My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (249)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (249)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 10:47:01 AM
Creation date
6/20/2012 10:02:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) 1995 Correspondence
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
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.
/
180
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
two deep (60 inch total height) on the east side to protect the Old <br /> Refuse Pile. The backhoe and Jersey barriers were paid via a <br /> change order to the Spring Maintenance contract. <br /> Rock deposition predominantly occurred as Dutch Creek rose each day <br /> in response to the days melting at higher elevations. The Creek <br /> usually began to rise in mid-afternoon, and would peak between <br /> 10:00 pm and midnight, then recede. The Backhoe would operate <br /> during these hours to sweep the accumulated rock through the <br /> culvert. Even with the backhoe operating, the creek would rise to <br /> the base of the Jersey barriers. <br /> On June 17, the area received a substantial amount of rain <br /> throughout the day. Pitkin County contacted the Division early <br /> that morning, voicing concerns of flooding along Coal Creek. A <br /> site visit during the afternoon showed that Coal and Dutch Creeks <br /> were higher than had previously been observed. At about 6:00 pm, <br /> it was observed that the facilities area drainage system had <br /> malfunctioned, and that the area was experiencing flooding. The <br /> water within the facilities area eventually reached the top of the <br /> containment berm, and overflowed in places. A second backhoe and <br /> operator were mobilized to the site at about 8:00 pm to help clear <br /> a blockage in a sump culvert which drains the facilities area. The <br /> sump blockage was cleared at approximately 1:00 am on June 18. <br /> Dutch Creek had crested an hour or two earlier without over flowing <br /> the Jersey barriers, due largely to continued sweeping of the rock <br /> through the culvert by the backhoe. Subsequent to June 17, Dutch <br /> and Coal Creeks slowly subsided, although a second peak in the flow <br /> was observed during the week of July 10. <br /> The Mine 3 pre-bid meeting was held on June 19. The road had to be <br /> cleared of snow in order for contractors to access the site. Even <br /> so, the mine entry bench had about 3 to 5 feet of snow cover at the <br /> time of the pre-bid. As a result, photographs of the site were <br /> included as part of a bid amendment. It is felt that the snow <br /> cover lead to an increased cost of the 3 Mine project, as the <br /> contractors were not able to get a good feel for the amount of dirt <br /> to be moved and the amount of demolition which needed to be <br /> accomplished. However, two of the three lowest bidders reported <br /> that they did return to the site following some degree of snow melt <br /> in order to further evaluate the project. <br /> The Mine 4 pre-bid was also scheduled for June 19, but was delayed <br /> until June 28 due to snow accumulations at that site. Again the <br /> road to 4 Mine had to be plowed open for contractor access to the <br /> site. Again, contractors were given photos of the project due to <br /> snow cover at the mine at the time of the pre-bid. It is felt that <br /> snow pack at this project site had a less significant impact on the <br /> project cost because the job was more straight forward, and the job <br /> locations were closer to each other. The low bidder reported that <br /> they also revisited the site after the pre-bid to better measure <br /> the scope of the project. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.