January 2001

An option to execute a Historic Bridge Preservation Easement Agreement was offered last winter to municipal owners of sixteen bridges that fell into one of the following categories:

1. Project Underway - There is a rehabilitation project underway for the bridge on the current Agency project schedule.
   Project Completed - The bridge was recently rehabilitated by an Agency project, with the final project acceptance date after May 13, 1994.

Note: Italicized bridges are ones that fell into category 2 above, i.e. have been recently rehabilitated through an Agency project.

Specified in the easement agreements is that the local bridge owner allow the Agency to nominate the applicable bridge to the National Register of Historic Places. Work has begun in this regard but needs to be completed for all the above bridges.

A draft version of this has been in development this past year. It is anticipated that a working version will be available for implementation and concurrence by VTrans, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Federal Highway Administration in the next few months. The Covered Bridge Committee has been meeting and implementing the draft version on individual bridges that have had immediate preservation/ rehabilitation issues. It has become apparent during this process that this preservation plan will need to be an evolving document due in part to the unique conditions of these timber bridges, past repairs performed and the age/ nature of the bridge material, timber.

Once a working version has been approved, the Committee will work towards defining appropriate local and state responsibilities for inclusion in a covered bridge version of a Historic Bridge Preservation Easement Agreement. Defining the parameters of how these will be offered may require more thought and discussion than for metal truss bridges as local bridge owners have in the past taken advantage of funding through the Town Highway Bridge & Culvert/ Bridge Maintenance Program for their covered bridges. Opening up the opportunity to execute an easement agreement for "bridges rehabilitated through an Agency project" may therefore require further definition as to what qualifies as an "Agency project".

• Changes to the Metal Truss Bridge Preservation Plan. There has been one instance of a local bridge owner challenging placement of their bridge within the plan for continued highway use. There are likely to be others. In addition, the Agency is questioning the practicality of some of the bridges slated for adaptive use. The Programmatic Agreement that established the program does not clearly stipulate the process for resolving these disputes, unless there is "a change in circumstances".
• Consensus of final version and when Covered Bridge Preservation Easement Agreements will be offered. As alluded to above, resolving this will require careful and thorough consideration of all the various issues.

1. Complete the Covered Bridge Preservation Plan, define all applicable parameters and start offering preservation easement agreements (under conditions as agreed upon).
2. Start developing preservation plans for masonry arch and concrete arch bridges.
3. Complete and forward nominations to the National Register of Historic Places for affected metal truss bridges.

The Programmatic Agreement mandates that a rehabilitation schedule be prepared for every bridge slated for continued highway use in the Metal Truss Bridge Preservation Plan. Instead, it has been proposed that a goal of programming projects for the remaining thirty or so bridges over the next decade would be more appropriate. To do this, individual bridge needs have to be prioritized. Time was spent inspecting the affected bridges this past summer and fall; upon final tweaking, a prioritized list will be forthcoming.

VTrans has allocated some funding for painting truss bridges. Three metal through truss bridges were targeted for this effort for 2001-2002. The communities were recently contacted and offered this opportunity, with the option of moving forward through either a traditional Finance and Maintenance Agreement (with a local share on project costs) or executing a Historic Bridge Preservation Easement Agreement (with no local share as long as communities fulfill their agreed-upon responsibilities). The three communities have responded in the affirmative, with two of the three choosing to execute a Historic Bridge Preservation Easement Agreement. The affected bridges are:

• Poultney Bridge No. 4 - moving forward with easement agreement
• Sharon Bridge No. 15 - moving forward with easement agreement (this community had been offered the opportunity to sign an agreement earlier as bridge was rehabilitated several years ago; only the bottom third of the bridge had been painted however for financial reasons).
• Sheldon Bridge No. 10 – moving forward with traditional Finance & Maintenance Agreement; community providing 5% of project costs.

This adds one more fully executed preservation easement agreement (for Poultney Bridge No. 4) to the previous total of thirteen.

1. Assess general overview of condition or "health" of historic metal truss and covered bridges. Along with this information, develop broad-based estimate of funds necessary to effect needed repairs and maintenance. Use this information to promote needs and lobby for additional funding, particularly for maintenance type projects.
2. Complete, and reach consensus of, the prioritization list for metal truss bridges needing rehabilitation projects.
3. Ensure painting project development stays on track. Communities were apprised that actual painting will likely happen in a few years time, i.e. 2002 construction season.
4. Research and propose ideas for future maintenance-type projects.

This effort was begun through an enhancement grant by another entity. No significant progress had been made and the effort was to be abandoned. It was agreed that the Historic Bridge Program would complete this effort. The bulk of the text is currently in draft form and work has begun on compiling the necessary accompanying photos.

Efforts continued this past year in this area. The vast majority of communities have been afforded an opportunity to learn about the program and what it can offer them. It is expected that this effort will be rejuvenated and revamped once the details of the Covered Bridge Preservation Plan are complete.

1. Publish book on Vermont’s historic bridges. Draft targeted over the winter with possible publication targeted for spring, 2001.
2. Refocus education effort upon completion of Covered Bridge Preservation Plan.

Adaptive Re-Use Bridge in Hinesburg Adaptive Re-Use Bridge in Barton

At Original Site – Arlington No. 22 – 58’ long (rehabilitation targeted for 2001)

Under Construction – Jamaica No. 39 – 37’ long in Barton

Developing Construction Project in Anticipation of Removal-
Montpelier No. 6 – Pioneer Street Bridge – 140’ long

Moved/ Rehabilitated:
Hinesburg – former Turkey Hill Lane – 43’ long (new site in Hinesburg)

Middletown Springs No. 21 – 49’ long (new site in Barton)

• Funding. This challenge is two-fold as continued funding in general may pose a problem in addition to the specific problem of restrictions on federal funding available for bridges that were replaced with federal-aid funds. The result of the latter is that there will be a need for significant state funds in the near future.
• Resolution on the Future of a Number of Through Truss Bridges. Nine through truss bridges are placed in the Metal Truss Bridge Preservation Plan in the category of adaptive use at a new site. In addition, it is specified that one two-span through truss (Middlesex No. 50) be rehabilitated for adaptive use at its original site, constructing a replacement bridge immediately adjacent to it. It is envisioned that new sites for a number of the nine bridges mentioned above will be difficult to find. Availability of temporary storage sites may even prove to be difficult. In addition, the costs associated with any of these projects will be quite high, taxing the amount of available funds. An agreement has been executed with the communities of Berlin and Montpelier to adaptively re-use one of these bridges (Montpelier’s Pioneer Street Bridge) on their developing bicycle facility. Another through truss, Cavendish No. 45, is considered to be exceptional in its significance and all efforts will be made to find a new site for this bridge. The remaining bridges, however, may pose a problem and warrant further discussion and possible changes to the preservation plan conclusions. These discussions have begun with the Division for Historic Preservation.

1. Resolution on the future of the through truss bridges discussed above with the Division for Historic Preservation.
2. Develop program brochure for distribution to interested parties.
3. Continue lobbying efforts to change current federal legislation that restricts available funds in some instances.
4. Develop adaptive use projects for other types of historic bridges, i.e. covered bridges, masonry arch bridges and concrete arch bridges, as the need arises.
5. Rehabilitate Arlington Bridge No. 22 and complete construction of Jamaica No. 39 in Barton.