RES 25-42 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comment 3: Archaeological site 21SH0093 is identified as 21CA0794 in the report section header (pg. 25). We assume this is a typo. Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment. Comment 4: Based on the information provided in the report, we do not agree with the consultant's recommendation that the site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). We recommend that either a Phase II evaluation of the site be conducted to determine the site's eligibility for listing in the NRHP, or the site area be protected and preserved during the development. For a Phase II evaluation, a 1x1 formal excavation unit is the most effective method for assessing the site's historic context and integrity. To make an argument regarding Criterion D significance (or lack thereof), we recommend using the historic context document for lithic scatters, because it provides established guidelines for this type of site. This and related documents are available at the State Historic Preservation Office if needed. In our opinion, applying the lithic scatter context with a sample that includes a formal excavation unit should be sufficient to make a defensible statement regarding the site's eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Response: For 21 SH0093, in Situ recommends avoidance of the resource and to have no ground disturbing activities take place within or near the resource. At this time, site 21 SH0093 is at least 25 feet from the proposed extent of ground disturbance for the project, which will avoid impacts to the site. At least a 25-ft cultural avoidance area is recommended to be placed around the site boundary of 21 SH0093 in order to make sure that the site is not impacted by the project. Provided this avoidance measure is followed, the site will not be affected by the undertaking and no further work is recommended for this resource for this Project. However, if avoidance is not possible, as requested by SHPO, a Phase 11 assessment will be completed for 21 SH0093. Until a Phase I/ can be completed, the site is currently unevaluated for the NRHP. Comment 5: Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state -level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment. Letter 2: Minnesota Pollution Control Actency Comment 1: Wastewater - The information pertaining to the Elk River Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in Section 12.a.iii(3) is not accurate and could be deleted from this section because the proposed development will not discharge to a surface water. Wastewater information is appropriately provided in a previous Section 12.a.iii(1) because the proposed development will discharge wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility. Response: So noted. Thank you for the comment. Comment 2: Wastewater - The EAW indicates that an identified portion of the sanitary sewer has been determined by the City to be sized to handle added flow from the Nature's Edge Business Center 3rd Addition development. It is not clear whether the City of Elk River has determined that there is capacity in the sewer system for the wastewater design flow from the proposed Oakwater Ridge development. Response: The Elk River Chief Operator stated that the Elk River Treatment Plant currently treats 1.40 MGD (million gallons per day). The facility is designed to treat an average dry weather flow of 3.98 MGD and an average wet weather flow of 4.54 MGD. The treatment plant can handle more flow; the limiting factor is the collection system. The nearest sanitary sewer connection is Oakwater Ridge EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Response to Comments, and Record of Decision