Federal Highway Administration

• DECISION
  
  

  The City of Lincoln, Lancaster County and the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), have studied a wide-range of alternatives, evaluated them and selected a preferred alternative for constructing a beltway around the south and east sides of the City of Lincoln. The purpose of the project is to complete the circumferential (encircling) transportation network around Lincoln which currently exists only on the north and west sides. The project would move through traffic around Lincoln's congested urban area, and improve traffic flow on the existing urban street system.

  The proposed action is construction of a 4-lane roadway designed to freeway standards, similar to Interstate 80 (I-80). A freeway design would have complete access control (no at-grade crossings) and would typically require a 250 to 300-foot (ft) wide right-of-way. Beltway interchanges would be spaced approximately 2 miles (mi) apart along the existing grid network. Roadways which cross the beltway may or may not be improved as part of the federal project. However for cost estimating purposes of this study, it was assumed that ultimately all unpaved county roads at beltway interchanges would be upgraded to 4-lane paved roadways. County roads which cross the beltway overpasses were assumed to be upgraded to 2-lane paved roadways.

  The south beltway would provide an alternative connection between US Highway 77 (US 77) in the southwest and Nebraska Highway 2 (N-2) at the southeast edge of Lincoln. The selected alignment, SM-4, intersects with US 77 approximately 0.5 mi south of Saltillo Road, and extends east to N-2 at approximately 120^th Street. Access points are proposed at 27^th, 68^th and 84^th Streets.

  The east beltway would connect N-2 at the southeast edge of Lincoln with I-80 in the northeast. The selected alignment, EM-1, extends north from N-2 in the vicinity of 120^th, and generally follows 127^th Street to connect with I-80 at the Waverly interchange. Access points are proposed at Pine Lake Road, Pioneers Boulevard, US 34 (O Street), Adams Street, Fletcher Avenue and US 6 (Cornhusker Highway).

  The beltways could be constructed together, completing the loop around the City, or separately as stand alone projects with independent utility (i.e., they would be usable and a reasonable expense even if only one is built without the other).

• ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
  
  

  The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) document contains an evaluation of project alternatives based on the results of six years of data collection, analysis, and public and agency review. Although the document includes the step by step evaluation process, the final evaluation represents an analysis of all that is known at this time. The study considered a wide range of alternatives, including non-beltway and no build 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 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 analysis. These were identified as the four finalist alternatives, and included one south beltway alternative (SM-4) and three east beltway alternatives: close, mid and far (EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1). The no build alternative was carried forward throughout the entire evaluation process.

  Assessment of Transportation Benefits. Comparison of the four finalist beltway alternatives indicates that all of the alternatives served the project purpose and need, and all of the alternatives are considered feasible and cost-effective solutions. The location of the east beltway in terms of the close, mid or far alignment does not seem to have a significant effect on the amount of traffic it is expected to carry or the benefits obtained. The east beltway provides relief to traffic coming into or through Lincoln from the northeast (Omaha) and the southeast (Nebraska City). This traffic will use the east beltway regardless of which alternative is selected. The major differences between the east alternatives involve the interchanges at I-80, N-2 and the south beltway. The EC-1 and EF-1 requires diagonal routing to connect to an interchange at I-80, and requires two separate interchanges for N-2 and the south beltway. EM-1 requires a single, but more complicated interchange at N-2 and the south beltway. These differences are best reflected in the construction cost estimates and right-of-way impacts; however, they have little effect on system performance.

  Assessment of Environmental Impacts. This FEIS contains an assessment of environmental, social and economic impacts, and includes proposed mitigation to avoid, minimize or compensate for project impacts to the extent possible. Comparison of the project impacts indicates that all of the finalist alternatives have relatively low impact considering the length of the segments. This is due to the primarily rural setting and the great effort made to minimize impacts throughout the beltway planning process. However, all of the east routes have impacts to Section 4(f) resources.

  Overall differences between the east alternatives are relatively minor. EC-1 and EF-1 have greater right-of-way requirements than EM-1; and therefore, have greater land use impacts. EC-1 has slightly more impact to suburban type land uses such as residential and commercial acreage and impacts to trails due to its closer proximity to Lincoln. In contrast, EF-1, which is 2.5 mi more distant from the city than EC-1, has slightly more impact to rural uses such as farmland, prairie, historic structures, and actual number of residences. EM-1 and EC-1 have slightly more impact to natural resources such as streams, floodplains and floodways, and wetlands due to their closer proximity to Stevens Creek, where as EF-1 has slightly less impact to natural resources due to its general location along the ridgeline.

  Selection of the Preferred Alternative. Following receipt and consideration of comments on the DEIS, the SM-4/EM-1 alternative was selected as the preferred alternative.

  SM-4 was selected because:

  • Transportation Functions. A south beltway would aid in completing a circumferential roadway in the Lincoln area. The route is within 0.5 mi of the future service limit and would reduce the amount of through traffic that otherwise would be on N-2. The route has potential as a multi-use corridor for future trails, open space, utilities and other transportation alternatives.
  
  
  
  • Environmental Impact. SM-4 minimizes impact on natural resources in that it has relatively little impact on wetlands, no impact on native prairie, does not cross the existing boundaries of Wilderness Park, and could be built in a manner to minimize the floodplain impact on Salt Creek. While the route does impact some homes and businesses, these impacts have been minimized to the extent possible.

  
  EM-1 was considered the best east alternative compared to EC-1 and EF-1 because:

  • Transportation Functions. The EM-1 route would aid in completing a circumferential roadway and provide a new truck route without the less efficient "backtracking" found in the EC-1 and EF-1 options.
    
    
  • Environmental Impacts. EM-1 minimizes environmental impacts to those resources that are considered most valuable by the local community. In comparison to EC-1, the EM-1 route minimizes impacts to rural and urban neighborhoods, including noise and visual impacts to residences. It also has the least number of residential and business relocations of any of the east alternatives due to right-of-way requirements. While EM-1 and EF-1 are similar in environmental impact; EM-1 minimizes impacts to historic properties. At the same time, EM-1 has less impact to prairies (versus EF-1), relatively low impact to wetlands (versus EC-1), and requires 150 ac less in right-of-way than the other alternatives. While the EM-1 crossing of Stevens Creek is the longest of the three east alternatives, it could be built to minimize impacts to the floodplain. In consideration of these resources, the EM-1 route protects and preserves the environment to the greatest extent, and is considered the most compatible with the goals, objectives and values of Lincoln/Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan.
    
    
  • Multi-Use Corridor Potential. The EM-1 route has the greatest potential as a multi-use corridor for trails, open space, utilities and other transportation alternatives. It could be integrated well with a possible trail in Stevens Creek and then tie into possible trails along the South Beltway route to Wilderness Park trails. The potential as an open space corridor is high given that it is within 0.5 mi of Stevens Creek for over a 6-mi stretch. EM-1 also parallels an existing LES transmission line with a 150-ft easement which would allow some overlap of a joint utility and road corridor for over 8 mi.
    
    
  • Travel Time. EM-1 has greater travel savings than EF-1.
    
    
  • Cost. While EM-1 is more expensive than EF-1 or EC-1, EM-1 may provide future cost savings as a multi-use corridor, and it uses less land than the other two routes.

  The selection of the preferred alternative was unanimously approved on 15 June 2001 by the Beltway Management Committee representing the four project sponsors-the City of Lincoln, Lancaster County, NDOR and FHWA.

  Local Preference Decision. The SM-4 and EM-1 alternatives were approved by the Lincoln City Council and the Lancaster County Board of Supervisors, in separate actions, on 22 August 2001 for amendment to the Lincoln/Lancaster Comprehensive Plan. With the Mayor of Lincoln's signature on 30 August 2001, the alternatives were officially adopted into the plan.

• SECTION 4(f)
  
  

  The FEIS document includes the Final Section 4(f) Statement (Appendix H). Based on the Section 4(f) evaluation, the proposed action would impact two Section 4(f) resources along the EM-1 alignment. These are the MoPac East Trail and a historic road sign at 112^th and Adams Streets (LC00: E-118).

  MoPac East Trail. The EM-1 crossing has a footprint of 0.8 ac across the MoPac East Trail. The crossing requires construction of a grade separation to provide for trail continuity. Construction of the beltway will introduce a new roadway element into this segment of the trail, and may adversely impact the visual and audible experience of the trail users for a short distance. However, these impacts are considered negligible considering the trail is part of an urban trail system that already crosses many roadways (approximately one per mile), and considering the length of the trail (over 9 mi).

  Coordination. The consulting team has coordinated with the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (LPSNRD), the owner of the trail, to discuss project impacts and measures to minimize harm. Their concerns and recommendations were used to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

  Measures to Minimize Harm. For the MoPac East Trail, design of the beltway/trail intersections will include (1) a grade separation to safely accommodate the trail, (2) separate access through confined areas for the hiker/biker and equestrian trails (or a physical divider), and (3) an underpass for the equestrian trail crossing since horses are hesitant to use overpasses. Design of the trails will follow AASHTO and ADA trail guidelines, and will be coordinated with LPSNRD.

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

  Road Sign at 112^th and Adams (LC00: E-118). 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. In a letter dated 26 September 2000, the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that the beltway project will have no adverse effect on the sign, with the condition of protection during construction and repositioning nearby.

  Measures to Minimize Harm. Conditions for protection and repositioning of the sign have been defined by the SHPO. 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 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.

  Impacts of Avoidance Alternatives. Impacts to the MoPac East Trail cannot be avoided because of the length of the trail and its orientation perpendicular to the east beltway study area. Any east beltway alternative requires crossing the trail. The only avoidance alternative is the no build alternative which was not considered feasible as it does not serve the project purpose and need. 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.

  Impacts to the road sign can be avoided with the EC-1 alternative and the no build alternative. 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. In addition, EC-1 is not considered prudent because of the unacceptable impact on existing urban and rural neighborhoods. The no build alternative will have no impact on the road sign; however, it is not considered feasible as it does not meet the project purpose and need.

• COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS
  
  

  Eleven comment letters were received on the Final EIS.

  Three of the letters were from reviewing agencies. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality stated that they had no comments regarding any of their programs or jurisdiction. The Environmental Protection Agency stated that they have no objections to the project and suggested wetland monitoring of impacted wetlands. The US Army Corps of Engineers made suggestions regarding certain details of wetland mitigation.

  Eight letters were received from consulting parties for the Section 106 process (consultation on historic resources), six of these letters were from private landowners with interests on the EF-1 route (which was not selected as the preferred alternative). Letters were also received from two groups that had been supportive of EF-1 landowners--the Preservation Association of Lincoln and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In general, the consulting party letters covered a similar group of points. Comments are summarized in Table 1.

  Table 1
  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE FEIS

  NO.	SUMMARY OF COMMENT	RESPONSE
  1	NDEQ had no comments regarding any impact within their programs or jurisdiction.	No response necessary.
  2	EPA stated that the FEIS adequately supplements information needs and addresses previous concerns. They had no objections to the project.	No response necessary.
  3	EPA recommends that impacted wetlands be monitored during construction, and after completion, to assess effectiveness of mitigation measures.	Wetland mitigation sites will be monitored until the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) determines that the sites have become established as wetlands, consistent with requirements of the Section 404 permit.
  4	USACE suggests that the preferred alternative be identified in the introduction with cross-reference to Chapter 4 where it is described in detail.	Based on comments on the DEIS, the information in Chapter 4 was repeated in the Introduction of the FEIS. There is no more detail in Chaper 4.
  5	USACE suggests inclusion of (1) schedule of availability of credits/pre-credits at the Lincoln wetland bank site, (2) anticipated number of credits/pre-credits to be debited for this project, and (3) contingency plan in the event that an acceptable bank is not available or utilized.	Construction of the bank began in 2000. It is reasonable to expect that credits will be available. The project will require an estimated 18.0 acres (and an equivalent amount of credits) for SM-4, and 21.9 for EM-1. Regarding a contingency plan, the FEIS already states that mitigation may be located along the route at feasible sites.
  6	USACE suggests deleting the statement that "a minimum of a 1:1 mitigation ratio" because pre-credits from a bank would require 1.5:1, as would mitigation along the roadway.	The statement in the FEIS does not preclude a higher ratio, but it does allow for a ratio lower than 1.5:1 if credits are available, which is likely (see Item. 5).
  7	Five consulting party letters stated that they agree with the selection of the EM-1 route.	No response necessary.
  8	Six consulting party letters stated that the EF-1 route should never have been considered, should have been eliminated, or was the least desirable route.	No response necessary.
  9	Two consulting party letters stated that EF-1 (and EC-1) were not evaluated to the same level as EM-1. If they had been, EF-1 would have been even less desirable.	The DEIS included an evaluation of all three east routes to the same level of detail. Based on the DEIS and comments, the EM-1 route was selected as the preferred alternative, primarily because it minimized impacts to historic properties.
  10	Three consulting party letters stated that the reexamination of the boundaries of the Stevens Creek Stock Farm should have been extended to include areas beyond the preferred route. They state that this would be no different than reexamination of the Wenzl property on the EC-1 route.	Based on the DEIS and comments, the EM-1 route was selected as the preferred alternative, primarily because it minimized impacts to historic properties. When additional evaluation was requested to revise the boundaries of historic properties along the EF-1 route, it was determined not necessary since the EF-1 route was not being developed and the sites had already been identified as historic. Regarding the Wenzl site on EC-1, this site was reexamined because questions were raised that the site had been omitted from consideration.
  11	One consulting party letter stated that the document doesn't resolve the concern for preservation of prairies, especially the Reed prairie.	Although prairies are not regulated, impacts to these areas will be avoided or minimized to the extent possible. Based on the preliminary alignment, there are 3.2 ac of prairie impacted along EM-1, and none along SM-4. The Reed prairie is located on EF-1, which is not being developed.
  12	Two consulting party letters stated that many of the comments made by Citizens for Accountable Route Selection (CARS) members or their attorney (the organization representing landowners along EF-1) and others were not considered or adequately addressed in the FEIS.	The FEIS addressed and considered all comments received on the DEIS, as well as comments from the consulting parties to the Section 106 process. The FEIS was revised to the satisfaction of all reviewing and regulatory agencies, including the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the agency authorized to oversee historic resource compliance.
  13	Six consulting party letters stated that they were not given more opportunities in the 106 process; were never contacted directly as a group or individually as the consulting party status requires; had to present their concerns at meetings designed for the general public, and should have had the opportunity to help prepare, review, comment and concur in the MOA rather than just being notified of opportunities for comment.	Consulting parties were (1) provided individual invitations to public meetings and hearings for the NEPA process, (2) provided draft/advance copies of the Preliminary Assessment of Adverse Effects, Chapter 9 of the FEIS (which addressed their comments) and the MOA for historic properties, and (3) invited to a special meeting held for the consulting parties and owners of historic properties impacted by the preferred alternative. The FHWA, SHPO and cultural resource consultants were available at all the meetings to receive comments and answer questions. A number of the consulting parties were contacted directly to help in providing additional information on specific historic properties.
  14	One consulting party letter from two consulting parties stated that they were never involved in specific discussions of their concerns.	These particular consulting parties were specifically contacted regarding the location of prairies. Consultation included a meeting with project consultants, as well as phone conversations.
  15	Four consulting party letters stated that they did not feel that the public hearing on 23 and 24 April 2001 was really a public hearing since there were no public officials present, they didn't get to hear all the comments, and they only got to speak to a court reporter and moderator.	The public hearing format used for the beltway study is in common use by FHWA throughout the country. The format has been used successfully on other projects in Lincoln. All comments, written and oral, were provided to public officials. In addition, several public officials did attend the hearings. The FHWA, NDOR, City, SHPO and cultural resource consultants were available at all the meetings to receive comments and answer questions. Comments were made available, and continue to be available at several locations for public review.
  16	One consulting party letter stated that the FEIS should have noted that citizens concerns about the study process was an area of controversy.	This information is included in Chapter 6, Section 6.8 which includes summaries of the public meetings. It is also noted on page 9.3, Item 26.
  17	Four consulting party letters stated either that there is no discussion in the FEIS of the role of the consulting parties, or there is no reference to the consulting parties in Chapter 6 or Chapter 9, or that not all of the consulting parties are listed in the document.	Chapter 6 describes agency and public involvement as required by the NEPA process. Consulting parties were parties to the Section 106 process which only addresses historic resources. Consultation activities with the consulting parties are mentioned numerous times in Chapter 9, as well as Appendix F, the Assessment of Adverse Effects. Although all of the consulting parties were sent copies of the DEIS & FEIS, a list of their names was not included in the documents.
  18	PAL states that the opinions expressed by the President of the PAL during the Public Hearing on 15 August 2002 were his personal opinions and not the opinion of the organization.	Comment noted.
  19	PAL stated that the list of references includes a number of reports by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and that there is confusion concerning which references were contracted with UNL and which were contracted with private individuals associated with UNL. This confusion places a shadow over scholarly research.	All of the work was conducted by the UNL Department of Anthropology Archeological Laboratory, and was contracted through the UNL Office of Sponsored Programs. Every reference to this work has always been identified as being conducted by the UNL Department of Anthropology.
  20	PAL stated that the boundaries determination report did not adequately reference technical material available from the National Park Service.	All of the reports related to historic resources were reviewed by the Nebraska SHPO, the agency authorized to oversee historic resource compliance. The reports were revised to reflect the comments and concerns of the SHPO, and the SHPO has concurred with the findings of all of the reports.
  21	PAL stated that the boundaries determination report did not completely examine early conservation practices utilized before current terracing techniques were adopted.	See Item 20 above.
  22	PAL stated that the glossary in the boundaries determination report did not define treeline, terrace or contour cultivation, concepts which are mentioned in the text.	While missing from the glossary, these terms are defined in the text.
  23	PAL stated that the boundaries determination did not evenly apply the same evaluation criteria for all studied properties on the three east routes.	See Item 20 above.
  24	PAL stated that the boundaries determination report does not correctly list the period of significance for the Theresa Retzlaff Farmyard-which should be extended from 1890- 1920, to 1950.	Comment noted. The property is located on EF-1, an alternative that was not selected.
  25	PAL and NTHP stated that their requests for determination of additional NRHP eligible properties on the EF-1 route should have been forwarded to the Keeper.	See Item 10 above.
  26	NTHP states that the FEIS document falls short of directly acknowledging that the beltway will have an indirect effect on historic properties through potential impacts of growth and sprawl development.	The FEIS includes an extensive evaluation of indirect effects (Chapter 9). Following the Lincoln/Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan, the rural landscape of the entire beltway study area could be converted to an urban form over the planning period. FHWA has no legal tools to direct the local planning process.
  27	NTHP requests that the FEIS be revised to remove the statement that the owners of the Stevens Creek Stock Farm had "previously expressed written opposition to the use of conservation easements". NTHP says this is incorrect, and that the owners are opposed only to public ownership of a conservation easement.	The FEIS discussion was intended to relate to public ownership of easements.

• MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
  
  

  Impacts from the proposed action have been evaluated and minimized to the extent possible. Mitigation has been proposed for the remaining impacts and will consist of those measures in the Environmental Commitments Listing (Table 2).

  All practical measures to minimize harm have been incorporated into the project.

  Table 2
  ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS LISTING

  AREA OF CONCERN	PAGE/ PARAGRAPH IN FEIS	COMMITMENT/MITIGATION
  Access	9.8, 9.9, 9.17, 9.18, 9.21, 9.22	Options for provision of access will be discussed with landowners during final design.
  Acquisitions and Relocations	3.17/6 through 3.20/3	Right-of-way acquisition will be handled in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended. Relocation assistance for all eligible residential and business relocatees will be provided without discrimination, through the Nebraska Relocation Assistance Act as required by federal and state laws (Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 76-1214 et seq.).
  Air Quality	3.31/3-4	If objectionable dust levels occur during construction, dust will be controlled by timely applications of water and temporary seeding to the areas of construction.
  Air Space Considerations	3.10/1 9.28	Air space considerations will be reviewed during final design with FAA. Construction methods will be reviewed with FAA 30 days prior to construction.
  Construction Impacts	3.76/7 through 3.77/3	Provision of Access. For minor intersections, motorists will be rerouted to nearby parallel streets. Delay will be minimized and adequate signage provided. For 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 will 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.
  Cultural Resources	3.67/4-5, 9.42/1-9.44/3, F.25/1-F.27/3	Proposed mitigation follows the guidelines of the Nebraska SHPO and is included in the Assessment of Adverse Effects (Appendix F of the FEIS). Memorandums of Agreement were developed to implement mitigation for the two historic properties which are adversely affected by the preferred SM-4/EM-1 alternative (Henry Wunibald and Steve Johnson Farmyards), and include provisions for screening the two properties. Modification of the EM-1 alignment made it possible to avoid archeological site 25LC129. Other cultural resource management activities will include: 1. Completion of an archeological survey of bottomlands where access has been previously denied. 2. Use of NDOR standard provisions regarding previously unsuspected archeological remains that provide for cessation of work and notification of the SHPO. 3. Use of NDOR standard provisions regarding monitoring of archeological sites during construction. 4. A historic marker located at Saltillo Road and South 14th Street will be relocated.
  Environmental Risk Sites	3.72/1 through 3.73/2	Contaminated media may be encountered in or near areas of identified releases and 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. 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.
  Farmland	3.14/4	Right-of-way will be limited to that necessary for transportation uses and any required mitigation.
  Floodplains	3.51/1 through 3.52	Floodplain Development. Through Lancaster County's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, it is a local requirement that floodplain development permits be obtained from the City/County. This requires that any developments within designated floodways must include certification from a registered professional engineer that the proposed development will result in no increase along the floodway water surface profiles. The City/County are both sponsors of the project and are aware of floodplain management requirements. The proposed project will comply with or exceed the current minimum requirements of the City/County floodplain management ordinance. There are no additional mitigation measures above what is already required by the City/County program. Channel Realignment. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers requirements, if channel straightening is proposed for any of the crossings, it will be necessary to demonstrate that there are no other practicable alternatives. SM-4 Alternative. It is anticipated that all major crossings in this alternative will allow channels to remain in their existing configurations. EM-1 Alternative. The Stevens Creek tributary crossing south of Pine Lake Road cuts across two existing channel meanders. There are several options for the crossing. The channel can be aligned to provide a relatively straight section of channel at the bridge location, and the meanders upstream and downstream can be reconfigured to enable the total channel length to remain the same as before the realignment. Other options would be to straighten the channel (with the effect of shortening the channel approximately 73 m (240 ft), or extending the bridge approximately 38 m (125 ft) to span the meanders. The Stevens Creek tributary crossing between Van Dorn Street and Pioneers Boulevard may require minor channel realignment at two existing channel meanders due to encroachment of the channel by the roadway embankment. Stevens Creek Farm Ponds. The EM-1 alternative will require continued coordination with LPSNRD, as well as modifications to the roadway design to reduce conflicts with the proposed farm ponds. EM-1 will require (1) the A2-1 spillway to be relocated on the east side of the dam, and (2) adequate protection of the roadway embankment at the same site. Stevens Creek Conservation Easements and Trail. For EM-1, proposed development in the Stevens Creek mainstem floodplain between the Murdock Trail and the MoPac East Trail would be required to comply with the terms of the conservation easements to be acquired by LPSNRD relative to the Stevens Creek watershed plan; however, these terms will not prohibit construction of a beltway facility.
  Landscaping	3.39/4 9.24	Landscape treatments will be considered to screen freeway lighting if sufficient right-of-way is included outside the lateral obstacle clearances. Landscaping options will be discussed with landowners during final design.
  Lighting	3.39/4	Lighting features will be determined during final design. Location and choice of specific lighting structures will likely be determined by surrounding land uses. It is expected that the beltway will only be lighted at the intersections and within the City limits, if it extends to the beltway at the time of construction. There are a wide variety of lighting options available to minimize light intrusion on adjacent properties. To the extent possible, the location and choice of specific lighting structures will be designed to minimize light intrusion on adjacent properties. In addition, landscape treatments will be considered to screen freeway lighting if sufficient right-of-way is included outside the lateral obstacle clearances.
  Noise	3.36/1 through 3.38/3	Based on a preliminary evaluation of the current alignments for SM-4 and EM-1, noise abatement measures (consisting of alignment shifts and/or barriers) were determined feasibility and reasonable, and should be considered, at four receptors. These locations are R-11 on SM-4; and R-17, R-35 and R-36 on EM-1; all are alignment shifts. Further evaluation of noise abatement measures should be conducted during final roadway design. Reasonableness of barriers will be reassessed prior to construction based on costs at that time; if earthwork costs or right-of-way acquisition are too high, the noise barrier could be considered unreasonable at that time. For locations where noise abatement is feasible and reasonable, a public information meeting will be held and benefitted property owners will be given an opportunity to vote according to NDOR Noise Policy. Noise abatement will be provided if 75 percent of the benefitted property owners are in favor of the proposed noise abatement device. In addition to traffic noise, the project area would experience temporary noise increase during construction. 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.
  Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations	3.29/4 through 3.30/2	Existing Trails. 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. The hiker/biker trail may be designed as an overpass or underpass. Proposed Trails. SM-4 crosses the abandoned UP line just north of the half-section line within the Jamaica North segment for which the City has filed for rail banking. If a trail has already been built in this location, the beltway project will provide an appropriate crossing over the trail right-of-way. If the Homestead Trail is built prior to the beltway and prior to the Jamaica North Trail (or other connector), the beltway project will provide a bicycle/pedestrian trail (and appropriate trail crossing) to connect the south end of Wilderness Park with the north end of the Homestead trail. The beltway project will also be designed to accommodate the proposed Stevens Creek Connector. Design. Design of the trails will follow AASHTO and ADA trail guidelines, and will be coordinated with the trail owner, LPSNRD. Specific details on the crossings will not be determined until final design.
  Permits	3.77	The following permits and approvals will be obtained for the project: 1. Section 404 Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers 2. Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 3. National Pollution Elimination Discharge Permit from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 4. Floodplain Development Permit from Lancaster County
  Railroads	3.23/3	All beltway/railroad crossings will include grade separations over any active railroad lines.
  Threatened and Endangered Species	3.57/8	Since construction is not expected for several years, surveys for the threatened prairie fringed orchid will be updated, as appropriate. Although prairies are not regulated, impacts to these areas will be avoided or minimized to the extent possible.
  Transportation Safety	3.12/8	The project will include fencing of the freeway right-of-way and lighting at interchanges.
  Utilities	3.23/4	Utility relocations will be determined during final design. Any approvals for relocations will be obtained from the affected utility at that time.
  Visual Aesthetics	3.74/1-2	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. There is also an opportunity to apply a 'Green' concept to the beltway corridor-similar to Lincoln's 'Boulevard' concept. 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.
  Water Body Modification and Wildlife	3.47/1 9.3	Mitigation measures will be implemented for construction-related erosion and sedimentation control and include, as appropriate, 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. In addition, the project will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from NDEQ which is needed for all sites greater than 2 ha (5 ac) in size. The permit will require incorporation of erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction. Any need for wildlife crossings will be evaluated with appropriate resource agencies during final design. To the extent practicable clearing and grubbing activities will be scheduled to avoid nesting birds. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and NDOR Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, if tree removal will occur from April 1 to July 15 (the primary nesting season of migratory birds), an initial survey for nesting birds within the project area shall be conducted. Any presence of eggs or young will be reported immediately to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on consultation as a result of this contact, appropriate mitigation will be implemented.
  Water Quality	3.42/8 through 3.43/1	Groundwater. Roadway designers will consider storm water drainage patterns in the vicinity of the Wellhead Protection Areas; however, there are no land use restrictions in the areas except within 90 m (300 ft) of a well. Surface Water. Mitigation measures will be implemented for construction-related erosion and sedimentation control and include, as appropriate, 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. All heavy equipment will be refueled and serviced away from water courses to prevent accidental contamination of surface waters with petroleum products. Only clean fill material will be used in construction in the waters and wetlands. Special consideration will be given to erosion and sedimentation control measures in the vicinity of the tributary to Wagon Train Lake.
  Wetlands	3.44/1, 9.29	Mitigation has been proposed to replace all impacted wetlands, whether jurisdictional or not, at a minimum ratio of 1:1 replacement-to-loss. Wetland mitigation sites may be located along the proposed project route at feasible sites, or may be located in the City of Lincoln's Wetland Mitigation Bank, currently under development. Wetland impacts are estimated at 18.0 ac for SM-4 and 21.9 ac for EM-1).

• CONCLUSION
  
  
  Based on the analysis and evaluation contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South and East Beltways, and after careful consideration of all the social, economic, and environmental factors and input from the public involvement process, it is my decision to adopt the recommended SM-4/EM-1 Alternative as the Proposed Action for this project.

Approving Official
Federal Highway Administration

9/19/02
Date