The Ohio Department of Transportation’s work to preserve low-volume bridges in place or to move to trails (and thereby avoid a Section 106 Adverse Effect) Tom Barrett, Cultural Resource Specialist, ODOT Approaches to Historic Bridge Rehabilitation Case Study #3

Pratt Pin-Connected Pony Truss Miami County-maintained TR 19 Fairview-Snodgrass Rd Pratt pony trusses were a very common workhorse bridge Our 2004 database revealed Pratt pony trusses had been wiped out in Miami County and in the surrounding five county region This example was built circa 1913 and rehabilitated in 1954 Case Study #3 2

MIA-TR PID: Project scheduled to replace deficient bridge in 2007 using federal funds Section 106 review initiated Bridge was previously evaluated as “non Select” (i.e. not eligible) based on scale, unknown builder, and high extant numbers in 1981 Reevaluated as eligible in 2007 by ODOT and SHPO Case Study #3 (Insert Photo of Bridge) 3

What timing… Case Study #3 In 2004 SHPO requested ODOT to take a closer look at Pratt Pinned structures ODOT’s 2004 Historic Bridge Database confirmed SHPO’s concern that this type was being replaced at a rapid pace (down from 1,351 to 177) since our first inventory in The database also revealed a sparse distribution in the region A Historic Context for Common Bridge Types completed by Parsons Brinkerhoff in 2005 was referenced in the reevaluation of this structure type ODOT’s 2006 Section 106 Programmatic Agreement gave Section 106 authority to ODOT-OES In 2007, ODOT started a statewide historic bridge inventory reevaluation and update 4

National Register of Historic Places reevaluation In 2007, it was the only (known) Pratt pinned pony truss in Miami County and surrounding five counties. The bridge meets eligibility criteria for the National Register of Historic Places as an extant example of a Pratt pin- connected, riveted pony truss, under Criteria C. It represents a type that was very popular in the 19 th and early 20 th century however, it is “significant in the evolution of bridge technology” (Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2004). Case Study #3 5

Significant Change In Project Scope Insert Picture(s) of Problem Case Study # 3 ODOT and SHPO determined project will have adverse effect to bridge in March Project scope changed to: salvage, relocate, store, and preserve structure on local bikeway.; ODOT reevaluated project as “no adverse effect” in November

Key Points for No Adverse Effect Case Study #3 Letter of commitment from new owner to preserve the structure on a bikeway or in a local park is filed at ODOT and SHPO and FHWA are copied A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between FHWA and SHPO ensured the proper treatment and preservation of the bridge An addendum to the MOA was needed based on a change of ownership to the Miami County Parks Department from the City of Piqua Environmental Commitments in NEPA document may be preferred over an MOA 7

Case Study #3 8

9

How was Section 4(f) handled? Case Study 3 Section 4(f) does not apply to the rehabilitation of a historic bridge where the SHPO has concurred that there will be no adverse effect. 10

New location on Miami County bikeway December 2011 Case Study #3 11

Lessons Learned/Conclusions Consider 4(f) requirements early in the scoping phase Analysis should inform what it will take to keep the existing bridge in place; instead of a box beams vs. I-beams cost analysis. Allow flexibility with the bridge owners in respect to storage, staging facilities, and scheduling. Environmental Commitments to salvage and preserve structural components should be included in the Environmental Document, and as plan notes in the contract for the new bridge. Case Study #3 12