Laserfiche WebLink
classification to the same water body create considerable administrative difficulties and confusion for <br />the regulated public. <br />We do not believe that waters removed under the correction process outlined in the statute can be <br />added back under the statute without, at minimum, following the original process outlined in MS <br />103G.201 (a) to inventory a waterbody. Further, the statute was meant to provide a "stake" in the <br />ground that determined once and for all the designated public waters going forward. The statute does <br />not support adding waters that were not inventoried and this is further supported within the statute by <br />language that specifically uses the term "add" for specific trout streams and segments of waters that <br />were created as part of other authorized public waters work permits. <br />Lastly, the Commissioners Order is the culmination of what appears to be a careful and significant <br />review of the subject Watercourses and the designation process. The findings of fact, order and <br />conclusions are clearly articulated and documented and speak for themselves. <br />Therefore, the DNR should not reinstate segments 3 & 4 on the attached map to the public waters <br />inventory without following the required notice, hearing and appeal processes. <br />Sincerely, <br />Phil Belfiori� <br />Administrator <br />cc: Bill. Huber, DNR <br />John Gleason, DNR <br />Tom Hovey, DNR <br />Washington County Commissioner Fran Miron <br />Mayor Ben Winnick, City of Forest Lake <br />Administrator Aaron Parrish, City of Forest Lake <br />Mayor Tom Weidt, City of Hugo <br />Administrator Bryan Bear, City of Hugo <br />2- <br />