Att. 6 NEPA 250523.pdf

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION NEPA PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM- SUPERIOR NATIONAL

FOREST

South Brule River Bridge and Assinika Creek Crossing Replacements Project Name: Road Bridge Replacement and Creek Crossing

Replacement Review Due By: 12/01/2022 Project Leader Name: Jim Strezishar Project Proponent/ Contact: Jim Strezishar District Office: SO Office Project location: Provide Legal and Map, include acres.

Both projects are in the Gunflint District.

T:Drive location- Shape file path:

Forest Plan Management Area: General Forest Area In which CE Category Does This Project Fit and why?

D (4) Repair and maintenance of roads, trails and landline boundaries.

36 CFR 220.6 (d) (4)

Proposed Timeframe:

Date project begun (entered in PALS if required)

NA

Implementation Date(s): 06/01/2023-12/01/2025

South Brule River Bridge FR152 @ MP 6.3300

Assinika Creek Crossing FR309 @ MP 3.9610

Who and Where: Engineering Dept. South Brule River Bridge FR152 @ MP 6.3300 Assinika Creek Crossing FR309 @ MP 3.9610

What: Bridge and culvert crossing replacement are to be upgraded to facilitate, maintain, and enhance aquatic organism passage and improve Forest infrastructure quality to ensure user safety of NFS roads.

Why: The bridge in this request has been identified as being unsafe for use or severely restricted for carrying capacity and needs to be replaced to maintain public safety. Timber also needs this bridge for sales shown on map.

The current culvert located at Assinika Creek Crossing is nearing the end of its design life, is perched, and is restricting stream flow. FR309 supports timber, fire, fuels, and public traffic accessing National Forest and Private lands. Project design is currently underway as a mentoring project between Bob Gubernick WO, R9 TST, and Superior NF Engineering Staff.

How: The South Brule Bridge will be replaced with a structure that is longer than the existing one to prevent future erosion and scour issues at that location.

The Assinika Creek project will replace a 90"x65" metal pipe arch with an open bottom structure to facilitate aquatic organism passage.

PRIOR NEPA REVIEW OR PLANNED IMPLEMENTATION FOR AREA

What prior NEPA decisions cover the project area?

Check: T:\FS\Reference\GIS\r09_snf\LayerFile\NEPA\FACTS NEPA Decisions. Lima Green.

What treatment, if any, is planned in the project area under other NEPA?

Check: T:\FS\Reference\GIS\r09_snf\LayerFile\NEPA\All Planned NEPA Treatments, Generalized Treatment. None for Brule. Assinika has a ‘harvest to create young’ strip of land to the north-east of the bridge.

What is currently planned for implementation in the project area?

Check: T:\FS\Reference\GIS\r09_snf\LayerFile\NEPA\NOT Yet Accomplished, Implementation Plan None for Brule. Assinika has a ‘to be determined’ strip of land (same as above strip) to the north-east of the bridge.

What on-the-ground work has been accomplished recently in the project area?

Check: T:\FS\Reference\GIS\r09_snf\LayerFile\NEPA\Accomplished Treatments, Generalized Treatment. None for either project.

For Roads and Trails:

☒Multi-use trail, summer & winter, width if winter only ☒Road prism present ☒Erosion present ☐Areas with unaltered ground ☒Motorized ☐Access control needed ☐Attached photos of wetland or waterbody crossing

Environmental Analysis Review Are the following resource conditions present? If any are marked yes, comments/rationale on whether or not there are extraordinary circumstances must be provided.

Federally Listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat?

If yes, see the Wildlife and Botany Concerns/Effects sections.

☐Yes ☒No

Regional Forester Sensitive Species?

If yes, see the Wildlife and Botany Concerns/Effects sections.

☐Yes ☒No

Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds?

If yes, see riparian / soils sections.

☒Yes ☐No

Congressionally designated areas impacted or included? I.E Wilderness areas or anticipated effects to wilderness If yes, see the Rec/Wilderness sections.

☐Yes ☒No

RACR; Regional approval required?

If yes, see the Rec/Wilderness sections.

☐Yes ☒No

Forest Plan inventoried roadless area?

If yes, see the Rec/Wilderness sections.

☐Yes ☒No

Research Natural Areas?

If yes, see Forest Plan compliance section.

☐Yes ☒No

Known Heritage/ Cultural Site?

If yes, see the Heritage Concerns/Effects section.

☐Yes ☒No

Based on this information, the resource review below, and the project record, does the line officer determine there are any extraordinary circumstances?

☐Yes ☒No

Botany Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required:

No known occurrences of Regional Forester sensitive plant species (RFSS) have been identified in the vicinity of these proposed projects, so I have no concerns for them. In addition, given that these structures already exist, the habitat around them has been disturbed in the past, so I also have no concerns for suitable habitat for any potential RFSS species.

I have minimal concerns for non-native invasive plant species (NNIS). After the projects are completed, we will monitor the disturbed areas. If any NNIS are present, we will treat them to mitigate preventing their spread.

Signature: Laurie M. Gawin 9/26/2022 Water Resources Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required: 0.25 No Water Resources Concerns. MOU paperwork with the MnDNR should be submitted at least 60 days prior to advertisement to ensure no design changes are identified. See M. Rye for details.

Signature: /s/ Jason Butcher 9/28/2022 Fisheries Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required: 0.25 No Fisheries concerns. No aquatic RFSS impacts.

Signature: /s/ Jason Butcher 9/28/2022 Heritage Concerns/ Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required:

This project will be listed as No Historic Properties Affected. MN SHPO consult resulted with ineligible South Brule Bridge. No concerns for the culvert replacement.

Signature: /s/ Sara Kerfoot 4/5/2023 Recreation/Scenery Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required: 0.5 No concerns Signature: /s/ Cathleen Quinn 9/19/2022 Wilderness/Roadless Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required: 0.5 No concerns Signature: /s/ Cathleen Quinn 9/19/2022 Silviculture Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required: 0.5 No concerns.

Signature: /s/ Sarah K. Poznanovic 9/28/2022 Soil Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required: 15 min No concerns related to soils so long as standard stormwater and erosion control practices are implemented, as needed. Also recommend following the best management practices for stream crossings outlined on pp. 117-120 of the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1. Those practices mirror much, but not all, of the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan.

Signature: /s/ David Morley 9/7/2022 Special Uses Non-Rec Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required: .50 Assinika Crossing T63N R2E Sec. 7- No Concerns.

South Brule River T63N R1W Sec. 15- No Concerns.

Signature: /s/ Katherine Lammersen 9/30/2022 https://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/wfw/watershed/national_bmps/assets/fs_national_core_bmps_april2012.pdf

Special Uses-Rec Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required:

No Concerns Signature: /s/Ryan Blaisdell 9/21/2022 Timber Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required:

No concerns with the Lima Grade bridge.

Concerns with the timing of when the culvert is replaced over Assinika creek. Hopefully it happens sooner than later so the culvert/crossing doesn’t get limited on weight it can handle. Also concerns of how long the project may delay vehicles crossing during the replacement.

We do have current and future contracts planned in the area that will need to cross that section.

Signature: /S/ Gene Dressely 10/5/2022 Transportation Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required:

No Concerns.

Signature: /s/ David Avery 09/15/22 Wildlife Concerns/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required:

I expect No Effect on Canada Lynx, Canada Lynx Critical Habitat or Gray Wolf with this project.

I expect No Effect on Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) or to the proposed endangered tricolored bat from this project.

The Programmatic BO on the Final 4(d) Rule for the NLEB recommends performing any bridge, repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work outside of the NLEB active season (April 1 to Oct.

31) in areas where NLEB are known to roost on bridges or where such is likely. Chris Beal examined the bridge in mid-October 2022 and confirmed that it is not a good structure for bat roosting. “It’s very small, the support beams are placed far apart, and there are no usable crevices… any theoretical use would be exposed to wind/elements”. No bat droppings were found or any other signs of bat use. For these reasons, I do not think it is necessary to require a timing restriction for bats.

I have reviewed the rare features databases and survey records for terrestrial wildlife Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). This project would result in no impact for most of the Regional Forester Sensitive Species or for species proposed for RFSS designation. These activities may impact individuals but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability for RFSS with habitat potential in the area.

Signature: /s/ Peg Robertsen 11/4/2022 Public Involvement Concerns/Legal Compliance Hours required:

No concerns Signature: Caroline Torkildson 10/24/2022 Boundary Management Concerns/Legal Compliance Hours required:

No Concerns from Boundary Mgmt. The Assinika Bridge lies entirely within Federal Forest property.

The South Brule Bridge lies within State Property. However, the road is under Forest jurisdiction.

Signature: Michael Smith 10/03/2022 Fuels/Effects/Legal Compliance Hours required:

The larger “Banjo” prescribed fire unit not shown on the page 2 South Brule map is an upcoming priority for fuels. Please notify fuels of the construction dates as soon as possible.

Signature: /s/ Isaac Heruth 9/6/2022 Tribal Resource Concerns/ Effects/Legal Compliance Tribal Engagement needed YES ☐ No ☒

If yes describe engagement: Consultation is on going, no additional action needed at this time.

Signature: /s/ Juan R Martinez 9/7/2022 State and County Government Coordination (for example, with cross boundary trail projects) State and/or County Government Engagement needed

YES ☐ No ☒

If yes describe engagement:

Signature: Caroline Torkildson 10/24/2022 School Trust Land Exchange Is project located on candidate federal parcels?

YES ☐ No ☒

If yes, discuss with Supervisors Office and note disposition:

Check GIS layer: T:\FS\NFS\Superior\Project\SO\Lands\SchoolTrustExchange\GIS\LayerFiles\School Trust Federal Parcels for APPRAISAL - 031319.lyr.

Signature: Caroline Torkildson 10/25/2022 Forest Plan Consistency/Legal Compliance Is the activity consistent with Forest Plan Management Area Direction?

YES ☒ No ☐

Is the activity consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines?

YES ☒ No ☐

Layer location: Database Connection:

S_R09_SNF.DEFAULT:S_R09_SNF.Planning_ManagementAreas If it is unclear whether the project is consistent with Forest Plan direction, explain here:

Signature: Caroline Torkildson 10/25/2022

Summary of Project Requirements:

• MOU paperwork with the MnDNR should be submitted at least 60 days prior to advertisement to ensure no design changes are identified. See Marty Rye for details.

• Follow standard stormwater and erosion control practices and best management practices for stream crossings outlined on pp. 117-120 of the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1.

• Timber: Assinika creek culvert replacement crossing be done quickly so it doesn’t get limited on weight it can handle or delay vehicles crossing during the replacement.

• Notify fuels with construction dates of Brule bridge as the Banjo prescribed fire is a priority

Reviewed by:

Who Name Signature Date Environmental Coordinator (Detailed)

Matt Modlin

Approved by:

Who Name Signature Date Gunflint District Ranger

Kyle Stover