This agreement involved extensive consultation with numerous agencies and Native American Indian Tribes. With the acknowledgment that a significant resource that had reached the end of its use-life and was substantially damaged by the flood of 2008 had to be sacrificed to budgetary constraint, everyone was pretty satisfied with the results.

1. 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).

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. 2

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. 3

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. 4

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. 5

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

10. Attachment A: APE
N
APE
King Road
Note: All boundaries shown are approximate only
West Access
CVNT
Park Boundary
Private Property
Access Alternate C
Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 10

11. Attachment B: Consultation Meeting Minutes
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
Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 11

12. Attachment B: Consultation Meeting Minutes
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
Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 12

13. Attachment C: Sample Interpretive Signage and Railway Identification Plaque
Photo and
Text block Photo and
discussing Text block
history of discussing
the railway Ecology/
natural
history of
the Cedar
Valley
Sponsor
Recognition Project
Identification
Example of Interpretive Signage
Name Plaque Recovered from the Bridge post-flood.
Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 13

14. Attachment D: Notice of CDBG HUD Salvage Policy and Additional Salvage Guidance
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].
Letter of Agreement, Black Hawk County CDBG-DRHB | P. 14