Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Bull Seep should be moved to its reclamation plan alignment. He also pointed out <br />several benefits of moving the Bull Seep further east including less tree removal, better <br />groundwater feed to cottonwood trees within the conservation easement, easier <br />maintenance accessibility, and ease of construction (existing alignment could serve as <br />dewatering channel during constmction. He also mentioned that current Bull Seep <br />channel does not have the Reclamation Plan capacity (350 cfs). In addition, he <br />mentioned that the Reclamation Plan design calculations describe a channel consisting of <br />a 25-foot bottom width, 2:1 sideslopes, and a 0.04% channel slope. As designed, this <br />channel geometry would be unacceptable to the District. He mentioned that the channel <br />proposed by ICON consists of a 15-fr bottom width with 3:1 sideslopes. The channel <br />slope for this section was proposed to be 0.2% based on current mapping. A steeper <br />slope would help increase the channel's capacity with a narrower bottom width, however <br />it must not exceed permissible stable channel velocity typically less than 5 feet per <br />second. <br />7. John Hickman (Mobile/Lafarge) was concerned that ICON and the District were pursuing <br />a channel section that was different from what was preferred by Lafarge. John mentioned <br />that he felt Lafarge would prefer to install a wider channel with less depth. It was agreed <br />that the channel could be widened, however there would be more potential to disturb <br />trees. <br />8. John Hamilton (Muller Eng. representing South Adams County Water & San.) mentioned <br />that there was a potential for the channel to get even deeper (deeper than 4-fr) in areas, <br />depending on the channel profile. ICON confirmed that they had only conducted normal <br />depth calculations and the channel had the potential to become deeper in areas, depending <br />on the profile <br />9. Jessica Barbier (Denver Water) asked whom the current Bull Seep easement is with. John <br />Hickman stated that he thought it was technically an easement granted to the Fulton Ditch <br />Company from Mobile Premix (LaFarge). Therefore Denver Water may need to be a <br />signatory to any easement agreement. <br />10. LaFarge mentioned that there was concern for an administrative delay for changing the <br />Bull Seep easement if it was different than the reclamation plan alignment, however, it <br />was agreed that this delay would likely take place no matter what the preferred alignment <br />was since the 47 feet easement granted appeazs to be too small given the need to provide <br />maintenance access. John Hickman also mentioned that Tom Schreiner (Colorado <br />Division of Mining & Geology) thought that Lafarge might need to go through a 3 to 4 <br />month process to amend the mining permit on the Howe-Haller property. <br />11. Jim Weldon (Denver Water) was concerned about the velocities in the Bull Seep Slough <br />immediately downstream of the proposed drop stmcture. Craig mentioned that typical <br />velocities in Bull Seep were around 3 fr/sec and he did not expect them to be much <br />different in the Slough. Bryan mentioned that similar to the South Platte River Grade <br />Control Stmcture, the banks adjacent to the Bull Seep Slough Drop would be riprap lined <br />in order to resist localized velocity increase. <br />12. John Hickman mentioned that the Bull Seep Slough Drop appeared to be moved to the <br />south, as compared with the drawings presented in the last meeting. Craig mentioned that <br />it was moved south to try to minimize [he drop width, to save on cost. Bryan stated that <br />the drop would likely be design as far north as possible. The drop size may need to be <br />increased as a result. <br />P.IP10102 ]bulltl oc s\9-t] meeimg tloc <br />