Plan Review: 17 Issues Found

Summary: 37 index entries | 2 perfect matches | 35 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (35): 3: Expected: STREAM SA1 STA. 0+00 - 4+40 (GROUPS 2 & 4) (3) | Actual: STREAM AS-BUILT PLAN AND PROFILE STREAM SA1 STA. 0+00 - 4+40 (GROUPS 2 & 4) (3)(p3) 4: Expected: STREAM SA1 STA. 4+40 - 9+00 (GROUP 4) (4) | Actual: STREAM AS-BUILT PLAN AND PROFILE STREAM SA1 STA. 4+40 - 9+00 (GROUP 4) (4)(p4...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 0 missing, 35 mismatched out of 37 sheets

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in the stationing direction established for Stream SA1. On Sheet 3, Stream SA1's profile demonstrates that stationing increases in the downstream flow direction (from STA 0+00 at Elev 546.1 down to STA 3+53.0 at Elev 534.9). However, on Sheet 27, Stream SA1 is graphically shown flowing from STA 15+50 (upstream, top right) to STA 15+00 (downstream, bottom left), w...

Why it matters: Reversing the stationing orientation between sheets for the same stream alignment destroys coordinate geometry consistency, which will lead to critical placement errors for cross-sections, in-stream structures, and confluence tie-ins during construction staking.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct stationing convention for Stream SA1. If station numbers are intended to increase downstream (as shown on Sheet 3), verify and revise the flow arrows, contour elevations, and station labels for Stream SA1 on Sheet 27 to ensure consistency.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct stationing convention for Stream SA1. If station numbers are intended to increase downstream (as shown on Sheet 3), verify and revise the flow arrows, contour elevations, and station labels for Stream SA1 on Sheet 27 to ...

Summary: Sheet 8 labels the vegetation monitoring plot near the matchline area as 'RANDOM VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT 6', while Sheet 9 labels the same plot in the corresponding matchline overlap area as 'PERMANENT VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT 6'. According to the legend on both sheets, 'RANDOM VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT' and 'PERMANENT VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT' are distinct categories with different sym...

Why it matters: The classification of a vegetation monitoring plot as 'random' versus 'permanent' has significant implications for long-term monitoring protocols, regulatory compliance, and reporting requirements for the stream restoration project. Permanent plots require fixed survey locations and repeated meas...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether Vegetation Monitoring Plot 6 is a RANDOM or PERMANENT vegetation monitoring plot. Sheet 8 labels it as 'RANDOM VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT 6' while Sheet 9 labels it as 'PERMANENT VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT 6'. Please correct the applicable sheet to ensur...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether Vegetation Monitoring Plot 6 is a RANDOM or PERMANENT vegetation monitoring plot. Sheet 8 labels it as 'RANDOM VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT 6' while Sheet 9 labels it as 'PERMANENT VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT 6'. Please correct...

Summary: The continuous wetland rehabilitation area running along Stream SA5 is labeled 'PROPOSED WETLAND 2 REHABILITATION' on Sheet 24 (STA. 0+00–1+60) and Sheet 26 (STA. 3+60–5+03), but is labeled 'PROPOSED WETLAND 5 REHABILITATION' on Sheet 25 (STA. 1+60–3+60). The pink-shaded wetland zone is a single continuous corridor following the stream across all three sheets, yet the wetland number changes fro...

Why it matters: Wetland numbering is critical for regulatory permitting (e.g., USACE Section 404 permits, state water quality certifications) and mitigation credit tracking. An inconsistent wetland designation could cause confusion during agency review, delay permit approvals, or result in incorrect acreage attr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct wetland rehabilitation designation for the area along Stream SA5 between STA. 1+60 and 3+60 shown on Sheet 25. Should this area be labeled 'PROPOSED WETLAND 2 REHABILITATION' consistent with Sheets 24 and 26, or is 'PROPOSED WETLAND 5 REHABILITATION'...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct wetland rehabilitation designation for the area along Stream SA5 between STA. 1+60 and 3+60 shown on Sheet 25. Should this area be labeled 'PROPOSED WETLAND 2 REHABILITATION' consistent with Sheets 24 and 26, or is 'PROP...

Summary: The As-Built Planting Plan (Sheet 37) explicitly designates 'MARSH TREATMENT AREA 05' and 'MARSH TREATMENT AREA 06' in the southern portion of the site, adjacent to 'WETLAND 20' and the parcel owned by 'SELECT GENETICS LLC'. However, the Overall Mitigation Site Plan (Sheet 2) completely omits both 'MARSH TREATMENT AREA 05' and 'MARSH TREATMENT AREA 06' from this exact same location, despite sho...

Why it matters: The discrepancy regarding the presence and location of Marsh Treatment Areas 05 and 06 between the overall site plan and the specialized planting plan creates an incomplete record of the constructed mitigation elements. This conflict could disrupt post-construction environmental monitoring, delay...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if Marsh Treatment Areas 05 and 06 were constructed as designated on the As-Built Planting Plan (Sheet 37). If so, update the Overall Mitigation Site Plan (Sheet 2) to accurately depict and label these missing marsh treatment areas for consistency across the dra...

RFI draft: Please clarify if Marsh Treatment Areas 05 and 06 were constructed as designated on the As-Built Planting Plan (Sheet 37). If so, update the Overall Mitigation Site Plan (Sheet 2) to accurately depict and label these missing marsh treatment areas ...

Summary: The stream centerline profile indicates conflicting slopes across the matchline transition between Sheet 17 and Sheet 18. Sheet 17 labels the profile grade approaching STA 2+40 with a slope of '-0.66%'. However, Sheet 18 labels the profile grade continuing from STA 2+40 with a slope of '-1.13%'.

Why it matters: Inconsistent slope percentages across the matchline indicate a break in the continuity of the proposed stream profile. Without a clear point of vertical intersection (PVI) resolving this transition, the grading contractor may misinterpret the channel elevations, potentially affecting flow dynamic...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct proposed profile grade slope across the STA 2+40 matchline. Should the grading follow the -0.66% slope shown on Sheet 17 or the -1.13% slope shown on Sheet 18?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct proposed profile grade slope across the STA 2+40 matchline. Should the grading follow the -0.66% slope shown on Sheet 17 or the -1.13% slope shown on Sheet 18?

Summary: The stream centerline profile indicates conflicting slopes across the matchline transition between Sheet 18 and Sheet 19. Sheet 18 labels the profile grade segment leading to the 4+80 matchline with a slope of '-1.24%'. In contrast, Sheet 19 labels the profile grade starting from the 4+80 matchline with a slope of '-2.46%'.

Why it matters: A discrepancy in the defined slope percentage across drawing sheets will lead to incorrect elevation calculations for the stream thalweg and bankfull grades. This discontinuity could result in improper channel construction and compromised aquatic habitat or sediment transport capabilities.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct proposed profile grade slope across the STA 4+80 matchline. Which slope governs this segment: -1.24% as shown on Sheet 18, or -2.46% as shown on Sheet 19?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct proposed profile grade slope across the STA 4+80 matchline. Which slope governs this segment: -1.24% as shown on Sheet 18, or -2.46% as shown on Sheet 19?

Summary: There are conflicting transition points and extents for the Level I Enhancement on Sheet 14. The Plan view labels the stream as 'AS-BUILT STREAM SA2' and marks the 'END OF LEVEL I ENHANCEMENT (3+21.8)'. However, the Profile view states the 'DOWNSTREAM EXTENT OF GEOMORPHIC SURVEY' stops earlier at station 3+00, where the as-built thalweg line terminates. Additionally, the Profile marks 'LEVEL II...

Why it matters: Because the geomorphic survey and profile lines terminate at 3+00, there is a 21.8-foot gap in the Level I Enhancement reach (from 3+00 to 3+21.8) that lacks 'AS-BUILT THALWEG GRADE' data, despite the plan view claiming 'AS-BUILT' status and showing constructed features in this area. Sheet 15 con...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how the as-built thalweg grades for the Level I Enhancement reach between stations 3+00 and 3+21.8 are documented, given that the geomorphic survey and profile lines terminate at 3+00. Also, please reconcile the transition station mismatch between the plan (3+21...

RFI draft: Please clarify how the as-built thalweg grades for the Level I Enhancement reach between stations 3+00 and 3+21.8 are documented, given that the geomorphic survey and profile lines terminate at 3+00. Also, please reconcile the transition station m...

Summary: There is a direct contradiction in stream nomenclature and stationing between the plan view on Sheet 12 and the plan/profile views on Sheets 23 and 33. On Sheet 12, the main tributary channel traversing stations 14+00 to 15+00 is incorrectly labeled as "PROPOSED STREAM SA10 CENTER", with "PROPOSED STREAM SA3 CENTERLINE" indicated as a tributary joining it. However, on Sheets 23 and 33, this mai...

Why it matters: Reversing the stream designations and stationing on the overview plan creates significant confusion for stakeout, construction, and as-built verification. It obscures which profile (SA3 or SA10) applies to the main 14+00-16+00 channel segment, potentially leading to incorrect channel grading, slo...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct stream designations for the tributary network connecting to SA1. Confirm that the channel with stationing 14+00 to 16+27 is Stream SA3, and that Stream SA10 is the tributary joining it at station 15+50 (ending at station 1+36), as shown on Sheets 23 ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct stream designations for the tributary network connecting to SA1. Confirm that the channel with stationing 14+00 to 16+27 is Stream SA3, and that Stream SA10 is the tributary joining it at station 15+50 (ending at station...

Summary: The plan views on both Sheet 3 and Sheet 27 clearly indicate in-stream grade control structures, specifically 'LOG STEP POOL' placements at stream junctions and along the channel. However, the corresponding centerline elevation profiles on both sheets ('STREAM SA1 CENTERLINE PROFILE' and 'STREAM SA6 CENTERLINE PROFILE') depict continuous thalweg grades without displaying the vertical drops, ste...

Why it matters: Omitting the grade control structures from the profiles creates ambiguity for the contractor regarding the exact vertical installation elevations, drop heights, and thalweg tie-ins required at these structural locations.

Suggested next step: Please update the centerline profiles on both sheets to accurately reflect the vertical geometry and elevations of the 'Log Step Pool' and 'Grade Control Log Vane' structures indicated in the plan views.

RFI draft: Please update the centerline profiles on both sheets to accurately reflect the vertical geometry and elevations of the 'Log Step Pool' and 'Grade Control Log Vane' structures indicated in the plan views.

Summary: The Stream SA1 Centerline Profile on Sheet 5 shows the proposed bankfull grade approaching station 13+60 with a slope of -1.93%. The Stream SA1 Centerline Profile on Sheet 6 shows the proposed bankfull grade departing from station 13+60 with a slope of -1.95%. Neither sheet indicates a Point of Vertical Intersection (PVI) at station 13+60—Sheet 5's last labeled PVI is at STA 11+53.1 and Sheet 6...

Why it matters: While the difference is small (0.02%), this inconsistency at the matchline could create confusion during construction grading. It may indicate a calculation error, an unlabeled PVI at 13+60, or a rounding discrepancy between the two sheets. The contractor needs a single definitive slope value for...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct proposed bankfull grade slope for the segment crossing station 13+60 on Stream SA1. Sheet 5 shows -1.93% and Sheet 6 shows -1.95%. Is there an unlabeled PVI at station 13+60 that would explain the change, or should one of these slope values be correc...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct proposed bankfull grade slope for the segment crossing station 13+60 on Stream SA1. Sheet 5 shows -1.93% and Sheet 6 shows -1.95%. Is there an unlabeled PVI at station 13+60 that would explain the change, or should one o...

Summary: The Drawing List on Sheet 1 identifies Drawing 13 as "STREAM SA2 LEVEL I ENHANCEMENT (GROUP 1)" and Drawing 14 as "STREAM SA2 LEVELS I & II ENHANCEMENT (GROUP 1)", clearly distinguishing the scope of each sheet. The title block on Sheet 13 also confirms "STREAM SA2 LEVEL I ENHANCEMENT (GROUP 1)". However, the profile graph on Sheet 13 is titled "STREAM SA2 LEVEL I & II ENHANCEMENT PROFILE", whi...

Why it matters: This naming inconsistency could cause confusion during construction and monitoring. Field personnel referencing the profile may believe they are looking at the combined Level I & II enhancement profile when they are on a sheet that the drawing index identifies as covering only Level I. This could...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the profile graph on Sheet 13 titled "STREAM SA2 LEVEL I & II ENHANCEMENT PROFILE" is correctly titled or should read "STREAM SA2 LEVEL I ENHANCEMENT PROFILE" to match the Drawing List and Sheet Title. If the profile intentionally covers both Level I and...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the profile graph on Sheet 13 titled "STREAM SA2 LEVEL I & II ENHANCEMENT PROFILE" is correctly titled or should read "STREAM SA2 LEVEL I ENHANCEMENT PROFILE" to match the Drawing List and Sheet Title. If the profile intenti...

Summary: The plan view on Sheet 16 annotates 'END OF LEVEL II ENHANCEMENT (8+26.7)', explicitly placing the terminus of the Level II Enhancement at station 8+26.7. However, the Level I & II Enhancement Profile, which begins on Sheet 15 (covering stations 4+80 to 7+30) and continues on Sheet 16 (covering stations 7+30 to 8+11), includes a callout labeled 'LEVEL II ENHANCEMENT ENDS' pointing to the right ...

Why it matters: During construction, the contractor must know the precise transition point between the Level II Enhancement and the Group 3 Restoration reach. If the contractor follows the profile, approximately 15.7 feet of enhancement treatment may be omitted or the transition to restoration activities may beg...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct end station for the Level II Enhancement on Stream SA2. The plan view on Sheet 16 indicates the enhancement ends at station 8+26.7, while the Level I & II Enhancement Profile (spanning Sheets 15 and 16) terminates at station 8+11 with the callout 'LE...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct end station for the Level II Enhancement on Stream SA2. The plan view on Sheet 16 indicates the enhancement ends at station 8+26.7, while the Level I & II Enhancement Profile (spanning Sheets 15 and 16) terminates at sta...

Summary: Sheet 23 title declares coverage for Stream SA3 from "STA. 14+40 - 16+44," but the SA3 centerline profile on the same sheet extends only to station 16+27, with the final PVI at station 16+26.8 (ELEV = 454.8) and the End of Restoration at station (16+21.1). Plan views on Sheet 12 and Sheet 33 also consistently show SA3 reaching only to station 16+27 at the SA1 confluence. No content on any sheet...

Why it matters: This 17-foot discrepancy in the stated SA3 endpoint station could cause confusion regarding the limits of stream restoration work, affect regulatory stream mitigation credit length calculations, and lead to uncertainty for the contractor about the extent of SA3 construction activities in the SA1 ...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct endpoint station for Stream SA3. Should the Sheet 23 title read "STA. 14+40 - 16+27" to match the profile and plan views, or does SA3 extend beyond station 16+27 to station 16+44 as the title states? If the latter, please provide the missing profile and pla...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct endpoint station for Stream SA3. Should the Sheet 23 title read "STA. 14+40 - 16+27" to match the profile and plan views, or does SA3 extend beyond station 16+27 to station 16+44 as the title states? If the latter, please provi...

Summary: The spatial distribution and legend on Sheet 37 dictate several wetland and marsh treatment zones (PROPOSED WETLAND REHABILITATION, PROPOSED WETLAND ENHANCEMENT, MARSH TREATMENT AREA). However, the comprehensive As-Built Planting Plan schedule on Sheet 36 entirely omits these zones, providing vegetation data and acreages exclusively for the forest and streamside zones.

Why it matters: If the schedule on Sheet 36 is intended to reflect all vegetation associations and planted quantities across the mitigation site, omitting the wetland and marsh areas creates an incomplete as-built record. This discrepancy makes it unclear if these areas were unplanted, tracked in a different unr...

Suggested next step: Provide the as-built planting data (species, quantities, and acreages) for the Wetland Rehabilitation, Wetland Enhancement, and Marsh Treatment Areas shown on Sheet 37, or clarify where this information is documented.

RFI draft: Provide the as-built planting data (species, quantities, and acreages) for the Wetland Rehabilitation, Wetland Enhancement, and Marsh Treatment Areas shown on Sheet 37, or clarify where this information is documented.