Laserfiche WebLink
16. Ken McIntosh mentioned that he would not grant an easement without the design <br />objectives being in accordance with the Conservation Easement (along Easement B). <br />l7. Jeff Schwarz mentioned that regardless of Easement B, [here has been an agreement <br />in principal regarding Easement A, along the 250-cfs channel. <br />18. Jim Weldon mentioned that Lafarge appeared to be attempting to disconnect the <br />issues regarding the 250-cfs channel and spillway channel. He responded that Denver <br />Water does not believe that the issues are disconnected. It was his opinion that the <br />activities of the mining operation have re-routed the historic flows and without the re- <br />routing, the breach on May 5th would not have occurred. He added that Denver <br />Water has not seen a proposed design for the channel or spillway section, including <br />channel hydraulics, to determine [he impacts of raising the Bull Seep Slough to pre- <br />May 5th conditions. Additionally, he believed the group, including UD&FCD, Adams <br />County, and Ken McIntosh, had agreed upon the pre-May 5th restoration plan. <br />19. Jeff Schwarz responded that he believed "disconnect" was too strong of a word to <br />use. He added that Lafarge is required to meet an order from the Mined Lands <br />Reclamation Board. Lafarge's objectives are to first resolve the original issues <br />concerning the current hydrologic conditions and [hen work out the remaining issues, <br />such as the Bull Seep Slough drop structure and spillway location. He added that the <br />Board determined the realignment of the Bull Seep did not cause [he damage during <br />the May 5th event, and the breach would have happened regardless. <br />20. Brian Kohlenberg added that the District has committed funds for Bull Seep Slough <br />improvements only if the channel is restored to the pre-May 5th elevations. <br />21. Jeff stated that he was unsure if there was actually a change in the Bull Seep Slough <br />bottom elevation as a result of the May 5th event. Jim Weldon and others strongly <br />disagreed with Jeff's statement. <br />22. Scott Franklin (USACOE) suggested Lafarge analyze the slough area through a <br />hydraulic model and return the channel to the best elevation. He suggested Lafarge <br />provide the task force with numbers to make a decision from. <br />23. Duane Bollig added that Lafarge could not take steps to finalize the design until <br />design criteria has been set from the Task Force. He added that concessions might <br />need to be made between [he parties. He also added that Lafarge is interested in <br />participating in the improvements to the Bull Seep Slough area, but he believes a lot <br />of the issues that appeared to be solely Lafarge's responsibilities before have now <br />become issues for the entire Task Force. Lafarge will participate, but will need to be <br />compensated for the work. <br />24. Bryan Kohlenberg and Jim Weldon agreed that an analysis should be completed and <br />the implications considered to help make a decision. Bryan suggested the analysis <br />should include several scenarios in order to bracket the ultimate design. This will <br />help allow the Task Force to make an intelligent design about which spillway channel <br />alternative is best and how these channel configuration variables (e.g. width, depth, <br />elevation, velocity, etc.) relate to each other. <br />25. Ken McIntosh added that in his opinion, the responsibility for the restoration of the <br />Bull Seep Slough area had been removed from Lafarge by the Mined Lands <br />Reclamation Board as a result of progress from the Task Force Meetings. From the <br />meetings, it appeared the intentions were to restore the area to the pre-May 5th <br />C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\12-19 mecting.doc <br />