EA Decision Notice For the Sluice Boxes State Park Upper Trailhead Parking and Kiosk lmprovements

Description of Proposed Action: The Sluice Boxes upper parking area currently averages 20 to 25 cars at a time on a typical summer weekend afternoon. The parking area capacity is 15 vehicles assuming the cars all park as they are meant to. Due to the lack of parking space, visitors have taken it upon themselves to find additional space, expanding the parking area out onto native grass adjacent to the developed parking area. Visitors reach this unintended and undeveloped parking area by driving through the borrow ditch off the county road. This project proposes levelling and hardening the surface of the area where visitors are currently inappropriately parking, adjoining the two parking areas to produce one larger parking area for 28 cars; installing barrier rocks, jack leg fence, and parking curbs to prevent the parking from continuing to expand; and developing a safe and legal approach off the county road. As the impromptu parking area is now, it poses a risk to visitors of getting stuck and it will lead to continued degradation of the resource. ln addition to the parking area surface work, a kiosk would be installed. Kiosks are standard at access points in almost every Montana State Park, but the Sluice Boxes upper parking area has never had one, even though roughly half of the visitors enter the park there. A kiosk would provide staff with an opportunity to post rules and regulations, fee information, details regarding camping, and information about safety issues in the park, such as trail closures or bear sightings. lt would also point visitors to areas of interest and make it possible to educate park users about the unique cultural and environmental resources on the property and how we preserve them. Finally, it would enable us to collect fees from non-residents.

Alternative A: No Action
No action would enable continued haphazard spread of undeveloped and unsafe parking and lead to additional resource degradation.

Alternative B: Proposed Action
Properly develop the current parking area according to professionally designed plans to ensure visitors are parking in an orderly and safe manner while maximizing the space, along with adding fencing and barrier rocks to delineate the parking area boundaries so it does not continue to expand.

Alternative C: Use the Space and Material There and Stop Unsanctioned Expansion
Attempt to delineate the area currently being parked on with materials already available at the site. This option could stop the unintended expansion of the parking area, assuming enough barrier rocks could be found to adequately block vehicle traffic, but it
would not address the need for a safe approach to the county road, the most efficient utilization of the space for maximum parking, or hardening and grading the native surface for proper drainage.

Alternative D: Build Additional Parking Space Nearby
This option is not feasible due to the lack of a more suitable location in the limited space between the rim of the canyon and the county road, and the fact that any such space would require native and undisturbed grassland to be excavated. lt would also necessitate the extension of the trail and would be a much more expensive alternative to build a completely new infrastructure rather than upgrading what is existing.

Public Process and Comments:

A press release was issued on March 4,2021 and the EA was posted on the FWP website for a period of 30 days from March 4 through April 2, 2021.
A total of 9 comments were received on the project.
5 comments were in favor of Alternative B: Proposed Action

Two comments expressed concern over increased parking which they believed will create too much use and additional problems.

One comment expressed the need to create a larger parking area than what the design calls for.

One comment noted that the existing parking area only fills up for 6 weeks out of the year so enlarging it is not necessary.

Decision:After review of the public comments FWP has decided to proceed with Alternative B as described in of the Environmental Assessment and in this document.

This action is subject to appeal, which must be submitted to the FWP Director in writing and postmarked within 30 days of th¡s decision notice. The appeal must specifically describe the basis for the appeal, explain how the appellant has previously commented to the Department or participated in the decision- making process and how FWP might address the concerns of the appeal.

Gary Bertellotti FWP Region 4 Supervisor