Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRockvale to Laurel Newsletter• • Project Description The MDT proposes to reconstruct Highway 212 between Rock-vale and Laurel. Increasing the capacity along this route is expected to reduce congestion and reduce the incidence and severity of accidents. The proposed project begins at Rockvale, Carbon County, and proceeds approximately 11.2 miles (18 km) to just south of Laurel, Yellowstone County The study, public involvement and preparation of an Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) are expected to take two years: The planning process will determine the most appropriate location, design and alternatives for the fixture reconstruction. Following is an update of work now in process. IS THERE A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE YET? Not yet! A fifth Alternative has been identified in response to public com- ment, technical studies and review by MDT administration and staff. This alternative combines portions of three previously identified alternatives. Al- ternative 5 is illustrated on the Revised Alternative Alignment Map. (See map oppos&epage? The new alternative begins at the intersection of US 310 and US 212 and proceeds easterly and then north along the existing align- ment. A new connection, located approximately 1/2 mile south of the Near West Bench Alternative (Alternative 2) connects this alternative to the Far West Bench Alternative (Alternative 1) line. The alternative follows the Far West BenchAltemative to Farewell Creek where it then joins the Near West Bench Alternative. Alternative 5 then follows the Near West Bench Altema- tive to Section 1, where it again joins the Far West Bench Alternative via another new connection. The altema- tive then follows the Far West Bench Alternative to Laurel. RECOMMENDED ROAD WIDTH Several alternative cross sections have been developed and were reviewed by the public at the third meeting. Based on public comment and technical analysis by the consulting engineers and MDT staff and administra- tion, two typical sections for the new road corridor are recommended. A four-lane highway with a 28 foot de- pressed median is recommended for most of the high- way corridor. This section was presented as the 100 Foot Section at Public Meeting #3. A five-lane high- way section is recommended in the built up areas such as Rockvale and Laurel. This section was presented as the 80 foot section at Public Meeting #3. The right- of-way required to construct the recommended road sections, ac- commodate changes in eleva- tion, construct access roads and include roadside amenities is under evaluation. 100-FootSecdon © O © r?01 11 Q capadty analyses indicate the need for two 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each ditecion. The rxw road will also include minimum 8-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders. This section would he divided and have a 28-fool-wide safety area. 0 Most side slopes would be reasonably narrow. However, wider side slopeswould be required to accommodate up toll 0 feet of elevation difference on Altemadves 1 and 2. Simulation Alternatives Carried Forward HWY 212 Rockvale to Laurel f t qQ ? LAUREL 4 SVR HORSE OA CARBON C n`t1 Q? I FAR WEST BENCH ALTERNATIVE o?P ® P Q? O0 .y . W c ti oi0 U;N Q m? Q? L) SILESI RICHAIDS LANE BYAM ROAD J 0 O N M 0 D O NEAR EXISTING ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 0 GIBSON ROAD This map illustrates routes currently being considered and evaluated. Note that a new Alternative has been added - Altemative#5 andthatAlternative #4 was previously dropped after the Second Public Meeting. Updated information can also be found on the Project Website at: http:// projects.ch2m.com/rockvale. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE 3RD PUBLIC MEETING When will the "Preferred Alternative" be decided upon? NEP4, National Environmental Policy Act (see related article) does not require selection of a preferred alternative prior to issuing the DEIS. In the thirdpublic meeting, MDT and the consultant team anticipated a tentative decision would be made in February or March of2002 The consitlt- ant andMDTmet in Februaryto conduct a comprehensive review of the alternatives 4fier detailed consideration of public comment, prellin nary engineering studies, and technical studies, a 51h alernative was identified. The new sections ofAfternative 5 will require the same level of review as the previous alternatives. The evaluation is underway and is anticipated to be completed-in Tune of 2002. Public comment will be considered in selection of a preferred alternative. The Draft Envitvnmentallmpact Statement (DEIS) will be available in the summer of 2002 A 45-day public com- ment period will follow. 4 public hearing will be held after the commentperiodprior to writing theftnal EIS. 7heftnal EIS will be written in the spring of2003, with a record ofdecision in the summer of2003. Will there be one more public meeting when the alternative is selected? Who selects it? Public Meeting #3 was the last public Informational meeting There will be a 45-daypublic commentperlodfollowingpubl!- cation of the DEIS. Ifthe document identifies a preferred alter- native, the DEIS will describe how theprefenva'alternativewas determined. The comment period will conclude with a formal public hearing. Why does the process take so long? Who makes the final decision? Planning for new highways is a time consuming process that it subject to requirements ofNEPA (See related article) The final decision is made by MDTconsidering appropriate environmen- tal factors and comments by affected and interested public 77ue analysispmeessisdocumentedin an EnvironmentallmpactState- ment (EIS). When will MDT start acquiring right-of-way? When will the toad be bufft? 7heprojectisfundedthmughpfanning, right-of waystuates and preliminary engineering. No construction funds have beenpro- grammed. Construction of the project could begin in 2007 if we assume the new Federal Transportation Bill (2003) maintains the cunt nt level offunding and MDThas a Record ofDecision (ROD) by 2003. The alignment needs to be selected beforefinal design, including right-of-way plans, can commence. The final design will take two or more years A separate bike path is not being planned The new roadway section wouldbede- signed with 8 -foot wide paved shoulders This meets all present MDT require- mentrforpedesirians andbi- cyclists in this corridor. I Will the bike path be included for the length of the project? Could a path similar to the separate bike path associated with Highway 93 south of Missoula be included in this project? If the near west alterna- tive were constructed, what will happen to the existing roadway? Will the same amount of accesses be available? 4A The existing roadway would remain for local access It will be maintained by the state. For safety reasons; MDT strives to consolidate and minimize the number of accesses on the new route. How much access will be allowed to the new road? Generally, the level of access that currently exists would bepro- vided. The amount of access required will vary, depending on which alternative it chosen. All three county roads will have ac- cess MDT will work with landowners on a final access plan. Has an underpass versus an overpass been decided? Bruce Barrett, AfDTDlsh1ct,9dmvurtra1or has expressed a pref- erenceforan overpass. Overpasses over the railroadareplanned jor the new roadway for all the alternatives If Alternative #3 were chosen, the existing railroad underpass would have to re- main in ure jor local access and a new underpass is planned un- der the new roadway. WIII underpasses be considered? Howwill we crossfour lanes of traffic in a tractor safely? The wide medians will help. Farm field underpasses may be used depending on the relationship of the road to the terrain. Access issues will be dealt with on an individual basis with each land- owner. What will happen to the irrigation ditches running through Alternative 2 (near west)? We would look at shifting the centerline ifneeded but this would not be looked at until the preferred alternative !s established. MDTs policy is to perpetuate irrigation and utility services with anything we construct. Please keep in mind these are planning lines within a 260 foot band, not actual centerlines. It is some- timespossible to shift lines to minimize impacts to improvements. Will you take pieces of the alternatives and make one road? it !s a posstbilily MDT ivill weigh all impacts along with all pub- tic comment when making the decision and will choose the best possiblepmject with the least impact and one that is the most cast effective. STILL CONFUSED ABOUT THE PLANNING PROCESS AND NEPA? AT IS NEPA? . is the National Environmental Policy Act of The goal being to °encearogeprodachireand ehteharmony ha weer mar ardhir envimm- °NEPA encourages good planning by defining an is process for sound decision-making considering :hnical, economic and environmental factors. CmuA&r appropriate environmenla/fectorswh en making decision, not basing decisions solely on tech- nical and economic factors. ImpaAw the aJJtdedendrnteres7edpnblfc early in its environmental analysis process. NEPA PROCESS Docamenrthe environmerr6s/aratystrprocees in plain language for the decision-maker and the public. On the Rockvale to Laurel Road Recon- struction Project, the environmental- documenta- tion will be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). No Significant Significance of EnNmnmenlal Environmental Elleo1s WIII Occur Effects Will Occur slgnifioanm of EnEft= nlal UncartUneealin n A has three Principal Procedural Requirements: Give appropnkreconsidemdivirto unqualified environmental amenities in decision making, along with economic and technical considerations. Make a tgenre,for[vto invite and solicit comments for the affected and interested public. Write deAVitedstalemor&(EA or EIS) that clearly describe the potential environmental impacts of the proposed actions and other environmental documents that clearly present the rationale for the decision. WHAT IS THE EIS USED FOR? The Effm a hbi ll record of&e anphl mmamW aralplil It functions in the following ways: Is used by the decision maker to make sound decisions Informs the public of the results of analysis Serves as a springboard for public comment Proves that the NEPA procedural requirements have been followed Notice of Intent Emironmenlal Assessment Scoping (Environmental Analysis) I Draft EIS I 1 Public Hearings Final EIS Record of Decision - /HAT W ELLTHE FINAL EIS INCLUDE? "te EIS is a disclosure summary with legally important supporting information in appendixes and the analysis file. It includes: Purpose & Need... What are the issues? Who wants to do what; where and when they want to do it; and why (objectives) Categnnos E Ueion Alternatives... Proposed actions will be described Alternatives and the environmental consequences will be described. Discussion will focus on potential actions, outputs and mitigation. All alternatives must meet project objectives (fulfill the need) and be environmentally acceptable. Affected Environment The existing environment is described including physical, biological, social, and economic features of the environment. Environmental Consequences Technical and scientific support used by the decision-maker (Montana Department of Transportation), information to select the altematiw fulfills objectives and meets minimal environmental guidelines. TECHNICAL STUDIES UPDATE All fieldwork has been completed along Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. These studies address potential impacts on resources of a reconstructed road within a 260 foot planning band. These Technical Studies will be updated to address Alternative 5. The following Technical Memos are available forAltematives 1, 2 and 3. • AtrQuality • Cultural Resources • Economics • Energy • Farmland • Geology and Soils • Hazardous Substances • Joint Development • Land Use • Noise • Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities • Relocation Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources • Short-Term vs. Long-Term Productivity • Social Resources • Visual Resources Report • Water Quality • Wild and Scenic Rivers PUBLIC MEETING UPDATE The third of a series of public meetings to discuss the proposed reconstruc- tion of Highway 212 be- tween Rockvale and Lau- rel was held on December 12, 2001 at the Graff El- ementary School in Lau- rel from 4:30 PM to 8:30 PM. The purpose of the meeting, hosted by the Montana Department ofTransportation (MDT), was to up- date the public, solicit additional comments on preliminary alternative road locations and design sections. Attendees were presentedbackground information, updated alignment alternatives and a preliminary matrix summarizing impacts oftechnical studies. Attendees were asked to com- ment on alignment refinements, the summary ofimpacts for each alternative and three alternative road design cross sec- tions. displays from 4:30 PM to 8:30 PM and a presentation at 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM. Meeting advertisements were developed by the consultant and forwarded to MDT for placement. Press releases were sent to local newspapers as well as television and radio stations. Public Meeting #3 followed the November 13, 2000 Public Meeting whose purpose was to update the pub- lic and solicit comments on preliminary alternative road locations. Attendees were askedto review displays and comment on three alternative alignments. The next opportunity for the public to comment in a public forum will be at the official Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). There will also be a Public Hearing on the Final EIS. The Public Hearings have not been scheduled yet. The hearing on the DEIS is anticipated to occur in the late fall of 2002. Notification of the Public Hearings will be advertised in local newsletters and the date pub- lished on the project web-site. A postcard will notify interested persons who are on our mailing list. The meeting format was an open house with informational ................................................................... • The third of a series of public meetings to discuss the proposed reconstruction of Highway 212 between Rockvale and Laurel was held on December 12, 2001 at the Graff Elemen- tary School in Laurel from 4:30 PM to 8:30 PM. The purpose of the meeting, hosted by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), was to update the public, solicit addi- tional comments on preliminary alternative road locations and review the Technical Re- ports. The meeting followed up on the November 13, 2000 meeting whose purpose was to update the public and solicit comments on preliminary alternative road locations. Attend- • • ees were asked to review displays and comment on three alternative alignments. The meeting format was an open house with informational displays from 4:30 to 8:30 and a • • presentation at 5:30 and 7:30 PM. Meeting advertisements were developed by the consultant and forwarded to MDT for • placement. Press releases were sent to local newspapers as well as television and radio stations. THERE ARE STILL SEVr-RAL METHODS OF '?,E rrING YOUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS HEARD • Attend Public Hearings - Public Hear. Watch the • Comment through email at Hwystudy@mcn.net Fax Attn: Rockvale to Laurel Road Study - (406) 259-4963 Letter Send to: Project Team @ Fischer & Associates 2815 Montana Avenue • Billings MT 59101 MDT District Office • P.O. Box 20437 Billings, MT 59104-4138 • Phone Project Team (406) 294-9142 or MDT District (406) 252-4138 • Visit the Website: http://projects.ch2m.com/rackvale Hwy. 212 Study c/o Fischer & Associates 2815 Montana Ave. Billings, MT 59101 MAY 2 2002 ?1-ry OF LAUREL Clerk/Treasurer Mary EMbleton P.O. Box 10 Laurel, MT 59044- Presrt Surd U.S. Postage Fuld f?i"i^,,,s, %fiT Permit # b8 `964 >??Gp1rJ ul ? !1?I?1?I!?il:???I??1?f;?!h?!sll;?a???ii!il???!?I?N..!!11?!I