mosborn1

Typewritten Text

p-ear2-21b

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers p-ear2-21b

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LAKE ELMO TRUNK GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT WASHINGTON COUNTY LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project (project). Based on the environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

Project Description 1. The city of Lake Elmo (City or Proposer) is proposing a sanitary sewer extension project with an

average design flow of 1.92 million gallons per day. The project, when completed, will initially receive and convey wastewater discharge from the Lake Elmo Village (Village) Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) forcemain running from the Village area south along Lake Elmo Avenue to the project connection point. The project will also provide municipal service for future development within the immediate service area, and will ultimately service a significant portion of the southern MUSA for the city of Lake Elmo.

2. The proposed project is the construction of 2,600 linear feet of 27-inch gravity sewer and 4,000

linear feet of 30-inch gravity sewer. The project will convey wastewater from a proposed City forcemain, connecting to the forcemain at a point located 2,400 feet south of 10th Street on Lake Elmo Avenue. The gravity sewer will extend east approximately 2,600 feet, then south 2,500 feet, and west 1,500 feet, where it will connect to an Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) meter station located at Hudson Boulevard. The wastewater collected will ultimately reach the MCES Eagles Point Wastewater Treatment Facility (MCES WWTF) located in Cottage Grove, Minnesota.

3. Currently, the City has no existing wastewater collection system and no centralized wastewater

treatment.

Procedural History 4. The City previously completed an EAW for the Village forcemain project along Lake Elmo Avenue,

and an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was completed for the Village Area Master Plan covering the entire Village area within the MUSA. Since the environmental review, the City

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Conclusions of Law Washington County, Minnesota And Order

proposed changes to the original sewer design, increasing design flow by an additional 1.02 million gallons per day in the lower portion of the original project, located in Section 36 of the City. The increased flow met the mandatory threshold for an EAW for a wastewater collection system project.

5. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp 18.A, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed

project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500, the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on April 15, 2011.

6. The MPCA provided notice of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was

provided to media in Isanti, Chisago, Anoka, Ramsey, Washington, Dakota, Scott, Carver, Hennepin, and Wright Counties, as well as other interested parties, on April 15, 2011. The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 18, 2011, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.

7. The 30-day comment period for the EAW began on April 18, 2011, and ended on May 18, 2011. The

MPCA received comment letters from four governmental units. A list of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to these findings.

8. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the comment period.

The comment letters received and the responses to the comments are included as Appendix B to these findings.

Criteria for Determining the Potential for

Significant Environmental Effects 9. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700, the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for

projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:

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

B. cumulative potential effects

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

regulatory authority

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

2

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Conclusions of Law Washington County, Minnesota And Order

The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below

Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 10. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. A. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

11. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the project include the

following: • Air quality impacts related to noise, dust and odor • Impacts to surface waters and groundwater • Impacts to fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources

12. Other potential impacts identified in comment letters included:

• Impacts to archaeological resources 13. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from

the project, the MPCA makes the following findings. Air quality impacts related to noise, dust, and odor

14. Noise and dust will be generated by equipment and machinery during construction. Noise impacts

from construction equipment will be controlled by restricting hours of operation to daylight hours, or those permitted by local ordinance. Impacts from dust generated during construction will be mitigated by sweeping and watering of the road and construction sites, and establishing vegetative cover.

15. Upon completion of the project, pumping stations or vents for collection systems may generate odor during normal operations. Such odors may at times be noticeable; however, actual effects on human health or environment are not significant. In addition, odor control methods are typically incorporated into the design of collection systems.

16. With respect to the reversibility of any air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur

from the project, the MPCA finds that noise and dust impacts from construction activities will be temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the project. During construction, corrective measures can be implemented to minimize the impacts, such as limiting hours of construction to daylight hours, the application of water for dust suppression, and prompt re-vegetation of exposed ground. Odor impacts due to the venting of forcemain after the project is completed and in use would be expected to be temporary in nature and can be mitigated by odor control methods incorporated into the collection system design. Odor from this source will also tend to be reduced as flow volumes increase, thereby reducing the opportunity for stagnant conditions to develop in the system. Therefore, the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the project are reversible.

3

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Conclusions of Law Washington County, Minnesota And Order

17. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record is adequate to address the concerns related to air quality. The impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

18. The MPCA 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 related to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the project.

Impacts to surface waters and groundwater

19. With respect to the extent of potential impacts on surface and groundwater that are reasonably

expected to occur from the project, the MPCA makes the following findings.

20. The project will convey normal domestic strength sewage from the service area to the MCES WWTF.

21. As the proposed improvements are primarily underground utility construction, the construction activities are not anticipated to significantly impact the areas. The proposed alignment of the sewer collection lines will, as much as possible, be located within existing highway and street rights-of-way.

22. Temporary erosion and sediment control best management practices will be installed during overall

construction activities as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit, as well as Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) wetland and stormwater regulations. Temporary measures generally include silt fences, ditch checks, inlet protection, street sweeping, dust control, preservation of existing vegetation, stabilization of site exits, erosion control blankets, riprap at storm sewer outlets, and good housekeeping practices for material storage and waste control. These measures will be documented in detailed plans and specifications for the project.

23. Temporary alterations to water resources, including the wetlands located in the northeast quarter of

the southeast quarter of Section 36 and adjacent to the point at which the collection pipe will turn south, are possible during construction. The City is working with VBWD to determine if the boundaries of project excavation have the potential to encroach on the buffer area of the wetland located below that upper right portion of the project. Additional mitigation requirements, if needed, can be addressed through the required VBWD Permit.

24. The Washington Conservation District commented that the National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI),

included as Figure 5 with the EAW, did not provide sufficient wetland analysis and that the VBWD has specific wetland mapping for the area that would be more useful for an assessment of wetland impacts in the project area. The City is working with the VBWD to determine state and local requirements related to wetlands, including the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) administered by the VBWD, as well as additional VBWD wetland regulations, and will be required to receive approvals from the VBWD in order to proceed with the project.

4

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Conclusions of Law Washington County, Minnesota And Order Impacts to fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources 25. Minnesota’s Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species County

Distribution List showed that Washington County is within the known or historic range of the Bald Eagle; however, no known nesting sites are in the project area. The review also indicated that various mussel species such as the Higgins’ eye pearly mussel, sheepnose mussel, spectaclecase mussel, and winged maple leaf mussel are either candidates or endangered within Washington County. The habitats for mussels are predominantly in the St. Croix River and tributary watersheds. Because of the project location, impacts to mussels from the project are unlikely to occur.

26. Temporary impacts on wildlife may result from the disruptive effects of project construction activities, including excavation, stockpiling of soils and materials, noise, potential erosion and sedimentation, and vehicle movement. Impacts will include the destruction of habitat for small animals by excavation or by stockpiling of earth. Larger animals may relocate to adjacent areas and seasonal activities such as nesting or mating may be disrupted or curtailed. Habitat disturbed during construction will be restored to pre-existing contours and re-vegetated.

27. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Information Database

query found that there were no known occurrences of rare features in the area.

28. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address potential impacts related to fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources. The impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project have been considered during the review process and have either found to be unlikely to occur, or methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed and can be employed for this project.

Public comment recommending an archaeological survey

29. The Minnesota Historical Society State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended that an

archaeological survey be conducted based on the nature of the proposed project. An additional comment was that if the project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, the need for a survey will be re-evaluated.

30. The database retrieval conducted by SHPO for the proposed project found five sites located within one mile, but outside of the project area. A subsequent review of the U.S. National Park Services’ “National Register of Historic Places” identified 43 historic sites within Washington County, but none were located within the project area. Therefore, an archaeological survey was not required by the MPCA; however, the recommendation was passed on to the project proposer.

31. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record is adequate to address the concerns related to historic and archaeological sites. No impacts on historic and archaeological sites in the area are reasonably expected to occur.

5

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Conclusions of Law Washington County, Minnesota And Order Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 32. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project” (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.b). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

33. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or

anticipated future projects that may interact with this project in such a way as to result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

34. The EAW addressed the following cumulative potential effects for the proposed project.

• The cumulative effects related to growth and development that will be enabled by the project.

These include increased residential and commercial development.

35. The mitigation of the secondary effects from growth and development must be managed by ongoing planning on the local, county and state level, including ongoing comprehensive water and land use planning, and the application of relevant requirements of rules and ordinances in permits or approvals issued by local, county, and state jurisdictions.

36. Based on information on the project obtained from the proposer, and presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this project.

37. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA

finds that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects due to related or anticipated future projects.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 38. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is “the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority” (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

6

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Conclusions of Law Washington County, Minnesota And Order 39. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Construction Activity

Permit MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit MCES Connection Permit Washington County Right-of-Way/Utility Permit VBWD Wetland/Stormwater Activity Reviews/Approvals DNR Temporary Water Appropriation Permit (for construction)

40. MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit. A General NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater

Permit is required when a project will disturb one or more acres. It provides for the use of best management practices to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The proposer must have a sediment and erosion plan that describes the specific measures to be implemented and also addresses phased construction, vehicle tracking of sediment, inspection of erosion control measures implemented, and time frames in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also require adequate stormwater treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the project is constructed.

41. MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit. The MPCA reviews sewer extension permit applications to verify that the proposed construction adheres to sound engineering practices and to verify that hydraulic capacity exists in the receiving wastewater interceptor systems and treatment facility, in this case, the MCES interceptor and Eagles Point WWTF.

42. MCES Connection Permit. The MCES must document that all sewer connections to its interceptors and wastewater treatment facilities are acceptable before the MPCA will review sanitary sewer extension permit applications submitted.

43. County Conditional Use Permit. The proposer is required to obtain all required building and

conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The conditional use permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses.

44. Watershed District Stormwater/Wetland Reviews Approvals. The filling, excavation, and draining of wetlands is regulated by the WCA of 1991, which is administered by a local government unit (LGU). In this case, the VBWD is the LGU. In addition to administering the WCA, the VBWD has additional wetland and stormwater activity regulations, adopted in early 2007, over activities occurring within the boundaries. While LGU requirements for stormwater activities can be similar to the MPCA NPDES/SDS General Construction Stormwater Permit, the proposer is responsible for ensuring adherence to both the MPCA and the LGU regulations, whichever is the more stringent.

45. DNR Water Appropriation Permit. The permit is for certain temporary appropriations for the

purpose of construction dewatering. Temporary water appropriation applies to projects involving a one-time, limited time (not more than 12 months), nonrecurring appropriation of state water totaling one million gallons per year, or 10,000 gallons per day.

7

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Conclusions of Law Washington County, Minnesota And Order 46. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental

effects of the project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 47. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can

be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs” (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. D.). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

48. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact analysis

for the proposed project. • data presented in the EAW • permit application • permits and environmental review of similar projects

49. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the

project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

50. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects

that cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans.

51. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise and

experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.

52. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix B) as the

basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 53. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit

development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this project.

54. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been

identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards.

8

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. Todd Udvig, Wetland Specialist, and Jay Riggs, District Manager, Washington Conservation District. Letter received April 28, 2011.

2. Mary Ann Heidemann, Manager, Government Programs and Compliance, Minnesota Historical Society – State Historic Preservation Office. Letter received May 13, 2011.

3. Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Local Planning Assistance, Metropolitan Council. Letter received May 17,

2011.

4. Melissa Doperalski, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. E-mail received May 18, 2011.

1

2

3

From: Doperalski, Melissa (DNR)

Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:53 AM To: Drach, Nancy (MPCA)

Subject: Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project - DNR comments

Ms. Drach, The DNR has reviewed the EAW for the Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project located in the City of Lake Elmo. From a natural resource perspective, the document appears to be complete and accurate and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Thank you for the opportunity to review the EAW. We look forward to receiving your record of decision at the conclusion of environmental review. Thank you, Melissa Melissa Doperalski Department of Natural Resources Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Central Region 651.259.5738

melissa.doperalski@state.mn.us

4

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

1. Comments by Todd Udvig, Wetland Specialist, and Jay Riggs, District Manager, Washington

Conservation District. Letter received April 28, 2011. Comment 1-1: Has a review of agriculturally impacted wetlands been completed? Although there may be wetland areas disturbed by agricultural activities, they may still be regulated. Wetland areas can be hidden because of cropping, and Minnesota is also in a four-year drought period so hydrology may not be present. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapping does not provide sufficient wetland analysis. The Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) has specific mapping that would be more accurate for assessment of wetlands within the project area. Response: The information submitted by the project proposer for the EAW did not indicate that a specific review for agriculturally impacted wetlands was completed. The VBWD is the local government unit (LGU) that administers the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA) for the city of Lake Elmo (or City), as well as several other cities. The VBWD has additional wetland regulations over activities occurring within its boundaries. As noted by the commenters, the VBWD has specific mapping that may provide additional detail. Barr Engineering, as the engineer for the VBWD, prepared a draft 2009 study “Results of Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MNRAM) for Evaluating Wetland Functions,” and Figures 1 – 25 provide detailed information regarding wetlands (see (http://vbwd.org/PDFs/Draft_MNRAMAssessmentResults-VBWD.pdf). Barr Engineering is listed as a WCA contact, along with Mr. Udvig, as Lake Elmo’s LGU in the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources “Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Contacts” Directory. As indicated in Item 12 of the EAW, the City is working with the VBWD to determine if the boundaries of project excavation have the potential to encroach on the buffer area of the wetland located below the upper right portion of the project. Even if certain wetland activities may be exempt from the WCA, the City will need to work closely with the VBWD to ensure all VBWD wetland as well as all Minnesota wetland regulations are adhered to. Comment 1-2: Areas disturbed by pipeline construction should be reseeded with native vegetations, and temporary erosion controls should be incorporated and coordinated with the VBWD. Response: Comments noted. As indicated in Item 16 of the EAW, the City will be required to obtain permitting and approvals for construction stormwater activities, including those related to revegetation and temporary erosion control measures, from both the MPCA program as well as the VBWD. Comment 1-3: The EAW indicates no prime farmland soils occur on the site, but the majority of the soils on the site are considered prime farmland. Include a soils map and list of Prime Farmland and other Important Farmlands for Washington County as an appendix.

Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Responses to Comments on the Lake Elmo, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: The MPCA agrees with the commenter that the response in the EAW (Item 25.b) is incorrect. According to Figure 6-3 “Prime Agricultural Soils” in the Washington County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (which can be found at: http://www.co.washington.mn.us/_asset/q2yjm6/ADM-CP-Final-Book-02-14-11.pdf), the majority of soils in the project area appear to fall under the category of prime farmland. This information has been passed to the proposer. A soils survey map for the area, Sheet No. 45 of “Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey County” identifies soil types, but does not label them as “prime farmland.” The definition of “prime farmland” can be found in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “National Soil Survey Handbook” (http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html#ex1). The Natural Resources Conservation Service policy and procedures on prime and unique farmland are published in the code of Federal Regulations 7 CFR 657. Figures 3 and 8 of the EAW show the outline of the installation of the sewer collection pipes in Section 36. According to the Lake Elmo Zoning maps on the City’s website (www.lakeelmo.org), the sewer collection pipes will be installed in areas that have been zoned by the City as “General Business Park Holding District” (the southern horizontal pipe, the vertical pipe, and a right portion of the northern horizontal pipe), and “Agricultural Sewered Residential Holding District.” In essence, the City considers the area to be primarily business and residential in the future. Comment 1-4: The proposed project should be shown on this map and other maps showing specific site information. Response: Comments noted. 2. Comments by Mary Ann Heidemann, Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO). Letter received May 13, 2011. Comment 2-1: Recommends an archaeological survey be completed because of the nature of the proposed project. Survey must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of Natural Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. Also included is a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. Response: Comments noted. The recommendations and list have been passed on to proposer. In addition to the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory search results prepared by the SHPO (Figure 7 of the EAW), MPCA staff conducted an online review of the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/nr/) for Washington County, Minnesota. Although 43 sites are listed in the online database review, none were found to be in or near the proposed project location. Given the lack of specific information or data to indicate a specific need for an archaeological survey, as well as the fact that the path of the construction is located in areas that have already been for the most part developed (Hudson Boulevard right-of-way, parallel to an existing driveway and alongside a pallet facility, the Cimarron mobile home park, and the Cimarron Golf Course), the MPCA does not believe that it is in a position to require an archaeological survey. As with other projects, the MPCA encourages the proposer to work with the SHPO, and to instruct contractors to halt construction if artifacts were to be found.

2

Lake Elmo Trunk Gravity Sanitary Sewer Project Responses to Comments on the Lake Elmo, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

3

Comment 2-2: If project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, MHS will re-evaluate the need for survey. Response: The proposer has indicated, and the MPCA concurs, that the installation of sewer collection pipes will take place in areas that have been developed for some time, as noted in Response to Comment 2-1. Comment 2-3: The MHS comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If the project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the responsible federal agency. Response: Comment noted. 3. Comments by Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Local Planning Assistance, Metropolitan Council. Letter

received May 17, 2011. Comment 3-1: Council staff finds the EAW to be complete and accurate and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary for regional purposes. Response: Comment noted. Comment 3-2: There is sufficient capacity in the Metropolitan Disposal System due to recent regional improvements to support the extension of sanitary sewer services outlined in this project. Response: Comment noted. 4. Comment by Melissa Doperalski, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources. Email received May 18, 2011. Comment 4-1: From a natural resource perspective, the document appears to be complete and accurate, and does not require the preparation of an EIS. Response: Comment noted.