Table Of Contents
625.76
T6RLNCS
2009
1
Corridor Study -
Red Lodge North
No
Finding of Signi
Impact
Number
Project
STPP 28-2(25)70
Control Number
4375
Carbon County, Montana
May 2009
MontanaSlateLibrary
3 0864 1005 8619
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
for
Project Number: STPP 28-2(25)70
Project Name: Corridor Study - Red Lodge North
Control Number: 4375
in
Carbon County, Montana
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and the US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have determined that the Preferred Alternative, as
described in the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) dated October 2008, will have no
significant impact on the human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
based on the October 2008 EA. After independent evaluation of the EA, MDT and FHWA
conclude that the EA adequately and accurately discusses needs, environmental issues and
environmental impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. The EA
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required. MDT and FHWA take full responsibility for the accuracy, scope,
and content ofthe October 2008 EA.
For purposes of compliance with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (ARM
17.4.609(3)(j) and ARM 18.2.239(3)0)), this FONSI and conclusion that an EIS is not required
should be considered part^df the EA.
Montana Department ofTransportation Date
/? s- /zoo4
Federal Highway Administration Date
1
Table of Contents
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Selection of Preferred Alternative 1
2.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation 4
3.0 Comments and Coordination 10
3.1 EA Distribution 10
3.2 News Advertisements and News Releases 10
3.3 Public Hearings 11
3.4 Summary of Primary Agency and Public Concerns 1
4.0 Clarifications to the EA 14
5.0 Response to Comments and Questions on the EA 18
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Preferred Alternative 2
Table 2 Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives Impacts and Mitigation 5
APPENDIX A
Public Hearings
APPENDIX B
Agency and Public Comments and Responses
APPENDIX C
Environmental Assessment (October 2008)
Acronym List
BMP Best Management Practice
EA Environmental Assessment
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
LOS Level of Service
MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality
MDT Montana Department ofTransportation
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
TWLTL Two-way Left-Turn Lane
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Corridor Study - Red Lodge North
Finding of No Significant Impact
STPP 28-2 (25) 70 Control No. 4375
May 2009
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Montana State Library
http://www.archive.org/details/federalhighwayad2009unit
Finding of No Significant Impact
INTRODUCTION
1.0
The purpose of this document is to summarize the final coordination process conducted by MDT
(Montana Department of Transportation) and FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) in order
to complete the Corridor Study-Red Lodge North EA (Environmental Assessment) and Section
4(f) Evaluation. This document has been developed in accordance with the NEPA (National
Environmental Policy Act) of 1969, as amended; Council on Environmental Quality regulations,
Parts 1500-1508; the MEPA (Montana Environmental Policy Act); and other applicable laws
and regulations. The EA, which is included in Appendix C, describes the potential environmental
impacts of reconstruction of US Highway 212 from 8 Street in Red Lodge, Montana to
approximately 1,000 feet north of Boyd, Montana.
2.0 SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Following the identification of the purpose and need for the proposed project and the project
objectives, numerous improvement scenarios were developed and evaluated. These scenarios
were modified and refined based on input from elected officials and the general public as well as
data collected pertaining to engineering factors, environmental considerations, and existing and
planned development along the corridor. The result of this process was the consideration of two
alternatives: a no-build alternative and a build alternative (identified as the Preferred Alternative
in the EA). Of the two alternatives analyzed in the EA, the build alternative is the Preferred
Alternative for the proposed project. Please referto Table 1, Summary ofPreferredAlternative.
The Preferred Alternative meets the project purpose and need by:
o Improving the pavement condition along the project corridor by reconstructing the
roadway.
o Improving the intersection geometry at key locations along the corridor.
o Incorporating an Access Management Plan for Red Lodge, which was supported by the
Red Lodge City Council in March 2007.
o Providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in Red Lodge.
o Improving level of service by providing passing lanes in rural segments where
appropriate and making improvements at the 8lhStreet/US Highway 212 and MT
Highway 78/US Highway 212 intersections.
o Providing wider roadway shoulders in rural segments where appropriate.
o Flattening ditch slopes in rural segments where appropriate.
o Reducing clear zone encroachments in rural segments where appropriate.
Providing increased snow storage with wider and deeper roadside ditches.
Clearing thick brush and trees within the clear zone to improve driver visibility of
approaching wildlife.
Providing turning lanes where needed to reduce differential speed conflicts.
Improving highway-related storm water drainage in Red Lodge and Roberts.
Corridor Study- Red Lodge North
Finding ofNo Significant Impact
STPP 28-2(25)70 Control No. 4375
May 2009
1
c
o
"O , T3
-«2™,cc=o_o>£2Cg,1O_ "ECaocc»>5D)o5 -X-CcCCcoC)gOoOOo 2ecQCtmCrO-)on iCtcCruCrc_UoOoOo. rCCOmUo>O .^CcfcCCO-C>tfOOJOl>n--E-=^?e-CC*iC§O,Dn 'o(C3Co3D
ro CO
• • o • "D u • "O
—
"a
c
<u 5 ^
~ o co *-
2
g gCO 0c0 CCO CO co °-t^o
-OI$CCOOsoc8CoO "icQcoec_ogo. *C5O *-Q£iorfo: "ocrciLrgO.jo—o -"CQaO ""—c2O c 3«oCccoOob 0I£°s0..cC1CO5O cEccCctEoooon-"sce32Qgo ^c^CCcooCOOoO CCcCoCOOoJO
:acCC0=:O)no-Cco>GO |o• 12. ( ZEg..O9cgo>—r• CCOO .2, O«oEo>OSoB SoC8O2ooco3" "=>OcCooO L"cc.>Uo< Qoc_o O<.2 c$8Oo 1^eCO OSJCCo.=OI2OCC>cOO- OCc.O 2CCcOzO
o
c
CC3OD *j CO 2CD 3O fo-
<CcofiC=O E00l< C2=cQo --ECoaO fyo-3
cCO*oo §_, coo -cCo
j?0i o
oCO
T3
,I 'Ccoo»3O "iCCcrr>CaUOooO —EcCCcQOoD.-"PcCc*uOo cCoO co <f— "coCaO TCgCO3OO "CCOOO JcCccorZoOoo "CaO 3CCOMOD^cCEO CiCc_DOo CrCcorOoOo ziCCiCacODOo s2xo=o:>> rJrCOocDZ) cco
'o>a< CtgX-I Otog- -lco5oo 1o5- Lo5O -"TOc*-O.LccOo a^QCQO..M"2Oc_2o CN C-tCEO-O 1cCO LLo5OO LCo5OO 21>C-O8oTC-O TQaC3D..^2o- o1og-j .ocogoo CD O recccooon
lo CO • E • • CO • COO-
T3 CO LO
CO en 1 CO
c 00 QO-TO3 o a
E o">aC;O --c"oo _Ei 1n- amn: -cgo (oT co o
I .<c3Qoo *cCOoO CIO- oCErO ut>CCOCC:OOOL"TCeuC-OOOlnm-CegOn "Icog--o co«o3o LToC>L!|O cCEccrcOa.
3 ^CJ
CO
C0) spaqoy Lo- cCNoog
E a6po"i pay 0} a6po"i pay io— "rcn Q_ CN
w<D o
LL.
2 2
storm open and
Birch water pipes irrigationright-of-
11 COD) berms to of to
11 TcO direct existing existingpatterns
1Iqr—e to south storm Roberts and/or locations relocate within
perpendicular
Construct Replace Maintain
Direct
highwaywater culvert Street within ditches drainageculvert Mayditches
• • • • • way
1 <A to
1 C soi *o4—
11 dE> TCOD to tCoO to left- 212
111 a>o—> TO single OCoTDO right-turn212 perpendicular
1 E TSCOO a perpendicular S1oI3 fork Road southbound Highway
11l1oc/T 3CooO1 ftorom 21 SciLo northern southbound HighwayDam bteo 21 of UoSn
US
o
11 V i= o Highway Highway
1 1—0 UC£oO 3Cw-D Realignintersection CTCCOD ^TcOo Close Add on Cooney Realign Addition lane
J: . .£ • US . £ • • lane • US • turn
T5
""o3ET" Pine, Maple aTOE:O cTorO: cTOEcO i_
O aTO QTO CO
a> Cedar, East Streets OCD c
0—) Cc>D< >CCD. 2TO
*c-< Oak, and Ooo oTCOD Ooo
c 12'
lanes lanes lanes lanes
along
11 ua> with east northbound southbound lot
1(0 shoulders shoulders shoulders shoulders
travel travel travel travel curb
southbound
11 «u 21' 4' •0ne14'TWLTL 12' 4' •One14'TWLTL inslope on 12' 8' turnaround lane lane 12' 8' lane parking
1 E.
1 >- guardrail One-mile One-mile Reverse
Two Two Two Two 2:1 Two Two Bus passing passing Two Two One left-turn
store
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
to 2 to en
-£ io— C*T>
1 c Roberts Street <DJjo> Roberts co
I1111 -Eoa3wQ>> eonfd Maple C22CCT?DOOL-^*O<Co—» oenfd Boyd O>ico_. _X-3§oiJa —§O§Eco.--O;ico
1 co South East U-TJ~O _ocC North 0o0 LLI wIcP o
-a
3 o
1 *— CO ? CM _
1I111 CaE=C-O)Oj suaqoy pAog 0} suaqoy aO lci 0Ca0c..0Mn oowC>D
2.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Based on the analysis provided in the EA, impacts associated with the proposed project were
not found to be individually or cumulatively significant. The proposed project would provide
numerous benefits, as compared to the No-build Alternative, to the transportation system and
highway-related drainage. Please refer to Table 2, Summary Comparison ofProject Alternatives
Impacts and Mitigation, for a summary of the Preferred and No-build alternatives impacts and
associated mitigation measures.
Corridor Study- Red Lodge North
Finding ofNo Significant Impact
STPP 28-2(25)70 Control No. 4375
May 2009
