mainedot archived planning studies: Fairfield-Benton Replacement Bridge Evironmental Study
|
Fairfield-Benton Replacement Bridge Evironmental Study: Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Programmatic Section 4(f) Statement
Replacement of West, Center and East Bridges Towns of Fairfield and Benton Somerset and Kennebec Counties, Maine PIN 6899.00, BR-6899(00)X
Prepared Pursuant to 23 CFR 771 and 23 USC 138 by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Maine Department of Transportation
Paul L. Lariviere,
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administrator
James Tukey
Bridge Design Division
Bureau of Project Development
Maine Department of Transportation
16 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0016
(207) 287-8340
Comments on this Environmental Assessment are due by October 28, 1999 and should be sent to address above.
Table of Contents
- Project History and Scope: Page 3
- Purpose and Need: Page 3
- Proposed Action: Page 4
- Issues Relevant to this Proposal: Page 5
- Decisions to be Made: Page 5
- Alternative Analysis: Page 5
- Affected Environment, Environmental
Consequences and Mitigation (including Factors impacting decision
making matrix): Page 7
- Public Participation and Outreach: Page 11
- Literature Cited: Page 11
- Chronology of public participation
and opportunities for Public Participation Public Comments
Addressed Comment Letters received: Page 12
- List of Preparers: Page 13
- List of Attachments: Page 14
- Programmatic
Section 4(f) Evaluation project location map
- Historic Bridge Survey
- Section 106 Analysis:
- West Bridge
- Center Bridge
- East Bridge
Project History and Scope
The towns of Fairfield and Benton are connected by three truss
bridges that carry Routes 11/139/100 across the Kennebec River.
The West Bridge is a steel pony truss that connects Fairfield proper
with Mill Island. The Center Bridge is a steel through truss which
continues from Mill Island to Bunker Island. The East Bridge is
also a steel through truss that makes the final span across the
Kennebec River, connecting Bunker Island with the town of Benton
(see attached location map).
All three bridges were built in 1934, replacing one iron and two
steel truss bridges at the same location. The current condition
of the three trusses has deteriorated to such a point that rehabilitation
is no longer a feasible option. Because of this, the Department
has proposed to replace all three bridges on a parallel alignment
directly upstream from the existing structures. The three existing
bridges would remain in service, acting as a temporary detour, until
the new structures were open to traffic. The existing structures
would then be demolished.
Purpose and Need
The needs for this project are as follows:
- Severe structural deficiencies in the substructure units of all
three bridges
- Structural deficiencies in the steel superstructure of the West
and East Bridges
- Narrow roadway width
- Poor roadway alignment
- Inadequate overhead clearance
- Poor hydraulic capacity of all three bridges
- Inadequate paint protection for all bridges
The purposes of this project areas follows:
- Provide a structurally sound and safe crossing of the Kennebec
River in the vicinity of Fairfield and Benton,
- Address the structural deficiencies and functional obsolescence
of the current bridges
Substructure deterioration:
- The substructures of all three bridges
have undergone severe deterioration. The West Bridge has significant
concrete loss in the face of the abutment bridge seat between the
bearings. The backwall of the abutment is no longer present and
there are significant vertical cracks under the bearings. The West
Bridge pier has a delaminated surface. The Center Bridge has a crumbling
bridge seat and delaminating wingwall. The pier cap surface is severely
deteriorated. The pier caps of the East Bridge have areas of exposed
rebar between the bearings.
Superstructure deterioration:
- West Bridge has suffered the greatest
amount of superstructure deterioration. There is widespread steel
section loss below the grade connection plates and leakage between
the sidewalk and roadway interface. Because it has been some time
since the bridges have been painted, the paint has failed. This
has resulted in steel section loss because members in those areas
are no longer protected by paint causing corrosion. The Center Bridge
has mild collision damage of the steel members above the roadway.
The East Bridge also has some minor collision damage in the steel
members above the roadway and moderate steel section loss below
grade in the connection plates.
Narrow roadway width:
- The width of the roadway is 6.7 m (22 ft.).
The current Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count is 14,400,
and is expected to increase to 20,000 vehicles in twenty years.
In order to safely accommodate this volume of traffic, AASHTO standards
(engineering guidelines used in the development of transportation
projects) require a width of at least 12 m (39.4 ft.).
Poor roadway alignment:
- The substandard roadway geometry has contributed
to poor visibility for traffic entering and leaving residences on
the island and the parking lot behind Main Street in Fairfield.
This is a result of the roadway curves between the bridges coupled
with the above-grade truss structures impairing visibility.
Inadequate overhead clearance:
- The maximum overhead clearance of
4.3 m (14.1 ft.) on the East Bridge has presented a problem for
taller vehicles. Accident reports show several incidents of pulp
trucks losing part of their load because of the low overhead clearance.
Poor hydraulic capacity:
- The bottom of the steel portion of the
bridge relative to the mean water level of the Kennebec River makes
the bridges especially prone to flood damage. These structures provide
only 0.13m (0.4 ft.) of headway between the bottom of the steel
and the water surface elevation during a 50 year flood event, and
they do not pass a 100 year event. During the flood of 1987 (a 500
year event), the bridges and approaches suffered substantial flood
damage because of this poor hydraulic capacity.
Inadequate paint protection:
- All three bridges are in need of painting.
Without paint protection, the deterioration of steel will accelerate.
Proposed Action
Given the extent of structural deterioration and functional obsolescence
of the three bridges, the Department is proposing to replace all
three bridges on a parallel alignment upstream from the existing
structures. The substructures of the new bridges will utilize the
Kennebec River islands for piers with one additional pier in the
water. The existing bridges would remain in service as a temporary
detour and then be removed once the traffic was moved to the new
bridges. In addition to removing the superstructures of the existing
bridges, the associated piers would also be removed to the level
of the river bottom. At least five of the existing six abutments
would remain in place.
Issues relevant to this Proposal
The following resources may be impacted by this project: historic
resources, hazardous materials, and aquatic habitat impacts associated
with the new piers; community facilities and services and right-of-way
takings with the new bridge and approaches. No impacts were identified
for the following resources: soils and geology, groundwater, water
resources/quality issues, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, floodplains,
coastal zone, navigation, federally- or state-listed threatened
and endangered species, land use, prime and unique farmland,, neighborhood
and community cohesion, environmental justice, business activity
levels, employment, visual environment, archeological resources,
public parks and recreational lands, air quality and noise levels.
Decisions to Be Made
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must determine if the
proposed action satisfies the purpose and need of the project, and
that all feasible efforts were made to avoid, minimize and mitigate
any impacts to environmental resources.
Alternative Analysis
Four alternatives were considered for this project, the No Build
option plus one rehabilitation option and two build options. Each
alternative is discussed below, with associated present worth life
cycle costs of each.
Life cycle costs include the immediate costs associated with rehabilitation
and construction as well as the long-term costs associated with
ongoing maintenance. The costs are based on a 75-year cycle, which
is the average life span for most bridges. If replacement can be
delayed and the life span of a structure can be extended beyond
75 years, then the life cycle costs associated with that structure
also decrease.
Alternative 1- No Build: This alternative would require that the
existing bridges stay in place with some minor rehabilitative work.
It is considered to be the No Build option because it is the minimum
scope of work required to keep the bridges in service. While this
alternative would prolong the lives of the bridges by making necessary
repairs to the sub- and superstructures and painting the members,
it would not address the narrow roadway width, poor roadway alignment,
inadequate overhead clearance or the poor hydraulic capacity. Alternative
1 would impact properties protected by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. It was therefore dismissed from further
consideration. The estimated life cycle cost for this alternative
is $5.1 million.
Alternative 2- Rehabilitation with bypass: This alternative would
incorporate the work of Alternative 1, plus require the construction
of a new structure upstream of the existing bridges. This alternative
was investigated to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requirement of analyzing alternatives that would
not impact historic properties. The rehabilitation alternative would
not provide for the additional width, alignment and other deficiencies
needed to provide for existing traffic volumes. The bypass alternative,
on new location, would increase impact to natural and man-made resources,
right-of-way and increase the costs associated with having to maintain
the existing three bridges and a new bridge on new location. Proceeding
with the analysis of an upstream bypass located significantly upstream
would require future environmental analysis and preparation of a
separate NEPA document when moneys became available. Because of the extent of additional impacts, this Alternative was
dismissed from further consideration. The estimated life cycle cost
for this alternative is a minimum of $15 million, although it could
be significantly more depending on the location.
Alternative 3- Replacement on existing alignment: This alternative
requires that all three bridges be replaced on the same alignment
in ten years. It would address the structural deficiencies in the
substructures and superstructures, the narrow roadway width, poor
roadway alignment, inadequate overhead clearance, poor hydraulic
capacity and inadequate paint protection, all in ten years. However,
this option would present major constructability issues since a
temporary bridge or one lane of traffic would have to be in place
for significant periods of time during construction. The high volume
of traffic in this area would make this a very difficult and costly
undertaking. Because of this, this alternative was dismissed from
further consideration. The estimated life cycle cost for this alternative
is $6.4 million.
Alternative 4- Replacement adjacent to existing alignment (Preferred
Alternative): This alternative requires that the replacement bridges
be built on new alignment, slightly upstream of the existing structures.
(An upstream alignment was chosen over a downstream one to avoid
major impacts to the downtown area of Fairfield.) The intersection
in downtown Fairfield would be moved northward, and would be improved.
The existing structures would remain in place and provide a temporary
detour while the replacement structures were being built. Once the
new bridges could carry traffic, the existing structures would be
removed. All of the superstructures would be removed, as well as
the piers to the level of the river bed. Five of the six abutments
would remain in place. This alternative satisfies all the needs
for this project and results in less impacts to the environmental
resources than Alternative 2.
The estimated life cycle cost for this alternative ranges from
$5.5 million to $14.2 million depending on the time table for replacement.
The least expensive alternative replaces the bridge in 15 years,
while the most expensive ones replace the bridge now. Because of
strong local advocacy to replace the bridges soon, the Department
determined that the preferred solution would be to replace all three
bridges within the next 5 years. The estimated life cycle cost for
the Preferred Alternative is $14.2 million.
Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
Factors impacting decision making.
Attribute |
Alternative 1- No-Build |
Alternative 2- Rehabilitation
with bypass. |
Alternative 3 - Replacement
on existing alignment |
Alternative 4-Replacement adjacent to existing alignment |
Aquatic Habitat |
No impact |
Not quantifiable at this time |
573 sq. meters, 6,168 sq. feet |
573 sq. meters, 6,168 sq. ft. |
Habitat Type |
No impact |
Riverine Unconsolidated Bottom |
Riverine Unconsolidated Bottom |
Riverine Unconsolidated Bottom |
Community Facilities and
Service Access |
Decreased accessibility |
Improved accessibility |
Improved accessibility |
Improved accessibility |
Historic
{see Programmatic 4(f)} |
West, Center, East Bridges Rehabilitation |
West, Center, East Bridges Rehabilitation |
Demolition of West, Center, & East Bridges |
Demolition of West, Center, & East Bridges |
Life Cycle Costs |
$5.1 million |
minimum of $15.6 million |
$6.4 million |
$14.2 million |
Right-of-Way
a. Takings
b. Type
c. Cost |
No impact NA
$0 |
Not quantifiable at this time |
Linear
strip taking
$85,000 |
Four
bank, gas station, storefront,storage bld
$675,000 |
| |
- Aquatic Habitat. Previous studies had confirmed the presence
of state-listed, endangered mussel species (Leptodea ochracea and
Lampsilis cariosa) in areas of the Kennebec River, slightly downstream
of this project area. Because of this, the Department conducted
its own field study in this area to determine whether or not the
two species were found in this vicinity. No specimens from either
species were found. In addition, the same study revealed that the
majority of the riverbed was comprised of scoured bedrock with very
small, isolated pockets of unconsolidated sediments. Because of
this, no significant impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated.
For further information, see biological report.
- Air Quality Analysis. An air quality analysis was conducted
for the No Build Alternative and Alternative 4 - Replacement adjacent
to existing alignment (the preferred alternative). The study concluded
that there would be no exceedences in either the 1 hour or 8 hour
NAAQS averages for CO levels for the proposed build alternative.
See the Air Quality Report for additional information.
- Noise Analysis. A noise study was conducted for No Build Alternative
and Alternative 4 -Replacement adjacent to existing alignment (Preferred
Alternative). Three residential receptors (R3, R8, R13) are currently
exceeding the maximum noise level for this type of property and
are expected to continue to exceed this noise level under the No
Build alternative. Only one residential receptor (R13) is expected
to be in exceedence of this maximum noise level under the Preferred
Alternative. Despite this predicted exceedence, the Department has
determined that it would not be feasible or prudent to mitigate
for this increase since it would be less than a 3 dBA increase over
current levels. No commercial properties were in exceedence of the
maximum noise level. See Noise Analysis for additional information.
- Community Facilities and Services. The narrow width of the bridges
and the poor roadway alignment has impeded access to community facilities
and services. The No Build alternative would not improve access,
and in fact, access to the facilities would likely become worse
as traffic volumes increase and the structures further deteriorate
and require maintenance. The other three alternatives would improve
access to community facilities and services.
- Neighborhood and Community Cohesion and Business Activity Levels.
The No Build alternative would likely impede development since businesses
would be reluctant to locate in an area with traffic congestion
and poor vehicular access. Improving the vehicular access (as is
proposed with the build alternatives) would likely make the area
more attractive for development and could encourage secondary development.
While development may prove beneficial to the economic base of a
community, it can also bring with it other less desirable outcomes
which can be viewed as detrimental by the community. Examples of
potential development include: conversion of green spaces to more
commercial/industrial uses, bisecting residential neighbors and
communities because of induced traffic and changing the overall
characteristic of a given community by change in land use. Whether
or not the economic incentives of development will outweigh the
potential negative impacts is a decision that must be made by each
affected group/community. However, it is possible in this case to
construct an alternative that will both preserve the integrity of
the existing neighborhoods, while at the same time accommodate the
existing and induced traffic related to development. Alternative
4 has been discussed with the Town of Fairfield, resulting in a
commitment to add green space within the project limits to enhance
the downtown neighborhood. The number of parking spaces for business
access will be preserved, and safety of vehicles using these spaces
will be improved. These enhancements would not be included in the
other two build options, because of required reconfiguration of
the downtown intersection. There will likely be some temporary disruption
to neighborhoods and local businesses during the construction of
the build alternatives. The Department will work closely with neighborhoods
and local business owners to minimize any potential disruptions.
There will be on-going disruptions with business activity levels
and neighborhoods under the No Build alternative as traffic volumes
and congestion continue to increase and structures further deteriorate
requiring additional maintenance.
- Historic Properties. On Nov. 17, 1997 the state historic preservation
officer determined that the West, Center, and East bridges were
eligible for nomination to the National Register Historic Places.
It was determined that the appropriate mitigation, for the demolition
of the bridges, was a Level II recordation as defined in the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation. The recordation of the bridges has been
accomplished as is specified.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would require the rehabilitation
of West, Center, and East Bridges. The rehabilitation would require
repairs to the substructures and superstructures and painting of
the members for all three bridges. Alternative 1 and 2 were dispensed
from further consideration as they would not address the narrow
roadway, poor roadway alignment, inadequate overhead clearance or
the poor hydraulic capacity.
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 would require the demolition of
the three National Register eligible bridges. To mitigate the impacts
to the historic properties a Level II recordation as described above
has been prepared for the three bridges.
See the attached Section 4(f) Evaluation for further information
concerning the historic bridges.
- Uncontrolled Petroleum and Hazardous Waste. There are several
areas with confirmed soil and\or groundwater contamination within
the project . This soil and groundwater contamination will have
a minor impact on the construction of the Preferred Alternative
(Alternative 4). The same level of impact is expected for Alternative
3, Replacement on Existing Alignment. There is no impact by uncontrolled
petroleum and hazardous waste for Alternative 1, No Build. Alternative
2, Rehabilitation with Bypass, was not investigate for uncontrolled
petroleum hazardous-waste. Any soil or groundwater contamination
encountered during construction will be handled in a manner consistent
with State and Federal law, including the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Maine Department of Transportation and the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection. Measures will be taken during the final
design process to minimize the projects impact on contaminant migration.
- Land Use. Land uses could change in response to the construction
of one of the build alternatives as a result of secondary development.
Whether or not these changes would be viewed as positive or negative
depends on the goals of each community involved (see "Neighborhood
and Community Cohesion and Business Activity Levels" for further
discussion).
- Environmental Justice. Environmental Justice has been defined
by the U.S. EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice (EPA 1997)
as "... The fair and meaningful involvement of all people regardless
of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations,
and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including
racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate
share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from
industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution
of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies."
There is an elderly housing complex located on Mill Island, between
West and Center Bridges. The Preferred Alternative will improve
access to the complex and requires minimal strip type right-of-way
takings. The Preferred Alternative, as all alternatives analyzed,
will temporarily impact the complex during normal construction activities.
- Vegetation. Any disturbance to local vegetation associated
with construction activities would be mitigated for through post-construction
landscaping.
- Freshwater Wetlands. Alternative 1 requires no permits from
the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Alternative 2 would require a Maine DEP
full permit and a full ACOE permit. Alternative 3 require a DEP
Permit by Rule and an ACOE General Permit due to the temporary detour
that would be constructed. Exact impacts for the detour bridge are
unknown at this time. Alternative 4 requires a DEP Permit by Rule
and an ACOE General Permit. Impacts are 573 square meters (6,168
square feet) of Riverine Unconsolidated Bottom. Impacts are based
on construction of 5 piers and the placement of rip rap around the
abutments.
- Navigation. Federal Highway Administration has determined that
navigation will not be adversely affected by this project and has
therefore notified the United State Coast Guard (USCG) that it considers
itself (and thereby, the Department) exempt from needing a USCG
permit for that purpose. See memo from FHWA to USGC dated 8/13/98.
- Employment. There may be a temporary increase in employment
opportunities associated with construction for all of the alternatives.
- Right Of Way. There will be no right-of-way impacts associated
with the No Build Alternative. Rehabilitation with Bypass, Alternative
2, has not been fully analyzed as the exact corridor location has
not been determined. The bypass portion of the plan would most likely
require significant acquisition and relocation costs. This Alternative
was eliminated from further consideration prior to the preparation
of project cost estimates.
The new structure, that would be developed for the Replacement
on Existing Alignment, Alternative 3, will be wider than the existing
structure. The widening will result in strip type acquisitions on
both sides of the existing right away. The estimated right-of-way
costs for this alternative is $85,000.00.
Alternative 4, Replacement adjacent to existing alignment, would
necessitate the acquisition of four buildings as well as several
strip type acquisitions along the project corridor. The acquisitions
include: a bank, gas station, and a storefront building in Fairfield
and a storage facility in Benton. The acquisition of these buildings
are required for the construction of the replacement bridges, slightly
upstream in the existing. The estimated right-of-way cost of this
alternative is $675,000.
- Surface Waters. There will be no significant impacts to surface
waters for any of the proposed alternatives. The Department will
require that the contractor develop an erosion and sedimentation
plan (Special Provision 107) and follow the Department's Best Management
Practices for erosion and sedimentation.
Public Participation and Outreach
- Literature cited
- 1995, August 18 - Memorandum, Maine Historic Preservation Commission
to Maine Department Of Transportation, "State Historic Preservation
Officer Expressed Official Interest in the Bridges As Potential
Candidates for National Register of Historic Places".
- 1997, November 17 - Memorandum, Maine Historic Preservation Commission
to Maine Department Of Transportation, "State Historic Preservation
Officer determined Bridges Eligible for Nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places".
- 1998, May 5 - Memorandum, Maine Historic Preservation Commission
to Maine Department of Transportation, "Building Demolition,
Fairfield-Benton".
- 1998, August 13 - FHWA letter to First Coast Guard District, "Finding
of U.S. Coast Guard Permit Exemption".
- 1999 - "Habitat Assessment of the Kennebec River", Robert
Van Riper, MDOT - OES.
- 1999, May - "Noise Study, Fairfield, Maine and Benton, Maine,
Routes 11,100, and 139", William S. Rollins.
- 1999, May 20 - Memorandum, Maine Historic Preservation Commission
to Maine Department of Transportation, "Section 106 finding
of archeological significance".
- 1999, June - " Air Quality Assessment of Proposed Design Changes
to the Kennebec River Crossing of Routes 11,100, and 139 between
Fairfield and Benton", Earth Tech, Inc.. 1999, June 18 - Memorandum,
Dale Doughty to Lisa Dickson, "Summary of Hazardous and Uncontrolled
Waste Issues".
Chronology of Public Participation and Opportunities for
Public Participation
Date |
Type of Meeting |
Participants |
Issues Discussed |
12/12/96 |
Preliminary Informational |
MDOT & Public |
introduce need for improvements
& solicit preliminary input from public |
6/8/98 |
Board Meeting of Skowhegan Savings
Bank |
Board Members, MDOT Project
Mgr. & ROW representative |
discuss project's impact on
bank and potential need for acquisition |
6/9/98 |
Interagency Meeting |
ACOE, MDEP, FHWA, MHPC, U.S.
FWS,LURC,NMFS, U.S. EPA, MDMR, & MDIFW |
introduce project to agencies
and ask for regulatory input - no significant concerns voiced
at this meeting |
4/17/97
7/15/97
6/11/98
12/3/98
1/20/99 |
Weekly Breakfast Meeting of
Fairfield Business Owners and Town officials |
Fairfield Business Owners and
Town officials, MDOT Project Mgr. and other MDOT representatives |
update on progress of project,
discuss different approach alignments on the Fairfield side
and associated impacts of each |
3/31/99 |
Meeting with Fairfield Officials |
Fairfield Town officials, MDOT
(Project Manager, Highway Design) |
Discuss Town's Plan for Community
Development Block Grant, and how project would impact their
plans |
4/29/99 |
Meeting with Fairfield Business
Owners and Town officials |
Fairfield Business Owners, 3
MDOT Team Members (Project Manager, Highway Design, Traffic) |
present traffic analysis model
demonstrating effect of proposed parking changes on traffic
flow in new intersection |
| |
List of Preparers
Name |
Title |
Documentation
Responsibility |
Lisa C. Dickson |
Environmental Specialist III |
Document preparation and review |
Judith Lindsey-Foster |
Environmental Specialist IV |
Document preparation and review |
Pamela Hetherly |
Civil Engineer II; Project Manager |
Document preparation and review |
Greg Croce |
MDOT Summer Intern |
Document research Section 4(f)
analysis |
Dale F. Doughty |
Hydrogeologist |
Hazardous Materials Report |
Earth Tech |
Consultant |
Air Quality Report |
William S. Rollins |
Civil Engineer III |
Noise Study |
Robert Van Riper |
Planning & Research Assoc.
II |
Biological Report |
Richard Bostwick |
Environmental Specialist IV |
Document review |
| |
Attachments
- Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
- Project Location Map
- Historic Bridge Survey, Section 106 Analysis:
- West Bridge
- Center
Bridge
- East Bridge
Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation
Consideration of Impact of Project BR-6899
(00)X, (PIN 6899.00)
on Historic Bridges
over the Kennebec River between Fairfield
and Benton, Maine.
Background
Section 138 of Title 23, United States Code (highways) declares
that it is national policy that special effort be made to preserve
the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation
plans, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic sites. The bridges
over the Kennebec River between Fairfield and Benton, Maine have
been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places by the director, Maine State Historic Preservation
Commission, referred to hereafter as the State Historic Preservation
officer, SHPO.
The rule is commonly known as 4(f), from the originating paragraph
in the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 4(f) prohibits
Federal transportation agencies from authorizing funds that require
the use any of the protective entities listed above unless the specific
Evaluation indicates (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to the impact on these assets, and (2) all possible planning to
minimize harm to them has been undertaken and will be implemented.
Issues of safety, mobility and limited alternatives led to the development
of interagency agreements to use abbreviated 4(f) reporting and
processing in the case of projects involving historic bridges that
meet certain criteria. The Fairfield-Benton Bridge replacement project
does make these criteria, as shown below.
Criteria |
Yes |
No |
| Will a bridge be rehabilitated or
replaced with Federal Funds? |
X |
|
| Will the project require the use
of historic bridge structures which are on or eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places? |
X |
|
| Is the bridge a National Historic
Landmark? (Programmatic N/A if Yes) |
|
X |
| Has the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Division Administrator determined that the facts of
the project match those set forth in the sections of this
documents labeled Alternatives and Mitigation? |
X |
|
| Has an agreement been reached among
the FHWA, the SHPO, and the U. S. Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation through procedures pursuant to Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act? |
X |
|
| |
Description of Impacts to Section 4(f) Property
Demolition of three truss bridges determined by SHPO to be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. For description
of bridges see Attachments 1,2 & 3, and the project Environmental
Assessment.
Alternatives Considered
- Do Nothing
- The Do Nothing alternative was examined in the EA as Alternative
1, No Build. It was rejected as impractical because it did not meet
project Purpose and Need regarding structural integrity, safety
and functional obsolescence. It's life-cycle costs are commensurate
with replacement options.
- Highway Improvement without Using Adjacent Section 4(f) Property
- Alternative 2 in the EA evaluated the feasibility of rehabilitating
the existing truss bridges and providing an upstream by-pass crossing
at a future date when funding is available. This alternative had
the highest life-cycle cost since it involved construction and maintenance
of essentially a duplicate set of bridges. The upstream crossing
would involve building not only the bridge structure but also a
considerable length of highway approaches on new alignment. The
additional economic, social and environmental cost of the right-of-way
and wetland impacts rendered this alternative impractical.
- Building an Improved Facility on a New Location
- Two alternatives were proposed involving replacement of the bridges.
The first, Alternative 3 in the EA, proposed replacement of the
existing bridge on the same alignment to minimize disruption of
the approaches. This alternative met the Purpose and Need of the
project at a moderate life-cycle cost, but was found to be impractical
because of the economic, and community impact costs of providing
one-lane and temporary bridge detours during the life of the project.
This alternative would have resulted in the demolition of the existing
bridges. Alternative 4 also results in the eventual demolition of the existing
bridges but provides for construction of a replacement bridge immediately
upstream, adjacent to the existing structures. This alternative
meets all aspects of project Purpose and Need. It maximizes use
of the existing approaches with minimal disruption to build-up section
of Fairfield at the western approach. Its life-cycle cost is equal
to or less than the other alternatives.
This is the proposed action. The existing bridges would serve as the detour route during construction.
They will be removed following the opening of the new facility because
of their resultant lack of utility and structurally deficient condition.
- Minimization and Mitigation Plan
- Relocation and an approved adaptive reuse of the bridge structures
at an appropriate site is possible but unlikely, given the deteriorated
condition of the bridges and the generally unproductive experience
of highway departments nationwide at marketing bridges in this condition.
It is likely the bridges will be demolished. The SHPO directed that
Level II recordation as defined in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation
be undertaken to mitigate the loss of these historic structures.
This process produces an official record of the bridges, including
photographs, narrative history, and original plans. The recordation
of the bridges has been accomplished as specified.
- Coordination with Maine Historic Preservation Commission
- August 18, 1995 - SHPO's expressed official interest in the bridges
as potential candidates for National Register of Historic Places.
- November 17, 1997 - SHPO determined bridges eligible for nomination
to the National Register.
- May 5, 1998 - SHPO determined buildings to be demolished by project
are not historical.
- May 20, 1999 - SHPO found no properties and project impact area
of archeological interest, following completion of archeological
Phase I fieldwork.
Summary and Approval
This project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)
Evaluation. All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings indicate that it is not possible to achieve the Purpose
and Need of the project without impacting the Section 4(f) protected
properties. the project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm. The official with jurisdiction over the bridges, the SHPO,
has agreed with the assessment of impacts and concur with the proposed
minimization and mitigation plan.
Date: September 22, 1999 Approved by:
Paul L. Lariviere
Division Administrator
Maine Division, FHWA
Attachments
Please Note: All the following documents are in the Adobe PDF Format
This page last updated on
1/6/12
|
free document readers
If your web browser or screen reader cannot view the documents that are listed on this page, please visit the Contact Page
|
