My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC29187
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC29187
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:32:31 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 10:20:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1984036
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
6/26/1997
Doc Name
CLARIFICATION OF MATTERS REPORTED TO DMG BY CORRESPONDENCE OF 9 JUNE 1997 FOR TREVOR JIRICEK WELD CN
From
VARRA CO INC
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 ~ • <br />Yarra Companies, Inc. t, II IIIIII~II~III~I~ <br />2130 South 96th Street, Broomfield, CO 80020 (303)666-6657 Fax Number (303)666-6743 M p ~ 3 <br />RECEIVED <br />Friday 20 June 1997 <br />JUN p 61997 <br />Carl Mount and Gregg Squire, EPS's <br />Colorado Division of Minerals 8 Geology 4iwie)e of Mlneraie & Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, #215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Subject: Clarification of matters reported to DMG by correspondenc of 9 June <br />1997 from Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Department of Health. <br />Dear Carl ii Gregg: <br />Respective of our telephone conferences of June 11 & 12, this correspondence <br />will serve to benchmark our resolution concerning matters raised by Weld <br />County Department of Health. <br />The matter came to our attention as a result of an unrelated telephone <br />conversation I had with Kerri Keithley, Larimer County Planning Depart ent. We <br />were not aware there was a problem or a concern prior to this. Kerr was kind <br />enough to bring the correspondence to my attention and FAX a c py to my <br />office. Upon reading it, we immediately acted to cease the activit until the <br />matter could be resolved, and contacted your office that same day. <br />It was interesting to us that Health never contacted us directly with th 'r concern <br />or included us in their correspondence. Regardless, we respect thei concerns <br />but with the caveat that we did not believe the activity violated our D G backfill <br />notice or related water quality concerns, for reasons we discussed at that time. <br />Kerri indicated to me that Trevor admitted to her that it was a "grey are ." <br />Perhaps because the inspector apparently viewed the activity at a dis ance, the <br />area of impact reported and suggested time period was exaggerate Only a <br />fraction of one acre was impacted and the activity was quite recent. A ditionally, <br />the trees were not laid down in a solid pact but graded in with soil ar and each <br />bole. <br />Since the site is in a flood plain, impacts to future structures should not occur <br />since structures in a flood plain should not be allowed by Weld Coun y. Given <br />the rate of rot of a bole of tree it is difficult to believe that a comm n natural <br />phenomena evidence along most tributaries of the state would create ny other <br />type of hazard give the spacing between each bole. Worst case, over t me some <br />settling and hummocking of the upper surtace could occur. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.