Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) APPLICATION FORM. Solicitation Fall 2014 For FY 2019 Funding. TAP Application December 2014 Page 1

Transcription

1 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Solicitation Fall 2014 For FY 2019 Funding APPLICATION FORM TAP Application December 2014 Page 1

2 Table of Contents Application Form... Section 1: General Information... 3 Section 2: Project Budget... 4 Section 3: ATP-6 Project Criteria/Supplement Application Materials... 5 Section 4: Sponsoring Agency Resolution... 8 Section 5: Resolution Agreeing to Maintain Facility... 9 Section 6: ATP-6 Application Checklist Section 7: ATP-6 Project Evaluation and Scoring Applications should be submitted on-line at: D6.StateAid@state.mn.us For more information contact: Mark Schoenfelder, Planning Director MnDOT District th St NW Rochester, MN mark.schoenfelder@state.mn.us TAP Application December 2014 Page 2

3 Section 1: General Information NOTES: If your overall project contains non-eligible or non-transportation related elements, please mention the entire project in the brief project description, but concentrate the application, budget, etc. on the elements that are eligible and transportation related. Sponsoring Agencies, if sponsoring for another project applicant, are advised to have dialog with the project applicant to ascertain the level of commitment by the applicant to follow through on delivery of the project including the potential use of Eminent Domain. Desired year of construction: X Summer 2019 (FY19) Name of Project: Wabasha County Bridge 3219 Preservation Project is located in ATP(s) 6 In the county(ies) of Wabasha Brief Project Description: Repair and Rehabilitation of Historic Bridge 3219 Sponsoring Agency: Wabasha County Project Applicant contact person: Dietrich Flesch Contact Person (from sponsoring agency): Dietrich Flesch Mailing Address: 821 Hiawatha Drive West City, State, Zip: Wabasha, MN County: Wabasha Phone No: ext.113 Fax No: /6/14 (Applicant Signature) (Date) 1/6/14 (Sponsoring Agency Engineer Signature) (Date) 1/6/14 (Local Unit of Government Signature) (Date) (If in MPO area, signature of MPO Executive Director) (Date) (If Safe Routes to School project, signature of MnDOT SRTS Coordinator) (Date) TAP Application December 2014 Page 3

4 Section 2: Project Budget Please identify what costs will be incurred to carry out the proposed project, using the following budget categories as a guideline. Where appropriate, break down your costs by units purchased. For example: number of acres, cubic yards of fill, etc. (Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Eligible Work/Construction Items Unit Estimated Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Furnish and Set New Stone Railing Sq. Ft. 20 $ $10,000 Repoint Vertical Faces of Stone Railing Sq. Ft $55.00 $66,000 Concrete Repair to Arch Rings Sq. Ft. 45 $ $21,000 Furnish and Set New Stone South Headwall Sq. Ft. 15 $ $10,000 Reset Stones Headwalls Sq. Ft. 160 $ $43,000 Repoint Bridge Headwalls Sq. Ft $53.85 $70,005 Coating Repair to Steel Arch Sq. Ft. 300 $66.65 $19,995 Furnish and Set New Pier Stone Sq. Ft. 10 $ $5,500 Concrete Repair to Pier Cap Sq. Ft. 40 $ $18,000 Repoint Pier Stone Sq. Ft. 350 $28.57 $10,000 Reset Stone on East Abutment Sq. Ft. 30 $ $10,000 Concrete Repair to Abutment Cap Sq. Ft. 20 $ $10,000 Repoint Abutment Stone Sq. Ft. 330 $54.55 $18,002 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 $15, $15,000 Repoint Top of Stone Railing Sq. Ft. 350 $42.86 $15,001 Reset Loose Stone on Railing Sq. Ft. 40 $ $15,000 Repair Corner Slopes Lump Sum 1 $9, $9,500 Correct Overburden Height Lump Sum 1 $2, $2,500 Flush Bridge Headwall and Railing Lump Sum 1 $2, $2,500 Clear Vegetation and Debris Lump Sum 1 $4, $4,000 Line A: Total $375,000 (rounded) Non eligible Items (list) ** Design, Plans and Specifications Lump Sum 1 $40, $40,000 Line B: Total $40, Total cost of proposed project: (line A plus line B ) $415, Items not eligible for Alternative funding: (line B) $40, Total eligible costs Minimum $250,000 (line A) $375, Applicant s contribution toward the eligible alternative project costs $75, Funding available from other sources $0 6. Total amount requested in alternative funds (# 3 minus # 4 and #5) $300,000 *Total Cost: Year of construction dollars are used to better estimate the actual dollars required to deliver the project in the proposed construction year. Amounts, including local match, are estimates and may change as the project is delivered. **Includes Right of Way or Land Acquisition (appraisal fees, legal fees, etc.), Administrative Costs (preliminary and construction engineering and contingencies), Others *** See ATP Project Evaluation section of this document for any additional requirements related to project costs TAP Application December 2014 Page 4

5 Section 3: ATP-6 Project Criteria/Supplemental Application Materials Below are four criteria sections that the application must satisfy. Based on the information you provide, the ATP will determine project eligibility and prioritization. 1. Eligibility. The project is eligible for Transportation Alternatives Program funding. a. The project must fall within one of the eligible activities listed below (please check Only ONE) On-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized forms of transportation. Transportation projects to achieve Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 compliance. Safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs (includes Safe Routes to Schools). Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other non-motorized transportation users. Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas. Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising. X Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities. Vegetation management to improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and to provide erosion control. Archaeological activities. Environmental mitigation to address storm water management. Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or restore/maintain habitat connectivity. b. The project(s) must have an estimated total eligible cost of at least $250,000. Proposers (or sponsor) may "bundle" TAP projects together to meet this requirement. The estimated total eligible cost is $375,000 c. Project must have an assured match of at least 20 percent of the eligible costs of the proposed project. The local match cannot be of in-kind services. Assured match is a minimum of 20% of eligible costs. 2. Serves a Transportation Purpose. Projects must serve a transportation purpose. For the TA program, Transportation purpose is defined as primarily serving a commuting purpose and / or that connect two destinations points; a facility may serve both transportation and recreation purposes; a facility that connects people to recreational destinations may be considered to have a transportation purpose. a. Describe how your project serves a transportation purpose. Preserves a currently functioning bridge on a County Road which provides for the needs of the traveling public. A bridge structure is need at the existing location to cross a stream (dry natural water-course). b. Describe who the primary users of your project will be, once implemented. Road users of County Road 68. TAP Application December 2014 Page 5

6 c. Describe any potential for mode switch after the project is implemented (i.e. switching from driving to walking or biking, resulting in reduced VMT [vehicle miles traveled]). Mode switch is not applicable; however, the project does reduce the potential for vehicle restrictions that would cause increased VMT for detouring of traffic. d. Describe how the proposed project will address or alleviate safety and accessibility issues or concerns. Project will improve the condition of the bridge structure resulting in less potential for bridge deterioration/safety concerns. 3. Planning. Preference will be given to projects that have undergone a public input/participation and review process which may include projects identified in those examples of plans listed below. Examples of such plans include: State, Regional or MPO Transportation Plan, Safe Routes to School Plan, Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan, ADA Transition Plan, GreenStep City, Active Living Plan, Comprehensive/Land Use Plan, County/City Transportation Plan, County/City Bicycle or Sidewalk Plan. Please include a copy of the portion of the plan(s) and relating maps that supports the project described in this application. a. Describe the public process this project has undergone and/or where this project emerged. This bridge is identified in MnDOT s Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Minnesota. The Plan provides for information and guidance on the management and long-term preservation of historic bridges in Minnesota including Bridge A subsequent report that was prepared identified specific project scope; the report is a product of a comprehensive study being performed by MnDOT in conjunction with FHWA, SHPO and Cultural Resources Unit. b. Describe the goals of the plan and how this project will advance those goals. Preserve the bridges identified in the above Plan as a important resource. c. Describe how the project serves current and future land use. The project provides for the continued use of County Road 68 as a road, serving the traveling public. d. Describe if there have been objections to the project and how were they resolved, responded to, or handled. None. e. Describe how future maintenance will be planned for, explain. Performed as needed by the County, and in accordance with applicable requirements regarding historic structures. f. Describe how this project will address system gaps. This project will prevent a gap (vehicle restrictions) in the County Highway system. g. How it will increase the connectivity of transportation facilities? This project will preserve the connectivity of existing transportation facilities. h. If the Project is not part of a plan at this time please indicate what will be the public process to obtain public input and gage public support for the project and when will this occur. A public process will be used during project development. A public process was used in development of Federal and State laws regarding historic structures which is the basis for the above Plan. TAP Application December 2014 Page 6

7 4. Ensure Project Deliverability. Transportation Alternative funds must be used in the federal fiscal year in which they are approved. In previous years, the ATP had flexibility to allow projects to slide a year if they were not ready for construction. The ATP no longer has this flexibility. It is important that the applicant describe processes that have been completed/planned and will lead to timely project delivery. a. Describe the project development and deliverability using a timeline with estimated dates (refer to the timeline guidance in this document and/or consult an engineer if needed). Discussion with review agencies on design consultant, issuing RFP for design services, contracting with design consultant for services: within 2 months of grant approval Design, environmental document, agency review, and coordination: 2 to 18 months after grant approval Advertise for bids for preservation work, award contract, and start work: 18 to 30 months after grant approval Preservation work and completion: 30 to 36 months after grant approval b. Describe the Project Sponsor and Recipient Agency s role and support of the project (staff and elected official roles, project funding and commitment to on-going maintenance needs). If the applicant is different than the sponsor, describe how the responsibilities will be delegated and indicate Project Sponsor and Recipient Agency s knowledge and experience with administering projects funded with federal dollars. Wabasha County is committed to meeting funding requirements and on-going maintenance of the proposed improvements. Wabasha County has successfully administered and delivered projects utilizing federal dollars. c. To ensure project delivery as described in the project timeline outlined in the previous question, describe your approach to address the process to get permits and go through the appropriate processes (and your history with these processes, if applicable) if any of the following are applicable to your project: i. Does the project use Section 4(f) Park Lands or LAWCON acquired properties? No. ii. Does the project occur within an area that affects properties listed, or that are eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes, the bridge being preserved is on the National Register of Historic Places iii. Does the project affect species or critical habitat protected by the Endangered Species Act? No iv. Does the project require new right of way, temporary easements, minor access changes, relocations or hazardous materials abatement? No v. Does the project involve placement of fill into Waters of the U.S.? No vi. Does the project encroach into a floodplain? Encroachment may be necessary for riprap and during construction. vii. Does the project significantly impact air quality? No viii. Is the project in any way controversial or anticipated to be controversial? No TAP Application December 2014 Page 7

8 d. If the project takes place within a local unit of government, where the local unit of government is not the project applicant, nor the project sponsor, describe how all local units of government have come to support and approve the project. Attach resolutions of support from the applicant, the sponsor (if different from the applicant) and any other local unit of government affected by the project. (Affected entities may include townships, tribal governments, school districts, municipalities, counties, byways, etc.) Not applicable. e. If applicable, describe your (or the sponsoring agency s) past history of delivering a project that used federal transportation funds. For example, were you able to deliver the project in the year it was programmed? Have you ever had to turn back awarded federal funds? Please explain. If problems were experienced in the past, what will be done on this project to ensure successful completion? Wabasha County has successfully delivered federal projects on-time or in advance of programmed years. Wabasha County is not aware of turning back federal funds or any problems experienced in the past regarding project deliverability. f. Transportation Alternative projects must be submitted through/by a public agency, regional transportation authority, school district, tribal government, county or a city with a population greater than 5,000 persons. Cities with less than 5,000 population, townships, and other organizations must have their alternative application/project sponsored by their respective county. The sponsoring county or city must pass a resolution (see Section 4) indicating their willingness to be the project sponsoring agency with responsibility for seeing the project through to its completion, with compliance of all applicable laws, rules and regulations. The local unit of government, if different from the Sponsoring Agency, must also adopt a Resolution of Support. In Section 1: General Information, multiple signatures are required (from each involved governmental entity). In lieu of acquiring multiple signatures, each governmental unit may provide a copy of a dated stating that the governmental unit has reviewed a description of the application. TAP Application December 2014 Page 8

9

10 feet meters

11

12

13

14 Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Minnesota Report prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation Report prepared by and June 2006

15 Executive Summary Executive Summary The Minnesota Historic Bridge Management Plan was prepared in 2006 as part of an extensive historic bridge management initiative by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). This plan fulfills a need for information and guidance on the management and long-term preservation of historic bridges in Minnesota. Minnesota has over 200 bridges identified as historic, meaning that they are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Mn/DOT owns 15 percent of the state s historic bridges, while counties and cities own the remaining 85 percent. This plan is intended to aid owners of historic bridges, including the state, counties, cities, and towns. Other individuals and organizations involved in the preservation of historic bridges such as transportation and engineering professionals, statewide and local historical and preservation organizations, state agencies whose work may involve historic bridges, and interested members of the public, will also find the plan relevant and useful. Requirements relating to regulatory processes and funding programs for transportation projects, especially for historic bridges, are complex. An overview of the applicable laws, regulations, and standards is provided in Section 2. Available funding options are summarized in Section 6. Since its first statewide study of historic bridges in 1985, Mn/DOT s work to identify historic bridges built before 1956 has steadily advanced and is now considered complete. This two-decade series of projects is summarized in Section 3. As historic bridges were identified, efforts turned increasingly to issues of bridge management. Mn/DOT s innovative approach to historic bridge management using the team method is described in Section 4. The team approach pairs a professional historian with a professional engineer. Working interactively, they survey a historic bridge and prepare a management plan. The plan summarizes pertinent historical and engineering data, records current conditions, and recommends specific treatments for stabilization, preservation, and annual maintenance. This method effectively brings historic preservation and bridge engineering into a dialogue to address difficult bridge issues, such as load capacity, widening, railing replacement, and structural deterioration. The recommended treatments and associated costs provide vital information for the bridge owner, who can then make informed management decisions. Mn/DOT has used the team approach to prepare plans for 22 state-owned bridges. A sample management plan for review by other bridge owners is provided in Appendix D. Additional technical guidance on specific bridge preservation topics is in Section 5. Section 7 identifies agencies and organizations to contact for additional information on topics covered in this plan. The appendices include a glossary, a list of applicable standards, a current list of historic bridges in Minnesota, and specific guidance information for Mn/DOT. X:\ \05001\TECH\RPTS\WPC\060608A.DOC ES-i

16 Section 2 Applicable Laws, Standards, and Definitions 2. Applicable Laws, Standards, and Definitions Historic bridges are bridges listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register. Historic bridges are afforded a degree of protection under state and federal historic preservation laws and transportation laws, which require agencies to take into account the effect of projects on historic properties. These laws recognize the value of preserving physical components of the nation s history. This section describes laws, regulations, programs, standards, and definitions that apply to the management of historic bridges and are used in this plan. A. Laws and regulations (1) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) This law requires federal agencies and owners seeking federal assistance to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, including historic bridges, and afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is administered by the ACHP under regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. The process includes identifying historic properties, determining project alternatives to avoid or reduce harm to historic properties, and developing agreements that specify measures to deal with any adverse effects. To comply with Section 106, appropriate consultation among the federal agency, the SHPO, tribes, the public, and other interested parties is required. For FHWA-funded projects involving historic bridges, Mn/DOT CRU either makes a finding of no adverse effect or works with the project sponsor, the SHPO, and other parties to avoid adverse effects using the preservation options discussed in Section 4. Findings are forwarded to the SHPO for concurrence. Mn/DOT and SHPO letters are included in environmental documentation to complete the Section 106 process. Adverse effects are addressed through preparation of appropriate documentation and a Memorandum of Agreement between consulting parties to address the effect through mitigation measures. See Figure 1 for an overview of this process. X:\ \05001\TECH\RPTS\WPC\060608A.DOC 4

17 Section 4 Management of Historic Bridges 4. Management of Historic Bridges The management of historic bridges is central to the obligation of Mn/DOT and other bridge owners to comply with federal and state laws regarding historic preservation. The identification process, as discussed in Section 3, is preliminary to the task of management. Without either identification or management, a bridge owner must treat every regulatory requirement on a case-by-case basis. With Minnesota s population of historic bridges now identified, the task of regulatory compliance is vastly reduced from consideration of 5,200 bridges down to about 200 bridges. Historic bridge management is designed to further streamline the process and reduce the time and expense of fulfilling regulatory requirements. As an owner of one of these historic bridges, it is important to remember that this select list of bridges has been thoroughly and rigorously evaluated and, as their National Register status testifies, they are worthy of preservation for the public as part of Minnesota s engineering and transportation heritage. This section begins with a summary of Mn/DOT s recent efforts to manage the state-owned population of historic bridges. It continues with a detailed description of the process of developing a management plan for a historic bridge, centered on the selection of an option that will allow for long-term preservation. Since long-term preservation is the overarching purpose, demolition of a bridge following documentation of its historic features is not addressed as a recommended option. Following the review of options is a discussion of the team approach, including the roles of the historian and the engineer and the nature of the ongoing dialogue that makes the team approach valuable. A. Mn/DOT s historic bridge management efforts Since completion of the 1997 management plan effort (discussed in Section 3), Mn/DOT CRU staff have further evaluated and refined the list of eligible historic bridges. The list now includes bridges previously listed in the National Register. Because Mn/DOT CRU is responsible for reviewing proposals for Transportation Enhancement funds (see Section 6), selected pedestrian and railroad bridges have also been added to the list. Demolished bridges have been deleted. The resulting, definitive list of historic bridges is included in Appendix C. In 2004 Mn/DOT CRU initiated a multi-part management project for Minnesota s historic bridges, including development of this plan. The effort focused on the 46 state-owned bridges, which are identified by location and Mn/DOT bridge number in Figure 4. In addition to this historic bridge management plan, the project also involved: (1) Preparation of individual management plans for 24 state-owned historic bridges The individual management plan for Bridge No in Zumbro Falls recommends continued vehicular use on-site. This metal, multi-plate, arch culvert features concrete headwalls, sidewalls, and stepped wing walls that are veneered with ashlar limestone masonry executed in the rustic style of the New Deal era. The engineering assessment found the structure to be in fair to good condition. No rehabilitation work is required, but activities to stabilize and maintain the structure, especially its masonry veneer, are presented in the plan. Between 2004 and 2006, Mn/DOT commissioned individual management plans for 23 state-owned historic bridges (one additional plan is to be completed by 2007). Mn/DOT introduced the concept of the individual management plan to guide the long- X:\ \05001\TECH\RPTS\WPC\060608A.DOC 18

18 Section 4 Management of Historic Bridges C. Options for long-term preservation and future use The goal of the individual management plan is to preserve a historic bridge in the way that best retains the qualities that give it historic significance while meeting transportation needs. Mn/DOT has identified five options for bridge preservation, one of which will be recommended as the preservation goal for an individual management plan. The choice of option is based on balancing the needs and regulatory requirements of transportation and preservation along with cost considerations. Once an option is selected, a plan should be developed that recommends activities in keeping with the Secretary s Standards that allow the bridge to fulfill the requirements of the selected option for at least 20 years. Recommended activities to stabilize, preserve, and maintain a historic bridge once an option has been selected are addressed in Section 5. The preferred option is retaining the bridge for continued vehicular use in its original location, because continued use provides the best opportunities for maintenance and funding. A bridge is a good candidate for on-site rehabilitation if it can continue to fulfill a transportation need without alteration or loss of its significant historic features. Many historic bridges were designed with widths and load limits that cannot be adapted to current design standards without major alterations. In those cases, less-preferred options may be required to ensure a bridge s long-term preservation. Federal and state policies recognize that existing bridges with less than desirable geometric criteria (width, horizontal alignment, and vertical clearance) can be retained. For bridges with continued vehicular use, key guidance is provided in Mn/DOT s LRFD Bridge Design Manual (this acronym refers to Load and Resistance Factor Design) and Mn/DOT s Bridge Preservation, Improvement and Replacement Guidelines (BPIRG)(both are available at An example of a historic bridge successfully converted to bicycle and pedestrian use at its original site is the Walnut Street Bridge (Bridge No. R0412) in Mazeppa, Wabasha County. The 1904 Pratt truss bridge had been closed prior to its rehabilitation. Work included replacing the existing timber walkway, bearings, truss members, stringers, piers, abutments, and hand railing. The bridge provides access from the downtown to a city park and ball fields. In 2002 the rehabilitation project was recognized by the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota and received an Honor Award. Five basic options for historic bridge preservation are discussed below, arranged from most-preferred to least-preferred. An owner should make every effort to avoid an adverse effect to the historic bridge. If an adverse effect cannot be avoided (i.e., a character-defining feature is altered or removed), mitigation may be required. (1) Rehabilitation for continued vehicular use on-site This is the preferred option because it represents the best combination of retaining historical features while meeting transportation needs. It can be less expensive than some other options, including construction of a new bridge. To continue in vehicular use at its current site, a bridge must meet the current and projected transportation needs. In this option, existing geometrics of the bridge and original historic fabric are retained to the maximum extent possible. Deviations from standard Mn/DOT practices related to bridge rehabilitation may be granted through design exceptions and variances as described in Section 5. X:\ \05001\TECH\RPTS\WPC\060608A.DOC 23

19 Appendix C. Historic Bridges in Minnesota

20 BRIDGE NUMBER/ NAME SHPO NUMBER COUNTY FEATURE CROSSED L8507 St. Louis Snively Boulevard - Amity Creek L8515 SL-DUL-2426 St. Louis Lewis Street Tischers Creek OWNER ROAD NUMBER MAIN SPAN TYPE LENGTH DATE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA A SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA C HISTORIC DISTRICT STATUS Aesthetics Eligible Aesthetics Eligible L8796 SL-DUL-2427 St. Louis Eligible Great Northern Bridge SN-SKC-001 Stearns Main Street and 8 th Street 1924 Sauk Center Main Street L5573 Steele Straight River Listed 3858 Swift Pomme de Terre River Listed Typological Eligible L7069 TO-TUR-003 Todd Turtle Creek Aesthetics Eligible L7075 TO-HAR-009 Todd Turtle Creek Aesthetics Eligible R0412 (Walnut Street Bridge) 3219 (Zumbro Parkway Bridge) WB-MZC-029 Wabasha North Branch Zumbro River 1904 Listed WB-HPK-003 Wabasha Stream Listed 5827 WB-ZFC-011 Wabasha Stream Aesthetics Listed L7120 Wadena Eligible L4100 Waseca Eligible 4654 WA-SWC-322 Washington Over St. Croix River and City Street* Listed 5600 WA-PKC-001 Washington Mississippi River Typological Eligible 6527 WW-MDT-003 Watonwan Pedestrian Walkway/Watonwan River No MnDOT Bridge Number (Recreational dam/foot bridge) No MnDOT Bridge Number (Footbridge) Typological; Significant Builder WN-ELT-022 Winona Whiewater State Park WM-ELT-034 Winona Whitewater State Park Eligible Listed Listed Highlighted bridges are Mn/DOT owned and selected for preservation. Individual bridge management plans have been completed and are available through Mn/DOT s Cultural Resources Unit. Check the Mn/DOT CRU web page for updates to the historic bridge list:

21 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report Executive Summary Bridge Number: 3219 Built in 1937, Bridge 3219, or the Zumbro Parkway Bridge, is located immediately south of Zumbro Falls in a rural area of Wabasha County. It is an unaltered, double-arch, multi plate bridge that carries County Road 68 over a tributary of the Zumbro River. Wabasha County owns the bridge. The Zumbro Parkway Bridge is significant as a representative example of a multi plate arch bridge featuring stone headwalls, wingwalls, and railings. Bridge 3219 is approximately 59 feet in span length as measured between outside arch faces and 99 feet in overall length including the parallel wingwalls. It is comprised of two 24-foot multi plate steel arch spans on stone masonry abutments and pier which are capped with cast-in-place concrete at the level where the plate arch secures. The bridge features stone masonry headwalls, railings and wingwalls and a cast concrete arch rib which runs over the arch at each headwall and is scribed and projects to the face as cut stone voussoirs. The roadway has a gravel surface with a clear width of 32 feet 7 inches providing for two lanes of traffic. Bridge 3219 is in fair condition overall and appears to adequately serve its purpose of carrying vehicular and pedestrian traffic. With proper maintenance, stabilization and preservation activities it is believed Bridge 3219 could continue to serve in its present capacity for 20 years or longer. Any work on Bridge 3219 should proceed according to the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) [36 CFR part 67] and The Secretary s Standards with Regard to Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Situations, as adapted by the Virginia Transportation Research Council (Guidelines). AUGUST 2014

22 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report I Project Introduction Bridge Number: 3219 This Bridge Report is a product of a comprehensive study performed for approximately 140 historic bridges owned by county, city, township, private and other state agencies besides MnDOT. The study is the second phase of a multi-phased process developed and executed in partnership with representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); MnDOT State Aid; MnDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU); the Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS); local public works and county highway departments; county and township boards and city councils; the preservation community and the general public. To perform the study, MnDOT retained the consultant team of LHB Inc., Mead & Hunt Inc., and The 106 Group. The general goals of the study include: Gathering and compiling the existing historic and bridge condition data and other relevant information on the bridges in the study group into bridge reports. National Register nominations for a select number of bridges within the study group which the bridge owner may request a nomination to be prepared. Providing edits for MnDOT s consideration to update the MnDOT General Historic Bridge Management Plan based on the study s findings. Producing a narrative for the MnDOT Historic Bridge Website to disseminate information regarding locally owned historic bridges in Minnesota. Investigating and preparing a summary regarding how other states have funded historic bridge programs and structured Programmatic Agreements when multiple non-state entities are the owners of historic bridges. The Bridge Reports compile and summarize the historic and engineering information concerning the structures. The reports also document the existing use and condition of the bridges along with assessments of the maintenance, stabilization and preservation needs of each structure, including cost estimates. The maintenance activities, along with regular structural inspections and anticipated bridge component replacement activities are routine practices directed toward continued structure serviceability. Stabilization activities address immediate needs identified as necessary to maintain a bridge s structural and historic integrity and serviceability. Preservation activities are near term or long term steps that need to be taken to preserve and in some cases restore a bridge s structural and historic integrity and serviceability. In assessing preservation activities, a design life of 20 years or longer is typically considered. In addition to general restoration activities and dependent on the severity of deterioration, preservation activities may include spot repair, disassembly and reassembly or replacement of specific bridge components. Recommendations within the Bridge Reports are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The Standards are basic principles created to help preserve the distinct character of a historic property and its site, while allowing for reasonable change to meet new engineering standards and codes. The Standards recommend repairing, rather than replacing deteriorated features whenever possible. The Standards apply to historic properties of all periods, styles, types, materials and sizes and encompass the property s location and surrounding environment. AUGUST 2014 Project Introduction I - 1

23 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Local Historic Bridge Report II Historical Data Bridge Number: 3219 Criterion C Significance Historic District SHPO inventory number Engineering: Important type; High artistic value N/A WB-HPK-003 Sources Used to Compile Section II -- Historical Data Anderson, Rolf T. Federal Relief Construction in Minnesota, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Sec. E, Available at the State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minn. Quivik, Fredric L. "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota." National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Sec. F, Available at the State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minn. Hess, Jeffrey A. Zumbro Parkway Bridge. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, August Field Survey by LHB, Inc. and Mead & Hunt, Inc., 29 April AUGUST 2014 Historical Data II - 5

24 Flesch, Dietrich From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hutton, Robert (DOT) Monday, November 17, :54 PM Michael Martin McFadden, Kathryn (DOT); Vanderbosch, Dana (DNR); Flesch, Dietrich; Carlos Espinosa Schoenfelder, Mark (DOT) Transportation Alternatives Program Thank you for your letters of Intent (LOI) for the MnDOT Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). Based on local Area Transportation Partnership criteria your project appears to qualify for the MnDOT District 6 TAP program. There has been a $250, total project minimum established to qualify. No engineering and no right of way costs are eligible in TAP. If you have met the minimum requirements, MnDOT recommends submission of a full application which is due January 9, Please or call with questions. Thanks Bob 1

25 Flesch, Dietrich From: Sent: To: Subject: FormsCentral Receipts Wednesday, October 22, :42 PM Flesch, Dietrich Transportation Alternatives Program LOI Submitted This is to confirm we have received your Letter of Intent for the 2014 Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) solicitation. You will be contacted by a representative from your region to review the program before submitting a full application. Thanks Organization: Wabasha County Title of Project: Bridge 3219 Preservation Contact: Dietrich Flesch Address: 821 Hiawatha Drive West City: Wabasha State: MN County: Wabasha Zip: Phone: dflesch@co.wabasha.mn.us Summary: Repair and preservation of Bridge 3219 which is listed on the National Historic Register. Amount: Funding Review: The total estimated amount of $375,000 is based from preliminary estimates cited in MnDOT's Local Historic Bridge Report. A TAP request of $300,000 is proposed to be supplemented 20% with available funds and as eligible from State of Minnesota Historical and Cultural Heritage Grant, State Bridge Bonds, or local County funds. Type: Capital Project Description: Repair and preserve bridge A local historic bridge report has been created by MnDOT describing specific items of work including resetting stone, repointing stones, repair to concrete abutments, and preserving work on metal multi-plate arch. Transportation Purpose: Preserves a bridge on a public road (County Highway 68) which provides for the transportation needs of the traveling public. A bridge structure is needed at the existing location to cross a waterway. Planning Process: Identified in MnDOT's list of historic bridge structures. From MnDOT's website,"mndot has committed to preserving select bridges owned by the state. In addition to federal and state preservation laws that require full consideration of preservation, MnDOT has gone beyond these laws to commit to the public that these iconic structures will receive a higher level of maintenance and more rehabilitation work to ensure they remain in use and continue to serve the public for as long as possible. Approximately 85 percent of the historic bridges in the state are under the control of local agencies. MnDOT provides guidance to local agencies on best practices for maintaining and preserving their historic bridge. The Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Minnesota provides information on applicable laws, funding options, rehabilitation alternatives, and Minnesota s innovative collaborative approach, where engineers and historians collaborate to find solutions to rehabilitating bridges." 1

26 Organization Information: Wabasha County is familiar with and has delivered federally funded projects successfully including advancing federal projects into earlier years, and has delivered projects with varying scopes. Community Support: The sponsoring agency is Wabasha County. Wabasha County is supportive of this project. 2