Table Of Contents
625.761
T6fonsihs
2002 Summary ofFinal Coordination
Finding ofNo Significant Impact (FONSI)
Revised Environmental Assessment and
"Nationwide" Section 4(0 Evaluation
km
14.9 South of Havre-South
STPS 234-1(7) 9; Control No. 2837
Hill County, Montana
TATE DOCIJMFNTS COLLECTION
NAY 2 9 2002
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
1515 E. 6th AVE.
Prepared For: HELENA. MONTANA 59620
U.S. Department ofTransportation
Federal Highway Administration and the
Montana Department ofTransportation
Prepared By: Robert Peccia &Associates, Helena, Montana
3 0864 0015 5001 4
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ON THE
REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
"NATIONWIDE" SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
FOR
KM SOUTH OF HAVRE SOUTH
14.9
STPS-BR 234-1(7) 9; Control No. 2837
HILL COUNTY, MONTANA
The Federal Highway Administration has determined that this
PROJECTwillnotHAVEASIGNIFICANTIMPACTONTHEHUMAN ENVIRONMENT.
This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the attached
Summary of Final Coordination, "Nationwide" Section 4(f)
Evaluations, and inputfrom pastpublicmeetingsheldtodiscussthe
PROJECT. This finding has been independently evaluated by the
Federal HighwayAdministrationand determinedtoadequatelyand
accurately discuss the need, environmental issues and impacts of
the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. it
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
environmental impact statement is not required. the federal
HighwayAdministrationtakes fullresponsibilityfortheaccuracy,
SCOPE and content of the summary of final coordination and its
Attachments. ^.^--^
Dare PaulsorT Date
Program Development Engineer
Federal HighwayAdministration
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2015
in
https://archive.org/details/findingofnosign2002robe_0
14.9kmSouthofHavreSouth SummaryofFinalCoordination
Summary of Final Coordination
km SOUTH OF HAVRE SOUTH
14.9
STPS-BR 234-1 (7) 9; CN 2837
This document summarizesthefinal coordination activities undertakenbytheMONTANA
DepartmentofTransportation(MDT)tocompletetheEnvironmental Assessment(EA) and
"Nationwide" Section4(f)Evaluationfortheproposedreconstruction of 16.3 km (10.1 miles)of
SecondaryHighway234inHill County.Theproposedprojectbegins about 14.9 km (9.3 miles)
south ofHavre andends attheroute'sintersectionwithTaylorRoadandliesentirelywithin
BeaverCreekCountyPark. This documentcontainsnewinformation aboutthisprojectand
minorrevisions totheEAdistributedduringFebruary2002.
Publishinga "SummaryofFinal Coordination" affordsMDTtheopportunityto: (1)respondto
writtencommentsreceivedduringthepublic availabilityperiodfortheEA; (2) enhancetheEA
bymoreclearlydescribingtheproposal andprovidingcurrentinformation; and(3)providea
revisedNationwideSection4(f)Evaluation fortheminoreffectstheproposedhighway
reconstruction wouldcausetoBeaverCreekCountyPark.
Togetherwith theEApreviouslydistributed, thisdocument andits attachmentsconstitutethe
RevisedEA andNationwideSection4(f)Evaluation forthe 14.9kmSouth ofHavre-South
project. The attachedFindingofNoSignificantImpact (FONSI) was madebasedonthe
informationprovidedin MDT's initial EA andthis SummaryofFinal Coordination.
Public Notice and Availability of EA
TheFEDERALHIGHWAYADMINISTRATION(FHWA) approvedtheEA and"Nationwide"
Section4(f)Evaluationforpublic availabilityonFebruary7, 2002.
AnoticestatingthattheEA and "Nationwide" Section4(f)Evaluation were availableforreview
andadvertisingthedate, time, andlocationforaPublicHearingwaspublishedin TheHavre
DailyNewsonFebruary22, 2002 andagain onMarch 1, 2002. A similarnoticewaspublished
onFebruary24, 2002in the GreatFalls Tribune. Attachment 1 containsMDT'snewsrelease
abouttheEA andacopyofthenoticeoftheEA's availabilityandpublic hearingadvertisement.
CopiesoftheEA weremailedto all agencies andpersons on the CirculationListduringthe
weekofFebruary 18-22, 2002. MDTalsomadecopies oftheEAavailableforpublicreview
beginningFebruary22, 2002 atthefollowinglocations:
Havre-Hill CountyLibrary MDTGreatFallsDistrictOffice
402 3rdSt 200 SmelterAvenueNE
Havre,MT 59501 GreatFalls,MT59403-1359
FC-1
J4.9kmSouthofHavreSouth SummaryofFinalCoordination
Hill CountyCommissionersOffice MDTEnvironmental Services
Hill CountyCourthouse 2701 ProspectAvenue
MT
315 4th Street Helena, 59620-1001
MT
Havre, 59501
&
RobertPeccia Associates
825 CusterAvenue
Helena, MT 59604
Thenoticeofavailabilityadvisedthepublic thattheEAdocumentcouldbe viewedonRobert
Peccia& Associates'Internetwebsite(www.rpa-hln.com)beginningFebruary22, 2002. Robert
Peccia&Associates (RPA)preparedanddistributedtheEAforMDT. RPA's websiteprovided
thedate, time, andlocation forthe public hearingandinformation abouthow tocommenton the
EA.
MDT'sNoticeofAvailability andatransmittal memoincludedwitheachEAdocumentadvised
interestedagencies andthepublic ofthe scheduledpublichearingdate andthatcommentsonthe
EA were duebyMarch 29, 2002.
^
Duringthepublic availabilityandreviewperiodfortheEA, MDTdidnotreceiveanywrittenor
telephonerequests forcopiesofthedocument. However,DaveWilson, amemberoftheHill
CountyParks Board, requestedandreceivedacopyoftheEAattheMarch 26, 2002public
hearing.
March 26, 2002 Public Hearing
OnTuesday, March 26, 2002,MDTheldapublic hearingtoreceivecomments ontheEAand
NationwideSection4(f)Evaluation forthisproposedproject. ThehearingwasheldattheHavre
CityHall, 5204th Street, beginningat7:00p.m. Theprimarypurposes ofthehearingwereto
discuss the document's findings andobtain oral and/orwrittencomments ontheEAfrom
interestedmembers ofthepublic. JohnRobinson ofMDTmoderatedthemeeting. MDTtape-
recordedtheproceedings andcomments made atthemeeting. Attendance wasestimatedtobe
16personsnotincludingMDTstaffandDanNorderudofRPA. Sign-in sheets,commentforms,
andotherprojectinformation wereavailabletothosepresent. Acopyofthe sign-in sheetfrom
thehearingisprovidedasAttachment2.
JohnRobinson convenedthemeetingshortlyafter7:00p.m. andbegan withintroductions of
MDTstaff,Hill CountyCommissioners, andothers whowereinvolvedinthedevelopmentofthe
project.
DanNorderudofRPA spokenextabouttheenvironmental assessmentprocess, thepurpose and
needfortheproject, alternatives considered, andseveral notableimpacts oftheproposedproject.
A slide presentation was usedto summarizetheEAdocumentandkeyfindings. Handoutsofthe
slidepresentation were made availabletothoseattendingthehearing.
Ageneral discussion ofthe projectfollowedthepresentation on theEA. MDTthenprovidedan
FC-2
14.9kmSouthofHavreSouth SummaryofFinalCoordination
Opportunityto submitoral comments ontheEA. "Formal" commentsreceivedatthehearingare
summarizedbelow inboldanditalicizedtext. MDT'sresponsesfolloweachitalicizedcomment.
Jonathan WindyBoyofBoxElderwantedtoknow whatportion oftheprojectwas
beingpaidforbyStateofMontanafunds.
MPTRESPONSE; DanNorderudexplainedthattheprojectisprimarilybeingaccomplished
with federal funds. Theproposedimprovements wouldbefinancedunderMontana's Surface
TransportationProgram(STP) andtheHighwayBridgeReplacementandRehabilitationProgram
(HBRRP) withfunds fromtheFederalHighwayTrustFund. Roadreconstruction activities
wouldbepaidforthrough STPfundingandthecostofreplacingthethreebridges wouldbe
fundedthroughtheHBRRP. STPfundingis about 87% federal with a 13% statematch. HBRRP
programfundingis 80% federal witha20% statematch.
Lou HagenerofHavresaidthatalthoughthere wereafewthingsinthedocumentthat
hecouldtakeissue with, there wasno needto "quibble"aboutthemandtheproject
shouldmoveforward. Healsofeltthedocumentadequatelyanalyzedtheeffectsofthe
roadproject. Mr. Hagenerbelievesthemajorconcernsfortheprojecthavetodo with
improvingthesafetyofthefacilityandmakingthepublicmoresafetyconscious when
travelingtheroadway. HealludedtotheeffortsbyMDTandHillCountytodevelopa
SafetyMitigation PlanforHighway234thataddressesa varietyofroadsafetyissues.
MDTRESPONSE: Noresponserequired.
ConradNystrom ofBoxElderexpressedthatthemaponpages4and29oftheEAdid
notshowthecurrentprivatelandownershipsadjacenttothe westboundaryofthe
park. ThemapincludedintheEA showsRockyBoysIndianReservationlands
adjoiningthepark.
MDTRESPONSE; DanNorderudrespondedbysayingthatthemap wasobtainedfromthe
BureauofLandManagement(BLM). Itis acknowledgethatthemapmaybeincorrectornot
currentin itsdepiction ofprivatelyownedland. However, themainpurposeofthemapwasto
showtheapproximateboundariesofBeaverCreekCountyPark, thelimitsofthereconstruction
project, andthe locationsofbridgereplacements orotherworkbeingproposedwiththeproject.
Anownershiplegendwas addedtoidentifythemeaningofthe variouscolorblocks shownonthe
map.
Pleasenote thatanothermapwas obtainedfromtheBLMthatmoreaccuratelypresentspublic
andprivatelandownerships andReservation lands in the vicinityofBeaverCreekCountyPark.
AcopyofthismapisprovidedonpageFC-8 ofthisdocument.
Mr. Nystromfeltthere wasnorealneedforgeologytobediscussedintheEAandthat
someclaimsaboutthegeologichistorymadeinthetextcouldbedisputed.
MDTRESPONSE; Althoughnotessential information, thebriefdiscussion ofthegeologyof
theareamayhelp someoneunfamiliarwith thispartofMontanabetterunderstandthenatural
processes thatcreatedthe uniqueenvironmentoftheprojectarea.
FC-3
14.9kmSouthofHavreSouth SummaryofFinalCoordination
In response toMr. Nystrom'scomment, the secondparagraph underProjectArea Geologyon
page35 oftheEA shouldberevisedtoreadasfollows:
Thegeologyoftheprojectareais theresultofvolcanic andglacial action. TheBearsPaw
Mountainssouth oftheproject areaarethedeeplyerodedremnantsofanisolatedcluster
ofvolcanoes activemillionsofyears ago. Rockoutcropsin surroundinghills arelikely
associatedwith volcanic rocks from theBearsPawMountains. WithintheBeaverCreek
drainage,erodedvolcanicmaterial is mixedwithreworkedglacialdebrisdeposited
duringthelastglacial episode. Theparentrocksformaterialfoundinthedrainage
includeschert, graniteandavarietyofmetamorphicrocks.
PatConway, HillCounty Commissioner,providedtheaudience with informationabout
thestatusoftheproposedspringsto bedevelopedinthe uplandsofBeaverCreek
CountyPark. Headvisedthatthe Countyhadrecentlyreceivedandopenedbidsfrom
contractorsfortheconstruction ofthesprings.
MPTRESPONSE: Noresponserequired.
Mr. NyStrom thenaskedMr. Conway whodesignedthespringsthatareproposedinthe
parkandhowthe Countyadvertisedforbids.
MPTRESPONSE; Mr. ConwayansweredthatLouHagenerandBemieGoliehadinitially
done workto locate appropriate sitesforthe springs. HesaidtheCountyhas alsotalkedto
several contractors whohavedevelopedsuch watersources in thegeneral area. Mr. Conwayalso
indicatedthattheCountyheldapre-bidmeetingwith interestedcontractors andthatinputfrom
thatmeetingwas usedtodevelop specificationsfortheproposedwork.
Mr. Conway saidthatthe springdevelopmentworkwas advertisedaccordingtoprocedures
typicallyusedbyHill Countywhen solicitingservices.
Jim FaberofHavresaidwonderedwhat "minor"changes inalignmentmeansand
thathehasheardarumorthattheroad'slocation wouldbechanged.
MPT RESPONSE; DanNorderudstatedthatthenewroadwouldbe slightlywiderbutthe
centerlineofMDT'sproposeddesign generallyfollows thatoftheexistingroad. Thereareareas
oftheprojectcorridorwherehorizontal andverticalcurves (hill crests)wouldberebuiltto
standards andtheroad's location mightnotbeinthe sameexactlocation asthatofthepresent
facility. However,therewouldbenomajorchangestowheretheroadis locatedwithinthepark.
Mr. WindyBoyaskedifanynewrecreationaldevelopments wouldbeincludedwiththe
highwayproject.
MPTRESPONSE; DanNorderudansweredthatMDTisnotproposinganynewrecreational
developments aspartoftheproject. Thelikelihoodexists thatapproaches to somedeveloped
facilities, drainagepipes, orfencingassociatedwithexistingrecreationalfacilitiesinthepark
maybedisturbedbytheproject. MDT wouldreconstructapproaches andreplaceotherfacilities
intheparkdisruptedbyhighwayconstruction.
FC-4
14.9kmSouthofHavreSouth SummaryofFinalCoordination
Written Comments Received on the EA
MDTreceived three (3) written commentsontheEA andNationwideProgrammatic Section4(f)
Evaluation fortheproposed 14.9 kmSouth ofHavre Southprojectduringthepublic availability
andreviewperiod. ThefollowingcommentsweresubmittedtoMDTbybetweenFebruary22,
2002 andMarch29, 2002,theadvertisedcommentperiodfortheEA.
March 26, 2002commentformfromConradNystrom(submittedathearing)
March 26, 2002commentformfromJimFaber(submittedathearing)
March 27, 2002 letterfromRobertAnderson, Chief,RecreationGrantsDivision,
U.S. DepartmentoftheInterior,NationalParkServiceMidwestRegion
Thesecomments arereproducedas written onthefollowingpages. Pertinentcomments are
showninboldanditalicizedtext. MDT'sresponsesfolloweach italicizedcomment. Copiesof
theoriginal writtencomments areprovidedinAttachment3.
Conrad Nystrom's Comments fromMarch 26, 2002 Hearing
OnMarch 26, 2002, ConradNystromsubmittedthefollowingcomments ontheEA atthepublic
hearing.
Themaponpg. 29(Fig. 5)andpg. 4(Fig. 2)showingIndian Reservation includesat
least17ranchersthatarenotontheRes--
Onpg. 39underprojectGeology-1suggestthetimeperiodsi.e. "fiftymillionyears"
and "15,000"beomitted- Therearemanyeducated, intelligentscientists who would
disputethosetimeperiods!
MDTRESPONSE; Please seeMDT'sresponseto similaroralcomments Mr. Nystrommadeat
thepublic hearingpresentedearlier.
Jim Faber's Comments from March 26, 2002 Hearing
Morepatrolling
ReducedSpeedlimits, moresigns warningmotoristsoflivestock. Parkiscongested
fromMemorialDayuntilsignificantsnowfall.
MDTRESPONSE; Yourconcerns arenoted. MDTandHill Countyarein theprocessof
developingaSafetyMitigation Plan forHighway234in BeaverCreekCountyPark (see
AppendixD intheEA). As thedraftversion oftheSafetyMitigationPlan shows, measures such
asincreasedlawenforcementpresence, speedreductions, additional signing, andothermeasures
toincreasethepublic's awareness thatlivestockmaybeonorneartheroadarebeingconsidered.
"Minor"changestosomeonenotfromtheareamaybeconsidered "major"tolocal
residents.
FC-5
14.9kmSouthofHavreSouth SummaryofFinalCoordination
MPT RESPONSE; Please seeMDT'sresponseto similarcommentsfromMr. Faberfromthe
public hearingpresentedearlierin this Summary.
Robert Anderson (NFS) Comments fromMarch 27, 2002 Letter
Referenceis madetoyourFebruary20correspondenceregardingthedocument
entitled "EnvironmentalAssessment/NationwideSection 4(f)Evaluation, 14.9km
South ofHavre-South, STPS234-1 (7) 9; ControlNo. 2837." Thisdocumentpresents
thereconstruction ofMontanaSecondaryHighway234andidentifiestheneedfor
additionalpermanentright-of-wayfrom BeaverCreekPark. This HillCountyparkwas
developedwithassistancefromtheLandand WaterConservation Fund(L&WCF)
program inprojects30-00016and30-00238.
Wereviewedthereferenceddocumentwithparticularattentiontotheprogrammatic
4(f) evaluationandnotethat38.29acresareidentifiedasthenecessarymitigationto
satisfySection 6(f)(3) oftheL& WCFAct(PublicLaw88-578, asamended). We
concurthattheproposedprojectandresultantactions meettheapplicabilitycriteria
andthatallpossibleplanningto minimizeharmtoBeaverCreekParkhasbeen
undertaken. Therefore, weoffernoobjectiontotheroadprojectasproposed. Our
position isbasedonthefollowingcondition:
1. The useofexistingparklandfortheproposedroadimprovementislimitedto
the4.63acres identifiedintheproposalandthatatleast38acresarepurchased
assubstituteparkland.
MPT RESPONSE: MDTacknowledgestheminorSection4(f)useof4.63 acresofBeaver
CreekCountyParkandthatat least 38 acres oflandmustbepurchasedandtransferredtoHill
Countyas mitigation fortheconversion oflandencumberedbySection6(f)(3)oftheL&WCF
Act.
New Information Relevant to the ENSection 4(f) Evaluation
1. Progress Towards Acquiring Replacement Parkland
PartIV. 10. Impactsto Section 6(f) Lands (pages 72-75 intheEAdistributedinFebruary
2002) discussedtheproposedproject's impactstolandswithinBeaverCreekCountyPark
encumberedbySection 6(f)(3)oftheL&WCFAct. TheEAdisclosedthatabout 15.50ha(38.29
acres)ofLWCF-encumberedlandwithin theparkwouldbeconvertedbythisproposedproject.
Asmitigation fortheconversion ofSection6(f)landinBeaverCreekCountyPark,MDTmust
provideatleast 15.50ha(38.29 acres) ofreplacementparklandtoHill County. Replacement
landmustbeofreasonablyequivalentusefulness andlocation asthatbeingconverted.TheEA
indicatedthatMDTandHill Countyhavebeen workingtogethertofindparcelsthatcouldserve
as suitablereplacementparkland. A 16.19 ha(40 acre)parcel adjoiningtheparkwasidentified
in theEA as apossiblelocationfortherequiredreplacementparkland(seeFIGURE7inthe
EA).
FC-6
