Laserfiche WebLink
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office <br />(SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and <br />operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects <br />to historic properties. <br />The final Phase I Archaeological Survey Report was submitted to the Minnesota Historic Preservation <br />Office (MnHPO) on August 23, 2016 for their concurrence on the project. The response (Appendix <br />E), received on September 22, 2016, indicates that there are no properties listed in the National or <br />State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archeological properties in the area that <br />will be affected by this project. <br />A copy of the Phase I Archaeological Survey Report was also sent to the Office of the State <br />Archaeologist (OSA). A consultation with the OSA was requested before fieldwork was done to <br />determine the likelihood of sites being located on the property. The OSA stated that given the sparse <br />and infrequent nature of known sites in and around the project area that the potential for locating any <br />new archaeological sites was "extremely low." The OSA recommended that archaeological testing <br />need only take place on the highest elevations of the project area, since that is where other previous <br />sites in the area were located. <br />The report included an extensive literature search, in addition to a reconnaissance survey, shovel <br />testing, and core sampling in areas deemed high probability for archaeological sites, and a review of <br />any historic standing structures found within a one -mile radius of the project site. <br />The results from the literature search are as follows: Two pre -historic archaeological sites and no <br />historic archaeological sites were found beyond the one -mile project radius and were therefore not <br />relevant to the report submitted to the MnHPO. No Traditional Cultural Properties were listed in or <br />around the one -mile project radius. <br />Nine historic standing structures were returned on the database query form, however only eight of <br />them were found within the one -mile project radius (Figure 17, Appendix A). <br />Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on August 17 & 18, 2016 on the site as recommended by the <br />OSA. Fieldwork which consisted of a reconnaissance survey, shovel testing and core sampling was <br />concentrated on the ridge tops where the elevation was the highest and the potential for finding new <br />sites was the greatest. No archaeological sites were found. <br />The potential for more undiscovered archaeological sites to be discovered on or in the immediate <br />vicinity of the property is considered extremely low due to the fact that the site has numerous <br />wetlands, no bodies of water such as a lake or stream nearby, and the ridge tops are dense woodland <br />with steep elevations, all of which would have made this location undesirable for habitation by <br />prehistoric people or more recent Native American tribes. <br />15. Visual: <br />Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related <br />visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual <br />effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. <br />There are no scenic views on or near the project site. <br />Page 19 <br />