My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-12-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981015 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981015
>
2000-12-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981015 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2021 9:43:24 AM
Creation date
4/14/2010 11:37:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981015
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/11/2000
Doc Name
PKA-9-1149 Closeout Report
Permit Index Doc Type
Reclamation Projects
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
" has shown how slope transition areas are subjected to higher erodibility from flow velocity and <br />that the transition zone should located higher up -slope as possible. <br />Field Directive #2 authorized additional machine time, Additive Alternate #1 (track -hoe), to be <br />used for additional side channel work from the east and at the toe of the slope. It also directed <br />that machine time could be used to pull out the drainage to the west, to start the access road <br />recontouring, and for sediment pond spillway work. Field Directive #2 also allowed for diviting <br />with the hoe bucket as being an acceptable surface roughening instead of the specified dozer blade <br />furrowing. <br />The punchlist for the channel work included: the need for filling the voids between the larger <br />rock; the need to address side slope riprap placement in places lacking the 48" minimum height; a <br />few side slopes not adhering to the 3:1 specification and; the upper portion checkdam elevation <br />difference was not at 24" needing additional rock up both sides of the side slopes. All the <br />Komatsu machinery was demobed. Shortly after, a Case 1080 track -hoe with thumb was <br />mobilized onto the site and all the punch list items were corrected. <br />The first 40 hours of additional machine time (track -hoe) had completed: the side drainage <br />construction from the east tying into the main slope channel; recontouring the drainage to the <br />northwest and related access roads; and had started the upper access road recontouring. Field <br />Directive #3 was issued for additional machine time to complete access road recontouring and to <br />perform work on the sediment pond spillway. All recontouring performed by the track -hoe <br />resulted in approximate original contours to the extent possible with a extremely rough surface <br />desirable for revegetation. Extremely large rock was left in. place. While access road recontouring <br />work was being performed west of the northwest drainage, buried lime was encountered. All the <br />lime was placed to the best extent possible first against the slope cut and then was buried with <br />overcast material. <br />The spillway construction for the sediment pond had followed the staked location which was <br />based on a 24" higher elevation than the standpipe inflow. Concern was made as to if the spillway <br />elevation was higher than the southwest corner elevation of the sediment pond. After critical <br />review, it appears that there is an approximate 12" of difference between the two elevations. <br />Revegetation operations were delayed (5 days given) due to late spring wind and rain. The steep <br />sloped 0.5 acre area associated with Additive Alternate #2 regarding revegetation using BIOSOL <br />was divited, seeded and mulched without incident. Mulch consisted of Western Wheatgrass and <br />Galleta grass bales from Southwest Seed of Dolores, Colorado. Mulch transport was not <br />included in this contract and was billed separately. The Galleta mulch was used exclusively on the <br />BIOSOL area. A very late season seeding (late May) coupled with extreme high temperatures <br />and a poor precipitation season to follow resulted in revegetation failure. Realizing the late <br />season seeding and the assumed need for an additional seeding, Field Directive #4 was issued to <br />provide the additional costs for reseeding based on the submitted bid revegetation cost, Additive <br />Alternate #3, of $500.00. The site was reseeded by broadcast methods in late November. <br />V. FUTURE WORK <br />The site should be monitored for revegetation success as well as for the affects of erosion on the <br />reclaimed areas. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.