The Case for a Thorough Environmental Review

For years MBA has advocated for environmental review of the bridge project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rather than exempting the project from any review through the planned Categorial Exclusion (CE) designation. The CE, a regulatory exemption from environmental review allowed under the law, was agreed to by Missoula County, the State of Montana, and the Federal Government in spite of public objections. The problem, and it is a significant one, is that a CE fails to consider any environmental impacts of the project, eliminates public participation, and could potentially cost Missoula County taxpayers millions of dollars.

Bridge replacement automatically trips the NEPA process when federal funds are involved, as they are in this project. Under NEPA there are two levels of review, in order from least to most robust, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). A CE is defined as “a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human or the natural environment… and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.” The government agencies have made this determination in the absence of taking a look at any environmental impacts at all.

An EA is a study to identify significant environmental impacts to the human and natural environments. If significant impacts are discovered, the process steps up to an EIS which addresses the necessary mitigation measures for the project.

https://www.boem.gov/environment/environmental-assessment/categorical-exclusion-reviews

MBA supports an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because it staunchly believes the project will have significant effects on both the human and natural environment.

A transparent, unbiased review that thoroughly examines both options; rehabilitating the current Maclay Bridge or replacing it with a new two-lane bridge on South Avenue West will insure the safest, most environmentally sound, and economical outcome.

A thorough environmental review will answer many questions which remain unanswered, thus assuring that Missoula County taxpayers’ benefit from the best attainable solution.

Questions which need to be publicly vetted before proceeding with rehabilitating Maclay Bridge include:

Can a rehabbed one-lane bridge:

Be made structurally sound and safe?
Accommodate automobile traffic patterns predicted into the future?
Increase/decrease neighborhood traffic flow?
Increase/decrease bridge traffic wait time?
Accommodate bridge pedestrian/bike traffic?
Improve or worsen river flow?
Cause environmental damage to the floodplain, river and riverbanks? What are plans for mitigating damage?

Will houses have to be removed to change approaches to the bridge?
Can simple traffic control devices be implemented to minimize or eliminate alignment issues?
Will funding from federal agencies, such as the Off-System Bridge Fund or historical preservation fund, be available to rehab the bridge?
What will the cost of rehabbing the bridge be?
What will the cost to Missoula County Taxpayers be?
Since a previous Missoula County Commission signed off in 2015 on the CE study to consider building the new bridge, and the County has received and spent about $1.4 million already, will the County be expected to repay the money to Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) if the decision to build the bridge is rescinded by FHWA and MDT in favor of rehabbing Maclay Bridge?

Questions which need to be publicly vetted before proceeding with building a new two-lane bridge on South Avenue West include:

Will houses need to be moved/removed to widen South Avenue to accommodate the traffic and ditches? If so, how many?
Will this require implementing eminent domain for the approaches or to widen rights of way?
What is the expected increase/decrease in traffic flow?
Will the speed limit increase/decrease?
Will actual traffic speeds increase/decrease?
What safety mitigations will be implemented for pedestrians and cyclists?
Will irrigation ditches require eminent domain for new rights of way?
Will the irrigation ditches running parallel to South Avenue West need to be relocated?
How will opening a quiet dead-end street affect the safety and character of the neighborhood?
How will opening a quiet dead-end street affect the safety of those living on that street?
How will the street upgrades be funded?
In addition to building the new bridge, there will be significant costs incurred in widening and straightening South Avenue West. Will those costs be covered by MDT or FHWA? If not, where will that funding come from?
What will the cost to Missoula County taxpayers be?
What will be the impact on critical Bull Trout habitat at O’Brien Creek?