Laserfiche WebLink
6. Bryan Kohlenberg added that the UD&FCD would need to review information such <br />as the Plan & Profiles and channel grading. Scott Franklin (USACOE) mentioned <br />that what was shown on the general plan was adequate for what he would need as <br />long as the UD&FCD criteria was adhered to. A discussion concerning the use of <br />grouted boulders followed. Bryan mentioned that he would expect to see grouted <br />boulders used at the drop structures. Scott agreed. He added that he had previously <br />objected to the proposed installation of a lengthy grouted riprap channel, but grouted <br />boulders are acceptable for the drop structures. It was generally agreed that the 1-foot <br />drop might not need to be grouted. <br />7. Duane Bollig (Mobile Premix Concrete) presented an overhead of the current <br />proposed plan. He asked whether anyone would need to see a plan and profile of the <br />Bull Seep channel between the confluence with First Creek to [he upstream limits, <br />where the Bull Seep first enters the property. In this reach the channel invert <br />elevations have been constructed. Bryan Kohlenberg responded. He said that the <br />UD&FCD would need to be able to Zook a[ construction plans, grading plans, <br />specifications, etc. to review, beyond the design calculations, in order to verify the <br />design, capacity, and freeboard. At a minimum, for the area between the First Creek <br />Confluence and the upstream limits, UD&FCD would need to see a typical section, <br />and a plan and profile identifying channel invert and top of bank elevations. The <br />sheet will need to confirm that the 50-cfs is conveyed completely in the design <br />channel. Jim Weldon (Denver Water) agreed and added that Denver Water would <br />like to see this as well. Denver Water would also specifically require the drawing <br />package signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer. Similarly to the UD&FCD, <br />Denver Water will require Lafarge to submit enough information to verify the design <br />works effectively. <br />8. Jeff Schwarz asked if the Task Force was in agreement of the alignment north of the <br />gas line. The Task Force, including UD&FCD, DOW, and USACOE agreed with the <br />alignment. <br />9. Duane Bollig continued to discuss the drop structure at the confluence of the Bull <br />Seep Slough and the South Platte River. Duane mentioned that some changes had <br />been added at this location based on comments from Bryan Kohlenberg and Ken <br />McIntosh. Bryan reiterated that a formal structure needs to be installed at this <br />location to provide grade control for the Bull Seep Slough. Ken added that he <br />believed the drop structure would help restore the groundwater in [he area. The new <br />plan proposed by Lafarge showed a drop structure in the Bull Seep Slough with a <br />crest elevation of 5023.0. Duane added that with the addition of the Bull Seep Slough <br />drop, they were able to reduce the drop height of the Bull Seep/Bull Seep Slough <br />confluence grade control structure to only 1-foot. <br />10. Jim Weldon asked about the fill between the two drop structures. Chris Lidstone <br />(Lidstone & Associates) added that they planned to construct a stable channel <br />between the two drops. <br />11. Bryan Kohlenberg asked why the drop structure was not proposed for a higher <br />elevation. Jeff Schwarz mentioned that Lafarge had only committed funds [o build <br />the structure to elevation 5023.0. He mentioned that if the Task Force requested the <br />elevation be set above 5023.0, other entities could contribute to the construction <br />C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\I-7 meeling.doc <br />