ENFORCE20377

• Permit No: M1978052
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 12/19/2001
• Doc Name: BULL SEEP MEETING MINUTES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

be considered more under the revised Reclamation plan, not the drainage plan
proposed to be submitted to the Mined Lands Reclamation Board on January 1 I th.
7. Duane Bollig (Mobile Pre-Mix Concrete) added that Lafazge's current goals were to
meet the current site drainage issues, but also to minimize the erosion potential and
offsite damages.
8. Duane continued to discuss the proposed improvements at the confluence between the
Bull Seep and Bull Seep Slough. He mentioned that there was a 4 to 5-foot drop
between the proposed grades on the Bull Seep and the existing channel grade of the
Bull Seep Slough at the confluence. He added that Lafarge has proposed two design
alternatives. The first would consist of a single 4 to 5-foot drop, between the two
channels. The second altemative proposed to fill in the Bull Seep Slough to close to
the pre-May 5th conditions, between [he confluence and the McIntosh/Hazeltine Pit
property comer. This altemative would also tie the channel grade into the existing
Slough channel bottom at the property corner. The fill area would be designed as a
stable, grass-lined channel. The flow downstream of the property corner will follow
the existing flow path.
9. Jeff mentioned that it was Lafarge's intention to keep the Bull Seep Slough drop
structure a separate issue, at this time, since it is not clear what will be finalized for
the Reservoir B spillway. However, there are intentions to build the drop structure as
the spillway design progresses.
10. Bryan Kohlenberg added that he had some concerns regarding the "interim" solution
in the Bull Seep Slough. He added that the channel remains steep and the channel
could still experience erosion with discharges up to 250-cfs.
11. Chris Lidstone (Lidstone & Associates) added that their design would incorporate a
stable interim solution along the Slough area.
12. Bryan Kohlenberg continued, and mentioned that he interpreted the Mined Lands
Reclamation Board's decision differently than Lafarge had. He believed that Lafarge
was to develop a plan for all of the drainage issues, including First Creek overflows,
and therefore, the spillway and Bull Seep Slough drop structure should be
incorporated in the plan to be submitted on January l lth. He asked why these issues
couldn't be addressed at this time.
13. Jeff Schwarz stated that it was mentioned at the last field meeting that it would be
difficult to pass the 4800-cfs discharge in the Bull Seep Slough alignment. He
continued to state that Denver Water has indicated that there is a chance the spillway
will not be constructed in the location shown.
14. Bryan added that it would be difficult for Adams County and Ken McIntosh to make
an intelligent decision about granting an easement when they are not shown what the
future impacts to their property are. Rick Anderson (Adams County) mentioned that
he would no[ grant an easement within their conservation easement without seeing an
analysis of the ramifications of the 4800-cfs flows.
15. Duane Bollig added that with the required access easements and setbacks, the channel
might need to be moved further west. Bryan Kohlenberg stated that there was
nothing guaranteeing that the channel would need to be moved further west onto Ken
McIntosh's property and the conservation easement. There was always the potential
to fill in the Hazeltine Pit and move the channel to the east.
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\12-19 meeting.doc