Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />I repeat this work was done at their direction under <br />equipment rental rates. If it was not done to their liking <br />they were on sight full time and should have ordered more <br />work to have been done. The road silted full had nothing to <br />do with the grade or the slope. But. was caused by rain on <br />the freshly tilled 3-to-1 slope above the road. if the DMG <br />had not deleted the mulch, they probably would no[ have had <br />this problem. Further, if DMG wanted a road built and <br />guaranteed not to silt full we could do this also, but not <br />under hourly equipment rental rates. <br />DMG has asserted claims for the following, which are <br />groundless and must be dropped: <br />111. The 6 foot Ponderosa Pine tree was within the 75 acres <br />scheduled to be reclaimed. We saved all the trees on this <br />project that we could and achieve the required grading. We <br />were not required by the contract to save any trees. Mrs. <br />Brown found in CWL's fa~ror on this item. <br />112. Chens Hill Ditch With Riprap as addressed earlier in <br />the letter. CWL also believes this to be another coercive <br />action by DMG. This ditch was built to specifications and <br />later was silted full. Now the DMG wants to blame CWL for <br />the Chens Hill erosion problems (caused by the deletion of <br />mulch) and the sediment running into the Fuel Energy <br />sediment pond (caused by poor design of ditch). I gave a <br />final inspection and certificate of completion signed by <br />John Nelson that says this work was completed. <br />113. The lost growth medium cannot be substantiated. Bill <br />Colgate was there and can attest to this. The State cannot <br />substantiate these claims as John Nelson was not there at <br />that time. Bill Colgate told us that just the soil on the <br />edge was lost. The amendment 111 requires topsoil salvaging <br />from the 950 North grid line to tt~e North. The work in this <br />disputed area was being done by CW ~ (at no additional cost <br />to DMG) at the DMG's approval to make these grading plan <br />work. The DMG's first grading plan would have worked. <br />Amendment 111 changes the slope of work. This left two <br />alternatives, one was to go behind the 950 North grid and <br />start grading down or build up from the bottom to reduce the <br />highwall in the South end. This is what DMG wanted. At the <br />pre-construction conference attended by John Nelson, Dave <br />Bucknam, Bill Colgate, and Jim McArdle and CWL. CWL pointed <br />out that their plan would put a 20-t.o-3U foot dam in the <br />.drainage. At that time they approved CWL's plan. CWL has not <br />asked for compensation for this additional grading or the <br />engineering CWL did for the State. If they persist nn <br />claiming damages for losC growth medium in this area we <br />would like to bill for the additional grading and the <br />engineering. <br />12 <br />