Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />t' DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natwal Resources <br />1 ] 13 Sherman 51., Kunm 215 <br />Denver, Colorado A112111 <br />Phone 17071 AbO~ 151,: <br />FAX: 1111 it AJZ-A 100 <br />Date: April 29, 1997 <br />To: Janet Binns <br />From: Kent Gorham '{tG <br />CC: Dan Hernandez <br />RE: Retain Pond M as Permanent Impoundment <br />Technical Revision No. 37 (TR-37) <br />Eckman Park, #C-81-071 <br />II~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5 Lochhead <br />&eculme Dvedor <br />Michael tl. Long <br />Dnhion Director <br />I have completed a belated review of the information provided to me concerning retaining Pond <br />M as a permanent impoundment. Review materials consisted of two SEDCAD+ models, four <br />revised text pages, certification of the SEDCAD+ models, and a letter from the landowner <br />requesting the pond be retained for livestock watering. My comments are as follows: <br />1. The operator provided, among other things, a SEDCAD+ model demonstrating that <br />the 25-year, 24-hour storm event would not pass through the emergency spillway. <br />However, an adequate emergency spillway is present, though, should a large event <br />occur in the watershed. "fhe SEDCAD+ input parameters are acceptable and <br />reasonable given my knowledge of the site and existing conditions. <br />2. Rule 4.05.9(I)(e) requires the operator "achieve the maximum design requirements <br />of U.S. Soil Conservation Service Public Standard 378 "Ponds", Colorado, January <br />1989." <br />The Scope of publication 378 "Ponds" defines the "minimum acceptable quality <br />for the design and construction of ponds...". Extremely detailed requirements are <br />outlined, addressing embankment construction, foundation preparation, fill <br />placement, compaction, and spillway construction. One cats logically infer from <br />this that since Pond M was not originally intended to be retained as permanent, <br />it is highly unlikely that the pond would now comply with each specific design <br />detail in publication 378, of which there are many. Demonstrating that each and <br />every one of these requirements was met, after the fact, would be difficult, if not <br />impossible. <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />Pond M was originally designed and constructed as per the Coal Rules and <br />