ENFORCE23418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that any release flows would enter the Bull Seep. They would likely occur into the BuII Seep Slough, adjacent to the Hazeltine Pit. In addition, the release flows would not likely occur during high flow conditions. 7. Scott Franklin inquired about how the grade control structure on the South Platte would affect the floodplain on McIntosh's property. Bryan explained that the drop would raise the invert 3-ft. The structure would be submerged during high Flow conditions. In addition, the structure would help bring the grades back up to historic levels. The channel has experienced degradation over the past l0 to 20 years. 8. James Welden (Denver Water) expressed concern about bank erosion downstream of the South Platte River grade control structure. Bryan said the potential bank scour would be evaluated. 9. Bryan explained how, unlike the first two alternatives, Alternative 3 looked at bank stabilization as opposed [o channelization through the Bull Seep Slough. 10. The main question behind the design was whether or not to relocate Bull Seep entirely off of Ken McIntosh's property. Ken McIntosh was not at the meeting. Denver Water said they did not have an opinion on where Bull Seep was relocated. They were not far enough along with their design to comment on this project. There was some concern about construction on the Conservation Easement. The work in that area would need to be coordinated with Adams County. l 1. Jeff Schwarz asked about the reasons for relocating Bull Seep for the entire reach between the confluence with First Creek and the Bull Seep Slough. In addition, he inquired why it was relocated so far to [he east. Matt explained that it might be easier to relocate the channel on the east side of the trees from the beginning rather than trying to weave the channel between them through the conservation easement. Bryan pointed out that the current Seep did not appear to have capacity for the combined Bull Seep and First Cheek nuisance flows and that enlarging the Seep to proper capacity along it's present alignment may require substantial tree removal Therefore it might make sense to rebuild the entire channel to capacity east of the cottonwood area. John Hickman warned that the permit and right-of-way amendments that might be required to relocate the Seep east of the approved reclamation plan alignment may take considerable time and effort to accomplish. Denver Water did not object to the relocation. They would review the separation from their pits once a final alignment is chosen. 12. It was discussed that the Reclamation Plan provided a Meets and Bounds description for a Bull Seep easement in the Conservation Easement. Scott mentioned the easement was 47-f[. wide. Any deviation from this easement may require an additional easement through the property. 13. Tom Schreiner (State of Colorado-Department of Minerals and Geology) asked about the impact the drops would have on the groundwater. Matt suggested that the ground water would likely rise behind the drop structures but it would be difficult to quantify. ]4. Denver Water noted that they would not contribute funding to the improvements. They suggest that it was Lafarge's responsibility. They also will not be active in easement agreements with Ken McIntosh. However, they will agree to provide a maintenance or drainage easement to the UDFCD for the improvements. I5. Craig reviewed the cos[ estimate for Alternative 3. Bryan mentioned that the UDFCD would participate in funding [he South Platte River grade control structure and bank stabilization along the Bull Seep Slough. The district would not participate in funding C.\W INDOW S\TEMP\929 meel~ng Coc