Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Heritage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State, FHWA and SHPO find Highway 6 bridge over Iowa River eligible; Section 106 process to seek mitigation
Summary
Iowa City staff told the Historic Preservation Commission that the Highway 6 bridge over the Iowa River is National Register‑eligible (1950s era) and that federal Section 106 review concluded replacement would have an adverse effect, obligating DOT and federal agencies to negotiate mitigation with SHPO and consulting parties.
City staff on June 12 briefed the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission on a Section 106 review for the Highway 6 bridge over the Iowa River and said the project team determined the bridge is historic (National Register listed or eligible) and that replacement or extensive rehabilitation would have an adverse effect on its historic integrity.
Planner Jessica (staff) explained that federal Section 106 review, which applies when a federal agency’s project affects historic properties, requires the lead agency to determine eligibility and whether an adverse effect will occur. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration evaluated options — do nothing, build a new structure at a different location, rehabilitation/repair or construct a new bridge in place — and concluded that rehabilitation would not preserve the bridge’s historic character given modern structural and sidewalk/approach standards, and that doing nothing is not feasible because the bridge’s deck, bearings and other elements have reached the end of their service life.
Staff said the bridge dates from the 1950s (presentation materials cited 1956 or 1958) and that scouring, spalling and deterioration of girders and bearing elements have reduced its condition index to “fair.” The technical review concluded the project will be a demolition or replacement and therefore an adverse effect; staff and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with that determination.
When an adverse effect is found, federal agencies and SHPO must negotiate mitigation measures and enter a memorandum of agreement (MOA). Jessica told the commission the DOT must mitigate for the loss of the historic resource; mitigation options discussed at the meeting included area surveys, nominations and public‑education outputs. She noted a past mitigation example after flood‑related losses in the community that resulted in a neighborhood survey and a small district nomination.
Staff asked that the Historic Preservation Commission be considered a consulting party in the Section 106 process because Iowa City is the certified local government in which the bridge sits. The SHPO and DOT are the primary signatories in the coming MOA and will draft mitigation measures in consultation with consulting parties, including the commission.
Commission discussion touched on possible mitigation projects (surveys of nearby neighborhoods such as Kirkwood Avenue, study of transportation resources like the airport, and public education), the scope of mitigation work, and whether mitigation might include funding or simply completed deliverables produced by the DOT/consultant. Jessica clarified that mitigation typically results in specific deliverables (surveys, studies, public outreach) administered by the federal/state agencies rather than a single lump‑sum payment to the city; the city and commission will review proposed mitigation as consulting party signatories to the MOA.
Staff asked for a volunteer to act as an alternate representative to work with staff and the DOT during site visits and negotiations; Commissioner Margaret (last name Beck) volunteered to serve as an in‑person backup for the staff contact if the primary staff lead (Andrew) is not available.
No formal vote was taken at the meeting; the item was informational and initiated the commission’s role as a consulting party in the Section 106 process.
