Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6. John Hickman (Lafarge) asked if a drop structure could be installed at the confluence <br />with Bull Seep and the Bull Seep Slough, if that was the direction they wanted to take. <br />Bryan and Craig added that the channel grades were set so that a 0.2% grade uniformly <br />existed between the drop on the Bull Seep Slough and the confluence with Bull Seep and <br />First Creek, but it would be possible to put in a drop. Some type of grade control at this <br />location would make sense since this area represents the point at which flows leave the <br />tnine site. John also asked about the fill proposed to be placed around the South Platte <br />River breakout area, and how that affects the wetlands. Bryan replied that the old Bull <br />Seep Channel should be filled to create a 100-ft setback from the South Platte top of <br />bank. <br />7. Jeff mentioned that Lafarge was leaning more towards Alternative 3. They feel that this <br />may be a more workable, long-term solution. Bryan mentioned that ICON had shown the <br />Bull Seep relocation on Alternative 3a, but could have just as easily shown it on <br />Alternative 3. <br />8. There was some discussion concerning how the proposed alignment of Bull Seep would <br />affect the conservation easement. Rick Anderson (Adams County) mentioned that the <br />County would be satisfied as long as the alignment supports the hydrology of the area. <br />9. Scott Franklin (US Army Corps of Engineers) asked about the requirements of the repair <br />to damages on the site. Jeff said that he could not respond to that at this time because of <br />the way the hearing was divided. Bryan added that the Task Force plan has incorporated <br />a design to repair the damages and the UDFCD will be looking at that as part of their <br />review. <br />10. Scott asked if the UDFCD would require additional work on the South Platte River <br />Levee. Bryan said that their levee repairs were permanent, but the entire levee was no[ <br />evaluated for sul~ctural stability. It was Bryan's opinion based upon visual observation <br />[hat [he area outside [he repaired section is at risk for future breaks at high flows. <br />l 1. John Hickman asked about who was required to design the drop structures. Bryan <br />mentioned that he would keep ICON online to design the grade control on the South <br />Platte. LaFarge will be responsible for the remainder of the design. Jeff responded that <br />the issues of who pays for what are still somewhat open due to the response of the Board. <br />Bryan agreed and added that the UDFCD would fund the South Platte River grade <br />control. <br />12. John Hamilton (Muller Engineering representing the South Adams Water & Sanitation <br />District) asked about the sizing of the drop structure on Bull Seep Slough. Craig stated <br />that the expected design flow though there still remained 350-cfs. Bryan added that the <br />drop was sized for a bank full capacity, which would likely be more that 350-cfs. The <br />capacity of the drop could be increased if more direction is given regarding the location <br />of the spillway from the Howe/Haller Pit. It was agreed that this entire area would be <br />susceptible to flooding during the South Platte River 100-year event and that the Bull <br />Seep drop would need to be hefty enough to withstand the 100-year event. <br />13. Tom asked if the scour potential had been evaluated at the confluence with Bull Seep <br />and the Bull Seep Slough. Craig mentioned that this will need to be further evaluated at <br />final design, but the upstream channel has been designed to have low velocities (3-ft/sec). <br />Bryan added that riprap revetments have been proposed at areas along the gravel pits <br />where erosion had developed in [he past. <br />C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\IO-19 meeiine.doc <br />