Even if you can find a copy.
The public document is available for review on the Internet at www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/docs/eis_ea/eis_ninepipe.pdf.
Still, a few folks on the Flathead Reservation are already reading the report with critical eyes, since it recommends a one-mile southbound passing lane through the environmentally sensitive Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge south of Ronan.
Everything from painted turtles to endangered grizzly bears cross that stretch of highway - and countless turtles, and an occasional grizzly bear, are hit each year by passing vehicles. So it is of critical importance to the highway engineers who are charged with making this highway a “context sensitive” design.
That means protecting animals and wetlands on the unique homeland of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes - while moving people and products quickly and safely through the area at a reasonable cost to taxpayers.
The tradeoff between transportation goals and environmental context have made the design of this 11-mile stretch of Highway 93, from the bottom of Post Creek Hill through Ronan, perhaps the most challenging - and potentially the most expensive - of the entire 56-mile reconstruction project across the Flathead Reservation.
Six years ago, when the original memorandum of understanding to rebuild the highway was signed by representatives of state, federal and tribal governments, the document emphasized the value of the Ninepipe wetland area as a cultural and ecological jewel.
Although the memorandum deferred discussing Ninepipe in detail while awaiting the SEIS, which was published earlier this month, it leaves little doubt about what tribal, state and federal governments expected.
“The existing alignment of U.S. 93 through Ninepipe has resulted in significant adverse ecological and cultural impacts,” the document states. “Although the road corridor is only 100 feet wide, the road-effect zone, which defines the ecological effects to wildlife and the environment, is more than 1,000 meters wide. ... Due to the high ecological value of the landscape, passing lanes are not appropriate and will not be included.”
So how did a southbound passing lane creep back into the planning for the Ninepipe section?
Officials directly involved in drafting the document were not available Monday to comment or did not return calls.
But the discussion in the SEIS makes clear that alternatives such as moving the highway east or west to avoid the Ninepipe area were exhaustively discussed and ultimately discarded as unfeasible and/or illegal. State law, federal rules and tribal cultural concerns all argued against moving the roadway.
Thus they were left with the existing route - a straight-ahead highway boring across the wetlands and through the kettle ponds dotting the Ninepipe.
The design committee then moved on to lane configuration and other important design details. Early discussions mentioned building an elevated parkway over the Ninepipe area to avoid the wetlands and ecological issues. An elevated bridge would avoid wildlife and wetlands and have the least adverse ecological impact once the highway was complete, consultants and engineers agreed.
That alternative (No. 7) has been included as one of 10 for the rural section of the road design. While it is the environmentalists' choice, it is not that of the committee that drafted the SEIS.
The reasons boil down to cost and safety of the traveling public versus preservation of those longtime reservation residents - turtles, wetlands and grizzly bears.
“Although the Rural 7 alternative has the fewest impacts on wetlands, it is estimated to cost $80 million more than the next most expensive alternative (Rural 9) and $76 million more than Rural 10,” an appendix to the document states. Rural 10 is the technical committee's choice for a preferred alternative in the SEIS.
The elevated bridge, should it be adopted, would delay completion of the U.S. 93 reconstruction some six years (out to 2016 or later). And during that period, it would preclude development of most other off-reservation highway improvements in the entire Kalispell-Missoula region of western Montana.
The nine other action alternatives in the SEIS are variations on the theme of not building an overpass over the wetlands. The preferred alternative (No. 10) includes the controversial southbound passing lane across Ninepipe wetlands.
On Monday, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council member Lloyd Irvine of Ronan said he was only vaguely familiar with the draft SEIS discussions or the “preferred” alternative, because they have not yet been presented to the Project Oversight Group, on which he sits.
He said no decision has been made by that governing group on the preferred alternative or any other. That's why it's important for interested people to read, digest and comment on the alternatives.
“They (the technical committee) had to come up with a preferred alternative. After the public comments are reviewed and answered, then we (state, federal and tribal leaders) will come up with a decision,” he said.
Reporter John Stromnes can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or jstromnes@missoulian.com
Read the statement
A draft supplemental environmental impact statement on the U.S. Highway 93 Ninepipe/Ronan highway reconstruction has been released and is available for public review and comment.
Public meetings on the project will be held at the following times and places:
Open house, 6-8 p.m., Sept. 18, Tribal Fitness Center, Mountain View Drive (next to Cenex), in St. Ignatius.
Open house, 4-7 p.m., Sept. 19, Ronan Community Center, 300 Third St. NW, Ronan.
Formal public hearing, 7-9 p.m., Sept. 19, Ronan Community Center, 300 Third St. NW, Ronan.
The SEIS is available online at www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/eis_ea.shtml and at the follow locations:
Skillings Connolly, Inc., 1317 US 93 South, Suite A, Ronan (Tuesdays and Thursdays 11:30am-3:00pm)
Ronan City Library, 203 Main Street SW
Ronan City Hall, 207 Main Street SW
D'Arcy McNickle Library (Salish Kootenai College), 52000 US Hwy 93, Pablo
Mansfield Library, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula
Missoula County Public Library, 301 E. Main St., Missoula
Montana Department of Transportation, 2100 W. Broadway, Missoula
Oral and written comments on the SEIS will be accepted at the public hearing, or written comments may also be submitted to Jean Riley, MDT Environmental Services, 2701 Prospect Avenue, P.O. BOX 201001, Helena, MT 59620-1001. Indicate comments are for project CN B744.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)