Fact Sheet - Beartooth Highway
Reconstruction of Segment 4 of the Beartooth Highway Fact Sheet
Project Purpose and Origin
- Reconstruction of Segment 4 of the Beartooth Highway Project, from the MT State Line south of Red Lodge, west 18.6 miles in Wyoming, is needed to provide future generations safe and efficient access for many years to the spectacular scenery of the adjacent Forest lands on the Beartooth Plateau, and the wonders of Yellowstone National Park. This purpose is in keeping with the intent of the National Park Approaches Act of 1931, a mandate for the original construction of the Beartooth Highway, from Red Lodge, MT, to the Northeast Entrance of Yellowstone National Park.
- Funding for the project was provided as High Priority Project funds in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) through the efforts of Montana's congressional delegation because of that State's economic interest in tourism generated by the road, and concern that the deteriorating roadway would impact the future of this economic sector.
- To develop a roadway design for the Beartooth Highway that provides long-term structurally sound roadway elements, accommodates projected traffic uses safely and efficiently, compliments land management goals of the U.S. Forest Service, and incorporates current roadway design and maintenance standards.
- To avoid or minimize environmental impacts and preserve the original characteristics exemplified by current Scenic Byway and All-American Road status of the Beartooth Highway.
- FHWA is committed to balancing the needs of the motorist and recreationalist with those of the natural environment through continued close coordination with all agencies involved during construction, post-construction reviews, and final design of future project phases.
- FHWA is committed to balancing the needs of business and tourism by working closely with local communities through a Public Information Program in order to ensure minimal impacts to the traveling public and local economies by providing accurate and current information about ongoing construction activities ( http://www.cflhd.gov/FtpInternetDir/Project_Beartooth/BeartoothUpdate.pdf ).
- Though Segment 4 might appear to be in good condition, this is because the road was resurfaced with a "micro-surface" overlay in 2001. The resurfacing project was a temporary fix intended to provide a drivable surface for about 5 years until a long-term solution to the road's deteriorating condition, in the form of a reconstruction project, can be implemented.
- The 2001 micro-surface project was a preventative measure and did not address the more serious problems associated with the Beartooth Highway such as structural pavement failures, inadequate drainage, and deteriorating bridges.
- In addition to structural and drainage deficiencies, inconsistent roadway geometry and insufficient roadway width contribute to safety problems associated with both the mix of roadway uses (through trips and plateau destination trips) and the size of vehicles (RVs and buses) that currently use the road. These safety problems will be exacerbated in 20 years with traffic volumes almost doubling.
- Currently, there is no mechanism through State or Federal agencies for Beartooth Highway funding for maintenance. As a result, maintenance responsibility has defaulted to the NPS and is performed only after roadway maintenance needs within Yellowstone National Park are addressed.
- The proposed project addresses this road ownership problem by providing design standards conducive to efficient daily and long-term maintenance, so that the completed project can be readily adopted onto any road-maintaining agency's system, thereby ensuring maintenance funding.
- Over a five-year period, FHWA, through public scoping meetings, and in cooperation with the NPS, USFS, USACE, USFWS, WYDOT, SHPO, and EPA, studied six alternatives for reconstructing the road that were a combination of various widths and relocated sections.
- Alternative 6, as depicted in the Final EIS, is FHWA's best response to balance the roadway needs and project purpose and goals, while also addressing the multiple, and often conflicting, environmental and public concerns, as well as agency missions.
- This alternative, with the exception of a few of design elements, incorporates the same standards as those used in Yellowstone National Park.
- Allowable exceptions to industry design standards were used to the maximum extent possible to avoid or minimize environmental impacts without compromising driver safety.
- The proposed design is the absolute minimum that the FHWA can propose to ensure fulfillment of its regulatory requirements to provide a safe roadway improvement under 23 CFR Part 625.
- Used alignment and width design exceptions to avoid or reduce environmental impacts as much as possible.
- Reduced proposed design to 30 and 28 foot paved width from industry design standards requiring 34 foot paved width to reduce construction footprint and disturbance.
- Coordinated with various environmental and regulatory agencies early in the project development process for adoption of the purpose and need and to address their concerns in developing proposed alternatives.
- Selected alternative follows the existing alignment as closely as possible.
- Selected alternative alignment is designed to use, as much as possible, the previously disturbed existing road and adjacent cuts and fills to minimize new disturbance.
- Minimized new disturbance further by using steepened slopes and rockery walls.
- Committed to providing for agency environmental consultation during construction to ensure that the environmental commitments listed in the ROD are implemented.
- Committed to providing for public and agency post-construction reviews and design meetings for future project phases to ensure that concerns continue to be incorporated into design details.
- Conducted high-altitude revegetation research to develop seeding and fertilizing techniques to maximize revegetation success.
- Designed drainage structures to provide fish passage in culverts and stream-side passage under bridges for amphibians and animals.
- Developed site-specific landscape plans at wildlife crossings to enhance safety for motorists and animals and avoid animal mortality.
- Designed project to entirely avoid fen impacts by narrowing roadway widths, steepening slopes, and designing a "causeway" type bridge.
- Committed to various aesthetic treatments of rock cuts, earthwork cuts, and fills as well as special handling techniques for topsoil to enhance revegetation success and visual appearance.
- Included in design the special plantings of salvaged and selected sod, shrubs, and trees to promote accelerated revegetation of disturbed areas.
- Reduced wetland impacts to 6 acres out of the 84 acres of wetlands within the project area.
- Prepared forms for nomination of the highway to the National Register as a National Historic Site (500-foot corridor established by Executive Order).
- Committed to developing interpretive sites to explain the history of the road, geology of the area, and biological features of the area.
- Designed new bridge abutments with form liners resembling existing masonry structures.
- Salvage stone masonry from existing bridges and headwalls to face replacement bridge abutments and headwalls with salvaged stone.
- Designed replacement bridges to appear similar to existing bridges.
- Developed public information plan to coordinate and provide accurate construction information in order to minimize impacts of construction closures and delays to local communities and their economies.
- Developed Project Development Plan to document interagency agreements and ensure continued coordination of all stakeholder agencies throughout the design and construction of the project.
- Committed to soliciting contractors by contract methods that assure only a contractor with experience in high-altitude, environmentally constrained projects will be selected.
- Presently, the total estimated construction cost for the project is about $81 million. About 6 percent of that amount has been (or will be) expended implementing approximately 180 environmental commitments pursuant to the Record of Decision, the Memorandum of Agreement (for historic properties), the Biological Opinion, the 404 Clean Water Act Permit, and the NPDES permit.
- Examples of mitigation commitments which minimize or avoid impacts, but
tend to increase construction pricing minimally (5% +/-):
- Contractor traffic control requirements that limit allowable road closures and delays in order to minimize economic impact to gateway communities.
- Project specific revegetation specifications designed to ensure success of roadside appearance.
- Site specific landscape plans at specific crossings for wildlife to decrease mortality.
- Landscape designed interpretive sites to address historic and wildlife concerns and promote public awareness.
- Rockery walls to avoid high cut banks
- Bridge designs to avoid wetland and fen impacts.
- Wetland mitigation by restoration, creation, and preservation.
- Post-construction monitoring of all compliance activities, including revegetation and wetland documentation and success.
- Public Information Plan to avoid public misconceptions about project delays and provide information for better trip planning.
- Special blasting and staining techniques for rock cuts to duplicate existing, natural rock forms.
- Sculpting of rock cuts to include planting pockets.
- Blending of cut and fill slopes to produce aesthetic natural appearances.
- Special handling of topsoil to retain site-specific seed banks.
- Site-specific planting of salvaged and specially designated sod, shrub, and tree species to promote accelerated revegetation.
- Nominating the road corridor to the National Register.
- Historic architecture and engineering recordation of bridges and abandoned roadway segments.
- Aesthetic treatment of new and replacement bridges.
- Construction of Contractor Work Camp to reduce Grizzly impacts.
- Special environmental sensitivity training requirements for contractor employees.
