Laserfiche WebLink
1995 Reclamation Bids July 7, 1995 Page 3 <br /> evaluation of the necessity of silt fence is not possible. The only logical <br /> location for temporary placement of silt fence for this project would be <br /> below topsoil piles that would not have sediment control through <br /> containment ditches or berms when being actively worked. The length of <br /> silt fence proposed for installation; 1100 feet at the Sutey Refuse Pile and <br /> 900 feet at the Old Refuse Pile (with the potential for an installation of an <br /> additional 800 feet), appears excessive to achieve sediment control at the <br /> topsoil piles. Further, temporary sediment control could be achieved at <br /> these locations through use of earth berms or containment ditches. <br /> I have sincere concerns with the use of silt fence as a substitute sediment <br /> control measure at construction sites. As I mentioned previously, 100 <br /> percent of the silt fence applications at construction projects on the Front <br /> Range I have observed this year have been improperly installed and/or <br /> maintained. Improper installation and maintenance of silt fence totally <br /> negates it's usefulness as a sediment control device. <br /> Silt fence is a temporary sediment control measure. Without more <br /> information, I cannot assess the relative benefit of using silt fence at this <br /> project or location. <br /> Mirafi silt fence is an expensive product, averaging approximately $10.00 <br /> per linear foot for the material itself. In addition to the material cost, silt ' <br /> fence must be installed, maintained, and removed by hand. Installation, <br /> maintenance, and removal are time consuming and expensive projects. <br /> In my evaluation, based on the available information in the bid, use of silt <br /> fence at this project location is only marginally beneficial for sediment <br /> control. Use of other sediment control measures would be much less time <br /> consuming and expensive. <br />