Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Report
Town of Ennis
December 2018
Prepared by:
Madison County ® DOWNTOWN ENNIS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY REPORT
MADISON COUNTY
December 2018
Prepared for: Town of Ennis
Prepared by: Great West Engineering, Inc. 2501 Belt View Dr. Helena, MT 59
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Identification ...... 1 1.1 Project Location ...... 1 1.2 Physical Characteristics of the Area ...... 2 1.3 Project Objective ...... 2 2.0 Site Location Analysis ...... 3 2.1 Alignment 1 – Modify Existing MDT Bridge ...... 4 2.1.1 Land Ownership ...... 4 2.1.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ...... 4 2.2 Alignment 2 – 140 feet downstream of Highway 287 Bridge ...... 5 2.2.1 Land Ownership ...... 5 2.2.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ...... 5 2.2.3 Other Impacts ...... 5 2.3 Alignment 3 – 530 feet downstream of Highway 287 Bridge ...... 6 2.3.1 Land Ownership ...... 6 2.3.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ...... 6 2.4 Alignment 4 – Old Highway Alignment ...... 7 2.4.1 Land Ownership ...... 8 2.4.2 Access/Infrastructure Development ...... 8 2.4.3 Other Impacts ...... 8 2.5 Selection Criteria ...... 9 2.6 Basis of Selection for Preferred Alignment Alternative ...... 10 3.0 Pedestrian Bridge Alternatives ...... 11 3.1 Alternative A – Relocation of Varney Bridge ...... 11 3.1.1 History and Significance of the Existing Bridge ...... 11 3.1.2 Existing Bridge Configuration ...... 12 3.1.3 Present Condition...... 13 3.1.4 Safety Considerations ...... 15 3.1.5 Asbestos & Paint ...... 15 3.1.6 Bridge Configuration ...... 16 3.1.7 Useful Life ...... 17 3.1.8 Construction Duration ...... 17 3.1.9 Cost Estimate ...... 17
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report i 3.2 Alternative B - New Single-Span Pedestrian Bridge ...... 19 3.2.1 Bridge Configuration ...... 19 3.2.2 Safety Considerations ...... 20 3.2.3 Useful Life ...... 20 3.2.4 Construction Duration ...... 20 3.2.5 Cost Estimate ...... 20 3.3 Alternative C - Retrofit Existing MDT Highway 287 Bridge ...... 22 4.0 Alternatives Analysis ...... 23 4.1 Selection Criteria ...... 23 4.2 Cost Comparison ...... 23 4.3 Basis of Selection for Preferred Alignment Alternative ...... 24 5.0 Preferred Alternative ...... 25 5.1 Preferred Alternative Discussion ...... 25 6.0 Background & Design Information ...... 26 6.1 Geotechnical Considerations ...... 26 6.2 Hydraulic Discussion ...... 26 6.3 Access Road & Work Bridge Construction ...... 26 6.4 Wetlands ...... 26 6.5 Hydrology ...... 27 6.6 Floodplains ...... 27 6.7 Utilities ...... 30 6.8 Agricultural & Forest Lands ...... 30 6.9 Biological Resources ...... 30 6.10 River Corridor Use ...... 32 7.0 Project Implementation ...... 33 7.1 Overall Approach ...... 33 7.2 Project Implementation Tasks ...... 33 7.2.1 Grant Administration ...... 33 7.2.2 Design Phase ...... 33 7.2.3 Contracting Phase ...... 33 7.2.4 Construction Phase ...... 34 7.2.5 Project Closeout Phase ...... 34 7.3 Necessary Permits, Regulatory Approvals and Easements ...... 35 7.4 Applicable Statutes, Rules, Regulations, & Standards ...... 35
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report ii
List of Figures Figure 1: Location Map of Lions Park ...... 1 Figure 2: View of the Lions Park trail ...... 1 Figure 3: Site Map and Bridge Location Alternatives ...... 3 Figure 4: View along Highway 287 Bridge looking southeast along Alignment 1...... 4 Figure 5: View looking from Lions Park southeast along Alignment 2...... 5 Figure 6: View looking from Lions Park southeast along Alignment 3 ...... 6 Figure 7: View looking southeast along Alignment 4...... 7 Figure 8: View of the original Jeffers Bridge installed in 1897. (Photo courtesy of Jon Axline, MDT) ...... 8 Figure 9: Location Map – Varney Bridge ...... 11 Figure 10: View of existing approach to Varney Bridge ...... 12 Figure 11: Profile view of Varney Bridge ...... 13 Figure 12: General view of lower truss chord condition ...... 14 Figure 13: View of substandard existing bridge rail ...... 15 Figure 14: View of proposed Varney Bridge Relocation ...... 17 Figure 15: Profile view of new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge) ...... 19 Figure 16: Profile view of 230’ single span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge) ...... 19 Figure 17: Elevation view of new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge) ..... 20 Figure 18: View of Ennis Town Limits ...... 28 Figure 19: View of Madison River Flood Prone Areas - Ennis ...... 29
List of Tables Table 7-1: USGS Ungaged/Gaged Analysis of Madison River ...... 27
Appendices Appendix A Varney Bridge Reports (Bridge Inspection Report, HAER Report, Asbestos & Lead Paint Results) Appendix B MT Highway 287 Bridge Reports (Bridge Inspection Report, As-Built Plans, Right of Way (ROW) Plans), MDT Correspondence Appendix C Design Information Appendix D Environmental Correspondence & Data
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report iii 1.0 Project Identification
1.1 Project Location
The Ennis Lions Park is located in the Town of Ennis in Madison County, Montana and is on the eastern edge of town abutting the Madison River. The park includes paved trails, restrooms, baseball fields, a park, a fishing pond for kids, informational kiosks, and fishing access points to the Madison River. The project is located within Section 4, Township 6 South and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
Figure 1: Location Map of Lions Park
Figure 2: View of the Lions Park trail
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 1 1.2 Physical Characteristics of the Area
Land on the west side of the site consists of the developed Ennis Lions Park and the east side of the site is largely undeveloped privately held property within the Madison River floodplain.
NRCS Soil Maps indicate the soils at the proposed pedestrian bridge site are classified as Rivra, Cool-Fluvaquents complex (0 to 2 percent slopes). These soils are largely composed of loam, sandy loam and gravelly sand. Detailed maps, soil descriptions and properties can be found in Appendix D. Additionally, soil boring logs (and the as-built plans) from the nearby MDT Highway 287 Bridge can be found in Appendix B.
The Madison River is a mountain-fed river located in the USGS - Southwest Region Drainage Basin and originates from the confluence of the Firehole and Gibbon Rivers in Yellowstone National Park. The Madison River, along with the Gallatin and Jefferson Rivers, form the headwaters of the Missouri River downstream at Three Forks, Montana. The nearest USGS gauging station is located at the Varney Bridge, which operated from 1952 until 1970 and from 2011 to current. Based on data collected by the gaging station and utilizing a gage- ungaged relationship with current USGS methodology, the estimated 25-, 50-, and 100-year flood events produce flows of 8185, 8949, and 9662 cfs, respectively. Refer to Appendix C for supporting hydrologic information.
1.3 Project Objective
The objective of this report is to document the feasibility of a pedestrian bridge crossing the Madison River providing access to the Town of Ennis’s Lions Park, just downstream of Highway 287. The primary focus of the feasibility report is the relocation of the historic Varney Bridge for use as a pedestrian bridge. The Varney Bridge is currently located approximately 8 miles south of Ennis over the Madison River and consists of a historic two- span, 191’ long, overhead steel truss constructed in 1897. The bridge is scheduled to be replaced in 2019 with a new single-span steel through truss. The Town of Ennis and its stakeholders; the Missouri-Madison River Fund and the Montana History Foundation, have determined that retaining this historic structure in the Madison River valley is of crucial importance. This alternative is presented as Alternative A.
One additional alternative will be investigated, primarily for the purpose of cost comparison and other feature comparisons to the Varney Bridge relocation. This will consist of a new single-span pedestrian bridge (Alternative B). Additional alternatives not deemed feasible were evaluated as part of this report and are described in further detail in Section 3 below.
The Madison River is designated as a blue-ribbon fishery by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) and is the most highly fished river in Montana. MFWP’s 2018 Madison River – Draft Recreational Management Plan – Environmental Assessment logged approximately 179,000 angler days on the river in 2017. Lions Park is heavily used by anglers as a public access to the Madison River.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 2 2.0 Site Location Analysis
After Great West Engineering (Great West) conducted a site visit on May 4, 2018 with a representative of the Town of Ennis, four potential crossing alignments were identified and are shown on the map below:
Alignment 1: Alignment 4: Old Modifying Highway Alignment Existing MDT ENNIS - Bridge LIONS PARK
Alignment 2: 140’ Alignment 3: 530’ Downstream of Downstream of MDT Bridge MDT Bridge
Figure 3: Site Map and Bridge Location Alternatives
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 3 2.1 Alignment 1 – Modify Existing MDT Bridge
This alignment would utilize the existing (or modified infrastructure) of the MT Highway 287 Bridge to support a pedestrian crossing. This alignment is only applicable to Alternative C.
Figure 4: View along Highway 287 Bridge looking southeast along Alignment 1.
2.1.1 Land Ownership The bridge is owned and maintained by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). All modifications to the structure would need to be approved, designed and facilitated through MDT. Additionally, MDT has a right-of-way of 25 meters from the centerline of the new roadway to the northeast (downstream) of the existing highway bridge crossing.
2.1.2 Access/Infrastructure Development Substantial modifications to the existing structure would need to occur and are discussed in detail in Section 3.3 below. An additional trail section would also need to be developed to facilitate access to this crossing.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 4 2.2 Alignment 2 – 140 feet downstream of Highway 287 Bridge
This alternative would locate structure Alternatives A or B approximately 140 feet downstream of the Highway 287 Bridge.
Figure 5: View looking from Lions Park southeast along Alignment 2.
2.2.1 Land Ownership The land at the west bank is owned by the Town of Ennis. The property at the east bank is privately owned.
2.2.2 Access/Infrastructure Development Site access for construction of either alternative would likely be from the west. However, this site does have challenging access for construction activities due to the narrow and load limited pedestrian bridges on the existing trails. Significant impact would likely occur to these to get either a new single-span pedestrian bridge or the relocated Varney Bridge installed.
2.2.3 Other Impacts The location of the structure would be in close proximity to the MDT bridge, which could propagate the ice jam concerns of the Highway 287 Bridge. Additionally, placing the structure this close to the highway bridge would result in traffic noise and possibly reduced aesthetics, regardless of the selected pedestrian bridge alternative.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 5 2.3 Alignment 3 – 530 feet downstream of Highway 287 Bridge
This alternative would locate structure Alternatives A or B approximately 530 feet downstream of the Highway 287 Bridge.
Figure 6: View looking from Lions Park southeast along Alignment 3
2.3.1 Land Ownership The land at the west bank is owned by the Town of Ennis. The property at the east bank is privately owned.
2.3.2 Access/Infrastructure Development Site access for construction of either alternative would likely be from the west. Upon review of aerial maps and site reconnaissance, minimal improvements would need to be made to the existing trail infrastructure to gain access for construction of either Alternative A or B.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 6 2.4 Alignment 4 – Old Highway Alignment
This alternative would locate structure Alternatives A or B approximately 880 feet downstream of the Highway 287 Bridge and utilize the old highway crossing of the Madison River.
Figure 7: View looking southeast along Alignment 4.
Portions of the existing concrete substructure still exist from the original highway bridge. Conversations with Jon Axline, MDT Historian, yield that this bridge was constructed in 1897 by the King Bridge Company for $5,900 as the primary route into Ennis over the Madison River, and was named the “Jeffers Bridge”. The bridge was likely removed around 1935 when the upstream highway truss bridge was installed (similar location to the existing Highway 287 crossing).
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 7 Center pier End abutment still still present present at east
Figure 8: View of the original Jeffers Bridge installed in 1897. (Photo courtesy of Jon Axline, MDT)
2.4.1 Land Ownership The land at the west and east banks is owned by two separate property owners.
2.4.2 Access/Infrastructure Development Site access for construction of Alternatives A or B would likely be from the west, due to existing roadways being present and to limit wetland impacts. The existing pier and abutment are 121-years old and would need to be removed to install a new structure at this location. Additionally, siting the bridge at this location does not connect to any of the existing Lions Park infrastructure, therefore, a trail network would need to be developed for access.
2.4.3 Other Impacts The crossing location is on a channel bend and not particularly well suited hydraulically for the considerable expense of a new pedestrian bridge structure or the relocated Varney Bridge.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 8 2.5 Selection Criteria
The primary considerations for selection of the preferred alignment alternative are:
• Site Access o Ability to get equipment to the site without impacting existing Lions Park infrastructure negatively. • Construction Ease/Technical Feasibility o Ease of the installation of an ancillary work bridge and feasibility of the alignment/structure in this location. • Wetland Impacts o Anticipated impacts on adjacent wetlands which appear to be most heavily concentrated at the southern bank. • Traffic Noise o Level of anticipated traffic noise from the adjacent MDT Highway 287 Bridge and roadway. • Ease of Obtaining Easements/Property o All of the preferred alternatives will require some form of easement, property acquisition or ROW development. • Function o How does the alignment work with the existing trails network? Are there substantial trail improvements/modifications that need to be made? • Public Input
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 9 2.6 Basis of Selection for Preferred Alignment Alternative
The following table presents a ranking of each alignment alternative based on a comparative evaluation. A positive sign indicates a significant advantage over other alternative(s), whereas a negative sign indicates a significant disadvantage, a zero is a neutral evaluation.
Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Alignment 3 Alignment 4
Existing MDT 140’ Downstream 530’ Downstream Old Highway Bridge of Highway 287 of Highway 287 Alignment Evaluation Criteria Bridge Bridge
Site Access +1 -1 +1 +1
Construction -1 0 +1 0 Ease/Technical Feasibility Wetland Impacts* +1 0 0 0 Traffic Noise -1 0 +1 +1
Ease of obtaining 0 +1 +1 -1 easements/property Function 0 +1 +1 0
TOTALS 0 +1 +5 +1 *A formal wetland delineation will occur during the design phase.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 10 3.0 Pedestrian Bridge Alternatives
3.1 Alternative A – Relocation of Varney Bridge
3.1.1 History and Significance of the Existing Bridge The existing structure, constructed in 1897, consists of a two-span, overhead steel through truss. The bridge crosses the Madison River on Varney Road (Secondary Highway 249) approximately 10 miles south of Ennis.
VARNEY BRIDGE
Figure 9: Location Map – Varney Bridge
Per the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) MT-64 – Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge Report, “The Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge is significant as one of the oldest surviving steel truss bridges in Montana. The bridge is representative of the type of pin- connected Pratt through truss that was commonly constructed by the counties on Montana’s roads between 1891 and 1915 when the Montana State Highway Commission standardized a different truss design. The bridge is significant for its association with the King Bridge Company of Cleveland, Ohio, a firm of national prominence and prolific bridge-building company in Montana during the last decade of the nineteenth century.” The bridge was successfully constructed in 1897 for a cost of $4,999.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 11 Additionally, per the HAER MT-64 report, “The Montana Department of Transportation determined the bridge eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in April 1985. The department (MDT) programmed the bridge for replacement in 1989, but that project was shelved in 1992 because of public opposition to the project and difficulties associated with an archaeological site located west of the bridge. In 1989, a draft HAER document was prepared by Lon Johnson and Fredric L. Quivik of Renewable Technologies, Inc. of Butte, Montana. The document, however, was never completed and submitted to the National Park Service.”
The bridge is currently owned by Madison County and is scheduled for replacement with a new single-span through truss bridge in 2019. Funding partners include the County, MDT and the Montana Department of Commerce – Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP).
3.1.2 Existing Bridge Configuration The existing bridge consists of a two-span, steel pin connected Pratt through truss. The bridge has a total length of 191.2 feet with a usable deck width of 14 feet. The trusses are 18 feet in height from the lower chord to the upper chord. The truss is braced with steel cross bracing. The superstructure also includes steel floorbeams, timber stringers and a timber deck. The deck loads are transferred to the truss with steel “I” beams and sixteen 4- inch by 12-inch timber stringers. The decking consists of 4-inch by 8-inch transverse timber planking with 4-inch by 12-inch longitudinal running planks along the wheel lines. The rail system consists of quarter-round steel rails which are fastened directly to the truss, and likely installed prior to the 1970’s. The truss exhibits both fixed and moveable bearings, though, due to the truss age, these appear locked and non-functional.
Figure 10: View of existing approach to Varney Bridge
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 12 Minimal improvements have been made to the bridge since original construction. Periodic replacement of the timber deck, running planks and removal of the original bridge rail has occurred. All of the steel truss components appear original and are generally in fair condition.
Figure 11: Profile view of Varney Bridge
Additional information on the existing bridge configuration is available in the HAER MT-64 report included in Appendix A.
3.1.3 Present Condition The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) typically inspects all structures with clear spans over 20 feet, as such, MDT regularly inspects the Varney Bridge. The bridge was last inspected by MDT in April of 2017. The most recent National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Rating Form for the Varney Bridge was obtained from MDT and is included in Appendix A of this report. The MDT Initial Assessment Form includes the NBI Sufficiency Rating, NBI Appraisal Ratings, and NBI Element Condition Ratings for the structure. The MDT structure number is S00249007+08001.
NBI RATINGS SUMMARY – VARNEY BRIDGE Sufficiency Rating 18.61 Deck Rating 6 Superstructure Rating 5 Substructure Rating 4 Structure Evaluation 3 Waterway Adequacy 8 Existing Posting 3 tons
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 13 The Appraisal Ratings and Element Condition Ratings are assigned on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 points assigned to the best possible condition. A rating of 2 is critical, a rating of 3- to-4 is poor, 5 is fair, 6 is satisfactory, 7 is good and 8 is excellent.
The primary structural deficiencies of the bridge (outside of the low load rating) are related to the poor condition of the concrete abutments and pier, which will not be utilized on the relocated structure, therefore, the condition of the substructure will not be evaluated further.
The existing superstructure (truss, bearings, stringers, floorbeams) and the timber deck will be analyzed for use in the relocation alternative and are discussed in further detail below.
The steel truss superstructure was constructed in 1897 and is likely made of mild steel. Mild steel was widely used in the late 1800’s but is undesirable today due to low values of tensile strength and yield strength. As a result of the steel’s strength and truss member sizes, the allowable load capacity was determined to be 3 tons. The reduction of the steel structures strength due to mild steel is compounded by the paint failure on the steel truss members, which is resulting in surface rust and corrosion on most primary steel elements of the superstructure (truss and floor beams). Additionally, there are numerous steel truss members (verticals and diagonals) that exhibit uneven tension. The bridge bearings are in poor condition with corrosion, pack rust and appear to be seized. The truss superstructure is considered to be a fracture critical structure as there is no load path redundancy. Load path redundancy means that if one critical member of the truss were to fail, whether from collision or overloading, the structure could collapse without warning.
Figure 12: General view of lower truss chord condition
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 14 The timber stringers and deck were replaced in 1999 or 2000; however, the stringers are exhibiting heavy checking and rotation indicating they are likely undersized. The timber deck planking is partially covered with debris and gravel and shows signs of wear. Both the timber deck, running planks and stringers appear to have minimal treatment, rendering a shorter life-span than well-treated timber members. Flimsy steel guardrail is present and exhibits areas of collision damage.
Figure 13: View of substandard existing bridge rail
3.1.4 Safety Considerations The existing bridge is incapable of carrying heavy truck traffic due to the load limiting truss configuration. However, as the intent is to utilize the structure as a pedestrian bridge, it is anticipated that no significant structural modifications need to be made to allow pedestrian or bicycle access.
The rehabilitated bridge will incorporate pedestrian rail for safety and will likely be attached to the deck planks for a more rigid connection. It is anticipated that with the pedestrian rail in place, the usable width will be between 12 and 13 feet.
3.1.5 Asbestos & Paint An asbestos inspection with testing did not reveal the presence of any asbestos in any of the existing bridge components.
Metal testing on the existing truss paint indicated the following metal concentrations. The material was analyzed for Toxicity by the TCLP method for disposal and hazardous waste determination.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 15 TCLP Result1
ID # Date of Sample Location As Ba Cd Cr Pb Se Ag Hg
01 7/06/16 Varney Bridge Surface ND2 ND2 ND2 ND2 3.2 ND2 ND2 ND2
Method Reporting 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.00 Limits 2
(from 7/16/16 Ingraham Environmental Heavy Metal Test Results, page 2 – Appendix A)
The paint debris is non-hazardous utilizing the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) allowed by the USEPA RCRA regulations. Lead result of 3.2mg/L is below the MCL of 5.0mg/L for the TCLP leachate solution.
XRF Results3
TESTING LOCATION
Date of Sample Test Performed #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
7/06/16 Lead Concentration 13.3 13.3 1.7 13.5 9.90 5 5 0
(from 7/16/16 Ingraham Environmental Heavy Metal Test Results, page 5 – Appendix A)
The silver paint contains a high level of lead in excess of the linear range of the XRF. Results were generally in excess of 5.0 mg/cm2. Regulatory references utilize a 1.0 mg/cm2 threshold for determination of lead-based paint. Therefore, the silver paint on the bridge is lead-based paint and all appropriate worker protection requirements within the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR 1926.62 must be followed.
3.1.6 Bridge Configuration The total length of the structure is determined by the proposed channel, hydraulic analysis and existing topography. The crossing at Alternative 3 indicates that top bank to top bank width is approximately 250 feet and bottom width is approximately 205 feet. As the existing Varney Bridge is only 191 linear feet, this results in necessary addition of one new approach span, and the placement of two in-stream piers. The new approach span will be a 59-foot Steel Pony Truss, to match the aesthetics of the Varney Bridge. The overall span length (steel truss and approach span) will be 250 feet with 2H:1V riprap slopes. The new structure
1 Results reported in mg/L (milligram/liter) 2 ND denotes Not Detected. 3 Results reported in mg/cm2 (milligram/centimeter2)
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 16 will provide freeboard for the 100-year flood event and allow for adequate clearance for boat traffic. 250 FEET
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8” Varney Trusses Pedestrian Bridge
WEST EAST Two New In- New Abutment Stream Piers (Each End)
Figure 14: View of proposed Varney Bridge Relocation
Review of the most recent MDT bridge inspection report, as discussed above in Section 3.1.3 yielded that the existing timber deck, timber running planks, timber stringers and bridge bearings should be replaced. Minor structural modifications may need to be made to some truss members, depending on findings and condition of the truss at removal. Steel pedestrian railing should be installed for safety and the existing deficient single layer w-rail will be removed.
It is anticipated that the trail approach at the west end will likely need to be raised 2.5’ and the bridge deck at the east end will be approximately 6’ above existing ground.
3.1.7 Useful Life With recoating and the modifications made above, the anticipated useful life of the Varney Trusses is 25 to 50 years. The useful life of the new substructure is 75 to 100 years.
3.1.8 Construction Duration Given the complexities of refurbishing and installing a 121-year old truss on new infrastructure on a major river system, the project is anticipated to occur over a period of 120-150 days (not including paint removal/repainting).
3.1.9 Cost Estimate A preliminary cost estimate was developed for the Varney Bridge relocation and is shown below:
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 17 TABLE 3-1 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST TOWN OF ENNIS - LIONS PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY REPORT ALTERNATIVE A - VARNEY BRIDGE RELOCATION # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 2 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 160,000.00 $ 160,000 Bridge Transport from Varney Bridge to Lions 2 Park Site1 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 3 Paint Existing Structural Steel 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 4 Lead Paint Removal and Disposal 1 LS $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000 5 Install Varney Truss Bridges 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000 6 Install New Stringers 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000 7 Install New Timber Deck 3,250 SF $ 35.00 $ 113,750 8 Install New Timber Running Planks 2,500 SF $ 10.00 $ 25,000 9 Install New Pedestrian Rail 390 LF $ 135.00 $ 52,650 10 Install New Bearings 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000 11 Steel Pony Truss Approach Span (59') 1 LS $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000 12 End Abutments 2 EA $ 70,000.00 $ 140,000 13 Drilled Shaft or Multi-Pile Pier 2 EA $ 160,000.00 $ 320,000 14 Riprap - Class 3 Random 150 CY $ 100.00 $ 15,000 15 Work Bridge 1 LS $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000 16 Embankment 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500 17 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 18 Asphalt Approaches 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 19 Crushed Aggregate Course 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 20 Seeding 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 21 Revegetation 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500 22 Bioengineered Bank 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 1,445,900 Contingency 30% $ 433,800 Construction Subtotal $ 1,879,700 2020 Construction Cost 3 6.2% $ 1,996,200 Geotechnical Investigation $ 150,000 Engineering (Design, CA, CM) $ 598,860 Wetland Delineation $ 7,500 Cultural Resource Inventory $ 5,000 Biological Assessment $ 7,500
TOTAL $ 2,765,060 1 Portions of the transport costs may be covered in the Adopt a Bridge. 2 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana.
3 The ENR 20 year average Construction Cost Index is +3.06% (as of November 2011), so capital costs are projected to an anticipated construction date in 2020 using a 6.2% inflation rate.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 18 3.2 Alternative B - New Single-Span Pedestrian Bridge
3.2.1 Bridge Configuration There are several possible alternatives for single-span pedestrian bridges, although the span length generally limits feasible alternatives. At a span of 250 feet, the most cost-effective alternative are prefabricated steel trusses. These come in a wide range of styles and configurations with steel pony trusses and steel overhead trusses both being feasible alternatives. Multiple spans were not evaluated due to the impacts on the channel and additional substructure costs.
The trusses are constructed of weathering steel and everything is prefabricated at the manufacturer’s production facility. The components are shipped to site (largely assembled) and bolted in place. A cast-in-place concrete deck is assumed to be used, but other deck types can be utilized as well (ie. timber).
It is anticipated that the trail approach at the west end will likely need to be raised 2.5’ and the bridge deck at the east end will be approximately 6’ above existing ground.
Figure 15: Profile view of new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
Figure 16: Profile view of 230’ single span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 19
Figure 17: Elevation view of new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
3.2.2 Safety Considerations The prefabricated steel truss will incorporate pedestrian railing for safety.
3.2.3 Useful Life The anticipated useful life the new single-span pedestrian bridge (and associated substructure) is 75 to 100 years.
3.2.4 Construction Duration Given the complexities of installing a new truss bridge and new substructure on a major river system, the project is anticipated to occur over a period of 90 days.
3.2.5 Cost Estimate The steel pony truss is considerably more cost-effective than the overhead steel truss and will be evaluated further, as shown below:
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 20 TABLE 3-2 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST TOWN OF ENNIS - LIONS PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FEASIBILITY REPORT ALTERNATIVE B - NEW 250' SPAN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE # ITEM QTY UNITS UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 134,000.00 $ 134,000
2 250' Single Span Pony Truss Pedestrian Bridge 1 LS $ 650,000.00 $ 650,000
3 Cast-In-Place Concrete (Deck) 65 CY $ 950.00 $ 61,750 4 End Abutments 2 EA $ 70,000.00 $ 140,000 5 Riprap - Class 3 Random 150 CY $ 100.00 $ 15,000 6 Work Bridge 1 LS $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000 7 Embankment 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500 8 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 9 Asphalt Approaches 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 10 Crushed Aggregate Course 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500 11 Seeding 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 12 Revegetation 1 LS $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500 13 Bioengineered Bank 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000 Direct Construction Subtotal $ 1,210,300 Contingency 30% $ 363,100 Construction Subtotal $ 1,573,400 2020 Construction Cost 2 6.2% $ 1,671,000 Geotechnical Investigation $ 25,000 Engineering (Design, CA, CM) $ 417,750 Wetland Delineation $ 7,500 Cultural Resource Inventory $ 5,000 Biological Assessment $ 7,500
TOTAL $ 2,133,750 1 Estimated unit costs are based upon estimates from suppliers and bid tabs for similar projects throughout Montana. 2 The ENR 20 year average Construction Cost Index is +3.06% (as of November 2011), so capital costs are projected to an anticipated construction date in 2020 using a 6.2% inflation rate.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 21 3.3 Other Alternatives
Retrofit of Existing MDT Highway 287 Bridge
The existing MDT Highway 287 Bridge over the Madison River is comprised of a 3-span, precast prestressed concrete girder bridge with cast-in-place concrete deck and pile supported foundations. The bridge was constructed in 2001 and exhibits a total span of 320-feet and usable width of 40-feet. No pedestrian usage elements (path, etc) was incorporated into the original structure.
A retrofit of the existing structure would likely consist of modifications to the existing substructure to allow for the installation of another beam on the upstream end of the structure for usage as a path/sidewalk. This would be a challenging modification due to the infrastructure already being in place. Additionally, MDT has indicated that they don’t typically support modifications like this within the structure due to pedestrian/traffic interactions and snow removal complications.
As the structure is owned and maintained by MDT, they would likely have to facilitate the design of the pedestrian modifications. This could be an option in the future but would take considerable additional analysis and preliminary design before meeting with MDT, thus was not considered further in the scope of this report.
Usage of Existing Varney Bridge as Public Art
The adoption of the existing Varney Bridge and utilizing the structure for a public art piece or incorporation into a trail system could be a viable alternative, however, was not directly analyzed as it wasn’t within the scope of the report.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 22 4.0 Alternatives Analysis
4.1 Selection Criteria
The primary considerations for selection of the preferred structure are:
• Cost Effectiveness o Ability to get equipment to the site without impacting existing Lions Park infrastructure negatively. • Construction Ease/Technical Feasibility o Ease of the installation of the structure at the site. What is the possibility of site challenges/construction constraints due to the selected alternative? • Environmental Impacts o How much in-stream or bank disturbance is anticipated? • Construction Time • Cultural Resource Benefits o Does the project support preservation of cultural resources? • Long-Term Maintenance Costs o Will the selected alternative have additional maintenance/inspection needs? • Risk Associated with In-Stream Piers and Structure Age o In-stream piers will increase the threat of ice gorging and susceptibility of the superstructure to damage. Existing structure age does increase risk of long- term stability and resistance to damaging events (high flows, ice, earthquake, etc). • Public Support/Aesthetics
4.2 Cost Comparison
Including contingency (30%), inflation, engineering, geotechnical investigation and other environmental related tasks, the new pedestrian bridge (Alternative B)) is $631,310 less than the Varney Bridge Relocation (Alternative A). The total cost of Alternative A is $2,765,060 and Alternative B is $2,133,750.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 23 4.3 Basis of Selection for Preferred Structure Alternative
The following table presents a ranking of each structure alternative based on a comparative evaluation. A positive sign indicates a significant advantage over alternative(s), whereas a negative sign indicates a significant disadvantage, a zero is neutral.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Relocate New Pedestrian Varney Bridge Bridge Evaluation Criteria
Cost Effectiveness 0 +1
Construction Ease/ 0 +1 Technical Feasibility Environmental Impacts -1 +1 Construction Time 0 +1
Cultural Resource +1 -1 Benefits Long Term Maintenance -1 +1 Costs Risk Associated with In- -1 +1 Stream Piers and Structure Age Public Support/Aesthetics +1 0
TOTALS -1 +5
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 24 5.0 Preferred Alternative
5.1 Public Meeting
A public meeting was held on August 29th, 2018 in Ennis in conjunction with the new MDT sponsored Varney Bridge Open House. The public showed support of building a new pedestrian bridge and additional discussion was had about potentially using the Varney Bridge as an artistic feature within the community.
5.2 Preferred Alternative Discussion
Based on the analysis and evaluation criteria above, the preferred alternative is the installation of a new 250-foot single-span pedestrian truss bridge (Alternative B) utilizing Alignment Alternative 3. The total cost, including contingency, of the preferred alternative is $2,133,750.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 25 6.0 Background & Design Information
6.1 Geotechnical Considerations
As discussed, the nearest soil borings are located at the nearby MT 287 Bridge. These soils are largely comprised of loam, sandy loam and gravelly sand. It is assumed that the two end abutments can likely be supported on piles with a concrete pile cap. If utilized, the intermediate bents will likely either be founded on a concrete drilled shaft (8’ diameter or similar) or on a pile supported concrete mat. The preferred substructure will be determined during the geotechnical analysis phase of design.
6.2 Hydraulic Discussion
The recommended structure will utilize a spill-through configuration with an approximate 205-foot bottom width and 2H:1V sloping abutments. Due to lack of data, no scour assumptions have been accounted for. It is recognized that historic ice gorging will likely control the design and therefore the bridge has currently been sized so the low chord elevation (bottom of truss) will correspondently match the distance from the upstream MDT Highway 287 Bridge to the channel bottom. Detailed hydraulic, scour and ice-gorging analyses will be completed when the design progresses to further define elevations and configurations.
6.3 Access Road & Work Bridge Construction
Access to the site will need to occur from both sides of the river. Some impact to the Lions Park infrastructure during construction will be unavoidable and will likely consist of impacts to the existing grass, landscaping and asphalt. During construction, portions of the park will likely need to be closed.
To facilitate installation of the superstructure and foundation, an adjacent work bridge will need to be constructed, and may either be sited downstream or upstream of the new bridge.
6.4 Wetlands
Based on information collected from the site visit and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey National Wetlands Inventory, there appear to be four wetland types within a mile of the proposed pedestrian bridge: riverine, freshwater pond, freshwater forested /shrub and freshwater emergent wetlands. However, within the anticipated construction limits, only the riverine and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands are anticipated to be present. The Army Corps of Engineers requires a Department of the Army (DA) permit under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for any fill material discharged into wetlands adjacent to waters of the U.S.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 26
The area directly affected by the proposed pedestrian bridge and trail improvements consists of the new bridge footprint, fill slopes, riprap extents and necessary staging areas. As such, relatively minor impacts to wetlands are anticipated. During the design phase, a detailed wetland delineation will occur to identify any potential impacts to nearby wetlands. This delineation will follow delineation guidelines in the Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Delineation Manual (and applicable Regional Supplement). Refer to Appendix D for a National Wetlands Inventory summary in the project vicinity.
If total wetlands impacts are over 0.5 acres, an individual 404 will be necessary and will require compensatory mitigation.
6.5 Hydrology
Peak discharges for the Madison River at Lions Park was developed with an ungaged/gaged analysis with data from the stream gage at Varney Bridge, approximately 10 miles upstream. The flows are summarized in the table below:
Table 6-1: USGS Ungaged/Gaged Analysis of Madison River
MADISON RIVER AT LIONS PARK Frequency Discharge (CFS) 2-Year 3944 10-Year 7096 25-Year 8185 50-Year 8949 100-Year 9662
Refer to supplemental hydrology calculations in Appendix C.
6.6 Floodplains
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), flood hazards are not mapped in this area of the Madison River. It is likely, based on the preferred alignment, that the project will be in both the jurisdiction of Madison County and the Town of Ennis. Madison County regulates the floodplain using Flood Prone Maps, dated March 10, 1997, and the Town of Ennis would use these maps as the best available information. According to the Flood Prone Map for this location, the proposed bridge is within the regulatory floodplain, and a Floodplain Development Permit will be required. In order to obtain a Floodplain Development Permit, a hydraulic analysis will need to document that the proposed bridge will not increase the base flood elevation by more than six inches.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 27 Ennis Town Limits (purple)
Figure 18: View of Ennis Town Limits
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 28 Flood Prone area boundary (typ.)
Figure 19: View of Madison River Flood Prone Areas - Ennis
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 29
Steve Story, the DNRC Water Operations Bureau Chief, provided supplemental information that the State and FEMA are in the process of completing a new floodplain study of the Madison River. New studies take several years, and the DNRC could not say for sure when the new study will be effective. As such, it is likely that DNRC will recommend that the pedestrian bridge project include an as-built survey to provide to the DNRC to supplement the new floodplain study data already gathered. If the bridge design and construction is completed after the new floodplain study is completed, the hydraulic requirements will be much more stringent. With a new floodplain study, a hydraulic analysis would need to demonstrate that the proposed bridge will not increase the base flood elevation by more than 0.00 feet (i.e. no rise). Therefore, there is some advantage to implementing the project ahead of the new floodplain study.
6.7 Utilities
A site visit has revealed the presence of an overhead power line approximately 100-feet downstream of the proposed pedestrian bridge alignment. This line is not anticipated to be impacted by the preferred alternative, though extreme caution should be taken. Prior to any construction activity taking place, a detailed inspection will be undertaken by contacting a utility location service.
A file search of the State Hazard Mapping (DEQ) and State Digital Atlas (NRIS) revealed no underground storage tanks, petroleum leak sites or related facilities in the project vicinity. The nearest underground storage tanks are present 0.4 miles west of the project site.
6.8 Agricultural & Forest Lands
The site is located on a partially developed recreational area to the west and undeveloped floodplain to the east. Preliminary investigations indicate that the immediate surrounding lands are not prime farmlands, as designated by the NRCS. Existing farmlands are located a half mile to the east and largely consist of grass/alfalfa and will not be impacted by the project. The existing landowner on the east side of the river does graze cattle in the vicinity. As such, fencing on the new bridge ends may be required. Refer to the prime farmlands map and detailed information included in Appendix D.
There are no forest lands within one-mile of the project site.
6.9 Biological Resources
The Madison River supports important aquatic wildlife populations; therefore, careful consideration to the stream habitat and effects that the bridge project will have on the stream will be considered.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 30 A database search conducted using the Montana Natural Heritage Program website and by the USFWS found nineteen possible species of special concern in the general area: Townsends’s Big Eared Bat, Canada Lynx, Wolverine, Great Blue Heron, Ferruginous Hawk, Greater Sage-Grouse, Brewer’s Sparrow, Arctic Grayling, Western Pearlshell, Railhead Milkvetch, Wedge-Leaf Saltbush, Parry’s Fleabane, Spiny Skeletonweed, Alkali Primrose, Ute ladies-tresses, Red Knot, Whitebark Pine, Mealy Primrose and Alkali-marsh Ragwort.
Jodi Bush of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service notes that “No critical habitat occurs in the project area”. She also notes that the USFWS is not aware of any Eagle nests within 0.5 mile of the project. If active nests are present, she recommends that the project comply with seasonal construction timing restrictions and distance buffers as specified in the 2010 Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: An Addendum to Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (1994).
Based on a review of the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program Mapper (https://sagegrouse.mt.gov/projects), the proposed project is not mapped in an Executive Order (EO) Area for Sage Grouse Habitat. As such, Sage Grouse are not anticipated to be adversely affected by this work.
Jodi Bush of the USFWS also notes that special considerations are needed as the project is located in known Grizzly Bear territory. The USFWS recommends several steps to prevent conflicts with Grizzly Bears:
1. Promptly clean up any project related spills, litter, garbage, and debris. 2. Camping allowed in designated campgrounds only. 3. Store all food, food related items, petroleum products, antifreeze, garbage, and personal hygiene items inside a closed, hard-sided vehicle or commercially manufactured bear resistant container. 4. Notify the project manager of any animal carcasses found in the area. 5. Notify the project manager of any bears observed in the vicinity of the project.
Jodi also notes that:
• The Service recommends keeping disturbances to the stream bank, channel, and any associated wetlands to the minimum extent and duration possible, with as much occurring “in the dry” as possible. This would reduce disruptions to aquatic resources during construction, resulting in fewer short-term impacts to aquatic species relative to stream bed and bank disturbance and sediment inputs. • All appropriate erosion and sediment control efforts and measures should be implemented during and following construction to avoid introducing sediments or other contaminants to downstream waters.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 31 Based on a review of the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program Mapper (https://sagegrouse.mt.gov/projects), the proposed project is not mapped in an Executive Order (EO) Area for Sage Grouse Habitat. As such, Sage Grouse are not anticipated to be adversely affected by this work.
6.10 River Corridor Use
Conversations with FWP generally yield that new structures should have a minimum of 6-feet of clearance at the Q2 flow event to accommodate boater traffic through the structure.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 32 7.0 Project Implementation
7.1 Overall Approach Project design, development of plans and specifications, bidding, and construction administration will be completed by an engineer selected by the Town of Ennis. This project will be implemented utilizing a contractor bidding process and consist of five phases: Grant Administration (if necessary), Project Design, Advertisement for Construction Bid, Project Construction, and Project Close-Out.
7.2 Project Implementation Tasks
7.2.1 Grant Administration Grant administration work for the project, if required, may be either completed by the Town of Ennis or a sub-conulstant.
7.2.2 Design Phase The design phase will be initiated with the signing of a contract with an engineering firm to complete the design, bidding package, specifications, construction administration and construction observation. The Town of Ennis has the option of utilizing their on-call engineer, or they may choose to select an engineer through an advertised proposal process. The design phase is anticipated to consist of the following tasks: • Perform a topographic site survey and necessary field measurements. • Complete preliminary design plans for the recommended alternatives and submit these plans to the Town of Ennis and any other funding entities for their review and comment. • Prepare a full project specifications package, with any pertinent funding agency required special provisions, to facilitate public bidding and construction of the project. • Submit the final design plans and specifications to Town of Ennis and any pertinent funding agencies for their review and comment. • Incorporate received comments and prepare the final package for public bidding. • Finalize cost estimate and supply to the Town of Ennis for their use in the bidding process. • Finalize all design calculations and project design report. • Prepare and submit permits to pertinent agencies having jurisdiction in the vicinity of the proposed work.
7.2.3 Contracting Phase The contracting phase includes advertising for and obtaining bids, preparation of necessary documentation and selection of a Contractor. The following task are anticipated for this phase:
• Project advertised in accordance with State Statutes, Montana Code annotated, Title 18 – Public Contracts for a minimum of three weeks in local publications. • Bidding documents are issued to prospective bidders.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 33 • A pre-bid conference will be held prior to the bid opening and will allow Contractors to the see the project site, ask questions and receive general information. • Addenda may be issued as deemed appropriate to clarify or correct the bidding documents • Bids are opened and read publicly at the date and time in the bidding documents. • Bid tabs will be prepared to assist in evaluating bids. • Bid submittal review, contractor reference checks and contractor debarment checks occur. • A letter of award recommendation is prepared and submitted to the Town of Ennis and any other project sponsors. • If bids exceed available funding, negations with the Contractor may occur. • Notice of Award is issued to the successful bidder.
7.2.4 Construction Phase The construction phase includes construction, construction administration and construction observation for the project. The following tasks are anticipated for this phase:
• The selected bidder submits necessary required insurance and bonds. • After review and approval of these documents, contract documents (agreement form) is prepared and executed by the Owner, Owner’s representative and the Contractor. • A preconstruction conference is held at the site prior to work starting. • A notice to proceed is issued, which is the effective date the contractor can begin work on the project. • Construction administration generally will occur in the office. The Engineer will review any shop drawings and other submittals for their compliance with specifications. The engineer will also answer Contractor questions, provide clarifications, process and review pay requests, change orders, work change directives and field orders. • Construction observation includes observations of work completed in the field. The Owner’s representative will document work and report quantities. • During construction, it is assumed that the contractor will complete the construction layout of the work by using the survey control points placed in the field during the Final Design Phase. • Progress meetings are held at intervals throughout the work, at a minimum, the Town of Ennis, Engineer, and Contractor attend these meetings. • The Contractor will complete all construction work within the specified contract time. • A Certificate of Substantial Completion is issued after the work is considered substantially complete and a walk through of the site is provided. Punchlist items are noted and the Contractor is allowed a specified length of time by contract to address all remaining items of work. • After punch list items are complete, a request for payment is prepared and issued to the County. • Necessary retainage forms will be completed and submitted throughout the project.
7.2.5 Project Closeout Phase The project closeout phase consists of the development of record drawings and the Contractor’s warranty period. The task completed in this phase include;
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 34 • A one-year warranty period on the Contractor’s work begins with the issue date of the Certificate of Substantial Complete. If problems or defects are found during this period, the Contractor is notified and must resolve the issue in a timely manner, at no cost to the County. • Record drawings (as-builts) are prepared by utilizing documented work and any on- site changes. These will be submitted to the Town of Ennis for their files and future reference.
7.3 Necessary Permits, Regulatory Approvals and Easements Coordination and permitting consultation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, County Floodplain Administrator, MT FWP, DEQ, and MT State Lands will determine the extent of permitting required for the necessary improvements. Specific permitting requirements will be determined during the permitting portion of the Project Design Phase.
Refer to preliminary comments from these entities in Appendix D.
All contractor staging areas are assumed to be on County or Town of Ennis property or within established right-of-ways or easements. Easements, right-of-way or property acquisition will occur prior to construction.
7.4 Applicable Statutes, Rules, Regulations, & Standards This is an inclusive list of possible state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and standards which may apply to this project.
Federal Statutes, Rules, Regulations, and Standards 1. Federal Clean Water Act 2. Federal Rivers and Harbors Act 3. National Historic Preservation Act 4. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 5. Protection of Wetlands Order 6. Migratory Bird Treaty Act 7. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
State Statutes, Rules, Regulations, and Standards 1. Montana Water Quality Act 2. Montana Floodplain and Floodway Management Act 3. Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act 4. Montana Stream Protection Act 5. Short-Term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity 6. Storm Water Discharge Rules
Additionally, as previously discussed, the project must meet any pertinent funding agency requirements and be subjected to appropriate review processes during the design stage.
TOWN OF ENNIS | Downtown Ennis Pedestrian Bridge – Feasibility Report 35 APPENDIX A Varney Bridge Reports (Bridge Inspection Reports, HAER Report, Asbestos & Lead Paint Results)
STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Bridge Inventory Information Bridge Inspection Date: 04-13-2017
General Location Data (6A) Feature Intersected MADISON RIVER
(9) Location 8M S ENNIS
(22) Owner 02 02 County Hwy Agency (8) NBI Structure Number S00249007+08001
(SR) Sufficiency Rating 18.61
(MDT076) Deck Condition Fair-1
(MDT077) Structure Poor Condition (MDT058) Structurally 3 Structurally Deficient Deficient|Functionally AND Functionally Obsolete Obsolete
A- Location Data (2) MDT Inspection District 02 BUTTE (3) County Code 057 MADISON (4) Place Code 00000 Rural Area (7) Facility Carried by Structure S 249-VARNEY RD (MDT020) MDT Maintenance Division 21 BUTTE (21) Maintenance Responsibility 02 02 County Hwy Agency (MDT027) On|Off System 1 On System (MDT078) MDT Maintenance Section none Not a State Maintained Bridge (112) Nbis Bridge Length Y Long Enough
B- Construction Data (MDT017) MDT Construction Project Number (MDT018) MDT Construction Station (MDT019) MDT Drawing Number none (MDT021) MDT UPN (27) Year Built 1897 (MDT097) Plans in SMS? (106) Year Reconstructed
C- Improvement Cost Data (75A) Type of Work Proposed 31 31 Repl-Load Capacity (75B) Work to be Completed by 1 1 Contract
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 1 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(76) Length Of Structure Improvement 229.6 (94) Bridge Improvement Cost 257000 (95) Roadway Improvement Cost 128500 (96) Total Project Cost 385500 (97) Year Of Improvement Cost Estimate 2009
D- Border State Data (98A-2) Border Bridge - Neighboring FHWA Region Code (98A-1) Border Bridge-Neighboring State Code (98B) Border Bridge-Percent Responsibility (99) Border Bridge Structure Number
E- Historical Structure Data (37) Historical Significance 2 2 Br eligible for NRHP
F - Bridge Location (16) Latitude (DMS) 451357.63 (17) Longitude (DMS) 1114505.93
G - Span and Dimensional Data (33) Bridge Median 0 0 No median (34) Skew 0 (35) Structure Flared 0 0 No flare (42A) Type of Service on Bridge 1 1 Highway (48) Length Of Maximum Span 97.4 (49) Structure Length 195.8 (53) Min Vert Clear Over Bridge Roadway 15.16 (101) Parallel Structure Designation N No parallel structure exists (103) Temporary Structure Designation (116) Minimum Navigation Vertical Clearance
H - Main Span (43A) Main Span Material 3 Steel (43B) Main Span Design Type 10 Truss - Thru (45) Number Of Spans In Main Unit 2
I - Approach Span (44A) Approach Span Material 0 Not Applicable
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 2 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(44B) Approach Span Design Type 00 Not Applicable (46) Number Of Approach Spans 0
J - Deck Data (MDT006) Deck Area 2762 (50A) Left Curb|Sidewalk Width 0 (50B) Right Curb|Sidewalk Width 0 (52) Out-to-Out Deck Width 14.1 (107) Deck Structure Type 8 Wood or Timber (108A) Type of Wearing Surface 7 Wood or Timber (108B) Type of Membrane 0 None (108C) Deck Protection 0 None
K - Under Bridge Service (28B) Lanes Under the Structure 0 (42B) Type of Service under 5 Waterway (54A) Minimum Vertical Underclearance- N Feature not a highway or railroad Reference Feature (54B) Minimum Vertical Underclearance 0 (55A) Min Lateral Underclear On Right- N Feature not a highway or railroad Reference Feature (55B) Minimum Lateral Underclearance on Right 0 (56) Min Lateral Underclear On Left 0 (69) Underclear, Vertical and Horizontal N Not applicable (111) Pier|abutment Protection (113) Scour Critical Status 3 Bridge is scour critical; Brdg. foundations determined to be unstable for cal. conditions.
L - Load and Rating Data (MDT016) Load Rating Date (MDT022) Name of Load Rater -1 (31) Design load 0 Unknown (MDT036) SU4 Truck Inventory Rating (MDT037) SU4 Truck Operating Rating (MDT039) SU5 Truck Inventory Rating (MDT040) SU5 Truck Operating Rating (MDT042) SU6 Truck Inventory Rating (MDT043) SU6 Truck Operating Rating (MDT045) SU7 Truck Inventory Rating
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 3 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(MDT046) SU7 Truck Operating Rating (63) Method Used to Determine Operating 2 Allowable Stress (AS) Rating (64) Operating Rating 6.9 (65) Method Used To Determine Inventory 2 Allowable Stress (AS) Rating (66) Inventory Rating 3.3 (70) Legal Load Status 0 >39.9% below
M - General Facility Data (5A) Inventory Route-Record Type 1 Route carried `on` the structure (5B) Route Signing Prefix 4 County highway (5C) Designated Level of Service 1 Mainline (5D) Route Number 00249 (5E) Directional Suffix 3 South (MDT009) Detour Speed -1 (11) Accumulated Miles 7.79 (12) Base Highway Network 0 Not on Base Network (13A) LRS Number C000249S (13B) Inventory Route, Subroute Number- 00 Subroute Number (19) Bypass|Detour Length 22 (MDT030) Posted speed limit (MPH) 60 (MDT075) Roadway System (MDT087) Mile Post 7+0.798 (104) NHS Indicator 0 Not on the NHS
N - Base Network Data (28A) Lanes on the Structure 1 (28B) Lanes Under the Structure 0 (32) Approach Roadway Width 18.4 (51) Bridge Roadway Width Curb-To-Curb 14.1 (72) Approach Roadway Alignment 6 Equal Min Criteria
O - Other NetWork Data (6B) Features Intersected-Critical Facility Indicator (20) Toll 3 On Free Road (MDT048) School Bus Route 0 Not on School Bus Route
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 4 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(100) STRAHNET Highway Designation 0 Not a STRAHNET route (105) Federal Lands Highways 0 Not applicable (110) National Truck Network 0 Not part of National Truck Network
P - Roadway Size and Clearance Data (MDT007) Departmental Route S00249 (10) Minimum Vertical Clearance 15.16 (47) Total Horizontal Clearance 12.7 (102) Direction of Traffic 3 One lane bridge for 2-way traffic
Q - Traffic Data (26) Functional Classification 07 Rural, Major Collector (29) Average Daily Traffic 170 (30) Year of Average Daily Traffic 2015 (MDT060) Traffic Volume Class 02 (109) Average Daily Truck Traffic (%) 9 (114) Future Average Daily Traffic 181 (115) Year Of Future Avg Daily Traffic 2035
General Bridge Notes
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 5 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Inspection Information
Responsible Person Name Signature Inspector John Jackson QC Wayne Halvorsen
User Begin End Comments J Jackson 04-13-2017 09:04:00 04-13-2017 02:04:00
Day Weather Temperature Comments 04-13-2017 Sunny 60
R- Inspection Current Value Previous Value (36A) Traffic Safety Features - Bridge Railings 00 (36B) Traffic Safety Features - Transitions 00 (36C) Traffic Safety Features - Approach NN guardrail (36D) Traffic Safety Features - Approach 00 guardrail Ends (41) Structure Open, Posted, or Closed to PP Traffic (58) Deck Rating 66 (59) Superstructure 55 (60) Substructure 45 (61) Channel 6 (62) Culvert NN (67) Structural Evaluation 33 (68) Deck Geometry 22 (69) Underclear, Vertical and Horizontal NN (71) Waterway Adequacy 88 (MDT076) Deck Condition Fair-1 (MDT077) Structure Condition Poor (MDT090) Climbing Inspection Required Y
Inspection Hours and Dates Current Value Previous Values (MDT005) Date Last QA 2000-01-01 (MDT010) FC Inspection Details D (MDT011) FC Next Inspection Date 2019-04-13 2017-04-22 (MDT023) Next Inspection Date 2019-04-13 2017-04-22 (MDT028) Other Inspection Details none
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 6 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Other Inspection Next Date (MDT034) Request Review of Load rating 0 (MDT050) Snooper Required N Special Inspection Next Date (MDT058) Structurally Deficient|Functionally 32 Obsolete Type 1 Underwater Inspection Required Type 1 Underwater Inspection Date Type 1 Underwater Inspection Frequency (months) (MDT064) Type 1 Underwater Inspection Next Date (MDT074) Underwater Inspection Details N Type 2 Underwater Next Inspection Date (90) Inspection Date 2017-04-13 2015-04-22 (91) Regular Inspection Frequency (Months) 24 24.00 (92A-1) FC Inspection Required YY24 (92A-2) FC Inspection Frequency (Months) 24 (92B-1) Type 2 Underwater Inspection NN Required Type 2 Underwater Inspection Frequency (Months) (92C-1a) Other Inspection Required NN Other Inspection Frequency (Months) Special Inspection Frequency (months) Special Inspection Required (93A) FC Inspection Date 2017-04-13 2015-04-22 Special Inspection Date
General Inspection Notes Added Element 225 for Steel Pile exposed by abrasion at Abut 1 and Pier 2
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 7 of 33 Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection Plan and Reporting Form
Bridge ID: S00249007+08001 Asset 06492 Feature Intersected: MADISON RIVER Inspection Date : 04/13/2017 Location: 8M S ENNIS Inspector: John A. Jackson, Jerry Garcia
Bridge Sketch:
Solid Red members are tension members, and are therefore fracture critical.
Equipment needed for arm’s-length inspection of fracture critical members: Ladder Waders Climbing Gear
Manpower needed for arm’s-length inspection of fracture critical members: Inspection Team
Special requirements for arm’s-length inspection of fracture critical members:
Ladder Climbing Team
Problem areas on Fracture Critical Members are to be noted on the Bridge Sketch on this form. Additional comments and sketches may be added to the back of this form. This form has multiple pages. 1 page 8 of 33 Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection Plan and Reporting Form
Bridge ID: S00249007+08001 Asset 06492 Feature Intersected: MADISON RIVER Inspection Date : 04/13/2017 Location: 8M S ENNIS Inspector: John A. Jackson, Jerry Garcia
Span 1 Left Truss (AOL) Inspection Comments:
Surface rust with areas of light pitting.
Uneven tension in many vertical and diagonals=
LT: L3-U4; RT: U1-L2, L3-U4, L4-U4
L3-L4 Lower chord uneven tension
No cracks or significant pitting encountered
Approximately 20% of paint has failed. Remainder is in various stages of deterioration Span 1 Right Truss (AOL)
Problem areas on Fracture Critical Members are to be noted on the Bridge Sketch on this form. Additional comments and sketches may be added to the back of this form. This form has multiple pages. 2 page 9 of 33 Fracture Critical Bridge Inspection Plan and Reporting Form
Bridge ID: S00249007+08001 Asset 06492 Feature Intersected: MADISON RIVER Inspection Date : 04/13/2017 Location: 8M S ENNIS Inspector: John A. Jackson, Jerry Garcia
Span 2 Left Truss (AOL) Inspection Comments:
Surface rust with areas of light pitting.
Uneven tension in many vertical and diagonals=
LT: L1-U1, L1-U2, L3-U4
RT: U1-L2, L3-U4
L3-L4 Lower Chord eyebar is a retrofit repair
Span 2 Right Truss (AOL) No cracks or significant pitting encountered
Approximately 20% of paint has failed. Remainder is in various stages of deterioration
Problem areas on Fracture Critical Members are to be noted on the Bridge Sketch on this form. Additional comments and sketches may be added to the back of this form. This form has multiple pages. 3 page 10 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Repair Suggestions: Repair ID Date Type Status Priority Comments Requested
General Bridge Photos Photo #:Span 2 L3-L4 Lower Chord Repair Location: , Comments:
Photo #:Superstructure Location: , Comments:
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 11 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Photo #:Approach - West Location: , Comments:
Photo #:Span 2 L3-L4 Lower Chord Repair Location: , Comments:
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 12 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Photo #:Approach - East Location: , Comments:
Photo #:Profile - North Location: , Comments:
Element Inspection Data
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 31 Timber Deck (SF) Area 2766 98.3 1.0 0.7 0.0
31 1170 - Area 2766 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Split/Delaminatio n (Timber) 31 1150 - Area 2766 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Check/Shake
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 13 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element Current Inspection Notes: End splits in approx 5% of planks End checks in approx 5% of planks. Long checks in a few planks
Photo #:Typical End Split
Location:
Comments:
Element:31 - Timber Deck (SF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 14 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 117 Timber Stringer Length 2559 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (LF) 117 1170 - Length 2559 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Split/Delaminatio n (Timber) 117 1160 - Crack Length 2559 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 (Timber) 117 1150 - Length 2559 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Check/Shake 117 1020 - Length 2559 93.4 5.0 1.6 0.0 Connection Current Inspection Notes: Vertical split and corner shake of Span 1LT exterior stringer over Pier 2. Checking visible in several stringers Cracked stringer in L4-L5 of Span 2 Stringers will be more closely inspected in climbing inspeection
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 15 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 120 Steel Truss (LF) Length 390 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
120 1900 - Distortion Length 390 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
120 1000 - Corrosion Length 390 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Current Inspection Notes: Surface rust thoughout especially on edges of truss members. Areas of light pitting See Fracture Critical Report for specifics. Uneven tension in several paired diagonals and verticals Some minor bending od verticals. See photo for example
Photo #:Bent outer vertical
Location:
Comments:
Element:120 - Steel Truss (LF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 16 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 152 Steel Floor Beam Length 125 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 (LF) 152 1000 - Corrosion Length 125 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Current Inspection Notes: Surface rust throughout with areas of shallow pitting on flanges and ends exposed past edge of deck Floor Beams could not be accessed for arms length inspection with normal inspection measures. Structure is on the climbing list.
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 17 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 202 Steel Column Each 6 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 (EA) 202 1000 - Corrosion Each 6 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Current Inspection Notes: Areas of surface rust and shallow pitting on all columns
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 18 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 210 Reinforced Length 36 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Concrete Pier Wall (LF) 210 1130 - Cracking Length 36 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 (RC and Other) 210 1080 - Length 36 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Delamination/Spa ll/Patched Area Current Inspection Notes: Heavy spalling and abrasion at waterline with exposed steel piles. See Element 225 for close-up photos Spalls in Pier nose. Pier nose completely undercut with exposed pile. Spalling up to 2 ft deep on face and downstream end of Pier wall Wide horizontal and pattern cracking full length of element
Photo #:Wide Cracks and Spalls in Pier Nose
Location:
Comments:
Element:210 - Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall (LF)
Photo #:Wide Horizontal and Heavy Pattern Cracking
Location:
Comments:
Element:210 - Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall (LF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 19 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element
Photo #:Full length spalling and abrasion of Pier
Location:
Comments:
Element:210 - Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall (LF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 20 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 215 Reinforced Length 69 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Concrete Abutment (LF) 215 1130 - Cracking Length 69 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 (RC and Other) 215 1080 - Length 69 0.0 7.2 100.0 0.0 Delamination/Spa ll/Patched Area Current Inspection Notes: Small spalls adjacent to cracks Abrasion and spalling with deep section loss in both. Spalling is approx 1.5 ft deep at Abut 1 with exposure of steel pile and 1 ft deep at Abut 3. Deep spalls adjacent to cracks. See photo in 1190 Wide map and horizontal cracking in both abutments. Photo
Photo #:Abut 1
Location:
Comments: Spalling with exposure of steel pile
Element:215 - Reinforced Concrete Abutment (LF)
Photo #:Abut 1 Face
Location:
Comments: Abrasion at waterline.Wide cracks.CS3 spalls
Element:215 - Reinforced Concrete Abutment (LF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 21 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element
Photo #:Abut 3 Map Cracking
Location:
Comments: Typical also of Abut 1
Element:215 - Reinforced Concrete Abutment (LF)
Photo #:Abut 3
Location:
Comments: Spalling along face of Abut 3
Element:215 - Reinforced Concrete Abutment (LF)
Photo #:Abut 3 Horizontal Cracking
Location:
Comments: Typical also of Abut 1
Element:215 - Reinforced Concrete Abutment (LF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 22 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 216 Timber Abutment Length 39 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 (LF) 216 1900 - Distortion Length 39 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
216 1150 - Length 39 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Check/Shake 216 1140 - Length 39 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Decay/Section Loss Current Inspection Notes: Moderate depth checks throughout Modertate distortion throughout length from probable decay Decay by sounding. Loss of strength with distortion
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 23 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 220 Reinforced Pile Length 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Cap|Footing (LF) 220 1080 - Length 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Delamination/Spa ll/Patched Area Current Inspection Notes: Submerged at the time of this inspection. Full length spalling and/or abrasion. No photo available
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 24 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 225 Steel Pile (EA) Each 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
225 1000 - Corrosion Each 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Current Inspection Notes: Exposed steel pile at Abut 1(3) and Pier 2(3). all with deep pitting and section loss. See photos
Photo #:Pier 2 Exposed Pile
Location:
Comments:
Element:225 - Steel Pile (EA)
Photo #:Abut 1 Exposed Pile
Location:
Comments: Exposed steel pile with corrosion and section loss
Element:225 - Steel Pile (EA)
Photo #:Pier 2 Exposed Pile
Location:
Comments:
Element:225 - Steel Pile (EA)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 25 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 311 Movable Bearing Each 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 (roller, sliding, etc.) (EA) 311 2220 - Alignment Each 4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
311 2210 - Movement Each 4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
311 1000 - Corrosion Each 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0
Current Inspection Notes: All bearings extended beyond what would be expected for the temperature. Roler nests are somewhat displaced Surface rust and shallow pitting on Abut 1 and 3 RT bearings Bearings at Abut 1 and Abut 3 LT have surface corrosion with deep pitting and section loss. Photos No indications of recent movement
Photo #:Abut 3 LT
Location:
Comments: Deep pitting with section loss
Element:311 - Movable Bearing (roller, sliding, etc.) (EA)
Photo #:Abut 1 LT
Location:
Comments: Deep pitting with section loss.
Element:311 - Movable Bearing (roller, sliding, etc.) (EA)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 26 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 313 Fixed Bearing Each 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 (EA) 313 1000 - Corrosion Each 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Current Inspection Notes: Surface corrosion with deep pitting and section loss on plates and rivet heads of all fixed bearings. Photo
Photo #:Typical Pitting and Section Loss
Location:
Comments:
Element:313 - Fixed Bearing (EA)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 27 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 330 Steel Bridge Rail Length 390 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 (LF) 330 7000 - Damage Length 390 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
330 1900 - Distortion Length 390 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
330 1000 - Corrosion Length 390 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Current Inspection Notes: Long scrapes with surface rust on rail. Surface rust on all posts Minor distortion from traffic impacts Traffic impacts
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 28 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 510 31 Wearing Surfaces Area 1176 0.0 18.3 81.7 0.0 (SF) 510 31 7000 - Damage Area 1176 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0
510 31 1170 - Area 1176 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 Split/Delaminatio n (Timber) 510 31 1150 - Area 1176 0.0 20.0 50.0 0.0 Check/Shake Current Inspection Notes: Many planks with long splits Areas of broken and decayed planks Moderate checking Approx 50% of timber wearing surface with deep checks
Photo #:Typical Splits and Deep Checks
Location:
Comments:
Element:510 - Wearing Surfaces (SF)
Photo #:Typical Deep Checking
Location:
Comments:
Element:510 - Wearing Surfaces (SF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 29 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element
Photo #:Typical Damage and Decay
Location:
Comments:
Element:510 - Wearing Surfaces (SF)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 30 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 515 313 3440 - Area 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings) 515 820 Steel Protective Area 788 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 Coating (SF) 515 330 Steel Protective Area 875 0.0 40.0 25.0 35.0 Coating (SF) 515 313 Steel Protective Area 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Coating (SF) 515 311 Steel Protective Area 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Coating (SF) 515 202 Steel Protective Area 198 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 Coating (SF) 515 152 Steel Protective Area 594 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 Coating (SF) 515 120 Steel Protective Area 2730 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 Coating (SF) 515 311 3440 - Area 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings) 515 202 3440 - Area 198 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings) 515 152 3440 - Area 594 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings) 515 120 3420 - Area 2730 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Peeling/Bubbling/ Cracking (Steel Protective Coatings) 515 120 3410 - Chalking Area 2730 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 (Steel Protective Coatings) 515 330 3440 - Area 875 0.0 40.0 25.0 35.0 Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings) 515 820 3410 - Chalking Area 788 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 (Steel Protective Coatings)
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 31 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 515 820 3420 - Area 788 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Peeling/Bubbling/ Cracking (Steel Protective Coatings) Current Inspection Notes: Remaining paint is chalking and dulling Paint deteriorated but mostly effective Paint has essentially failed Cracked and peeling paint Deteriorated paint with limited effectiveness Paint failure with exposed base metal Only primer remains. Effectieness is minimal Paint failure with exposed base metal Paint failure in traffic scrapes
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 32 of 33 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 06492 8M S ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 820 1000 - Corrosion Length 394 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
820 Steel Truss Length 394 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Vertical Cross- Frame (LF) Current Inspection Notes: Surface rust and areas of shallow pitting.
General Inspection Notes Previous Inspection Notes Current Inspection Notes
Generated by: MDT on 5/1/2017 page 33 of 33 Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 1)
HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD UPPER MADISON (VARNEY) BRIDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Location: Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge Spanning the Madison River at Secondary Highway 249 at Milepost 7.8 Ennis Vicinity Madison County Montana
Quad: Varney, Montana (1988)
UTM: 12/441002/5009069
Date of Construction: 1897
Present Owner: Madison County Virginia City, Montana
Present Use: Highway Bridge
Significance: The Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge is significant as one of the oldest surviving steel truss bridges in Montana. The bridge is representative of the type of pin-connected Pratt through truss that was commonly constructed by the counties on Montana’s roads between 1891 and 1915 when the Montana State Highway Commission standardized a different truss design. The bridge is significant for its association with the King Bridge Company of Cleveland, Ohio, a firm of national prominence and a prolific bridge-building company in Montana during the last decade of the nineteenth century.
Historian: Lon Johnson and Frederic L. Quivik, Renewable Technologies, Inc. June 1989
Jon Axline, Montana Department of Transportation May 2014 (revisions) Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 2)
II. HISTORY
The upper Madison River valley was well-known to trappers and traders in the first half of the nineteenth century. Brigades from the Rocky Mountain Fur Company and its competitors were frequent visitors to the area. In October 1832, a brigade under the command of Jim Bridger and Tom Fitzpatrick purposely led trappers captained by rival Henry Vanderburgh into an ambush by the Blackfeet Indians a few miles south of the future site of the bridge. With the decline of the Blackfeet in this area because of small pox epidemics beginning in the mid-1830s and the waning of the western fur trade after 1840, the valley was less frequented by non-Indians. Shortly after the gold strike at nearby Alder Gulch in May 1863, however, individuals established ranches in the Madison Valley to sell cattle and sheep in the mining camps. By the mid-twentieth century, the valley had become important as a route to West Yellowstone and the northwest entrance to Yellowstone National Park. The Madison River is also significant as a blue ribbon trout stream. Consequently, the area has attracted recreationalists and the establishment of expensive residences, many of which are summer homes for out-of-state fishermen and hunters and their families.1
Varney Area Partners Osmund Varney and Thomas Farrell amassed a substantial horse herd in the Madison Valley in the vicinity of the bridge by the late 1860s. By the 1880s, other individuals had established horse, cattle, and sheep ranches in the area. In 1897, however, Varney and Farrell dissolved their partnership and Varney settled on a small ranch just east of the bridge. He died in 1903.2
The abundant water supply in the valley drew the attention of Virginia City banker and entrepreneur Henry Elling in the late 1890s. He hired a Dillon surveyor to investigate the hydroelectric possibilities of nearby Blaine Springs Creek “where the water did not freeze in the winter.”3 Elling intended to build a power plant to provide electricity to his Easton, Pacific, and Prospect mines and to light Virginia City. Unfortunately for Elling, he died in 1900 before the plant was completed. It wasn’t until June 1908 that his son, Karl, incorporated the Economy Electric Power and Light Company and completed the project his father had started nearly a decade before. The company electrified Virginia City in November 1908. The power plant building is on private land southwest of the bridge.4
1 Bernard DeVoto, Across the Wide Missouri, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947), 89; Michael P. Malone, Richard B. Roeder and William L. Lang, Montana: A History of Two Centuries, Rev. ed. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991), 59; Hiram Martin Chittenden, The American Fur Trade of the Far West, Vol. I (New York: Press of the Pioneers, 1935), 301. 2 Black, Don. Varney, Montana: A Condensed History, (Virginia City: Madison Valley History Association, 2011); 2, 4; Phyllis Smith, Montana’s Madison County: A History,(Bozeman: Gooch Hill Publishers, 2006) 78; Pioneer Trails and Trials: Madison County, 1863-1920. (Virginia City: Madison County History Association, 1976), 192. 3 Smith, Montana’s Madison County, 121. 4 Smith, Ibid, 121-122; Black, Varney, Montana, 18. Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 3)
Homesteading also developed in the vicinity of the bridge beginning in the late 1890s. In 1892, Madison County created the Wigwam School District, which encompassed the site of the bridge. The school, located southwest of the bridge, also functioned as a community hall and church. In 1914, a post office opened in the small settlement of Varney. William Wilcox was the first postmaster. He operated a saw mill a short distance west of the Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge. The Economy Power Company plant, the nearby Ennis Fish Hatchery (established in 1930), and homesteading provided the basis of the local economy. The recreational opportunities of the Madison River and its tributaries resulted in the opening of a gas station and bait shop at Varney in the 1930s. The post office closed in 1944 and the gas station has since disappeared.5
The Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge The General Land Office conducted its survey of Section 8, Township 7 South, Range 1 West in May 1870. The GLO map, published in July 1870 shows roads to Henry’s Lake (in present Idaho) bracketing Section 8 on the approximate alignments of U.S. Highway 287 and a county road. In September 1897, the Madison County Commissioners approved a petition that created a road between the west side of the Madison River south of Ennis and the main route east of the river between Ennis and Henry’s Lake. The county built bridges on the road over Blaine Spring Creek (HAER No. MT-63) and the Madison River (Varney Bridge) in 1892 and 1897. English immigrant Samuel Coad obtained title to 120 acres encompassing the site of the bridge in June 1903, five years after the Varney Bridge was constructed. He obtained title to the land under the 1862 Homestead Act.6
On June 14, 1897, the Madison County Commissioners received a petition for a bridge over the Madison River near the community of Varney, about eight miles south of Ennis. The petitioners added an inducement for immediate approval by offering to donate $1,000 if the bridge was completed in 1897. On June 24th, the Commissioners advertised for the bridge, seeking bids for either two 95-foot spans or a single 190-foot span. The Commissioners’ specifications were quite detailed, listing all requirements from the type of truss and the diameter of the pier and abutments to the species of wood for decking and joists. The bidders included three of the large regional bridge building companies that were active in Montana (the Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Works of Leavenworth, Kansas, the Gillette-Herzog Manufacturing Company of Minneapolis, and the King Bridge Company of Cleveland), three out-of-state firms which were not very active in Montana (Andrews Bros. of Omaha, C.E.H.
5 Pioneer Trails and Trials: Madison County, 1863-1920. (Virginia City: Madison County History Association, 1976), 5; Cheney, Names on the Face of Montana, 278-279; Black, Varney, Montana, 18; 119; Madison County, Montana: Its Resources, Opportunities and Possibilities. (Virginia City: Board of County Commissioners, 1912), 34, 36. 6 Land Patent Records, viewed at www.glorecords.blm.gov on 27 January 2014; Smith, Montana’s Madison County, 119; United States Census Records, viewed at www.ancestry.com on 27 January 2014; County Commissioners Journal, book P, pp. 81-82. Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 4)
Campbell of Council Bluffs, Iowa, and the Michigan Bridge Co. of Portland, Michigan), and three Montana-based bridge building companies (O.E. Peppard of Missoula, Perham Brothers, Thompson & Co. of Butte, and M. S. Parker of Great Falls). C.E.H. Campbell submitted the low bids for both a single-span and two-span bridges, at $4,200 and $5,100 respectively. The Commissioners, however, without comment in the minutes, awarded the contract for a two- span bridge to the King Bridge Company for $4,999. The Commissioners’ minutes and the official county map of 1902 refer to this bridge as the Upper Madison Bridge, although it appears to have been popularly called the Varney Bridge. 7
III. THE BRIDGE
A. DESCRIPTION
The Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge is a two-span, steel pin-connected through truss structure. The bridge has a total length of 191.2 feet and is fifteen feet wide with a 14-foot roadway width. The bridge rests on steel tube abutments and the pier is also two steel tubes filled with concrete. The abutments and pier are partially encased in concrete.
Substructure The bridge consists of steel tube abutments and a pier; all are partially encased in concrete.
Abutment No. 1 (west) consists of two 3′ diameter steel tubes filled with concrete. The west end of the bridge is bolted to the abutment. The abutment is one foot wide. Madison County partially encased the tubes in concrete in 1911. Approximately 3′ 7" of the tubes are exposed above the concrete. Wood plank backwalls are located behind the tubes above the concrete. The concrete has been extended diagonally to the north and south to function as a fender.
Pier. The pier also consists of two 3′ diameter steel tubes filled with concrete. Madison County partially encased the pier in concrete in 1911, which functions as a fender. Approximately 4′ of the steel tube piers are exposed above the concrete. A steel angle section is fixed to the south side of the fender. The east and west ends of the spans rest on steel plates on top of the pier tubes.
7 Madison County Commissioners’ Journal, book P, pp. 50, 56-57, 62-64; Bullard and Van Hook, “Official Map of Madison County,” (Helena: Bullard and Van Hook, 1902), on file at the Montana Historical Society Research Center, Helena, Montana.
Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 5)
Abutment No. 1 (east) consists of two 3′ diameter steel tubes filled with concrete. The east end of the bridge is bolted to the abutment. The abutment is 21′ wide. Madison County partially encased the tubes in concrete in 1911. Approximately 3′ of the tubes are exposed above the concrete. Wood plank backwalls are located behind the tubes above the concrete. The concrete has been extended diagonally to the north and south to function as a fender.
Superstructure The Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge is a two-span pin-connected Pratt through truss structure. The bridge consists of two 95′ 10" steel truss spans for a total length of 191.2 feet. The bridge is 15 feet wide with a roadway width of 14 feet. The trusses are 18 feet in height from the lower chord to the upper chord. Each span of the bridge consists of five panels each 19′ 2" in length. The 10" x 6" upper chords have continuous metal plates riveted to the top flanges of the channel sections with batten plates to the bottom flanges of the chords. The lower chords are paired punched eyebars that are ⅝" thick and three inches deep. The structure’s hip verticals are paired forged ⅞" square rods. The remaining verticals are 4" x 9½ " and consist of two laced channel sections. The counters are eyebars and eyebars with turnbuckles. Diagonal members are paired .6" x 2" bars. The sixteen pin-connections at upper and lower chords on both spans are 1⅝" in diameter. The angle section portal braces are arranged in a lattice pattern and cost of paired and single angle sections. Top stop struts are channel sections with laces riveted to the flanges; the top lateral braces are eyebars. Decorative steel builder plates are attached at the east and west portal braces. The plates read: “1897/The King Bridge Co./Cleveland, Ohio.” Steel builder’s plates are also attached on the right side of the inclined endposts on the east and west portals. Not as ornate as those on the portal bracing, they read: “Built by King Bridge Co./Cleveland Ohio/1897.”
The deck is supported by sixteen lines of 4" x 12" timber stringers resting atop a total of eight steel 5" x 12" steel I-beam floor beams. The floor beams are suspended from the vertical posts by U-bolts. Wood planks with running boards function as decking. The guardrails are not original to the structure. They consist of U-shaped steel beams that are salvaged highway guardrails. It is likely the guardrails date to the 1960s or before.
Material The bridge was constructed by Madison County and it is not known how much steel was utilized by the contractor for its construction.
B. MODIFICATIONS
Other than the sporadic replacement of the timber deck and the removal of the original guardrails, there do not appear to be any modifications to the bridge. All of the original
Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 6) structural components are intact and functional. Sometime before 1979 the original guardrails were replaced with old steel highway guardrails.
C. OWNERSHIP AND FUTURE
The Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge is owned and maintained by Madison County. The Montana Department of Transportation determined the bridge eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in April 1985. The department programmed the bridge for replacement in 1989, but that project was shelved in 1992 because of public opposition to the project and difficulties associated with an archaeological site located west of the bridge. In 1989, a draft HAER document was prepared by Lon Johnson and Fredric L. Quivik of Renewable Technologies, Inc. of Butte, Montana. The document, however, was never completed and submitted to the National Park Service. Madison County has applied for Treasure State Endowment Program (TSEP) funds to replace the bridge, which would be accomplished entirely with State money. This document was completed in anticipation of the imminent replacement of the structure. It is projected Madison County will replace the bridge is either 2014 or 2015.
IV. BIOGRAPHICAL MATERIAL
The King Bridge Company Formed by self-taught bridge engineer Zenas King in Cleveland, Ohio in 1858, the King Bridge Company was one of the most prolific builders in the United States by the end of the nineteenth century. Like many of his contemporaries, King was a trained carpenter who later put his expertise to practical use as a bridge builder. King went to work as a salesman for Cincinnati bridge builder Thomas Mosely in 1857 before establishing his own company, the King Iron Bridge & Manufacturing Company, in Cleveland the following year. King specialized in the construction of iron bowstring arch bridges, for which he obtained a patent in 1861. A shrewd businessman, he also hired sales agents all over the eastern and Midwestern United States, including Iowa, Missouri, and Texas to sell the company’s products. After the completion of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, he tried to break into the bridge-building business west of the Mississippi River. To that end, he established fabrication factories in Kansas and a field office in Des Moines, Iowa by the mid-1870s. By 1882, King claimed to have constructed 5,000 bridges – mostly in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states.8
By the 1880s, competition between the bridge construction companies was intense throughout the United States as the railroads and local governments sought to improve their infrastructures. Like their counterparts in the railroad and steel industries, the bridge companies were compelled to form pool arrangements whereby certain firms would, in a sense, monopolize the industry in specific areas in the states in which they were active. The pool participants would contribute thirteen percent of their profits on specific projects into the pool “which would then distribute the
8 Allan King Sloan, “Discovering Zenas King,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Archeology, Savannah, Georgia, June 1999. Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 7) accumulated sums to the participants based on the size of the company.”9 Although never entirely legal, this was a method companies used in highly competitive markets to ensure work and maximize profits. While the county governments often conspired with the bridge companies, they did not always receive a good bridge in the bargain. In at least two instances, bridges constructed by King’s company suffered catastrophic failures. Zenas King and six other companies formed a successful bridge pool in 1883. Bridge pooling was certainly a common practice in Montana beginning in the 1890s. Still, there is no direct evidence that the King company was a participant in the practice in the state. Other companies active in the state at that time, such as William S. Hewett of Minneapolis, the Billings, Montana-based Security Bridge Company, and O. E. Peppard of Missoula, Montana, were inarguably involved in bridge pooling during this period.10
Just prior to his death in October 1892, Zenas King finally broke into the Montana bridge market with the construction of two bridges in Madison County. Both were pin-connected Pratt through trusses. One crossed the Big Hole River near Twin Bridges and the other the Jefferson River near Iron Rod (MT-63). With Zenas’s death, his son, James, took over control of the firm and renamed it the King Bridge Company. Under James’s leadership the company finally became a prolific bridge builder in the western United States. Evidence suggests that while the company frequently bid on county bridge projects, it was not often successful because of the state’s pre-existing bridge pool agreements. For the Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge, however, pooling apparently played a role in King obtaining the contract to build the structure. Although C. E. H. Campbell submitted the low bid for the bridge, the Madison County Commissioners still awarded King the contract.11
The company was successful in Lewis and Clark County, obtaining the contract to building the Dearborn River High Bridge (HAER No. MT-23) in 1897, the Elk Creek (24LC1168), Smith Creek, and Flat Creek (24LC1167) bridges in the northern part of the county in 1901. The company also constructed bridges across the Jefferson River in 1897, the Blaine Springs Creek Bridge (HAER No. MT-63) in 1898, and the Musselshell River in central Montana in 1900. There are, undoubtedly, more King-built bridges in Montana that have either been demolished or have not, as yet, been identified. But as the pooling agreements solidified after the turn-of-the- twentieth century, the King Bridge Company was increasingly edged out of the Montana market by the Montana and Minnesota based companies. The Minnesota companies had direct access to Montana over the Northern Pacific and Great Northern railroads. They also had active field offices in the state, while the King Bridge Company did not. There was also a definite swing by
9 Sloan, Ibid. 10 Sloan, Ibid; Jon Axline, Conveniences Sorely Needed: Montana’s Historic Highway Bridges, 1860-1956, (Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 2005), 31, 34; Fredric L. Quivik, Historic Bridges in Montana, (Washington DC: National Park Service, 1982), 33, 38-39, 41, 43. 11 Sloan, “Discovering Zenas King; Axline, Monuments Above the Water: Montana’s Historic Highway Bridges, (Helena: Montana Department of Transportation, 1992), 8, 10. Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 8) the county commissioners in favor of the Montana-based firms, specifically the Security Bridge Company and O. E. Peppard.12
With the inclusion of markets in the western United States, the King Bridge Company increased its bridge shop output from 18,000 to 30,000 tons of steel per year between 1894 and 1903. It was the largest bridge company based in Ohio and was, nationally, second only to the Pennsylvania-based American Bridge Company. During the first decade of the twentieth century, the federal government aggressively sought to break up the bridge pools through enforcement of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Because the pool agreements, however, were not formal pacts, but were more “gentleman’s” agreements, the government had a difficult time eliminating something that was advantageous to industry and the county governments. Consequently, other means were sought to break the power of the pools. The Good Roads movement and the U.S. Department of Agriculture tried to remedy the situation by promoting modern, scientifically engineered bridges and the creation of state highway departments to oversee road and bridge construction in the states. Standardized and efficient bridges that would best serve the public good were an important part of the Progressive reform movement of the early twentieth century. Through legislation beginning in 1903 and culminating in the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, the federal government sought to end the “good old boy” system by giving the state and federal governments more influence on road and bridge construction.13
In 1913, the Montana State Legislature formed the Montana State Highway Commission. Two years later, the highway commission created a bridge department to standardize bridge designs in the state and provide oversight to the counties for the bridge construction process. This development spelled the doom of the bridge construction companies in Montana, including the King Bridge Company. Instead of highly individualized structures built, essentially, by non- professional engineers, the state’s infrastructure was increasingly dominated by riveted Pratt and Warren through and pony truss bridges. The loss of a previously lucrative market is likely what caused the King Bridge Company to branch out into the construction of prefabricated steel building frames rather than concentrating only on bridges. By 1923, declining revenues caused the King Bridge Company to go out of business.14
12 Sloan, “Discovering Zenas King;” Axline, Conveniences Sorely Needed, 40-41. 13 Axline, Ibid, 59. 14 Sloan, “Discovering Zenas King;” Axline, Conveniences Sorely Needed, 60-61; Federal Highway Administration, America’s Highways, 1776-1976, (Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1976), 80-81; State Wide Highway Planning Survey, History of the Montana State Highway Department, 1913-1942, (Helena: Montana State Highway Commission, 1943), 9-11; Quivik, Historic Bridges, 43-44;George R. Metlen, Report of the Montana State Highway Commission, 1915-1916, (Helena: Montana State Highway Commission, 1916), 4-8. Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 9)
V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Abbott, Newton Carl. Montana in the Making. Billings: Gazette Publishing Company, 1964.
Axline, Jon. Monuments Above the Water: Montana’s Historic Highway Bridges, 1860-1956. Helena: Montana Department of Transportation, 1992.
. Conveniences Sorely Needed: Montana’s Historic Highway Bridges, 1860 – 1956. Helena: Montana Historical Society, 2005.
Black, Don. Varney, Montana: A Condensed History. Virginia City: Madison Valley History Association, 2011.
Burlingame, Merrill G. The Montana Frontier. Helena: State Publishing, 1942.
Cheney, Roberta Carkeek. Names on the Face of Montana: The Story of Montana’s Place Names. Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing, 1990.
Chittenden, Hiram Martin. The American Fur Trade of the Far West. New York: Press of the Pioneers, 1935.
Condit, Carl W. American Building: Materials and Techniques from the Beginning of the Colonial Settlements to the Present. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.
DeVoto, Bernard. Across the Wide Missouri. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
Federal Highway Administration. America’s Highways, 1776-1976. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1976.
Federal Writers’ Project. Montana: A State Guide Book. Helena: Montana Department of Agriculture, Labor and Industry, 1939.
Hamilton, James McClellan. History of Montana: From Wilderness to Statehood. Portland, Oregon: Binfords & Morte, 1957.
Leeson, M. A. History of Montana, 1739-1885. Chicago: Warner, Beers & Company, 1885.
Madison County, Montana: Its Resources, Opportunities and Possibilities. Virginia City: Board of County Commissioners, 1912.
Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 10)
Malone, Michael, Richard Roeder and William Lang. Montana: A History of Two Centuries. Rev. ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991.
Metlen, George R. Report of the Montana State Highway Commission, 1915-1916. Helena: Montana State Highway Commission, 1916.
Montana Place Names from Alzada to Zortman: A Montana Historical Society Guide. Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 2009.
Progressive Men of the State of Montana. Chicago: A. W. Bowen, 1902.
Quivik, Fredric L. Historic Bridges in Montana. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 1982.
Pioneer Trails and Trials: Madison County, 1863-1920. Virginia City: Madison County History Association, 1976.
Progressive Years: Madison County, Vol. II (1920-1950). Virginia City: Madison County History Association, 1983.
Smith, Phyllis. Montana’s Madison County: A History. Bozeman: Gooch Hill Publishers, 2006.
State Wide Highway Planning Survey. History of the Montana State Highway Department, 1913-1942. Helena: Montana State Highway Commission, 1943.
Spritzer, Don. Roadside History of Montana. Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing, 1999.
State Wide Highway Planning Survey, History of the Montana State Highway Department, 1913-1942. Helena: Montana State Highway Commission, 1943.
Stout, Tom. Montana: Its Story and Biography. Three volumes. Chicago: American Historical Society, 1921.
Waddell, J. A. L. Bridge Engineering. Two volumes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1925.
Wolle, Muriel Sibell. Montana Pay Dirt. Athens, Ohio: Sage Books, 1963.
Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 11)
B. PERIODICALS
C. NEWSPAPERS
D. MISCELLANEOUS
Bridge Inspection File No. S00249007+08001. Montana Department of Transportation. Helena, Montana.
County Commissioners Journals. Clerk and Recorders Office. Madison County Courthouse. Virginia City, Montana.
General Land Office Map, July 1870. Viewed at www.glorecords.blm.gov.
General Land Office Records. Viewed at www.glorecords.blm.gov. Viewed on 15 January 2014.
Sloan, Allan King. “Discovering Zenas King,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Archeology. Savannah, Georgia, June 1999.
United States Census Records. Viewed at www.ancestry.com on 15 January 2014.
Upper Madison (Varney) Bridge HAER No. MT-64 (page 12)
Varney, Montana USGS Quadrangle Map, 1988
APPENDIX B MT Highway 287 Bridge Reports (Bridge Inspection Report, As-Built Plans, Right-of- Way Plans), MDT Correspondence STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Bridge Inventory Information Bridge Inspection Date: 02-03-2017
General Location Data (6A) Feature Intersected MADISON RIVER
(9) Location ENNIS
(22) Owner 01 01 State Highway Agency (8) NBI Structure Number P00013048+06151
(SR) Sufficiency Rating 79
(MDT076) Deck Condition Fair-1
(MDT077) Structure Good Condition (MDT058) Structurally 0 Not Deficient Deficient|Functionally Obsolete
A- Location Data (2) MDT Inspection District 02 BUTTE (3) County Code 057 MADISON (4) Place Code 00000 Rural Area (7) Facility Carried by Structure US 287 (MDT020) MDT Maintenance Division 22 BOZEMAN (21) Maintenance Responsibility 01 01 State Highway Agency (MDT027) On|Off System 1 On System (MDT078) MDT Maintenance Section 22-08 Ennis (112) Nbis Bridge Length Y Long Enough
B- Construction Data (MDT017) MDT Construction Project Number BRSTP13-1(29)47 (MDT018) MDT Construction Station 20+04 (MDT019) MDT Drawing Number 17319 (MDT021) MDT UPN 2424 (27) Year Built 2001 (106) Year Reconstructed
C- Improvement Cost Data (75A) Type of Work Proposed (75B) Work to be Completed by (76) Length Of Structure Improvement
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 1 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(94) Bridge Improvement Cost (95) Roadway Improvement Cost (96) Total Project Cost (97) Year Of Improvement Cost Estimate
D- Border State Data (98A-2) Border Bridge - Neighboring FHWA Region Code (98A-1) Border Bridge-Neighboring State Code (98B) Border Bridge-Percent Responsibility (99) Border Bridge Structure Number
E- Historical Structure Data (37) Historical Significance 5 5 Not eligible for NRHP
F - Bridge Location (16) Latitude (DMS) 452050.62 (17) Longitude (DMS) 1114321.01
G - Span and Dimensional Data (33) Bridge Median 0 0 No median (34) Skew 10 (35) Structure Flared 0 0 No flare (42A) Type of Service on Bridge 1 1 Highway (48) Length Of Maximum Span 108.2 (49) Structure Length 322.4 (53) Min Vert Clear Over Bridge Roadway 99.99 (101) Parallel Structure Designation N No parallel structure exists (103) Temporary Structure Designation (116) Minimum Navigation Vertical Clearance
H - Main Span (43A) Main Span Material 6 Prestressed concrete continuous (43B) Main Span Design Type 02 Stringer|Multi-beam or Girder (45) Number Of Spans In Main Unit 3
I - Approach Span (44A) Approach Span Material 0 Not Applicable (44B) Approach Span Design Type 00 Other
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 2 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(46) Number Of Approach Spans 0
J - Deck Data (MDT006) Deck Area 13431 (50A) Left Curb|Sidewalk Width 0 (50B) Right Curb|Sidewalk Width 0 (52) Out-to-Out Deck Width 41.7 (107) Deck Structure Type 1 Concrete Cast-in-Place (108A) Type of Wearing Surface 1 Monolithic concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) (108B) Type of Membrane 0 None (108C) Deck Protection 1 Epoxy Coated Reinforcing
K - Under Bridge Service (28B) Lanes Under the Structure 0 (42B) Type of Service under 5 Waterway (54A) Minimum Vertical Underclearance- N Feature not a highway or railroad Reference Feature (54B) Minimum Vertical Underclearance 0 (55A) Min Lateral Underclear On Right- N Feature not a highway or railroad Reference Feature (55B) Minimum Lateral Underclearance on Right 0 (56) Min Lateral Underclear On Left 0 (69) Underclear, Vertical and Horizontal N Not applicable (111) Pier|abutment Protection (113) Scour Critical Status 8 Brdg. foundations stable for asses. or cal. conditions. Cal. scour is above top of footing.
L - Load and Rating Data (MDT016) Load Rating Date 2012-02-16 (MDT022) Name of Load Rater crh (31) Design load 5 MS 18 (HS 20) (MDT036) SU4 Truck Inventory Rating (MDT037) SU4 Truck Operating Rating (MDT039) SU5 Truck Inventory Rating (MDT040) SU5 Truck Operating Rating (MDT042) SU6 Truck Inventory Rating (MDT043) SU6 Truck Operating Rating (MDT045) SU7 Truck Inventory Rating (MDT046) SU7 Truck Operating Rating
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 3 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(63) Method Used to Determine Operating 1 Load Factor (LF) Rating (64) Operating Rating 67.4 (65) Method Used To Determine Inventory 1 Load Factor (LF) Rating (66) Inventory Rating 40.4 (70) Legal Load Status 5 Equal to or above legal loads
M - General Facility Data (5A) Inventory Route-Record Type 1 Route carried `on` the structure (5B) Route Signing Prefix 2 U.S. numbered highway (5C) Designated Level of Service 1 Mainline (5D) Route Number 00287 (5E) Directional Suffix 2 East (MDT009) Detour Speed -1 (11) Accumulated Miles 48.492 (12) Base Highway Network 1 On Base Network (13A) LRS Number C000013N (13B) Inventory Route, Subroute Number- 00 Subroute Number (19) Bypass|Detour Length 124 (MDT030) Posted speed limit (MPH) 70 (MDT075) Roadway System (MDT087) Mile Post 48.61 (104) NHS Indicator 0 Not on the NHS
N - Base Network Data (28A) Lanes on the Structure 2 (28B) Lanes Under the Structure 0 (32) Approach Roadway Width 39.4 (51) Bridge Roadway Width Curb-To-Curb 39.4 (72) Approach Roadway Alignment 8 Equal Desirable Crit
O - Other NetWork Data (6B) Features Intersected-Critical Facility Indicator (20) Toll 3 On Free Road (MDT048) School Bus Route 0 Not on School Bus Route (100) STRAHNET Highway Designation 0 Not a STRAHNET route
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 4 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
(105) Federal Lands Highways 0 Not applicable (110) National Truck Network 1 Part of National Truck Network
P - Roadway Size and Clearance Data (MDT007) Departmental Route P00013 (10) Minimum Vertical Clearance 16.4 (47) Total Horizontal Clearance 23 (102) Direction of Traffic 2 2-way traffic
Q - Traffic Data (26) Functional Classification 06 Rural, Minor Arterial (29) Average Daily Traffic 3720 (30) Year of Average Daily Traffic 2015 (MDT060) Traffic Volume Class 04 (109) Average Daily Truck Traffic (%) 7 (114) Future Average Daily Traffic 4371 (115) Year Of Future Avg Daily Traffic 2035
General Bridge Notes
Profile - North East
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 5 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Inspection Information
Responsible Person Name Signature Inspector John Jackson QC Jason Johnson
User Begin End Comments J Jackson 02-03-2017 11:02:00 02-03-2017 12:02:00
Day Weather Temperature Comments 02-03-2017 Cloudy 30
R- Inspection Current Value Previous Value (36A) Traffic Safety Features - Bridge Railings 11 (36B) Traffic Safety Features - Transitions 11 (36C) Traffic Safety Features - Approach 11 guardrail (36D) Traffic Safety Features - Approach 11 guardrail Ends (41) Structure Open, Posted, or Closed to A A Traffic (58) Deck Rating 66 (59) Superstructure 77 (60) Substructure 77 (61) Channel 88 (62) Culvert NN (67) Structural Evaluation 77 (68) Deck Geometry 55 (69) Underclear, Vertical and Horizontal NN (71) Waterway Adequacy 88 (MDT076) Deck Condition Fair-1 (MDT077) Structure Condition Good
Inspection Hours and Dates Current Value Previous Values (MDT005) Date Last QA 2000-01-01 (MDT010) FC Inspection Details None FC Next Inspection Date (MDT016) Load Rating Date 2012-02-16 (MDT023) Next Inspection Date 2019-02-03 2017-02-25 (MDT028) Other Inspection Details none
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 6 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Other Inspection Next Date (MDT034) Request Review of Load rating 0 (MDT050) Snooper Required N Special Inspection Next Date (MDT058) Structurally Deficient|Functionally 00 Obsolete Type 1 Underwater Inspection Required Type 1 Underwater Inspection Date Type 1 Underwater Inspection Frequency (months) (MDT064) Type 1 Underwater Inspection Next Date (MDT074) Underwater Inspection Details N Type 2 Underwater Next Inspection Date (90) Inspection Date 2017-02-03 2015-02-25 (91) Regular Inspection Frequency (Months) 24 24.00 (92A-1) FC Inspection Required NN FC Inspection Frequency (Months) (92B-1) Type 2 Underwater Inspection NN Required Type 2 Underwater Inspection Frequency (Months) (92C-1a) Other Inspection Required NN Other Inspection Frequency (Months) Special Inspection Frequency (months) Special Inspection Required FC Inspection Date Special Inspection Date
General Inspection Notes
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 7 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Repair Suggestions: Repair ID Date Type Status Priority Comments Requested
General Bridge Photos Photo #:Profile - North East Location: , Comments:
Photo #:Ice Build up - Upstream Side Location: , Comments:
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 8 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Photo #:Superstructure Location: , Comments:
Photo #:Approach - South East Location: , Comments:
Element Inspection Data
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 12 Reinforced Area 13431 93.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 Concrete Deck (SF) 12 1130 - Cracking Area 13431 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 (RC and Other)
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 9 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 12 1120 - Area 13431 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 Efflorescence/Ru st Staining Current Inspection Notes: 14 full width cracks with light efflorescence in soffit of Spans 1 and 3. Span 2 could not be inspected due to unsafe ice conditions. Deck was covered with snowpack however, a bit of judicious shoveling revealed 3 full width cracks over each pier cap
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 10 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 109 Prestressed Length 1614 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Concrete Girder| Beam (LF) Current Inspection Notes: No apparent defects
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 11 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 205 Reinforced Each 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Concrete Column (EA) Current Inspection Notes: No defects reported in previous inspections. Columns not visible for inspection due to ice build up
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 12 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 215 Reinforced Length 108 96.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 Concrete Abutment (LF) 215 1130 - Cracking Length 108 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 (RC and Other) 215 1120 - Length 108 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Efflorescence/Ru st Staining Current Inspection Notes: Short cracks with efflorescence at all 4 corners Cracks at all 4 corners
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 13 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 234 Reinforced Length 85 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Concrete Cap (LF) Current Inspection Notes: No defects reported in previous inspections. Ice build up prevented close inspection.
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 14 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 330 Steel Bridge Rail Length 646 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (LF) Current Inspection Notes: No apparent defects
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 15 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 515 330 Steel Protective Area 3076 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coating (SF) Current Inspection Notes: No apparent defects
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 16 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 950 Steel Approach Length 100 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guardrail Current Inspection Notes: No apparent defects
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 17 of 18 STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT Structure # 05384 ENNIS - MADISON RIVER
Element # Parent Name Unit Quantity %CS 1 %CS 2 %CS 3 %CS 4 Element 960 Steel Approach Each 4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Guardrail Ends Current Inspection Notes: No apparent defects
General Inspection Notes Previous Inspection Notes Current Inspection Notes
Generated by: MDT on 2/9/2017 page 18 of 18
Ryan Elliott
From: Haddick, Nathan
Ryan,
Sorry for the delay getting back to you ‐ I was out of the office for about 10 days. I need to involve some others in the review of this concept. I am sharing this information with our Planning Division and district office.
Structurally speaking, a solution may be found to widen the existing highway bridge. You are correct when you say that might involve substructure modifications, which could be extensive and costly. We usually try to keep pedestrians as far away from the highway as possible due to safety concerns, but I will need to get the opinion of others on that issue.
Nathan
Nathan Haddick, P.E. Bridge Area Engineer | Butte District Montana Department of Transportation 2701 Prospect Avenue P.O. Box 201001 Helena, MT 59620 406-444-9400 | [email protected]
From: Ryan Elliott
Hi Nathan,
Just looking to see if you’ve had a chance to review this email regarding MDT’s stance on modification to its Highway 287 bridge.
Thanks!
Ryan Elliott, PE | Project Manager Great West Engineering, Inc. DIRECT: 406-495-6168 www.greatwesteng.com
From: Ryan Elliott Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 8:28 AM To: '[email protected]'
1 Hi Nathan,
We’re working with the Town of Ennis, who received funding from other partners to procure a feasibility study of a trail bridge across the Madison River accessing Lions Park.
The primary focus of the study is the relocation of the Varney Bridge downstream of the MDT Highway 287 Bridge (Structure # 05384), however, we’re looking at other potential alternatives including a new single‐span trail bridge and potential modifications to the Highway 287 bridge to accommodate pedestrian/bike travel. Potential alignments are shown below. The red, blue and green alternatives are for either the relocated Varney Bridge or the new single‐span trail bridge. The yellow would be modifications to the existing MDT bridge.
We’re reaching out during this conceptual stage to discuss the feasibility of MDT allowing modifications (adjacent to either lane, preferably downstream) of their bridge to facilitate a pedestrian/bike lane. I understand that this may not be feasible with the existing infrastructure and I‐girder/CIP deck configuration in place and may require significant substructure modifications.
Please let me know MDT’s stance on this potential alternative so we can either consider for inclusion in the feasibility report or eliminate it as a viable alternative. As previously stated, the primary intent of the study is the relocation of Varney Bridge.
Ryan Elliott, PE | Project Manager
Great West Engineering, Inc. PO Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
DIRECT: 406-495-6168 FAX: 406-449-8631 OFFICE: 406-449-8627 www.greatwesteng.com
2 APPENDIX C Design Information
Owner: Town of Ennis Project: Lions Park Trail Bridge Date: 1/6/1900 Designer: Ryan Elliott
Hydrology Calculations From: Montana Stream Stats, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5019
Gaged/Ungaged relationship (Eqn. 6, p. 19, Ch F) Note: Ungaged drainage area must be between 0.5 and 1.5 times the gaged drainage area.
Region: Southwest Region USGS Gage No.: 6040000 Link to map Link to Gage List Enter the Following Variables: 2 DAu= 1722 mi DA u : The Drainage Area of the Ungaged Site of Interest 2 DAg= 1669 mi DA g : The Drainage Area of the Gaged Site (From Streamstats)
DAU/DAG= 1.03
Peak Flows for Gaging Station Peak Flows for Ungaged Site
Regression Coefficients (QAEP,G) (QAEP,U)
a2= 0.939 Q2g= 3830 cfs Q2u= 3944 cfs
a5= 0.818 Q5g= 6010 cfs Q5u= 6166 cfs
a10= 0.755 Q10g= 6930 cfs Q10u= 7096 cfs
a25= 0.690 Q25g= 8010 cfs Q25u= 8185 cfs
a50= 0.647 Q50g= 8770 cfs Q50u= 8949 cfs
a100= 0.609 Q100g= 9480 cfs Q100u= 9662 cfs
a500= 0.533 Q500g= 11000 cfs Q500u= 11185 cfs StreamStats https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/
1 of 2 6/27/2018, 12:53 PM StreamStats Data-Collection Station Report https://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gagepages/html/06040000.htm
StreamStats Data-Collection Station Report
USGS Station Number 06040000 Station Name Madison River near Cameron MT
Click here to link to available data on NWIS-Web for this site.
Descriptive Information
Station Type Streamgage, continuous record Location Lat 45°13'59.28", long 111°45'05.88" referenced to North American Datum of 1983, in SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 sec.EC8, T.7 S., R.1 W., Madison County, MT, Hydrologic Unit 10020007, on right bank 30 ft downstream from Varney Bridge, 1.8 mi downstream from Wigwam Creek, 4.1 mi northwest of Cameron, and at river mile 59.7.
06040000- Madison River nr Cameron, MT Gage Water-stage recorder. Elevation of gage is 5,135 ft, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Prior to Mar. 1, 2011, water-stage recorder at present site at different datum. USGS satellite telemeter is located at the station. Regulation and Diversions Flow regulated by Hebgen Dam. Diversions of about 5,300 acres upstream from station. Regulated? True Period of Record 1952�58, 1960�63, 1968�70, 2011 Remarks Latitude (degrees NAD83) 45.23314 Longitude (degrees NAD83) -111.75163333 Hydrologic unit code 10020007 County 057-Madison HCDN2009 No
Physical Characteristics
Characteristic Name Value Units Citation Number
Descriptive Information High_Flow_Region_Code Southwest dimensionless 297 Low_Flow_Region_Code Southwest dimensionless 297 Flow_Duration_Region_Code Southwest dimensionless 297 Monthly_and_Annual_Region_Code Southwest dimensionless 297 Datum_of_Latitude_Longitude NAD83 dimensionless 30 District_Code 30 dimensionless 30
1 of 29 6/27/2018, 12:46 PM StreamStats Data-Collection Station Report https://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gagepages/html/06040000.htm
Longitude_on_NHD -111.751703587 degrees C 297 Latitude_on_NHD 45.2330571856 degrees C 297 Precipitation Statistics Mean_Annual_Precipitation 32.6982898622 inches 297 Climate Characteristics Mean_Monthly_EvapTrans_Mar_to_Jun_MODIS 1.604999 inches 297 Mean_Monthly_EvapTrans_Jul_to_Oct_MODIS 1.303183 inches 297 Temperature Statistics Mean_Annual_Temperature 34.8161846 degrees F 297 Mean_April_Temperature 32.45287604 degrees F 297 Mean_August_Temperature 56.060204 degrees F 297 Mean_January_Temperature 15.4032692 degrees F 297 Mean_February_Temperature 19.2814484 degrees F 297 Mean_March_Temperature 25.207106 degrees F 297 Mean_May_Temperature 41.2691468 degrees F 297 Mean_June_Temperature 49.7089166 degrees F 297 Mean_July_Temperature 56.830136 degrees F 297 Mean_September_Temperature 46.7557772 degrees F 297 Mean_October_Temperature 36.3580736 degrees F 297 Mean_November_Temperature 22.86158 degrees F 297 Mean_December_Temperature 15.687257 degrees F 297 Topographical Characteristics Percent_above_5000_ft 100 percent 297 Percent_above_6000_ft 95 percent 297 Latitude_of_Basin_Centroid 44.79008 decimal degrees 297 Longitude_of_Basin_Centroid -111.24642 decimal degrees 297 Maximum_Basin_Elevation 11258.5542931 feet 297 Mean_Basin_Elevation 7631.15477428 feet 297 Minimum_Basin_Elevation 5142.27833156 feet 297 Relief 6116.27596155 feet 297 N_Facing_Slopes_gt_30pct_from_30m_DEM 7 percent 297 Slopes_gt_30pct_from_30m_DEM 23 percent 297 Mean_Basin_Slope_from_30m_DEM 19.585915 percent 297 Percent_Above_7000_ft 72.879313713 feet 297 Slopes_gt_50pct_from_30m_DEM 10 percent 297 Percent_above_5500_ft 98.903330083 feet 297 Percent_above_6500_ft 89.7035877202 feet 297 Percent_Upstream_Reservoirs_2011 61.26 percent 297 Land Cover Characteristics Percent_Forest_from_NLCD2001 49 percent 297 Percent_Crops_and_Hay_from_NLCD2001 0.217772798312 percent 297 Percent_Wetlands_from_NLCD2001 1.48940815222 percent 297 Percent_Developed_from_NLCD2001 0.477434613895 percent 297 Percent_Irrigated_in_Montana 0.303124717328 percent 297 Percent_Lakes_from_NHDH 1.2628959634 percent 297 Basin Dimensional Characteristics Compactness_Ratio 3.0912169095 dimensionless 297 Contributing_Drainage_Area 1665 square miles 297 Drainage_Area 1669 square miles 30 Basin_Perimeter 447.148071234 miles 297
Streamflow Statistics
Years Standard Lower Upper 95% Citation of Error, Variance 95% Confidence Start Date End Date Statistic Name Value Units Number Preferred? Record percent log-10 Confidence Interval Remarks Interval
Peak-Flow Statistics Weighted_1_5_Year_Peak_Flood 3830 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station
2 of 29 6/27/2018, 12:46 PM StreamStats Data-Collection Station Report https://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gagepages/html/06040000.htm
record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_5_Year_Peak_Flood 6010 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_10_Year_Peak_Flood 6930 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_25_Year_Peak_Flood 8010 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_50_Year_Peak_Flood 8770 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of
3 of 29 6/27/2018, 12:46 PM StreamStats Data-Collection Station Report https://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gagepages/html/06040000.htm
record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_100_Year_Peak_Flood 9480 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_200_Year_Peak_Flood 10200 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_500_Year_Peak_Flood 11000 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_2_33_Year_Peak_Flood 4790 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed- station record extension. Peak-flow records were synthesized for 79 percent of record for water years 1939-2011. Weighted_2_Year_Peak_Flood 4490 cubic feet per 295 Y 73 10/1/1938 9/30/2011 Peak flow second frequency estimates using mixed-
4 of 29 6/27/2018, 12:46 PM APPENDIX D Environmental Correspondence & Data
MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a
Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Species List Last Updated 05/03/2016 Animal Species of Concern 7 Species of Concern 1 Special Status Species Filtered by the following criteria: A program of the Montana State Library's Township = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences) Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana.
Expand All | Collapse All Introduction Species of Concern Species of Concern 7 Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences)
MAMMALS (MAMMALIA) 1 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences)
SCIENTIFIC NAME % OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE % OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY (COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Corynorhinus Vespertilionidae G4 S3 Sensitive - Known SENSITIVE SGCN3 5% 87% Caves in forested habitats townsendii Bats on Forests (BD, BRT, Town sen d' s B ig-eare d Bat CG, FLAT, HLC, KOOT, LOLO) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Granite, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Phillips, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Silver Bow, Treasure, Valley, Yellowstone
BIRDS (AVES) 4 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences)
SCIENTIFIC NAME % OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE % OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY (COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Ardea herodias Ardeidae G5 S3 MBTA SGCN3 3% 100% Riparian forest Great Blue Heron Bitterns / Egrets / Herons Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, / Night-Herons Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Small breeding population size, evidence of recent declines, and declining regeneration of riparian cottonwood forests due to altered hydrology and grazing. Buteo regalis Accipitridae G4 S3B MBTA; BCC10; SENSITIVE SGCN3 11% 95% Sagebrush grassland Ferruginous Hawk Hawks / Kites / Eagles BCC17 Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Blaine, Broadwater, Carter, Cascade, Chouteau, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Fergus, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, G o l d e n Valley, Hill, Jefferson, Judith Basin, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Prairie, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Stillwater, Teton, Toole, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone Centrocercus Phasianidae G3G4 S2 Sensitive - Known SENSITIVE SGCN2 17% 75% Sagebrush urophasianus Upland Game Birds on Forests (BD) Greater Sage-Grouse Sensitive - Suspected on Forests (CG, HLC) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Gallatin, Garfield, Golden Valley, Hill, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Powder River, Prairie, Rosebud, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone Spizella breweri Passerellidae G5 S3B MBTA; BCC10; SENSITIVE SGCN3 12% 100% Sagebrush Brewer's Sparrow New World Sparrows BCC17 Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Blaine, Broadwater, Carbon, Carter, Chouteau, Custer, Dawson, Deer Lodge, Fallon, Fergus, Flathead, Gallatin, Garfield, Glacier, Golden Valley, Granite, Hill, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Mccone, Meagher, Missoula, Musselshell, Park, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Powell, Prairie, Ravalli, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, Valley, Wheatland, Wibaux, Yellowstone State Rank Reason: Species faces threats from loss of sagebrush habitats it is dependent on as a result of habitat conversion for agriculture and increased frequency of fire as a result of weed encroachment and drought.
FISH (ACTINOPTERYGII) 1 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences)
SCIENTIFIC NAME % OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE % OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY (COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Thymallus arcticus Salmonidae G5 S1 Sensitive - Known SENSITIVE SGCN1 5% Mountain rivers, lakes Arctic Grayling Trout on Forests (BD) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Deer Lodge, Madison, Silver Bow State Rank Reason: The Arctic Grayling is currently ranked "S1" in Montana because it is at extremely high risk of extirpation in the state due to very limited and/or rapidly declining population numbers, range and/or habitat.
INVERTEBRATES - MOLLUSKS 1 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences)
SCIENTIFIC NAME % OF GLOBAL COMMON NAME FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE BREEDING RANGE % OF MT THAT IS TAXA SORT FAMILY (COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM FWP SWAP IN MT BREEDING RANGE HABITAT Margaritifera falcata Margaritiferidae G5 S2 Sensitive - Known SENSITIVE SGCN2 10% 26% Mountain streams, rivers Western Pearlshell Margaritiferid Mussels on Forests (BD, BRT, CG, HLC, KOOT, LOLO) Sensitive - Suspected on Forests (FLAT) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Broadwater, Cascade, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Granite, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Missoula, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, Silver Bow State Rank Reason: The Western Pearlshell is currently ranked a "S2" Species of Concern in MT and is at risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state. This species is widespread in geographic area, but is declining in terms of area occupied and the number of sites with viable individuals; populations showing repeated reproduction (at least several age classes) are now the exception rather than the rule. Montana currently has only 14 "excellent" viable populations out of ~200 known locations (Stagliano 2010). Short term trends show populations declining by ~20% over the last decade (Stagliano 2015).
Potential Species of Concern Special Status Species Additions To Statewide List
1 of 2 6/26/2018, 9:32 PM MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a
Species Removed From Statewide List Species of Greatest Inventory Need
Citation for data on this website: Montana Animal Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on 6/26/2018, from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=a
2 of 2 6/26/2018, 9:32 PM MTNHP.org - SOC Report http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p
Montana Natural Heritage - SOC Report Species List Last Updated 05/03/2016 Plant Species of Concern 7 Species of Concern Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences) A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana. Expand All | Collapse All Introduction Species of Concern Species of Concern 7 Species Filtered by the following criteria: Township = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences)
FLOWERING PLANTS - DICOTS (MAGNOLIOPSIDA) 7 SPECIES TOWNSHIP = 006S001W (based on mapped Species Occurrences)
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FAMILY (SCIENTIFIC) GLOBAL STATE MNPS THREAT TAXA SORT OTHER NAMES FAMILY (COMMON) RANK RANK USFWS USFS BLM CATEGORY HABITAT Astragalus terminalis Fabaceae G3 S2S3 SENSITIVE 3 Sagebrush steppe Railhead Milkvetch Pea Family Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Gallatin, Madison State Rank Reason: Astragalus terminalus is a regional endemic known from southwest Montana, east-central Idaho and northwest Wyoming. In Montana it is documented from Beaverhead County and the Upper Madison River Valley. The species appears to be vulnerable to intensive grazing and competition from noxious weeds, at least in low-elevation areas. Atriplex truncata Amaranthaceae G5 S3 3Wetland/Riparian Wedge-leaf Saltbush Amaranth (Pigweed) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Deer Lodge, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Madison, Park, Powell Family State Rank Reason: Known from two extent occurrences; one in the Centennial Valley and the other near Warm Springs. Also, known historically from four collections in the western half of the state. Additional population and trend data are needed to better evaluate the species' vulnerability. Erigeron parryi Asteraceae G2G3 S2S3 3 Slopes and ridges (Open, Parry's Fleabane Aster/Sunflowers Montane) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Big Horn, Broadwater, Carbon, Jefferson, Madison State Rank Reason: Though the species is restricted to southwest Montana, it is locally common at many of the sites it occupies. Additionally, threats to the species appear to be low as a result of the rocky, sparsely vegetated habitat it prefers. Pleiacanthus spinosus Stephanomeria spinosa, Asteraceae G4 S2S3 3 Grasslands (low-elevation) Spiny Skeletonweed Lygodesmia spinosa Aster/Sunflowers Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Carbon, Madison, Park State Rank Reason: This plant occurs in Montana at the northeastern edge of its range, where it is known only from grasslands in the Madison Valley. Currently, there are only a few extant occurrences and three historical collections from this area. No specific threats have been reported. Trend data are not available. However, parts of the Madison Valley are being subdivided and habitat is likely to be negatively impacted. Primula alcalina Primulaceae G2 S2 Sensitive - Known on SENSITIVE 1 Wetland/Riparian Alkali Primrose Primrose Family Forests (BD) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Madison State Rank Reason: Primula alcalina is a regional endemic, occuring only in east-central Idaho and adjacent Montana, where it is known from just one recently documented population in Beaverhead County on BLM and National Forest lands. Another population documented by a historical collection from 1920 by F. Rose has not been relocated. The extant location is actively grazed and the species may be vulnerable to impacts associated with cattle grazing and activities that alter the hydrology (irrigation, diversions). Primula incana Primulaceae G5 S3 Sensitive - Known on 2Wetland/Riparian Mealy Primrose Primrose Family Forests (BD) Sensitive - Historically known, not recently documented on Forests (CG) Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Broadwater, Carbon, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Madison, Meagher, Powell, Sheridan, Silver Bow, Teton State Rank Reason: Primula incana is known from a few dozen extant occurrences in Montana, including several moderate to large populations. However, most known populations are small, and the status of several populations is uncertain. Ownership of the occupied areas is varied and includes federal, state and private lands, including several locations managed or protected for their conservation values. However, unprotected private lands host many occurrences. Cattle grazing may have some negative effects on the species including the direct effects of herbivory and trampling. The species is also vulnerable to activities that alter the hydrology of the wetlands it occupies. Continued threats and potentially declining trends, particularly in regards to habitat quality make the species' vulnerable to local extirpation. Senecio hydrophilus Asteraceae G5 S3 Alkali-marsh Ragwort Aster/Sunflowers Species Occurrences verified in these Counties: Beaverhead, Broadwater, Flathead, Gallatin, Lincoln, Madison, Missoula, Park, Powell State Rank Reason: Senecio hydrophilus is present in alkaline habitats within a portion of southwest Montana. Plants are not that common, and occur in low- elevation wetlands that can be victum to dewatering.
Potential Species of Concern Special Status Species Additions To Statewide List Species Removed From Statewide List
Citation for data on this website: Montana Plant Species of Concern Report. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved on 6/26/2018, from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p
1 of 1 6/26/2018, 9:34 PM
Lions Park Trail Bridge
1:4,150 0 0.035 0.07 0.14 mi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected] 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife June 27, 2018 Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Wetlands Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other
Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper Soil Map—Madison County Area, Montana (Lions Park Trail Bridge) 111° 43' 26'' W 111° 43' 2'' W
443290 443340 443390 443440 443490 443540 443590 443640 443690 443740 443790 45° 20' 57'' N 45° 20' 57'' N 5021990 5021990 5021940 5021940 5021890 5021890 5021840 5021840 5021790 5021790 5021740 5021740 5021690
5021690 Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
45° 20' 46'' N 45° 20' 46'' N 443290 443340 443390 443440 443490 443540 443590 443640 443690 443740 443790
Map Scale: 1:2,400 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters
N 0 35 70 140 210 111° 43' 2'' W 111° 43' 26'' W Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Madison County Area, Montana (Lions Park Trail Bridge)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) 1:24,000. Stony Spot Soils Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Soil Map Unit Points contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Special Line Features Special Point Features scale. Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Closed Depression Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravelly Spot projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Major Roads distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Background Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: Madison County Area, Montana Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 20, Oct 3, 2017 Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger.
Saline Spot Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Severely Eroded Spot imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
106 Rivra, cool-Fluvaquents 14.6 59.1% complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 107 Rivra-Ryell-Havre complex, 2.2 8.8% cool, 0 to 2 percent slopes 231 Water 7.9 32.1% Totals for Area of Interest 24.7 100.0%
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Corrosion of Steel—Madison County Area, Montana (Lions Park Trail Bridge) 111° 43' 26'' W 111° 43' 2'' W
443290 443340 443390 443440 443490 443540 443590 443640 443690 443740 443790 45° 20' 57'' N 45° 20' 57'' N 5021990 5021990 5021940 5021940 5021890 5021890 5021840 5021840 5021790 5021790 5021740 5021740 5021690
5021690 Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
45° 20' 46'' N 45° 20' 46'' N 443290 443340 443390 443440 443490 443540 443590 443640 443690 443740 443790
Map Scale: 1:2,400 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters
N 0 35 70 140 210 111° 43' 2'' W 111° 43' 26'' W Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Corrosion of Steel—Madison County Area, Montana (Lions Park Trail Bridge)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI) Background The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) Aerial Photography 1:24,000.
Soils Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause High misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Moderate line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Low scale. Not rated or not available Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Soil Rating Lines measurements. High Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Moderate Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Low Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Not rated or not available projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Soil Rating Points distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the High Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Moderate This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Low of the version date(s) listed below. Not rated or not available Soil Survey Area: Madison County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Oct 3, 2017 Water Features Streams and Canals Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Transportation Rails Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
Interstate Highways The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background US Routes imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Major Roads
Local Roads
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Corrosion of Steel—Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Corrosion of Steel
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
106 Rivra, cool-Fluvaquents High 14.6 59.1% complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 107 Rivra-Ryell-Havre High 2.2 8.8% complex, cool, 0 to 2 percent slopes 231 Water 7.9 32.1% Totals for Area of Interest 24.7 100.0%
Description
"Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.
The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high." Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Corrosion of Concrete—Madison County Area, Montana (Lions Park Trail Bridge) 111° 43' 26'' W 111° 43' 2'' W
443290 443340 443390 443440 443490 443540 443590 443640 443690 443740 443790 45° 20' 57'' N 45° 20' 57'' N 5021990 5021990 5021940 5021940 5021890 5021890 5021840 5021840 5021790 5021790 5021740 5021740 5021690
5021690 Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
45° 20' 46'' N 45° 20' 46'' N 443290 443340 443390 443440 443490 443540 443590 443640 443690 443740 443790
Map Scale: 1:2,400 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters
N 0 35 70 140 210 111° 43' 2'' W 111° 43' 26'' W Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Corrosion of Concrete—Madison County Area, Montana (Lions Park Trail Bridge)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI) Background The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) Aerial Photography 1:24,000.
Soils Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause High misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Moderate line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Low scale. Not rated or not available Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Soil Rating Lines measurements. High Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Moderate Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Low Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Not rated or not available projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Soil Rating Points distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the High Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Moderate This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Low of the version date(s) listed below. Not rated or not available Soil Survey Area: Madison County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Oct 3, 2017 Water Features Streams and Canals Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Transportation Rails Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
Interstate Highways The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background US Routes imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Major Roads
Local Roads
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Corrosion of Concrete—Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Corrosion of Concrete
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
106 Rivra, cool-Fluvaquents Low 14.6 59.1% complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 107 Rivra-Ryell-Havre Low 2.2 8.8% complex, cool, 0 to 2 percent slopes 231 Water 7.9 32.1% Totals for Area of Interest 24.7 100.0%
Description
"Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.
The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high." Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Engineering Properties---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Engineering Properties
This table gives the engineering classifications and the range of engineering properties for the layers of each soil in the survey area. Hydrologic soil group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. The criteria for determining Hydrologic soil group is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx? content=17757.wba). Listing HSGs by soil map unit component and not by soil series is a new concept for the engineers. Past engineering references contained lists of HSGs by soil series. Soil series are continually being defined and redefined, and the list of soil series names changes so frequently as to make the task of maintaining a single national list virtually impossible. Therefore, the criteria is now used to calculate the HSG using the component soil properties and no such national series lists will be maintained. All such references are obsolete and their use should be discontinued. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonal high water table, saturated hydraulic conductivity after prolonged wetting, and depth to a layer with a very slow water transmission rate. Changes in soil properties caused by land management or climate changes also cause the hydrologic soil group to change. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. There are four hydrologic soil groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the dual groups, the first letter is for drained areas and the second letter is for undrained areas. The four hydrologic soil groups are described in the following paragraphs: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated.
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 6 Engineering Properties---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These terms are defined according to percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the fraction of the soil that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. "Loam," for example, is soil that is 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. If the content of particles coarser than sand is 15 percent or more, an appropriate modifier is added, for example, "gravelly." Classification of the soils is determined according to the Unified soil classification system (ASTM, 2005) and the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2004). The Unified system classifies soils according to properties that affect their use as construction material. Soils are classified according to particle-size distribution of the fraction less than 3 inches in diameter and according to plasticity index, liquid limit, and organic matter content. Sandy and gravelly soils are identified as GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, and SC; silty and clayey soils as ML, CL, OL, MH, CH, and OH; and highly organic soils as PT. Soils exhibiting engineering properties of two groups can have a dual classification, for example, CL-ML. The AASHTO system classifies soils according to those properties that affect roadway construction and maintenance. In this system, the fraction of a mineral soil that is less than 3 inches in diameter is classified in one of seven groups from A-1 through A-7 on the basis of particle-size distribution, liquid limit, and plasticity index. Soils in group A-1 are coarse grained and low in content of fines (silt and clay). At the other extreme, soils in group A-7 are fine grained. Highly organic soils are classified in group A-8 on the basis of visual inspection. If laboratory data are available, the A-1, A-2, and A-7 groups are further classified as A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6, A-2-7, A-7-5, or A-7-6. As an additional refinement, the suitability of a soil as subgrade material can be indicated by a group index number. Group index numbers range from 0 for the best subgrade material to 20 or higher for the poorest. Percentage of rock fragments larger than 10 inches in diameter and 3 to 10 inches in diameter are indicated as a percentage of the total soil on a dry-weight basis. The percentages are estimates determined mainly by converting volume percentage in the field to weight percentage. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H). Percentage (of soil particles) passing designated sieves is the percentage of the soil fraction less than 3 inches in diameter based on an ovendry weight. The sieves, numbers 4, 10, 40, and 200 (USA Standard Series), have openings of 4.76, 2.00, 0.420, and 0.074 millimeters, respectively. Estimates are based on laboratory tests of soils sampled in the survey area and in nearby areas and on estimates made in the field. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H). Liquid limit and plasticity index (Atterberg limits) indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. The estimates are based on test data from the survey area or from nearby areas and on field examination. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H). References: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 6 Engineering Properties---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 6 Engineering Properties---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Report—Engineering Properties
Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The asterisk '*' denotes the representative texture; other possible textures follow the dash. The criteria for determining the hydrologic soil group for individual soil components is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba). Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H).
Engineering Properties–Madison County Area, Montana
Map unit symbol and Pct. of Hydrolo Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticit soil name map gic limit y index unit group Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches
In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 106—Rivra, cool- Fluvaquents complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Rivra 40 A/D 0-5 Gravelly sandy loam SM A-1, A-2 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 65-73- 60-68- 40-50- 20-28- 20-23 NP-3 -5 80 75 60 35 -25 5-9 Gravelly loamy sand SM A-1 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 65-73- 60-68- 30-40- 10-18- — NP 80 75 50 25 9-60 Very gravelly sand, GW, GW- A-1 0- 0- 0 15-23- 25-40- 15-30- 5-15- 25 0- 5- 10 — NP very gravelly GM 30 55 45 coarse sand, very gravelly loamy sand
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 6 Engineering Properties---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Engineering Properties–Madison County Area, Montana
Map unit symbol and Pct. of Hydrolo Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticit soil name map gic limit y index unit group Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches
In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H 107—Rivra-Ryell- Havre complex, cool, 0 to 2 percent slopes Rivra 40 A/D 0-5 Gravelly sandy loam SM A-1, A-2 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 65-73- 60-68- 40-50- 20-28- 20-23 NP-3 -5 80 75 60 35 -25 5-9 Gravelly loamy sand SM A-1 0- 0- 0 0- 8- 15 65-73- 60-68- 30-40- 10-18- — NP 80 75 50 25 9-60 Very gravelly sand, GW, GW- A-1 0- 0- 0 15-23- 25-40- 15-30- 5-15- 25 0- 5- 10 — NP very gravelly GM 30 55 45 coarse sand, very gravelly loamy sand Ryell 25 B 0-7 Loam CL-ML, A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 100-100 85-90- 55-63- 20-25 NP-5 ML -100 -100 95 70 -30 -10 7-23 Silt loam, loam ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 95-98-1 85-90- 60-73- 25-30 NP-3 -5 -100 00 95 85 -35 23-60 Very gravelly loamy GW, GW- A-1 0- 0- 0 0- 3- 5 30-38- 20-28- 10-18- 0- 5- 10 — NP sand, very GM 45 35 25 gravelly sand, extremely gravelly sand Havre 20 B 0-9 Loam CL-ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 100-100 80-88- 60-75- 20-25 5-8 -10 -100 -100 95 90 -30 9-14 Loam, sandy loam, CL-ML, A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-100- 90-95-1 65-80- 40-55- 20-23 5-8 -10 fine sandy loam SC-SM 100 00 95 70 -25 14-36 Loam, sandy loam, CL-ML, A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-100- 90-95-1 65-80- 40-55- 20-23 5-8 -10 fine sandy loam SC-SM 100 00 95 70 -25 36-60 Loam, sandy loam, SC-SM, A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-100- 90-95-1 65-80- 40-55- 20-23 5-8 -10 fine sandy loam CL-ML 100 00 95 70 -25
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 6 Engineering Properties---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Madison County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Oct 3, 2017
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 6 of 6 Prime and other Important Farmlands---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Prime and other Important Farmlands
This table lists the map units in the survey area that are considered important farmlands. Important farmlands consist of prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide or local importance. This list does not constitute a recommendation for a particular land use. In an effort to identify the extent and location of important farmlands, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with other interested Federal, State, and local government organizations, has inventoried land that can be used for the production of the Nation's food supply. Prime farmland is of major importance in meeting the Nation's short- and long- range needs for food and fiber. Because the supply of high-quality farmland is limited, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes that responsible levels of government, as well as individuals, should encourage and facilitate the wise use of our Nation's prime farmland. Prime farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for these uses. It could be cultivated land, pastureland, forestland, or other land, but it is not urban or built-up land or water areas. The soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply are those needed for the soil to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when proper management, including water management, and acceptable farming methods are applied. In general, prime farmland has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, an acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. The water supply is dependable and of adequate quality. Prime farmland is permeable to water and air. It is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods, and it either is not frequently flooded during the growing season or is protected from flooding. Slope ranges mainly from 0 to 6 percent. More detailed information about the criteria for prime farmland is available at the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. For some of the soils identified in the table as prime farmland, measures that overcome a hazard or limitation, such as flooding, wetness, and droughtiness, are needed. Onsite evaluation is needed to determine whether or not the hazard or limitation has been overcome by corrective measures. A recent trend in land use in some areas has been the loss of some prime farmland to industrial and urban uses. The loss of prime farmland to other uses puts pressure on marginal lands, which generally are more erodible, droughty, and less productive and cannot be easily cultivated.
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Prime and other Important Farmlands---Madison County Area, Montana Lions Park Trail Bridge
Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops, such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, and other fruits and vegetables. It has the special combination of soil quality, growing season, moisture supply, temperature, humidity, air drainage, elevation, and aspect needed for the soil to economically produce sustainable high yields of these crops when properly managed. The water supply is dependable and of adequate quality. Nearness to markets is an additional consideration. Unique farmland is not based on national criteria. It commonly is in areas where there is a special microclimate, such as the wine country in California. In some areas, land that does not meet the criteria for prime or unique farmland is considered to be farmland of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. The criteria for defining and delineating farmland of statewide importance are determined by the appropriate State agencies. Generally, this land includes areas of soils that nearly meet the requirements for prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some areas may produce as high a yield as prime farmland if conditions are favorable. Farmland of statewide importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by State law. In some areas that are not identified as having national or statewide importance, land is considered to be farmland of local importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. This farmland is identified by the appropriate local agencies. Farmland of local importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by local ordinance. Report—Prime and other Important Farmlands
Prime and other Important Farmlands–Madison County Area, Montana
Map Symbol Map Unit Name Farmland Classification
106 Rivra, cool-Fluvaquents complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not prime farmland 107 Rivra-Ryell-Havre complex, cool, 0 to 2 percent slopes Farmland of local importance 231 Water Not prime farmland
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Madison County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Oct 3, 2017
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/26/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Montana Ecological Services Office In Reply Refer To: 585 Shephard Way, Suite 1 M.29 Public 06E11000-2018-TA- Helena, Montana 59601-6287 0516; 06E11000- 2018-CPA-0133
July 16, 2018
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, Montana 59604
Dear Mr. Elliott:
Thank you for your letter of July 3, 2018, received in this office on July 6, requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comment regarding the proposed Lions Park pedestrian bridge over the Madison River in Ennis, Madison County, Montana. A project location map, site photos, and design alternatives were attached to your letter. Two alternatives are being considered for bridge construction: (1) salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59-foot approach span, and (2) installation of a new 250-foot single-span pedestrian truss bridge. Our comments are prepared under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species that may occur in Madison County include Ute ladies’-tresses (threatened), red knot (threatened), Canada lynx (threatened), wolverine (proposed), and whitebark pine (candidate). The Canada lynx may be present in the general project vicinity as a rare transient. Ute ladies’-tresses, red knot, wolverine, and whitebark pine are not expected to be present in the project vicinity because the project falls outside of their specific habitat(s) and/or expected current range. No critical habitat occurs in the project area.
Additionally, grizzly bears may occur in the general project area. Although grizzly bears in this area are no longer listed under the Act, the Service recommends implementation of the following (or similar) conservation measures to manage potential bear attractants and reduce the risk of human-grizzly bear conflicts related to this project: 1. Promptly clean up any project related spills, litter, garbage, debris, etc. 2. Allow no overnight camping within the project vicinity, except in designated campgrounds, by any crew member or other personnel associated with this project.
2
3. Store all food, food related items, petroleum products, antifreeze, garbage, personal hygiene items, and other attractants inside a closed, hard-sided vehicle or commercially manufactured bear resistant container. 4. Remove garbage from the project site daily and dispose of it in accordance with all applicable regulations. 5. Notify the Project Manager of any animal carcasses found in the area. 6. Notify the Project Manager of any grizzly bears observed in the vicinity of the project.
If a federal agency authorizes, funds, or carries out a proposed action, the responsible federal agency, or its delegated agent, is required to evaluate whether the action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat. If the federal agency or its designated agent determines the action “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” listed species or critical habitat, the responsible federal agency shall request formal section 7 consultation with this office. If the evaluation shows a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination, concurrence from this office is required. If the evaluation shows a “no effect” determination for listed species or critical habitat, further consultation is not necessary. If a private entity receives federal funding for a construction project, or if any federal permit or license is required, the federal agency may designate the fund recipient or permittee as its agent for purposes of informal section 7 consultation. The funding, permitting, or licensing federal agency is responsible to ensure that its actions comply with the ESA, including obtaining concurrence from the Service for any action that may affect a threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat.
Eagles and other Migratory Birds
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. The BGEPA defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest or disturb. "Disturb” means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment.
The Service is not aware of any known eagle nests within 0.5 mile of the proposed project. If active eagle nests are present within 0.5 mile of the project, we recommend that the proponent comply with seasonal construction timing restrictions and distance buffers specified in the 2010 Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: An Addendum to Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (1994) in order to avoid/minimize the risk for eagle take. 3
To the extent practicable, necessary vegetation clearing, grubbing, and filling construction activities should be scheduled so as to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds, if present in the project area. If work is proposed to take place in migratory bird habitats that may result in take of migratory birds, their eggs, or active nests, the Service recommends that the project proponent take all practicable measures to avoid and minimize take, such as maintaining adequate buffers, to protect the birds until the young have fledged. Active nests may not be removed. The Service has developed, and continues to revise and develop, general and industry- specific conservation measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds (https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation- measures.php). We recommend that the proposed project consider and incorporate these measures into project design, construction, and documentation as appropriate.
Other Comments:
• The Service recommends keeping disturbances to the stream bank, channel, and any associated wetlands to the minimum extent and duration possible, with as much occurring “in the dry” as possible. This would reduce disruptions to aquatic resources during construction, resulting in fewer short-term impacts to aquatic species relative to stream bed and bank disturbance and sediment inputs. • All appropriate erosion and sediment control efforts and measures should be implemented during and following construction to avoid introducing sediments or other contaminants to downstream waters. • We recommend coordination with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks at 1420 East Sixth Ave., P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana 59620-0701, (406) 444-2535, and the Montana Natural Heritage Program, 1515 East 6th Avenue, Box 201800, Helena, Montana 59620- 1800, (406) 444-5354. Both of these agencies may be able to provide updated, site- specific information regarding fish, wildlife, and sensitive plant resources occurring in the proposed project area, as well as specific project-related recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lions Park pedestrian bridge. The Service appreciates your efforts to incorporate fish and wildlife resource concerns into your project planning. If you have further questions related to this issue, please do not hesitate to contact Karen Newlon at (406) 449-5225, extension 209.
Sincerely,
for Jodi L. Bush Office Supervisor
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT HELENA REGULATORY OFFICE 10 WEST 15TH STREET, SUITE 2200 HELENA, MONTANA 59626 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF July 24, 2018
Regulatory Branch Montana State Program Corps No. NWO-2018-01277
Subject: Town of Ennis (Great West Engineering) – Pedestrian Bridge Construction - Madison River - (Madison County)
Ryan Elliott Great West Engineering P.O. Box 4817 Helena, Montana 59604
Dear Mr. Elliott:
We are responding to your request for Department of Army (DA) permitting regarding the above-referenced project. Specifically, you are proposing to Construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River. The project is located at Latitude 45.348°, Longitude -111.7219°, over the Madison River, within Section 4, Township 6 S, Range 1 W, Principal Meridian, Madison County, Montana.
The mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Program is to protect the Nation’s aquatic resources while allowing reasonable development through fair, flexible and balanced permit decisions. In particular, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, we work to protect the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the Nation’s aquatic resources. Projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the potential benefits and detriments that may occur as a result of the proposal. In all cases an applicant must avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources to the greatest extent practicable.
Under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), DA permits are required for the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. include the area below the ordinary high water mark of stream channels and lakes or ponds connected to the tributary system, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. Isolated waters and wetlands, as well as man-made channels, may be waters of the U.S. in certain circumstances, which must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Based on the information provided in your submittal, we are unable to ascertain if regulated activities are proposed or if jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present within the project area. If your final design includes the placement of dredged or fill material in any jurisdictional area described above, or otherwise requires authorization by a DA permit, please submit a permit application to this office prior to starting any work. After a review of the materials submitted we will determine what type of permit, if any, will be required. In order to provide the necessary information you may use the Montana Joint Permit Application Form, found at the following address: http://www.dnrc.mt.gov/licenses-and-permits/stream-permitting. If you do not wish to use this form, or do not have internet access please contact our office at the address below to obtain more information.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-2-
Note that this letter is not a DA authorization to proceed. It only informs you of your need to obtain a DA permit if waters of the U.S. will be affected. If waters of the U.S. will not be affected by a jurisdictional activity a DA permit will not be required for the project.
Please refer to identification number NWO-2018-01277 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Jade Clabaugh at 10 W 15th Street, Suite 2200, Helena, MT, 59626, by email at [email protected], or telephone at (406) 441-1365.
Sincerely,
Jade M. Clabaugh Regulatory Project Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
From: Strasheim, Kerri To: Ryan Elliott Subject: FW: Floodplain comment request Date: Monday, July 9, 2018 3:51:07 PM
Ryan –
See below for MT DNRC comment at this time.
Thank you, Kerri ______Kerri Strasheim Regional Manager – Gallatin, Madison, and Park Counties MT DNRC Water Resources 2273 Boot Hill Court, Suite 110 Bozeman, MT 59715 Ph: 406-556-4504 Fax: 406-587-9726 [email protected]
From: Pitman, Marc Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 3:44 PM To: Strasheim, Kerri
Kerri,
Not enough information is provided at this time to review this project under the Floodplain Development Permitting requirements of the Community’s Floodplain Regulations. The only comment that I can offer at this time is that a floodplain development permit is required. A floodplain development permit application must be submitted through the local floodplain administrator for the Town of Ennis, who happens to be Johnathan Weaver, PE of Great West Engineering.
Marc Pitman, PE CFM Regional Engineer, Kalispell DNRC Water Resources Division 655 Timberwolf Parkway, Suite 4 Phone (406) 752-2713 Fax: (406) 752-2843 Email: [email protected]
From: Strasheim, Kerri Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 3:29 PM To: Pitman, Marc
Marc or Steve –
I am forwarding on Ryan’s request for floodplain comments.
Thank you! Kerri ______Kerri Strasheim Regional Manager – Gallatin, Madison, and Park Counties MT DNRC Water Resources 2273 Boot Hill Court, Suite 110 Bozeman, MT 59715 Ph: 406-556-4504 Fax: 406-587-9726 [email protected]
From: Axline, Jon To: Ryan Elliott Subject: RE: Request for Comments - Ennis Trail Bridge Date: Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:13:01 AM
Hi Ryan- I think it great that the county is seriously considering using the Varney Bridge as a pedestrian crossing at Ennis. There are examples where using an historic bridge as a pedestrian crossing in Montana has been a boon to the communities in which they’re located. Fort Benton, Great Falls, and Missoula immediately come to mind. This way, an important part of the history of Madison County and of bridge construction in Montana is preserved and the span still serves a valuable function. Please consider this my support for the adaptive reuse of this historic structure.
Jon Axline Historian | Rail, Transit & Planning Division Montana Department of Transportation 2701 Prospect Avenue P.O. Box 201001 Helena, MT 59620 406-444-6258 | [email protected]
From: Ryan Elliott
Hi Jon,
Please see the attached PDF regarding request for comment on the Ennis – Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge Project.
Thanks!
Ryan Elliott, PE | Project Manager
Great West Engineering, Inc. PO Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
DIRECT: 406-495-6168 FAX: 406-449-8631 OFFICE: 406-449-8627 www.greatwesteng.com
Mapping DEQ's Data http://svc.mt.gov/deq/wmadst/default.aspx?type=SWP
Mapping DEQ's Data
Help About Legend Selections Basemaps Search for Address: ex. 118 Roberts St, 59601 Find Address
0 300 600ft
1 of 1 12/31/2018, 1:11 PM
July 3, 2018
Mr. Todd Tillinger, P.E. Montana State Program Manager Army Corps of Engineers 10 West 15th Street, Suite 2200 Helena, MT 59626
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Mr. Tillinger:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on any wetlands, floodplains, or other ACOE items of concern that may be present in this area. All necessary permits (i.e. Corps 404, FWP 124, DEQ 318, etc.) will be applied for during the design phase. .
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File
July 3, 2018
Ms. Peggy MacEwan Permitting and Compliance Division Department of Environmental Quality PO Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0091
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Mr. MacEwan:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on air quality, water quality, and any other items DEQ would be concerned with in this area and how they may conflict with our project.
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File
July 3, 2018
Ms. Kerri Strasheim Department of Natural Resources and Conservation DNRC Bozeman Regional Office 2273 Boot Hill Court, Suite 110 Bozeman, MT 59715
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Ms. Strasheim:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on wetlands or floodplains in this area and how they may conflict with our project. A hydraulic analysis of the structure will be undertaken during the design phase. We have contacted the Madison County and Town of Ennis Floodplain Administrators for their comments.
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File
July 3, 2018
Ms. Charity Fechter Madison County Floodplain Administrator PO Box 278 Virginia City, MT 59755
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Ms. Fechter:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on floodplains in this area and how they may conflict with our project. A complete hydraulic analysis of the structure will be undertaken during the design phase. The Town of Ennis Floodplain Administrator has been contacted for their comments.
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File
July 3, 2018
Mr. Dave Moser Region 3 Fisheries Biologist Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Mr. Moser:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on fish, wildlife, wetlands, and/or threatened or endangered species that may be present in these areas. All necessary stream permits (i.e. FWP 124, DEQ 318, Corps 404, etc.) will be applied for during the bridge design process.
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File
July 3, 2018
Mr. Damon Murdo Cultural Records Manager State Historic Preservation Office 1410 8th Avenue P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620-1202
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Mr. Murdo:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on the historical and cultural heritage of this area and how it may conflict with our project. Please include in your response recommendations regarding the need for an archeological/historical/architectural inventory of the area.
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File
July 3, 2018
Mr. Jonathan Weaver Town of Ennis – Floodplain Administrator [email protected]
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Mr. Weaver:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on floodplains in this area and how they may conflict with our project. A complete hydraulic analysis of the structure will be undertaken during the design phase. The Madison County Floodplain Administrator has been contacted for their comments.
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File
July 3, 2018
Ms. Jodi Bush Project Leader Mountain-Prairie Region US Fish and Wildlife Service 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1 Helena, MT 59601
Re: Town of Ennis - Lions Park Pedestrian Bridge - Feasibility Report
Dear Ms. Bush:
The Town of Ennis is investigating the feasibility of the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the Madison River just downstream of the MT Highway 287 Bridge and adjacent to Lions Park. Specifically, the project is evaluating two primary alternatives: • Salvage and installation of the historic two-span Varney Bridge with a new 59’ approach span • Installation of a new, 250’ single-span pedestrian truss bridge.
The project site is located on the boundary of the Town of Ennis and is located in Section 4, Township 6 and Range 1 West. The general latitude and longitude of the project is N45.348°, W111.7219°. Refer to the location map below:
ENNIS LIONS PARK
TOWN OF ENNIS
The preferred crossing location is shown below:
ENNIS - LIONS PARK
Preferred Bridge Location (530’ Downstream of MDT Bridge)
A temporary work bridge structure will likely be required adjacent to the existing crossing during construction.
View of the existing Varney Bridge (191’ Span).
New 59’ Salvaged 95’-8”
Pedestrian Varney Trusses Bridge
WEST EAST
New Abutment Two New (Each End) In-Stream Piers
View of Proposed Varney Bridge Rehabilitation
View of the proposed new single-span pedestrian bridge (Courtesy of US Bridge)
We are soliciting comments regarding the effect of the proposed project on fish, wildlife, wetlands, and/or threatened or endangered species that may be present in these areas. All necessary permits (i.e. Corps 404, FWP 124, DEQ 3A, etc.) will be applied for during the design phase. .
Please return your written comments to [email protected] or the following address:
Ryan Elliott, PE Great West Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 4817 2501 Belt View Drive Helena, MT 59604
We would greatly appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions you may call me at (406) 495-6168. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Great West Engineering, Inc.
Ryan Elliott, PE Project Manager cc: File