FLOOD09514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -3- not developed downstream flood hazard area maps or projected any flood releases other than a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) discharge of 12,230 cfs. In our study we reviewed projected snowmelt and rainfall floods into the Reservoir at full conditions, operat- ing data for the 1983 and 1984 seasons, reservoir storage and discharge characteristics, and USBR oper- ating procedures for flood circumstances. The reservoir when full provides little opportunity for attenuation of flood flows: our case is based on a 100yr rainfall occurring at a time of 3200cfs snow melt flow into a full reservoir. The resulting pro- jected discharge range is 4800-5000cfs, which results in a projected flow at the site of 4600cfs. The ap- proximate high-water limit of this flow is shown on the drawings. Both 1983 and 1984 were high water years with peak inflows to the reservoir of 4000- 4200cfs: yet the maximum flow recorded at the site was only 2510cfs. D. WETLANDS At Sketch Plan review, there were areas of possible riparian wetlands identified. Since that time, the fishery consultant for the applicant, stream Team, has reviewed this concern with the Corps of Engineers. The wetlands on-site have been confirmed as riparian wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of the Corps. The nationwide permit for roads, etc. in wetlands has been revised such that it is now the Corp's position that any area of disturbance has to be replaced by equal new wetland development in a minimum ratio of 1.5:1. A copy of Stream Team's letter outlining this situation is included as Appendix 'C'. The actual wetlands limits were determined in the field with Mr. Walsh, surveyed, and plotted on the plat drawings. It is the intent of this subdivision to prohibit building and parking area construction within the wet- lands. This can be addressed as a plat restriction as well as in the covenants. Access will be required across the wetlands to possi- ble building sites. In order to minimize this impact, the applicant proposes to provide via easement, a com- mon access driveway for lots 2 & 3 and one for lots 4 & 5. A low level, minimum width, gravel-surfaced driveway would be constructed from the private road a- cross the wetlands by the applicant as part of the Public Improvements related to this project. Details of this arrangement are shown on drawing 8023-412. The driveway in lot 4 across wetlands to the southerly building site in lot 4 would be constructed by the in- div~dual owner to the applicant's specifications, if the owner selected that homesite.