FINDINGS OF FACT

And

CONCLUSIONS

Trunk Highway (TH) 200 Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW)

State Project No. S.P. No. 1106-15

Prepared by: Minnesota Department of Transportation

May 2020

Page i TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

CONTENTS

1.0 STATEMENT OF ISSUE ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 4

3.0 FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................................................................................ 5

4.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 16

Page 3 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS TH 200 EA/EAW

Located in: Cass County, Minnesota

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

The proposed project includes: • Mill and overlay from Reference Point (R.P.) 132.40 to R.P. 144.03• Shoulder widening from R.P. 128.42 to R.P. 131.80• Pavement reclaim on TH 200 from R.P.128.42 to R.P. 132.40• Replacement of Bridge 8136 (7’x 7’ double box culvert) and Bridge 8533 (10’x 5’ box

culvert).• Replacement of 6 centerline culverts and lining 22 entrance culverts.• Shoulder paving, widening, centerline and shoulder rumble strips• Construction consists of the addition of 10 right turn lanes, 1 left turn lane, 11 by pass

lanes, 3 bypass right turn lanes and 4 offset right turn lanes.• Pedestrian and bicycle improvements would include full width shoulder paving

(approximately 5-6 foot) from R.P. 128.42 to R.P. 131.80.• Tree thinning in specific areas along the corridor that experience winter icing.• Obtaining additional easement from Chippewa National Forest (CNF)

Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was a proposer initiated discretionary EAW and did not trigger the Minnesota Rules. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is the project proposer. MnDOT is also the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for review of this project.

MnDOT’s decision in this matter shall be either a negative or a positive declaration of the need for an environmental impact statement. MnDOT must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project if it determines the project has the potential for significant environmental effects.

Based upon the information in the record, which comprises the Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) for the proposed project, related studies referenced in the EA/EAW, written comments received, responses to the comments, and other supporting documents included in this Findings of Fact and Conclusions document, MnDOT makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions (FOFC):

Page 4 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND 2.1 The Minnesota Department of Transportation is the Responsible Governmental Unit and project

proposer for the TH 200 EA/EAW. A combined Federal Environmental Assessment and State Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) has been prepared for this project in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et. seq.). The EA/EAW was developed to assess the impacts of the project and other circumstances to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is indicated.

2.2 The EA/EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and comment to the required EAW distribution list. A “Notice of Availability” was published in the EQB Monitor on January 21, 2020. A press release was distributed to local media outlets and was published in the Pilot-Independent. Appendix A contains copies of the affidavit of publication for the legal notice, which was provided in the Pilot-Independent in Walker Minnesota. A notice was also published on the project web page at www.mndot.gov/d2/projects/2021/hwy200-walker/resources.html. These notices provided a brief description of the project and information on where copies of the EA/EAW were available and invited the public to provide comments that would be used in determining the need for an EIS on the proposed project.

2.3 It was determined that a public hearing/open house was not needed because the project does not meet the criteria under 23 CFR 771.111. The regulations require that a public hearing be held if the project will need a significant amount of right-of-way, substantially changes the layout or functions of connecting roadways or of the facility being improved, has a substantial adverse impact on abutting property or has significant social, economic, environmental effects. The project does not trigger any of those criteria. The public, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO), and CNF has been informed of the project and will continue to be informed of the project through construction meetings that will be held throughout project development.

2.4 The EA/EAW was made available for public review at the following locations:

• Minnesota Department of Transportation, District 2: 3920 Highway 2 West Bemidji, MN56601

• Minnesota Department of Transportation Library: 395 John Ireland Blvd, St. Paul, MN55155

• Walker Public Library: 207 4th St., P.O. Box 550, Walker MN 56484• Bemidji Public Library: 509 America Ave. NW, Bemidji, MN 56601• Walker Ranger District 201 Minnesota Avenue East, Walker MN 56484• Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Division of Resource Management: 190 Sail Star Drive NW,

Cass Lake, MN 56633• The EA/EAW was also placed on the MnDOT project website at

www.mndot.gov/d2/projects/2021/hwy200-walker/resources.html. Comments werereceived through February 21, 2020.

Page 5 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

2.5 Two agency letters and one agency email were received during the EA/EAW comment period. All comments received during the EA/EAW comment period were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Comments received during the comment period and responses to substantive comments are provided in Appendix B.

FINDINGS OF FACT

3.1 Project Description

3.1.1 Existing Conditions:

The Project corridor consists of a two lane minor arterial highway in rolling winding terrain with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. It is located on the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) Reservation within the Chippewa National Forest (CNF) between Trunk Highway (TH) 371 and TH 84 and is approximately 15.6 miles in length. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts from 2015 range from 2,000 to 4,200 vehicles per day (vpd) with each segment as follows: 2,000 vpd from TH 84 to County Rd 39 (3.4 mi), 2,750 vpd from County Rd 39 to Onigum Road (10.2 mi), 4,200 vpd from Onigum Road to TH 371 (1.9 mi). The existing roadway has a 12 foot lane width and 5 foot shoulders (3 foot paved and 2 foot gravel).

The corridor experiences higher volumes of traffic during the summer months. There are many lakes located in the area which accommodate resorts and campgrounds. Leech Lake is adjacent to the corridor and is considered a premier fishing lake. In addition, the Moondance Events area located just east of Onigum Road hosts several summer festivals and other activities. The increased summer traffic and recreational vehicles in this area result in traffic mobility problems caused by slower moving traffic, longer braking times, the need for wider turning movements, and restricted sight lines due to the longer length of the combined load.

3.1.2 Proposed Project

This segment of TH 200 has deteriorating pavement and has reached the end of its design life. According to the 2016 Pavement Conditions evaluation the segment of TH 200 between TH 371 and TH 84 has a Remaining Surface Life rating of “Low”.

An evaluation of the roadway pavement was conducted along this portion of TH 200 in 2017. The evaluation indicated that TH 200 showed deterioration and fair condition levels: Ride Quality Index (RQI) = 2.4, Surface Rating (SR) = 3.4 and the Pavement Quality Index (PQI) = 2.9. The RQI rating of 2.4 is currently below the trigger value for end of service life, which is considered to be 2.5. The results of the evaluations concluded that the pavement had deteriorated to a point of needing mill and overlay from MN 371 to MN84.

Two box culverts within the segment (Bridge # 8136 and Bridge # 8533) were constructed in 1926 and extended in 1941. The bridge sufficiency rating for Bridge 8136 is 67.4 and for Bridge 8533 the rating is 76.4. The box culverts have a number of substantial cracks in the walls and

Page 6 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

roof. Many of the roof cracks are located near walls where there is a lack of adequate reinforcing steel. These box culverts were designed decades ago and the have exceeded their design life and need replacing. The road culverts along this segment have been in place for approximately 70 years. Many of the culverts have deteriorated over time to the point where they are no longer functioning properly because of obstructions or total structural failure.

The corridor is located in rolling winding terrain which creates sight distance issues and minimal passing opportunities. There are many intersections along the corridor that experience mobility complications due to poor sight lines, driver expectation, and increased traffic use during the summer tourist season which increases traffic unfamiliar with the area, and/or that are towing boats, campers and trailers. In an effort to improve driving conditions in the corridor several bypass and turn lanes are being proposed.

The corridor also experiences winter low sunlight levels in specific areas due to the east west alignment of the road and the close proximity of coniferous trees. This shading during winter months creates areas on the highway of icy patches of pavement. Where there are no coniferous trees or where the areas are more open, the pavement is exposed to sunlight. This mix of shade and non-shade creates a corridor with dry winter pavement and patches of slippery icy pavement, affecting driver expectations. Specific areas have been identified along the corridor for tree thinning to open up the canopy to let sunlight in. The tree thinning will minimize icy patches along the corridor that cause winter icing.

3.2 Additional Information Regarding Items Discussed in the EA/EAW Since It Was Published

Since the EA/EAW was published, the following information pertaining to the project has been added or updated:

3.2.1 Reference to wrong permit number. It was brought to MnDOT’s attention through the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comment letter that the EA/EAW inaccurately reflected the Federal Stormwater Permit to be issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in table 19 on Page 54 of the EA/EAW. The EPA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is not MN R10001, this is reference to the Minnesota General Stormwater permit. The correct permit is the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities (as modified). https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stormwater-program.

3.2.2 Clarification of EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) role in project permitting EPA submitted a comment during the comment period that the EA/EAW does not acknowledge the EPA’s role in the administration of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section iv. v. Surface Waters. a. wetlands Page 29 inaccurately states that the USACE regulates wetland resources in Minnesota under Section 404 of the CWA. Both the EPA and USACE jointly administer Section 404 of the CWA. Additionally, MnDOT must consult with the EPA along with the USACE to determine appropriate compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources impacts as part of the CWA 404 permitting process.

3.2.3 Stormwater Best Management Practices. There is a statement in the draft EA/EAW at the bottom of page 27 that inaccurately describes the project construction adding 43.3 acres of new impervious surface. This number was a reflection of the total number of acres impacted of

Page 7 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

all land types. The amount of impervious surface as a result of the construction of the proposed project is approximately 3.7 acres. The error is being acknowledged in the findings and significantly reduces the amount of runoff to be managed as a result of the proposed project.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) provided two comments regarding stormwater during the comment period. Similar to EPA’s comments, the MPCA requested more information to determine permitting jurisdiction.

• The MPCA requested clarification on State/Federal jurisdiction over the projectbecause of its location on the LLBO reservation.

The entire project is located on tribal land and is under EPA’s jurisdiction. Thereference to the wrong permit number was an inadvertent mistake and is beingcorrected through findings 3.2.1. Clarification on the role of EPA in the processis provided in findings 3.2.2.

• The MPCA requested more detail be provided on mitigation measures that willbe in place during construction of the project, in particular the proposed boxculverts.

The document is both a federal (EA) and state (EAW) document. The Federal EAand State EAW format lists project mitigation as an Attachment. The format wasfollowed and the mitigation list was provided in Attachment R of the EA/EAW. Itis being included in this findings as Attachment C. In addition, mitigationspecific to removal and replacement of the box culverts will meet the EPAstormwater permit requirements and the Minnesota Department of NaturalResources (MnDNR) work in public waters permit requirements. Those permitsinclude conditions required to protect surface water during and afterconstruction.

3.2.4 Impacts to Surface Water. The MPCA provided two comments regarding surface water impacts during the comment period.

• The MPCA expressed concerns related to increased chloride use because ofadditional impervious surface.

MnDOT anticipates that less chemical treatment will be needed with theproposed project. Tree thinning will be occurring in specific areas along thecorridor that experience icing in the winter. The tree thinning in these areas isthe intended mitigation to minimize the icing, therefore, reducing the need forchemical treatment. In addition, the driving lane surfaces are the primary focusfor chemical treatment. It is not MnDOT’s practice to use chemical treatmenton shoulders. Additional driving lanes are not being proposed for this project.

• The MPCA expressed concerns regarding infiltration rates with respect to theClass C and Class A soils. MPCA staff suggested re-examining the data andconsider alternative means of infiltration.

Page 8Findings of Fact & Conclusions

T H 200 EA/EAW May 2020

The entire project is located on the LLBO reservation. MnDOT has been coordinating with the tribe throughout project development. The tribe would prefer that stormwater ponds not be used for infiltration. In addition, the EPA NPDES permit does not require stormwater treatment based on proposed new impervious surface. The 3.7 acres of new impervious surface is distributed in several sites over the approximately 15 mile corridor. No one site would experience a significant increase in runoff. In the widening section of the project the ditches are being improved to include an 8 foot ditch bottom design which will provide the ability to handle more infiltration while considering the existing soil types.

3.2.5 Invasive Species. The MnDNR submitted an email during the comment period noting that that Zebra Mussels are also confirmed in Leech Lake and should be mentioned in item 5 Attachment J.

• MnDOT acknowledges that zebra mussels are present in Leech Lake. Thepresence of these invasive species is identified in Attachment R of the draftEA/EAW which is Attachment C of these findings. MnDOT will be identifyingboth Leech Lake and Town Lake as infested waters for the Zebra Mussel andEurasian Water Milfoil on project plans for construction. Work is notanticipated in those waters and there are no plans to use this water forconstruction purposes. If there is a change in the proposed project MnDOT willbe following the guidance prepared to protect the spread of Eurasian WaterMilfoil and Zebra Mussels.

3.2.6 Environmental Commitments: As described above, the environmental mitigation and commitments are listed in Attachment C of this findings, which was also provided in Attachment R of the EA/EAW.

3.2.7 The work near the intersection of TH371 on the western 475' of TH200 may be staged with another State Project in the fall of 2020.

3.3 Findings Regarding Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects

Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 provides that an environmental impact statement shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following four factors described in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp.7 shall be considered:

A. type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;

B. cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whetherthe cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from theproject is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to thecumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approvedmitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect;and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;

C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing

Page 9 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

T H 200 EA/EAW May 2020

public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and

D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as aresult of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or theproject proposer, including other EISs.

MnDOT’s key findings with respect to each of these criteria are set forth below:

3.3.1 Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Impacts

MnDOT finds that the analysis completed during the EA/EAW process is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EA/EAW describes the type and extent of impacts anticipated to result from the proposed project. In addition to the information in the EA/EAW, the additional information described in Section 3.2 of this Findings of Fact and Conclusions document as well as the public/agency comments received during the public comment period (see Appendix B) were taken into account in considering the type, extent and reversibility of project impacts. Following are the key findings regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and the design features included to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts and environmental commitments as a result of the EA/EAW process are included in Appendix C:

3.3.1.1 Land Use: The Project is located in Cass County, Minnesota – a rural setting that includes a few private properties, a few state forest land parcels. The corridor travels through both the LLBO Reservation and the CNF. Immediately adjacent to the corridor the land use is primarily managed forests, with portions of the right of way (ROW) containing federal easements with CNF. Other land use includes residences and small businesses, including gravel pits, which occur along the corridor. Leech Lake abuts the northern portion of the Project corridor and is used recreationally during the summer.

The Project is compatible with the Land Use Ordinances and consistent with the existing and future land uses; no land use conflicts are anticipated. Further, the Leech Lake Management Plan encourages improving bridges and culverts as a positive action for the Leech Lake area.

The proposed construction activities on National Forest System lands are consistent with direction, standards, and guidelines in the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan for the CNF. MnDOT and the CNF have entered into a Forest Stipulation Agreement developed to continue cooperation in the development and construction of TH 200. The Stipulation mitigation measures are designed to protect the resources in the area. In addition to communicating with the CNF MnDOT is committed to continued coordination with the LLBO during project development.

Page 10 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

3.3.1.2 Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms: The average depth to bedrock in the Project area ranges from 50 to 350 feet. Surficial geology of the Project corridor is comprised mostly of a complex mix of glacial till and cobbly ice-contact sediment belonging predominately to the Hewitt Formation. A portion of the surficial geology near Nolan Creek contains sandy sediments from the Blackduck Formation and sandy Hewitt Formation sediments (Minnesota Geological Survey, 2018a). Bedrock geology of the Project area is Mesoproterozoic, Precambrian bedrock comprised of mafic metavolcanic rocks with minor volcaniclastic and hypabyssal intrusions on the western portion and tonalite, diorite and graodiorite on the east. Seems of iron formations and Precambrian dikes cross northwest to southeast across the whole Project area (Minnesota Geological Survey, 2018b).

The Project is located within the Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains subsection of the Northern Minnesota Drift and Lake Plains section. This subsection is characterized by large outwash plains, narrow outwash channels, and end moraines. The Project Area consists of gently rolling topography with loamy drift parent materials.

According to the NRCS data, soils located in the Project corridor are generally well drained, formed in sandy glacial outwash, and contain small components (7%) of poorly drained hydric soils.

3.3.1.3 Water Resources: Stormwater-The project is located entirely on the LLBO with portions of the corridor traveling through the CNF. Project construction will increase the impervious surface by approximately 3.7 acres and will be designed to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sediment and erosion control standards consistent with the required NPDES permit. The EPA will administer the Construction Stormwater Permit under the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be developed for the Project. Erosion prevention and sediment control requirements would be followed in accordance with the NPDES permit, which includes both temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control plans as well as other Best Management practices (BMPs) to protect water resources.

Wetlands- Two hundred seventy seven wetlands totaling 68.73 acres were identified within the project area as a result of a wetland delineation. Based on the delineation and preliminary construction limits, the proposed project would result in approximately 4.30 acres of permanent wetland impacts and 0.544 acre of wet ditch impacts. It was not feasible to completely avoid all wetland impacts resulting from the roadway improvements. Wetland impacts that are unavoidable have been minimized to the extent practicable without compromising safety. The following design measures were used to minimize these impacts. In the mill and overlay portion of the project the existing 5 foot shoulders would remain. The shoulder widening areas would maintain and 8 foot shoulder to meet MnDOT design standards. MnDOT will fund compensatory wetland mitigation which will utilize wetland bank credits.

Page 11 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

3.3.1.4 Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: MnDOT staff reviewed the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) databases to check for known contaminated sites in the Project area. The databases searched included: leaking underground storage tank facilities, landfill, salvage yards, voluntary investigation and cleanup (VIC) sites, Superfund sites, and dump sites. Given the nature and location of the Project, MnDOT staff determined that the Project had a medium risk for impacting a potentially contaminated sites and additional evaluation of the Project area for potential contamination was necessary. A Phase II drilling investigation took place in November 2018 at the Intersection of TH 200 and 39th Avenue NW based on odors observed by the geotechnical field crew. None of the chemicals analyzed were above the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulatory criteria. No further review is anticipated based on the results of the analysis.

3.3.1.5 Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features): Federal Endangered and Threatened- In an August 17, 2018 letter MnDOT requested concurrence from the USFWS that the Canada Lynx and Grey Wolf may be affected, but will not likely be adversely affected due to their presence in the project area. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with MnDOT’s request and concluded impacts to these species from loss of available suitable habitat are anticipated to be insignificant or discountable within the action area. In addition, no documented Northern long-eared bat hibernacula and/or roost trees are within the project corridor. The USFWS determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Northern long-eared Bat.

State Species of Special Concern- In coordination with the MnDNR, an analysis of the natural heritage database was conducted. The results indicate five records of species designated as special concern and no species designated as endangered or threatened within the Study Area. One record of red beard lichen (Usnea rubicunda) occurs approximately 3,400 feet north of the construction limits. MnDNR recorded the least darter (Etheostoma microperca) in Jack Lake approximately 1,725 feet north of the Project construction limits. One record of white adder’s mouth (Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda) occurs approximately 5,094 feet north of the Project limits. Two records of slender naiad (Najas gracillima) occur on the western portion of the Project. Construction activities associated with the Project are unlikely to affect these species of special concern because of the distance between them and the construction footprint.

Chippewa National Forest Regional Foresters Sensitive Species and Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Threatened and Endangered Species-The USFS is required to protect sensitive species on the land that it manages. The Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) identifies Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) that must be considered for any project that may impact species. The purpose of this BE is to review the proposed

Page 12 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

TH 200 project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the construction related activities may affect any RFSS and LLBO Threatened or Endangered species. The evaluation of potential effects is documented in a Biological Evaluation (BE), which is developed by the project proposer and submitted to the USFS. MnDOT in coordination with USFS and LLBO representatives, prepared a BE which identified USFS RFSS and the LLBO Threatened and Endangered Species. All impacts will be avoided to the extent practicable and mitigation measures will be in place during project construction.

3.3.1.6 Historic Properties: Archaeological Survey Results-MnDOT has contracted with the Leech Lake Band archaeological firm, Heritage Sites, to conduct a Phase I archaeological survey. The Phase I archaeological survey included the entire 15 mile corridor from TH 371 east to MN 84 within 100 feet each side of centerline. The full corridor study is being done for a larger scale planning document; however, the work areas for the current project are located within this corridor.

Survey work of the specific project areas has been completed except for two small areas. One is the proposed turn lane area near Whipholt Creek. Testing here will be completed in the spring of 2020. A single lithic artifact was also recovered in a proposed tree thinning area located in T141N R28W Section 10. Additional close interval shovel testing at this location will also be completed spring of 2020 to determine its eligibility.

One previously recorded site is located within a proposed right turn lane work area in T141N R29W Section 12. The site was examined by Heritage Sites during the current survey and determined to be virtually destroyed.

Architectural Survey Results- MnDOT CRU conducted a review of the architectural history properties located in or near the proposed project areas. No properties would be impacted by the proposed work. The finding of this office is that there would be No Adverse Effects to historic architectural history properties by the project as currently proposed.

3.3.1.7 Social Impacts: The Project would result in temporary adverse impacts and permanent improvements in local and regional traffic. Temporary social and economic impacts would be associated with the construction period, such as detours, temporary construction related access to homes, and to the community of Whipholt.

A traffic management plan will be developed during the design phase and implemented during construction to ensure continuous and reasonably convenient access to residences, businesses, schools, and other public and recreational facilities as possible.

The proposed Project is not expected to cause any permanent adverse impact to any community or neighborhood. No categories of people uniquely sensitive to

Page 13 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

transportation (such as children, the elderly, minorities, and persons with mobility impairments) would be unduly impacted.

Tribal Interests- The project is located within LLBO Reservation and on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Chippewa National Forest (CNF). The USFS has a role in maintaining ecosystem health so as to have the overall effect of allowing for continued resource use through Ojibwe hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. LLBO Tribal members rely upon a wide array of plant and animal resources. Many places on the landscape are visited annually to collect food, medicines, and other resources.

Tribal interests and uses on the CNF are protected through various statutes. The federal trust doctrine requires that federal agencies manage their lands with full consideration of tribal rights and interests.

The Forest Plan also contains several items that deal indirectly or directly with gathering and traditional uses. Lands within the CNF serve to help sustain American Indians’ way of life, cultural integrity, social cohesion, and economic well-being. Forest management activities would be conducted in a manner to minimize impacts to the ability of LLBO Tribal members to hunt, fish, and gather plants and animals on USFS administered lands.

MnDOT has contacted the LLBO to discuss the Project. They have participated in several project meetings and have provided MnDOT input on the project as it has moved through the development phase. This communication will continue through project construction.

3.3.1.8 Environmental Justice: The minority population in the vicinity of the Project is predominately Ojibwe Indian from the LLBO reservation. Tribal members and local residents live and work adjacent to the Project (primarily commuters to the Northern Lights Casino and to the City of Walker, MN). They use TH 200 as a main transportation route to employment and commercial facilities. Recreation activities in the area also include hunting, fishing, and associated cultural gathering activities. MnDOT has contacted and coordinated with the LLBO Tribal Council on the Project.

During construction, all reasonable and practical attempts would be made to keep the roadway open for as long as possible, and access will be provided to existing facilities (e.g.; temporary driveway construction). Construction activities, sequencing, detours and traffic management plans would be presented and coordinated with the local tribal agencies through various means; examples would be public meetings and/or open houses, and/or notices using local media.

Readily identifiable minority and/or low-income populations are affected by the Project with temporarily adverse impacts from construction and permanent long-term beneficial impacts from improved traffic flow, mobility and safety. The Project would not be predominately borne by a minority or low-income population, nor would they be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude

Page 14 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

than the adverse effect that would be suffered by the non-minority or non-low-income population.

3.3.1.9 Indirect Effects: The proposed project is compatible with future land use, forest and LLBO plans. There is low potential for indirect effects to the project area’s resources.

3.3.2 Summary finding with respect to these criteria: MnDOT finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts to the resources evaluated in the EA/EAW and in the Findings summary above. Project impacts will be mitigated as described in the EA/EAW and in the Findings above.

3.3.3 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects. As discussed in Item 19 of the EA/EAW, the cumulative potential effects have been considered and the proposed project has minimal potential for cumulative impacts to the resources directly or indirectly affected by the project. Given the laws, rules, and regulations in place as well as local regulatory requirements and comprehensive planning and zoning laws, substantive adverse cumulative impacts to resources as not anticipated.

3.3.4 Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by OngoinPublic Regulatory Authority

3.3.4.1 The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies (including the coordination and approvals described in Section 3.3.1 above) and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting processes. Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project construction include those listed in Table 4.

3.3.4.2 The permits listed in Table 4 include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the project. Therefore, MnDOT finds that the environmental effects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority.

Page 15 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

Table 4– Agency Approvals and Permits Unit of Government Type of Application/Permit Status

Federal

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Assessment Approval

Complete pending FONSI

Federal Highway Administration

EIS Need Decision Complete pending FONSI

MnDOT OES/CRU on behalf of Federal Highway Administration per Agreement

Section 106 determination Pending

USFS Section 106 (Historic / Archeological)

Pending

USFS Biological Evaluation Complete

USFS Forest Stipulation Ongoing during project development

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit

Pending

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USEPA Section 401 Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification

Pending

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NPDES Stormwater discharges from Construction Activity

Pending

MnDOT OES on behalf of Federal Highway Administration per Agreement

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Determination

Complete

Tribal

Leech Lake Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)

Section 106 (Historic / Archeological) Consultation

Pending

State

MnDOT Environmental Assessment Approval

Pending

MnDOT EIS Need Decision Pending

MnDOT Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act

Pending

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

State Endangered Species Review

Complete

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Public Waters Work Permit Pending

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer (MnSHPO)

Section 106 (Historic / Archeological) Consultation

Pending

Page 16 TH 200 EA/EAW May 2020 Findings of Fact & Conclusions

3.3.5 Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies

3.3.5.1 MnDOT has extensive experience in roadway construction. Many similar projects have been designed and constructed throughout the area encompassed by this governmental agency. All design and construction staff are very familiar with the project area.

3.3.5.2 No problems are anticipated which the MnDOT staff have not encountered and successfully solved many times in similar projects in or near the project area. MnDOT finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the assessment of potential issues during the environmental review process and MnDOT’s experience in addressing similar issues on previous projects.

4.0 CONCLUSION

1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has jurisdiction in determining the need for anenvironmental impact statement on this project.

2. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met.3. The EA/EAW and the permit development processes to date related to the project have

generated information which is adequate to determine whether the project has the potentialfor significant environmental effects.

4. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified will be addressed during thefinal design of the project. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are expected to resultfrom project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigative measures will be incorporatedinto project design and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies duringthe permit processes.

5. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subp. 7, the project does not have thepotential for significant environmental effects.

6. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the TH 200 project.7. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly

be called findings are hereby adopted as such.

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions contained herein and on the entire record:The Minnesota Department of Transportation hereby determines that the TH 200 project willnot result in significant environmental impacts, and that the project does not require thepreparation of an environmental impact statement.

For Minnesota Department of Transportation

MnDOT Chief Environmental Officer

APPENDIX A

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

APPENDIX B

AGENCY COMMENTS

Comment Response USEPA

A. It was brought to MnDOT’s attention through the comment period that the EA/EAW inaccurately reflected the Federal Stormwater Permit to be issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in table 19 on Page 54. The EPA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is not MN R10001, this is reference to the Minnesota Stormwater General permit. The correct permit is the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities (as modified). https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stormwater-program.

B. It is not MnDOT standard practice to include Wetland ID numbers in the EA/EAW figures. However, MnDOT will provide the Wetland ID numbers in all the required Section 402, 404 permit and 401 water quality certification applications and associated figures.

C. In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions document, MnDOT acknowledges that the EPA and USACE jointly administer Section 404 of the CWA. Section iv. v. Surface Waters. a. wetlands. Page 29 of the EA/EAW inaccurately states that the USACE regulates wetland resources in Minnesota under Section 404 of the CWA. Additionally, MnDOT acknowledges that it must consult with the EPA along with the USACE to determine appropriate compensatory mitigation for aquatic resources impacts as part of the CWA 404 permitting process.

B

A

MNDNR

D. MnDOT acknowledges that zebra mussels are present in Leech Lake. The presence of these invasive species is identified in Attachment R of the draft EA/EAW which is included as Attachment C of these findings. MnDOT will be identifying both Leech and Town Lakes as infested waters for the Zebra Mussel and Eurasian Water Milfoil on project plans for construction. Work is not anticipated in those waters and there are no plans to use this water for construction purposes. If there is a change in the proposed project MnDOT will be following the guidance prepared to protect the spread of Eurasian Water Milfoil and Zebra Mussels.

MNPCA

C

D

E. The entire project is located on tribal land and is under EPA’s jurisdiction. The reference to the wrong permit number was an inadvertent mistake and is being corrected through findings 3.2.1. Clarification on the role of EPA in the process is provided in findings 3.2.2.

F. The document is both a federal (EA) and state (EAW) document. The Federal EA and State EAW format provides project mitigation as an attachment in the Appendices. The list of mitigation commitments was provided in Attachment R of the EA/EAW. It is being included in this findings as Attachment C. In addition, mitigation specific to removal and replacement of the box culverts will meet the EPA stormwater permit requirements and the MnDNR work in public waters permit requirements. Those permits include conditions required to protect surface water during and after construction.

G. MnDOT anticipates that less chemical treatment will be needed with the proposed project. Tree thinning will be occurring in specific areas along the corridor that experience icing in the winter. The tree thinning in these areas is the intended mitigation to minimize the icing; therefore, reducing the need for chemical treatment. In addition, the driving lanes are the primary focus for chemical treatment. It is not MnDOT’s practice to use chemical treatment on shoulders. Additional driving lanes are not being proposed for this project.

E

F

G

H. The entire project is located on the LLBO reservation. MnDOT has been coordinating with the tribe throughout project development. The tribe does not support ponds for stormwater treatment. In addition, the EPA NPDES permit does not require stormwater treatment based on proposed new impervious surface. The 3.7 acres of new impervious surface are distributed throughout the project area so no one site would experience a significant increase in runoff. In the widening section of the project the ditches are being improved to include an 8 foot ditch bottom design which will provide the ability to handle more infiltration while considering the existing soil types.

H

APPENDIX C

MITIGATION

Summary of Project Mitigation Corridor Clearing:

• The most recent DNR NHIS data will be reviewed prior to land clearing, in the turn lane areas, to determine if there are new threatened and endangered species observations identified.

• Limit clearing and construction to frozen ground conditions and/or use of construction mats on peat and muck soils.

• Extra care should be taken with harvesting woody vegetation on steeper slopes. Soil erosion would be minimized as long as water bars, dips and slash on trails are properly installed.

• Newly cleared bare soils are to be mulched, seeded, or covered with erosion control blanket on steep slopes upon completion of project to provide future erosion control. Reseeding would be completed as soon as work is complete and weather/soil conditions are suitable. Native seed mixes that are certified weed-free will be used.

• Take all reasonable precautions to avoid damages to property and resources of the United States and to diligently carry out measures for prevention of fires and to take suppression action in the event of fire resulting from clearing or construction.

• Maintain wildlife funnels at the centerline culverts. These funnels would consist of brush/grass between the woods edge and the end of the culvert to facilitate small mammal crossing thru the centerline pipe instead of crossing the road. This will be accomplished through natural regrowth and specific mowing practices.

• Standard Specification 2572 includes construction requirements to be followed to protect trees and vegetation. These requirements should be included construction plans.

Soil Mitigation Measures: • Maintain adequate ground cover and soil organic layers, both during and after treatment, to

minimize soil erosion (including rill and gully formation), and allow water to infiltrate the soil. • Restore and re-vegetate disturbed areas. • Protect soil-hydrologic functions by minimizing rutting, puddling, and compaction. • Equipment must arrive at construction sites clean and free of soil and seed material.

Habitat and Wildlife Mitigation Measures:

• Revegetation of disturbed soils should include native mixes in areas that are not proposed for mowed turf grass. In addition, for meeting DNR concerns, revegetation may include woody vegetation (trees and shrubs) in addition to grasses and/or forbs. Please contact your Districts representatives for the Erosion Control & Stormwater Management Unit, Roadside Vegetation Management Unit, and the Districts Maintenance staff to help determine appropriate permanent revegetation plans. Additionally, the use of erosion control blanket should be limited to ‘bio-netting’ or

‘natural netting’ types (category 3N or 4N), and specifically not allow plastic mesh netting.

• Required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) - Northern long-eared bat: o General AMM 1: Ensure all operators, employees, and contractors working in areas

of known or presumed bat habitat are aware of all FHWA/FRA/FTA (Transportation Agencies) environmental commitments, including all applicable AMMs.

o Lighting AMM 1 & AMM 2: Direct temporary lighting, if used, away from wooded areas during the bat active season (April 1 to Oct 31, inclusive).

o Tree Removal AMM 2: Restrict all tree clearing activities to when NLEB are not likely to be present. Tree clearing would be allowed November 1 to March 31.

o Tree Removal AMM 3: Tree removal must be limited to that specified in project plans and ensure that contractors understand clearing limits and how they are marked in the field (e.g., install bright colored flagging/fencing prior to any tree clearing to ensure contractors stay within clearing limits).

o Tree Removal AMM 4: The removal of documented NLEB roosts, or trees within 0.25 miles of roosts; or documented foraging habitat any time of the year is prohibited. The intent is to maintain, protect, or improve habitat for threatened and endangered species by emphasizing and working toward the goals and objectives of the federal recovery plans and management direction in the Forest Plan.

• Reduce or eliminate adverse effects on threatened and endangered species from the range of management activities on National Forest System land and Tribal land.

• Reduce spread of terrestrial or aquatic non-native invasive species that pose a risk to native ecosystems.

• Avoid or minimize negative impacts to known occurrences of sensitive species. • During project implementation, reduce the spread of non-native invasive species. • If negative impacts to sensitive species cannot be avoided, management activities must not

result in a loss of species viability forest-wide or create significant trends toward federal listing. • All known sensitive plant locations near the construction limits are to be resurveyed and outer

boundaries of populations are to be established. • Where possible bridges and culverts should provide for fish movement. See Fish

passage guidance in Attachment J. • Work in public waters should be avoided from March 15 through June 15 to allow for

undisturbed fish migration and spawning. • The design for the box culverts will need to meet design criteria for fish passage. • After project construction is completed, MnDOT staff will meet with members of the LLBO to

discuss the design and location of a wildlife travel corridor provisions in the box culverts.

Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS): • Eurasian water milfoil is known to exist in Leech Lake and Town Line Lake. These waters

should be identified as ‘designated infested waters’ on project plans. No work

should be allowed in them if avoidable (including pumping water for construction purposes).

• Zebra Mussels have been found in Leech Lake, however, no construction is proposed to occur in Leech Lake,

• Management of the spread of invasive species will occur by the use of native seed mixes relative and certified weed free mulch relative to the cleared areas.

• All equipment will be kept clean to help prevent the spread of NNIS. • Strict standards must be adhered to when working in areas where northern hardwood forests

are dominant cover type to prevent the movement of soils containing earthworms or their cocoons.

• Prior to exposing bare mineral soil, the NNIS occurrence within the construction footprint should be treated by mechanical means such as mowing or hand pulling to minimize the seed production while the soil is exposed.

• Minimize the spread of NNIS by using clean gravel sources (per MnDOT Specification 3138.2 A1 Aggregate Composition) for backfill material. No organic fill will be used at the site.

• The following seed mixes, which were developed by the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR) are recommended for re-vegetation within the cleared construction footprint outside of the CNF or similar approved MnDOT seed mixes:

o Upland Sand/Gravel area seed mixes: BWSR U7 (Native Savanna and Woodland Edge), BWSR U1 (Native NW MN Mesic Tall-Grass Prairie), MnDOT 350NGR (Native General Roadside Mix), or MnDOT 340NSM (Native Sandy Mid- height Mis).

o Upland Loam/Silt/Clay soil area seed mixes: BWSR U14 (DNR NE MN Trail ROW-Forest Edge Mix)

o Wetland seed mixes: BWSR W1 (Native Emergent/Wetland Fringe), BWSR W2 (Native/Sedge/Wet Meadow), BWSR W3 (Native Wet Prairie).

Wetland Mitigation:

• It was not feasible to completely avoid all wetland impacts resulting from this roadway improvement. Wetland impacts that are unavoidable have been minimized to the extent practicable without compromising safety. The following design measures were used to minimize these impacts.

o In the mill and overlay portion of the project the existing 5 foot shoulders would remain. The shoulder widening areas would maintain and 8 foot shoulder to meet MnDOT design standards.

o 1:4 inslopes • MnDOT will fund compensatory wetland mitigation which will utilize wetland bank credits. • Oil or greasy substances originating from construction operations will not enter a

waterbody or wetland or be placed where they may enter a waterbody or wetland.

Visual Mitigation: • The width of the clear zone and associated visual impacts will be minimized to the extent

practicable by using minimal ditch depths and steepening the back slope on ditches. This will require close coordination between state design staff and the USFS.

• MnDOT will prepare a landscape and erosion control plan with the objective of protection, restoring, or enhancing the roadside landscape, protecting soil, reestablishing vegetative cover, as well as reducing the visual impacts along a scenic route through the forest.

• Re-establish Forest signs if disturbed during construction. • Install trail crossing warning signs for designated snowmobile trails.

Noise Mitigation:

• MnDOT incorporates a number of provisions that are to be used to reduce the impacts of construction noise. This includes, but is not limited to, prohibiting construction work from occurring during nighttime hours, maintenance of mufflers on equipment, and requirements to receive the appropriate operation approvals from local officials.

Stormwater Mitigation: • The Project will be designed to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) sediment and erosion control standards, consistent with the required NPDES permit.

• A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed for the Project. • BMP’s contained in MnDOT’s standard specifications, details and special provisions will be

used.

Traffic Management: • MnDOT District 2 will be developing a traffic management plan. This will provide construction

dates and other provisions to manage traffic during construction. The management plan is expected to be developed in the Fall of 2020 and will include involving the public, local chamber of commerce, the LLBO, the CNF and Resort owners in the area.

• MnDOT will stage construction activities to provide access to residences and businesses and accommodate emergency vehicles.