From: Sent: To: Cc: Harmon, Dan; Erik Dickson RE: South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment

Similar documents
2.1.8 Cultural Resources Regulatory Setting. Affected Environment, Environmental

PURPOSE: The purpose is to provide commercial facilities in the Vancouver and Clark County vicinity.

Lathrop Homes Section 106 Consultation Meeting. October 4, 2016

PROJECT UPDATE BON AIR ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE WATER QUALITY FACILITIES

REPLACEMENT OF THE ST ANTHONY PARKWAY BRIDGE OVER THE NORTHTOWN YARD

Environmental Resources Branch

North Commuter Parkway and Traffic Bridge Project Market Sounding

Appendix E Preliminary Location Hydraulic Study

Montana Stream Permitting

STREAM BUFFERS

GREEN SHEET ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS FOR THE IOWA HIGHWAY 100 EXTENSION

FURTHER TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #11/12 To be held on Friday, January 11, 2013

7.0 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON

Information for File # JTF

Alternative Routes. St. Vital to La Verendrye Station - Southern Loop Transmission Corridor. 20 different segments 4 segments common to all routes

JOINT PUBLIC NOTICE. 26 June United States Army Corps of Engineers State of Louisiana

MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES BUILDING

Bassett Creek Valley Working Group. October 4, 2017

Request: This is a publicly initiated text amendment to the Community Design Component section of the Future Land Use Element.

Subject: Hendry County Evaluation and Appraisal Report Letter of Understanding - Identification of Major Issues

3rd Cycle 2012 Amendment Staff Report

April 11, 2016 Park Board Chair and Commissioners General Manager Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation New Brighton Salt Marsh - Preferred Concept

Case Study Presentation of the Downtown Brampton Flood Protection Class EA

Overview of Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission s (SPC) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS: SECTION 106 AND SECTION 4(F)

MEMORANDUM. September 10, 2018

December 7, RE: Notice, Preliminary Draft Final Master Plan (West Los Angeles Campus. Dear Director,

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE WHITEBELT VISIONING EXERCISE ADDENDUM TO THE GTA WEST LAND USE STUDY WORK PROGRAM

Your town s subdivision or land use ordinance standards should reference the following street standards, for example:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SCOPING MEETING FOR THE WEST BROADWAY SPECIFIC PLAN COMMENT PERIOD

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SCOPING MEETING FOR THE LAND PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT

Welcome. Mill Creek Ravine Pedestrian Bridges Rehabilitation. Public Information Session #1. Thursday, October 27, :00 8:00 p.m.

January 29, 2015 Page 1 of Annual Status Report St. Elizabeths Programmatic Agreement. PA Ref. Line Begin End. Description Timeframe Category

The Place Solar Farm

Appendix E Section 4(f) Evaluation

WELCOME! 8 8:30 6: TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS. Open House. Presentation & Q&A

Information for File # MVP MMJ; Elim Care

- INVITATION - COURTESY INFORMATIONAL MEETING

PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes August 5, 2015

Arkansas River Corridor

6. Summary and Adjournment of HTAC Meeting

Pittsburgh District Pittsburgh, PA Notice No Closing Date: May 29, 2015

Joint Public Notice. Public Notice Date: February 9, 2015 Expiration Date: March 11, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

City of Surrey PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT File:

City of Missoula and Missoula County Open Space Planning Open House

When planning stormwater management facilities, the following principles shall be applied where possible.

Information for File MMJ Main Stem Bassett Creek Restoration Project

San Joaquin River Restoration Program Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project. Restoration Goal Technical Feedback Group

Page. I. Introduction 1. II. Project Purpose and Need 1. IV. Description of Section 4(f) Property 2. V. Impacts to Section 4(f) Property 3

ALL SECURE SELF STORAGE SEPA APPEAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER

From: personal information

Decision Notice. Proposed Action

4/8/2015 Item #10D Page 1

Public Visioning City of Kelso Planning Commission

Don Mills Crossing Study and Celestica Lands Development Application Community Meeting, Open House, and Breakout Discussions

The proposed project will impact a large amount of aquatic resources.

COMMUNICATION URBAN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA MAY 16, 2017 MEETING

Preliminary Design of Major Rehabilitation Works for the Bridge Structure on PTH 1A Over Assiniboine River and CP Rail (Bridge Site No.

Northern Branch Corridor SDEIS March 2017

Floodplain Management Plan 2016 Progress Report

(Exhibit A) Site Plan Adoption Detail and Support Information

FORM 3150-PM-BWEW0036A Joint Application for Pennsylvania

Town of Malta Planning Board 2540 Route 9 Malta, NY (518) Fax: (518)

Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management: A Photo Series

City of Fort Lupton Site Plan Process

PLNPCM Carl s Jr. Commercial Parking Lot at Redwood Road and 1700 South

TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STRATEGY APPENDIX F: MODEL POLICIES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TARGET TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM

Alternative Route Selection

Re: Hazeldean Road - Minto Potters Key Subdivision Responses to Resident Concerns

WOONASQUATUCKET RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS DESIGN OF GREENWAY PALETTE, SIGNAGE AND AMENITIES

Hydraulic analysis marks start of rebuilding after bridge collapse

Goal 1 To establish and follow land use patterns for the long-range development of the campus.

Pine Flat Lake Master Plan Update FACT SHEET September 2014

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division nd Avenue SE. Auburn, Washington

Planning Commission Report

ii

County of Fairfax, Virginia

APPENDIX F: EXTERNAL APPROVALS

Executive Committee Meeting Addendum. #7/15 July 3, :30 A.M. HEAD OFFICE, 101 EXCHANGE AVENUE, VAUGHAN Members:

6:00 8:00 PM I-95 FROM EXIT 57 TO EXIT 60 PROJECT

Joe Pool Lake Lake Master Plan Public Information Meeting Presentation of Final Draft Revision July 31, 2018

DRAFT MAP AMENDMENT FLU 04-4

Metzger, Brian. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

SECTION 4(f) DE MINIMIS DOCUMENTATION

7.0 DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Northeast Corner of Steeles Avenue West and Jane Street, City of Vaughan

Northeast Corner of Steeles Avenue West and Alness Street, East of Keele Street, City of Vaughan

SEMSWA s Role in the Land Development Process

2018 Summer Sprout Application DUE NO LATER THAN 5:00PM on August 4 th 2017

Garden Bridge Planning Application

East Midtown Greenway East 53 rd 61 st Street. Community Board 8 Project Introduction November 16, 2017

Ci.ty e>f -V--:1rgi.rria Beach

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Prado Basin Project Updates

CASE NUMBER: 15SN0594 APPLICANT: Racetrack Petroleum, Inc.

RD:VMT:JMD 10/14/2015 RESOLUTION NO.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE LONGWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION & RENOVATION; STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) RESOLUTION

- INVITATION - COURTESY INFORMATIONAL MEETING

Transcription:

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Knotek, William <lknotek@mt.gov> Friday, October 21, 201610:25 AM Schick, Jon; Schock, Larry; Storer, Robert; Kenning, Jon; Ferree, Jonathan; 'tklietz@co.missoula.mt.us';'mike_mcgrath@fws.gov'; nathan.j.green@usace.army.mil Harmon, Dan; Erik Dickson (edickson@missoulacounty.us) RE: South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment Jon and Erik- In summary, FWP feels strongly that the Maclay bridge should be removed and a naturalized crosssection should be re-established at that location on the Bitterroot River. In the overall plan, removal of the Maclay Bridge and piers, removal of the channel constriction, restoration of riparian areas/stream banks, and public access provisions were major considerations in how we view the overall project involving both bridge locations. These activities, in part, mitigate for impacts of installing a new bridge through a largely intact riparian corridor and installation of new piers in the active river channel. Should the existing bridge be left in place, the project proponents should be prepared to provide justification and commensurate mitigation for the overall project. W. Ladd Knotek Fisheries Management Biologist Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 3201 Spurgin Road Missoula, MT 59804 (406) 542-5506 lknotek@mt.gov From: Schick, Jon [mailto:jon.schick@hdrinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:30 PM To: Knotek, William; Schock, Larry; Storer, Robert; Kenning, Jon; Ferree, Jonathan; 'tklietz@co.missoula.mt.us'; 'mike_mcgrath@fws.gov'; nathan.j.green@usace.army.mil Cc: Harmon, Dan; Erik Dickson (edickson@missoulacounty.us) Subject: South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment Greetings The purpose of this email is to follow up on the South Avenue Bridge Project in Missoula County to discuss potential environmental and regulatory permitting implications associated with a scenario in which the new South Avenue Bridge is constructed AND the existing Maclay Bridge remains in place. Agency input was gathered at our August 18 th, 2016 Preliminary Resource Agency Meeting regarding the scope of the proposed project. The scope of the project has not changed: Missoula County intends to construct the new South Avenue Bridge and remove the existing Maclay Bridge. Missoula County has determined that rehabilitation of the existing Maclay Bridge is not a feasible solution to improving the long-term operational characteristics and safety of a bridge crossing in this location. Removal of Maclay Bridge would result in an adverse effect to the National Register of Historic Placeseligible Maclay Bridge. Through stipulations within the Programmatic Agreement among FHWA, MDT,

ACHP, the Montana SHPO for undertakings involving historic bridges under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, MDT will initiate a bridge adoption process to find potential new locations, uses, and/or owners for the historic Maclay Bridge. There is preservation in place provision that will be considered during the Section 106 process whereby, should ownership, maintenance costs and liability of the existing Maclay Bridge be transferred to a 3 rd party, the Maclay Bridge could potentially remain in place. Missoula County requests your comment on this scenario as it relates to environmental concerns and implications toward permitting the new South Avenue Bridge: 1. Does your agency feel strongly one way or the other that the existing Maclay Bridge be removed if a new bridge at South Avenue is constructed? 2. If the existing Maclay Bridge were to remain in-place, what additional concerns or stipulations should be anticipated in designing and permitting a new bridge at the location currently proposed? Written comments should be directed to the Missoula County Project Manager, Erik Dickson at 6089 Training Drive, Missoula, MT 59808, or via email at edickson@missoulacounty.us. Please provide comment by November 4, 2016. Thank you. Respectfully, Jon Schick Environmental Planner HDR 700 SW Higgins Avenue, Suite 200 Missoula, MT 59803-1489 D 406.532.2231 M 406.532.2200 jon.schick@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Green, Nathan J NWO <Nathan.J.Green@usace.army.mil> Tuesday, October 25, 20169:57 AM Schick, Jon; 'lknotek@mt.gov';'lschock@mt.gov';'rstorer@mt.gov'; 'JKenning@mt.gov';'jferree@mt.gov';'tklietz@co.missoula.mt.us'; 'mike_mcgrath@fws.gov' Harmon, Dan; Erik Dickson (edickson@missoulacounty.us) RE: South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment (UNCLASSIFIED) CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED Jon, If it is determined that compensatory mitigation would be required for the construction of the new bridge, removal of the existing bridge could be considered as part of a compensatory mitigation plan. However, as it currently stands, we would view the construction of the new bridge and the removal of the existing bridge as two single and complete projects, not dependent upon each other. A 404 permit would be required to evaluate direct and cumulative effects of each project and determine the appropriate permitting avenue for each one separately. Sincerely, Nathan Green Senior Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Missoula Regulatory Office 1600 North Avenue West, Suite 105 Missoula, Montana 59801-5500 (406) 541-4845 x322 -----Original Message----- From: Schick, Jon [mailto:jon.schick@hdrinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:30 PM To: 'lknotek@mt.gov' <lknotek@mt.gov>; 'lschock@mt.gov' <lschock@mt.gov>; 'rstorer@mt.gov' <rstorer@mt.gov>; 'JKenning@mt.gov' <JKenning@mt.gov>; 'jferree@mt.gov' <jferree@mt.gov>; 'tklietz@co.missoula.mt.us' <tklietz@co.missoula.mt.us>; 'mike_mcgrath@fws.gov' <mike_mcgrath@fws.gov>; Green, Nathan J NWO <Nathan.J.Green@usace.army.mil> Cc: Harmon, Dan <Dan.Harmon@hdrinc.com>; Erik Dickson (edickson@missoulacounty.us) <edickson@missoulacounty.us> Subject: [EXTERNAL] South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment Greetings- The purpose of this email is to follow up on the South Avenue Bridge Project in Missoula County to discuss potential environmental and regulatory permitting implications associated with a scenario in which the new South Avenue Bridge is constructed AND the existing Maclay Bridge remains in place. Agency input was gathered at our August 18th, 2016 Preliminary Resource Agency Meeting regarding the scope of the proposed project. The scope of the project has not changed: Missoula County intends to construct the new South Avenue Bridge and remove the existing Maclay Bridge. Missoula County has determined that rehabilitation of the existing Maclay Bridge is not a feasible solution to improving the long-term operational characteristics and safety of a bridge crossing in this location.

Removal of Maclay Bridge would result in an adverse effect to the National Register of Historic Placeseligible Maclay Bridge. Through stipulations within the Programmatic Agreement among FHWA, MDT, ACHP, the Montana SHPO for undertakings involving historic bridges under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, MDT will initiate a bridge adoption process to find potential new locations, uses, and/or owners for the historic Maclay Bridge. There is preservation in place provision that will be considered during the Section 106 process whereby, should ownership, maintenance costs and liability of the existing Maclay Bridge be transferred to a 3rd party, the Maclay Bridge could potentially remain in place. Missoula County requests your comment on this scenario as it relates to environmental concerns and implications toward permitting the new South Avenue Bridge: 1. Does your agency feel strongly one way or the other that the existing Maclay Bridge be removed if a new bridge at South Avenue is constructed? 2. If the existing Maclay Bridge were to remain in-place, what additional concerns or stipulations should be anticipated in designing and permitting a new bridge at the location currently proposed? Written comments should be directed to the Missoula County Project Manager, Erik Dickson at 6089 Training Drive, Missoula, MT 59808, or via email at edickson@missoulacounty.us <mailto:edickson@missoulacounty.us>. Please provide comment by November 4, 2016. Thank you. Respectfully, Jon Schick Environmental Planner HDR 700 SW Higgins Avenue, Suite 200 Missoula, MT 59803-1489 D 406.532.2231 M 406.532.2200 jon.schick@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us <Blockedhttp://hdrinc.com/follow-us> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Storer, Robert <rstorer@mt.gov> Monday, October 31, 20164:10 PM edickson@missoulacounty.us Schick, Jon; Hollenbeck, Christie; Hansen, Jonathan RE: South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment DNRC perspective: The new bridge would need an easement, the old bridge would need a LUL for removal. We believe the old bridge is not legally sited and as such would also need additional authorization if left in place. From: Schick, Jon [mailto:jon.schick@hdrinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:30 PM To: Knotek, William; Schock, Larry; Storer, Robert; Kenning, Jon; Ferree, Jonathan; 'tklietz@co.missoula.mt.us'; 'mike_mcgrath@fws.gov'; nathan.j.green@usace.army.mil Cc: Harmon, Dan; Erik Dickson (edickson@missoulacounty.us) Subject: South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment Greetings The purpose of this email is to follow up on the South Avenue Bridge Project in Missoula County to discuss potential environmental and regulatory permitting implications associated with a scenario in which the new South Avenue Bridge is constructed AND the existing Maclay Bridge remains in place. Agency input was gathered at our August 18 th, 2016 Preliminary Resource Agency Meeting regarding the scope of the proposed project. The scope of the project has not changed: Missoula County intends to construct the new South Avenue Bridge and remove the existing Maclay Bridge. Missoula County has determined that rehabilitation of the existing Maclay Bridge is not a feasible solution to improving the long-term operational characteristics and safety of a bridge crossing in this location. Removal of Maclay Bridge would result in an adverse effect to the National Register of Historic Placeseligible Maclay Bridge. Through stipulations within the Programmatic Agreement among FHWA, MDT, ACHP, the Montana SHPO for undertakings involving historic bridges under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, MDT will initiate a bridge adoption process to find potential new locations, uses, and/or owners for the historic Maclay Bridge. There is preservation in place provision that will be considered during the Section 106 process whereby, should ownership, maintenance costs and liability of the existing Maclay Bridge be transferred to a 3 rd party, the Maclay Bridge could potentially remain in place. Missoula County requests your comment on this scenario as it relates to environmental concerns and implications toward permitting the new South Avenue Bridge: 1. Does your agency feel strongly one way or the other that the existing Maclay Bridge be removed if a new bridge at South Avenue is constructed? 2. If the existing Maclay Bridge were to remain in-place, what additional concerns or stipulations should be anticipated in designing and permitting a new bridge at the location currently proposed? Written comments should be directed to the Missoula County Project Manager, Erik Dickson at 6089 Training Drive, Missoula, MT 59808, or via email at edickson@missoulacounty.us. Please provide comment by November 4, 2016. Thank you. Respectfully,

Jon Schick Environmental Planner HDR 700 SW Higgins Avenue, Suite 200 Missoula, MT 59803-1489 D 406.532.2231 M 406.532.2200 jon.schick@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: McGrath, Mike <mike_mcgrath@fws.gov> Tuesday, November 01, 201610:40 AM Erik Dickson (edickson@missoulacounty.us); Schick, Jon lknotek@mt.gov Re: South Avenue Bridge Project, Missoula County // Request for comment Erik and Jon, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) agrees with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and we feel strongly that the Maclay Bridge should be removed and a naturalized cross-section be re-established on the Bitterroot River to partially offset effects from installation of a new bridge at the end of South Avenue. Additionally, the Service recommends removal of the channel constriction on the west bank of the river associated with the Maclay Bridge, as this may alleviate some of the bank erosion problems occurring further downstream. Mike Mike McGrath Fish and Wildlife Biologist USFWS Montana ES Field Office 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1 Helena, MT 59601 406-449-5225 ext. 201 www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Schick, Jon <Jon.Schick@hdrinc.com> wrote: Greetings The purpose of this email is to follow up on the South Avenue Bridge Project in Missoula County to discuss potential environmental and regulatory permitting implications associated with a scenario in which the new South Avenue Bridge is constructed AND the existing Maclay Bridge remains in place.

Agency input was gathered at our August 18 th, 2016 Preliminary Resource Agency Meeting regarding the scope of the proposed project. The scope of the project has not changed: Missoula County intends to construct the new South Avenue Bridge and remove the existing Maclay Bridge. Missoula County has determined that rehabilitation of the existing Maclay Bridge is not a feasible solution to improving the long-term operational characteristics and safety of a bridge crossing in this location. Removal of Maclay Bridge would result in an adverse effect to the National Register of Historic Placeseligible Maclay Bridge. Through stipulations within the Programmatic Agreement among FHWA, MDT, ACHP, the Montana SHPO for undertakings involving historic bridges under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, MDT will initiate a bridge adoption process to find potential new locations, uses, and/or owners for the historic Maclay Bridge. There is preservation in place provision that will be considered during the Section 106 process whereby, should ownership, maintenance costs and liability of the existing Maclay Bridge be transferred to a 3 rd party, the Maclay Bridge could potentially remain in place. Missoula County requests your comment on this scenario as it relates to environmental concerns and implications toward permitting the new South Avenue Bridge: 1. Does your agency feel strongly one way or the other that the existing Maclay Bridge be removed if a new bridge at South Avenue is constructed? 2. If the existing Maclay Bridge were to remain in-place, what additional concerns or stipulations should be anticipated in designing and permitting a new bridge at the location currently proposed? Written comments should be directed to the Missoula County Project Manager, Erik Dickson at 6089 Training Drive, Missoula, MT 59808, or via email at edickson@missoulacounty.us. Please provide comment by November 4, 2016. Thank you. Respectfully, Jon Schick Environmental Planner HDR 700 SW Higgins Avenue, Suite 200

Missoula, MT 59803-1489 D 406.532.2231 M 406.532.2200 jon.schick@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us