ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)

PORT OF NORTHERN MONTANA MULTIMODAL HUB CENTER

SHELBY, TOOLE COUNTY, MONTANA

Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545

Prepared by: City of Shelby and Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson (KLJ)

April 1, 2013

The following may be contacted for information on the Environmental Assessment:

Larry Bonderud

Director

Port of Northern Montana

112 1

st Street South

Shelby, Montana 59474

(d) 406.434.5203 (f) 406.434.2761
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

i

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need of Project .....................................................................1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Background ................................................................................................3

1.2.1 The Multimodal Hub Center .............................................................................. 3

1.2.2 Previous Studies................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Study Area ..............................................................................................................6

1.4 Project Purpose and Need......................................................................................6

1.5 Other Transportation Initiatives.............................................................................7

1.6 Applicable Regulations and Permits.......................................................................7

Chapter 2 Alternatives ..............................................................................................9

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................9

2.2 No Build Alternative ...............................................................................................9

2.3 Build Alternatives Considered ................................................................................9

2.3.1 Build Alternative 1 ........................................................................................... 10

2.3.1.1 Railroad.......................................................................................... 10

2.3.1.2 Secondary Access Road.................................................................. 10

2.3.1.3 SE Front Street ............................................................................... 10

2.3.1.4 Water Supply ................................................................................. 11

2.3.1.5 Energy Supply ................................................................................ 11

2.3.1.6 Stormwater Facilities and Wetland Mitigation Site ....................... 11

2.3.1.7 Wastewater Facilities..................................................................... 12

2.3.1.8 Laydown Area ................................................................................ 12

2.3.1.9 Lift Machines and Bulk Facility....................................................... 12

2.3.1.10 13th Street South............................................................................ 12

2.3.2 Build Alternative 2 ........................................................................................... 13

2.3.3 Build Alternative 3 ........................................................................................... 14

2.3.4 Alternatives Carried Forward........................................................................... 15

2.3.5 Summary of Estimated Cost............................................................................. 15

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.........................17

3.1 Air Quality.............................................................................................................17

3.1.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 18

3.1.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 18

3.2 Water Quality and Water Resources....................................................................19

3.2.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 20

3.2.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 22

3.3 Noise and Vibration..............................................................................................23

3.3.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 23

3.3.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 23

3.4 Wetlands ..............................................................................................................24

3.4.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 24

3.4.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 26

3.5 Biological Resources.............................................................................................27
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

ii

3.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................. 27

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment.................................................................... 27

3.5.1.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................. 28

3.5.2 Bald and Golden Eagles ................................................................................... 29

3.5.2.1 Affected Environment.................................................................... 29

3.5.2.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................. 30

3.5.3 Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife.................................................................. 32

3.5.3.1 Affected Environment.................................................................... 32

3.5.3.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................. 32

3.5.4 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 33

3.5.4.1 Affected Environment.................................................................... 33

3.5.4.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................. 34

3.6 Floodplains...........................................................................................................34

3.6.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 34

3.6.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 35

3.7 Energy Use............................................................................................................35

3.7.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 35

3.7.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 35

3.8 Visual Resources...................................................................................................35

3.8.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 36

3.8.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 36

3.9 Transportation......................................................................................................37

3.9.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 37

3.9.1.1 Rail ................................................................................................. 37

3.9.1.2 Bus ................................................................................................. 38

3.9.1.3 Motor Vehicle ................................................................................ 38

3.9.1.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian ................................................................... 38

3.9.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 38

3.10 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions.......................................................40

3.10.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 40

3.10.1.1 Land Use and Zoning...................................................................... 40

3.10.1.1 Farmland........................................................................................ 42

3.10.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 42

3.11 Socioeconomic Resources....................................................................................44

3.11.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 44

3.11.1.1 Community Facilities...................................................................... 44

3.11.1.2 Demographics................................................................................ 44

3.11.1.3 Economic Resources ...................................................................... 45

3.11.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 45

3.12 Environmental Justice ..........................................................................................46

3.12.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 46

3.12.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 47

3.13 Public Health and Safety.......................................................................................47

3.13.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 47

3.13.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 47

3.14 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste ..........................................................48

3.14.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 49

3.14.1.1 National Priorities List (NPL) and Superfund.................................. 49
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

iii

3.14.1.2 Brownfield Site............................................................................... 49

3.14.1.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites................. 49

3.14.1.4 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) ............................................... 50

3.14.1.5 Landfill ........................................................................................... 50

3.14.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 50

3.15 Parks and Recreational Areas...............................................................................51

3.15.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 51

3.15.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 52

3.16 Cultural Resources................................................................................................52

3.16.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 52

3.16.2 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 53

3.17 Section 4(f) Resources..........................................................................................53

3.17.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 53

3.17.1.1 Environmental Consequences........................................................ 54

3.18 Construction Impacts ...........................................................................................54

3.18.1 Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 55

3.19 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................56

3.19.1 Affected Environment...................................................................................... 56

3.19.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 56

Chapter 4 Coordination and Consultation ................................................................59

4.1 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................59

4.2 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................59

Chapter 5 List of Preparers......................................................................................61

Chapter 6 References..............................................................................................62

FIGURES

Figure 1.1, Project Location Map .......................................................................................................2

Figure 1.2, Potential Site Locations....................................................................................................5

Figure 2.1, Project Layout................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 3.1, Groundwater Wells........................................................................................................ 21

Figure 3.2, Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 3.3, Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Locations ........................................................................... 31

Figure 3.4, General Land Use Map................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3.5, Prime and Unique Farmlands Map................................................................................. 43
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

iv

TABLES

Table 2.1, Approximate Project Costs by Task ................................................................................. 16

Table 3.1, Employment and Income ................................................................................................ 45

Table 3.2, Demographic Trends....................................................................................................... 47

Table 5.1, List of Preparers.............................................................................................................. 61

Appendix A: 13th Street South Alignment Options

Appendix B: Protected Species Information

Appendix C: FEMA Map

Appendix D: SHPO Correspondence

Appendix E: Agency Scoping Materials

Appendix F: Agency Scoping Responses
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

1

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED OF PROJECT

1 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

The Northern Express Transportation Authority (NETA) proposes to construct and operate the Port of 

Northern Montana Multimodal Hub Center (Multimodal Hub Center) near Shelby, Montana. Please 

refer to Figure 1.1, Project Location Map. The Multimodal Hub Center will replace the existing 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company’s (BNSF) Intermodal Terminal, which currently serves 

as a regional rail hub. Once complete, the Multimodal Hub Center will include rail spurs, access roads, 

street upgrades, utilities, wastewater/stormwater facilities, laydown area, and a bulk material facility. 

The Multimodal Hub Center will be a fully functional inland port capable of accepting and delivering 

unit trains, containerized cargo, and large industrial equipment and materials more efficiently than 

the BNSF Intermodal Terminal and will be instrumental in supporting regional economic growth and 

infrastructure development.

Implementation of the Multimodal Hub Center has been broken up into 4 independent phases which 

are described in more detailed in Section 1.2 below. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is 

providing partial funding for Phase 4, the final stage of development for the Multimodal Hub Center 

through a Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant. 

The Grant funds will be used to construct an additional freight rail track (to support the BNSF’s

intermodal trains), construct an access road to the facility, extend 13th Street South east to SE Front 

Street, deliver utilities to the Proposed Action site, and construct a laydown yard to stage oversized 

equipment.

As a Federal agency providing grant funding for Phase 4, FRA must comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the impacts of 

their actions on the natural, social, economic, and cultural environment and to disclose 

considerations in a public document. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make 

decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences and take actions that 

protect, restore, and enhance the environment (40 CFR Part 1500.1).

This environmental assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts [64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)].
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hu

b

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

2

Figure 1.1, Project Location Map
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

3

1 . 2 P r o j e c t B a c k g r o u n d

1.2.1 The Multimodal Hub Center

The proposed Multimodal Hub Center, when completed, would provide for long-term economic 

growth in the region and support efforts to increase export services. It would include rail spurs, 

access roads, street upgrades, utilities, wastewater/stormwater facilities, laydown area, and a bulk 

material facility. The Multimodal Hub Center would provide a fully functional inland port capable of 

accepting and delivering unit trains, containerized cargo, and large industrial equipment and 

materials suitable for supporting regional development and industrial projects. By facilitating the use 

of containerized shipments, the Multimodal Hub Center would reduce transportation costs and 

improve operation efficiencies at both the Shelby and Pacific Coast port sites. The Multimodal Hub 

Center would also encourage the use of rail instead of trucks which would reduce roadway 

maintenance costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Multimodal Hub Center would include the relocation of the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal 

(located in a residential and commercial-zoned area within the City of Shelby) to an industrial-zoned 

Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District, 1.5 miles to the southeast. Relocating the existing BNSF facility 

and associated freight traffic from downtown would facilitate economic development in the area and 

improve safety for non-freight traffic in Shelby.

NETA split the development of the Multimodal Hub Center into four phases for financial reasons. 

Phase 1 was the subject of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) 

completed in 2007 and included partial project infrastructure construction. Funding in FY 2006 was 

secured through the Port of Northern Montana/City of Shelby ($250,000) and the FHWA 

Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Grant ($990,000). Phase 2 was 

addressed in a FRA CATEX completed in 2010 and included partial project infrastructure construction. 

Funding in FY 2010 was secured through the Port of Northern Montana/City of Shelby ($121,750) and 

a Non-Competitive FRA Rail Line Relocation and Improvement (RLRI) Grant ($974,000). Phase 3

obtained an environmental clearance from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) in 2011 

and included partial project infrastructure construction. Funding in FY 2011 was secured through the 

Port of Northern Montana/City of Shelby ($320,000) and an EDA Public Facility Grant ($320,000). In 

addition, funding in FY 2011 was committed by the Port of Northern Montana/City of Shelby 

($299,364), MDT Revolving Loan ($320,000) and a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District ($3,603,979). 

Phase 4 (the Proposed Action) includes the construction of the remaining rail, road, water, sewer, 

electrical, gas, and communication infrastructure needed for the Multimodal Hub Center to become 

operational by 2014. Phase 4 would also include the extension of 13th Street South and construction 

of a laydown yard. Section 2.3.2 includes a detailed discussion of the technical aspects of the 

Proposed Action.

1.2.2 Previous Studies

NETA identified three potential site locations near Shelby for the development of the Multimodal Hub 

Center. The three locations were identified based on accessibility to existing transportation facilities, 

including both rail and road. Impacts to existing transportation facilities, the utility availability to 

serve the site, potential environmental impacts, and land ownership were all considered when 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

4

identifying the potential locations for the facility. Please refer to Figure 1.2, Potential Site Locations.

The site locations included a north site, a south site, and a southeast site. 

North Site – NETA eliminated the north site, in part, due to the proximity of the site to an existing 

school. The Multimodal Hub Center will require travel corridors to facilitate the expected truck traffic.

The area surrounding the school is one of the busier child pedestrian corridors in the City. In addition,

the site is situated in an area of high ground water that would not only provide adverse construction 

conditions but may also adversely affect existing wetlands in the area. Also, this property is owned by 

BNSF which was unwilling to allow development of the Proposed Action in this area.

South Site – NETA eliminated the south site due, in part, to its distant location to the existing railroad 

tracks and available utilities to service the site. If the facility was located at this site, many additional 

miles of rail would have to be constructed across several different landowners’ existing crop lands. In 

addition, the rail would need to cross some large changes in topography which would result in large 

cut and fill requirements to maintain the BNSF design requirement. Finally, the south site is also 

located within a mile of the Marias River and the City of Shelby’s public water supply. This raised 

concerns over health and environmental impacts that could result in the event of a truck or rail car 

spill.

Southeast Site – The southeast site location consists of approximately 226 acres of land located 1.5 

miles southeast of the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal in Shelby. The land is predominately rural 

and is zoned as an industrial TIF District. Residences and the City of Shelby serve as the location’s 

northern boundary. The site extends slightly to the east of the BNSF main line and city lagoons. To the 

west and south are cropped agricultural fields. The site is located in close proximity to major motor 

vehicle routes including US Highway 2 to the east and I-15 to the west. 

NETA chose the southeast site for the Multimodal Hub Center because it is in close proximity to 

Shelby but outside of the city’s population center, and is also close to rail, roadways and 

infrastructure. The industrialized nature of the site was also a factor in the site’s selection.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

5

Figure 1.2, Potential Site Locations
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

6

1 . 3 S t u d y A r e a

The Proposed Action consists of the final phase (Phase 4) of the Multimodal Hub Center. Because of 

the integrated nature of Phase 4 and the Multimodal Hub Center, the study area for the Proposed 

Action is defined as the Multimodal Hub Center site. For certain resources (e.g., air quality, noise, and 

socioeconomics), the Proposed Action-related impacts could potentially extend beyond the study 

area. In such cases, impacts to locations or receptors beyond the study area were considered and are 

noted as such in Chapter 3.

The study area (also referred to throughout this document as the “Proposed Action area” or 

“Proposed Action site”) consists of the footprint of the Multimodal Hub Center, a 226-acre site on the 

southeast edge of Shelby in Toole County, Montana, about 1.5 miles southeast of the existing BNSF 

Intermodal Terminal. Specifically, the study area is located in Township 31 North, Range 2 West, 

Sections 2 and 3 and Township 32 North, Range 2 West, Sections 27, 28, 33, 34, and 35.

The study area includes the combination of two corridors. One corridor extends north and south 

along the existing BNSF railroad line from US Highway 2 near Shelby to a point approximately 2 miles 

to the southeast. Rail construction and improvements, an access road, SE Front Street improvements 

and utility improvements are included inside this corridor. The other corridor consists of the 13th

Street South alignment which extends approximately 1.75 miles from the 1-15 Frontage Road (Marias 

River Road) east to SE Front Street. Please refer to Figure 1.1, Project Location Map.

1 . 4 P r o j e c t P u r p o s e a n d N e e d

Under NEPA, the identification of a project’s purpose and need is significant in determining the 

reasonable range of alternatives to consider for the project. The need defines the key problems to be 

addressed and explains their underlying causes. The project’s purpose states clearly why the project 

is being proposed and identifies potential anticipated outcomes.

Need for Proposed Action. Montana currently needs a means to efficiently transport large quantities 

of materials, goods and other cargo into and out of the region surrounding northwest Montana in 

order to facilitate local and regional commerce and economic growth. Rail transport is considered 

more efficient and cost-effective than over-the-road truck hauling, the only other viable means for 

heavy-haul transport.1. The Multimodal Hub Center, a rail based facility, will meet this need. Phase 4, 

the Proposed Action, is necessary to complete the Multimodal Hub Center.

Purpose of Proposed Action. Phase 4 will complete the Multimodal Hub Center and thus, facilitate the 

operation of a fully functional, inland port capable of accepting and delivering unit trains of 

containers and cargo to support regional development. By using rail instead of commercial trucks to 

 

1 According to the “Container/Trailer on Flatcar in Intermodal Service on Montana’s Railway 

Mainlines” prepared by Prime Focus LLC and Western Transportation Institute in 2008, the estimated 

cost associated with shipping and receiving containerized cargo utilizing rail intermodal is $0.03/lb as 

opposed to truck which is $0.05-$0.10/lb. Moving intermodal containers by rail instead of truck along 

this corridor will save the states of Washington, Idaho, North Dakota, Montana and Minnesota over 

$102 million in road maintenance and preservation costs over the next 20 years not to mention the 

associated challenges with multi-state jurisdictional length and load limitations, and special permit 

fees.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

7

transport goods, regional transportation costs will be reduced which, in turn, will improve the 

economic competitiveness of the region. 

1 . 5 O t h e r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n i t i a t i v e s

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), with the coordination of state and federal 

agencies, local and tribal governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), public agencies, 

citizens, and other interested parties, developed the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 

(STIP). The STIP is in accordance with the requirements of Section 135 of 23 U.S.C., and lists 

transportation projects and needs for the state of Montana during the upcoming fiscal years. 

According to the STIP for fiscal years 2012-2016, the following five projects are located within 50 

miles of the Proposed Action study area.

 UPN 7452 – Cut Bank-Shelby – 21.73 miles of roadway improvements along US Highway 2 

within Toole and Glacier Counties. Construction Phase: FY – 2012

 UPN 7624 – Cut Bank Urban – 1.11 miles of reconstruction along US Highway 2 within 

Glacier County. Incidental Construction Phase: FY 2014. Right-of-Way Phase: FY 2014. 

Construction Phase: FY 2016. 

 UPN 7622 – Sunburst-Sweetgrass – 8.75 miles of roadway improvements along I-15 in Toole 

County. Construction Phase: FY 2013.

 UPN 7217 – SF 099 North of Valier – 10.04 miles of safety improvements along S-358

Pondera County. Right-of-Way Phase: FY 2013. Construction Phase: FY 2015.

 UPN 6179 – D3 Culvert rehab I-15 – Culvert improvements at locations along I-15, MT 200, 

and US highway 89. Construction Phase: FY 2013. 

1 . 6 A p p l i c a b l e R e g u l a t i o n s a n d P e r m i t s

The following statutes and orders apply to the proposed action and were considered during the 

preparation of the EA:

 Endangered Species Act, as regulated at 50 CFR Part 17

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 50 CFR Part 600

 Public Law 91-190, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC § 4321 et seq., signed 

January 1, 1970

 Public Law 95-217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251-1376

 Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 401

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 49 USC § 303

 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC § 470

 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1344

 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 16 USC § 460

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, 42 USC § 61

 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, signed May 24, 1977

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, signed February 11, 1994
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

8

 Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121, signed August 11, 2000

 Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 

28545 (May 26, 1999)

 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978

 Federal Register, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule, 49 

CFR Parts 222 and 229, April 27, 2005

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

The NETA will obtain the following permits prior to construction:

 Montana Department of Environmental Quality – General Permit for Storm Water Discharge 

Associated with Construction Activity

 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)– A Section 404 Permit will be required since

about 1.5 acres of wetlands will be permanently impacted. Refer to Section 3.4 for detailed 

information regarding wetland impacts and consultations with the USACE.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

9

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES

2 . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n

Two alternatives (the No Build Alternative and one Build Alternative) were selected for carrying 

forward in the analysis. Two additional Build Alternatives were considered but eliminated from 

further consideration and analysis in the EA, and are discussed briefly below.

2 . 2 N o B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e

Under the No Build Alternative, the state of Montana would not have the ability to ship or receive 

containerized cargo via rail due to a lack of an inland port. Shippers would continue to rely on 

roadway transportation to ship goods, resulting in high freight costs.

Also under the No Build Alternative, the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal, located near downtown 

Shelby, would continue to operate as a regional rail hub as it currently does. However, the BNSF 

facility is faced with several challenges, all of which would persist under the No Build Alternative. 

First, the size of the facility does not accommodate the length of today’s modern unit trains. 

Containerized freight trains must be switched into a train terminal and separated before being pulled 

back into the facility in shorter sections to be loaded or unloaded. Once this process has taken place, 

the train needs to be moved back into the terminal and coupled together. This approach is inefficient 

for train scheduling and the overall process of loading and unloading within the facility.

Second, despite the demand, the BNSF facility only averages 1,000 revenue lifts per year because the 

current track configuration cannot accommodate unit trains with a single placement move from the 

mainline. The facility cannot be expanded without relocating neighboring homes and businesses. 

Third, the BNSF facility is in close proximity to the Amtrak Depot and Amtrak passenger delays result 

from BNSF operations. It is common for passenger delays to average 20 minutes or more when BNSF

is required to utilize the mainline. Finally, train activities and related traffic congestion (which result 

from commercial traffic accessing the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal through residential and 

commercial streets) present environmental (i.e., visual impacts), public health (i.e., air pollution; 

noise) and public safety (i.e., vehicle and pedestrian safety) concerns for the residences and 

businesses surrounding the BNSF facility. As mentioned above, these conditions would continue 

under the No Build Alternative.

2 . 3 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s C o n s i d e r e d

Three Build Alternatives (Alternative 1, 2 and 3) were considered for the Proposed Action. The 

alternatives shared the same technical features outlined in Section 2.3.1 except for the alignments of 

the 13th Street South corridor, which will be an important access route to the Multimodal Hub Center. 

13th Street South is currently a gravel road that begins at the I-15 Frontage Road (Marias Valley Road)

and extends eastward approximately 0.75 mile, terminating at 9

th Avenue South.

All three build alternatives have similar features for the final development of the Multimodal Hub 

Center but differ in the design and configuration of the extension of 13th Street South. The Proposed 

Action will consist of construction work that will include extending railroad tracks to accommodate 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

10

additional trains, developing an access road to the facility, constructing an extension of 13th Street 

South, installing utilities, and constructing a laydown area for oversized equipment and 

incoming/outgoing shipments.

A description of the features of each alternative, and the basis for eliminating or retaining each, are 

discussed below.

2.3.1 Build Alternative 1

2.3.1.1 Railroad

Build Alternative 1 includes the construction of a main railroad spur, a secondary railroad spur offset 

by 120 feet and parallel to the mainline, a third rail spur to the north along the existing mainline and 

a fourth spur consisting of rail reconstruction. The Proposed Action includes the construction of 

approximately 15,000 linear feet (LF) of track.

The design and construction of the spurs include:

 Spur No. 1 – Approximately 4,250 LF of rail has been constructed as part of Phase 1 of the 

Multimodal Hub Center. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 2,360 LF of track will be 

designed and constructed to complete the spur. The completion of the mainline spur will 

allow for the loading and unloading of a 68-car train without having to break it into 

segments. 

 Spur No. 2 (Secondary Spur) – None of this spur has been constructed to date. Under the 

Proposed Action, approximately 4,960 LF of track will be constructed for the secondary spur. 

 Spur No. 3 – None of this spur has been constructed to date. Under the Proposed Action, 

approximately 4,250 LF of track will be constructed for Spur No. 3.

 Spur No. 4 – 1,200 LF of existing rail spur will be reconstructed as part of the Proposed 

Action. An additional 3,850 LF of rail and switch connections to the mainline have also been 

designed and are planned for construction.

 Two public grade crossings will be provided across the railroad spurs within the Multimodal 

Hub Center. The crossings will be located at 13th Street South, and Marias Park Road. No 

additional crossings will be constructed on the BNSF mainline located east of the proposed

Multimodal Hub Center. Railroad construction will be built to BNSF specifications to support 

BNSF trains. 

2.3.1.2 Secondary Access Road and Internal Roads

The Proposed Action includes the construction of a 3,200-foot secondary access road. This access 

road will function as a secondary emergency access and will more effectively facilitate the flow of 

traffic inside the Multimodal Hub Center. The secondary access road will be located northwest of the 

city’s lagoons. The Proposed Action will also include the construction of 4,900 feet of internal roads 

for the Multimodal Hub Center.

2.3.1.3 SE Front Street 

Roadway upgrades will occur on approximately 1,980 feet of existing SE Front Street to support 

commercial trucks hauling freight to and from the Multimodal Hub Center. Improvements will include 

a paved section which will extend approximately 0.5 mile from the intersection with 13th Street South 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

11

to the Multimodal Hub Center. The typical section for SE Front Street will consist of two, 12-foot 

travel lanes with a two-foot shoulder on each side. The paved section will consist of approximately 5-

6 inches of hot bituminous pavement over approximately 12 inches of gravel. The gravel section of 

this roadway is already in place. The new roadway will have a design speed and posted speed of 35 

miles per hour (mph). No additional right-of-way will be needed for the reconstruction of SE Front 

Street.

2.3.1.4 Water Supply

Currently, there are no water supply facilities in place to serve the proposed Multimodal Hub Center. 

The Proposed Action will include water supply infrastructure for both domestic and fire protection 

purposes. This water will be obtained from the City of Shelby’s existing water distribution system, 

which has capacity to meet the needs of the Multimodal Hub Center. The water distribution system 

will be accessed via the construction of approximately 14,540 feet of 16-inch water main along 13th

Street South, SE Front Street and within the Proposed Action site. 

2.3.1.5 Energy Supply

The Multimodal Hub Center will require energy from Marias River Electrical Co-op to supply the dayto-day operations of the Multimodal Hub Center. During construction, existing electrical distribution 

lines will be rerouted to provide the required energy to the Multimodal Hub Center. 

2.3.1.6 Stormwater Facilities and Wetland Mitigation Site

Stormwater facilities will be constructed to divert runoff offsite. Stormwater infrastructure will 

primarily include ditches and culverts. Onsite runoff will be managed by grading the landscape to 

divert drainage to storm water structures that lead off site. Once off site, the stormwater will follow 

the existing natural channels. 

As part of the environmental review and planning for the Proposed Action, wetlands at the Proposed

Action site were delineated and a request for jurisdictional determination was submitted to the 

USACE. NETA determined in consultation with the USACE that a Section 404 permit will be required 

for anticipated impacts to onsite wetlands, and that wetland mitigation will be required. An 

application for a Section 404 permit and a mitigation plan were submitted to the USACE. The wetland 

mitigation, as outlined in the mitigation plan, will consist of the development of an approximately 3 

acre wetland mitigation site at a location immediately southwest of the City of Shelby’s existing 

sewage treatment lagoons (see Figure 1.1). The western boundary of the mitigation site will follow 

the BNSF property line and tie into the natural topography of the surroundings. The mitigation site 

comprises an area of about 200 feet by 940 feet. 

The wetland mitigation site currently supports a small wetland. The wetland will be expanded by 

excavating the upland landscape and merging it with the existing wetland and associated natural 

drainage system. The wetland will include side slopes of approximately 3:1 and a varying bottom 

elevation to allow for various water depths. Bottom elevations will range from approximately 3178.5 

to 3180.0 ft. above sea level. 

The Section 404 permit application is currently under review at the USACE. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

12

2.3.1.7 Wastewater Facilities

The Multimodal Hub Center will be expected to generate both domestic and industrial wastewater. 

Domestic wastewater will be generated by activities such as toilet flushing, showering, dishwashing, 

etc. Industrial wastewater will be produced by activities such as equipment washing. 

The Proposed Action will include the installation of adequate wastewater facilities to handle the 

anticipated demand within the Multimodal Hub Center and potential future developments in the 

vicinity. Wastewater from the Multimodal Hub Center will be removed through an 8-inch gravity 

based pipe system that will drain into the City of Shelby’s existing sewer system. Wastewater piping

will be installed in the Proposed Action area parallel to SE Front Street and beneath the existing 

railroad tracks and will tie into the City of Shelby’s existing sanitary sewer system. This system will

have the capacity to provide service to future wastewater generators that may be constructed along 

SE Front Street. Approximately 13,130 LF of 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch pipe is planned for 

installation.

2.3.1.8 Laydown Area

The laydown area will be constructed on a 27-acre parcel located along the west side of the proposed 

railroad spurs. This area will be used to stage incoming and outgoing freight delivered by both rail and 

truck. The laydown area will be designed for positive drainage and include gravel surfacing.

2.3.1.9 Lift Machines and Bulk Facility

Included in the Proposed Action is the purchase and installation of one lift machine. The lift machine 

will be used in the Multimodal Hub Center to load and unload freight to and from trains and trucks. 

The Proposed Action will also include the acquisition and expansion of an existing bulk facility, which 

is used for grain storage and handling. The existing bulk facility is located east of and adjacent to SE 

Front Street along the proposed Spur No. 4. The existing 1,600 ton bulk facility would be purchased 

and expanded to a 2,400 ton capacity.

2.3.1.10 13th Street South

Alternative 1 would include an extension of 13th Street South from its intersection with 9th Avenue 

South to its intersection with SE Front Street, a distance of approximately one mile. Alternative 1 

would consist of the following features and developments along 13th Street South:

 The existing 13th Street South alignment between I-15 Frontage Road (Marias Valley Road) 

and 9th Avenue South.

 An extension of 13th Street South from 9th Avenue South to SE Front Street along an existing, 

undeveloped section line.

 Roadway construction including two, 14-foot travel lanes and a two-foot shoulder on either 

side of the road.

 Roadway surfacing including gravel, with the exception of the intersection at 13th Street 

South and 9th Avenue South, which would have been paved.

 Relocation of existing overhead electric lines. No other existing utilities would be affected.

Please see Appendix A, 13th Street South Alignment Options for a diagram depicting this option.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

13

A certain amount of cut and fill would be required to facilitate roadway expansion and construction. 

From 9th Avenue South to SE Front Street, the terrain is hilly with grades up to 30 percent, requiring 

significant amounts of cut and fill. The City of Shelby and the Port of Northern Montana discussed and 

negotiated slope agreements with landowners to allow development on properties that would be 

affected by the Proposed Action. Access and use agreements have been obtained for all affected 

parcels.

Compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 1 would have the shortest length of 13th Street South,

would require no north/south deviation from the 13th Street South corridor, and would have the least 

amount of moving and installing of new infrastructure. Under Alternative 1, however, the 13th Street 

South alignment would encroach on the property of a local residence at the intersection of 9th

Avenue South and 13th Street South, possibly presenting a safety hazard to occupants of the 

residence, particularly after the Multimodal Hub Center is operational when truck traffic along 13th

Street South will have increased over existing levels. Consequently, NETA eliminated Alternative 1 

from further consideration.

2.3.2 Build Alternative 2

Except for the 13th Street South Alignment, Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1. Therefore, this 

discussion for Alternative 2 focuses on the 13th Street South alignment. 

Under Alternative 2, 13th Street South would veer northeast near its intersection with 9th Avenue 

South, turn east and traverse the south end of Block 115, and then veer back to the southeast and 

join the undeveloped section line at a point approximately 500 feet east of the 9th Avenue South 

intersection. At this point, the alignment would shift slightly south to avoid individual parcels that 

would have to be traversed north of 13th Street South between 9th Avenue South and SE Front Street. 

The alignment would continue east approximately 3,500 feet where it would shift slightly north to 

return to the existing 13th Street South alignment, and then continue to SE Front Street. Other 

features associated with Alternative 2 would include the following:

 Roadway improvements consisting of two, 14-foot travel lanes and a two-foot shoulder on 

either side of the road.

 Roadway surfacing consisting of gravel, with the exception of the intersection at 13th Street 

South and 9th Avenue South, which would be paved.

 The relocation of existing overhead electric lines. No other existing utilities were expected to 

be affected.

Please see Appendix A, 13th Street South Alignment Options for a diagram depicting this option.

Alternative 2 would provide additional north-south distance between the roadway and a residence 

near the intersection of 13th Street South and 9th Avenue South. In addition, compared to Alternative 

1, the alignment would cross fewer parcels and thus fewer slope agreements would be required for

individual parcels north of 13th Street South.

As with Alternative 1, a certain amount of contouring would be required to facilitate roadway 

expansion and construction. From 9th Avenue South to SE Front Street, the terrain is hilly with grades 

up to 30 percent, requiring a significant amount of cut and fill.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

14

While Alternative 2 would not impact property owners because it would provide for additional 

distance between private residences and 13th Street South, it would require fewer slope agreements 

from individual parcels, would be slightly longer than the other two alignment options and would

temporarily disturb an additional 3.2 acres outside of the existing 13th Street South right-of-way. It 

would also require the permanent conversion of 1.2 acres of grazing land to roadway. Considering 

these factors, NETA eliminated Alternative 2 from further consideration.

2.3.3 Build Alternative 3

Except for the 13th Street South Alignment, Alternative 3 is the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. Under 

Alternative 3, 13th Street South would follow the existing alignment from I-15 Frontage Road (Marias 

Valley Road) to 9th Avenue South where it would veer to the northeast, turn east and traverse the 

south end of Block 115. The alignment would then veer back to the southeast and join the existing 

undeveloped section line at a point approximately 500 feet east of the 9th Avenue South intersection. 

The alignment would then continue east to SE Front Street along the section line. The alignment 

would require no north/south deviation from the 13th Street South corridor except for the short 

segment near the 9th Avenue South intersection. Other features associated with the alignment would 

include the following:

 Roadway construction consisting of two, 14-foot travel lanes and a two foot shoulder on 

either side of the road.

 Roadway surfacing with gravel, with a paved section at the intersection of 13th Street South 

and 9th Avenue South.

As with Alternatives 1 and 2, a certain amount of contouring would be required to facilitate roadway 

expansion and construction. From 9th Avenue South to SE Front Street, the terrain is hilly with grades 

up to 30 percent, which would require significant amounts of cut and fill.

Please refer to Figure 2.1, Project Layout
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

15

Figure 2.1, Project Layout

2.3.4 Alternatives Carried Forward

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 will provide additional north-south distance between the 

roadway and a residence near the intersection of 13th Street South and 9th Avenue South. Compared 

to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 will be shorter, will disturb less area outside of the existing 13th Street 

South right-of-way and will require less agricultural land conversion. Considering these factors, NETA

decided to carry forward Alternative 3 (hereinafter referred to as the “Build Alternative”) for further 

detailed analysis, along with the No Build Alternative.

2.3.5 Summary of Estimated Cost

No-Build Alternative: If the No-Build Alternative is chosen, there would be no costs incurred from the

Proposed Action because it would not be implemented.

Build Alternative: The costs for the Proposed Action are included in Table 2.1, Approximate Project 

Costs by Task. The total estimated cost for the Proposed Action is $17,345,469. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

16

Table 2.1, Approximate Project Costs by Task2

TASK NAME TOTAL COST

Railroad and Laydown Yard $7,620,960

Roadway and Grading $2,377,950

Water $3,300,854

Wastewater $1,378,205

Private Utilities $385,000

Lift Machine $1,182,500

Bulk Facility $1,100,000

Total Project Cost $17,345,469

 

2 The Approximate Project Costs structure and assigned tasks are consistent with a budget provided as 

part of the TIGER grant application package. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

17

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

This chapter addresses the beneficial and adverse environmental impacts of the Build and No Build 

Alternatives as described in Chapter 2. The inventory and evaluation of the existing environment in 

the study area provides the necessary baseline from which to determine the impacts of the build 

alternative. The potential effects to the social, physical, and natural environments from each 

alternative, and avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures for adverse impacts are 

discussed below.

As described in Section 1.3, the study area for this EA consists of the footprint of the Multimodal Hub 

Center, which includes the combination of two corridors and the features outlined for the build 

alternative. For certain resources (e.g., air quality, noise, socioeconomics, etc.), the Proposed Actionrelated impacts could potentially extend beyond the study area (i.e., beyond the Proposed Action

boundary). In such cases, impacts to locations or receptors outside of the Proposed Action boundary 

were considered and are noted as such in the respective subsections.

Construction and operation impacts are identified in the following discussions. Under the impact 

analysis, construction impacts are considered to be those attributed to construction activities

associated with the Proposed Action. Operation impacts reflect the operation of the Multimodal Hub 

Center since the Proposed Action ultimately facilitates the Multimodal Hub Center’s operation. 

3 . 1 A i r Q u a l i t y

The Clean Air Act, as amended, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish air 

quality standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment by setting 

limits on emission levels of various types of air pollutants. Criteria pollutants tracked under EPA’s 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) include SO2 (sulfur dioxide), PM (particulate matter), 

NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), O3 (ozone), Pb (lead), and CO (carbon monoxide). In addition, the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ) has established state air quality standards; state 

standards must be as stringent as (but may be more stringent than) Federal standards. 

The State of Montana has successfully complied with the federal NAAQS by adopting tougher 

ambient air quality standards for certain pollutants. In addition, it has implemented a permitting 

program for smaller sources of pollution and in some cases, certain emission controls to ensure that 

such sources of air pollution are equipped with the best emission control technology available. The 

MTDEQ has developed local air quality programs to regulate residential wood burning and road dust 

(the primary sources of particulate air pollution in Montana), as well as other minor sources of air 

pollution. The MTDEQ has also developed the Montana Smoke Management Plan and Open Burning 

Program to control the amount of harmful particulate matter that is released with smoke from 

prescribed burnings. 

Projects funded or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) must meet transportation conformity criteria (40 CFR 51, Subpart T and 40 CFR 

93). Other federal actions, including FRA actions, must meet general conformity requirements (40
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

18

CFR 51, Subpart W). Since the proposed project is anticipated to receive funding from FRA, general 

conformity is described below. 

A general conformity determination is required for each criteria pollutant or precursor where the 

total of direct and indirect emissions of the criteria pollutant or precursor in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area caused by a Federal action would equal or exceed any of the specified rates. For 

ozone maintenance areas outside ozone transport regions, the emissions limits are 100 tons per year 

of ozone and ozone precursors, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (40 CFR 

51.853). 

A Federal agency must demonstrate that a proposed action would not cause or contribute to any new 

violations of the NAAQS, would not interfere with provisions in the SIP, would not increase the 

frequency or severity of existing violations, or would not delay timely attainment of any standard. 

The Federal agency must provide documentation that the total of direct and indirect emissions from 

such future actions would be below the conformity determination emission rates that are established 

in 40 CFR 51.853 (described above).

3.1.1 Affected Environment

Air quality resources beyond the study area were considered since the Proposed Action could 

potentially affect areas beyond the Proposed Action boundary.

Air quality resources were evaluated by reviewing existing air quality data. The effects on air quality 

resources were analyzed qualitatively by evaluating design information with regard to air quality 

conditions.

No site-specific ambient air quality data are available for the study area. However, the MTDEQ 

operates a network of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (AAQM) stations. The AAQM station nearest to 

the Proposed Action area is located in Great Falls, Montana, approximately 75 miles southeast of the 

Proposed Action site. The Great Falls AAQM Station reported air quality data well below the state and 

Federal standards. Based on this information, it is apparent that the study area is located in an 

attainment area, which means that air quality meets the state and Federal ambient air quality 

standards for the criteria pollutants identified above.

The Clean Air Act affords additional air quality protection near Class I areas. Class I areas include 

national parks greater than 6,000 acres in size, national monuments, national seashores, and 

federally-designated wilderness areas that are larger than 5,000 acres and designated prior to 1977. 

There are no Federal Class I areas within the study area or the immediate vicinity. Glacier National 

park is the nearest Class I area, located approximately 65 miles west of the Proposed Action site.

3.1.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – Under the No-Build Alternative, air quality conditions in the study area would 

be unchanged because the Proposed Action would not occur. However, in-town business and 

residential districts would continue to be exposed to localized air pollutant emissions from truck 

traffic and other activities related to the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

19

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The Proposed Action will not introduce any new major 

sources of air pollutants to the Proposed Action area. However, construction activities will result in 

direct impacts by temporarily generating minor amounts of dust and gaseous emissions of PM, SO2, 

NO2, CO, and volatile organic compounds. Proper procedures such as using vehicular emission 

control equipment (e.g., catalytic converters) and proper tuning of equipment will be followed as 

feasible to restrict the emissions to the immediate Proposed Action area. Also, dust control measures 

such as water spraying will be implemented as needed. Consequently, construction-related air 

pollutant emissions will be largely limited to the immediate study area and will not be expected to 

cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 

Operation Impacts. Since the Proposed Action facilitates the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center, 

the Proposed Action will result in impacts associated with the operation of the Multimodal Hub 

Center, as discussed below. 

The adverse impacts associated with the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center will be similar to 

those currently occurring at the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal. Air pollutant emissions from train 

and vehicle traffic associated with the Multimodal Hub Center may result in minor, localized 

degradation of air quality. However, none of the emissions will include any substantive, continuous 

sources of criteria pollutants. The Multimodal Hub Center will benefit air quality in urban Shelby by 

relocating air pollutant emissions associated with train and related vehicle traffic to the outskirts of 

the city. Improved air quality conditions in the city’s population center will result.

The operation of the Multimodal Hub Center, which is facilitated by the Proposed Action, will be 

more efficient than that of the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal in that the number of trains that 

will be have to be switched, connected and moved will be significantly reduced. An accompanying 1.1 

million ton decrease in facility-related carbon emissions is expected to result. The 1.1 million ton 

decrease in carbon emissions was determined based on a comparison of the fuel consumption of a 

truck compared to that of a train. According to the BNSF Carbon Calculator, a truck will average 6.5 

miles per gallon where a train will average 26 miles per gallon. Assuming 0.0106 metric ton of CO2

produced per gallon of fuel burned, over a 20 year period, it is estimated that approximately

98,832,960 gallons of fuel will be saved as a result of the facility, resulting in a decrease of 1.05 metric 

tons of CO2. The State of Montana is designated as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants, so a 

general conformity determination is not required.

Based on the above factors, the Proposed Action is not expected to have any significant, long-term 

impacts on air quality and may actually result in a beneficial effect from removing train and truck 

traffic from downtown Shelby and reducing over-the-road truck traffic. No mitigation measures 

beyond those described above are proposed or necessary.

3 . 2 W a t e r Q u a l i t y a n d W a t e r R e s o u r c e s

Water quality and water resources include the physicochemical, hydrological and water supply/use 

characteristics of surface and ground water in the area of interest. Water quality influences human 

health as well as the natural environment.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, 

provides the authority to the Environmental Protection Agency to establish water quality standards, 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

20

control discharges into surface and subsurface waters, develop waste treatment management plans 

and practices, and issue permits for discharges (Section 402). CWA Section 404 authorizes the US 

Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of 

the US.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable 

Waters of the US without a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Examples of such 

obstructions would include water supply intakes, wastewater discharge structures, transmission lines, 

etc.).

The EPA has the authority to protect the quality of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) of 1974. As amended in 1986 and 1996, the SDWA requires measures for protecting drinking 

water and its sources: rivers, lakes reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells3. 

3.2.1 Affected Environment

Water quality and water resources were evaluated by reviewing existing documentation including 

publicly available aerial photography and water resource data. The effects on water resources were 

analyzed qualitatively by evaluating design information with regard to surface waters and 

groundwater.

The study area is located in the Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills region of Montana on the eastern 

edge of the Rocky Mountains. This region is arid, with the amount of precipitation in portions of the 

region being too low to sustain high-yield crop growth. In other locations in the region, however, 

precipitation is adequate for grain farming and forage production. The region has few isolated surface 

water basins, with the majority of surface waters being associated with the major rivers and small 

streams which provide most of the water for irrigation. The study area lies within the Marias River 

Watershed Basin. The Marias River Watershed Basin encompasses approximately 3.3 million acres 

inside Montana. The topography ranges from the mountainous terrain in the west near Glacier Park, 

to the gently rolling and generally level terrain to the east. The rivers and streams that comprise the 

basin are utilized for drinking water, crop irrigation, recreation, and fish habitat. The majority of the 

study area is located within the Pearson Coulee-Marias River sub watershed, with the western 

portion of the 13th Street South alignment extending into the Aloe Lake sub watershed. 

There are no perennial streams located within the study area. The closest large water body is the 

Marias River located approximately 4.3 miles south of the study area. There are no protected waters 

of special quality or concern, essential fish habitats, or protected drinking water resources located in 

the study area or the surrounding vicinity. Wetlands occur in the study area and are described in 

Section 3.4.

There are no navigable waters in the study area that are subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899. 

A search of the Montana’s Ground Water Information System indicated there are no water wells or 

municipal, stock, or other uses within the study area. Please refer to Figure 3.1, Groundwater Wells.

 

3 The SDWA does not regulate private wells that serve fewer than 25 individuals.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

21

Figure 3.1, Groundwater Wells
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

22

3.2.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not result in changes to existing water 

resources because the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal would continue to operate as it currently 

does. Stormwater and wastewater production regimes at the BNSF Intermodal Terminal would 

continue to follow existing patterns and would be handled and treated by the existing management 

systems. Water supply requirements would continue to be met by the City of Shelby’s water supply 

system.

Build Alternative – The following paragraphs discuss potential impacts to water quality and water 

resources. Overall, no significant impacts to water quality or water resources will result from Phase 4 

construction and operation, and no mitigation beyond that discussed below will be needed.

Construction Impacts. Construction activities which disturb the ground surface and expose the 

underlying soils can change the existing drainage patterns of an area and temporarily degrade surface 

and ground water quality as a result of sedimentation and soil erosion. Construction activities can 

also introduce petroleum and chemicals through spills and improper chemical application procedures 

(e.g., fertilizer). Such materials can infiltrate the soil or be carried by stormwater and ultimately 

contaminate surface waters and groundwater reserves.

The Proposed Action could impact local water resources (including wetlands in the study area) during 

construction. However, the Proposed Action will include the installation of standard stormwater 

management and erosion control measures and utilize other construction Best Management 

Practices (BMPs, including spill prevention and cleanup procedures and revegetation/stabilization of 

disturbed areas) to reduce the effects on local surface and groundwater resources. Wetland 

disturbance will be avoided to the extent feasible (see Section 3.4). Considering such measures and 

the fact that construction-related stormwater runoff, sedimentation and erosion will be minor and 

temporary, construction impacts to water quality will be insignificant.

Operation Impacts. Operation of the Multimodal Hub Center may result in an increase in turbidity of 

surface waters due to sedimentation which could indirectly affect aquatic life since it may block light 

transmission and slow biochemical and natural purification processes. Considering that aquatic 

resources in the study area are not unique or significant, such impacts are expected to be negligible.

The operation of the Multimodal Hub Center and the development of the wetland mitigation site may 

result in a small but inconsequential change in the volume and pattern of stormwater runoff from the 

Proposed Action area. To reduce these effects, the Proposed Action will include the installation of

standard stormwater management measures such that when the Multimodal Hub Center commences 

operation, surface runoff from the site will follow existing patterns. The Multimodal Hub Center will 

use the appropriate chemical/oil storage facilities and procedures and spill prevention and cleanup 

measures to reduce the potential for accidental releases of these materials to surface water and 

groundwater. 

Another potential operation impact of the Multimodal Hub Center is the generation of wastewater

from toilet flushing, dishwashing, and equipment washing. However, the Proposed Action will include 

the installation of wastewater facilities which will be sized to handle the anticipated demand at the 

Multimodal Hub Center. The wastewater from the Multimodal Hub Center will drain into the City of 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

23

Shelby’s existing sewer system which has sufficient capacity to handle the wastewater. Consequently, 

no significant wastewater impacts will occur since no direct wastewater releases to local surface or 

groundwater bodies will be required.

An additional operation impact of the Multimodal Hub Center will be the use of water resources for 

water supply purposes. The water supply will be obtained from the City of Shelby’s existing water 

distribution system which has enough capacity to meet the needs of the Multimodal Hub Center.

According to the Shelby Water System Extension Preliminary Engineering Report prepared for the 

Multimodal Hub Center, the expected average day demand of the facility is estimated to be 188,032 

gallons with a peak day demand of 564,096 gallons. According to the DEQ Water Main Certified 

Checklist Capacity Certification Letter, the City of Shelby’s water supply system has adequate capacity 

to supply the facility with the required demands. The Multimodal Hub Center will not require 

dedicated surface water withdrawals or groundwater extraction and will not extend deep enough 

below the surface to penetrate groundwater aquifers. Therefore, the water use requirements of the 

Build Alternative will not impact surface or groundwater quality or availability.

3 . 3 N o i s e a n d V i b r a t i o n

This section addresses the potential for the Proposed Action to result in noise and vibration impacts 

on local residents and businesses. 

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Noise and potential vibration levels were qualitatively evaluated by reviewing aerial photography and 

observations of the types of development (i.e., residential vs. commercial vs. industrial) made during 

onsite surveys. The potential effects of the Proposed Action from noise and vibration levels were 

analyzed by evaluating the number of receptors (i.e., businesses, residences, schools) within 1,000 

feet of the study area.

The study area is located southeast of Shelby in an area zoned as an industrial TIF District. The 

surrounding area is primarily undeveloped agricultural and industrialized land. Residences, 

businesses, parks, and other sensitive receptors are located north of the study area. There are no 

sensitive receptors within the study area itself, but based on a review of aerial photography, there 

are 75 residences, 16 commercial facilities, a fairgrounds and a church within 1,000 feet of the study 

area. 

3.3.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The noise and vibration associated with the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal

in downtown Shelby includes the switching, separating, and coupling of trains, the loading and 

unloading of freight, and the arrival and departure of commercial truck traffic. The No-Build 

Alternative would result in trains continuing to utilize the existing facility, and noise and vibration 

impacts on residences and businesses near the BNSF Intermodal Terminal would also continue.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. Construction associated with the Proposed Action will

result in increases in noise and vibration levels due to the operation of construction vehicles and 

equipment, the delivery of materials, and other construction-related work. However, such activities 

will be limited to daytime hours, will be localized, and will be of relatively short duration. Also, noise 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

24

abatement measures will be incorporated by NETA into the Proposed Action plans and specifications, 

as appropriate. This will include measures such as limiting construction to daytime hours and

maintaining noise attenuation measures (e.g., mufflers, shields, dampeners, aprons, etc.) on 

equipment. Consequently, no significant, long-term impacts on local noise levels are expected due to 

construction.

Operation Impacts. As road and rail traffic and associated activities increase in the study area due to 

the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center, localized noise and vibration levels are anticipated to 

increase. However, the design for 13th Street South will have a posted driving speed of 35 mph, 

resulting in lower traffic-related noise due to the lower driving speed. Also, the distance between the 

Multimodal Hub Center and surrounding residential and commercial developments will likewise 

diminish the noise impacts. Consequently, the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center is not 

expected to create any additional noise or vibration impacts on sensitive receptors beyond what is 

already experienced. In fact, by locating the operations associated with the Multimodal Hub Center to 

an area south of the city, the magnitude of noise and vibration impacts within the City and the 

number of affected sensitive receptors, when compared to the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal,

will likely be reduced.

3 . 4 W e t l a n d s

Wetlands are defined in both Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and in Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act, as those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a 

frequency to support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of 

vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth 

and reproduction. Three parameters that define a wetland, as outlined in the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Federal Manual for Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands are hydric 

soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. Wetlands are a natural resource serving many functions 

such as providing wildlife habitat, storing floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and improving water 

quality through purification EO 11990 discourages the unwarranted alteration of wetlands. 

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Wetland resources beyond the study area were considered since the Proposed Action could 

potentially affect areas beyond the Proposed Action boundary. Wetland resources were evaluated by 

reviewing existing documentation as described below and by conducting field delineations. The 

effects on wetlands were analyzed quantitatively by superimposing design layouts over site-specific 

wetlands data and identifying the location and areal extent of impacts.

Wetlands within the study area were identified by review of NWI (National Wetland Inventory) maps, 

USGS (United States Geological Survey) topographical maps, Toole County Soil Survey, and aerial 

photographs. A wetland delineation was conducted on the 226-acre Proposed Action site on March 6, 

2012. There were eight wetlands identified in the study area totaling 5.3 acres. The wetland 

delineation information was submitted to the USACE along with a request for a Jurisdictional 

Determination (JD) on July 24, 2012. The USACE responded with a JD for the wetlands on September 

12, 2012. Please refer to Figure 3.2, Wetlands.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

25

Figure 3.2, Wetlands
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

26

NETA subsequently determined in consultation with the USACE that a Section 404 permit will be 

required for anticipated impacts to onsite wetlands, and that wetland mitigation will be required. 

NETA submitted an application for a Section 404 permit and a mitigation plan to the USACE. The 

wetland mitigation, as outlined in the mitigation plan, will consist of the development of an 

approximately 3 acre wetland mitigation site at a location immediately southwest of the City of 

Shelby’s existing sewage treatment lagoons (see Figure 1.1). The western boundary of the mitigation 

site will follow the BNSF property line and tie into the natural topography of the surroundings. The 

mitigation site comprises an area of about 200 feet by 940 feet. 

The wetland mitigation site currently supports a small wetland. The wetland will be expanded by 

excavating the upland landscape and merging it with the existing wetland and associated natural 

drainage system. The wetland will include side slopes of approximately 3:1 and a varying bottom 

elevation to allow for various water depths. Bottom elevations will range from approximately 3178.5 

to 3180.0 ft. above sea level. 

The Section 404 permit application and wetland mitigation plan is currently under review at the 

USACE.

3.4.2 Environmental Impacts

No Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact wetlands because the Proposed 

Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The layout for the Proposed Action has been designed to 

avoid wetland impacts to the extent feasible. Nevertheless, construction will result in permanent 

impacts to about 1.5 acres of wetlands. As mentioned above, consultations with the USACE indicated 

that such impacts would require a Section 404 dredge and fill permit as well as wetland mitigation at 

a 2:1 areal ratio. NETA drafted and submitted a Section 404 permit application package (consisting of 

a proposed wetland mitigation site location, wetland mitigation plan, and 404 dredge and fill permit 

application) to USACE. A wetland mitigation site has been identified and is shown on Error! Reference 

source not found.. The site will be developed during construction and after the USACE’s approval of 

the mitigation plan and issuance of the 404 permit. 

Considering the mitigation of the wetlands, no significant impacts to wetlands will occur.

Operation Impacts. The operation of the Multimodal Hub Center may result in minor increases in 

erosion and stormwater runoff volume and changes in runoff quality which could, in turn, indirectly 

affect wetlands that may receive runoff. However, standard erosion control measures, stormwater 

management techniques, and chemical/oil spill prevention and cleanup procedures will be 

implemented at the Proposed Action site to reduce impacts to water quality and hydrology. 

Consequently, no significant, indirect impacts to wetlands are anticipated and no further mitigation is 

required.

The development of the wetland mitigation site may increase the time in which precipitation flows 

reach downstream drainages. However, this effect will be largely limited to the first flush following a 

precipitation event and will have no significant impact on downstream drainages.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

27

3 . 5 B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s

This section identifies the biological resources that currently exist at and adjacent to the Proposed 

Action site and addresses the potential impacts that may result from the Proposed Action. The study 

area for biological resources consists of the Proposed Action area as described in Section 1.5 (Study 

Area) of this document. Biological resources were evaluated by reviewing existing documentation 

such as the USFWS August 2012 Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Montana 

County List, information provided by the Montana Natural Heritage Program in its letter dated May 7, 

2012 (please see Appendix B), aerial photographs, USGS quadrangle maps, and other relevant 

information. In addition, onsite surveys were conducted on March 6, August 9, and October 31, 2012 

to characterize environmental conditions (including biological conditions) in the study area.

Baseline conditions and Proposed Action-related impacts for threatened and endangered species, 

eagles, migratory birds and wildlife, and aquatic resources are addressed in the following paragraphs.

3.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, federal 

agencies are required to ensure: 

 Any action funded or carried out by such agency must not be likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any federally-listed endangered or threatened species or species 

proposed to be listed. 

 No such action can result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such 

species that is determined to be critical by the Secretary. 

An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A 

threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. A candidate 

species is a plant or animal for which the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has 

sufficient information on its biological status and threats to propose it as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA, but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other 

higher priority listing activities. Consistent with the spirit of the ESA, candidate species are consider 

these species as having significant value and worth protecting.

3.5.1.1 Affected Environment

The USFWS has identified the black-footed ferret (Federal endangered species) and the Sprague’s 

pipit (Federal candidate species) as occurring within Toole County. No federally-listed species were 

observed in the study area during the onsite surveys described above. 

Habitat requirements, the potential for suitable habitat within the study area and other information 

regarding listed species for Toole County are as follows:

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) – Endangered

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) historically could be found throughout the Rocky 

Mountains and Great Plains. Its preferred habitat includes areas around prairie dog towns, as it relies 

on prairie dogs for food and lives in prairie dog burrows. The black-footed ferret requires at least an 

80-acre prairie dog town to survive. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

28

Within Montana, three experimental populations have been re-introduced. The Proposed Action is 

not near any of these populations.

The study area itself does not contain suitable prairie dog habitat. A small prairie dog town is located 

south of the Shelby lagoons to the east of the study area. This prairie dog town is approximately 24 

acres in size, and therefore, is unsuitable for colonization by black-footed ferret.

Because there is a lack of suitable habitat, the study area is not expected to support populations of 

the black-footed ferret.

Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) – Candidate

The Sprague’s pipet (Anthus spragueii) is a small songbird found in prairie areas throughout the 

Northern Great Plains. Preferred habitat includes rolling, upland, and mixed-grass prairie habitat with 

high plant species diversity. The Sprague’s pipet breeds in habitat with minimal human disturbance. 

The Proposed Action area is located in an actively grazed, short-grass prairie setting with portions of 

the study area adjacent to industrial uses. Due to the disturbed nature of local prairie habitats, there 

is a lack of suitable Sprague’s pipet habitat within the study area. Therefore, the study area is not 

expected to support populations of the Sprague’s pipit.

3.5.1.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on threatened or endangered 

species or candidate species because the Proposed Action would not be implemented. 

Build Alternative – Activities associated with construction and operation – such as site clearing 

grading (specific to construction), equipment operation, human activity, oil/chemical storage, etc. –

can impact wildlife via noise emissions, stormwater/wastewater generation, accidental oil/chemical 

releases, air pollutant emissions, physical injury or mortality, and habitat disturbance. Impacts can be 

permanent (as in certain habitat impacts, such as the filling of a wetland) or short-term (as in the 

temporary, disturbance-induced dispersal of wildlife from a construction site); direct (such as the 

collision of an animal with a construction vehicle) or indirect (as in the runoff or wastewater-related 

degradation of water quality in a local stream). The significance of impacts on a population can vary 

depending on many factors such as the magnitude and duration of the impact; the areal extent of the 

impact; the distribution of the affected species in the impact area; the sensitivity, mobility, and 

overall adaptability and recoverability of the affected species and life stages; and others. 

Development activities (especially construction activities) can likewise disturb vegetative 

communities and temporarily or permanently alter their composition which, in turn, can affect the 

composition of the local wildlife population.

Threatened and endangered species and their habitats comprise unique subcategories of the wildlife 

and botanical communities of an ecosystem and as such, are subject to the impacts described above.

Due to their reduced or naturally low numbers, unique habitat requirements, sensitivity to 

disturbance, or other characteristics, however, threatened and endangered species can be at 

increased risk in terms of their susceptibility to impacts.

Construction Impacts. Individuals or populations of the black-footed ferret or Sprague’s pipit or their 

habitats—if occurring near the Proposed Action site—could be exposed to many of the direct effects 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

29

described above. As previously mentioned, however, neither species was observed in the study area, 

nor would be expected to occur in the immediate vicinity due to the lack of suitable habitat at or near 

the Proposed Action site. Therefore, no impacts to black-footed ferret, Sprague’s pipit, or other listed 

or candidate species or their habitats are expected, and no further mitigation for direct impacts is 

necessary or proposed.

Operation Impacts. Individuals or populations of the black-footed ferret or Sprague’s pipit or their 

habitats—if occurring near the Multimodal Hub Center—could be exposed to many of the effects 

described above. As previously mentioned, however, neither species was observed in the study area, 

nor would be expected to occur in the immediate vicinity due to the lack of suitable habitat at or near 

the Multimodal Hub Center. Therefore, no impacts to black-footed ferret, Sprague’s pipit, or other 

listed or candidate species or their habitats are expected, and no further mitigation for indirect 

impacts is necessary or proposed.

3.5.2 Bald and Golden Eagles

Protection is provided for bald and golden eagles through the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

(BGEPA). The BGEPA of 1940, 16 U.S.C. 668–668d, as amended, was written with the intent to protect 

and preserve bald and golden eagles, both of which are treated as species of concern within the 

Department of the Interior. The BGEPA prohibits, except under certain specified conditions, the 

taking, possession or commercial use of bald and golden eagles. Under the BGEPA, to “take” includes 

to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb, wherein 

“disturb” means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to the degree that interferes with or 

interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, causing injury, death, or nest abandonment. 

3.5.2.1 Affected Environment

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Montana, as elsewhere, is primarily a species of riparian 

and lacustrine habitats, especially during the breeding season. Important year round habitats include 

wetlands, major water bodies, spring spawning streams, ungulate winter ranges and open water 

areas. Wintering habitat may include upland sites. Nesting sites are generally located within larger 

forested areas near large lakes and rivers where nests are usually built in the tallest and oldest largediameter trees. Nesting site selection is dependent upon local food availability and the level of 

disturbance from human activity. Bald eagle pairs tend to use the same nest year after year, building 

atop the previous year’s nest. 

The bald eagle population in Montana is considered one of the most productive populations in the 

western United States. In 1994, when the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan was completed, 

Montana had approximately 156 active bald eagle territories. Population models estimated that 

Montana could support as many as 345 occupied territories by the year 2033, if sufficient habitat 

exists. In 2006, Montana’s population surpassed this population target with 352 occupied territories, 

over 25 years earlier than predicted. As of 2008, Montana had approximately 490 occupied bald eagle 

territories with targets/goals that had been set by biologists for individual recovery zones having 

been exceeded by four to seven times the recovery goal. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

30

No bald eagles or nests were observed within 0.5 mile (the USFWS-recommended distance between 

eagle nests and loud noises) of the study area during the onsite surveys. Please refer to Figure 3.3, 

Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Locations.

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) in Montana nests on cliffs and in large trees, and hunts over 

prairies and open woodlands. Golden eagle pairs maintain territories that can be as large as 60 

square miles. They perch on ledges and rocky outcrops and use soaring to search for prey. Golden 

eagle preferred habitats include open prairie, plains, and forested areas. 

No golden eagles or nests were observed within 0.5 mile of the study area during the onsite surveys.

3.5.2.2 Environmental Impacts

No Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact bald or golden eagles because the 

Proposed Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. Based on the lack of presence of eagles or their nests in the 

study area, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to impact bald or golden eagles. However, if bald 

or golden eagles or their nests are sighted during construction, all work within one mile of the eagle 

would cease and the USFWS would be contacted immediately. In coordination with USFWS, work 

would resume after the bird(s) leave(s) the area, the nesting season has been completed, or it is 

otherwise determined by the USFWS that continued work activities would have no significant effect 

on the eagles.

Operation Impacts. Based on the lack of presence of eagles or their nests in the study area, no 

impacts to bald or golden eagles through the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center are expected. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

31

Figure 3.3, Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Locations
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

32

3.5.3 Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 916 U.S.C. 703–711, provides protection for 1,007 migratory 

bird species, 58 of which are legally hunted. The MBTA regulates impacts to these species such as 

direct mortality, habitat degradation, and/or displacement of individual birds. The MBTA defines 

“taking” to include by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, 

killing, possessing, or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof, except when 

specifically permitted by the regulation. 

3.5.3.1 Affected Environment

Migratory Birds. The study area lies on the outskirts of Shelby at the convergence of the Pacific and 

Central Flyways of North America. As such, the vicinity surrounding the site is used as resting grounds 

for many birds on their spring and fall migrations, as well as nesting and breeding grounds for many 

species. 

Other Wildlife. In addition, the general vicinity of the Proposed Action contains suitable habitat for 

other resident species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), moose (Alces americanus), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), ring-necked 

pheasant (Phasianus colchicas), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), American badger 

(Taxidea taxus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), several other rabbit/hare species 

from the family Leporidae, and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana).

The study area itself has been largely disturbed due to previous development and consists of a mix of 

industrial/municipal infrastructure (including rail line, roadways, sewage treatment facilities, and 

private business facilities), wetlands (about five acres, some of which appear to have been created as 

a result of the installation of rail and road beds), and small amounts of mixed-grass uplands.

Consequently, the study area has only small stands of natural habitat and as such, is of limited habitat 

value. The wildlife species that occur at the site typically include those that are tolerant of urban 

setting, human activities and/or marginal habitat conditions.

3.5.3.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact migratory birds or wildlife because 

the Proposed Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. It is likely that, due to the presence of small amounts of 

suitable habitat within the study area, certain wildlife species will be present during construction and

thus, could be affected by related activities. Such effects may include injury or death from operating 

equipment, habitat degradation (i.e., replacement of native grass with weedy species; degradation of 

wetlands due to changes in runoff patterns; accidental chemical or oil spills, etc.) or loss, and other 

impacts. In the case of the Proposed Action, however, the potential for substantial constructionrelated spills is low since any chemical or oil product onsite during construction will be in relatively 

small quantities and/or will be stored and handled in accordance with the appropriate industrial 

procedures. Likewise, the potential for substantial construction changes in stormwater characteristics 

due to the Proposed Action will be low because the appropriate BMPs, such as silt fencing and 

reseeding disturbed areas, will be implemented to control soil erosion and minimize the potential for 

sediment-laden runoff to affect wetlands and other waters.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

33

The study area has limited habitat value and does not represent important breeding, feeding or 

loafing habitat for resident or migratory wildlife. As such, it would be unlikely to attract or hold 

significant numbers of migratory birds or other wildlife. Also, while human-tolerant migratory bird or 

wildlife species may use the study area for breeding and feeding and continue to thrive, Proposed 

Action-related activities may displace species which are less human-tolerant or possess more 

restrictive habitat requirements.

Operation Impacts. Activities associated with the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center may result 

in the displacement of wildlife species which may then be forced to utilize lower quality habitats or to 

relocate to other areas where population density and competition may increase. Consequences of 

such displacement and competition may include lower survival, lower reproductive success, lower 

recruitment, and lower carrying capacity. Operation activities could also result in wildlife injury or 

death from operating equipment, and disturbances from noise and human activity. 

Migratory birds (particularly waterfowl) and other wildlife could also be affected by changes in 

stormwater runoff patterns or physicochemical characteristics, or inadvertent releases of oil or 

chemical products to local water bodies (i.e., wetlands, lakes/ponds, streams, and intermittent 

drainages) during the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center. When such impacts are pronounced, 

the viability of wildlife populations which use those water bodies for feeding, reproduction, cover or 

resting could be compromised. In the case of the Multimodal Hub Center, however, the potential for 

substantial spills is low since any chemical or oil product onsite will be in relatively small quantities 

and/or will be stored and handled in accordance with the appropriate industrial procedures. Likewise, 

the potential for substantial, operation-related changes in stormwater characteristics will be low 

because the Multimodal Hub Center will be designed to largely avoid disruption of drainage patterns 

across the landscape. Also, the appropriate BMPs, such as silt fencing and reseeding disturbed areas, 

will be implemented to control soil erosion and minimize the potential for sediment-laden runoff to 

affect wetlands and other water bodies. Considering these factors, it is unlikely that the Multimodal 

Hub Center will have any significant operation-related impacts on migratory birds or wildlife. No 

additional mitigation measures are required.

3.5.4 Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic resources as discussed herein include aquatic habitat (water bodies) and the communities 

that use that habitat, including fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants. 

3.5.4.1 Affected Environment

The only water bodies in the study area include several small wetlands (eight wetlands totaling 5.3 

acres) and a network of existing stormwater ditches. Data regarding the composition (i.e., species 

composition and abundance) of the aquatic communities associated with these water bodies are not 

available. Based on observations made during the onsite surveys, however, none of the water bodies 

represent unique habitats. Therefore, it is expected that the aquatic communities in the study area 

are comprised of fish, invertebrate and plant populations common to similar habitats in western 

Montana.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

34

3.5.4.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact aquatic resources because the 

Proposed Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. Aquatic communities in the study area could be adversely 

affected by Proposed Action-related activities. Such effects may include stress, injury or death of 

organisms from dredge and fill or other in-water activities, habitat loss (e.g., filling of wetlands), and 

disturbances due to noise and human activity. However, water bodies in the study area are relatively 

small, do not exhibit any unique habitat characteristics, and likely support species common to the 

region. Therefore, any Proposed Action-induced impacts to water bodies and associated aquatic 

communities in the study area will not be significant.

Operation Impacts. Operation impacts to aquatic populations could result from habitat modification 

and degradation due to stormwater runoff, sediment deposition, and oil and chemical releases which 

can affect aquatic life by blocking light transmission and interfering with biological processes. As 

mentioned above, however, aquatic communities in the study area are not unique and are probably 

comprised of species common to the region. Therefore, any impacts from the operation of the 

Multimodal Hub Center on local aquatic communities will not be significant. The implementation of 

the measures described in previous paragraphs, (i.e., proper storage and handling of oil and 

chemicals; design measures to retain existing drainage onsite drainage patterns; the implementation 

of erosion control BMPs) will further reduce operation-related impacts.

The wetland mitigation site will provide a small amount of additional habitat for aquatic species.

3 . 6 F l o o d p l a i n s

Floodplains constitute lands situated along rivers and their tributaries that are subject to periodic 

flooding with a one percent chance of being flooded in any given year, on the average interval of 100 

years or less.

Continued encroachment on floodplains decreases the natural flood control capacity of these lands, 

creates the need for expensive manmade flood control measures and disaster relief activities, and 

endangers both lives and property. Executive Order 11988 requires Federal agencies to avoid actions, 

to the extent practicable, which would result in the locations of facilities in floodplains and/or affect 

floodplain values. Facilities located in a floodplain may be damaged or destroyed by a flood or may 

change the flood-handling capability of the floodplain.

3.6.1 Affected Environment

Floodplains were evaluated by reviewing existing documentation including aerial photography, water 

resources data, and floodplain and contour maps. The effects on floodplains were analyzed by 

evaluating design information with regard to the above-mentioned floodplain information.

A search of the FEMA Map Service Center provided the Flood Insurance Map included in Appendix C, 

and is the only available flood map for the area. The map does not include the Proposed Action site. 

Therefore, the Proposed Action is not located within a designated floodplain. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

35

3.6.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact floodplains because the Proposed 

Action would not be implemented and would not result in any indirect impacts to floodplains.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The Proposed Action site is not located within a designated

floodplain. Therefore, the Proposed Action will not impact floodplains.

Operation Impacts. The Multimodal Hub Center will have not impacts to floodplains since it is not 

located within a designated floodplain.

3 . 7 E n e r g y U s e

Energy use addresses the energy requirements of the construction and operation of a proposed 

project. 

3.7.1 Affected Environment

Existing energy use was evaluated by reviewing energy requirements for construction, energy use 

data for the BNSF facility and the availability of existing infrastructure in the study area. The Proposed 

Action-related effects on energy use were analyzed by considering the energy needs for the Proposed 

Action as they relate to the availability of energy.

The study area is zoned as an industrial TIF District, and is located 1.5 miles to the southeast of the 

existing BNSF facility. Electrical distribution runs parallel to the existing railroad track. There are two 

large transmission lines within one-half mile of the Proposed Action site. 

3.7.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on current energy use because 

the Proposed Action would not be implemented and the existing BNSF facility would continue to 

operate as it currently does.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The Proposed Action will include the installation of 

additional electrical lines. Minor amounts of electrical power will be required for construction and 

will be provided by portable electrical generators, petroleum and local electrical distribution provided 

by Marias River Electrical Co-op. 

Operation Impacts. The operation of the Multimodal Hub Center will have long-term impacts on local 

electrical energy supplies. Considering that Marias River Electrical Co-op has adequate power to 

supply power to the Multimodal Hub Center, however, such impacts will not be significant.

3 . 8 V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s

The visual quality of an area may be affected by the introduction of new buildings, structures, 

landscape modifications, or other features. These effects may be significant to visually sensitive 

areas, such as: historic properties, cultural resources, traditional cultural places, cultural landscapes,

areas of scenic beauty, scenic overlooks and highways, wilderness areas, parks, and national forests,

or along wild and scenic rivers, recreational, or nationwide inventory rivers. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

36

3.8.1 Affected Environment

Visual resources outside of the study area were considered since activities at the Proposed Action site 

can be viewed from areas beyond the Proposed Action boundary.

Visual resources were evaluated based on a review of existing documentation including aerial 

photography and USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, and on photographs taken and ground-level 

observations made during onsite surveys conducted on March 6, August 9, and October 31, 2012. The 

effects on visual resources were analyzed by evaluating design information to estimate the potential 

visual effect of proposed operations on the scenic landscape based on the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects: FHWA Publication No. FHWAHI-88-054.

The Proposed Action site is located southeast of Shelby on zoned industrial TIF District land. The 

study area and the vicinity immediately surrounding the site exhibit industrial visual characteristics

and include a body shop, grain elevator, and a loop railroad spur providing rail access to the grain 

elevator. City of Shelby sewage lagoons are east of the site. To the west and south are cropped 

agricultural fields. Shelby, with residences, businesses, and a recreational park, lies directly to the 

north. The overall landscape is dominated by rolling plains with bluffs in the distance. 

There are no visually sensitive areas in the study area or the surrounding vicinity. Visually sensitive is 

defined as aesthetic resources of local, statewide or national significance.

3.8.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – Under the No-Build Alternative, the visual resources at the Proposed Action

site would remain unchanged. Likewise, the visual characteristics of the commercial traffic and 

industrial setting associated with the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal would continue to be 

present and visible to Amtrak rail passengers, local residents and patrons who visit the area around 

downtown Shelby.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The Build Alternative will develop a site located on the 

outskirts of Shelby, away from businesses and residences in the center of the city. The Proposed 

Action will include infrastructure improvements consisting of the extension of railroad tracks, the 

construction of an access road, the extension of 13th Street South, the installation of utilities, and the 

construction of a laydown area. There are no plans to construct buildings that would significantly 

impact the existing visual resources. 

Construction will negatively impact visual quality in the study area due to the presence of 

construction equipment and stockpiled materials, equipment operation, fugitive dust and exhaust 

emissions and exposed soils. Because of the industrialized setting of the study area and the 

temporary nature of construction activities, however, no significant, long-term impacts to the visual 

setting are expected due to construction.

Operation Impacts. Following completion of the Multimodal Hub Center, the existing BNSF 

Intermodal Hub will be closed and will be utilized by BNSF as a storage facility for railroad 

maintenance equipment and materials, Commercial traffic that is currently servicing the BNSF 

Intermodal Hub will be diverted around Shelby to the Multimodal Hub Center near the city’s 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

37

outskirts. Truck and commercial traffic ingress and egress for the Multimodal Hub Center will be 

along 13th Street South, resulting in a minor degradation of the visual quality along the 13th Street 

corridor. Conversely, truck and commercial traffic within Shelby will be decreased, thus improving the 

visual setting near downtown Shelby.

Another visual impact associated with the Multimodal Hub Center will result from the physical

presence of the associated infrastructure and facilities (e.g., the expanded bulk handling facility 

building) which will represent a visual contrast with the surrounding area. This will be most obvious 

along the 13th Street South extension where the existing section line will be replaced with roadway.

Such impacts are not likely to be significant, however, because of the already industrialized nature of 

the vicinity of the Multimodal Hub Center.

Considering the above factors, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to have significant impacts on 

visual resources, because of the already industrialized nature of the Proposed Action area. No further 

mitigation measures are necessary.

3 . 9 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

This section addresses existing transportation conditions in the Proposed Action area and the 

potential transportation impacts associated with the Proposed Action.

3.9.1 Affected Environment

Three major Montana transportation corridors are adjacent to Shelby. One is US Highway 2, an 

arterial road which bisects Shelby to the north of the Proposed Action area. US Highway 2 provides 

access to and from southern Canada, just north of the Michigan peninsula, and extends to the 

western ports of Washington. Another corridor is the BNSF-owned rail line which parallels US 

Highway 2, bisecting the city of Shelby. The rail line services both freight and passenger trains 

travelling to and from the west coast and Great Lakes. The third corridor is I-15, which is located west 

of the Proposed Action area and serves as a route for North American commerce spanning from 

California to Canada.

Transportation was evaluated by reviewing information for the local transportation corridors and the 

existing infrastructure in the study area and the vicinity. The Proposed Action-related effects on 

transportation use were analyzed by evaluating design information with regard to the transportation 

conditions.

3.9.1.1 Rail

Shelby is currently served by Amtrak intercity rail service, which includes the “Empire Builder” with 

travel daily between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest. The Amtrak Shelby Station is located at 230 

West Central Avenue, adjacent to US Highway 2 and downtown Shelby. The station is one-half mile 

north of the Proposed Action site. Ridership statistics indicate 45 – 50 passengers daily board at the 

Shelby station.

Currently, Montana does not have the ability to ship or receive containerized international cargo due 

to a lack of inland ports capable of accepting and delivering intermodal unit trains. There are three 

port facilities in the state at this time (including the Port of Northern Montana); specific limitations 

prohibit Montana manufacturers and agricultural producers from containerizing their cargo at these 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

38

ports for export delivery to world markets. Also, Montana does not have any multimodal facilities (at 

least not BNSF facilities) that can accommodate the delivery of unit trains of large equipment or 

materials such as wind tower components or other oversized energy supplies. Developers are forced 

to use commercial trucks, which is not preferred due to road wear and tear, challenges with multistate jurisdictional length and load limitations, and special permit fees. The lack of a multimodal 

facility has also impacted the ability of oil and energy companies to transport and receive containers 

in an efficient process.

The existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal was built in 1987, and is located adjacent to residential and 

business districts and the Amtrak Shelby Station. The BNSF facility is about 1.5 miles northwest of the 

Proposed Action location. The facility handles 45 – 50 freight trains a day, and train volumes have 

been steadily increasing since 2000.

3.9.1.2 Bus

The population size of the city limits the bus service operations available in Shelby. At this time, there 

is no public bus service operating in Shelby.

3.9.1.3 Motor Vehicle

The existing BNSF’s Intermodal Terminal was built in 1987 and is located adjacent to residential and 

business districts. Commercial vehicles use I-15, US Highway 2, and local arterial and collector roads 

to transport supplies and equipment to the BNSF facility. According to 2009 MDT data, 4,360 vehicles 

a day use US Highway 2 to access the existing BNSF facility. However, the existing BNSF facility is 

unable to meet the demands for delivery. Therefore, developers are relying on commercial trucks to 

transport oversized equipment. As indicated previously, the use of commercial vehicles is not 

preferred due to road wear and tear, challenges with multi-state jurisdictional lengths and load 

limitations, and special permit fees.

3.9.1.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian

There are no designated bicycle paths or greenways inside the study area. 

3.9.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – Under the No-Build Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be 

implemented. The following impacts would continue:

 Montana would not have the ability to ship or receive containerized international cargo or 

accommodate the delivery of unit trains of large equipment or materials. Developers would 

still have to use commercial trucks to transport goods and equipment and the ability of oil 

and energy companies to transport and receive containers would continue to be impacted.

 Traffic and activities associated with the existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal would continue 

to present traffic congestion issues and public safety risks near residential and business 

districts in Shelby.

 The BNSF facility would continue to operate as it currently does. Modern unit trains would 

not be able to be efficiently accommodated and passenger delays at the Amtrak facility 

would continue.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

39

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. Construction will affect traffic along 13th Street South and 

SE Front Street. However, no traffic detours to other streets will be needed as traffic will be able to 

use one lane or temporary lanes along 13th Street South and SE Front Street. Traffic will travel 

through the area without major delays. Access to adjacent properties will be maintained during 

construction as well as operation. These impacts are temporary in nature and only present during the 

construction periods.

Another impact of the Proposed Action will include increased traffic on SE Front Street (due to 

Proposed Action-related improvements) and on 13th Street South (due to the extension to SE Front 

Street). As a result of the improvements, commercial traffic arriving and departing from the Proposed 

Action site will use two access routes. Traffic entering the site from the north, south, and west will be 

able to access the site from 13th Street South. Traffic from the east will be able to utilize the 

secondary access road or SE Front Street. Construction-related traffic on these streets will increase

during the construction periods and result in minor traffic congestion. Construction traffic will cease 

following completion of the Multimodal Hub Center.

Operation Impacts. The Proposed Action will complete the Multimodal Hub Center and thus, the final 

phase of a freight rail transportation link between Montana and all ports served by BNSF on the West 

Coast and Great Lakes. The operation of the Multimodal Hub Center is not expected to negatively 

impact traffic infrastructure, patterns or volumes and in fact, will result in significant transportation 

improvements within Shelby, Toole County, and the region. The anticipated long-term impacts of the 

Multimodal Hub Center are discussed further below.

The completion of the Multimodal Hub Center will result in a positive impact by facilitating the 

operation of a more efficient, fully functional inland port capable of accepting and delivering unit 

trains of containers and cargo. Trains will facilitate more effective movement of regionally 

manufactured goods and containerized products (such as agricultural commodities) to other locations 

in Montana, other states and other countries. Also, passenger delays at the Amtrak facility resulting 

from BNSF operations will be substantially reduced or eliminated.

Another impact of the operation of the Multimodal Hub Center will be related to the extension of

13th Street South and improvements to SE Front Street. As a result of these improvements, 

commercial traffic on these two streets will likely increase as traffic associated with rail transport will 

be diverted away from Shelby’s urban center and to the Multimodal Hub Center along these 

thoroughfares. However, these traffic increases will largely be restricted to Shelby’s outskirts and not 

affect in-town traffic. In fact, commercial traffic on in-town city streets will be concurrently 

decreased, reducing congestion and improving public safety and traffic mobility in downtown areas.

An additional impact expected from the Multimodal Hub Center will be a shift by the oil and gas 

industry and others from the use of over-the-road hauling of equipment and goods to the use of 

trains. This will benefit the overall economy by lowering transportation costs.

Finally, the Multimodal Hub Center will lead to decreased truck traffic on Interstate 15 and US

Highway 2, which will reduce roadway wear and costs for road maintenance. In fact, according to the 

NETA’s TIGER Discretionary Grant Proposal, “...by 2035, the use of rail instead of truck will reduce 

road usage by 92 million miles annually. This is based on the projections that the new inland port will

generate five round trip intermodal trains per week moving 124,800 containers by rail by the year 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

40

2035.” The grant proposal asserts that “...Moving intermodal containers by rail instead of truck along 

this corridor will save the states of Washington, Idaho, North Dakota, Montana and Minnesota over 

$102 million in road maintenance and preservation costs over the next 20 years.”

3 . 1 0 L a n d U s e , Z o n i n g , a n d P r o p e r t y A c q u i s i t i o n s

Land use and zoning address the manner in which properties are/can be used and developed. 

Property acquisition has to do with whether additional lands will be required for the development of 

a project.

3.10.1 Affected Environment

Land use and zoning was evaluated by reviewing land use information for the study area, including 

USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, aerial photographs, a city zoning map, and other relevant 

information. The Proposed Action-related effects on land use and zoning were analyzed by evaluating 

design information with regard to the land use and zoning conditions in the area.

The need for additional properties for development was determined based on the design layout of 

the Proposed Action area as it related to the existing Proposed Action right-of-way. 

3.10.1.1 Land Use and Zoning

The Proposed Action is located within a predominately rural area southeast of Shelby. The site is 

typical of the semi-arid, short grass prairie found within the glaciated plains of the Northern Great 

Plains physiographic region of Montana. 

Land use within the study area is zoned as an industrial TIF District. The surrounding land use is 

dominated by agricultural and cropped land to the west and south, commercial and industrial to the 

east, and residences, businesses and a recreational park to the north. Agricultural land consists 

primarily of grasslands utilized as sheep and/or cow pastures throughout the past 60 years. Adjacent 

to the study area is cropped land, with a lesser extent of cultivated lands, woodlands, and developed 

lands. Please refer to Figure 3.4, General Land Use Map.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

41

Figure 3.4, General Land Use Map
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

42

3.10.1.1 Farmland

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), USDA regulations implementing the FPPA (7 CFR Part 658) 

and USDA DR No. 9500-3, Land Use Policy, provide protection for prime and important farmland, and 

prime rangeland and forestland. Section 658.5 of the FPPA provides criteria for Federal agencies to 

identify and take into account the adverse effects of Federal programs on the protection of farmland. 

Federal agencies are to: (1) consider alternate actions, as appropriate, that could lessen adverse 

effects; and (2) assure that such federal programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with

relevant programs and policies (including those of private organizations as well as state and local 

governments) to protect farmland. 

Based on land use classification information, the study area includes approximately 24 acres of prime 

farmland and 65 acres of farmland of statewide importance. From a practical standpoint, however, 

the vast majority of the land within the study area currently consists of, and is used for, rail and 

roadway. For example, the 13th Street South corridor within the study area is classified as prime 

farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and not prime farmland of statewide importance, yet it 

consists of developed roadway from Marias River Road to 9th Avenue South, and undeveloped 

roadway from 9th Avenue South to Front Street. Likewise, most of the rail corridor portion of the 

study area consists of developed rail infrastructure. Therefore, the amount of land within the study 

area that is actually used for, or available for use for, agricultural purposes is much less the land use 

classification would suggest. Please refer to Figure 3.5, Prime and Unique Farmlands Map.

3.10.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact land use, farmland, zoning or 

required property acquisitions because the Proposed Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The Proposed Action will convert portions of land from 

agricultural use to transportation use through the acquisition of right-of-way. The acquisition would 

result in impacts of 24 acres of land considered prime farmland and 65 acres considered farmland of 

statewide importance. As mentioned above, however, much of this land is already used for 

transportation purposes. Therefore, the actual “conversion” of farmland to non-farming purposes 

would be at insignificant levels. 

No other land use conversions would be required. 

Property owners on whose land will be impacted and are part of the Proposed Action footprint were 

contacted by the Project team to confirm or obtain right-of-way access. Land from seven different 

property owners was acquired for construction of the project.

Operation Impacts. Considering the availability of agricultural land in the Shelby area and the region, 

this does not represent a significant impact.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

43

Figure 3.5, Prime and Unique Farmlands Map
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

44

3 . 1 1 S o c i o e c o n o m i c R e s o u r c e s

Socioeconomic resources address the infrastructure, demographic characteristics and economics of a 

community. Business, employment, transportation, utilities, etc., are factors that affect the social 

climate of a community. Other factors that distinguish the social makeup of one particular area from 

another include geography, geology, and climate.

3.11.1 Affected Environment

Socioeconomic resources outside of the Proposed Action boundary were considered since the 

Proposed Action‘s social and economic impacts will extend beyond the study area as defined. For the 

purpose of this assessment, the economics discussion focuses on Toole County and the economic 

benefits that will be realized in the county.

Socioeconomic conditions in the study area were evaluated based on a review of existing 

documentation applicable to the study area, including demographic and economic data.

Socioeconomic impacts were projected by superimposing Proposed Action design features and 

financial data on the existing infrastructure, social and economic characteristics of the study area.

The Proposed Action is located southeast of Shelby in Toole County, Montana. Shelby supports

amenities such as restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations. According to the Montana 

Department of Labor and Industry (MTDLI) Annual Averages for 2010, the top employers by industry 

in Toole County include: government, accommodation and food services, retail trade, mining, and 

transportation and warehousing. Local, state, and federal government employment comprises the 

total government category of the MTDLI Annual Averages for 2010. 

3.11.1.1 Community Facilities

There are no police facilities, fire facilities, schools, or religious institutions located within or adjacent

to the study area. The community facilities and services are found north of the study area, in urban

Shelby.

3.11.1.2 Demographics

Demographics include a description of population and housing characteristics in the Proposed Action 

area. Some residences are located along 13th Street South with the study area. The closest large 

concentration of residences includes single family homes located north of 10th Street South. Property 

owners that may be impacted because of the Proposed Action have been notified by the Project 

team.

As of the census of 2010, there were 3,376 people, 1,245 households, and 717 families residing in the 

City of Shelby. The population density was 559.9 inhabitants per square mile (216.2 /km2). There 

were 1,371 housing units at an average density of 227.4 per square mile (87.8 /km2). The racial 

makeup of the city was 89.5% White, 0.8% African American, 6.5% Native American, 0.5% Asian, 0.8% 

from other races, and 1.9% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race was 3.0% of the 

population.

There were 1,245 households out of which 28.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 

43.8% were married couples living together, 9.2% had a female householder with no husband 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

45

present, 4.7% had a male householder with no wife present, and 42.4% were non-families. 37.4% of 

all households were made up of individuals and 14% had someone living alone who was 65 years of 

age or older. The average household size was 2.17 and the average family size was 2.84.

The median age in the city was 40.3 years. 18.9% of residents were under the age of 18; 8.3% were 

between the ages of 18 and 24; 29.3% were from 25 to 44; 29.9% were from 45 to 64; and 13.6% 

were 65 years of age or older. The gender makeup of the city was 58.3% male and 41.7% female.

3.11.1.3 Economic Resources

According to the MTDLI, Toole County’s unemployment rate is lower than the statewide average, and 

its per capita and median household incomes are consistent with statewide averages for these 

parameters. The number of individuals in Toole County who live below the poverty level is slightly 

above the statewide average. Please refer to Table 3.1, Employment and Income.

Table 3.1, Employment and Income

LOCATION PER CAPITA 

INCOME

MEDIAN 

HOUSEHOLD

INCOME

UNEMPLOYMENT 

RATE

INDIVIDUALS 

LIVING BELOW 

POVERTY LEVEL

Shelby —1 $29,219 6.2% 8.6%

Toole County $20,464 $42,949 4.6% 15.7%

Statewide $23,836 $43,872 6.3% 14.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau of the Census, Census 2010 and the Montana Department of Labor & Industry, 

Current Employment Statistics, 2012.

1 No Per Capita Income was given for the City of Shelby in the US Census 2010.

3.11.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – Under the No-Build Alternative, Montana would not be able to ship or receive 

containerized international cargo or accommodate the delivery of unit trains of large equipment or 

materials. The ability of industry (including the oil and gas industry, as well as others) to costeffectively transport products, goods and equipment would continue to be impacted. Also, Shelby, 

Toole County, and the region would not realize the indirect benefits (e.g., local Proposed Action

expenditures on goods and services; increased tax revenues; etc.).

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The Proposed Action will result in overall beneficial, direct 

and indirect socioeconomic impacts to the City of Shelby and Toole County. Beneficial direct impacts

will include the generation of new, temporary jobs during construction and local and regional 

expenditures for building materials, services and goods. According to the NETA TIGER Grant Proposal, 

“...an estimated 191 family wage jobs are expected to be created during the construction period.”

Operation Impacts. The completion and operation of the Multimodal Hub Center will result in 

additional permanent jobs for operating the Multimodal Hub Center, servicing equipment and serving 

the expected increases (compared to the existing BNSF Intermodal Hub) in rail and truck traffic that 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

46

will occur due to the improved rail transport facilities. Specifically, once the new facility opens, it is 

estimated that the operations activities will generate 4.3 direct jobs per 1,000 containers moved. By 

2015, this will account for the creation of 107 new jobs growing to 537 jobs by 2035. An additional 

320 jobs are expected to result from private sector project investment identified by current customer 

commitments. In addition, the Multimodal Hub Center will contribute to the generation of additional 

revenue for the Port of Northern Montana as more businesses utilize the Multimodal Hub Center for 

shipping and transporting cargo. 

Other beneficial, indirect impacts will include expenditures by new construction and operation 

workers on food, housing, and various other goods and services. In addition, the Multimodal Hub 

Center will facilitate the continued growth and start-up of businesses in Shelby, Toole County, and 

northwest Montana. 

The Multimodal Hub Center will not adversely impact community facilities, demographics, economic 

resources or the infrastructure found within the study area, Shelby or Toole County.

3 . 1 2 E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e

Per Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations, measures must be taken to avoid disproportionately high adverse 

impacts on minority or low-income communities. 

3.12.1 Affected Environment

For the purpose of this assessment, the environmental justice analysis utilizes low income and 

minority data for the City of Shelby (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2). The Shelby data address Shelby as a 

whole because details on locations of minority or low income populations within the city were not 

found. No residences occur within the study area. Employing a conservative approach, however, the 

impact analysis for Environmental Justice was extended 1,000 feet beyond the study area boundary, 

which reflects the impact analysis area for noise impacts.

The population of Toole County is predominantly white, with American Indians comprising the 

predominant minority population. Please refer to Table 3.2, Demographic Trends. The proportion of 

minority and low income populations in Shelby are similar to those in the State of Montana.

Guidance in CEQ (1997) indicates that minority populations should be identified where either “... (a) 

the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in 

the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.” Therefore, it does not 

appear that Shelby supports a disproportionately high minority population or one that would trigger 

concerns about environmental justice impacts on minority populations.

A visual inspection of aerial photography indicated that there are approximately 75 houses within 

1,000 feet of the study area boundary, which represents less than six percent of the total number of 

households in Shelby. A review of parcel value data for and a visual inspection of, these areas suggest 

that most of the households would not be considered low income. Therefore, it is concluded that the 

vicinity surrounding the Proposed Action area does not include a disproportionately high low income 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

47

population or one that would trigger concerns about environmental justice impacts on low income 

populations.

Table 3.2, Demographic Trends

LOCATION POPULATION 

IN 2010

% OF STATE 

POPULATION

% CHANGE 

2000–2010

PREDOMINANT 

RACE

PREDOMINANT 

MINORITY

Shelby 3,376 0.3 5.0 White (89.5%) American Indian (6.5%)

Toole County 5,324 0.5 1.1 White (92.0%) American Indian (4.5%)

Statewide 989,415 — 9.7 White (89.4%) American Indian (6.3%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau of the Census, Census 2010.

3.12.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not have an environmental justice impact

because the Proposed Action would not be implemented. 

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. There would be no impacts on low income or minority 

populations because no such populations occur within the study area or the surrounding area.

Operation Impacts. There would be no impacts on low income or minority populations because no 

such populations occur within the study area or the surrounding area.

3 . 1 3 P u b l i c H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y

This section addresses the potential for the Proposed Action to affect the health and safety of the 

general public, and discusses key health and safety risks (if any).

3.13.1 Affected Environment

Public health and safety impacts can extend beyond the study area, such as in the case of 

construction-related traffic. Therefore, this analysis will address not only the study area but also will 

consider potential impacts to the public in Shelby as a whole.

3.13.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The existing BNSF Intermodal Terminal is located adjacent to residential 

neighborhoods and downtown business districts. Commercial traffic is currently directed through 

residential streets and Shelby’s business district to access the facility, potentially exposing local 

business patrons, residents, and visitors to vehicular and pedestrian accidents, as well as noise and air 

pollutant emissions from vehicle and equipment operation. In addition, road obstructions on public 

grade crossings occur as a result of switching, separating and coupling trains within the city. This, in 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

48

turn, contributes to traffic congestion and poses a hazard to users of grade crossings as well as train 

operators. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, traffic to and from the BNSF Intermodal Terminal would continue to 

use in-town business and residential streets and present the potential for vehicular and pedestrian 

accidents. The in-town public would also continue to be exposed to noise and air pollution emissions 

from the BNSF Intermodal Terminal. Obstructions at public grade crossings would continue to occur, 

resulting in traffic congestion in nearby streets and presenting safety hazards to the public and train 

workers.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. The Proposed Action will require the use of heavy 

equipment and construction vehicles on the Proposed Action site which could present a potential 

safety risk to the general public if they were to enter the site on foot or by vehicle. However, public 

access to the Proposed Action site will be restricted by fencing around its perimeter, and standard 

safety features such as site lighting and backup lights and alarms on equipment will be used. Also, the 

Proposed Action site is on the outskirts of the city, away from the population center and most 

members of the general public. Therefore, the potential for direct safety impacts to the public during 

construction is low. 

As indicated previously, construction will result in a minor degradation of air quality due to the 

generation of fugitive dust and emissions from construction equipment and vehicles. Because of the 

localized and temporary nature of such effects and implementation of the appropriate best 

management practices, however, no significant effects on human health are expected.

Operation Impacts. The completion of the Multimodal Hub Center will improve public health and 

safety by facilitating the relocation of the existing BNSF facility operations from residential and 

commercial areas in the center of Shelby to an industrially zoned TIF District on the outskirts of the 

city. The decrease in rail traffic and in commercial traffic on residential and downtown business 

streets as well as on public grade crossings will improve public safety, particularly in terms of 

pedestrian and vehicular safety. The relocation of the BNSF operations to an area away from the 

population center of the city will also benefit public health by reducing localized air pollutant 

emissions.

As mentioned above, the Proposed Action site is currently fenced and gated around its perimeter. 

During operation of the Multimodal Hub Center, the fencing will be retained and will provide a 

barrier to protect the public from activities at the facility. Lighting is planned to be installed as 

facilities within the location are developed. These measures are proposed to prevent unauthorized 

entry and to decrease the likelihood of criminal activity. 

3 . 1 4 C o n t a m i n a t e d S i t e s a n d H a z a r d o u s W a s t e

This section addresses the potential for hazardous materials and wastes to occur at the Proposed 

Action site and the potential for previously contaminated sites to occur on or near the Proposed 

Action site. It also addresses the potential for the Proposed Action to generate hazardous wastes.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

49

3.14.1 Affected Environment

The presence of hazardous materials or wastes or contaminated sites at or near the study area was 

determined by conducting visual inspections of the study area and reviewing existing, publicly 

available databases such as the National Priorities List (NPL) and the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) underground storage tank database. Impacts were evaluated by 

reviewing Proposed Action design information and its potential to affect existing contamination sites. 

Proposed Action design information was also used to examine the potential for the Proposed Action 

to release hazardous waste to the environment.

Observations made during onsite surveys conducted on March 6, August 9, and October 31, 2012 

revealed no evidence that hazardous materials or waste had been handled or stored at the Proposed 

Action site. No hazardous materials or wastes are known to be currently generated or stored at the 

Proposed Action site.

The findings of the database search are discussed below.

3.14.1.1 National Priorities List (NPL) and Superfund

The NPL is the list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. A 

search of the NPL was conducted for Superfund sites as well as candidate sites within and near the 

study area. There are no sites listed within Toole County.

3.14.1.2 Brownfield Site

A brownfield site is real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be 

complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substance, pollutant, or 

contaminant. Certain funding sources exist for cleanup and property transformation into a safe and 

usable condition. Through a records search of Brownfield Cleanup Sites in and around Shelby, four 

sites were identified and not located near or adjacent to the study area. 

Through a records search of Brownfield Cleanup Sites in and around Shelby, four sites were 

identified. These sites include the Historic Shelby High School, former Shelby Middle School, former 

Shelby Refinery and the Rainbow Hotel. The Historic Shelby High School, former Shelby Middle School 

and the former Shelby Refinery have been completed and are ready for reuse. The Rainbow Hotel is 

expected to be completed by the end of 2013. No sites were located within the study area.

3.14.1.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sites

Past and present activities on Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities typically 

result in the release of hazardous waste and constituents into the soil, groundwater, surface water, 

sediments, and air, requiring the initial investigation and cleanup, or remediation of these hazardous 

releases. 

An inventory of RCRA facilities within a one mile radius of the Proposed Action site was completed 

through the US EPA Envirofacts database. There were a total of 27 RCRA sites, active and inactive, 

found within a one mile radius of the Proposed Action area. However, none were located within the 

study area itself. The two nearest to the study area were Lyn’s Body Shop at 845 S. Industrial Park 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

50

Road, and Appley Repair located at 902 Birch Avenue. Both locations are less than 0.2 mile from the 

Proposed Action area.

3.14.1.4 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 

An inventory was completed to determine the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or 

petroleum products in the study area. The inventory included Geographic Information System data 

for underground storage tanks (UST) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) provided through 

the Montana Natural Resource Information System. MTDEQ requires all USTs that are in use to be 

permitted. There were no permitted USTs currently located within the study area.

The data reviewed indicated two known local sites where USTs were once permitted. The first site is 

located within the study area, along the west side of SE Front Street. This site included six registered 

USTs with all six tanks listed as removed from the ground, and a closed LUST site. Closed LUST sites 

are those that had contamination associated with LUSTs, but were later remediated in accordance 

with regulatory guidelines. 

The second site is adjacent to the study area, located south of US Highway 2. This site included two 

registered USTs with both tanks listed as removed from the ground, and two closed LUST sites. The 

two former USTs at the site were used to store diesel and gasoline. 

3.14.1.5 Landfill

A Class II municipal solid waste landfill is located outside Shelby at 50 City Shop Road, approximately 

one mile north of the study area. No other records exist to indicate that there are any old or 

abandoned landfills within the study area.

3.14.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact known contaminated sites or

result in the production or release of hazardous waste to the environment in the study area because 

the Proposed Action would not be implemented. Any hazardous material that is currently used or 

generated at the existing BNSF Intermodal Hub would likely continue to be used or produced and 

would have to be properly handled and disposed of.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. Based on the data reviewed, no contaminated sites occur 

within the study area. Two local sites which contained underground storage tanks have had the tanks 

removed and have been remediated. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to have an 

impact on known contaminated sites. In the event that previously unknown contaminants are

discovered during construction or a spill would occur during construction, work will cease until after 

the National Response Center (800-424-8002) has been notified by the contractor. If contamination is

encountered, the MTDEQ will also be notified. Any contaminated soil that is encountered will be 

temporarily stockpiled and sampled to determine disposal requirements. 

Construction will likely require the use of hazardous materials (e.g., cleaning agents, lubricants, fuels, 

solvents, fertilizers, etc.) and the generation of hazardous waste (e.g., oily rags, used chemical 

containers, chemical waste, used oil, etc.). The release of such materials to the environment via air, 

water and soil media could adversely affect natural resource and human health and safety, 

particularly if such releases are significant in terms of their amounts, spatial distribution, and/or 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

51

toxicity to receptors. Considering the design and planned construction activities of the Proposed 

Action, however, it is not expected that hazardous materials or hazardous wastes will be present in 

amounts or locations that would pose an unacceptable risk to the general public or natural resources. 

The appropriate BMPs will be implemented to ensure that any toxic or hazardous materials that are 

present are stored and handled in a manner that minimizes the risk of impacts to humans or the 

surrounding environment

Based on the above discussions, no significant, direct impacts from contaminated sites or hazardous 

materials are expected.

Operation Impacts. The operation of the Multimodal Hub Center will affect the potential for 

environmental contamination, the use of hazardous materials and the production of hazardous 

wastes. The operation of the Multimodal Hub Center will likely require the use of hazardous materials 

such as cleaning agents, lubricants, fuels, and solvents and result in the generation of hazardous 

waste such as oily rags, used chemical containers, chemical waste, and used oil. Also, some rail cars 

may transport hazardous materials as cargo which may be carried through, loaded and/or unloaded 

at the Multimodal Hub Center.

As previously discussed, the release of such materials to the environment could adversely affect 

natural resource and human health and safety. Considering the purpose, design and operation 

activities of the Multimodal Hub Center, however, it is not expected that hazardous materials or 

hazardous wastes will be present in amounts or locations that would pose an unacceptable risk to 

public health or the environment. The appropriate BMPs for storing and handling toxic or hazardous 

materials and wastes will be implemented. Considering the above, no significant, indirect impacts 

from environmental contamination, the use, transport or handling of hazardous materials or the 

production of hazardous wastes are anticipated.

3 . 1 5 P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l A r e a s

Parks and recreational areas refer to the available public recreational lands and facilities as well as 

usage patterns associated with them.

3.15.1 Affected Environment

Parks and recreational resources were evaluated by reviewing existing information such as aerial 

photographs and information provided by the City of Shelby. The effects on parks and recreational 

areas were analyzed by considering the Proposed Action design and planned operations with respect 

to the existing resources.

According to city records, the City of Shelby currently maintains 13.5 acres of developed area, 24.3 

acres of undeveloped area and 5.7 acres of unclassified area of parkland for a total of 43.5 acres of 

parkland. Parks and public recreational facilities within the city include Cleveland Park, Lincoln Park, 

Johnson Memorial Park, Aronow Park, and Lake Sheloole. Other notable community facilities in 

Shelby include the Civic Center, Roadrunner recreation trail, sports complex and campground. The 

18-hole Marias Valley Golf and Country Club is located seven miles south of Shelby.

Quantitative data regarding the usage of the above facilities are not available.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

52

There are no parks or recreational areas in the study area. However, an undeveloped park (Roosevelt 

Park) approximately 5 acres in size is located immediately north of the 13th Street South alignment, 

approximately midway between 9th Avenue South and SE Front Street. A review of aerial photographs

showed two-track paths across the park, suggesting that the park is used to some degree. Usage rates 

are assumed to be low since the park has no facilities, there is no formal access to the park, and 13th

Street South near its southern border is currently undeveloped and is used as pasture. There are 

currently no definitive plans for further development of the park.

3.15.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not change usage patterns or facilities at local

parks or recreational areas because the Proposed Action would not be implemented. The use of parks 

and recreational facilities in Shelby would likely follow existing patterns. 

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. There are no parks or recreational areas in the study area. 

The layout of the Proposed Action will avoid direct impacts to nearby Roosevelt Park since there is no 

formal access point into the property. Considering these factors, no direct effects on parks or 

recreational areas are expected and no mitigation is required. 

Operation Impacts. Minor impacts will occur as a result of the Multimodal Hub Center. As previously 

described, the Multimodal Hub Center will transfer rail activities currently associated with the BNSF 

Intermodal Hub from in-town Shelby to the Proposed Action site on the city’s outskirts. As suggested 

in the discussion on transportation, this will improve traffic and pedestrian safety along commercial 

and residential districts in Shelby. It is reasonable to expect that such improvements will extend to 

those who patronize the city’s park and recreational areas. This represents a positive impact.

The current usage of Roosevelt Park as pasture land will likely be unaffected by improvements made 

to 13th Street South. If Roosevelt Park is developed at some point in the future, park users may notice

traffic-related noise and views of commercial traffic along the improved 13th Street South corridor. 

However, most recreation activities that would typically be expected in a setting such as Roosevelt 

Park (e.g., playground activities, sporting activities, picnicking, group gatherings, etc.) would likely 

continue unimpeded.

No significant impacts on recreational uses or facilities are expected to occur.

3 . 1 6 C u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires that Federallyfunded projects be evaluated for the effects on historic and cultural properties included or eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Archaeological and Historic 

Preservation Act of 1974 provides for the survey, recovery, and preservation of significant scientific, 

prehistoric, archaeological, or paleontological data when such data may be destroyed or irreparably 

lost due to a federal, federally-licensed, or federally-funded project.

3.16.1 Affected Environment

Cultural resources (i.e., historic and archaeological resources) were evaluated by reviewing existing 

documentation for the Proposed Action vicinity including 246 acres of the study area, consulting with 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

53

the Montana SHPO, and conducting field surveys. The Proposed Action-related effects on cultural 

resources were analyzed by evaluating design information with regard to cultural resources in the 

area.

Three separate Class III cultural resource inventories (pedestrian surveys) have been conducted in 

and around the study area. A cultural resource inventory was conducted on September 19th and 20th, 

2006, covering 160 acres of the study area. Based on the inventory, no cultural resources were found.

Between 2006 and 2011, the Proposed Action boundary had changed slightly, requiring a second 

Class III cultural resource inventory. The second survey was conducted on March 13, 2011, of the 

previously unsurveyed area which covered 46.5 acres. No new or previously recorded cultural 

materials were encountered during the inventory. A third Class III cultural resource inventory was 

completed on March 12 and 13, 2012, and covered 53.2 acres. No new or previously recorded 

cultural materials were encountered. A Class III cultural resource inventory of the wetland mitigation 

site was conducted on November 29, 2012. No new or previously recorded cultural materials (historic 

or archaeological) were encountered.

Consultations with SHPO and a review of existing documentation for the Proposed Action vicinity 

indicated that no Federal or tribal lands occur within the study area.

3.16.2 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact cultural resources because the 

Proposed Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Construction Impacts. According to the four Class III cultural resource inventories 

that have been conducted within the study area, no cultural resources occur within the study area. 

Therefore, FRA submitted to SHPO the documents supporting a finding of No Historic Properties 

Affected for the Proposed Action. SHPO concurred with this determination (see Appendix D).

Operation Impacts. As indicated above, there have been no cultural resources found in the study 

area. No impacts to cultural resources will occur, and no mitigation is necessary. 

3 . 1 7 S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) R e s o u r c e s

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 prohibits modal administrations 

of the US DOT from approving the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife 

and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply:

 There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land.

 The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from 

use.

3.17.1 Affected Environment

Section 4(f) resources were evaluated by determining if any publicly owned land or cultural resources 

occur within or adjacent to the study area. The evaluation was conducted by reviewing land use 

maps, land ownership information and cultural resources data. Any 4(f) properties that may occur in 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

54

the study area would be evaluated in terms of the Proposed Action’s effects on the use of the 

properties.

Based on a review of land use, land ownership and cultural resources information for the study area,

no 4(f) properties occur within the study area. However, Roosevelt Park is located immediately north 

of the 13th Street South corridor about midway between 9th Avenue South and SE Front Street. The 

park is approximately 5 acres in size and is currently undeveloped. 

3.17.1.1 Environmental Consequences

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not impact Section 4(f) resources because the 

Proposed Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Operation Impacts. Land use, land ownership and cultural resources data for the 

study area were analyzed to identify local Section 4(f) properties. No Section 4(f) properties or 

cultural resources occur in the study area. Therefore, no direct impacts or use to 4(f) properties 

would occur because there is no effect from the Proposed Action.

Operation Impacts. Roosevelt Park could be indirectly affected by the development of the 13th Street 

South corridor and associated increases in commercial traffic along the corridor. Such increases will 

likely result in minor increases in noise levels in Roosevelt Park but is not expected to be of a 

magnitude that would substantially affect the use of the park. 

Based on the above factors, the Multimodal Hub Center will not affect 4(f) properties and no 

mitigation is required.

3 . 1 8 C o n s t r u c t i o n I m p a c t s

Temporary construction impacts are caused by construction activities and may last for the duration of 

construction. The following resources are typically affected by construction activities, and may be 

temporarily impacted due to the construction associated with the Proposed Action. Other 

construction impacts, where applicable, are described in the previous sections.

 Noise – Construction will result in temporary increases in noise levels generated primarily 

from construction equipment. Measures will be taken to limit construction noise and 

appropriate abatement measures will be incorporated into the plans and construction 

specifications.

 Air Quality – Construction activities will have a short-term impact on air quality, primarily 

from dust generated during site preparation. Effective dust control measures (e.g., water 

spraying) will be implemented as needed. Any burning of cleared materials will be 

conducted in accordance with applicable state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances.

 Transportation – No traffic detours will be needed for the construction of new roadways. 

For modifications to the existing roadways, construction will allow the use of one lane or 

temporary lanes such that traffic will travel through the Proposed Action area without major 

delays. Access to adjacent properties will be maintained during construction. Coordination 

with local landowners and businesses will occur, as necessary, during construction to reduce

construction-related traffic and access disturbances.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

55

 Water Resources – General construction activities could change stormwater runoff patterns 

and thus increase the potential for erosion of exposed soil, particularly caused by storm 

water. Implementation of BMPs into the Proposed Action design will be utilized to manage 

stormwater runoff and control water quality impacts. A Montana Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit will be required from the MTDEQ. This permit requires a 

temporary and permanent plan for addressing erosion and sediment control.

 Biological Resources – Construction activities such as site clearing and grading, equipment 

refueling/maintenance, equipment operation and human activity could directly and 

indirectly impact local aquatic, wildlife and vegetation resources or threatened or 

endangered species via noise emissions, stormwater generation, accidental oil/chemical 

releases, air pollutant emissions, physical injury or mortality, and habitat disturbance. Since 

the study area does not support important habitat for aquatic or wildlife communities and 

that the impacts would be temporary, it is not expected that construction will significantly 

affect the viability of any biological resources.

 Visual Resources - Construction will negatively impact visual quality in the study area due to 

the presence of construction equipment and stockpiled materials, equipment operation, 

fugitive dust and exhaust emissions and exposed soils. Because of the industrialized setting 

of the study area and the temporary nature of construction activities, however, no 

significant long-term impacts to the visual setting are expected.

 Socioeconomic Resources - The Proposed Action will result in overall beneficial, direct and 

indirect socioeconomic impacts to the City of Shelby and Toole County. Beneficial direct 

impacts will include the generation of new, temporary jobs during construction and local and 

regional purchases of goods, materials and services. Beneficial, indirect impacts will include 

expenditures by construction workers on food, goods and services. 

3.18.1 Environmental Impacts

No-Build Alternative – The No-Build Alternative would not result in any construction impacts because 

the Proposed Action would not be implemented.

Build Alternative – Direct Impacts. Direct construction-related impacts to noise, air, transportation, 

visual, biological and water resources will occur as described in previous sections. Such impacts will

be minor, of short duration, and reduced by the implementation of the applicable mitigation 

measures. Therefore, these impacts will be insignificant and no mitigation beyond that described 

above is necessary. 

Temporary, positive socioeconomic impacts will occur during construction due to the provision of 

construction jobs and expenditure of funds on goods, materials, and services.

Indirect Impacts. Indirect, adverse impacts to resources in the study area will occur as a result of 

operation, as described in the previous sections. However, none of these impacts will be significant, 

and no mitigation beyond what has already been proposed is necessary. 

Indirect positive socioeconomic impacts will occur from construction, such as the expenditure of 

funds by workers for food, lodging, goods, etc. 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

56

3 . 1 9 C u m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s

Cumulative impacts result from incremental consequences of an action “when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes 

such other actions” (40 CFR 1580.7). Effects of an action may be minor when evaluated in an 

individual context, but these effects can add to other disturbances and collectively may lead to a 

measureable environmental change. By evaluating the impacts of the proposed action with effects of 

other actions, the relative contribution of the proposed action to a projected cumulative impact can 

be estimated.

3.19.1 Affected Environment

Cumulative impact analysis also considered other ongoing or planned commercial or industrial 

development projects in Toole County including those listed in Section 1.5 above, and the following, 

which are projects identified by the Shelby Chamber of Commerce as either planned or underway in 

Shelby.

 Best Western Hotel and RV Park: A new, 50 to 70 room complex scheduled for construction 

in Spring 2013

 Sweetgrass Apartments – A new 12 unit apartment complex that is currently under 

construction. Scheduled to be completed in August 2013.

 Comfort Inn & Suites – An existing facility with plans to expand and add an RV park. 

Scheduled for construction in Spring/Summer 2013.

3.19.2 Environmental Consequences

No Build Alternative – Under the No Build Alternative, the No Build Alternative impacts described for 

each of the resources above would continue. Any cumulative effects that result from the combination 

of the individual No Build effects and other reasonably foreseeable future actions would likewise 

continue. For most resources, the impacts would not be significant. For the following, however, the 

No-Build cumulative impacts may be significant for the reasons cited:

 Transportation – Negative impacts associated with the lack of the Multimodal Hub Center 

would continue to affect transportation in the region

 Socioeconomics – The socioceconomic benefits associated with the Multimodal Hub Center 

would not be realized.

Build Alternative – The Proposed Action may result in cumulative impacts for most of the 

environmental resources but most impacts are minimal or, when considered with reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, are negligible. The cumulative impacts for each environmental resource 

are discussed below.

 Air Quality – Air quality impacts from the Proposed Action will be minor, temporary and 

localized, as will the air quality impacts from each of the reasonably foreseeable future 

projects. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, will have a negligible cumulative effect on air quality.

 Water Quality and Water Resources – Water resource and water quality impacts are 

anticipated to occur from the reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Proposed Action
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

57

itself will result in minor, temporary impacts to water resources and water quality that 

would be offset by minimization and mitigation measures. Therefore, the Proposed Action, 

when considered with the reasonably foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible 

cumulative effect on this resource.

 Noise and Vibration – Noise and vibration impacts would be anticipated from the reasonably 

foreseeable future projects, Noise and vibration emissions from the Proposed Action itself 

will consist of localized construction-related noise and as such, will be minor and temporary 

in nature. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, will have a negligible cumulative effect on noise.

 Wetlands – Wetland impacts are expected to occur from the reasonably foreseeable future 

projects. The Proposed Action itself will result in permanent impacts to about 1.5 acres of 

wetlands. These impacts will be offset by mitigation measures at 2:1 ratio, as stipulated by 

the US Army Corps of Engineers. Because the Proposed Action’s wetland impacts are being 

mitigated (i.e., no net loss of wetlands), however, the Proposed Action’s impacts, combined 

with the other projects being considered, will have a negligible cumulative effect on this 

resource.

 Biological Resources – Biological resource impacts are anticipated to occur from the 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Proposed Action itself will result in minor 

impacts to biological resources which will be offset by minimization and mitigation 

measures. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible cumulative effect on this resource.

 Floodplains – Floodplain impacts are anticipated to occur from the reasonably foreseeable 

future projects. The Proposed Action itself will not result in impacts to floodplains because 

there are no floodplains in the study area. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered 

with the reasonably foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible cumulative effect on 

this resource.

 Energy – The reasonably foreseeable future projects are anticipated to consume energy and 

fuel. The Proposed Action itself will utilize energy during construction activities associated 

with Phase 4 features. However, the Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible cumulative effect on this resource.

 Visual Resources – Reasonably foreseeable future projects are anticipated to impact 

aesthetics. The Proposed Action itself will result in aesthetic impacts, but those impacts will 

be related to construction and as such, will be temporary and minor. Therefore, the 

Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably foreseeable future actions, will have 

a negligible cumulative effect on this resource.

 Transportation – Reasonably foreseeable future projects are anticipated to have no effect or 

a positive effect on transportation. Construction will result in temporary, minor and localized 

modifications to traffic patterns. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered with the 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible cumulative impact on 

transportation.

 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions – Reasonably foreseeable future projects are 

anticipated to impact land uses and require additional property acquisitions. The Proposed 

Action will result in the permanent conversion of agricultural lands (about 88 acres) to 

industrial/commercial use. Considering the preponderance of agricultural lands in Toole 

County, however, the Proposed Action-specific impacts, combined with those of the 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

58

reasonably foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible cumulative effect on this 

resource.

 Socioeconomics – The Proposed Action in combination with the reasonably foreseeable 

future actions are anticipated to help foster future economic growth in Shelby and Toole 

County (as well as the region) and add jobs to the local community. This projected growth 

has been planned for by the City of Shelby and Toole County both of which have 

infrastructure and services capable to accommodate such growth. It is not anticipated that 

the future growth from the reasonably foreseeable future actions, in combination with the 

Proposed Action itself, will cause negative cumulative impacts to the study area. In fact, the 

jobs and revenue streams created by the Proposed Action and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions are anticipated to have a beneficial cumulative effect on socioeconomic resources in 

the study area.

 Environmental Justice – The Proposed Action will not result in impacts to environmental 

justice or other sensitive populations, and therefore, will not contribute to a cumulative 

effect on these resources.

 Public Health and Safety – The reasonably foreseeable future projects are anticipated to 

have public health and safety effects similar to those associated with the Proposed Action. 

The Proposed Action will result in temporary and minor increases in health and safety risks 

to the public. Due to the temporary nature of construction activities and the safety 

measures implemented by the Proposed Action, such impacts will not be significant. 

Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, will have a negligible cumulative effect on this resource.

 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste – The reasonably foreseeable future projects are 

anticipated to have hazardous materials effects similar to those associated with the 

proposed action. The Proposed Action itself will result in impacts to hazardous materials that 

would be offset by minimization and mitigation measures. Therefore, the Proposed Action, 

when considered with the reasonably foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible 

cumulative effect on this resource.

 Parks and Recreational Areas – Reasonably foreseeable future projects are anticipated to 

have impacts on parks and recreational areas. The Proposed Action itself will have minor, 

temporary impacts on local recreational facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when 

considered with the reasonably foreseeable future actions, will have a negligible cumulative 

effect on this resource.

 Cultural and Historic Resources – Reasonably foreseeable future projects may have certain 

effects on cultural and historic resources. The Proposed Action itself will have no effects on 

cultural resources. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, will not contribute to a cumulative effect on this resource.

 Section 4(f) Resources – Reasonably foreseeable future projects may have impacts on 

Section 4(f) resources. The Proposed Action itself will have no effects on Section 4(f) 

resources. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered with the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would not contribute to a cumulative effect on this resource.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

59

CHAPTER 4 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

Coordination efforts begin in the early stages of a project and are designed to maintain consistent 

communication with residents, public officials, businesses, property owners, stakeholders, and 

regulatory agencies during the life of the project. This process affords the parties involved to review 

and comment on key issues associated with the overall project. Public participation is encouraged 

through the public workshops held in an effort to provide information to interested stakeholders and 

to receive community input regarding the alternatives being considered, potential social, economic, 

and natural impacts, and other concerns. 

4 . 1 A g e n c y C o o r d i n a t i o n

Early communication and coordination was initiated through an early scoping package sent by FRA to 

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and other interested parties on June 1, 2012 to ensure 

that social, economic, and environmental effects were considered in the development of this 

Proposed Action. This scoping package included information on the Proposed Action and a Proposed 

Action study area map. 

Additionally, public participation was initiated by FRA through the inclusion of a Legal Notice in the 

June 6, 2012 issue of the Shelby Promoter. The Shelby Promoter is the local newspaper and is

produced on a weekly basis. It has an approximate circulation of 2,100. An informational flyer was 

produced and displayed at the Toole County Public Library in Shelby from June 6-July 6, 2012. Please 

refer to Appendix E, Scoping Materials.

Ten responses to the scoping package were received by the conclusion of the 30-day scoping period. 

These comments provided valuable insight into the evaluation of potential environmental impacts. 

Comments from the USFWS determined the proposed action was unlikely to have any significant 

adverse effects to fish, wildlife, or habitat resources. The Montana Historical Society recommended a 

Cultural Resource Inventory to be conducted prior to any disturbances. The Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation (DNRC) views the proposed development as an opportunity for both the 

City of Shelby and State School Trust to generate revenue for their respective needs. Regulatory 

requirements were presented through permits associated with wastewater discharge, a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan and the requirements established for the Public Water Supply Act in the 

correspondence letter from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The comments were 

considered where appropriate within the environmental impact categories referenced in this 

document. Please refer to Appendix F, Scoping Responses.

4 . 2 P u b l i c O u t r e a c h

A public input meeting for the Proposed Action was held by KLJ on August 28, 2006 at Shelby City 

Hall. Local radio stations received a press release from KLJ advertising the meeting. An advertisement 

was published by KLJ in the Shelby Promoter 10 days prior to the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to kick off the Proposed Action, show preliminary alternatives, and 

initiate early and open communication with the public. A formal presentation was given, followed by 

a group question and answer session. An open house format followed, during which participants 
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

60

were able to talk with the Project team individually. Exhibits were on display, and an informational 

handout was available.

Twenty-seven people attended the meeting. Overall, the public expressed general support for the 

Proposed Action. One written comment was received during the two-week comment period that 

followed the public meeting. Please refer to Appendix F, Scoping Responses.

The public will have 30 days in which to submit comments on this Draft EA document following its 

publication. In addition, a public open house meeting where the public will be able to offer comments 

on the Proposed Action and the Draft EA will be held in concert with the 30-day comment period. 

Notices for the public meeting and the availability of the Draft EA will be published in the local 

newspaper and other means that are visible to the public. The notices will include details about how 

the public can obtain and review the Draft EA and directions for submitting comments on the Draft 

EA.
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

61

CHAPTER 5 LIST OF PREPARERS

This chapter identifies the names and qualifications of the principal contributors (the Port of 

Northern Montana and KLJ, the Port of Northern Montana’s engineering and environmental 

consultant) to this EA. In accordance with Part 1502.6 of the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations implementing NEPA, the efforts of an interdisciplinary team comprising technicians and 

experts in various fields were required to accomplish this study.

Table 5.1, List of Preparers

AFFILIATION NAME TITLE PROJECT ROLE

Port of Northern 

Montana

Larry Bonderud Director Owner Representative

KLJ Brad Koon Municipal Engineer Project Manager

Grady Wolf Environmental Planner Senior Review & Wetland 

Delineation

Doug Timpe Environmental Planner Agency Coordination, 

Secondary Author

Shawn Blanchard Environmental Planner Impact Assessment, 

Primary Author

Steve Best Environmental Planner Impact Assessment, 

Secondary Author

Jennifer Macy Archaeologist Cultural Resources 

Inventory

Skip Skattum GIS Analyst Digital Mapping

James Slayton Right-of-Way Specialist Landowner 

Communication

Michael Ries Project Surveyor Surveys
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

62

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

“Bald Eagle Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery.” June 2007. U.S. Department of 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region. 27 Jun. 2012. 

<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/biologue.html>.

“Bald Eagle Population Size.” 10 Sept. 2010. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest 

Region. 27 Jun. 2012. <http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/index.html>.

Bureau of Land Management. 1986. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. U.S.D.I., Billings, MT.

Cameron, E. S. 1905. Nesting of the golden eagle in Montana. Auk 22:158-167.

Cameron, E. S. 1908. Observations on the golden eagle in Montana. Auk 25:251-268.

Casey, D. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan Montana Version 1.0. Montana Partners in Flight. 

Kalispell, Montana.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. 10 December 1997.

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 2003g. 

Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Sprague’s Pipit. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/sppi/sppi.htm (Version 28MAY2004).

“Golden Eagle.” National Geographic. 27 Jun. 2012. 

<http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/golden-eagle.html>.

Haig, S. M. 1992. Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS). In: A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, (eds.), The Birds 

of North America, No. 2. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: The American 

Ornithologists Union. 18 pp.

Haig, S.M. 1992. Distribution and status of piping plovers in winter. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society 

for Conservation Biology, p. 69.

Hammond, C.A.M. 2010. Montana Bald Eagle Status Report 2009. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. In Cooperation 

with the Montana Bald Eagle Working Group.

High Plains Regional Climate Center. Observation Stations. Cut Bank Municipal Airport. 7 Jul. 2012. 

<http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/stations/index.php?action=metadata&network_station_id=242713

Hornocker, M. G. and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can. J. Zool. 59:1286-

1301.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1986. Birds of the Rocky Mountains with particular reference to national parks in the Northern 

Rocky Mountain region. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder. xi + 504 pp.

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central 

Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68:845-851.

Koehler, G. M., M. G. Hornocker, and H. S. Hash. 1979. Lynx movements and habitat use in Montana. Can. FieldNat. 93:441-442.

Major Land Resource Regions Custom Report. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the 

United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills. Data Source: USDA 

Agriculture Handbook 296 (2006). <http://soils.usda.gov/MLRAExplorer
Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Environmental Assessment

April 2013

63

McGahan, J. 1968. Ecology of the golden eagle. Auk 85:1-12.

Montana Bald Eagle Working Group. 1994. Montana Bald Eagle management plan. 2nd edition. Bureau of 

Reclamation. 104 pp.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Citizens Guide to Air Quality in Montana. Federal and State Air 

Quality Standards. 9 Jul. 2012. <www.deq.mt.gov/AirQuality/Planning/AirStandards/AirStandards.pdf

Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee. 1995. 1994 Surveys for Piping Plover (CHARADRIUS MELODUS) and 

Least Tern (STERNA ANTILLARUM) in Montana. 117 pp. plus appendices.

Montana Watershed Coordination Council. Marias River Watershed Basin. 28 September 2012.

http://mtwatersheds.org/

“Piping Plover.” 28 June. 2012. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region. 27 Jun. 2012. <http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/pipingplover/>.

Pondera County Weed Department. <www.ponderacountymontana.org/services/weed-department

Ruediger, B., et al. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy, 2nd edition. USDA Forest Service, 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest 

Service Publication #R1-00-53. Missoula, Montana. 142 pp.

Servheen, C. and R. Klaver. 1983. Grizzly bear dens and denning activity in the Mission and Rattlesnake 

Mountains, Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:201-207.

Smith, Drew. 1984. Ecology of the bobcat in a coniferous forest environment in western Montana (Habitat use, 

home range and movements of bobcats in western Montana). Statewide Wildlife Research. Furbearing 

Mammal Studies. W-120-R-14 and 15 III FB-2.0 1. April 30, 1984.

Soil Survey Staff. 2008 and 2009. Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov>.

Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for Toole County, 26 September. 2012. United States 

Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecological Services Montana Field Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006–2010. 27 September 2012. http://www.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey for Toole County, 13 

October 2012. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm

U.S. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 2006 and 2008. 25 September 2012. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>.

U.S. Forest Service. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: Natural history and habitat use. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 688. 625 pages.

Van Bruggen, T. 1992. Wildflowers, Grasses & Other Plants of the Northern Plains and Black Hills. Fourth Edition. 

Badlands Natural History Association, Interior, South Dakota.

Vance, F.R., J.R. Jowsey, J.S. Mclean, and F.A. Switzer. 1999. Wildflowers of the Northern Great Plains. Third 

Edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Appendix A 

13th Street South Alignment Options
08/21/12 Page 1

13th Street South Alignment Alternative Analysis

The following section includes a siting-level analysis of three alternatives that were considered for the 

13th Street South alignment portion of the Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub project. The 

analysis is based on existing information for the project area and utilizes evaluation criteria established 

by the Federal Railroad Administration. 

Alignment Option 3 is recommended as the preferred option. This alignment would require only a minor 

deviation from the existing 13th Street South corridor, would result in infrastructure upgrades and 

environmental impacts that are less than or comparable to other alternatives, and would provide 

additional north-south distance between the roadway and residences near the intersection of 13th

Street South and 9th Avenue South. 

The assessment for each alignment alternative is described below. The attached figures show the layout 

of each alignment. 

Alignment Option 1: This alignment would consist of the development of the existing 13th Street South 

corridor. This option would extend from the intersection of 13th Street South with the Interstate 15 

frontage road (Marias Valley Road) approximately 1.75 miles east to the intersection with SE Front 

Street. 

The following paragraphs describe this alternative as it relates to several key technical and 

environmental siting factors. 

• Alignment Configuration – Site allows for a logical connection between the proposed 

Multimodal Hub (Project) and 13th Street South. 

Assessment: This option would provide for a relatively straight alignment for the western 0.75-

mile of the alignment and then extend east to SE Front Street along the existing undeveloped 

section line. This option would require no north/south deviation from the 13th Street South 

corridor. 

• Site Topography – Site topography lends itself to grading and development of the adjacent 

roadways. 

Assessment: Site topography is reasonably conducive to roadway development, although a 

certain amount of contouring would be required to facilitate roadway expansion and 

construction. As indicated above, this option would follow the existing, relatively flat segment of 

13th Street South between Marias Valley Road and 9th Avenue South. From 9th Avenue South to 

SE Front Street, however, the terrain is hilly with grades up to 30 percent, which would require a 

significant amount of cut and fill. 

• Infrastructure Improvements – Amount and scope of required improvements in the external 

roadway system (including intersections) near the Project. 

Assessment: The intersection at 9th Avenue South and 13th Street South would be paved. This 

option would not require any improvements to roadways outside of the project area. 

• Site Entrance/Exit – Site will accommodate separate inbound and outbound traffic entrances to 

the Project in accordance with the access policies of the adjacent roadway. Amount of road 

infrastructure needed (4-way Stop) should be considered. 
08/21/12 Page 2

Assessment: The 13th Street South upgrade would include inbound and outbound traffic lanes, 

but would not require separate inbound/outbound entrances. 

• Environmental Issues – Site development will not adversely impact natural resources, 

endangered species, parks and open space, agricultural land, and cultural resources, visual 

resources as well as noise and air quality impacts areas. 

Assessment: During construction, project activities would likely result in increases in local noise 

levels due to the operation of equipment. Likewise, localized increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment emissions would be expected to affect air quality in the immediate project area.

Ground disturbance during construction would expose soil to wind- and precipitation-related 

erosion. However, such impacts would be minor, limited to a relatively small area, and 

temporary, and would not be significant. Approximately 1.3 acres of land outside of the existing 

13th Street South right-of-way would be temporarily disturbed. Of this area, none would be 

permanently converted to roadway. During operation of the Multimodal Hub, this alternative 

would result in increased traffic levels with accompanying increases in air pollutant and noise 

emissions due to activities related to the Multimodal Hub. These effects would be common to 

all 13th Street South alignment alternatives and would not differentiate this option from others. 

• Existing Utilities – Development of the site will require minimal extensions or upgrades of 

utilities (such as water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, fiber optic/data, etc.). 

Assessment: This option would require relocation of some existing overhead electric lines. No 

other existing utilities would be expected to be affected by this alignment. 

• Property Ownership & Willingness to Sell – Site is located on a single parcel or contiguous 

parcels owned by the same property owner. Property owned by a governmental agency or a 

property owner that is willing to negotiate to sell. 

Assessment: This option would follow the existing 13th Street South alignment between Marias 

Valley Road and 9th Avenue South, and then extend straight east to its intersection with SE Front 

Street. There is existing road right-of-way along the entire length of 13th Street South but in 

some locations, cut or fill slopes would be required on neighboring properties. Verbal 

agreements are in place and written documents have been prepared for the following. We 

expect signature within the next 2 weeks.

o Hasquest Family Farms – Sloping agreement.

o Dick Irvin Trucking – Sloping Agreement.

o Bogie – Purchase agreement for the south portion of Tract 115 near the intersection of 

9th Avenue South. Sloping agreements for all parcels along the north side of 13th Street 

between Cedar Avenue and Roosevelt Park.

o Nesbo – Sloping agreements for parcel on the north side of 13th Street. 

o Rambo – Sloping agreement for parcel on the south side of 13th Street. 

The alignment would come in close proximity to a residence near the intersection of 13th Street

South and 9th Avenue South. The owner of the residence has expressed concern about the 

safety risks associated with the alignment. 
08/21/12 Page 3

• Viability – Alignment Option 1 is a viable alternative. It is the shortest of the three options and 

would require the least amount of infrastructure buildup other than the no action alternative.

This alignment would result in minor, short-term environmental impacts during construction, 

and localized increases in noise, fugitive air pollutant, and traffic impacts during operation of the 

Multimodal Hub. A local property owner has expressed concern about the proximity of their 

residence to the upgraded road under this alignment considering the amount of truck traffic 

that would be generated. Consequently, Alignment Option 1 is not considered to be the 

preferred alternative. 

Alignment Option 2: This alignment would follow 13th Street South from Marias Valley Road to the 9th

Avenue South intersection, where it would veer to the northeast, turn east and traverse the south end 

of Block 115, then veer back to the southeast and rejoin 13th Street South at a point approximately 500 

feet east of the 9th Avenue South intersection. At this point, it would shift slightly south of the Option 1 

alignment to avoid individual parcels that would have to be traversed north of 13th Street South 

between 9th Avenue South and SE Front Street. The alignment would then continue east approximately 

3,500 feet where it would shift slightly north to return to the “original” 13th Street South alignment (see 

Option 1). From this point, it would continue east to SE Front Street. 

The following paragraphs describe this option as it relates to several key technical and environmental 

siting factors. 

• Alignment Configuration – Site allows for a logical connection between the proposed 

Multimodal Hub (Project) and 13th St. South. 

Assessment: This option would provide for a relatively straight alignment for approximately 

0.75-mile of the western portion of the alignment. However, the alignment would require an 

approximately 25-foot shift to the north of 13th Street South for about 500 feet before returning 

to the designated 13th Street South corridor, where it would shift slightly south as described 

above. This alignment would be advantageous in that it would provide additional north-south 

distance between the roadway and a residence near the intersection of 13th Street South and 9th

Avenue South (see Alignment Option 1), and that it would require slope agreements from fewer 

individual parcels north of 13th Street South than Options 1 or 3. 

• Site Topography – Site topography lends itself to grading and development of the adjacent 

roadways. 

Assessment: Site topography is reasonably conducive to roadway development, although a 

certain amount of contouring would be required to facilitate roadway expansion and 

construction. As indicated above, this option would follow the existing, relatively flat segment of 

13th Street South between Marias Valley Road and 9th Avenue South. From 9th Avenue South to 

SE Front Street, however, the terrain is hilly with grades up to 30 percent, which would require a 

significant amount of cut and fill. 

• Infrastructure Improvements – Amount and scope of required improvements in the external 

roadway system (including intersections) near the Project. 

Assessment: The intersection at 9th Avenue South and 13th Street South would be paved. This 

option would not require any improvements to roadways outside of the project area. 

• Site Entrance/Exit – Site will accommodate separate inbound and outbound traffic entrances to 

the Project in accordance with the access policies of the adjacent roadway. Amount of road 

infrastructure needed (4-way Stop) should be considered. 
08/21/12 Page 4

Assessment: This alignment alternative would include inbound and outbound traffic lanes, but 

would not require separate inbound/outbound entrances. 

• Environmental Issues – Site development will not adversely impact natural resources, 

endangered species, parks and open space, agricultural land, and cultural resources, visual 

resources as well as noise and air quality impacts areas. 

Assessment: During construction, project activities would likely result in increases in local noise 

levels due to the operation of equipment. Likewise, localized increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment emissions would be expected due to affect air quality in the immediate project area.

Ground disturbance during construction would expose soil to wind- and precipitation-related 

erosion. Such impacts would be minor, limited to a relatively small area, and temporary, and 

would not be considered to be significant. This alternative differs from Options 1 and 3 in that it 

would result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 4.5 acres of area outside of the 13th

Street South right-of-way. Of this area, about 1.2 acres would be permanently converted to 

roadway. Following construction, this alternative would result in increased traffic levels with 

accompanying increases in air pollutant and noise emissions due to activities associated with the 

Multimodal Hub. 

• Existing Utilities – Development of the site will require minimal extensions or upgrades of 

utilities (such as water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, fiber optic/data, etc.). 

Assessment: This option would require relocation of some existing overhead electric lines. No 

other existing utilities would be expected to be affected by this alignment. 

• Property Ownership & Willingness to Sell – Site is located on a single parcel or contiguous 

parcels owned by the same property owner. Property owned by a governmental agency or a 

property owner that is willing to negotiate to sell. 

Assessment: There is existing road right-of-way along the entire length of 13th Street South but 

in some locations, cut or fill slopes would be required on neighboring property. Verbal 

agreements are in place and written documents have been prepared for the following. We 

expect signature within the next 2 weeks.

o Hasquest Family Farms – Sloping agreement.

o Dick Irvin Trucking – Sloping Agreement.

o Bogie – Purchase agreement for the south portion of Tract 115 near the intersection of 

9th Avenue South. Sloping agreements for all parcels along the north side of 13th Street 

between Cedar Avenue and Roosevelt Park.

o Nesbo – Sloping agreements for parcel on the north side of 13th Street. 

o Rambo – Sloping agreement for parcel on the south side of 13th Street. 

Access agreements would also have to be obtained for the extreme north portion of the Beth A. 

Collier property. Due to its configuration, Option 2 would require access for fewer individual 

parcels than the other options. 

• Viability – Alignment Option 2 is viable. It would require new and/or upgraded infrastructure 

between 9th Avenue South and SE Front Street. This alignment would result in minor, short-term 

environmental impacts during construction and localized increases in noise, fugitive air 
08/21/12 Page 5

pollutants, and traffic impacts during operation of the Energy Park. Advantages of this option 

include: (1) the provision of additional distance between the roadway and local residences; and 

(2) slope agreements from fewer individual parcels along the 13th Street corridor. However, it 

would be slightly longer than either Options 1 or 3, and would result in the temporary 

disturbance of 3.2 acres more area outside of the existing 13th Street South right-of-way (and an 

additional 1.2 acres of permanent impact) than either Options 1 or 3. Consequently, Alignment 

Option 2 is not considered to be the preferred alternative. 

Alignment Option 3: This alignment would be the same as Option 1 except that at the 9th Avenue South 

intersection, it would veer to the northeast, turn east and traverse the south end of Block 115, then veer 

back to the southeast and rejoin 13th Street South at a point approximately 500 feet east of the 9th

Avenue South intersection. From this point, the alignment would extend straight east to SE Front Street 

along the existing undeveloped section line. This option would require no north/south deviation from 

the 13th Street South corridor except for the short segment near the 9th Avenue South intersection. 

The following paragraphs describe this alternative as it relates to several key technical and 

environmental siting factors. 

• Alignment Configuration – Site allows for a logical connection between the proposed 

Multimodal Hub (Project) and 13th Street South. 

Assessment: This option would provide for a relatively straight alignment for the western 0.75-

mile of the alignment. However, the alignment would require an approximately 25-foot shift to 

the north of 13th Street South for about 500 feet before returning to the designated 13th Street 

South corridor. This alignment would be advantageous in that it would provide additional northsouth distance between the roadway and a residence near the intersection of 13th Street South 

and 9th Avenue South. 

• Site Topography – Site topography lends itself to grading and development of the adjacent 

roadways. 

Assessment: Site topography is reasonably conducive to roadway development, although a 

certain amount of contouring would be required to facilitate roadway expansion and 

construction. As indicated above, this option would follow the existing, relatively flat segment of 

13th Street South between Marias Valley Road and 9th Avenue South. From 9th Avenue South to 

SE Front Street, however, the terrain is hilly with grades up to 30 percent, which would require a 

significant amount of cut and fill. 

• Infrastructure Improvements – Amount and scope of required improvements in the external 

roadway system (including intersections) near the Project. 

Assessment: The intersection at 9th Avenue South and 13th Street South would be paved. This 

option would not require any improvements to roadways outside of the project area. 

• Site Entrance/Exit – Site will accommodate separate inbound and outbound traffic entrances to 

the Project in accordance with the access policies of the adjacent roadway. Amount of road 

infrastructure needed (4-way Stop) should be considered. 

Assessment: The 13th Street South upgrade would include inbound and outbound traffic lanes, 

but would not require separate inbound/outbound entrances. 

• Environmental Issues – Site development will not adversely impact natural resources, 

endangered species, parks and open space, agricultural land, and cultural resources, visual 
08/21/12 Page 6

resources as well as noise and air quality impacts areas. 

Assessment: During construction, project activities would likely result in increases in local noise 

levels due to the operation of equipment. Likewise, localized increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment emissions would be expected to affect air quality in the immediate project area.

Ground disturbance during construction would expose soil to wind- and precipitation-related 

erosion. However, such impacts would be minor, limited to a relatively small area, and 

temporary, and would not be significant. Approximately 1.3 acres of land outside of the existing 

13th Street South right-of-way would be temporarily disturbed. Of this area, none would be 

permanently converted to roadway. During operation of the Multimodal Hub, this alternative 

would result in increased traffic levels with accompanying increases in air pollutant and noise 

emissions due to activities related to the Multimodal Hub. Overall, the environmental impacts 

associated with Alignment Option 3 would be less than or comparable to the other alignment 

options.

• Existing Utilities – Development of the site will require minimal extensions or upgrades of 

utilities (such as water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, fiber optic/data, etc.). 

Assessment: This option would require relocation of some existing overhead electric lines. No 

other existing utilities would be expected to be affected by this alignment. 

• Property Ownership & Willingness to Sell – Site is located on a single parcel or contiguous 

parcels owned by the same property owner. Property owned by a governmental agency or a 

property owner that is willing to negotiate to sell. 

Assessment: This option would follow the existing 13th Street South alignment between Marias 

Valley Road and 9th Avenue South, and then extend straight east to its intersection with SE Front 

Street. There is existing road right-of-way along the entire length of 13th Street South but in 

some locations, cut or fill slopes would be required on neighboring property. Verbal agreements 

are in place and written documents have been prepared for the following. We expect signature 

within the next 2 weeks.

o Hasquest Family Farms – Sloping agreement.

o Dick Irvin Trucking – Sloping Agreement.

o Bogie – Purchase agreement for the south portion of Tract 115 near the intersection of 

9th Avenue South. Sloping agreements for all parcels along the north side of 13th Street 

between Cedar Avenue and Roosevelt Park.

o Nesbo – Sloping agreements for parcel on the north side of 13th Street. 

o Rambo – Sloping agreement for parcel on the south side of 13th Street. 

This alignment would provide additional north-south distance between the roadway and the 

residence near the intersection of 13th Street South and 9th Avenue South. 

• Viability – Alignment Option 3 is a viable option. It would be slightly longer than Option 1 but 

somewhat shorter than Option 2, and would require new and/or upgraded infrastructure 

between 9th Avenue South and SE Front Street. This alignment would result in minor, short-term 

environmental impacts during construction and localized increases in noise, fugitive air 

pollutants, and traffic impacts during operation of the Multimodal Hub. A distinct advantage of 

this alignment over Option 1 is that it would provide additional distance between the roadway 
08/21/12 Page 7

and residences near the intersection of 9th Avenue South. Compared to Option 2, the Option 3 

alignment would result in fewer impacts to land outside of the existing 13th Street South rightof-way. Considering the above factors, Alignment Option 3 is proposed as the preferred 

alternative. 



Appendix B 

Protected Species Information
Visit the Montana Natural Heritage Program at http://mtnhp.org 

P.O. Box 201800  1515 East Sixth Avenue  Helena, MT 59620-1800  fax 406.444.02661  tel 406.444.5354  http://mtnhp.org

May 7, 2012 

Steve Best

Kadrmas Lee & Jackson 

P.O. Box 1157 

Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-1157 

Dear Steve, 

I am writing in response to your recent request regarding Montana Species of Concern in the vicinity of 

the Port of Northern MT Multimodal Hub Shelby MT, in Sections 2 and 3, T31N, R02W; and Sections 

27, 28 and 33-35, T32N, R02W, in Toole County. I checked our databases for information in this 

general area and have enclosed 1 species occurrence report for 1 Species of Concern, a map depicting 

Species of Concern locations and explanatory material. Note that the maps are in Adobe GeoPDF 

format. With the appropriate Adobe Reader, it provides a convenient way to query and understand the 

information presented on the map. Documentation is included. 

Please keep in mind the following when using and interpreting the enclosed information and maps: 

(1) These materials are the result of a search of our database for Species of Concern that occur in an area 

defined by the requested township, range and sections with an additional one-mile buffer 

surrounding the requested area. This is done to provide a more inclusive set of records and to 

capture records that may be immediately adjacent to the requested area. Please let us know if a 

buffer greater than 1 mile would be of use to your efforts. Reports are provided for the Species of 

Concern that are located in your requested area with a one-mile buffer. Species of Concern outside 

of this buffered area may be depicted on the map due to the map extent, but are not selected for the 

SOC report. 

(2) On the map, polygons represent one or more source features as well as the locational uncertainty 

associated with the source features. A source feature is a point, line, or polygon that is the basic 

mapping unit of a Species Occurrence (SO) representation. The recorded location of the occurrence 

may vary from its true location due to many factors, including the level of expertise of the data 

collector, differences in survey techniques and equipment used, and the amount and type of 

information obtained. Therefore, this inaccuracy is characterized as locational uncertainty, and is 

now incorporated in the representation of an SO. If you have a question concerning a specific SO, 

please do not hesitate to contact us. 
Visit the Montana Natural Heritage Program at http://mtnhp.org 

(3) This report may include sensitive data, and is not intended for general distribution, publication, or 

for use outside of your organization. In particular, public release of specific location information 

may jeopardize the welfare of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or biological 

communities. 

(4) The accompanying map(s) display land management status, which may differ from ownership. 

Also, this report may include data from privately owned lands, and approval by the landowner is 

advisable if specific location information is considered for distribution. Features shown on this map 

do not imply public access to any lands. 

(5) Additional biological data for the search area(s) may be available from other sources. We suggest 

you contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any additional information on threatened and 

endangered species (406-449-5225). For additional fisheries information in your area of interest, 

you may wish to contact Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Park’s Montana Fisheries Information System 

(phone: 406-444-3373, or web site: http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mFish/).

(6) Additional information on species habitat, ecology and management is available on our web 

site in the Plant, Animal, and ecological Systems Field Guides, which we encourage you to 

consult for valuable information. You can access these guides at http://mtnhp.org. General 

information on any species can be found by accessing the link to NatureServe Explorer. 

The results of a data search by the Montana Natural Heritage Program reflect the current status of our 

data collection efforts. These results are not intended as a final statement on sensitive species within a 

given area, or as a substitute for on-site surveys, which may be required for environmental assessments. 

The information is intended for project screening only with respect to Species of Concern, and not as a 

determination of environmental impacts, which should be gained in consultation with appropriate 

agencies and authorities. 

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Please feel free to contact me at (406) 444-3290 or via 

my e-mail address, below, should you have any questions or require additional information. 

Sincerely, 

Martin P. Miller 

Montana Natural Heritage Program 

martinm@mt.gov 
Montana Species of Concern

Port of Northern MT

Multimodal Hub Shelby MT

Map Document: K:\REQUESTS\Requests\12\US\12us0022\12us0022.mxd (5/7/2012)

Not all legend items may occur on the map.

Features shown on this map do not imply public access to

any lands.

This map displays management status, which may vary

from ownership.

Natural Resource Information System, Montana State Library

1515 East Sixth Ave., Helena, MT 59620-1800

406 444-5354 http://mtnhp.org mtnhp@mt.gov

Dunkirk

Coulee

T32N 

R2W

T32N 

R3W

T32N 

R2W

T32N 

R1W

T32N R2W

T31N R2W

T32N R1W

T31N R1W

T31N R3W

T31N R2W

T31N 

R2W

T31N 

R1W

Shelby

27 26 25 30

31 32 33 34 35 36 31

6 5 4 3 2

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 7

19

1

20 21 22 23 24 19

30 29 28

352488

312916

SPECIES OF CONCERN: A polygon feature representing only what is

known from direct observation with a defined level of certainty

regarding the spatial location of the feature. 

NonVascular Plants

NonVascular Plants

Vascular Plants

Vascular Plants

Invertebrates

Invertebrates

Amphibians

Amphibians

Fish

Fish

Reptiles

Reptiles

Birds

Birds

Mammals

Mammals

Sites

Sites

Wetland and Riparian Classes

Lacustrine

Freshwater Pond

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Forested Wetland

Riverine

Riparian Emergent

Riparian Shrub

Riparian Forested

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles
Species of Concern Data Report Monday, May 7, 2012

Visit http://mtnhp.org for additional information.

Report Date:

Natural Resource Information System

Montana State Library PO Box 201800 Helena, MT 59620-1800

(406)444-3009 mtnhp@mt.gov Common Name: 

Description: 

Mapping Delineation: 

View Species in MT Field Guide

General Habitat: Grasslands

Cynomys ludovicianus

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Vertebrate Animal

Areas with recent evidence of actvity (i.e. burrow entrances) visibile on the 2005 or 2009 Natonal Agricultural Imagery Program 

(NAIP) aerial color photographic imagery that either contain or are within a distance of 200 meters of a defnitve observaton of the 

species.

Natural Heritage Ranks: Federal Agency Status:

Global: 

State: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:

U.S. Forest Service:

U.S. Bureau of Land Management: FWP CFWCS Tier:

MT PIF Code:

Species Status Click Status for Explanations

S3

G4 SENSITIVE

SENSITIVE

 1

First Observation Date:

Last Observation Date:

Species Occurence Map Label: SO Number: 

Acreage:

 312916 8,737

 74

SO Rank:

Species Occurrences

Montana Natural Heritage Program Species of Concern Report 5/7/2012 Page 1 of 1
Montana Natural Heritage Program 

1515 East Sixth Ave., Helena, Montana 59620-1800 

(406) 444-5354 http://mtnhp.org

Explanation of Species of Concern Reports

Since 1985, the Montana Natural Heritage 

Program (MTNHP) has been compiling and 

maintaining an inventory of elements of 

biological diversity in Montana. This inventory 

includes plant species, animal species, plant 

communities, and other biological features that 

are rare, endemic, disjunct, threatened, or 

endangered throughout their range in Montana, 

vulnerable to extirpation from Montana, or in 

need of further research. 

Species Occurrences: (formerly called ‘Element 

Occurrences’) A “Species Occurrence” (SO) is an area 

depicting only what is known from direct observation 

with a defined level of certainty regarding the spatial 

location of the feature. If an observation can be 

associated with a map feature that can be tracked (e.g., a 

wetland) then this polygon feature is used to represent the 

SO. Areas that can be inferred as probable occupied 

habitat based on direct observation of a species 

location and what is known about the foraging area 

or home range size of the species may be 

incorporated into the Species Occurrence. A “Species 

Occurrence” generally falls into one of the following 

three categories: 

We encourage you to visit our website at 

http://mtnhp.org. On-line tools include a 

species observation viewer: the Natural Heritage 

TRACKER and The Montana Field Guide which 

contains photos, illustrations, and supporting 

information on Montana’s animals and plant 

species of concern. Additional data are available 

on most species and ecological areas identified in our 

reports. 

If you have questions or need further 

assistance, please contact us either by phone 

at (406/444-5354), e-mail (mtnhp@mt.gov) or 

Plants: A documented location of a specimen 

collection or observed plant population. In 

some instances, adjacent, spatially separated 

clusters are considered subpopulations and are 

grouped as one occurrence (e.g., the 

subpopulations occur in ecologically similar 

habitats, and are within approximately one air 

mile of one another). 

Animals: The location of a specimen collection 

or of a verified sighting; known or assumed to 

represent a breeding population. Additional 

collections or sightings are often appended to the 

original record. 

Other: Significant biological features not 

included in the above categories, such as bird 

rookeries, peatlands, or state champion trees. 

Ecological Information: Areas for which we have 

ecological information are represented on the map as 

either shaded polygons (where small and/or well 

defined) or simply as map labels (where they are 

large generally-defined landscapes). Descriptive 

information about these areas is contained in the 

associated report. Such information can be useful in 

assessing biological values and interpreting Species of 

Concern data. 

The quantity and quality of data contained in 

MTNHP reports is dependent on the research and 

observations of the many individuals and 

organizations that contribute information to the 

program. Please keep in mind that the absence of 

information for an area does not mean the absence 

of significant biological features, since no surveys 

may have been conducted there. Reports produced 

by the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

summarize information documented in our databases 

at the time of a request. These reports are not 

intended as a final statement on the species or areas 

being considered, nor are they a substitute for onsite surveys, which may be required for 

environmental assessments. 

As a user of MTNHP, your contributions of data are 

essential to maintaining the accuracy of our 

databases. New or updated location information for 

all species of concern is always welcome. 

Revision Date: 10/28/2008 
Revision Date: 10/28/20086 Montana Natural Heritage Program 

Data Descriptions

The section below lists the names and definitions for descriptions of the data fields used in the reports. Certain codes 

and abbreviations are used in Species Occurrence reports. Although many of these are very straightforward, the 

following explanations should answer most questions. 

Map Label: The label for the species occurrence as it appears on the map. 

Element Subnational ID: The unique code used by the state or province to identify a specific element (species). 

SO Number: Number that identifies the particular occurrence of the element (species).

Scientific Name: Latin (scientific) name. 

Common Name: Commonly recognized name. 

Species of Concern/Potential Concern: This value indicates whether the species is a “Species of Concern” (Y) or of 

“Potential Concern” (W). 

Last Observation Date: The date the Species Occurrence was last observed extant at the site (not necessarily the date 

the site was last visited). 

First Observation Date: The date the Species Occurrence was first reported at the site. 

EO Rank: indicates the relative value of the Species Occurrence (SO) with respect to other occurrences of the 

Species, based on an assessment of estimated viability (species). 

Values: 

A - Excellent estimated viability/ecological integrity 

A? - Possibly excellent estimated viability/ecological integrity 

AB - Excellent or good estimated viability/ecological integrity 

AC - Excellent, good, or fair estimated viability/ecological integrity 

B - Good estimated viability/ecological integrity 

B? - Possibly good estimated viability/ecological integrity 

BC - Good or fair estimated viability/ecological integrity 

BD - Good, fair, or poor estimated viability/ecological integrity 

C - Fair estimated viability/ecological integrity 

C? - Possibly fair estimated viability/ecological integrity 

CD - Fair or poor estimated viability/ecological integrity 

D - Poor estimated viability/ecological integrity 

D? - Possibly poor estimated viability/ecological integrity

E - Verified extant (viability/ecological integrity not assessed) 

F - Failed to find 

F? - Possibly failed to find 

H - Historical 

H? - Possibly historical 

X - Extirpated 

X? - Possibly extirpated 

U - Unrankable 

NR - Not ranked 

SO Data: Data collected on the biology of this Species Occurrence. Specific information may include 

number of individuals, vigor, habitat, soils, associated species, and other characteristics. 
Revision Date: 10/28/20086 Montana Natural Heritage Program 

Species Status Codes 

Provided below are definitions for species conservation status ranks, categories and other codes designated by MTNHP, Federal and State 

Agencies and non-governmental organizations. 

• Montana Species of Concern 

• Montana Potential Species of Concern 

• Status Under Review 

• Exotic Species 

• Montana Species Ranking Codes 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Forest Service 

• Bureau of Land Management 

• MFWP Conservation Need 

• Partners In Flight (PIF) 

• MNPS Threat Category 

Species of Concern 

Species of Concern are native taxa that are at-risk due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, restricted distribution, and/or 

other factors. Designation as a Montana Species of Concern or Potential Species of Concern is based on the Montana Status Rank, and is 

not a statutory or regulatory classification. Rather, these designations provide information that helps resource managers make proactive 

decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities. See the latest Species of Concern Reports for more detailed 

explanations and assessment criteria. 

Potential Species of Concern 

Potential Species of Concern are native taxa for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability. Also included are 

animal species which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. 

Status Under Review 

Species designated "Status Under Review" are plant species that require additional information and currently do not have a status rank but 

may warrant future consideration as Species of Concern. This category also includes plant species whose status rank is questionable due 

to the availability of new information or the availability of conflicting or ambiguous information or data. Species listed in this category will be 

reviewed periodically or as new information becomes available. 

Exotic Species 

Exotic species are not native to Montana, but have either been reported in Montana or have established populations in Montana outside of 

their native range. 

Montana Species Ranking Codes 

Montana employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (G) and state (S) status (NatureServe 2003). Species are assigned 

numeric ranks ranging from 1 (critically imperiled) to 5 (demonstrably secure), reflecting the relative degree to which they are "at-risk". 

Rank definitions are given below. A number of factors are considered in assigning ranks - the number, size and distribution of known 

"occurrences" or populations, population trends (if known), habitat sensitivity, life history traits and threats. 

For example, Clustered lady's slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum) is ranked G4 S2. Globally the species is uncommon but not vulnerable, 

while in Montana it is at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or habitat. 

G1 S1 

At high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to 

global extinction or extirpation in the state. 

G2 S2 

At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction 

or extirpation in the state. 

G3 S3 

Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in 

some areas. 

G4 S4 

Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in 

most of its range, but possibly cause for long-term concern. 

G5 S5 

Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. 

GX SX 

Presumed Extinct or Extirpated - Species is believed to be extinct throughout its range or extirpated in Montana. Not located 

despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and small likelihood that it will ever be rediscovered. 

GH SH 
Revision Date: 10/28/20086 Montana Natural Heritage Program 

Possibly Extinct or Extirpated - Species is known only from historical records, but may nevertheless still be extant; additional 

surveys are needed. 

GNR SNR 

Not yet ranked. 

GU SU 

Unrankable - Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status 

or trends. 

GNA SNA 

A conservation status rank is not applicable for one of the following reasons: 

The taxa is of Hybrid Origin; is Exotic or Introduced; is Accidental or is Not Confidently Present in the state. (see other codes 

below) 

Other Codes and Modifiers 

HYB 

Hybrid-Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species. 

T 

Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial) - The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) are indicated by a "T-rank" following 

the species' global rank. 

? 

Inexact Numeric Rank - Denotes inexact numeric rank. 

Q 

Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority-Distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon at the current level is 

questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this 

taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank. 

C 

Captive or Cultivated Only - Species at present is extant only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet 

established. 

A 

Accidental - Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and outside usual range. Includes species 

(usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a few times at a location. A few of these species may have bred on the one 

or two occasions they were recorded. 

SYN 

Synonym - Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage Program does not recognize the 

taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank. 

B 

Breeding - Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana. 

N 

Nonbreeding - Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in Montana. 

M 

Migratory - Species occurs in Montana on during migration. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

LE 

Listed endangered - Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). 

PE 

Proposed endangered - Any species for which a proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register to list the species 

as endangered. 

LT 

Listed threatened - Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). 

PT 

Proposed threatened - Any species for which a proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register to list the species as 

threatened. 

E(S/A) or T(S/A) 

Any species listed endangered or threatened because of similarity of appearance. 

C 

Candidate - Those taxa for which sufficient information on biological status and threats exists to propose to list them as 

threatened or endangered. We encourage their consideration in environmental planning and partnerships; however, none of the 

substantive or procedural provisions of the Act apply to candidate species. 

PDL 

Proposed for delisting - Any species for which a final rule has been published in the Federal Register to delist the species. 

DM 

Recovered, delisted, and being monitored - Any previously listed species that is now recovered, has been delisted, and is 

being monitored. 

NL 

Not listed - No designation. 

XE 

Essential experimental population - An experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. 
Revision Date: 10/28/20086 Montana Natural Heritage Program 

XN 

Nonessential experimental population - An experimental population of a listed species reintroduced into a specific area that 

receives more flexible management under the Act. 

CH 

Critical Habitat - The specific areas (i) within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, on which are 

found those physical or biological features (I) essential to conserve the species and (II) that may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed 

upon determination that such areas are essential to conserve the species. 

PS 

Partial status - status in only a portion of the species' range. Typically indicated in a "full" species record where an infraspecific 

taxon or population, that has a record in the database has USESA status, but the entire species does not. 

PS:value 

Partial status - status in only a portion of the species' range. The value of that status appears in parentheses because the entity 

with status is not recognized as a valid taxon by Central Sciences (usually a population defined by geopolitical boundaries or 

defined administratively, such as experimental populations. 

Forest Service 

The status of species on Forest Service lands as defined by the U.S. Forest Service manual (2670.22). These taxa are listed as such by 

the Regional Forester (Northern Region). The Forest Service lists animal species as: 

Endangered 

Listed as Endangered (LE) by the USFWS. 

Threatened 

Listed as Threatened (LT) by the USFWS. 

Sensitive 

Any species for which the Regional Forester has determined there is a concern for population viability within the state, as 

evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in populations or habitat. 

Species of Concern 

USFS Species-of-Concern (FSH 1909.12, 43.22b) are species for which the Responsible Official determines management 

actions may be necessary to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Responsible Official, as 

appropriate, may identify the following plant and animal species, including macro-lichens, as species-of-concern: 

1. Species identified as proposed and candidate species under the ESA. 

2. Species with ranks of G-1 through G-3 on the NatureServe ranking system. 

3. Infraspecific (subspecific) taxa with ranks of T-1 through T-3 on the NatureServe ranking system. 

4. Species that have been petitioned for federal listing and for which a positive "90-day finding" has been made (a 90-day 

finding is a preliminary finding that substantive information was provided indicating that the petition listing may be 

warranted and a full status review will be conducted). 

5. Species that have been recently delisted (these include species delisted within the past five years and other delisted 

species for which regulatory agency monitoring is still considered necessary). 

Species of Interest 

USFS Species-of-Interest (FSH 1909.12, 43.22c) are species for which the Responsible Official determines that management 

actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve ecological or other multiple-use objectives. The Responsible Official may 

review the following sources for potential species-of-interest: 

1. Species with ranks of S-1, S-2, N1, or N2 on the NatureServe ranking system. 

2. State listed threatened and endangered species that do not meet the criteria as species-of-concern. 

3. Species identified as species of conservation concern in State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies. 

4. Bird species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern National Priority list (for the U.S. 

portion of the northern Rockies that occur on National Forest system lands). 

5. Additional species that valid existing information indicates are of regional or local conservation concern (this includes 

all Forest Service Northern Region sensitive species) due to factors that may include: 

a. Significant threats to populations or habitat. 

b. Declining trends in populations or habitat. 

c. Rarity. 

d. Restricted ranges (for example, narrow endemics, disjunct populations, or species at the edge of their 

range). 

6. Species that are hunted or fished and other species of public interest. Invasive species may also be considered. 

Bureau of Land Management 

BLM Sensitive Species are defined by the BLM 6840 Manual as those that normally occur on Bureau administered lands for which BLM has 

the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management. The State Director may designate 

additional categories of special status species as appropriate and applicable to his or her state's needs. The sensitive species designation, 

for species other than federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, may include such native species as those that: 

1. could become endangered in or extirpated from a state, or within a significant portion of its distribution in the 

foreseeable future, 

2. are under status review by FWS and/or NMFS, 

3. are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ 

existing distribution, 
Revision Date: 10/28/20086 Montana Natural Heritage Program 

4. are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density such that federally listed, 

proposed, candidate, or State listed status may become necessary, 

5. have typically small and widely dispersed populations, 

6. are inhabiting ecological refugia, specialized or unique habitats, or 

7. are State listed but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive species status. Such 

species should be managed to the level of protection required by State laws or under the BLM policy for candidate 

species, whichever would provide better opportunity for its conservation. 

MFWP Conservation Need 

In recent years states have received federal funding to develop Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategies. Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks completed Montana's Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy in 2005. Under this conservation strategy 

individual animal species were assigned levels of conservation need as follows: 

Tier I: 

Tier I: Greatest conservation need. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has a clear obligation to use its resources to implement 

conservation actions that provide direct benefit to these species, communities, and focus areas. 

Tier II: 

Tier II: Moderate conservation need. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks could use its resources to implement conservation actions 

that provide direct benefit to these species, communities, and focus areas. 

Tier III: 

Tier III: Lower conservation need. Although important to Montana’s wildlife diversity, these species, communities, and focus 

areas are either abundant and widespread or are believed to have adequate conservation already in place. 

Tier IV: 

Tier IV: Species that are non-native, incidental, or on the periphery of their range and are either expanding or very common in 

adjacent states. 

Partners In Flight (PIF) 

Partners In Flight (PIF) is a partnership of federal and state agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations, and many others, with the 

goal of conserving North American birds. In 1991, PIF began developing a formal species assessment process that could provide 

consistent, scientific evaluations of conservation status across all bird species in North America, and identify areas most important to the 

conservation of each species. This process applies quantitative rule sets to complex biological data on the population size, distribution, 

population trend, threats, and regional abundance of individual bird species to generate simple numerical scores that rank each species in 

terms of its biological vulnerability and regional status. The process results in global and regional conservation assessments of each bird 

species that, among other uses, can be used to objectively assign regional and continental conservation priorities among birds.

The species assessment scores and process has recently been updated! Check out the new scores and make sure to download and read 

the updated Handbook on Species Assessment, which contains important information on the how scores are derived and used in the 

assessment process. Note that currently only breeding-season regional scores are available for BCRs. We hope to have non-breeding 

scores available soon. For those needing access to the previous versions of the PIF Species Assessment Database, including past 

regional scores for physiographic areas, click here. 

Montana Native Plant Society (MNPS) Threat Category 

The MNPS Threat Category process was initiated in 2006 at the Montana Plant Conservation Conference with the formation of a committee 

represented by federal, state and private botanists, ecologists and biologists. The objectives were to: 1) Evaluate threats impacting 

Montana's Plant Species of Concern and to classify species according to their level of imperilment/risk as a result of these threats. 2) 

Develop a ranking system based on the impacts of the identified threats to the species' viability in the state. The result of this process is a 

4-tier threat ranking system for Plant Species of Concern in Montana. The threat categories are: 

Category 1: 

The viability of the species in the state is Highly Threatened by one or more activities. Associated threats have caused or are 

likely to cause a major reduction of the state population or its habitat that will require 50 years or more for recovery, 20% or 

more of the state population has been or will be affected, and the negative impact is occurring or is likely to occur within the next 

5 years. 

Category 2: 

The viability of the species or a portion of the species habitat in the state is Threatened by one or more activities, though 

impacts to the species are expected to be less severe than those in Category 1. Associated threats exist but are not as severe, 

wide-ranging or immediate as for Category 1, though negative impacts are occurring or are likely to occur. 

Category 3: 

The viability of the species in the state is Not Threatened or the Threats are Insignificant. Associated threats are either not 

known to exist, are not likely to occur in the near future or are not known to be having adverse impacts that will severely affect 

the species' viability in the state. 

Category 4: 

Assessment not possible due to insufficient and/or conflicting information on potential threats to the species. 

Please visit the MNPS website at http://www.mtnativeplants.org for additional information on MNPS Threat Categories or for MNPS 

contact information. 
Page 1 of 8 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 

MONTANA FIELD OFFICE 

585 SHEPARD WAY 

HELENA, MONTANA 59601 

PHONE (406) 449-5225, FAX (406) 449-5339

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES 

MONTANA COUNTIES*

Endangered Species Act

February 2012 

C = Candidate PCH = Proposed Critical Habitat 

LT = Listed Threatened CH = Designated Critical Habitat 

LE = Listed Endangered 

P = Proposed 

XN = Experimental non-essential population

*Note: Generally, this list identifies the counties where one would reasonably expect the 

species to occur, not necessarily every county where the species is listed 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

BEAVERHEAD 

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute Ladies' Tresses LT 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Thymallus arcticus Arctic Grayling (Upper Missouri River DPS) C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

BIG HORN 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

BLAINE 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

BROADWATER 

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute Ladies' Tresses LT 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 
Page 2 of 8 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

CARBON

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

CARTER 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

CASCADE 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

CHOUTEAU 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

CUSTER 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

DANIELS 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

DAWSON 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

DEER LODGE 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Thymallus arcticus Arctic Grayling (Upper Missouri River DPS) C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

FALLON 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

FERGUS

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 
Page 3 of 8 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

FLATHEAD 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Silene spaldingii Spalding's Campion LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Lednia tumana Meltwater Lednian Stonefly C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

GALLATIN 

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute Ladies' Tresses LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

GARFIELD

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT, CH 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

GLACIER 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Lednia tumana Meltwater Lednian Stonefly C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

GOLDEN VALLEY 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

GRANITE 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

HILL 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

JEFFERSON 

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute Ladies' Tresses LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 
Page 4 of 8 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

JUDITH BASIN

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

LAKE

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Howellia aquatilis Water Howellia LT 

Silene spaldingii Spalding's Campion LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

LEWIS AND CLARK 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

LIBERTY 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

LINCOLN 

Acipenser transmontanus White Sturgeon (Kootenai River Pop.) LE 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Silene spaldingii Spalding's Campion LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Howellia aquatilis Water Howellia LT 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

MADISON 

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute Ladies' Tresses LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Thymallus arcticus Arctic Grayling (Upper Missouri River DPS) C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

McCONE 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT, CH 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 
Page 5 of 8 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

MEAGHER 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

MINERAL 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

MISSOULA 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Howellia aquatilis Water Howellia LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo (western pop.) C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

MUSSELSHELL 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

PARK 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

PETROLEUM

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

PHILLIPS 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT, CH 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE, XN 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

PONDERA 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 
Page 6 of 8 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

POWDER RIVER 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

POWELL 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

PRAIRIE 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

RAVALLI 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo (western pop.) C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

RICHLAND 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT, CH 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

ROOSEVELT 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT, CH 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

ROSEBUD 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

SANDERS 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT 

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT, CH 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

Silene spaldingii Spalding's Campion LT 

SHERIDAN 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT, CH 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 
Page 7 of 8 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

SILVER BOW

Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Thymallus arcticus Arctic Grayling (Upper Missouri River DPS) C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

STILLWATER 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

SWEET GRASS 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

TETON 

Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly Bear LT 

Lynx canadensis Canada Lynx LT, CH 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 

TOOLE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

TREASURE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

VALLEY 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover LT, CH 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

WHEATLAND 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

Gulo gulo luscus Wolverine C 

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark Pine C 
Page 8 of 8 

County/Scientific Name Common Name Status

WIBAUX 

Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon LE 

Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 

YELLOWSTONE 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE 

Grus americana Whooping Crane LE 

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater Sage-Grouse C 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit C 
Appendix C 

FEMA Map
Page: 2 of 2 Scale: 20 %

Intranetix Viewer [300125.tif] http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=2927&O_Y=1973&O_ZM=0.101368&O_SX=593&
Intranetix Viewer [300125.tif] 

http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=2927&O_Y=1973&O_ZM=0.101368&O_SX=593&
Appendix D 

SHPO Correspondence
From: Murdo, Damon [mailto:dmurdo@mt.gov] 

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:51 PM 

To: Martin, Andrea (FRA) 

Subject: PORT OF NORTHERN MONTANA MULTIMODAL HUB-TOOLE COUNTY MT 

June 8, 2012

David Valenstein

Attn: Andrea Martin

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: PORT OF NORTHERN MONTANA MULTIMODAL HUB‐TOOLE COUNTY MT.  SHPO Project #:

2012060804

Dear Mr. Valenstein:

Thank you for your letter regarding the above‐cited project.  Based on the amount of ground

disturbance required by this undertaking we feel that this project has the potential to impact

cultural properties.  We, therefore, recommend that a cultural resource inventory be

conducted prior to any disturbance, in order to determine whether or not sites exist and if they

will be impacted.  

We would also ask that a formal file search request be conducted prior to the projects

initiation.  This will allow us to inform your agency of any previously recorded historic or

archaeological sites that may be impacted as a result of this project, as well as any that may be

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.  We do have a charge for all file

searches coming in to our office, and request that our File Search Request Form be filled out

and emailed in to us.  I have attached our File Search Request Form.

If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444‐7767 or by e‐

mail at dmurdo@mt.gov.  Thank you for consulting with us.

Sincerely,

Damon Murdo

Cultural Records Manager

Montana State Historic Preservation Office



Appendix E 

Agency Scoping Materials
































































Proposed Energy Park

2

Burlington

Northern

Santa

Fe

RR

15

Proposed 13th Street South

Second Access Road

SE Front Street Improvements

Man'as Valley Road

9th Avenue S

Santa

Fe

Trail

34

T32N - R2W

3

T31N - R2W

33

T32N - R2W

27

T32N - R2W

28

T32N - R2W

2

T31N - R2W

35

T32N - R2W

26

T32N - R2W

Shelby, MT

P o r t o f N o r t h e r n M o n t a n a M u l t i m o d a l H u b

P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n M a p

S h e l b y , M o n t a n a

M o n t a n a

Project Location
Appendix F 

Agency Scoping Responses
 

United States Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Ecological Services 

 Montana Field Office 

 585 Shepard Way 

 Helena, Montana 59601-6287 

Phone: (406) 449-5225 Fax: (406) 449-5339 

June 11, 2012 

Mr. David Valenstein 

Division Chief, Environment and Systems Planning 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

We have examined the information, aerial photo and map attached to your June 01, 2012 

letter, describing plans to construct various infrastructure (roads, gas lines, stormwater and 

sewer facilities, electrical and communications) for the Port of the Northern Montana 

Multimodal Hub near Shelby, Montana. These response comments are authorized under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.), 

and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et. Seq.). 

This project is proposed for an area that is previously impacted from the disturbance effects of 

industrial and agricultural development, in addition to disturbance associated with a semiurban setting. Because the area is currently of generally low value as fish and wildlife habitat, 

we have determined that the proposed action is unlikely to have any significant adverse effects 

to fish, wildlife, or habitat resources under the purview of the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service. 

Please telephone me at 406/449-5225, ext. 205, if you have any questions regarding this 

matter. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 R. Mark Wilson 

 Field Supervisor 
1

Stacie Taylor

From: Carol McCracken <cjm1950@live.com>

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:06 PM

To: Steve Best; andrea.martin@dot.gov

Subject: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub - Toole County, Montana

Steve and Andrea: 

 

Please advise me on how to file a formal complaint/concern with the Federal Railroad Administration regarding my 

property at 5 Iron Horse Lane, Shelby, Montana, which lies within the project boundaries. I have left several messages 

with Mayor Bonderud and they have gone unanswered. My tenant informs me that the survey stakes for the road work 

on the extension of 13th Street South to the east are located as such that the storage shed on my property would be 

bisected by the right of way. The storage shed sits only 15 - 20 feet off the north side of my house. I cannot believe 

that the construction on this road and the anticipated 300 trips on that road per day will not devalue my property. 

 

Please advise me of how to proceed with a formal complaint to the Fedea Railroad Administration or what my options are 

in regard to opposing the situation as it now stands - that being no consideration toward me in regard to devaluation of 

my property. I seriously doubt the $10M grant was given with the intention of some property owners losing their 

property values while the overall community benefits from the project. 

 

I will be traveling from Billings, where I live, to Shelby (300+ miles one way) within the next two weeks to look the Mayor 

in the eye if I can find him and demand to know what his plan is. If necessary, I will retain an attorney to protect my 

rights. I cannot afford an attorney but I will not be the loser in this situation when so many others will benefit from this 

grant. I have no desire to foil the progress of the project but I must protect myself. Please advise Mr. David Valenstein 

of my concerns. I will await some direction from you on how to file a formal complaint as I feel this email 

correspondence is quite informal and I do not wish to lose my window of opportuntity to do so. Thank you for your 

prompt attention. 

 

Carol McCracken 

3828 Swallow Lane 

Billings, MT 59102 

406-860-1472 
From: Carol McCracken

To: andrea.martin@dot.gov; Steve Best

Subject: FW: Northern Montana Multimodal Hub - Toole County, MT

Date: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:33:12 AM

In reference to the email below, the letter I received from Mr. Valenstein was dated June 1, 2012 and

requested a reply within 30 days. I cannot reply until I have more information, which I have requested

from both you and Steve Best, who was also listed as a contact for information. Mr. Best replied to my

initial email asking for the same information I have asked you for. Could you at least respond and

acknowledge that you have received my email and advise me if you can provide the iformation I have

requested? It is impossible to respond in 30 days when I can get no answers. If no response is

forthcoming I will certainly send a letter to Mr. Valenstein advising him of that. Thank you for a timely

reply.

Carol McCracken

From: cjm1950@live.com

To: andrea.martin@dot.gov

Subject: Northern Montana Multimodal Hub - Toole County, MT

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:57:16 -0700

Ms. Martin:

I am in receipt of a letter from David Valenstein of the Federal Railroad Administration regarding the

future development of the Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub in Toole County, Montana. My

residential property lies within the mapped area of the project. I believe that my property and the one

across the road from mine are the only two residential properties located within the project and are

located on the corner of 13th St South and 9th Ave South where the proposed extension of 13th Street

South to the east will be. 

My question is: what is the protocol in regard to properties such as mine in the midst of a project such

as this. I currently rent that property but have had it on the market through Craigs List for the past few

months. I am unsure what the future holds for that property and would like clarification. Are the

properties purchased or condemned? Please advise me on this. I have no problem with selling the

property for market value but, obviously, I can't sell it now with this project taking place. I look forward

to hearing from you regarding this. Thank you.

Carol McCracken

3828 Swallow Ln

Billings, MT

406-860-1472
From: Steve Best

To: Brad Koon

Subject: FW: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:16:01 AM

Brad,

I received this comment today regarding the Shelby project. Do you know what action would be

taken or how this project would affect her property? 

-Steve

From: Carol McCracken [mailto:cjm1950@live.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:10 AM

To: Steve Best

Subject: RE: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

My property is right on the corner of 13th Street where it turns north toward the water tank. My

address is 5 Iron Horse, Lane which is a gravel road that comes south of the water tank. The broad

legal description off tax records is T 32N R 02W SEC 33 (.55 acre) On the map it is right where the red

boundary lines widen out at the east end of 13th Street. The proposed extension of 13th Street to the

east would go within feet of my house. Thank you.

From: steve.best@kljeng.com

To: cjm1950@live.com

Subject: RE: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:59:24 +0000

Carol,

To clarify, your property is located south of 13th?  This would directly south of the water tank,

right?  I will check into getting an answer to your question.

-Steve

From: Carol McCracken [mailto:cjm1950@live.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:50 AM

To: Steve Best

Subject: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Mr. Best:

I am in receipt of a letter from David Valenstein of the Federal Railroad Administration regarding the

future development of the Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub in Toole County, Montana. My

residential property lies within the mapped area of the project. I believe that my property and the one

across the road from me are the only two residential properties located within the project and are

located where the proposed extension of 13th Street South will be.

My question is: what is the protocol in regard to properties such as mine in the midst of a project such

as this. I currently rent that property but have had it on the market through Craigs List for the past

few months. I am unsure what the future holds for that property and would like clarification. Are the

properties purchased or condemned? Please advise me on this. I have no problem with selling the
property for market value but, obviously, I can't sell it now with this project taking place. I look forward

to hearing from you regarding this. Thank you.

Carol McCracken

3828 Swallow Lane

Billings, MT 59102

406-860-1472
July 2, 2012 

Mary L Burch 

#7 Iron Horse Lane, Shelby MT 

Phone: 406-450-2696 

Called Friday, June 29th and left a Message. 

I called Ms. Burch back on July 2, 2012 at 8:20 am. 

Ms. Burch has serious concerns regarding the improvements to and the extension of 13th Avenue South. 

She said that she has owns piece of property that is shown as deeded to Rona McCardle at the end of 

13th Street Avenue. She has been onsite when surveyors have been out there and according to her 

survey flags are within 3-4 feet of her house. 

Ms. Burch does not think that she will have access to her property or garage throughout the 

construction process and has concerns about construction dust and noise. She has spent a lot of money 

fixing the property up and moving buildings as needed and fencing. She said that the construction limits 

fall 8’ inside her existing fences. She is worried about safety issues associated with the number of trucks 

that are projected to utilize the road, damage they may cause, and noise that will result from the trucks 

so close to the house. 

Ms. Burch is especially concerned about the amount that this road being so close to her property, the 

character of its use and how it will significantly de-value her property making it unsellable. 

She said that if this project were to go through she would probably lose a lot of money that she has tied 

up in the property. 

Ms. Burch has sent a comment letting in the mail and we should receive it shortly. 

July 3, 2012 

Ms. Burch 

Vickie Sulenes 

1323 13th Street South, Shelby, MT 

Phone: 406-450-2643 

I received a phone call from Ms. Sullins on July 2, 2012 at 9:20am. Vickie is a resident of 13th Street 

South and is concerned with the potential improvements to and the extension of 13th Street South. She 

is wondering how new ROW will affect her property. She said that her fences would have to be moved. 

She is also concerned about the gully that fills up near her property. She is also concerned about the 

amount of truck traffic that will be going next to their property. She sent a letter but we probably have 

not received it yet. 
1

Stacie Taylor

From: lgrotbo@3rivers.net

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:11 PM

To: Steve Best

Subject: Port of No Central Montana Multi model Hub

Dear Mr. Steve Best, 

On behalf of North Central MT RC&D in Shelby MT I am happy to support the Toole County project. We do 

not have any property located in the area and/or project planned for this area in the future. Pls feel free to 

contact me direct at 406 460 2861 if you have any questions. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

 

Jerry Smith

Chairman

North Central Montana RC&D Area Inc.

1125 Oilfield Ave

Shelby, MT 59474

406 434-9161 Ext 111

lgrotbo@3rivers.net

 

 
1

Stacie Taylor

From: andrea.martin@dot.gov

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:27 PM

To: dmurdo@mt.gov

Cc: Steve Best

Subject: RE: PORT OF NORTHERN MONTANA MULTIMODAL HUB-TOOLE COUNTY MT

Thank you for your email. I have copied your request to the environmental consultant working on the 

project. We will make sure to work with your office as the Project moves forward. Please do not hesitate to 

contact me if needed. 

ANDRÉA E. MARTIN

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 20

Washington, DC 20590

(d) 202.493.6201 (f) 202.493.6333

andrea.martin@dot.gov

From: Murdo, Damon [mailto:dmurdo@mt.gov] 

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:51 PM 

To: Martin, Andrea (FRA) 

Subject: PORT OF NORTHERN MONTANA MULTIMODAL HUB-TOOLE COUNTY MT

 

June 8, 2012 

 

David Valenstein 

Attn: Andrea Martin 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

 

RE: PORT OF NORTHERN MONTANA MULTIMODAL HUB-TOOLE COUNTY MT. SHPO Project #: 2012060804 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

 

Thank you for your letter regarding the above-cited project. Based on the amount of ground disturbance 

required by this undertaking we feel that this project has the potential to impact cultural properties. We, 
2

therefore, recommend that a cultural resource inventory be conducted prior to any disturbance, in order to 

determine whether or not sites exist and if they will be impacted. 

 

We would also ask that a formal file search request be conducted prior to the projects initiation. This will 

allow us to inform your agency of any previously recorded historic or archaeological sites that may be 

impacted as a result of this project, as well as any that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places. We do have a charge for all file searches coming in to our office, and request that our File 

Search Request Form be filled out and emailed in to us. I have attached our File Search Request Form. 

If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-mail at 

dmurdo@mt.gov. Thank you for consulting with us. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Damon Murdo 

Cultural Records Manager 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office 

 

File: STB/2012

 

 

 
From: Steve Best

To: Carol McCracken (cjm1950@live.com)

Subject: Port of Northern Montana Project

Date: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:44:14 AM

Carol,

I wanted to give you an quick update of what I have found out this morning.

In regards to your concerns about writing a letter outlining your comments or concerns about the

project within the 30-day timeframe, we will keep a record of e-mails/phone conversations. These

emails are sufficient and you can continue to email myself and Andrea Martin with FRA as needed.

 We will consider the comments in the decision-making process.

Also, I wanted to let you know that your comments and concerns are not being ignored at FRA.

 Andrea Martin let me know that your correspondence is being looked at by appropriate staff to

help determine an appropriate course of action as we continue with the Environmental

Assessment.

Please contact me with any other questions or comments and I will keep you updated as I find out

more.

Thanks,

-Steve

Steven Best

Environmental Planner

Kadrmas Lee & Jackson

128 Soo Line Drive

Bismarck, ND 58501

Phone: 701-250-5904

Kljeng.com
1

Stacie Taylor

From: andrea.martin@dot.gov

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:28 PM

To: mgr@mariasriverec.com

Cc: Steve Best

Subject: RE: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub-Toole County, Montana

Thank you for your email. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns as the Project 

moves forward. 

ANDRÉA E. MARTIN

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 20

Washington, DC 20590

(d) 202.493.6201 (f) 202.493.6333

andrea.martin@dot.gov

From: Mark Grotbo [mailto:mgr@mariasriverec.com] 

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 1:06 PM 

To: Martin, Andrea (FRA) 

Subject: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub-Toole County, Montana

Dear Ms. Martin, 

 

This email is in response to the letter from Mr. Valenstein on the EA asking for comments to the Port of Northern 

Montana additions within Toole County. Marias River Electric Cooperative and Shelby Gas Association are in support of 

the proposed construction. The Port has been working with us to relocate and install our facilities to serve the proposed 

additions. We do not see any negative social, economic or environmental effects from this construction. We see only 

positive value added to the local and surrounding area of Toole County. 

 

This construction will enable other economic benefits to the County, State, and region. Without this step the benefits 

will not be realized. There will be minimal disruption to the environment and the area is well suited for such an 

expansion. 

 

If there are further comments or questions please feel free to ask. 

 

Sincerely, 

Mark S. Grotbo 

General Manager 

Marias River Electric Cooperative 

Shelby Gas Association 
1

Stacie Taylor

From: Francis Auld <francisa@cskt.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:35 AM

To: andrea.martin@dot.gov

Cc: Steve Best; Alvin Windyboy; Jo'Etta Buckhouse; blkftthpo@aol.com; D Conrad; Dave 

Belgarde; Conrad Fisher; Curley Youpee; Mike Durglo Sr; Ira Matt; Kevin Askan; Clarinda 

Burke; hubertt@crownations.net; Robert O'Boyle

Subject: RE: Shelby, MT Multimodal Hub: Telephone Call

Attachments: flier_from jpeg.pdf

Importance: High

Andrea, 

Thank you for your quick response. 

As I mentioned to you over the phone that the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian 

Reservation will defer to the nearing Tribes of the proposed project. We do hold in reserve that if any inadvertent 

discoveries happen during the project that our Tribes back contacted. 

Sukni, Xest, 

Francis Auld/Mike Durglo Sr. 

Tribal Preservation Office 

Pablo, Montana 59855 

(406) 675-2700 

francisa@cskt.org ext.1076 

mikeds@cskt.org ext.1330 

Salish/Pend d'oreille and Kootenai 

From: andrea.martin@dot.gov [mailto:andrea.martin@dot.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:49 AM 

To: francisa@cskt.org

Cc: steve.best@kljeng.com

Subject: Shleby, MT Multimodal Hub: Telephone Call 

Dear Mr. Auld; Thank you for your telephone call earlier today (June 12, 2012). The Federal Railroad Administration 

sent a letter on June 1, 2012 to the groups listed below about the Port of Northern Montana’s Multimodal Hub to be 

located in Shelby, MT. These groups are located along Highline Drive (Highway 2). We will be happy to contact 

additional parties if needed, please let us know. I have attached a flier for your information about the project. 

Mr. Rick Stefanic 

Environmental Services 
2

US Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Mr. Darrell Youpee 

Cultural Resources Department 

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

Mr. John Murray 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Blackfeet Nation 

Mr. Dale Old Horn 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

The Crow Tribe of Indians 

Mr. Conrad Fisher 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Mr. Francis Auld 

Tribal Preservation Department 

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation 

Mr. Alvin Windy Boy, Sr. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Reservation 

Mr. Tracy King 

Tribal Council 

Fort Belknap Indian Community 

Please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Steven Best (701) 250-5904, steve.best@kljeng.com if you have future 

questions or concerns about the project as we move forward. 

Thank you! 

ANDRÉA E. MARTIN 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 20 

Washington, DC 20590 

(d) 202.493.6201 (f) 202.493.6333 

andrea.martin@dot.gov
From: andrea.martin@dot.gov

To: Steve Best

Cc: christopher.vannostrand@dot.gov

Subject: RE: Carol McCracken

Date: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:28:24 AM

Let her know all her emails are sufficient, and she can email you and me, and we will consider the

comments in the decision-making process. Thanks!

From: Steve Best [mailto:steve.best@kljeng.com] 

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:27 AM

To: Martin, Andrea (FRA)

Subject: RE: Carol McCracken

Sounds good, I am working on the Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation section at this

point.

Ms. McCracken is wanting some answers prior to writing a her comments about the project.

Should I advise her to send a letter regarding her comments/concerns since they will be addressed

in the EA? Or is keeping record of her e-mail outlining her concerns suffice?

-Steve

From: andrea.martin@dot.gov [mailto:andrea.martin@dot.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:16 AM

To: Steve Best

Cc: christopher.vannostrand@dot.gov

Subject: RE: Carol McCracken

Thanks for getting back to Ms. McCracken. I passed her request onto our Counsel’s office to

determine an appropriate response and course of action as we move forward.

Please forward the EA as the chapters are written, for my approval. The purpose and need you

sent last week looked good.

From: Steve Best [mailto:steve.best@kljeng.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:11 AM

To: Martin, Andrea (FRA)

Subject: Carol McCracken

Andrea,

I called Carol McCracken this morning to touch base with her regarding her concerns. I am going to

be contacting the PM in Helena again regarding this issue as I have not heard back from him. In

conversation with her is sounds like the ROW would be right up against the house she owns. She

has been trying to sell the property but feels that if the project goes forward and is completed, the
truck traffic in and out of the terminal will devalue her property to the point that she will not be

able to sell it. Also she owes money on the property.

-Steve

Steven Best

Environmental Planner

Kadrmas Lee & Jackson

128 Soo Line Drive

Bismarck, ND 58501

Phone: 701-250-5904

Kljeng.com
From: Steve Best

To: "Carol McCracken"

Subject: RE: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:59:23 AM

Carol,

To clarify, your property is located south of 13th?  This would directly south of the water tank,

right?  I will check into getting an answer to your question.

-Steve

From: Carol McCracken [mailto:cjm1950@live.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:50 AM

To: Steve Best

Subject: Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub

Mr. Best:

I am in receipt of a letter from David Valenstein of the Federal Railroad Administration regarding the

future development of the Port of Northern Montana Multimodal Hub in Toole County, Montana. My

residential property lies within the mapped area of the project. I believe that my property and the one

across the road from me are the only two residential properties located within the project and are

located where the proposed extension of 13th Street South will be.

My question is: what is the protocol in regard to properties such as mine in the midst of a project such

as this. I currently rent that property but have had it on the market through Craigs List for the past

few months. I am unsure what the future holds for that property and would like clarification. Are the

properties purchased or condemned? Please advise me on this. I have no problem with selling the

property for market value but, obviously, I can't sell it now with this project taking place. I look forward

to hearing from you regarding this. Thank you.

Carol McCracken

3828 Swallow Lane

Billings, MT 59102

406-860-1472








1

Stacie Taylor

From: andrea.martin@dot.gov

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:49 AM

To: francisa@cskt.org

Cc: Steve Best

Subject: Shleby, MT Multimodal Hub: Telephone Call

Attachments: flier_from jpeg.pdf

Dear Mr. Auld; Thank you for your telephone call earlier today (June 12, 2012). The Federal Railroad Administration 

sent a letter on June 1, 2012 to the groups listed below about the Port of Northern Montana’s Multimodal Hub to be 

located in Shelby, MT. These groups are located along Highline Drive (Highway 2). We will be happy to contact 

additional parties if needed, please let us know. I have attached a flier for your information about the project. 

Mr. Rick Stefanic 

Environmental Services 

US Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Mr. Darrell Youpee 

Cultural Resources Department 

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

Mr. John Murray 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Blackfeet Nation 

Mr. Dale Old Horn 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

The Crow Tribe of Indians 

Mr. Conrad Fisher 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Mr. Francis Auld 

Tribal Preservation Department 

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation 

Mr. Alvin Windy Boy, Sr. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy's Reservation 

Mr. Tracy King 

Tribal Council 

Fort Belknap Indian Community 

Please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Steven Best (701) 250-5904, steve.best@kljeng.com if you have future 

questions or concerns about the project as we move forward. 

Thank you! 

ANDRÉA E. MARTIN 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 20 

Washington, DC 20590 
2

(d) 202.493.6201 (f) 202.493.6333 

andrea.martin@dot.gov