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 19 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 19 of 19)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


goal is to minimize by recommending reconstruction to be the least width while
maintaining desired safety improvements (turn lanes) and roadside amenities
(sidewalk). In order to achieve the many needs, concrete curb and gutter wi
likely be built in this segment to contain the width of the new road. In addition,
the present consideration is to reduce the previously recommended 8-foot
shoulder to 5-foot. A center TWLTL is highly recommended in this segment to
allow motorists to safely turn into their driveways or onto major approach roads
like Valley Drive or Lake Helena Drive.




A sidewalk placed dlrecUy

behind lie curb requires Ihe
ieaslamourlnf ranm
comparad to ali orher
identified roadside
Ireatmanls for padeslnans.



Lake Helena Drive to Spokane Creek Road

East of Lake Helena Drive, beyond the canal bridge, the new highway
centerline will likely be shifted slightly south of its present location. The
preference is to minimize impacts and additional right-of-way
acquisition from the more numerous and developed properties north of
the highway. Shifting the alignment south of its present location also
will allow the new highway to be built within this area while maintaining
traffic on the existing until construction is complete. This would reduce
the cross-overs and motorist delays during construction. East of Hart
Lane, the new alignment will likely be shifted slightly north of, or near
its present location until approaching Spokane Creek Road. The
intersection area at Spokane Creek Road will likely undergo a major
reconfiguration similar to what is shown on the front page of this
newsletter.




Robert Peccia & Associates - Highways Division



Civil, Transportation, Environmental Engineers



Canyon Fertv Road Reconstruction Project - Project Newsletter - Issue No. 3: May 2002



Project Newsletter - Issue No. 3: May 2002



To Contact Us

If you know of a neighbor or friend
who is also interested in the
Canyon Ferry Road Reconstruction
Project, please have them contact
us to be put on the mailing list. In
addition, project newsletters can be
viewed at the Consultant's website
of www.rpa-hln.com Feel free to
contact us with questions by:

- Sending us a letter;

- Calling either the Consultant or
Montana

Department of Transportation's
Project Manager;

- E-mail or;
-FAX

Your comments are welcomed at
any time!



Contact the consultant's project
manager, or the Department of
Transportation's project manager at:

Tom Cavanaughi, P.E.

Consultant Project Manager
Robert Peccia and Associates
P.O. Box 5653
825 Custer Avenue
Helena, MT 59604
(406)447-5000
FAX: (406)447-5036
[email protected]

Jason Giard, P.E.

Administrator, Butte District

Montana Department of

Transportation

3751 Wynne

PC. Box 3068

Butte, MT 59702-3068

(406) 494-9600 or

1-800-261-6909

FAX: (406) 494-4396



r



The Next Public Meeting

Please join us at the next public
meeting! This meeting will be to
discuss the alternatives
identified, and the preferred
treatments to reconstruct Canyon
Ferry Road and the Spokane
Creek Road intersection.
I
Meeting Date: Monday June 3, 2002

Where:

R.H. Radley Elementary School

226 East Clinton

East Helena, MT

Wtien:

4-6:00 pm Open-House

7:00 Presentation

Until 9:00 Open For Questions and

Discussion.









t096S DUDjuow 'Dus|aH
ES9S xog od

SStOpOSSV "S D!339d |J3qOJ|




IQQl AD|/|f :£ *ou snssj - jauajSMSfj jsajojj - pajojj uoiisnjisuosay pooy Ajjaj uoAud^




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



Environmental Assessment



Appendix D: "Nationwide" Section 4(f)
Evaluation Form and Attachments



MONTANA DIVISION
"NATIONWIDE" SECT/O/V 4Cf; EVALUATION FOR MINOR IMPACTS

ON

HISTORIC SITES

EXCLUDING HISTORIC BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS

Project #STPS 430-1 f5H. (P.M.S. C.N.#4440) Date: May 5. 2003

Project Name: CANYON FERRY ROAD Location: Project Area Irrigation Ditches

24LC1691 -24LC1698
Lewis and Clark County. Montana

Eight historic irrigation ditches or systems were recorded within the Canyon Ferry Road project
during October 2001. These ditches were identified and recorded as sites 24LC1691 (unnamed ditch)-
24LC1692 (Company Slough Ditch); 24LC1693 (Prickly Pear Ditch); 24LC1694 {unnamed ditch)-
24LC1695 (Merritt-Gross Ditch); 24LC1696 (Stockburger Ditch); 24LC1697 (Peopping Ditch); and
24LC1 698 (Smith Ditch). All of the irrigation ditches are small, private conveyances believed to be built
approximately fifty years ago. Most are still in operation, although the Poeping. Smith, and one branch
of the Stockburger Ditch have been abandoned. A map showing the location of these sites is attached.

IVIDT's 1993 Amended Programmatic Agreement regarding the treatment of historic irrigation ditches
affected by highway construction projects in Montana, eliminates the need to evaluate the NRHP
eligibility status for these historic features. A copy of the 1 993 Programmatic Agreement is attached.

The proposed project would impact existing irrigation ditch crossings of Canyon Ferry Road and
would require the installation of new metal or concrete culverts beneath the road at each location
where the new highway will cross the irrigation ditches. For the purposes of the Programmatic
Agreement, structures associated with existing roads and built with the reconstructed roadway are
considered to be features of the roadway and not of the intersecting irrigation systems.

Any response in a box requires additional information. Consult the ■'Nationwide" Section 4(f) Evaluation criteria.

YES NO

[_]



NOTE:



1 . Is the 4(f) site adjacent to the existing highway? ~X

2. Does the proposed project require the removal or alteration of historic

structures, and/or objects? j-— 1 y

3. Does the proposed project disturb or remove archaeological resources

which are important to preserve in-piace rather than to recover? Q X

4. is the impact on the ^ff; site considered minor (i.e.: no effect; or

no adverse effect)? ^



U



5. Has the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) agreed in writing

with tine assessment of impacts, and the proposed mitigation? X M

As specified in the 1993 Amended Programmatic Agreement regarding
Historic irrigation ditches affected by highway construction projects in
Montana.

6. Is the proposed action under an Environmental impact Statement ( E.I. 5. )? Q X

7. Is the proposed project on a new iocation? [xj
The new road will be built following the existing alignment from the project's
beginning to RP 4.2. The new road would follow an offset alignment through

the rural section of the project corridor. The Canyon Ferry Road/Spokane Creek
Road intersection of will be totally reconfigured.

■ "1 - Canyon Ferry Road Irrigation Ditches



NOTE: Any response in a box requires additional information. Consult the "Nationwide' Section 4(f} Evaluation criteria.

8. The Scope-ol-Work for the proposed project is one of tfie following: JL. U

a Improved traffic operation;

b) Safety improvements;

c) 3R;

d) Bridge replacement on essentially ttie same alignment; or

e) Addition of lanes. (Left and right turn lanes)

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

YES NO

1 . The "do-nothing" ALTERNATIVE has been evaluated, and is not „
considered to be feasible and prudent. (SEE Part 111 of the EA) X LJ

The existing roadway and its bridges have physical deficiencies that
contribute to reduced safety for users of Canyon Ferry Road. The road's
substandard width, steep roadsides, and presence of obstructions within
the clear zone are related ic the design of the road and can be corrected
only by reconstruction.

2. An ALTERNATIVE has been evaluated on the existing alignment which
improves the highway without any 4(f) impacts, and is also not considered to

be feasible and prudent. (SEE Part 111 of the EA) JL. U

Rebuilding Canyon Ferry Road on the existing alignment would be possible.
However, the Identified ditches would still be crossed by the new highway.

3. An ALTERNATIVE on a new location avoiding the 4(0 site has been evaluated.

and is not considered to be feasible and prudent. (SEE Part III of the EA) _X_ LJ



Shifting the alignment north or south of the existing highway would require
crossings of each of these irrigation ditches.



NO



MINIMIZATION OF HARM

1 . The proposed project includes all possible planning to minimize hann. JL LJ

2. Measures to minimize harm include the following: JL LJ

The alignment of the proposed project will typically follow the existing

alignment in the vicinity of these irrigation ditches thereby minimizing
impacts to these historic features.

COORDINATION

1 . The proposed project has been COORDINATED with the following:

a) SHPO (July 29, 1993 - Programmatic Agreement)
February 14, 2002 - NRHP Eligibility determinations concurrence
January 3, 2003 - NRHP Eligibility determinations concurrence

b) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
{August 16, 1993 - Programmatic Agreement)

c) Property owners (Public meetings November 2001/June 2002)

d) Local/State/Federal agencies
(FHWA - July 20, 1993/July 23, 1993 - Programmatic Agreement)
BOR - May 10, 2002 Helena Valley Irrigation Unit

BOB - December 19, 2002 Helena Valley Irrigation Unit

- 2 - Canyon Ferry Road Irrigation Ditches



X


U


X


f 1


X

X


I 1



2. One of the preceding had the following comment(s) regarding this proposed project.

and/or the mitigation:

Main canais and laterals associated with the Bureau of Reclamation's Heiena Valley Irrigation Unit
(24LC1 062) would be impacted by the proposed highway project. MDT's 1993 Amended Programmatic
Agreement regarding the treatment of historic Irrigation ditches does not cover the BUREAU'S
irrigation features. Therefore, a determination of NHRP eligibility is typically required for the Helena
Valley Irrigation Un it (24LC1 062). However, coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation indicates the
proposed highway project would not Impact 24LC1062 in a manner that would make ft ineligible for
the NRHP. In a letter Dated December 1 8, 2002, the Bureau also agreed with the conclusion presented
in the November 2002 supplemental cultural resources report that the Helena Valley Irrigation Unit Is
not NRHP-eligible because of its recent construction.

SUMMARY

The proposed action is preferred because the No Build Alternative does not satisfy the specified purpose and
need for improving Secondary Highway 430 east of Helena. The No Build Alternative does not meet the
traveling public's needs because it does not address the deficient surface width associated with the road and
its bridges and does not eliminate or reduce other identified conditions that contribute to safety and operation
problems on the existing roadway. The No Build Alternative does not provide a traffic facility consistent with all
MDT design standards for Rural Collectors on H^ontana's Secondary Highway System.

Rebuilding the road on an alignment similar to that of the existing highway could be accomplished, however,
this alternative would not avoid the minor effects to the identified irrigation ditches. Similarly, shifting the
alignment of Canyon Ferry Road would also require crossings of these historic ditches. The design and
location alternatives considered for this proposed project are described in Part 111 of the EA. Therefore, no
feasible and prudent alternatives exist to avoid the minor effects associated with reconstructing Canyon Ferry
Road in the vicinity of as sites 24LC1691 {unnamed ditch); 24LC1692 (Company Slough Ditch); 24LC1693
(Prickly Pear Ditch); 24LC1694 {unnamed ditch); 24LC1695 (IVIerritt-Gross Ditch); 24LC1696 (Stockburger
Ditch); 24LC1697 (Peopping Ditch); and 24LG1698 (Smith Ditch).

Part III of the attached Environmental Assessment describes the alternatives considered by MDT and the
analysis used to identify a preferred alternative for this proposed project. The proposed action meets all
criteria regarding the required Alternatives, Coordination, and Measures to Minimize Harm. All possible
planning to minimize harm to the identified irrigation ditches has been undertaken and will be incorporated in
this proposed project. This proposed project therefore complies with the December 23, 1 986 Final
NaiionwideSecf/on4C9 Evaluation by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway
Administration.

APPROVAL

This document is submitted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 303 and in accordance with the provisions of 16 U.S.C. 470f.



U. TCZ^ Date: (Jo/o:,

7pf 7 I /



m A. Riley, P.E.
Engineering Section Sup^sor
'MDT Environmental Services



i^S



Cb.



Approved: C_X^^M^^ >9lz^>^^ Date: <^/9/03

Federal Highway Administration



- 3 - Canyon Ferry Road Irrigation Ditches



CANYON FERRY ROAD
HIGHWAY PROJECT




T10N R2W



i4LCi69| ^-=^



Rgure 6. Locations of recorded hisloric sites along Canyon Feriy Road; irrigation ditches marked by triangles only at points where they cross the road.



AMENDED PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION,

AND THE MONTANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC IRRIGATION DITCHES

AFFECTED BY HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN MONTANA



WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration, Montana Division and Western Federal Lands Highway
Division (FHWA), propose to make Federal Aid funding available to the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) for that agency's ongoing program to construct or rehabilitate highways and to make
Federal funding available for the Public Lands Highway Program in the state of Montana, and

WHEREAS, the FHWA has determined that this federally-assisted program may have an effect upon a
certain class of properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
and has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) and the Montana State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to Section 800.13 of the regulations (36 CFR Part 800)
implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f); and

WHEREAS, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) participated in the consultation and has
been invited to concur in this Programmatic Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE, the FHWA, the Council, and the Montana SHPO agree that the program addressed in
this Programmatic Agreement shall be administered in accordance with the following stipulations to satisfy
the FHWA's Section 106 responsibility for all mdividual undertakings of the program.

Stipulations

The FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
General Notes:

A) The term "Irrigation Ditches" applies to iirigation ditches and ancillary structures such as, but not
limited to, concrete ditch linings, intake headgates, overflow structures, flumes and siphons.

B) The procedures in this Programmatic Agreement will be followed without regard to the ownership or
length of the irrigation ditches addressed in this Agreement

1) MDT will assist the FHWA in meeting the compliance requirements of 36 CFR Section 800.4
through 800.6, as applicable, for those highway construction projects affecting irrigation
ditchreiated structures that are 50 years or older. For the purpose of this Programmatic
Agreement, structures associated with existing roads and built as part of the roadway, such as
metal or concrete culverts, will be considered to be features of the roadway and not of an
intersecting irrigation system.

2) MDT will assist the FHWA in meeting the compliance requirements of 36 CFR Section 800.4
through 800.6, as applicable, when the affected irrigation ditch has been abandoned, i.e., is no
longer operational and operated. In such circumstances, the requhements of Section 106, as
implemented by 36 CFR Part 800, will be met whether or not ditch-related structures will be
impacted.

Programmatic Agreement Historic Irrigation Ditches



3) - MDT will assist the FHWA in meeting the compliance requirements of Section 106 of the

Act, as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800, for those projects affecting irrigation ditches and
associated structures, if any, previously listed on or determined eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.

4) When operational irrigation ditches without structures in the construction-impact area will be
rechanneled during highway construction, MDT will comply with the following procedures;

a) Simplified inventory forms employing a format approved by the SHPO will be used to
describe the feature. The forms will provide an assigned Smithsonian site number, the
ditch's name, legal description, a history and map of the ditch taken from the
appropriate Montana Water Resources Survey publication or other readily available
published source and MDT's assigned project name and number.

b) Such ditches will not be evaluated agamst the criteria of the National Register of
Historic Places.

c) It is understood that determinations of effect, alternative project designs to avoid
impact or mitigation of effect (other than continued ditch operation) will not be done
by MDT or FHWA.

d) Irrigation ditches not identified by name in appropriate Montana Water Resources
Survey publication will not be considered under any circumstances.

5) The Council and the SHPO may monitor activities carried out pursuant to this Programmatic
Agreement, and the Council will review such activities if so requested by a signatory to this
Agreement or by a member of the public. FHWA will cooperate with the Council and the
SHPO in carrying out their monitoring and review responsibilities.

6) Any party to this Programmatic Agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon the
parties will consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 13 to consider such amendment.

7) Any part to this programmatic Agreement may terminate it by providing, in writing, forty-five
(45) days notice to the other parties, provided that the parties will consult during the period
prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid
termination. In the event of termination. FHWA will comply with 36 CFR Part 800.4 through
800.6 with regard to individual undertakings covered by this programmatic Agreement.

8) If a dispute arises regarding implementation of this Programmatic Agreement, FHWA will
consult with the objecting party to resolve the dispute. If any consulting party determines that
the dispute cannot be resolved, FHWA will request the further comments of the Council
pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.6(b). Any council comment provided in response to such a
request will be taken into account by the FHWA m accordance with 36 CFR Sections 800.4
through 800.6 with regard to individual undertakings covered by this Programmatic
Agreement.

Execution and implementation of this Prograaunatic Agreement evidences that the FHWA has satisfied its
Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings of the program.

This amended programmatic Agreement encompasses the entire agreement between the parties and
replaces any agreements previously negotiated regarding this undertaking.

Programmatic Agreement Historic Irrigation Ditches



WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS fflGHWAY DIVISION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

By: James N Hall Date: 7/20/93

MONTANA DIVISION. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
By: DC Lewis Date: 7/23/93

MONTANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFHCER
By: Marcella Sherfv Date: 7/29/93

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By: Robert P. Bush Date; 8/16/93

CONCUR

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By: Edrie Vinson Date: 7/29/93

TB:Q:ISB:398.gg



Programmatic Agreement Historic Irrigation Ditches





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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 19 of 19)