Pacific Northwest Rural Site: 55 Issues Found

Summary: 99 index entries | 88 perfect matches | 11 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (11): C-201-02: Expected: EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS (C-201-02) | Actual: EXISTING CONDITION PLAN (C-201-02)(p5) C-201-03: Expected: EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS (C-201-03) | Actual: EXISTING CONDITION PLAN (C-201-03)(p6) C-201-04: Expected: EXISTING...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 C-105-02 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 2 --- 📄 C-201-01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 4

Summary: The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Sheet Reference Notes state that sheet C-402-02 contains 'CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR ACCESS ROAD AND LOW-WATER CROSSING.' The Cut-Fill Layout Plan Sheet Reference Notes state instead that sheet C-402-02 contains 'CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ZOOMED PLAN, SECTION AND DETAIL.' These are conflicting descriptions for...

Why it matters: This mismatch can cause the contractor/reviewer to look at the wrong sheet for critical construction details (access road/low-water crossing vs construction entrance), potentially resulting in incorrect installation and inspection delays.

Suggested next step: Clarify the intended contents/title of sheet C-402-02 and update Sheet Reference Notes on all sheets so C-402-02 is described consistently (and confirm where the access road/low-water crossing details and construction entrance details are actually located).

RFI draft: Clarify the intended contents/title of sheet C-402-02 and update Sheet Reference Notes on all sheets so C-402-02 is described consistently (and confirm where the access road/low-water crossing details and construction entrance details are actually located).

Summary: On the Site Layout and Demolition Plan, Entrance-4 is labeled with a 30-foot-wide gate, while the Construction Entrance Plan for Entrance-04 shows a 24-foot-wide gate. Since the Site Layout sheet explicitly directs the entrance to be per Sheet C-402-02, these two sheets conflict on the required gate width for the same entrance.

Why it matters: This discrepancy can affect gate procurement, fence layout, clear opening for vehicle access, and permitting/agency acceptance (WSDOT driveway connection). Construction may install the wrong gate width or need field changes/rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct gate width for Entrance-4 / Entrance-04 (30' vs 24') and issue revised drawings (or a governing-note clarification) indicating which sheet controls for gate width and associated fence/gate layout.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct gate width for Entrance-4 / Entrance-04 (30' vs 24') and issue revised drawings (or a governing-note clarification) indicating which sheet controls for gate width and associated fence/gate layout.

Summary: On the Construction Entrance Plan, the ENTRANCE-03 gate is labeled as a “30’ WIDE GATE” and is tagged with point “300”, while the ENTRANCE-04 gate is labeled as a “24’ WIDE GATE” and is tagged with point “301”. However, the GATES SOP TABLE lists point 300 as “ENTRANCE-4” and point 301 as “ENTRANCE-3”, which contradicts the plan labeling.

Why it matters: If the gate SOP point numbering/remarks are used for survey staking or construction layout, the gates could be set out at the wrong entrance location, creating rework and potential access/security conflicts.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the GATES SOP TABLE remarks for points 300 and 301 are reversed, or whether the ENTRANCE-03/ENTRANCE-04 point tags on the Construction Entrance Plan should be updated to match the SOP table.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the GATES SOP TABLE remarks for points 300 and 301 are reversed, or whether the ENTRANCE-03/ENTRANCE-04 point tags on the Construction Entrance Plan should be updated to match the SOP table.

Summary: On sheet C-202-05, the keyed note for the entrance states to use sheet C-402-02 for the “ZOOMED PLAN AND DETAIL.” However, sheet C-402-02 notes state that Entrance-1 and Entrance-2 driveway plan/section details are in the Move-On plans and that Entrances #1 and #2 are shown on C-402-02 “FOR REFERENCE ONLY.” This creates a cross-reference...

Why it matters: If the wrong sheet/set is used for Entrance-2, the contractor may build the entrance using incomplete or non-controlling information, impacting WSDOT compliance and potentially requiring rework or delaying approvals/inspections.

Suggested next step: Confirm which drawings govern Entrance-2 construction (driveway plan and section details): should contractors use C-402-02 as the controlling “ZOOMED PLAN AND DETAIL,” or should they use the Move-On plan set? If Move-On plans govern, revise C-202-05 keynote #6 to point to the correct sheet(s).

RFI draft: Confirm which drawings govern Entrance-2 construction (driveway plan and section details): should contractors use C-402-02 as the controlling “ZOOMED PLAN AND DETAIL,” or should they use the Move-On plan set? If Move-On plans govern, revise C-202-05 keynote #6 to point to the correct sheet(s).

Summary: Sheet C-203-06 indicates a plan continuation at a boundary labeled 'MATCHLINE C-203-09'. However, sheet C-203-09 shows matchlines labeled to different sheets (e.g., 'MATCHLINE C-202-06' and 'MATCHLINE C-202-14'), which conflicts with the matchline destination shown on C-203-06.

Why it matters: This mismatch can cause users to navigate to the wrong continuation sheet when coordinating erosion/sediment control limits and features across matchlines, increasing the risk of incorrect installation locations and coordination errors.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct matchline destinations at the shared boundary between these erosion and sediment control plan sheets and revise matchline labels so the continuation sheet references are consistent on both sheets.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct matchline destinations at the shared boundary between these erosion and sediment control plan sheets and revise matchline labels so the continuation sheet references are consistent on both sheets.

Summary: Sheet C-601-05 directs the user to “SEE SHEET C-402-02 ENTRANCE-02 FOR DETAILS”. However, sheet C-402-02 includes a plan note stating Entrances #1 and #2 are part of the MOVE-ON plan set and are shown for reference only, and the section detail on C-402-02 is titled for “ENTRANCE-03 & 04”, not Entrance-02. This indicates the C-601-05...

Why it matters: If contractors follow the C-601-05 reference, they may use the wrong entrance driveway/section detail (or not find Entrance-02 construction details at all), leading to incorrect construction at the Entrance-02 location and potential rework/delays.

Suggested next step: Confirm where the Entrance-02 driveway plan/section details are actually provided (MOVE-ON plan set vs another civil sheet), and revise the C-601-05 note and/or C-402-02 content so the Entrance-02 reference points to the correct sheet/detail.

RFI draft: Confirm where the Entrance-02 driveway plan/section details are actually provided (MOVE-ON plan set vs another civil sheet), and revise the C-601-05 note and/or C-402-02 content so the Entrance-02 reference points to the correct sheet/detail.

Summary: On sheet C-402-03, Section A calls out the top of berm as elevation 2308.00, while Section B and the CONSTRUCTION POND TOP SOP TABLE indicate the top of berm is elevation 2308.50. Since sheet C-401-05 directs the contractor to use sheet C-402-03 for details at this location, the conflicting elevations create an unclear grading target for the...

Why it matters: This discrepancy can change berm height/freeboard and earthwork quantities, and could affect constructability and field staking (setout elevations) for the pond perimeter.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct top-of-berm elevation for the construction water pond (2308.00 vs 2308.50) and revise Section A and/or the TOP SOP TABLE/Section B so all callouts match.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct top-of-berm elevation for the construction water pond (2308.00 vs 2308.50) and revise Section A and/or the TOP SOP TABLE/Section B so all callouts match.

Summary: On C-202-03, Key Note 6 directs the entrance to “SEE SHEET C-402-02 FOR ZOOMED PLAN AND DETAIL,” and the plan area identifies “ENTRANCE-1.” However, on C-402-02 the sheet note states “SEE MOVE ON PLANS FOR ENTRANCE-1 & ENTRANCE-2 DRIVEWAY PLAN AND SECTION DETAILS,” while the detailed entrance plans and section on C-402-02 are explicitly labeled...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the C-202-03 direction to use C-402-02 for the WSDOT entrance detail, they may apply the wrong entrance geometry/section (Entrance-03/04) or miss the intended Entrance-1 requirements, impacting permitting compliance and field construction at the correct entrance location.

Suggested next step: Confirm which entrance(s) the “ENTRANCE PER WSDOT REQUIREMENTS” note on C-202-03 is intended to reference. If it is Entrance-1, provide the correct zoomed plan/section/detail location (either add Entrance-1 to C-402-02 or revise the C-202-03 note to point to the Move-On plan set and specific sheet/detail).

RFI draft: Confirm which entrance(s) the “ENTRANCE PER WSDOT REQUIREMENTS” note on C-202-03 is intended to reference. If it is Entrance-1, provide the correct zoomed plan/section/detail location (either add Entrance-1 to C-402-02 or revise the C-202-03 note to point to the Move-On plan set and specific...

Summary: Sheet C-204-01 provides a standard “Stabilized Construction Entrance” detail requiring a minimum entrance length of “100' min.”, while the construction entrance plan for “ENTRANCE-04” shows the stone tie-in area dimensioned as “80.0'” adjacent to “MATCH TO EXISTING STONE”. These two requirements conflict for the entrance length.

Why it matters: If constructed at 80 feet instead of the noted 100-foot minimum, the construction entrance may not meet the erosion/sediment control intent for track-out reduction, creating compliance and rework risk.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required stabilized stone construction entrance length for ENTRANCE-04: should the plan dimension be increased to meet the “100' min.” requirement, or is the standard detail not intended to apply to ENTRANCE-04?

RFI draft: Confirm the required stabilized stone construction entrance length for ENTRANCE-04: should the plan dimension be increased to meet the “100' min.” requirement, or is the standard detail not intended to apply to ENTRANCE-04?

Summary: Sheet C-402-03 Section A calls out the pond berm crest at elevation 2308.00, while the construction pond top stakeout elevations indicate 2308.50 (and Section B also calls out 2308.50). These elevations are for the same construction pond berm/top condition, but they differ by 0.50'.

Why it matters: This discrepancy can lead to incorrect grading set-out and constructed berm crest elevations, which can affect pond storage capacity and tie-in elevations to existing grade.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct design elevation for the construction pond top of berm in Section A (10+00 to 13+25): should it be 2308.00 or 2308.50? Revise Section A and/or the Construction Pond Top SOP Table (and any related grading/capacity calculations) to match the intended berm crest elevation.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct design elevation for the construction pond top of berm in Section A (10+00 to 13+25): should it be 2308.00 or 2308.50? Revise Section A and/or the Construction Pond Top SOP Table (and any related grading/capacity calculations) to match the intended berm crest elevation.

Summary: The specification requires that silt fence be used to delineate the boundaries of the clearing limits shown on the plan, and that no disturbance beyond the silt fence delineated clearing limits is permitted. On the erosion and sediment control plan, the 20' wide defensible fire break area shows the Limits of Disturbance line labeled “LOD”...

Why it matters: If clearing/limits boundaries are not delineated with silt fence as required, field crews may not have a compliant physical boundary for disturbance control, increasing the risk of disturbance outside approved limits and resulting regulatory/environmental noncompliance.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether silt fence (SF) is required along all clearing limits/limits of disturbance boundaries, including the 20' wide defensible fire break area shown with LOD. If yes, revise the plan to show SF along those boundaries (or clarify an approved alternate delineation method consistent with the specification).

RFI draft: Confirm whether silt fence (SF) is required along all clearing limits/limits of disturbance boundaries, including the 20' wide defensible fire break area shown with LOD. If yes, revise the plan to show SF along those boundaries (or clarify an approved alternate delineation method consistent with...

Summary: The specification requires the silt fence to delineate the boundaries of the clearing limits, and prohibits disturbance beyond the silt-fence-delineated clearing limits. On this Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and Silt Fence (SF) are depicted as separate, parallel alignments (LOD line and SF line shown...

Why it matters: If the clearing limit/LOD is not the same as the silt fence alignment, field crews may disturb areas outside of the silt fence line, creating potential noncompliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements and requiring rework/field corrections.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the LOD (clearing limits) boundary is intended to be the silt fence alignment. If so, revise/clarify the plan so the silt fence delineates the clearing limits (coincident linework and/or explicit note/legend). If not, clarify how clearing limits are delineated in the field while still meeting the spec requirement.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the LOD (clearing limits) boundary is intended to be the silt fence alignment. If so, revise/clarify the plan so the silt fence delineates the clearing limits (coincident linework and/or explicit note/legend). If not, clarify how clearing limits are delineated in the field while...

Summary: On sheet C-201-02, the sheet reference notes direct the reader to the C-203 series specifically as “EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS.” However, the referenced sheet C-203-02 is titled “EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES,” which does not match the referenced sheet type/description.

Why it matters: This mismatch can cause reviewers/contractors to overlook the ESC requirements on C-203-02 (expecting only plan sheets) or to believe a plan sheet is missing, creating coordination and compliance risk for erosion/sediment control implementation.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the C-203 sheet reference on C-201-02 should be revised to include notes (e.g., “PLANS AND NOTES”) or whether C-203-02 is mis-titled/misplaced and should instead be an ESC plan sheet.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the C-203 sheet reference on C-201-02 should be revised to include notes (e.g., “PLANS AND NOTES”) or whether C-203-02 is mis-titled/misplaced and should instead be an ESC plan sheet.

Summary: The roadway is labeled with different identifiers across sheets: the Existing Condition Plan labels it as 'MIDDLE RD 43000', while the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan labels it as 'MIDDLE ROAD 4300'. If this is the same roadway, the differing numeric identifier creates ambiguity for locating work limits, entrances, and controls.

Why it matters: If the road ID is used for permitting, stakeholder coordination, or construction access directions, inconsistent labeling can lead to referencing the wrong roadway segment in the field and misplacing erosion controls or construction entrance limits.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct roadway name/ID ('MIDDLE RD 43000' vs 'MIDDLE ROAD 4300') and revise sheets for consistent labeling, or clarify if these refer to different road segments.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct roadway name/ID ('MIDDLE RD 43000' vs 'MIDDLE ROAD 4300') and revise sheets for consistent labeling, or clarify if these refer to different road segments.