ENFORCE35669

• Permit No: M1978052
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 7/7/2002
• Doc Name: BULL SEEP MEETING MINUTES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

costs. Bryan added that the UD&FCD had money to contribute to the drop structure
as long as the crest was raised [o a[ leas[ [he 5024.0 elevation.
12. Scott Franklin asked what the 5023.0 elevation corresponded to. Jeff Schwarz stated
that 5023.0 is what Chris Lidstone had identified as the Pre-May 5'h elevation,
however, it is similar to the channel invert today. Ken McIntosh added that the trees
in the area were not healthy and a change was needed in the channel to help them
survive. Chris Lidstone did not agree that the change in channel invert was necessary
since the 5023.0 elevation was consistent with all of the survey data he had
researched for dates prior to May 5'h. Jim Weldon added that Denver Water's survey
(1998) shows the channel width being about ]0 to 20-feet wide. Today the channel is
nearly 200-feet wide. He suggested that the narrow, incised channel was likely less
deep prior to 1998. Chris Lidstone added that channel is still a recharge location, not
a discharge location.
13. Mike Applegate (Applegate Group) mentioned that the 1995 Adams County mapping
indicated that the slough area was approximately 195-feet wide. Ken McIntosh added
that the wash depicted on the Adams County mapping occurred in 1973 and the Bull
Seep Slough was cut down by about 3-feet. However, the Bull Seep Slough was not
nearly as deep at that time.
14. Jim Weldon agreed that the channel invert was 5023.0 between 1995 and 2001.
However, the channel was very narrow, not 200-feet wide. He believed the widening
of the channel has had an impact on the groundwater in the area.
15. Ken McIntosh mentioned that he would prefer that the Slough channel not be
backfilled above the pre-May 5'h elevations between the 100-foot plug and the
McIntosh/Hazeltine property comer. He mentioned that this area generally develops
wetlands.
16. Bryan Kohlenberg mentioned that he wanted the Task Force to establish an elevation
for the crest of the Bull Seep Slough drop structure regardless of cost. He added that
the drop elevation should no[ only pass the 250-cfs combined First Creek/Bull Seep
Flows, but also not preclude the drop from passing 4,800-cfs in the future. He added
that the elevations along Mclntosh's bank were higher than those of the Hazeltine Pi[.
Therefore, it was his opinion that there are essentially two options: The first is to
construct the full 4800-cfs spillway, or some smaller residual flow spillway based
upon how much flow the Slough can handle without additional channelization, to the
east in [he lateral berm between the Howe Pit and the Hazeltine Pit. The second
would be to move the Hazeltine Pit over to accommodate the full 4800-cfs channel.
His question to the group was could the Slough drop crest be raised, since the pit
overflows will not inundate the McIntosh property before they spill to the Hazeltine
Pi[.
17. Jim Weldon added that his position was that at this time, it is more important to
restore the Bull Seep Slough. However, Lafarge will still be responsible to control
the 4,800-cfs Firs[ Creek flows.
18. Bryan suggested Lafarge look into the impacts of raising the invert of the Bull Seep
Slough with the 4,800-cfs discharge. Duane responded that raising the invert would
have an impact. If i[ was truly a concem, [hey should use the lower elevation.
l9. Scott Franklin added that the original concern was with restoring the Bull Seep
Slough, not the spillway. He would need a plan showing the reestablishment of [he
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\I-7 meeting.doc