`
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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)
Press Release Announcing Informational Meeting
Newspaper Advertisement
Sign-In Sheets
Welcome and Display Boards
Presentation
Summary of Meeting Notes
Informational Meeting No. 3 (September 27, 2012)
Press Release Announcing Informational Meeting
Newspaper Advertisement
Sign-In Sheets
Welcome and Display Boards
Presentation
Summary of Meeting Notes
Informational Meeting No. 4 (January 31, 2013)
Press Release Announcing Informational Meeting
Newspaper Advertisement
Sign-In Sheets
Welcome and Display Boards
Presentation
Summary of Meeting Notes
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)
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
OBJECTIVES (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE)
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.
OBJECTIVES (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE)
Minimize adverse impacts to the Bitterroot River from potential options.
Minimize adverse impacts to the wildlife and aquatic organisms from potential options.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
OBJECTIVES (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE)
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
project development process.
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.
Maclay Bridge 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
NO This option does not meet the Safety objective of the MDT Off-system Bridge Program.
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.
3E.2 - South 2 Alignment $7,450,000 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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning 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?
Chapter 2 Public and Agency Participation
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 2 Public and Agency Participation
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).
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
14
Figure 2: Percent Change in AADT
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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
Township 13 North, Range 20 West, Section 27
Township 13 North, Range 20 West, Section 34
Township 13 North, Range 20 West, Section 35
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
16
Figure 3: Crash Locations (01/01/2002 – 12/31/2011)
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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,
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
project development process.
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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”.
Chapter 3 Existing and Projected Conditions
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
32
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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.
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.
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.
OBJECTIVES (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE)
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
34
should be reviewed for their potential impact to the environmental, scenic, cultural, recreational and
agricultural aspects of the corridor.
OBJECTIVES (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE)
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.
OBJECTIVES (TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE)
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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).
Chapter 5 Option Identification
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 5 Option Identification
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;
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Chapter 5 Option Identification
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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).
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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).
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
57
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
The planning level cost estimate for this alignment is $6,400,000. 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 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.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
The planning level cost estimate for this alignment is $7,700,000. 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 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.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
The planning level cost estimate for this alignment is $4,400,000. 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 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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
The planning level cost estimate for this option is $3,900,000. The cost includes estimated construction
costs (with contingencies), preliminary engineering costs (10%) and indirect and incidental costs (10%).
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS AND POTENTIAL COSTS
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.
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
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%).
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS AND POTENTIAL COSTS
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.
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
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%).
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS AND POTENTIAL COSTS
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 6 Options Carried Forward
63
Figure 6: Change in Projected Year 2040 AADT (No Action vs. South 1)
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
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.
Chapter 7 Funding Mechanisms
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.
ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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.
Chapter 7 Funding Mechanisms
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
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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
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
NO This option does not meet the Safety objective of the MDT Off-system Bridge Program.
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.
3E.2 - South 2 Alignment $7,450,000 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
project development process.
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.
Maclay Bridge Planning Study
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