Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />RULE 2.41(2): LOCATIONS AND NUMBER OF ACRES RECLAIMED FOR THAT YEAR. <br />About .5 acre of additional filling was completed. Also as a <br />result of efforts to support the slope to the south of the Fountain <br />Mutual Ditch, fill was placed for a support berm below the ditch. It is <br />expected this berm will be completed in the next few months. <br />RULE 2. 1 THE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF ACRES IN THE VARIOUS STAGES OF <br />RECLAMATION (BACKFILLED, GRADED, TOPSOIL REPLACED, REVEGETATED). <br />A total of about 6.5 acres of the operation is under some type of <br />reclamation. Some of this is contained in the highway slopes on the <br />east side of the operation, but the major part of the reclamation is <br />within the pit area, mostly associated with the Fountain Mutual Ditch. <br />Furthermore, during the last year, meetings have been held with adjacent <br />landowners in an attempt to control the drainage from the land to the <br />north which has been causing erosion problems on the slope above the <br />ditch. No final resolution of the problem has been reached yet, but <br />designs are in progress and some actions have been taken by these <br />landowners to alleviate this problem. Dntil that problem is corrected, <br />further revegetation of the slope north of the ditch would be hopeless. <br />RULE 2. 1 THE SPECIES OF VEGETATION PLAAITED, THE LOCATIONS AND <br />APPROXIMATE DATES OF PLANTING. <br />No seeding occurred in the last year. <br />RULE 2. 1 5): THE TYPE AND APPROXIMATE QUANTITY OF FERTILIZERS, ORGAidIC <br />MATERIAL, OR SOIL CONDITIONERS USED AND LOCATION OF USE. <br />Because no planting occurred in the last year, no soil amendments <br />of any type were applied. <br />RULE 2. 1(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 SIICH FAILURE. <br />Severe problems have been encountered with the revegetation of this <br />site. In part, this is due to the very sandy growth medium which has a <br />low water holding capacity. Various methods are being examined to <br />increase this water holding capacity. Mulches have been considered, but <br />the material is so sandy it is not felt a mulch would be of much <br />benefit. The real problem is achieving a level of water holding <br />capacity that the vegetation can become established. Mulch would cool <br />the material and reduce water loss, but it appears the primary direction <br />of water loss is down rather than up, that is seepage is so rapid the <br />water sinks beyond the point where roots can reach it rather than <br />evaporating. In these situations, mulch does little good. <br />Page 2 of 3 19$9 SAND PIT ANNUAL REPORT <br />