REV04859 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

17. Page 4-10 has been revised. 18. The Division's original question 18 was in regard to alluvial aquifer parameters shown on Page 4-12. The paragraph containing these parameters has been revised. Note that the thickness of the flow (b) is used to calculate both the hydraulic conductivity and the area of flow. Darcy's equation can then be written as: Q = K i A = T/b * i * b * w and can be reduced to 0 = T i w --- The thickness of the flow cancels. Therefore, Q is identical for a thickness of 40 or 60 feet. 20. GVC has revised the following portions of the reclamation cost estimate in response to the Division's comments: A. GVC was using an older copy of the Cat Handbook (fidition 16). The factors used by the Division have been incorporated into Table 3.7-1. The minor difference in the calculated cost of the task is apparently due to round-off error. B. See A. C. GVC has adopted the Division's factors. D. GVC has used a ripping pass length of 150 feet for Task 5. This length is appropriate for the size of the project. The resultant difference in the cost of the project is $120.00. Additionally, for Task 6, GVC has used a width of 10.5 feet and a pass length of 700 feet; as is contrasted with the Division's 6.5 feet and 500 feet respectively. GVC believes that its figures are correct. fi. GVC believes that the use of an average condition for Task 7 is appropriate. Of the seven factors listed in the Division's justification, only one may be present. The materiel may contain up to 75 ~ rock. This has not been apparent in past excavations that GVC has made in the material. None of the other factors apply. F. GVC has revised its estimate for Tesk 8 and has used the factors that the Division used; except that, the Division has used $46.11/hr for operating cost. GVC has used $43.64 as was used by GVC and the Division on all other tasks utilizing a dozer. Mc Page - 3 7/12/94