State Section 106 Programmatic Agreement

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT
AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND
THE LOUISIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF
HISTORIC BRIDGES IN LOUISIANA

WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides and administers funds to the State of Louisiana (hereinafter State’s apportioned federal funds) through the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) as authorized by 23 U.S.C. 104(b); and

WHEREAS, the FHWA has determined that State’s apportioned federal funds may be used for eligible projects related to the bridges in Louisiana (as described in Stipulation II.(3)) that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) (hereinafter historic bridges). The FHWA acknowledges that these projects may have an adverse effect on historic bridges; and

WHEREAS, the FHWA is responsible for assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (Section 106) (54 U.S.C. 306108) in accordance with regulations outlined in 36 CFR 800 and State’s apportioned federal funds; and

WHEREAS, 36 CFR Section 800.14(b) permits federal agencies to fulfill their obligations under Section 106 through the development and implementation of programmatic agreements; and

WHEREAS, the LADOTD has participated in Section 106 consultation, owns and maintains certain historic bridges, has primary responsibilities under this Programmatic Agreement (PA), and has been invited to be a Signatory Party to this PA; and

WHEREAS, the FHWA has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (LASHPO) pursuant to regulations found at 36 CFR 800.14(b) implementing Section 106 and both agencies have agreed to sign this PA as Signatory Parties; and

WHEREAS, the FHWA is also responsible for assuring compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and will fulfill those responsibilities through activities that are separate from this PA;

WHEREAS, the FHWA formed a Historic Bridge Inventory (HBI) Committee that included representatives from the FHWA, LADOTD, and LASHPO to assist in the development of a comprehensive Historic Bridge Inventory to assist in the advancement of this PA; and

WHEREAS, the LADOTD recognizes the state’s engineering heritage manifest in its historic bridge population through its commitment to fulfill the public outreach, interpretation, documentation, and stewardship stipulated in this PA; and

WHEREAS, inventory efforts resulted in identification of pre-1971 bridges that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register, identified as historic bridges; and

WHEREAS, this PA defines procedures to be followed for historic bridges based on three treatment categories: Preservation Priority, Preservation Candidate, and Non-Priority; and

WHEREAS, the LADOTD has committed to the preventative maintenance, preservation, and/or rehabilitation of 20 LADOTD-owned Preservation Priority Bridges for the duration of this PA and to adhere to the Stipulations outlined in this PA; and

WHEREAS, subject to the availability of funds, the LADOTD intends to fulfill its commitments herein when taking actions regarding Preservation Priority Bridges whether or not the State’s apportioned federal funds are used, including when Section 106 requirements do not apply; and

WHEREAS, the LADOTD has notified the non-LADOTD owners of 13 Preservation Priority Bridges that such bridges must be retained in long-term use and that they must adhere to the Stipulations outlined in this PA to remain eligible for State’s apportioned federal funds; and

WHEREAS, non-LADOTD owners including the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism and three parishes (East Baton Rouge, Terrebonne and St, Tammany) have been invited to participate in Section 106 consultation; and

WHEREAS, Section 106 consultation for this PA included participation by the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans, the Foundation for Historical Louisiana, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Historic Bridge Foundation, and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and these parties are Consulting Parties and have been invited to sign as Concurring Parties; and

WHEREAS, the LADOTD notified federal agencies with a known interest in bridge projects, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Forest Service, and received no response; and

WHEREAS, the FHWA notified federally recognized Tribes with an interest in Louisiana to solicit interest in participation in Section 106 consultation for this PA and received no responses; and

WHEREAS, the LADOTD notified and solicited views of more than 500 public and local agencies, including state representatives, municipalities, and planning organizations; and responding interested parties received periodic project updates; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA, ACHP, LASHPO, and LADOTD agree that the following Stipulations will be implemented for FHWA undertakings in the State of Louisiana that involve historic bridges.

STIPULATIONS

The FHWA, with the assistance of the LADOTD, will ensure that the measures described in this Stipulations Section are carried out.

I. Purpose

This PA sets forth the process by which the FHWA will meet, with the assistance of the LADOTD, its responsibilities for historic bridges within Louisiana.

II. Applicability

This PA specifies measures intended to identify, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate effects on historic bridges only and is specifically applicable or not applicable to projects as follows:

1. This PA applies to historic bridges as identified in Attachment 1, which lists bridges and outlines their type, treatment category, and ownership.
2. This PA does not apply when projects are proposed for non-historic bridges unless a bridge is later determined eligible for the National Register based on new or additional information (following the procedure outlined in Stipulation V.B.). Non-historic bridges can be found on the LADOTD Historic Bridge website or through contacting the LADOTD Environmental Section.
3. This PA applies to historic bridge projects using the State’s apportioned federal funds. Such projects include, but are not necessarily limited to, bridge preventative maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, replacement, and/or relocation projects (see Glossary of Terms in Attachment 2).
4. The USCG and/or USACE may use the PA to fulfill their responsibilities for undertakings that use the State’s apportioned federal funds provided the FHWA is designated as the lead federal agency for Section 106.
5. This PA does not apply to historic bridges that are federally or privately owned, without a responsible agency owner, share a border with another state, or already in the process of Section 106 consultation (see Attachment 3 - Historic Bridges Subject to Separate Section 106 Process). Such bridges would require a separate Section 106 process if subject to a federal undertaking.
6. This PA does not apply to historic bridges when projects are conducted solely with local funds.
7. This PA does not apply to projects that have completed Section 106 compliance with 36 CFR 800 prior to execution of this PA.
8. This PA does not pertain to non-bridge historic properties, including archaeological properties and historic districts. Identification of potential project effects on non-bridge historic and archaeological properties in a historic bridge project Area of Potential Effect shall be conducted pursuant to 36 CFR 800, as well as applicable LASHPO and LADOTD guidelines and manuals.
9. This PA does not satisfy the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 (Section 4(f)), as amended.

III. Historic Bridge Treatment Categories

The PA identifies three treatment categories for historic bridges:

1. Preservation Priority Bridges: Historic bridges that will be retained in long-term use and will be subject to preventative maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation, as needed.
2. Preservation Candidate Bridges: Historic bridges designated for preventative maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation, when prudent and feasible.
3. Non-Priority Bridges: Historic bridges that are not ideal candidates for long-term use are eligible for replacement when needed.

Attachment 1 presents the treatment category for each historic bridge.

IV. Guidelines, Standards, and Regulations

Guidelines, standards, and regulations relevant to this PA and its purposes, including the preparation of Management Plans specified in Stipulation VIII, are as follows:

1. Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR 800 (2004), at http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf
2. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation including the Standards for Evaluation at http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_3.htm and Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, including Standards for Rehabilitation (1983, as amended) at http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm (Secretary’s Standards)
3. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as Adapted for Historic Bridges, adapted from Clark, Kenneth M., Mathew C. Grimes, and Ann B. Miller, Final Report: A Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Virginia, Virginia Transportation Research Council, 2001 (see Attachment 4B)
4. Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement, prepared by Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc., in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., March 2007, as part of NCHRP Project 25-25/Task 19, at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/NotesDocs/25-25(19)_FR.pdf
5. Federal Highway Administration, Bridge Preservation Guide: Maintaining a State of Good Repair Using Cost Effective Investment Strategies, August 2011, at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/preservation/guide/guide.pdf
6. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Minimum Design Guidelines, latest edition, at http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Road_Design/Memoranda/English_Design_Guidelines.pdf

V. Identification of Historic Bridges

1. Background
   In 2012 the LADOTD initiated a comprehensive Historic Bridge Inventory study of pre-1971 bridges listed in the LADOTD’s Master Structure File and the FHWA’s National Bridge Inventory. Through this effort, the FHWA, in consultation with the LADOTD and the LASHPO, determined bridges that are eligible and not eligible for the National Register, and the LADOTD composed an inventory of eligible bridges. The LADOTD made results, including National Register eligibility determinations for each bridge, available to the public on its website at http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/home.aspx?key=48.

   Efforts resulted in the following reports:

   1. Historic Context Report for Louisiana Historic Bridge Inventory (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2012), which identified historic themes for use in assessing significance, at http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/docs_test/48/documents/Historic_Context_For_Louisiana_Bridges.pdf.
   2. Bridge Stratification and Data Collection Methodology (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2012), which identified relevant bridge types and associated data needs (as incorporated into National Register Eligibility Determination Report: Pre-1971 Louisiana Highway Bridges).
   3. National Register Criteria for Evaluation of pre-1971 Louisiana Highway Bridges (Mead & Hunt, Inc., 2012), which sets forth criteria for National Register evaluation of pre-1971 bridges (as incorporated into National Register Eligibility Determination Report: Pre-1971 Louisiana Highway Bridges).
   4. National Register Eligibility Determination Report: Pre-1971 Louisiana Highway Bridges (Mead & Hunt, Inc., September 2013), which identifies historic and non-historic bridges (see lists on the LADOTD Historic Bridge Website), at http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/docs_test/48/documents/National_Register_Eligibility_Determination_Report_for_Louisianas_Pre-1971_Highway_Bridges.pdf.
   5. Methodology to Identify Preservation Priority Bridges (Mead & Hunt, Inc., November 2013), which sets forth criteria for identifying Preservation Priority Bridges, at http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/docs_test/48/documents/Methodology_to_Identify_Preservation_Priority_Bridges.pdf.
   6. Results: Application of the Methodology to Identify Preservation Priority Bridges (Mead & Hunt, Inc., April 2014), which categorizes historic bridges for future treatment (see Attachment 1), at http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/public_info/projects/docs_test/48/documents/Results_Application_of_Methodology_to_Identify_Preservation_Priority_Bridges.pdf.
   7. Public Involvement Plan (Mead & Hunt, Inc., updated August 2014), which details public outreach and public involvement efforts conducted throughout the inventory study and PA development.
2. Inventory Updates and Revisions
   The following procedures will be implemented to update and address revisions to the inventory:
   1. If new or additional information comes to light that may impact the National Register eligibility status of a particular bridge, such information will be provided to the FHWA. The eligibility recommendation will be reconsidered by the FHWA in consultation with the LADOTD and LASHPO within 90 days of receipt. Within 180 days, the FHWA will make any change in eligibility determination in consultation with the LADOTD and LASHPO.
   2. Timber bridges were evaluated under the methodology of this Agreement and determined to be not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. However, in light of comments received by Consulting Parties, the LADOTD will review pre-1946 timber bridges to assess if any of the previous determinations that these bridges are not eligible would merit reconsideration. On or before January 31, 2016, the LADOTD, FHWA and LASHPO will consult on the results of this review. The FHWA will make any change in eligibility determination in consultation with the LASHPO and LADOTD. Any dispute will be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures in Stipulation XII.
   3. If a pre-1971 bridge is identified to have been inadvertently excluded from the Historic Bridge Inventory, the bridge should be evaluated for eligibility. The bridge should be reevaluated or evaluated applying the guidance provided in Historic Bridge Inventory reports (see Stipulation V.A.1-4). Any change in eligibility determination will be made by the FHWA in consultation with the LASHPO and LADOTD.
   4. On or before January 1, 2021, the LADOTD will complete eligibility evaluations for bridges built from 1971 to 1980 that are not addressed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges (Program Comment). A subsequent update will be conducted on or before January 1, 2031, addressing bridges built from 1981 to 1985 that are not addressed by the Program Comment. The bridges will be evaluated applying the guidance provided in Historic Bridge Inventory reports (see Stipulation V.A.1-4). Eligibility determinations will be made by the FHWA in consultation with the LASHPO and LADOTD.
   5. No later than June 30, 2025, the Signatory Parties will consult to determine if conditions have changed that would require updating the list of historic bridges (Attachment 1 of this PA). If the Signatory Parties agree that conditions have changed and an update is required, these parties will consult to determine which bridges to reevaluate and if any changes are needed to the guidance provided in the Historic Bridge Inventory reports (see Stipulation V.A.1-4). The LADOTD will implement the agreed-upon methodology to bridges requiring reevaluation. The Signatory Parties will consult to determine what type of public involvement would be appropriate and, subject to the availability of funds, the LADOTD will implement the agreed-upon public outreach activities.

VI. Responsibilities of the Signatory Parties

1. FHWA Responsibilities
   The FHWA is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 and for implementing regulations found at 36 CFR 800. Under Section 106, the FHWA is legally responsible for all findings and determinations made under this PA. The FHWA shall complete measures as follows:
   1. The FHWA will ensure that the LADOTD carries out the requirements of this PA in accordance with all applicable FHWA and ACHP policies and guidelines, including requirements set forth in 36 CFR 800 as a condition of its award to the LADOTD of the State’s apportioned federal funds.
   2. The FHWA will consider the activities described in Stipulation VII. Treatment of Louisiana Historic Bridges to be part of the State’s asset management program for historic bridges.
   3. The FHWA will not consider demolition to be a prudent alternative for any project involving a Preservation Priority Bridge and will not participate in a project that would result in the demolition of a Preservation Priority Bridge.
   4. The FHWA will not provide funding for any project that involves the demolition of a Preservation Candidate Bridge when rehabilitation to meet project purpose and need is a feasible and prudent alternative.
2. LADOTD Responsibilities
   Subject to the availability of funds, the LADOTD shall carry out measures detailed in this Stipulation and in the following additional Stipulations VII-XI:
   • Stipulation VII: Treatment of Louisiana Historic Bridges
   • Stipulation VIII: Management Plans for Historic Bridges
   • Stipulation IX: Stewardship, Public Outreach, Education, and Funding
   • Stipulation X: Emergency Situations for Historic Bridges
   • Stipulation XI: Annual Reporting

   The LADOTD shall complete additional measures as follows:

   1. The LADOTD shall ensure that work carried out pursuant to this PA, whether performed by LADOTD staff or consultants, is conducted under the supervision of a qualified professional. A “qualified professional” is a person who meets the relevant standards outlined in the Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated] (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm).
   2. The LADOTD shall provide expertise for historic bridge projects through experienced in-house engineering staff or through the use of experienced consultants. These personnel will be responsible for executing historic bridge projects for LADOTD-owned historic bridges and providing guidance to non-LADOTD owners.
   3. The LADOTD shall include information about the National Register eligibility status of inventoried bridges and bridge treatment categories in its Master Structure File database used by its environmental, project planning, and bridge design and maintenance personnel.
   4. The LADOTD will inform the applicants for the State’s apportioned federal funds for any project affecting a historic bridge (see list in Attachment 1) in the award letter that the scope of the bridge project will be determined by the FHWA through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and Section 4(f). The award letter will state that Preservation Priority Bridges must be retained. For Preservation Candidate Bridges, the award letter will state that laws, regulations, and design standards may ultimately dictate that the Preservation Candidate Bridge be retained if the FHWA concludes that rehabilitation is feasible and prudent.
   5. The LADOTD will classify and label all historic bridge projects as “Historic Bridge Improvement” until after the FHWA has identified a preferred alternative for the project. The classification and labeling will apply to award letters to the State’s apportioned federal fund applicants, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, and in electronic tracking systems maintained by the LADOTD.
   6. The LADOTD will issue a Maintenance Directive to Districts for Preservation Priority Bridges that explains the commitment to retain these structures and outlines preventative maintenance and preservation activities that can be conducted without LASHPO consultation (see Attachment 5).
   7. The LADOTD will add a section to its Bridge Design Manual summarizing the alternatives analysis and design development process requirements for historic bridges that are outlined in this PA and designating the Bridge Design and Bridge Maintenance Engineers (see Stipulation VI.B.2 above) as points of contact.
3. LASHPO Responsibilities
   The LASHPO shall complete measures as follows:
   1. The LASHPO will participate in the consultation and review process set forth in the Stipulations and Attachments of this PA in accordance with procedures and timeframes specified herein.
   2. The LASHPO may seek an opinion from the State Attorney General on the prohibition against donations, as outlined in the Louisiana Constitution, which has been interpreted to prevent the LADOTD from paying the recipient of a historic bridge an amount greater than the funds made available by the FHWA and reflecting the estimated cost of a demolition project, net of estimated salvage value. Subsequently, the LASHPO is responsible for notifying the LADOTD of the State Attorney General’s opinion.
   3. The LASHPO will assist in providing training/workshops to LADOTD bridge engineers and bridge owners on identifying character-defining features of historic bridges.
   4. The LASHPO will assist the LADOTD to identify and maintain a list of parties with potential need for a relocated historic bridge should one become available.
   5. The LASHPO will provide on its Office of Cultural Development Division of Historic Preservation website a link to historic bridge information on the LADOTD website.
4. ACHP Responsibilities
   The ACHP shall complete measures as follows:
   1. The ACHP will participate in the consultation and review process set forth in the Stipulations and Attachments of this PA in accordance with procedures and timeframes specified herein, and as follows:
   2. The ACHP may enter into the consultation for purposes of dispute resolution as outlined in Stipulation XII - Dispute Resolution.
   3. The ACHP will provide advice, guidance, or assistance when solicited with regard to completing the Section 106 consultation process.
5. Preservation Organization Responsibilities
   Preservation organizations, including the Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans, the Foundation for Historical Louisiana, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the Historic Bridge Foundation, will promote Louisiana’s historic bridges through their organization’s public outreach efforts and share observed best practices with the LADOTD.

VII. Treatment of Louisiana Historic Bridges

1. Activities not requiring review
   Certain activities are considered best practices for preventative maintenance and preservation. The bridge owner may undertake these activities on historic bridges in any treatment category without additional consultation or public notification. These activities are documented in Attachment 5 - Accepted Preventative Maintenance and Preservation Activities, and limited to activities specifically described therein.
2. Preservation Priority Bridges
   Commitments in this PA apply to 33 Preservation Priority Bridges representing examples of 16 types (see Attachment 1):

   Except under the circumstances provided for in the following paragraph, the bridge owner will retain Preservation Priority Bridges in long-term use and conduct preventative maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation as needed. Upon initiating a rehabilitation project, the bridge owner will follow procedures outlined in Attachment 4A - Procedures for Rehabilitation Projects Affecting Preservation Priority Bridges. Once developed, bridge owners will also apply available guidance contained in the Management Plan for Historic Bridges Statewide (see Stipulation VIII.A) and individual bridge management plans (see Stipulation VIII.B).

   Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, where, in light of unforeseen events (including, but not limited to, the development of conditions that create the potential for threats to emergency evacuation routes or conditions that could give rise to hazards to travelers using Preservation Priority Bridges and/or nearby roadways) the Chief Engineer of the LADOTD determines that other actions are necessary for the safety of the traveling public, the LADOTD may take such actions as and when it deems appropriate, and the LADOTD will notify the other signatory parties of the same. Thereafter, the parties will consult and may consider amendments pursuant to Stipulation XIII.

3. Preservation Candidate Bridges
   1. Treatment overview
      The bridge owner will continue to conduct preventative maintenance and preservation of Preservation Candidate Bridges to the extent that it is prudent and feasible. Determination of whether preservation of a Preservation Candidate bridge is prudent and feasible will follow the process outlined in Attachment 4B. The Management Plan for Historic Bridges Statewide will provide guidance on appropriate preventative maintenance and preservation for historic bridges (see Stipulation VIII.A).
   2. Alternatives analysis
      When a project is proposed on a Preservation Candidate Bridge, the bridge owner will follow the procedures outlined in Attachment 4B - Procedures for Projects Affecting Preservation Candidate Bridges to investigate alternatives. Rehabilitation on-site, bypass and adaptive reuse, rehabilitation as one-way pair, and/or relocation are preferred treatments for Preservation Candidate Bridges, while demolition and replacement are options when preferred treatments are not prudent and feasible. In evaluating these alternatives, the bridge owners will give preference to those alternatives that preserve a bridge in place. If a treatment is selected for a Preservation Candidate Bridge that follows the Secretary’s Standards, no alternative analysis is required.
   3. Marketing for relocation
      If, following the investigation of alternatives, it is determined that a Preservation Candidate Bridge needs to be demolished and/or replaced, efforts will be made to relocate and reuse the bridge following the marketing approach outlined in Attachment 6 of this PA.
   4. Additional alternative consideration
      If a Preservation Candidate Bridge is identified to be demolished and/or replaced following the investigation of alternatives and there is a demonstrated local interest in preservation of the bridge, the following steps shall be followed:
      1. Organization or municipality with demonstrated local interest and capacity to take ownership of the bridge must propose an additional alternative for preservation.
      2. The additional alternative shall be provided in writing to the bridge owner and shall describe an adaptive reuse that has not been previously evaluated by the bridge owner. The proposal should provide a conceptual plan and cost estimate demonstrating the proposing party’s commitment and capacity to take ownership of the bridge.
      3. At the request of the party with demonstrated local interest and upon receipt of the proposal for an additional alternative, the LADOTD will consult with the proposing party to negotiate and execute a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (CEA).
      4. The CEA will outline the steps to be undertaken to consider the proposed additional alternative, including a timeframe for such consideration to occur.
4. Non-Priority Bridges
   The bridge owner will continue to maintain Non-Priority Bridges in accordance with standard LADOTD practices. The Management Plan for Historic Bridges Statewide will provide guidance on appropriate preventative maintenance and preservation for historic bridges (see Stipulation VIII.A). It is acknowledged that Non-Priority Bridges are not ideal candidates for long-term preservation. Therefore, demolition and replacement are options for Non-Priority Bridges when maintenance is no longer feasible and/or cost-effective. If a Non-Priority Bridge is proposed for replacement, the bridge owner will follow these steps:
   1. Complete a Solicitation of Views (SOV) following standard LADOTD practice as defined in Chapter 5 of the LADOTD’s Manual of Standard Practice (available at http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Stage_1/08%20Chapter%205%20-%20Managing%20the%20NEPA%20Process.pdf). The SOV is made up of three parts: the SOV letter, the preliminary project description, and the Study Area map. The SOV mailing is comprised of a State list and a Parish list; these lists are maintained by and available from the LADOTD Environmental Section.
   2. Provide 45 days for any response. Any objections raised as a result of such notification will be provided to the FHWA in writing. The FHWA will consult with the LADOTD and FHWA to address the objection. Any dispute will be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures in Stipulation XII.
   3. Adhere to this PA to fulfill Section 106 responsibility (no separate consultation or agreement is required).
   4. Develop the replacement project following standard LADOTD practice.
   5. Market the bridge for relocation in accordance with Attachment 6.
   Since sufficient documentation regarding Non-Priority Bridges has been generated as part of the Historic Bridge Inventory effort and broad stewardship and programmatic mitigation efforts will be completed as part of this PA (see Stipulation IX), no additional mitigation will be required.

VIII. Management Plans for Historic Bridges

1. Management Plan for Historic Bridges Statewide
   Within 12 months of PA execution, the LADOTD will prepare a Management Plan for Historic Bridges Statewide (Statewide Plan) and submit a draft to the Signatory Parties for 30-day review and comment. The LADOTD will finalize the Statewide Plan, taking any comments into account. The completed Statewide Plan will be posted to the project website and Consulting Parties will be notified of its availability.

   The Statewide Plan will inform guidance to be presented within the individual management plans for Preservation Priority Bridges, though those plans will be bridge-specific (see Stipulation VIII.B). The Statewide Plan will provide guidance to a bridge owner seeking to maintain and preserve a Preservation Candidate or Non-Priority Bridge. The content will follow the guidelines, standards, and regulations noted in Stipulation IV, and the outline for the Statewide Plan will be as follows:

   1. Recommended preventative maintenance and preservation activities that are broadly applicable to historic bridges, including those applying to mechanical and electrical systems for movable bridges.
   2. Recommended approach to rehabilitation that is broadly applicable to historic bridges, including compliance with the Secretary’s Standards.
   3. Guidance on the use of design exceptions and/or AASHTO’s Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT ≤ 400), 2001.
   4. Guidance and conditions for appropriate adaptive reuse.
   5. Available funding.
   6. Sources for applicable historic bridge training that is available for bridge maintenance and design personnel.
2. Individual Management Plans for Preservation Priority Bridges
   The LADOTD will prepare individual management plans as follows:
   1. An individual plan will be prepared following the outline below for each bridge listed as Preservation Priority in Attachment 1, with the exception of nine bridges in New Orleans City Park.
   2. A combined plan will be prepared following the outline below for the nine Preservation Priority Bridges in New Orleans City Park that are similar in type, features, condition, and function.
   3. Plans for locally owned Preservation Priority Bridges will be provided to the owner.
   4. When applicable, the individual plan will refer back to the Statewide Plan, such as for activities that apply to a class of bridges (e.g., electrical and mechanical systems of movable bridges).
   5. Plans will be completed within 18 months of PA execution. The LADOTD will submit draft plans to the Signatory Parties for 30-day review and comment. The LADOTD will finalize the plans, taking any comments into account.
   6. Completed plans will be posted to the project website and Consulting Parties will be notified of their availability.

   The bridge management plan content outline is as follows:

   1. Executive summary
   2. Historical data - includes:
      • Description of the bridge
      • Synopsis of the bridge’s history, alterations, historic integrity, period of significance, and eligibility
      • Identifying numbers for the bridge (LADOTD and LASHPO)
      • Character-defining features of the bridge
   3. Engineering data - includes:
      • Condition of bridge, including superstructure and substructure elements, with images of conditions noted
      • Approach and waterway observations
      • Date of site visit
   4. Recommendations for preventive maintenance and preservation
   5. Recommendations for rehabilitation, if any
   6. Identification of any anticipated design exceptions
   7. Projected costs
   8. Attachments
      • Glossary of common engineering and historical terms used
      • Bridge maintenance and rehabilitation guidelines used
      • Available electronic documents, including rehabilitation plans, original plans, any engineering or historic inventory forms, photographs, correspondence, etc.

IX. Stewardship, Public Outreach, Education, and Funding

The following efforts provide mitigation for adverse effects to historic bridges that are contemplated under this PA, including potential replacement of Non-Priority Bridges.

1. Website - A project website will continue to be hosted by the LADOTD that makes available reports from the Historic Bridge Inventory study of pre-1971 bridges. The LADOTD will continue to maintain a dedicated Historic Bridge Marketing webpage (per Attachment 6) at http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Historic_Bridge_Marketing/Pages/default.aspx. In addition, historic bridge information will be provided to the LASHPO to post on its website. The LADOTD will provide the historic bridge website links to relevant preservation organizations including the Historic Bridge Foundation and bridgehunter.com.
2. List of Interested Recipients - The LADOTD, with assistance from the LASHPO, will identify and maintain a list of parties with potential use for a relocated historic bridge should one become available. The LADOTD will send a notice to the following organizations informing of opportunity to join this list and receive notifications:
   • Non-LADOTD state agencies, including Louisiana State Parks
   • Statewide preservation organizations
   • State SOV list
   • Individuals on the current project email list
3. Historic Bridges of Louisiana publication - A publication highlighting descriptive and historical information for each historic bridge and providing contextual information has been prepared for a popular audience and posted to the project website.
4. Training workshops - The LADOTD, in cooperation with the Louisiana Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC) or other entity, will provide education on approaches to preventative maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation of historic bridges and related processes outlined in this PA through its existing technical conference series. The LADOTD will develop and deliver this training every two years starting in 2015 and continuing until Signatory Parties decide it is no longer warranted and notify the LADOTD of this in writing. The Signatory Parties will consult to determine the appropriate venue(s) for the training. Notice of the training will be posted to the website and sent via email or mail to each historic bridge owner and Signatory and Concurring Parties.
5. Documentation - The LADOTD will prepare Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation to represent each of the bridge types represented within the Preservation Candidate preservation category. Bridges to be documented will be chosen in consultation with the LASHPO and FHWA. HAER Level I documentation, including measured drawings or an acceptable equivalent, will be prepared for an estimated eight bridges that demonstrate types unique to Louisiana, including certain movable types and K-trusses. HAER Level II documentation will be prepared for an estimated nine bridges that are representative examples of types within the state and important variations of movable and truss types. Original documentation will be provided to the National Park Service and archival and digital copies of documentation will be provided to the LASHPO. The HAER documentation will be submitted to the National Park Service with copies to the LADOTD and LASHPO within 24 months of PA execution.
6. Funding - The continuation and implementation of this Agreement is contingent upon the appropriation of funds to fulfill the requirements of the Agreement by the United States Congress and the Louisiana State Legislature. In the event sufficient funds are not available to implement this Agreement, the FHWA shall consult in accordance with the amendment and termination procedures found in Stipulations XIII and XIV of this Agreement. Subject to the availability of funds, the LADOTD will dedicate $3 million annually to the preventative maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation of LADOTD-owned Preservation Priority Bridges listed in Attachment 1. Recognizing that individual bridge projects will occur on different schedules depending on individual bridge needs, funds may be pooled over a period of several years. If a portion of this dedicated fund is not required for Preservation Priority Bridges, the LADOTD may use the funds for preventative maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation of LADOTD-owned Preservation Candidate Bridges. If identified needs exceed the available funds, the LADOTD will actively seek additional funding using traditional bridge funding sources.

   Non-LADOTD owners of Preservation Priority Bridges listed in Attachment 1 will be eligible for the State’s apportioned federal funds for activities completed in accordance with the management plans prepared in Stipulation VIII.

X. Emergency Situations for Historic Bridges

Emergency situations will be addressed as follows:

1. Emergencies are defined in 36 CFR 800.12 as “operations which respond to a disaster or emergency declared by the President, a tribal government, or the Governor of a State or which respond to other immediate threats to life or property.”
2. If an emergency occurs that affects a historic bridge, it is acknowledged that the LADOTD may not be able to contact the LASHPO prior to stabilizing the historic bridge or taking such other measures as may be necessary based on the emergency circumstances.
3. In emergency situations, the LADOTD will contact the State Historic Preservation Officer within the LASHPO as soon as possible (target timeframe of 72 hours), dependent on the emergency circumstances, and provide a description of the emergency situation, emergency measures that have been implemented, and any additional proposed emergency measures. A target timeframe of 7 working days for expedited emergency response by the LASHPO will apply. The State Historic Preservation Officer may refer the call to staff as needed and appropriate.
4. The LADOTD will also notify the ACHP as soon as possible and afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment within 7 days of notification. If the agency official determines that circumstances do not permit 7 days for comment, the agency official shall notify the ACHP and invite any comments within the time available.
5. When possible to do so, emergency measures will be undertaken in a manner that does not foreclose future preservation.
6. Permanent repairs to historic bridges beyond the scope of emergency repairs are not authorized by this Stipulation.
7. This Stipulation applies to undertakings that will be implemented within 30 calendar days after the event resulting in the emergency. The LADOTD may notify the LASHPO at 30 and 60 days if an extension is needed and request concurrence to continue for up to 90 days from declaration of a disaster.

Immediate rescue and salvage operations conducted to preserve life or property are exempt from the provisions of Section 106 (36 CFR § 800.12(d)). This exemption applies regardless of whether there has been a declared disaster or emergency.

XI. Annual Reporting

The LADOTD will be responsible for annual reporting as follows:

1. For the duration of the PA, on or before August 31 of each year, the LADOTD environmental staff, with input from bridge and maintenance divisions, shall submit an annual PA implementation report summarizing the current review year’s activities under this PA to Signatory, Concurring and Consulting Parties and post it to the project website.
2. The annual report shall address bridges covered by this PA and include an accounting of the implementation of the activities outlined in Stipulations VII through X of this PA, including a table providing the name, bridge recall number, and location of historic bridges, and a summary of relevant findings and outcomes pertaining to each processed project pursuant to this PA, whether completed or planned. The annual report will outline the results of the marketing program, including number of bridges preserved with ownership transfer, and will provide any recommendations for program improvement. Certain activities that preserve and maintain a bridge in a state of good repair, as outlined in Attachment 5 - Accepted Preventative Preservation and Maintenance Activities, may be implemented without review and do not need to be included in the annual report.
3. Such report shall include any proposed scheduling changes, any problems encountered, and any disputes or objections received relating to efforts to carry out the terms of this PA.
4. In 2016 and 2017 the LADOTD shall coordinate an annual meeting among the Signatory, Concurring, and Consulting Parties to evaluate the agencies’ joint functioning under the PA. In 2018 and after the LADOTD shall contact Signatory, Concurring, and Consulting Parties to ask if a meeting should be held.
5. Within 90 days following the annual review meeting, if held, the LADOTD shall prepare a post-meeting summary report containing a narrative description of accomplishments, concerns, and recommendations regarding any aspect of this PA, and submit a copy of the report to the Signatory, Concurring, and Consulting Parties and post it to the project website.

XII. Dispute Resolution

If any Signatory Party of this PA objects in writing to the FHWA regarding any action carried out or proposed with respect to the implementation of this PA, the FHWA shall consult with the objecting party to resolve this objection. Any consulting party or member of the public may bring an objection to any Signatory of the agreement. The Signatory may bring that objection to the FHWA in writing for its consideration to resolve the objection. If after such consultation the FHWA determines the objection cannot be resolved through consultation, the FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the objection to the ACHP, including the FHWA’s proposed response to the objection. Within 30 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the ACHP shall exercise one of the following options:

1. Advise the FHWA that the ACHP concurs in the FHWA’s proposed response to the objection, whereupon the FHWA will respond to the objection accordingly; or
2. Provide the FHWA with recommendations, which the FHWA shall take into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection.

Should the ACHP not exercise one of the above options within 30 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the FHWA may assume the ACHP’s concurrence with the proposed response to the objection.

XIII. Amendment

Any Signatory Party to this PA may propose to the FHWA that the PA be amended, whereupon the FHWA will consult with the other Signatory Parties to consider the proposed amendment. All Signatory Parties to this PA must agree to the proposed amendment in writing for such amendment to be valid.

XIV. Termination

Any Signatory Party to this PA may terminate it by providing 60 days’ notice to the other Signatory Parties, provided that the Signatory Parties will consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of termination, the FHWA will comply with 36 CFR 800 with regard to individual undertakings covered by this PA.

XV. Effective Date and Duration

This PA will become effective immediately upon the FHWA’s filing a copy signed by all Signatory Parties with the ACHP.

At least six months prior to June 30, 2035, the FHWA will consult with Signatory Parties to this agreement to determine interest in renewing this agreement. The agreement may be extended for additional terms upon the written agreement of the Signatory Parties. Unless extended or terminated in accordance with Stipulation XIV, the PA shall remain in effect until June 30, 2035, at which time its Stipulations and provisions become null and void.

SIGNATORY PARTIES

The Signatory Parties below hereby execute this Programmatic Agreement and acknowledge and reaffirm their commitment to perform all duties set forth herein.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
By:             C.W. Bolinger         , Division Administrator
Name:             Charles W. Bolinger        
Date:             8/19/2015        

LOUISIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
By:             Phil Boggan         , State Historic Preservation Officer
Name:             Phil Boggan        
Date:             8/20/2015        

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
By:             Sherri H. LeBas         , Secretary
Name:             Sherri H. LeBas        
Date:             8/25/2015        

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By:             Reid Nelson         , Executive Director
Name:             Reid Nelson        
Date:             9/21/2015        

CONCURRING PARTIES:
The Concurring Parties below hereby acknowledge and affirm their concurrence with provisions of this Programmatic Agreement.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By:                     , Deputy General Counsel
Name:                    
Date:                    

CONCURRING PARTIES:
The Concurring Parties below hereby acknowledge and affirm their concurrence with provisions of this Programmatic Agreement.

HISTORIC BRIDGE FOUNDATION
By:                     , Executive Director
Name:                    
Date:                    

List of Attachments

Attachment 1. Historic Bridges Eligible for National Register Listing or Listed in the National Register and Treatment Category

Attachment 2. Glossary of Terms

Attachment 3. Historic Bridges Subject to Separate Section 106 Process

Attachment 4. Treatment of Historic Bridges

• 4A. Procedures for Rehabilitation Projects Affecting Preservation Priority Bridges
• 4B. Procedures for Projects Affecting Preservation Candidate Bridges

Attachment 5. Accepted Preventative Maintenance and Preservation Activities

Attachment 6. Historic Bridge Marketing

Attachment 1
Historic Bridges Eligible for National Register Listing
or Listed in the National Register and Treatment Category

Preservation Priority methodology results summary table (by type)*

* 29 historic bridges are subject to separate Section 106 review and are listed in Attachment 3.

Attachment 1 - Historic Bridges and Treatment Category

Bridge Type: Arch

Bridge Type: Concrete rigid frame

Bridge Type: Concrete beam and girder

Bridge Type: Pre-1946 culvert

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Movable

Bridge Type: Post-1945 Common

Bridge Type: Steel beam and girder

Bridge Type: Truss

Bridge Type: Truss

Attachment 2
Glossary of Terms

Adaptive reuse - Bridge is reused for non-vehicular use on-site and is closed to all public motorized vehicular traffic (e.g., cars and trucks) or relocation off-site. See also definition for relocation.

Feasible - A project alternative that can be constructed as a matter of sound engineering.¹

Local agency owner - A local agency owner is a parish, municipality, or other government entity that is in possession of and has current responsibility for a historic bridge. Local agencies are also specified in this PA as “non-LADOTD owners’ to distinguish their bridges from those bridges that are owned by the LADOTD.

Long-term use - The period for which a historic bridge will be retained in vehicular use at its current site. This period coincides with the duration of this PA. Per Stipulation XV, the PA will expire on June 30, 2035, unless extended or terminated.

Preservation - One of four standards, promulgated by the National Park Service, representing a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. The Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties offer four distinct approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Preservation is defined within the Secretary’s Standards as: “the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.” See also Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as Adapted for Historic Bridges (in Attachment 4B).²

Preventive maintenance - (see condition-based preventive maintenance and cyclical preventive maintenance for bridge-specific activities) – A planned strategy of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserves the system, retards future deterioration, and maintains or improves the functional condition of the system (without substantially increasing structural capacity). These definitions are from the FHWA Bridge Preservation Guide.

Condition-based preventive maintenance - Activities that are performed on bridge elements as needed and identified through the bridge inspection process.

Cyclical preventive maintenance - Activities performed on a pre-determined interval and aimed to preserve existing bridge element or component conditions. Bridge element or component conditions are not always directly improved as a result of these activities, but deterioration is expected to be delayed.

Program Comment - The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued a Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges (Program Comment) in November 2012 addressing the eligibility of common post-1945 concrete and steel bridges and culverts. Based on provisions put in place under the Program Comment, the eligibility evaluation of specific types of bridges and culverts built after 1945 is pursued differently from that typically conducted for historic-age bridges. For more information: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/historic_pres/program_comment.aspx.

Prudent - A project alternative is prudent if it meets the test in 23 CFR 774.17, which includes factors assessing safety or operational problems; how well project purpose and need are met; the severity of social, economic, or environmental impacts; and the severity of impacts to environmental resources protected under other federal statutes.³

Qualified professional - A person who meets the relevant standards outlined in the Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated] (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm).

Rehabilitation - One of four standards, promulgated by the National Park Service, representing a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. The Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties offer four distinct approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Rehabilitation is defined within the Secretary’s Standards as: “The process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”⁴ See also Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as Adapted for Historic Bridges (in Attachment 4B).

Relocation - Removal and placement of a historic bridge on a trail, in a park, or in some other non-vehicular use, as well as its placement on a road where it meets load capacity and geometric requirements for the facility on which is placed.

Replacement - Provision of a new facility constructed in the same general traffic corridor. The replacement structure must meet the current geometric, construction, and structural standards required for the types and volume of projected traffic on the facility over its design life. This definition is from the FHWA Bridge Preservation Guide.

Solicitation of Views (SOV) - The LADOTD’s practice for project notification consisting of three parts: the SOV letter, the preliminary project description, and the Study Area map. The SOV mailing is comprised of a State list and a Parish list; these lists are maintained by and available from the LADOTD Environmental Section. This standard LADOTD practice is defined in Chapter 5 of the LADOTD’s Manual of Standard Practice (available at: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Engineering/Environmental/Stage_1/08%20Chapter%205%20-%20Managing%20the%20NEPA%20Process.pdf).

State of good repair (for bridge assets) - The existing physical conditions of bridge elements, components, or entire bridges are such that the bridges (a) are functioning as designed, and (b) are sustained through regular maintenance, preservation, and replacement programs. This definition is from the FHWA Bridge Preservation Guide.

Footnotes

Attachment 3
Historic Bridges Subject to Separate Section 106 Process