Laserfiche WebLink
~' Y ~ • <br />The operation is located approximately 1 mile downstream from Baseline <br />Road which is the boundary of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control <br />Di:>trict. As such, a potential exists for impact to UDFCD facilities. <br />The UDFCD should be contacted for comment. A review of the revised <br />proposal indicates it does not meet UDFCD guidelines for spacing of <br />lateral berms and length of side-channel spillways. The original <br />proposal for two lakes did appear to conform to UDFCD guidelines. The <br />Division recommenos the applicant revise the new proposal to be <br />consistent with UDFCD guidelines or reconsider the original proposal as <br />previously submitted. <br />10. The responses to l0a-e are adequate. <br />11. The dimensions of the lateral berm were not provided and are contingent <br />on the response to Item A". <br />6 <br />12. Th.a response provided does not address the length of pond perimeter which <br />would be overtopped and does not provide any discussion as requested on <br />the potential for off-site damage during flood conditions. As such, the <br />response is inadequate. <br />13. Th.a response is adequate. <br />15. The applicant committed to the monitoring plan recommended by the <br />Division. <br />16. It~am 6 in the response states that mitigation to protect well owners <br />would include redrilling the well to a deeper aquifer. It would appear <br />drilling the well deeper in the same aquifer would not affect water <br />rights, but if a different aquifer was tapped this may require a change <br />in the wel 1 permit. P1 ease cl arify. <br />cc: Ben Urbonas, UDFCD <br />Bruce Humphries. ML RD <br />Steve Renner, ML RD <br />;~,p <br />5076E/scg <br />