U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for
This
statement sets forth the basis for a programmatic Section 4(f) approval that
there
are no
feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of certain historic bridge
structures to be
replaced
or rehabilitated with Federal funds and that the projects include all possible
planning
to
minimize harm resulting from such use. This approval is made Pursuant to
Section 4(f) of
the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303, and Section 18(a) of
the
Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1968 23 U.S C. 138.
Use
The
historic bridges covered by this programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation are unique
because
they are
historic, yet also part of either a Federal-aid highway system or a State or
local
highway
system that has continued to evolve over the years. Even though these
structures are
on or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, they must
perform as an
integral
part of a modern transportation system. When they do not or cannot, they must
be
rehabilitated
or replaced in order to assure public safety while maintaining system
continuity
and
integrity. For the purpose of this programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation, a
proposed action
will
"use" a bridge that is on or eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places
when the
action will impair the historic integrity of the bridge either by
rehabilitation or
demolition.
Rehabilitation that does not impair the historic integrity of the bridge as
determined
by procedures implementing the national Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended
(FHWA), is not subject to Section 4(f).
Applicability
This
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation may be applied by the Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA) to projects which meet the following criteria:
1. The
bridge is to be replaced or rehabilitated with Federal funds.
2. The
project will require the use of a historic bridge structure which is on or is
eligible
for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
3. The
bridge is not a National Historic Landmark.
4. The
FHWA Division Administrator determines that the facts of the project match
those
set forth in the sections of this document labeled Alternatives, Findings, and
Mitigation.
5.
Agreement among the FHWA, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and
the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has been reached through
procedures
pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA.
Alternatives
The
following alternatives avoid any use of the historic
bridge:
1. Do
nothing
2. Build
a new structure at a different location without affecting the historic
integrity of
the old
bridge, as determined by procedures implementing the NHPA.
3.
Rehabilitate the historic bridge without affecting the historic integrity of
the
structure,
as determined by procedures implementing the NHPA.
This
list is intended to be all-inclusive. The programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
does not
apply if
a reasonable alternative is identified that is not discussed in this document.
The
project
record must clearly demonstrate that each of the above alternatives was fully
evaluated
and it must further demonstrate that all applicability criteria listed above
were met
before
the FHWA Division Administrator concluded that the programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluation
applied to the project.
Findings
In order
for this programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation to be applied to a project, each
of the
following
findings must be supported by the circumstances, studies, and consultations on
the
project:
1. Do
Nothing
The do
nothing alternative has been studied. The do nothing alternative ignores the
basic
transportation need. For the following reasons this alternative is not feasible
and
prudent:
a. Maintenance
- The do nothing alternative does not correct the situation that
causes
the bridge to be considered structurally deficient or deteriorated. These
deficiencies
can lead to sudden collapse and potential injury or loss of life.
Normal
maintenance is not considered adequate to cope with the situation.
b. Safety
- The do nothing alternative does not correct the situation that causes
the
bridge to be considered deficient. Because of these deficiencies the bridge
poses
serious and unacceptable safety hazards to the traveling public or places
intolerable
restriction on transport and travel.
2. Build
on New Location Without Using the Old Bridge
Investigations
have been conducted to construct a bridge on a new location or parallel
to the
old bridge (allowing for a one-way couplet), but, for one or more of the
following
reasons, this alternative is not feasible and prudent:
a. Terrain
- The present bridge structure has already been located at the only
feasible
and prudent site, i.e., a gap in the land form, the narrowest point of
the
river canyon, etc. To build a new bridge at another site will result in
extraordinary
bridge and approach engineering and construction difficulty or
costs or
extraordinary disruption to established traffic patterns.
b. Adverse
Social, Economic, or Environmental Effects - Building a new bridge
away
from the present site would result in social, economic, or environmental
impact
of extraordinary magnitude. Such impacts as extensive severing of
productive
farmlands, displacement of a significant number of families or
businesses,
serious disruption of established travel patterns, and access and
damage
to wetlands may individually or cumulatively weigh heavily against
relocation
to a new site.
c. Engineering
and Economy - Where difficulty associated with the new location is
less
extreme than those encountered above, a new site would not be feasible
and
prudent where cost and engineering difficulties reach extraordinary
magnitude.
Factors supporting this conclusion include significantly increased
roadway
and structure costs, serious foundation problems, or extreme
difficulty
in reaching the new site with construction equipment. Additional
design
and safety factors to be considered include an ability to achieve
minimum
design standards or to meet requirements of various permitting
agencies
such as those involved with navigation, pollution, and the
environment.
d. Preservation
of Old Bridge - It is not feasible and prudent to preserve the
existing
bridge, even if a new bridge were to be built at a new location. This
could
occur when the historic bridge is beyond rehabilitation for a
transportation
or an alternative use, when no responsible party can be located
to
maintain and preserve the bridge, or when a permitting authority, such as
the
Coast Guard requires removal or demolition of the old bridge.
3. Rehabilitation
Without Affect on the historic Integrity Rehabilitation Without Affect on
the
historic Integrity of the Bridge. Studies have been conducted of Studies have been
conducted
of rehabilitation measures, but, rehabilitation measures, but, for one or
more of
the for one or more of the following reasons, following reasons, this
alternative
is not feasible and this alternative is not feasible and prudent: prudent:
a. The
bridge is so structurally deficient that it cannot be rehabilitated to meet
minimum
acceptable load requirements without affecting the historic integrity
of the
bridge.
b. The
bridge is seriously deficient geometrically and cannot be widened to meet
the
minimum required capacity of the highway system on which it is located
without
affecting the historic integrity of the bridge. Flexibility in the
application
of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
geometric standards should be exercised as permitted in 23 CFR Part
625
during the analysis of this alternative.
Measures
to Minimize Harm
This
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation and approval may be used only for projects
where
the FHWA
Division Administrator, in accordance with this evaluation, ensures that the
proposed
action includes all possible planning to minimize harm. This has occurred when:
1. For
bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the historic integrity of the bridge is
preserved,
to the greatest extent possible, consistent with unavoidable transportation
needs,
safety, and load requirements;
2. For
bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the point that the historic integrity
is
affected
or that are to be moved or demolished, the FHWA ensures that, in accordance
with the
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, or other suitable
means
developed through consultation, fully adequate records are made of the bridge;
3. For
bridges that are to be replaced, the existing bridge is made available for an
alternative
use, provided a responsible party agrees to maintain and preserve the
bridge;
and
4. For
bridges that are adversely affected, agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is
reached through the Section 106 process of the NHPA on measures to
minimize
harm and those measures are incorporated into the project. This
programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation does not apply to projects where such an
agreement
cannot be reached.
Procedures
This
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation applies only when the FHWA Division
Administrator:
1.
Determines that the project meets the applicability criteria set forth above;
2.
Determines that all of the alternatives set forth in the Findings section have
been fully
evaluated;
3.
Determines that use of the findings in this document that there are no feasible
and
prudent
alternatives to the use of the historic bridge is clearly applicable;
4.
Determines that the project complies with the Measures to Minimize Harm section
of
this
document;
5.
Assures that implementation of the measures to minimize harm is completed; and
6.
Documents the project file that the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
applies to
the
project on whit it is to be used.
Coordination
Pursuant
to Section 4(f), this statement has been coordinated with the Departments of
the
Interior,
Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development.
Issued
on: July 5, 1983
Approved:
/Original Signed By/ Ali F. Sevin, Director Office of
Environmental
Policy Federal Highway Administration
4(f)FormBMd
11/01
PROGRAMMATIC
SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
FOR
THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
~Maryland
Division~
APPLICABILITY
CHECKLIST
Federal
Project Number________ - _________ - ________
Maryland
Project Number_____________________________
County________________________
Route____________
Description of Project (p.____) ____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Description of 4(f) Resource (p.____) _______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Description of Project Taking From and Effect on 4(f) Resource (p.____)
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
GENERAL
CRITERIA YES NO
1. Is the bridge listed on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places?
2. Is the bridge a National Historic Landmark?
_____
_____
3. Has the SHPO and ACHP agreed, in writing, with the assessment of
impacts and the proposed mitigation?
_____
4. Does the project require the preparation of an EIS?
_____
ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED
Indicate where appropriate supporting information is
found in the document
1. The do nothing alternative has been evaluated and is considered not to be
feasible and prudent because it does not correct structural deficiencies or
unacceptable safety hazards (p._____).
4(f)FormBMd 11/01
_____
2. An alternative on new location avoiding the historic bridge has been
evaluated and is considered not to be feasible and prudent (p.____).
_____
3. An alternative has been evaluated which rehabilitates the historic bridge
without affecting the historic integrity of the structures and it is
considered not to be feasible and prudent because of serious structural
deficiencies, or unacceptable geometric deficiencies (p.____).
_____
MINIMIZATION
OF HARM
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, including
(circle below those that apply) (p.____):
1. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the historic integrity of the
bridge is to be preserved.
2. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the point that historic integrity
is affected or that are to be moved or demolished, the bridges will be
recorded in accordance with the Historic American Engineering Record
(HAER) prior to any work.
3. For bridges to be replaced, the existing bridge has been made available
for an alternative use with the responsible party agreeing to maintain and
preserve the bridge.
4. For bridges that are adversely affected, an agreement has been reached
between the SHPO, ACHP, and the FHWA on the measures to minimize
harm.
YES
NO
_____
COORDINATION
1. The proposed project has been coordinated with the following:
a. SHPO (p.______)
b. ACHP (p.______)
c. Local historic groups (p.______)
4(f)FormBMd 11/01
______
______
______
NOTE:
Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval.
Consult Nationwide
4(f)
Evaluation.
The
attached document satisfies the criteria of the Nationwide Section 4(f)
Evaluation and Approval for
Federally
Aided Highway Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges, dated July
5, 1983.
(Federal
Register, Vol. 48, No. 163, August 22, 1983, pp. 38139-40)
Recommended_________________________________________Date_____________
Area
Engineer/Environmental Specialist
APPROVED__________________________________________Date_____________
Environmental
Program Manager, MD Division