fairview west environmental engineering analysis report · this environmental engineering analysis...

Prepared by:

ROBERT PECCIA & ASSOCIATES

www.rpa-hln.com

DRAFT

Environmental Engineering

Analysis Report

FAIRVIEW-WEST; STPP 201-2(14)64

UPN 8650000

November 3, 2017

Prepared for:

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MDT ACTIVITY 111

Fairview-West; STPP 201-2(14)64; UPN 8650000 Final Environmental Engineering Analysis Report MDT Activity 111

Robert Peccia & Associates

November 3, 2017 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

AVAILABLE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................... 2

PROJECT LOCATION................................................................................................................................ 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 5

LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 6

Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Potential Impacts, Avoidance, Minimization, and Proposed Mitigation ........................................................... 7

SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 8

Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Potential Impacts, Avoidance, Minimization, and Proposed Mitigation ........................................................... 9

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 9

Potential Impacts, Avoidance, Minimization, and Proposed Mitigation ......................................................... 10

SOCIAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................10


VISUAL QUALITY/AESTHETICS ..............................................................................................................11


IMPORTANT FARMLAND ......................................................................................................................11


SECTION 4(f) .........................................................................................................................................13

Historic Sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Public Parks, Recreational Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges ......................................................... 13


LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND SECTION 6(f) .....................................................................14


SURFACE WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................15

Surface Waters and Irrigation ............................................................................................................................. 15

Wetlands................................................................................................................................................................ 16


Water Quality Permitting ..................................................................................................................................... 21

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ....................................................................................................................22


DRINKING WATER SOURCES ................................................................................................................22


STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................23

MPDES Construction Storm Water General Permit ........................................................................................... 23




November 3, 2017 ii

Permanent Erosion and Sediment Control (PESC) Measures ........................................................................... 23

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) ............................................................................................... 24

Consideration of Low Impact Development (LID) Practices ............................................................................. 24

SIGNATURES .........................................................................................................................................25

SOURCES CONSULTED ..........................................................................................................................26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Location Map .................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: USGS Quad Maps for Project Area ................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3: Realignment Options for MT 201 East of RP 67.4+ ........................................................................ 5

Figure 4: Fairview Airport and Associated Airspace ..................................................................................... 8

Figure 5: Surface Waters in the Project Area .............................................................................................. 16

Figure 6: USRS Main Canal and Associated Laterals ................................................................................... 16

Figure 7: NWI Mapping and Photograph – Second Hay Creek ................................................................... 18

Figure 8: NWI Mapping and Photograph – Third Hay Creek ....................................................................... 19

Figure 9: NWI Mapping and Photograph – USRS Main Canal ..................................................................... 20

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS



November 3, 2017 1

Environmental Engineering Analysis Report

INTRODUCTION The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) has initiated project development activities for the

Fairview-West project. The project, designated as STPP 201-2(14)64, CN 8650000, is intended to reconstruct

approximately 6 miles of Montana Highway 201 (MT 201) west of the Town of Fairview in Richland County.

The initial phase of the Fairview-West project involved the identification and analysis of potential new

alignments for the eastern portion of the project corridor between Reference Post (RP) 67.4+ and the project

end on MT 200 (N-20) in Fairview. As part of the Phase 1 work, an Environmental Scan Report was prepared

in 2015 to help identify the existing environmental resources and conditions that may be potentially affected

by transportation-related improvements or that may influence the identification of new alignments for the

segment of interest on MT 201. The Phase 1 Environmental Scan Area encompassed a 3.6-square-mile area

which generally included the north half of the Town of Fairview and adjoining lands north and west of the

community. The boundaries of the Environmental Scan Area were established to include all areas affected by

all potential new road alignments on MT 201.

A 2015 Alternative Alignment Analysis report and 2016 Existing and Projected Conditions report were also

prepared. An April 13, 2016 meeting confirmed Phase I output; to pursue highway realignment for

approximately 2 miles of MT 201 north of Fairview, between approximately RP 67.4 and RP 69.5. Agreements

with the Town of Fairview and the Richland County were required before MDT would move forward with the

highway realignment. The agreement with the Town of Fairview was executed on May 12, 2016. The

agreement with Richland County was signed and executed on August 31, 2016.

Phase 2 of the project involves the completion of Preliminary Engineering design development activities in

accordance with the Consultant User’s Manual and Activity Descriptions to ready the project for construction

Bid Letting. The updated 2017 Preliminary Field Review (PFR) Report, distributed on March 23, 2017,

documents the proposed scope of activities for Phase 2.

The purpose and need statement as presented in the 2016 Existing and Projected Conditions report for this

project reads:

The roadway is being considered for improvements due to the large influx in traffic in the region, the

high proportion of heavy trucks using the roadway, and the desire to improve safety by bringing the

roadway up to current design criteria. A secondary objective is to alleviate the negative effects of

additional traffic and trucks within the Town of Fairview.

Design work, environmental analyses, and landowner coordination during Phase 2 of this project will help



November 3, 2017 2

establish the most feasible alignment to increase safety and alleviate truck impacts through the Town of

Fairview.

This Environmental Engineering Analysis Report documents initial analyses and findings related to applicable

regulations and potential effects to environmental resources within the area impacted by the Fairview-West

project. The report focuses on environmental considerations identified in the description of MDT’s Consultant

Design Activity 111 including current land use and socioeconomic conditions, visual resources, important

farmland, Section 4(f) and Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Section 6(f) properties, surface waters

and wetlands, and water quality concerns. The report offers a preliminary assessment of potential impacts to

these resources due to the implementation of the proposed roadway improvements and discusses the need

for mitigating measures or permitting from regulatory agencies. Potential environmental impacts or concerns

were identified through limited field surveys of project work areas; reviews of available aerials and on-the-

ground photography; and reviews of online databases and literature.

For the purposes of this report, environmental resources or conditions generally occurring within 200 feet of

the existing roadway centerline between the project beginning at RP 63.6 and RP 67.4+ (approximate beginning

of the realignment section) were evaluated. Since a specific alignment east of RP 67.4+ has not yet been

established, environmental resources or conditions in a broader area encompassing various realignment

options for MT 201 were evaluated.

AVAILABLE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS The following reference documents are currently available for the Fairview-West project:

• Phase 1 Environmental Scan (September 29, 2015)

• Phase 1 Alternative Alignment Analysis (September 29, 2015)

• Phase 1 Existing and Projected Conditions (June 14, 2016)

• Preliminary Field Review Report (March 23, 2017)

PROJECT LOCATION The Fairview-West project on MT 201 begins at RP 63.6± and extends easterly to RP 69.5± at the junction of

MT 201 and Montana Highway 200 (MT 200) within the Town of Fairview. As noted earlier, a new alignment

for MT 201 east of RP 67.4+ will be developed. Therefore, a new eastern project terminus on MT 200 north of

the city limits will be established based on the recommended design and alignment option forwarded from the

project’s Traffic Study.

The Town of Fairview is in the extreme northeastern portion of Richland County in northeast Montana.

Fairview is 12 miles northeast of Sidney, the county seat of Richland County. The confluence of the Missouri

River and Yellowstone River is located about 9 miles northeast of the community. Williston, North Dakota, is

situated about 40 road miles northeast of Fairview.

Figure 1 shows the general location of Fairview and the project area.



November 3, 2017 3

FIGURE 1: Project Location Map

This project will occur in the following legally described areas of Richland County:

• Township 25 North, Range 58 East, Section 36

• Township 24 North, Range 59 East, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4

• Township 25 North, Range 59 East, Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

• Township 24 North, Range 60 East, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8

Figure 2 shows the topography of the Fairview-West project area.

The following USGS Quad 24K Maps cover lands within the project area:

• Fairview SW

• Fairview

Fairview-West

Project Area

Fairview

Culbertson



November 3, 2017 4

FIGURE 2: USGS Quad Maps for Project Area

Begin Fairview-West

Project @ RP 63.6+

Begin Realignment Area

RP 67.4+

End of Fairview-

West Project (To be

determined during

design)

Begin Realignment Area

RP 67.4+



November 3, 2017 5

PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project involves the full reconstruction approximately 6 miles of MT 201 to Primary design criteria. MDT

proposes to reconstruct the existing 24-foot wide roadway with a new roadway with a 32-foot finished top

width built on a subgrade capable of accommodating a future 36-foot top width with 6:1 surfacing inslopes.

The new roadway would generally provide two 12-foot driving lanes and two 4-foot shoulders through the

project area.

The roadway would generally be reconstructed following the existing horizontal alignment between the

beginning of the project at RP 63.6+ and RP 64.7+ where a new easterly alignment is proposed. The complete

realignment of MT 201 east of RP 67.4± would be approximately 2.16 miles in length, and would require a new

bridge crossing over the USRS Main Canal associated with the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project. The

favored alignment option identified in the Phase I 2015 Alternative Alignment Analysis report is the green

alignment shown below in Figure 3. Note that the project end location for the realignment area shown below

does not reflect the array of possible intersection configurations at the MT 200 connection point north of

Fairview. The realignment connection will be determined through Phase II design. Furthermore, the best

realignment, to be least impactful, may be a combination of the three shown.

FIGURE 3: Realignment Options for MT 201 East of RP 67.4+

New right-of-way would be required over the entire length of the project, including all new right of way

needed for the approximate 2.16-mile realignment to the north of Fairview from RP 67.4± east to MT 200.



November 3, 2017 6

A new intersection would be required to reconnect existing MT 201 to the new easterly alignment at RP 67.4±.

Richland County has already agreed to maintain the existing alignment west of the incorporated limits of

Fairview to its connection with the new alignment, (the road is intended to be reclassified as a county road in

that segment at the conclusion of the project). Similarly, the Town of Fairview has agreed to maintain the

existing alignment from the incorporated city limits to the intersection of MT 200. Additionally, approach

realignments and installation of additional signage would be considered at the intersection of MT 201 and

County Road 350 (CR 350) at RP 63.8±.

The Second Hay Creek bridge, RP 64.13, will be replaced and likely be a new bridge, although other potential

options may be identified once hydraulic design is undertaken. If it is determined that fish passage is necessary,

then drainage features will be designed to pass fish. The Third Hay Creek Bridge, RP 65.68 will likely be replaced

with another type of drainage structure, subject to hydraulic analysis.

LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS

EXISTING LAND USE

The Fairview-West project area along MT 201 contains a variety of land uses including isolated rural

farmsteads, cultivated and grazing lands, scattered industrial developments, oil well pads and associated

production/storage facilities, gravel mining operations, and developed lands in and around the Town of

Fairview. Agricultural lands north of Fairview lie in the Yellowstone River Valley bottom and are extensively

irrigated through a system of irrigation ditches and canals associated with the Lower Yellowstone Project.

MT 200 (Ellery Avenue) in Fairview serves as the community’s main street and commercial core area. MT 201

(1st Street) in Fairview is primarily adjoined by residential development; however, scattered commercial and

public uses exist along the roadway west of town. Sharbano Park, the only city park in Fairview, is located at

the northeast quadrant of the current intersection of MT 200 and MT 201.

Transportation facilities are prominent in Fairview as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway operates

the rail line extending from Glendive through the community. The primary commodities transported on the

line are grains, refined sugar, and commodities, goods and equipment related to the oil and gas production in

the area. The Northstar Transloading terminal, a 400-acre rail-and-truck transportation hub, operates in East

Fairview, and is located just northeast of the Town of Fairview and north of MT 200/ND 200 at the state line.

The Fairview Airport is located on a 14.6-acre parcel adjoining the south side of MT 201 about a mile northwest

of the community. The airport, administered by the Sidney-Richland Regional Airport Authority, consists of a

3,000-feet-long by 95-feet-wide unlighted turf strip identified as Runway 8/26. The airfield includes a tie-down

area for several aircraft and several small hangars. The airfield has historically served private aircraft and

seasonal commercial crop spraying operation. Access to the Fairview Airport is via MT 201 at an approach

located at RP 68.2.

The Sidney-Richland Airport Authority has established an Airport Affected Area (AAA) for the Fairview Airport

and associated AAA regulations were adopted in September 2013. The AAA includes the land surrounding the

runways and the protected airspace above that land. The AAA extends 9,000 feet from each end of the runway

and 9,000 feet from the runway centerline over its length.



November 3, 2017 7

POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION

MDT’s Indirect Effects Screening Process and guidance was applied to help assess whether the Fairview-West

project has the potential to cause changes in land use or induce growth. This project was judged to have a low

potential to cause land use changes or induce growth in the Fairview area. Changes in traffic volumes and

travel speeds on MT 201 are not anticipated. The improvements may facilitate regional travel into and from

North Dakota and the transloading facility in East Fairview for some highway users.

This project does not have an economic development purpose and is not intended to serve any existing or

planned development. The project is intended to provide improvements that meet MDT’s design standards

and that make the highway safer and more efficient for users.

Much of the project will be constructed following the existing alignment (between RP 63.6 to RP 67.4+). There

would be no changes in access or in the development potential of adjoining lands in this area of the project.

East of RP 67.4+, MT 201 would be developed along a new alignment. However, the new alignment is replacing

an existing section of MT 201 that does not meet current MDT standards including roadway width and grades.

Safety will be improved for highway users and residents living along MT 201 in Fairview. Town of Fairview and

Richland County have approved this community bypass.

Only four landowners control the properties where the new alignment segment of MT 201 would be

developed. These lands are currently used for agricultural purposes, gravel mining operations, and irrigated

cropland (in the area north of Fairview where a new intersection for MT 201 and MT 200 would be developed).

The new alignment may indirectly benefit gravel mining operations although these areas are already accessed

via connections to MT 201 or other local roads in the area. Current land ownership appears to constrain the

development of lands in the alignment area and there is no indication these lands would change from their

current uses in the foreseeable future. Steep terrain west of Fairview also limits the development potential in

the new alignment segment of MT 201.

The AAA drawings for the Fairview Airport show MT 201 currently encroaches on the Airport Critical Area and

Runway Protection Area for Runway 8-26 at the Fairview Airport. The Airport Critical Area is defined in the

regulations as the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA), the Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA), the Runway Visibility

Zone (RVZ) and the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ). Airport owners strive to maintain control of RPZs by

clearing incompatible objects and activities. Guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally

views public roads within RPZs as incompatible land uses.

The Sidney-Richland Airport Authority has requested shifting the planned departure from the PTW at RP 67.4+

further west to RP 66.9± to ensure the new alignment of MT 201 does not fall within the airport’s western RPZ.

Preliminary design work and additional coordination would occur with the Sidney-Richland Regional Airport

Authority to determine if the alignment can be modified as requested.

Figure 4 shows the location of the airport and its protected airspace relative to the existing alignment of MT

201.



November 3, 2017 8

FIGURE 4: Fairview Airport and Associated Airspace

SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Title VI of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (USC 2000(d)) and Executive Order (EO) 12898 Federal

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations require that no

minority, or, by extension, low-income person shall be disproportionately adversely impacted by any project

receiving federal funds. For transportation projects, this means that no particular minority or low-income

person may be disproportionately isolated, displaced, or otherwise subjected to adverse effects.

This project encompasses lands within Census Tract 701 in Richland County. Estimated race and ethnicity

characteristics for these Census Tracts were compared with similar statistics for the Town of Fairview, Richland

County and the State of Montana using the American Community Survey (ACS) Profile Report for the 2011-

2015 period. The ACS data are period estimates meaning they represent the characteristics of the population

and housing over a specific data collection period (5 years in this case).

The following are key findings from a review of the ACS data:

• Minority populations within Census Tract 701 are low, accounting for only 5.9% of the total estimated

populations of the Census Tract. For comparison, the Town of Fairview had a minority population

totaling 9.6% and Richland County had a minority population of 5.4% over the 2011-2015 period

Approximate Beginning of MT 201

Realignment Area (RP 67.4+)



November 3, 2017 9

considered in the ACS. The State of Montana had a minority population of 10.8% during the same

period.

• The percentages of Hispanic or Latino residents ranged from 3.3% to 4.4% for all geographies.

• The median ages of residents in Census Tract 701 and the Town of Fairview were 40.5 and 43.8,

respectively. This compares with a median age of 38.0 years for all residents of Richland County and

39.7 years for all residents in the State of Montana. An estimated 18.1% of the residents in in Census

Tract 701 were older than 65 years as compared to 20.2% of the population in the Town of Fairview

and 13.4% of residents in Richland County. In the State of Montana, 16.2% of residents were aged 65

or older according the 2011-2015 ACS.

• Census Tract 701 and the Town of Fairview had higher percentages of residents living with disabilities

than seen for all of Richland County and for the State of Montana.

• Approximately 14.7% of the population in Census Tract 701 were estimated to live below the poverty

line per the ACS. About 19.4% of all residents in the Town of Fairview and 11.4% of all residents of

Richland County were estimated to have lived below the poverty line during the 2011-2015 period.

Within the State of Montana, 15.2% of all residents lived below the poverty line during the same

period.


The 2011-2015 ACS data does not indicate a disproportionate number of either minority or low-income

populations residing in Census Tract 701 where this project is located. Minor amounts of new right-of-way are

needed to accommodate the reconstructed roadway between the project’s beginning and RP 67.4± and a new

right-of-way corridor would need to be established along the preferred alignment for MT 201 east of RP 67.4±.

The project would not displace any residents, businesses or farms. However, irrigated land associated with

farm(s) north of Fairview would be affected by right-of-way acquisition. Roadway improvements would

increase safety for area residents and all roadway users. There are no known concentrations of minority and

low-income populations in the project area. For these reasons, the proposed project would not be expected

to result in disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-

income populations.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS The economy of Richland County is diverse with mining, agriculture, construction, retail trade, education and

health care, transportation/warehousing/utilities, and the service industries all playing notable roles. Richland

County is the highest oil producing county in Montana. The county along with adjoining Roosevelt and Sheridan

Counties are situated in the western portion of the Bakken Formation, one of the largest inland oil finds in the

U.S. over the past 50 years. In recent years, the mining industry, which includes business that extract naturally-

occurring mineral solids, liquid minerals and gases, and includes various oil-related services (fracking sand,

saltwater and rig movements) led the county in average employment.

Sidney, the county seat, is a thriving regional center and is located at the heart of oil and gas development in

the Bakken region of Montana. The Town of Fairview, the only other incorporated community in Richland

County, is located 12 miles northwest of Sidney. Fairview sees considerable oil-related traffic moving between

Sidney and oil production areas in the Williston Basin of North Dakota.



November 3, 2017 10

The 2011-2015 ACS estimates the median household income in Census Tract 701 and the Town of Fairview at

$54,318 and $49,250, respectively. For comparison, the ACS shows the median household income for all

residents of Richland County to be $65,084 and $47,169 for all residents of the State of Montana.


No long-term economic impacts are anticipated due to the implementation of this proposed project. The

planned improvements to MT 201 would require the acquisition of new land to expand the existing right-of-

way corridor between RP 63.6 to RP 67.4+ and to develop about 2 miles of new roadway east of RP 67.4+ to

MT 200 north of Fairview. New right-of-way acquisition would result in minor decreases in the local tax base.

Agricultural operations, industrial facilities, oil pads with production/storage facilities, and gravel mining

installations occur in the project area. The proposed project would maintain access to these adjoining land

uses. No relocations of businesses or farming operations would occur due to this project.

Minor, short-term economic benefits could be seen during construction particularly if the project is built by

contractors using local or regional workers. This would produce income for employees that could be spent

within the Town of Fairview and Richland County for housing and necessary goods and services. Benefits could

also be realized through the purchase of construction materials. It is anticipated some materials, like concrete

and paving materials, would be locally available in Richland County.

SOCIAL IMPACTS The 2010 Census estimated the populations of Richland County and the Town of Fairview to be 9,746 and 840

residents, respectively. Over the 2000-2010 period, the population in Richland County increased by 0.8 percent

but the Town of Fairview’s population grew by 18.5 percent. US Census Bureau estimates the population of

Richland County to be 11,960 and of the Town of Fairview to be 962 as of July 1, 2015. These estimates suggest

the County’s population has increased by more than 22 percent since 2010 and Fairview’s population has

grown by more than 14 percent since the last census.

MT 201 currently ends at MT 200 (Ellery Avenue) within the Town of Fairview. This section of MT 201, with

annual average daily traffic volumes exceeding 2,000 vehicles per day, passes through residential areas in

Fairview before joining MT 200. MDT’s Preliminary Field Review Report shows vehicles in Classes 5 through 13

(trucks/trailers) represent about 23.5% of the traffic on MT 201 between RP 63.6+ and RP 69.52. Public

comments heard during Phase 1 activities for this project noted truck traffic on MT 201 poses safety and noise

concerns for residents in the area.

There are no public schools, churches or other public meeting places located within the project area.


The Fairview-West project would not affect the population of the project area and would not displace any

residents or businesses. Additionally, the proposed project would not divide existing neighborhoods or change

community cohesion. Rerouting MT 201 north of Fairview would result in beneficial impacts for residents in

Fairview as through truck traffic and associated noise, congestion, and safety concerns are removed from

residential areas adjoining the current highway in the community.



November 3, 2017 11

VISUAL QUALITY/AESTHETICS The western two thirds of the MT-201 corridor is located within level to gently rolling terrain with views

dominated by rural farmsteads with windbreaks, cultivated and grazing land, and scattered industrial

developments and oil production facilities, and gravel mining operations. Several county roads intersect MT

201 in this area and the Fairview Airport with its grass landing strip and associated hangar buildings adjoins the

south side of the highway. West of Fairview, MT 201 traverses relatively steep hills before entering the

developed area of the community. Views of the broad Lower Yellowstone River Valley to the east are visible

from the top of the hills west of Fairview. Irrigated cropland and industrial and transportation related

development are the dominant visual features along MT 200 north of Fairview.


Visual impacts would not be expected with the implementation of this project. This conclusion was reached

because the proposed roadway improvements would cause little change in the existing setting of the project

area. The proposed improvements would not be out of character with current development along MT 201 west

of RP 67.4+.

Construction of a new alignment for MT 201 between RP 67.4+ and MT 200 north of Fairview would introduce

a roadway in an entirely new area. No residents live in the new alignment area north of the Fairview Airport

where agriculture and gravel mining occur. Road cuts may be apparent to Fairview area residents and users of

MT 200 as the new section of highway traverses the hilly area northwest of Fairview. Prudent roadway siting

and design and revegetation of roadway cut and fill sections after construction should help mitigate these

effects. A new intersection for MT 201 and MT 200 would be developed north of Fairview. This change would

be obvious for area residents and frequent highway users due to the realignment of roadways and introduction

of new highway facilities.

IMPORTANT FARMLAND The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires special consideration be given to soils designated as prime

farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The FPPA is intended to minimize the impact Federal programs

have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Farmland subject to

FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. The FPPA does not apply to lands already

in or committed to urban development.

Prime farmland soils are those that have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for

producing food, feed, and forage; the area must also be available for these uses. Prime farmland can be either

non-irrigated or lands that would be considered prime if irrigated. Farmland of statewide importance is land,

in addition to prime and unique farmlands, that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed,

fiber, forage, and oilseed crops.

Information about prime or unique farmlands and farmland of statewide or local importance crossed by

existing MT 201 or along potential new alignments east of RP 67.4 was obtained in August 2017 from the Web

Soil Survey (WSS), an online resource for soil maps, available from the NRCS. The NRCS information showed



November 3, 2017 12

several soils classified as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance in the project area. These soils

are identified below:

PROJECT AREA SOILS MEETING IMPORTANT FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION

Map Unit Map Unit Name Farmland Classification

ShB Shambo loam, 2 to 4 % slopes Prime Farmland If Irrigated

ShA Shambo loam, 0 to 2 % slopes Prime Farmland If Irrigated

VdB Vida clay loam, 1 to 4% slopes Prime Farmland If Irrigated

VdC Williams-Vida loams, 2 to 8% slopes Farmland of statewide importance

Ch Cherry, Havrelon, and Trembles soils, occasionally flooded Prime farmland if irrigated

WmB Williams loam, 0 to 4% slopes Prime Farmland If Irrigated

TaC Tally fine sandy loam, 4 to 12% slopes Farmland of statewide importance

CeB Cherry silty clay loam, 2 to 4% slopes Prime farmland if irrigated

CeA Cherry silty clay loam, 0 to 2% slopes Prime farmland if irrigated

E4121A Havrelon loam, 0 to 2% slopes, occasionally flooded Farmland of statewide importance


Highway projects may result in the direct loss of farmland due to the need to expand the existing highway right-

of-way corridor and create a new highway corridor in the realigned section of MT 201 east of RP 67.4+. Indirect

conversion of farmland may occur if a highway project isolates or makes agricultural parcels too small to farm.

In developing or high growth areas, highways can also create pressure for the conversion from farming to other

uses.

Notable areas of Important Farmland exist near the beginning of the project, near the Second Hay Creek and

Third Hay Creek crossings on MT 201, between the intersection of MT 201 and County Road 134 and the

Fairview Airport, and west of MT 200 north of Fairview.

Right-of-way acquisition for this project will result in the direct conversion of soils meeting Important Farmland

classifications to nonagricultural use. The existing right-of-way typically ranges between 40 feet and 60 feet

on either side of the MT 201 roadway centerline. The new roadway will be built on a subgrade that will

accommodate a future 36-foot finished top width typical section with 6:1 surfacing inslopes. Fill slopes will be

designed to 6:1 (where appropriate depending on fill heights). The new roadway section will be substantially

wider than the existing roadway section which has a 24-foot wide finished top with 3:1 fill slopes. Additionally,

the roadway east of RP 67.4± will be constructed on an entirely new alignment. Therefore, varying amounts of

new right-of-way will be required over the entire length of the project, including all new right of way needed

for the 2.16-mile realignment from RP 67.4± east to MT 200.

Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to

nonagricultural use. The assessment is completed using the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (form

AD-1006) for specific locations or the CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form for Linear Projects.

Coordination with the NRCS may be required depending on the “Total Site Assessment Points” score in Part VI

of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form.



November 3, 2017 13

SECTION 4(F) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provides that “the Secretary of Transportation

will not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park,

recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance or land from an historic

site of national, State, or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless

there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program, and the project includes

all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.”

HISTORIC SITES

Section 4(f) applies to all historic sites of national, state, or local significance and typically protects only historic

or archeological properties on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Within

historic districts, Section 4(f) applies to the use of those properties that are considered contributing to the

eligibility of the historic district, as well as any individually eligible property within the district.

A Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) and Cultural Resources Annotated Bibliography (CRABS) file

search was conducted for the Phase 1 Environmental Scan Area in April 2015. Additionally, a CRIS/CRABS file

search was conducted for the remainder of the Fairview-West project area in August 2017.

The CRABS file searches show 12 cultural resource surveys were conducted between 1988 and 2015 on lands

that include the Fairview-West project area. The CRIS file searches identified 15 previously recorded properties

within sections of land crossed or adjoining MT 201 in the general vicinity of the project.

A review of previously recorded sites identified in the Phase 1 Environmental Scan shows only one site-- the

Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project (24RL0204)—within the Fairview-West project area. The Lower

Yellowstone Project was originally built in the late 1900s by the Bureau of Reclamation. The historic irrigation

system consists of a 72-mile-long Main Canal, 225 miles of laterals, and 118 miles of open drains. The Main

Canal flows south to north along the western edge of the Town of Fairview and is crossed by the existing

alignment of MT 201 at about RP 69.3. The canals, laterals, and other features associated with the Lower

Yellowstone Irrigation Project have a Consensus Determination of eligibility for the National Register of Historic

Places (NRHP). The Main Canal and several associated lateral ditches exist in the Fairview-West project area.

Several rural farmsteads and timber bridges at Second and Third Hay Creeks are historic age features that exist

in the western half of the Fairview-West corridor.

Ethnoscience, a cultural resources consultant, will be conducting a Class I investigation to determine the

potential to encounter cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect for the Fairview-West project

during the Fall of 2017. This effort will document previously recorded and newly identified historic or

prehistoric sites that may be affected by the project. Ethnoscience will also make recommendations about

NRHP eligibility for all cultural sites within the Area of Potential Effect for this project.

PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATIONAL LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES

Publicly owned land is considered to be a park or recreation area or wildlife and waterfowl refuge when the

land has been officially designated as such by a Federal, State or local agency, and the officials with jurisdiction



November 3, 2017 14

over the land determine that its primary purpose is as a park, recreation area, or refuge. The requirements of

Section 4(f) apply if the entire public park or recreation area permits visitation by the general public at any time

during the normal operating hours.

The Town of Fairview’s Growth Policy Update shows only one park—Sharbano Park—within the community.

Sharbano Park, a publicly-owned park and recreation site, represents a Section 4(f) resource. The park and the

Fairview Pool are located northeast of the intersection of MT 201 and MT 200/Ellery Avenue.

There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges near the Fairview-West project area.


A use of Section 4(f) property is defined in 23 CFR 774.17 and occurs when:

• Land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;

• There is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) statute's

preservationist purposes; or

• There is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property.

Land is considered permanently incorporated into a transportation project when it has been purchased as

right-of-way or sufficient property interests have otherwise been acquired for the purpose of project

implementation. A temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land includes right-of-entry, project construction, a

temporary easement, or other short-term arrangement involving a 4(f) property. Temporary occupancies

cannot result in a change in ownership of the land, long-term disruptions of use, or permanent adverse physical

impacts. Constructive use occurs when the proximity impacts of a project on an adjacent or near-by Section

4(f) property, after incorporation of impact mitigation, are so severe that the activities, features, or attributes

that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.

This project would require a new crossing of the USRS Main Canal (24RL0204) north of Fairview and may affect

associated lateral ditches resulting in minor impacts to this historic irrigation system. Coordination with the

Bureau of Reclamation will be required and completion of a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for Minor

Involvement with Historic Sites is anticipated.

Until the cultural resource investigation has been completed, it is unknown whether any other historic

properties that could be subject to Section 4(f) protection exist in the project area.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND SECTION 6(F) Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) provides funds for buying or developing

public use recreational lands through grants to local and state governments. Section 6(f)(3) of the Act prevents

conversion of lands purchased or developed with LWCF funds to non-recreation uses, unless the Secretary of

the Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service (NPS), approves the conversion.

Conversion may only be approved if the conversion is consistent with comprehensive statewide outdoor

recreation plan in force when the approval occurs, and the converted property is replaced with other

recreation property of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.



November 3, 2017 15

A review of LWCF grants in Richland County maintained by NPS shows four grants were received for projects

within the Town of Fairview that received funding through the LWCF. These projects include:

• Grant ID 30-00143 Fairview Pool Renovation Approved 10/19/1970

• Grant ID 30-00357 Fairview Pool Bathhouse Approved 04/07/1976

• Grant ID 30-00487 Fairview Play Area Approved 03/14/1979

• Grant ID 30-00600 1983 Statewide Community Projects Approved 06/30/1983

The Fairview Pool is in the northern part of Sharbano Park located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection

of MT 201 with MT 200/Ellery Avenue. The LWCF grant summary for Richland County is not specific enough to

determine the locations of projects within the community funded by the 1979 and 1983 grants; however, it is

likely that these projects were within the Town of Fairview.


No impacts are anticipated since there are no LWCF properties adjoining the proposed work area for this

project.

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

SURFACE WATERS AND IRRIGATION

Surface water resources on and adjacent to the proposed Fairview-West project were identified through online

research and a review of previous planning documents. These work efforts identified the following surface

water features:

• Second Hay Creek (RP 64.13)

• Third Hay Creek (RP 65.68)

• USRS Main Canal (RP 69.35)

Second Hay Creek and Third Hay Creek are intermittent tributaries to the Lower Yellowstone River. Both

streams lie within the Horse Creek-Yellowstone Watershed (Unit Code 1010000427) which drains more than

144,000 acres. Neither Second Hay Creek or Third Hay Creek were assessed by MDEQ and do not appear on

the 303(d) list for 2016. The location of these streams is shown in Figure 5.

As noted earlier, a portion of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project exists in the

project area and irrigates lands in the Fairview area of Richland County. The irrigation system begins at the

Intake Diversion Dam located 18 miles downstream from Glendive and the water flows through irrigated lands

via a 72-mile-long Main Canal and an extensive distribution system of laterals and open drains. All of the Main

Canal and most of the lateral system is unlined. The Lower Yellowstone Project is primarily a gravity flow system

with a water season that normally extends from May 1 through October 1. Figure 6 shows the location of the

Main Canal and associated laterals north of Fairview.



November 3, 2017 16

FIGURE 5: Surface Waters in the Project Area

FIGURE 6: USRS Main Canal and Associated Wetlands

WETLANDS

Wetlands are lands on which water covers the soil or is present either at or near the surface of the soil or within

the root zone, all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season.

Wetlands can be identified by the existence of plants adapted to life in the soils that form under flooded or

saturated conditions characteristic of wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands—those that are regulated by the Corps

Second Hay Creek

Crossing (RP 64.13)

Third Hay Creek

Crossing (RP 65.68)

USRS Main Canal



November 3, 2017 17

of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act—must exhibit all three characteristics: wetland

hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils.

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was

reviewed to identify the presence of wetlands and aquatic habitat in the project area. NWI wetlands are

identified in general accordance with USFWS’s publication Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats

of the United States. However, NWI maps do not define wetlands for regulatory purposes since the wetlands

are identified through aerial photo interpretation. The NWI definition of wetlands is broader than the

regulatory definition used by the COE in that it only requires one or more of the three attributes of wetlands

(wetland hydrology, vegetation, or soils) be present to be a wetland.

Note the Fairview-West project area will be surveyed for surface waters and wetlands by RESPEC scientists

during September 2017 in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual

[Environmental Laboratory, 1987] and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation

Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Information about delineated wetland

sites in the project area will be used to update this report.

The COE administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates the discharge of fill into “Waters of

the U.S.” The COE ultimately determines which surface waters and wetlands are jurisdiction for 404 permitting

purposes. Perennial and intermittent streams, irrigation canals and associated ditches, and wetland sites are

typically considered jurisdictional by the COE and subject to Section 404 permitting requirements. Preliminary

conclusions about jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. in the project area will be included in RESPEC’s Biological

Resources Report.

Photographs and snapshots of NWI mapping for Second Hay Creek, Third Hay Creek, and the USRS Main Canal

project work areas are provided in Figures 7, 8 and 9.



November 3, 2017 18

FIGURE 7: NWI Mapping and Photograph – Second Hay Creek

Second Hay Creek Crossing (RP 64.13) showing associated open water and wetland areas (Looking East)

NWI Mapping for Second Hay Creek area

NWI mapping shows freshwater emergent wetlands (PEM1Ch), freshwater pond wetlands (PABFh), and

riverine wetlands (R4SBC) at the Second Hay Creek crossing. The freshwater emergent wetlands and ponds in

the area are semi-permanently flooded and surface water may be present for extended periods especially early

in the growing season. The areas have high groundwater conditions. Surface water may be present for

extended periods in riverine wetlands especially early in the growing season, but is likely absent by the end of

the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable.



November 3, 2017 19

FIGURE 8: NWI Mapping and Photograph – Third Hay Creek

Third Hay Creek Crossing (RP 65.68) showing wetland areas (Looking West)

NWI Mapping for Third Hay Creek area

NWI mapping shows riverine wetlands (R4SBC) exist along Third Hay Creek. Surface water may be present for

extended periods especially early in the growing season, but is likely absent by the end of the growing season

in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable.



November 3, 2017 20

FIGURE 9: NWI Mapping and Photograph – USRS Main Canal

Looking south at USRS Main Canal from existing MT 201 Crossing (RP 69.35)

NWI Mapping for USRS Main Canal area north of Fairview NWI mapping shows riverine wetlands (R2UBFx) and freshwater emergent wetlands (PEM1Cx) exist along

portions of the Main Canal. Several intermittent drainages in the realignment area of the Fairview-West

project contain isolated areas of riparian scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands.



November 3, 2017 21


The Fairview-West project would replace the existing timber bridges at Second Hay Creek and Third Hay Creek

with appropriately sized drainage structures. The existing bridge at Second Hay Creek would likely be replaced

with a new bridge. A large drainage structure may be installed at Third Hay Creek depending on the results of

the hydraulic analysis. These activities would require work in stream channels and adjacent wetlands.

A new free-span bridge would be required across the Main Canal at a location north of Fairview due to the

development of a new alignment for MT 201. The Bureau of Reclamation’s Engineering and O&M Guidelines

for Crossings would be followed to help minimize adverse effects on lands and facilities administered by the

agency. Coordination with the Board controlling the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project and affected

landowners would be undertaken to help avoid or minimize impacts to agricultural operations and downstream

water users. The existing bridge over the Main Canal at RP 69.35 would remain in place. The bridge, as well as

the segment of the PTW replaced by the new alignment, would be maintained by the Town of Fairview once

the project is complete.

Roadbed widening, horizontal alignment offset, grade adjustments, and slope flattening would likely require

the extension of or total replacement of drainage culverts beneath the existing roadway west of RP 67.4+.

Development of a new alignment east of RP 67.4+ would likely impact other ephemeral drainages and may

affect irrigation laterals or ditches. Efforts would be made during the design of the project to minimize or avoid

impacts to delineated wetlands and waters in the project area. The extent of impacts to wetlands would be

determined during project design and depend upon the established construction limits. Once construction

limits are set, wetland impact acreages would be determined and used for Section 404 permitting purposes.

WATER QUALITY PERMITTING

Various state and federal water quality permits are often required to implement construction projects. These

permits may include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be filed with the Montana

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit and

Section 401 Water Quality Certification; and a Stream Protection Act (SPA 124) permit from Montana Fish,

Wildlife & Parks.

The need for water-related permits was evaluated based on the proposed work activities associated with the

Fairview-West project. This review is summarized below:

WATER QUALITY PERMIT

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY

COMMENTS

CWA Section 404 Permit (Nationwide or Individual Permit)

COE REQUIRED Reconstruction of MT 201 would require work in or adjacent to Second Hay Creek and Third Hay Creek, and a new crossing of the USRS Main Canal north of the Town of Fairview. The project may also affect unnamed tributaries or associated wetland areas of these surface waters. Work north of Fairview may affect laterals associated with the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project.



November 3, 2017 22

WATER QUALITY PERMIT

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY

COMMENTS

Section 401 Water Quality Certification

MDEQ REQUIRED Impacts to surface waters, irrigation ditches, and wetlands are anticipated. Since MDEQ has 401 Certification authority, permit fees will need to be calculated.

Stream Protection Act (SPA 124)

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

REQUIRED The project would require work in or adjacent to Second Hay Creek and Third Hay Creek.

318 Authorization MDEQ REQUIRED Impacts to surface waters, irrigation ditches, and wetlands are anticipated.

Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (Standard Form 299)

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains

Regional Office

REQUIRED The Fairview-West project would require a new crossing of the Main Canal and may affect associated irrigation lateral(s) or other features. A written land use authorization must be obtained to cross any Bureau of Reclamation land, facility, or water body.

Tribal Water Quality Permit

Native American Tribes

NOT APPLICABLE The project area is not on a Reservation and there is no need for a Tribal water permit.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, created by Congress in 1968, provided for the protection of certain selected

rivers, and their immediate environments, that possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. In 1976, Congress designated portions of

two rivers in Montana—the Flathead River and the Missouri River—as wild, scenic, or recreational components

of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The Missouri River which forms the northern boundary of

Richland County is not classified as a Wild and Scenic River segment.


This project would not impact any Wild and Scenic Rivers.

DRINKING WATER SOURCES The listing of Public Water Systems in Richland County maintained by the MDEQ Public Water Supply Program

was reviewed to identify potential drinking water sources in the project area. The MDEQ data shows 20 Public

Water Systems in the County. The Town of Fairview Water System (MT0000213) is the only Public Water

System in proximity to the Fairview-West project area. The community system currently has 415 service

connections and uses two wells as a water source.

In addition, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Ground Water Information Center (GWIC) was

consulted to identify wells near the project. This review showed 11 wells within 500 feet of MT 201 west of RP

67.4+. Only one well appears to be within the proposed new alignment area east of RP 67.4+.



November 3, 2017 23


Road reconstruction west of RP 67.4+ could potentially affect seven wells listed by the GWIC. The wells in this

area appear to be located near the existing right-of-way limits for MT 201. Until site surveying for the design

of the project establishes the exact locations of these wells, it is uncertain if any wells would be impacted by

this project. In general, the project would be designed and constructed in a manner that attempts to minimize

or avoid impacts to domestic wells.

No impacts to the Town of Fairview Water System are anticipated.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

MPDES CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act requires permit coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) program for construction activities disturbing one or more acres of land. The EPA

administers the NPDES storm water permitting program for Indian Country within the State of Montana, and

provides coverage for storm water discharges through the NPDES General Permit for Discharges from

Construction Activities. For all other areas, the State of Montana administers its own permitting program—the

Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) through the MDEQ. This state permitting program

is authorized under the Montana Water Quality Act. The goal of the MPDES program is to protect water quality

in state waters, including streams, irrigation systems, drainage systems, lakes, and ponds.

The MPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity authorizes

permittees to discharge storm water in accordance with permit requirements. One of these requirements is to

develop and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP must identify pollutant sources and identify site-specific Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce potential pollutants in storm water discharges.


General permit coverage is required for construction activities that include clearing, grading, grubbing,

excavation, or other earth disturbing activities that disturb one or more acres and discharge storm water to

state surface waters or to a storm sewer system that discharges to a state surface water. The extent of ground

disturbance associated with the Fairview-West project is unknown at this time but the scope of this project

suggests the disturbance area would easily exceed the one acre threshold requiring an MPDES Construction

Storm Water General Permit.

Contractors on MDT projects must identify BMPs needed to comply with all federal, state, tribal, and local

storm water regulations to control erosion and sedimentation, and prevent unauthorized releases of storm

water and pollutants from the project site. BMPs selected for use on MDT projects must comply with design,

installation, maintenance, inspection, and removal guidelines outlined in MDT’s Erosion and Sediment Control

Best Management Practices Manual.

PERMANENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (PESC) MEASURES

MDT’s Permanent Erosion and Sediment Control Design Guidelines (September 2010) indicates that



November 3, 2017 24

incorporation of PESC measures should be considered with projects disturbing 1 acre or more, or projects

having the potential to adversely affect water quality. Incorporation of PESC measures will typically be limited

to projects with scopes related to rehabilitation or reconstruction and locations in proximity to sensitive

resources such as impaired waterways or high quality aquatic habitat and spawning areas. PESC measures can

also provide solutions for areas with a history of erosion or sedimentation problems.

Vegetation in the Fairview-West project area consists of wooded draws, Great Plains mixed prairie grasses, and

areas of dry and irrigated cultivated land. The project’s geologic setting varies with the level lands in and around

Fairview typically underlain by gravel, sand and silt. Steeper slopes above Fairview are made up of sandstone,

siltstone, mudstone and clay. Further west the alignment crosses areas of glacial till. Numerous gravel pits are

in vicinity. There are no impaired waterways or high quality aquatic habitat in the project area. PESC features

would be developed as needed under this project based on the findings of geotechnical investigations

regarding erosion potential, and the potential need based on the proposed hydraulic design.

MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4)

The MDEQ administers a permit program for regulating storm water discharges associated with small municipal

separate storm sewer systems (MS4). On November 30, 2016, the MDEQ reissued the “MPDES General Permit

for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)” for use in

addressing the applicable requirements. The Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES)

General Permit for Small MS4s requires permittees to “…develop, implement and enforce a Storm Water

Management Program (SWMP) to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the permitted Small MS4 to the

maximum extent practicable, to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality

requirements of the Montana Water Quality Act.”

The Fairview-West project does not fall within the boundary of any Small MS4 area.

CONSIDERATION OF LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) PRACTICES

The term Low Impact Development (LID) with respect to storm water management refers to systems and

practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of storm

water in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat. LID practices must be evaluated for

development or redevelopment projects that disturb one or more acres of land area or projects disturbing less

than one acres of land that are part of a larger common plan of development and that discharge into a

regulated Small MS4 area.

Since this project does not occur within a regulated Small MS4 Area, consideration of LID practices is not

necessary.



November 3, 2017 25

SIGNATURES The following individuals were responsible for the preparation of this Environmental Engineering Analysis

Report.

AUTHOR

__________________________________________________ DATE: __________________________

Daniel M. Norderud, AICP

Environmental Studies Group Manager


SUPERVISING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

__________________________________________________ DATE: __________________________

Thomas R. Cavanaugh, P.E.

Highways Group Assistant Manager




November 3, 2017 26

SOURCES CONSULTED Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center, US Census Data. Available at: http://ceic.mt.gov/; Accessed: August 2, 2017. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Public Water Supply Program, List of Public Water Systems.

Available at: http://sdwisdww.mt.gov:8080/DWW/; Accessed: August 3, 2017.

Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Ground Water Information Center (GWIC). Available at:

http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper/mapper.asp?view=Wells&; Accessed August 3, 2017.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Interactive Mapping website, Available at: http://svc.mt.gov/deq/wmadst/, Accessed: August 4, 2017. Montana State Library, Digital Atlas. Available at: https://mslservices.mt.gov/Geographic_Information/Applications/DigitalAtlas/; Accessed: August 8, 2017.

National Park Service LWCF Project List by County and Summary Reports, Available at https://waso-

lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm. Accessed on August 9, 2017.

Montana Water Resources Board, Richland County Water Resources Survey, 1971, Available at: http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/records-unit/survey-books, Accessed: August 3, 2017.

US Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015, Richland County, Town of Fairview, and

State of Montana. Available at: http://census.missouri.edu/acs/profiles/, Accessed: August 1, 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (WSS), Farmland

Classification—Richland County, Montana, Accessible at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). Accessed:

August 2, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper, Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html; Accessed: August 3, 2017.

http://ceic.mt.gov/

http://sdwisdww.mt.gov:8080/DWW/

http://data.mbmg.mtech.edu/mapper/mapper.asp?view=Wells&

http://svc.mt.gov/deq/wmadst/

https://mslservices.mt.gov/Geographic_Information/Applications/DigitalAtlas/

https://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm

https://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/records-unit/survey-books

http://census.missouri.edu/acs/profiles/

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html



November 3, 2017

APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY



November 3, 2017

MT 201 near beginning of the project (Looking East)

MT 201 at intersection of County Road 350 (Looking East)



November 3, 2017

MT 201 at Second Hay Creek (Looking East)

MT 201 at RP 64.6 (Looking East)



November 3, 2017

MT 201 at County Road 351 intersection (Looking East)

MT 201 west of Third Hay Creek and County Road 352 (Looking East)



November 3, 2017

MT 201 west of County Road 134 Intersection (Looking East)

MT 201 east of County Road 134 Intersection (Looking Southeast)



November 3, 2017

MT 201 at RP 67.4+ (West end of new alignment area for MT 201)

Looking Northeast at MT 201 realignment area



November 3, 2017

Irrigated cropland located north of Fairview and west of MT 200.

Looking southwest from MT 200 north of Fairview.



November 3, 2017

Beg

in F

air

view

-Wes

t P

roje

ct

RP

63

.6+

Sec

ond H

ay

Cre

ek

RP

64

.13+

RP

65

RP

64



November 3, 2017

Thir

d H

ay

Cre

ek

RP

65.6

8+

RP

66



November 3, 2017

Beg

in M

T 2

01

Rea

lignm

ent

Are

a

RP

67.4

+

RP

67



November 3, 2017

Rea

lignm

ent

Are

a E

ast

of

RP

67.4

+ w

ith N

ew C

onnec

tion t

o

MT

20

0

fairview west environmental engineering analysis report · this environmental engineering analysis...

Documents