Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T11OT01953
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/13/2012 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | TO: Kent McRae, P.E., PSOMAS REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: T11OT01953 SUBJECT: Pantano Wash at Harrison Road Interceptor Sewerline PDSD Floodplain Engineering Resubmittal Review SUMMARY: The re-submittal was received and reviewed by Engineering Division with TDOT coordination for a courtesy review. The 90% plans were reviewed with the revised drainage statement and other attachments. Engineering recommends conditional approval of the project. The following comments should be addressed prior to picking up the floodplain use permit. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2(f): Tucson Code Sec. 26-5.2(15): Provide copy of the geotechnical report. Address the following soils report comments: a. Provide a copy of Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical evaluation that includes piling design recommendations, backfill recommendations, and other design considerations for this sewerline within the floodplain. b. Bedding, shading, backfill, and other geotechnical engineering recommendations for this project shall be added to the construction plans. 2) Provide response letter that addresses each of the following comments. At minimum, response may be, for example, "See page 3 of the report" or "See sheet 6 of the plans". 3) TC Sec. 26-8(a)(2)b: All public utilities, such as sewer systems, shall be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood and erosion damage. Explain responses or provide summary in response letter, otherwise provide reference page/sheet in response letter for each of the following comments: a. On sheet 2/34 of 5 of the plans, address the following: i. Delineate the top of bank on planview sheets. ii. Delineate the FEMA SFHA area floodplain on planview sheets. iii. Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2(b)(1): Label pile depths. iv. DS Sec. 10-02.2.3.2.C: Delineate 100-year floodplain limits, label FEMA floodway, and provide note for FIRM panel. v. Check scale on plan sheets; grid does not appear to match scale. vi. Show MH to be reconstructed at STA 12+60.67 on sheet 3 plan view. b. On sheet 6 of 6 of the plans, clarify the following for Pile and Pipe Detail,: i. Label types and sizes of material for the batter, vertical, and saddle supports. ii. Label minimum / maximum distance between vertical and batter piles. iii. Provide copy of standard detail WWM 101, or explain how sewerline is connected to pile system. c. Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2: Address following comments specifically for the drainage statement: i. Provide an additional drainage exhibit showing the FEMA SFHA area floodplain and Pantano top of bank. ii. Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2(b)(4): Include additional cross sectional detail in drainage statement that shows the downstream structure at the Pantano crossing for the existing Harrison Road prism with existing erosion protection depth labeled. Include further discussion of the existing structure and how scour and erosion protection is to be provided by piles and/or existing or proposed structures. iii. The HEC-RAS profile indicates approximately 5 and half feet of cover, whereas the plans shows over 7 feet of cover at lowest point. Explain or correct discrepancy. iv. The Drainage Statement states that the MH's are designed to be located outside of the sandy wash bottom; however there are at least 4 proposed MH's within the floodplain. Revise the statement to explain number of MH's within the top of banks and within the FEMA floodplain limits and how the MH's are designed to prevent sewerline failure. v. Address the following scour comments: 1. Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2: State whether there is MH shaft design provided to minimize sewerline pipe failure during hundred year scour conditions, such as a break away joint at scour depth on the shaft or other design consideration. 2. DS Sec.10-02.6.6.1: Regional watercourse general scour shall be established using a detailed sediment transport study. 3. DS Sec.10-02.6.6.3: Provide revised scour calculation that includes the 2-ft minimum low flow thalweg for regional watercourses. 4. Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2(b)(1): After revising scour calculation, add discussion of the result with regards to compliance of additional 2-ft cover beyond scour depth per state statute requirements. Also include discussion of how proposed scour protection design is provided from the extents of Erosion Hazard Limits, since this portion of the Pantano is not bank protected. 5. Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2: Long term scour can be determined by looking at historical records, inspecting as-built data or channel survey data. This would provide an estimate if the channel has stabilized or a trend of how much the channel is dropping or moving laterally. 6. For 3rd paragraph in Scour Protection section, add further clarification of how energy grade line is expected to change with the proposed utility improvement. vi. Provide signature & seal for drainage statement. d. DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2.E.1: In the drainage statement, state maintenance responsibility of the sewerline and the erosion protection for the sewer infrastructure. Once the Floodplain Use Permit is approved, right of-way use permit may be requested through TDOT. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4934/ elizabeth.leibold@tucsonaz.gov Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Dept |