My apologies, please see attachment as part of the comments.

Thank you,

Jauhara Pressey

Regional Manager

Office of Government & Community Relations

[email address]

(p) 973-491-8927

(c) 973-468-5036

(f) 973-609-1710

NJ TRANSIT

One Penn Plaza East, 9th Floor

Newark, NJ 07105

Can we please get a response to this?

I understand the comments from Transit on this, but it should be clear that the jurisdiction over the soil erosion and sediment control design lies with the Morris County Soil Conservation District.  They have reviewed and approved the rip rap sizing and the certification was attached to the report previously sent.  More specifically, we had direct conversations with the reviewers at MCSCD and designed the plan in accordance with their guidance.  The rip rap is designed as a bit of a hybrid between the sizing for conduit outlet protection and that for a lined waterway.  A normally designed rip rap apron cannot be constructed since its length and width would not work with the field conditions.  It is not possible to create a level rip rap apron as the standards envision.  Finally, the rip rap is sized with a depth of twice the thickness and not three times the thickness.  This is consistent with the standard that allows the reduction in thickness as long as there is filter fabric under the rip rap as is shown on the plans.

With respect to the comment on the maintenance of the channel, it does not appear that a response from the Township is necessary.  The Township will maintain the swale on its property as it always has.  The comment is a statement of fact and does not require a response.

Please forward the appropriate permit forms for the work outside of the transit right of way so the forms can be completed and this project can move forward.

Hello Nancy,

Below please find the comments to the plans you submitted (in red). Should you have any other questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.

Sheet 11 of 13:

·         Flared End Section: I am assuming this detail relates to Oaks Road at Sta. 3+11. This detail highlights a 15” ID pipe. However, Sheet 14 of 14, shows 18” ID pipe size. This detail should be revised to highlight the 18” pipe and not the 15” one. Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission:  Satisfied.

·         Riprap Scour protection for Headwall: I am assuming this detail applies to the headwall at Semerad Road.

This detail shows a 15” HDPE, and Sheet 14 of 14 shows a 36” HDPE. This detail should be revised to reflect the pipe size of 36” and not the 15”. In addition to the pipe size, all other related dimensions should be revised to take into account the 36” pipe size.  Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission: The Length of Lined Waterway shall be extended beyond the proposed 10’ that is shown in the report. Also, the Median Stone Diameter d50 shall be larger than the 6” that is shown in the report, and the total Riprap Thickness shall be deeper than the 1’ shown in the report.    

·         Riprap Scour protection for Flared End Section: I am assuming this detail applies to Oaks Road at Sta.3+33: This detail does not show the pipe size (18” RCP as shown on Sheet 14 of 14). This detail should be revised to indicate the pipe size of 18”. In addition to the pipe size, all other related dimensions should be revised to take into account the 18” pipe size. Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission:  Satisfied.

·         Concrete Headwall Details: I am assuming this detail applies to the headwall at Semerad Road. This detail shows a 15” HDPE, and Sheet 14 shows a 36” HDPE. This detail should be revised to reflect the pipe size of 36” and not the 15”. In addition to the pipe size, all other related dimensions, rebar size and number of rebar should be revised to take into account the 36” pipe size. Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission:  Satisfied.

·         The Township should be responsible for the maintenance of the channel from the proposed headwall at Semerad Road down to the existing NJ TRANSIT culvert. Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission: This Maintenance comment still hold.

Storm Water Drainage Report:

·         Riprap Sizing: Nothing was provided regarding the riprap sizing downstream of the proposed headwall at Semerad Road. This has to be added to the report. Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission: For the Median Stone Diameter d50, I am getting 1.76’, or 21” (instead of 6”), and for the Riprap Thickness I am getting 3.5’ (instead of 12”).  

·         Storm Sewer Tabulation: Runoff Coefficient “C”: Please show how these values been calculated, and forward a reference page showing the “C” values. . The “C” values as shown are very low since the road is proposed to be paved.  Also, Please show/delineate on the drainage area map, the individual drainage areas contributing to their correspondent inlet, showing “C” value, Tc, and Drainage Area (DA) for each of their correspondent inlet.  Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission:  Satisfied.

·         Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Certification: Response by NJT based on 4-1-19 Submission: Because of the design change, including the increase in total flow and pipe size from the Jan. 2019 Stormwater Drainage Report to the April 1, 2019 Stormwater Drainage Report at Oaks Road,  and the increase in total flow from the Jan. 2019 Stormwater Drainage Report to the April 1, 2019 Stormwater Drainage Report at Semerad Road, the Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Certification dated September 26, 2018, shall be re-issued by Morris County Soil Conservation District to reflect the design changes.   

Jauhara Pressey

Regional Manager

Office of Government & Community Relations

[email address]

(p) 973-491-8927

(c) 973-468-5036

(f) 973-609-1710

NJ TRANSIT

One Penn Plaza East, 9th Floor

Newark, NJ 07105

Please see Paul Ferriero’s email response below from March 21. Do you have a response? Have you reviewed the additional stormwater information that he sent? Can you please reply to my question from the April  email: “I heard that NJ Transit has gone out to bid to replace  a culvert in Long Hill. Please let me know which one it is and provide a copy of the plans.” And, finally, we still, almost 5 months later, do not know what permit we are supposed to apply for. It is frustrating that we are not receiving any answers or cooperation, particularly since we have a contractor who has been awarded a bid and is ready to begin work. I await your response.

Nancy Malool

Township Administrator

Long Hill Township

915 Valley Road

Gillette, NJ 07933

908-647-8000 ext. 224

It seems we keep missing the point. At least I am. We are not doing any work in the NJ Transit right of way nor are we sending more water that way. 

All

 

Having not been involved in the referenced meeting or seen a description of the project, the project is not clear to me but, based on the below, it is my understanding that the project involves constructing drainage facilities as well as allowing additional drainage (water) onto NJT’s property. If this is correct, a use and occupancy permit should be obtained.

 

The fact that preliminary designs are being reviewed should expedite the matter. Once the drawings have been corrected and finalized, eight (8) original signed and sealed drawings on 11” x 17” paper and two full-sized sets (36” x 24”) must be submitted. Real Estate will get the plans stamped approved – this should be a formality since you’re having the plans preliminarily reviewed via email from Rail Operations.

 

After that, we will email a permit for execution to the Township. The Township will execute at least three counterparts of the permit document (NJT will retain two), and send them back to NJT for counter execution. NJT will counter-execute the agreement after receiving the required Certificates of Insurance and payment and forward them back to the Township. We can email back the Township’s copies with originals to follow to expedite. The Township can then work with Rail to schedule the project and arrange for any necessary on-site support.  

 

I’ve attached a copy of NJT’s Rules for Working in the Right of Way and our U&O permit regulations for your reference. Please let me know when the submission is coming so that I can expedite.

 

Hope this helps.      

 

Gerry

 

 

Gerry Fahey
Manager, Property Management, Permits & Fiber Optics
NJ Transit-Real Estate & Economic Development

Tel (973) 491-7503

 

From: [email address] <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 6:16 PM
To: Pressey, Jauhara Y. (CGCRJYP) <[email address]>; Abboud, Moussa I. (CROPMIA) <[email address]>; Fahey, Gerard P. (CFINGPF) <[email address]>
Cc: Haddad, Joseph M. (CROPJMH1) <[email address]>; Township Engineer <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

I still have the same question I had before: what permit are you asking us to apply for?

 

From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 4:17 PM
To: [email address]; [email address]; [email address]
Cc: [email address]; [email address]
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

Hello Nancy,

 

The following is a response from our team here at NJT. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

 

Sheet 11 of 13:

·         Flared End Section: I am assuming this detail relates to Oaks Road at Sta. 3+11. This detail highlights a 15” ID pipe. However, Sheet 14 of 14, shows 18” ID pipe size. This detail should be revised to highlight the 18” pipe and not the 15” one.

·         Riprap Scour protection for Headwall: I am assuming this detail applies to the headwall at Semerad Road.

This detail shows a 15” HDPE, and Sheet 14 of 14 shows a 36” HDPE. This detail should be revised to reflect the pipe size of 36” and not the 15”. In addition to the pipe size, all other related dimensions should be revised to take into account the 36” pipe size.

·         Riprap Scour protection for Flared End Section: I am assuming this detail applies to Oaks Road at Sta.3+33: This detail does not show the pipe size (18” RCP as shown on Sheet 14 of 14). This detail should be revised to indicate the pipe size of 18”. In addition to the pipe size, all other related dimensions should be revised to take into account the 18” pipe size.

·         Concrete Headwall Details: I am assuming this detail applies to the headwall at Semerad Road. This detail shows a 15” HDPE, and Sheet 14 shows a 36” HDPE. This detail should be revised to reflect the pipe size of 36” and not the 15”. In addition to the pipe size, all other related dimensions, rebar size and number of rebar should be revised to take into account the 36” pipe size.

·         The Township should be responsible for the maintenance of the channel from the proposed headwall at Semerad Road down to the existing NJ TRANSIT culvert.

 

Storm Water Drainage Report:

·         Riprap Sizing: Nothing was provided regarding the riprap sizing downstream of the proposed headwall at Semerad Road. This has to be added to the report.

·         Storm Sewer Tabulation: Runoff Coefficient “C”: Please show how these values been calculated, and forward a reference page showing the “C” values. . The “C” values as shown are very low since the road is proposed to be paved.  Also, Please show/delineate on the drainage area map, the individual drainage areas contributing to their correspondent inlet, showing “C” value, Tc, and Drainage Area (DA) for each of their correspondent inlet. 

 

 

 

Jauhara Pressey

Regional Manager

Office of Government & Community Relations

[email address]

(p) 973-491-8927

(c) 973-468-5036

(f) 973-609-1710

NJ TRANSIT

One Penn Plaza East, 9th Floor

Newark, NJ 07105

<image001.png>

 

 

 

 

 

From: [email address] <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 3:51 PM
To: Abboud, Moussa I. (CROPMIA) <[email address]>; Fahey, Gerard P. (CFINGPF) <[email address]>
Cc: Pressey, Jauhara Y. (CGCRJYP) <[email address]>; Haddad, Joseph M. (CROPJMH1) <[email address]>; Township Engineer <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

I still have not had a response to this. This construction should have already begun and we have a contractor who is waiting for the go ahead. It has been more than two months since we met and we are no closer to resolving this matter. I would appreciate an informative reply.

 

From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:47 PM
To: [email address]
Cc: [email address]; [email address]; [email address]; [email address]
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

 

Gerry – As mentioned earlier over the phone, please see below the e-mail from Nancy Malool – BA for Long Hill Township, asking what type of permit would the Township need to do the paving on Oaks Road. Oaks Road has a section that is gravel. And under proposed conditions, this road will be curbed and paved, and storm water will be discharging from two proposed headwalls that will ultimately drain into our existing culvert under the Gladstone Line track at MP 30.19.

The Township sent us a drainage report that we have requested. This report is still under review. Meanwhile please answer Nancy’s question listed below about the type of permit needed.  

 

Thanks,

Moussa

 

 

From: Nancy Malool <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 1:18 PM
To: Township Engineer <[email address]>; Abboud, Moussa I. (CROPMIA) <[email address]>
Cc: Pressey, Jauhara Y. (CGCRJYP) <[email address]>; Haddad, Joseph M. (CROPJMH1) <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

Is this really necessary? Based on Paul’s email below, we would be looking at spending a substantial amount of money and I don’t even know if we will get the permit in the end. In fact, we still don’t know what type of permit we are being required to get.

 

From: Township Engineer [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 3:23 PM
To: [email address]; Nancy Malool
Cc: [email address]; [email address]
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

I will have to get authorization for this work.  I am anticipating in excess of $15,000.  Adding numbers to the contour lines is simple and is just a matter of freeing up the labels from the public domain data.  Revising the plan sheets as requested will result in a series of maps that all need to be knitted together since it is not possible to show the area from the road to the railroad at the same scale as the road.  Alternatively, the map will be at a scale similar to the drainage area maps.  Adding all the existing pipes and catch basins is a couple of weeks for a survey crew at $1000+ a day.  Then it all needs to be drafted up.

 

Paul W. Ferriero, PE, CME

Township Engineer

 

Township of Long Hill

915 Valley Road

Gillette, New Jersey  07933

 

908-647-8000 x214

 

From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 3:07 PM
To: [email address]; [email address]
Cc: [email address]; [email address]
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

 

Paul,

 

This is a request for more documentation. The main reason for the comment is that NJ TRANSIT would like to see how the storm water will be traveling, in other words the path of travel, on Sheet 14 from both proposed flared end sections, all the way down to our existing culvert. To do that, the match line will have to be on a separate added sheet in order to free up some space to be used for the requested contours information. Both Sheets 14 and added Sheet 15 should also show the railroad track and our existing culvert.  We believe 5 foot contour interval will be sufficient. Also the contours should be numbered. The contours on the drainage area maps in the report, both pre and post developed, were not numbered.

 

Also, as mentioned below, please show on Sheet 1 of 1 Pre-Development Drainage Area: All existing pipes, existing catch basins, and existing headwalls/FES.

And on Sheet 1 of 1 Post-Development Drainage Area: All proposed pipes, proposed catch basins, and proposed headwalls/FES.

 

Please note that we are in the process in reviewing the drainage report that you have sent over.  

 

Thanks,

Moussa  

 

 

 

From: Township Engineer <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 1:21 PM
To: Pressey, Jauhara Y. (CGCRJYP) <[email address]>
Cc: Nancy Malool <[email address]>; Haddad, Joseph M. (CROPJMH1) <[email address]>; Abboud, Moussa I. (CROPMIA) <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

Jauhara, et. al.

 

I have some questions on the email below.

 

First, has it yet been determined what permit is required for the project and what forms need to be submitted?  We were expecting that as a follow up to our meeting.

 

Second, I need more guidance on the requests below.   The original documents were sent overnight from my office on 2/6.  On 2/21 we received the comments below.  I can’t tell if the comments relate to the inability to read the drawings (match line comment) or simply a request for more documentation.  Perhaps if I knew the question to be answered, I could better answer it.  The comment on revising the match line will necessitate redoing the drawings.  All the information is already there.  I am reluctant to redo the drawings because then we will have one set of drawings for construction (the contractor bid on these and will work from them) and another set of plans for Transit review.  I can, of course, do that.  It is likely to be a couple of days’ worth of work or $1200-$2500 cost.  The additional survey information is far more difficult.  The drainage area is 38 acres.  All the topography is shown on that map with a 5 foot contour interval.  If you require 2 foot contours and location of the drainage systems as implied below, it could be $20,000+ worth of survey work.

 

Please let me know what the object here is.

 

Thanks.

 

Paul W. Ferriero, PE, CME

Township Engineer

 

Township of Long Hill

915 Valley Road

Gillette, New Jersey  07933

 

908-647-8000 x214

 

From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:01 PM
To: [email address]
Cc: [email address]; [email address]; [email address]
Subject: RE: Oaks Road Project

 

Paul,

 

I have looped in our engineering team for comment.

 

Jauhara

 

From: Paul Ferriero <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:52 PM
To: Pressey, Jauhara Y. (CGCRJYP) <[email address]>
Cc: [email address]
Subject: Re: Oaks Road Project

 

I am not sure I can be very responsive to this request. It will require survey and mapping of the entire drainage area, revision of all the construction drawings, etc. I will have come up with a cost and see if the township will authorize the work. 

Paul Ferriero, PE, PP, CME,  CFM

Township Engineer

 

908-647-8000 x214

On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:00 PM, <[email address]> <[email address]> wrote:

Paul,

 

Below are the comments for the calculations you submitted. Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.

 

Sheet 14 of 14: Starting from the proposed flared end section at Oaks Road, Station 3+33: The existing grades and contours lines (existing topo) should be shown on this entire sheet from Oaks Road all the way down to the existing culvert inlet. Also, it will make it easier to read this drawing, if the match line is on another and separate sheet say Sheet 15.

Sheet 14 of 14: Starting from the propsed headwall where Oaks Road meets Semerad Road, the existing grades and contours lines (existing topo) should be shown on this entire sheet from this headwall all the way down to the existing culvert inlet. As mentioned above, it will make it easier to read this drawing, if the match line is on another sheet say Sheet 15.

Sheet 1 of 1 Pre-Development Drainage Area: All existing pipes, existing catch basins, and existing headwalls/FES should be shown on this sheet.

Sheet 1 of 1 Post-Development Drainage Area: All proposed pipes, proposed catch basings, and proposed headwalls/FES should be shown on this sheet. 

 

 

Jauhara Pressey

Regional Manager

Office of Government & Community Relations

[email address]

(p) 973-491-8927

(c) 973-468-5036

(f) 973-609-1710

NJ TRANSIT

One Penn Plaza East, 9th Floor

Newark, NJ 07105

<ATT42953 1.jpg>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<NJ Transit 2012 ROW GUIDELINES.pdf>

<1677_NJT_Regulations.pdf>