Laserfiche WebLink
The contractor used a rangeland drill to seed the site, and a <br /> blower to spread the straw mulch. A disc was used to crimp the <br /> mulch on slopes gentler than 2H:1V, while the dozer crimped the <br /> steeper portions of the dump. The project was completed on <br /> September 3 , 1996. <br /> Field Changes: <br /> Field Directives 1, 3, 4 were written in attempts to eliminate <br /> confusion which the contractor was experiencing regarding the <br /> parameters of excavation at the borrow area. The depth of cut and <br /> the width of the road remnant after construction specified in the <br /> bid appeared to create a conflict for the contractor. This was <br /> compounded by the large volume of rock which was unexpectedly <br /> encountered during excavation operations. Due to the potential <br /> that the volume of large rock would significantly reduce the amount <br /> of borrow material available for distribution, the final slope <br /> angle of the borrow area was increased to 2H: iV. Due to the <br /> steepness of this final slope, the cost of revegetating these 2.4 <br /> acres was increased to $1,800 per acre. <br /> The use of an organic topsoil amendment was deleted in Field <br /> Directive No. 2. The topsoil substitute material appeared to <br /> contain a large volume of organic materials, thus negating the need <br /> to supplement it. <br /> Excess topsoil substitute material was excavated from the borrow <br /> area, and hauled to the Rock Tunnel area in order to enhance <br /> revegetation success potential there. Field Directive No. 5 <br /> authorized an extra $2 ,400 for this service. <br /> Rock Tunnel <br /> The objectives of the Rock Tunnel Project were to establish a <br /> simple mine dewatering system, demolish and bury concrete <br /> foundations, backfill and grade portions of the highwall remnant, <br /> and revegetate the entire pad area. The storage yard located south <br /> of the Lamphouse, across Road B, was included in the project area. <br /> A comprehensive reclamation plan addressing drainage of the adits <br /> was not located in the permit. The permit did not contain a <br /> detailed reclamation plan for the highwall or other portions of the <br /> area either. <br /> A reclamation bid was drafted which accomplished controlled <br /> drainage of the twin tunnels by utilizing a high strength 48 inch <br /> diameter plastic pipe within each entry. The large diameter pipe <br /> will allow for entry into the tunnels should the need arise. The <br /> pipes were anchored at their inlets by double wythe block walls and <br /> at their outlets by a poured concrete wall. The outlet is <br /> protected by a locking steel grate. The existing seals within each <br /> entry were breached to allow for free drainage of each tunnel. <br /> Concrete foundations scattered throughout the area were demolished <br /> 12 <br />