Copyright
Robert Peccia & Associates.

Environmental assessment and nationwide section 4(f) evaluation Canyon Ferry Road : STPS 430-1(5)1; CN 4480, Lewis and Clark County, Montana (Volume 2003) online

. (page 11 of 19)
Online LibraryRobert Peccia & AssociatesEnvironmental assessment and nationwide section 4(f) evaluation Canyon Ferry Road : STPS 430-1(5)1; CN 4480, Lewis and Clark County, Montana (Volume 2003) → online text (page 11 of 19)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


in substantial changes in property values. Literature on the subject has shovm tliat property
values often remain stable or may mcrease along roadways tliat carry significant hafQc volumes
so long as the traffic can flow smoothly witli a minimum of congestion and confhcting
movement. Access management m the Canyon Feriy Road project area would help addiess
significant traffic safety concerns and enhance the operation of tlie roadway resulting in benefits
to adjoining propeities.

The Preferred Action would not cause any long-term changes in the economy of the project area
01 of Lewis and Clark County. There would be no commercial relocations oi no land
acquisitions tiiat would affect the viabihty of existing agiicultural operations or commercial
businesses witliin tiie Canyon Ferry Road corridor.

Temporaiyjobs would be created during the construction oftiie proposed project. Also, the
demand for local goods and services (food, lodging, recreation, etc.) in Helena and East Helena
could be increased due to the presence of workers temporarily living in the aiea. These beneficial
economic impacts would be sustained over period(s) when tiie highway leconstiiiction is
implemented. Local spendmg by workers dmuig road conshuction activities may cause a slight
inciease in the local tax revenues. This impact would likely be small and short-term.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. The cumulative economic impacts of the pioposed road
reconstiuction and bridge replacement project would be negligible. Reconshucting tiie load
would not cause nioie people or businesses to move to the project area.

IMPACTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. This alternative would not require any
new right-of-way and would not displace any lesidents oi businesses. However, the No Action
Alternative offers no relief to identified traffic safety concerns in tiie area. Fmther deterioration
of highway safety conditions (likely witii additional tiavel on the loute) may contribute to
incieases in tiie mcidence of traffic accidents and result in greater economic losses to users of the
facihty fiom accidents.



Mitigating Measures (Economic Impacts)



-89-



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1 Environmental Assessment

The following measuies will be implemented to minimize any economic impacts of the proposed
project:

■ MDT will maintain traffic through the project area during construction.

■ Access to lands adjacent to the project will be perpetuated during construction.



6. NOISE IMPACTS



Ambient Noise Levels. In July 2002, Brg Sky Acoustics, LLC completed a traffic noise
assessment based on field measurements of ambient noise levels and current and projected
design year traffic for the project coiiidor. The noise assessment was completed following
guidelines fiom MDT's Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Procedure Manned,
June 2001 and VW^ A.' s Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise.

As pait of this work, ambient (existing) noise levels were monitored at four representative
properties adjacent to the existing road (RP 3.1, RP 3.8, RP 5.3, andRP 8.0) for a period of one-
horn' on different dates duiing August, September and October 200 1 . The measured distances
fiom the existing road's centerline at these locations varied fi:om 26 m (85 feet) to about 45 m
(147 feet).

Field measurements showed that ambient morning or evening peak horn' Leq(h) noise levels in
the project corridor range fiom 56 dBA at a distance of about 45 m(147 feet) to 60 dBAat a
distance of 26 m (85 feet) fiom the road's centerline. Leq(h) refers to equivalent, steady state
sound level which, m a stated period of time (one-hour), contains the same acoustic energy as the
time-varying sound level during the same period. The term dBA represents decibels measuied
witii a fiequency weighting coixesponding to tire A-scale on standard sound level meters. The
"A-weighted" scale filters or removes sounds frequencies undetectable by the human eai\

The noise consultant employed a noise model to predict ti'affic noise levels at noise-sensitive
receptors (residences, groups of residences, and churches) located witliin 1 50 m (490 feet) from
tiie existing road's centerline. Based on the results of tire actiial noise level measurements, the
FHWA's Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 1 .0 computer program was used to predict the
ambient traffic noise levels at 62 noise receptors witliin tire project area. To verify the accuracy
of tiie TNM, tire computer model was also used to predict ambient noise levels at the four
representative locations where actiial noise levels were measmed. The measured and predicted
noise levels at the four locations differed by only 1 dBA. Therefore, the TNM model developed
for this project was judged to be reasonably accurate and acceptable for tiaffic noise level
predictions at all noise sensitive receptors in tire corridor.

IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ACTION. According to Federal Regulation 23 CFR 772 .
noise impacts occur when 1 ) present or design yeai' noise levels approach or exceed tiie Noise



-90-



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1



Environmental Assessment



Abatement Criteria (NAC) for a specific Activity Categoiy and 2) when design year noise levels
substantially inciease over existing levels.

TABLE 7 presents the NAC (NAC) for vaiious land uses and activity categoiies. The NAC
helps determines when tiafQc noise impacts may occui', resulting in a negative impact at noise-
sensitive locations along a roadway. The Activity Category for all noise sensitive receivers in the
project area is Activity Category B that includes picnic areas, recreation aieas, playgrounds,
active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, churches, libraiies and hospitals. The
coiTespondir^ NAC for Activity Category B is 67 dBA.





1 TABLE 7: Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)


Activity Category


Le„(h)


Description of Activity Category


A


57 dBA
(exterior)


Lands on which serenity and quiet ai'e of extiaordinaiy significance
and serve an important public need aud where the presei-vatiou of
those qualities is essential if the aiea is to continue to serve its
intended puipose.


B


67 dBA
(exterior)


Residences, motels, motels, schools, churches, libraiies, picnic
ai'eas, recreation aieas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, and
hospitals.


C


72 dBA
(exterior)


Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
A or B above.


D


- dBA
(exterior)


Undeveloped lands.


E


52 dBA
(interior)


Residences, motels, motels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraiies, hospitals, and anditoriums.



MDT identifies noise impacts as occuiring when the Leq(h) noise level m the pioject Design
Year at a receptor location is within 1 dBA of the Noise Abatement Criteria (TsIAC), or when
noise levels in the Design Year are 13 dBA gieater than noise levels in the Present Year. If either
criterion is met, tiien a traffic noise impact will occur, and traffic noise abatement measmes need
to be considered. For residential properties, tlie NAC is 61 dBA, and tlierefore noise impacts
would occur if 66 dBA were reached in the Design Year (2024), or if the predicted tiaffic noise
levels m 2024 are 13 dBA greater than the estimated Present Year (2000) noise levels for the
existing highway.

For the Preferred Action, tiie predicted noise levels in the Design Year (2024) at 9 receptors
(representing 1 2 residences) exceed tire NAC (66 dBA). Depending upon tire location, the
piedicted noise levels in 2024 would be less than tire noise levels in the Present Yeai' or exceed
the noise levels m the Present Year by up to 7 dBA. Therefore, tiaffic noise impacts aie
piedicted for tiie Preferred Action.

However, it is important to note tiiat the noise levels at 6 of the 9 noise-impacted receptors also
exceed the NAC for tire No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alignment Alternative would
impact the other tiiiee receptors only. The impacted receptors are located west of Lake Helena
Drive, within 31 m (about 100 feet) of the proposed centerline. For tiie Piefeixed Action, tliiee or
four residences (represented by two receptors) may be relocated due to nght-of-way acquisition.



-91 -



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1 Environmental Assessment



Receptor locations and predicted noise levels for the Preferred Action at all 62 locations studies
can be found in tlie Canyon Feny Road Noise Study on file with MDT or MDT's design
consultant.

The operation of heavy equipment during construction of the road and bridges vv'ould also
temporarily generate noise in tiie project area. These noise effects would be locahzed to work
areas and would occur at various times during tiie constiuction period.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. The proposed road reconstruction project and other reasonably
foreseeable actions in tire project area would not result in any cumulative noise impacts.

IMPACTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. For tire No Action Alternative, the
predicted ti'affic noise levels meet or exceed tiie NAC (66 dBA) m the Design Year (2024) at 6
receptors locations along the corridor (representing eight residences), and tiie predicted noise
levels m the Design Yeai' exceed tiie noise levels m the Present Year by 1 to 2 dBA. The
receptors tiiat exceed the NAC for tins alternative are located west of Lake Helena Drive, and
witiim 31m (about 100 feet) of the centerline of the cuirent roadway.

Receptor locations and predicted noise levels for the No Action Alternative at all 62 locations
studies can be found in tiie Canyon Ferry Road Noise Study.

Mitiaatinq Measures (Noise Impacts)

When tiaffic noise impacts are predicted, possible abatement measures for tiie mitigation of
liighway tiaffic noise must be considered. Possible abatement measures mclude modifying tiie
road design associated with the Preferred Action, constructir^ noise barriers or berms, and
implementing traffic management measures, such as reducing the speed limit on the road or
restiicting tiie access of certain veliicle types.

Accordmg to MDT's Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement: Policy and Guidance, the
abatement measuies must be reasonable and feasible, and criteria are presented to help determine
if a measuie should be considered for noise mitigation. Barriers or berms must provide a
minimum reduction in noise levels of 6 dBA to be considered feasible.

Possible noise abatement measuies for the Canyon Feixy Road project corridor are described
below.

■ Design Modifications. Reducing the widtii of the proposed roadway would not
substantially change tiie predicted tiaffic noise levels. Reductions in the widtli of tiie
facihty could not be accomplished without adversely affecting fiituie tiaffic operations
and the level of service mthe commercial/residential section of the corridor.

■ If the alignment of the new road were sliifted to provide as much distance as possible
between the proposed roadway and impacted residences, it may be possible to reduce the
number of locations where noise impacts are predicted. However, since receptors are



-92-



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1 Environmental Assessment

located on botli sides of tlie roadway in the area west of Lake Helena Dnve, shifting the
aligiunent may reduce the number of impacts on one side of tlie highway but create new
noise impacts to other receptors on the opposite side of the road. Also, an alignment sliift
would likely increase project costs substantially due to additional light-of-way
acquisition and possibly the relocation of additional residences.

■ Barriers and Berms. A barrier is most effective when it is continuous and blocks tlie
direct line-of-sight between tlie roadway and the noise receptor. Driveways and access
roads from many of the noise-impacted properties to Canyon Feny Road would limit the
location and ability to provide a contmuous baiiier or berni and it is unlikely that a 6-
dBA reduction in noise levels could be achieved. A bemi provided between the road and
impacted receptors would also require additional right-of-way width and its constniction
would likely cause negative impacts to adjacent land uses and sensitive natural features
in the corridor like wetlands.

■ Traffic Management. Restricting certain vehicle types, like heavy trucks, from using
the road or limiting tlie time of day tliat certam veliicles may use the road, are not feasible
mitigation measmes for Canyon Ferry Road. Canyon Ferry Road is on the state's
Secondary Highway System and is classified as a Ruial Major Collector. Restrictions
would limit access by hoicks to tlie commercial businesses and agricultuial properties
along tlie roadway.

Reducing tlie speed limit by 8 to 16km/h(5 to lOmph) on the road could reduce traffic
noise levels by about 1 dBA, but haffic noise impacts would still exist at receptors along
the roadway.

Based on the above discussions, none of these noise abatement measmes are considered to be
reasonable or feasible actions to unplement with tiie proposed Canyon Feny Road project.



7. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES



Existing Conditions. Hazardous materials are products or wastes regulated by the EPA or tiie
MDEQ. These include substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfimd), the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and regulations for solid waste management, above-ground storage tanks
(ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs).

A review of EPA's November 29, 2001 listing of RCRA facilities showed tiiat two generators of
hazardous waste materials (Chovanick, Inc. and Montana Operating Engineers & AGC Trainir^
Trust) are located in the general project area. A routine inspection was conducted on Chovanick,
Inc. with no significant findings recorded. The Montana Operating Engineers property was
listed with the EPA due to drums of material required to be removed fiom tiie property. They
have since been removed from tiie area .

The EPA's hsting of Superfimd sites showed one location, the East Helena Site, in the area.

-93-



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1



Environmental Assessment



However, this site is located over 3.2 km (2 miles) fiom tlie Canyon Ferry Road project and
would not be affected by tlie proposed road lecoiistniction.

MDT's engineering and design consultant foi tlie pioposed pioject completed an Initial Site
Assessment and subsequent follow-up woik foi this project. The consultant reviewed tlie project
area for potential sourcesof hazardous waste and examined MDEQ's statewide database of all
known UST's registered witli the agency to identify tank locations m the project area.
Information contained in MDEQ's database lists tank owneiship, contents, age, size, constiuction
and release detection method installed. It also includes data on all UST systems whetlier active,
closed in-place oi removed. TABLE 8 identifies registered UST facilities within the project
com dor.



TABLE 8: Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities

in the Project Area


Facility ID


Facility Name


Street Address


ActiveTanks


Non-activeTanks


25-03122


Canyon Feiiy Mini Basket


3012 Canyon Ferry Road


3




25-05713


Garber, Robert A & Colleen S


3963 Canyon Ferry Rd/Fami
Bldgs




1


25-05411


O'Brien, John


5410 Canyon Ferry Road




1


25-13230


Ogle, Dennis


3247 Spokane Creek Road




1


25-06334


Petersen, Gary L


3575 Canyon Ferry Road




1


25-00237


Ransier, Willis E


5719 Canyon Feny Road




1


25-04338


Summers, William C


3180 Canyon Ferry Road




3


25-05201


Wright, William H


5712 Canyon Ferry Road




1


25-05993


Big Sky Ready Mix


2930 Canyon Ferry Road


2


2


25-02952


Bumliam, Don


2515 Canyon Ferry Road




4


25-07673


Gonnely, Donald H


5865 Canyon Ferry Road




1



Source: Montana Depaitment of Enviionmental Quality, Remediation Di vis ion -Technical Sei"vices Bureau
Environmental Sei-vices Section, Underground Storage Tank - Leak Prevention Program, "Montana
Underground Storage Tank Facilities Database," dated September 28, 2001.

The Peti'olemn Release Section of the MDEQ administeis the federal Leakmg Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund Program tiiat conducts investigation and remediation activities
at release sites tiiat tiireaten himian health and the environment. The Petioleum Release Section
maintains a statewide database of all storage tank releases that have been reported since 1986.
The database listed one site as liaving a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) within the
pioject area — Big Sky Ready Mix. The contamination, however, was not signiflcant enough for
a full investigation.

IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ACTION. The potential foi tiie piesence of hazardous
wastes lias been reviewed for this proposed project and the conclusion was made tiiat



-94-



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1 Environmental Assessment

reconstruction of Canyon Ferry Road should not affect any areas of known contamination.
However, tlie Ransier and Wright properties inchided in TABLE 8 have been identified for
relocation and liave non-active underground storage tanks. These tanks would be removed prior
to consfiucfion activities according to MDEQ procedures.

The East Helena Lead Education and Abatement Program was contacted to ensure constiiiction
activities would not distuib soils witli dar^erous lead levels. These contacts indicate tliat load
construction activities would not encounter dangerously elevated lead levels in the soil along
Canyon Ferry Road.

Treated timbeis removed fiom the existing bridges or other affected structures associated vvdth
the roadway are a potential source of hazardous waste on this proposed project. If not salvaged,
the conti'actor would be required to dispose of tliese wastes in a licensed Class II landfill to
prevent hazardous waste contamination of the project area. Special provisions for salvaging and
disposii^ of any treated timbers would be included m the contiact plans for tlie project.

Disposal of non-salvageable and leftover materials would be in accordance with all applicable
laws, rules, and regulations, including the Montana Solid Waste Management Act.

The only other known sources of hazardous waste for tlie proposed project are those associated
witiithe equipment used for constructionof the new roadway and its lelatedfeatiires. These are
file fiiels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and related items needed for the contiactor's veliicles and
equipment. A slight risk of the release of fiiese hazardous fluids exists smce veliicles and heavy
equipment would be opeiafing within the project area finoughout the consfiaicfion period.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. The cumulative impacts of the generation and handling of
hazardous materials for fiie proposed Canyon Feny Road project together with ofiier
developments in fiie project area would be negligible. Tins conclusion was made due to fiie
general absence of hazardous materials in the project area and adjoinmg lands.

IMPACTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. This alternative would have no unpacts
on hazardous waste sites, generators, or substances. A low potential for the release of hazardous
fiuids exists since MDT would operate trucks and other heavy equipment during fiie performance
of reqimed road maintenance acfivifies.

Mitigating Measures (Hazardous Waste Impacts)

The followmg measuies will be implemented to minimize liazardous waste impacts of the
proposed project:

■ The contractors for the project will be required to store fiiel and other hazardous
materials away front surface waters and wetlands to reduce the potential adverse
ejects of an accidental spill.

■ The contractors for the project will be required to plan for and implement
containment procedures in response to any accidental spills of fuels or other
hazardous materials.



-95-



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1



Environmental Assessment



The road construction contractor will be advised of the safety and hygiene
guidelines suggested by the East Helena Lead Education and Abatement
Program.



8. IMPACTS TO CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL RESOURCES



Existing Conditions. Cultiual resources are protected by the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). Tlirs law and its implementing regulations
require tlie identification and evaluation of significant liistorical resources that may be affected
by a proposed project. It fuither reqmies that resoui'ces so identified be avoided, if possible, or
when avoidance is not possible, that any adverse effects of tire project on the resources be
mitigated. Cooidination is a[so leqyaiedwilhihe Montana State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) andihs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACKP).

Renewable Technologies Inc., a cultiiral resources consultant, prepared a cultural resource
survey for the proposed Canyon Feny Road project in October 200 1 and a supplemental report
in November 2002. Renewable Technologies Inc. recorded twelve sites and compiled
information on one previously recorded site within the Canyon Ferry Road conidor. Included
among tire tiiuteen sites are one house, tiiree farmsteads and nine uiigation ditches or systems.
TABLE 9 lists previously recorded sites and newly recorded cultural sites within Canyon Ferry
Road and presents tiieir National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility status.

As TABLE 9 shows, none of the historic residences or farmsteads potentrally affected by the
proposed project are elrgible for the NRHP. MDT's 1 993 Amended Programmatic Agreement
regarding the tieatment of liistoric irrigatron drtches affected by highway constructron projects in
Montana eliminates the need to evaluate tire NRHP eligibility status for these historic features.

Main canals and laterals associated vvdth the Bureau of Reclamation's Helena Valley
InigationUnit (24LC1062) wouldbeimpactedby tire proposed lirghway project. MDT's 1993
Amended Programmatrc Agreement regarding the tieatinent of hrstoric uiigation drtches does
not cover tire BUREAU'S irrigation featiues. Therefore, a determination of NHRP eligrbility rs
typically required for tire Helena Valley Irrigatron Umt {24LC1062). However, coordination
witii the Bureau of Reclamation indicates the proposed liighway project would not impact
24LC1062 in a manner that would make it meligrble for tire NRHP. In a letter Dated December
18, 2002, tire Bureau also agreed witii the conclusion presented m the November 2002
supplemental cultural resources report that tire Helena Valley Irrigation Unit is not NRHP
eligrble because of its recent construction. Letters of coordination from the Bureau and tire
SHPO regarding tiiis matter are provrded in APPENDIX B.

SHPO was contacted for concurrence with NRHP eligibility determinations for cultural sites
recorded in the Canyon Ferry Road project area. SHPO concurred wrth the NRHP eligrbility
determinations inletters dated February 14, 2002 and January 3, 2003. The January 3, 2003
letter from the SHPO agreed the desrgn of the project would not affect the Helena Valley
Irrigatron Unit but chose to leave the NHRP eligibility statiis of the site unresolved. These letters



-96-



Canyon Ferry Road; STPS 430-1(5) 1



Environmental Assessment



can be found in APPENDIX B.



TABLE 9 [Archaeological and Historic Sites
1 Canyon Ferry Road Corridor


Site
Number


Site Name/Description


Reference
Post (RP)


Location


NHRP Eiigibiiity
Status


24LC1688


Vernon Miller house


RP 2.6


3157 Cauyon Ferry Road


Not Eligible


24LC1689


Peopping Farmstead


RP4.4


3963 Cauyou Ferry Road


Not Eligible


24LC1690


Bastin Farmstead


RP 6.7


4790 Cauyon Ferry Road


Not Eligible


24LC1062


Helena Valley Inigation Unit


Various


Various


Unresolved


24LC1691


uunamed ditch


RP IJ


Sec. 14/23 liue, TION,
R3W


Not Evaluated


24LC1692


Company Slough Ditch


RP 1.6


Sec. 14/23 line, TION,
R3W


Not Evaluated


24LC1693


Prickly Pear Ditch


RP 2.0


Sec. 14/23 line, TION,
R3W


Not Evaluated


24LC1694


uunamed ditch (#2)


RP 2.6


Sec. 13/24 line, TION,
R3W


Not Evaluated


24LC1695


Merritt- Gross Ditch


RP 3.0


Sec. 13/24 line, TION,
R3W


Not Evaluated


24LC1696


Stockburger Ditch


RP 3.6


Sec. 17/20 and Sec. 18/19
liues, T10N,R2W


Not Evaluated


24LC1697


Peopping Ditch


RP4.9


Sec. 17/20 line, TION,
R2W


Not Evaluated


24LC1698


Smith Ditch


RP 8.8


Sec. 13,T10N,R2W


Not Evaluated


24LC1796


Charles Maun Fannstead


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Online LibraryRobert Peccia & AssociatesEnvironmental assessment and nationwide section 4(f) evaluation Canyon Ferry Road : STPS 430-1(5)1; CN 4480, Lewis and Clark County, Montana (Volume 2003) → online text (page 11 of 19)