting in an overall increase in future travel speeds. Annual vehicle kilometers traveled (VMT) in the County is forecast to be approximately 10,824,000 kilometers (6,726,000 miles). Vehicles operating within the County are expected to consume approximately 6,600 bbl of oil which is more than with any of the beltway alternatives.

3.27 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

3.27.1 Existing Conditions

All of the beltway alternatives would be constructed along new right-of-way located within rural areas.

3.27.2 Impacts of the Four Finalist Alternatives

Primary construction impacts would include:

• Detours and access impacts to adjacent properties,
• Increased dust generation from earth moving activities,
• Increased erosion and sedimentation in waterways from earth moving activities, and
• Increased noise from construction equipment.

All of these impacts are considered temporary and mitigatable.

3.27.3 Proposed Mitigation

Provision of Access. In general, detours and access to adjacent properties will only be required when construction crosses existing streets or driveways. Because most of the project will be along new corridors, access problems should be minimal with the exceptions of the major interchanges at US 77, N-2, US 34, I-80 and US 6. For minor intersections, motorists will be rerouted to nearby parallel streets. Delay would be minimized and adequate signage provided. For the major intersections, construction phasing plans will be prepared to address traffic handling operations. Private landowners will be provided access to their property at all times.

Dust Supression. If objectionable dust levels occur, dust can be controlled by timely applications of water and temporary seeding to the construction areas.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Mitigation measures for construction-related erosion and sedimentation control will include dikes, dams, sediment basins, fiber mats, temporary and permanent seeding, straw mulch, plastic liners, slope drains, and other devices which would intercept and trap transported sediments during construction.

Noise Controls. Construction noise levels are typically a function of the scale of the project, the phase of construction, the condition of the equipment and its operating cycles, and the number of construction equipment units operating simultaneously. Measures that may be employed to reduce objectionable construction noise include designating haul routes away from sensitive receptors, controlling noise at the source, and limiting construction activities to certain hours of the day.

3.27.4 No Build Alternative

The no build alternative will require similar mitigation for construction of the proposed future roadway network improvements.

3.28 PERMITS

Table 3.30 includes a list of permits that will be required for the beltway project. No other permits are known at this time. A no build scenario would likely require similar permits for construction of the proposed future roadway network improvements.

3.29 RELATIONSHIP OF LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The short-term use of resources to construct the beltway are necessary for the long-term benefits related to the transportation improvements described in Section 3.3. These improvements are based on the adopted Lincoln/Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan which considers the need for present and future traffic requirements within the context of present and future land uses. Therefore, local short-term use of resources for the beltway project is consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the local area and regional transportation network.

3.30 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Construction of the beltway involves commitment of a range of natural, physical, human and fiscal resources. These include land, fossil fuels, labor and construction materials.

Land is not considered an irreversible commitment of resources. If a greater need arises for use of the land or if the improvements are no longer needed, land can be converted to another use if considered appropriate and consistent with the Lincoln/Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan. At present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion would ever be necessary given the amount of forethought invested in the beltway planning process.

Resources irretrievably committed to the project will consist primarily of construction materials, fuel and related labor. However, they are not in short supply and their use would not have an adverse effect on the continued availability of these resources in the future. Construction activities would also require a substantial one-time expenditure of Federal and State funds which are not retrievable.

Natural resources such as soil, water, air, vegetation and wildlife will be disrupted or utilized but not in an irreversible manner.

The commitment of these resources is based on the idea that residents of Lincoln and Lancaster County, as well as travelers through the region, would benefit by improving the quality of the transportation system. These improvements include improved traffic conditions, time of travel, and safety. These benefits outweigh the commitment of resources.

3.31 SECONDARY IMPACTS

Secondary impacts would result from indirect impacts of a project, and may occur later in time or at another location. The most contentious potential secondary impact related to the beltway has been the concern that the beltway will induce urban sprawl in the east beltway study area which will in turn result in loss of cropland, floodplain storage, riparian and other wildlife habitat, and historic structures.

Land Use Trends. The south and east beltways study area is primarily agricultural in character, but is in the early stages of transition to suburban residential uses. The future urban service area has been extended into the south beltway study area and to the edge of the east beltway study area due to the continuing growth of Lincoln. On the south, the City has recently approved inclusion of the S-1 and S-2 Subareas (Urban Planning Zones) into the Lincoln-Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan bringing the future City service area up Saltillo Road within the south beltway study area. On the east, the future City service area has been extended to 98^th Street (the edge of the east beltway study area ) between N-2 and Old Cheney Road. In addition, the City has recently initiated the Stevens Creek Basin Planning Initiative to assess future urban and rural development in the basin relative to the overall long-term growth objectives of Lincoln and Lancaster County. The goal of the initiative is to prepare a long range conceptual plan for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update process. The current Stevens Creek study has expanded the area of the Urban Planning Zones (which generally covered the west bank) to include the entire basin, including the east bank.

Completion of a beltway project would not alter the direction of land use change, nor preclude the use of the area for agricultural or suburban residential use. However, construction of the beltways would likely increase the speed at which the area becomes developed.

Potential for Urban Sprawl. Concerns have been raised that the east beltway will indirectly impact land uses by encouraging urban sprawl along the beltway route, where urban sprawl is considered to be any non-farm development not contiguous to the Lincoln City limits. The implication is a far location will create non-contiguous growth, and a close location will continue compact growth. The EC-1 alternative is within 0.8 to 3.2 km (0.5 to 2.0 mi) of the city limits; EM-1 is within 2.4 to 4.8 km (1.5 to 3 mi); and EF-1 is within 2.4 to 6.4 km (1.5 to 4 mi). The SM-4 alternative, which has not been criticized, is between 2.4 to 5.6 km (1.5 to 3.5 mi) of the city limits.

As discussed previously, the pattern of scattered non-farm development in the beltway study area is already well-established. And for a variety of reasons, the pattern appears to continue with substantial momentum. Given policies that allow for it (see Section 3.2), as well as the prosperity of the local economy, decreasing economic feasibility of the family farm, and availability of rural land for sale in the beltways study area, it is expected that rural non-farm residential growth will continue into the future. According to records of the Lancaster County Register of Deeds, 2000 land sales in the Stevens Creek watershed are as high as $21,000 to $65,000 per hectare ($8,500 to $26,000 per acre), indicate proposed uses other than agricultural production. In comparison, average prices of comparable agricultural land in more distant parts of the County range from $3,700 to $6,200 per hectare ($1,500 to $2,500 per acre).

Although existing policies allow for continued residential growth, other types of land uses are not permitted without amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, many other types of land uses are limited without the availability of City infrastructure and services. In recognition of the pressure to extend the City limits to the south and east, the City recently amended the Comprehensive Plan to include the S-1 and S-2 Subareas on the south, and has begun work on the Stevens Creek Basin Planning Initiative on the east. It is expected that any urbanization of the basin and other fringe areas will occur according to approved Subarea Plans.

With or without a beltway, the demand for services and infrastructure will increase as the area becomes further developed with residences. In the recent past, the City has already experienced pressure to annex AGR subdivisions with failed septic systems, and the County has already experienced pressure to extend paved roads to others.

Considering the existing proliferation of non-farm residential acreages and acreage subdivisions in the beltway area, the development of a beltway will likely result in more pressure for urbanization in the area; however, this does not necessarily equate to urban sprawl when it follows a locally approved plan.

Protection of Valuable Resources. A variety of federal, state and local policies and regulations already exist to protect valued resources to a certain degree (for example wetlands, floodplains and endangered species). However, most regulations do not override the property rights of landowners who may drain wetlands, develop farmland, or alter historic properties without answering to any authority.

Additional measures do exist for protection of resources depending on the value the community places on these resources and the commitment they are willing to invest. These measures may range from the simple commitment of existing landowners to maintain valued land uses-perhaps through deed restrictions, to the adoption of a subarea plan as part of the Lincoln-Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan, to donation or purchase of public or private conservation easements, to purchase and public ownership of resources. However, the need for protection measures to be implemented as part of the beltway project has not yet been demonstrated. In fact, preservation through planning measures is currently one of the considerations being assessed in the Stevens Creek Basin Planning Initiative.

Historic Resources Concerns. Specifically, concerns have been raised regarding the likelihood of the beltway to cause development and urban sprawl to the point of having an adverse effect on historic resources, and specifically on the Stevens Creek Stock Farm.

The Historic Survey report (On Site, 1998) for the beltway documents the deterioration of historic structures near Lincoln that have occurred as a result of a growing community. The survey shows that "historic resources nearer to central Lancaster County have already been affected by growth pushing eastward from the City of Lincoln". The concentration of historic resources "increases with distance from the City". This is "attributable to the growth throughout the twentieth-century of Lincoln as a center of business, commerce, and government, and the increasing impact of the city on its surroundings".

The report points out that the broad patterns of agricultural development have been eroded over the last century: "No cultural landscapes were identified, and no historic districts were considered appropriate. The low-incidence of Register-eligible properties in the Stevens Creek Bottoms can be attributed to the steady adaptation of the farm to the changing demands of agriculture. As a result, the physical manifestation of early settlement has eroded over time, and few resources in the area retain the historic integrity necessary for the determination of eligibility".

The research provides a particularly important view of the structures that make up the agricultural landscape. The authors note that agricultural structures "such as barns, granaries, and silos" are "erected as revenue producing elements of a family farm". They were "often replaced as their contribution to farm profitability declined with the introduction of newer innovations in farming and improvements in building construction". Further, the researchers point out that "preservation and maintenance is thus directly contingent upon the continued economic viability of the farm. Should viability of the farm be threatened and the land sold or leased (contributing to farm consolidation), necessary maintenance will likely cease".

In summary, there are several factors that have led to deterioration of many historic structures in the study areas, including:

• Century-long changes in agricultural operations
• Economic impacts on agriculture resulting in abandonment of farmsteads
• Increasing consolidation of farm units
• Urban pressure from a growing Lincoln community

As a result, it was concluded that the rural landscape and associated built environment found in the project area has low physical integrity as a rural landscape. This opinion is due to the intrusion of large scale urban developments of various kinds in the beltway study area.

In today's economy, there continues to be a multitude of opportunities for additional urban developments in both the south and east beltways areas. Preservation of historic structures will continue to be a challenging matter. Further, there is no commanding evidence that preservation of historic structures has become a greater priority in recent years. In spite of the increasing availability of research data that would allow additional sites eligibility to the NRHP, only three structures in the entire study area are listed. Only one has been added since publication of the 25 additional eligible sites in August 1998.

Under the no build alternative, deterioration of some historic properties will likely continue while others may be preserved and maintained. The no build alternative probably maintains the characteristics of the area that motivate certain owners to invest in maintaining historic properties. However, even with the no build scenario, development pressures will continue to accelerate in both the south and east beltways areas under current growth policies. There is reason to believe that continued changes in farming, farm consolidation, escalating agricultural land prices, and proliferation of non-farm residential acreages will contribute to urbanization. With no evidence of major public or private funding for historic preservation, the same processes that caused the decline of former historic structures will continue into the future-with or without a beltway.

3.32 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts would result from the implementation of the beltway alternative as well as past, current and proposed roadway improvements in the region that may occur at another location. The traffic forecasts used in the beltways study and to characterize the no build alternative include all projects in the City/County 1 and 20 Year Program of Improvements for Future Roadway Network (see Figure 2.10). Many of these improvements would have an effect on traffic on roadways within the beltways study area as well as the region. Some of these improvements which are proposed or underway include:

• US-34 (O Street) - Widen to a four-lane divided highway, 84th Street to
  Eagle, NE (NDOR project)
• N-2 - Widen to a four-lane divided highway, 84th Street to Nebraska City
• 84th Street - Widen to four through lanes with left turns lanes, US-6 to
  N-2
• Adams Street - Widen to add left-turn lanes, 70th Street to 98th Street
• Pioneers Boulevard - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes,
  70th Street to 84th Street
• Old Cheney Road - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes, N-2 to
  98th Street
• Pine Lake Road - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes, 14th
  Street to 98th Street
• 14th Street - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes, Old Cheney
  Road to Pine Lake Road
• 27th Street - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes, Pioneers
  Boulevard to Yankee Hill Road
• 40th Street - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes, N-2 to 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of Pine Lake Road
• 56th Street - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes, Old Cheney
  Road to Pine Lake Road
• 70th Street - Widen to four through lanes with left-turn lanes, Pioneers
  Boulevard to Pine Lake Road

Since traffic volumes from all reasonably foreseeable transportation projects have been considered in the beltways study, cumulative impacts have been anticipated.