please do not question the attorney when it comes to engineering
I had nothing to do with the design, I'm just pointing out the relevant law and comparing that to what actually occurred on this project. There was clearly a mandate that original materials be maintained unless doing so was economically infeasible. In this case, it was half the price of replacing it with a new bridge, which was actually done. So pardon me for pointing out that, in that sense, and a few others, the project did not meet the guidelines. Moreover, two years later, and one can only wonder whether some of it may have been in response to this project, the USDOI set forth new guidelines for historic bridges, under which this scale of project on that bridge would never have been approved. Not that this is Nth or Dan's fault, the guidelines weren't passed until 2 years after it had already been done. It was much more ambiguous when the project was being contemplated than it is now, in fact I will admit that pre-2008 it was far more ambiguous than I thought it was before we had this debate. So I learned from it also.
And sorry for the belated response, but I don't normally read this section often and missed the replies until today.