Laserfiche WebLink
Greg Lewicki's comment: <br /> Revegetation at Mine #5. 1 feel that it is highly questionable to reseed <br /> all of the Mine #5 reclaimed area after one extremely dry summer. Some <br /> seed placed in the Fall of 1993 may have died but it is premature to <br /> reseed the entire area, especially when reseeding and mulching <br /> equipment will have to be brought to the site at a later date to revegetate <br /> the road immediately adjacent to the site at a later date to revegetate the <br /> road immediately adjacent to this area anyway. Also, Steve's request to <br /> cover broadcast seed 114"to 112"by flexible tine harrowing is very <br /> expensive and not spelled cut in the permit for revegetation. <br /> The bid specification for hydroseeding 2 acres on the Sutey pile is expensive <br /> and is not required in the permit. Hydromulching was not employed in seeding <br /> the south side of the pile, which now has substantial vegetative cover. <br /> Greg Lewicki's comment: <br /> Revegetation at Sutev. Steve requests that hydromulching and <br /> hydroseeding be used for 2.0 acres (that amount steeper than 3.OH:1.0V) <br /> at the Sutey Pile but then requests that all areas be drill seeded at Mine <br /> #5. Handwritten in pencil is a note that steep slopes should be broadcast <br /> seeded. Again, it is not practical to bring a hydromulch rig to the site to <br /> reseed 2.0 acres. The mobilization cost alone makes it impractical for <br /> such a small acreage. The extra two acres should be broadcast. <br /> Topsoiling of the Sutey pile may not be completed before rain and snow <br /> conditions force a halt of work. Although the bid document contemplates <br /> payment of the costs of mobilizing equipment several times due to the onset of <br /> winter, there does not seem to be a guarantee of cost for purchase of seed and <br /> mulch which may not be used this fall. This risk factor will be reflected in a <br /> higher bid price. <br /> Unless October and November of 1994 are unseasonably dry months, the <br /> ground may be too wet for adequate seedbed preparation, and for use of the <br /> mulch crimper. This presents a risk to the contractor, which will result in a <br /> higher bid price. <br /> Under the category of cost without benefit is the requirement to dig up the <br /> remaining concrete footings which supported the conveyor belt (now removed) to <br /> the Sutey pile, transport them many miles up mountain roads to be buried. <br /> DMG Bid Document <br /> Task 3 -Earthwork <br /> Site Clearing. <br /> Concrete materials [from the Sutey site] may be hauled to the Nos. 1, 3 or 4 <br /> mine entries for disposal against the highwall remnant. <br /> MCR Objections/DMG Bid <br /> Page 15 <br />