Laserfiche WebLink
<br />conFluence with the South Platte River and along Bull Seep, south of Ken McIntosh's <br />property. <br />14. A discussion followed concerning the installation of a crossing for access between <br />McIntosh's property and the Hazeltine Pit. Jim Weldon expressed concern that there was <br />substantial bank erosion and the crossing may a bit more extensive than what was shown <br />by the plan, Ken McIntosh agreed and thought that the crossing may be able to be <br />incorporated into the proposed drop structure to provide additional protection against <br />another washout. The two 36-inch pipes, shown on the plans, were not proposed to pass <br />the 350-cfs discharge. <br />15. Denver Water mentioned that some access easements might need [o be formalized for all <br />of the access users. Bryan stated that the District might not need a new access agreement. <br />They currently have an easement along the river on the Hazeltine property which allows <br />for access [o this easement through the pit azea <br />16. John Hickman asked if the grade control in [he South Platte River could be increased in <br />height in order to reduce the height of the Bull Seep Drop. He also inquired about the <br />possibility to build the grade control with the potential to increase the height in the future. <br />Bryan mentioned that they were limited to a 3-Foot drop by the COE 404 General permit. <br />Anything above 3-ft would involve an individual permit and would be subject to EPA, <br />US Fish & Wildlife, and others review. He also mentioned that the Bull Seep Slough <br />drop would need to be designed congruently with the South Platte Grade Control. <br />Therefore, the District would not decrease the height or toe depth of the Bull Seep Drop <br />even if the potential to raise the grade control crest in the future existed. <br />17. Ken mentioned that he has noticed a down cutting of over 8 feet in the South Platte River <br />bottom. <br />]8. Scot[ Franklin asked about the potential for head cutting upstream of the Bull Seep <br />Slough Drop, on Bull Seep. Matt mentioned that the design slope above this point was <br />estimated to be around 0.2%. Therefore, the potential for head cutting would be rather <br />small. Scott mentioned that if head cutting did occur, it would tend to reduce the <br />irrigation flow to the trees. <br />19. The general soil conditions of the site were discussed. It was mentioned that the general <br />makeup of the site consisted of a few feet of silty sand above a large gravel deposit. <br />20. Jim Weldon asked about the preferred location of Bull Seep. Ken mentioned that he had <br />provided John Hickman with a letter discussing terms for keeping the Bull Seep Slough <br />on his property. Unfortunately, he did not give John the letter until today's meeting. <br />Therefore, Lafarge did not have a chance to review it and comment. <br />21. Bryan again mentioned that he was looking for Lafarge/Denver Water and Adams <br />County to agree on a location for Bull Seep on the Howe-Haller Pit property. John <br />Hickman suggested taking an inventory of the size and condition of the trees in the <br />conservation easement. Matt mentioned that ICON has compiled the tree sizes as part of <br />their field survey and this information can be passed on to Lafarge for their use. The tree <br />inventory may help decide the best alignment for Bull Seep. Lafarge, Denver Water, and <br />Adams County will need to agree on the removal of trees and alignment for Bull Seep. <br />22. Ken mentioned that he recalled from their meeting that Rick Anderson's (Adams County) <br />intention was to stabilize the area to promote overall vegetation growth and along-term <br />solution was preferred. Ken thought that it would be acceptable to Rick to remove a few <br />C:\W INDOW S\TEMP\9-1] Meaiing Etlds.tloc <br />