Jump to main content.

Draft Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Projects That Necessitate the Use of Bridges Over the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Listed or Eligible New York State Canal System (Historic Canal System)

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: January 13, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1652-1654]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ja03-105]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
 
Draft Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) Projects That Necessitate the Use of 
Bridges Over the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Listed or 
Eligible New York State Canal System (Historic Canal System)

    This statement sets forth the basis for a programmatic section 4(f) 
evaluation and approval that there are no feasible and prudent 
alternatives to the use of bridges eligible for or listed on the NRHP 
(Historic Bridges) over the Historic Canal System to be replaced with 
Federal transportation funds and that the projects include all possible 
planning to minimize harm resulting from such use. This programmatic 
4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of section 4(f) for all 
projects that meet the applicability criteria listed below. No 
individual section 4(f) evaluation needs to be prepared for such 
projects. 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

    This programmatic 4(f) evaluation is to be used in conjunction with 
36 CFR part 800 Programmatic Agreement for Bridges over the New York 
State Canal System (Canal Agreement) executed April 16, 2001. The Canal 
Agreement satisfies the section 106 requirements for canal bridge 
projects developed and agreed to be the FHWA, the New York State 
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the State Historic Preservation 
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
(ACHP). The evaluation of alternatives and documentation prepared for 
the section 106 process shall be used as the basis for the FHWA finding 
that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to the use of the 
affected bridge on the Historic Canal System.
    The resources covered by this programmatic section 4(f) evaluation 
include Historic Bridges which are eligible for the NHRP as 
contributing elements to the Historic Canal System. Though these 
Historic Bridges are on the Historic Canal System, they must perform as 
an integral part of a modern transportation system. When they do not or 
cannot, they must be 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 constitute 
a ``use'' of a Historic Bridge that is on the Historic Canal System 
when the action will have an adverse effect as applied by the 
requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
and 36 CFR part 800. Rehabilitation of a Historic Bridge will rarely 
constitute an adverse effect on the Historic Canal System.

Applicability

    This programmatic section 4(f) evaluation may be applied by the 
FHWA to projects or approvals which meet the following criteria:
    1. The Historic Bridge is to be replaced or rehabilitated with 
Federal funds.
    2. The project will require the use of a Historic Bridge that is on 
the Historic Canal System.
    3. The project will have an adverse effect on Historic Bridges and/
or the Historic Canal System.
    4. The bridge is not a National Historic Landmark.
    5. The project will not impact any areas of archaeological 
sensitivity that have the potential to yield sites containing important 
research information. If a site exists, it does not warrant 
preservation in place as: (1) It is not considered valuable for its 
permanent in-situ public interpretive value, (2) the technology exists 
for satisfactory data recovery (even if data

[[Page 1653]]

recovery is not determined appropriate treatment at this time, (3) the 
site has no traditional cultural significance to Indian tribes, and (4) 
the site does not contain or is unlikely to contain human remains, 
funerary objects, sacred objects or items of cultural patrimony as 
defined by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 
of 1990.
    6. 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 Measures to Minimize Harm.
    7. Agreement among the FHWA, NYSDOT, the State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP) has been reached through the Programmatic Agreement 
for Historic Bridges over the Historic Canal System or individually 
through procedures pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA.

Alternatives

    The following alternatives avoid any use of the historic resource:
    1. Do nothing.
    2. Replacement of the same design type (i.e., build a new truss 
bridge to replace a truss bridge that is not individually eligible on 
the NRHP.)
    3. Build a new structure at a different location without affecting 
the integrity of the Historic Bridge, or the Historic Canal System as 
determined by the Canal Agreement or procedures individually 
implementing the NHPA.
    4. Rehabilitation, including minor widening, of an existing bridge 
without affecting its visual characterization from the shore and the 
canal.
    5. Removal of a bridge that does not contribute to the Historic 
Canal System.
    6. Sale or transfer of ownership of a Historic Bridge with covenant 
to retain its character.
    7. Rehabilitation of an individually eligible Historic Bridge 
without affecting the historic integrity of the bridge or of the 
Historic Canal System, as determined by the Canal Agreement or 
procedures individually 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 Historic 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 Historic 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 Historic Bridge. 
Investigations have been conducted to construct a bridge on a new 
location or parallel to the Historic 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. Construction of a new 
bridge at another site will result in extraordinary bridge and roadway 
approach costs, extraordinary difficulty of construction, and/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 the Historic 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 requires removal or demolition 
of the Historic Bridge.
    3. Rehabilitation without affecting the historic integrity of the 
bridge. Studies of rehabilitation measures have been conducted, but, 
for one or more of the following reasons, this alternative is not 
feasible and prudent:
    a. The Historic 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 Historic 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 permitting 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. FHWA ensures that, in accordance with the Canal Agreement, the 
Historic

[[Page 1654]]

American Engineering Record (HAER) standard records appropriate for 
documentation of the bridges are prepared for bridges that are removed, 
demolished, or are rehabilitated to the point that the historic 
integrity is affected.
    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 
NYSDOT, SHPO, and FHWA, is reached through the Canal Agreement, or 
through procedures individually implementing 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 by use of the findings in this document that there 
are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic 
bridge;
    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;
    6. Documents in the project file that the programmatic section 4(f) 
evaluation applies to the project on which it is to be used and;
    7. Insures that the provisions of the Canal Agreement are followed 
to protect the integrity of the Historic Bridge and Historic Canal 
System.

Coordination

    The Programmatic Agreement concerning Historic Bridges over the 
Historic Canal System is being coordinated with the New York State 
Department of Transportation and the New York State Historic 
Preservation Officer. Pursuant to section 4(f), this programmatic 
agreement is being coordinated with the New York State Department of 
Transportation, the New York State Canal Corporation, and Departments 
of the Interior, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development.
    Before applying this programmatic evaluation to projects requiring 
an individual bridge permit, the District Administrator shall 
coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard District Commander.

    Issued on January 6, 2003.
Vincent P. Barone,
Assistant Division Administrator, New York Division, Federal Highway 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-571 Filed 1-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.