|
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FHWA PROJECTS THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF
HISTORIC BRIDGES
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.
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).
This programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation may be applied by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) to projects which meet the following criteria:
- The bridge is to be replaced or rehabilitated with Federal funds.
- 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.
- The bridge is not a National Historic Landmark.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
Studies have been conducted of rehabilitation measures, but, for one
or more of the following reasons, this alternative is not feasible and
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.
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:
- 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;
- 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;
- 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
- 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.
This programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation applies only when the FHWA
Division Administrator:
- Determines that the project meets the applicability criteria set
forth above;
- Determines that all of the alternatives set forth in the Findings
section have been fully evaluated;
- 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;
- Determines that the project complies with the Measures to Minimize
Harm section of this document;
- Assures that implementation of the measures to minimize harm is completed;
and
- Documents the project file that the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
applies to the project on which it is to be used.
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
|