Chapter 2: Working with Historic Bridges

Anchor: #BGBJCHFC

Section 1: Overview

Overview

State and federal statutes recognize the importance of preserving significant elements of our cultural and engineering heritage. Creative tools allow us to do an effective job of preservation of historic bridges. Limitations in available funding and the engineering challenges inherent in these unique structures provide an opportunity for Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) divisions, districts, and area offices to work more creatively with local, state, and federal partners to make the choices and implement the efforts that will preserve an important part of our transportation heritage. For more information, see a list of contact persons in the Bridge Division (BRG) and Environmental Affairs Division (ENV) on the Bridge Division web site at http://crossroads/org/brg/PD/contact_list.htm.

NOTE: Access to the internal website is available only to TxDOT personnel.

Anchor: #i1002764

Definition of Historically Significant Bridges

Historically significant bridges are listed or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. A bridge that is of a rare type, is unusual from an engineering perspective, or has historic significance because of location or association with an important event or person is a candidate for classification as a historically significant bridge (historic bridge). Any bridge that is 50 years of age or older may be a candidate for the list. The determination of historic significance is made in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The historical status of a particular bridge can be determined by the Environmental Affairs Division.

Anchor: #i1002780

Applicable Preservation Laws

Section 4(f), enacted as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1653(f)), is a law that pertains to bridge projects using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds. This provision is currently contained in 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 but is still commonly referred to as Section 4(f). (See http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/v2ch15.asp) FHWA must ensure that the provisions of Section 4(f) are met before it can approve a project for letting. Compliance with Section 4(f) is necessary for the federal Highway Bridge Program, which operates with federal funds disbursed through FHWA. The law states that:

The Administration may not approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless a determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property; and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. Supporting information must demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community destruction resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.

The Section 4(f) evaluation must provide adequate and specific supporting detail and documentation to be determined legally sufficient by FHWA.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended also pertains to historic bridges. (See http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf.) All bridges 50 years of age or older must be evaluated to determine whether or not they are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If they are determined eligible, TxDOT must determine what effect a proposed project will have on the historic bridge and coordinate this effect determination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of the Texas Historical Commission (THC). As part of the effect process, TxDOT must show why it cannot avoid an adverse effect and demonstrate that appropriate public involvement efforts have been carried out. The recently revised regulations add public involvement at several points during the Section 106 process and the SHPO is particularly concerned about historic bridges.

It is necessary to write a letter informing potentially interested parties of projects involving bridges 50 years of age or older whether or not the bridges have been found eligible under the bridge inventory. This letter should inform the interested parties about the projects and request their input regarding the historic significance, if any, of the bridges and whether or not they wish to be involved in the consultation process under the provisions of 36 CFR, part 800 (the regulations for Section 106). This letter should go to the chairperson of the County Historical Commission and the Historic Bridge Foundation as well as to any other historic preservation groups identified for the county or city. It must also be sent to the city landmark commission or equivalent group within city government, where such commissions are present. In addition, for bridges where there will be an adverse effect under Section 106, and this will include bridges being moved and relocated for an alternate use as well as those proposed for demolition, there must at least be a notice of opportunity for a public meeting to discuss the historic bridge and the project’s impact upon it. An electronic copy of the names and addresses of preservation groups and individuals is provided to the districts on a regular basis by the Environmental Affairs Division to the environmental coordinator in the district.

Title 23, U.S. Code, Section 144 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//legsregs/title23.pdf) requires that before any bridge listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places may be demolished for a bridge replacement project using funds provided by the federal Highway Bridge Program, the bridge shall first be made “available for donation to a State, locality or responsible private entity.” Until recently, this statute has been interpreted to require a marketing effort only for bridges that could reasonably be relocated. At the present time, all historic bridges proposed for demolition must be “marketed” or made available for donation and reuse. This marketing effort can be adapted to the particular bridge in question, and for bridges with little potential for removal and reuse in a different location (i.e., concrete spans, masonry spans, bridges with serious structural deficiencies, etc.), the marketing effort can be relatively brief. However, it should be initiated as soon as the provisions of Section 4(f) have been met and FHWA has agreed that there is “no feasible and prudent alternative” to the “use” of the historic bridge (i.e., its demolition). Please contact the Bridge Division project manager for your district and the architectural historian in the Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Section of the Environmental Affairs Division to assess each bridge’s relocation potential and to develop an appropriate marketing plan for each historic bridge.

Anchor: #i1002858

On-System versus Off-System

Highways on the designated state highway system are referred to as “on-system,” and all other public highways, roads, and streets are referred to as off-system. Examples of on-system routes include but are not limited to interstate highways, US highways, state highways, and farm-to-market roads. Off-system routes are mostly county roads and city streets.