ENFORCE34312

• Permit No: M1978052
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 10/29/2001
• Doc Name: BULL SEEP MEETING MINUTES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

be enough to support the local vegetation and that it would not be acceptable to end
up with a dry "dead" ditch in the future.
7. A discussion on how groundwater fed the Bull Seep followed, but no one was sure
which direction the groundwater was coming from, or how much the liner
constntction around the Howe Haller pit has impeded flow. No one knew exactly
where the seep water originated prior to mining operations.
8. Ken asked how the elevation Applegate proposed to tie Bull Seep into the Slough
compared with ICON's. ICON's elevation was about 5-ft, higher than Applegate's.
9. Scott Franklin mentioned that the intention of the 404-permit is [o restore the
hydrology back to pre-mining conditions. It was his belief that the trees were
generally in good shape prior to May 5, 2001. Ken added that he agreed with
exception that some of the trees, close to the confluence with First Creek, were in bad
shape prior to then.
10. Scott was asked about monitoring the effectiveness of the restoration after the
reclamation plan is completed. Scott replied that the 404-permit requirements would
transfer over to Denver Water.
1. Ken asked what Lafarge was planning with regards to the Slough area. John
Hickman responded that they were currently looking at a conveyance channel down
to the South Platte River. But all the issues related to the Bull Seep, including that of
damage repair from the May washouts are still not resolved with the
Division of Mining & Geology (DMG).
12. Jeff Schwarz (Massey, Semenoff, Schwarz & Bailey, P.C.) mentioned that Lafarge's
position has always been that the location of the Bull Seep was not the cause for the
damage on May 5'h. (This issue will be examined by the MLRB at their December
meeting.) Cunendy, they are focusing on establishing a stable channel along [he
Hazeltine Pit for 350-cfs. In addition, if the final reclamation plan shows the 100-year
First Creek flows routed through the Bull Seep, then they would make sure this
amount can be conveyed to the South Platte River without damage.
13. Scott Franklin mentioned that he would put together a draft of the 404-permit
requirements. Both he and Rick Anderson were in support of a higher and wider
channel if it would help restore the hydrology of the area. John Hickman reminded
the group of UDFCD's criteria of having 200-ft between the South Platte River and
the Bull Seep.
14. Bryan mentioned that before they could approve any alignment and grades, the group
would need to look at the entire mine area, including the entire length of the relocated
Bull Seep at the south end of the mine site and the First Creek nuisance channel from
Brighton Blvd to the South Platte River. This would need to be done to see how the
entire drainage plan fits together.
15. The group agreed that the channel should be examined under both maintenance
eligibility criteria and anon-maintained situation. If District Maintenance Eligibility
will be pursued for the First Creek/Bull Seep Channel than it will have [o be designed
using District Criteria for wetland bottom channels. Applegate will provide
investigate the impacts of both conditions.
l6. Jeff provided a summary of goals for the next meeting. They include:
a. Show proposed impacts along the entire reach (From gas line crossing
upstream of First Creek Confluence to the South Platte River)
L:\1V1\UO\VS\l f`.\ll'\10-'ymeainel due P:"'~..`•r,~Tt,a~.. ~ n~,„ . , mw~-d:~