REV90854 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 You also expressed concerns about the fact that engineering designs were being reviewed by Division staff without professional certification who fail to make allowance for the "logic and judgement" which generally accompanies a professional certification. On this matter, I can only assure you that Division staff assigned to review these designs rely on published references, receive training from professionals in the relevant fields and, consult with those professionals when necessary. I believe our staff has a record of using judgement and discretion during permitting and inspection work, to the extent allowed within by the regulatory constraints we must work within. On those occasions when you feel that judgement needs to be factored into a permitting matter, I would encourage you to discuss the rationale for that judgement with Division staff. I am afraid that aspersions such as those you raised during our phone conversation do little to encourage a dialogue wherein sound judgement is fostered. 98. The state regulation we discussed in regard to engineer certifications is Rule 2.10.3(2). That rule requires that all maps, plans and cross-sections required as part of a peimit be certified by a qualified registered professional engineer. If you believe that certifying the plan and cross sections of the Coal Creek culverts on Exhibit 19 jeopazdizes the integrity of your status as a registered engineer, I would not encourage you to certify the exhibit. If certifying the exhibit does not create such a problem, the exhibit should be certified in compliance with the regulations. I mentioned to you that the federal regulations include a corresponding requirement for certification of maps. Any modification of Colorado's regulations would need to be as effective as the corresponding federal regulation. The federal rule (30CFR, Part 780.14(c)) is more specific than the Colorado rule about which maps need to be certified. The federal rule does require certification of maps, cross-sections and plans of water diversions, collection, and conveyance structures. We will look into possibilities for modifying this rule during upcoming rule-making efforts. If you have any suggestions or resources from the engineering board which might be helpful in this matter, we would appreciate your input. 102. in its last adequacy letter, the Division recommended a means of satisfying the regulatory requirement for diverting runoff from a small area adjacent to the Roadside refuse pile. That suggestion was made with the assumption that half of the "Swale" at the edge of the pile was located on refuse cover material, and half was on adjacent ground. During our conversation, you indicated that all of the Swale was on the refuse pile and that routing water from above the pile down this Swale would be a violation of the regulations. If that is the case, we no longer suggest that this course be pursued. We will take another look at the situation.on the ground during an upcoming inspection and discuss possible solutions to this issue again.