Laserfiche WebLink
with Q in cfs under free flow conditions and h as the measured head in feet. <br />A 5.25 cfs flow rate would correspond to a head of about 1.42 feet in the Parshall <br />Flume. Thus, the existing flume is adequate for this application. <br />7) Attachment A2-1 reports the Plasticity Index for Proctor No. 1 to be 19%. This number does not <br />agree with that plotted on Attachment Al-l. <br />Please clarify which P.I. value is correct for 1P, and change as necessary. <br />Response: Attachment A2 listing a PI of 19 is correct, Attachment Al has been corrected. <br />8) In Attachment A3, pages -2, -4, -6, and -8, the Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture <br />Content values listed in the Proctor Data table appear to have been transposed between Samples <br />3P and 4P. <br />Please compare the values from the Proctor Data table with the values reported in <br />Attachment A2-3 and A2-4, and correct any items which are in error. <br />d <br />Response: The Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content values were indeed <br />transposed. They values have been corrected as requested. <br />9) In Attachment A3-2, the water content reported for Test Nos. 3 and 4 exceeds the Optimum <br />Moisture Content determined for Proctor No. 2 by more than 2%. These tests failed to meet the <br />criteria of Fill Placement and Compaction as described in the approved design ("within 2 percent <br />of the Optimum Moisture Content"). <br />Please evaluate the water content test results, as reported, and provide the Division with <br />justification for the apparent acceptance of these results. <br />Response: See the response to comment 8 above. Justification has been added to the <br />report text as well as to the response to comment 12. <br />10) In Attachment A3-4, Test Nos. 5A and 10 were evaluated by referring to Proctor No. 3. <br />In light of Item 8), above, please verify which Proctor curve should actually be used for <br />comparison, and adjust any values accordingly. <br />Response: The daily report has been corrected to compare to Proctor 4. <br />11) In Attachments A3-6 and A3-8, Test Nos. 11-14 and 15-18 are each referenced to Proctor Nos. 3 <br />or 4. <br />In light of Item 8), above, please verify which curve should actually be used for comparison <br />of Test Nos. 11-18, and adjust any values accordingly. <br />Response: The requested change has been made with this submittal and the daily reports <br />for these tests has been adjusted. <br />12) In Attachments A3-6 and A3-8, the Water Contents reported for Test Nos. 11 and 17 exceed the <br />Optimum Moisture Content determined for both Proctor Nos. 3 and 4 by more than 2%. In <br />