Laserfiche WebLink
. • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii • <br />999 <br />' BULL SEEP <br />MEETING MINUTES <br />OCTOBER 19, 2001 9:30 AM <br />(REVISED 11/7/01) <br />MINUTES <br />Attendance: (SEE ATTACHED LIST) <br />Location: Urban Drainage & Flood Control District Board Room <br />Time: 9:30 AM <br />Date: Friday, October l9, 2001 <br />Meeting Minutes: <br />L Bryan Kohlenberg (UDFCD) provided a quick introduction. He mentioned that meeting <br />minutes from the field walk through in the Bald Eagle's Roost Area would be out soon. <br />Craig handed out revised minutes from the last meeting (9/17). <br />2. Jeff Schwarz (Massey. Semenoff, Schwarz & Baily P.C., representing Lafarge) provided <br />a summary of the State of Colorado -Division of Minerals and Geology hearing on <br />Wednesday, October 17'h. Jeff mentioned that the hearing was a result of two (2) notices <br />of reason to believe a violation exists. The first concerned the ailignment of Bull Seep. <br />The second involves any offsite damages and failure to minimize offsite impacts. The <br />board decided to only hear the issues for the first violation at this time. The second <br />violation will be heard at another hearing in December. At Wednesday's hearing, the <br />Board found Lafarge in violation and ordered the realignment of Bull Seep to be <br />completed by March 2002, with significant progress or a plan in place by November 29'h, <br />2001. A civil penalty of $48,000 was assessed, with $10,000 paid immediately and the <br />remainder to be paid if there is a failure to meet the action required by the Board. The <br />Board also required Lafarge to revisit the hydrology and make sure that the drainage was <br />handled with a minimal chance for further degradation downstream. <br />3. Tom Schreiner (State of Colorado -Division of Minerals and Geology) mentioned that <br />several other dates were associated with the corrective action. By March 29, 2002, the <br />new plan is to be implemented. By May 30, 2002, written assurances are required from a <br />Professional Engineer that the plan was implemented in accordance with the design and <br />installed correctly. <br />4. Bryan mentioned that the corrective action really only affects the design and construction <br />dates that need to be met. He offered to let Lafarge take over the design process so the <br />UDFCD and ICON would not be held responsible for meeting the corrective action <br />deadlines imposed on Lafarge. LaFarge chose [o use their engineers to comply with the <br />corrective action. <br />5. Craig Jacobson (ICON) went over the progress that was made on the plan. He presented <br />an updated drawing of Alternative 3a, and explained that this was a preliminary grading <br />plan used to determine if any major conflicts exist. For the most part, the grading worked <br />out well and [he plan could be implemented into a final design should the Task Force <br />agree that this was the best alignment for all parties involved. <br />C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\10-19 meetine.doc <br />