PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

REPORT

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study

MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

IDIQ Contract No. DTFH7015D00007

Task Order No. 69056719F000080

Prepared for:

WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

610 East Fifth Street, Vancouver, WA 98661

Sept. 11, 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

ROBERT PECCIA &

ASSOCIATES

Helena, Montana
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................i

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................ii

List of Figures ...........................................................................................................................................ii

List of Appendices....................................................................................................................................iii

Abbreviations/Acronyms ..........................................................................................................iv

1.0. Introduction and Background ..............................................................................................1

1.1. Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Historic Construction and Improvements.......................................................................................... 2

1.3. Existing Plans and Regulations ........................................................................................................ 3

1.4. Current and Planned Projects........................................................................................................... 4

2.0. Transportation Conditions ...................................................................................................5

2.1. Physical Features and Characteristics ............................................................................................. 5

2.1.1. Hydraulics.................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2. Bridges ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2.1.3. Culverts ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.4. Access Points.............................................................................................................................. 6

2.1.5. Roadway Surfacing ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.6. Maintenance and Operations ...................................................................................................... 9

2.1.7. Right-of-Way ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.1.8. Utilities....................................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.9. Recreational Opportunities........................................................................................................ 11

2.2. Geometric Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.1. Design Criteria........................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.2. Horizontal Alignment ................................................................................................................. 14

2.2.3. Vertical Alignment ..................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.4. Intersection Alignment............................................................................................................... 15

2.2.5. Sight Distance ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.2.6. Clear Zone................................................................................................................................. 16

2.3. Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 16

2.3.1. Existing Traffic Volumes............................................................................................................ 16

2.3.2. Projected Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 16

2.3.3. Heavy Vehicle Traffic ................................................................................................................ 17

2.3.4. Alternative Transportation Modes ............................................................................................. 17

2.4. Safety.............................................................................................................................................. 17

2.4.1. Safety Trends, Contributing Factors, and Crash Clusters ........................................................ 18

2.5. Other Vulnerabilities........................................................................................................................ 19

3.0. Environmental Setting .......................................................................................................22

3.1. Physical Environment ..................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1. Land Ownership and Land Use................................................................................................. 22

3.1.2. Soil Resources and Prime Farmland ........................................................................................ 22

3.1.3. Geologic Hazards...................................................................................................................... 23

3.1.4. Surface Waters.......................................................................................................................... 23

3.1.5. Groundwater.............................................................................................................................. 24

3.1.6. Floodplains and Floodways....................................................................................................... 24

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 i
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

3.1.7. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S............................................................................................... 24

3.1.8. Hazardous Substances ............................................................................................................. 24

3.1.9. Air Quality.................................................................................................................................. 25

3.1.10. Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 25

3.2. Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 25

3.2.1. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 25

3.2.2. Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................................ 25

3.2.3. Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................................... 26

3.2.4. Other Species of Concern......................................................................................................... 26

3.3. Social and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 26

3.3.1. Demographic and Economic Conditions................................................................................... 26

3.3.2. Recreational Resources............................................................................................................ 27

3.3.3. Cultural and Historic Resources................................................................................................ 28

3.3.4. Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................... 28

4.0. Areas of Concern Summary ..............................................................................................29

4.1. Transportation Conditions............................................................................................................... 29

4.2. Environmental Setting..................................................................................................................... 30

5.0. Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................32

6.0. Improvement Options........................................................................................................34

6.1. Option 1: Rehabilitation on Existing Alignment............................................................................... 35

6.2. Option 2: Rehabilitation with Improved Geometrics ....................................................................... 37

6.3. Option 3: Reconstruction with New Alignment ............................................................................... 39

6.4. Improvement Options Summary and Recommendations............................................................... 41

6.5. Additional Considerations ............................................................................................................... 42

7.0. Public Involvement............................................................................................................45

8.0. Conclusion and Next Steps................................................................................................46

References ................................................................................................................................48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Stream and River Crossings ........................................................................................................ 5

Table 2.2: Access Points Through Study Area ............................................................................................. 7

Table 2.3: Minimum Roadway Width ............................................................................................................ 8

Table 2.4: Pavement Condition and Roadway Width ................................................................................... 8

Table 2.5: Geometric Design Criteria – Collector Roads............................................................................ 13

Table 2.6: Geometric Design Criteria – Local Roads ................................................................................. 13

Table 2.7: Substandard Horizontal Curves ................................................................................................. 14

Table 2.8: Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 16

Table 2.9: Existing Vehicle Mix ................................................................................................................... 17

Table 6.1: Goals and Objectives Summary ................................................................................................ 41

Table 8.1: Summary of Options and Cost Estimate.................................................................................... 46

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2.1: Surface Water Features.............................................................................................................. 6

Figure 2.2: Pavement Condition and Roadway Width .................................................................................. 9

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 ii
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

Figure 2.3: Property Ownership .................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 2.4: Recreational Facilities............................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2.5: Crash Locations........................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 2.6: Other Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 6.1: Option 1 – Rehabilitation on Existing Alignment....................................................................... 36

Figure 6.2: Option 2: Rehabilitation with Improved Geometrics ................................................................. 38

Figure 6.3: Option 3: Reconstruction with New Alignment ......................................................................... 40

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Culvert Inventory

Appendix B: Traffic Data

Appendix C: Environmental Scan

Appendix D: Planning Level Cost Estimates

Appendix E: Public Meeting Summary

Appendix F: Public Comments Received

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 iii
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

ACS American Community Survey

ADT Average Daily Traffic

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BPSOU Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit

CIP Capital Improvements Plan

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FPPA Farmland Policy Protection Act

FWP Fish, Wildlife and Parks

GIS Geographic Information Systems

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MDT Montana Department of Transportation

MP Mile Post

MPDES Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

mph Miles Per Hour

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS National Forest System

NHP National Heritage Program

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service

PASER Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating

SOC Species of Concern

SSD Stopping Sight Distance

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS Unites States Geological Survey

vpd Vehicles Per Day

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 iv
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

1.0. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Roosevelt Drive provides access to over 73,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and

approximately 40,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, primarily in the Highland

Mountains south of Butte. The corridor also serves numerous private residences and is highly used by

permitted commercial timber, mining, and livestock grazing activities. Residential traffic uses the road yearround. During the winter, Roosevelt Drive is the only ingress/egress road for residents. During the summer,

Roosevelt Drive can be accessed from the west by Highland Road and from the south by Fish Creek Road.

Recognizing the deteriorating conditions of the roadway, and the use as a major access to federal lands,

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Butte-Silver Bow City-County and the

United States Forest Service (USFS), developed this planning study to identify potential improvements to

the Roosevelt Drive corridor. A key outcome of the study is the development of recommendations intended

to address the transportation and access needs of roadway users in the study area. The recommendations

define the most critical needs of the corridor and will help the study partners prioritize and allocate resources

to address the needs. This study reviews and considers environmental and social issues and aims to reduce

planning time and minimize construction costs through the demonstration of feasible improvement

opportunities.

The intent of this Preliminary Engineering Report is to analyze roadway conditions, identify areas of

concern, and develop improvement options for the study corridor. The transportation conditions analysis

includes a planning level examination of the corridor based on a variety of information sources and field

reviews. Goals and objectives for Roosevelt Drive are also identified based on a comprehensive review of

existing and projected transportation conditions. The analysis, together with the stated goals and objectives,

influenced the development of potential improvement options intended to address the identified issues and

areas of concern.

1.1. STUDY AREA

Roosevelt Drive begins at Montana Highway 2/US Highway 10,

approximately two and one-half miles south of Butte, Montana in

Silver Bow County. The roadway extends for approximately 4.3

miles and ends at the Roosevelt Drive Trailhead at Thompson Park.

The first 2.75 miles of the roadway is functionally classified as a

minor collector with the remaining 1.55 miles classified as a local

road. Figure 1.1 presents the study corridor.

The roadway offers recreational access to hiking, biking, camping,

hunting, horseback riding, motorized recreation, winter sports, and

wildlife viewing opportunities in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge

National Forest. Thompson Park, a Congressionally-designated

Municipal Recreation Area, is also accessed via Roosevelt Drive.

Thompson Park provides access to 25 miles of non-motorized

trails, campgrounds, and picnic areas. Several private residences

are also located along the last 1.55 miles of the corridor.

Roosevelt Drive provides access to

residences, recreational activities in

Thompson Park, and commercial activities.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BLACKTAIL CREEK

90

MONTANA 2

BLACKTAIL CREEK

ROOSEVELT DR

Milwaukee Road Trail

BLACKTAIL CREEK

ROOSEVELT DR

BLACKTAIL CREEK

HIGHLAND RD

LIME KILN RD

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

Sagebrush Flats

Map Legend

Study Corridor - Collector Road Eagle's Nest

POWELL

JEFFERSON GRANITE

90

Anaconda Study Corridor - Local Road 1 69 48 15

Butte-Silver Bow Placer Claim DEER LODGE Butte

US Forest Service Roosevelt Drive

Thompson Park Boundary Lower Eagle's Nest

National Forest Boundary

Trailhead

SILVER BOW 2

55

43

15 Picnic Area/Day Use Site BEAVERHEAD 41

Milwaukee Road Trail MADISON

Non-motorized Trail

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75Miles

Lion's Den

Begin Project

Begin Collector Road

MP 0.0 End Project

End Local Road Roosevelt Drive MP 4.3

Beaverhead-Dearlodge

National Forest 2

Beaver Pond

Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail

End Collector Road

Begin Local Road

MP 2.75

Figure 1.1: Study Area

1.2. HISTORIC CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

Roosevelt Drive was originally used as a mining trail in the early 1900s. As more residences were built and

traffic on the dirt road increased, Butte-Silver Bow laid down asphalt millings on the roadway to ease travel.

There was no formal design process and as-built plans/drawings of the roadway do not exist. During field

review it was observed that the roadway appears to have been paved over the asphalt millings at some

point, although no project documentation of this action has been found.

Preliminary Engineering Report 2 September 11, 2019
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

1.3. EXISTING PLANS AND REGULATIONS

Several local plans exist with goals and objectives related to the transportation system in the study area.

The following provides a summary of existing planning documents relevant to the Roosevelt Drive corridor.

 Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy (2008) – The Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy1

identifies a common community vision for future growth. The policy accounts for the unique setting,

population, housing, and economic patterns to provide ways for the community to use land in a way

that promotes health, safety, and efficient use of resources. There are two transportation-related

goals defined in the Growth Policy: to improve the condition of Butte-Silver Bow’s roadway

infrastructure; and to provide for improved and ongoing maintenance of existing parks and

recreation facilities. Land use and development goals are also defined and may influence future

growth in the study area.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge Travel Management Plan (2009) – The Record of Decision Enacting

Forest Plan Travel Management Direction for Certain Areas of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National

Forest 2 developed and analyzed several alternatives for managing public access and travel within

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The report identified a preferred alternative and

detailed the anticipated changes to public road access and modifications to the roads, trails, and

open space accessible to cars, ATVs, motorcycles, and snowmobiles. No changes were proposed

for Roosevelt Drive, however, nearly two miles of routes in the study area were closed to motorized

use, specifically the Roosevelt Drive non-motorized trail as shown in Figure 2.4.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge Land and Resource Management Plan (2009) – The BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan3 and the accompanying Final

Environmental Impact Statement4 guide all-natural resource management activities and establish

management standards for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. It describes resource

management practices; levels of resource production and management; and the availability and

suitability of lands for resource management within the forest. Roosevelt Drive is referenced in the

plan as a system road managed by the Forest Service.

 Butte Highlands Joint Venture Mine EIS (2014) – The Final Environmental Impact Statement for

the Proposed Butte Highlands Joint Venture Mine5 was developed for the Highlands Mine located

south of the study area. The mine is primarily accessible by Roosevelt Drive and Highland Road.

The report proposes Roosevelt Drive as a haul route for the mine, utilizing the first 2.75 miles of

the roadway before connecting to Highland Drive. The report estimates approximately 30 roundtrips

by haul vehicles per day, five days a week. To mitigate the proposed impacts, improvements to

stream crossings along Roosevelt Drive are proposed to reduce sediment input and provide aquatic

organism passage.

 Butte-Silver Bow Transportation Plan (2016 Update) – The Butte-Silver Bow Transportation

Plan6 offers guidance to support future growth and evolving transportation needs in the Butte-Silver

Bow area. The Plan includes an analysis of the existing traffic operations, road networks, transit

services, non-motorized transportation systems, and other transportation systems in the

community. It also offers recommended improvement projects which address the communities’

transportation needs. Roosevelt Drive is located outside the Butte Urban Boundary and is therefore

not within the study area boundary for the Transportation Plan. No projects were identified for

Roosevelt Drive.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

 Butte-Silver Bow Capital Improvement Plan (2017-2018) – The Butte-Silver Bow Capital

Improvement Plan and Capital Budget7 (CIP) forecasts future spending for all anticipated capital

projects. The CIP uses conservative financial forecasts and reflects only those projects with the

highest priority and most realistic expectation for completion during the next five years. The Road

Department capital budget for fiscal year 2018 is $1.5 million. The budget consists of $847,000 in

paving and chip seal projects and $653,000 in new equipment. No specific projects on Roosevelt

Drive were scheduled in the CIP for funding over the next five years. Based on this study’s findings,

the CIP program may be adjusted to make improvements in the Roosevelt Drive area.

Land use policy and development regulation in the study area is governed principally by Butte-Silver Bow.

Within the National Forest boundary, land use policy and regulations are dictated by the Land and Resource

Management Plan. Since the Roosevelt Drive study area falls primarily within County jurisdiction, it is

anticipated that projects brought forward in this planning study would be subject to County regulations.

However, coordination among federal, state, and local agency staff would be an essential component of

any projects that may arise.

1.4. CURRENT AND PLANNED PROJECTS

Improvements to stream crossings along Roosevelt Drive to reduce sediment input and provide aquatic

organism passage are proposed to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Highlands Mine south of the study

area. If Roosevelt Drive is selected as a haul route for mining activities, the mine will be responsible for

improving the roadway as described in the Environmental Impact Statement. No other projects are currently

planned for Roosevelt Drive.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

2.0. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

The following analysis of transportation conditions includes a planning level examination of the corridor

based on a variety of information sources including existing and historic traffic data, vehicle crash history,

field measurements and observations, roadway as-built plans, aerial imagery, geographic information

system (GIS) data, and input from local stakeholders. This analysis was used to identify areas of concern

for the Roosevelt Drive corridor.

2.1. PHYSICAL FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS

Roosevelt Drive serves numerous private residences and provides access to public lands for many

recreational visitors. The road had deteriorating conditions and is narrow in places with many sharp curves

and limited sight distances. The road parallels Blacktail Creek for the first 2.2 miles along rolling terrain

adjacent to Blacktail Creek. Butte-Silver Bow is primarily responsible for maintenance on Roosevelt Drive.

2.1.1. Hydraulics

Roosevelt Road crosses Blacktail Creek several times (see Table 2.1). Blacktail Creek provides a

substantial habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and western toad populations, both of which are listed as

sensitive species (see Section 3 for more detail). Roosevelt Drive also crosses some small, unnamed

tributaries of Blacktail Creek as well as several intermittent streams throughout the study area. Figure 2.1

presents the streams and other waterbodies present within study area.

Table 2.1: Stream and River Crossings

Name Approximate Location (MP) Crossing Structure

Blacktail Creek 0.12 Culvert

Blacktail Creek 0.34 Culvert

Blacktail Creek 0.50 Culvert

Blacktail Creek 0.52 Culvert

Blacktail Creek 0.58 Culvert

Blacktail Creek 0.68 Culvert

Blacktail Creek 0.89 Culvert

Blacktail Creek 1.05 Culvert

2.1.2. Bridges

There are no bridges on Roosevelt Drive. However, the trestle for the Milwaukee Road Trail crosses above

Roosevelt Drive at MP 1.0. One of the trestle piers is located within the clear zone on the right side of the

roadway. This, along with the curvature of the roadway and limited sight distance attributable to the cut

slope through this area, pose safety concerns at this location. Blacktail Creek has eroded the land

surrounding the piers and has also caused concern for stability of the piers.

2.1.3. Culverts

A total of 25 culverts were identified during the field review. Of those culverts, nine major culverts with a

diameter of 30 inches or more were identified. Approximately 56 percent of the culverts were in fair or good

conditions. Also noted during the field review was that many of the culverts appear to be undersized to

accommodate flow from Blacktail Creek and its tributaries.

Appendix A contains an inventory of each structure and lists the specification and condition of each culvert.

Figure 2.1. shows the locations of the culverts inventoried. All data contained in the appendices were

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLAC

M

K

O

TA

N

IL

TA

C

N

R

A

EE

2

K

ROOSEVELT DR

Milwaukee Road Trail

BLACKTAIL CREEK

ROOSEVELT DR

BLACKTAIL CREEK

HIGHLAND RD

LIME KILN RD

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

collected during field review and may differ from data in inspection reports compiled by Butte-Silver Bow

and/or the Forest Service. This analysis does not include a capacity assessment of the culverts nor does it

examine whether the culverts pass aquatic organisms.

Map Legend

Study Corridor

Trailhead

Milwaukee Road Trail

Intermittent Stream

Perennial Stream

Water Body

Culvert Condition1

Good

Fair

Poor

Not Applicable

1

As determined during field review.

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75Miles

Roosevelt Drive

Figure 2.1: Surface Water Features

2.1.4. Access Points

Access points were identified through field review and aerial photography. Based on this review, there are

approximately 44 access points along the corridor. Private approaches, recreational accesses, pullout

areas, and public roads were all considered access points. The access points were somewhat sporadic

along the corridor, with a greater concentration along the last 2.3 miles due to residential driveways. On

average, there were 4.5 access points per mile along first 2 miles of the corridor and 15.2 access points

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019

2

6
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

per mile along the last 2.3 miles of the corridor. In total, the corridor has just over 10 access points per mile.

Table 2.2 provides a summary of access point grouped by the collector and local road classifications.

Table 2.2: Access Points Through Study Area

Begin (MP) End (MP) Length (mi) Access Points Density (app/mi)

0.0 2.75

2.75 4.3

2.75

1.55

18

26

6.5

16.8

Total 4.3 44 10.2

There are a few pullout areas along the corridor used by recreationists as parking spots to access trails and

other recreational opportunities, by logging trucks and mining vehicles for passing purposes, and for snow

storage during the winter. Most notably, there is a small pullout area at the base of the Milwaukee Trail

trestle (MP 1.0) which is used for parking and access to the Milwaukee Trail. Erosion on the hillside where

people hike up to the Milwaukee Trail is evident as well, despite signs discouraging the activity. Another

point of concern is a small pullout area near MP 2.3 where a trail branches off a s-curve on Roosevelt Drive.

Safety concerns associated with limited sight distance and substandard roadway geometry are

compounded with inadequate space for roadway users because of parking on the roadside.

2.1.5. Roadway Surfacing

Roosevelt Drive is paved throughout the entire study area. There is a gravel trailhead at the terminus of

Roosevelt Drive at the Thompson Park trailhead. Existing roadway widths were determined during field

review and were measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Measurements were taken

approximately every half mile or when notable changes in pavement width were observed. Based on this

evaluation, existing roadway widths range between 18 and 25 feet.

The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric

Design of Highways and Streets (Greenbook)8 recommends a minimum roadway width of 28 to 30 feet,

depending on design speed. These standards apply to rural collectors with 400 to 2,000 vehicles per day

(vpd). For local roads, the Greenbook recommends a minimum width of 26 feet for roads carrying 400 to

2,000 vpd and with a design speed of 40 miles per hour (mph) or less.

Exceptions to these standards are allowed based on topographic constraints, environmental factors, etc.,

as approved by the road owner and maintainer. The Greenbook states that alternate design criteria may

be considered for minor collectors that carry 2,000 vpd or fewer in accordance with the AASHTO Guidelines

for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads9. The Very Low-Volume Local Roads guidance

recommends roadway widths ranging from 18 to 20 feet for new construction of roadways depending on

design speed and functional subclass. The guidance also states that the cross-section widths of existing

roads need not be modified except in those cases where there is evidence of site-specific safety problems.

Butte-Silver Bow Road Division Standard Drawings 10 also provide area specific guidance for roadway

design. A typical collector road has two 12-foot travel lanes and 1-foot shoulders for an overall pavement

width of 26 feet. A typical local road is recommended to have two 12-foot travel lanes and no shoulder for

an overall 24-foot pavement width. Table 2.3 summarizes the various requirements for roadway width

based on these resources.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 7
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

Table 2.3: Minimum Roadway Width

Standard

Design Speed (mph)

25 30 35 40 45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

AASHTO Greenbook*

Rural Collector Road 28 28 30 30 30

Rural Local Road 26 26 26 26

AASHTO Very Low Volume Local Roads

Minor Access 18 18 18 18 20

Recreational and Scenic 18 18 18 20

Butte Silver Bow Road Division Standard Drawings

Rural/Suburban Collector Road 26 26 26 26 26

Rural/Suburban Local Road 24 24 24 24 24

28

20

*Based on design volume of 400 to 2,000 vpd.

Pavement condition was also assessed as part of the field review process. A windshield survey of the

roadway was performed to assess the existing surfacing condition. The evaluation was completed using

methods and standards defined in the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) documents.

Based on this assessment, the pavement is generally in fair to poor condition. Physical deficiencies

observed during the evaluation include transverse and longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking, potholing,

flushing, rutting, distortion, edge erosion, and failing patches. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.2 show the PASER

ratings and roadway widths taken approximately every half-mile.

Table 2.4: Pavement Condition and Roadway Width

Begin (MP) End (MP) Length (mi) Width (ft) Surface Type PASER Rating

Collector Road

0.0 0.6 0.6 23 Paved 3 Poor

0.6 1.1 0.5 25 Paved 5 Fair

1.1 1.6 0.5 22 Paved 4 Fair

1.6 2.0 0.4 24 Paved 3 Poor

2.0 2.5 0.5 22 Paved 3 Poor

Local Road

2.5 2.9 0.4 22 Paved 4 Fair

2.9 3.2 0.3 22 Paved 4 Fair

3.2 3.7 0.5 20 Paved 4 Fair

3.7 4.2 0.5 18 Paved 4 Fair

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

Figure 2.2: Pavement Condition and Roadway Width

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

2

Milwaukee Road Trail

Roosevelt Drive

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

ROOSEVELT DR

Map Legend

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75Miles

PASER Rating1

1

Determined through windshield survey.

Failing

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Milwaukee Road Trail

Trailhead

Very Good

2.1.6. Maintenance and Operations

Butte-Silver Bow is primarily responsible for maintenance on Roosevelt Drive. This includes snow removal

and general maintenance of the roadway. The existing road conditions and narrow width make it difficult

for maintenance vehicles to complete repairs and other maintenance activities. The corridor also connects

to areas which are maintained by the Forest Service.

In addition to passenger vehicles and non-motorized modes, heavy vehicles including busses, emergency

vehicles, and mining vehicles also use the roadway. The Butte School District uses Roosevelt Drive as a

school bus route. The trailhead at the end of the study area is used as a turnaround point. The current road

condition hinders the ability for school buses and emergency vehicles to use the roadway, particularly

during the winter.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 9
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

2.1.7. Right-of-Way

Butte-Silver Bow Road Division Standard Drawings require 60 feet of right-of-way for both local and

collector roads. Butte-Silver Bow appears to have title for Roosevelt Drive through the study area, however,

roadway right-of-way is not well defined. Based on Montana cadastral data, much of the first two miles of

Roosevelt Drive lies within Forest Service land boundaries with the road existing in easement. Between MP

2.2 and 3.9, the land adjoining the road is privately owned with Roosevelt Drive passing through several

privately-held properties. It appears that Butte-Silver Bow has easements for the roadway on these

properties. From about MP 3.9 to 4.3, Butte-Silver Bow owns an approximate 50-foot wide right-of-way.

Figure 2.3 shows the public and private land ownership within the study area based on cadastral data.

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

2

Milwaukee Road Trail

Roosevelt Drive

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

ROOSEVELT DR

Map Legend

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75Miles

Property Owner

Study Corridor

Trailhead

Milwaukee Road Trail

Private

Butte-Silver Bow

US Forest Service

Figure 2.3: Property Ownership

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 10
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

2.1.8. Utilities

Several utilities are located within the study area. Utilities identified include underground and overhead

power along with underground fiber optics. The utilities exist along both sides of the roadway and cross the

road both underground and above ground in several locations.

2.1.9. Recreational Opportunities

There are numerous recreational opportunities

accessed by the corridor. The first 2.75 miles

of Roosevelt Drive is highly used by

recreationists. Highland Road and Lime Kiln

Road stem off Roosevelt Drive and provide

access to several recreation opportunities in

the Highland Mountain Range. Popular

recreation activities include hunting, motorized

recreation, hiking, mountain biking, and

horseback riding. The first 2.75 miles of

Roosevelt Drive are also part of the Adventure

Cycling Great Divide Mountain Bike Route.

The historic townsite of Highland City and the

Highland Lookout are both accessed via

Roosevelt Drive and are popular visitor

destinations.

The remaining 1.55 miles of Roosevelt Drive provides access to private residences and connects to

Thompson Park at the Roosevelt Drive Trailhead. Thompson Park is in the National Forest with access to

25 miles of non-motorized trails, campgrounds, and picnic areas. From the Roosevelt Drive trailhead, two

trails are accessible: Herman Gulch Trail which is a motorized trail and leads to the Highland Mountains;

and the Crook Camp Trail which is accessible by foot, bike, or horse. Other nearby recreation areas include

the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and the Basin Creek Watershed. The Milwaukee Road RailTrail also crosses Roosevelt Drive at approximate MP 1.0. The Milwaukee Trail is a four-mile trail which

goes through two tunnels and across a trestle (which spans Roosevelt Drive) on the former Chicago,

Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad. The trail is used year-round and is groomed during the winter. Figure

2.4 shows the locations of the various recreational opportunities within the study area.

The popular Milwaukee Road Rail-Trail crosses Roosevelt Drive via a

tressel with piers located within the roadside clear zone.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

Figure 2.4: Recreational Facilities

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CREEK

2

Milwaukee Road Trail

Orman Camp Trail

Gradling Creek Trail

Grading Camp Trail

Roosevelt Drive

Herman Gulch

Crook Camp Trail

Lions Den Trail

Placer Trail

Graham Canyon Trail

Beaverhead-Dearlodge

National Forest

Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail

Lion's Den

Beaver Pond

Eagle's Nest

Roosevelt Drive

Sagebrush Flats

Lower Eagle's Nest

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

ROOSEVELT DR

Map Legend

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75Miles

Trailhead

Picnic Area/Day Use Site

National Forest Boundary

Thompson Park Boundary

Non-motorized Trail

Motorized Trail

Study Corridor

Milwaukee Road Trail

2.2. GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS

Existing roadway geometrics were evaluated and compared to current standards. As-built drawings were

not available for the study corridor, so information obtained from field review and aerial photography was

used to document exiting roadway geometrics.

2.2.1. Design Criteria

The AASHTO Greenbook specifies general design principles and controls that determine the overall

operational characteristics of the roadway. Of critical importance to determining design standards is the

design speed. AASHTO’s manuals provide guidance for design speed based on facility and operating

characteristics; however, some judgment is necessary. A facility’s design speed and its operating speed

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 12
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

may differ. The design speed is a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features

of the roadway. The operating speed is the highest overall speed at which a driver may travel on a given

section of roadway under favorable weather conditions and prevailing traffic conditions without at any time

exceeding the safe speed as determined by the design speed.

Tables 2.5 and 2.6 list current design standards for rural collector roads and rural local roads, respectively,

according to AASHTO design criteria. The highway design criteria depend on terrain, area context (i.e.,

urban or rural), and daily traffic volumes. Based on the definitions provided in the Greenbook, the study

corridor appears to be of rural context under rolling terrain, with projected traffic volumes between 200 and

1,000 vpd. This correlates to a likely design speed of 40 mph on the first 2.75 miles of the corridor and a

design speed of 30 mph on the last 1.55 miles. Note that the speed limit is signed 25 mph along the corridor.

For the purposes of this report, a design speed of 40 mph with associated design standards was assumed

for the part of Roosevelt Drive that is classified as a collector road and a design speed of 30 mph for the

section that is classified as a local road. A final determination of design speed will ultimately be made during

project development.

Table 2.5: Geometric Design Criteria – Collector Roads

Design Element

Design Criteria

0 to 400 vpd 400 to 2,000 vpd Over 2,000 vpd

Design

Control

Design Speed

Level 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph

Rolling 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph

Mountainous 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph

Alignment Elements

Design Speed 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph

Maximum Grade

Level 7% 7% 6%

Rolling 9% 8% 7%

Mountainous 10% 10% 9%

Vertical Curvature (K value) Crest 19 44 84

Sag 37 64 96

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) 200 305 425

Radius 215 444 758

Table 2.6: Geometric Design Criteria – Local Roads

Design Element

Design Criteria

50 to 250 vpd 250 to 400 vpd 400 to 2,000 vpd

Design

Control

Design Speed

Level 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph

Rolling 30 mph 30 mph 40 mph

Mountainous 20 mph 20 mph 30 mph

Alignment Elements

Design Speed 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph

Maximum Grade

Level 8% 7% 7%

Rolling 11% 10% 10%

Mountainous 16% 14% 13%

Vertical Curvature (K value) Crest 7 19 44

Sag 17 37 64

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) 115 200 305

Radius 76 214 444

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 13
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

2.2.2. Horizontal Alignment

Elements comprising horizontal alignment include curvature, superelevation (i.e., the bank on the road),

and sight distance. These horizontal alignment elements influence traffic operation and safety and relate

directly to the design speed of the corridor. AASHTO’s design standards for horizontal curves are defined

in terms of curve radius, and they vary based on design speed. For a 40-mph design speed (collector road),

the minimum recommended radius is 444 feet with a minimum stopping sight distance (SSD) of 305 feet.

For a 30-mph design speed (local road), the minimum recommended radius is 214 feet with a minimum

SSD of 200 feet.

Horizontal curve radii along the Roosevelt Drive corridor were estimated based on aerial photography. Nine

horizontal curves were identified that appear to not meet current AASHTO standards based on design

speed. All nine curves are on the portion of Roosevelt Drive that is classified as a collector road. Several

of these curves, although substandard in radius, are very short in length and are not necessarily a concern

for sight distance. Table 2.7 provides a summary of the substandard horizontal curves.

Table 2.7: Substandard Horizontal Curves

Milepost

0.50

Radius (ft)*

65

Design Speed Met

15

0.65 375 35

0.86 325 35

0.98 325 35

1.04 225 30

1.13 325 35

1.71 200 25

2.20 150 25

2.33 200 25

*Estimated based on field review and aerial photography.

2.2.3. Vertical Alignment

Vertical alignment is a measure of the elevation change of a roadway. The length and steepness of grades

directly affect the operational characteristics of the roadway. The controlling design limits for vertical curves

are SSD, vertical curvature (K-value), and maximum grade. Vertical curves can be placed into two

categories: crest and sag. A crest curve is created at the top of a hill or when the grade decreases.

Conversely, a sag curve occurs at the bottom of a hill or when the grade increases.

Butte-Silver Bow Road Division Standard Drawings state that the maximum grade for both local and

collector streets of rural context shall be 7 percent for flat and rolling terrain and 9 percent for hilly

(mountainous) terrain. AASHTO standards state that the maximum allowable grades for a 40-mph design

speed on a collector road are 7 percent for level terrain, 8 percent for rolling terrain, and 10 percent for

mountainous terrain. For a 30-mph design speed on a local road, the maximum allowable grades are 7

percent for level terrain, 10 percent for rolling terrain, and 14 percent for mountainous terrain.

No vertical curvature data for the roadway was available for review. However, during the field review there

was one location (near MP 2.3) observed to have a steep grade leading into a sharp turn. Although the

grade is not greater than the maximum allowable grade, this location has exhibited a trend of single-vehicle

crashes.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

2.2.4. Intersection Alignment

Geometric design of intersections can impact roadway safety by

shaping user expectations and defining how to safely move through

the intersection where many conflicts exist. There are many design

considerations associated with intersections including sight

distance, alignment, profile, channelization, and turning

movements. There are two primary intersections in the study area,

both of which have non-standard geometrics. At the beginning of

the corridor, Roosevelt Drive and Highway 2 intersect at an

approximate 45-degree angle. The skew of this intersection

presents concerns for sight distance, driver confusion, and difficult

turning movements. Skewed intersections tend to have more

frequent right-angle type crashes. AASHTO design standards

recommend angles no more than 15 degrees from perpendicular (i.e.

between 75 and 105 degrees). In addition to the sharp skew angle,

Highway 2 begins a vertical climb immediately adjacent to the

intersection, leading to further sight distance issues.

The intersection of Highway 2 and

Roosevelt Drive is a skewed intersection

with non-standard geometrics and sight

distance issues.

The second intersection, Roosevelt Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Highland

Road, is located at MP 2.7. The intersection of these roadways

essentially forms a triangle with three separate intersections. At the

first point, Roosevelt Drive curves right while Highland Road (also

named Moose Creek Road/Shiloh Lane) continues straight ahead.

There is a yield sign on the Roosevelt Drive approach leg as it

merges with Highland Road. Approximately 500 feet away, where

Roosevelt Drive and Lime Kiln Road intersect, the intersection is

skewed at a 45-degree angle with two private driveways branching

off from the intersection. The community cluster mailbox is also

located at this intersection. The third intersection in this “triangle”

(Lime Kiln Road and Highland Road) is a typical uncontrolled four-leg

intersection. While the intersection experiences typically low traffic

volumes, the non-standard alignment and traffic control can result in

driver confusion and overall safety concern for users.

2.2.5. Sight Distance

Sight distance is the length of roadway visible to a driver and is influenced by the geometry of the road

(horizontal or vertical curves) and obstacles alongside the road. Sight distance is commonly defined in three

ways: passing sight distance, stopping sight distance, and intersection sight distance. In general, the driver

of a vehicle should have an unobstructed view and enough distance to perceive, react, and safely stop for

or avoid approaching vehicles and other hazards.

Although roadway geometrics are not available, observations during the field review showed locations with

limited sight distance due to geometrics or vegetation:

 MP 0.5: Sharp horizontal curve with vegetation

 MP 1.0: Horizontal curve with steep cut slope at Milwaukee Trail trestle.

 MP 1.7: Sharp horizontal curve with steep cut slope

 MP 2.3: Sharp horizontal s-curves with vegetation

 MP 2.9: Compound horizontal/vertical curve

The intersection of Roosevelt Drive/Lime

Kiln Road/Highland Road essentially

forms a triangle with three separate

intersections. The intersection is used to

access the community mailboxes.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

2.2.6. Clear Zone

The FHWA defines a clear zone as the unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop

safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. The width of the clear zone is based on traffic

volumes, speeds, and slopes. Clear roadsides consider both fixed objects and terrain that may cause

vehicles to rollover. Due to the low average daily traffic (ADT), low speed, and rural context of Roosevelt

Drive, a clear zone of 7 to 10 feet with recoverable side slopes is recommended by AASHTO. Butte-Silver

Bow Road Division Standard Drawings recommend 10 feet of clear zone on local and collector roadways.

While no cross-sectional data were available to evaluate clear zone distances, the majority of the roadway

that parallels Blacktail Creek does not have adequate recoverable side slopes and has minimal clear zones.

2.3. TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Roosevelt Drive has a varied vehicle mix with residential, commercial, and recreational traffic. The first 2.75

miles of the roadway serves higher traffic volumes and provides connectivity to multiple recreation areas.

The last 1.55 miles serves local use and provides access to residential properties and ends at the Roosevelt

Drive Trailhead. Passenger cars, heavy trucks/mining vehicles, ATVs, bicycles, and pedestrians are all

common on the roadway.

2.3.1. Existing Traffic Volumes

Butte-Silver Bow provided ADT estimates for Roosevelt Drive. The estimates show that the beginning

stretch of the corridor has daily traffic volumes of less than 200 vpd. The last 1.55-mile was estimated to

have less than 100 vpd. With increased recreation in the summer and in hunting season, the estimated

peak season ADT is estimated to range from 500 to 1,000 vpd at the beginning of the study area and 200

vpd at the end of Roosevelt Drive.

To supplement the Butte-Silver Bow estimates, traffic data were collected between July 25 and August 1,

2019 (see Appendix B). This week was selected to gather data during a typical summer recreational week.

Road tubes were set up at four sites along the corridor: near the beginning of the road (MP 0.1); before the

intersection with Lime Kiln Road (MP 2.7); after the intersection with Lime Kiln Road (MP 2.9); at the end

of Roosevelt Drive (MP 4.2). Table 2.8 presents the ADT data collected at these sites.

Table 2.8: Existing Traffic Volumes

Location Weekday ADT (vpd) Weekend ADT (vpd) Combined ADT (vpd)

Beginning of Roosevelt Drive (MP 0.1) 424 432 426

Before Lime Kiln Road (MP 2.7) 350 361 350

After Lime Kiln Road (MP 2.9) 123 83 114

End of Roosevelt Drive (MP 4.2) 24 22 21

As can be seen from the traffic data, volumes decrease with distance along Roosevelt Drive. The data

shows that nearly one-third of the traffic volume beginning on Roosevelt Drive does not travel as far as the

Lime Kiln Road intersection. The volume drops by more than half again along the roadway past Lime Kiln

Road. The traffic at the end of Roosevelt Drive is likely all recreational since the roadway dead ends at the

trailhead.

2.3.2. Projected Traffic Volumes

Butte-Silver Bow staff estimated 20-year projected ADT based on population growth and expanded

recreation opportunities. On the beginning stretch of the study area, Butte-Silver Bow predicts an ADT of

200 to 500 vpd with a seasonal ADT of 500 to 1,000 vpd. On the last stretch of Roosevelt Drive, ADTs are

projected to be near 200 year-round with little seasonal variation.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 16
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

2.3.3. Heavy Vehicle Traffic

Heavy vehicles are known to use the beginning stretch of Roosevelt Drive. Current estimates show about

three percent of vehicles on the roadway being heavy vehicles. Heavy truck traffic is rare on the last stretch

of the study area and is projected to remain that way. Heavy truck traffic may increase substantially over

the next 20 years if the Highlands Mine opens and chooses to use Roosevelt Drive as a hauling route. The

2015 Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the mine approved two hauling routes, one of which

uses Roosevelt Drive. The mine owners may choose to use either or both of the routes. Traffic from ore

trucks and other mine related vehicles is expected to produce approximately 166 total round trips per week

on the first 2.75 miles of Roosevelt Drive.

Supplemental traffic data collected in July/August 2019 shows that heavy vehicles make up a small

percentage of the vehicle mix on Roosevelt Drive. Table 2.9 shows the total heavy vehicles that used

Roosevelt Drive over the weeklong data collection period as well as the total percent of the existing vehicle

mix. According to the available traffic data, heavy vehicles currently account for less than three percent of

total vehicles on Roosevelt Drive.

2.3.4. Alternative Transportation Modes

While there are no dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities along the corridor, biking, walking, and running

activities are common and could increase with road improvements. The first 2.75 miles of Roosevelt Drive

is part of a nationally recognized Great Divide mountain bike route administered by Adventure Cycling. This

segment of roadway is used in two major touring/mountain biking events – the Great Divide Ride and the

Butte 100. Both events use Roosevelt Drive as access to the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail which

joins Lime Kiln Road about 3.5 miles south of Roosevelt Drive. The Butte 100 also utilizes Roosevelt Drive

to access an aid station farther up the road. Safety concerns for non-motorists exist due to narrow road

widths, sharp curves, limited sight distances, and lack of dedicated facilities. ATVs and other off-highway

vehicles are reported to use Roosevelt Drive often to access a popular trail that is used yearlong.

Supplemental traffic data collected in July/August 2019 shows that bicycles make up a small percentage of

the vehicle mix on Roosevelt Drive. Table 2.9 shows the total bicycles that used Roosevelt Drive over the

weeklong data collection period as well as the total percent of the existing vehicle mix. According to the

available traffic data, bicycles account for less than four percent of total vehicles on Roosevelt Drive. As

seen in Table 2.9, there appear to be more heavy vehicles and bicycles at the Lime Kiln Road intersection

than at the beginning of the study area. It is likely that these higher volumes are attributable to trips

concerning the community mailboxes (i.e. a bike traveling to the mailbox and back home or a UPS/mail

truck making deliveries).

Table 2.9: Existing Vehicle Mix

Location

Heavy Vehicles Bicycles

Total (%) Total (%)

Beginning of Roosevelt Drive (MP 0.1) 21 0.7 45 1.5

Before Lime Kiln Road (MP 2.7) 26 1.1 50 2.0

After Lime Kiln Road (MP 2.9) 6 0.8 15 1.9

End of Roosevelt Drive (MP 4.2) 4 2.4 6 3.7

2.4. SAFETY

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) provided crash data on Roosevelt Drive from January

1, 2009, to December 31, 2018. Records show 35 crashes occurring within the study area during the crash

analysis period. Of the recorded crashes, 2 resulted in serious injuries, 6 resulted in minor injuries, 2

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 17
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9)

resulted in possible injuries, and 25 resulted in property damage only. A serious injury is defined as an

injury, other than a fatality, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving, or normally continuing

the activities the person was capable of performing before injury. Figure 2.5 presents the spatial distribution

of the crash data for the 10-year analysis period. Note that this evaluation only includes those crashes

reported by a patrolling officer. Given the location and rural context of the roadway, there are likely additional

crashes that have occurred which went unreported.

2.4.1. Safety Trends, Contributing Factors, and Crash Clusters

During the 10-year crash analysis period, four crashes occurred per year, on average. Crashes were more

common in the winter months with almost 60 percent of crashes occurring between October and February.

Approximately half of the crashes occurred on a Saturday or Sunday. Half of the crashes also occurred

during the evening hours between 4:00 and 11:00 PM.

All but two crashes involved a single vehicle. The main crash types were fixed object crashes (21) and

rollover crashes (10). In the fixed object crashes the driver primarily collided with a ditch (13) or tree (5);

one vehicle appears to have collided with the trestle pier for Milwaukee Road Trail. Road surface condition

was listed as a contributing circumstance in 18 of the crashes. Six of the crashes (three fixed object, two

rollover, and one not-fixed object) involved an impaired driver.

Most of the crashes (21) occurred when the roads were snowy, wet,

slushy, icy, or frost covered while 13 occurred under dry road

conditions, and 1 when the road was covered with mud or dirt. Most

of the crashes (15) occurred when it was cloudy, 14 when it was clear,

5 when it was raining or snowing, and one when it was foggy.

Approximately half of the crashes (16) occurred during the daylight

while 16 occurred under dark conditions, 2 during dusk, and 1 during

dawn.

All of the crashes occurred within the first 2.75 miles of the roadway.

An analysis of the location of crashes show three key crash clusters.

One cluster of 10 crashes occurred at the first 90-degree corner of

Roosevelt Drive (MP 0.5). The reported crashes were primarily fixed

object crashes (7). In nearly all of the crashes, the driver went off the

left side of the roadway and collided with the ditch/embankment. The

other crashes were roll over (2) and sideswipe crashes (1). Dark

lighting conditions and/or adverse road conditions were reported in

most of the crashes.

There is another cluster of 10 crashes at the corner where the trestle

for the Milwaukee Road Trail is immediately adjacent to Roosevelt

Drive (MP 1.0). This location has a short, but sharp horizontal curve

and a steep side cut slope resulting in difficult sight lines. The location

of the trestle pier within the roadside clear zone further creates a

safety hazard. The crash records show that in one of the crashes in

this area, the vehicle collided with the trestle pier, however, evidence

of other crashes with the pier were noted during the field review. Between MP 2.2 and 2.4 there is an scurve with tight combination

A cluster of 8 crashes occurred at horizontal/vertical curves. The steep cut the s-curve section (MP 2.2 to 2.4).

slope, vegetation, and parking along the The crashes that were reported in this section were roll over (4), fixed road limits sight distance at this location.

object (3), and sideswipe (1) crashes. The s-curves are tight

horizontal curves with limited sight distance due to the steep cut slope

At MP 0.5 there is a sharp 90-degree

curve with vegetation obscuring drivers’

sight lines. A cluster of 10 crashes were

reported here.

Preliminary Engineering Report

September 11, 2019 18
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 19

and vegetation. There is also a trail that branches from Roosevelt Drive which is used by hunters and other 

recreationists near this location. At times there are vehicles parked alongside the roadway at this location 

which reduces sight distances further and creates additional hazards. 

Figure 2.5: Crash Locations 

2.5. OTHER VULNERABILITIES

There are locations along the corridor where natural land events, including landslides and erosion, have 

occurred. The following sections discuss these areas and how they may impact future road design, 

maintenance, and repair work on Roosevelt Drive. Figure 2.6 presents these additional vulnerabilities along 

the study corridor as identified during the field review. 

 

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

2 Roll Over Sideswipe, 

Opposite Direction Roll Over Roll Over Fixed Object

Fixed Object

Fixed Object

Not Fixed Object or Debris Roll Over Fixed Object Milwaukee Road Trail Roosevelt Drive

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

RO SEVELT DR

Map Legend

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.125 Miles 1

January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2018

Crash Injury Severity1 Possible Injury 

Minor Injury

Serious Injury Milwaukee Road Trail Trailhead Study Corridor

Property Damage Only
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 20

Landslides 

Two landslides have occurred within the study area. One started at 

MP 1.3 and extended along 1,000 feet of Roosevelt Drive 

encompassing approximately 4.5 acres. A second landslide started 

at MP 2.0 and extended along Roosevelt Drive for approximately 500 

feet encompassing a slide area of about 0.3 acres. Both landslides 

occurred on the right side of the roadway. The slides have both 

stabilized and are rated as being of low severity at this time. 

A hazard area for landslides also exists at the eastern end of the 

study area, beginning at Highway 2 and extending east. The hazard 

area is categorized as Area 3 or as having potential for rockfall/debris 

flow near urban areas. The area is especially vulnerable to rockfall 

hazards if the area were to burn in a forest fire. Development on 

known slide deposits should be avoided because they are prone to 

reactivation or have the potential for new slide to develop at the same 

location. 

Drainage/Erosion 

Improper drainage on a roadway can lead to serious erosion issues. 

When water falls on roads and is not removed promptly, the water 

seeps into lower layers of the pavement, weakens the soil which can 

compromise the soil’s stability and undermine the capacity of the 

pavement to carry traffic. There were several locations along the 

corridor observed to have poor drainage during field review. In some 

locations with poor drainage there were existing culverts built to 

divert water from the roadway. Some culvert sections have been 

detached allowing water to pool along the roadside. There were also 

many locations where culverts were undersized or non-existent. 

During peak runoff times, floodwaters from Blacktail Creek flow over 

and across Roosevelt Drive in multiple locations. 

Several locations where erosion was occurring causing slope 

failures, pavement degradation, and sedimentation were 

documented along Roosevelt Drive. The erosion in most of these 

locations was caused by improper drainage, although erosion can 

also be caused by inadequate road design as well as general wear 

and tear. 

Subgrade 

As mentioned previously in Section 2.1.5, the pavement throughout 

the study area is generally in poor condition. There are several 

locations along the roadway where the pavement experiences 

failures including transverse and longitudinal cracking, alligator 

cracking, potholing, flushing, rutting, distortion, edge erosion, and 

failing patches. The cause of these failures is typically a weakened 

or deteriorating subgrade. This distress on the pavement can be 

caused by a variety of factors including poor drainage, erosion, frost 

heave, lack of compaction, or weak materials. In one location, near 

MP 0.65, an asphalt repair patch was noted as failing likely due to a 

weak or poorly compacted subgrade. 

Two landslides have occurred in the study 

area. The slides have been stabilized. 

Culverts help control drainage to reduce 

erosion. About 45 percent of culverts in the 

study area are in poor condition. 

There are several locations where the 

pavement experiences failures including 

cracking, potholing, flushing, rutting, 

distortion, edge erosion, and failing patches. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 21

Figure 2.6: Other Vulnerabilities 

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

2 Milwaukee Road Trail Roosevelt Drive

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

RO SEVELT DR

Map Legend

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.125 Miles Deficiency

Drainage Erosion

Landslide Other 1As determined during field review.

Severity1 Medium

Low

High Milwaukee Road Trail Trailhead Study Corridor
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 22

3.0. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

As with any potential roadway improvement project, the current and potential environmental conditions 

need to be considered. The majority of environmental concerns within the study area that may impact 

project development relate to Blacktail Creek and the habitat it provides. Blacktail Creek crosses Roosevelt 

Drive several times throughout the study area. Culverts have been placed to control these crossings 

however there are locations where culverts are undersized, do not allow fish passage, or erosion from the 

water has compromised the stability of the roadway. The steam and surrounding wetlands provide a 

substantial habitat that supports diverse populations of fish and wildlife including westslope cutthroat trout 

and western toad species which are considered sensitive species by the USFS. 

The geologic characteristics of the study area also make it prone to landslide and earthquake hazards. 

Improvements made to Roosevelt Drive, especially roadway widening, have the potential to trigger geologic 

events. Geotechnical investigations would be required for reconstruction or significant improvements to 

Roosevelt Drive to determine potential stability, erosion, and settlement concerns posed by surface geology 

and soil conditions. 

An Environmental Scan (see Appendix C) has been prepared documenting the current environmental 

conditions. This section provides a summary of the Environmental Scan which includes a planning‐level 

overview of resources and identifies potential constraints and opportunities based on readily available 

environmental information. Improvement projects forwarded from this planning project which may impact 

Blacktail Creek, the species supported by the watershed, the land surrounding the roadway, and the nearby 

populations will need to be considered. Project‐level environmental analysis would be required for any 

improvements forwarded from this study. Information contained in the Environmental Scan may be used to 

support future environmental documentation. 

3.1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The following sections present an overview of items related to the physical environment of the study area. 

3.1.1. Land Ownership and Land Use 

The land in the study area is primarily owned by the USFS and private landowners. The privately-owned 

parcels are not zoned by Butte-Silver Bow; however, the Butte-Silver Bow Growth Policy Update11 classifies 

these parcels as RD 10 (Rural District 10) and recommends rural residential development with a minimum 

density of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres and encourages limited agricultural related uses. Outdoor or seasonal 

recreational and related commercial uses requiring large land areas are also consistent with land use 

recommendations for RD 10 areas. The USFS lands in the study area are designated as public/open space 

in the Growth Policy Update. The study area and adjacent lands are primarily used for residential use, 

grazing, timber activity, mining, and recreation. If any improvement options are forwarded from the study, 

additional research and coordination would be needed to determine impacts to existing right-of-way or 

easements on private and USFS lands. 

3.1.2. Soil Resources and Prime Farmland 

The Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) (7 U.S.C. 4201 et. seq.) requires special consideration be given 

to soils considered as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The FPPA is intended to 

minimize the impact Federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. The study area is included in the Deer Lodge National Forest Area soil survey area 

mapped by the NRCS. Based on the available mapping data, there are no soils classified as prime farmland, 

unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance in the study area. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 23

3.1.3. Geologic Hazards 

The Butte area is in a moderate to high seismic risk zone and the area has seen several earthquakes 

ranging from magnitude 0.1 up to 3.0. Two earthquake events (in 1984 and 2005) were recorded near 

Roosevelt Drive. Both earthquake events were shallow and were of magnitudes under 1.5. Several other 

earthquake events ranging in magnitude have occurred in the areas surrounding the study area, primarily 

to the east. 

Two talus landslides have occurred within the study area. Talus landslides are characteristically rockfall or 

rockslidesand are common in areas with aprons of rock debris at the base of cliffs or steep slopes covered 

by rock fragments. One of the recorded landslides begins near MP 1.3 and extends for approximately 1,000 

feet along Roosevelt Drive. The second landslide is located near MP 2.0 and extends for approximately 

500 feet along the roadway. A hazard area for landslides also exists at the eastern end of the study area, 

beginning at Highway 2 and extending east. 

Geotechnical investigations would be required for reconstruction or significant improvements to Roosevelt 

Drive to determine potential stability, erosion, and settlement concerns posed by surface geology and soil 

conditions. 

3.1.4. Surface Waters 

The study area lies entirely within the Upper Clark Fork Watershed 

as delineated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). 

Roosevelt Drive parallels Blacktail Creek and crosses the stream 

several times within the first 2.2 miles of the study area (near MPs 

0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.9 and 1.1). Blacktail Creek is a perennial, fishbearing stream. Roosevelt Drive also crosses some small, 

unnamed tributaries of Blacktail Creek as well as several 

intermittent streams throughout the study area. 

Road construction and reconstruction activities such as culvert 

installation or replacement, placement of fill, or bank stabilization 

have the potential for impacts to surface waters. Coordination with 

federal, state, and local agencies would be necessary to determine 

the appropriate permits based on the improvement options 

forwarded from this study. Impacts should be avoided and 

minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to streams 

and wetlands may trigger compensatory mitigation requirements. 

There are no water bodies within the study area that do not meet water quality standards. However, the 

Silver Bow Creek Watershed Restoration Plan12 indicates that Blacktail Creek has elevated levels of 

nutrients from residential development along the river. Excess sediments from road crossings and 

encroachment on the river are also present. Large areas of coniferous forest killed by pine beetles pose a 

wildfire threat in the area. A large wildfire could increase sediment load levels in Blacktail Creek and 

threaten the fish habitat. 

In Montana, stormwater management is regulated by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ). A Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) general permit is required for 

stormwater discharges from construction activities that result in the disturbance of equal to or greater than 

one acre of land area. The applicability of this MPDES permits for Roosevelt Drive would need to be 

reviewed for any projects brought forward from the study. 

Roosevelt Drive parallels Blacktail Creek 

for the first 2.2 miles of the study area. 

Blacktail Creek is a perennial, fishbearing stream. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 24

3.1.5. Groundwater 

Records maintained by the Groundwater Information Center at the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

show approximately 25 wells are located within the study area. Well depths vary by individual location, but 

the majority of wells drilled in the study area have been drilled to depths of less than 100 feet. Static water 

levels vary considerably but generally range from 5 to 40 feet below the ground surface in most locations. 

Impacts to the groundwater supply should be considered in any improvement option that may be brought 

forward from the planning study. 

3.1.6. Floodplains and Floodways 

Roosevelt Drive lies within Zone D as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Areas in Zone D have possible but undetermined flood hazards as no analysis of flood hazards has been 

conducted. Coordination with the Butte-Silver Bow floodplain administrator will be necessary to determine 

the need for a floodplain permit if any improvement options are advanced from this study. 

3.1.7. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 

Available data primarily freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater ponds, freshwater scrub-shrub 

wetlands, riparian emergent wetlands, and riparian scrub-shrub along Blacktail Creek and other 

waterbodies in the study area. Wetland delineations would be required if improvement options are 

forwarded from the planning study that could potentially affect wetlands. Future projects in the study area 

would need to incorporate project design features to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on wetlands to 

the maximum extent practicable. Various state and federal water quality permits may be required to 

implement construction projects on Roosevelt Drive. 

3.1.8. Hazardous Substances 

The following summarizes potential hazardous sites within the study area: 

 National Priority List (Superfund) Sites: The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site is 

located in and around Butte and includes 26 miles of stream and streamside habitat downstream 

from Butte. The Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) is in the Butte portion of the Silver Bow 

Creek/Butte Area Site. It includes the Town of Walkerville, part of Butte north of lower Silver Bow 

Creek and west of the Berkeley Pit, and a section of land that extends south from lower Silver Bow 

Creek to Timber Butte. It includes the contaminated alluvial aquifer that results from BPSOU 

surface contamination and surface water in lower Silver Bow Creek and Blacktail Creek within the 

BPSOU boundary. The Roosevelt Drive study area is not within the BPSOU. 

 Hazardous Waste Release Sites: There are no hazardous waste release sites in the study area. 

 Abandoned and Inactive Mine Sites: The study area is located within the Basin Creek Mining 

District. Two abandoned or inactive mine sites exist near the study area but are not likely to be 

impacted by projects forwarded from this study. An unnamed location and a site named the Clark 

Property are both lode mine sites. The Butte-Highland Mine, about 5.5 miles southwest of the study 

area, is an underground gold mine. The mine was first in operation in the early 1900s. The 

permitting process is underway to resume operation of the mine. The mine may impact traffic on 

Roosevelt Drive. 

 Underground Storage Tanks: No underground storage tanks are in the study area. 

 Remediation Response Sites. No remediation response sites were identified in the study area. 

 Petroleum Tank Releases: No petroleum tank releases were identified in the study area. 

Based on available information, there appears to be a low likelihood of encountering contaminated materials 

in the study area. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 25

3.1.9. Air Quality 

Butte is considered a nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM10). However, the study area is located 

outside the designated PM10 Nonattainment Area Boundary. Since the study area is considered in 

attainment for all pollutants, federally-funded transportation projects on Roosevelt Drive by the FHWA would 

not be subject to conformity requirements.

3.1.10. Noise 

Residences in the study area comprise the only sensitive noise receptors that could be affected by roadway 

improvements on Roosevelt Drive. Detailed noise analyses are often conducted when the potential for 

noise impacts exists due to substantial changes in roadway design or configuration. However, given the 

rural environment, low volumes of traffic, and dispersed nature of residences in the study area, noise 

impacts resulting from potential roadway improvements are unlikely. Construction activities associated with 

improvements to Roosevelt Drive may result in localized and temporary noise impacts in the vicinity of 

residences. These impacts can be minimized by incorporating measures to control of noise sources during 

construction. 

3.2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The following information applies to the biological environment within the study area and reflects a baseline 

natural resource condition. Depending on the level of detail available through the high-level baseline scan, 

some of the information is presented at the county level, some at the study area level, and some at the 

corridor level. 

3.2.1. Vegetation 

Five vegetation types cover the majority of the Roosevelt Drive study area: mixed broadleaf and coniferous 

forest, sagebrush, riparian, montane parks and meadows, and low to moderate cover grasses. The 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is dominated primarily by pine and fir species including the 

lodgepole pine, douglas fir, subalpine fir, and ponderosa pine. Aspen trees are also present in the study 

area. Willow, alder, birch and red osier dogwood are among the most abundant shrub species in riparian 

zones. 

Invasive weeds are a growing concern in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Grassland/shrubland 

types on the forest are at high risk of invasion by Canada thistle, whitetop, yellow toadflax, spotted 

knapweed, and leafy spurge. The Butte-Silver Bow Weed Control District has been active in public 

education, control, and eradication of noxious weeds. If improvement options are forwarded from the 

feasibility study, field surveys for noxious weeds should take place before any ground disturbance occurs. 

Proposed projects should incorporate applicable practices outlined by the Butte-Silver Bow Weed Control 

District. Any projects forwarded from the feasibility study within the National Forest would need to comply 

with USFS management policies. 

Whitebark pines are designated as a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Whitebark pines are typically found in cold, windy, high elevation or high latitude sites in western North 

America and as a result, many stands are geographically isolated. Whitebark pines have the potential to 

occur on high elevation forest lands in the area. 

3.2.2. Fish and Wildlife 

Blacktail Creek watershed provides a substantial habitat for westslope cutthroat trout. Genetic sampling 

indicates a 100% pure westslope cutthroat trout population in the river. The westslope cutthroat trout is 

considered a sensitive species by the USFS and a species of concern (SOC) by Montana. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 26

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) statewide wildlife distribution data indicate the presence of elk and 

mule deer along Blacktail Creek. Blacktail Creek also provides an attractive habitat for moose, and they 

can often be seen along the river during the winter. The wetlands provide important staging, resting, and 

viewing areas for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. 

If any improvement projects are brought forward from the study, project planners should coordinate with 

fish and wildlife biologists from Montana FWP and the USFS to gain further insight into issues related to 

the management of these species, as well as measures for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse 

effects on species and habitat. 

3.2.3. Threatened and Endangered Species 

As noted earlier, whitebark pine, a candidate plant species for listing under the ESA, occurs within the the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and is typically found in high elevation, upper montane habitat near 

the treeline. The grizzly bear and Canada lynx are threatened species occurring in Silver Bow County. The 

wolverine is a proposed for listing species that may occur within mountainous and forested areas of the 

county. Canada lynx and wolverine have both been observed in the Roosevelt Drive study area based on 

information from the Montana National Heritage Program (NHP). The grizzly bear could potentially occur in 

the study area, but there are no recorded observations. Wolverine is the only species documented as 

having a sustained presence within the study area. Bull trout are also listed as threatened in Silver Bow 

County but no critical habitat for the species has been designated within the county. Montana NHP data 

shows no observations of bull trout in Blacktail Creek in the study area. Any improvements forwarded from 

the planning study would need to undergo review for compliance with the provisions of the ESA. The listing 

status of species and critical habitat can change over time; therefore, an up-to-date list of potentially 

affected species and critical habitats should be reviewed for each project. 

3.2.4. Other Species of Concern 

SOC are native animals or plants that are at-risk due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, 

restricted distribution, among other factors. The Environmental Scan lists three mammals, five birds, one 

fish, one amphibian, and one plants considered to be SOC with occurrences in this area of Montana and 

presents their federal and state statuses. A species occurrence is an area of land or water in which a 

species is, or was, present. If any projects are brought forward from this study, a thorough review of wildlife 

sightings databases should be conducted, and habitats near any proposed project sites should be 

evaluated to determine their suitability for any SOC. Measures to avoid or minimize disturbance of these 

species or their habitat should be incorporated into project design and implementation. 

3.3. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The following subsections present an overview of the social and cultural environment within the study area. 

3.3.1. Demographic and Economic Conditions 

Implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require federal agencies to 

assess potential social and economic impacts resulting from proposed actions. FHWA guidelines 

recommend consideration of impacts to neighborhoods and community cohesion, social groups including 

minority populations, and local and/or regional economies, as well as growth and development that may be 

induced by transportation improvements. Demographic and economic information presented in this section 

is intended to assist in identifying populations that might be affected by improvements in the study area. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 27

According to the American Community Survey (ACS), a large portion of the population of Butte-Silver Bow 

identifying as White although the county has a slightly larger minority percentage than Montana’s 

population. 

Median household income in Butte-Silver Bow is approximately 25 percent lower than the state median 

value. Butte-Silver Bow also has higher poverty (18.9 percent) and unemployment (5.9 percent) rates than 

Montana (14.4 and 4.8 percent, respectively). Butte-Silver Bow’s economy has historically been dominated 

by the mining industry. But declines in the copper mining industry since 1980 have required a more diverse 

mix of industries to maintain a strong economy in the area. Over the past 40 years, the service and retail 

sectors have played a more prominent role in the current economy with the majority of the service industry 

jobs being healthcare related. Increases in recreational visitors to the Butte-Silver Bow area have also 

helped strengthen the economy. 

Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898 require that projects 

receiving federal funds must not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or lowincome populations. For transportation projects, this means that minority or low‐income populations must 

not be disproportionately isolated, displaced, or otherwise subjected to adverse effects. If improvement 

options are forwarded from the planning study into project development, environmental justice would need 

to be further evaluated during the project development process. However, demographic data obtained for 

this study indicates minority and/or low-income populations are not present in the area. 

3.3.2. Recreational Resources 

In addition to providing residential access, Roosevelt Drive also 

provides access to over 73,000 acres of National Forest System 

(NFS) lands within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

and about 40,000 acres of BLM lands. Roosevelt Drive is highly 

used by recreationists to access recreation opportunities in the 

Highland Mountain Range. Popular recreation activities in the 

area include dispersed camping, hunting, motorized recreation, 

winter sports, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. The 

first 2.75 miles of Roosevelt Drive are part of the Adventure 

Cycling Great Divide mountain bike route. Other nearby 

recreation areas include the Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail, the Basin Creek Watershed, and Thompson Park via the 

Roosevelt Drive Trailhead. Thompson Park is a congressionally 

designated Municipal Recreation Area in the NFS with access to 

25 miles of non-motorized trails, campgrounds, and picnic areas. 

The Milwaukee Road Rail-Trail also crosses above Roosevelt 

Drive at approximate MP 1.0 by abandoned railroad trestle. 

Recreation areas may be protected under Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966

if they are publicly owned, open to the public during normal hours of operation, and serve recreation 

activities as a major purpose as stated in adopted planning documents. Impacts to the Milwaukee Trail and 

Roosevelt Drive Trailhead should be investigated and appropriately considered in accordance with Section 

4(f) if improvement options are forwarded from this study. 

Projects may also be subject to Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act which was 

enacted to preserve, develop, and ensure the quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources. 

However, there are no areas qualifying for Section 6(f) protection within the study area. 

Roosevelt Drive provides access to USFS 

and BLM lands used for recreational 

activities including hiking, biking, hunting, 

horseback riding, and winter sports. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 28

3.3.3. Cultural and Historic Resources 

Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings (including funding, licensing, or 

permitting the undertakings of other entities) on historic properties and must consult affected American 

Indian tribes. Available data identified the following tribes with potential interests in Silver Bow County, 

Montana: 

 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation 

 Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana 

 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation 

Implementing regulations also require agencies to seek ways of avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating any 

adverse effects on historic properties. A review shows there are no historic properties listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places within the study area. If any projects are brought forward from the planning 

study, a cultural resource survey for unrecorded historic and archaeological properties would need to be 

completed within the area of potential effect defined for each project. Direct and indirect impacts (such as 

visual, noise, and access impacts) to eligible or listed properties would need to be considered if 

improvements options are carried forward. 

3.3.4. Visual Resources 

The study area encompasses a wide variety of settings including the Roosevelt Drive roadway corridor, 

rural development, national forestland, other public lands, and wetlands. Actions that may have visual 

impacts include projects on new location or that involve expansion, realignment or other changes that could 

alter the character of an existing landscape or move the roadway closer to residential areas, parks and 

recreation areas, historic or other culturally important resources. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 29

4.0. AREAS OF CONCERN SUMMARY 

The following is a summary of observed trends and areas for further consideration. These areas were 

identified through field review, past studies, public databases, and other resources. More discussion has 

been provided in the previous sections and in the Environmental Scan, and it is reiterated here as 

appropriate. 

4.1. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS

Section 2 identifies physical features, geometric conditions, traffic conditions, safety trends, and other 

vulnerabilities within the study area that may be affected by potential future improvements arising from this 

study. Project-level traffic, geometric, or safety analysis may be required for any improvements forwarded 

from this project. The following transportation system conditions were noted: 

Physical Features and Characteristics 

 A total of 25 culverts were identified along the study corridor, 9 of those culverts were 30 inches or 

larger. Approximately 45 percent of the culverts were in poor condition. 

 The section of the corridor which is classified as a collector road does not meet the AASHTO 

minimum roadway surface width of 30 feet or the Butte-Silver Bow standard of 28 feet. The width 

is generally 22 to 24 feet for the majority of this section. 

 The section of Roosevelt Drive classified as a local road does not meet the minimum roadway 

surface width of 24 feet (AASHTO and Butte-Silver Bow standard). The width is generally 20 to 22 

feet for the majority of this section. 

 The majority of the pavement in the corridor is in poor condition. 

 Roadway right-of-way in the study area is not well defined. 

 Although Roosevelt Drive is primarily used by passenger vehicles and non-motorized 

transportation modes for residential and recreational access, heavy vehicles including busses, 

emergency vehicles, and mining vehicles also use the roadway. 

Geometric Conditions 

 Nine horizontal curves on the portion of Roosevelt Drive that is classified as a collector road were 

identified as not meeting current AASHTO standards for a 40-mph design speed. All horizontal 

curves on the local road section of the corridor meet the minimum recommended radius of 214 feet 

for a 30-mph design speed. 

 All vertical curves in the study area appear to meet design standards for maximum vertical grade. 

Some combination horizontal/vertical curves have known issues with sight distance and winter 

driving conditions. 

 There are two intersections in the study area with poor geometry where user safety is a concern: 

Highway 2/Roosevelt Drive and Roosevelt Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Highland Road. 

Traffic Conditions 

 The corridor experiences varied vehicle mix with residential, commercial, and recreational traffic. 

 The first 2.75 miles of the roadway is functionally classified as a minor collector and serves 

approximately 500 to 1,000 vpd. 

 The last 1.55 miles is a local road and provides access to residential properties and the Roosevelt 

Drive Trailhead. Existing traffic volumes are less than 200 vpd. 

 Volumes are projected to increase in the future due to population growth and expanded recreation 

opportunities. 

 The proposed Highlands Mine may result in increased haul traffic along the roadway. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 30

 The first 2.75 miles of Roosevelt Drive is part of a nationally recognized Great Divide mountain bike 

route administered by Adventure Cycling. 

Safety 

 Records show 35 crashes occurring within the study area between January 1, 2009, to December 

31, 2018. Of the recorded crashes, 2 resulted in serious injuries, 6 resulted in minor injuries, 2 

resulted in possible injuries, and 25 resulted in property damage only.

 Approximately half of the crashes (16) occurred during the daylight while 16 occurred under dark 

conditions, 2 during dusk, and 1 during dawn.

 Most of the crashes (21) occurred when the roads were snowy, wet, slushy, icy, or frost covered 

while 13 occurred under dry road conditions.

 The main crash types were fixed object crashes (21) and rollover crashes (10) and road surface 

condition was listed as a contributing circumstance in 18 of the crashes. 

 All of the crashes occurred within the first 2.75 miles of the roadway and there are three key 

locations where crashes are clustered: 10 crashes at the 90-degree corner (MP 0.5); 10 crashes 

at the trestle (MP 1.0); and 8 crashes at the s-curve section (MP 2.2 to 2.4). 

Other Vulnerabilities 

 Landslides, drainage/erosion issues, and locations with subgrade issues are common concerns on 

Roosevelt Drive. These events have caused significant road damage. 

4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Environmental Scan identifies physical, biological, social, and cultural resources within the study area 

that may be affected by potential future improvements arising from the Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study. 

Project‐level environmental analysis would be required for any improvements forwarded from this study. 

Information contained in the Environmental Scan may be used to support future environmental 

documentation for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The following environmental 

concerns were noted: 

Physical Environment 

 The study area and adjacent lands are primarily used for residential use, grazing, timber activity, 

mining, and recreation. 

 There are no soils classified as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of state or local 

importance in the study area. 

 Two landslides have occurred within the study area. A hazard area for landslides also exists at the 

eastern end of the study area, beginning at Highway 2 and extending east. 

 The Butte area is in a moderate seismic risk zone. Two earthquake events were recorded near 

Roosevelt Drive, both events were shallow and had very low magnitudes. 

 Roosevelt Drive parallels Blacktail Creek and crosses the stream several times within the first 2.2 

miles of the study area. Roosevelt Drive also crosses some small, unnamed tributaries of Blacktail 

Creek as well as several intermittent streams throughout the study area. 

 Blacktail Creek has elevated levels of nutrients from residential development along the river. 

Excess sediments from road crossings and encroachment on the river are also present. 

 Although mining activity (past and present) exists near the study area, there are no hazardous sites 

that may be impacted by projects on Roosevelt Drive. 

 Butte is considered a nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM10); however, the study area is 

located outside the designated PM10 Nonattainment Area Boundary. 

 Residences in the study area comprise the only sensitive noise receptors that could be affected by 

roadway improvements on Roosevelt Drive. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 31

Biological Resources 

 Fire has been a major influence on the vegetation systems in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest. 

Insects such as mountain pine or Douglas-fir bark beetles have also killed large numbers of trees 

in the forest. 

 Invasive weeds are a growing concern in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. 

 Blacktail Creek watershed provides a substantial habitat for westslope cutthroat trout. Genetic 

sampling indicates a 100% pure westslope cutthroat trout population in the river. 

 The surrounding area supports diverse wildlife populations including elk, mule deer, moose, 

migratory waterfowl, and shore birds. 

 The grizzly bear, Canada lynx, bull trout, wolverine, and whitebark pine tree are listed as 

threatened, proposed, or candidates to be listed under the ESA. Canada lynx and wolverine have 

both been observed in the study area. The whitebark pine, grizzly bear, and bull trout may 

potentially occur although there are no recorded observations of these species in the study area. 

Several other SOC have also been observed in the study area. 

Social and Cultural Resources 

 Demographic data indicates minority and/or low-income populations are not likely present in the 

area. The economy in the study area has historically been dominated by the mining industry. 

Service, retail, and recreation sectors have played a more prominent role in the current economy. 

 The Milwaukee Road Trail, Roosevelt Drive Trailhead, and other recreation facilities accessed via 

Roosevelt Drive may be subject to Section 4(f) regulations. No projects qualifying for protection 

under Section 6(f) have been identified in the study area. 

 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 32

5.0. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

Goals and objectives were identified based on a comprehensive review of existing information and input 

from the project team, stakeholders, and the public. Goals and objectives are important in explaining why 

a potential improvement option may be necessary. The following goals and objectives reflect the existing 

social, environmental, and engineering conditions and recognize the local and regional use of Roosevelt 

Drive and the surrounding transportation system. In addition to the goals and objectives, all improvement 

options should also be sensitive to the availability of funding for recurring maintenance obligations or for 

the construction of new improvements. 

Goal 1: Improve the safety and operation of the roadway facility. 

Available crash data and anecdotal information from partnering agencies and locals indicate a need to 

improve the safety of Roosevelt Drive. There are a number of locations along the corridor with limited sight 

distance and substandard geometry which can create undesirable conditions. This goal is intended to 

improve the safety of the roadway in order to meet the needs of the traveling public, both for visitors of 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and local residents. Roadway upgrades and/or management 

strategies are necessary to achieve a higher level of safety and improved operations for Roosevelt Drive. 

This can be achieved by improving the roadway to meet current geometric standards (to the extent 

practicable), providing adequate clear zones, improving sight distances, and improving surfacing 

conditions. 

Objectives: 

 Improve roadway elements to meet current design criteria to address identified safety concerns (to 

the extent practicable). 

 Manage travel speeds and provide adequate clear zones to improve operations and safety. 

 Provide consistent roadway widths and appropriate surfacing. 

Goal 2: Provide a roadway facility that accommodates future traffic growth, 

recreational activity, and reduces maintenance needs. 

Roosevelt Drive provides access to over 73,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 

40,000 acres of BLM lands, many residences, and several recreation areas. The corridor is used by local 

and regional traffic including passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others. 

The number of visitors to the National Forest is expected to grow over time due to increased recreational 

interest and opportunities. Depending on the accuracy of future growth characteristics as depicted in local 

planning documents and estimates by Butte-Silver Bow, Roosevelt Drive will realize increased traffic by 

both motorized and non-motorized transportation modes. As activity on the roadway increases, 

maintenance needs will also continue to increase. Proper upgrades and regular maintenance of Roosevelt 

Drive will help ensure the corridor provides adequate access for residents and visitors for many years to 

come. 

Objectives: 

 Accommodate existing and future capacity demands. 

 Address non-motorized facilities consistent with local planning efforts and recreational needs. 

 Provide connectivity to residents and regional users accessing recreational lands. 

 Improve and/or upgrade roadway drainage. 

 Reduce maintenance needs. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 33

Goal 3: Minimize adverse impacts to the environmental, cultural, scenic, and 

recreational characteristics of the study area. 

The area around Roosevelt Drive provides access to both residential and recreational lands. It is a popular 

recreational access point for hunting, motorized recreation, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. 

Because of the location along Blacktail Creek, wildlife and aquatic connectivity are of concern. All 

improvements should be reviewed for their potential impact to the environmental, scenic, cultural, and 

recreational aspects of the corridor. 

Objectives: 

 Minimize adverse impacts to riparian environments. 

 Minimize adverse impacts to the wildlife and aquatic organisms. 

 Provide reasonable access to recreational sites in the study area. 

 Avoid or otherwise minimize adverse impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources 

that may result from implementation of options. 

 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 34

6.0. IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS 

This section contains a list of potential improvements intended to address previously identified issues and 

areas of concern and are intended to satisfy corridor goals and objectives outlined in Section 5.0. The 

improvement options reflect input from stakeholders and the public, as well as information gathered from a 

thorough evaluation of the existing and projected conditions of the study corridor. The following steps were 

applied to develop improvement options: 

1. Identify roadway issues and areas of concern based on field review, engineering analysis of asbuilt drawings, crash data analysis, and consultation with stakeholders. 

2. Identify overall corridor goals and objectives. 

3. Analyze the information gathered to develop improvement options to address the roadway issues 

and areas of concern which are consistent with the goals and objectives. 

To evaluate potential project development options, the corridor was broken into two segments based on 

logical breaks and changes in roadway condition/context. Segment A extends from Highway 2 (MP 0.00) 

to the Roosevelt Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Highland Road intersection (MP 2.75). This segment of Roosevelt 

Drive is functionally classified as a collector roadway. Segment A serves higher traffic volumes, provides 

connectivity to multiple recreation areas and adjacent roads, and generally has a 24-foot pavement width. 

Segment B extends from the Lime Kiln Road intersection (MP 2.75) to the Roosevelt Drive Trailhead (MP 

4.30). This segment is functionally classified as a local road and primarily serves private residences while 

also providing access to Thompson Park at the end of the road. This segment has low traffic volumes and 

is generally 20 feet in width. 

Implementation of improvement options ultimately depends on the availability of funding, personnel 

resources, right-of-way needs, and other project delivery elements. Planning level cost estimates are listed 

in 2019 dollars for each segment of each improvement option. The cost estimates include engineering, 

construction, and indirect costs. Note that for the purposes of this report, it was assumed that the road could 

be closed to through traffic for periods of time during construction. If the road will need to be maintained 

and open for travel at all times, additional costs, not included in the cost estimates, may be incurred. 

Appendix D contains planning level cost estimates for the options. 

A list of considerations related to project development and potential impacts is provided for each option. 

Potential barriers such as right-of-way, physical features, and environmental conditions may influence the 

project development process and could add additional time and cost. More detailed project-level analysis 

would be required for any improvements forwarded from this study. Information contained in this report may 

be used to support future project development and environmental documentation. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 35

6.1. OPTION 1: REHABILITATION ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT

This option represents the least impactful option for improving the Roosevelt Drive corridor. Rather than 

reconstructing the entire roadway, a three-inch overlay would be constructed on the existing surfacing. In 

areas where unstable subgrades exist, isolated subexcavation would occur to restore the structural integrity 

of the roadway. An overlay would be placed on the existing surface with a consistent width of 24 feet on 

Segment A (MP 0.00 to 2.75) and 20 feet on Segment B (MP 2.75 to 4.30). 

Throughout the study area, ditches would be established or excavated where possible. Road embankment 

armoring, or riprap, would also be placed in areas where the creek has eroded the roadway. These 

improvements would help improve drainage and prevent erosion thereby protecting Roosevelt Drive from 

further damage caused by Blacktail Creek. 

Many of the existing culverts on Roosevelt Drive are undersized 

or in poor condition. This option includes replacement of all of the 

culverts serving Blacktail Creek with the exception of the concrete 

box culvert at MP 0.34. Based on a preliminary evaluation, the 

new culverts for Blacktail Creek would likely be either round 

culverts nine feet in diameter, or box culverts with a nine-foot span 

and six-foot rise. All of the pipes would be countersunk and infilled 

with streambed material to provide adequate passage for aquatic 

organisms. Additionally, the minor culverts (those not serving 

Blacktail Creek) on the remainder of Roosevelt Drive would be 

reviewed and replaced if needed. 

The existing horizontal and vertical alignments would be retained with the exception of a few minor 

adjustments. At three locations (MP 0.12, MP 0.58, and MP 1.05) the roadway needs to raise slightly in 

order to facilitate installation of larger culverts for Blacktail Creek. This would result in a short raise in grade 

and new surfacing on Roosevelt Drive at these locations. Although the horizontal alignment would not be 

modified in this option, efforts to improve sight distance by clearing brush, trees, and other vegetation within 

the clear zone would be made as necessary throughout the project. This is especially true at the beginning 

of the project where Roosevelt Drive and Highway 2 meet. Vegetation at the intersection would be cleared 

to improve sight distance and warning signs installed on Highway 2 to warn drivers of the approaching 

intersection. Additional warning signs would be installed along Roosevelt Drive at the locations with 

substandard horizontal curves to alert drivers of the tight curves ahead. New signing may also be necessary 

at hazard locations warning for potential rockfall. 

Estimated Cost: 

 Segment A: $3,100,000 

 Segment B: $700,000 

 Total: $3,800,000 

New culverts would provide adequate 

passage for aquatic organisms. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 36

Figure 6.1: Option 1 – Rehabilitation on Existing Alignment 

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

2

Replace Minor Culvert

MP: 3.62

Replace Minor Culverts

MP: 1.85, 1.89, 2.02, 2.11

Replace Minor Culverts

MP: 2.31, 2.33

Replace Culvert

Raise Grade

MP: 0.58

Replace Culvert

Raise Grade

MP: 0.12

Replace Culvert

Raise Grade

MP: 1.05

Replace Culvert

MP: 0.68

Replace Culvert

MP: 0.89

Replace Culvert

MP: 0.52

Replace Culvert

MP: 0.50

Segment A:

Overlay Surface - 24' Width

MP 0.00 to 2.75

Segment B:

Overlay Surface - 20' Width

MP 2.75 to 4.30 Milwaukee Road Trail Roosevelt Drive

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

RO

SEVELT

DR

Improvements to be Performed Throughout Project Area:

1. Retain existing horizontal alignment and vertical profile.

2. Install new warning signs at substandard curves and other hazard

 locations. 3. Establish/excavate ditches where possible to improve drainage and

 reduce erosion. 4. Place riprap at stream erosion areas to prevent future erosion.

5. Clear brush/trees/vegetation form clear zone to improve sight distance.

6. Perform subexcavation in areas with unstable subgrades to preserve 

 structural integrity of the roadway.

Improvement Type

Map Legend

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.125 Miles Trailhead Milwaukee Road Trail Hydraulics

Surfacing
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 37

6.2. OPTION 2: REHABILITATION WITH IMPROVED GEOMETRICS

This option includes reconstruction of the corridor with minor modifications to the horizontal and vertical 

alignments. As in Option 1, all of the culverts serving Blacktail Creek would be replaced, with the exception 

of the concrete box culvert at MP 0.34. Other culverts would be evaluated and replaced/upgraded as 

needed. A 3-inch overlay of consistent width (24 feet on Segment A and 20 feet on Segment B) would be 

placed with subexcavation in areas with unstable subgrades. Additionally, ditches would be established or 

excavated where possible and riprap would be placed in areas where the creek has eroded the roadway 

as discussed in Option 1. 

In addition to those improvements proposed in Option 1, modifications to 

the horizontal and vertical alignments are proposed. The sharp 90-degree 

curve at MP 0.50 would be improved by reconstructing the curve to meet 

current standards. To achieve a 40-mph design standard, the roadway 

would be shifted west approximately 100 feet at the center of the curve. 

Approximately 400 feet of new road would be constructed, and the 

Blacktail Creek culvert would be shifted approximately 200 feet 

downstream. Embankment material would be imported to construct road 

fill across the stream channel, but the resulting profile would closely match 

the existing profile. The existing road could be used to facilitate traffic 

during construction of the new curve. 

At the trestle (MP 1.0), Roosevelt Drive would be shifted slightly to the 

south and the grade would be raised slightly to acquire enough additional 

width to install guardrail on the north side of the road. Material to construct 

the embankment would need to be imported for construction of the new 

curve. The purpose of the guardrail along this curve is to help shield the 

trestle piers and enhance safety for drivers at this location. A retaining wall 

is also anticipated on the north side of the roadway to avoid burying the 

piers in the embankment. Excavation on the south side of the roadway is 

not recommended due to the presence of additional trestle piers on the 

south slope. 

In the s-curve section (MP 2.2 to 2.4), the curves would be reconstructed 

to meet existing standards. Extensive grading would be required to flatten 

the curves. To meet a 40-mph design speed, the southern curve would be 

shifted northeast about 150 feet at the center of the curve while the 

northern curve would be shifted about 100 feet southwest at the center of 

the curve. A consistent, increasing grade would be set through this 

reconstructed section, effectively eliminating the two abrupt vertical curves. 

Material from the grading efforts would be available for any embankment 

needs at this location. Ultimately, approximately 1,300 feet of new road 

would be constructed. 

The Roosevelt Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Highland Road intersection (MP 2.7) 

would be improved by creating a standard four-way intersection. To 

achieve this, the Roosevelt Drive curve between Highland Road and Lime 

Kiln Road would be obliterated. The leg of Lime Kiln Road which passes 

by the cluster mailboxes would be improved to match the overlay on 

Roosevelt Drive. The intersection would have stop control along the minor 

approaches with advance warning signs. 

The 90-degree curve at MP 0.5 would be 

flattened to achieve a 40-mph design 

speed. 

The horizontal curves on the s-curve 

section between MP 2.2 and 2.4 would 

be flattened and a consistent, increasing 

grade would be established. 

The intersection at MP 2.7 would be 

modified to create a standard, 

uncontrolled four-way intersection. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 38

As in Option 1, efforts to improve sight distance by clearing brush or trees within the clear zone would be 

made as necessary throughout the project and new warning signs would be installed at the substandard 

horizontal curves. Additional signing would also be installed as necessary at hazard locations. 

Estimated Cost: 

 Segment A: $5,600,000 

 Segment B: $700,000 

 Total: $6,300,000 

Figure 6.2: Option 2: Rehabilitation with Improved Geometrics 

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

2

Replace Minor Culvert MP: 3.62 Replace Minor Culverts

MP: 1.85, 1.89, 2.02, 2.11

Replace Minor Culverts

MP: 2.31, 2.33

Replace Culvert

Raise Grade

MP: 0.58

Replace Culvert

Raise Grade MP: 0.12 Replace Culvert

Raise Grade MP: 1.05 Shift Road/Raise Grade

Install Guardrail and

Retaining Wall MP: 1.00

Reconstruct to 40 mph Design Speed

Shift Culvert Downstream

MP: 0.50 Replace Culvert

MP: 0.68

Replace Culvert

MP: 0.89

Replace Culvert MP: 0.52 Segment A:

Overlay Surface - 24' Width MP 0.00 to 2.75 Segment B:

Overlay Surface - 20' Width MP 2.75 to 4.30 Reconstruct to 40 mph

Design Speed MP 2.20 to 2.40 Construct Standard

4-Way Intersection MP: 2.70 Milwaukee Road Trail Roosevelt Drive

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

RO

SEVELT

DR

Improvements to be Performed Throughout Project Area:

1. Retain existing horizontal alignment and vertical profile except

 at four spot locations.

2. Install new warning signs at substandard curves and other hazard

 locations. 3. Establish/excavate ditches where possible to improve drainage and

 reduce erosion. 4. Place riprap at stream erosion areas to prevent future erosion.

5. Clear brush/trees/vegetation form clear zone to improve sight distance.

6. Perform subexcavation in areas with unstable subgrades to preserve 

 structural integrity of the roadway.

Improvement Type

Map Legend

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.125 Miles Trailhead Milwaukee Road Trail Alignment

Hydraulics

Surfacing
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 39

6.3. OPTION 3: RECONSTRUCTION WITH NEW ALIGNMENT

This option is the most impactful option and would result in reconstruction of the entire roadway. A new 

alignment for the entire project length would be designed to meet existing standards. The new alignment 

would be designed to retain as much of the existing road prism as possible. The proposed improvements 

at the 90-degree curve (MP 0.5), trestle (MP 1.0), s-curve section (MP 2.2 to 2.4), and Roosevelt Drive/Lime 

Kiln Road/Highland Road intersection (MP 2.7), as discussed in Option 2 would be included in Option 3. 

The new vertical profile would also be designed to meet applicable design standards with adjustments as 

needed to provide greater clearance for drainage structures and to provide adequate space between the 

surface of the water and the roadway to prevent flooding. In the local road section, the vertical profile would 

be raised to improve drainage and keep ditch flow off the road. 

As in both Options 1 and 2, all of the culverts serving Blacktail 

Creek would be replaced, with the exception of the concrete 

box culvert at MP 0.34. Other culverts would be evaluated 

and replaced/upgraded as needed. To further stabilize and 

control the flow of Blacktail Creek, riprap would be placed in 

areas where the creek has eroded the roadway. Extensive 

grading would also occur along the existing cut slopes to 

generate the additional width required to create ditches and 

to provide greater separation between Roosevelt Drive and 

Blacktail Creek. Note that this may not be possible between 

MP 1.1 and 1.4 where a landslide occurred in the past. When 

reconstruction occurs, isolated subexcavation in areas with 

unstable subgrades may also be necessary. The new 

roadway new surfacing on Roosevelt Drive would be 

designed to a consistent width of 24 feet on Segment A (MP 

0.0 to 2.75) and 20 feet on Segment B (MP 2.75 to 4.30). 

Estimated Cost: 

 Segment A: $7,500,000 

 Segment B: $1,800,000 

 Total: $9,300,000 

 

Riprap would be placed along streambanks to 

control the flow of Blacktail Creek, stabilize the 

banks, and prevent further erosion on Roosevelt 

Drive. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 40

Figure 6.3: Option 3: Reconstruction with New Alignment 

BLACKTAIL CREEK

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

BLACKTAIL CRE K

2

Replace Minor Culvert MP: 3.62 Replace Minor Culverts

MP: 1.85, 1.89, 2.02, 2.11

Replace Minor Culverts

MP: 2.31, 2.33

Replace Culvert

Raise Grade MP: 0.58

Replace Culvert

Raise Grade MP: 0.12 Replace Culvert

Raise Grade MP: 1.05 Shift Road/Raise Grade

Install Guardrail and

Retaining Wall MP: 1.00

Reconstruct to 40 mph Design Speed

Shift Culvert Downstream

MP: 0.50 Replace Culvert MP: 0.68 Replace Culvert MP: 0.89 Replace Culvert MP: 0.52 Reconstruct to 40 mph

Design Speed MP 2.20 to 2.40 Construct Standard

4-Way Intersection MP: 2.70

Raise Vertical Profile

 to Improve Drainage MP 2.75 to 4.30 Segment B:

Reconstruct Surface - 20' Width MP 2.75 to 4.30 Segment A:

Reconstruct Surface - 24' Width MP 0.00 to 2.75 Milwaukee Road Trail Roosevelt Drive

LIME KILN RD

HIGHLAND RD

MONTANA 2

ROOSEVELT DR

RO

SEVELT

DR

Improvements to be Performed Throughout Project Area:

1. Design new horizontal alignment that meets design standards

 and retains as much of the existing road prism as possible.

2. Design new vertical profile to meet design standards with

 adjustments as needed to provide greater clearance for drainage

 structures and freeboard along the creek.

3. Install new warning signs at hazard locations.

4. Grade along existing cut slopes to generate the additional width

 required for ditches and to provide greater separation from

 Blacktail Creek.

5. Place riprap at stream erosion areas to prevent future erosion.

6. Clear brush/trees/vegetation form clear zone to improve sight distance.

7. Perform subexcavation in areas with unstable subgrades to preserve 

 structural integrity of the roadway.

Improvement Type

Map Legend

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.125 Miles Trailhead Milwaukee Road Trail Alignment

Hydraulics

Surfacing
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 41

6.4. IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The surfacing of Roosevelt Drive is old and in poor condition. Poor drainage and erosion caused by Blacktail 

Creek has led to deteriorated conditions. Areas with poor geometrics and limited sight distances show 

evidence of safety concerns and crash clusters. In order to preserve access to the residential and 

recreational lands, improve safety, and accommodate future travel demands, rehabilitation/reconstruction 

of the roadway is necessary. 

Three improvement options were identified for consideration within the study area. The improvement 

options were identified based on the evaluation of several factors including, but not limited to, field review, 

traffic and safety evaluation, geometric review, and consultation local agencies. The options vary notably 

in cost and complexity and are intended to offer a range of potential mitigation strategies to satisfy the goals 

and objectives developed for the corridor for corridor issues and areas of concern. A summary of how each 

option address the goals and objectives is provided in Table 6.1. 

Table 6.1: Goals and Objectives Summary 

Goal Objective Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Goal 1: Improve the 

safety and operation of 

the roadway facility. 

Improve roadway elements to meet current design 

criteria to address identified safety concerns (to the 

extent practicable). 

  

Manage travel speeds and provide adequate clear 

zones to improve operations.   

Provide consistent roadway widths and appropriate 

surfacing.   

Goal 2: Provide a 

roadway facility that 

accommodates future 

traffic growth, 

recreational activity, and 

reduces maintenance 

needs. 

Accommodate existing and future capacity 

demands.   

Address non-motorized facilities consistent with 

local planning efforts.   

Provide connectivity to residents and regional 

users accessing recreational lands.   

Improve and/or upgrade roadway drainage. 

  

Provide adequate snow storage and pullout areas. 

  

Reduce maintenance needs.   

Goal 3: Minimize 

adverse impacts to the 

environmental, cultural, 

scenic, and recreational 

characteristics of the 

study area. 

Minimize adverse impacts to riparian 

environments.   

Minimize adverse impacts to the wildlife and 

aquatic organisms.   

Provide reasonable access to recreational sites in 

the study.   

Avoid or otherwise minimize adverse impacts to 

historic, cultural, and archaeological resources.   

Estimated Cost $3.8 M $6.3 M $9.3 M 

 - Meets Objective  - Partially Meets Objective  - Does Not Meet Objective
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 42

Option 1 is the least impactful and least expensive option. It addresses the drainage and environmental 

concerns on Blacktail Creek by replacing/resizing culverts, establishing ditches, and stabilizing 

embankments. The option would reduce maintenance concerns by providing an overlay on Roosevelt Drive. 

Minor improvements to safety may be realized by increasing sight distance by clearing roadside vegetation 

and installing warning signs. Option 1 does not, however, fully address the safety concerns related to 

substandard roadway geometrics. 

Option 2 builds upon Option 1 and provides additional improvements to address substandard roadway 

geometrics. This option adequately addresses drainage and maintenance concerns and includes spot 

improvements to address the most critical safety concerns at four spot locations. Without reconstructing 

the entire roadway on a new alignment, Option 2 makes essential improvements to the existing roadway to 

satisfy the identified goals and objectives. 

Option 3 is the most expensive option and would best address the identified goals and objectives. In addition 

to improving drainage on Blacktail Creek to the fullest extent practicable, Option 3 includes full 

reconstruction of Roosevelt Drive for which a new alignment and profile would be designed. The new 

alignment would be designed to meet appropriate design standards including flattening substandard 

curves, widening the road bed to provide adequate clear zones, raising the roadway to improve drainage, 

and providing new surfacing. This option, however, has a larger footprint outside the existing roadbed and 

may have more adverse impacts on the environment. 

6.5. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 

The previous sections identified options to improve the Roosevelt Drive corridor. Several considerations 

may influence the selection of a preferred improvement option. This section provides a discussion of 

additional considerations relevant to the development of improvements to the Roosevelt Drive corridor. 

Roadway Width 

The current roadway width varies throughout the corridor. The width on Segment A, the collector road 

portion, (MP 0.00 to 2.75) ranges from 22 to 25 feet in width and Segment B, the local road portion, (MP 

2.75 to 4.30) ranges from 18 to 22 feet. Based on standards developed by AASHTO and Butte-Silver Bow, 

the recommended roadway width ranges from 18 to 30 feet (Table 2.3). A desire has been expressed to 

widen the roadway to bring it up to current Butte-Silver Bow road design standards. This would result in a 

26-foot width on the collector road section (Segment A) and a 24-foot width on the local road section 

(Segment B). Widening to ensure these recommended widths may be difficult and would require full 

reconstruction. 

Since Roosevelt Drive provides access to recreational opportunities, residences, and commercial 

operations, it is used by a variety of vehicles each with differing design needs. For example, wider surfaces 

accommodate heavy mining vehicles and commercial logging trucks by providing adequate space for the 

vehicles to negotiate tight corners and narrow stretches. Wider travel lanes and shoulders are also 

recommended to safely accommodate the pedestrians and bicyclists who use the corridor. Providing wider 

roadway sections may also enhance driver safety by improving sight distance, allowing more space for 

vehicles to maneuver curves, and providing space for snow storage during the winter. Conversely, 

increasing the roadway width makes the facility more comfortable for drivers and can encourage higher 

travel speeds, presenting new safety issues. Another drawback to wider roads is that they may encourage 

roadside parking, especially on Roosevelt Drive due to the recreational nature of the area. This can create 

roadside hazards and may encourage undesirable recreational uses. Road widening is also costly, so the 

ultimate decision of roadway width may be cost-dependent. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 43

To preserve the existing character of the roadway, while maintaining safe travel speeds and appropriate 

use, it is recommended that the new surfacing on Roosevelt Drive be 24 feet in width on Segment A and 

20 feet in width on Segment B. This would discourage speeding and parking along the roadside while also 

providing adequate room to accommodate all roadway users and their needs. These widths would be the 

most easily achieved while also limiting impacts to adjacent lands. If a wider typical section is desired by 

implementation partners, full roadway reconstruction would be needed and re-evaluation of costs would be 

necessary. 

Pullout Areas 

Ten pullouts (mostly informal) were documented on Roosevelt 

Drive during the field review. All ten pullouts are located within 

the first 2.75 miles of the roadway. Some of these pullouts are 

located on tight corners while others are creating undesirable 

recreational use. In these instances, the pullouts may cause 

safety concerns rather than alleviate them. Pullout areas of 

particular concern on Roosevelt Drive are the one at the trestle 

crossing (MP 1.0) and the one on the s-curve section (MP 2.3). 

An established, wide pullout area exists at the trestle crossing 

but despite the fencing along the hillside, it is reportedly used as 

an access point to the Milwaukee Road Trail, which is 

discouraged by the Forest Service. On the s-curve there is a 

closed trail access with a small pullout that is used by 

recreationists, especially during hunting season. Parked cars at 

this location create roadside hazards and limit sight distance. 

The pullout areas should either be improved to adequately 

accommodate users or removed to discourage undesirable use. 

There are other small pullout areas where discouraged activity 

has been noted such as hiking and access to undesignated 

areas. 

 

To preserve the 

existing character 

of the roadway, it 

is recommended 

that the new 

surfacing on 

Roosevelt Drive be 

24’ on the collector 

portion of the 

roadway (Segment 

A) and 20’ on the 

local portion 

(Segment B). 

Some pullouts on Roosevelt Drive may cause 

safety concerns rather than alleviate them. The 

pullout areas should either be improved to 

adequately accommodate users or removed to 

discourage undesirable use. 

Segment A

Segment B
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 44

Construction Impacts 

Roosevelt Drive provides primary access to area residences. There are no alternate routes or reasonable 

detours to access the area. Careful consideration of access during construction will be necessary. For the 

purposes of this report, it was assumed that the road would be closed for blocks during construction with 

designated open road periods. This would optimize construction activities while still allowing for access to 

area residents. Typical road closer periods may be for 3- to 4-hour blocks between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM 

with open travel times during the peak hours (AM, Noon, PM). If the roadway needs to be open for travel 

at all times, additional costs not included in the estimates may be incurred due to added complexities of 

construction and additional traffic control needs. 

Non-Motorists 

The first 2.75 miles of Roosevelt Drive is part of the Adventure Cycling Great Divide mountain bike route 

which is used for the Great Divide Ride and the Butte 100, attracting hundreds of riders each year. There 

are currently no dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities along the study corridor. While traffic volumes are 

typically low on the roadway, the lack of dedicated facilities coupled with narrow roadway widths and sharp 

curves causes safety concerns for non-motorists using the corridor. Although recommendations to provide 

dedicated non-motorized facilities are not included in the improvement options, the recommendations for 

an improved roadway surface and flattened curves may help provide a better facility for non-motorized 

users. Additional warning signage at areas where non-motorists are often present could also be beneficial. 

Blacktail Creek 

During field review it was noted that during high water flow events the creek overflows and sometimes 

overtops Roosevelt Drive causing it to travel through the ditch on the opposite side of the roadway rather 

than the natural streambed. Since Blacktail Creek crosses Roosevelt Drive several times throughout the 

study area, the possibility of rerouting Blacktail Creek to exist on only one side of the roadway to prevent 

overtopping and minimize the number of culverts was discussed. Per Montana stream permitting laws, any 

redirection of a stream bed must be mitigated by placing a new channel of the same length and grade as 

was removed. This was determined to be infeasible and too costly in the study area, so the proposed 

improvement options do not include recommendations to reroute Blacktail Creek. 

Instead of rerouting the creek, it is proposed that the culverts serving Blacktail Creek be resized, 

countersunk, and infilled with streambed material. These improvements would provide adequate passage 

for aquatic organisms, improve flow, and prevent overtopping. Improvements to replace the existing minor 

culverts which are in poor condition are also recommended. In addition to replacing culverts, the 

improvement options include recommendations to establish ditches and place riprap along the 

embankments. These improvements would help improve drainage and prevent erosion thereby protecting 

Roosevelt Drive from damage caused by Blacktail Creek and extending the life of the pavement. 

Roosevelt Drive/Highway 2 Intersection 

Roosevelt Drive and Highway 2 intersect at an approximate 45-degree angle. The skew of this intersection 

presents concerns for sight distance, driver confusion, and difficult turning movements. In addition to the 

sharp skew angle, Highway 2 begins a vertical climb immediately adjacent to the intersection, leading to 

further sight distance issues. Although the geometrics of this intersection do not meet current standards, 

no crashes were reported at the intersection during the 10-year analysis period. 

This intersection was evaluated during the field review to identify if any improvements could be made to 

address geometric concerns. Given that no crashes were reported at the intersection, in addition to site 

constraints and environmental concerns, it was determined that it would be infeasible to reconstruct the 

intersection to meet current standards. It is, however, recommended that vegetation be cleared at the 

intersection as needed to improve sight distance and that advance intersection warning signs be evaluated 

along Highway 2 to warn drivers of the approaching intersection. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 45

7.0. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A public meeting was held at the Copper King Convention Center in Butte, Montana on Wednesday August 

14, 2019 from 4:30 to 6:30 PM. The meeting was formatted as an open house and was intended to give 

members of the public an opportunity to learn and ask questions about the planning study. The open house 

format allowed attendees to speak directly with project staff and representatives from FHWA, Butte-Silver 

Bow, and USFS. Display boards were used to summarize key points from this Preliminary Engineering 

Report and to facilitate discussion. The public also had the opportunity to review and comment on the 

recommended improvement options discussed in the previous section. 

To effectively notify interested parties about the public meeting and offer comments to the planning team, 

several notification methods were employed including postcard meeting invitations, email invitations, 

posting of flyers, and advertisements on the project website. A total of 29 community members signed in at 

the public meeting with others present who did not sign in. In general, questions and comments made 

during the public meeting centered on current roadway conditions, potential benefits and drawbacks of 

improvement options, and other project concerns that should be considered. A Public Meeting Summary

(Appendix E) reviews the meeting details and summarizes the public comments received. The following 

highlights the verbal comments received: 

 Timeline: Some attendees were concerned about the deterioration of the roadway over the next 

several years before construction can be completed and the costs of maintenance within that same 

time. Project staff explained that future improvements would be implemented by Butte-Silver Bow 

and the availability of funding is the primary factor on when a project may be constructed. 

 Potential Mine Traffic: Some of the participants expressed concerns for roadway safety, longevity 

of the roadway surfacing with sustained heavy vehicle traffic impacts, and general traffic concerns 

should the Highlands Mine use Roosevelt Drive as a haul route. Some participants were concerned 

that if improvements were made to the corridor it would encourage use by the mine. 

 Maintenance: Many of the participants expressed frustration regarding the current condition of 

Roosevelt Drive. The general consensus is that the road should be repaved. Some attendees 

mentioned that new surfacing is only needed on the first part of Roosevelt Drive (Segment A). 

 Safety: Icy roads combined with tight curves, steep slopes, and lack of shoulders were cited as 

common causes of crashes. In particular, safety concerns regarding the 90-degree curve (MP 0.5), 

trestle (MP 1.0), s-curves (MP 2.3), Roosevelt Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Highland Road intersection, 

bicyclists, mine traffic, and speed were mentioned. 

Although many meeting participants were not aware of the impacts that poor drainage has on the roadway 

condition, most agreed that improved drainage along Roosevelt Drive would be beneficial. Most participants 

also agreed that resurfacing was necessary, although full reconstruction with a new alignment may not be 

the best option, especially with limited funding available. Spot improvements at the trestle and s-curves 

were desired by most. The benefits of the spot improvements at the 90-degree turn and Roosevelt 

Drive/Lime Kiln Road/Highland Drive intersection were discussed but seen as less important than the other 

spot improvements. Given funding constraints, improvements to Segment A were seen as the top priority. 

The majority of participants felt that repaving the existing roadway, combined with spot improvements was 

the best option (Option 2). Many residents expressed concern about impacts during construction. Since the 

roadway is the only viable access for residents. 

In addition to verbal discussions, one written comment was received at the public meeting with additional 

comments being submitted during the public review period (August 8th, 2019 to September 8th, 2019). All 

written public comments received are included in Appendix F. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 46

8.0. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 

This study evaluated Roosevelt Drive to gain a better understanding of corridor goals, objectives, 

constraints, and opportunities. A thorough analysis of applicable information from Butte-Silver Bow, FHWA, 

USFS, MDT, and other resources was conducted to identify an initial set of improvement options that would 

address the operational characteristics, safety, and physical conditions of the existing facility. The roadway 

is in poor condition and rapidly deteriorating due to poor drainage, surfacing, and erosion. In order to 

preserve access to the residential, recreational, and commercial lands, improve safety, and accommodate 

future travel demands, rehabilitation/reconstruction of the roadway is necessary. 

From an implementation standpoint, it may be desirable to improve the roadway incrementally. With this in 

mind, two segments were identified: Segment A: MP 0.00 to 2.75 and Segment B: MP 2.75 to 4.30. If 

desired, and if funding can be secured, these segments can also be combined into a single project to 

improve the entire Roosevelt Drive corridor. 

Three potential improvement options were ultimately identified and range in complexity and cost. The level 

of rehabilitation or reconstruction may depend on consideration of impacts, costs, and needs addressed. 

Table 7.1 provides a summary of the three improvement options which may be considered by appropriate 

project sponsors. 

Table 8.1: Summary of Options and Cost Estimate 

Option Description Estimated Cost 

Option 1: 

Rehabilitation on 

Existing Alignment 

 Retain existing horizontal alignment and vertical profile. 

 Overlay existing surfacing (24’ Segment A, 20’ Segment B) 

 Replace all Blacktail Creek culverts and minor culverts in poor 

condition. 

 Install new warning signs at substandard curves and other 

hazard locations. 

 Establish/excavate ditches where possible to improve drainage 

and reduce erosion. 

 Place riprap at stream erosion areas to prevent future erosion. 

 Clear brush/trees/vegetation form clear zone to improve sight 

distance. 

 Perform subexcavation in areas with unstable subgrades. 

Segment A: $3,100,000 

Segment B: $700,000 

Total: $3,800,000 

Option 2: 

Rehabilitation with 

Improved 

Geometrics 

Option 1 plus geometric improvements: 

 90-degree curve (MP 0.5): Reconstruct to 40-mph design 

speed 

 Trestle (MP 1.0): Shift road, raise grade, install guardrail and 

retaining wall 

 S-curves (MP 2.2–2.4): Reconstruct to 40-mph design speed, 

constant grade 

 Intersection (MP 2.7): Reconstruct to standard 4-way 

intersection 

Segment A: $5,600,000 

Segment B: $700,000 

Total: $6,300,000 

Option 3: 

Reconstruction with 

New Alignment 

 New horizontal alignment that meets design standards and 

retains as much of the existing road prism as possible. 

 New vertical profile to meet design standards with adjustments 

to provide greater clearance for drainage structures and 

freeboard along the creek. 

 Grade along existing cut slopes to generate the additional 

width required for ditches and to provide greater separation 

from Blacktail Creek. 

 Place riprap at stream erosion areas to prevent future erosion. 

 Perform subexcavation in areas with unstable subgrades. 

Segment A: $7,500,000 

Segment B: $1,800,000 

Total: $9,300,000 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 47

The ability to develop a project is dependent on the availability of existing and future funding. At the current 

time funding has not been identified to proceed with a project. Should Butte-Silver Bow elect to proceed 

with a project, the following steps are needed: 

 Identify the option that best meets the safety, environmental, and social needs in the area identified 

in the study; 

 Identify and secure a funding source or sources; and 

 Follow appropriate guidelines for project nomination and development, including a public 

involvement process and environmental documentation that describes any potential impacts and 

mitigation measures from any proposed action. 

Any future project should be consistent with the needs and objectives contained in this study. Should this 

study lead to a project (or projects), compliance with appropriate funding and environmental regulations will 

be required. The information presented in this report can serve as a baseline for future project development 

and to apply for funding support. 
Roosevelt Drive Upgrade Study, MT BSilver Bow 2016(9) 

 Preliminary Engineering Report 

 September 11, 2019 48

REFERENCES 

1

 Community Development Services of Montana, Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy, 2008 Update, 

http://www.co.silverbow.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/326/Butte-Silver-Bow-Growth-Policy-2008-Update

2

 Forest Service, USDA, Record of Decision Enacting Forest Plan Travel Management Direction for 

Certain Areas of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, February 2009, 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5123388.pdf

3

 Forest Service, USDA, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

2009, https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/bdnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5052938

4

 Forest Service, USDA, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Corrected Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2009, 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5052782.pdf

5

 Montana DEQ, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Butte Highlands Joint Venture Mine, 

December 2014, 

https://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Public/EIS/Documents/Hardrock/ButteHighlands/BHJV_MINE_FEIS_Dec.2

014.pdf

6

 Pioneer Technical Services, Abelin Traffic Services, DLJ Consulting, Butte-Silver Bow Transportation 

Plan 2016 Update, June 2017, https://co.silverbow.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/9491/FINAL-BSB-2016-

Transportation-Plan?bidId=

7

 Butte-Silver Bow, The City-County of Butte-Silver Bow Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Performance Budget, 

Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Budget, page M-1, 

https://www.co.silverbow.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/10219/FY-2018-Performance-Budget

8

 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, 2018, Washington, D.C. 

9

 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2001. Guidelines for Geometric 

Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (ADT≤400). Washington, D.C. 

10 Butte-Silver Bow, Road Division Standard Drawings, Revised 2013, 

http://www.co.silverbow.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/82/Road-Division-Standard-Drawings-pdf9MB?bidId=

11 Community Development Services of Montana, Butte-Silver Bow County Growth Policy, 2008 Update, 

http://www.co.silverbow.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/326/Butte-Silver-Bow-Growth-Policy-2008-Update

12 Montana Natural Resource Damage Program, Confluence Consulting, Inc., and DTM Consulting, Inc., 

Silver Bow Creek Watershed Plan, December 2005, 

https://dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/silverbowcreekrestorationplanfinal.pdf