Finding of no significant impact on the revised environmental assessment and "nationwide" section 4(f) evaluation for 14.9 km south of Havre-South : STPS-BR 234-1(7)9; Control No. 2837, Hill County, Montana PDF
Preview Finding of no significant impact on the revised environmental assessment and "nationwide" section 4(f) evaluation for 14.9 km south of Havre-South : STPS-BR 234-1(7)9; Control No. 2837, Hill County, Montana
s 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
The list of books you might like
