maclay bridge planning study final report › pubinvolve › maclay › docs › final ›...

`

M aclay Bridge Planning Study

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for: Missoula County Missoula, Montana

Montana Department of Transportation Helena, Montana

Prepared by: Robert Peccia & Associates Helena, Montana March 22, 2013

Table of Contents

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. i

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Appendices .............................................................................................................................. v

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vii

Abbreviations / Acronyms .................................................................................................. ix

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ xi

ES.1 Existing and Projected Conditions ............................................................................................ xii

ES.2 Needs and Objectives .............................................................................................................. xiii

ES.3 Options ..................................................................................................................................... xiv

ES.4 Conclusions and Next Steps ..................................................................................................... xv

CHAPTER 1.......................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Process ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3. Previous Planning Efforts ............................................................................................................ 3

1.4. Previous Maintenance Efforts ...................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2.......................................................................................................................... 5

Public and Agency Participation ......................................................................................... 5

2.1. Public Involvement....................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1. Informational Meetings ........................................................................................................ 5 2.1.1.1. First Informational Meeting ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1.2. Second Informational Meeting .................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1.3. Third Informational Meeting ........................................................................................................ 6 2.1.1.4. Fourth Informational Meeting...................................................................................................... 7

2.1.2. Other Public Involvement Efforts ......................................................................................... 7

2.2. Stakeholder Participation ............................................................................................................. 8

2.3. Resource Agency Workshop ....................................................................................................... 8

2.4. Planning Team Meetings ............................................................................................................. 9

2.5. Public and Agency Comment Period ........................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3....................................................................................................................... 11

Existing and Projected Conditions ................................................................................... 11

3.1. Local Planning Documents ........................................................................................................ 11

3.2. Existing Transportation Conditions ............................................................................................ 11

3.2.1. Existing Roadway Users ................................................................................................... 11

3.2.2. Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 12

3.2.3. Projected Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 12 3.2.3.1. Future Traffic Modeling ............................................................................................................ 12

3.2.4. Crash Analysis ................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.5. Travel Times ...................................................................................................................... 17

3.2.6. Design Standards .............................................................................................................. 17

3.2.7. Roadway Geometrics ........................................................................................................ 17 3.2.7.1. Horizontal Alignment ................................................................................................................ 18

Maclay Bridge Planning Study

ii

3.2.7.2. Vertical Alignment .................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.7.3. Roadside Clear Zone ............................................................................................................... 18

3.2.8. Bridge Considerations ....................................................................................................... 18 3.2.8.1. Sufficiency Rating ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.8.2. Bridge Health Index .................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.8.3. Fracture Critical Status ............................................................................................................. 20

3.2.9. Parking Considerations and Citations ............................................................................... 20

3.2.10. Roadway Surfacing ......................................................................................................... 20

3.2.11. Access Points .................................................................................................................. 21

3.2.12. Right-of-Way .................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.13. Hydraulics ........................................................................................................................ 21

3.2.14. Floodplain Considerations ............................................................................................... 21 3.2.14.1. Preliminary Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 22 3.2.14.2. Channel Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 22

3.3. Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 23

3.4. Environmental Setting................................................................................................................ 23

3.4.1. Geographic Setting ............................................................................................................ 23 3.4.1.1. Land Ownership and Land Management ................................................................................. 23 3.4.1.2. Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 23

3.4.2. Physical Resources ........................................................................................................... 23 3.4.2.1. Geologic Resources ................................................................................................................. 23 3.4.2.2. Soils and Prime Farmland ........................................................................................................ 24 3.4.2.3. Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 24 3.4.2.4. Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. 25 3.4.2.5. Hazardous Material .................................................................................................................. 25 3.4.2.6. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 25 3.4.2.7. Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 26

3.4.3. Visual Resources............................................................................................................... 26

3.4.4. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 26 3.4.4.1. Wildlife and Fish ....................................................................................................................... 26 3.4.4.2. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 27 3.4.4.3. Montana Animal Species of Concern ....................................................................................... 28 3.4.4.4. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 29

3.4.5. Cultural and Archaeological Resources ............................................................................ 30 3.4.5.1. 4(f) Resources .......................................................................................................................... 30 3.4.5.2. 6(f) Resources .......................................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 4....................................................................................................................... 33

Needs and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 33

4.1. Need Number 1: ........................................................................................................................ 33

4.2. Need Number 2: ........................................................................................................................ 33

4.3. Need Number 3: ........................................................................................................................ 33

4.4. Need Number 4: ........................................................................................................................ 34

4.5. Other Considerations (To the Extent Practicable) ..................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 5....................................................................................................................... 35

Option Identification ........................................................................................................... 35

5.1. Option Identification ................................................................................................................... 35

5.1.1. Option 1: Improve Safety and Operations on the Existing Bridge ..................................... 35 5.1.1.1. Option 1A–Enhance Traffic Operations and Safety on and near the Existing Structure ........... 35 5.1.1.2. Option 1B–Maintain Current Usage and Add Pedestrian/Bicyclist Facilities ............................ 35 5.1.1.3. Option 1C–Implement Additional Restrictions on Bridge Use .................................................. 36

Table of Contents

iii

5.1.1.4. Option 1D–Close Bridge to Vehicles and Retain Use for Non-Motorized Travel Modes .......... 36 5.1.1.5. Option 1E–Retain Bridge for Two-Way Travel and Provide New Bridge Elsewhere for Two-

Way Travel ............................................................................................................................................ 36 5.1.1.6. Option 1F– New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location & Retain Existing Bridge for Non-

Motorized Uses ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1.1.7. Option 1G–New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location for One-Way Travel and Retain Existing

Bridge for One-Way Travel .................................................................................................................... 36 5.1.1.8. Option 1H–Close Bridge and Remove Structure ...................................................................... 37

5.1.2. Option 2: Rehabilitate the Existing Bridge ......................................................................... 37 5.1.2.1. Option 2A–Minor Rehabilitation (Structure Only) ...................................................................... 37 5.1.2.2. Option 2B–Major Rehabilitation (Structure Only) ...................................................................... 38 5.1.2.3. Option 2C–Minor Rehabilitation (includes Approaches) ........................................................... 38 5.1.2.4. Option 2D–Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches) ........................................................... 38

5.1.3. Option 3: Build New Bridge ............................................................................................... 39 5.1.3.1. Option 3A - At North Avenue .................................................................................................... 39 5.1.3.2. Option 3B - At a New Location ................................................................................................. 39

5.1.4. Option 4: Do Nothing ......................................................................................................... 42 5.1.4.1. Option 4A–Do Nothing ............................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER 6....................................................................................................................... 43

Options Carried Forward ................................................................................................... 43

6.1. Option Screening ....................................................................................................................... 43

6.1.1. First Level Screening ......................................................................................................... 43 6.1.1.1. First Level Screening Questions ............................................................................................... 44 6.1.1.2. Options Carried Forward from First Level Screening ............................................................... 45

6.1.2. Second Level Screening ................................................................................................... 47 6.1.2.1. Second Level Screening Questions ......................................................................................... 49 6.1.2.2. Second Level Screening Rating Factors .................................................................................. 53 6.1.2.3. Second Level Screening Summary .......................................................................................... 53

6.2. Additional Information on Options Carried Forward .................................................................. 56

6.2.1. Option 3E.1 - South 1 Alignment ....................................................................................... 56

6.2.2. Option 3E.2 - South 2 Alignment ....................................................................................... 56

6.2.3. Option 3C.2 - Mount 2 Alignment ...................................................................................... 57

6.2.4. Option 3A.2 - North 1 Alignment ....................................................................................... 57

6.2.5. Option 1G - New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location & Retain Existing Bridge for One-

Way Travel .................................................................................................................................. 58

6.2.6. Option 2D - Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches) .................................................. 58

6.2.7. Option 2C - Minor Rehabilitation (includes Approaches) .................................................. 59

6.3. Option 3E.1 (South 1) Considerations ....................................................................................... 60 6.3.1.1. Description ............................................................................................................................... 60 6.3.1.2. Future Traffic Impacts .............................................................................................................. 60 6.3.1.3. Other Design Consideration ..................................................................................................... 64

CHAPTER 7....................................................................................................................... 65

Funding Mechanisms ......................................................................................................... 65

7.1. Federal Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 65

7.1.1. Surface Transportation Program (STP) ............................................................................ 65 7.1.1.1. Off-System Bridge Program ..................................................................................................... 65

7.1.2. Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Program ........................................................... 66 7.1.2.1. FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM ................................................................................. 66

7.1.3. Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program ........................................................................ 66

7.2. State Funding Sources .............................................................................................................. 67


iv

7.2.1. Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) ................................................................... 67

7.3. Local / Private Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 67

7.3.1. Missoula County ................................................................................................................ 68 7.3.1.1. Road Fund................................................................................................................................ 68 7.3.1.2. Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................................. 68

7.3.2. Private Funding Sources and Alternatives ........................................................................ 68 7.3.2.1. Development Financing ............................................................................................................ 68 7.3.2.2. Cost Sharing............................................................................................................................. 69 7.3.2.3. Transportation Corporations ..................................................................................................... 69 7.3.2.4. Road Districts ........................................................................................................................... 69 7.3.2.5. Private Donations ..................................................................................................................... 69 7.3.2.6. General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds ............................................................................................. 69 7.3.2.7. Development Exactions/Impact Fees ....................................................................................... 69

7.4. Funding Eligibility ....................................................................................................................... 69

CHAPTER 8....................................................................................................................... 71

Planning Study Conclusion ............................................................................................... 71

8.1. Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 71

8.2. Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 72

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Percent Change in AADT ............................................................................................................ 14

Figure 3: Crash Locations (01/01/2002 – 12/31/2011) ............................................................................... 16

Figure 4: Bridge Alignments Considered in 1994 EA ................................................................................. 40

Figure 5: South 1 General Alignment .......................................................................................................... 60

Figure 6: Change in Projected Year 2040 AADT (No Action vs. South 1) .................................................. 63

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Average Annual Daily Traffic ........................................................................................................ 12

Table 2: 2040 AADT Traffic Modeling Projections ...................................................................................... 13

Table 3: Existing Road and Bridge Surfacing ............................................................................................. 21

Table 4: Preliminary Hydrology for Bitterroot River .................................................................................... 22

Table 5: USFWS Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Wildlife Species .......................... 28

Table 6: Montana Animal Species of Concern............................................................................................ 29

Table 7: USFWS Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species .............................. 29

Table 8: Summary of Potential Section 4(f) Resources .............................................................................. 31

Table 9: First Level Screening – General Compliance with Identified Needs/Objectives ........................... 44

Table 10: First Level Screening Results ..................................................................................................... 46

Table 11: Second Level Screening – General Compliance with Identified Needs/Objectives ................... 47

Table 12: Second Level Screening Criteria Rating Factors ........................................................................ 53

Table 13: Second Level Screening Point Values and Rankings................................................................. 55

Table 14: Year 2040 AADT Traffic Modeling Projections (No Action vs. South 1) ..................................... 61

Table 15: Summary of Costs and Funding Eligibility (a)

.............................................................................. 70

Table of Contents

v

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Consultation, Coordination and Public Involvement (on CD)

Comments Received After Publication of the Draft Planning Study Report

Summary of Comments and Responses (also included in hard copy format)

Comments received from January 30, 2013 through February 22, 2013

Comments Received Before Publication of the Draft Planning Study Report (released January 30,

2013)

Comments received before January 30, 2013

Informational Meeting No. 1 (April 24, 2012)

Press Release Announcing Informational Meeting

Newspaper Advertisement

Sign-In Sheets

Welcome and Display Boards

Presentation

Summary of Meeting Notes

Informational Meeting No. 2 (July 12, 2012)



Sign-In Sheets


Presentation


Informational Meeting No. 3 (September 27, 2012)



Sign-In Sheets


Presentation


Informational Meeting No. 4 (January 31, 2013)



Sign-In Sheets


Presentation


Resource Agency Workshop (May 21, 2012)

Agency Workshop Invitation

Agency Workshop Agenda

Agency Workshop Presentation

Workshop Notes

Stakeholder Meetings (September 4, 2012)

Agendas

Minutes

Study Flyer 1 (April 2012)

Newsletter Issue 1 (June 2012)

Newsletter Issue 2 (September 2012)

Newsletter Issue 3 (January 2013)


vi

Appendix 2: Environmental Scan Report (on CD)

Appendix 3: Planning Study Documentation (on CD)

Community and Agency Participation Plan

Existing and Projected Conditions Report

Needs and Objectives

Improvement Options Memorandum

Screening Assessment Memorandum

Planning Level Cost Estimates

Acknowledgments

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful completion of this study was made possible through the cooperation and assistance of

many individuals. The following people provided guidance and support throughout the course of this

study:

Planning Team

Name Title Agency

Shane Stack Missoula District Engineering Services Supervisor Montana Department of Transportation

Ben Nunnallee Missoula District Projects Engineer Montana Department of Transportation

Susan Kilcrease Project Development Engineer Montana Department of Transportation

Doug McBroom Multimodal Planning Bureau Chief Montana Department of Transportation

Zia Kazimi Statewide and Urban Planning Supervisor Montana Department of Transportation

Sheila Ludlow Project Manager Montana Department of Transportation

Jean Riley Transportation Planning Engineer Montana Department of Transportation

Corrina Collins Transportation Planner Montana Department of Transportation

Hunter Simpkins Cartographer / GIS Analyst Montana Department of Transportation

Kent Barnes Bridge Bureau Chief Montana Department of Transportation

Chris Hardan Missoula District Bridge Engineer Montana Department of Transportation

Danielle Bolan State Traffic Engineer Montana Department of Transportation

Stan Brelin Engineering Analysis Montana Department of Transportation

Brian Hasselbach Right-of-way and Environmental Specialist Federal Highway Administration

Gene Kaufman Operations Engineer Federal Highway Administration

Bob Burkhardt Statewide Planning and Structures Engineer Federal Highway Administration

Lewis YellowRobe Planner – Urban Initiatives Missoula County

Erik Dickson Transportation Engineer Missoula County

Resource and Regulatory Agencies

Name Title Agency

Stephen Potts Environmental Engineer - NEPA Compliance Environmental Protection Agency

Mike McGrath Fish and Wildlife Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service

Christina Schroeder Regulatory Project Manager USACE

Beau Downing Stream Protection Act Coordinator Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Larry Schock Civil Engineering Specialist MT DNRC

Jeff Ryan Environmental Science Specialist MDEQ

Cyra Cain Atmospheric Science Specialist MDEQ

Paul Skubinna Water Protection Bureau Chief MDEQ

List of Preparers

Name Title Agency

Jeff Key Project Manager Robert Peccia and Associates

Dan Norderud Senior Planner & QA/QC Robert Peccia and Associates

Scott Randall Senior Traffic Engineer Robert Peccia and Associates

Trisha Bodlovic Project Designer Robert Peccia and Associates

Nick Ladas Graphics Manager Robert Peccia and Associates

Kari Slyder Administrative Assistant Robert Peccia and Associates


viii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Abbreviations / Acronyms

ix

ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

ADT Average Daily Traffic

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

AAGR Average Annual Growth Rate

APE Area of Potential Effect

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs Cubic Feet per Second

CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision

CRABS Cultural Resources Annotated Bibliography Search

CRIS Cultural Resources Information System

DHV Design Hourly Vehicle

DNRC Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (Montana)

DOI Department of Interior (United States)

EA Environmental Assessment

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAS Fishing Access Site

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FIS Flood Insurance Study

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

GIS Geographic Information System

LOMR Letter of Map Revision

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Funds

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards

MATP Missoula Active Transportation Plan

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MDT Montana Department of Transportation

MEPA Montana Environmental Policy Act

MFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program


x

mph Miles per Hour

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics

mton Metric Ton

MUTD Missoula Urban Transportation District

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPL National Priority List

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service (United States Department of Agriculture)

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRIS Natural Resource Information System (State of Montana)

OPG Office of Planning and Grants (Missoula County)

PM Particulate Matter

RDM Road Design Manual

TDM Travel Demand Model

TDP Transit Development Plan

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TPCC Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee

USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

UFDA Urban Fringe Development Area

UPN Uniform Project Number

UPWP Unified Planning Work Program

URSA Urban Service Area

USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Service

UST Underground Storage Tank

vpd Vehicles per Day

Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act

Section 6(f) Section 6(f) of the National Land and Water Conservation Funds Act

Executive Summary

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Maclay Bridge Planning Study was initiated at the request of the Missoula County Commissioners.

The replacement of the Maclay Bridge with a new bridge has been considered as far back as 1994, when

an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Maclay Bridge Site Selection Study was completed. The

results of the study identified a new bridge located at the extension of South Avenue as the Preferred

Alternative. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the 1994 EA was never issued by the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Preferred Alternative from the EA was not advanced at the

request of Missoula County. Missoula County had intended to use special project demonstration funds

from Congress to implement the project but was unsuccessful in obtaining the funding. The Maclay

Bridge replacement project was inactive until the County nominated it to receive funding from MDT’s Off-

System Bridge Program in 2002.

Since 2002, the Maclay Bridge replacement has steadily risen in priority for MDT’s Off-System Bridge

Program funds both for Missoula County and the Montana Department of Transportation’s (MDT)

Missoula District. In 2010, Missoula County was notified by MDT that the project development process

could commence, and in August of that year, Missoula County and MDT personnel conducted a

preliminary field review for the subject bridge at the new South Avenue location.

Missoula County decided to delay the project, and asked MDT for funding and technical assistance to

undertake a high-level planning effort known as a pre-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Montana

Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) planning study to allow for additional public involvement. The pre-

NEPA/MEPA planning study allows for earlier planning-level coordination with community members,

stakeholders, environmental resource agencies, and other interested parties – outside of the typical

project development process.

The pre-NEPA/MEPA planning study is not a design or construction project; nor is it a decision document.

The planning study identifies reasonable options to address safety, geometric and environmental

concerns based on needs to increase safety and efficiency for the traveling public. The Maclay Bridge

Planning Study ensured a proactive public involvement process that provided numerous opportunities for

the public to be engaged in all phases of the planning study.

In order to narrow the set of options or strategies with the greatest capacity to address identified areas of

concern, a screening process was used that correlated very closely with the needs and objectives of the

study. Through this process the South 1 Alignment option (3E.1) best met the needs identified for the

transportation system within the vicinity of the Maclay Bridge. Ultimately, it is the discretion of the

Missoula County Commission to select an option that they are most comfortable with and that balances

the transportation needs of the greater community.

The results of the study may be used to determine the level and scope of environmental review required if

a project is forwarded into a subsequent NEPA/MEPA process by Missoula County.


xii

ES.1 EXISTING AND PROJECTED CONDITIONS Areas of concern and other considerations within the vicinity of the Maclay Bridge were identified through

review of available reports, field observations, public databases, and other resources. They are

summarized below:

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS

Traffic - Existing and projected traffic volumes exceed the AASHTO standard for a single-lane

bridge (traffic volume < 100 vehicles per day).

Safety - A number of crash trends and areas of concern exist within the vicinity of the Maclay

Bridge. In particular, there were seventeen reported crashes at the intersection of River Pines

Drive and Riverside Drive (on the west side of the bridge) and six reported crashes on the east

side where North Avenue intersects the bridge.

Travel Time - Without the existing Maclay Bridge in service, travel times to areas on the west

side of the Bitterroot River are longer for private vehicles and emergency service responders.

Horizontal Alignment - Three horizontal curves do not meet current Missoula County or MDT

standards. Two of the sub-standard horizontal curves lead into and out of each side of the

existing bridge.

Clear Zones - Numerous locations have features within the horizontal clear zone and are

unprotected. Southwest of the existing bridge the roadway fill slope is between two- and four-feet

from the edge of the travel lane. In addition, trees and utility poles are in the area. The roadway

fill slope is steep and lined with riprap.

Bridge

o The existing bridge is “functionally obsolete” due to the approach geometry on both ends

of the bridge, and the narrow single-lane bridge width.

o The single-lane bridge width of 14 feet does not meet current AASHTO, Missoula County

or MDT standards for width given existing and projected traffic volumes.

o The existing bridge is “load restricted” due to its original design, which now prevents

some heavy vehicles from crossing. It also places limitations on how some vehicles cross

the structure.

o The Maclay Bridge is fracture critical, indicating if one part of the truss should fail, the

entire bridge span may fail. With proper inspection and maintenance, the bridge is

considered safe.

o There are no bicycle or pedestrian features on the bridge.

o The bridge is a composite of varying ages and types of load-bearing steel used

throughout the structure.

o Channel scour was not part of the original design in the 1940’s, and the existing bridge

piers are located in the river channel on unknown materials.

Parking - Parking concerns are evident based on numerous resolutions passed by the Missoula

County Commission and numerous “911 calls” to the area.

Approaches

o Roadway widths on River Pines Road do not incorporate shoulders.

o Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are absent on River Pines Road.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Numerous environmental considerations were noted. Prime farmland, water resources, wetlands,

floodplains (and floodway), hazardous substances, air quality, fish and wildlife, vegetation, and cultural

and archaeological resources are located within the vicinity of the Maclay Bridge.

Executive Summary

xiii

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The following other considerations were noted through analysis and public comments:

Travel speeds on North Avenue, River Pines Road and South Avenue.

Traffic growth through the neighborhood in recent years, and the potential for that to continue.

Safety and the potential for increased vehicle crashes.

Noise impacts due to increasing vehicular traffic through the area.

Community values and the desire to maintain the rural character of the area and limit traffic

growth.

o The Target Range Neighborhood Plan emphasizes the importance of continued County

maintenance of the structure to preserve access for local and Missoula Valley residents

seeking recreational opportunities on nearby lands.

o The Target Range Neighborhood Plan does not identify the need for a new bridge.

Undesirable behavior related to individuals jumping off the bridge structure and/or recreating on

the river islands, sand bars, and bridge scour hole.

ES.2 NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES Needs and objectives were derived based on a comprehensive review of existing data and input from

resource agencies, stakeholders and the public and were used to develop options. The needs and

objectives reflect the existing social, environmental, and engineering conditions described in the Existing

and Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3) and recognize the local and regional use of the river

crossing and the surrounding transportation system.

Need Number 1:

Improve the safety and operation of the river crossing and connecting roadway network.

OBJECTIVES (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE)

Improve sub-standard elements of facilities to meet current applicable design standards.

Reduce delay and vehicle restriction for emergency responders under existing and future traffic

demands.

Manage travel speeds and provide adequate clear zones to improve operations.

Need Number 2:

Provide a long-term river crossing and connecting roadway network that accommodates planned

growth in the Maclay Bridge area.


Accommodate existing and future capacity demands.

Address non-motorized facilities consistent with local planning efforts.

Provide connectivity to neighborhood residents, and regional users accessing recreational lands

to the west of the Bitterroot River.

Need Number 3:

Minimize adverse impacts from options to the environmental, cultural, scenic and recreational

characteristics of the study area.


Minimize adverse impacts to the Bitterroot River from potential options.

Minimize adverse impacts to the wildlife and aquatic organisms from potential options.


xiv

Provide reasonable access to recreational sites in the study area (Kelly Island Fishing Access

Site, Lolo National Forest, and Missoula County Parks).

Avoid or otherwise minimize adverse impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources

that may result from implementation of options.

Need Number 4:

Minimize adverse impacts from options to the neighborhood characteristics of the study area.


Implement improvements with special sensitivity to area schools.

Minimize impacts to existing residents and businesses in the area.

Recognize the historic value of the Maclay Bridge to the community and the role it plays in local

regional events.

Other Considerations (To the Extent Practicable)

Options should be sensitive to the availability of funding for recurring maintenance obligations or

for the construction of new improvements.

The subject of parking, vandalism, illegal activity, and enforcement, along with perpetuating access to

recreational sites directly adjacent to the Maclay Bridge, are areas of concern generally outside the scope

of this Maclay Bridge Planning Study. However, they are areas of concern that have been documented

and commented on by members of the public.

ES.3 OPTIONS Twenty eight options were identified and classified into four broad based categories. The first category

included options that improved safety and operations on the existing bridge. Category two included

options that would rehabilitate the existing bridge. Category three included options depicting a new bridge

constructed at various locations, and category four was to do nothing. These options are listed below.

The seven options identified as being appropriate for future consideration are shown in bold text and are

more fully described in Chapter 5.

Option 1 – Improve Safety and Operations on the Existing Bridge

1A: Enhance Traffic Operations and Safety on and Near the Structure

1B: Maintain Current Usage and Add Pedestrian/Bicyclist Facilities

1C: Implement Additional Restrictions on Bridge Use

1D: Close Bridge to Vehicles and Retain Use for Non-Motorized Travel Modes

1E: Retain Bridge for Two-Way Travel and Provide New Bridge Elsewhere for Two-Way

Travel

1F: New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location and Retain Existing Bridge for

Non-Motorized Uses

1G: New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location for One-Way Travel and Retain

Existing Bridge for One-Way Travel

1H: Close Bridge and Remove Structure

Option 2 - Rehabilitate the Existing Bridge

2A: Minor Rehabilitation (Structure Only)

2B: Major Rehabilitation (Structure Only)

2C: Minor Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

2D: Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

Executive Summary

xv

Option 3 - Build New Bridge

3A.1: Build on Existing Alignment at North Avenue

3A.2: Build Near Existing Alignment - North 1 Alignment

3A.3: Build Near Existing Alignment - North 2 Alignment

3B.1: Build Bridge on Northern Alignment - South 3rd Street West Extension

3B.2: Build Bridge on Northern Alignment - Spurgin Road Extension

3C.1: Build Bridge on Mount Avenue - Mount 1 Alignment

3C.2: Build Bridge on Mount Avenue - Mount 2 Alignment

3D.1: Build Bridge on Edward Avenue - Edward 1 Alignment

3D.2: Build Bridge on Edward Avenue - Edward 2 Alignment

3E.1: Build Bridge on South Avenue - South 1 Alignment

3E.2: Build Bridge on South Avenue - South 2 Alignment

3F.1: Build Bridge on Sundown Road - Sundown 1 Alignment

3F.2: Build Bridge on Sundown Road- Sundown 2 Alignment

3G.1: Build Bridge on Southern Alignment - Humble Road-Blue Mountain Road

3H.1: New Bridge at a New Location Not Identified in the 1994 EA

Option 4 – Do Nothing

ES.4 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS The study evaluated the Maclay Bridge river crossing and the surrounding transportation system to gain a

better understanding of system needs, objectives, constraints and opportunities, and funding availability.

In addition to analyzing applicable data from MDT, Missoula County, and resource agencies, a

comprehensive public involvement process was conducted to gather relevant information from community

members and stakeholders groups. This information led to a set of options to be considered by the

Missoula County Commissioners.

The study identified several options that would address the operational characteristics, safety and

physical conditions of the existing facility. However, based on the screening and ranking process, only

one option rose to the top as the best alternative to ensure that, over the foreseeable future, the facility

meets applicable MDT and local design standards and provides the desired improvements in safety and

operations for the traveling public. Option 3E.1, South 1 Alignment delivers a transportation facility that

meets current and future demands, addresses safety on the bridge and the sub-standard roadway

approaches to the bridge, and provides connectivity to neighborhood residents and regional users

accessing recreational lands to the west of Bitterroot River.

The Missoula County Commissioners may elect to proceed with one of the other options discussed in this

study; however, three options (1G, 2C and 2D) may not be eligible for MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program

funding. For these options, Missoula County would need to use local funds and follow their own internal


Rehabilitating the bridge will not correct the deficient safety features needed to serve the long term

intended use of the facility. Although Title 23 United States Code (USC) does allow rehabilitation (§

Section 144(o)), other provisions are needed to gain a complete understanding of when it would be

prudent to rehabilitate a historic structure. Title 23 USC § 144(o)(1)) and §144(o)(3) are two sections that

provide guidance. The rehabilitation option(s), in light of the provisions, would not be eligible in this

particular instance for the reasons described in the provisions above and documented in Chapter 3 of this

planning study.


xvi

A matrix summary of potential costs and funding eligibility for MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program for the

seven options identified as being appropriate for future consideration is included below.

Matrix Summary of Costs and Funding Eligibility (a)

(a) “Comprehensive Costs” in this table include construction, preliminary engineering, incidental and indirect costs,

inflation (3 percent per year for five years) and right-of-way costs.

(b) The comprehensive cost estimates envision a new bridge and limited approach work to tie into the existing roads.

This would meet the intent of MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program by addressing bridge related safety issues.

Roadway reconstruction outside of bridge approach tie-in points are likely not eligible for MDT’s Off-System Bridge

Program funding.

Option ID

Comprehensive

Cost

Eligible for Off-

System Bridge

Program Funds? Reasoning for Funding Eligibility

OPTION 1 - IMPROVE SAFETY AND OPERATIONS ON THE EXISTING BRIDGE

1G - New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location & Retain Existing Bridge for

One-Way Travel

$6,050,000 to $8,450,000

POSSIBLE

Additional study is needed to determine eligibility. The comprehensive cost is shown as a range due to uncertainty on the potential scope of improvements to the existing Maclay Bridge.

OPTION 2 - REHABILITATE THE BRIDGE 2C - Minor Rehabilitation (includes

Approaches) $1,150,000 to $1,500,000

NO This option does not meet the Safety objective of the MDT Off-system Bridge Program.

2D - Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

$1,500,000 to $3,900,000


OPTION 3 - BUILD NEW BRIDGE (b)

3A.2 - North 1 Alignment $5,300,000

YES This option meets the Safety objective of the MDT Off-System Bridge Program.

3C.2 - Mount 2 Alignment $9,000,000 YES This option meets the Safety objective of the MDT Off-System Bridge Program.

3E.1 - South 1 Alignment $7,300,000 YES This option meets the Safety objective of the MDT Off-System Bridge Program.


Chapter 1 Introduction

1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. PURPOSE Missoula County, in cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated a planning study of the Maclay Bridge over the Bitterroot River

to determine the potential needs of the river crossing and connecting roadways within the area. The

Maclay Bridge, also known as the North Avenue Bridge, is a single-lane structure that crosses the

Bitterroot River approximately 2.75 miles west of Reserve Street. North Avenue connects to the existing

bridge as the eastern approach, and River Pines Road serves as its western approach. A vicinity map

showing the location of the Maclay Bridge and the surrounding area is shown as Figure 1.

Missoula County had previously nominated the Maclay Bridge for replacement under the Montana

Department of Transportation Off-System Bridge Program (formerly known as the Highway Bridge

Replacement and Rehabilitation Program). In 2006, the Maclay Bridge was Missoula County’s number

one priority.

Prior to proceeding with project development activities associated with a river crossing in the area of the

Maclay Bridge, local leaders and elected officials, in conjunction with the aforementioned sponsors,

agreed to develop this planning study to engage the public and take a fresh look at safety and operational

elements of the Maclay Bridge and connecting roadways.

1.2. PROCESS The Maclay Bridge Planning Study is a pre-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Montana

Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) study that allows for early planning-level coordination with community

members, stakeholders, environmental resource agencies, and other interested parties. The

NEPA/MEPA environmental review process is an approach to balance transportation decision making

that takes into account the need for safe and efficient transportation and the impacts on the human and

natural environment. The study does not replace the NEPA/MEPA process.

The results of the study may be used to assist in determining the level and scope of environmental review

required if a project is forwarded into a subsequent NEPA/MEPA process. It is also used to give

information to the Missoula County Commissioners regarding identified areas of concern, transportation

needs and objectives, the range of options considered, and public sentiment regarding potential options.

The study assists in facilitating a smooth and efficient transition from transportation planning to future

project development/environmental review, if a project is forwarded.

The Maclay Bridge Planning Study is a planning-level study and is not a design or construction project. It

is not a decision document. The planning study identified options to address safety, geometric and

environmental concerns based on needs of the river crossing and connecting roadways presented by the

community, study partners, resource agencies, and other interested parties, and to increase safety and

efficiency for the traveling public.


2

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Chapter 1 Introduction

3

1.3. PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS In 1994, an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Maclay Bridge Site Selection Study

1 was completed.

The EA defined the purpose and need for a project for the river crossing, identified potential alternatives,

and assessed the impacts of the various alternatives to address the project’s purpose and need. Sixteen

(16) alternatives were initially considered in the EA including:

Bridge rehabilitation or bridge replacement (one-lane structure) at the current location;

Numerous alternatives that would provide a new two-lane bridge elsewhere; and

A “No Build” alternative.

Through a screening process, four alternatives were advanced for further consideration and a “Preferred

Alternative” was identified. The Preferred Alternative was described in the EA as follows:

“A new two-lane (one lane for each direction of traffic) bridge constructed over the Bitterroot River

which connects River Pines Road on the west side to South Avenue West on the east side. The

Preferred Alternative includes increasing the number of lanes on the bridge from one lane

(existing) to two lanes (proposed). The bridge cross section includes adequate shoulders for

bicycle travel and a separated pedestrian walkway.”

The 1994 EA was completed and approved for circulation, however, a decision document (i.e. FONSI)

was not issued. FHWA views a signed FONSI as the NEPA decision document for a project evaluated

and advanced with an EA. During this timeframe, Missoula County had hoped to use special project

demonstration funds from Congress to implement the project but was unsuccessful in obtaining the

funding. The Maclay Bridge replacement project was inactive until the County nominated it to receive

funding from MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program in 2002.

Many of the underlying issues previously identified as deficiencies (and reasons for proposing

transportation improvements) in the 1994 EA and subsequent safety inspections remain (Appendix 3,

Existing and Projected Conditions Report). This, coupled with the community’s ongoing interest in the

Maclay Bridge and possible changes in traffic patterns resulting from potential options, served as the

reason for initiating the Maclay Bridge Planning Study.

1.4. PREVIOUS MAINTENANCE EFFORTS Minor maintenance activities have been performed on the bridge at various times since the completion of

the 1994 EA. These maintenance activities are summarized below:

The west bridge abutment was armored with material in anticipation of high water conditions

during Spring run-off (April, 1997);

The existing timber deck was replaced with corrugated steel decking and an asphalt overlay. In

addition, bearings were replaced and/or added, and steel curbing was placed to prevent vehicular

damage to pedestrian rail and truss elements (2003);

The expansion joints at the west abutment were modified, as the expansion joints installed with

the 2003 deck replacement were found to be inadequate and in need of repair (2004); and

The expansion joint between the main truss and the pony truss was modified, as the expansion

joint installed with the 2003 deck replacement were found to be inadequate and in need of repair

(2005).

1 Maclay Bridge Site Selection Study Environmental Assessment, Carter & Burgess Inc., April 1994


4


Chapter 2 Public and Agency Participation

5

Chapter 2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION

An important aspect of the planning study process was to provide opportunities for ongoing and

meaningful public involvement. Education and public outreach were essential parts of achieving this goal.

A Community and Agency Participation Plan (CAPP) was developed to identify public involvement

activities needed to gain insight and seek consensus about existing and future transportation needs. The

purpose of the plan was to ensure a proactive public involvement process that provided opportunities for

the public to be involved in all phases of the planning study process. Specific public outreach measures

are noted in this chapter. Meeting content, such as press releases, advertisements, agendas,

presentations, minutes, etc., for all of the described activities, are provided in Appendix 1 (Consultation,

Coordination and Public Involvement).

2.1. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

2.1.1. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS

Planning studies typically include two informational meetings. For the Maclay Bridge Planning Study, four

informational meetings were held. All of the meetings were held in Missoula at locations in or near areas

served by the Maclay Bridge. Press releases were distributed to area media outlets, and meeting

announcements were advertised in local newspapers (Missoulian and Missoula Independent Press) twice

prior to each meeting (at one week and three week intervals). The ads announced the meeting location,

time and date, purpose of the meeting, and the locations where documents may be reviewed.

2.1.1.1. First Informational Meeting

Eighty-nine members of the public signed the attendance sheet for the first informational meeting held on

April 24th, 2012 at Big Sky High School. The purpose of the meeting was to inform interested parties

about the scope and purpose of the planning study, and to solicit input on the existing conditions and

concerns within the study area that may be relevant to the planning effort. The meeting began with a

Powerpoint presentation about the study process and purpose, and was followed by a question and

answer period. Topics, concerns and statements were offered by numerous attendees, including these

notable comments:

Who ultimately makes the decision on what to do about the bridge?

Community support needs to be considered when developing recommendations.

The term “functionally obsolete” paints a bad picture of the bridge when in reality the bridge is

structurally sound.

Traffic projections should include adjustments for zoning and growth.

Zoning and land use should be looked at along both sides of the Bitterroot River.

If changes are made, the effects to traffic along South Avenue should be examined.

Construction costs should be an important consideration in developing recommendations.

Replacing the bridge seems to be part of ultimately building a west-side bypass.

Replacing the bridge will induce growth in the area.

The results of the 1994 EA are outdated and may be inaccurate.

The desires of the community need to be incorporated into the study.


6

2.1.1.2. Second Informational Meeting

Seventy-five members of the public signed the attendance sheet for the second informational meeting

held on July 10th, 2012 at Target Range Elementary School. The purpose of the meeting was to inform

interested parties about the existing and projected conditions in the Maclay Bridge vicinity, resource

considerations in the environmental scan boundary area, and preliminary areas of concern. A Powerpoint

presentation summarizing the information was given, followed by small group work sessions. After the

small group work sessions, meeting attendees reconvened into a larger audience to hear the salient

points of each group’s discussions. Topics that were covered in each of the small groups included the

following:

Safety;

Traffic volume growth;

Non-motorized transportation;

Parking;

Roadway/bridge widths;

Social; and

Environmental considerations.

The goal of the small group work session was to:

Provide a means for those that are interested to be part of the planning process;

Receive comments on information contained in the Existing and Projected Conditions Report (E &

P Report) and Environmental Scan; and

Gather comments from participants, supplemented by findings of the E & P Report and

Environmental Scan, to formulate a set of transportation system needs and objectives which

could then be used to develop potential options.

2.1.1.3. Third Informational Meeting

Eighty-one members of the public signed the attendance sheet for the third informational meeting held on

September 27th, 2012 at Big Sky High School. The purpose of the meeting was to review the draft needs

and objectives, and the draft options under consideration, with the public. A Powerpoint presentation was

given, followed by a comment period in which participants were asked to step up to a podium and provide

their comment in 3 minutes or less. The more notable concerns and statements offered at the meeting

included:

What happens if the old bridge is removed? Who pays for removal costs?

Have you considered the impact to wetlands and flood plains at the end of South Avenue?

Do you know the cost of a new bridge at a South Avenue location? It would have to be put on

pillars to avoid the flood plain and associated wetlands.

If a new bridge was built, who pays for the approaches to the bridge, especially if considerable

road work is necessary? Does it come from Federal, state or local funds?

What is the life expectancy of the existing bridge under rehabilitation?

Do you know the origin of the steel, and how strong it is? That would influence the rehabilitation

potential in the future.

Is the style and width of a new bridge known?


7

2.1.1.4. Fourth Informational Meeting

110 members of the public signed the attendance sheet for the fourth informational meeting held on

January 31th, 2013 at the Guest House Inn and Suites Conference Center. The purpose of the meeting

was to review the screening process and the draft planning study report. A Powerpoint presentation was

given, followed by a comment period in which participants were asked to step up to a podium and give

their comment in 4 minutes or less. Topics, concerns and statements were offered by numerous

attendees, with the more notable as follows:

Belief by some members of the public that the screening process was flawed.

Disenchantment with the study process and the lack of public involvement.

Disappointment that an “intermediate” rehabilitation option for the bridge wasn’t considered.

Concern over the costs of a replacement bridge and who pays for periphery improvements.

Concern over impacts to the floodplain and the health of the riverine environment.

Concern over report projection of traffic increases in front of Target Range School.

Support for better distributing traffic throughout the neighborhood via a new bridge on South

Avenue (i.e. doesn’t require out-of-direction of travel).

2.1.2. OTHER PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EFFORTS

One flyer and three newsletters were produced that described the work in progress, results achieved,

screening process, and other topics. The publications were made available at the informational meetings

and were posted to the study website. In addition, copies were mailed to the following stakeholders:

Missoula County Commission

Missoula Emergency Services

Missoula County Public Schools

Target Range School District

Mountain Home Montana

MT Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

US Forest Service

Target Range Homeowners Association

Missoula Rural Fire District

Maclay Bridge Alliance

Maclay Bridge Common Sense Coalition

Community Medical Center

Hidden Heights Homeowners Association

Target Range Water and Sewer District

A website (http://mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/maclay) provided up-to-date information regarding the study as

well as an opportunity to provide comments on the study. Draft documents were posted for public review

and comment during the study process. Informational announcements were posted to the website to

encourage public involvement in the study.

An email distribution list was created and maintained over the duration of the study. Advance notification

of the informational meetings was made to those on the email distribution list before the meeting date.

The number of individuals on the list grew to 108 people during the course of the study.

http://mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/maclay


8

2.2. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION A stakeholder contact list was developed to include individuals, businesses, or groups identified by

Missoula County, MDT, and/or the Consultant based on knowledge of the study area. The intent of

developing the stakeholder list was to identify those individuals and groups to actively seek out and

engage in the various phases of the study (Appendix 3, Community and Agency Participation Plan).

Individual meetings were held with two of the stakeholder groups, the Maclay Bridge Common Sense

Coalition and the Maclay Bridge Alliance, on September 4, 2012, during the morning and afternoon,

respectively. The purpose of these meetings was to gather input and hear stakeholder concerns on the

planning study process and associated deliverables (i.e. memorandums and reports).

2.3. RESOURCE AGENCY WORKSHOP A resource agency workshop was held on May 21, 2012, at MDT Headquarters in Helena. A remote

location was also made available in Missoula for those unable to attend in Helena. The resource agency

workshop was held to provide an overview of the study and process, and confirm content and accuracy of

the Environmental Scan document. Each agency was sent a draft Environmental Scan prior to the

workshop in order to set the stage for further discussion. The agencies involved in the workshop included

the following:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC)

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The workshop included an overview of the study and a summary of the pre-NEPA/MEPA planning study

process. Open discussion was held on various resource areas that the agencies felt needed to be further

identified, supplemented or considered. These notable comments were heard at the resource agency

workshop:

Floodplain/Hydraulics - The Bitterroot River has migrated to the west over the years. Riprap

was put in as mitigation in the 70’s and 80’s. The bridge is at a pinch point in the floodplain. In

the case of a replacement bridge, Missoula County would have a “no increase” requirement for

the 100-year base flood elevation. An exception may be allowed if a CLOMR (Conditional Letter

of Map Revision) is prepared, reviewed and approved by FEMA. After the CLOMR, a LOMR

(Letter of Map Revision) would have to be completed. This process can be very time consuming,

and would allow for a 0.5 foot increase of the 100-year base flood elevation, and only after

hydraulic modeling shows it would not affect adjacent property.

Bridge Deck Drainage - Drainage from the bridge currently flows off the deck structure. Impacts

resulting from drainage off of a new bridge deck should be considered. Bridge deck drainage

should be channeled off the bridge and possibly detained/retained before discharge.

Bridge Span - If a new bridge is constructed, the largest span practicable should be utilized to

minimize impacts within the floodplain.

Induced Growth - An evaluation of impacts related to induced growth should be conducted if a

project is developed.

Vehicle / Wildlife Conflicts - Impacts to potential vehicle / wildlife collisions should be analyzed

if speeds are increased as a result of a project identified from the study.


9

2.4. PLANNING TEAM MEETINGS A study planning team was established with representatives from Missoula County, MDT, and FHWA.

The team met regularly (approximately every three weeks) during the twelve-month study to discuss

study progress, analysis methodologies and results, draft technical memorandums and reports, and other

issues and concerns. The planning team served in an advisory role and reviewed study documentation

before publication. In addition, representatives of the Maclay Bridge Alliance and the Maclay Bridge

Common Sense Coalition regularly attended the meetings. They were observers of the process but did

not have direct input into the planning team meetings. Their attendance was noted and reflected in the

meeting minutes throughout the duration of the study.

2.5. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENT PERIOD The public and agency comment period for the draft planning study report extended from January 30,

2013 to February 22, 2013. 137 written comments were received during the comment period, with an

additional 4 written comments received after the comment period expired. Written comments and

responses are presented at the beginning of Appendix 1 (Consultation, Coordination and Public

Involvement).


10


Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions

11

Chapter 3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED CONDITIONS

This chapter presents the existing and projected road and bridge conditions, and environmental factors,

for the Maclay Bridge planning area. These conditions and factors were utilized as part of the planning

analysis to identify known issues and areas of concern. If an option is forwarded from this study to

project development, this general information may be used to support future, detailed “project level”

analysis.

3.1. LOCAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS Missoula County and the City of Missoula have a cooperative agreement in place to conduct planning

based on the shared environmental, economic, aesthetic, and social values of city and county residents.

The agreement created a City-County Office of Planning and Grants (OPG) which is responsible for land

use permitting, long range planning, transportation planning, historic preservation, housing, and a variety

of other programs. Numerous planning documents exist that guide or supplement Missoula County’s

Growth Policy. The planning documents listed below were reviewed to provide a context for the Maclay

Bridge Planning Study. The Existing and Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3) contains more

information from these planning documents and considerations that may be important to the development

of options for the Maclay Bridge.

2008 Missoula Long Range Transportation Plan

2012 Missoula Long Range Transportation Plan

Missoula 2011 Active Transportation Plan (MATP)

Missoula Transit Development Plan

2012 Missoula County Parks and Trails Master Plan

Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan 2006 Update

2004 Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area

Missoula County Growth Policy

Missoula Urban Comprehensive Plan: 1998 Update

Missoula Urban Fringe Development Area (UFDA) Project

Target Range Neighborhood Plan

Lolo National Forest Plan

3.2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

3.2.1. EXISTING ROADWAY USERS

Primary users of the Maclay Bridge river crossing are local residents from the Target Range and Orchard

Homes neighborhoods (east of the Bitterroot River), land owners west of the Bitterroot River, and city and

county residents accessing recreational uses along the Bitterroot River and USFS lands. Additionally, this

river crossing is used by pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency services providers, and school buses.


12

3.2.2. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Historic traffic data for area roadways was obtained from MDT’s Bureau of Data & Statistics. Table 1

shows the most recent 20 years of traffic data for two count stations in the area: one located on River

Pines Road just west of the Maclay Bridge and one located on North Avenue just west of Clements Road.

The traffic data in Table 1 is representative of the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume, in vehicles

per day (vpd).

Table 1 shows the 2010 AADT volumes were 2,610 vpd (on River Pines Road) and 2,000 vpd (on North

Avenue. 2010 is the most recent year for which traffic count data is available for both locations shown in

Table 1.

Table 1: Average Annual Daily Traffic

Street Location 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

River Pines Rd 300 ft W of Maclay Bridge 1610 1580 1840 2060 2190 2230 (a) (a) (a)

2230

North Ave 300 ft W of Clements Rd 1610 (a)

2200 (a)

1960 (a)

1980 (a)

1790 (a)

Street Location 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

River Pines Rd 300 ft W of Maclay Bridge 2300 2060 2300 2130 2410 2460 (a)

2380 2610 2360

North Ave 300 ft W of Clements Rd 1660 (a)

2010 (a)

2140 (a) (a) (a)

2000 (a)

Source: MDT Data and Statistics Bureau, Traffic Data Collection Section, 2012 (a)

Data unavailable

3.2.3. PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Projected transportation conditions were analyzed to estimate how traffic volumes and transportation

characteristics may change compared to existing conditions. The analysis was based on existing

volumes projected out to the year 2040. While there are several methods available to project traffic

volumes, the preferred method is to use the adopted Travel Demand Model (TDM) used by Missoula

County and MDT, as it provides the best representation of the “built” environment found within the area.

The TDM incorporates land use planning found within the Missoula County Growth Policy, including

zoning, and also reflects the preferred growth scenario found within the Urban Fringe Development Area

(UFDA). Additionally, the TDM is the tool utilized for the Missoula Area Transportation Plan (2008 and

2012 Updates).

3.2.3.1. Future Traffic Modeling

The TDM is a tool to predict future traffic growth. The TDM was developed using year 2010 AADT

information to determine baseline conditions. Future land use information from the Missoula County

Growth Policy, including zoning, was applied to the model to project year 2040 conditions. For planning

purposes, the TDM was used for future year projections and option analysis. The TDM utilizes existing

housing and employment data, with the existing transportation network, to represent the “built

environment” found within the area.

Table 2 provides a summary of traffic count locations within the study analysis area. These results are

also shown in Figure 2.


13

Table 2: 2040 AADT Traffic Modeling Projections

Street Location 2010 AADT

2010 TDM

2040 TDM

TDM % Diff

Projected 2040 AADT

(a)

Big Flat Rd 100 ft W of O'Brien Ck Rd 1,870 2,199 7,691 249.7% 6,550

Blue Mountain Rd 500 ft N of Hwy 93 2,360 2,628 6,091 131.8% 5,450

Blue Mountain Rd S of South Side Rd 1,370 1,674 5,346 219.4% 4,400

Brooks St Bitterroot River Bridge 26,530 26,157 45,368 73.4% 46,000

Clements Rd 300 ft N of North Av 3,140 2,615 4,914 87.9% 5,900

Clements Rd 300 ft S of North Av 2,750 1,811 2,549 40.8% 3,850

Clements Rd 500 ft S of S 3rd W 2,350 1,914 3,677 92.1% 4,500

Kona Ranch Rd Kona Ranch Bridge (b)

1,723 6,471 275.6% (b)

Mullan Rd E of Snowdrift Ln 3,950 4,284 9,870 130.4% 9,100

North Av 300 ft W of Clements Rd 2,000 1,318 3,118 136.6% 4,750

Reserve St Between Dearborn & South Av 33,580 32,617 45,425 39.3% 46,750

Reserve St Between OlofsonDr& S 3rd W 38,010 38,985 51,443 32.0% 50,150

Reserve St Between South Av & Central Av 36,740 36,953 47,510 28.6% 47,250

Reserve St S of LarkenwoodDr 37,930 39,255 52,411 33.5% 50,650

River Pines Rd 300 ft W of Maclay Bridge 2,610 2,779 6,039 117.3% 5,650

S 3rd W W of Reserve 7,620 6,690 11,596 73.3% 13,200

S 7th W 150 ft W of Reserve 1,320 1,901 4,664 145.3% 3,250

S 7th W 300 ft E of Clements Rd 350 345 699 102.6% 700

South Av Between 31st and 33rd 6,610 6,491 8,187 26.1% 8,350

South Av Between Humble & Pleasant 1,770 2,210 3,638 64.6% 2,900

South Av Between Reserve & 26th 15,010 14,914 16,255 9.0% 16,350

South Av E of Clements Rd 4,350 4,952 6,141 24.0% 5,400

South Av W of Clements Rd 4,710 5,379 7,453 38.6% 6,550

Spurgin Rd 250 ft W of Reserve 2,000 2,401 3,086 28.5% 2,550

Spurgin Rd 300 ft E of Clements Rd 980 1,033 1,285 24.4% 1,200

Source: MDT Multi Modal Planning Bureau, Statewide & Urban Planning Section, 2012; Missoula Office of Planning and Grants,

Transportation Division. (a)

Projected AADT’s rounded to nearest 50 vpd. (b)

Data unavailable


14

Figure 2: Percent Change in AADT


15

3.2.4. CRASH ANALYSIS

The MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau provided crash data for the ten-year period from January 1, 2002 to

December 31, 2011. The crash data was provided for the following areas:

Township 13 North, Range 20 West, Section 26




According to the MDT crash database, there were 131 total crashes reported within these identified areas

during the ten-year period. Reportable crashes are defined as those with a fatality, an injury, or property

damage only exceeding $1,000 in damages.

As part of the crash analysis, crash investigation reports were reviewed to help identify specific locations

and contributing factors. A location map of the reported crashes is shown in Figure 3. Based on the

crash data, a number of crash clusters and trends were identified as listed below, and are more fully

discussed in the Existing and Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3).

Big Flat Road

o Single vehicle crashes along the horizontal curve approximately 0.15 miles north of the

intersection with River Pines Road.

Blue Mountain Road

o Single vehicle crashes along the sharp horizontal curve approximately 0.3 miles south of

the intersection with River Pines Road.

o Single vehicle crashes along the horizontal curves located approximately 0.5 to 0.9 miles

south of the intersection with River Pines Road.

North Avenue

o Crashes with inattentive driving and failure to yield listed as contributing circumstances

between Humble Road and the Maclay Bridge.

River Pines Drive

o Single vehicle crashes at or near the intersection with Riverside Drive under “dark not lit”

conditions.

o Single vehicle crashes along the horizontal curves located approximately 0.15 to 0.30

miles southwest of the intersection with Riverside Drive.

o Crashes between the intersection with Big Flat Road and the sharp horizontal curve

located approximately 0.25 miles east of Big Flat Road.

South Avenue

o Single vehicle crashes between the intersections with Pauline Drive and Woodlawn

Avenue under “dark not lit” conditions.


16

Figure 3: Crash Locations (01/01/2002 – 12/31/2011)


17

3.2.5. TRAVEL TIMES

A “travel time” evaluation was conducted to determine the approximate time it would take to travel within

the Maclay Bridge area from three selected emergency service provider locations. The travel time

evaluation was completed during the middle of a weekday, during off-peak travel hours. Travel times

along three distinct routes from east of the Bitterroot River to the intersection of Big Flat Road/Blue

Mountain Road/O’Brien Creek Road/River Pines Road were calculated. Each route crossed the Bitterroot

River using one of three crossings: the Maclay Bridge, the Kona Ranch Bridge, or the Buckhouse Bridge.

The three origins that were identified for this analysis included the following:

Missoula Rural Fire Station #1 – Located on South Avenue

Community Medical Center – Located on South Avenue

Missoula Rural Fire Station #6 – Located on Mullan Road

The results of the evaluation suggests that if the Maclay Bridge river crossing is inaccessible, the time it

would take to reach the subject intersection of Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road/O’Brien Creek

Road/River Pines Road from most of the locations of interest increases. For example, if the Maclay

Bridge was out of service, it was estimated to take approximately 18.58 minutes longer using the Kona

Bridge or 4.47 minutes longer using the Buckhouse Bridge when travelling between Community Medical

Hospital and the subject intersection. In terms of emergency service, this means that travel times would

likely be longer if the Maclay Bridge crossing is out of service.

3.2.6. DESIGN STANDARDS

Design standards are an important consideration when assessing existing areas of concern, as well as for

planning new infrastructure. Depending on funding source, different sets of design standards may be

applicable to the river crossing. One set of standards are the design standards in place by Missoula

County. These standards, found in the Missoula County Public Works Manual 2010, set forth road design

considerations for various roadway classifications.

AASHTO design standards may also be applicable since Missoula County does not have any specific

“bridge related” standards to measure against. AASHTO bridge width standards allow a single-lane

bridge only for very low volume roads in which traffic is less than 100 vpd.

Finally, an additional set of design standards, and those that may be considered in design if Federal or

State funds were used for any type of project identified through this planning effort, are the standards and

guidelines found in MDT’s Road Design Manual (RDM). The RDM specifies general design principles

and controls which determine the overall operational characteristics of the roadway.

For most “off-system” locations such as the Maclay Bridge (i.e. not on a State-highway), local conditions

and context to the surrounding land uses would be considered in developing geometric features such as

road width, acceptable curves, and the need for non-motorized facilities.

3.2.7. ROADWAY GEOMETRICS

Existing roadway geometrics were evaluated and compared to current Missoula County standards. The

analysis was conducted based on a review of public information, bridge drawings, Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) data, and field observations. As-built drawings for area roadways were not

available. As such, a field review was conducted in April 2012 to confirm and supplement information, as

well as to identify additional areas of concern within the Maclay Bridge area.


18

3.2.7.1. Horizontal Alignment

Elements comprising horizontal alignment include curvature, superelevation (i.e. the “bank” on the road),

and sight distance. These horizontal alignment elements influence traffic operation and safety. Missoula

County roadway standards for a collector roadway were used as a basis to evaluate existing design

concerns along River Pines Road and North Avenue. Missoula County’s standards for horizontal curves

are defined in terms of curve radius, and for a collector roadway, the minimum required radius is 525 feet.

Three horizontal curves were identified that do not meet current Missoula County standards. The

presence of sub-standard curvature may contribute to crash numbers and severity.

3.2.7.2. Vertical Alignment

Vertical alignment is a measure of elevation change of a roadway. The length and steepness of grades

directly affects the operational characteristics of the roadway. In addition, the available stopping sight

distance for the vertical alignment, and specifically the vertical curvature, also directly affects the

operational characteristics of the roadway.

Missoula County roadway standards for a collector roadway define a maximum allowable vertical grade of

6.0 percent. Both roadways connecting to the Maclay Bridge were estimated to have grades that do not

exceed the Missoula County standard of 6.0 percent for a collector roadway or the current MDT design

standards.

3.2.7.3. Roadside Clear Zone

The roadside clear zone, starting at the edge of the traveled way and extending away from the roadway,

is the total roadside border area available for safe use by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a

shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or recovery area. The desired clear zone

width varies depending on traffic volumes, speeds, and roadside geometry.

Within the Maclay Bridge area, there were locations identified that do not meet the Missoula County

horizontal clearance requirements for a collector roadway. The most notable area is located along River

Pines Road, just southwest of the existing bridge. At this location, the top of roadway fill slope is between

2 and 4 feet from the edge of the travel lane. In addition, trees and utility poles are found within this area.

The roadway fill slope in this area is steep and lined with riprap to the river.

3.2.8. BRIDGE CONSIDERATIONS

The dominant transportation feature located within the study area is the Maclay Bridge. It has been the

subject of past technical and planning level analysis, and was analyzed in detail during the development

of the 1994 Maclay Bridge Site Selection Study EA. A copy of the most recent Bridge Inspection Report

completed by MDT is included in the Existing and Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3).

Since the 2011 Bridge Inspection Report was prepared, the posted load limit was reduced from 14 tons to

11 tons based on analysis by MDT engineers. The two primary vehicles impacted by this reduction were

school buses and fire trucks. School buses are generally within the 11 ton limit, as they weigh

approximately 19,000 pounds when empty and 22,000 pounds when loaded. Fully loaded school buses

are near or at the 11 ton limit. School buses are allowed across the bridge, as long as they do not exceed

the posted 15 mph speed limit.

An agreement exists that allows the local rural fire department to operate their Type I fire engines (i.e.

overweight vehicles) across the bridge, as long as they straddle the centerline of the bridge and travel no

more than 5 mph.


19

The 2011 Bridge Inspection Report noted some areas of concern related to a variety of bridge features,

such as:

Transverse cracking in deck asphalt surfacing;

Paint loss and rusting on various features, such as floor beams, bottom chords, and steel

stringers;

Minor cracking and spalling on concrete pier wall and abutments; and

Moveable roller bearings are not functional and are out of alignment.

Additionally, the following concerns were identified during the public process and confirmed in the field:

The current structure exhibits spalling and cracked concrete and exposed rebar;

Rust and steel pitting is observed under the bridge on some load bearing members and the deck;

The bridge is a composite of varying ages and types of load-bearing steel used throughout the

structure; and

The strength of the steel is unknown in much of the bridge, as it has never been tested.

3.2.8.1. Sufficiency Rating

An important consideration in the evaluation of roadway bridges is the sufficiency rating associated with

the structure. The sufficiency rating formula is the industry standard of evaluating highway bridge data to

obtain a numeric value indicating the sufficiency of the bridge to remain in service. The sufficiency rating

is expressed by a value ranging from 0 to 100 with 100 being an entirely sufficient bridge and 0 being an

entirely deficient bridge. To receive funding through the Off-System Bridge Program, structures must be

classified as “Structurally Deficient” or “Functionally Obsolete” and have a sufficiency rating of 80 or

below. Structures with a sufficiency rating of 0 to 49.9 are eligible for replacement, and structures at 50 to

80 are eligible for rehabilitation unless otherwise approved for replacement by the FHWA.

Based on the most recent Bridge Inspection Report, the Maclay Bridge was determined to be functionally

obsolete, but not structurally deficient. Its sufficiency rating is calculated to be 27.3, which is less than

49.9, thereby making the bridge eligible for replacement.

A functionally obsolete bridge is one that was built to standards that are not used today. Functionally

obsolete bridges are those that do not have adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances

to serve current traffic demand, or those that may be occasionally flooded. Functionally obsolete bridges

are not automatically rated as structurally deficient, nor are they inherently unsafe. American Association

of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards specify single-lane bridges are

appropriate on routes with AADT volumes less than 100 vpd. For the Maclay Bridge, the appraisal values

for the “Deck Geometry” and the “Approach Roadway Alignment” are such that the bridge is categorized

as being functionally obsolete. This is based on the single-lane width of the bridge being sub-standard for

the current traffic volumes, and the sub-standard curves on both approaches to the bridge.

An analysis of off-system bridge data for Montana indicates that 98.3 percent of all off-system bridges

have a sufficiency rating higher than the Maclay Bridge.

3.2.8.2. Bridge Health Index

The “Health Index” is a variable based on “weighting” bridge components to establish a clear, dependable

communication of bridge performance information to management, elected officials, and the public. The

Bridge Health Index is a 0-100 ranking system for bridge maintenance with 100 being a “best” condition

and 0 indicating a “worst” condition. The health index provides an indication of how individual bridge

components rank on the 0-100 condition scale. To generate a health index rating for the entire bridge,


20

weighted values are assigned to the individual bridge components according to the economic

consequences of their failure. Thus, components whose failure has relatively little economic effect, such

as railings, receive less weight than those whose failure could close the bridge, such as girders. The

Health Index number provides a performance measure and management tool for bridge maintenance.

The health index is not an FHWA directive for assessing bridges, rather, it was developed by the

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and its computations are now included in bridge

management software used by state highway agencies. Guidance provided by Caltrans indicates the

health index concept for a single bridge be evaluated in context with a statewide network of bridges.

Based on the recent October 31, 2011 bridge inspection, the Maclay Bridge was given a health index of

89.91. Montana’s statewide off-system bridge data indicates that 72.9 percent of all off-system bridges

have a health index higher than the Maclay Bridge health index. This health index value places the

Maclay Bridge near the bottom quartile (i.e. lowest 25 percent) of all off-system bridges.

3.2.8.3. Fracture Critical Status

The Maclay Bridge is fracture critical. Truss bridges are typically fracture critical. If one part of the truss

should fail, the entire bridge span may fail. As a bridge ages and traffic increases, the steel in the truss

may begin to weaken because of fatigue. The bridge requires special “fracture critical” inspections to

reduce the chance of failure. With proper inspection and maintenance, the bridge is considered safe. An

inspection that shows a problem could result in immediate closure. No immediate concern has been

identified for the Maclay Bridge due to its fracture critical status.

3.2.9. PARKING CONSIDERATIONS AND CITATIONS

Over the past 30 years, Missoula County has passed numerous resolutions that restrict parking within the

vicinity of the Maclay Bridge. Research of past resolutions indicates that parking concerns have existed

since at least 1979.

A review of Missoula County “911 Calls” was also completed. In a search of the call records for the

Orchard Homes and Target Range areas for June, July and August of 2010 and 2011, numerous citations

were issued in response to activities near the Macay Bridge. These citations included the following

categories:

Criminal Mischief, Curfew and Loitering, Disorderly Conduct, Disturbance, Suspicious Activity

Extra Patrol

Hazardous Vehicle

Other Hazard

During this time period, there were 109 calls made for the area located at the east end of the existing

bridge (4680 North Avenue West). Of these calls, 42 were for “hazardous vehicle”, which is primarily

related to parking concerns. The review of the provided 911 calls, coupled with the many parking

resolutions passed over the four decades by Missoula County, indicate parking is a concern in the vicinity

of the Maclay Bridge.

3.2.10. ROADWAY SURFACING

Existing roadway surfacing characteristics were determined through field measurements for River Pines

Road, the Maclay Bridge, and North Avenue. Items measured included the surface width, lane width,

shoulder width, and the presence of non-motorized features. Table 3 shows the existing roadway and

bridge widths.


21

Table 3: Existing Road and Bridge Surfacing

Location Lanes Surface Width(ft) Lane Width(ft) Shoulder Width(ft)

North Ave W Clements Rd to Maclay Bridge 2 31 11 1 (north) / 8 (south)

Maclay Bridge On Bridge 1 14 14 0

River Pines Rd Maclay Bridge to Blue Mountain Road 2 22 11 0

Source: Estimated based on field measurements

3.2.11. ACCESS POINTS

Access points were identified through a review of available GIS data, aerial photography and field

observation. There are approximately 47 access points along River Pines Road and North Avenue. The

vast majority of the access points are private approaches. There are 10 public approaches along these

two segments within the study area. The prevalence of access points along a roadway can contribute to

decreased safety as turning movements into and out of the access points may create conflict points.

3.2.12. RIGHT-OF-WAY

Existing right-of-way widths along River Pines Road and North Avenue are between 60 and 80 feet. New

right-of-way, easements and/or construction permits from adjoining landowners will be required if options

extend beyond existing right-of-way limits based on legal land survey.

A Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) land use license or easement

would be required between the low water marks of the river for options involving the construction of a

bridge at a new location.

3.2.13. HYDRAULICS

The Bitterroot River is the primary surface water feature within the study area. If a project is developed

that impacts the Bitterroot River, mitigation will be required depending on the type of impacts anticipated

and agency permitting requirements.

The Big Flat Irrigation Ditch crosses River Pines Road west of the Maclay Bridge. A small Missoula

Irrigation District ditch parallels South Avenue and the ditch crosses South Avenue west of Humble Road

and west of Clements Road.

3.2.14. FLOODPLAIN CONSIDERATIONS

The Maclay Bridge river crossing is located within a detailed delineated floodplain (FIRM panel

30063C1455). Accordingly, any bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or relocation would require a formal

floodplain permit.

Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid direct or

indirect support of floodplain development whenever a practicable alternative exists. EO 11988 and 23

CFR 650 Part A requires an evaluation of project alternatives to determine the extent of any

encroachment into the base floodplain. The base flood (100-year flood) is the regulatory standard used

by federal agencies and most states to administer floodplain management programs. A “floodplain” is

defined as lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including flood-prone

areas of offshore islands, with a one percent or greater chance of flooding in a given year. As described

in the Federal Highways Administration’s (FHWA) floodplain regulation (23 CFR 650 Part A), floodplains

provide natural and beneficial values serving as areas for fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural flood

moderation, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge.


22

Missoula County floodplain regulations require the low chord of any “new” bridge to be 2 feet above the

100-year flood elevation. Missoula County would have a “no increase” requirement for the base flood

elevation. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations require that if a project results in

an increase of the published base flood elevation, a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) must be

approved. This process would allow for a 0.5 foot increase of the published base flood elevation, only if

hydraulic modeling shows it would not affect adjacent property.

A CLOMR requires that FEMA approve the hydraulic model and revisions to the base flood elevation. A

detailed floodplain model would be required to determine the proposed bridge opening and the effect on

the base floodplain elevation. The existing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) model would be obtained and

used, however, some new river cross sections would be required. This process can take a year or more.

3.2.14.1. Preliminary Hydrology

The Bitterroot River at the Maclay Bridge drains 2,814 square miles of area and consists mostly of

forested mountainous terrain within a wide populated valley. The design flood for a reconstruction or

relocation option would likely be the 100-year event due to the delineated floodplain and the risk to

adjacent landowners. The 10, 50 and 500-year floods would also need to be modeled to meet CLOMR

requirements. Table 4 contains preliminary hydrology values as computed by MDT. This information is

useful to identify general “order of magnitude” flows and compare the published FIS values against USGS

calculated results.

Table 4: Preliminary Hydrology for Bitterroot River

Source Area (sq mi) Q2 (cfs) Q5 (cfs) Q10 (cfs) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs) Q500 (cfs)

USGS (a)

2,814 14,500 20,000 23,400 27,300 30,000 32,500 38,000

FIS (b)

2,842

20,900

29,700 31,800 42,000

(a) USGS gage number 12352500

(b) The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) flows would likely be used for future design // Q = Flood flow in cubic feet per second

(cfs)

3.2.14.2. Channel Characteristics

The Bitterroot River is meandering near the existing bridge, even though aerial photographs show that the

banks have moved very little since the 1976 flood event, which was considered a historic flood year

across Montana. The existing river crossing washed out at least two times since 1935. River Pines Road,

located on the west side of the Bitterroot River, has rock riprap on its fill slope for approximately 750 feet

upstream of the bridge. The FIS shows a 5-foot deep scour hole at the bridge, and about a foot of

backwater for the base flood. Based on review of four aerial photographs from the years 1935 and 1961

(USFS), and 2003 and 2011 (USDA), it appears the scour hole has grown westward towards the west

bank of the river. Scour holes can develop for a variety of reasons (i.e. poor angle of attack of the stream

on the bridge, inadequate waterway opening under the bridge, etc.) and are of concern as scour holes

can eventually reach the bottom of footings and undermine bridge supports (columns and/or abutments).

Channel scour was not part of the original design requirements in the 1940’s. The existing bridge piers

are located in the river channel on unknown materials.

Gravel and sand bar development has been observed but not studied both upstream and below the

existing bridge. It appears the channel has been altered with the deposition of material upstream of the

bridge (changing the shape of the channel changes stream flow). Increased water velocities also remove

material from the stream bed. If too much material is washed away, the piers in the channel may become

unstable.

Backwater is a concern as it can flood adjacent properties and change the flow regime just upstream of

the bridge. There is a large island upstream from the existing bridge that has been there for a long time


23

based on the size of the trees. Ice is considered to be light and debris is moderate at this location on the

Bitterroot River. Although not studied, it appears that the existing bridge configuration has constricted the

Bitterroot River when compared to its normal, free flow natural state. If a project is developed, this should

be analyzed via detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling effort at some future time.

3.3. UTILITIES The existing Maclay Bridge carries an eight-inch natural gas line. There are overhead utility lines along

the south side of South Avenue and along River Pines Road. There are also buried phone lines along

both roads. Near the easterly bridge approach, there is a NorthWestern Energy natural gas substation

that serves as a primary feeder hub for gas infrastructure on both sides of the Bitterroot River. If a project

is forwarded that affects the existing Maclay Bridge the gas main may be impacted.

3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section summarizes the Environmental Scan (Appendix 2). The primary objective of the

Environmental Scan is to determine the potential constraints and opportunities within the Environmental

Scan boundary. As a planning level scan, the information is obtained from various reports, websites and

other documentation. This scan is not a detailed environmental investigation. Refer to the Environmental

Scan for more detailed information.

3.4.1. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Maclay Bridge river crossing is located at the western end of the Missoula Valley at the confluence of

the Clark Fork and Bitterroot Rivers and encompasses lands in both the City of Missoula and Missoula

County, Montana. The topography east of the Bitterroot River is generally level, while the area west of

the Bitterroot River is comprised of foothills for the Bitterroot Mountains. Surface elevations over most of

the area average about 3,120 feet above sea level with elevations exceeding 3,500 feet in the McCauley

Butte area and in foothill areas.

3.4.1.1. Land Ownership and Land Management

Most of the lands in the vicinity of the Maclay Bridge are privately owned with the exception of the Kelly

Island Fishing Access Site, located near the confluence of the Clark Fork and Bitterroot Rivers, which is

state-owned and managed by the MFWP. Some county-owned parcels and Lolo National Forest lands

also exist in the area. Both the Five Valleys Land Trust and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation hold

conservation easements on some private lands within the general vicinity.

3.4.1.2. Land Use

Land use in the area consists mostly of suburban residential properties on one-half acre or larger parcels,

a few commercial uses, two schools and recreational/open spaces. The area also contains agricultural

uses on irrigated lands ranging in size from one acre to 50 acres.

3.4.2. PHYSICAL RESOURCES

3.4.2.1. Geologic Resources

According to Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology mapping, the area contains alluvial materials

associated with modern channels and floodplains along with glacial lake deposits and volcanic bedrock in

some portions. The foothills and mountains in the area are comprised mainly of Precambrian rocks of

various formations.


24

3.4.2.2. Soils and Prime Farmland

Information regarding areas of prime farmland in the area was compiled from the US Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Using the NRCS’s Web Soil Survey

website, several soil map units in the area have been classified as prime farmland if irrigated and

farmland of local importance.

If a project is advanced using federal funds, coordination with the NRCS will be required to determine if

the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 (Title 7 United States Code, Chapter 73, Sections

4201-4209) applies and necessary NRCS processing requirements. Projects planned and completed

without the assistance of a Federal agency are not subject to the FPPA.

3.4.2.3. Water Resources

SURFACE WATERS

Surface waters in the area include the Bitterroot River, the Clark Fork River, and O’Brien Creek.

Information on these surface waters within the area was obtained from the Montana Department of

Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) website. Section 303, subsection “d” of the Clean Water Act requires

the State of Montana develop a list, subject to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approval,

of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. When water quality fails to meet state water

quality standards, MDEQ determines the causes and sources of the pollutants in a sub-basin assessment

and sets maximum pollutant levels, called total maximum daily loads (TMDL).

A TMDL sets maximum pollutant levels in a watershed. The TMDL’s become the basis for

implementation plans to restore the water quality to a level that supports its designated beneficial uses.

The implementation plans identify and describe pollutant controls and management measures to be

undertaken (such as best management practices), the mechanisms by which the selected measures

would be put into action, and the individuals and entities responsible for implementation projects.

The Bitterroot River and the Clark Fork River are both listed as a 303(d) water body within the area.

Probable causes of impairment include nutrients, siltation/sediment, and thermal modification.

Placement of fill or excavation within these surface waters would be subject to regulation by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Montana Stream

Protection Act (SPA). Other water-related permits may also be necessary.

IRRIGATION FEATURES

The area contains irrigation features and infrastructure associated with the Big Flat Irrigation District and

the Missoula Irrigation District. Any potential impacts to irrigation facilities will need to be examined to

determine if the irrigation facilities are considered waters of the U.S. and subject to jurisdiction by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) or need approvals from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau

of Reclamation (facilities associated with the Big Flat Irrigation District were developed as a unit of the

U.S. Department of Reclamation’s Missoula Valley Project and were constructed in the late 1940’s).

GROUNDWATER

The Missoula aquifer, which most of the urban area population relies on, is a shallow unconfined aquifer

formed in coarse alluvial material (sands and gravels) extending from the Clark Fork River at Hellgate

Canyon westward across the valley to the Bitterroot River. The Missoula aquifer was designated as a

Sole Source Aquifer by the USEPA in 1988. Following the designation, the Missoula Valley Water Quality

District was formed in 1993. An Aquifer Protection Ordinance, administered by the Water Quality District,

was adopted in 1994.


25

3.4.2.4. Wetlands

The USACOE defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground

water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,

a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally

include swamps, marches, bogs, and similar areas.

A wetlands survey was conducted for the Maclay Bridge EA in 1993 which identified riverine and areas of

emergent and forested/shrub wetlands along the Bitterroot River. This survey is outdated and new

wetland impact evaluations must be conducted if a project is forwarded. Wetland impacts should be

avoided to the greatest extent practicable. All unavoidable wetland impacts would need to be mitigated

as required by the USACOE.

3.4.2.5. Hazardous Material

The Montana Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) database was searched for underground

storage tank (UST) sites, leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, abandoned mine sites,

remediation response sites, landfills, National Priority List (NPL) sites, hazardous waste, crude oil

pipelines, and toxic release inventory sites in the area.

The following sites where initially identified as locations with potential contamination impacts:

Eight underground storage tank locations;

One leaking underground storage tank location; and

One petroleum release compensation site.

Further evaluation may be needed at specific sites to determine the potential for encountering

contamination if a project requiring soil excavation is forwarded. This evaluation may include reviewing

MDEQ files for specific sites and/or conducting subsurface investigation activities to determine the extent

of soil and groundwater contamination at locations of interest. If contaminated soils or groundwater is

encountered during construction, handling and disposing of the contaminated material would need to be

conducted in accordance with State, Federal, and local laws and rules.

3.4.2.6. Air Quality

EPA designates communities that do not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as “non-

attainment areas”. “Nonattainment areas” are localities where air pollution levels persistently exceed the

NAAQS or MAAQS (Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards), or that contribute to ambient air quality in a

nearby area that fails to meet standards. States are then required to develop a plan to control source

emissions and ensure future attainment of NAAQS. An area that has been designated as non-attainment

in the past, but now complies with the NAAQS is classified as a “maintenance” area. Areas where air

pollution levels do not exceed the air pollution thresholds established in the NAAQS are designated as

“attainment” areas. Areas may also be designated as “Unclassifiable” where there is insufficient data to

classify.

The Maclay Bridge area is located in a non-attainment area for PM-10 and a maintenance area for carbon

monoxide.

Transportation conformity considerations will apply in this area if projects forwarded use federal or state

funds to ensure that any proposed activities will not cause or contribute to any new violations of the

NAAQS; increase the frequency or severity of NAAQS violations; or delay timely attainment of the

NAAQS or any required interim milestone.


26

If a project forwarded uses federal of state funds, an evaluation will also be required to determine if there

is any potential for Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT) effects.

3.4.2.7. Noise

Should a project be advanced with federal funds, it will be necessary to establish whether the project is a

“Type I Project” as defined in 23 CFR 772.5(h). Type I projects involve:

Construction of a highway on a new location;

The physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or

vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes; or

The potential for creating a traffic noise impact (e.g., idling vehicles at rest areas, weigh stations).

A detailed noise analysis would be required for a Type I project. If it is determined that the project is not

Type I, it is then considered a Type III project which does not require a noise analysis or consideration of

noise abatement. Type II projects are retrofit noise abatement projects.

If a project is forwarded, future construction activities may cause localized, short-duration noise impacts.

3.4.3. VISUAL RESOURCES

Visual resources refer to the landscape character (what is seen), visual sensitivity (human preferences

and values regarding what is seen), scenic integrity (degree of intactness and wholeness in landscape

character), and landscape visibility (relative distance of seen areas) of a geographically defined view

shed. The landscape throughout the area contains an array of biological, scientific, historic, wildlife,

ecological, and cultural resources mixed with a remote location.

The Bitterroot River riparian corridor, the Kelly Island Fishing Access Site, Lolo National Forest land, and

a large conservation easement in the McCauley Butte area provide areas of natural open space.

3.4.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Existing information on wildlife, fisheries and special status species known to occur or that may potentially

occur in the area was reviewed from a variety of sources including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), the MFWP, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP), and other resource documents.

This limited survey is not intended to be a complete and accurate biological survey of the study area. A

complete biological survey of the area would be needed before potential selection of a specific project

site, if a project is forwarded.

3.4.4.1. Wildlife and Fish

General fish and wildlife resources would need to be surveyed during any future project development

process. MFWP should be contacted during the project development process for local expertise

regarding the wildlife and fisheries resources of the area. If a project is forwarded from the option(s),

encroachment into the waterway and the associated riparian habitat should be minimized to the extent

practicable.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES

The most common forms of wildlife found on the developed lands in the area include species adapted to

suburban life and some level of human disturbance as well as other species that make use of river and its

riparian areas as permanent habitat and movement corridors. These include mule and white-tailed deer,

small mammals (like coyote, red fox, squirrels, raccoons, skunks, beaver, mink), and a variety of rodents.

Additionally, there are areas of winter range for elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer located in the


27

mountains and foothills in the area. Other species like moose, black bear, and mountain lion may

occasionally pass through the riparian corridors and forested lands in the area.

Numerous species of birds occur in this portion of the Missoula area including ospreys, sandhill cranes,

wild turkey, ringed-neck pheasant, a variety of raptors (osprey, bald eagles, falcons, and hawks), owls,

woodpeckers, migratory waterfowl, and many neo-tropical migratory birds (flycatchers, warblers, vireos,

grosbeaks, and orioles).

Amphibians and reptiles occurring in the area include spotted frog, leopard frog, bull frog, western yellow-

bellied racer, western garter snake, and western painted turtle.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

The major surface waters found within the area include the Bitterroot River, Clark Fork River, O’Brien

Creek, and the Big Flat Ditch. All of these waters, except for the Big Flat Ditch, are managed as fisheries

by the MFWP. The Bitterroot and Clark Fork Rivers have been rated as Outstanding for their fisheries

resource value by MFWP. Both streams receive recreational angler use year-round for sport fishing

although restrictions exist relative to fishing for certain species. O’Brien Creek has a Moderate rating for

its fisheries resource value and is open to use by anglers on a seasonal basis.

According to maps developed by the USFWS, the Bitterroot and Clark Fork Rivers and O’Brien Creek are

designated as Bull Trout Critical Habitat (BTCH).

3.4.4.2. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species

The federal list of endangered and threatened species is maintained by the USFWS. Species on this list

receive protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). An ‘endangered’ species is one that is in

danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range. A ‘threatened’ species is one that

is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its

range. The USFWS also maintains a list of species that are candidates or proposed for possible addition

to the federal list.

The endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species list for Montana Counties (March 2012)

was obtained from the USFWS website. This list identifies the counties where one would reasonably

expect the species to occur, not necessarily every county where the species is listed. In addition, the

Wolverine was proposed for listing on February 4, 3013. Table 5 shows the listed species that could

potentially occur within Missoula County and provides information about habitats where these species

typically occur.


28

Table 5: USFWS Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Wildlife Species

Common Name Scientific

Name USFWS Status Habitat Requirements

Bull Trout Salvelinusconfluentus

Threatened, Critical Habitat Designated

Bull trout are found in the Clark Fork and Flathead drainages of western Montana. Sub-adult and adult fluvial bull trout reside in larger streams and rivers and spawn in smaller tributary streams, whereas adfluvial bull trout reside in lakes and spawn in tributaries. Within the Maclay Bridge area, the Bitterroot River, Clark Fork River, and O’Brien Creek are designated as Critical Habitat for bull trout.

Grizzly Bear Ursusarctoshorribilus

Threatened

In Montana, Grizzly Bears primarily use meadows, seeps, riparian zones, mixed shrub fields, closed timber, open timber, sidehill parks, snow chutes, and alpine slabrock habitats. Grizzly bear habitat and recovery zones in Missoula County include the Seeley, Swan, and Jocko Valleys, lower Mission Valley, and portions of the upper Rattlesnake watershed.

Canada Lynx Lynx Canadensis

Threatened, Critical Habitat Designated

West of the Divide, Canada Lynx generally occur in subalpine forests at elevations between 4,000 to 7,000 feet in stands composed of pure lodgepole pine but also mixed stands of fir, pine, larch, and hardwoods. Habitat for the species does not exist in the Maclay Bridge area.

Wolverine Guloguloluscus

Proposed

Wolverines live in remote and inhospitable places away from human populations. In the northern Rocky Mountains, wolverines are restricted to high mountain environments near the treeline, where conditions are cold year-round and snow cover persists well into the month of May. Habitat for the species does not exist in the Maclay Bridge area.

Yellow Billed Cuckoo (Western Population)

Coccyzusamericanus

Candidate

Western cuckoos breed in large blocks of riparian habitats, particularly woodlands with cottonwoods and willows. This candidate species requires patches of at least 25 acres of dense, riparian forest with a canopy cover. This habitat may be present in the Maclay Bridge area.

Source: USFWS, List of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Montana Counties.

An evaluation of potential impacts to all endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species will

need to be completed during the project development process.

3.4.4.3. Montana Animal Species of Concern

Wildlife species of concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be “at risk” due to declining

population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Designation of a species as a

Montana Animal Species of Concern (or Potential Species of Concern) is not a statutory or regulatory

classification. The designation as a Species of Concern provides a basis for resource managers and

decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection

priorities. Each Species of Concern is assigned a state numeric rank ranging from S1 (highest risk,

greatest concern) to S5 (demonstrably secure, least concern) reflecting the degree of risk to each species

based on available information. Other state ranks applied to Species of Concern include: SU (unrankable

due to insufficient information), SH (historically occurred), and SX (believed to be extinct). State ranks

may be followed by modifiers, such as B (breeding), N (non-breeding), or M (migratory).

Table 6 lists the animal species of special concern by the Montana Heritage Program in the study area.

The results of the data search reflect the current status of their data collection efforts. These results are

not intended as a final statement on sensitive species within a given area, or as a substitute for on-site

surveys. If a project is forwarded from the option(s), on-site surveys will need to be completed during the



29

Table 6: Montana Animal Species of Concern

Common Name Scientific Name State Rank

MNHP Known Occurrences in Maclay

Bridge Area

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkia lewisi S2 Yes

Hoary Bat Lasluruscinereus S3 Yes

Fisher Martespennanti S3 Possible on Lolo National Forest

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoidesarcticus S3 Yes

Western Skink Eumecesskiltonianus S3 Yes

Fringed Myotis Myotisthysanodes S3 Yes

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramussavannarum S3B Yes

Cassin's Finch Carpodacyscassinii S3 Yes

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopuspileatus S3 Yes

Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpeslewis S2B Yes

Flammulated Owl Otusflammeolus S3B No

Bald Eagle Halieetusleucocephalus Yes

Great Blue Heron Ardeaherodias S3 Yes

Source: Montana Natural Heritage Program, Animal and Plant Species of Concern Searchable Database.

3.4.4.4. Vegetation

This portion of the Missoula Valley contains isolated remnants of native vegetation. Areas of native dry

grasslands, open ponderosa pine forest, and riparian deciduous forests and associated wetlands exist

along the Bitterroot and Clark Fork Rivers. Vegetation in developed areas consists of ornamental trees

and shrubs, lawns, and flowerbeds associated with residential landscapes. The area also contains areas

of cultivated lands.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES

The online database of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species maintained by

the USFWS identifies two plants—Water Howellia and Whitebark Pine—as potentially occurring in

Missoula County. Water Howellia is a threatened plant species and the Whitebark Pine is a candidate

species for listing. Table 7 presents habitat requirements for each of these species. Known occurrences

and habitat requirements suggest these plants are unlikely to occur in the area.

Table 7: USFWS Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species

Common Name

Scientific Name

USFWS Status Habitat Requirements

Water Howellia Howelliaaquaticus

Threatened

Water howellia is a winter annual aquatic plant that grows in small, vernal, freshwater wetlands that have an annual cycle of filling up with water over the fall, winter and early spring, followed by drying during the summer. The wetlands typically consist of small shallow ponds within a matrix of forest vegetation and are usually bordered in part by deciduous trees. Known occurrences of the species in Montana are all within the Swan River drainage in the northeastern portion of Missoula County.

Whitebark Pine Pinusalbicaulis

Candidate Whitebark pine typically occurs in isolated stands on cold and windy high-elevation or high-latitude sites in western North America. This habitat does not exist in the Maclay Bridge area.

Source: USFWS, List of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Montana Counties.

As with listed wildlife species, consultation with the USFWS will be necessary and an evaluation of

potential impacts to all listed, candidate, and proposed plant species must be completed if a project is

forwarded.


30

PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN

The file search of the MNHP database lists one plant species of concern—Toothcup (Rotalaramosior)—in

the area. Toothcup is a rare plant identified from only a limited number of wetland sites in western

Montana.

The results of the MNHP database search are not intended as a final statement on sensitive species

within a given area, or as a substitute for on-site surveys. If a project is forwarded, a determination will

need to be made if there is a need for any on-site surveys for plant species of concern during the project

development process.

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Noxious weeds degrade habitat, choke streams, crowd native plants, create fire hazards, poison and

injure livestock and humans, and fouls recreation sites. Areas with a history of disturbance are at

particular risk of weed encroachment. There are 32 noxious weeds in Montana, as designated by the

Montana Statewide Noxious Weed List (effective April 15, 2008). According to the Montana Invaders

Database, there are documented occurrences of 20 noxious weed species in Missoula County since

1875. The area will need to be surveyed for noxious weeds. County Weed Control Supervisors should be

contacted regarding specific measures for weed control during project development.

3.4.5. CULTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) establishes requirements for taking

into account the effects of proposed Federal, Federally assisted or Federally licensed undertakings on

any district, site, building, structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP).

A Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) and Cultural Resources Annotated Bibliography

(CRABS) file search was conducted for the area. The CRABS file search indicates 26 cultural resource

surveys have been conducted on lands within or near the area between 1978 and 2010. The CRIS file

search identified 28 recorded properties within the area including one National Register-listed site—the

Fort Missoula Complex (24MO0266).

If a project is forwarded from the Planning Study, a cultural resource survey of the Area of Potential Effect

(APE) for the project as specified in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would need to

be conducted. Section 106 outlines a process to identify historic properties that could be affected by the

undertaking, assess the effects of the project and investigate methods to avoid, minimize or mitigate any

adverse effects on previously recorded and newly discovered historic or archaeological resources.

3.4.5.1. 4(f) Resources

A review was conducted to determine the presence of Section 4(f) properties along the corridor. Section

4(f) refers to the original section within the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303),

which sets the requirements for consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl

refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. A table and graphic showing 4(f)

resources is included in the Environmental Scan (Appendix 2). Table 8 summarizes potential Section

4(f) resources found within the Maclay Bridge area.

Prior to approving a project that “uses” a Section 4(f) resource, FHWA must find that there is no prudent

or feasible alternative that completely avoids 4(f) resources. “Use” can occur when land is permanently

incorporated into a transportation facility or when there is a temporary occupancy of the land that is

adverse to a 4(f) resource. Constructive “use” can also occur when a project’s proximity impacts are so

severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under 4(f)

are “substantially impacted”.


31

Section 4(f) does not apply to projects that do not use federal transportation funding.

Table 8: Summary of Potential Section 4(f) Resources

Name Type of 4(f) Resource Comments /Location

Kelly Island FAS Public Recreation Site 666-acres site located at confluence of Bitterroot and Clark Fork Rivers, owned and managed by MFWP

Rosecrest Park (a)

Greenway Park 9.6 acres located south Spurgin Road between Clement Road and 37th Avenue. Contains soft-surface non-motorized pathway. County ownership

Schmautz Park (a)

Neighborhood Park 4.2 acre, developed parcel (play equipment & picnic shelter) located north of North Avenue and west of 42nd Avenue. County ownership

Target Range School Playground Target Range School (24MO0589)

Neighborhood Park Historic School

10 acre area containing sports fields, basketball courts, and play equipment. Target Range School is listed on National Register.

Dinsmore River Four Conservation Park Bitterroot River island habitat located south of existing Maclay Bridge County ownership

Double R Acres Conservation Park Clark Fork River riparian habitat adjoining Kelly Island FAS. County ownership

O’Brien Cr. Meadows Common Area

Conservation Park O’Brien Creek riparian area located near intersection of Big Flat Road and O’Brien Creek Road. County ownership. Identified in Missoula County Parks and Conservation Lands Plan (1997)

Capi Court Park (a)

Unimproved County Park North of Spurgin Road and east of Sierra Drive

Five Valley Land Trust Conservation Easements

Wildlife Habitat/Public Use Various locations along Bitterroot River

Lolo National Forest Lands Public Multiple-use Property Southwestern portion of Environmental Scan Area, part of Blue Mountain Recreation Area

Rice Property (24MO05l7) Historic Residence and Outbuildings

Consensus determination of eligibility for National Register

Maclay Property (24MO05l9) Historic Residence and Outbuildings

Recommended as eligible for National Register

Maclay Bridge (24MO052l) Historic Vehicular/Foot Bridge

Determined eligible for National Register. Owned by Missoula County

Big Flat Ditch (24MO0587) Missoula Irrigation District Ditches (24MO0520)

Historic Irrigation Systems Consensus determination of eligibility for National Register

Sources: 1) Montana Historical Society, CRIS File Search Results, 3/21/2102; 2) Missoula County Parks and Conservation Lands Plan,

1997.; 3) Missoula County, Final Draft Parks and Trails Master Plan, 2012.

(a) Capi Court, Rosecrest Park, and Schmautz Park are county parks that are the result of subdivision park and open spaces

requirements from the Missoula County Subdivision Regulations, section 3-080.

3.4.5.2. 6(f) Resources

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) (16USC, Section 4601 et. seq.)

provides funds for buying or developing public use recreational lands through grants to local and state

governments. Section 6(f)(3) of the Act prevents conversion of lands purchased or developed with LWCF

funds to non-recreation uses, unless the Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI), through the

National Park Service (NPS), approves the conversion.

A review of the LWCF grants in Missoula County maintained by MFWP shows that Kelly Island Fishing

Access Site (FAS) is the only property in the area acquired/improved under Section 6(f) of the LWCF.


32


Chapter 4 Needs and Objectives

33

Chapter 4 NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES

Needs and objectives were derived based on a comprehensive review of existing data and input from

resource agencies, stakeholders and the public and were used to develop options. The following needs

and objectives reflect the existing social, environmental, and engineering conditions described in the

Existing and Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3) and recognize the local and regional use of the

Maclay Bridge and the surrounding transportation system.

4.1. NEED NUMBER 1: Improve the safety and operation of the river crossing and connecting roadway network.

The single-lane bridge on a two-way, two-lane roadway does not accommodate simultaneous travel in

two directions. Several crash trends have been previously identified at the bridge or on roadways leading

to the bridge. Trends relative to safety are caused by a variety of factors, including poor roadway

alignment, inadequate sight distance, and illegally parked cars.


Improve sub-standard elements of facilities to meet current applicable design standards.

Reduce delay and vehicle restriction for emergency responders under existing and future traffic

demands.

Manage travel speeds and provide adequate clear zones to improve operations.

4.2. NEED NUMBER 2: Provide a long-term river crossing and connecting roadway network that accommodates planned

growth in the Maclay Bridge area.

The Maclay Bridge is used by local and regional travelers including pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency

response providers, and school buses. Depending on future growth characteristics as depicted in local

adopted planning documents, the Maclay Bridge will realize increased passenger and vehicular traffic.


Accommodate existing and future capacity demands.

Address non-motorized facilities consistent with local planning efforts.

Provide connectivity to neighborhood residents, and regional users accessing recreational lands

to the west of the Bitterroot River.

4.3. NEED NUMBER 3: Minimize adverse impacts from options to the environmental, cultural, scenic and recreational

characteristics of the study area.

The area around the Maclay Bridge provides access to residential, agricultural and recreational lands.

Because of the location along the Bitterroot River, wildlife and aquatic connectivity are areas of concern.

Improvements should be considered that provide both wildlife and aquatic connectivity. All improvements


34

should be reviewed for their potential impact to the environmental, scenic, cultural, recreational and

agricultural aspects of the corridor.


Minimize adverse impacts to the Bitterroot River from potential options.

Minimize adverse impacts to the wildlife and aquatic organisms from potential options.

Provide reasonable access to recreational sites in the study area (Kelly Island Fishing Access

Site, Lolo National Forest, and Missoula County Parks).

Avoid or otherwise minimize adverse impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources

that may result from implementation of options.

4.4. NEED NUMBER 4: Minimize adverse impacts from options to the neighborhood characteristics of the study area.


Implement improvements with special sensitivity to area schools.

Minimize impacts to existing residents and businesses in the area.

Recognize the historic value of the Maclay Bridge to the community and the role it plays in local

regional events.

4.5. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE) Options should be sensitive to the availability of funding for recurring maintenance obligations or

for the construction of new improvements.

The subject of parking, vandalism, illegal activity, and enforcement, along with perpetuating access to

recreational sites directly adjacent to the Maclay Bridge, are areas of concern generally outside the scope

of this Maclay Bridge Planning Study. However, they are areas of concern that have been documented

and commented on by members of the public.

Chapter 5 Option Identification

35

Chapter 5 OPTION IDENTIFICATION

5.1. OPTION IDENTIFICATION A full range of options were developed for analysis based on the identified transportation system needs

and objectives. The needs and objectives were developed through an evaluation of the information

contained in the Existing and Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3).

Broad categories of options are identified below. Each broad category has various types of options and is

discussed in more detail later in this chapter:

Option 1 – Improve Safety and Operations on the Existing Bridge

Option 2 – Rehabilitate the Existing Bridge

Option 3 – Build New Bridge

Option 4 – Do Nothing

5.1.1. OPTION 1: IMPROVE SAFETY AND OPERATIONS ON THE EXISTING BRIDGE

A range of options were identified that would improve safety and operations at the Maclay Bridge. These

options include enhancing traffic operations and safety on and near the existing bridge, and implementing

new restrictions on the use of the bridge. These options would not change the alignment of the

approaches to the existing structure or the roadways leading to the Maclay Bridge.

Under this option Missoula County would continue to perform routine maintenance activities on the

existing bridge to keep the structure in service under its load limitation for use by local residents, school

buses, and emergency service vehicles. Some sub-options include the bridge being removed, or left for

non-motorized uses. In these cases maintenance may not be required with the same frequency as if the

bridge was left in service for vehicular traffic.

5.1.1.1. Option 1A–Enhance Traffic Operations and Safety on and near the Existing

Structure

This option would involve a variety of periodic maintenance activities to improve use for local residents,

school buses, and emergency vehicles. There would be no changes to the configuration or alignment of

the approaches to the existing structure or roadways within the area beyond the safety improvements

currently being implemented by the County and MDT. To help manage traffic flows across the bridge,

new metering devices would be installed along each approach to regulate traffic flows by direction and

address vehicles having to back up so oncoming traffic can get off the bridge. This option would include

street lighting at the westerly approach to the bridge, with appropriate signage on both ends to warn of

the change in roadway alignment. Pedestrian and bicyclist travel through the area would continue to

occur on the existing bridge and its adjoining roadways.

5.1.1.2. Option 1B–Maintain Current Usage and Add Pedestrian/Bicyclist Facilities

This option would construct separated pedestrian/bicyclist facilities in the vicinity of Maclay Bridge and

make limited improvements for non-motorized users on the approaches to the bridge to enhance safety

for non-motorized users. These limited improvements could consist of shoulder widening on River Pines

Road, signing and striping on both sides of the bridge, and pavement markings. A new, separated non-

motorized bridge would be necessary adjacent to the existing Maclay Bridge.


36

5.1.1.3. Option 1C–Implement Additional Restrictions on Bridge Use

This option would involve placing additional operational restrictions on the use of the Maclay Bridge.

These restrictions may include measures such as:

Restricting vehicle use of the structure to one travel direction (i.e. a one-way route);

Further reducing travel speeds;

Prohibition of use by all large trucks, school buses, and emergency vehicles; or

Increased enforcement of parking ordinance (no tolerance policy).

There would be no changes to the alignment of the approaches or roadways within the area beyond the

safety improvements currently being implemented by the County and MDT.

5.1.1.4. Option 1D–Close Bridge to Vehicles and Retain Use for Non-Motorized Travel

Modes

This option would close the Maclay Bridge to vehicular traffic but allow the structure to remain in service

as a river crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists and other non-motorized transportation modes. Vehicle

access across the Bitterroot River would be accommodated by other existing bridges and roadways in the

area (Kona Ranch Bridge via Mullen Road or Blue Mountain Road via US Highway 93). Further

investment by the County in active transportation facilities in the Maclay Bridge area would likely be

necessary on River Pines Road and North Avenue to provide system continuity.

The permanent closure of the bridge to vehicles would eliminate through traffic on North Avenue and

River Pines Road and inconvenience local residents and visitors seeking recreational opportunities on

nearby public lands.

5.1.1.5. Option 1E–Retain Bridge for Two-Way Travel and Provide New Bridge

Elsewhere for Two-Way Travel

This option would involve keeping the existing bridge in service for vehicular traffic but providing another

structure somewhere else in the area to help meet existing and projected travel demands. The new, 2-

lane structure would provide for two-way travel; however the existing Maclay Bridge would remain as-is.

5.1.1.6. Option 1F– New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location & Retain Existing Bridge

for Non-Motorized Uses

The concept of a new one-lane bridge at a South Avenue Extension was put forth by the public. The

function of this bridge would be similar to that of the existing bridge on North Avenue, carrying two-way

vehicular traffic across a new one-lane bridge at South Avenue. The existing Maclay Bridge could remain

as an exclusive non-motorized facility.

5.1.1.7. Option 1G–New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location for One-Way Travel and

Retain Existing Bridge for One-Way Travel

Building upon the concept described in Section 5.1.1.6, the concept of a “one-way” couplet of roadways

was discussed. In this concept, the existing Maclay Bridge would remain and be used for one-way travel

only (i.e. westbound or eastbound travel only). In addition, a new single lane bridge at the extension of

South Avenue would also be used for one-way travel (in the opposite direction from that of the existing

Maclay Bridge).


37

5.1.1.8. Option 1H–Close Bridge and Remove Structure

This concept involves closing the Maclay Bridge and removing the structure. No replacement bridge

would be provided in the area. With no river crossing in the vicinity of the Maclay Bridge, vehicles which

currently use the bridge would be required to divert to Blue Mountain Road and US Highway 93 or to

Mullan Road using the Kona Ranch Bridge. This would require roadway closures with barricades and the

provision of adequate turnaround areas for vehicles near the ends of the existing bridge. Utilities installed

on the bridge would need to be relocated. The river crossing would no longer be available to users of

non-motorized transportation modes. The existing Maclay Bridge easement area, particularly the area

east of bridge, offers potential for providing parking area and enhancing river access.

The permanent closure of the bridge would eliminate through traffic on North Avenue and River Pines

Road and inconvenience local residents and visitors seeking recreational opportunities on nearby public

lands.

5.1.2. OPTION 2: REHABILITATE THE EXISTING BRIDGE

Rehabilitation options were developed that include both the structure only and also the structure with

approach work. Rehabilitation does not address the functionally obsolete or fracture critical status of the

existing structure.

5.1.2.1. Option 2A–Minor Rehabilitation (Structure Only)

The goal of a minor rehabilitation would be to extend the life of the bridge by performing minor upgrades

and repairing deterioration and damage. Ongoing inspections and related maintenance activities would

still be needed. Missoula County would continue to perform routine maintenance activities to keep the

structure in service under its load limitation for use by local residents, school buses and emergency

service vehicles. With repair and maintenance the bridge life could be extended depending on the rate of

deterioration, aggressiveness of ongoing repair and maintenance work, and barring major damage from

flooding and/or vehicles. It would not eliminate inherent safety concerns. The context and frequency of

maintenance and repair activities would probably increase over time. An engineering analysis may be

appropriate to better understand the ability of the bridge to pass flood events. Minor rehabilitation would

typically include rehabilitation work tasks such as:

Tighten and/or replace loose bolts;

Spot painting of structural steel;

Upgrade bearings and expansion devices;

Crack sealing of asphalt surfacing to prolong surface;

Minor repairs and upgrades to the truss and floor system to increase load capacity;

Patch deteriorated or spalled concrete; and/or

Safety improvements such as adding a pedestrian rail.

Minor rehabilitation work is not a “one time only” application. Minor rehabilitation activities may be

required on a frequency of every two-to-three years over the life of the bridge. Rehabilitation efforts on the

existing bridge have been performed at least four times over the last 18 years (April, 1997 and during the

summers of 2003, 2004 and 2005 – see Existing and Projected Conditions Report [Appendix 3]).

With minor rehabilitation, the posted vehicle weight limit restriction could be increased from the current 11

tons to around 13 tons.


38

5.1.2.2. Option 2B–Major Rehabilitation (Structure Only)

The goal of a major rehabilitation would be to extend the life of the bridge to something similar to that of a

new bridge. The scope of the rehabilitation would require an in-depth engineering study. Major

rehabilitation work could allow the bridge to handle full legal loads so there would be no need for a load

posting. Like minor rehabilitation, ongoing inspections and related maintenance activities would still be

needed. This option requires a long term financial commitment to the existing bridge due to the increase

in life span. The ultimate life span of the bridge would be dependent on the rate of deterioration,

aggressiveness of ongoing repair and maintenance work, and barring major damage from flooding and/or

vehicles. A major rehabilitation does not eliminate the necessity for periodic maintenance.

Since the extent of the needed rehabilitation is unknown, major rehabilitation work requires an

engineering study of the truss, floor system, abutments, and piers. This typically requires more

engineering development time. The cost of a major rehabilitation can be similar to the cost of a new

bridge.

Major rehabilitation of the existing bridge to attain longer life and higher load ratings would likely consist of

the following specific work features:

Sand blast rusted steel members and re-paint as needed;

Replace steel stringers and floor beams as determined necessary;

Upgrade truss members as determined necessary;

Evaluate abutments and piers for repair or replacement;

Replace bearing devices; and/or

Replace the short span pony truss with a new one lane truss.

Rehabilitating the main truss would likely require removing the main truss from the river, rebuilding or

repairing offsite and installation. With major rehabilitation, the posted vehicle weight limit restriction could

be increased from the current 11 tons to around 25 tons.

5.1.2.3. Option 2C–Minor Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

This option is similar in scope to option 2A for the existing structure and also includes modifications to the

bridge approaches to bring them up to current standards. Similar to the North 1 option described later in

this chapter, approach alignment work would begin on North Avenue at its intersection with Edward

Avenue. The alignment of River Pines Road west of the river would be improved to eliminate the 90-

degree curve at the west end of the existing bridge and would extend beyond the west end of the current

bridge.

5.1.2.4. Option 2D–Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

This option is similar in scope to option 2B for the existing structure and also includes modifications to the

bridge approaches to bring them up to current standards. Similar to the North 1 option described later in

this chapter, approach alignment work would begin on North Avenue at its intersection with Edward

Avenue. The alignment of River Pines Road west of the river would be improved to eliminate the 90-

degree curve at the west end of the existing bridge and would extend beyond the west end of the current

bridge.


39

5.1.3. OPTION 3: BUILD NEW BRIDGE

Options for a new bridge and associated roadway were identified at 14 possible locations. The locations

were selected based on their inclusion in the previous Environmental Assessment (1994) and a field and

aerial mapping review of other possible locations. Details on the possible length and width of the new

bridges and corresponding roadways were assumed as part of the screening process for cost estimating

purposes (Appendix 3, Screening Assessment Memorandum), however exact configurations are

design level details that would be decided during preliminary engineering and environmental document

development. Any new bridge would need to meet current design standards in place and recognized by

the participating agencies. Depending on mitigation requirements resulting from the permitting process

for a new bridge, Missoula County may have to make decisions relative to the long-term use of the

structure. An example is if a new bridge was built at a new location and the permitting process does not

dictate the removal of the existing Maclay Bridge, Missoula County would have to decide whether to

remove the structure or allow it to remain for non-vehicular uses.

5.1.3.1. Option 3A - At North Avenue

Option 3A includes options to build a new structure at or near the existing North Avenue alignment.

5.1.3.1.1. Build on Existing Alignment

OPTION 3A.1 - BUILD ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT

One option for a replacement bridge would be to rebuild a 2-lane bridge on the present alignment. This

option would not change the alignment of the approaches to the existing structure or the roadways

leading to the Maclay Bridge. This option is for the construction of a new bridge at the present location of

the existing bridge, with minimal roadway work.

5.1.3.1.2. Build near Existing Alignment

OPTION 3A.2 - NORTH 1 ALIGNMENT

This option provides a new bridge parallel to and just upstream from the existing Maclay Bridge. The

alignment begins on North Avenue at its intersection with Edward Avenue. The alignment of River Pines

Road west of the river would be improved to eliminate the 90-degree curve at the west end of the existing

bridge. Approach work on the west side of the river would extend beyond the west end of the current

bridge. This option would require the removal of the existing structure.

OPTION 3A.3 - NORTH 2 ALIGNMENT

This alignment extends North Avenue due west from Edward Avenue to River Pines Road about 825’

southwest of the existing Maclay Bridge. The alignment would cross the island in the Bitterroot River just

upstream from the existing bridge.

5.1.3.2. Option 3B - At a New Location

A total of 16 alternatives were considered in the 1994 EA for the Maclay Bridge Site Selection Study

which included 13 locations for a bridge on a new alignment in the general area. The new bridge locations

and associated alignments considered included:

An alignment extending South 3rd Avenue across the river;

An alignment extending Spurgin Road across the river;

2 alignments extending Mount Avenue across the river;

2 alignments extending Edwards Avenue across the river;

2 alignments along North Avenue near the existing bridge (described earlier in section 5.1.3.1.2);

2 alignments extending South Avenue across the river;


40

2 alignments extending Sundown Road across the river; and

An alignment extending Humble Road across the river to Blue Mountain Road.

Figure 4 shows the locations of the alignments considered in the 1994 EA.

Figure 4: Bridge Alignments Considered in 1994 EA

The graphics from the 1994 EA illustrating these potential alignments were schematic in nature and were

intended to illustrate the location concepts for a new bridge and roadway connections. The bridge

alignments described in the 1994 EA are discussed in the following sections.

5.1.3.2.1. Build Bridge on Northern Alignment

OPTION 3B.1 - SOUTH 3RD STREET WEST EXTENSION

This potential alignment extends from the intersection of South 3rd Street West and Clements Road west

towards the Clark Fork River and continues southwesterly along the Clark Fork before turning to the

south near the intersection of South 7th Street West and Humble Road. From this point, the alignment

continues southwesterly across Spurgin Road and follows a tangent (straight) alignment across the

Bitterroot River to end at the River Pines Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road

intersection.

OPTION 3B.2 - SPURGIN ROAD EXTENSION

This alignment begins near the intersection of Spurgin Road and Sierra Drive. After a long horizontal

curve, the alignment continues southwesterly through agricultural lands before crossing the Bitterroot


41

River on a tangent (straight) alignment that ends at the River Pines Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat

Road/Blue Mountain Road intersection. This option would follow the same alignment as the South 3rd

Street West alignment at the river crossing and west of river.

5.1.3.2.2. Build Bridge on Mount Avenue Alignment

OPTION 3C.1 - MOUNT 1

This alignment begins near the intersection of Mount Avenue and Humble Road and continues west

across the Bitterroot River. After crossing the river, this option follows a tangent alignment and ends at

the River Pines Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road intersection.

OPTION 3C.2 - MOUNT 2

This alignment begins at the same location as the Mount 1 alignment. However, the proposed alignment

immediately proceeds in a southwesterly direction alternative across the Bitterroot River and joins River

Pines Road at the west end of the existing Maclay Bridge.

5.1.3.2.3. Build Bridge on Edward Avenue Alignment

OPTION 3D.1 - EDWARD 1

This alignment option begins near the intersection of Edwards Avenue and Humble Road and proceeds

westerly across the Bitterroot River before turning southwesterly and continuing to the intersection of

River Pines Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road.

OPTION 3D.2 - EDWARD 2

This alignment starts near the intersection of Edwards Avenue and Humble Road. After proceeding

westerly for a short distance along an extension of Edwards Avenue, the alignment quickly transitions to a

southwesterly direction across the Bitterroot River and joins River Pines Road at the west end of the

existing Maclay Bridge.

5.1.3.2.4. Build Bridge on South Avenue Alignment

OPTION 3E.1 - SOUTH 1

This alignment involves extending South Avenue in a northwesterly direction across the Bitterroot River to

join with River Pines Road. This alignment begins on South Avenue west of Hanson Drive (the current

terminus) and continues northwesterly to join River Pines Road about 0.2 miles east of the River Pines

Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road intersection.

OPTION 3E.2 - SOUTH 2

This alignment would extend from South Avenue west of Hanson Drive (the current terminus) due west

across the Bitterroot River to meet Blue Mountain Road at a location about 600 feet southeast of the

River Pines Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road intersection.

5.1.3.2.5. Build Bridge on Sundown Road Alignment

OPTION 3F.1 - SUNDOWN 1

This alignment begins at the existing western terminus of Sundown Road and extends northwesterly

across the Bitterroot River to join Blue Mountain Road at the sharp curve located about 0.25 miles

southeast of the River Pines Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road intersection.


42

OPTION 3F.2 - SUNDOWN 2

This alignment begins at the existing western terminus of Sundown Road and extends due west across

the river to meet Blue Mountain Road at a location about 0.43 miles south of the River Pines

Road/O'Brien Creek Road/Big Flat Road/Blue Mountain Road intersection.

5.1.3.2.6. Build Bridge on Southern Alignment

OPTION 3G.1 - HUMBLE ROAD-BLUE MOUNTAIN ROAD

This alignment option begins at the current western terminus of Humble Road and continues west and

south to cross the Bitterroot River to Maclay Flats. From that point, the alignment extends southeasterly

across Maclay Flats before turning south to join a north-south section of Blue Mountain Road. The

southern end of the alignment is located about 0.78 miles from the intersection of Blue Mountain Road

and US Highway 93.

5.1.3.2.7. New Bridge at a New Location Not Identified in the 1994 EA

OPTION 3H.1 – NEW LOCATION NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE 1994 EA

The study area was examined to determine if another, more suitable location could be identified for a new

bridge crossing at a location other than those identified in the 1994 EA. It was concluded that no such

location existed, and that those alignments identified in the original 1994 EA represented the complete

array of possible new bridge locations. The alignments in the 1994 EA were determined to represent the

complete array of practicable locations for a new bridge crossing.

5.1.4. OPTION 4: DO NOTHING

5.1.4.1. Option 4A–Do Nothing

This option represents the current situation for the Maclay Bridge and its surroundings. The bridge would

remain in its present configuration and traffic operations at and near the Maclay Bridge would be

unchanged. Missoula County would continue to perform routine maintenance activities to keep the

structure in service under its load limitation (11 tons). There would be no changes to the configuration or

alignment of the approaches to the existing structure or roadways within the area beyond the safety

improvements currently being implemented by the County and MDT. Pedestrian and bicyclist travel

through the area would continue to occur on the existing roadway or other facilities in the Maclay Bridge

area.

Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward

43

Chapter 6 OPTIONS CARRIED FORWARD

6.1. OPTION SCREENING Screening is used to describe the process for reviewing a range of conceptual options or strategies and

determining which ones to carry forward for more evaluation and study. The primary function of screening

is to determine feasible and practicable options that address the identified needs and objectives.

Items or considerations used to evaluate options are referred to as screening criteria. Screening may be

carried out through one or more iterations (levels) with the screening criteria for each level becoming

more specific. Screening may rely upon qualitative or quantitative screening criteria. Qualitative criteria

refer to subjective evaluations often based on ratings (yes/no, excellent to poor, high to low, or pass/fail).

Quantitative criteria refer to items that can be readily calculated or quantified through analysis like

construction costs, right-of-way needs/relocations, or general areas of impact.

The Maclay Bridge Planning Study utilized a first and second level screening process. The first level

screening was used to identify options that fail to meet the critical aspects of the study’s needs and

objectives or that may have had “fatal flaws” with respect to other key factors (i.e. a potential option may

consist of a new roadway alignment that traverses directly through a conservation easement that is

prohibited from development of any type). The first level screening provided an initial evaluation of a wide

range of potential options or strategies. The results of the first level screening narrowed the set of options

or strategies to those with the greatest capacity to address identified areas of concern and satisfy the

study needs and objectives.

The second level screening built upon the first level screening by taking the options that were carried

forward from the first level and performing an evaluation against certain needs and objectives. The

second level screening was more extensive in that more elements based on parameters such as cost,

traffic, environmental impacts, etc., were be used to screen the options.

6.1.1. FIRST LEVEL SCREENING

The first level screening criteria consisted of two questions to establish how well potential options met

basic safety performance and connectivity needs as follows:

Would the option improve safety on the bridge and its approaches?

Does the option provide an efficient connection with the street network/road system in the area?

The first level screening assessment allowed for a simple YES or NO answer to the two questions. The

analysis was qualitative and intended to identify options that complied with the identified needs and

objectives. Options not meeting the identified needs and objectives as determined thru this first level

screening were eliminated in accordance with 23 CFR, which allows for the elimination of alternatives

from further consideration due to lack of demonstration of meeting needs and objectives.

Table 9 summarizes the first level screening criteria, identifies why they are important screening

considerations, and relates each consideration to a specific identified need for the planning study. To

advance to the second screening level, an option had to receive a ‘YES’ answer to the screening

questions indicating the fundamental safety and connectivity needs required to serve the overall

transportation system would be met.


44

Table 9: First Level Screening – General Compliance with Identified Needs/Objectives

Screening Assessment Screening Question Correlation to Need

SAFETY PERFORMANCE. This criterion screens against the option’s potential to improve the overall safety performance on the bridge and its approaches.

Q1. Would the option improve safety on the bridge and its approaches?

NEED #1

CONNECTIVITY. This criterion screens against whether or not the option provides an efficient connection to the transportation network within the area.

Q2. Does the option provide an efficient connection with the street network/road system in the area?

NEED #2

6.1.1.1. First Level Screening Questions

6.1.1.1.1. Safety Performance

This criterion screened against an option’s potential to improve the overall safety performance on the

bridge and its approaches by implementing measures to address identified deficiencies or safety

concerns. The Existing and Projected Conditions Report highlighted a variety of safety concerns

associated with the existing bridge, including substandard horizontal curves and the presence of

unshielded obstacles and/or non-recoverable slopes on its approaches. The crash analysis conducted

for this study identified several crash clusters on the road network in the Maclay Bridge area and

highlighted common contributing circumstances at each location. For purposes of first level screening,

safety related to motorized uses such as vehicular traffic, motorcycles, and emergency response vehicles.

It also relates to non-motorized users such as bicyclists and pedestrians. Although some public

comments have correlated safety to recreational use of the river and its banks, these were not explicitly

tied to the features of the transportation system that can be documented and addressed through this

planning study (i.e. geometrics, clear zones, travel speeds, etc.) and are therefore not considered in the

screening process.

The following screening question, which relates directly to Need Number 1, was asked:

Q1. WOULD THE OPTION IMPROVE SAFETY ON THE BRIDGE AND ITS APPROACHES?

To receive a YES answer to this question, options should address identified safety deficiencies and

improve or correct sub-standard elements of the bridge and its approaches that pose safety concerns for

the traveling public. It was assumed that options providing bridges on new locations would be engineered

to design standards that would provide a desirable level of safety. Several questions inherent to

improving safety were explored during the screening process. These questions determined whether

question 1 received a YES or NO response. The sub-questions included the following:

Would the option improve sub-standard elements [deficiencies] on the bridge? Sub-

standard elements of the bridge include the bridge deck width and load-restricted condition.

Options that would rectify or improve these conditions are considered desirable. The Existing and

Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3) contains additional information on existing bridge

deficiencies.

Would the option reduce or remove vehicle restrictions on the bridge? Vehicle restrictions

on the bridge presently include a posted load limit of 11 tons, one direction of travel at a time, and

speed restrictions for larger emergency vehicles and school buses. Options that would eliminate

the vehicle restrictions on the bridge are considered desirable.

Would the option reduce crashes resulting from approaches to the bridge? Deficiencies on

the approaches include roadway areas with sub-standard horizontal alignment, lack of roadway

shoulders, steep roadside slopes, obstructions in the clear zone, and lack of lighting. Crash

clusters have been identified and documented previously. Improvements to the bridge’s

approaches to meet current design standards are considered desirable and a positive step to

reduce identified crash trends.


45

6.1.1.1.2. Connectivity Considerations

This screening criterion addressed whether or not the option provided an efficient connection to the

existing and/or future road network within the area. Roadway connections that enhance the ability of the

network to serve users and accommodate efficient travel through the community are desirable. The

following screening question, which relates directly to Need Number 2, was asked:

Q2. DOES THE OPTION PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT CONNECTION WITH THE STREET NETWORK/ROAD

SYSTEM IN THE AREA?

Options that provide linkages to roadways with higher functional classifications (minor arterials, urban

collectors, or rural major collectors) merited a YES response. A grid system of roadways is desirable, and

the hierarchy of roadways in Missoula County encourages travel connectivity to reduce travel time and

emissions, while recognizing access needs vary between different users. Options that provided

undesirable system linkages or result in long, out-of-direction travel to make network connections were

given a NO response.

6.1.1.2. Options Carried Forward from First Level Screening

Seven options were carried forward as a result of the first level screening process (summarized in Table

10 on the following page). All of the options considered during the first level screening process are

discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. Detailed information on the first level screening assessment and

results can be found in the Screening Assessment Memorandum contained in Appendix 3. The options

that were carried forward for the second level screening are listed below.

Option 1G: New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location for One-Way Travel and Retain Existing

Bridge for One-Way Travel

Option 2C: Minor Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

Option 2D: Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

Option 3A.2: Build Near Existing Alignment - North 1 Alignment

Option 3C.2: Build Bridge on Mount Avenue - Mount 2 Alignment

Option 3E.1: Build Bridge on South Avenue - South 1 Alignment

Option 3E.2: Build Bridge on South Avenue - South 2 Alignment

Option 1A – Enhance Traffic Operations and Safety on and Near the Structure was removed from further

screening after the completion of the first level screen. This was based on the option being primarily a

“traffic management system (TSM)” strategy that could be applied as a component of all the other options

being considered. In other words, as a TSM option, the scope of improvements are relatively minor in

nature and are intended to provide subtle improvements to the transportation system that include signing,

lighting, pavement markings, etc. These small scale improvements could be considered with any

remaining options going forward.


46

Table 10: First Level Screening Results

NOTE 1: To advance to second level screening, option must rate YES for both screening criteria.

RANGE OF OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Q1. Would the option improve safety on the bridge and its approaches ?

Q2. Would the option provide an

efficient connection with

the street network/road system in the

area?

ADVANCE TO SECOND LEVEL

SCREENING? (See Note 1)

1A (Enhance Operations and Safety on or near Bridge) 1B (Maintain Vehicle Use & Add Ped/Bike Facility) NO YES NO

1C (Add More Restrictions) NO YES NO

1D (Close Bridge Use for Ped/Bike) YES NO NO

1E (Retain & Add New Bridge) NO YES NO

1F (Add New 1 – Lane Bridge / Retain Old for Ped/Bike) NO YES NO

1G (Add New 1 – Lane Bridge / Retain Old for 1-Way) YES YES YES

1H (Close & Remove Bridge) YES NO NO

2A (Minor Rehab -Structure Only) NO YES NO

2B (Major Rehab -Structure Only) NO YES NO

2C (Minor Rehab -Includes Approaches) YES YES YES

2D (Major Rehab -Includes Approaches) YES YES YES

3A.1 (Exist Location) NO YES NO

3A.2 (North 1) YES YES YES

3A.3 (North 2) NO YES NO

3B.1 (S 3rd St W) YES NO NO

3B.2 (Spurgin Rd) YES NO NO

3C.1 (Mount 1) YES NO NO

3C.2 (Mount 2) YES YES YES

3D.1 (Edward 1) YES NO NO

3D.2 (Edward 2) YES NO NO

3E.1 (South 1) YES YES YES

3E.2 (South 2) YES YES YES

3F.1 (Sundown 1) YES NO NO

3F.2 (Sundown 2) YES NO NO

3G.1 (Humble Rd – Blue Mtn Rd) YES NO NO

3H.1 (Other Locations) YES NO NO

4A (Do Nothing) NO YES NO

REMOVED FROM FURTHER SCREENING


47

6.1.2. SECOND LEVEL SCREENING

Second level screening criteria were developed to evaluate and rank the seven options carried forward

from the first level screening process. The criteria were generated to correlate to the identified needs and

objectives previously articulated. Care was exercised to develop criteria that could be evaluated given the

limited amount of information available and presented in the E&P Report (Appendix 3). For example,

developing a criterion that quantifies “acreage of potential wetland impacts” is only relevant if wetland

delineations have occurred and the locations of wetlands are known. For the second level screening

process, sixteen screening criteria were developed to evaluate and rank options. The criteria are listed in

Table 11, and fall under the following major types:

Operational and Safety Screening Criteria (4 Total)

Connectivity and Growth (3 Total)

Constructability and Cost Screening Criteria (2 Total)

Resource Impacts Screening Criteria (3 Total)

Neighborhood/Social Screening Criteria (4 Total)

Table 11 summarizes the second level screening criteria, identifies why they are important screening

considerations, and relates each consideration to a specific identified need for this planning study.

Table 11: Second Level Screening – General Compliance with Identified Needs/Objectives

Screening Consideration Reason and Support for Screening Consideration Relates to Need #?

OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY SCREENING CRITERIA

OS1. Would the option improve sub-standard

elements on the bridge?

SAFETY & OPERATIONS. This criterion determines the option’s potential to address the substandard elements found on the bridge. A major substandard element of the existing bridge is the bridge deck width, which results in only one travel lane being available.

NEED #1

OS2. Would the option improve vehicle load

restrictions on the bridge?

SAFETY & OPERATIONS. This criterion determines whether or not the option improves or resolves load restrictions on vehicle use of the bridge. The existing bridge has a posted load limit of 11 tons, which prohibits some vehicles from crossing the bridge and requires restrictions on others.

NEED #1

OS3. Would the option accommodate

bicyclists/pedestrians on the bridge and its

approaches?

CONNECTIVITY & GROWTH. This criterion indicates whether or not the option accommodates bicyclists and pedestrians on the bridge and its approaches. Safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities implies a space for bicyclist or pedestrian use.

NEED #2

OS4. Would the option reduce crashes

resulting from approaches to the bridge?

SAFETY & OPERATIONS. This criterion indicates whether or not the option would reduce crashes on the approaches to the bridge. A review of the crash history on area roadways shows substandard elements (deficiencies) on approaches contribute to the crashes. These substandard elements include horizontal alignment concerns, lack of road shoulders, steep roadside slopes, obstructions in clear zone, lack of lighting.

NEED #1

OS5. Would the option accommodate future

capacity demands?

CONNECTIVITY & GROWTH. This criterion determines whether or not the option would accommodate future capacity demands. Future capacity demands include things like providing a roadway wide enough for simultaneous bi–direction travel, and offering a crossing without limitations or restrictions due to horizontal and vertical clearances.

NEED #2

OS6. Would the option help reduce or

eliminate vehicle delays at the river crossing?

SAFETY & OPERATIONS. This criterion determines whether or not the option would reduce or eliminate vehicle delays at the river crossing. The current bridge allows for traffic to cross the structure in one direction at a time. This delays vehicles waiting to cross in the opposing direction. These vehicles may occasionally include emergency responders.

NEED #1


48

Screening Consideration Reason and Support for Screening Consideration Relates to Need #?

OS7. Does the option provide an efficient grid connection to the major road/street network in the Missoula area?

CONNECTIVITY & GROWTH. This criterion indicates whether or not the option would provide an efficient grid connection to the major road/street network in the Missoula area by measuring the total length of travel between two points (in both directions). An efficient connection to an established grid network is an important consideration of the transportation system in terms of reducing out-of-direction travel, thus reducing travel time, travel costs, and controlling emissions.

NEED #2

CONSTRUCTABILITY AND COST SCREENING CRITERIA

CC1. Planning level construction costs. COST. This criterion details the option’s high level planning costs to provide a reasonable measure of costs for comparison. Does not include highly variable costs like those associated with right-of-way acquisition, project development activities, environmental mitigation, or inflation.

N/A

CC2. Annual maintenance costs. COST. This criterion is intended to provide some indication of annual maintenance costs for each option, over a 20-year horizon.

N/A

RESOURCE IMPACTS SCREENING CRITERIA

R 1. Effects on aquatic resources? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. This criterion differentiates between options based on their potential effects to aquatic resources by considering the extent of work in the delineated floodplain.

NEED #3

R 2. Will the options have impacts to protected

4 (f) or Section 106 resources?

SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS. This criterion determines whether the options have the potential for impacting resources that are protected by Section 4(f) or fall under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800).

NEED #3

R 3. Will the options affect lands held under

conservation easements?

LAND IMPACTS. This criterion determines whether the options have potential to affect lands held under conservation easements, and would require crossing those lands. Sizable areas of private land along the Bitterroot River are held under conservation easements by the Five Valleys Land Trust. Such easements may limit the ability to construct improvements on these protected lands.

NEED #3

NEIGHBORHOOD/SOCIAL SCREENING CRITERIA

NS1. Number of privately owned parcels

Impacted?

NEIGHBORHOOD & SOCIAL. This criterion assesses how many individual privately-owned parcels would be crossed or potentially impacted by the alignment associated with each option. The criterion is suggestive of the potential extent of R/W acquisition associated with each option.

NEED #4

NS2. Number of structures impacted? NEIGHBORHOOD & SOCIAL. This criterion identifies whether or not structures may be impacted by each option. For purposes of this criterion, structures only consist of residences. Impacts to existing structures helps assess the potential for relocations or right-of-way impact mitigations associated with the options.

NEED #4

NS3. R/W needs? NEIGHBORHOOD & SOCIAL. This criterion estimates how much new right-of-way may be required with each option. An assumed new right-of-way width was chosen for the option’s alignments, and any known existing right-of-way is subtracted out, yielding a potential new right-of-way need.

NEED #4

NS4. Does the option compare favorably with

year 2040 “no action” model traffic volume

increases in front of Target Range School?

NEIGHBORHOOD & SOCIAL. This criterion measures the potential for traffic volume changes in front of the Target Range School.

NEED #4


49

6.1.2.1. Second Level Screening Questions

6.1.2.1.1. OS1 – Would the Option Improve Sub-Standard Elements on the Bridge?

A major substandard element of the existing bridge is the bridge deck width, which results in only one

travel lane being available. This screening criterion determined the option’s potential to address the

substandard elements found on the bridge. The 2011 Bridge Inspection Report and the public listed other

areas of concern as contained in the Existing and Projected Conditions Report (pages 26-30). Any option

that resulted in two lanes (one lane for each direction) on the bridge would meet current design standards

and would therefore not exhibit sub-standard elements, meriting a YES response. Other options that

retain a one-lane configuration or do not provide additional bridge width would not rectify the substandard

bridge condition and would receive a NO answer.

6.1.2.1.2. OS2 – Would the Option Improve Vehicle Load Restrictions on the Bridge?

This screening criterion determined whether or not the option improved or resolved load restrictions on

vehicle use of the bridge. The existing bridge has a posted load limit of 11 tons. Inherent to the load

restrictions, there are also speed restrictions in place for some of the larger vehicles using the bridge,

such as emergency vehicles and school buses (note that these vehicles must also travel in the center of

the bridge deck as they cross). Options that could eliminate or improve the existing load restriction up to

at least a 25-ton-limit merited a YES answer. Those options that resulted in something less than at least a

25-ton-limit merit a NO answer.

6.1.2.1.3. OS3 – Would the Option Accommodate Bicyclists/Pedestrians on the Bridge

and its Approaches?

This screening criterion indicated whether or not the option accommodated bicyclists and pedestrians on

the bridge and its approaches. Safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities implies a space for bicyclist or

pedestrian use. Exact widths and types of space are unknown, as this is a design-level detail. However

whether or not an option can provide bicycle/pedestrian mobility can be reasonably estimated for the

options. Options that could provide space for bicycle and pedestrian travel merited a YES answer. Those

options that would not allow for provision of space for bicycle and pedestrian merited a NO answer. If an

option could provide space on the approaches, but not across the bridge, a NO response was given, as

that scenario results in a discontinuous facility for non-motorized use. New structures could be designed

to provide space for bicycle and pedestrians.

6.1.2.1.4. OS4 – Would the Option Reduce Crashes Resulting from Approaches to the

Bridge?

This screening criterion indicated whether or not the option would reduce crashes on the approaches to

the bridge. A review of the crash history on area roadways shows substandard elements (deficiencies) on

approaches contribute to the crashes. These substandard elements include horizontal alignment

concerns, lack of road shoulders, steep roadside slopes, obstructions in clear zone, lack of lighting.

Options that could reduce crashes resulting on approaches to the bridge, whether existing or new,

merited a YES answer. Those options that would not reduce crashes on approaches to the bridge merited

a NO answer.

6.1.2.1.5. OS5 – Would the Option Accommodate Future Capacity Demands?

This screening criterion determined whether or not the option would accommodate future capacity

demands. Future capacity demands include things like providing a roadway wide enough for

simultaneous bi–direction travel, and offering a crossing without limitations or restrictions due to

horizontal and vertical clearances. The idea is to provide a facility that will readily accommodate

increasing traffic demands due to area growth over the next 20-plus years. Providing sufficient capacity

is important to the development of an efficient future transportation network in Missoula area. Options that


50

would accommodate future capacity demands on the bridge merited a YES answer. Those options that

would maintain the status quo, or would not accommodate future capacity demands, merited a NO

answer.

6.1.2.1.6. OS6 – Would the Option Help Reduce or Eliminate Vehicle Delays at the River

Crossing?

This screening criterion determined whether or not the option would reduce or eliminate vehicle delays at

the river crossing. The current bridge allows for traffic to cross the structure in one direction at a time. This

delays vehicles waiting to cross in the opposing direction. These vehicles may occasionally include

emergency responders. Options that provide a new bridge crossing with two lanes would reduce or

eliminate vehicle delays, and merited a YES answer. Those options that would retain the one-lane, two-

way bridge, or consist of two one-way bridges (existing bridge and new location), would not reduce or

eliminate vehicle delays and merited a NO answer.

6.1.2.1.7. OS7 – Does the Option Provide an Efficient Grid Connection to the Major Road /

Street Network in the Missoula Area?

This screening criterion indicates whether or not the option would provide an efficient grid connection to

the major road/street network in the Missoula area by measuring the total length of travel between two

points (in both directions). The length of travel between the intersections of South Avenue/Clements

Road and Big Flat Road/ River Pines Road/Blue Mountain Road/O’Brien Creek Road was measured.

This screening consideration determines whether the option provides a relatively direct linkage to the

roadway grid system, and whether the length of travel with each option is less or more, for comparison

purposes. An efficient connection to an established grid network is an important consideration of the

transportation system in terms of reducing out-of-direction travel, thus reducing travel time, travel costs,

and controlling emissions. A point ranking system was used where the option exhibiting the longest

length of travel between the two subject intersections, in both directions, received the highest number of

points (7 possible) and the shortest length of travel between the two subject intersections, in both

directions, received the lowest number of points (1 possible).

6.1.2.1.8. CC1 – Planning Level Construction Costs?

High level planning cost estimates provided a reasonable measure to help compare the general

magnitude of capital construction costs among the options under consideration. For screening purposes,

the estimates reflected only the cost of construction and did not include highly variable costs like those

associated with right-of-way acquisition, project development activities (preliminary engineering, indirect

and incidental costs, etc.), environmental mitigation, or inflation. Variable costs were captured for the

seven options after the screening process was completed, and are reflected in Table 15, and Appendix 3

(Final Planning Level Costs Estimates – Seven Options). Necessary items that were considered to

arrive at the high level planning cost included the following:

Approximate bridge length (assumes bridge would have to be longer than the river’s edge bank

width);

Approximate bridge width (assumes minimum width of 28 feet for two-way / 16 feet for one-way);

Degree of skew of the bridge crossing (higher skew is more difficult to design, construct, and

permit);

Approximate bridge approach (i.e. road) length; and

Approximate bridge approach width (assumes 40 feet minimum roadway width).

A minimum width for new bridge construction was assumed to be 28 feet, as this is the narrowest typical

section that can be utilized as discussed in the Existing and Projected Conditions Report (Appendix 3).

For the one-way new bridge option, the minimum bridge width would be 16 feet. For bridge lengths, it was


51

assumed that any new bridge would have to be longer than the bank widths by 20 feet on each side. This

criterion also relies on the potential length of new approach road required for each option, and makes a

determination of whether or not a substantial upgrade to approaches is required.

A point ranking system was used where the option exhibiting the highest planning level cost received the

most points (7 possible) and the option exhibiting the lowest planning level cost received the fewest

points (1 possible).

6.1.2.1.9. CC2 – Annualized Maintenance Costs?

This criterion provided an indication of estimated annual maintenance costs for each option. The

potential maintenance costs for the approach roads were calculated as an annual maintenance cost in

present day dollars (2012) by using an average maintenance cost of $4,300 per lane mile (based on

query of statewide average maintenance costs). For bridge maintenance costs, a review of past

expenditures provided by Missoula County for the Maclay Bridge over a twenty-year period was

completed. During the time period between 1993 and 2013, $147,000 will have been expended on the

Maclay Bridge. This equals approximately $7,350 per year, or $1.50 per square foot, for bridge

maintenance activities on the existing Maclay Bridge. Potential bridge maintenance costs were developed

based on this cost per square foot, and applied to those options that retain the existing bridge as part of

the option.

A point ranking system was used where the option exhibiting the highest annualized maintenance cost

received the highest number of points (7 possible) and the option exhibiting the lowest annualized

maintenance cost received the lowest number of points (1 possible).

6.1.2.1.10. R1 – Effects on Aquatic Resources?

This criterion differentiates between options based on their potential effects to aquatic resources by

considering the extent of work in the delineated floodplain. Information on the delineated floodplain is

available draft digital FIRM (DFIRM) panel 1455E in a GIS database format, and was previously shown in

the study’s Environmental Scan. A point ranking system was used where the option exhibiting the

longest crossing of the delineated 100-year floodplain received the highest number of points (7 possible)

and the shortest crossing of the 100-year delineated floodplain received the lowest number of points (1

possible).

6.1.2.1.11. R2 – Will the Options have Impacts to Protected 4(f) or Section 106

Resources?

This criterion determined whether the options have the potential for impacting resources that are

protected by Section 4(f) or fall under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800).

Section 4(f) resources include public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,

State, or local significance, or land from a historic site of national, State, or local significance. Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) establishes requirements for taking into

account the effects of proposed Federal, Federally-assisted or Federally-licensed undertakings on any

district, site, building, structure or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. For the Maclay

Bridge Planning Study, these resources include historic residences/outbuildings, a historic school

building, and historic irrigation features. Section 4(f) and 106 resources were identified in the study’s

Environmental Scan.

Options that would have the potential for impacting 4(f) or Section 106 resources merited a HIGH answer.

Those options that would not have the potential for impacting 4(f) or Section 106 resources merited a

LOW answer.


52

6.1.2.1.12. R3 – Will the Options affect Lands Held under Conservation Easements?

This criterion determined whether the options have potential to affect lands held under conservation

easements, and would require crossing those lands. Sizable areas of private land along the Bitterroot

River are held under conservation easements by the Five Valleys Land Trust. Conservation easements

exist for the purposes of preserving open space, protecting fish or wildlife habitat, or limiting the extent

and density of development. Options that would have the potential for crossing lands held under

conservation easements merited a HIGH answer. Those options that would not have the potential for

crossing lands held under conservation easements merited a LOW answer.

6.1.2.1.13. NS1 – Number of Privately Owned Parcels Impacted?

This criterion assessed how many individual privately-owned parcels would be crossed or potentially

impacted by the alignment associated with each option. The criterion estimates the potential extent of

right-of-way (R/W) acquisition associated with each option. The number of privately-owned parcels

crossed by an alignment was based on review of the Montana Cadastral Mapping database (accessed

November 12, 2012 at http://giscoordination.mt.gov/cadastral/msdi.asp). Parcels crossed by the

proposed alignment and falling within an assumed, standard 80’ R/W width were counted. An exception

to this is option 1.G (new one-lane bridge retain existing bridge for on-way travel). For option 1.G it was

assumed that the new one-way configuration would necessitate a 60’ R/W width.

A point ranking system was used where the option exhibiting the most number of privately owned parcels

impacted received the highest number of points (7 possible) and the least number of privately owned

parcels impacted received the lowest number of points (1 possible).

6.1.2.1.14. NS2 – Number of Structures Impacted?

This criterion identified whether or not structures may be impacted by each option. For purposes of this

criterion, structures only consisted of residences. Impacts to existing structures helps assess the potential

for relocations or right-of-way impact mitigations associated with the options. The number of structures

potentially impacted was based on review of recent aerial photography (BingMapsAerial - © 2012

Microsoft Corporation, accessed November 12, 2012 at http://www.bing.com/maps/#). Structures are

assumed to be impacted if they occur within a typical 80’ R/W corridor. An exception to this is option 1.G.

For option 1.G it was assumed that the new one-way configuration would necessitate a 60’ R/W width.

Options that would potentially impact structures given the assumptions above merited a HIGH answer,

while those that would not potentially impact structures were given a LOW answer.

6.1.2.1.15. NS3 – R/W Needs?

This criterion estimated how much new right-of-way may be required with each option. An assumed new

80’ R/W width was used for the option’s alignments, and any known existing right-of-way was subtracted

out, yielding a potential new right-of-way need. An exception to this was option 1.G. For option 1.G it

was assumed that the new one-way configuration would necessitate a 60’ R/W width. Existing available

right-of-way was measured from the Montana Cadastral Mapping database (accessed November 12,

2012 at http://giscoordination.mt.gov/cadastral/msdi.asp). The area crossing the Bitterroot River was also

subtracted out from each option, as that requires a permit for crossing navigable waters from the Montana

DNRC.

A point ranking system was used where the option exhibiting the most needed right-of-way received the

highest number of points (7 possible) and the option exhibiting the least needed right-of-way received the

lowest number of points (1 possible).

http://giscoordination.mt.gov/cadastral/msdi.asp

http://www.bing.com/maps/

http://giscoordination.mt.gov/cadastral/msdi.asp


53

6.1.2.1.16. NS4 – Does the Option Compare Favorably with Year 2040 “No Action” Model

Traffic Volume Increases in front of the Target Range School?

This criterion measured the potential for traffic volume changes in front of the Target Range School.

Target Range School is located on South Avenue, just east of Clements Road. Public comments

expressed concerns about decreased safety in the vicinity of schools due to more traffic and increased

travel speeds that could result from some options. The Missoula MPO travel demand model was used to

compare future year 2040 “No Action” conditions to the options being considered that may affect traffic

distribution. A point ranking system was developed based on the percent increase (or decrease)

associated with each options modeled year 2040 traffic volumes as compared to the modeled year 2040

“No Action” traffic volumes. Options 2.C and 2.D do not have any changes, as the improvements

contemplated under rehabilitation of the bridge do not affect capacity, thus not influencing the model. The

option exhibiting the greatest percent change in traffic model volumes directly in front of Target Range

School received the highest number of points (7 possible) and the option exhibiting the least change in

traffic model volumes directly in front of Target Range School received the lowest number of points (1

possible).

6.1.2.2. Second Level Screening Rating Factors

As presented in Section 6.1.2.1, rating factors for some screening criteria were developed to assist in

evaluations and quantify how well an option may meet the identified question and thus, the corresponding

need or objective. Table 12 describes the impact rating factors. Low/high and yes/no rating factors were

developed and assigned to those screening criteria as applicable. In some cases, the rating factors were

not used as the type of screening criteria may better have lent itself to an “order of ranking”, between 1

and 7, due to there being seven options carried forward from the first level screening process. This is

further defined in Appendix 3. The lower an individual or cumulative point value was, the more desirable

or better the criterion (or option) is considered.

Table 12: Second Level Screening Criteria Rating Factors

Potential Influence (type of criteria)

Rating (value)

Rating (value) Screening Consideration

Impact

(non-quantitative)

LOW (assigned point value = 1)

HIGH (assigned point value = 7)

R2 (protected resources); R3 (conservation easements); NS2

(structures)

Improve / Accommodate /

Reduce / Provide / Increase

(non-quantitative)

YES (assigned point value = 1)

NO (assigned point value = 7)

OS1 (sub-standard elements); OS2 (vehicle load restrictions); OS3

(bicyclists/pedestrian); OS4 (reduce crashes); OS5 (future traffic); OS6

(reduce delay); NS4 (traffic volumes)

Impact / Accommodate

(quantitative)

Order of Ranking (1 – 7) OS7 (efficient connections); CC1 (construction costs); CC2

(maintenance costs); R1 (aquatic resources); NS1 (private parcels);

NS3 (r/w)

6.1.2.3. Second Level Screening Summary

Sixteen second level screening criteria were developed for the evaluation of the seven options forwarded

for consideration through the first level screening process. The second level criteria address each of the

needs, and many of the objectives, previously identified during the course of the study. Efforts were made

not to “double count” the particular item being screened, and all criteria were treated equal in that no

“weighting” occurred – thus no one criterion is more important than the other.


54

The results of the second level screening process are shown below. Assigned point values and rankings

are depicted in Table 13. The point ranking was developed such that those options with the fewest points

ranked most favorably, while those with the most points ranked poorest.

3E.1 - South 1 Alignment (32 POINTS)

3E.2 - South 2 Alignment (39 POINTS)

3C.2 - Mount 2 Alignment (44 POINTS)

3A.2 - North 1 Alignment (52 POINTS)

1G - New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location & Retain Existing Bridge for One-Way Travel (68

POINTS)

2D - Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches) (70 POINTS)

2C - Minor Rehabilitation (includes Approaches) (73 POINTS)

Appendix 3 (Screening Assessment Memorandum) contains more detailed information on the

screening process and results for each option.


55

Table 13: Second Level Screening Point Values and Rankings

Second Level Screening

Question ID

POINT ASSIGNMENTS FOR OPTIONS CONSIDERED

OPTION 1 - IMPROVE

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS ON EXISTING

BRIDGE

OPTION 2 - REHABILITATE THE

BRIDGE

OPTION 3 - BUILD NEW BRIDGE

1G

Add new 1 –lane bridge Retain

old for 1-way travel

2C Minor

Rehab (includes Approaches)

2D Major Rehab

(includes Approaches)

3A.2 North 1

3C.2 Mount 2

3E.1 South

1

3E.2 South

2

OS1 7 7 7 1 1 1 1

OS2 7 7 1 1 1 1 1

OS3 7 7 7 1 1 1 1

OS4 7 1 1 1 1 1 1

OS5 1 7 7 1 1 1 1

OS6 7 7 7 1 1 1 1

OS7 3 5 5 5 7 1 2

CC1 3 1 2 4 7 5 6

CC2 6 7 3 5 2 1 4

R 1 7 5 5 5 1 2 3

R 2 1 1 7 7 7 1 1

R 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NS1 1 6 6 6 4 2 3

NS2 1 7 7 7 1 1 1

NS3 4 2 2 2 7 5 6

NS4 5 2 2 4 1 7 6

TOTAL

TABULATED

POINTS 68 73 70 52 44 32 39

RANKING 5 7 6 4 3 1 2


56

6.2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON OPTIONS CARRIED

FORWARD The result of the first level screening process determined 7 of the 28 options met the needs and

objectives. The seven options were previously described in Chapter 5. The seven options are all potential

transportation system treatments that Missoula County may consider if they decide to pursue a project.

Based on the point values assigned during the second level screening process, Option 3E.1 – South 1

Alignment clearly rates better than the others. This option is described separately in Section 6.3 of this

chapter.

Planning level cost estimates were prepared for each of the seven options. The estimates are slightly

different than the construction cost estimates utilized in the screening process as the revised estimates

include the addition of preliminary engineering (PE) costs, and incidental and indirect costs (IDICs).

The revised planning level costs do not include detailed right-of-way acquisition or utility relocation costs.

This is important to consider because if a project is developed, it may be necessary to acquire additional

right-of-way to meet current standards. The appropriate right-of-way is 80 feet (for two-way, two-lane

travel) and 60 feet (for one-way, one-lane travel). Existing right-of-way widths vary throughout the

corridor. Right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost approximately $1,500 to $10,000 per acre,

depending on the properties’ proximity to the Bitterroot River.

6.2.1. OPTION 3E.1 - SOUTH 1 ALIGNMENT

The South 1 alignment provides a relatively direct connection between Reserve Street and River Pines

Road. The crossing of the river as envisioned would result in a modest skew of 30 degrees. The

estimated length of roadway needed with this option is 620 feet, with the majority of this being on the east

side of the Bitterroot River. On the west side, the bridge approach would tie into River Pines Road with

very little road construction. The new bridge length would be about 650 feet.

PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE

The planning level cost estimate for this alignment is $6,300,000. This includes estimated construction

costs (with contingencies), preliminary engineering costs (10%) and indirect and incidental costs (10%).

RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS AND POTENTIAL COSTS

The South 1 alignment could potentially impact four privately owned parcels, resulting in new right-of-way

needs of 1.5 acres. The potential cost of acquiring the right-of-way could range between $2,250 and

$15,000.

Because this option had the lowest point total at the conclusion of the screening process, and therefore

ranked as most favorable, it is described in greater detail later in this chapter in Section 6.3.

6.2.2. OPTION 3E.2 - SOUTH 2 ALIGNMENT

The South 2 alignments ranked the second best at the end of the screening process. Many of the impacts

and nuances of this alignment are similar to the South 1 alignment, described later in this chapter. The

South 2 alignment provides a relatively direct connection between Reserve Street and River Pines Road.

The crossing of the river as envisioned would result in a fairly high skew of 37 degrees. High skew

bridges are more difficult to design, permit and construct. The estimated length of roadway needed with

this option is almost twice as much as the South 1 option (1,430 feet versus 620 feet). The option would

require more right-of-way than South 1 (2.3 acres versus 1.5 acres), and would also potentially impact

one more privately owned parcel (5 parcels versus 4 parcels).


57





The South 2 alignment could potentially impact five privately owned parcels, resulting in new right-of-way

needs of 2.3 acres. The potential cost of acquiring the right-of-way could range between $3,450 and

$23,000.

6.2.3. OPTION 3C.2 - MOUNT 2 ALIGNMENT

The Mount 2 alignment begins near the intersection of Mount Avenue and Humble Road, immediately

proceeds in a southwesterly direction across the Bitterroot River and joins River Pines Road at the west

end of the existing Maclay Bridge. The alignment traverses a large tract of agricultural land. From an

efficiency viewpoint, Mount Avenue does not afford a direct east-west linkage to the major streets within

the area (such as Reserve Street). Thus out-of-direction travel is realized as it forms a “tee” intersection

with Clements Road. Mount Avenue is functionally classified as a local street.

The Mount 2 alignment would result in approximately 1,200 feet of new roadway construction, and a

bridge length of approximately 625 feet. Most notable regarding a new crossing at this location is that the

bridge would be highly skewed to the river channel at approximately 45 degrees.





The Mount 2 alignment could potentially impact six privately owned parcels, resulting in new right-of-way

needs of 2.4 acres. Of the seven options, this option has the largest area of right-of-way acquisition

needed. The potential cost of acquiring the right-of-way could range between $3,750 and $24,000.

6.2.4. OPTION 3A.2 - NORTH 1 ALIGNMENT

The North 1 alignment provides a new bridge parallel to and just upstream from the existing Maclay

Bridge. The alignment begins on North Avenue at its intersection with Edward Avenue. The alignment of

River Pines Road west of the river would be improved to eliminate the 90-degree curve at the west end of

the existing bridge. This alignment would have a major impact on the utility substation just east of the

existing bridge. Likewise, to modify River Pines Road to meet current standards and shift the road away

from the river, the roadway would have to be relocated slightly farther to the west.

The North 1 alignment would result in approximately 1,650 feet of new road construction - the majority of

which would be on the west side of the river. The new bridge crossing would be on the order of 400 feet,

and would be at a relatively modest skew to the river of approximately 20 degrees. Overall travel patterns

would remain similar to that of the existing bridge, and would still connect higher classification roadways

(i.e. collector roads) as are currently in place.





The North 1 alignment could potentially impact twelve privately owned parcels, and result in the

acquisition of one residential structure. Total new right-of-way needed is on the order of 0.4 acres, which


58

ties for the least amount of needed right-of-way (with the two rehabilitation options). The potential cost of

acquiring just the right-of-way could range between $600 and $4,000. The acquisition of a private

residence could be upwards of $200,000.

6.2.5. OPTION 1G - NEW ONE-LANE BRIDGE AT A NEW LOCATION & RETAIN EXISTING

BRIDGE FOR ONE-WAY TRAVEL

A pair of one-way roads and bridges is envisioned under Option 1G. The option assumes that the existing

single-lane bridge would be in place at its present location, along with a new single-lane bridge at a South

Avenue location. This has commonly been referred to as a one-way couplet, although this option as

described does not meet the true definition of a couplet as the two roadways are not directly adjacent and

parallel to each other. The direction of travel with this option is unknown and would be at the discretion of

Missoula County. Two one-way bridges could serve to better distribute traffic impacts throughout the

neighborhood, and also improve response times for emergency service providers. Right-of-way widths for

one-way roadways would be less than that for a two-way roadway, resulting in lower costs and potentially

fewer overall impacts.

Most likely the direction of travel for the one-way concept would be east-to-west for a new South Avenue

bridge, and west-to-east for the existing Maclay Bridge. This would allow emergency responders to travel

unimpeded from Fire Station #1 to access the west side of the river. Capacity concerns of the existing

bridge could be alleviated as generally future traffic volumes out to the planning horizon would be split,

with half on a new South Avenue location and half on the existing Maclay Bridge location.

A series of one-way roads does have inherent problems related to traffic flow and non-motorized uses.

Typically, speeds are faster on one-way roads – even if posted the same as a two-way facility. This can

present a problem for pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to cross a route. On one hand, non-motorized

users only have to look in one direction to cross the roadway, but on the other these users are faced with

faster speeds. Speeds can be mitigated with proper design and traffic calming features.


The planning level cost estimate for this option is $3,900,000. The cost includes estimated construction



Option 1G could potentially impact three privately owned parcels, which is the fewest of the seven options

identified for consideration. The resulting new right-of-way required is 1.1 acres. This is the only option for

which a 60-foot right-of-way width was selected for the calculations (for the new South Avenue location).

The potential cost of acquiring the right-of-way could range between $1,650 and $11,000.

6.2.6. OPTION 2D - MAJOR REHABILITATION (INCLUDES APPROACHES)

The goal of a major rehabilitation would be to extend the life of the bridge to something similar to that of a

new bridge. Major rehabilitation work could allow the bridge to handle full legal loads so that there would

be no need for a limited load posting. This option requires a long term financial commitment to the

existing bridge due to the increase in life span. The ultimate life span of the bridge would be dependent

on the rate of deterioration, aggressiveness of ongoing repair work, and barring major damage from

flooding and/or vehicles.

Major rehabilitation of the structure would be completed in concert with improvements to the approaches

to bring them up to current standards. Approach work would be similar to that envisioned under the North

1 alignment, thus impacts would likely be similar. A major drawback of major rehabilitation of the structure

is that the fundamental geometric deficiencies would still remain relative to the bridge deck width (i.e.


59

single travel lane for two-way traffic). Sub-standard conditions for the approaches can be fixed; however

the sub-standard conditions for the existing Maclay Bridge cannot. Thus, major rehabilitation of the

existing Maclay Bridge only resolves the load limitations, but nothing else. As traffic volumes grow, the

existing Maclay Bridge may not be suitable from a capacity or operational standpoint. Although minor

transportation management system (TSM) treatments such as lighting, better signing, traffic metering

devices, etc. may help in the short term, the long term growth in traffic and the large unknowns

associated with a major rehabilitation introduces a high amount of risk relative to elevated project costs.

Conditions of the river channel at the existing bridge location are unknown relative to the suitability of the

bridge footings and their placement within the channel.


The planning level cost estimate for this option ranges from $1,100,000 to $3,200,000. The range is due

to the uncertainties over the scope and level of effort required with a major rehabilitation. A concise

bridge inspection would be required to provide an accurate identification of bridge conditions, work

needed to address any and all bridge deficiencies to increase safety and capacity and associated costs.

The range of costs includes estimated construction costs (with contingencies), preliminary engineering

costs (10%) and indirect and incidental costs (10%).


Similar to the North 1 alignment, this option could potentially impact twelve privately owned parcels, and

result in the acquisition of one residential structure. Total new right-of-way needed is on the order of 0.4

acres, which ties for the least amount of needed right-of-way (with North 1 and the minor rehabilitation

options). The potential cost of acquiring just the right-of-way could range between $600 and $4,000. The

acquisition of a private residence could be upwards of $200,000.

6.2.7. OPTION 2C - MINOR REHABILITATION (INCLUDES APPROACHES)

The goal of a minor rehabilitation would be to extend the life of the bridge by performing minor upgrades

and repairing deterioration and damage. Missoula County would continue to perform routine maintenance

activities to keep the structure in service under its load limitation for use by local residents, school buses

and emergency service vehicles. This option would not address the fundamental geometric deficiencies

relative to the bridge deck width (i.e. single travel lane for two-way traffic). Many of the constraints noted

in the major rehabilitation option described earlier would be applicable to this option. With minor

rehabilitation, the posted vehicle weight limit restriction could be increased from the current 11 tons to

around 13 tons.


The planning level cost estimate for this option ranges from $810,000 to $1,100,000. The range is due to

the uncertainties over the scope and level of effort required with a minor rehabilitation. A concise bridge

inspection would be required to provide an accurate identification of bridge conditions, work needed to

address any and all bridge deficiencies to increase safety and capacity, and associated costs. The range

of costs includes estimated construction costs (with contingencies), preliminary engineering costs (10%)

and indirect and incidental costs (10%).


Similar to the North 1 and Major Rehabilitation options, this option could potentially impact twelve

privately owned parcels, and result in the acquisition of one residential structure. Total new right-of-way

needed is about 0.4 acres, which ties for the least amount of needed right-of-way (with North 1 and the

major rehabilitation options). The potential cost of acquiring just the right-of-way could range between

$600 and $4,000. The acquisition of a private residence could be upwards of $200,000.


60

6.3. OPTION 3E.1 (SOUTH 1) CONSIDERATIONS The South 1 alignment is described in greater detail in this section. This option warrants further

discussion than the other six options due to several considerations:

The option ranked the best at the conclusion of the screening process since it addressed

operational and safety concerns presented in the needs & objectives that limited resource and

neighborhood/social impacts.

The public has repeatedly asked for the traffic and cost impacts associated with the South 1

option.

6.3.1.1. Description

The alignment shown in Figure 5 and described earlier shows the minimum amount of improvement for a

new bridge crossing at South Avenue. The South 1 alignment could potentially impact four privately

owned parcels, resulting in new right-of-way needs of 1.5 acres. No private residences would need to be

acquired. The planning level cost estimate for this alignment is $6,300,000.

Figure 5: South 1 General Alignment

6.3.1.2. Future Traffic Impacts

The Missoula TDM was used to help predict future traffic growth for the year 2040. The basis for the

TDM is more fully explained in Section 3.2.3 of this report. The TDM helped quantify potential traffic

volume changes if a new bridge crossing was placed at a South Avenue extension. For these purposes,

year 2040 projected traffic volumes were compared for the No Action condition against the South 1

option. The No Action condition is if no changes were made to the transportation network out to the year

2040, other than periodic maintenance activities at the existing Maclay Bridge and surrounding roadways.

The reason for this comparison was to document potential traffic volume changes on area roadways

resulting from a new bridge at South Avenue over and above what would normally be expected. Table 14

provides a summary of the projected volume change for the year 2040 as a result of a new South Avenue

bridge. The results are also shown graphically in Figure 6.

South 1


61

Table 14: Year 2040 AADT Traffic Modeling Projections (No Action vs. South 1)

Street Location

# of Lanes

(Context)

No Action Projected

2040 AADT (a)

South 1 Projected

2040 AADT (a)

General Daily

Capacity AADT

(e)

AADT Change

Big Flat Rd 100 ft W of O'Brien Ck Rd 2 (Rural) 6,550 6,850 6,000 300

Blue Mountain Rd 500 ft N of Hwy 93 2 (Rural) 5,450 5,050 6,000 -400

Blue Mountain Rd S of South Side Rd 2 (Rural) 4,400 4,050 6,000 -350

Brooks St Bitterroot River Bridge 4+ (Urban) 46,000 45,350 31,900 -650

Clements Rd 300 ft N of North Av 2 (Urban) 5,900 5,700 7,300 -200

Clements Rd 300 ft S of North Av 2 (Urban) 3,850 5,950 7,300 2,100

Clements Rd 500 ft S of S 3rd W 2 (Urban) 4,500 4,400 7,300 -100

Kona Ranch Rd (c)

Kona Ranch Bridge 2 (Rural) 6,450 6,750 6,000 300

Mullan Rd E of Snowdrift Ln 2 (Rural) 9,100 9,350 6,000 250

North Av 300 ft W of Clements Rd 2 (Urban) 4,750 1,250 7,300 -3,500

Reserve St Between Dearborn & South Av 4+ (Urban) 46,750 47,000 31,900 250

Reserve St Between OlofsonDr& S 3rd W 4+ (Urban) 50,150 50,000 31,900 -150

Reserve St Between South Av & Central Av

4+ (Urban) 47,250 47,350 31,900 100

Reserve St S of LarkenwoodDr 4+ (Urban) 50,650 50,400 31,900 -250

River Pines Rd 300 ft W of Maclay Bridge 2 (Rural) 5,650 0 6,000 -5,650

S 3rd W W of Reserve 2 (Urban) 13,200 13,150 7,300 -50

S 7th W 150 ft W of Reserve 2 (Urban) 3,250 3,300 7,300 50

S 7th W 300 ft E of Clements Rd 2 (Urban) 700 700 7,300 0

South Av Between 31st and 33rd 2 (Urban) 8,350 9,150 11,700 800

South Av Between Humble & Pleasant 2 (Urban) 2,900 5,150 7,300 2,250

South Av Between Reserve & 26th 2+ (Urban) 16,350 16,850 17,700 500

South Av E of Clements Rd 2 (Urban) 5,400 6,350 7,300 950

South Av (d)

New Bridge 2 (Urban) - 7,200 7,300 -

South Av W of Clements Rd 2 (Urban) 6,550 9,250 7,300 2,700

Spurgin Rd 250 ft W of Reserve 2 (Rural) 2,550 2,550 6,000 0

Spurgin Rd 300 ft E of Clements Rd 2 (Rural) 1,200 1,200 6,000 0

Source: MDT Multi Modal Planning Bureau, Statewide & Urban Planning Section, 2012; Missoula Office of Planning and

Grants, Transportation Division. (a)

Projected AADT’s rounded to nearest 50 vpd. (b)

Percentages based on difference in actual TDM volumes, and not on the “rounded” volumes. (c)

TDM volume used as no actual “on-the-ground” counts are available to adjust. (d)

New bridge link - TDM volume used as no actual “on-the-ground” counts are available to adjust. (e)

General daily capacities (AADT) from Table 6-1 of 2008 Missoula Long Range Transportation Plan. Based on road

lane configuration, functional classification and whether road is in rural or urban locale.

The data depicted in Table 14 shows that a new bridge crossing at South Avenue would increase traffic

in some locations and reduce traffic in other locations. For example, by removing the existing Maclay

Bridge, North Avenue just west of Clements Road could potentially see a traffic volume drop of 3,500 vpd,

during the projected year 2040. Conversely, South Avenue just west of Clements Road may see a rise in

traffic of 2,700 vpd, during the projected year 2040. These numbers are not surprising given the removal

of the Maclay Bridge in the TDM and the addition of a new two-way, two-lane bridge at South Avenue.

The two locations referenced above are the locations that realize the largest change in traffic volumes.


62

South Avenue in general would see an increase in traffic volumes with the South 1 option as compared to

a No Action scenario, with the largest increase west of Clements Road. On South Avenue, directly in front

of Target Range School (i.e. east of Clements Road), the predicted traffic volume may rise 950 vpd, with

a new South Avenue bridge over that which could be anticipated in the year 2040 without the new bridge.

Clements Road, just south of North Avenue, could realize an increase of 2,100 vpd, due to vehicles not

being able to utilize the Maclay Bridge, and therefore having to travel south on Clements Road to access

the new South Avenue bridge and points to the west.

An additional observation from the TDM is that with a new South Avenue Bridge, the year 2040 traffic

volume drops across the Buckhouse Bridge (on Brooks Street) by 650 vpd. This implies that with a new

South Avenue Bridge, a slight amount of traffic would route across the new bridge that may otherwise

route across the Buckhouse Bridge. This phenomenon is not seen at the Kona Ranch Road Bridge.


63

Figure 6: Change in Projected Year 2040 AADT (No Action vs. South 1)


64

6.3.1.3. Other Design Consideration

Reviewing the output of the TDM, and acknowledging the numerous comments provided during the

study’s 12-month development, questions have been asked about future roadway improvements, the

impacts to schools and non-motorized users, and effects to the area’s “quality of life”. Some of these can

be quantified, while some cannot. For the South 1 option there will need to be a great deal of discretion

provided by Missoula County relative to design standards to mitigate potential impacts, if a project is

developed.

For example, the minimum bridge width as previously documented for a new bridge at South Avenue

would be 28 feet. This would provide for two, 12-foot travel lanes and two, 2-foot shoulders. This is a

narrow width that would have a tendency to slow traffic down. The wider the bridge becomes, the harder

it is to control travel speeds without additional measures, such as traffic calming (i.e. traffic circles or

speed tables on the approaches to the bridge), heightened enforcement, or geometric design tools to

institute deflection on the immediate approaches to the structure. The placement of non-motorized

facilities such as sidewalks, on-street bicycle lanes, and shared-use paths can also help define the

roadside environment. These items can result in a wider bridge to accommodate all amenities.

The same can be said for the roadways leading up to the bridge. The standard as previously noted

(Appendix 3, Existing and Projected Conditions Report) is for a 40-foot roadway width. Typically this

would include two, 12-foot travel lanes and two, 8-foot shoulders. A configuration less that this width

could be achieved for South Avenue by planning for something similar to what is on North Avenue. Again

this would be less than the “standard”, but Missoula County would need to evaluate these design

parameters in context with community concerns and available funding. The placement of roundabouts at

major intersections may also regulate traffic flows and serve to reduce travel speeds.

The need for roadway improvements all the way from a new South Avenue Bridge to Reserve Street may

not be necessary. The potential additional traffic impacts directly related to a new South Avenue Bridge

are confined primarily to South Avenue west of Clements Road. East of Clements Road the traffic volume

increases expected as a result of the proposal are not large compared to the year 2040 No Action

conditions. Accordingly, it is unlikely that a new South Avenue Bridge necessitates roadway

reconstruction east of Clements Road. What is uncertain, however, is whether South Avenue west of

Clements Road would require roadway improvements. The data in Table 14 suggests that without a new

bridge at South Avenue the year 2040 AADT volumes may be close to 6,550 vpd. With a new bridge, the

volume may grow to around 9,250 vpd. As currently configured, South Avenue west of Clements Road

may be able to accommodate up to 7,300 vpd according to the theoretical roadway planning capacities

found in the 2008 Missoula Long Range Transportation Plan (Table 6-1).

Roadway improvements between Clements Road and the proposed tie-in point for the new bridge

approach (i.e. the end of South Avenue just west of Hanson Drive) could be contemplated in the future if

traffic volumes grow to a level that cannot be accommodated with the existing road or through aggressive

traffic calming such as traffic circles or roundabouts at the intersections. These are decisions to be made

at the project level if and when a project is undertaken. To gain extra capacity, improvements such as left

or right turn lanes at major intersections may be necessary to achieve potential capacities up to 9,600

vpd. Traffic volumes should be monitored to determine the usage of the route and if the upper volumes

are realized.

If roadway reconstruction was desired from the currently envisioned tie-in point to Clements Road - a

length of approximately 4,800 feet - the construction costs alone could be on the order of $1.6 million.

Elevating this cost to include preliminary engineering (PE), and incidental and indirect costs (IDICs), this

value could approach $1.9 million.

Chapter 7 Funding Mechanisms

65

Chapter 7 FUNDING MECHANISMS

MDT administers a number of programs that are funded from State and Federal sources. Local and/or

private funding sources may also be available to implement a bridge option. For options associated with

the replacement of the Maclay Bridge, the likely funding source falls under MDT’s Off-System Bridge

Program (formerly known as the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program).

Each year, in accordance with 60-2-127, Montana Code Annotated (MCA), the Montana Transportation

Commission allocates a portion of available federal-aid highway funds for construction purposes and for

projects located on various systems in the state as described throughout this chapter.

7.1. FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES The following summary of major Federal transportation funding categories received by the State through

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) enacted on July 6, 2012, includes state

developed implementation / sub-programs that may be potential sources for any project developed to

replace the Maclay Bridge. In order to receive project funding under these programs, projects must be

included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

7.1.1. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP)

STP funds are Federally apportioned to Montana and allocated by the Montana Transportation

Commission to various programs.

7.1.1.1. Off-System Bridge Program2

Funds for the program are derived from the Federal gas tax, which is outside Federal general revenue

sources and doesn’t impact or add to the Federal deficit. Funds are Federally apportioned to Montana

under the provisions of the current highway bill, MAP-21. MAP-21 requires a minimum percentage of the

funding be used for off-system bridges.

ALLOCATIONS AND MATCHING REQUIREMENTS

Off-system bridge funds are distributed statewide. The Commission distributes off-system bridge funding

based on off-system bridge inspections, need and County priorities. Of the total available, 86.58 percent

is Federal and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42%. The State share is funded through the

Highway State Special Revenue Account.

ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Under MAP-21 eligibility is defined by MDT. MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program has the objective of

addressing safety. As noted in the key findings, there are safety issues with the existing Maclay Bridge –

the traffic level of this single-lane bridge and Emergency Services access to residents west of the river

are considered safety issues. Identified crash trends also contribute to safety concerns. A project must

address the safety issues to be eligible for Off-System Bridge Program funds.

2 State funding programs developed to distribute Federal funding within Montana


66

7.1.2. FEDERAL LANDS AND TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

This program is a three part program consisting of the Federal Lands Transportation Program, Tribal

Transportation Program and the Federal Lands Access Program. The Federal Lands Transportation

Program is administered by FHWA and the federal land management agencies. The Tribal

Transportation Program is administered by the BIA and the appropriate tribal agency.

7.1.2.1. FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

This program is administered by Western Federal Land Highway Division of the FHWA in consultation

with MDT and MACO who represent the local governments. Projects are funded in Montana to the ratio

of 86.58% federal funds and 13.42% matching funds.

All public roadways are eligible under the following criteria:

Roadway jurisdiction or maintenance is by a state government, local government or tribal

government; and

The route must provide direct access to or run adjacent to federal lands.

7.1.3. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM

The Transportation Alternatives (TA) program requires MDT to obligate 50% of the funds within the state

based on population, using a competitive application process, while the other 50% may be obligated in

any area of the state. Funds may be obligated for projects submitted by:

Local governments

Transit agencies

Natural resource or public land agencies

School district, schools, or local education authority

Tribal governments

Other local government entities with responsibility for recreational trails for eligible use of these

funds


Eligible categories include:

On-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, including ADA improvements

Historic preservation and rehabilitation of transportation facilities

Archeological activities relating to impacts for a transportation project

Any environmental mitigation activity, including prevention and abatement to address highway

related stormwater runoff and to reduce vehicle/animal collisions including habitat connectivity

Turnouts, overlooks and viewing areas

Conversion/use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for non-motorized users

Inventory, control and removal of outdoor advertising

Vegetation management in transportation right of way for safety, erosion control, and controlling

invasive species

Construction, maintenance and restoration of trails, development and rehabilitation of trailside

and trailhead facilities

Development and dissemination of publications and operation of trail safety and trail

environmental protection programs.

Educations funds for publications, monitoring and patrol programs and for trail-related training.


67

Planning, design, and construction of projects that will substantially improve the ability of students

to walk and bicycle to school.

Non-infrastructure-related activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school, including public

awareness campaigns and outreach to press and community leaders, traffic education and

enforcement in the vicinity of schools, student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health,

and environment, and training

COMPETITIVE PROCESS:

The State and any Metropolitan Planning Organizations required to obligate Transportation Alternative

funds must develop a competitive process to allow eligible applicants an opportunity to submit projects for

funding. As a new program and process under MAP-21, the competitive process will be developed as

soon as possible.

7.2. STATE FUNDING SOURCES

7.2.1. TREASURE STATE ENDOWMENT PROGRAM (TSEP)

Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) funds may be used in conjunction with MDT’s Off-System

Bridge Program funds. TSEP is a state-funded program that is designed to help address the "affordability"

problem of infrastructure need by providing grants to lower the cost of constructing public facilities

projects. The program helps local governments with constructing or upgrading drinking water systems,

wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary or storm sewer systems, solid waste disposal and separation

systems, and bridges. The program was authorized by Montana’s voters with the passage of Legislative

Referendum 110 on June 2, 1992. The law has been codified as Sections 90-6-701 through 90-6-710,

MCA. The TSEP program is administered by the Montana Department of Commerce.

ALLOCATIONS AND MATCHING REQUIREMENTS

In order to be eligible for a TSEP project grant, matching funds must be provided by the applicant to

assist in financing the total project cost. Applicants are generally eligible to request a grant that is no

greater than 50% of the eligible project expenses. In cases of extreme financial hardship and where very

serious deficiencies exist that would affect the public's health or safety, an applicant may be eligible to

receive a Hardship Grant from 51% up to 75% of the eligible project expenses in order to help reduce

user costs to a more affordable level.


Requests for matching grants for bridge projects are limited to a maximum of $500,000 per application

unless the county can clearly demonstrate that extenuating circumstances exist. An amount greater than

$500,000 may be allowed for bridge projects if the applicant submits an application for only one bridge

and the total cost of the bridge project is greater than $1,000,000. Only one application per applicant each

funding cycle is permitted.

7.3. LOCAL / PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES Local governments generate revenue through a variety of funding mechanisms. Typically, several local

programs related to transportation exist for budgeting purposes and to disperse revenues. These

programs are tailored to fulfill specific transportation functions or provide particular services.


68

7.3.1. MISSOULA COUNTY

7.3.1.1. Road Fund

The County Road Fund provides for the construction, maintenance, and repair of all county roads outside

the corporate limits of cities and towns in Missoula County. Revenue for this fund comes from

intergovernmental transfers (i.e., State gas tax apportionment and motor vehicle taxes), and a mill levy

assessed against county residents living outside cities and towns. The county mill levy has a ceiling limit

of 15 mills.

County Road Fund monies are primarily used for maintenance with little allocated for new road

construction. It should be noted that only a small percentage of the total miles on the county road system

are located in the study area. Projects eligible for financing through this fund will be competing for

available revenues on a county-wide basis.

7.3.1.2. Special Revenue Fund

Special revenue funds may be used by the county to budget and distribute revenues legally restricted to a

specific purpose. Several such funds that benefit the transportation system are discussed briefly in the

following paragraphs.

7.3.1.2.1. Capital Improvements Fund

This fund is used to finance major capital improvements to county infrastructure. Revenues are

generated by loans from other county funds, and must be repaid within ten years. Major road

construction projects are eligible for this type of financing.

7.3.1.2.2. Rural Special Improvement District (RSID) Revolving Fund

This fund is used to administer and distribute monies for specified RSID projects. Revenue for this fund

is generated primarily through a mill levy and through motor vehicle taxes and fees. A mill levy is

assessed only when delinquent bond payments dictate such an action.

7.3.1.2.3. Special Bond Funds

A fund of this type may be established by the county on an as-needed basis for a particularly expensive

project. The voters must approve authorization for a special bond fund. The county is not currently using

this mechanism.

7.3.2. PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES

Private financing of highway improvements, in the form of right-of-way donations and cash contributions,

has been successful for many years. In recent years, the private sector has recognized that better

access and improved facilities can be profitable due to increases in land values and commercial

development possibilities. Several forms of private financing for transportation improvements used in

other parts of the United States are described in this section.

7.3.2.1. Development Financing

The developer provides the land for a transportation project and in return, local government provides the

capital, construction, and necessary traffic control. Alternatively, developer constructs necessary

roadway improvements as a condition for access approval. Such a financing measure can be made

voluntary or mandatory for developers.


69

7.3.2.2. Cost Sharing

The private sector pays some of the operating and capital costs for constructing transportation facilities

required by development actions.

7.3.2.3. Transportation Corporations

These private entities are non-profit, tax exempt organizations under the control of state or local

government. They are created to stimulate private financing of highway improvements.

7.3.2.4. Road Districts

These are areas created by a petition of affected landowners, which allow for the issuance of bonds for

financing local transportation projects.

7.3.2.5. Private Donations

The private donation of money, property, or services to mitigate identified development impacts is the

most common type of private transportation funding. Private donations are very effective in areas where

financial conditions do not permit a local government to implement a transportation improvement itself.

7.3.2.6. General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds

The sale of general obligation bonds could be used to finance a specific set of major highway

improvements. A G.O. bond sale, subject to voter approval, would provide the financing initially required

for major improvements to the transportation system. The advantage of this funding method is that when

the bond is retired, the obligation of the taxpaying public is also retired. State statutes limiting the level of

bonded indebtedness for cities and counties restrict the use of G.O. bonds. The present property tax

situation in Montana, and recent adverse citizen responses to proposed tax increases by local

government, would suggest that the public may not be receptive to the use of this funding alternative.

7.3.2.7. Development Exactions/Impact Fees

Exaction of fees or other considerations from developers in return for allowing development to occur can

be an excellent mechanism for improving the transportation infrastructure. Developer exactions and fees

allow growth to pay for itself. The developers of new properties should be required to provide at least a

portion of the added transportation system capacity necessitated by their development, or to make some

cash contribution to the agency responsible for implementing the needed system improvements.

Establishment of an equitable fee structure would be required to assess developers based upon the level

of impact to the transportation system expected from each project. Such a fee structure could be based

upon the number of additional vehicle trips generated, or upon a fundamental measure such as square

footage of floor space. Once the mechanism is in place, all new development would be reviewed by the

local government and fees assessed accordingly.

7.4. FUNDING ELIGIBILITY Due to the nature of the potential improvements, and the sub-standard conditions of the existing Maclay

Bridge, not all of the seven options will be eligible for MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program.

Rehabilitating the bridge will not correct the deficient safety features needed to serve the long term

intended use of the facility. Although Title 23 United States Code (USC) does allow rehabilitation (§

Section 144(o)), other provisions are needed to gain a complete understanding of when it would be

prudent to rehabilitate a historic structure. Title 23 USC § 144(o)(1)) and §144(o)(3) are two sections that

provide guidance. The rehabilitation option(s), in light of the provisions, would not be eligible in this


70

particular instance for the reasons described in the provisions above and documented in Chapter 3 of

this planning study.

Title 23 USC § 144(o)(1) does encourage the “inventory, retention, rehabilitation, adaptive re-use, and

future study of historic bridges” and 23 USC § 144(o)(3) further defines that reasonable costs to preserve

or reduce the impacts of a project on a historic bridge are eligible - provided the load capacity and safety

features of the bridge are adequate to serve the intended use for the life of the bridge. This is not the

case with this structure. Also, § 144(o)(p) further directs that “a project not on a Federal-aid highway

under this section shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State

laws, regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards and construction standards”. MDT

would not contribute off-system bridge funds to an alternative that does not address safety and deficient

standards including approaches.

Table 15 summarizes the options, potential costs, and Off-System Bridge Program funding eligibility.

Table 15: Summary of Costs and Funding Eligibility (a)

(a) “Comprehensive Costs” in this table include construction, preliminary engineering, incidental and indirect costs,

inflation (3 percent per year for five years) and right-of-way costs.

(b) The comprehensive cost estimates envision a new bridge and limited approach work to tie into the existing roads.

This would meet the intent of MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program by addressing bridge related safety issues.

Roadway reconstruction outside of bridge approach tie-in points are likely not eligible for MDT’s Off-System Bridge

Program funding.

Option ID

Comprehensive

Cost

Eligible for Off-

System Bridge

Program Funds? Reasoning for Funding Eligibility

OPTION 1 - IMPROVE SAFETY AND OPERATIONS ON THE EXISTING BRIDGE

1G - New One-Lane Bridge at a New Location & Retain Existing Bridge for

One-Way Travel

$6,050,000 to $8,450,000

POSSIBLE

Additional study is needed to determine eligibility. The comprehensive cost is shown as a range due to uncertainty on the potential scope of improvements to the existing Maclay Bridge.

OPTION 2 - REHABILITATE THE BRIDGE 2C - Minor Rehabilitation (includes

Approaches) $1,150,000 to $1,500,000


2D - Major Rehabilitation (includes Approaches)

$1,500,000 to $3,900,000


OPTION 3 - BUILD NEW BRIDGE (b)

3A.2 - North 1 Alignment $5,300,000

YES This option meets the Safety objective of the MDT Off-System Bridge Program.

3C.2 - Mount 2 Alignment $9,000,000 YES This option meets the Safety objective of the MDT Off-System Bridge Program.



Chapter 8 Planning Study Conclusion

71

Chapter 8 PLANNING STUDY CONCLUSION

The study evaluated the Maclay Bridge river crossing and the surrounding transportation system to gain a

better understanding of system needs, objectives, constraints and opportunities, and funding availability.

In addition to analyzing applicable data from MDT, Missoula County, and resource agencies; a

comprehensive public involvement process was conducted to gather relevant information from community

members and stakeholders groups. This information led to a set of options to be considered by the

Missoula County Commissioners.

The study identified several options that would address the operational characteristics, safety and

physical conditions of the existing facility. However, based on the screening and ranking process, only

one option rose to the top as the best alternative to ensure that, over the foreseeable future, the facility

meets applicable MDT and local design standards and provides the desired improvements in safety and

operations for the traveling public. Option 3E.1, South 1 Alignment delivers a transportation facility that

meets current and future demands, addresses safety on the bridge and the sub-standard roadway

approaches to the bridge, and provides connectivity to neighborhood residents and regional users

accessing recreational lands to the west of Bitterroot River.

The Missoula County Commissioners may elect to proceed with one of the other options discussed in this

study; however, three options (1G, 2C and 2D) may not be eligible for MDT’s Off-System Bridge Program

funding. For these options, Missoula County would need to use local funds and follow their own internal


If the County intends to use federal highway funds administered by MDT for a federal-aid eligible

improvement, the decision would be determined by a majority vote of Missoula’s Transportation Policy

Coordinating Committee (TPCC) made up of two representatives each from the County and City; and one

representative from each of the following: MDT, Missoula Urban Transportation District, and the Missoula

Consolidated Planning Board. An improvement funded with local or private funds is the County’s decision

and not subject to the TPCC.

8.1. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of a future project is to have a river crossing in the Maclay Bridge area to enhance the

operational characteristics, increase safety and improve physical conditions that provides for safety and

operations for the traveling public over the foreseeable future.

To accomplish this purpose, the proposed options and resultant project must:

Incorporate physical changes to the river crossing, road approaches and its adjoining

environment so the facility complies with MDT’s and Missoula County’s geometric design

standards for a collector roadway; and

Provide a transportation facility that meets current and future demands.


72

8.2. NEXT STEPS The ability to develop a project is dependent on the availability of existing and future federal, state, local,

and private funding sources. At the current time funding has been identified but not secured to proceed

with a project. Should the Missoula County Commission elect to proceed with a project to replace the

Maclay Bridge river crossing, the following steps are needed:

Identify the option that best meets the safety, environmental, and social needs in the area

identified in the study;

Identify and secure a funding source or sources; and

Follow MDT guidelines for project nomination and development, including a public involvement

process and environmental documentation that describes any potential impacts and mitigation

measures from any proposed action.

Should Missoula County elect to proceed with the three options that may not be eligible for MDT’s Off-

System Bridge Program (i.e. options 1G, 2C and 2D), they would need to use local funds and follow their

own internal project development process.

The “Purpose and Need” statement for any future project should be consistent with the needs and

objectives contained in this study. Should this study lead to a project (or projects), compliance with NEPA

(if federal funding is utilized) and MEPA (regardless of funding source) will be required. Further, this

Planning Study will be used as the basis for determining the impacts and subsequent mitigation for the

improvement options in future NEPA documents. Any project developed will need to be in compliance

with CFR Title 23 Part 771 and ARM 18, sub-chapter 2 which sets forth the requirements for documenting

environmental impacts on highway projects.

Appendix 1 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

1

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Bri

dg

e s

hou

ld b

e m

ade

sa

fe; bu

ildin

g n

ew

on

So

uth

co

mpo

un

ds a

ll th

e c

urr

en

t p

rob

lem

s a

nd

add

s m

an

y n

ew

pro

ble

ms;

pla

nnin

g p

roce

ss h

as b

ee

n

dis

co

ura

gin

g;

liste

n to

peo

ple

- m

ajo

rity

are

ag

ain

st

the

So

uth

bri

dge

; th

ere

will

b

e litig

ation

; m

ake r

easo

na

ble

im

pro

vem

en

ts to

th

e c

urr

en

t b

rid

ge

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts.

Th

ey a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

2

Ro

ge

r A

ustin

Exis

tin

g b

ridg

e h

as o

utliv

ed

its

pu

rpose

; it h

as p

oo

r a

pp

roa

che

s w

ith

restr

icte

d

vis

ibili

ty;

win

ter

icy c

on

ditio

ns p

resen

t tr

actio

n c

once

rns o

n a

pp

roach

es;

co

nce

rned

with

th

e f

unctio

na

lity f

or

em

erg

ency s

erv

ice

s; o

ve

rall

are

a d

oes n

ot

ha

ve

ad

eq

ua

te w

ate

r fo

r fire

su

pp

ressio

n; b

ridg

e's

we

igh

t lim

ita

tio

ns p

reclu

de

w

ate

r te

nd

er

tru

cks fro

m u

sin

g it;

em

erg

en

cy s

erv

ice

s w

ou

ld n

ot

be a

ble

to c

ross

du

rin

g a

10

0-y

ea

r flo

od

eve

nt.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

3

Cyra

C

ain

(M

T D

EQ

) A

pp

en

dix

2 (

En

vir

on

men

tal S

ca

n),

P.

22

, as s

tate

d:

“Are

as w

he

re a

ir p

ollu

tio

n

leve

ls d

o n

ot

exce

ed

th

e a

ir p

ollu

tio

n th

resh

old

s e

sta

blis

he

d in

th

e N

AA

QS

are

d

esig

na

ted

as “

att

ain

men

t” a

rea

s.”

C

lari

ficatio

n:

Are

as m

ay a

lso

be

de

sig

na

ted

a

s “

Uncla

ssifia

ble

” w

he

re th

ere

is insu

ffic

ien

t d

ata

to

cla

ssify.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Cla

rify

ing la

ng

uag

e h

as b

ee

n a

dd

ed t

o “

Sectio

n 3

.2.4

.6 –

Air

Qu

aili

ty”

in t

he

fin

al p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y r

ep

ort

.

4

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Lo

ng

-tim

e B

ig F

lat re

sid

en

t; w

ou

ld lo

ve

to s

ee

a m

ode

rn,

sa

fe b

ridg

e a

t th

e e

nd

of

So

uth

; M

acla

y B

rid

ge

is a

n o

ld r

elic

; it's

tim

e to

mo

de

rniz

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

5

Lo

rna

Ric

ha

rdson

He

ed

fin

al o

utc

om

e o

f 1

994

and

20

13

stu

die

s -

cam

e to

sa

me

con

clu

sio

n; n

ee

d

ne

w b

rid

ge

on

the

end

of

So

uth

; con

ce

rne

d o

ve

r ch

ildre

n’s

sa

fety

acro

ss b

rid

ge

; d

oe

sn

’t s

upp

ort

ba

nd a

id f

ix;

bri

dg

e is a

n a

ccid

en

t w

aitin

g t

o h

ap

pen

alm

ost

ye

arl

y;

bri

dge

is a

pu

blic

nu

isan

ce

; M

ou

nt cro

ssin

g is a

bsu

rd; str

ong

ly o

pp

ose

th

at

op

tion

; flo

odin

g o

n R

ive

r P

ine

s R

oa

d o

ccu

rs f

requ

en

tly; a

pp

roache

s to

the

b

rid

ge h

ave

po

or

vis

ibili

ty –

nee

d p

rop

er

sig

ns o

r lig

hts

; d

o s

om

e m

ino

r w

ork

u

ntil a

pe

rman

en

t solu

tio

n is r

eso

lve

d; a

ct n

ow

an

d n

ot

wa

it a

no

the

r 1

0 o

r 2

0

ye

ars

to

fix

th

e s

am

e p

rob

lem

s n

ote

d in

bo

th s

tud

ies.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

6

Sa

ra

Lu

stg

raa

f T

wo

on

e-w

ay b

rid

ge

s is th

e w

ors

t id

ea

; tw

o a

lte

rna

tives a

re e

qu

ally

th

e b

est:

(1

) cu

rre

nt

site

with

a n

ew

bri

dg

e, a

nd

( 2

) S

outh

site

is a

dire

ct sh

ot a

cro

ss -

will

a

llevia

te t

he

ha

za

rdo

us c

urv

es o

n R

ive

r P

ine

s;

sym

pa

thiz

e w

ith

re

sid

en

ts a

t th

e

en

d o

f S

ou

th;

pre

sen

t site

wo

uld

avo

id a

ll th

e u

pse

t; d

on’t w

an

t to

ru

in th

e v

iew

o

f th

e la

nd

sca

pe

on

th

e e

nd

of S

ou

th.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

7

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Su

pp

ort

s n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t th

e e

nd

of

Sou

th;

wo

uld

be

an

extr

aord

ina

ry

imp

rovem

en

t o

ve

r th

e c

urr

en

t u

nsafe

, on

e-la

ne

bri

dg

e t

ha

t se

rve

s t

his

gro

win

g

are

a.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

8

Ka

te

Pe

nn

ach

io

Co

nce

rns r

eg

ard

ing

a p

ote

ntial 2

-lan

e b

rid

ge

; ap

pre

cia

tes r

ura

l n

atu

re o

f T

arg

et

Ran

ge

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

; b

est

ag

ricu

ltu

ral la

nd

is in

th

e a

rea

; n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d p

lan

se

ts t

he

min

imu

m lo

t siz

e a

t 1

ho

use

pe

r a

cre

– r

ura

l n

atu

re; cu

rre

nt

Ma

cla

y

Bri

dg

e h

as s

erv

ed t

he c

om

mun

ity v

ery

we

ll;

sin

gle

la

ne f

orc

es p

eo

ple

to

slo

w

do

wn

; sa

fer

are

a fo

r ch

ildre

n;

with

ne

w t

wo

la

ne

brid

ge

we

will

lo

se

th

e v

ery

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

na

ture

of

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

; h

igh

er

sp

ee

ds a

nd

volu

me

s w

ill in

cre

ase;

wo

uld

ch

an

ge

th

e n

atu

re o

f th

e n

eig

hb

orh

ood

; m

ost

rea

so

na

ble

op

tio

n is r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

of th

e

exis

tin

g b

rid

ge w

ith

ad

ditio

n o

f a

pe

de

str

ian

bik

e/w

alk

ing

bridg

e;

this

ap

pro

ach

w

ou

ld a

dd

ress t

he

ne

ed

s o

f em

erg

en

cy v

eh

icle

s a

nd

scho

ol b

use

s a

nd

oth

ers

in

th

e a

rea

, w

hile

re

tain

ing

the

ve

ry n

atu

re o

f th

e c

om

mu

nity t

hat

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

re

sid

en

ts h

ave

wo

rked

so h

ard

to

pro

tect.

9

Ro

ge

r a

nd

Ja

net

Hin

the

r N

ew

bri

dg

e o

ff S

ou

th w

ill c

rea

te a

byp

ass a

nd

ad

d th

ousan

ds o

f ve

hic

les t

o

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d r

oa

ds;

Blu

e M

ou

nta

in R

oa

d is n

arr

ow

an

d e

xtr

em

ely

da

nge

rous;

ligh

t a

t S

ou

th a

nd

Rese

rve

is p

oo

r; t

raff

ic t

urn

ing n

ort

h a

t R

ese

rve

will

ge

t ca

ugh

t in

ano

the

r 3

0 m

ph s

ch

ool zo

ne

; b

rid

ge

will

in

cre

ase

tra

ffic

in o

ur

resid

en

tia

l a

rea

s;

peo

ple

main

ly g

o w

est o

ve

r th

e r

ive

r fo

r re

cre

ation

in th

e B

lue

Mo

un

tain

a

rea

; re

sid

en

ts c

are

de

eply

abo

ut

ou

r a

rea

; ke

ep

Ma

cla

y B

ridg

e v

iab

le –

do

no

t in

tro

du

ce a

Sou

th b

rid

ge

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

Bo

b

Cart

er

Op

po

se

th

e p

ropo

sed

brid

ge

on

So

uth

Ave

; sup

po

rt t

he M

acla

y B

rid

ge

re

ha

bili

tation

optio

n.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Ag

ain

st

a n

ew

2-l

an

e b

rid

ge

at

So

uth

; b

uilt

ho

me in

cu

rren

t are

a d

ue

to

tra

ffic

flo

w;

ha

d o

bn

oxio

us b

rid

ge

tra

ffic

ne

ar

ho

me

pre

vio

usly

- d

run

k a

nd

na

ked

p

eo

ple

; cu

rre

ntly t

raffic

is d

issip

ate

d d

ow

n N

ort

h to

Cle

me

nts

an

d d

ow

n H

um

ble

to

So

uth

; w

ith

ne

w b

rid

ge

at S

ou

th a

ll tr

aff

ic w

ill c

om

e d

ow

n S

ou

th m

akin

g it

difficu

lt t

o tu

rn le

ft d

urin

g b

usy tim

es;

will

ta

ke a

ll tr

affic

pa

st

sch

ool; in

ters

ectio

n

ne

ar

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge is a

lrea

dy c

row

de

d a

nd

difficu

lt d

urin

g b

usy t

imes;

req

uest

tha

t th

e b

rid

ge n

ot b

e p

lace

d th

ere

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

12

Sa

ra

Mu

tch

O

pp

oses n

ew

tw

o-l

an

e b

rid

ge

; a

lre

ad

y t

oo

much

tra

ffic

on

Big

Fla

t a

nd R

ive

r P

ine

s R

oa

ds;

faste

r tw

o-l

an

e b

rid

ge

will

in

cre

ase

this

tra

ffic

loa

d;

co

nce

rns f

or

wild

life

an

d m

ore

accid

en

ts;

will

incre

ase

tra

ffic

on

Sou

th p

ast

ele

me

nta

ry s

ch

ool

an

d h

igh

sch

ool in

cre

asin

g t

raffic

ha

za

rds fo

r stu

de

nts

; n

ew

bri

dg

e w

ill c

ause

m

uch

gre

ate

r e

nvir

onm

enta

l im

pact

tha

n u

pg

rad

ing t

he

exis

tin

g o

ne

; M

acla

y

Bri

dg

e is h

isto

ric a

nd

sin

gle

-lan

e is a

rem

ind

er

to s

low

do

wn

an

d a

pp

recia

te

on

e's

su

rrou

nd

ings;

wh

y is it a

be

tte

r ch

oic

e t

o s

pen

d 7

tim

es a

s m

uch

as

ma

inta

inin

g t

he

old

bri

dg

e in

the

se

tim

es o

f b

ud

ge

t sho

rtfa

lls; co

nsid

er

all

en

vir

onm

en

tal an

d s

ocia

l costs

of n

ew

bri

dg

e; cho

ose

sim

ple

r, lo

we

r im

pa

ct

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

tha

t is

mo

re a

pp

rop

ria

te fo

r th

e loca

l cou

ntr

y r

oa

ds it se

rve

s.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

13

Bo

b

Sch

weitze

r D

raft

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge S

tud

y R

ep

ort

sp

ecific

ally

sa

ys th

at fe

dera

l fu

nd

ing

fo

r re

ha

bili

tation

of th

e b

ridg

e is n

ot

ava

ilab

le -

rese

arc

h in

dic

ate

s t

hat

ma

y b

e

inco

rre

ct; T

itle

23

US

Co

de

Section

144

(o)

sp

ecific

ally

ad

dre

sses d

esig

n

exce

ptio

ns f

or

his

toric b

rid

ges; M

acla

y B

rid

ge

is o

ve

r 5

0 y

ea

rs o

ld,

is e

ligib

le f

or

inclu

sio

n in

th

e N

atio

nal R

egis

ter

of

His

toric P

lace

s, a

nd is e

ntitle

d t

o

reh

ab

ilita

tion

fun

din

g f

or

off

-syste

m b

rid

ges;

we

are

pe

rple

xe

d a

s to

wh

y t

his

stu

dy d

id n

ot

reve

al a

va

ilab

ility

of

fede

ral fu

nd

ing

fo

r re

ha

bili

tatio

n.

Co

uld

yo

u

ple

ase

en

ligh

ten

us.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Fe

de

ral H

igh

wa

y A

dm

inis

tration

(F

HW

A)

sta

ff

resp

on

ded

to

th

is c

om

me

nt a

s f

ollo

ws:

To

ad

dre

ss y

ou

r co

nce

rn r

eg

ard

ing

th

e u

se

of

fed

era

l-a

id

fun

ds t

o r

eh

abili

tate

th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge

as d

eta

iled

in

th

e

cu

rre

nt

pla

nnin

g s

tud

y, sim

ply

re

ha

bili

tating

the

brid

ge

will

n

ot

me

et cu

rren

t de

sig

n s

tanda

rds o

r co

rre

ct th

e d

eficie

nt

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

3

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

lo

ad

ca

pa

city a

nd

sa

fety

fe

atu

res n

ee

ded

to

se

rve

th

e lo

ng

te

rm in

ten

de

d u

se

of th

e fa

cili

ty.

Th

e s

ectio

n y

ou r

efe

ren

ce

d

do

es a

llow

re

ha

bili

tatio

n (

§ S

ection

144

(o))

bu

t o

the

r p

rovis

ion

s a

re n

ee

de

d to

gain

a c

om

ple

te u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f w

he

n it

wo

uld

be

pru

de

nt

to r

eh

ab

ilita

te a

his

toric s

tru

ctu

re.

23

Un

ite

d S

tate

s C

od

e (

US

C)

§ 1

44

(o)(

1))

an

d §

14

4(o

)(3

) a

re t

wo

se

ction

s th

at g

uid

e o

ur

de

cis

ion

. T

he

re

hab

ilita

tio

n

op

tion

fo

r th

is s

tru

ctu

re, in

lig

ht o

f th

e p

rovis

ions,

wo

uld

no

t b

e e

ligib

le in

th

is p

art

icula

r in

sta

nce f

or

the

rea

son

s

de

scri

bed

in

th

e p

rovis

ions a

bo

ve

an

d d

ocu

men

ted in

th

e

pla

nnin

g s

tud

y.

Fo

r yo

ur

refe

rence

, T

itle

23 U

SC

§ 1

44

(o)(

1)

do

es e

nco

ura

ge

th

e “

inve

nto

ry,

rete

ntio

n,

reh

abili

tation

, a

da

ptive

re

-use

, an

d

futu

re s

tud

y o

f h

isto

ric b

ridg

es”

an

d 2

3 U

SC

§ 1

44

(o)(

3)

furt

he

r d

efin

es t

hat

reaso

na

ble

co

sts

to

pre

se

rve

or

redu

ce

th

e im

pacts

of a

pro

ject

on

a h

isto

ric b

rid

ge a

re e

ligib

le

pro

vid

ed

th

e lo

ad

cap

acity a

nd s

afe

ty f

ea

ture

s o

f th

e b

rid

ge

are

ade

qu

ate

to

se

rve

th

e in

ten

de

d u

se f

or

the

life

of

the

b

rid

ge,

wh

ich

is n

ot

the

ca

se

with

this

str

uctu

re.

Als

o, §

1

44

(o)(

p)

furt

he

r dir

ects

th

at

“a p

roje

ct

no

t on

a F

ed

era

l-aid

h

igh

wa

y u

nd

er

this

se

ctio

n s

ha

ll be

desig

ne

d,

con

str

ucte

d,

op

era

ted

, a

nd

ma

inta

ine

d in

acco

rda

nce

with

Sta

te la

ws,

reg

ula

tion

s, d

irectives,

sa

fety

sta

nd

ard

s,

desig

n s

tand

ard

s

an

d c

onstr

uction

sta

nda

rds”.

A

s s

tate

d in

th

e p

lann

ing

stu

dy,

MD

T w

ou

ld n

ot

co

ntr

ibu

te o

ff-s

yste

m b

rid

ge

fun

ds to

an

a

lte

rna

tive

th

at

do

es n

ot a

dd

ress s

afe

ty a

nd

de

ficie

nt

sta

nd

ard

s inclu

din

g a

pp

roach

es.

Th

e s

ectio

n in

23

US

C y

ou

re

fere

nce

d is r

ou

tine

ly u

se

d to

p

rese

rve

his

toric b

rid

ges w

he

n a

decis

ion h

as b

ee

n m

ad

e t

o

co

nstr

uct

a n

ew

bri

dg

e in

a n

ew

(o

r sa

me

lo

ca

tion

) as

op

pose

d to

sim

ply

dem

olis

hin

g t

he

his

toric s

tru

ctu

re.

Th

e

pro

vis

ion

s o

f th

e s

ectio

n a

llow

a s

tate

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f T

ran

sp

ort

atio

n (

DO

T)

to u

se

fun

din

g u

p to

the

co

sts

of

de

molit

ion

of

the

brid

ge

to

pre

se

rve

it fo

r no

n-m

oto

rize

d

pu

rpose

s o

r m

ake

the

brid

ge

ava

ilab

le f

or

do

na

tion

to

a

Sta

te, lo

ca

l ag

ency o

r p

riva

te e

ntity

tha

t is

will

ing

to

com

mit

to m

ain

tain

ing

th

e b

rid

ge

and

th

e f

eatu

res t

ha

t m

ake

it

elig

ible

fo

r th

e N

atio

na

l R

eg

iste

r o

f H

isto

ric P

lace

s. W

hile

the

p

rese

rva

tio

n o

f th

e e

xis

ting

Ma

cla

y B

ridg

e a

s a

no

n-

mo

torize

d b

rid

ge

is a

n o

ptio

n id

en

tifie

d w

ith

in t

he

pla

nnin

g

stu

dy,

ad

ditio

na

l co

nve

rsa

tio

ns a

re n

eed

ed

an

d a

co

mm

itm

ent

ma

de

to

the

ma

inte

na

nce

of

the

brid

ge

if

this

o

ption

is p

urs

ued

. T

he

U.S

. A

rmy C

orp

s o

f E

ngin

ee

rs w

ill

als

o n

eed

to

be

en

gag

ed

on

the

pe

rmittin

g c

onsid

era

tio

ns o

f

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

4

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

lea

vin

g th

e e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

pie

rs a

nd

con

str

uctin

g n

ew

pie

rs

in t

he

wa

terw

ay.

14

Be

n

Dee

ble

M

an

y f

law

s in

pla

nnin

g s

tud

y;

bri

dg

e c

alm

s t

raff

ic t

hro

ug

h n

eig

hb

orh

ood

; T

arg

et

Ran

ge

Neig

hbo

rhoo

d P

lan

fo

un

d n

o n

eed

to

re

pla

ce b

ridg

e; stu

dy f

aile

d t

o

co

nsu

lt w

ith

US

FS

or

City o

f M

isso

ula

re

ga

rdin

g t

raff

ic f

low

s;

stu

dy ig

no

res t

he

n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d's

sen

sib

ilitie

s a

nd

its

pro

fessio

na

l kn

ow

led

ge

; co

sts

of

ne

w b

rid

ge

w

ill c

ost cou

nty

ta

xp

aye

rs m

illio

ns m

ore

to

wid

en

So

uth

to

cop

e w

ith

th

e

resu

ltin

g s

urg

e in

tra

ffic

vo

lum

e,

con

gestio

n a

nd

sp

eed

; e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

ca

n b

e

reh

ab

ilita

ted f

or

on

e-t

en

th th

e e

xp

en

se

bu

t d

isq

ualif

ied

fo

r uncle

ar

reaso

ns;

off

icia

l p

lan

nin

g te

am

has ign

ore

d p

rofe

ssio

na

l str

uctu

ral en

gin

ee

r re

com

men

da

tio

ns;

retire

d s

tatisticia

n v

olu

nte

ere

d s

tud

y's

ra

nkin

g s

yste

m w

as

ba

dly

ske

we

d;

repla

ce

me

nt o

f M

acla

y B

rid

ge

will

pu

sh

"p

rob

lem

" o

f ri

ve

r a

cce

ss

to a

ne

w lo

ca

tio

n;

rep

lacem

ent re

com

me

nd

atio

n a

t S

ou

th d

efie

s c

om

mo

n s

en

se

an

d d

isre

ga

rds c

om

mu

nity s

entim

en

t a

nd

exp

ert

ise

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

15

Sh

aro

n

Rose

(MF

WP

) C

op

y o

f M

FW

P le

tte

r da

ted M

ay 2

01

2 n

ot

fou

nd in

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

of

the

Dra

ft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy R

ep

ort

; d

oe

s a

pp

ea

r th

at se

ve

ral o

f o

ur

co

mm

en

ts w

ere

a

dd

ressed

. W

as le

tte

r e

ve

r re

ce

ive

d?

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Ye

s,

yo

ur

Ma

y 2

01

2 le

tte

r w

as r

eceiv

ed

.

16

Ch

arl

es

Cro

wth

er

La

w e

nfo

rcem

ent

pro

ble

ms a

t th

e c

urr

en

t b

rid

ge

; can

’t p

ark

with

in t

hre

e b

locks;

pe

op

le o

n b

rid

ge

ca

use

tra

ffic

ja

ms; n

igh

t pa

rtie

s h

ap

pe

n u

nde

r b

ridg

e; b

ridg

e

da

mag

ed

by f

lood

wa

ters

th

ree

tim

es; con

ce

rne

d a

bou

t th

e w

ildlif

e; sw

imm

ing

at

bri

dg

e is d

an

ge

rou

s.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

17

Ed

T

aylo

r A

da

man

tly o

pp

ose

d to

a n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t a

ny loca

tio

n; co

nce

rne

d a

bo

ut

de

facto

b

yp

ass a

nd

incre

ase

in

tra

ffic

; o

ne

la

ne b

ridg

e a

cts

as a

tra

ffic

ca

lmin

g d

evic

e;

co

nce

rned

abo

ut sa

fety

at

South

an

d R

ese

rve

; tr

affic

will

incre

ase o

n

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d r

oa

ds w

ith

ne

w b

rid

ge;

reh

ab

ilita

te th

e o

ld b

rid

ge

; do

n’t im

pact

a

ne

w a

rea

an

d ign

ore

Ta

rget

Ran

ge

Neig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; a

t th

e v

ery

le

ast re

tain

e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge a

s a

bic

ycle

ped

estr

ian

re

sou

rce.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

18

D

on

L

oft

sg

aa

rde

n

Bla

tan

t, o

bvio

us m

ista

kes in

ran

kin

g p

rocess; co

rre

ctio

ns p

rovid

ed

– d

oes n

ot

ch

ang

e r

an

kin

g r

esults in

Chap

ter

6 o

f re

po

rt fo

r h

igh

est

fou

r ra

nke

d o

ption

s;

no

cri

teria

th

at

reflects

go

als

of

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

(T

RN

P).

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Ra

nkin

g p

rocess c

om

ple

ted b

y P

lan

nin

g T

ea

m w

as r

evie

we

d

with

in t

he

co

nte

xt

of

oth

er

pre

-Na

tio

nal E

nvir

on

men

tal P

olic

y

Act

(NE

PA

) /

Mo

nta

na

En

vir

onm

en

tal P

olic

y A

ct

(ME

PA

) P

lan

nin

g S

tud

ies a

nd

fo

und

to

be

app

rop

ria

te fo

r th

e n

ote

d

pu

rpose

. S

ug

geste

d e

dits a

nd o

pin

ions a

re n

ote

d,

ho

we

ve

r re

vis

ion

s d

id n

ot ch

an

ge

ou

tcom

e.

Th

ere

are

nu

mero

us

pro

cesse

s a

va

ilab

le to

scre

en

op

tion

s.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

5

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

Cri

teri

a r

ela

ted

to

the

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

hb

orh

ho

d P

lan

(T

RN

P)

wa

s in

itia

lly c

on

sid

ere

d,

alo

ng

with

cri

teria

re

pre

se

nta

tive

of o

ther

Co

unty

an

d r

eg

ion

al p

lan

nin

g

do

cum

ents

. U

nfo

rtun

ate

ly,

these

do

cum

ents

co

nflic

t w

ith

e

ach o

the

r, a

nd

the

Pla

nn

ing

Te

am

ele

cte

d t

o n

ot d

eve

lop

cri

teria

asso

cia

ted

with

th

e T

RN

P,

reg

ion

al T

ransp

ort

atio

n

Pla

n (

TP

), G

row

th P

olic

y,

active

TP

, e

tc.

– d

ue t

o th

e

inh

ere

nt co

nflic

ts fo

und

in e

ach

docu

me

nt.

19

Mic

ha

el

Bu

rnsid

e

Co

nsid

er

revis

ing

th

e h

isto

ry o

f th

e b

rid

ge

in t

he d

raft r

epo

rt to

re

fle

ct

Cou

nty

a

rch

ive

d h

isto

rical in

form

atio

n; m

an

y r

esid

en

ts a

ssum

e th

e a

ge

of

the

bri

dge

d

ate

s f

rom

193

5;

Cou

nty

reco

rds s

ho

ws t

he

old

est b

ridg

e s

ection

s (

the

we

st

tru

ss a

nd p

on

y t

russ)

we

re insta

lled

in

19

52

and

the

east se

ctio

ns d

ate

fro

m

19

64

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

20

Lo

rna

Ric

ha

rdson

Inte

resting

to s

ee

wh

at

a y

ea

r o

f re

al h

igh

wa

ter

ma

y d

o t

o t

he

old

Ma

cla

y

bri

dg

e;

hate

to liv

e w

est

of

the b

rid

ge if it w

ash

es d

ue

to

hig

h w

ate

r.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

21

Kri

s

Cra

wfo

rd

Sa

fety

is a

n im

po

rta

nt

issue

- m

an

y a

ccid

en

ts o

ve

r th

e y

ea

rs a

t o

r n

ea

r b

rid

ge

; d

esire

to

use

th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge

as a

wa

lk/b

ike b

ridg

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

22

Lo

rna

Ric

ha

rdson

Sa

fety

is o

ur

big

ge

st is

su

e;

ban

d-a

id e

ffo

rt is n

ot

in t

he

best p

ub

lic in

tere

st;

sw

imm

ers

will

con

tin

ue

to

dro

wn

b

y ju

mp

ing

off t

he h

igh

est p

art

of th

e b

ridg

e;

sh

ocked

wh

en

extr

a w

eig

ht

of a

sp

ha

lt a

dd

ed

to

str

uctu

re;

a tw

o la

ne

brid

ge

with

a

wa

lk p

ath

nee

de

d;

pub

lic s

afe

ty o

utw

eig

hs k

ee

pin

g a

bri

dge

th

at h

as s

erv

ed

its

tim

e; fa

vo

rs r

ep

lace

men

t a

t th

e e

nd

of

Sou

th A

ve

nu

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

23

Sh

aro

n

Rose

(MF

WP

) W

as M

FW

P M

ay 2

01

2 le

tte

r le

ft o

ut o

f A

pp

en

dix

1 a

n e

rro

r --

or

for

so

me

re

ason

w

ere

yo

u n

ot

inclu

din

g a

ge

ncy le

tte

rs in

Ap

pe

ndix

1 a

s p

art

of

the

re

co

rd?

T

ha

nk y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Ag

en

cy le

tte

rs r

ece

ive

d in

re

sp

on

se

to

th

e E

nvir

onm

en

tal

Sca

n r

evie

w a

re in

clu

de

d in

Mo

nta

na

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f T

ran

sp

ort

atio

n (

MD

T’s

) a

nd

Mis

sou

la C

ou

nty

’s p

roje

ct

file

s.

24

Eliz

ab

eth

S

teve

nson

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

has o

utliv

ed

it's

use

fuln

ess t

o a

uto

tra

ffic

; com

bin

ed u

se

of

run

ne

rs,

wa

lke

rs,

ho

rseb

ack r

ide

rs, b

icyclis

ts a

nd a

ll ty

pe

s o

f m

oto

rize

d v

eh

icle

s

at

this

riv

er

cro

ssin

g h

as b

een

un

safe

alw

ays;

difficu

lt v

isib

ility

on

th

e

ap

pro

ache

s;

Riv

er

Pin

es R

oad d

oes n

ot safe

ly a

ccom

oda

te p

eo

ple

no

t in

ve

hic

les; n

ee

d s

afe

no

n-m

oto

rzie

d a

ccess a

cro

ss r

ive

r; d

o n

ot

sup

po

rt

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Hom

eo

wn

ers

' Associa

tio

n v

isio

n; su

pp

ort

ive

of

Sou

th r

ep

lacem

en

t b

ridg

e

to im

pro

ve

sa

fety

. W

ill p

rote

st

taxe

s b

ein

g a

dd

ed t

o t

he T

arg

et

Rang

e S

ch

oo

l dis

tric

t if e

xis

tin

g

bri

dg

e r

em

ain

s;

de

sig

n fo

r m

ulti-

use

ca

n e

nh

ance

th

e v

alu

e o

f th

e c

orr

ido

r; r

ive

r

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

6

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

co

rrid

or

for

wild

life im

po

rta

nt;

off

er

a b

eau

tifu

lly d

esig

ne

d b

rid

ge

an

d a

cce

ss;

tra

ffic

nea

r th

e s

ch

oo

l as a

re

aso

n fo

r n

ot

repla

cin

g t

he

bri

dge

is m

isg

uid

ed

-

mo

st sch

ools

in

Mis

sou

la a

re o

n t

raffic

co

rrid

ors

be

cau

se it m

ake

s s

ense

fo

r co

nve

nie

nt a

cce

ss.

D

eve

lop

a b

ridg

e p

lan

th

at com

ple

tes t

he

vis

ion

of

a p

ositiv

e a

dd

itio

n t

o th

e

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d; u

nkn

ow

n is th

e a

nxie

ty;

inte

rpre

tive

are

a f

or

mu

lti-

use

an

d

ed

uca

tion

adja

ce

nt to

str

uctu

re w

ill lik

ely

get

mo

re c

om

mu

nity s

up

po

rt.

25

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Lis

ten

to t

he m

ajo

rity

of

loca

l citiz

en

s;

cle

ar

ma

jori

ty is o

pp

ose

d t

o b

uild

ing

a n

ew

b

rid

ge o

n S

ou

th;

a s

ensib

le a

lte

rna

tive

exis

ts;

irre

spo

nsib

le to

pro

ce

ed w

ith

an

e

xp

en

siv

e a

nd

un

po

pu

lar

pla

n fo

r ve

ry little

positiv

e b

en

efit.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

26

Jo

e

St.

Pe

ter

Fa

vo

rs n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t th

e e

nd

of

So

uth

Ave

nu

e;

mon

ey is a

lre

ad

y a

va

ilab

le;

only

o

ption

tha

t m

akes s

ense

; cu

rre

nt

brid

ge is a

de

trim

en

t to

th

e e

nvir

onm

en

t a

nd

the

riv

er;

ig

no

re t

he

vo

cal op

po

sitio

n to

a n

ew

bri

dg

e -

the

y a

re t

hin

kin

g o

nly

of

the

mse

lves;

rig

ht d

ecis

ion

is the

sam

e d

ecis

ion

sin

ce

19

94

; do

n't

let selfis

h

vo

ice

s d

row

n o

ut

yo

ur

com

mon

sen

se

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

27

Th

om

as a

nd

L

ois

P

ete

rso

n

New

So

uth

bri

dge

is in

th

e 1

00

-ye

ar

flo

od

pla

in –

this

wo

uld

cre

ate

a d

am

to

an

yo

ne

be

ing

just so

uth

of th

e b

rid

ge;

we

do

not

wa

nt

to b

e f

loo

de

d o

ut b

eca

use

o

f w

he

re t

his

brid

ge w

ill b

e p

lace

d.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

28

Ha

rold

P

alm

er

A b

us fu

ll o

f ch

ildre

n a

nd

tw

o c

ars

on

th

e b

rid

ge

at

the

sa

me

tim

e p

rob

ab

ly

exce

ed

s w

eig

ht

limit;

wo

uld

be a

re

al tr

age

dy t

o h

ave

the

bridg

e c

olla

pse

with

a

bu

s fu

ll o

f ch

ildre

n;

15 m

ph

spe

ed

lim

it ign

ore

d;

Riv

er

Pin

es R

oa

d v

ery

un

sa

fe -

n

o s

ho

uld

ers

or

wa

lkw

ays;

no

gu

ard

ra

ils o

n t

he r

ive

r sid

e o

f th

e r

oad

; co

me

s

do

wn

to

th

e s

afe

ty f

acto

r o

f th

e b

ridg

e; a

ne

w b

rid

ge

is v

ery

mu

ch

nee

de

d a

nd

sh

ould

be

built

on

th

e e

nd

of

So

uth

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

29

Ga

ry

Bo

tch

ek

Exis

tin

g b

ridg

e is s

afe

an

d m

ain

tain

ab

le;

ma

inte

nan

ce r

eco

mm

en

da

tion

s /

nee

ds

no

t co

mple

ted

by M

isso

ula

Cou

nty

; la

st m

ajo

r u

pg

rad

e to

brid

ge

too

k a

citiz

en

e

ffo

rt; co

un

ty’s

ow

n in

-ho

use

en

gin

ee

ring

re

vie

w (

19

86

) d

ete

rmin

ed

brid

ge c

ou

ld

be

re

ha

bili

tate

d to

me

et 3

6-t

on v

eh

icle

loa

d s

tand

ard

s;

ap

pro

ve

d T

arg

et

Ran

ge

N

eig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n o

ve

rwh

elm

ingly

su

pp

ort

s r

eha

bili

tating

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

; su

ppo

rts m

ajo

r re

ha

bili

tation

of

bri

dg

e w

ith

a p

ed

estr

ian

bridg

e;

will

ne

ed

e

xp

en

siv

e in

fra

str

uctu

re u

pg

rad

es t

o S

outh

with

ne

w b

ridg

e.

Co

nce

rne

d a

bo

ut

incre

ase

in

ve

hic

le t

rip

s;

urb

an

frin

ge

de

ve

lop

men

t a

rea

(U

FD

A)

stu

dy in

vo

lve

s p

rim

ari

ly T

arg

et

Ran

ge

an

d O

rch

ard

Hom

es

ne

ighb

orh

oo

ds e

ast o

f th

e B

itte

rro

ot

Riv

er;

we

st

of

rive

r ve

ry lim

ite

d la

nd

a

va

ilable

fo

r d

eve

lopm

en

t; a

ny in

cre

ase

d t

raff

ic d

ue

to p

ote

ntia

l b

yp

ass o

f R

ese

rve

Str

ee

t.

Ho

no

r fin

din

gs o

f T

arg

et

Ra

nge

Ne

ighb

orh

oo

d P

lan

in

co

nju

nctio

n w

ith

a

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

7

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

info

rma

l b

ut

we

ll d

efin

ed

pe

titio

n (

100

0 p

lus s

ign

atu

res)

in s

up

po

rt o

f ke

epin

g t

he

e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; p

rovid

e a

co

mple

te r

eha

bili

tatio

n o

f th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge;

inclu

de

a p

ed

estr

ian

/bik

e w

alk

wa

y f

or

a f

ractio

n o

f th

e c

ost

of a

ne

w b

rid

ge

; re

ha

bili

tation

of th

is h

isto

ric b

rid

ge

is e

ligib

le f

or

fed

era

l fu

nd

ing

.

30

Ga

ry

Bo

tch

ek

Who p

ays f

or

an

y r

oa

d a

nd t

raff

ic c

han

ges/u

pg

rade

s r

esulta

nt

fro

m a

ne

w b

ridg

e

at

the

en

d o

f S

ou

th;

wh

y a

re a

ssocia

ted

costs

no

t in

clu

de

d in t

he

tota

l cost

of a

n

ew

bri

dg

e;

So

uth

Ave

nu

e t

raffic

& c

onstr

uctio

n im

pacts

are

cre

ate

d o

r e

nh

ance

d b

y a

ne

w S

ou

th A

ven

ue

brid

ge

; n

ew

So

uth

bri

dg

e w

ill s

ignific

an

tly

alte

r th

e u

se

of

Nort

h A

ve

nu

e; a

dd

ed c

osts

cou

ld e

asily

exce

ed

3 (

thre

e)

mill

ion

d

olla

rs; a

ne

w b

ridg

e o

n S

ou

th w

ill m

ove

exis

ting

2,6

10

ve

hic

les a

t a

fa

ste

r ra

te

ba

sed

on a

str

aig

ht sh

ot fr

om

a n

ew

bri

dge

east

to C

lem

en

ts R

oa

d;

even

with

ou

t a

pro

po

sed

So

uth

brid

ge t

raffic

gen

era

tors

will

re

qu

ire

sig

nific

an

t im

pro

ve

men

ts

to S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Co

sts

fo

r up

gra

din

g S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e b

etw

ee

n H

an

so

n D

rive

a

nd

Cle

men

ts R

oa

d w

ere

acco

un

ted

fo

r a

nd

are

sh

ow

n o

n

pa

ge

61

of th

e d

raft p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y r

ep

ort

.

31

Th

om

as

Pe

ters

on

Ne

w S

ou

th b

rid

ge

is in

th

e 1

00

-ye

ar

flo

od

pla

in –

this

wo

uld

cre

ate

a d

am

to

an

yo

ne

be

ing

just so

uth

of th

e b

rid

ge

; w

e d

o n

ot

wa

nt

to b

e f

loo

de

d o

ut b

eca

use

o

f w

he

re t

his

brid

ge w

ill b

e p

lace

d.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts.

Th

ey a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

32

Will

iam

K

oh

l S

tud

y ig

no

res t

he

wa

nts

an

d d

esir

es o

f th

e T

arg

et

Rang

e n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d; n

o

ma

jor

tra

ffic

issu

es e

xis

ts w

ith

cu

rre

nt

brid

ge

; b

ridg

e d

oes s

low

tra

ffic

flo

w

thro

ugh

neig

hb

orh

oo

d; b

ett

er

an

d le

ss c

ostly s

olu

tion

is t

o u

pg

rad

e t

he e

xis

tin

g

bri

dg

e f

or

bic

ycle

s a

nd

ped

estr

ian

s;

ne

w b

ridg

e o

n S

ou

th w

ill in

vite

mo

re tra

ffic

o

n B

ig F

lat R

oa

d -

no

t b

uilt

to

acco

mod

ate

ad

ditio

na

l tr

affic

alo

ng

with

th

e

cu

rre

nt

foot

and

bic

ycle

tra

ffic

; n

ew

bri

dg

e w

ill c

rea

te m

ore

pro

ble

ms th

an it

will

re

so

lve

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

33

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Lis

ten

to r

easo

ne

d c

om

me

nta

ry f

rom

info

rme

d c

itiz

en

s t

ha

t op

po

se

build

ing

a

ne

w b

rid

ge

on

So

uth

; sto

p w

aste

ful allo

ca

tio

n o

f ta

xp

aye

r m

on

ey;

make

th

e

resp

on

sib

le c

ho

ice

to f

ix t

he

cu

rre

nt

Ma

cla

y B

ridg

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

34

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Pla

nn

ing

stu

dy c

onclu

sio

n is fu

nd

am

en

tally

fla

we

d;

con

tra

ry to

bo

th c

om

mo

n

se

nse

an

d t

he

co

nse

nsu

s o

pin

ion

of

the m

ajo

rity

of

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

re

sid

en

ts;

cu

rre

nt

brid

ge

ca

n b

e r

ep

air

ed f

or

a f

ractio

n o

f th

e c

ost o

f a n

ew

bri

dg

e;

it is

irre

spo

nsib

le t

o p

roce

ed w

ith

a n

ew

bri

dg

e in

ord

er

to g

et

"fre

e m

on

ey";

bu

ildin

g

a n

ew

bri

dge

on

So

uth

re

quir

es n

ew

ap

pro

ache

s b

e c

onstr

ucte

d a

nd

utilit

ies t

o

be

mo

ve

d -

un

acco

un

ted c

osts

; in

tan

gib

le c

osts

to

th

e n

eig

hbo

rho

od a

nd

resid

en

ts;

pro

pe

rty t

axe

s w

ou

ld incre

ase

, sa

fety

wo

uld

pa

rado

xic

ally

be

d

ecre

ased

, an

d th

e v

oic

e o

f con

ce

rne

d c

itiz

en

s ig

no

red

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

35

Jo

hn a

nd

Be

cky

Pe

ters

S

up

po

rt r

eh

ab

ilita

tio

n o

f M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; co

uld

su

ppo

rt t

he

pro

po

sed

So

uth

b

rid

ge if

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

co

uld

no

t b

e r

eha

bili

tate

d,

bu

t th

is is n

ot

the

ca

se

; w

ho

le

ch

ara

cte

r o

f T

arg

et

Ra

ng

e is a

t sta

ke

; th

ere

are

ma

ny fla

ws in

th

e la

test stu

dy

an

d m

isle

ad

ing in

form

ation

; n

ew

bri

dg

e w

ou

ld c

rea

te a

ma

jor

ea

st-

we

st co

rrid

or

incre

asin

g t

raff

ic; o

ptio

ns s

uch a

s t

raff

ic lig

hts

co

uld

be a

dded

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

8

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

Sa

fety

issu

es c

an

be

so

lve

d; pu

t ta

x m

on

ey into

reh

ab

ilita

tion o

f M

acla

y B

rid

ge

-

ke

ep t

he

un

iqu

e c

ha

racte

r o

f T

arg

et

Ran

ge

; re

hab

ilita

tio

n o

f M

acla

y B

rid

ge

will

m

ee

t n

eed

s a

nd

ad

dre

ss t

he

issue

s.

36

Do

n

Ste

ve

nson

Su

rpri

se

d C

ou

nty

hasn

't be

en

su

ed o

ve

r M

acla

y B

rid

ge

as a

n a

ttra

ctive

n

uis

an

ce

; on

e o

r tw

o p

eo

ple

dro

wn

eve

ry y

ea

r; a

pp

recia

te t

he

num

ero

us t

rip

s

the

Sh

eriff

off

ice

rs m

ake

to

the s

ite

; n

o s

ign

s h

ave

he

lpe

d; cost

for

po

licin

g b

ut

the

re

al co

st is

th

e lost

of h

um

an

liv

es;

rem

ovin

g t

he c

em

ent b

rid

ge a

bu

tmen

ts

wo

uld

le

t th

e r

ive

r fill

in th

e to

wn

sw

imm

ing

ho

le n

atu

rally

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

37

Su

sa

n

Sm

alle

y

Op

po

sed

to

usin

g M

ou

nt

Ave

nu

e a

s a

ne

w r

ou

te;

old

brid

ge

ca

n b

e u

se

d; if

ca

nno

t be

re

ha

bili

tate

d th

en

So

uth

is th

e b

est cho

ice

fo

r a

dire

ct

tra

ve

l ro

ute

; d

on

’t lik

e g

oin

g t

o tw

o la

ne

brid

ge

; it w

ill incre

ase

tra

ffic

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

38

Sh

aro

n

Str

eb

is

So

uth

Ave

nue

betw

ee

n H

an

son

an

d H

um

ble

is n

arr

ow

er

than

So

uth

Ave

nu

e

ea

st o

f H

um

ble

; co

nce

rn a

bo

ut S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e a

bili

ty t

o h

an

dle

tra

ffic

sa

fely

; co

nce

rned

abo

ut a

bse

nce

of pe

de

str

ian/b

ike

co

nce

rns in

pla

nn

ing s

tud

y;

liste

n

to n

eig

hbo

rhoo

d c

onstitu

en

ts a

nd

no

t p

ush

fo

rwa

rd o

n a

pro

ject

- n

ot su

pp

ort

ed

b

y t

he

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; re

hab

ilita

te o

r ju

st m

ain

tain

Ma

cla

y

Bri

dg

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Co

sts

fo

r up

gra

din

g S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e b

etw

ee

n H

an

so

n D

rive

a

nd

Cle

men

ts R

oa

d w

ere

acco

un

ted

fo

r a

nd

are

sh

ow

n o

n

pa

ge

61

of th

e d

raft p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y r

ep

ort

.

39

Mic

ha

el

Bu

rnsid

e

Mr.

Lo

ftsg

aa

rde

n's

sta

tistica

l stu

dy a

nd

com

me

nts

are

be

ing

use

d a

s a

basis

fo

r q

ue

stio

nin

g th

e q

ualit

y o

f th

e w

ork

; n

ot

ce

rta

in o

f th

e v

alid

ity o

f h

is a

na

lysis

; S

ou

th b

rid

ge

opp

one

nts

do

n’t r

ea

lize

th

at a

fte

r L

oftsg

aa

rde

n a

pp

lies h

is

"co

rrectio

ns"

to t

he c

rite

ria

, h

e c

om

es u

p w

ith

th

e s

am

e r

an

kin

g o

f th

e to

p

alte

rna

tive

s a

s t

he

stu

dy t

eam

, w

ith

So

uth

as t

he

best;

see

ms h

is c

riticis

ms o

f th

e s

tud

y a

nd

its

co

nclu

sio

ns a

re m

oo

t a

nd

fu

rth

er

va

lida

tes y

ou

r w

ork

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

40

Ka

ren

Kn

ud

se

n

Con

sid

er

op

tion

s th

at b

est

bala

nce p

rote

ctio

n o

f th

e r

ive

r, r

ipa

ria

n a

reas a

nd

the

fish

an

d w

ildlif

e a

lon

g th

e lo

we

r B

itte

rroo

t R

ive

r, w

ith

th

e n

eed

s o

f th

e

su

rro

un

din

g c

om

mu

nity;

ensu

re b

ridg

e(s

) h

as a

s f

ew

im

pa

cts

on

the

riv

er

an

d

we

tla

nd

s a

s p

ossib

le; m

ain

tain

ro

ad

wa

y c

on

nectio

n in

wa

ys t

ha

t p

rote

ct

an

d e

nh

ance

– r

ath

er

tha

n h

arm

– o

ur

rive

rs;

ma

inta

in o

nly

on

e b

rid

ge

ove

r th

e

Bitte

rroo

t to

re

duce

im

pa

cts

on r

ipa

ria

n r

esou

rces,

flo

od

pla

ins a

nd

th

e r

ive

r itse

lf;

an

y o

ptio

n f

or

a n

ew

bri

dg

e s

ho

uld

en

su

re n

o p

iers

are

in

the f

lood

wa

y;

or

if

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

is s

ub

sta

ntia

lly r

eb

uilt

, a

desig

n w

ith

ou

t ri

ve

r pie

rs s

hou

ld b

e

co

nsid

ere

d; a

vo

id im

pa

cts

to w

etla

nd

, ri

pa

rian

, an

d f

loo

dp

lain

re

so

urc

es f

rom

co

nstr

uction

/reco

nstr

uction

, fu

ture

use

, an

d m

ain

tena

nce

of th

e b

rid

ge

an

d

ap

pro

achin

g r

oa

dw

ays,

an

d f

ully

mitig

ate

an

y u

na

vo

idab

le im

pa

cts

; ro

bu

stly

en

ga

ge

the

pub

lic t

hro

ugh

a s

eri

es o

f vis

ionin

g a

nd lis

tenin

g

se

ssio

ns.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

9

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

41

Will

L

ustg

raa

f N

ece

ssa

ry t

o h

ave

a b

ridg

e a

cro

ss th

e r

ive

r in

th

e g

en

era

l vic

inity o

f th

e e

xis

tin

g

bri

dg

e;

belie

ve

exis

tin

g b

rid

ge

is in

ad

eq

ua

te c

on

sid

erin

g p

ublic

sa

fety

, co

nve

nie

nce

, an

d g

en

era

l tr

affic

ha

nd

ling c

ap

abili

ty;

two

-la

ne b

rid

ge

with

str

aig

ht-

on

app

roach

alig

nm

ents

wo

uld

be

ade

qu

ate

; b

rid

ge

sh

ou

ld b

e c

apa

ble

o

f e

ffic

ien

tly c

on

ve

yin

g a

wid

e v

ari

ety

of

two

-la

ne t

raffic

; b

est o

ption

is a

tw

o-l

ane

b

rid

ge s

imila

r to

th

e K

on

a R

anch

Brid

ge

; N

ort

h A

ve

nu

e t

o t

he

exis

tin

g b

ridg

e is

dis

co

ntin

uo

us b

etw

ee

n B

ig S

ky H

igh

Scho

ol a

nd

Re

se

rve

Str

ee

t; a

ny a

ttem

pt

to

up

gra

de

the

exis

tin

g b

rid

ge

str

uctu

re w

ou

ld b

e a

wa

ste

of

tim

e,

reso

urc

es, a

nd

op

po

rtu

nity.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

42

Co

nn

ie a

nd

D

ave

La

Va

ute

O

pp

ose

ne

w b

rid

ge

at

So

uth

Ave

nu

e;

wo

uld

de

str

oy r

ura

l in

teg

rity

of

the

n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d; sho

uld

no

t ta

ke a

dva

nta

ge

of fe

de

ral fu

ndin

g; m

ovin

g th

e b

rid

ge

w

ill n

ot

lesse

n th

e p

ark

ing

an

d s

wim

min

g issu

es -

we

be

lieve it

will

ma

ke t

he

situa

tion

wo

rse

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

43

To

m

Sto

ckstill

Not

logic

al (f

ina

ncia

l o

r p

ractica

l) t

o c

rea

te a

multi-

mill

ion

dolla

r th

oro

ug

hfa

re to

a

n a

lre

ad

y o

ve

ruse

d s

tree

t/hig

hw

ay;

sa

fety

an

d s

ecu

rity

of m

an

y a

rea

re

sid

en

ts/c

hild

ren

will

be

se

ve

rly c

om

pro

mis

ed

; th

ere

is a

long

sta

nd

ing

ne

ed

fo

r tr

aff

ic t

hro

ug

h M

isso

ula

; d

on

’t p

en

aliz

e a

ru

ral n

eig

hb

orh

ood

fo

r m

an

y y

ea

rs o

f m

is-s

tep

s; u

npo

pu

lar

with

affecte

d r

esid

ents

; d

ifficult to

und

ers

tand

th

e lo

gic

of

big

brid

ge

and

ru

ral sp

ee

dw

ay t

hro

ugh

a q

uie

t n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d; u

pg

rad

e e

xis

ting

b

rid

ge a

nd

incre

ase

en

forc

em

en

t –

most

pra

cticab

le.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

44

Kri

stin

An

de

rso

n

Tw

o s

tud

ies -

in

20

13

an

d 1

994

- a

rriv

ed a

t th

e s

am

e c

on

clu

sio

n;

su

pp

ort

s n

ew

b

rid

ge o

n th

e w

est e

nd

of

So

uth

Ave

nu

e; m

ain

tain

ing

th

e e

xis

ting

brid

ge

n

eg

ative

ly im

pa

cts

th

e e

nvir

onm

en

t; o

ut-

of-

dire

ctio

n tra

ve

l w

ith

exis

tin

g b

ridg

e -

a

dd

s t

o in

cre

ase

d t

rave

l tim

es, e

xtr

a g

aso

line

co

nsum

ptio

n, m

ore

air

po

llution

a

nd

exp

oses m

ore

of

the n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds t

o t

raff

ic a

nd

sa

fety

pro

ble

ms;

exis

ting

b

rid

ge a

bu

tmen

ts a

nd p

iers

con

str

ict

rive

r flo

w;

se

dim

en

t(s)

up

str

ea

m o

f th

e t

wo

ce

nte

r b

rid

ge

pie

rs; scou

ring

ma

y b

e s

low

ly u

nd

erc

uttin

g b

rid

ge

ab

utm

en

ts a

nd

p

iers

; lo

ng

te

rm s

tabili

ty p

roble

ms; n

ot a

dd

ressin

g k

no

wn

ha

za

rds o

f e

xis

ting

b

rid

ge p

oses s

erio

us lia

bili

ty t

o C

ou

nty

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

45

Eva

n

Rose

nbe

rg

Su

pp

ort

s n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e a

s m

ost lo

gic

al ch

oic

e;

mo

ve

fo

rwa

rd w

ith

co

nstr

ucting

ne

w b

ridg

e a

t S

ou

th; cu

rre

nt

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

is u

nsa

fe,

ine

ffic

ien

t,

an

d h

arm

ful to

ou

r e

nvir

onm

ent;

sa

fety

of

the

brid

ge

is p

rim

ary

co

nce

rn;

brid

ge

h

as c

rea

ted

a s

erio

us r

isk f

or

dro

wn

ing

; pe

op

le h

ave

lo

st

their

liv

es d

ue t

o th

is

scou

r h

ole

; co

un

ty a

t se

riou

s r

isk o

f lia

bili

ty f

or

futu

re d

ea

ths; cu

rre

nt

loca

tio

n is

ine

ffic

ien

t re

quir

ing t

raffic

to

div

ert

fro

m S

ou

th a

nd

win

d th

rou

gh

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d; re

su

lts in a

dditio

na

l d

rivin

g t

ime

fo

r fire

tru

cks a

nd

am

bula

nces;

pu

ttin

g t

he

brid

ge o

n th

e m

ain

ro

ad

(S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e)

an

d t

he

reb

y e

limin

ating

tr

aff

ic o

n e

ve

ry o

the

r sid

e s

tree

t (s

uch

as H

um

ble

, C

lem

en

ts,

Nort

h, a

nd

W

ood

law

n)

wo

uld

pre

se

rve

the

ru

ral cha

racte

r of

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

as a

wh

ole

sin

ce

all

of

the t

raffic

wo

uld

re

ma

in o

n t

he

ma

in a

rte

rial ro

ad

; ge

ttin

g r

id o

f th

e c

urr

en

t b

rid

ge c

orr

ects

ne

ga

tive

en

viro

nm

en

tal im

pact

the

cu

rre

nt b

rid

ge

ha

s h

ad o

n th

e

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

0

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

rive

r; c

on

ce

rne

d o

ve

r M

ou

nt

Ave

nu

e 2

be

ing

the

thir

d r

an

ked o

ptio

n in

th

e

pla

nnin

g s

tud

y;

sho

uld

ne

ve

r m

ad

e it

pa

st th

e fir

st

level scre

en

ing p

rocess –

d

oe

s n

ot p

rovid

e a

n e

ffic

ien

t co

nn

ection

to

th

e e

xis

tin

g r

oa

d n

etw

ork

.

46

Mic

ha

el

Bu

rnsid

e

Pla

nn

ing

stu

dy r

ep

ort

va

lidate

s a

nd

sup

po

rts 1

99

4 E

nvir

onm

en

tal A

sse

ssm

en

t;

stu

dy h

as b

ee

n e

xh

au

stive

bo

th in

pu

blic

in

vo

lve

me

nt a

nd

in

re

vie

win

g a

nd

a

na

lyzin

g th

e issu

es s

urr

ou

nd

ing

th

e b

rid

ge

; h

igh

ly s

ign

ific

ant

tha

t th

e 2

01

3

stu

dy in

de

pe

nde

ntly a

rriv

ed

at th

e s

am

e c

on

clu

sio

n fo

r th

e b

est

brid

ge

site

as

the

199

4 s

tud

y -

So

uth

Ave

nue

. E

xis

tin

g b

ridg

e is d

an

ge

rous a

nd

a m

ajo

r p

rob

lem

; ca

uses f

req

ue

nt

tra

ffic

accid

en

ts a

nd

dro

wn

ing

s; fu

lly lo

ad

ed s

ch

ool

bu

ses a

re r

igh

t a

t th

e b

ridg

e’s

11

to

n w

eig

ht

limit;

fire

tru

cks m

ust str

ad

dle

the

ce

nte

rlin

e a

nd

tra

vel 5

mile

s p

er

ho

ur;

brid

ge

fa

iled

up

to 5

tim

es in

th

e p

ast w

ith

th

e la

st m

ajo

r w

ash

out

in 1

948

; e

ntire

brid

ge w

as r

eb

uilt

in

195

2 w

ith

pa

rts o

f a

n

old

Bla

ckfo

ot

Riv

er

brid

ge

; fo

un

da

tio

ns o

f th

e p

iers

are

un

kno

wn

an

d c

ou

ld w

ash

o

ut

in t

he n

ext

sp

ring

flo

od

; if b

rid

ge

fa

ils in

the

fu

ture

, w

est

sid

e a

ccess fo

r fo

rest fire

s o

r h

om

e e

me

rge

ncie

s w

ou

ld b

e d

ela

ye

d -

cou

nty

wo

uld

ha

ve

to

be

ar

the

co

sts

to f

ix o

r re

pla

ce

it;

up t

o 2

,61

0 v

ehic

les p

er

da

y (

vp

d)

cro

ss th

e o

ld

bri

dg

e d

aily

an

d t

he

re

po

rt s

how

s t

his

will

gro

w t

o 5

,65

0 v

pd

by 2

04

0; sa

fe

sta

nd

ard

fo

r a

on

e-la

ne b

rid

ge is 1

00

vp

d -

com

mo

n s

ense

ca

lls f

or

its

rep

lacem

en

t.

Issue

yo

ur

de

cis

ion

; a

cce

pt th

e r

eco

mm

en

da

tion

s o

f th

is r

epo

rt;

issue

decis

ion

so

on a

fte

r th

e r

ep

ort

is f

ina

l; h

ave

eve

ryth

ing

yo

u n

eed

at th

at

poin

t to

ma

ke

an

in

form

ed

de

cis

ion

; cu

rre

nt stu

dy h

as s

ho

wn

th

ere

is n

o s

ign

ific

an

t n

ew

in

form

atio

n o

r cha

nge

d c

on

ditio

ns s

ince

19

94 t

ha

t h

ave

no

t be

en

ad

dre

ssed

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

47

Ro

be

rt

Sch

weitze

r B

elie

ve

s f

ede

ral fu

ndin

g is a

vaila

ble

fo

r a

reh

ab

ilita

tio

n o

ption b

eca

use

th

e

bri

dg

e c

an

no

t b

e b

roug

ht

up

to c

urr

en

t sta

nda

rds;

exa

mp

les s

ho

w o

the

rwis

e -

fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

is a

va

ilable

th

rou

gh

pro

vis

ions f

or

de

sig

n e

xce

ption

s fo

r his

tori

ca

l b

rid

ges;

reh

abili

tatio

n o

ptio

n o

ffe

rs b

roa

d n

eig

hb

orh

ood

su

ppo

rt,

co

st

eff

ective

ness fo

r all

go

ve

rnm

en

t a

gen

cie

s,

ade

qu

ate

tra

ffic

flo

w w

ith

bu

ilt in

ca

lmin

g q

ua

litie

s,

and

im

pro

ved

sa

fety

fo

r pe

destr

ian

s a

nd b

icyclis

ts; p

erc

eiv

ed

un

will

ingn

ess b

y s

tate

an

d c

oun

ty e

ng

ine

ers

to

wa

ive

se

lf-im

po

sed

sta

nda

rds

with

a c

on

text

se

nsitiv

e d

esig

n e

xce

ptio

n;

re-e

va

lua

te r

eh

abili

tation

op

tio

n -

a

dva

nce it a

s a

re

aso

na

ble

alte

rna

tive

; d

oes n

ot

requ

ire im

me

dia

te u

pg

rade

s to

se

rvic

e s

tre

ets

and

ro

ad

s; d

oes n

ot re

quir

e fu

rth

er

exte

nsiv

e s

tud

y a

nd

p

erm

itting

; ca

n b

e im

ple

me

nte

d s

oo

ne

r, e

njo

ye

d m

ore

qu

ickly

, w

ith

th

e le

ast

dis

rup

tion

fo

r th

e n

eig

hbo

rho

od

an

d th

e c

om

mun

ity a

t fa

r le

ss c

ost

tha

n a

ne

w

bri

dg

e r

epla

ce

men

t.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Ple

ase

se

e r

esp

on

se t

o c

om

me

nt

#13

fo

r u

se

of F

ed

era

l fu

nds f

or

bri

dg

e r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

.

48

Mic

ha

le

Ste

rbis

O

pp

oses n

ew

bri

dg

e o

n S

outh

Ave

nu

e;

be

lieve

s th

e p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y is

incom

ple

te b

eca

use

it

doe

s n

ot

take

an

in

-de

pth

lo

ok in

to th

e d

eficie

ncie

s o

f th

e

roa

ds (

spe

cific

ally

Sou

th A

ve

nu

e);

alm

ost

no

dis

cu

ssio

n a

t a

ll a

bou

t ho

w b

uild

ing

a

la

rge

, tw

o la

ne

brid

ge

is g

oin

g t

o a

ffe

ct

the T

arg

et

Rang

e N

eig

hbo

rhoo

d; n

o

dis

cu

ssio

n w

ha

tsoe

ve

r a

bou

t th

e a

mo

unt

of

wo

rk th

at

wo

uld

ne

ed

to

be d

one

on

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

1

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

So

uth

Ave

nue

; ve

ry im

po

rtan

t q

ue

stio

ns w

ere

com

ple

tely

ig

no

red

as t

he

stu

dy

focuse

d p

rim

arily

on

the

brid

ge

; stu

dy is s

erio

usly

fla

we

d b

eca

use

it

has ig

no

red

co

mp

lete

ly t

he s

afe

ty issu

es o

n S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e.

No

dis

cussio

n a

bo

ut

affe

cts

to th

e T

arg

et

Ran

ge

are

a a

nd

whe

the

r it f

its in

with

th

e T

arg

et

Ran

ge

Ne

ighb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; estim

ate

s o

f in

cre

ased

tra

ffic

in

the

stu

dy

are

und

er-

estim

ate

s b

ecau

se

no

dis

cu

ssio

n o

f socia

l is

sue

s w

as d

iscu

sse

d;

urg

e

mo

re c

onsid

era

tio

n o

f eith

er

rep

lacin

g th

e e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

with

ano

the

r o

ne

la

ne

bri

dg

e,

or

refu

rbis

hin

g t

he

exis

tin

g b

rid

ge

.

49

Da

ph

ne

Herl

ing

Fa

vo

r re

hab

ilita

tio

n p

lan p

rop

ose

d b

y M

acla

y B

rid

ge

Alli

an

ce

; scre

en

ing

cri

teria

a

re insu

ffic

ien

t to

ad

dre

ss c

om

mu

nity c

once

rns fo

r safe

ty,

exp

en

se

and

pre

vio

us

co

mm

unity p

lan

nin

g e

ffo

rts;

flaw

s in

scre

en

ing

as p

er

retire

d s

tatisticia

n D

on

Lo

ftsg

aa

rde

n; sa

fety

con

ce

rns f

or

the

Ta

rge

t R

ang

e c

hild

ren

are

no

t a

de

qu

ate

ly

co

nsid

ere

d;

So

uth

Ave

nu

e w

ill b

eco

me

byp

ass b

etw

ee

n M

isso

ula

and

Hig

hw

ay

93

; re

ha

bili

tating

th

e c

urr

en

t b

rid

ge

will

ad

dre

ss s

afe

ty issue

(s)

and

ma

inta

in th

e

ch

ara

cte

r o

f a s

usta

ina

ble

, w

alk

ab

le c

om

mu

nity;

reh

ab

ilita

tion

pla

n c

an

be

im

ple

me

nte

d s

oo

ne

r w

ith

ou

t th

e c

ostly f

ull

NE

PA

stu

dy;

ne

w b

rid

ge d

oe

sn’t a

lign

with

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

bo

rho

od

Pla

n.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

50

Ste

ve

Se

nin

ge

r P

lan

nin

g s

tud

y is in

co

mple

te,

insu

ffic

ien

t a

nd

om

its im

po

rtan

t co

st

trad

eo

ffs a

nd

sa

fety

co

nce

rns;

tota

lly ig

no

res n

eg

ative

im

pa

cts

on

neig

hborh

oo

ds a

nd

the

lo

cal co

mm

unity;

stu

dy inco

rrectly a

nd

err

on

eo

usly

ran

ks S

ou

th A

ve

nue

as t

he

p

refe

rred

alte

rnative

; su

ppo

rts r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

as o

utlin

ed

by M

BA

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

51

Bry

an

an

d

Da

rla

Ste

ub

s

Co

nstr

uctio

n o

f a

ne

w b

rid

ge

at

So

uth

vio

late

s n

ee

ds 3

an

d 4

in

the

re

po

rt;

sig

nific

an

tly im

pa

cts

ru

ral a

men

itie

s id

en

tifie

d a

s d

esira

ble

in

th

e T

arg

et

Ran

ge

N

eig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n;

will

dir

ectly im

pact

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Sch

oo

l w

ith

in

cre

ased

tr

aff

ic a

nd

incre

ased

sp

ee

ds; sin

gle

lan

e b

rid

ge

is a

su

perb

tra

ffic

calm

ing

d

evic

e; b

est

fit

is t

he r

eh

ab

ilita

tio

n o

ptio

n f

orw

ard

ed b

y t

he

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

A

llian

ce

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

52

De

bo

rah

Ric

hie

S

tro

ng

ly o

pp

ose

a n

ew

bri

dge

; su

pp

ort

s r

eha

bili

tatio

n o

f M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; rip

aria

n

are

a is v

ery

de

lica

te,

rich in

wild

life,

and

im

po

rta

nt

to p

rese

rve

; n

ew

bri

dge

is

eco

log

ica

lly h

arm

ful; w

ill e

ncou

rag

e fa

st d

rivin

g w

ith

mo

re w

ildlif

e b

ein

g k

illed

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

53

An

ge

la

La

vato

P

refe

r to

kee

p t

he

sa

me

loca

tio

n a

nd

re

furb

ish

th

e o

ld b

rid

ge;

econ

om

ica

lly

mo

re r

espo

nsib

le;

pre

se

rves th

e inte

grity

of

ou

r ru

ral lif

esty

le;

on

e la

ne

has

ne

ve

r b

een

a c

once

rn.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

54

Jo

Yo

rk

Ad

vo

ca

te r

eh

ab

ilita

tio

n o

f M

acla

y B

rid

ge

, w

ith

a s

ep

ara

ted

ped

estr

ian

cro

ssin

g;

ca

n b

e im

ple

me

nte

d s

oo

ne

r w

ith

ou

t fu

ll N

EP

A s

tud

y;

go

od

optio

n b

eca

use

it

ma

inta

ins th

e g

oa

ls o

f th

e T

arg

et

Rang

e N

eig

hbo

rhoo

d P

lan

; r

ep

rese

nts

le

ss

tha

n 1

5%

of

the

cost o

f re

pla

ce

me

nt;

a 2

-lan

e s

tru

ctu

re is n

eith

er

po

ssib

le n

or

de

sira

ble

fro

m t

he

neig

hb

orh

oo

d p

ers

pective

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

2

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

55

Bru

ce

Ba

rre

tt

Reta

in c

urr

en

t b

rid

ge

; n

ot

pu

rpo

se

of

brid

ge

re

hab

ilita

tio

n to

en

ha

nce

pri

va

te

pro

pe

rty v

alu

es fo

r so

me

wh

ile d

eva

luin

g n

ew

on

es; th

ere

wa

s a

tw

o la

ne

brid

ge

at

the

loca

tio

n fo

r a

lo

ng t

ime

; o

ne

la

ne

bri

dg

e w

as m

ove

d t

he

re f

rom

ano

ther

pa

rt o

f th

e c

oun

ty in

to

ugh

fin

an

cia

l tim

es;

on

e la

ne

bri

dg

e w

as a

sim

ple

and

ch

eap

re

pla

ce

me

nt

for

an e

xis

tin

g t

wo

lan

e;

bu

t e

ve

n r

eta

inin

g t

he

on

e la

ne

b

rid

ge is f

ine

; hig

he

r ta

xe

s n

ow

are

to

o m

uch

of

a b

urd

en

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

56

Fra

nce

s

Ow

ing

s

Op

po

sed

to

re

pla

cin

g th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; b

ette

r so

lutio

n to

upg

rad

e th

e e

xis

tin

g

str

uctu

re; a

dve

rse

ly a

ffe

cts

pro

pe

rty o

n H

an

so

n D

rive

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

57

R

oy

Ow

ing

s

Op

po

sed

to

re

pla

cin

g th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; a

dve

rse

ly a

ffects

pro

pe

rty o

n H

an

so

n

Dri

ve

; cre

ate

s a

dditio

na

l a

nd h

igh

er

sp

ee

d t

raff

ic a

lon

g S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

58

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

What

is th

e c

urr

ent

tota

l estim

ate

d c

ost

of b

ridg

e c

onstr

uction

?

What

is th

e e

stim

ate

d c

ost o

f b

rid

ge a

pp

roach

es?

W

hat

is th

e e

stim

ate

d c

ost fo

r ri

gh

ts o

f w

ay?

W

hat

is th

e c

on

tin

gen

t co

st o

f re

ha

bili

tation

and

wid

en

ing

fo

r S

ou

th A

ve

nue

, R

ive

r P

ines,

Blu

e M

ou

nta

in a

nd

Big

Fla

t R

oa

ds t

o a

cco

mm

od

ate

in

cre

ase

d

tra

ffic

?

Will

an

y o

f th

ese

co

sts

be

sub

ject

to S

pecia

l Im

pro

ve

me

nt

Dis

tric

ts?

Will

a S

ID b

e a

ssesse

d t

o t

he

en

tire

cou

nty

or

just a

mo

ng

hom

eo

wn

ers

in

the

d

istr

ict.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Co

mp

reh

ensiv

e p

lan

nin

g le

ve

l co

sts

are

in

clu

ded

in C

ha

pte

r 6

an

d A

pp

en

dix

3 o

f th

e d

raft

pla

nnin

g s

tud

y r

ep

ort

. T

he

y a

re

su

mm

ari

zed

belo

w f

or

the

So

uth

1 o

ption

:

Co

mp

reh

ensiv

e b

rid

ge c

on

str

uction

co

sts

= $

5,9

85

,00

0

C

om

pre

he

nsiv

e b

rid

ge a

pp

roach

co

sts

= $

315

,000

R

igh

t-o

f-w

ay c

osts

= $

2,2

50

to $

15

,00

0

C

on

tin

ge

nt costs

= $

1.9

mill

ion

fo

r S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e

Fu

nd

ing

so

urc

es f

or

futu

re in

fra

str

uctu

re p

roje

cts

, w

hic

h a

re

se

pa

rate

fro

m a

ne

w r

ep

lacem

en

t b

rid

ge a

nd a

pp

roach

es

fun

ded

with

Off

-Syste

m B

ridg

e F

un

ds,

are

unid

en

tifie

d a

t th

is

tim

e.

59

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Fe

bru

ary

28

, 2

01

1 (

Je

an

Cu

rtis

s,

refu

sin

g t

o a

tte

nd

hom

eo

wne

rs m

eetin

g)

"Rep

lacin

g t

he

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

is s

om

eth

ing

th

at

Mis

so

ula

Cou

nty

ha

s b

een

d

iscu

ssin

g w

ith

th

e s

tate

an

d th

e c

itiz

ens f

or

alm

ost

20

ye

ars

. It

is n

ot

a p

roje

ct

tha

t w

ill h

ap

pen

fo

r 5

-10 y

ea

rs,

so

it

is n

ot

urg

en

t fo

r us t

o p

ull

tog

eth

er

the

info

rma

tio

n th

at

we

fe

el is

need

ed

to r

esp

ond

to

qu

estion

s b

ein

g r

ais

ed

by y

ou

r n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d."

"T

he

re is n

o a

gre

em

en

t w

ith

th

e s

tate

ye

t a

nd

no

pro

jecte

d c

osts

o

r tim

e lin

e,"

sh

e s

aid

. "W

e h

ave

ple

nty

of tim

e."

P

ub

lic W

ork

s d

irecto

r G

reg

Rob

ert

so

n

Th

ey n

otified

us last

ye

ar

it's

sta

rtin

g t

o r

ise

to

the

top

," R

ob

ert

so

n s

aid

. "B

ut

it's

still

a lo

ng w

ay o

ut

fro

m h

app

en

ing

. T

o m

e it's

no

t a

re

al b

ig p

rio

rity

. I'v

e g

ot

thin

gs t

ha

t a

re m

ore

im

me

dia

te t

ha

t I

nee

d to

be

wo

rkin

g o

n."

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

3

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

60

Rya

n

Za

cha

riase

n

Co

nstr

uctio

n o

f n

ew

bri

dge

on S

ou

th is u

ne

ce

ssa

ry;

co

st d

iffe

ren

tial b

etw

ee

n a

n

ew

bri

dg

e a

nd

up

gra

din

g t

he e

xis

tin

g is s

ub

sta

ntia

l; g

reatly in

cre

ase

d t

raffic

; ta

x in

cre

ase

s; p

rope

rty v

alu

es d

ecre

ased

; sa

fety

of

child

ren

is a

hig

h p

rio

rity

; ro

ad

will

ne

ed

to

be

wid

en

ed

ma

kin

g tra

ffic

da

nge

rously

clo

se

to o

ur

ho

me

s a

s

we

ll; c

ons b

y f

ar

ou

twe

igh

th

e p

ros.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

61

Su

zan

ne

S

ch

weitze

r S

up

po

rts r

eh

ab

ilita

ting

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

; b

rid

ge

do

es n

ot

ca

use d

ea

ths; p

eo

ple

a

nd

ho

w t

he

y d

rive

, re

cre

ate

, o

r u

se

obje

cts

ca

use

de

ath

s;

tire

d o

f e

motion

al

sca

re t

actics th

at a

re to

tally

unfo

un

de

d.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

62

Ka

tie

Mik

els

ons

Su

pp

ort

s r

ah

ab

ilita

tion

of

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

- to

in

clu

de a

bik

e-p

ed

lan

e a

nd

re

ma

inin

g o

ne

-lan

e f

or

ve

hic

les;

ma

kes s

ense

mo

neta

rily

; p

rese

rve

s c

ha

racte

r o

f o

ld b

rid

ge

an

d c

ha

racte

r o

f M

acla

y F

lats

are

a;

wh

y b

uild

a t

ota

lly n

ew

bri

dg

e;

wh

y p

ut

ad

de

d s

tress a

nd

pre

ssu

re o

n t

he

natu

ral h

ab

ita

t; m

ore

an

d w

ide

r ro

ads

for

ca

rs w

ill r

esult in m

ore

ca

rs o

n t

he

ro

ad

; pu

t fo

cus a

nd

atte

ntion

into

pro

jects

th

at

de

cre

ase c

ars

on

the

ro

ad

an

d in

cre

ase

su

sta

inab

le f

orm

s o

f tr

ansp

ort

ation

-

su

ch

as p

ub

lic t

ran

sp

ort

atio

n, b

ikin

g, a

nd w

alk

ing.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

63

De

bo

rah

Slic

er

Doe

s n

ot

su

ppo

rt n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t S

ou

th; e

xis

tin

g b

ridg

e is s

afe

; w

ait t

o c

ross is

tole

rab

le, n

o s

trea

m o

f tr

aff

ic s

tre

sse

s th

e b

ridg

e,

no

issue

s w

ith

em

erg

en

cy

ve

hic

les c

rossin

g it,

no d

ang

er

to p

ed

estr

ians o

r b

ike

rs;

co

lossa

l w

aste

of

mo

ne

y;

de

gra

de

s T

arg

et

Range

ne

igh

borh

ood

; po

ten

tia

l n

ega

tive

im

pact

on

w

ildlif

e; n

ew

bri

dg

e a

ffects

ru

ral ch

ara

cte

r, q

uie

t, a

nd

priva

cy o

f th

e

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge n

eig

hbo

rho

od

; T

arg

et

Ran

ge is o

nly

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

le

ft in

M

isso

ula

with

out

busy,

nois

y h

igh

wa

y;

if a

ne

ed

in

30

ye

ars

– d

ea

l w

ith

it

the

n.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

64

Ma

rcia

K

irch

er

Pa

y c

lose

atte

ntio

n to

the

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Pla

n –

en

do

rsed

by

Mis

so

ula

Cou

nty

Co

mm

issio

n; T

RN

P p

rovid

es g

uid

elin

es fo

r a

he

alth

y,

pro

spe

rous,

an

d v

igoro

us c

om

mu

nity;

“Bri

dge

s:

Co

ntin

ue

Mis

so

ula

Co

un

ty

Pu

blic

Work

s m

ain

ten

ance

of

the

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

”.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

65

Tre

vo

r W

illia

ms

Su

pp

ort

s r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

of e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

; m

ain

tain

th

e h

isto

ric b

rid

ge

; do

n’t

wa

ste

mill

ion

s m

ore

; a

pro

ject is

n’t n

ecessa

ry.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

66

Ch

els

ea

Cha

nd

ler

Su

pp

ort

s r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

of e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge;

and

add

ing

a b

ike

/pe

destr

ian

la

ne

; le

ast e

xp

en

siv

e p

lan

is t

he

best

optio

n;

don

't e

nco

ura

ge m

ore

tra

ffic

in

th

e

are

a;

are

a is p

rize

d fo

r its s

afe

ty,

qu

iet a

nd r

ura

l fe

el.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts.

Th

ey a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

67

Vic

kie

M

ike

lso

ns

Fa

vo

rs r

eh

ab

ilita

ting

the

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

ra

the

r th

an

re

pla

cin

g it

with

a n

ew

bri

dge

e

xte

nd

ing

fro

m S

ou

th A

ve

nue

; p

rote

cts

ru

ral n

atu

re; d

isco

ura

ge

ne

w r

oa

ds

be

ing b

uilt

an

d m

ore

veh

icle

s fro

m b

ein

g o

n th

e r

oa

ds;

en

coura

ge

mo

re p

ublic

a

nd

alte

rna

tive

tra

nsp

ort

atio

n; in

cre

ase t

he n

um

be

r a

nd

fre

que

ncy o

f b

us r

ou

tes;

en

cou

rage

oth

er

alte

rna

tive

s s

uch

as c

ar-

po

olin

g,

wa

lkin

g, b

icyclin

g;

reh

ab

ilita

tion

of th

e e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

pro

vid

es t

he a

dde

d s

upp

ort

ne

ede

d to

me

et

em

erg

en

cy v

ehic

le w

eig

ht/

load

re

quir

em

en

ts,

plu

s a

se

pa

rate

d

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

4

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

pe

destr

ian

/bic

ycle

cro

ssin

g;

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

ad

ds h

isto

ric a

nd a

esth

etic v

alu

e t

o

ou

r co

mm

un

ity a

nd

th

e T

arg

et R

an

ge

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

; M

acla

y B

rid

ge

acts

as a

ca

lmin

g d

evic

e a

nd

slo

ws t

raffic

; sa

y “

no

” to

a n

ew

bri

dg

e a

nd

"ye

s"

to

reh

ab

ilita

ting

the

exis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

.

68

Ro

be

rt

Kir

ch

er

Pla

nn

ing

stu

dy s

ho

ws n

eg

ative

bia

s b

y im

plic

ation

and

fact;

ig

no

res s

ignific

ance

o

f th

e r

ece

nt

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

hb

orh

ood

Pla

n e

nd

ors

ed

by M

isso

ula

Cou

nty

C

om

mis

sio

ne

rs; o

ve

rall

na

rra

tive

of

the

stu

dy p

ivo

ts o

n a

nega

tive

bia

s u

sin

g

da

ta th

at is

un

exa

min

ed

, p

oo

rly e

xp

lain

ed

and

lackin

g s

ubsta

nce

; cra

sh

da

ta is

ge

ne

ral an

d v

ag

ue

- n

o r

epo

rt o

f in

cid

en

ts in

vo

lvin

g in

jurie

s, se

riou

s o

r fa

tal, o

r th

at

an

y m

ore

th

an

one

ve

hic

le w

as in

vo

lve

d in

an

y g

ive

n incid

en

t; v

ast

ma

jority

o

f d

aily

tra

ffic

co

ntin

ue

s to

move

sa

fely

, co

urt

eo

usly

, ca

lmly

an

d w

ith

ou

t in

cid

en

t;

un

fort

un

ate

and

dis

app

oin

ting

th

at

the

Pla

nn

ing

Te

am

re

jecte

d t

he

re

hab

ilita

tio

n

pla

n; re

furb

ish

ing

th

e e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge is c

on

sis

ten

t w

ith

a n

earl

y u

na

nim

ou

s

co

mm

unity d

esir

e fo

r su

ch

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

69

Da

le a

nd

C

arm

a

Bo

sw

ort

h

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

sh

ould

be

dis

ma

ntled

, pie

rs r

em

ove

d a

nd

the

bri

dg

e r

epla

ce

d

with

a m

ode

rn t

wo

la

ne

brid

ge o

ff S

ou

th A

ve

nue

; tw

o s

epa

rate

stu

die

s h

ave

co

me

to

th

e s

am

e c

onclu

sio

n; p

lan

nin

g t

eam

did

lis

ten

to

and c

onsid

er

inp

ut

fro

m th

e p

ub

lic o

n a

ll sid

es o

f th

e issue

; re

com

men

da

tio

n is s

ou

nd

an

d

rea

son

able

; S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e is t

he

ma

in a

rte

ria

l ro

ad

an

d a

cro

ssin

g th

ere

wo

uld

e

limin

ate

win

din

g a

rou

nd

an

d th

rou

gh s

eve

ral str

ee

ts in

the

ne

igh

bo

rhoo

d;

do

ub

ts t

ha

t M

acla

y B

rid

ge

wo

uld

su

rviv

e a

ma

jor

floo

d e

ve

nt;

cu

rren

t b

rid

ge

has

ne

ga

tive

ly a

ffecte

d t

he r

ive

r cha

nn

el o

ve

r tim

e a

nd

is a

hug

e e

nvir

onm

en

tal

pro

ble

m;

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

is u

nsa

fe; so

und

eco

nom

ics t

o u

se

alr

ea

dy c

olle

cte

d

fed

era

l ta

x f

un

ds r

ath

er

tha

n im

posin

g m

ill le

vie

s o

n th

e c

om

mu

nity.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

70

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Ke

ep

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

as c

urr

ently c

on

fig

ure

d; su

pp

ort

s a

dd

itio

n o

f pe

destr

ian

la

nes.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

71

Cri

stin

Za

cha

riase

n

Op

po

ses r

em

ova

l a

nd

re

build

ing

of

the

Ma

cla

y B

ridg

e;

will

brin

g m

ore

tra

ffic

to

th

e a

rea

; th

ink a

bo

ut sa

fety

of scho

ol ch

ildre

n;

pe

op

le b

late

ntly d

isre

ga

rd p

oste

d

sp

eed

lim

its; d

o n

ot

wa

nt

to s

ee

a n

ew

bri

dg

e p

ut

in.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

72

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Do

no

t co

nsid

er

a p

roje

ct

tha

t is

unn

ece

ssa

ry,

po

ten

tia

lly h

arm

ful a

nd

will

en

d u

p

co

stin

g t

ax p

aye

rs m

ore

; o

ve

rwh

elm

ing

fa

cts

su

ppo

rt n

ew

bri

dg

e is n

ot n

ee

de

d;

ne

w b

rid

ge

on

So

uth

wo

uld

pose

fa

r m

ore

sa

fety

ris

ks t

ha

n e

xis

tin

g b

ridg

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

73

Whitne

y

??

Op

po

ses n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e;

co

nce

rns a

bo

ut sa

fety

of

a n

ew

bri

dge

on

a

str

aig

ht p

ath

alo

ng

So

uth

Ave

nu

e a

cro

ss t

he

riv

er;

belie

ves c

osts

are

un

de

r-re

pre

se

nte

d in t

he s

tud

y;

favo

rs r

eha

bili

tatio

n o

f th

e e

xis

ting

bri

dg

e a

t 1

/10

th

e

co

st o

f a n

ew

bri

dge

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

74

Jim

R

oa

ch

Pla

nn

ing

re

po

rt is h

ea

vily

en

gin

ee

ring

orie

nte

d -

bri

dge

ra

ting

s,

tra

ffic

flo

ws,

gri

d

inte

rco

nne

ctio

ns,

tra

ffic

mo

delin

g a

lgo

rhyth

ms; con

ce

rns o

f th

e loca

l com

mu

nity

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

5

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

w

ere

he

ard

but

not

pa

rtic

ula

rly c

onsid

ere

d; con

ce

rne

d a

bou

t lo

sin

g

un

ique

ch

ara

cte

r a

nd

en

vir

onm

en

tal va

lue

ra

the

r th

an

mo

vin

g t

raffic

th

rou

gh

th

e

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d; con

ce

rne

d m

ost

with

de

facto

byp

ass b

etw

ee

n U

S H

igh

wa

y 9

3

an

d M

isso

ula

; S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e w

est

of

Cle

me

nts

is n

ot

co

nd

uciv

e t

o incre

ase

d

tra

ffic

flo

ws;

Nort

h A

ve

nue

se

em

s le

ss d

isru

ptive

to

th

e n

eig

hb

orh

ood

ch

ara

cte

r;

exis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

pre

se

ntly m

ee

ts o

ur

nee

ds; b

rid

ge

can

be

refu

rbis

he

d to

a

cco

mm

od

ate

25

ton

ve

hic

les; p

rote

ct sp

ecia

l cha

racte

r of

this

his

toric

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d; cu

rre

nt b

rid

ge

se

rve

s a

s a

n e

ffective

tra

ffic

ca

lmin

g d

evic

e a

nd

lim

its v

olu

me

of

tra

ffic

co

min

g fro

m U

S93

.

75

Bri

an

(als

o

forw

ard

ed b

y)

Ka

thy

Rig

ge

rs

Arm

str

on

g

Pla

nn

ing

stu

dy is e

xtr

em

ely

bia

se

d t

ow

ard

s n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t S

ou

th; n

ot e

no

ug

h

imp

ort

an

t in

form

atio

n f

rom

re

gu

lato

ry a

ge

ncie

s h

as b

ee

n o

bta

ine

d;

co

mm

issio

ne

rs a

re n

ot

bein

g g

ive

n a

n a

ccu

rate

po

rtra

ya

l of

the

to

tal p

roje

ct

co

sts

; w

etla

nd

mitig

atio

n c

osts

sh

ou

ld b

e a

dd

ed t

o th

e c

ost

of

a n

ew

bri

dg

e

be

cau

se s

om

ebo

dy w

ill h

ave

to

fo

ot th

e b

ill;

FW

P s

ho

uld

ha

ve

be

en

co

nta

cte

d

du

rin

g t

he p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y;

to a

ctu

ally

“m

inim

ize

the

se im

pa

cts

to

th

e e

xte

nt

pra

cticab

le”,

FW

P, a

long

with

re

gu

lato

ry a

gen

cie

s lik

e U

SA

CO

E a

nd

US

FW

S,

sh

ould

ha

ve

bee

n a

t th

e ta

ble

fro

m th

e b

eg

inn

ing

; C

oun

ty F

loo

dp

lain

A

dm

inis

tra

tor

or

the

Co

nse

rva

tio

n D

istr

ict

mu

st

be

in

vo

lve

d in s

tud

y;

on

pa

ge

51

in

the

cost a

pp

roxim

atio

n s

ectio

n it

wa

s a

ssu

me

d t

ha

t th

e b

rid

ge

wo

uld

be

20

fe

et

pa

st th

e r

ive

r b

an

k o

n b

oth

sid

es -

so I

wo

uld

lik

e t

o k

now

wh

ich

“ri

ve

r b

an

k”

is u

se

d f

or

this

ap

pro

xim

atio

n o

f th

e b

ridg

e s

pan

; U

SA

CO

E a

nd

US

FW

S w

ill

ha

ve

spe

cific

re

quir

em

en

ts f

or

flo

ws t

ha

t th

e b

rid

ge

will

nee

d t

o a

ccom

mod

ate

- I

w

ou

ld lik

e t

o k

no

w p

recis

ely

wh

at

flo

w w

as u

se

d.

How

ca

n y

ou

possib

ly c

on

clu

de

th

at th

e S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e n

ew

bri

dg

e o

ptio

ns (

3E

.1

an

d 3

E.2

) w

ou

ld a

ffe

ct

a s

ho

rte

r d

ista

nce

(n

ot

on

ly s

ho

rte

r, b

ut

sig

nific

an

tly

sh

ort

er

– to

the

exte

nt

of

7 f

or

the

exis

ting

and

2 a

nd

3 f

or

the

ne

w c

rossin

g

pro

posa

ls)

tha

n th

e e

xis

ting

brid

ge

; ra

nkin

g s

eem

s incre

dib

ly s

ub

jective

an

d

ap

pe

ars

to

be

dri

ve

n o

nly

by th

e o

bje

ctive

of d

eve

lop

ing

a s

tud

y t

ha

t su

pp

ort

s a

n

ew

bri

dg

e.

De

ep

ly c

on

ce

rne

d t

ha

t C

om

mis

sio

ne

rs a

re n

ot g

ettin

g a

n a

ccu

rate

or

unb

iase

d

stu

dy;

the

y d

ese

rve

be

tte

r th

an

th

at b

eca

use

th

eir

jo

bs a

re o

n t

he

lin

e;

peo

ple

of

Mis

so

ula

Cou

nty

dese

rve

a fa

ir p

roce

ss in

makin

g t

he

se t

yp

es o

f d

ecis

ions.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Th

e a

ge

ncie

s y

ou

refe

rence

we

re e

ng

ag

ed

in

th

e p

lan

nin

g

stu

dy.

Re

fer

to A

pp

en

dix

1 f

or

reso

urc

e a

ge

ncy m

ee

tin

g

pa

rtic

ipation

and

co

mm

en

ts.

Riv

er

ba

nk u

se

d c

orr

ela

tes t

o th

e t

op o

f b

ank a

dja

ce

nt

to t

he

a

ctive

ch

an

ne

l. I

n a

reas w

he

re t

he

ch

ann

el w

as w

ide

or

no

t w

ell

de

fine

d,

the

dig

ita

l 1

00

-yea

r floo

dp

lain

lim

it(s

) w

ere

use

d

to c

alc

ula

te p

ote

ntia

l b

ridg

e len

gth

. F

loo

d f

low

s a

nd

co

rre

sp

ond

ing e

ve

nts

are

sh

ow

n o

n p

ag

e 2

2

of

the

dra

ft p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y r

epo

rt.

No

Hyd

raulic

En

gin

ee

rin

g

Ce

nte

r R

ive

r A

na

lysis

Syste

m (

HE

C-R

AS

) m

od

elli

ng

wa

s

pe

rfo

rme

d fo

r th

is p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y.

Ho

we

ve

r a

n a

pp

roxim

atio

n

of

brid

ge

le

ngth

s w

as m

ade

rela

tive

to

th

e e

xte

nt

of

the 1

00

-ye

ar

flo

od

pla

in lim

its.

A

dig

ita

l F

lood

Insu

ran

ce R

ate

Ma

p (

DF

IRM

) e

xis

ts a

nd w

as

su

pe

rim

po

se

d in

Ge

og

rap

hic

In

form

ation

Syste

m (

GIS

) m

ap

pin

g. T

he

le

ng

th o

f e

ach

alig

nm

en

t b

ein

g c

onsid

ere

d

wa

s m

ea

su

red

fro

m o

ne s

ide

of

the

10

0-y

ea

r floo

dpla

in t

o the

o

the

r sid

e a

nd

reco

rded

. T

his

is e

xp

lain

ed

on

pa

ge

51

of

the

d

raft

pla

nn

ing s

tud

y r

ep

ort

and m

ore

fu

lly in

the

Scre

enin

g

Pro

cess M

em

ora

nd

um

in

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

.

76

He

len

Ore

nd

ain

O

pp

osed

to

to

bu

ildin

g a

ne

w b

rid

ge t

o r

ep

lace

exis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; p

ublic

co

mm

unic

ation

wa

s s

tifled

; fe

asib

le im

pro

vem

en

ts w

ere

ign

ore

d;

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

N

eig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n w

as d

isre

ga

rde

d; 2

011

Mo

nta

na

Sup

rem

e C

ou

rt d

ecis

ion

,

Heff

ern

an

vs.

City o

f M

isso

ula

- p

ropo

ne

nts

of

the

Ra

ttle

sn

ake

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

P

lan

pre

va

iled

ele

va

ting

th

e leg

al sig

nific

ance

to

su

ch p

lan

s a

nd

go

ve

rnin

g

bo

die

s m

ust

su

bsta

ntia

lly c

om

ply

with

th

e n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d p

lans.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

6

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

Pu

blic

wa

s m

isle

ad

on

fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

fo

r re

ha

bili

tatio

n o

f b

rid

ge

s;

to b

utt

ress

the

arg

um

en

t to

re

pla

ce

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

, th

e g

rou

p c

laim

ed

in

th

e f

ina

l p

ropo

sal

tha

t fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

wa

s o

nly

ava

ilab

le f

or

rep

lacem

en

t -

this

is w

ron

g.

Fa

iled

to

in

form

pu

blic

M

acla

y c

ould

be

elig

ible

fo

r C

TE

P f

ede

ral fu

nd

ing

to

re

ha

bili

tate

th

e b

rid

ge

; C

TE

P -

Com

mu

nity T

ran

sp

ort

atio

n E

nh

an

ce

men

t P

rog

ram

- p

rovid

es fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

fo

r a

va

rie

ty o

f im

pro

ve

me

nts

inclu

din

g

reh

ab

ilita

ting

his

toric b

ridg

es; M

acla

y q

ua

lifie

s a

s a

his

tori

c b

rid

ge

bu

t th

e

fun

din

g w

as n

ot

dis

clo

se

d to

th

e p

ub

lic a

s a

n a

va

ilab

le r

esou

rce

by t

he

pla

nn

ing

gro

up

. P

lan

nin

g te

am

focu

se

d o

n t

he

bri

dg

e a

s a

n isola

ted

pro

ject

- a

vo

ids fa

cto

ring

the

u

pg

rade

co

sts

of th

e a

dja

cen

t ro

ad

s;

two

-la

ne

bri

dg

e w

ill c

rea

te m

ore

tra

ffic

; ca

rs w

ill s

pill

on

to s

ub

sta

nd

ard

, n

arr

ow

win

din

g r

oa

ds;

su

rfa

ce

s a

re s

lim w

ith

n

arr

ow

wid

th,

no

sh

ould

ers

, in

ad

eq

ua

te r

oo

m f

or

bic

yclis

ts a

nd

ru

nn

ers

; p

ub

lic

ne

eds t

ota

l co

st

of a

ne

w b

ridge

inclu

din

g t

he

cost

of

road

upg

rad

es.

Fa

ilure

to u

pg

rad

e s

ubsta

nd

ard

ro

ads p

lace

s r

esid

en

ts in

peril; r

oa

d u

pg

rade

co

sts

bo

red

by M

isso

ula

re

sid

en

ts; M

isso

ula

Co

unty

ta

xp

aye

rs w

ou

ld b

e s

tuck

with

th

e c

ost;

pla

nn

ing

tea

m r

ep

ort

faile

d t

o p

rovid

e a

n a

ccu

rate

, ob

jective

fe

asib

ility

stu

dy a

nd c

rea

ted a

co

ntr

ive

d r

epo

rt w

ith

the

sin

gle

pu

rpose

of

su

ppo

rtin

g a

ne

w b

rid

ge.

Ple

ase

se

e r

esp

on

se t

o c

om

me

nt

#13

fo

r u

se

of F

ed

era

l fu

nds f

or

bri

dg

e r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

. T

he

Co

mm

un

ity T

ran

spo

rta

tion

En

han

cem

ent

Pro

gra

m

(CT

EP

) is

no

lo

ng

er

a f

ed

era

l fu

nd

ing

pro

gra

m in t

he

Mo

vin

g

Ah

ea

d fo

r P

rog

ress in

th

e 2

1st C

en

tury

(M

AP

-21

) fe

de

ral

tra

nsp

ort

atio

n f

und

ing p

rogra

m.

77

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Op

po

ses a

ne

w b

rid

ge

; cu

rre

nt

ne

ed h

as n

ot

bee

n s

ho

wn

; m

an

y s

afe

ty c

once

rns

asso

cia

ted w

ith

a n

ew

bri

dg

e; su

ppo

rts r

eh

ab

ilita

tio

n o

ptio

n.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

78

A

no

nym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Lik

es t

raff

ic c

alm

ing n

atu

re o

f th

e e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y b

rid

ge

; ne

igh

bo

rho

ods o

n e

ast

an

d w

est

sid

e o

f ri

ve

r a

re r

ura

l in

na

ture

- w

an

t to

pre

se

ve

th

is.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

79

Ca

rol

Kra

ft

Su

pp

ort

s n

ew

bri

dg

e d

ow

n S

ou

th a

s t

he

best

lon

g r

an

ge

decis

ion

; S

ou

th A

ve

h

as a

lwa

ys b

ee

n a

Ma

in S

tre

et;

go

fo

rwa

rd w

ith

pla

nn

ing f

or

a n

ew

bri

dge

on

S

ou

th A

ve

nue

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

80

Th

ea

Eth

el

Ko

eh

ler

Pa

y c

lose

atte

ntio

n to

the

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Pla

n -

re

flects

th

e n

eed

s

an

d d

esire

s o

f th

e c

om

mu

nity a

nd

pro

vid

es g

uid

elin

es f

or

imp

rove

me

nt

of th

e

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

81

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Do

no

t m

ake

it m

ore

unsa

fe t

o c

om

e t

o w

ork

by in

cre

asin

g t

raff

ic a

lon

g S

ou

th

Ave

nu

e b

y a

dd

ing a

ne

w b

rid

ge

at

the

en

d o

f S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

82

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Ho

no

r T

arg

et

Ran

ge

Ne

ighb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; com

mis

sio

ne

rs e

nd

ors

ed

; ta

ke

n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d c

once

rns in

to a

ccou

nt;

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

doe

s n

ot

wa

nt

a n

ew

bri

dge

; fe

w in

fa

vo

r o

f a

re

pla

ce

men

t b

rid

ge liv

e a

dja

cen

t to

th

e o

ld b

rid

ge

; d

ata

on

m

oto

r veh

icle

accid

en

ts a

nd

dro

wn

ing

s h

ave

be

en

ina

ccu

rate

ly r

ep

ort

ed

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

7

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

83

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Op

po

ses n

ew

bri

dg

e in

pristine

are

a o

f th

e B

itte

root

Riv

er;

wh

y d

isru

pt

two

are

as

of

the

riv

er;

the

re is n

o a

cu

te n

ee

d -

on

ly a

po

ssib

le n

ee

d; e

xis

ting

brid

ge

ca

n b

e

reh

ab

ilita

ted.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

84

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Did

th

e s

tud

y t

ake

into

acco

unt

ho

w m

uch m

ore

it w

ou

ld c

ost to

upg

rade

So

uth

A

ve

nu

e a

nd

Riv

er

Pin

es R

oa

d?

D

id t

he s

tud

y lo

ok a

t e

xis

tin

g e

asem

en

t a

va

ilab

le a

t th

e e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

site

fo

r a r

eh

ab

ilita

tio

n o

ptio

n?

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Co

sts

fo

r up

gra

din

g S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e b

etw

ee

n H

an

so

n D

rive

a

nd

Cle

men

ts R

oa

d w

ere

acco

un

ted

fo

r a

nd

are

sh

ow

n o

n

pa

ge

61

of th

e d

raft p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y r

ep

ort

. U

pg

rad

es t

o R

ive

r P

ine

s R

oa

d a

re n

ot

en

vis

ion

ed,

the

refo

re u

pg

rad

e c

osts

a

sso

cia

ted w

ith

th

e fa

cili

ty a

re n

ot

inclu

de

d.

Th

e s

tud

y d

id e

xa

min

e a

va

ilabili

ty o

f rig

ht-

of-

wa

y f

or

the

se

ve

n o

ption

s, in

clu

din

g r

eh

abili

tation

(see

pa

ge

53

-56 o

f th

e

dra

ft p

lann

ing s

tud

y r

ep

ort

).

85

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Co

nce

rne

d a

bo

ut

po

ten

tia

l in

cre

ased

tra

ffic

on

So

uth

Aven

ue if

a n

ew

bri

dg

e is

bu

ilt;

alre

ad

y d

an

ge

rou

s t

o tu

rn o

nto

or

off

of

So

uth

; sa

me c

on

ce

rn a

t B

ig S

ky

an

d T

arg

et

Ra

ng

e s

ch

ools

; n

ew

bri

dg

e p

uts

se

nio

r citiz

ens a

nd

sch

oo

l ch

ildre

n

at

incre

ase

d r

isk.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

86

Lo

is

Sch

elv

an

Ke

ep

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

at cu

rre

nt lo

ca

tion

; cu

rre

nt

sum

me

r activity is n

ot

a c

on

ce

rn

co

mp

are

d t

o n

ois

e g

en

era

ted

by n

ew

bri

dg

e; co

nce

rn o

ve

r in

cre

ase

tra

ffic

due

to

S

ou

th b

rid

ge

; up

gra

de

exis

ting b

rid

ge

fo

r a

lo

we

r p

rice

ta

g; ne

igh

bo

rhoo

d d

oe

s

no

t n

ee

d a

ne

w b

rid

ge

; e

xis

ting

bri

dg

e a

cts

as a

tra

ffic

ca

lmer;

sp

en

d m

one

y o

n

de

ve

lopin

g th

e s

ma

ll co

un

ty p

ark

tha

t e

xis

ts o

n th

e e

ast sid

e o

f th

e r

ive

r rig

ht a

t M

acla

y B

rid

ge

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

87

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Stu

dy s

erio

usly

fla

we

d in

its

me

tho

do

log

y; u

nso

und

sco

rin

g s

yste

m;

tilte

d t

he

p

layin

g fie

ld t

ow

ard

th

e n

ew

So

uth

brid

ge

and

aga

inst

the

Ma

cla

y r

eh

abili

tation

o

ption

; fo

r m

ajo

rity

of

peo

ple

in

com

mu

nity p

rio

rity

is to

ma

inta

in s

afe

ty a

nd

ch

ara

cte

r o

f th

e a

rea

– n

ot to

mo

ve

as m

uch

tra

ffic

th

roug

h th

e a

rea

as

"eff

icie

ntly"

as p

ossib

le; co

ncern

ed

ab

ou

t d

eg

rad

ing

the

are

a,

dim

inis

hin

g o

ve

rall

sa

fety

, an

d s

ign

ific

an

tly incre

asin

g n

ois

e a

nd

air

po

llutio

n a

lon

g S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Ra

nkin

g p

rocess c

om

ple

ted b

y P

lan

nin

g T

ea

m w

as r

evie

we

d

with

in t

he

co

nte

xt

of

oth

er

pre

-NE

PA

/ME

PA

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

die

s

an

d f

ou

nd

to

be

app

rop

ria

te f

or

the

no

ted p

urp

ose.

S

ug

geste

d e

dits a

nd

op

inio

ns a

re n

ote

d, h

ow

eve

r re

vis

ion

s

did

no

t ch

ang

e o

utc

om

e.

Th

ere

are

nu

me

rous p

rocesses

ava

ilable

to

scre

en

op

tio

ns.

88

A

no

nym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Pro

vid

e s

afe

, e

ffective

tra

ve

l ove

r ri

ve

r in

a w

ay t

ha

t m

eets

the

ne

ed

s o

f th

e

co

mm

unity -

bu

t is

of a

siz

e a

nd

sca

le a

pp

rop

ria

te to

ou

r ru

ral se

ttin

g.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

89

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Me

mb

ers

of

the

pu

blic

co

uld

atte

nd

pla

nn

ing

te

am

me

etin

gs, b

ut

we

re n

ot

allo

we

d t

o s

pea

k; re

que

sts

fo

r in

form

atio

n f

rom

th

e p

lann

ers

alo

ng t

he w

ay w

ere

d

eflecte

d o

r de

nie

d;

Ta

rget

Ran

ge

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Pla

n (

TR

NP

) w

as d

isco

unte

d;

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

8

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

op

tion

to

re

hab

ilita

te M

acla

y B

rid

ge

wa

s c

onsis

ten

tly d

ow

ng

rad

ed

; re

hab

ilita

tio

n

op

tion

wa

s s

plit

by t

he

pla

nn

ers

in

to t

wo

extr

em

es,

bo

th s

eem

ingly

de

stine

d f

or

elim

inatio

n;

a "

mid

dle

" op

tio

n o

f fixin

g t

he M

acla

y B

rid

ge

in

pla

ce t

o s

tand

ard

s

wh

ich

wo

uld

accom

mod

ate

all

ve

hic

les s

afe

ly a

nd

fo

r w

hic

h a

pla

n a

lrea

dy e

xis

ts

(th

e M

uth

Pla

n)

wa

s n

ot se

riously

con

sid

ere

d;

pla

nne

rs v

iola

ted

th

eir

ma

nda

te to

id

en

tify

fin

an

cia

lly f

easib

le a

ltern

ative

s t

ha

t a

dd

ress t

he

nee

ds a

nd

obje

ctive

s

de

fine

d b

y t

he

co

mm

unity.

90

De

bo

rah

Ta

larico

Are

a w

ou

ld b

e a

dve

rse

ly a

ffe

cte

d b

y a

ne

w b

rid

ge

; m

ain

tain

th

e e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

; n

o a

mo

unt

of stu

die

s w

ou

ld n

eg

ate

th

e o

bvio

us r

isk o

n c

hild

ren

by e

nco

ura

gin

g

incre

ased

tra

ffic

on

So

uth

; th

ere

is n

ot n

ow

a t

raff

ic p

rob

lem

at

the

bri

dge

but

if

yo

u b

uild

it, t

he

y w

ill c

om

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

91

Will

is

Curd

y

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

em

pha

siz

ed

sa

fety

and

con

sis

tency w

ith

wh

at

resid

en

ts d

esire

- r

epo

rt c

on

trad

icts

va

lue

s h

eld

by r

esid

en

ts; b

uild

ing a

re

pla

cem

en

t b

ridg

e a

t th

e w

est

en

d o

f S

outh

Ave

nue

will

cre

ate

a s

afe

ty h

aza

rd;

exis

tin

g p

rovid

es a

sig

nific

an

t ca

lmin

g f

unctio

n; n

ew

So

uth

bri

dg

e w

ill b

ring

mo

re

ind

ivid

ua

ls a

nd

co

mm

erc

ial ve

hic

les a

s a

byp

ass;

we

lfa

re o

f stu

de

nts

will

be

co

mp

rom

ise

d; sa

fety

of

resid

en

ts liv

ing

alo

ng

Sou

th A

ve

nue

an

d R

ive

r P

ines

Roa

d w

ill b

e c

om

pro

mis

ed;

Blu

e M

ou

nta

in a

nd

Big

Fla

t R

oad

s w

ill se

e a

dd

itio

na

l tr

aff

ic;

incre

ased

tra

ffic

/wild

life

en

cou

nte

rs c

an

be

exp

ecte

d; b

oth

roa

ds a

re

he

avily

use

d b

y b

icycle

an

d p

ed

estr

ian

tra

ffic

; p

rob

ab

ility

of

a fa

talit

y w

ill

incre

ase w

ith

hig

he

r vo

lum

es o

f tr

affic

on

th

ese

su

bsta

nda

rd r

oa

ds.

Pro

po

se

d b

rid

ge

loca

tio

n tra

nsfe

rs a

nd

exp

an

ds s

afe

ty c

on

cern

s;

jeo

pa

rdiz

es

the

hea

lth

and

we

lfa

re o

f m

ore

in

div

idu

als

an

d lo

ca

l re

sid

en

ts;

TR

re

sid

ents

are

skep

tica

l o

f pla

nnin

g s

tud

y r

epo

rt,

and

ch

alle

nge

its

fin

din

gs.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

92

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Co

nce

rne

d a

bo

ut

len

gth

of

floo

dp

lain

im

pa

cte

d b

y p

rop

ose

d S

ou

th b

rid

ge

; e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge h

as a

pp

roach

es t

hat

are

be

tte

r p

rote

cte

d f

rom

hig

h flo

odin

g;

co

nce

rned

by incre

ased

tra

ffic

, n

ois

e a

nd

po

llution

im

med

iate

ly a

dja

ce

nt

to a

w

etla

nd

; ro

ad

are

as h

ave

hig

h d

ee

r tr

aff

ic; co

rrid

or

for

osp

rey a

nd

eag

les -

co

nce

rned

abo

ut im

pa

ct o

f in

cre

ased

nois

e a

nd

tra

ffic

exh

au

st

on t

hese

sp

ecie

s;

co

nce

rned

abo

ut th

e e

ffect

on

th

e t

rou

t fishe

ry if

an a

dditio

na

l a

rea

of

the

riv

er

is

dis

tub

ed.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

93

Ma

rjie

H

eym

an

Qu

estio

ns n

eed

fo

r a

ne

w b

ridg

e;

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

is a

his

torica

l a

rtifact;

no

t so

m

uch

tra

ffic

on

th

e b

rid

ge

tha

t th

ere

are

lo

ng

wa

its;

cu

rvin

g r

oa

d a

pp

roache

s to

b

rid

ge s

low

s d

ow

n t

raff

ic –

a b

en

efit;

alm

ost

alw

ays a

shift

in c

ha

nn

el

top

og

rap

hy w

he

n a

ny b

rid

ge is b

uilt

; p

eo

ple

will

co

ntin

ue

to

use

the

are

a if

bri

dg

e is r

em

ove

d;

ke

ep

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

an

d u

se

th

e m

one

y t

o r

ed

o th

e R

ussell

Str

ee

t b

rid

ge

; g

ive

stiff

er

fin

es to

th

ose

wh

o ille

ga

lly p

ark

ne

ar

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

94

A

no

nym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Stu

dy d

oes n

ot

accu

rate

ly r

efle

ct

the

im

pact o

n t

he

flo

odp

lain

or

the

am

ou

nt

of

fill

req

uir

ed

fo

r th

e e

ast sid

e a

pp

roach

es t

o th

e p

ropo

sed

Sou

th A

ve

nue

brid

ge

; T

ha

nk y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

1

9

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

re

sid

en

ce

s c

ou

ld b

e im

pacte

d a

dve

rse

ly;

fie

lds w

est o

f H

anso

n D

rive

flo

od

ea

ch

sp

ring

; p

rop

ose

d b

ridg

e a

pp

roa

ch

es lie

with

in t

he

flo

od

wa

y o

f th

e flo

od

pla

in;

flo

od

wa

y s

tart

s n

ea

r H

anso

n D

rive

an

d e

xte

nd

s 1

,00

0 fe

et

fro

m t

he

exis

ting

b

an

ks a

nd

an

oth

er

200

-300

fee

t o

f flo

od

pla

n (

flo

od

fri

ng

e);

ba

nks a

rou

nd

a

pp

roache

s to

exis

tin

g b

rid

ge

are

alre

ad

y p

rote

cte

d w

ith

rip

rap

; ca

n’t b

e

rem

ove

d a

s s

om

e r

esid

ence

s n

ea

r M

acla

y B

ridg

e w

ou

ld flo

od

with

ou

t th

at

pro

tection

.

95

Lin

h

Hoa

ng

Info

rma

tio

n in

stu

dy a

ppe

ars

bia

sed

to

wa

rds a

pre

-de

term

ined

re

co

mm

en

da

tion

; stu

dy’s

nee

ds a

nd o

bje

ctive

s, scre

en

ing

crite

ria

, an

d fin

al re

co

mm

en

dation

s

we

re d

eve

lop

ed b

ase

d o

n in

com

ple

te in

form

atio

n; d

ata

use

d is m

isle

ad

ing t

o th

e

pu

blic

an

d C

ou

nty

Co

mm

issio

ne

rs; n

o r

ation

al co

nn

ection

be

twe

en

th

e d

ata

p

rovid

ed

an

d th

e fin

din

gs a

nd

re

com

men

da

tio

ns o

f th

e p

lan

; re

po

rt is

fun

dam

enta

lly f

law

ed

du

e t

o d

ata

and

la

ck o

f co

nte

xt;

ove

rlo

oks r

ele

va

nt

info

rma

tio

n.

Att

rib

utin

g c

rash

es t

o o

ne lan

e b

rid

ge

arb

itra

ry a

nd

ca

pricio

us;

one

lan

e b

rid

ge

is

a c

alm

ing

de

vic

e a

nd s

low

s t

raff

ic; a

rbitra

ry a

nd c

ap

ricio

us to

in

fer

tha

t th

e o

ne

la

ne

bri

dg

e is c

on

trib

utin

g to

cra

sh

es;

po

tential cra

sh m

itig

atio

ns c

ould

be

im

ple

me

nte

d a

t th

e e

xis

tin

g loca

tio

n a

t fa

r le

ss t

axp

aye

r e

xp

en

se;

wo

uld

help

to

co

mp

are

th

e c

rash

da

ta w

ith

oth

er

brid

ge

s in

Mis

so

ula

. A

ssum

e t

rave

l tim

e d

iscussio

n s

upp

ose

d t

o s

up

po

rt a

sse

rtio

n t

o r

ed

uce

dela

y

tim

es f

or

em

erg

en

cy r

esp

ond

ers

; q

ue

stio

n n

eed

s s

tate

men

t th

at

sta

tes t

ha

t re

du

cin

g d

ela

y o

f em

erg

en

cy v

eh

icle

s is n

ee

de

d;

mis

sin

g c

onte

xt

an

d

info

rma

tio

n r

ele

va

nt to

the

dis

cu

ssio

n:

H

ow

oft

en

an

d fo

r w

ha

t tim

e p

eri

ods h

as M

acla

y B

ridg

e b

een

in

accessib

le in

th

e p

ast?

H

as ina

cce

ssib

ility

of

the

brid

ge

re

duce

d r

esp

onse

tim

e in

the

past

tha

t h

as c

ause

d c

on

ce

rn f

rom

the

em

erg

en

cy r

esp

on

se

pro

vid

ers

?

H

ave

th

e e

me

rge

ncy r

esp

on

se p

rovid

ers

in o

ur

com

mun

ity r

ais

ed

co

nce

rns a

bo

ut

the

ir r

esp

onse t

ime w

he

n c

rossin

g th

is b

rid

ge

in

th

e

pa

st?

Is

Co

mm

un

ity M

ed

ica

l th

e o

nly

me

dic

al fa

cili

ty t

hat

resp

ond

s to

e

me

rge

ncy o

n t

he

oth

er

sid

e o

f th

e b

rid

ge

or

do

es S

t. P

atr

ick’s

als

o

co

mm

only

re

spo

nd?

S

tud

y s

tate

s “

sin

gle

-la

ne

wid

th o

f th

e b

rid

ge

is s

ub

-sta

nd

ard

fo

r cu

rre

nt

tra

ffic

vo

lum

es”

– n

ee

d a

dditio

nal in

form

atio

n:

T

he

stu

dy d

oe

s n

ot

dis

cuss the

re

gula

tory

req

uire

men

ts t

o m

ee

t A

me

rica

n A

sso

cia

tio

n o

f S

tate

hig

hw

ay T

ran

sp

ort

atio

n O

ffic

ials

(A

AS

HT

O)

sta

nd

ard

s o

r w

he

the

r th

ese

“hig

hw

ay”

sta

nd

ard

s s

ho

uld

be

a

pp

licab

le o

r co

mpa

rable

to

colle

cto

r b

rid

ge

s s

uch

as M

acla

y B

rid

ge.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Em

erg

en

cy c

alls

of a

fire

an

d m

ed

ical n

atu

re d

icta

tes t

ha

t a

tim

ely

re

spo

nse

is r

equ

ired

. In

so

me

ca

ses,

just a

fe

w

min

ute

s c

an

ma

ke a

big

diffe

ren

ce

. T

he

are

a s

erv

ed

via

th

e

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

, B

ig F

lat,

O'B

rien

Cre

ek a

nd B

lue M

ou

nta

in,

no

w m

ust

be

accesse

d b

y g

oin

g a

rou

nd

Blu

e M

ou

nta

in R

oad

d

ue

to M

acla

y B

rid

ge lo

ad

restr

ictio

ns (

for

larg

er

ve

hic

les).

T

his

ad

ds f

ive

min

ute

s o

r m

ore

to

resp

on

se t

ime

s.

A

ny e

xp

en

ditu

re o

f fe

de

ral o

r sta

te f

un

ds r

equ

ires

co

mp

lian

ce

with

re

levan

t d

esig

n s

tan

da

rds.

Am

erican

A

ssocia

tio

n o

f S

tate

Hig

hw

ay T

ran

sp

ort

atio

n O

ffic

ials

(A

AS

HT

O)

bri

dg

e w

idth

sta

nda

rds a

llow

a s

ingle

-la

ne

bri

dg

e

on

ly f

or

ve

ry lo

w v

olu

me r

oad

s in

wh

ich

tra

ffic

is le

ss t

ha

n

10

0 v

pd

. D

esig

n e

xce

ptio

ns a

re a

llow

ed

ve

ry m

inim

ally

in

ve

ry u

niq

ue

circum

sta

nce

s, b

ut

no

t if t

he

fu

nd

am

en

tal

de

ficie

ncie

s w

ill n

ot

be

rectified

.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

0

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

Is

this

a d

iscre

tion

ary

sta

nd

ard

or

is it a

re

gu

lato

ry r

eq

uir

em

en

t o

f all

bri

dg

es?

Wh

y is it

OK

to h

ave

on

e la

ne

bri

dg

es a

nyw

he

re if

this

is a

sta

nd

ard

th

at is

no

n-d

iscre

tio

na

ry?

T

he

stu

dy f

ails

to

dis

cuss d

esig

n e

xce

ption

s th

at

pe

rmit d

ecis

ion

ma

ke

rs to

allo

w f

or

rela

xin

g s

tan

da

rds fo

r o

ff-s

yste

m r

ou

tes.

Stu

dy u

ses n

ee

d fo

r p

rovid

ing

fu

ture

ca

pa

city d

em

an

ds a

s o

ne

of

the

scre

en

ing

cri

teria

:

D

oe

s it

me

an

th

at

tra

ffic

ne

eds t

o f

low

at

a c

ert

ain

ra

te?

O

r th

e b

rid

ge

ne

ed

s to

be a

ble

to

han

dle

a c

ert

ain

lo

ad f

or

a c

ert

ain

a

mo

un

t o

f u

se

du

rin

g a

da

y?

D

oe

s it

me

an

to

co

ntr

ol u

nre

aso

na

ble

dela

ys?

W

hat

is th

is h

ou

rly r

ate

th

at th

e T

arg

et

Rang

e N

eig

hbo

rho

od w

an

ts?

Is

this

ra

te d

iffe

ren

t fr

om

wh

at th

e C

oun

ty o

r S

tate

wa

nts

?

A

tw

o la

ne

brid

ge w

ou

ld u

nd

ou

bte

dly

in

cre

ase

this

ra

te, b

ut is

th

is w

ha

t th

e c

om

mu

nity w

an

ts?

Is

it a

cce

pta

ble

fo

r th

e c

om

mun

ity,

the

Sta

te,

and

Co

unty

C

om

mis

sio

ne

rs to

me

et th

e incre

ase

in

tra

ffic

gro

wth

by m

ain

tain

ing

th

e

rate

of flo

w a

s it

is n

ow

or

even

decre

ase

the

ra

te o

f flo

w?

W

hat sta

tute

or

oth

er

dri

ve

r is

cre

atin

g a

nee

d to

incre

ase

the

ra

te o

f flo

w t

hro

ug

h t

he

Ta

rge

t R

ang

e N

eig

hbo

rhoo

d?

P

lan

nin

g c

onstr

uctio

n c

ost scre

en

ing

crite

ria

faile

d t

o c

on

sid

er

va

ria

ble

co

sts

(s

uch

as r

igh

t-o

f-w

ay a

cq

uis

itio

n,

pro

ject

de

velo

pm

en

t a

ctivitie

s, e

nvir

onm

en

tal

mitig

atio

ns);

so

me o

f th

ese

costs

we

re in

clu

de

d in

Se

ctio

n 6

.2,

bu

t sho

uld

ha

ve

b

ee

n in

clu

de

d a

s p

art

of th

e s

cre

en

ing

crite

ria

; th

ese

oth

er

costs

(in

ad

ditio

n t

o

the

co

st o

f ap

pro

ach

ro

ad u

pg

rad

es/m

ain

ten

ance

) w

ere

not

co

nsid

ere

d in t

he

cri

teria

with

ou

t e

xp

lan

atio

n;

Co

un

ty C

om

mis

sio

ne

rs c

ou

ld a

pp

ea

r fisca

lly

irre

spo

nsib

le w

he

n m

akin

g a

de

cis

ion

re

ga

rdin

g w

he

re t

o g

o w

ith

th

is s

tud

y p

lan

. P

lan

nin

g S

tud

y w

ill n

ot a

llow

fo

r a

n e

asy t

ran

sitio

n into

an

en

vir

on

me

nta

l re

vie

w

pro

cess t

ha

t w

ou

ld b

e c

on

sis

ten

t w

ith

th

e N

ation

al E

nvir

onm

en

tal P

olic

y A

ct

(NE

PA

); g

uid

an

ce

fo

r h

ow

MD

T lin

ks p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y p

rocess w

ith

NE

PA

is

pro

vid

ed

in

“M

on

tan

a B

usin

ess P

roce

ss t

o L

ink P

lan

nin

g S

tud

ies a

nd

NE

PA

/ME

PA

Re

vie

ws”

(MD

T,

20

09

). S

eve

ral in

co

nsis

tencie

s a

re n

ote

d w

ith

th

e

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy p

rocess a

nd t

he

pro

ce

ss o

utlin

ed

in t

he

ab

ove

d

ocum

ent;

pro

cess w

as m

isa

pp

lied

beca

use

scre

en

ing

of

the o

ptio

ns a

nd

re

com

men

da

tio

ns w

as c

on

ducte

d p

rio

r to

pu

blic

inp

ut o

n t

hese

crite

ria

.

Th

e M

isso

ula

Lo

ng

Ra

ng

e T

ran

sp

ort

atio

n P

lan

(L

RT

P)

co

nta

ins g

uid

an

ce

on

th

eo

retica

l g

en

era

l d

aily

ro

ad

ca

pacitie

s (

Ave

rag

e A

nn

ua

l D

aily

Tra

ffic

- A

AD

T)

for

diffe

rent

typ

es o

f ro

ad

wa

ys.

Th

ese v

alu

es a

re c

on

tain

ed in

th

e 2

00

8

LR

TP

, T

ab

le 6

-1.

Fe

atu

res tha

t in

form

th

eo

retica

l cap

acitie

s

are

ro

ad

lan

e c

on

fig

ura

tion

, fu

nctio

na

l cla

ssific

atio

n a

nd

wh

eth

er

the

ro

ad

is in

a r

ura

l or

urb

an loca

le.

Th

e T

ran

sC

ad

tra

ve

l d

em

and

mo

del is

use

d to

exa

min

e fu

ture

AA

DT

vo

lum

es d

urin

g t

he

pla

nn

ing

ye

ar.

Mo

de

l re

su

lts,

wh

ich a

re

ad

juste

d t

o r

eflect kn

ow

n b

ase v

olu

mes,

are

the

n c

om

pa

red

to

th

e th

eo

retica

l g

ene

ral d

aily

ro

ad

ca

pacitie

s.

Lin

ks t

ha

t e

xce

ed

pla

nn

ing

le

vel th

resho

lds m

ay b

e “

ove

r ca

pa

city”,

w

hile

lin

ks th

at a

re u

nd

er

pla

nn

ing

le

ve

l th

resh

old

s m

ay b

e

“un

de

r ca

pa

city”.

Ple

ase

re

fer

to t

able

14

on p

age

61 o

f th

e

dra

ft p

lann

ing s

tud

y r

ep

ort

. T

he

Mo

nta

na

Busin

ess P

rocess g

uid

elin

es a

re g

uid

elin

es,

an

d h

ave

in

he

ren

t fle

xib

ility

as e

ach

pla

nn

ing

pro

ce

ss is

un

ique

. T

he

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

Pla

nn

ing S

tud

y s

ubsta

ntia

lly

co

mp

lied

with

th

e p

rocesses a

nd

inte

nt o

f th

e M

on

tan

a

Bu

sin

ess P

roce

ss g

uid

elin

es.

96

Da

na

Hea

da

po

hl

Issue

s a

re n

ot

accu

rate

ly a

dd

resse

d in

stu

dy;

fie

lds w

est

of H

an

so

n D

rive

flo

od

e

ach s

prin

g -

alte

ring

na

tura

l flo

w w

ou

ld im

pa

ct

aqu

atic r

esou

rces;

mo

st o

f p

rop

ose

d a

pp

roa

ch

lie

s w

ith

in th

e f

loo

dw

ay;

flo

od

wa

y s

tart

s r

igh

t a

rou

nd

Ha

nso

n

Dri

ve

; stu

dy d

oes n

ot a

ccu

rate

ly r

eflect

the

im

pact

on

the

flo

od

pla

in o

r th

e

am

oun

t o

f fill

req

uir

ed

fo

r th

e e

ast sid

e a

pp

roach

; a

dd

itio

na

l fill

resu

lts in

an

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

1

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

art

ific

ial b

arr

ier

to n

orm

al flo

od f

low

; w

ou

ld im

pa

ct re

sid

en

ces t

o t

he s

ou

th o

f th

e

roa

dw

ay a

nd

possib

ly s

ep

tic s

yste

ms;

ban

ks a

rou

nd

ap

pro

ach

es t

o e

xis

tin

g

bri

dg

e a

re a

lrea

dy p

rote

cte

d w

ith

rip

rap

- c

an

no

t b

e r

em

ove

d a

s s

om

e

resid

en

ce

s n

ea

r b

ridg

e w

ou

ld flo

od

; w

hy im

pa

ct ye

t a

noth

er

po

rtio

n o

f th

e

Bitte

rroo

t R

ive

r.

97

Ch

arl

es

Ste

ve

nson

Sa

fety

to

th

e p

ub

lic s

hou

ld b

e th

e t

op

co

nce

rn; e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

ap

pro

ach

d

ista

nce

s a

nd

alig

nm

en

ts a

re d

an

ge

rous;

exis

ting

brid

ge

ha

s n

o w

alk

/bik

e la

ne

s

on

th

e b

rid

ge

or

on

th

e w

est

sid

e o

f th

e r

ive

r; e

xis

tin

g b

ridg

e lo

ad

lim

its a

re

ina

deq

ate

fo

r e

me

rge

ncy v

eh

icle

s a

nd

sch

oo

l bu

ses;

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge s

ho

uld

be

re

pla

ce

d; tw

o s

tudie

s f

or

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

en

ded

with

sam

e r

esu

lt; sto

p w

asting

m

on

ey -

mo

ve

fo

wa

rd.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

98

Pe

gg

ie

Da

ve

Mo

rris

on

L

oo

mis

MC

A 7

6-1

-60

5 s

tate

s G

ove

rnin

g B

od

y..

.must

be g

uid

ed b

y a

nd

giv

e

co

nsid

era

tio

n t

o..

.the

gro

wth

po

licy –

wh

ich

ma

y inclu

de

one

or

mo

re

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d p

lan

s; b

elie

ve

s p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y d

oes n

ot

co

mply

with

MC

A 7

6-1

-6

05

. A

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

pla

n m

ust

be

co

nsis

ten

t w

ith

th

e g

row

th p

olic

y;

stu

dy

fla

gra

ntly d

isre

ga

rds T

arg

et

Ra

ng

e N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; B

oard

of

Coun

ty

Com

mis

sio

ne

rs a

dop

ted

th

e T

arg

et

Ran

ge

Neig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; N

eig

hb

orh

ood

P

lan

is a

n e

ssen

tial p

art

of th

e c

oun

ty-w

ide

Gro

wth

Po

licy;

Ne

igh

bo

rhoo

d P

lan

n

ot

giv

en

ade

qu

ate

co

nsid

era

tio

n.

Neig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n d

id n

ot

iden

tify

a n

ee

d fo

r a

ne

w b

rid

ge; n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t S

outh

w

ou

ld in

cre

ase

tra

ffic

past

the

scho

ols

, ho

spita

l, a

nd

resid

ence

s w

hic

h w

ou

ld

ca

use

a d

ecre

ase

in

air q

ua

lity a

nd

in

cre

ase

sa

fety

issue

s fo

r p

ed

estr

ian

s,

scho

ol ch

ildre

n,

resid

en

ts a

ttem

ptin

g t

o g

ain

acce

ss t

o S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e f

rom

th

eir

dri

ve

wa

ys,

an

d w

ildlif

e;

exis

ting

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

is a

rem

ark

able

tra

ffic

-calm

ing

d

evic

e; re

sid

en

ts v

alu

e th

e c

ha

racte

r o

f n

eig

hb

orh

ood

; M

acla

y B

rid

ge

is th

e

ep

itom

e o

f o

ur

exp

ressed

desire

to

liv

e in

a r

ura

l an

d s

em

i-ru

ral e

nviro

nm

en

t:

“Rura

l b

y D

esig

n”.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

99

Will

is

Curd

y

Co

st

of re

co

nstr

uctio

n o

f S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e f

rom

Cle

me

nts

Str

ee

t to

Han

son

Dri

ve

w

ou

ld b

e t

he

oblig

ation

of

Mis

so

ula

Co

un

ty t

axp

aye

rs -

sig

nific

an

t b

urd

en

on

all

co

unty

ta

xp

aye

rs;

rep

ort

fa

iled t

o a

na

lyze

se

ve

ral o

the

r ke

y f

iscal o

blig

ation

s th

at

wo

uld

en

cu

mbe

r M

isso

ula

Cou

nty

ta

xp

aye

rs if

a S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e b

rid

ge

we

re b

uilt

– R

ive

r P

ines,

Big

Fla

t, B

lue

Mo

un

tain

Ro

ad

s;

Mis

so

ula

Co

unty

ta

xp

aye

rs w

ill

en

cou

nte

r a

dditio

na

l o

blig

atio

ns t

o m

ain

tain

or

recon

str

uct p

ort

ions o

f e

ach

ro

ad

; re

ha

bili

tation

of

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge is th

e m

ost

fiscally

pru

de

nt o

ptio

n;

rep

ort

fa

ils to

fu

lly ide

ntify

th

e fin

an

cia

l bu

rde

n c

rea

ted

by t

he p

ropo

sed

con

str

uctio

n o

f a

ne

w

bri

dg

e;

reha

bili

tation

of

the

cu

rre

nt

brid

ge is in

th

e b

est in

tere

sts

of

Mis

so

ula

C

ou

nty

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

0

Ka

thle

en

Harv

ey

Ma

jori

ty in

com

mun

ity w

an

t re

ha

bili

tatio

n o

f e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; stu

dy is

bia

se

d to

pro

du

ce

ne

w b

ridg

e r

esu

lt;

don

’t s

pen

d b

eyo

nd

ou

r m

ean

s.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

2

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

10

1

Fre

d

Ste

wart

D

ata

gen

era

ted

by t

he

Tra

ffic

Dem

an

d M

od

el fo

r th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge

Stu

dy a

re

illog

ica

l an

d th

us a

n u

nre

asona

ble

ba

sis

fo

r im

posin

g t

he

neg

ative

im

pacts

of

an

y n

ew

bri

dg

e o

n th

e T

arg

et R

an

ge

/Orc

ha

rd H

om

es c

om

mu

nitie

s; if a

ne

w

bri

dg

e is b

uilt

no

w,

the

neg

ative

im

pa

cts

on

the

co

mm

unity a

re n

ot h

yp

oth

etica

l,

bu

t re

al, b

eg

inn

ing

im

me

dia

tely

, a

nd

the

y a

re irr

eve

rsib

le; tr

ave

l d

em

an

d m

ode

l (T

DM

) u

se

d is a

“b

lack b

ox”

tha

t is

use

d to

pre

dic

t tr

affic

vo

lum

es 3

0 y

ea

rs in

th

e

futu

re; a

n in

cre

ase

in

tra

ffic

at th

e c

orn

er

of

Sou

th A

ve

nu

e a

nd

Cle

me

nts

in f

ront

of

Ta

rge

t R

ang

e S

ch

ool is

a m

ajo

r sa

fety

co

nce

rn; n

ega

tive

im

pacts

of

a n

ew

b

rid

ge a

re b

oth

ve

ry la

rge

an

d u

nw

elc

om

e b

y t

he r

esid

en

ts.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

2

??

??

?

Su

so

tt F

am

ily

Su

pp

ort

fix

ing

th

e c

urr

en

t b

ridg

e;

a n

ew

bri

dg

e w

ou

ld r

uin

the

fe

elin

g o

f T

arg

et

Ra

ng

e; d

on

't w

an

t S

outh

Ave

nu

e b

ecom

ing

a s

up

erh

igh

wa

y r

igh

t in

fro

nt

of

my

ch

ild's

scho

ol.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

3

La

rry

Ma

rtin

P

ub

lic inp

ut ig

no

red

; p

ublic

cou

ld a

tte

nd

pla

nnin

g te

am

mee

tin

gs b

ut

we

re n

ot

allo

we

d t

o s

pea

k; T

arg

et

Range

Ne

ighb

orh

oo

d P

lan

(T

RN

P)

larg

ely

dis

co

unte

d

as w

as t

he o

ppo

sitio

n o

f th

e p

ub

lic t

o a

ne

w S

ou

th B

ridg

e e

xp

resse

d in

eve

ry

me

etin

g a

bo

ut

the

brid

ge

in

the

last

19 y

ea

rs; cou

nty

com

mis

sio

ne

rs m

ust lis

ten

to t

he

pu

blic

; re

ha

bili

tation

op

tio

n c

on

sis

ten

tly d

ow

ng

rad

ed

; ne

w b

rid

ge

will

in

cre

ase t

raffic

an

d m

ake

sa

fety

wo

rse

; e

vid

en

ce

unco

nvin

cin

g t

ha

t M

acla

y

Bri

dg

e its

elf le

nds to

sa

fety

pro

ble

ms; costs

in

stu

dy a

re fla

we

d a

nd

incom

ple

te;

no

mitig

ation

co

sts

fo

r e

nvir

onm

en

t, S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e w

iden

ing, e

tc.; u

ncle

ar

wh

ich

co

sts

wo

uld

be

elig

ible

fo

r fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

an

d w

hic

h w

ou

ld n

ot;

stu

dy

ch

ara

cte

rize

d b

y a

pro

fessio

nal sta

tisticia

n a

s “

no

nse

nse

” a

nd

fla

we

d;

Lo

ng

sta

nd

ing

dee

p p

ub

lic o

ppo

sitio

n to

a n

ew

So

uth

brid

ge

; in

cre

ased

sa

fety

h

aza

rds w

ith

a b

ridg

e; se

rio

us e

nvir

onm

en

tal de

gra

da

tio

n -

esp

ecia

lly n

ois

e a

nd

a

ir p

ollu

tio

n;

unce

rta

in b

ut

ve

ry h

igh c

osts

; la

ck o

f pu

blic

in

pu

t in

to th

e p

lann

ing

p

rocess;

se

rio

us m

eth

od

olo

gic

al fla

ws in

the

stu

dy d

esig

n a

nd

exe

cu

tio

n;

po

stp

on

e a

de

cis

ion

ab

ou

t h

ow

to

pro

ce

ed

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

4

Ha

rold

O

tt

Co

nce

rn o

ve

r a

pp

are

nt

ign

oring

of

reh

abili

tation

alte

rna

tive

; lo

we

r co

st

tha

n n

ew

b

rid

ge;

co

nce

rn o

ve

r ig

no

ring

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

– a

pp

rove

d b

y

co

unty

co

mm

issio

ne

rs; m

an

y s

ho

rtcom

ings, o

mis

sio

ns,

an

d e

rro

rs in

th

e s

tud

y;

dis

sa

poin

ted

with

pub

lic p

rocess; stu

dy d

oesn

’t a

dd

ress c

ritica

l is

sue

s c

reate

d

by a

ne

w 2

-la

ne b

rid

ge

; n

eed

s m

ore

asse

ssm

en

t o

f co

mm

unity im

pact

fro

m

Rese

rve

Str

ee

t to

th

e n

ew

bri

dg

e;

urg

es s

upp

ort

of

reh

abili

tatio

n.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

5

Myle

s

Mo

rris

O

pp

oses p

rop

ose

d n

ew

bri

dg

e o

n S

outh

; pro

pose

d S

ou

th b

rid

ge

is a

solu

tio

n

loo

kin

g fo

r a p

roble

m;

exis

ting

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

co

uld

use

so

me u

pg

rad

es,

bu

t is

a

pp

rop

ria

te f

or

the

ru

ral n

eig

hb

orh

ood

and

lo

ng

ra

ng

e c

om

mu

nity p

lan

; re

ha

bili

tation

is lo

we

r co

st; d

oe

sn

't un

de

rsta

nd

pro

posin

g a

th

oro

ugh

fare

past

ele

me

nta

ry s

cho

ol th

rou

gh

a r

ura

l co

mm

unity;

mu

st

reco

nsid

er

find

ings o

f re

po

rt.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

6

Su

zan

ne

S

ch

weitze

r S

up

po

rts r

eh

ab

ilita

ting

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

; T

R is a

ru

ral, a

gra

ria

n,

com

mun

ity t

ha

t is

T

ha

nk y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

3

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

still

clo

se

to

th

e c

ity;

Mis

sou

la d

oe

s n

ot n

eed

mo

re c

oncre

te a

nd

brid

ge

s o

r h

igh

er

spe

ed

ro

ads;

pre

se

rve

an

d p

rote

ct

the

na

tura

l h

abita

t a

nd

ru

ral

en

vir

onm

en

t a

roun

d M

isso

ula

be

fore

it's

to

o la

te.

reco

rds.

10

7

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Nee

d f

or

ne

w b

rid

ge

is n

ot ju

stifie

d;

will

be

a h

igh

-tra

ffic

, se

mi-tr

uck

tho

roug

hfa

re;

sa

fety

is a

con

ce

rn o

n th

e e

ast

sid

e o

f th

e b

ridg

e;

hig

h t

raff

ic

vo

lum

e a

nd

sp

ee

d a

re u

nn

ecessa

ry d

an

ge

rs to

add

to

So

uth

Ave

nu

e;

Ma

cla

y

Bri

dg

e c

an b

e m

ain

tain

ed in

a s

tatu

s w

hic

h s

erv

es t

he c

om

mu

nity v

ery

a

de

qua

tely

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

8

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

Su

pp

ort

s k

ee

pin

g th

e o

ld M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; re

pair

ing

th

e b

rid

ge is lo

we

r co

st

and

e

ffic

ient;

go

ve

rnm

en

t sh

ould

sto

p s

pe

ndin

g m

on

ey;

tire

d o

f p

rop

ert

y t

axe

s g

oin

g

up

; old

brid

ge w

ill b

e fin

e t

o r

ep

air

fo

r $

1 m

illio

n.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

10

9

Be

rna

rd

Con

sta

ntin

Su

pp

ort

s r

eh

ab

iIitatin

g e

xis

ting

bri

dg

e a

nd

ad

din

g p

ed

estr

ian

bri

dg

e; cost

low

er;

m

ain

tain

s r

ura

l ch

ara

cte

r; k

eep

s t

raff

ic s

low

; a

vo

ids m

akin

g a

majo

r a

rte

rial;

pre

se

rves r

ecre

atio

n; ra

tio

nale

de

ve

lope

d in

rep

ort

is s

usp

ect; c

om

ple

te la

ck o

f re

ga

rd fo

r a

ple

asan

t en

vir

onm

en

t.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

0

Co

nsta

nce

Nic

hol

Op

po

sed

to

re

loca

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; m

ovin

g b

rid

ge u

pstr

eam

will

cre

ate

a

no

the

r "a

ttra

ctive

nu

isa

nce

"; n

o n

ee

d t

o s

pe

nd

la

rge

am

ou

nt

of

mo

ne

y;

ne

ed

m

ore

acce

ss t

o t

he

riv

ers

on

pu

blic

pro

pe

rty;

imp

rove

Bu

ckho

use B

rid

ge

access;

rep

air

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

- b

eau

tifu

l la

nd

mark

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

1

Te

resa

Th

om

pson

Op

po

ses r

ep

lace

me

nt o

f th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e w

ill b

ecom

e a

by-

pa

ss a

nd

hig

h s

pe

ed

ro

ute

; w

ou

ld t

rave

l p

ast scho

ols

; ne

w b

rid

ge

tra

ffic

flo

w w

ill

ne

ga

tive

ly a

ffect

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

; a

dditio

na

l tr

aff

ic lig

hts

will

be

ne

ed

ed

with

p

rop

osa

l; c

urr

en

t b

ridg

e is s

afe

an

d d

oes n

ot

requ

ire r

ep

lacem

en

t; c

on

figu

ratio

n

co

ntr

ibu

tes to

ou

r n

eig

hbo

rhood

by c

alm

ing

tra

ffic

; ne

w b

rid

ge

wo

uld

be

pla

ce

d

in a

se

nsitiv

e r

ive

r h

ab

ita

t a

rea

; w

ou

ld h

ave

an

ad

ve

rse

aff

ect o

n f

ish

an

d

wild

life

; n

ois

e p

ollu

tion

wo

uld

ad

ve

rse

ly a

ffect

recre

atio

n o

n th

e r

ive

r;

rep

lacem

en

t is

un

ne

cessa

ry.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

2

E

mily

D

ow

nin

g

Su

pp

ort

s r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

of e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

; b

ette

r use

of

taxp

aye

r m

on

ey.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

3

Olle

ke

Rap

pe

-D

an

iels

S

up

po

rts r

ecom

men

da

tio

n o

f th

e p

lan

nin

g s

tud

y a

nd

th

e 1

994

EA

to

bu

ild a

ne

w

bri

dg

e o

n th

e w

est e

nd

of

So

uth

Ave

nu

e; co

nce

rn f

or

the

re

liab

ility

of

the c

urr

en

t b

rid

ge in

to t

he

fu

ture

an

d its

im

plic

atio

ns o

n p

ub

lic s

afe

ty;

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

N

eig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n d

oe

s n

ot

rep

rese

nt

the

in

tere

sts

of a

ll th

e c

itiz

en

s;

su

rve

y

wa

s n

ot

retu

rne

d b

y a

ll th

e 1

00

0+

TR

re

sid

en

ts,

just a

fe

w h

un

dre

d;

TR

NP

did

n

ot

exp

lore

the

brid

ge a

nd t

he issu

es a

ssocia

ted

with

its

via

bili

ty;

ne

w b

rid

ge

w

ou

ld s

hift

tra

ffic

fro

m m

ea

nderi

ng

th

rou

gh

ou

t sid

e s

tre

ets

to

ge

t to

No

rth

A

ve

nu

e t

o m

ain

ly S

outh

Ave

nu

e;

traff

ic in

fro

nt o

f ho

me

s o

n S

ou

th A

ve

nue

w

ou

ld in

cre

ase

; ru

ral ch

ara

cte

r o

f n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d s

hou

ld in

clu

de

th

e e

ntire

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

4

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d a

nd

no

t ju

st

the r

esid

en

ts w

ho

liv

e o

n S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e;

do

es n

ot a

gre

e t

hat

ne

w b

ridge

will

cre

ate

an

oth

er

“recre

ation

” site

; cu

rre

nt

bri

dg

e d

eg

rad

es e

nvir

onm

en

t o

f B

itte

rro

ot

Riv

er.

S

tud

y t

eam

did

a g

oo

d jo

b o

f co

rrid

or

an

aly

sis

; lis

ten

ed

to

and

con

sid

ere

d inp

ut

fro

m th

e p

ub

lic o

n a

ll sid

es o

f th

e issue

; re

com

men

da

tio

n is s

ou

nd

an

d

rea

son

able

; tw

o s

tud

ies b

y t

wo

diffe

ren

t g

roup

s r

each

ed t

he

sa

me

co

nclu

sio

n;

cu

rre

nt

brid

ge

an

d its

ap

pro

ach

es a

re in

he

ren

tly u

nsa

fe,

un

relia

ble

, e

nvir

onm

en

tally

dam

ag

ing a

nd is a

lia

bili

ty;

it is a

n a

ttra

ctive

pu

blic

nu

isa

nce

th

at

ha

s c

on

trib

ute

d to

dro

wn

ing

, in

juri

es a

nd

au

tom

ob

ile a

ccid

en

ts.

11

4

Jill

A

lba

n

Dis

ple

ase

d w

ith

fin

din

gs o

f th

e p

lann

ing

stu

dy;

dis

ag

ree

with

se

lecte

d p

refe

rre

d

op

tion

; op

pose

ne

w S

ou

th A

ven

ue

brid

ge

; co

mm

unity is b

ein

g p

oush

ed

on t

his

p

roje

ct

to u

se

fed

era

l fu

nd

ing

; co

mm

unity o

ve

rwh

elm

ing

ly o

pp

oses u

sin

g

mill

ions o

f fe

de

ral d

olla

rs t

o c

on

str

uct

a n

ew

bri

dge

; w

ill b

e d

etr

ime

nta

l im

pacts

to

com

mu

nity a

nd

lo

ca

l ecosyste

ms;

dis

pute

th

e e

xte

nt

of cu

rre

nt

pro

ble

ms w

ith

th

e e

xis

ting

brid

ge

; fe

de

ral d

olla

rs c

an

be

use

d to

re

-ha

b a

n e

xis

tin

g b

ridg

e; n

ew

b

rid

ge w

ill r

e-r

ou

te c

om

mu

ter

tra

ffic

th

rou

gh

a s

ma

ll ne

ighb

orh

oo

d; n

ort

he

rn

Bitte

rroo

t R

ive

r is

an

IB

A (

Impo

rta

nt

Bir

d A

rea

) a

nd

desig

na

ted

critica

l h

abita

t fo

r B

ull

Tro

ut;

ne

w b

rid

ge is u

nfo

un

de

d, u

nne

cessa

ry,

lacks c

om

mu

nity s

upp

ort

, a

nd

will

resu

lt in a

ba

ckla

sh

fo

r lo

ca

l ele

cte

d o

ffic

ials

wh

o m

ay t

ry t

o p

ush

so

me

thin

g th

rou

gh

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Ple

ase

se

e r

esp

on

se t

o c

om

me

nt

#13

fo

r u

se

of F

ed

era

l fu

nds f

or

bri

dg

e r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

.

11

5

Ed

B

art

els

S

tro

ng

ly s

up

po

rts n

ew

bri

dge

at

the

we

ste

rn t

erm

inu

s o

f S

outh

Ave

nu

e; re

mo

ve

o

ld b

rid

ge

, in

-str

ea

m p

iers

an

d a

bu

tme

nts

; o

ld b

ridg

e is a

n a

gg

lom

era

tio

n o

f sp

ans w

hic

h h

ave

outliv

ed t

heir u

se

fuln

ess;

resid

en

ts w

est

of th

e r

ive

r d

ese

rve

a

relia

ble

bri

dg

e a

cro

ss th

e B

itte

rro

ot.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

6

Do

n

St.

Pe

ter

Pro

ce

ed

with

a n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t S

ou

th A

ve

nue

with

ou

t g

oin

g thro

ug

h a

co

mple

tely

n

ew

NE

PA

pro

ce

ss;

do

not

nee

d a

no

the

r stu

dy -

ne

ed

to

sta

rt a

ctu

al b

ridg

e

pla

nnin

g;

So

uth

Ave

nu

e d

oes n

ot

equ

ate

with

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

- t

he

y a

re n

ot

syn

on

ym

ous; n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d c

on

ce

rns o

f S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e r

esid

en

ts s

hou

ld n

ot b

e

co

nfla

ted

to

be

th

e c

once

rns o

f a

ll o

f T

arg

et

Ra

ng

e;

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

com

mun

ity,

oth

er

tha

n S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e,

will

be

su

bsta

ntia

lly im

pro

ve

d b

y a

ne

w b

rid

ge

at

So

uth

Ave

nue

; ap

pla

uds t

he

pla

nn

ing

tea

m’s

wo

rk a

nd

effo

rts;

two

stu

die

s d

on

e

de

cad

es a

pa

rt b

y d

iffe

ren

t g

rou

ps c

am

e t

o t

he

sam

e c

onclu

sio

n;

Ma

cla

y B

ridg

e

Alli

an

ce

do

es n

ot

repre

se

nt

the

best

inte

rests

of

the

ge

ne

ral co

mm

unity;

MB

A

rep

rese

nts

na

rro

w in

tere

sts

of a

fe

w la

nd

ow

ne

rs o

n S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e; p

uzzle

d th

at

Mo

un

t A

ve

nu

e c

ou

ld b

e c

onsid

ere

d in

th

is p

roce

ss;

Mo

un

t A

ve

nu

e r

oute

wo

uld

b

e ine

ffic

ien

t an

d n

ot

fix t

he

accid

en

t clu

ste

r o

n R

ive

r P

ine

s R

oa

d.

Scre

enin

g a

sse

ssm

en

t sh

ow

s a

n incre

ase

in

tra

ffic

at T

arg

et R

an

ge

Sch

ool fr

om

a

So

uth

Ave

nu

e R

ou

te; m

uch

of

tha

t in

cre

ase

in

tra

ffic

re

pre

se

nts

tra

ffic

th

at

is

cu

rre

ntly g

oin

g to

and

fro

m T

arg

et

Rang

e S

ch

ool o

ve

r eith

er

Hum

ble

or

Cle

men

ts R

oa

d f

rom

Nort

h A

ve

nu

e;

Mis

so

ula

has m

an

y s

cho

ols

on

ma

jor

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

5

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

str

ee

ts; a

ll 3

hig

h s

cho

ols

are

lo

ca

ted

on

majo

r str

ee

ts; so

are

a n

um

be

r o

f e

lem

en

tary

scho

ols

, in

clu

din

g R

ussell

Sch

oo

l, C

.S. P

ort

er,

St. J

ose

ph S

cho

ol,

an

d H

aw

tho

rn.

11

7

Mic

ha

el a

nd

N

an

cy

Cha

nd

ler

Rep

ort

ha

s m

an

y d

eficie

ncie

s; sa

fety

an

d c

ost

are

prim

ary

sh

ort

co

min

gs;

ne

w

rep

lacem

en

t w

ill n

ot im

pro

ve

sa

fety

; costs

fo

r n

ew

bri

dge

are

no

t co

rrect

an

d a

re

too

lo

w;

So

uth

Ave

nu

e w

ill n

eed

to

be

wid

en

ed w

ith

tra

ffic

con

tro

l a

nd

oth

er

slo

win

g d

evic

es; su

ppo

rts r

eha

bili

tatio

n p

rop

osal fo

r re

build

ing

th

e M

acla

y

Bri

dg

e b

y a

qua

lifie

d b

ridg

e e

ng

ine

er;

add

resses w

eig

ht lim

it c

once

rns,

inclu

des

se

pa

rate

bik

e/h

ike

r p

ath

, a

nd

co

sts

un

de

r o

ne

mill

ion

do

llars

; sh

ou

ld h

ave

the

ch

oic

e o

f p

rese

rvin

g a

nd

im

pro

vin

g t

he

exis

tin

g h

isto

rical b

rid

ge

; su

pp

ort

ed

by a

la

rge

majo

rity

of th

e loca

l p

eople

and

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; cu

rre

nt

pro

posa

l w

ou

ld d

ecre

ase

ma

ny p

rop

ert

y v

alu

es a

nd

so

on incre

ase c

ou

nty

ta

xe

s.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

8

Jim

an

d A

nita

Ja

ko

b

Su

pp

ort

s r

eh

ab

illita

tio

n o

f th

e M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; op

pose

d to

a n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t th

e

en

d o

f S

ou

th;

mu

st m

ain

tain

rura

l q

ua

lity o

f n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d; d

on

't n

ee

d B

ig F

lat

Roa

d t

o b

eco

me

a b

yp

ass.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

11

9

Ge

org

e

Sch

rein

er

Exis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

is a

goo

d t

raffic

con

tro

l d

evic

e;

we

st sid

e a

pp

roach

offe

rs

exce

llen

t vis

ibili

ty;

90

deg

ree

tu

rn r

egu

late

s v

ehic

le s

ize

and

ra

te o

f tr

ave

l cro

ssin

g t

he

brid

ge

; p

ede

str

ian

cro

ssin

gs s

ho

uld

be

inclu

ded

as p

art

of

a tra

ffic

so

lutio

n;

wir

ele

ss c

am

co

rde

rs a

re r

easo

na

bly

priced

and

the

in

form

atio

n is s

ma

rt

ph

on

e a

ccessib

le;

alo

ng

th

e B

lue

Mo

un

tain

-Big

Fla

t co

rrid

or

pro

pe

rty d

am

ag

e

an

d p

ers

on

al in

jury

on

priva

te p

rop

ert

y c

an

be

attri

bu

ted

to

ve

hic

le s

pee

d,

co

mm

erc

ial ca

rrie

rs u

sin

g m

oto

r b

rake

s,

and

poo

r (o

r no

) sho

uld

er

com

pa

ctio

n;

Mis

so

ula

ha

s a

no

rth

-so

uth

tra

ffic

pro

ble

m a

nd n

ot e

ast-

we

st; s

imp

ly m

ain

tain

th

e c

urr

en

t a

rea a

nd

th

e b

ridge

.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

12

0

Llo

yd

Acke

r S

eco

nd

stu

dy h

as c

om

e t

o s

am

e c

onclu

sio

n a

s 1

99

4 E

A; con

clu

sio

n n

ot

pop

ula

r w

ith

pe

op

le liv

ing

on

So

uth

, but

must

me

et fu

ture

tra

ffic

ne

eds;

eith

er

ab

ide

by

recom

men

da

tio

ns in

tw

o s

tudie

s o

r kic

k th

e c

an d

ow

n t

he

roa

d;

reha

bili

tation

o

ption

doe

s n

ot m

ee

t fu

ture

tra

ffic

ne

eds;

reh

abili

tatio

n o

ption d

oes n

ot a

nsw

er

ma

ny o

f th

e s

afe

ty issu

es; stu

dy d

id n

ot

add

ress h

yd

rolo

gy o

f ri

ve

r re

su

ltin

g f

rom

th

e p

lace

men

t o

f th

e b

ridg

e; b

rid

ge

pro

pe

rly c

on

str

ucte

d a

t th

e S

ou

th 1

lo

cation

w

ou

ld r

esult in

no

sig

nific

an

t ero

din

g o

f th

e r

ive

r b

ed b

elo

w t

ha

t lo

ca

tio

n;

cu

rre

nt

bri

dg

e h

as a

lim

ited

life

exp

ecta

ncy.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

12

1

Sa

nd

ra

Acke

r D

o n

ot

thin

k b

uild

ing

a 2

la

ne

bri

dg

e a

t th

e e

nd

of

So

uth

Aven

ue

will

in

cre

ase

th

e t

raff

ic;

will

mo

ve

it m

ore

effficie

ntly;

the

re is a

n e

asem

en

t fo

r th

e p

urp

ose o

f b

uild

ing a

brid

ge

at

the

en

d o

f S

ou

th; p

lan

fo

r th

e fu

ture

an

d fo

r th

e g

row

th t

ha

t co

me

s w

ith

it.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

12

2

Ka

ri

Bri

tain

K

ee

p t

he

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

at th

e p

rese

nt site

; u

pg

rad

e t

he b

ridg

e f

or

str

uctu

ral

ne

eds a

nd

ma

inte

nan

ce

; p

rovid

e a

nd

atta

ch a

pe

destr

ian

/bik

e p

ath

to

th

e b

rid

ge

-

the

se

se

em

to

be

the

only

deficie

ncie

s.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

6

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

12

3

Orv

ille

Dan

iels

F

ocus o

n t

hre

e p

rin

cip

le c

rite

ria

- p

ublic

sa

fety

, en

vir

onm

en

tal susta

ina

bili

ty a

nd

th

e a

ctu

al fa

cts

of

the

situa

tio

n;

op

inio

ns a

nd

em

otio

ns s

ho

uld

no

t o

utw

eig

h th

e

thre

e c

rite

ria

; e

ve

ryo

ne

is e

ntitle

d t

o th

eir o

wn

op

inio

n b

ut a

re n

ot

en

title

d to

the

ir

ow

n v

ers

ion

of th

e fa

cts

; a

dvoca

tes r

em

ova

l o

f th

e e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

, p

iers

an

d

ab

utm

en

ts;

exis

ting

brid

ge is u

nsa

fe a

nd

un

relia

ble

- t

he

bridg

e c

an

not

be

m

od

ifie

d in

a w

ay t

o e

limin

ate

th

ese

pro

ble

ms.

Ma

cla

y f

am

ily d

on

ate

d a

n e

ase

me

nt

at

the

en

d o

f S

outh

Aven

ue

be

cau

se t

he

o

ld tim

ers

kn

ew

it

wa

s w

he

re a

bri

dg

e s

ho

uld

be

; b

est lo

ca

tion

fo

r a b

ridg

e

acro

ss th

e r

ive

r is

at

the

en

d o

f S

ou

th A

ven

ue

; it is tim

e t

o im

ple

me

nt

the

re

com

men

da

tio

ns o

f th

e s

tud

y g

rou

p a

nd t

ake

ste

ps t

o b

uild

a b

ridg

e a

t th

e e

nd

of

So

uth

Ave

nu

e;

furt

he

r de

lay w

ill r

esult in

hig

he

r costs

an

d p

erh

aps lo

ss o

f g

as

tax f

un

ds.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

12

4

He

len

(Co

mm

en

t a

lso

pre

vio

usly

su

bm

itte

d o

n

Fe

bru

ary

21

, 2

01

3)

Ore

nd

ain

Op

po

sed

to

to

bu

ildin

g a

ne

w b

rid

ge t

o r

ep

lace

exis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

; p

ublic

co

mm

unic

ation

wa

s s

tifled

; fe

asib

le im

pro

vem

en

ts w

ere

ign

ore

d;

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

N

eig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n w

as d

isre

ga

rde

d; 2

011

Mo

nta

na

Sup

rem

e C

ou

rt d

ecis

ion

,

Heff

ern

an

vs.

City o

f M

isso

ula

- p

ropo

ne

nts

of

the

Ra

ttle

sn

ake

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

P

lan

pre

va

iled

ele

va

tin

g t

he leg

al sig

nific

ance

to

su

ch p

lan

s a

nd

go

ve

rnin

g

bo

die

s m

ust

su

bsta

ntia

lly c

om

ply

with

th

e n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d p

lans.

P

ub

lic w

as m

isle

ad

on

fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

fo

r re

ha

bili

tatio

n o

f b

rid

ge

s;

to b

utt

ress

the

arg

um

en

t to

re

pla

ce

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

, th

e g

rou

p c

laim

ed

in

th

e f

ina

l p

ropo

sal

tha

t fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

wa

s o

nly

ava

ilab

le f

or

rep

lacem

en

t -

this

is w

ron

g.

Fa

iled

to

in

form

pu

blic

Ma

cla

y c

ou

ld b

e e

ligib

le fo

r C

TE

P f

ede

ral fu

nd

ing

to

re

ha

bili

tate

th

e b

rid

ge

; C

TE

P -

Com

mu

nity T

ran

sp

ort

atio

n E

nh

an

ce

men

t P

rog

ram

- p

rovid

es fe

de

ral fu

nd

ing

fo

r a

va

rie

ty o

f im

pro

ve

me

nts

inclu

din

g

reh

ab

bin

g h

isto

ric b

rid

ge

s;

Ma

cla

y q

ua

lifie

s a

s a

his

toric b

ridg

e b

ut th

e f

und

ing

wa

s n

ot

dis

clo

se

d to

th

e p

ublic

as a

n a

va

ilab

le r

eso

urc

e b

y t

he

pla

nn

ing

gro

up

. P

lan

nin

g te

am

focu

se

d o

n t

he

bri

dg

e a

s a

n isola

ted

pro

ject

- a

vo

ids fa

cto

ring

the

u

pg

rade

co

sts

of th

e a

dja

cen

t ro

ad

s;

two

-la

ne

bri

dg

e w

ill c

rea

te m

ore

tra

ffic

; ca

rs w

ill s

pill

on

to s

ub

sta

nd

ard

, n

arr

ow

win

din

g r

oa

ds;

su

rfa

ce

s a

re s

lim w

ith

n

arr

ow

wid

th,

no

sh

ould

ers

, in

ad

eq

ua

te r

oo

m f

or

bic

yclis

ts a

nd

ru

nn

ers

; p

ub

lic

ne

eds t

ota

l co

st

of a

ne

w b

ridge

inclu

din

g t

he

cost

of ro

ad

upg

rad

es.

Fa

ilure

to u

pg

rad

e s

ubsta

nd

ard

ro

ads p

lace

s r

esid

en

ts in

peril; r

oa

d u

pg

rade

co

sts

bo

red

by M

isso

ula

re

sid

en

ts; M

isso

ula

Co

unty

ta

xp

aye

rs w

ou

ld b

e s

tuck

with

th

e c

ost;

pla

nn

ing

tea

m r

ep

ort

faile

d t

o p

rovid

e a

n a

ccu

rate

, ob

jective

fe

asib

ility

stu

dy a

nd c

rea

ted a

co

ntr

ive

d r

epo

rt w

ith

the

sin

gle

pu

rpose

of

su

ppo

rtin

g a

ne

w b

rid

ge.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Ple

ase

se

e r

esp

on

se t

o c

om

me

nt

#13

fo

r u

se

of F

ed

era

l fu

nds f

or

bri

dg

e r

eh

ab

ilita

tion

. C

TE

P is n

o lon

ge

r a

fed

era

l fu

nd

ing p

rog

ram

in

th

e M

ovin

g

Ah

ea

d fo

r P

rog

ress in

th

e 2

1st C

en

tury

(M

AP

-21

) fe

de

ral

tra

nsp

ort

atio

n f

und

ing p

rogra

m.

12

5

S

ilke

Ja

uck

Ren

ova

te c

urr

ent

Ma

cla

y B

ridg

e -

me

ets

or

exce

ed

s a

ll cu

rre

nt

and

futu

re lo

ad

req

uire

men

ts; re

hab

ilita

tio

n c

osts

a f

ractio

n o

f n

ew

bri

dge

; new

bri

dg

e c

osts

are

T

ha

nk y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

7

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

in

com

ple

te a

nd

do

no

t ta

ke

in

to c

on

sid

era

tio

n a

dditio

na

l costs

such

as r

oa

dw

ay

up

gra

de

s, d

itch

re

loca

tio

n, tr

affic

co

ntr

ol m

easu

res,

etc

.; a

gain

st

ne

w S

ou

th

Ave

nu

e B

ridg

e; e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

ca

n b

e r

ein

forc

ed t

o a

pro

pe

r lo

ad

lim

it;

no

nee

d t

o r

epla

ce

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

.

12

6

Ka

thy

Arm

str

on

g

Rep

ort

ha

s m

an

y d

eficie

ncie

s; sa

fety

an

d c

ost

are

prim

ary

sh

ort

co

min

gs;

ne

w

rep

lacem

en

t w

ill n

ot im

pro

ve

sa

fety

; costs

fo

r n

ew

bri

dge

are

no

t co

rrect

an

d a

re

too

lo

w;

So

uth

Ave

nu

e w

ill n

eed

to

be

wid

en

ed w

ith

tra

ffic

con

tro

l a

nd

oth

er

slo

win

g d

evic

es; su

ppo

rts r

eha

bili

tatio

n p

rop

osal fo

r re

build

ing

th

e M

acla

y

Bri

dg

e b

y a

qua

lifie

d b

ridg

e e

ng

ine

er;

add

resses w

eig

ht lim

it c

once

rns,

inclu

des

se

pa

rate

bik

e/h

ike

r p

ath

, a

nd

co

sts

un

de

r o

ne

mill

ion

do

llars

; sh

ou

ld h

ave

the

ch

oic

e o

f p

rese

rvin

g a

nd

im

pro

vin

g t

he

exis

tin

g h

isto

rical b

rid

ge

; su

pp

ort

ed

by a

la

rge

majo

rity

of th

e loca

l p

eople

and

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

hb

orh

oo

d P

lan

; cu

rre

nt

pro

posa

l w

ou

ld d

ecre

ase

ma

ny p

rop

ert

y v

alu

es a

nd

so

on incre

ase c

ou

nty

ta

xe

s.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

12

7

Fra

nk

Mu

th

Mo

st

bri

dg

es in w

este

rn M

on

tan

a a

nd

Id

ah

o o

f sty

le s

imila

r to

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

h

ave

be

en

re

pla

ce

d b

eca

use

th

e o

ve

rhea

d e

lem

en

ts d

estr

oye

d –

du

e to

m

ove

men

t o

f com

mo

dity to

ma

rke

t (lo

gs);

Ma

cla

y B

ridg

e n

ot u

sed

in

th

is

fashio

n; p

iers

an

d b

en

ts a

re fou

nd

ed o

n d

rive

n p

ile;

ma

in p

ier

fou

nde

d o

n t

imbe

r p

ile e

nca

se

d in

co

ncre

te s

eal; th

is s

yste

m p

rovid

es r

esis

tance

to

extr

em

e flo

od

flo

ws a

s w

ell

as liv

e a

nd

dea

d lo

ad

su

pp

ort

; d

raft s

tud

y d

id n

ot

pro

vid

e

reh

ab

ilita

tion

optio

n -

MB

A r

esp

on

sib

le f

or

de

tails

; stu

dy t

eam

no

t in

clu

de

d th

e

reh

ab

ilita

tion

optio

n;

reha

bili

tatio

n o

ption

me

ets

mo

st o

f th

e o

bje

ctive

s id

en

tifie

d

as im

po

rta

nt in

th

is s

tud

y -

wh

ile p

rote

ctin

g t

he

cha

racte

r o

f th

e c

om

mu

nity.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts.

Th

ey a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

12

8

Sco

tt

Ba

ir

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

rees w

ith

re

po

rt r

ecom

men

da

tio

n to

bu

ild a

new

2-l

an

e b

rid

ge

at

the

exte

nsio

n o

f S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e;

be

lieve

s r

ep

ort

is f

aulty o

n e

stim

ate

s o

f fu

ture

tr

aff

ic,

co

un

ty-c

ause

d d

ete

rio

ratio

n o

f th

e e

xis

ting

brid

ge a

nd in

ade

qu

ate

co

nsid

era

tio

n o

f th

e n

eig

hbo

rho

od

s;

doe

s n

ot

be

lieve

tra

ffic

fo

recasts

are

valid

;

tra

ffic

on B

lue M

ou

nta

in a

nd

Big

Fla

t ro

ads is lim

ite

d b

y r

ed

uce

d s

pe

ed lim

its,

na

rro

w la

nes,

abu

nda

nt

wild

life

an

d a

win

din

g c

ou

rse

ne

xt

to t

he

Bitte

rroo

t a

nd

C

lark

Fo

rk r

ive

rs; e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge s

erv

es a

s a

“ca

lmin

g”

influ

ence

on

tr

aff

ic in t

his

are

a -

ca

lmin

g w

ill b

e c

om

ple

tely

abse

nt w

ith

th

e p

rop

ose

d n

ew

b

rid

ge.

Ne

w b

rid

ge w

ill b

e m

ost

like

ly c

au

se

of in

cre

ase

d tra

ffic

; m

ajo

r d

rivin

g

forc

e fo

r re

pla

cin

g t

he

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

is th

e d

ete

rio

ratio

n o

f th

e s

tructu

re;

Coun

ty

ha

s n

ot m

ain

tain

ed

or

atte

mp

ted

to

re

hab

ilita

te t

he

bri

dg

e in

ne

arl

y a

de

ca

de

; la

rge

ou

tla

ys o

f C

ou

nty

/Sta

te fu

nd

ing

will

be n

ecessa

ry t

o p

rocu

re la

nd

, cre

ate

a

pp

roache

s a

nd

co

mp

lete

oth

er

po

rtio

ns o

f th

e b

ridg

e r

ep

lace

me

nt;

the

re is

no

thin

g f

ree

ab

ou

t fe

dera

l fu

ndin

g; p

refe

r m

y t

axe

s t

o b

e u

sed

to

reh

abili

tate

th

e

bri

dg

e.

Cou

nty

has m

ora

l a

nd

le

ga

l oblig

atio

n to

fo

llow

th

e T

arg

et

Ran

ge

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

P

lan

; T

RN

P a

pp

rove

d b

y t

he

Cou

nty

; re

ce

nt

Mo

nta

na S

up

rem

e C

ou

rt d

ecis

ion

s

reflect

tha

t ap

pro

ve

d n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d p

lans a

re le

ga

lly b

ind

ing

do

cum

ents

; q

ualit

y

of

life

will

be d

rastica

lly r

ed

uced

by a

dditio

na

l h

igh

sp

ee

d,

hea

vy lo

ad

tra

ffic

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

8

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

ge

ne

rate

d b

y t

he

ne

w b

rid

ge

; sa

fety

of sch

oo

l ch

ildre

n w

ill b

e s

ign

ific

an

tly

red

uce

d;

reje

ct

the

recom

mend

ation

fo

r a

ne

w b

ridg

e;

reh

abili

tate

exis

tin

g

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

.

12

9

Bo

b

Sch

weitze

r S

tud

y f

aile

d to

ach

ieve

its

sta

ted

pu

rpo

se

; did

no

t id

en

tify

the

con

necte

d c

osts

a

sso

cia

ted w

ith

a r

epla

ce

me

nt b

rid

ge

; co

sts

on

the

we

st

sid

e o

f th

e r

ive

r ha

ve

n

ot

bee

n a

dd

resse

d; n

ee

ds a

nd

ob

jective

s w

ere

no

t d

efin

ed b

y t

he

co

mm

unity,

stu

dy p

art

ne

rs,

an

d r

eso

urc

e a

ge

ncie

s -

stu

dy r

epo

rt f

aile

d;

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

N

eig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n m

ad

e v

ery

cle

ar

that

a n

ew

bri

dg

e w

as n

eith

er

nece

ssa

ry

no

r w

an

ted

; en

vir

onm

en

tal re

so

urc

es n

ot

ade

qua

tely

stu

die

d; b

revity o

f e

nvir

onm

en

tal re

so

urc

e a

naly

sis

in

dic

ate

s o

bvio

us n

ee

d fo

r an

En

vir

onm

en

t Im

pact

Sta

tem

en

t (E

IS)

if th

e S

ou

th A

ve

nue

Brid

ge

op

tio

n is s

ele

cte

d; co

stly a

nd

tim

e c

on

sum

ing

pro

cess -

lik

ely

to

re

qu

ire

se

ve

ral ye

ars

; a

dditio

na

l stu

die

s w

ill

dis

clo

se

un

me

ntio

ne

d m

itig

atio

n m

ea

su

res t

ha

t cou

ld s

ub

sta

ntia

lly incre

ase

co

sts

an

d d

ela

ys in

de

sig

n a

nd

con

str

uctio

n;

ne

ed

s a

nd

ob

jective

s fo

r th

is s

tud

y

we

re d

eri

ve

d b

y t

he s

tud

y p

lann

ing

te

am

, n

ot

pub

lic;

de

riva

tion

s s

ha

pe

d m

ore

by

pe

rspe

ctive

s a

s e

ng

ine

ers

th

an

by p

ublic

in

pu

t.

On

ly t

hre

e o

ption

s to

co

nsid

er

- a

ll o

the

rs h

ave

be

en

re

leg

ate

d t

o b

ack s

ea

t ro

les;

firs

t op

tion

- M

uth

re

hab

ilita

tio

n, seco

nd

optio

n -

pu

re e

ng

inee

ring

so

lutio

n

in t

he

fo

rm o

f a

re

pla

ce

me

nt b

rid

ge

, th

ird

op

tio

n -

do

no

thin

g; th

ird

op

tio

n is

pre

fera

ble

to

the

se

con

d.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

13

0

Mo

nic

a

Weis

ul

Dis

ag

ree

s w

ith

pre

se

nta

tio

n o

f cra

sh

data

in

re

po

rt a

nd

su

bse

qu

ent

ne

xu

s

be

twe

en

cra

sh

es a

nd

sa

fety

issu

es a

t/n

ea

r e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

; th

ere

has b

ee

n n

o

ma

inte

nan

ce

wo

rk o

n M

acla

y B

rid

ge

fo

r th

e last

se

ve

n y

ea

rs;

do

es n

ot

su

pp

ort

re

pla

cem

en

t b

ridg

e a

t S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

13

1

Pa

tric

ia

Th

om

as

Dis

app

oin

ted

by r

ep

ort

re

co

mm

en

da

tion

; re

po

rt d

oes n

ot

fully

co

nsid

ere

d

reh

ab

ilita

tion

of th

e e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

- s

ubsta

ntially

lo

we

r cost;

do

es n

ot b

elie

ve

fu

ture

tra

ffic

fo

reca

sts

; B

lue

Mo

un

tain

/Big

Fla

t is

scen

ic d

rive in

Mis

so

ula

; d

on

't tu

rn t

his

are

a in

to a

hig

h-s

peed

, h

igh

-vo

lum

e t

raff

ic c

orr

ido

r; in

clu

de

ad

ditio

na

l 3

- o

r 4

-wa

y s

top

sig

ns o

n S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e n

ea

r B

ig S

ky H

igh S

ch

oo

l a

nd

Ta

rget

Ran

ge

Ele

me

nta

ry S

ch

ool, s

uch

as a

t T

ow

er,

Cle

me

nts

and

Hum

ble

Str

eets

, a

nd

red

uce

d s

pe

ed

lim

its; im

po

se

we

igh

t/lo

ad

restr

ictio

ns o

n B

lue

Mo

un

tain

and

B

ig F

lat

Road

s; u

nde

rta

ke

a s

tud

y o

f w

eig

ht lim

ita

tio

ns o

n t

ho

se

ro

ads.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

13

2

T

om

S

tucke

y

Op

po

ses n

ew

bri

dg

e a

t S

ou

th; w

ill n

eg

ative

ly im

pact

neig

hb

orh

oo

d

ch

ara

cte

ristics;

do

no

t cha

nge

th

e lo

ca

tio

n o

f th

e M

acla

y B

ridg

e.

T

ha

nk y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

13

3

Ge

ne

Th

om

pson

Lo

ts o

f ch

ang

es in

Mis

sou

la v

alle

y d

rive

n b

y c

on

str

uctio

n o

f n

ew

or

rep

lacem

en

t b

rid

ges (

Ma

dis

on

Str

ee

t, R

eserv

e S

tre

et

an

d K

on

a R

oad

); a

ne

w b

rid

ge

off

the

e

nd

of S

ou

th A

ve

nu

e w

ill h

ave p

rofo

un

d e

ffects

on

tra

ve

l e

nte

rin

g M

isso

ula

fro

m

the

Bitte

rro

ot

Va

lley;

if y

ou

build

it

the

y w

ill c

om

e; scre

enin

g p

rocess f

law

ed

; n

o

co

nsid

era

tio

n t

o t

he T

arg

et

Ran

ge

Neig

hbo

rho

od

Pla

n; su

gge

stin

g a

ne

w b

rid

ge

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

2

9

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

is a

majo

r fla

w in

th

e p

roce

ss.

13

4

Gin

ny

Fa

y

Op

po

sed

to

a n

ew

bri

dg

e b

ein

g c

on

str

ucte

d;

favo

rs o

ption

2b

- m

ajo

r re

ha

bili

tation

of th

e e

xis

tin

g s

tru

ctu

re;

cu

rre

nt tr

affic

vo

lum

e d

oe

s n

ot

wa

rra

nt

bu

ildin

g a

ne

w b

rid

ge

; se

ve

re im

pact

on t

he r

esid

en

ts in

ne

arb

y a

rea

s;

reh

ab

ilita

tion

is b

ett

er

use

of

pu

blic

fun

ds;

pro

vid

es g

rea

ter

sa

fety

im

pro

ve

me

nts

; n

ew

bri

dg

e a

long

So

uth

will

be a

majo

r im

pa

ct to

ne

igh

bo

rhoo

ds,

rip

aria

n

ha

bita

t, s

tude

nt a

nd

sch

oo

l safe

ty;

will

in

cre

ase

tra

ffic

and

spe

ed

s t

hro

ug

h th

e

are

a;

do

be

tte

r tr

ansp

ort

ation

pla

nnin

g r

ath

er

than

co

ntin

ue to

com

pou

nd

p

rob

lem

s;

pla

nnin

g r

ep

ort

do

es n

ot re

fle

ct th

e c

onsid

era

ble

op

po

sitio

n t

o t

he

n

ew

bri

dg

e e

xp

resse

d r

ep

eate

dly

by a

rea

re

sid

en

ts.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

13

5

An

on

ym

ous

An

on

ym

ous

A n

ew

bri

dg

e fo

r a

dir

ect sh

ot fr

om

Sou

th to

Blu

e M

ou

nta

in R

oa

d is s

ca

ry;

en

vir

onm

en

tal im

pact

will

be

ma

jor;

it

will

be

an

oth

er

ea

sy a

ve

nu

e f

or

the

ch

ildre

n w

ho

are

dri

vin

g d

run

k to

ge

t u

p o

nto

Blu

e M

ou

nta

in R

oa

d inste

ad

of

dri

vin

g o

nto

So

uth

Hill

s.

H

as a

nyo

ne

don

e a

stu

dy o

n th

e w

ildlif

e o

ut

in th

at a

rea?

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

A w

ildlif

e s

pecific

stu

dy h

as n

ot

be

en c

om

ple

ted

. T

his

re

so

urc

e s

tud

y,

typ

ically

re

ferr

ed

to

as a

Bio

logic

al R

eso

urc

e

Re

po

rt (

BR

R)

wo

uld

be

co

mple

ted

as p

art

of th

e

NE

PA

/ME

PA

pro

ce

ss if

a p

roje

ct

is d

eve

lope

d.

13

6

Fre

d

Ste

wart

Scre

enin

g c

rite

ria p

oo

rly d

eve

lop

ed

an

d b

iase

d to

ne

w b

rid

ge

; n

o fe

asib

le

reh

ab

ilita

tion

optio

n c

on

sid

ere

d;

crite

ria

rela

tive

to

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

Neig

hb

orh

oo

d

Pla

n s

ug

ge

ste

d b

ut

ign

ore

d;

dra

ft s

tud

y d

oe

s n

ot

follo

w M

on

tan

a B

usin

ess

Pro

cess g

uid

elin

es;

Mis

so

ula

Cou

nty

Co

mm

issio

ne

rs a

re le

ft w

ith

an

incom

ple

te

an

d fla

we

d d

ocu

me

nt

- w

ith

an in

va

lid r

eco

mm

end

atio

n to

build

a v

ery

costly

bri

dg

e;

ad

ve

rse

ly im

pacts

th

e lo

ca

l com

mu

nity; la

ck o

f sup

port

ing

in

form

atio

n fo

r a

re

hab

ilita

tio

n o

ptio

n p

resen

ted

by t

he c

om

mu

nity.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Cri

teri

a r

ela

ted

to

the

TR

NP

wa

s in

itia

lly c

onsid

ere

d, a

lon

g

with

cri

teria

re

pre

se

nta

tive

of oth

er

Co

un

ty a

nd

re

gio

nal

pla

nnin

g d

ocu

me

nts

. U

nfo

rtu

na

tely

, th

ese d

ocu

me

nts

co

nflic

t w

ith

ea

ch

oth

er,

and

th

e P

lannin

g T

ea

m e

lecte

d t

o n

ot

de

ve

lop

cri

teri

a a

ssocia

ted

with

th

e T

RN

P,

reg

ion

al T

P,

Gro

wth

Po

licy,

active

TP

, e

tc. –

du

e to

th

e in

he

ren

t co

nflic

ts

fou

nd

in

ea

ch

docum

en

t.

Th

e M

on

tan

a B

usin

ess P

rocess g

uid

elin

es a

re g

uid

elin

es,

an

d h

ave

in

he

ren

t fle

xib

ility

as e

ach

pla

nn

ing

pro

ce

ss is

un

ique

. T

he

Ma

cla

y B

rid

ge

Pla

nn

ing S

tud

y s

ubsta

ntia

lly

co

mp

lied

with

th

e p

rocesses a

nd

inte

nt o

f th

e M

on

tan

a

Bu

sin

ess P

roce

ss g

uid

elin

es.

13

7

Bre

nt

Esm

oil

(US

FW

S)

Wolv

eri

ne

wa

s p

ropo

sed

fo

r lis

tin

g a

s a

th

rea

tene

d s

pecie

s o

n F

eb

rua

ry 4

, 20

13

; B

itte

rroo

t a

nd

Cla

rk F

ork

Riv

ers

, a

nd

O’B

rien

Cre

ek,

are

desig

na

ted

bull

tro

ut

cri

tica

l h

abita

t -

use

d b

y b

ull

tro

ut

for

fora

gin

g,

mig

ratio

n, a

nd o

ve

rwin

teri

ng

; co

nsid

er

(1)

tha

t ne

w c

rossin

g c

ove

rs a

t le

ast 1

.5 tim

es th

e b

an

kfu

ll w

idth

to

e

nsu

re p

assa

ge

of

fish

an

d d

eb

ris th

roug

h th

e s

yste

m,

(2)

use

of sin

gle

-sp

an

bri

dg

e t

o m

ain

tain

the

riv

er’s lon

g-t

erm

aqu

atic f

un

ctio

ns,

(3)

ke

epin

g te

mp

ora

ry

dis

turb

ances t

o th

e c

han

nel to

th

e m

inim

um

exte

nt

and

du

ratio

n p

ossib

le a

nd

(4

)

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

“Se

ctio

n 3

.4.4

.2 –

Th

rea

ten

ed

an

d E

nd

an

ge

red

Wild

life

S

pe

cie

s”,

loca

ted

on p

age

s 2

7 a

nd

28

of th

e d

raft

pla

nn

ing

stu

dy r

epo

rt, h

as b

een

mo

difed

to

cla

rify

th

at th

e W

olv

erin

e

wa

s p

rop

ose

d fo

r lis

tin

g a

s a

th

rea

ten

ed

sp

ecie

s o

n F

eb

rua

ry

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

3

0

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

rem

ovin

g t

he e

xis

tin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

, p

iers

, a

nd

ab

utm

ents

to

re

sto

re n

atu

ral

fun

ctio

ns t

o t

ha

t p

ort

ion

of

the

riv

er.

M

BT

A p

roh

ibits th

e ta

kin

g, kill

ing

, p

osse

ssio

n,

an

d t

ran

sp

ort

atio

n,

(am

on

g o

the

r a

ctio

ns)

of m

igra

tory

bird

s, th

eir

eg

gs,

pa

rts,

and

nests

, e

xce

pt

wh

en

spe

cific

ally

p

erm

itte

d;

MB

TA

ha

s n

o p

rovis

ion f

or

allo

win

g u

nin

ten

tio

na

l ta

ke

;

an

y f

utu

re c

utt

ing

of tr

ees o

r sh

rub

s s

ho

uld

occu

r b

etw

ee

n A

ug

ust

16

th a

nd

Ap

ril

30

th; sh

ou

ld th

e M

acla

y B

ridg

e b

e r

em

ove

d,

we

re

co

mm

end

: (1

) th

e r

em

oval

occu

r b

etw

ee

n A

ug

ust

16

th a

nd

Ap

ril 3

0th

; o

r (2

) th

e s

tru

ctu

re b

e n

ett

ed

to

p

reve

nt

occu

pa

ncy b

y m

igra

tory

bir

ds d

uri

ng

the

nestin

g s

easo

n; o

r (3

) n

ests

be

rem

ove

d a

s th

ey a

re c

on

str

ucte

d, b

ut p

rio

r to

egg

la

yin

g a

nd

incub

atio

n.

With

respe

ct to

ba

ld e

ag

les, an

y a

ctio

n t

ha

t m

ay b

e p

rop

osed

is o

blig

ate

d to

co

mp

ly w

ith

BG

EP

A.

Th

ere

fore

, w

e r

eco

mm

en

d t

ha

t th

e D

ep

art

me

nt co

ord

inate

w

ith

Mo

nta

na

Fis

h, W

ildlif

e &

Pa

rks (

14

20

East

Six

th A

ve

., P

.O.

Bo

x 2

00

70

1,

Hele

na

, M

T 5

96

20

-07

01

, 4

06

-44

4-2

53

5)

pri

or

to in

itia

ting

any p

roje

ct

co

nstr

uction

. S

hou

ld o

ccu

pie

d e

ag

le n

ests

occu

r w

ith

in 0

.5 m

ile o

f a

pro

pose

d

site

, w

e w

ou

ld a

dvis

e th

at

you

co

mp

ly w

ith

th

e r

ecom

me

nde

d t

em

po

rary

se

aso

nal a

nd

dis

tan

ce

co

nstr

uction

bu

ffe

rs s

tip

ula

ted

in

th

e 2

01

0 M

on

tan

a B

ald

E

ag

le M

an

ag

em

ent

Gu

ide

lines:

An

Add

end

um

to

Mo

nta

na

Ba

ld E

ag

le

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Pla

n (

19

94

).

4,

20

13

.

13

8

Will

iam

M

cD

ow

ell

Su

pp

ort

s c

om

mu

nity's

brid

ge

re

ha

bili

tation

optio

n;

reco

mm

end

ation

fo

r a

ne

w

bri

dg

e is p

oo

rly justifie

d; m

ajo

r fla

ws in

th

e s

tud

y e

xis

t.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

13

9

Wayne

Davis

A

da

man

tly o

pp

ose

d to

th

e p

roje

ct

as p

rop

ose

d in

th

e p

lann

ing

stu

dy;

cu

rre

nt

bri

dg

e is f

ine

; ob

vio

usly

ne

ed

s s

om

e u

pd

atin

g b

ut

rep

lacem

en

t is

no

t n

eed

ed

; n

ew

bri

dg

e w

ou

ld h

ave

a s

ign

ific

an

t n

eg

ative

im

pa

ct

on

th

e c

ha

racte

r o

f th

e

ne

ighb

orh

oo

d; cost

of

pro

ject

is n

ot ju

stifia

ble

in

ou

r cu

rre

nt

fiscal situ

atio

n;

su

ppo

rt a

ffo

rdab

le a

lte

rna

tive

with

re

ha

bili

tatio

n o

f th

e b

rid

ge w

ith

pla

ce

men

t o

f w

alk

ing

an

d b

ikin

g a

ttach

me

nts

; b

uild

less r

oa

ds a

nd

put

ou

r lim

ite

d r

eso

urc

es

tow

ard

s a

lte

rna

tive

fo

rms o

f tr

an

spo

rta

tio

n.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

14

0

Jim

A

ke

rs

Re

pre

sen

t th

e 'e

ve

ryd

ay' p

ers

on

; lo

ok o

ut fo

r th

em

an

d th

e c

hild

ren

tha

t th

ey

en

trust

to th

e s

ch

ool b

uses e

ve

ry d

ay;

bri

dg

es d

o fa

il; w

alk

un

de

r th

e c

urr

en

t b

rid

ge a

nd

loo

k a

t it -

no

t a

que

stio

n o

f if it

will

fail

bu

t on

ly w

he

n; it h

as b

ee

n

qu

ite s

om

e tim

e s

ince

a P

.E. ha

s d

on

e a

fu

ll scale

in

spe

ctio

n; re

sid

en

ts p

ick u

p

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Re

ce

ive

d

aft

er

en

d

of

off

icia

l

co

mm

en

t

pe

rio

d

Re

ce

ive

d

aft

er

en

d

of

off

icia

l

co

mm

en

t

pe

rio

d

The

mat

rix

bel

ow

co

nta

ins

a su

mm

ary

of

the

com

men

ts r

ece

ived

du

rin

g th

e D

raft

Pla

nn

ing

Stu

dy

Do

cum

ent

com

men

t p

erio

d a

nd

incl

ud

es a

re

spo

nse

wh

en c

lari

fica

tio

n is

req

uir

ed. C

om

men

ts a

re s

ho

wn

in t

he

ir e

nti

rety

on

th

e C

D

Sum

mar

y o

f P

ub

lic C

om

men

ts R

ece

ived

on

Dra

ft M

acla

y B

rid

ge P

lan

nin

g St

ud

y R

epo

rt

Jan

uar

y 3

0, 2

01

3 –

Fe

bru

ary

22

, 20

13

3

1

ID #

F

irst

Nam

e

La

st

Na

me

Su

mm

ary

of

Co

mm

en

ts R

ece

ive

d

Re

sp

on

se

litte

r –

clo

the

s, h

yp

ode

rmic

nee

dle

s,

alc

oh

ol con

tain

ers

, e

tc.; p

olic

e fre

e z

one

-

law

en

forc

em

en

t w

on

't g

o;

the

re w

ill b

e a

no

the

r b

rid

ge r

ela

ted

dro

wn

ing

if

the

b

rid

ge r

em

ain

s;

pe

rhap

s a

n e

xp

en

siv

e la

w s

uit w

ill b

urd

en

the

ta

xp

aye

rs o

f th

e

co

unty

; tim

ely

em

erg

en

cy r

espo

nse is b

ein

g d

en

ied

; n

ot

pre

pa

red

for

larg

e s

cale

e

me

rge

ncy e

vacu

atio

n; fu

nd

ing

fo

r ne

w b

rid

ge

is a

va

ilab

le –

do

n’t le

t it e

sca

pe

; h

ee

d r

ecom

me

nda

tion

of tw

o s

tudie

s d

one

ye

ars

ap

art

.

14

1

Fre

d &

Ka

thy

Jo

nes

Dis

ag

ree

with

re

pla

cin

g M

acla

y B

rid

ge

with

ne

w b

ridg

e a

t S

ou

th; co

st is

e

xo

rbita

nt

- old

brid

ge

can

be r

eh

ab

ilita

ted

at

a m

uch

lo

we

r co

st;

ch

eck to

se

e if

mo

nie

s c

ould

be

use

d to

reh

ab

ilita

te th

e e

xis

tin

g b

rid

ge

; n

ew

bri

dg

e w

ou

ld

ch

ang

e t

raff

ic p

att

ern

s -

no

t only

on

So

uth

but

als

o in

th

e B

ig F

lat

are

a; m

ore

tr

aff

ic,

mo

re n

ois

e, m

ore

accid

en

ts, e

sp

ecia

lly a

s S

ou

th; S

outh

wo

uld

be a

str

aig

ht sh

ot w

hic

h t

em

pts

pe

op

le to

dri

ve

fa

ste

r; S

ou

th h

as a

dja

ce

nt

ele

me

nta

ry

scho

ol, h

igh

sch

oo

l, h

osp

ita

l, n

urs

ing

hom

e, tu

rn-o

ffs t

o th

e e

qu

estr

ian p

ark

, a

nd

p

rop

ose

d p

ark

on

th

e s

ou

th s

ide

- t

he

se a

re a

ll zon

es w

hic

h w

ou

ld in

cre

ase

in

da

ng

er

as t

he

re w

ou

ld b

e m

ore

tra

ffic

an

d s

pee

d; ch

an

ges w

ho

le a

tmo

sph

ere

of

rura

l na

ture

of

Ta

rge

t R

an

ge

; kid

s w

ou

ld ju

mp o

ff th

e n

ew

bri

dg

e; re

se

arc

h

pe

rcen

tage

of d

ea

ths a

t M

acla

y B

rid

ge

pe

r p

op

ula

tion

usin

g it

an

d c

om

pa

re t

o

oth

er

bri

dge

/riv

er

acce

sses;

savin

gs f

rom

re

ha

bili

tatin

g th

e b

rid

ge

co

uld

be u

se

d

to h

ire

a lifeg

ua

rd t

o p

roh

ibit the

jum

pin

g f

rom

th

e b

rid

ge

; n

ew

bri

dg

e v

astly

exp

en

siv

e;

als

o e

xp

en

se

s to

wid

en

So

uth

Ave

nu

e; a

ffects

sch

oo

ls a

nd

h

om

eo

wn

ers

' pro

pe

rty &

p

rope

rty v

alu

es.

Th

an

k y

ou

fo

r yo

ur

co

mm

en

ts. T

he

y a

re in

clu

de

d in

ou

r stu

dy

reco

rds.

Re

ce

ive

d

aft

er

en

d

of

off

icia

l

co

mm

en

t

pe

rio

d

Re

ce

ive

d

aft

er

en

d

of

off

icia

l

co

mm

en

t

pe

rio

d

Robert Peccia & Associates HELENA, MT - CORPORATE OFFICE P.O. Box 5653 825 Custer Avenue Helena, MT 59604 (406) 447-5000 FAX (406) 447-5036 KALISPELL, MT P.O. Box 5100 102 Cooperative Way, Suite 300 Kalispell, MT 59903 (406) 752-5025 FAX (406) 752-5024 FORT COLLINS, CO 400 Remington Street Suite B Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 484-3206 FAX (970) 484-3209