Laserfiche WebLink
<br />R1JLE 2.41(4): THE SPECIES OF VEGETATION PLANTED, THE LOCATIONS AND <br />APPROXIMATE DATES OF PLANTING. <br />The area below the ditch route was planted with the following <br />mixture. This seed was broadcast using a cyclone seeder. The seeding <br />was done on February 20, 1986. <br />SPECIES RATE (LBS PLS/ACRE - BROADCAST) <br />INTERMEDIATE WHEATGRASS 5.00 <br />PUBESCENT WHEATGRASS 5.00 <br />STANDARD CRESTED WHEATGRASS 5.00 <br />RUSSIAN WILDRYE 3.00 <br />SMOOTH BROME 5.00 <br />YELLOW SWEETCLOVER 1.00 <br />This mixture is the same one that was used on other ditch slopes <br />and was approved by the ditch company when the ditch relocation was <br />considered. <br />RULE 2.41(5): THE TYPE AND APPROXIMATE QUANTITY OF FERTILIZERS, ORGANIC <br />MATERIAL, OR SOIL CONDITIONERS USED AND LOCATION OF USE. <br />No fertilizers were used on the site. None was used for two <br />reasons. First, the soil, for the most part, showed clear evidence of <br />being a rather rich medium. Second, this area has a characteristic of <br />producing problem weed growths. Fertilization at the time of seeding <br />frequently enhances weed growths more than grass growths. On the other <br />hand, if significant moisture is not received soon, it may not make much <br />difference because there is no evidence that even weeds are germinating <br />under the unusually dry conditions. <br />RULE 2.41(6): AN APPRAISAL OF THE SUCCESS OF RECLAMATION EFFORTS, AND <br />IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE OF ANY EFFORTS, A SHORT NARRATIVE ON THE <br />SUSPECTED OR DETERMINED CAUSE OF SUCH FAILURE. <br />For the most part, last pear's spot seeding of the highway slope as <br />well as the slope above the ditch route on the north side of the pit are <br />considered to be successful. Considering the sandy material, the <br />vegetation density is adequate and appears to be increasing. <br />Generally, erosion damages were rather slight, eventhough some very <br />large thunderstorms occured over this site. Three washouts were noted <br />on the slope and these have been repaired. These washouts, however, were <br />not "normal" washouts. <br />Upon first examination it appeared as though the material simply <br />collapsed producing a deep channel. Sand does not generally do that <br />though and it demanded a closer examination. Furthermore, if it was <br />some form of a slump it should have been more common on the larger <br />slopes. In fact, the larger slopes were in the best condition. <br />Page 3 of 5 Permit 77-213 Sand Pit 1986 Annual Report <br />