Local Historic Bridge Study, Phase II MnDOT Federal Project No.: SPR CR13(001): BR 8813 (114) March 2013 January 2015

Transcription

1 Local Historic Bridge Study, Phase II MnDOT Federal Project No.: SPR CR13(001): BR 8813 (114) March 2013 January 2015 The following is a copy of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) Nomination as submitted to the bridge owner in early The National Register Nomination may have been modified by the bridge owner prior to its final submission to the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. Please check with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office for the bridge s National Register status and/or an updated National Register Nomination prior to citing or using this document for report purposes.

2 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Historic name: Other names/site number: Name of related multiple listing: N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing) 2. Location Street & number: 273 rd Street over Washington Creek City or town: Dassel State: MN County: Meeker Not for publication: N/A 3. State/Federal Agency Certification Vicinity: X As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide local Applicable National Register Criteria: A B C D Signature of certifying official/title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government Date In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting official Title: Date State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government 1

3 4. National Park Certification I, hereby, certify that this property is: entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register other (explain:) Signature of the Keeper Date of Action 5. Classification Ownership of Property (Check as many boxes as apply) Private Public - Local X Public - State Public - Federal Category of Property (Check only one box) Building(s) District Site Structure X Sections 1-6 page 2

4 Number of Resources within Property (Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) Contributing Noncontributing buildings sites 1 structures objects 1 Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register N/A 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) TRANSPORTATION/road-related (vehicular) Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) TRANSPORTATION/road-related (vehicular) Sections 1-6 page 3

5 7. Description Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions) OTHER: Stone Arch Materials: (Enter categories from instructions.) Principal exterior materials of the property: STONE: Granite Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance and condition of the property. Describe contributing and noncontributing resources if applicable. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, type, style, method of construction, setting, size, and significant features. Indicate whether the property has historic integrity.) Summary Paragraph Constructed in 1908, is a single-span, masonry-arch bridge, located in Dassel Township, Meeker County, Minnesota, four miles north of Dassel. The bridge carries a township road, 273 rd Street, over Washington Creek. Constructed of local granite rubble fieldstone, the structure has an overall length of 34.4 feet, a span length of feet, and an out-and-out width of 18.6 feet. 1 Character defining features of the bridge include its semicircular masonry-arch, stone spandrel walls and wingwalls, and date stone. 1 LHB Corp. Bridge Field Survey Notes, Field Survey Notes July 24, 2013, On file at the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Section 7 page 4

6 Narrative Description is a single-span, masonry-arch bridge located in Dassel Township, Meeker County, Minnesota, approximately four miles north of Dassel. Located in a semi-wooded, rural setting, the bridge is oriented on a northwest-southeast alignment and carries a gravel township road known as 273 rd Street over Washington Creek. The banks of the creek are lined with deciduous trees and tall grasses. The single-span, masonry-arch bridge has a structural length of 34.4 feet and an out-and-out width of 18.6 feet. The ends of the bridge are built into the shallow embankments of Washington Creek. The structure is constructed of local granite fieldstone with masonry joints one to two inches in width. The rough-cut stone is laid with irregular coursing. The semicircular arch has a span length of feet. 2 The voussiors are split fieldstones that measure approximately 1.3 feet wide and 2.0 feet high. 3 Flush masonry joints throughout the entire structure are between one and two inches thick. 4 The bridge does not have parapet walls or a capstone course. Mass produced W-beam style galvanized steel railings with end buffers were later added to both sides of the structure and are supported by four steel, C-channel posts that are bolted to the outside faces of the spandrel walls. 5 The deck is surfaced with gravel. A date stone, which reads 1908, is located near the top of the west spandrel wall, south of the arch. 6 Integrity retains excellent integrity of location and setting. has spanned Washington Creek in Dassel Township since its construction in Its semi-wooded setting and the township road the bridge was built to carry are relatively unchanged. The arch, spandrels and wingwalls, as constructed in 1908, are intact and largely unchanged. Repointing, done as part of routine maintenance, is the only observable work that has been done on the superstructure since its construction. Therefore, as a masonry-arch structure, Bridge No has excellent integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. Modern guardrails were installed on the bridge in 1999, replacing pipe railings that were placed on the bridge sometime prior to While the new railings differ in style than the previous railings and slightly affect the overall aesthetics of the bridge, this is a minor change that does not significantly impact the historical integrity of the bridge as a masonry-arch structure. Therefore, retains good integrity of feeling and association. 2 LHB Corp. Bridge Field Survey Notes. 3 Jeffery Hess, MNDOT No Statewide Bridge Survey Inventory Form, State Historic Preservation Office Inventory Form. Available in Bridge folder, Meeker County History/Architecture Inventory files. State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. 4 Ibid. 5 Minnesota Department of Transportation [MnDOT], MnDOT Bridge Inspection Report Bridge (2012). Available at the Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office, St. Paul, Minnesota. 6 Hess, Bridge Survey Form. 7 MnDOT, MnDOT Bridge Inspection Report Bridge Section 7 page 5

7 8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.) A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. X C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply) A. Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes. B. Removed from its original location. C. A birthplace or grave. D. A cemetery. E. A reconstructed building, object, or structure. F. A commemorative property. G. Less than 50 years old or achieving significance within the past 50 years. Section 8 page 6

8 Areas of Significance (Enter categories from instructions) ENGINEERING Period of Significance 1908 Significant Dates 1908 Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above) N/A Cultural Affiliation N/A Architect/Builder Unknown Section 8 page 7

9 Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph (Provide a summary paragraph that includes level of significance, applicable criteria, justification for the period of significance, and any applicable criteria considerations.) has state level significance under NRHP Criterion C, in the area of Engineering, within the historic context Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, The bridge is significant as a rare and outstanding example of a masonry-arch country highway bridge in Minnesota, a rapidly diminishing resource in the state. In Minnesota, masonry-arch highway bridges fall into three basic subsets, country, city, and park. 8 A country bridge is defined as a bridge constructed of rubble masonry with mortar joints of at least one inch; one or two semicircular arches with spans between 10 and 15 feet; simple stone or metal railings (which often have been removed); and an overall structure width of about 18 to 20 feet. 9 is one of only three known masonry-arch country bridges still extant in Minnesota. Moreover, it embodies all of the typical characteristics of a country type masonry-arch bridge and stands out amongst other bridges of this type constructed in Minnesota as an extremely uncommon example with a date stone. also exemplifies the type of bridge construction used by local builders and communities during the early period of the Good Roads Movement, prior to the promotion of standardized, reinforced-concrete bridges for small spans by the Minnesota State Highway Commission (MSHC). The bridge has a period of significance of 1908, corresponding with the year in which it was constructed. Narrative Statement of Significance (Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.) Dassel Township in Meeker County was originally organized as Swan Lake Township in the fall of In 1871, the township was renamed Dassel Township, after the name of the village located within its boundaries. Both the township and the village are named after Bernard Dassel, the Secretary of the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company (StP&P). The village of Dassel was laid out and platted by the StP&P in 1869, as the railroad was extended westward from St. Anthony (Minneapolis), through Meeker County, towards Breckenridge, Minnesota. 10 Today, Dassel Township remains a rural, agricultural area. There are few records available to document the history of. However, this lack of information is typical of most small, masonry-arch country bridges in Minnesota, as a statewide study of these types of structures noted that primary sources are remarkably uncooperative in providing information regarding the construction and funding of masonry-arch highway bridges in the state. 11 Additionally, since there is so little documentary data on Minnesota masonry-arch bridge construction, the surviving bridges themselves must serve as the principal source of information, as is the case with. 12 Based on its date stone, Bridge No was constructed in 1908 as part of an effort to improve the crossing of an existing township road at Washington Creek. This road, present-day 273 rd Street, appears in its present alignment on a plat map in Though the road is indicated as crossing Washington Creek on this map, it is unknown if any sort of bridge 8 Jeffery Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, , National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. Available at the State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul, Minnesota, E-3. 9 Ibid. 10 Alden Ogle & Company, Album of History and Biography of Meeker County, Minnesota. (Chicago: Alden Ogle & Company, 1888). 11 Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E Ibid, E I. D. Barton Plat Book of Meeker County Minnesota. (St. Cloud, Minnesota: I. D. Barton, 1907), 10. Section 8 page 8

10 existed at this location prior to the construction of. Since the split fieldstone used to construct matches the glacial erratic scatters in the adjacent fields, it is likely that the bridge was built by local residents who gathered stone from nearby fields to construct the crossing. 14 Due to the lack of archival documentation available on the early history of the bridge, it is unknown if it was originally constructed with railings. In 1987, the bridge was documented as having simple, bi-rail pipe railings. This type of railing could date from anytime between 1908, when the bridge was constructed, through the mid-twentieth century. These pipe railings were replaced in 1999 by the present guardrails. 15 Good Roads Movement represents the ideals of the Good Roads Movement in Minnesota. Beginning in the 1890s, a nationwide movement took hold that advocated for transportation reform. 16 The resulting Good Roads Movement sought to improve the condition of local roads and was spearheaded by a diverse coalition of politicians, farmers, bicyclists, and motorists intent on improving the comfort, safety, and load-bearing capacities of rural roads and bridges. 17 Roads outside of urban population centers tended to be poorly constructed, which created unsafe traveling conditions. Likewise, the bridges and other structures that accompanied rural roads tended to be of temporary wood construction. 18 Responding to public outcry, statewide Good Roads organizations began to form in states across the nation. 19 In Minnesota, the movement was inaugurated by proponents during a two-day convention held in St. Paul in January of The Good Roads Movement received professional support from Minnesota s civil engineers, who formed the Minnesota Surveyors and Engineers Society (MSES) two years later. The MSES helped lobby for increased state spending on highway improvements. 21 During the Society's first annual meeting, Good Roads enthusiast and subsequent MSES President, Omar H. Case, spoke on one particular aspect of the Good Roads Movement, which was the wisdom and importance of replacing short-span wooden bridges with more durable stone arches. In his speech he stated: Good roads, for a comparison, is like a good chain; no better, no stronger than its weakest link. And so with the road, the poor culvert, the bad bridge spoils the whole construction. Now I am going to commence with the smallest of these water ways and show the waste of material; material that has been thrown away as it were, together with the labor; as they are a temporary makeshift in any event. I refer to the plank and timber constructions. You have seen them all over the country. This serves the purpose for a little while, but the traffic and loads it has to bear gradually forces it into the ground or out of shape and at last there is nothing of it visible, only water, muddy water nothing more and a very bad place in the road. Now for the remedy. Where stone are plenty, and along most streams in Minnesota they are plenty, I would advise building arch bridges Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E MnDOT, MnDOT Bridge Inspection Report Bridge Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage, A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 25-25, Task 15. Available at the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., , Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E Ibid, F Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage, Common Historic Bridge Types, Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E Ibid. 22 Ibid, E-5-E-6. Section 8 page 9

11 In 1898, the Good Roads Movement in Minnesota spurred the creation of a state tax for county bridge construction to be spent under the supervision of a state highway commission. 23 Soon after its establishment in 1905, the MSHC began promoting the use of reinforced-concrete for short span bridges, a material that it preferred. However, in its early years, the MSHC also allowed the construction of masonry-arches in certain circumstances. When it published its first set of codified rules and regulations in 1907, the MSHC specified that the masonry arch was an acceptable type of construction for small bridges with openings of four to eight feet. 24 However, due to the advancements in reinforced-concrete construction in the early twentieth century, the use of reinforced-concrete became the preferred method of construction for short-span bridges in Minnesota and throughout the country; as a result, the construction of masonry-arch structures greatly declined. 25 Between 1907 and 1908, the MSHC developed plans for reinforced-concrete culverts from two to ten feet in width, and began distributing the plans to town and county officials when requested. By 1912, all reference to masonry arch construction was removed from MSHC bridge specifications. 26 After 1920, masonry-arch bridges were predominately used for ornamental purposes, particularly during the New Deal era when their labor-intensive construction and aesthetics appealed to Federal Work-Relief programs. 27 However, few true masonry-arch structures were built by Federal Work-Relief programs; instead masonry was largely used as an aesthetic treatment on other span types. When was constructed in 1908, the Good Roads Movement was starting to achieve success in its efforts to improve roadways and structures along rural roads. reflects this effort in that it is a well-constructed, permanent improvement to the rural road on which it was built. It also represents the type of construction used in local communities just prior to reinforced-concrete becoming the prevalent material for small bridge construction and the standardization of bridge construction by the MSHC. Minnesota Masonry-Arch Country Bridges Within the historic context Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, , is a rare and outstanding example of a masonry-arch country bridge. In Minnesota, masonry-arch highway bridges fall into three basic subsets, country, city, and park. 28 A country bridge is defined as a bridge constructed of rubble masonry with mortar joints of at least one inch; one or two semicircular arches with spans between 10 and 15 feet; simple stone or metal railings (which often have been removed); and an overall structure width of about 18 to 20 feet. 29 These bridges also rely on their symmetry and proportions for whatever aesthetic statement they make; ornamentation of any type, including date stones, is extremely rare. 30 The historic context Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, states that, all of the state s masonry-arch country bridges appear to be constructed of local stone and almost all, roughly 83 percent, can be found within a contiguous five county area (Goodhue, Olmsted, Winona, Houston, and Fillmore) in the southeastern portion of Minnesota. 31 This part of the state has several valleys that contain limestone outcroppings of good quality, which were great sources of building materials for local farmers Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E Ibid, E Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage, A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E Ibid, F Ibid, E Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid, E Ibid. Section 8 page 10

12 According to a statewide survey conducted between 1987 and 1988, there were 45 total masonry-arch bridges in Minnesota. Of those 45 bridges, 29 were masonry-arch country bridges, 12 were masonry-arch city bridges, and four were masonry-arch park bridges. 33 Based on a statewide survey completed in 2012, approximately a dozen are still extant. Of the approximately 12 masonry-arch bridges still extant in Minnesota, most are city and park bridges. Only three are county bridges. 34 Therefore, not only is significant as a very rare surviving example of a masonry-arch country bridge in Minnesota, it is also the only extant example outside of the five-county area in southeastern Minnesota where these types of bridges were most prevalent. is also an outstanding example of a masonry-arch country bridge in Minnesota, as it exemplifies all of the physical characteristics and defining features that typify a masonry-arch country bridge. The structure is located on a remote farm road, as is typical of such bridges. Additionally, the bridge is constructed of local granite fieldstone, with masonry joints of one to two inches. The bridge has one semicircular arch with a span length of 11 feet, which falls in the 10 to 15 foot range typical of country bridges. The 18 foot width of the bridge is also typical of country bridges. In addition to its embodiment of the typical physical characteristics of a masonry-arch country bridge, stands out among other bridges of this type constructed in Minnesota because of its date stone. The presence of a date stone or other types of ornamentation was extremely rare on masonry-arch bridges in Minnesota Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E-4, E-8, E Mead & Hunt and Olson & Nesvold Engineers, Phase I Results Minnesota Local Historic Bridge Study (Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, 2012), Appendix B. 35 Hess, Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges, E-3. Section 8 page 11

13 9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.) Published Alden Ogle & Company. Album of History and Biography of Meeker County, Minnesota. Chicago: Alden Ogle & Company, Barton, I. D. Plat Book of Meeker County Minnesota (St. Cloud, Minnesota: I. D. Barton, 1907). Brinckerhoff, Parsons and Engineering and Industrial Heritage. A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types, Available at the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., Hess, Jeffery. Minnesota Masonry-Arch Highway Bridges , National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. Available at the State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul, Minnesota. Unpublished Minnesota Department of Transportation [MnDOT]. MnDOT Bridge Inspection Report Bridge (2012). Available at the Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office, St. Paul, Minnesota. Hess, Jeffrey. MNDOT No Statewide Bridge Survey Inventory Form (1987). Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available in Bridge folder, Meeker County. History/Architecture Inventory files. State Historic Preservation Office. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minn. Mead & Hunt and Olson & Nesvold Engineers, P.S.C. Phase I Results Minnesota Local Historic Bridge Study. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, November Section 9-end page 12

14 Previous documentation on file (NPS): preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested previously listed in the National Register previously determined eligible by the National Register designated a National Historic Landmark recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # Primary location of additional data: X State Historic Preservation Office Other State agency Federal agency Local government University Other Name of repository: Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned): ME-SDT-007 Section 9-end page 13

15 10. Geographical Data Acreage of Property 0.01 Use either the UTM system or latitude/longitude coordinates Latitude/Longitude Coordinates Datum if other than WGS84: (enter coordinates to 6 decimal places) 1. Latitude: Longitude: 2. Latitude: Longitude: 3. Latitude: Longitude: 4. Latitude: Longitude: Or UTM References Datum (indicated on USGS map): NAD 1927 or X NAD Zone: 15N Easting: Northing: Zone: Easting: Northing: 3. Zone: Easting: Northing: 4. Zone: Easting: Northing: Verbal Boundary Description (describe the boundaries of the property) The nominated property consists of a rectangle measuring 34.4 feet long by 18.6 feet wide with a center axis that coincides with the centerline of the bridge. These boundaries encompass the entire bridge, with the corners aligning with the outside edges of the bridge abutments. Boundary Justification (explain why the boundaries were selected) The boundary encompasses the total bridge superstructure, total substructure, and all other integral abutment, approach elements, and the entirety of the railings. Section 9-end page 14

16 11. Form Prepared By name/title: Kathryn A. Ohland, Historian; Gregory R. Mathis, Sr. Planner; and Kelli Andre Kellerhals, Historian organization: The 106 Group Ltd. street & number: 370 Selby Ave. city or town: St. Paul State: MN zip code: telephone: (651) date: May 16, 2014 Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form: Maps: A USGS map or equivalent (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location. Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map. Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items.) Section 9-end page 15

17 Photographs: Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels (minimum), 3000x2000 preferred, at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map. Each photograph must be numbered and that number must correspond to the photograph number on the photo log. For simplicity, the name of the photographer, photo date, etc. may be listed once on the photograph log and doesn t need to be labeled on every photograph. Photo Log : City or Vicinity: Dassel County: Meeker State: Minnesota Photographer: Katherine Haun, Mead & Hunt Date Photographed: July 24, 2013 Description of Photograph(s) and number, include description of view indicating direction of camera: Photo 1 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0001, West Elevation. Facing Northeast. Photo 2 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0002, East elevation. Facing Northwest. Photo 3 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0003, Oblique east elevation. Facing South. Photo 4 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0004, Oblique west elevation, stone repair, and bridge date stone. Facing Northeast. Photo 5 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0005, Approach and deck. Facing North. Section 9-end page 16

18 Photo 6 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0006, Approach and deck. Facing South. Photo 7 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0007, Masonry arch. Facing Northeast. Photo 8 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0008, Masonry arch. Facing Northwest. Photo 9 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0009, Bridge guardrail. Facing Southwest. Photo 10 of 10 MN_MeekerCounty_BridgeNo.90990_0010, Bridge date stone on west elevation. Facing East. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.). Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 100 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC. Section 9-end page 17

19 !> Bridge Meeker County I Minnesota NAD83 Zone 15N UTM Easting NAD83 Zone 15N UTM Northing inch = 2,000 feet Copyright: 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

20 273rd Street Washington Creek Bridge Meeker County Minnesota 1 inch = 50 feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

21 , Bridge Meeker County Minnesota 1 inch = 50 feet Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

22 NPS Form a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Bridge N/A Name of multiple listing (if applicable) National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number Photos Page Photo 1 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0001 Bridge 90990, West Elevation. Facing Northeast. Photo 2 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0002 Bridge 90990, East elevation. Facing Northwest. Put Here 1

23 NPS Form a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Bridge Put Here N/A Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Section number Photos Page 2 Photo 3 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0003 Bridge 90990, Oblique east elevation. Facing South. Photo 4 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0004 Bridge 90990, Oblique west elevation, stone repair, and bridge date stone. Facing Northeast.

24 NPS Form a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Bridge Put Here N/A Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Section number Photos Page 3 Photo 5 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0005 Bridge 90990, Approach and deck. Facing North. Photo 6 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0006 Bridge 90990, Approach and deck. Facing South.

25 NPS Form a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Bridge Put Here N/A Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Section number Photos Page 4 Photo 7 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0007 Bridge 90990, Masonry arch. Facing Northeast. Photo 8 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0008 Bridge 90990, Masonry arch. Facing Northwest.

26 NPS Form a (Rev. 8/2002) OMB No United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Bridge Put Here N/A Name of multiple listing (if applicable) Section number Photos Page 5 Photo 9 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0009 Bridge 90990, Bridge guardrail. Facing Southwest. Photo 10 of 10 MN_Meeker_County 0010 Bridge 90990, Bridge date stone on west elevation. Facing East.