2004-11-23 Handouts - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ . . '. 3. Clearly states i~ for any reason, the project does not result in the return of the ditch to the official profile, (i.e., regulatory considerations, etc); thereby, . denying the basic drainage rights to the residents benefited, property owners ' would be fully compenSated for the loss of those drainage rights. . 'The City of Hugo believes that the "stable stream restoration design option" as recommended in the October 29,2004, Repair Report, is inconsistent with the above- . mentioned project expectations. The Hugo City Council :further believes that the . recommended stable stream option is not consistent with the City's previously defined position throughout the development of the Hardwood Creek lID 2 Repair and Corridor Restoration Project Report and the mediated outcomes from the 2001 ID 2 Blue R1obon Task Force. The recommended option is also inconsistent with the February 25, 2004 letter (attached) from Administrator Hobbs to Pete Willenbring regarding RCWD staff position on JD 2 Repair Project. Given the previously defined position, the City of Hugo would urge that the RCWD to . adopt Option 1 - Traditional Repair. It is the City's position that additional geotechnical information is necessary to conclude that Option 1 is not the cost-effective and technically feastole alternative. The City believes that a portion of the ID 2 corridor would not experience the same type of undercutting and slumping of the lower zones of well-decomposed peat'as concluded in the Report. The City would request that the RCWD schedule a joint workshop between the City and RCWD to further investigate all I:1.vai18ble sOils information related to depth of peat within the study area and discuss the conclusions defined in the October 29, 2004 Report. The City would also recommend that the RCWD consider incorporating water quality treatment ponds located west offfighway 61 into the Option 1 - Traditional Repair design to ensure that discharge to downstream waterbodies is treated to City, District, and Federal water quality requirements. The City supports the Water Management Implementation, "Lower Hardwood Creek Treatment Basin I Impoundment Project" as defined on page 7-5 of the 1997 RCWD Watershed Management Plan. The City would recommend that the District utilize a portion of the LCMR funding to construct this water quality treatment impoundment project and not recommend formal amendment to the RCWD Watershed Plan. Lastly, the City would recommend an aggressive minor ditch maintenance program to relieve remaining flooding issues and maintain the system capacity to its official conditions. . The City of Hugo fully understands that successful implementation of the Hardwood Creek lID 2 Repair and Corridor Restoration Project requires a significant balance of the various stakeholder positions, and appreciates that the RCWD Board of Mangers has voluntary allowed the City of Hugo to be provide input into this important RCWD project. In the spirit of attempting to provide a balanced project, the City looks forward to continuing to work with the RCWD and other relevant agencies to address the above- C:\Documents and Settinp\mary 8DD\Local Seltinp\Temporary Jntemet F'Iles\OLK.497\H