Laserfiche WebLink
<br />17. Jeff Schwarz mentioned that regardless of Easement B, there has been an agreement <br />in principal regarding Easement A, along the 250-cfs channel. <br />18. Jim Weldon mentioned that the Company 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 the 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 the Company is required to meet an order from the DM&G Board. <br />The Company's objectives are to first resolve the original issues concerning the <br />current hydrologic conditions and [hen work out the remaining issues, such as the <br />Bull Seep Slough drop structure and spillway location. He added that the Board <br />determined the realignment of the Bull Seep did not cause the damage during the May <br />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. ]im Weldon and others strongly <br />disagreed with Jeff s statement. <br />22. Scot[ Franklin (USACOE) suggested the Company analyze the slough area through a <br />hydraulic model and return the channel to the best elevation. He suggested the <br />Company provide the task force with numbers to make a decision from. <br />23. Duane Bollig added that the Company 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 the parties. He also added that the Company 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. The Company will participate, but will need <br />to be 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 the Company by [he DM&G Board as <br />a result of progress from the Ta_ek Force Meetings. From the meetings, it appeared <br />the intentions were to restore the area to the pre-May 5th elevations. He believed the <br />Company was taking advantage of the situation since the current drainage plan did <br />not address the restoration in the Slough area. <br />C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\I?-19 mecting.doc <br />