Letter of Agreement (LOA) Black Hawk County Bridge Replacement and Trail Repair (for mitigation of a historic property).

LETTER OF AGREEMENT

AMONG BLACK HAWK COUNTY, IOWA

THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND THE IOWA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REGARDING CDBG FLOOD RECOVERY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE

CEDAR VALLEY NATURE TRAIL AND MITIGATION OF RESULTING ADVERSE EFFECTS TO A HISTORIC PROPERTY NEAR McFARLANE PARK, BLACK HAWK COUNTY, IOWA

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has allocated supplemental Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) disaster recovery funds for repair and improvement of public infrastructure to the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA) under the Supplemental CDBG Disaster Recovery Funding from the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329). HUD through IEDA proposes to provide funds to Black Hawk County (the County) for repair and improvement of public works related to flood recovery. The County shall combine CDBG funds with funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the demolition, replacement, and repair of a recreational trail and bridge over the Cedar River and adjacent floodplain areas (the Undertaking). Alternate procedures for implementation of Section 106 review were established through the execution of the Programmatic Agreement among the Iowa Department of Economic Development, Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, and The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in Response to Iowa’s Statewide Natural Disasters of 2008, executed January 23, 2009 (the Programmatic Agreement), and pursuant to 36 CFR 800.141. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58.5, the County, acting in its duty as the Responsible Entity, has assumed HUD’s responsibilities for review, decision-making, and action that would apply to HUD under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (particularly Sections 106 and 110). By executing a Lead Agency Agreement with the County, FEMA has further assigned all responsibility for Section 106 compliance for the Undertaking to the Responsible Entity. The County defines the Undertaking’s area of potential effects (APE) as being located within the easement for the Undertaking, right-of-way for the Cedar Valley Nature Trail and related infrastructure located within Section 28, T87N–R11W, Black Hawk County, Iowa, which is partially overlapping and partially adjacent to the southern boundary of the McFarlane County Park and elsewhere located primarily on privately held land, including limited temporary construction easements as further indicated on the attached map (Attachment A). The County has defined the scope of work to be limited to repair resulting in an improved trail and bridge replacement consisting of demolition of the existing substantially flood-damaged structures, specifically the undercut portions of concrete slab-on-grade recreational trail and reinforced concrete bridge, reshaping of the bridge approach embankments to replace flood eroded material, installation of engineered landscape fabric to be covered with rip-rap, installation of a new asphalt overlay cap on the trail and construction of a new trail bridge over the Cedar River on the same alignment as the existing bridge. The existing concrete trail deck on the wooden rail trestle shall remain in place and there are no direct structural affects to the wooden rail trestle. The project shall utilize temporary construction easements as indicated in Attachment A.

1 On July 1, 2011, the State of Iowa changed the official name of the Iowa Department of Economic Development to Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA).

Letter of Agreement, Cedar Valley Nature Trail, Black Hawk County CDBG-08-DRIEF-262 | P. 2

Consultation for the project was initiated first with the consultation that IEDA conducted for the execution of the Programmatic Agreement. The County has since consulted with Native American Indian Tribes and has consulted with the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as described in the Programmatic Agreement. The County and SHPO attempted to identify additional consulting parties specific to this project. The County has sought the opinion of the Office of the State Archaeologist, which participated in consultation on the project, and Preservation Iowa. Additional consultation continued with opinions solicited from the County Conservation Board, the primary controlling interest of the Cedar Valley Nature trail within the APE. Opportunities for further public comment are planned as part of the IEDA and County approval for the project As part of their identification and evaluation for historic properties, the County retained the services of a consulting firm whose staff meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualifications for architectural historian, historian, and archaeologist as consultant for identification and evaluation of historic properties and consulted with SHPO on the results of their reports. The County has determined that their Undertaking shall have adverse effects on a historic property that is eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP), namely the Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern Interurban Railway Bridge on Cedar Valley Nature Trail at the Cedar River, known as the MCFARLANE BRIDGE (Iowa State Inventory Number 07-11474). The McFarlane Bridge was repurposed prior to the 2008 natural disaster for the Cedar Valley Nature Trail. The County has further determined that the repair of the approaches to and continued use of the existing historic wooden railroad trestle for the nature trail shall have no adverse effect on a historic property as recommended by consultation for the Undertaking. The railroad trestle is known as the MCFARLANE

WOODEN TRESTLE (Iowa State Inventory No. 07-11475). Research independent of the Undertaking has identified sites of historic, cultural, or religious significance within a quarter mile view shed of the Undertaking that are variously not affected or not adversely affected by the undertaking. At the recommendation of the Iowa SHPO and consistent with consultation with other parties mentioned, the County has redefined their APE as indicated in the finalized APE and scope. The exact location and nature of these sites shall remain confidential pursuant to Iowa Administrative Code Section 22.7. To establish appropriate treatment measures for mitigation of adverse effects, the consultation process included a special meeting at the location of the Undertaking for project stakeholders and others who indicated an interest in participating in consultation and for whom there was a demonstrable interest in the outcome of the final project design and implementation (Attachment B). Therefore, the County, SHPO, and IEDA agree that the Undertaking will be implemented in accordance with the following Stipulations in order to mitigate adverse effects on the MCFARLANE

BRIDGE and to avoid adverse effects to other historic properties, including the MCFARLANE WOODEN

TRESTLE.

Letter of Agreement, Cedar Valley Nature Trail, Black Hawk County CDBG-08-DRIEF-262 | P. 3

STIPULATIONS To the extent of its legal authority, the County shall ensure that the following measures are carried out: 1. MITIGATION TREATMENTS

The County agrees to mitigate the adverse effects to the MCFARLANE BRIDGE and to avoid adverse effects to the MCFARLANE WOODEN TRESTLE by carrying out the following requirements related to Historic Property Documentation and Architectural Salvage. Prior to demolition of the McFarlane Bridge, the County shall complete research and documentation as described in the Historic Property Documentation treatment 1 through 5. The County may utilize technical assistance from IEDA and they may procure the services of a qualified consultant in accordance with the following conditions:

A. Historic Property Documentation:

1. Historic Property Documentation Team. The County shall assemble a historic property

documentation team with the composition of their choice provided that at least one individual on the team meets the SOI Qualifications Standards for architectural history and/or history, as appropriate. The recommended composition would consist of an architectural historian or historian and additionally an engineer or architect familiar with bridge design.

2. Information Update. The County shall ensure that a final review and update of the information in the Iowa Site Inventory shall be completed for the MCFARLANE BRIDGE (07-11474) and the MCFARLANE WOODEN TRESTLE (07-11475) and seek the opinion of SHPO regarding the adequacy of information and kind of format of the new information specific to the purpose of the mitigation of adverse effects to the MCFARLANE BRIDGE and avoidance of adverse effects to the McFarlane Wooden Trestle. The kind of documentation chosen shall be in a format appropriate to the extent and nature of the new and additional information, such as a supplemental Site Inventory Form, letter report, cultural resource management report or historic property study. The information update shall include a historic context developing the associated economic, cultural, and technological/design significance that the historic property and the Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern interurban railway—the Cedar Valley Road, made as part of a regional transportation system for the areas it served. Further, the documentation shall identify and record the most important architectural and/or engineering aspects of the structures studied.

As a benchmark, the documentation should describe the measures taken to locate the original design plans and specifications or otherwise conduct sufficient research to ascertain the nature of the original design and as-built condition of the bridge specifically with regard to interior construction of the arches only. The letter or report shall cite the initial information gained in the bridge identification and evaluation effort made in reports by Tallgrass Historians,L.C. and others as appropriate and shall include the results of any additional research as appropriate. A discussion section shall compare and contrast the McFarlane Bridge with other known interurban bridges, especially those built by the Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern Interurban Railway, including the Evansdale reinforced concrete arch bridge and the McFarlane Wooden Trestle. The report should draw conclusions supported by experience, research and testing. The discussion shall include historic context on the economic, cultural and technological/design significance of the historic property. Prior to commencement of the work, the County shall ensure that the

Letter of Agreement, Cedar Valley Nature Trail, Black Hawk County CDBG-08-DRIEF-262 | P. 4

historic property documentation team has reviewed the recommendations, guidelines, or other materials provided by IEDA or SHPO.

3. Limited Controlled Testing. As part of the documentation, the County shall coordinate with their historic documentation team and others as necessary to conduct limited systematic testing in the form of small areas of controlled demolition on no more than two (2) of the existing arches to examine and identify the interior construction of the arches. Testing of the existing structure shall occur ahead of the major demolition process to determine the as-built construction design of the arches. The County shall schedule a meeting to discuss the placement, goals, and documentation methods for the tests. The process of the testing and its results shall be documented in a brief letter or report addressed to the County.

4. Review. Employing a reasonable level of effort, at such time as the County can appropriately determine that the documentation is as complete as can be made, the County shall seek the opinion of SHPO as to the sufficiency of the information that has been obtained. The County shall ensure that the consultant(s) submit a draft of the updated state inventory information, such as any reports or updated site inventory forms necessary to finalize the documentation of the historic properties to IEDA, SHPO and the County for review and comment. Draft submittals to SHPO must reference the IEDA-monitored undertaking and the LOA associated with the report and shall include all necessary and required hard-copy single-sided documents. The County shall approve all documentation. The County shall submit electronic copies to IEDA concurrent with any submittals to SHPO. The County shall afford IEDA and SHPO fifteen (15) days to comment on the submitted draft.

5. Revision. The County shall ensure that the any revisions recommended by the SHPO or

IEDA are completed and resubmit the final Report to the SHPO, IEDA and the County within fifteen (15) days from receipt of comments.

B. Pamphlets. The County shall ensure the preparation of a pamphlet that communicates the

history of the existing crossing. The County shall provide a draft copy to IEDA and the SHPO and afford each fifteen (15) days to review and comment on the Pamphlet. The County shall ensure the consultant(s) takes into consideration any comments received from IEDA and/or the SHPO within the comment period in revising the Pamphlet. The County shall provide fifty (50) printed copies and one (1) electronic copy to SHPO and one (1) printed or electronic copy to IEDA. The County will place a notice on the County website and elsewhere as appropriate indicating how a copy of the Pamphlet may be obtained.

C. Information Kiosk. The County shall utilize the final approved research to develop one

informational kiosk on the west side of the bridge near the trailhead along King Road near the entrance to McFarlane Park. This panel would include a photo of the existing bridge and provide historical information about the MCFARLANE BRIDGE. This interpretative panel would look very similar to one that the county placed at the trailhead for the related former Evansdale Bridge also on the Cedar Valley Nature Trail (Attachment C). Prior to fabrication of the kiosk, the County shall afford IEDA and the SHPO thirty (30) days to review and comment on the content and exact placement of the kiosk. The County shall take into consideration any comments received from IEDA and/or the SHPO within the comment period.

Letter of Agreement, Cedar Valley Nature Trail, Black Hawk County CDBG-08-DRIEF-262 | P. 5

D. Publication. The County shall publish an article in their County Conservation Board’s quarterly newsletter, THE OAK. This article shall include a summary of the history of the bridge and trail along with a summary of the economic, cultural and technological/design significance of the historic property.

E. Architectural Salvage, Repository and Accessioning of Historic Bridge Name Plate/Plaque:

The County shall ensure that the original name plaque salvaged from the MCFARLANE BRIDGE shall be donated in perpetuity to a repository or facility for preservation and/or exhibition. The County shall consult with SHPO to identify an appropriate repository. See Attachment D for additional notices and guidance of HUD CDBG policy and regulations for project income regarding salvaged materials. The county shall document the repository in a letter or monitoring report to SHPO. The County shall afford SHPO thirty (30) days to comment. The county shall report on the final location or other determination made in a periodic monitoring report or the final report.

2. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES

The County has previously procured a Phase I intensive archaeological survey that identified no known archaeological sites within the finalized APE. Nevertheless, no survey method is guaranteed to locate all unrecorded archaeological materials, particularly within areas of high potential. Therefore, the following procedures shall apply to any ground disturbance occurring as part of the Undertaking: Regardless of the duration of this Letter of Agreement (the LOA), if the construction crew or others encounter human remains, discover potential historic properties, or identify unanticipated adverse effects on historic properties, the County shall follow the procedures for unanticipated discoveries pursuant to Stipulation V of the Programmatic Agreement.

3. DURATION

The signatories agree that the LOA shall be null and void if its terms are not carried out within 60 months (5 years) from the date of execution. Prior to such time, the County may consult with the other signatories to reconsider the terms of the LOA and amend it in accordance with Stipulation 5, below.

4. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

In the event of a dispute, the parties shall refer to the process for resolution in Stipulation VI of the Programmatic Agreement. If the Programmatic Agreement, does not direct how to resolve the situation then procedures outlined in 36 CFR Part 800 shall apply.

5. AMENDMENT

The Signatories may amend the LOA when they unanimously agree to the amendment in writing. The amendment shall be effective on the date the signatories have all signed the amendment.

6. TERMINATION

If any signatory determines that the LOA is not or cannot be carried out (completed), that party shall immediately consult with the other parties to attempt to develop an amendment in accordance with Stipulation 5, above. If within thirty (30) days an amendment cannot be reached, any signatory may terminate the LOA upon written notification to the other signatories.

Letter of Agreement, Cedar Valley Nature Trail, Black Hawk County CDBG-08-DRIEF-262 | P. 6

Once the LOA is terminated, all activity funded by the Undertaking shall cease and prior to work continuing on the undertaking, the County must either: (a) execute an LOA pursuant to the process outlined in the Programmatic Agreement or (b) seek resolution pursuant to Stipulation VI of the Programmatic Agreement.

7. MONITORING AND REPORTING

On the 180th day following the execution of this LOA and every 6 months following execution until it expires, is terminated, or its terms are carried out (completed) the County shall provide IEDA and SHPO a brief summary report detailing work undertaken pursuant to its terms and documenting the progress toward completion of objectives in the LOA. Such report shall include any proposed amendments, proposed changes in construction scheduling, any problems or delays encountered, changes in consultants or key people, and any disputes and objections received in the County’s efforts to carry out the terms of this LOA. The reports should be clearly written in no more than 1,500 words but otherwise shall have no required format. Photographs, illustrations, or maps as necessary shall be included as supporting documentation.

8. PROJECT TIMING AND CONSULTATION

The County shall not begin construction activities prior to the completion of Stipulation 1.A (Historic Property Documentation), above – with the exception of selective demolition necessary to complete the historic property documentation. The signatories to this LOA acknowledge that the County may begin construction activities prior to completion of Stipulation 1.B (Pamphlets) and Stipulation 1.C (Information Kiosk), Stipulation 1.D (Publication), and Stipulation 1.E (Architectural Salvage).

Att

ach

men

t A

: A

PE

Lette

r of

Agr

eem

ent,

Bla

ck H

awk

Cou

nty

CD

BG

-DR

HB

| P

. 10

APE 

Kin

g R

oad

Acc

ess

Alt

ern

ate

C

West Access

CVNT

Park Boundary

N

Private Property

Note: All boundaries shown are approximate only

Attachment B: Consultation Meeting Minutes

Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 11

McFarlane Park Trail Bridge Replacement

& Trail Improvements

Black Hawk County, Iowa

Tribal Consultation Meeting

Monday, September 12, 2011, 1:00 p.m.

Joensy’s Café / McFarlane Park

Meeting Notes

The McFarlane Park Trail Bridge Replacement and Trail Improvements meeting convened at Joensy’s Café in La Porte City as an initial meeting spot for meeting attendees and for brief introductions at 1:00 pm.

At approximately 1:05 p.m, the meeting relocated to McFarlane Park, three miles east of La Porte City. The meeting attendance included:

David Smesrud, Brian Schoon, John Miller, Vern Fish, Al Finke, Cherrie Northrup, Howard Croweagle, Johnathan Buffalo, Shirley Schermer, Tim Weitzel, Jeff Carr, Dan Higginbottom and Patrick Schwickerath.

Joining via teleconference were Teri Toye and Alan Kelley.

Parick Schwickerath, project engineer at Synder Associates, gave a brief review of the history of the proposed project. The need for a new bridge and trail improvements was determined by county officials in the aftermath of the 2008 floods. The bridge is determined to be damaged beyond repair and its design impedes the movement of high water, creating worse flood conditions upstream.

Brian Schoon, INRCOG, gave an overview of the project grant funding sources and the requirements along with those grants. He explained that the consultation meeting was part of the process of achieving State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence on the project undertaking.

Dan Higginbottom, SHPO, asked if any alternatives to option #1 of routing construction equipment and materials down Carr Road. He is concerned that those activities could adversely affect sensitive historical sites for which one or more Native American Indian Tribes have expressed cultural or religious significance and that are located at an undisclosed location along the road. Schwickerath said a new makeshift road could be built elsewhere on adjacent farmland that would avoid the site(s). However, he was concerned the road might potentially impact as yet unknown archaeological sites in the farmland. More intensive archaeological survey would be needed to determine the presence of any sites before it could be said that one or another alternative would be appropriate. Schwickerath’s other concern was the stability of the temporary road and the county would have to purchase additional right-of-way access from the landowner. The County emphasized the need to proceed with the project and describe some of its potential benefits for the general public.

It was the consensus of the SHPO, University of Iowa Burials Program and tribal authority representatives that the Carr Road access not be used for construction access for the bridge replacement project.

After discussing the process of meeting the requirements on the eastern construction approach, the attendees visited the west side of the project area. The west side approach was discussed as a potential option for construction access. According to SHPO, if the west approach was utilized, the responsibility entity (RE) would redefine the project area, specify the access route and would avoid going into consultation concerning sensitive sites on the eastern side of the project area.

There was also discussion among the attendees concerning potential preservation of the existing bridge, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The County would enter into a [Letter of Agreement (LOA)] with SHPO to implement various steps to preserve the history of the bridge. Some options discussed were informational kiosks, pamphlets, website and placing one of the

Attachment B: Consultation Meeting Minutes

Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 12

current bridges’ plaques in a local museum. There would also need to be consultation with a wide variety of groups to determine how to best preserve the bridge’s history before demolition could occur.

After visiting and walking on the bridge, the attendees gave a brief review of the process and stressed the need to stay in contact with each other and provide assistance and guidance.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

David Smesrud, AICP

Community Planner

Attachment C: Sample Interpretive Signage and Railway Identification Plaque

Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 13

Example of Interpretive Signage

Name Plaque Recovered from the Bridge post-flood.

Photo and Text block discussing history of 

the railway 

Photo and Text block discussing Ecology/ natural history of the Cedar Valley 

Sponsor Recognition  Project 

Identification 

Attachment D: Notice of CDBG HUD Salvage Policy and Additional Salvage Guidance

Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 14

NOTICE

Disposition of Salvage Materials and Resulting Income. Disregarding other requirements or agreements that may impose restrictions on the manner, methods or disposition for salvage material. the final location and use of the salvage materials shall be made in consultation with SHPO and the following guidelines. Any income that is received by the County for salvaged items is considered program income and shall be returned to CDBG.

a. Non-profit use by the CDBG Recipient. Black Hawk County may utilize the architectural features for non-profit educational purposes, such as in a display of architectural/engineering history, economic historic, cultural history or other interpretation of history.

b. Third party, non-profit use. As an alternative, the County can seek to identify a private or public non-profit local or regional historical museum to receive a donation of the architectural features for display or fundraising. A “501(c)” recipient organization may sell the architectural features to the general public for the specific purpose of raising funds to support future historic preservation or salvage/reuse activities, preferably within the community or state provide no profit is realized.

c. If a contractor, subcontractor, or homeowner shall be the intended recipient of salvaged items, HUD recommends that the award to that entity take into account the appraised value of the salvageable items (see additional guidance below)for more information). In the alternative, if a Request for Proposal (RFP) is posted (e.g., for the demolition of the buildings in the APE) the proposal should state clearly how salvage rights shall be assigned so that contractors may place bids for the job accordingly.

d. Governmental sale for profit. A County or City (either a recipient or subrecipient of the grantee) may also salvage material. However, if the unit of local government decides to sell salvaged materials, the items should be sold via a process open and transparent to the public (e.g., an auction). Any income gained from the sale of the salvaged items is considered program income [24 CFR 70.500(a)(1)(i)].

Additional Guidance

For demolition allowing salvageable items may affect the contract in the following ways:

they may reduce the award or bid (as applicable) if the entity can receive payment for those items, and

they may reduce the award or bid (as applicable) if the entity incurs less of a disposal fee (e.g., has to spend less funds as less material is routed to a landfill), and

they may increase the award or bid (as applicable) if the entity incurs additional costs (e.g., labor) to dismantle a structure.

In practice, allowing a contractor, subcontractor, or homeowner to salvage items should generally reduce the overall bid or contract price. US Office of Management and budget directs audit teams to factor the salvage value into the calculation of allowable costs because allowable costs must be the net of all applicable credits [OMB Circular A-122].