United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
Environment
FHWA > HEP > Environment > Toolkit Home
Environmental Review Toolkit
Home Planning and Environment NEPA and Project Development Accelerating Project Delivery Historic Preservation Section 4(f) Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife
spacer Historic Preservation
spacer

Program Overview

Archeology

arrowHistoric Bridges
-FHWA Proposed Program
Comment for Common
Post-1945 Concrete
and Steel Bridges
-Technical Assistance
-State Bridge Programs
-Additional Bridge
Resources

Historic Roads

Interstate Highway

Tribal Issues

Streamlining
Recommendations

Resources

...............................
More Information
...............................
Website Feedback
...............................

Historic Bridges

Table of Contents

Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges

At the request of the FHWA, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has issued a Program Comment that will eliminate individual historic review requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for common post-1945 concrete and steel bridges and culverts. The intent of Program Comment is to ensure that more unique historic bridges receive the attention they deserve while the process is substantially streamlined for common, “cookie-cutter” bridges that are unlikely to be significant for preservation in place. These bridges were constructed in vast numbers after World War II using standardized plans. Although there has been little public interest in the preservation of these common bridges and culverts, FHWA was required under Section 106, to consider and document the potential historic significance of any bridge approaching 50 years of age that might be affected by FHWA projects. See the end of this section for examples of common bridge types covered by the Program Comment.

This new Program Comment applies to effects of undertakings on certain common concrete and steel bridges lacking distinction, not previously listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, and not located in or adjacent to historic districts. It makes no findings regarding the historic significance of the bridges included under its terms, but goes directly to treatment for these types of bridges which in any case are not likely to be preserved in place. The Program Comment also obligates FHWA to carry out certain programmatic mitigation to address the potential loss of some historic bridges under its terms.

The Program Comment is not a waiver for bridge projects. It eliminates case-by-case review for bridges and culverts meeting the criteria, while retaining the requirement for FHWA to consider the effects of its actions on any other historic properties affected by a proposed project. The Program Comment supports the FHWA Administrator's Every Day Counts initiative, as well as the provisions contained within MAP-21 to improve the efficiency of the environmental review process. The FWHA estimates that the action could exempt almost 200,000 bridges and culverts from individual reviews and save taxpayers $78 million over the next 10 years.

The full text of the Program Comment is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-11-16/pdf/2012-27866.pdf, but it breaks down into several parts with which you should be familiar before utilizing the Program Comment in the course of compliance with Section 106 for your projects.

  • The Program Comment applies to specific types of bridges and culverts built after 1945, including various forms of reinforced concrete slab bridges, reinforced concrete beam and girder bridges, steel multi-beam bridges or multi-girder bridges, and culverts and reinforced concrete boxes (Section V).
  • The Program Comment does NOT apply to bridges that are already listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or to those located in or adjacent to a historic district (Section IV.A).
  • The Program Comment does NOT apply to arch bridges, truss bridges, bridges with movable spans, suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges, or covered bridges (Section IV.B).
  • The Program Comment does NOT apply to bridges identified as having exceptional significance for association with a person or event, being a very early or particularly important example of its type in a State or the nation, having distinctive engineering or architectural features that depart from standard designs, or displaying other elements that were engineered to respond to a unique environmental context and included in a list to be developed by each state Division of FHWA (Section IV.C).

While the Program Comment is available for use by any Federal agency, since FHWA requested it and because the Advisory Council believes FHWA has the unique ability to convene the entities that would have expertise in identifying any exceptional bridges, each state Division of FWHA is required to consult with others to develop the list for that state per Section IV.C. Before the Program Comment may be used for undertakings in a State, the relevant FHWA Division must first develop a list of bridges in that State that are of the types considered common bridges, but that meet the considerations in Section IV.C and would therefore be considered exceptional in some way. Each FHWA Division wishing to apply the Program Comment must organize a meeting of the relevant SHPO, State DOT, and other interested parties to develop the list of bridges meeting the criteria of Section IV.C. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but would be informed by input at the meeting. The intent is to provide a means to exclude obviously exceptional bridges from falling under the Program Comment.

The Program Comment never envisioned requiring a survey to complete the listing of exceptional bridges; however, if a State has a survey or management plan it should suffice to identify exceptional bridges, if any, and those already listed in or determined eligible for the National Register. For those bridges previously listed or determined eligible under the provisions of an existing Programmatic Agreement, this Program Comment will make little difference except to allow bridges not yet under the terms of the PA to forego evaluation in the future as they approach the age to be considered eligible or as the PA is amended to allow the programmatic mitigation provided with the Program Comment to fulfill any further stipulation for coordination and mitigation.

We are leaving it up to the Divisions, with their State DOTs and SHPOs to come up with a list OR agree that a current inventory or management plan adequately addresses the issue OR agree that there are no exceptional bridges under the Section IV.C criteria. If requested by a State Division, HEPE will make a facilitator available to a State to convene the consultation to develop this list, much as we did for the Interstate Highway exemption. There is intentionally a great deal of flexibility for the Divisions and States to go about developing this list as they see fit; however, the list should be finalized by March 31, 2013, and submitted to FHWA's Federal Preservation Officer for posting on the website. The list for a State must be finalized and posted in order for any other agency to apply the Program Comment in a State. We will be convening a webinar on January 24, 2013, to present the full requirements of the Program Comment and to take comments and questions from the Divisions, State DOTs and SHPOs.

What is a Program Comment?
Program Comments are an alternative method for Federal agencies to meet their Section 106 obligations. Program Comments are one of five program alternatives that allow agencies to tailor Section 106 review to meet the needs of the agency. This tool is intended to give the ACHP flexibility to issue comments on a Federal program or class of undertakings in lieu of commenting on such undertakings on a case-by-case basis. Since 2002, the ACHP has issued ten Program Comments to date, to other agencies such as Department of Defense; all of which are posted on the ACHP website (http://www.achp.gov/progalt/#6).

How would the FHWA Program Comment work?
The Program Comment, developed by FHWA, identifies several common bridge types that would require no consideration in the Section 106 review process. Prior to excluding these bridges from Section 106 review, the federal agency or State DOT must apply a screening process to determine if the bridge (1) is listed in the National Register or located in a historic district, (2) is a very early or particularly important example of its type; (3) or has distinctive decorative features that depart from the standard design. In addition, the agency must consider effects of the undertaking on historic properties other than the bridge itself.

Examples

IV. Considerations

A. The bridge is listed in or has previously been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places…

Photograph of a short concrete bridge over a creek

…or is located adjacent to…

Photograph of a short concrete bridge over a creek

…or within a National Register listed or eligible historic district (such as the series of bridges included on the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail).

Photograph of a long stretch of highway, receding into the horizon

B. The bridge has been identified as a very early or particularly important example of its type in a State or the nation,…

Photograph looking up at the side of a bridge

…has distinctive engineering or architectural features that depart from standard designs, such as an aesthetic railing or balustrade…

Photograph of a bridge with an aesthetic railing Photograph of a stone bridge Photograph of a bridge with an aesthetic railing Photograph of an ornate railing of a concrete bridge

…includes spans of exceptional length or complexity…

Photograph of a winding section of a highway bridge

…or displays other elements that were engineered to respond to a unique environmental context.

Photograph of a highway bridge built against the edge of a mountainside


The following examples of railings do NOT meet the considerations:

Kansas Corral Railing

Photograph of a Kansas Corral Railing bridge section

Type T6 - Tubular W Beam

Photograph of a Tubular W Beam bridge section

Type 26 Concrete Barrier with Sidewalk

Photograph of a bridge section, showing Concrete Barrier with Sidewalk

New Jersey Concrete Barrier

Photograph of a New Jersey Concrete Barrier bridge section


V. Bridge Types for which No Individual Consideration under Section 106 is Required

A. Reinforced concrete slab bridges

Photograph of the underside of a bridge, showing a continuous concrete slab supported by pillars

i) Reinforced concrete cast-in-place slab bridges
ii) Reinforced concrete pre-cast bridges
iii) Pre-stressed concrete slabs


B. Reinforced concrete beam and girder bridges

i) Reinforced concrete T-Beams

Photograph of the underside of a bridge, showing reinforced concrete T-Beams

ii) Pre-stressed concrete channel beam

Photograph of the underside of a bridge, showing pre-stressed concrete channel beam

iii) Pre-stressed concrete I-Beam

Photograph of the side of a bridge, showing rre-stressed concrete I-Beam

iv) Pre-stressed concrete box beams

Photograph of the underside of a bridge, showing pre-stressed concrete box beams

C. Multi-Beam or Multi-Girder bridges

i) Metal-rolled multi-beams

Photograph of the underside of a bridge, showing metal-rolled multi-beams

Back to top

Technical Assistance

FHWA assists in the preservation of historic bridges and encourages States to incorporate the concepts of context sensitive design in the rehabilitation and reuse of historic bridges. Programs for historic bridge preservation include:

Back to top

State Bridge Programs

photograph of the Humpback Covered Bridge The Humpback Covered Bridge was built in 1857 for the old James River and Kanawha Turnpike Company. The center of the floor and roof is about four feet higher than at the ends. It is the only bridge of its design in the United States.

Many State DOTs have developed historic bridge programs. These programs aim to preserve the historic and cultural value of long-standing bridges where possible and expedite the consideration of historic bridges in project development and environmental review. For example, Indiana's Historic Bridge Program helps planners prioritize a list of bridges for preservation, while providing bridge owners incentives for this preservation.

To uncover more information about States' historic bridge programs, visit the State Practices Database or the following links.

Back to top

Additional Bridge Resources

Back to top

For questions or feedback on this subject matter content, please contact MaryAnn Naber. For general questions or web problems, please send feedback to the web administrator.
Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse
U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000