PROJ01754

• Contract/PO #: FS0043X
• Contractor Name: Colorado Department of Corrections
• Contract Type: Miscellaneous
• Water District: 0
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Application

.i._~

,
~

Page 3 of 4

I recommend that you attack these issues in the order that I have presented them.

I will be out of the office until June 20th.

John VanSciver

John o/anSciver

CWCS Marketing and Applications
[phone] (DESK); [phone] (Reception); [phone] (FAX), [phone] (Home)
(Address: Colorado Water Conservation Board, Water Supply Planning and Finance Section, 1580
Logan Street, Suite 750, Denver, CO, 80203.)

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gillogley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:57 PM
To: Van Sciver, John
Cc: 'Kent Nelson '; 'Terry Yergensen'; 'Lee Norgaard'; 'Lynn B. Obernyer'; 'Jennifer Lindahl'; Roger
Sams @ GMS; Greg Monley/Kumar; Bassi, Linda
Subject:

The following are my responses to your June 5 E-mailing.

Sciver: 1. The Dam/Reservoir is apparently of jurisdictional size, as
defined
in State Engineer Dam Safety Regulations. The improvement you have
proposed will most likely require the approval of the State Engineer
before construction can begin. If you currently have plans and
specifications approved for this project, your July 2003 construction
start could be feasible. However, your letter of May 28th seems to
indicate that design is now underway. Considering that the State Engineer
will need some time to review and approve the plans (they are allowed up
to 180 days), fall construction appears the most optimistic schedule,
unless I am missing something here.

Gillogley: The dam is jurisdictional, but, it is our understanding that
the relining work being anticipated is not a "modification". Instead, we
understand that it would be classified as "maintenance". The Department
will submit the design documentation to the Dam Safety, when it is
complete, and, prior to that time, will explain the concept for the
reliningj however, based on our earlier attempt at using an bentonite-
amended soil to reduce seepage and the DSB finding that work to be
maintenance-related, we have no reason to believe that this situation
will be different.

Sciver: 2. According to the State Engineer's Office, the RCC Reservoir
No. 1 was
constructed under a non-jurisdictional dam permit, but was actually built
to a jurisdictional size (over 10 feet.) Apparently a later attempt to
have the dam approved as a jurisdictional structure have not been
completed (something about the toe drain material being out of spec.)
Clearly these issues would need to be resolved (or addresses during this

6/20/2003