1996-08-21_REVISION - M1981302 (3)

Home Browse Search

Jane E. Bunin, PhD October 21, 1996-Response Page 3 signs of erosion were noted. Since the final approved land use for this permit area is "medium density residential" the Division believes that the vegetation cover is acceptable. Issue 1(d) - EXAMPLE OF UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS FROM RE'VEGETATION WITHOUT TOPSOILING Response The reference to the 4 acres of non-wetland revegetation which was noted in the April 22 , 1996 inspection report as being barren or requiring revegetating is not an example of unsatisfactory results from revegetation without topsoiling. As noted in the report , this acreage includes roads (still being used) , lake shorelines (which would need revegetation when they are regraded from 1H: 1V to 3H: 1V, and an unspecified amount of "barren land. " The 50 acres referenced under comment 1 (d) refers to a bond calculation dated February, 1994 which "assumed that there was enough topsoil stockpiled to cover the disturbed area. " There was no reference in this calculation as to whether the disturbed area was unsatisfactorily reclaimed due to a lack of topsoil , only the assumption that the topsoil was on site and therefore would have to be spread. Later research has shown that there was no soil stockpiled, that none was required by the permit document , and that the site is stable and is probably suitable for its intended final use. Evidence of this is provided in the April 25, 1994 bond calculation which no longer refers to retopsoiling the 50 acres, and the staff recommendation to the MLRB at the July 27 , 1994 Board hearing that the reclamation bond be reduced to the $8, 000 that is necessary for the outstanding reclamation. Issue 2) - EMBAN131ENT AND CHANNEL Response The Division is somewhat confused about the comments under this item in the commenters letter. The statement is made that "these (the embankment & channel) should be "affected lands" but have not been included in the permitting process . " It is the Division' s understanding that the existing berm was present on the site prior to the permit issuance and therefore did not have to be included in the permitting process . It is also the Division' s understanding that Boulder County was aware of the berm construction as early as 1979 , and did not notify the Division of any objections during the permitting process . It is Board policy that the Division shall not enforce other agency' s regulations . The Board approved the permit with a final use of wildlife and agriculture, not intensive development , but if the