|
| Inq. 4 |
Post Date: 10/15/2004 |
Inquiry Date: 10/5/2004 |
| |
Q. Regarding an earlier question about the potential to narrow the medians, are cost savings, time savings, reduction of wetland disturbance, or minimization of impact on adjacent property owners considered "compelling reasons for modification"? |
| |
A. Due to commitments made with Worcester County addressing safety concerns and the requirements set forth by the SHA District Maintenance Office for maintaining the median area, SHA will not entertain any reductions in median width. The median widths shall remain as shown on the concept plans. |
|
| Inq. 3 |
Post Date: 9/28/2004 |
Inquiry Date: 9/27/2004 |
| |
Q. Can the design-builder apply for a modification to the ACOE 404 permit to extend the limits of disturbance so long as the revised limits remain within the right-of-way? |
| |
A. See section 3.06.18 (pages 109 and 110) of the IFB, 2nd paragraph. |
|
| Inq. 2 |
Post Date: 9/28/2004 |
Inquiry Date: 9/27/2004 |
| |
Q. Page 55 of the project manual describes 20.7 acres of total reforestation and 6.3 acres of on-site reforestation, respectively. Page 143 describes 16.2 acres of total reforestation and 9 acres of on-site reforestation, respectively. Please verify which figures are correct. |
| |
A. This issue will be addressed in Addendum 1. |
|
| Inq. 1 |
Post Date: 9/28/2004 |
Inquiry Date: 9/27/2004 |
| |
Q. Other than areas adjacent to wetlands that require narrowing of the median to limit impact, can the design-builder propose a narrower median for reasons other than lesser impact on wetlands? |
| |
A. See section 3.09.05 (page 128) of the IFB, 1st paragraph. |
|
