My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1977.09.07 CC Minutes - Special Meeting
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1977 CC Minutes
>
1977.09.07 CC Minutes - Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 6:30:35 PM
Creation date
11/2/2015 6:30:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
9/7/1977
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
80 <br /> or lower water levels solely to satisfy private shoreline. Water level control projects <br /> may be permitted if substatial justification has been made of the need for the proposed <br /> permanent control facilities in terms of public and private interests and the available <br /> alternatives. The DNR has performed a survey of Horseshoe Lake to determine the <br /> ordinary high water elevation and the natural runout for the lake. This survey and <br /> analyses defines the OHWE as 931.4 NGVD 1929 and the NROE as 930.7 NGVD 1929. <br /> Another area of concern of the DNR is the impact of the proposed outlet channel on <br /> the wetlands downstream of Horeshoe Lake. The channelization as proposed would lower <br /> the ground water table in the wetland thereby drastically changing their characteristics <br /> and reducing their value to wildlife habitat. Unless specific mitigative measures are <br /> provided, the DNR would probably have to react unfavorably to the portion of the pro— <br /> ject. They believe that there are alternatives to the area which would be discussed with <br /> the district and a mutually agreeable alternative workout. In addition, the EQB guidelines <br /> do require preparation of EAW prior to final action by the DNR. Therefore, if the pro— <br /> ject is ordered subsequent to the hearing, the procedure will proceed. <br /> The department's final area of concern is with the benefits of the project. They are <br /> not aware of any evaulation of the damages caused by flooding. If any, what types of <br /> damages are they, how many people are affected and how much monetary systems, the <br /> DNR feels that this would not be sufficient reason to lower the lake outlet elevation <br /> for two reasons: <br /> 1. A lowering of the lake by 1.7 feet would not make any affected septic system <br /> a conforming system according to any future municipal shoreland ordinance by <br /> the City of Hugo. <br /> 2. A municipal shoreland ordinance will likely be adapted by the City of Hugo in <br /> 1978 or shortly thereafter. Any ordinance the city adopts will have provisions <br /> which will require the upgrading of any non—conforming septic systems. <br /> The DNR does approve of the concept of a weir outlet control which could provide some <br /> obstruction to fish migration as well as establishing a tamper proof outlet elevation. <br /> The department, however, would look infavorably on either the proposed outlet elevation <br /> of 929.0 due to lack of justification for such nor any unmitigated adverse affects on <br /> any wetlands affected by the proposed downstream channel. <br /> Engineer MacLennan gave his report as per Howard Kuusisto survey which was run in <br /> 1974, establishing the need and feasibility of a water level control structure for <br /> Horseshoe Lake and the construction of a ditch to Harwood Creek to control flooding. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.